SUPREME COURT MAJORITY SIDES WITH NEW YORK CITY IN GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION

PART ONE

SUPREME COURT DECISION BAD FOR NEW YORK AND BAD OMEN FOR REST OF NATION

The U.S. Supreme Court just released its decision, April 27, 2020, in the New York “Gun Transport” case: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020), and it isn’t good. You can read the decision here on the SCOTUS website.

WHAT WAS THE NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE ABOUT?

“Petitioners [NYSRPA] sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners’ claim. See 883 F. 3d 45 (CA2 2018). We granted certiorari.  586 U. S. ___ (2019).  After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint.”New York City changed its law, fearing the Supreme Court would find the law unconstitutional. The last thing anti-Second Amendment forces want is a high Court opinion that strengthens the Second Amendment. The City’s gambit paid off. In a 6 to 3 vote, the Supreme Court held that, since the City changed the old rule, the case is moot, because Petitioners can now lawfully transport their handgun to a second home or shooting range outside the City. But can they really? What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms? This will almost certainly embolden New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.Cuomo has threatened to destroy the Second Amendment to the Nation many times in the past. In a previous AQ article, titled, “Andrew Cuomo Seeks To Impose New York’s Restrictive Gun Laws On The Entire Nation,” published on our site, on March 31, 2019, we pointed out that,“In January of 2019 . . . Cuomo announced plans . . .  to increase gun control within the first 100 days of the new legislative session,’ and he 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. . . .’ ‘[t]he rest of the country should take up legislation similar to the Safe Act gun control. . . . ’” The high Court’s gun transport case decision gives Cuomo and others who seek to destroy the Second Amendment” confidence that the high Court will be doing nothing to rein them in.

HOW DID INDIVIDUAL JUSTICES VOTE?

As you may have suspected, the liberal wing of the Court, along with Chief Justice Roberts, voted in favor of the City, to dismiss the case. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch dissented.Curiously and disturbingly, Trump’s second nominee to the high Court, Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing, but filed a “Concurring Opinion” acknowledging that Justice Alito’s concern over some State and federal Court mishandling of Heller and McDonald warrants high Court review but that the Court can do so in other cases pending before the Court.The high Court remanded the case to the New York Court of Appeals but only to discuss Petitioner’s argument for damages. But the issue of damages is of no consequence. It is injunctive relief the NYSRPA wanted. Anti-Constitutional forces in government consistently, unconscionably, and contemptuously enact laws designed to infringe the core of the Second Amendment without regard to the Heller and McDonald rulings. The NYSRPA wanted and expected the high Court to stop this. The gun transport case would have operated as a good test case. But the Court’s majority folded. What will New York City do in the future to restrict the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms?

JUSTICE ALITO'S DISSENTING OPINION

The Majority decided the case in a two-page decision. Justice Alito, who penned the McDonald decision, wrote a thirty-one page Dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch. In his opening remarks Justice Alito began his Dissent with a blanket rebuke of the Majority’s Decision. He says:“By incorrectly dismissing this case as moot, the Court permits our docket to be manipulated in a way that should not be countenanced.  Twelve years ago in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Two years later, our decision in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010), established that this right is fully applicable to the States. Since then, the lower courts have decided numerous cases involving Second Amendment challenges to a variety of federal, state, and local laws. Most have failed. We have been asked to review many of these decisions, but until this case, we denied all such requests. On January 22, 2019, we granted review to consider the constitutionality of a New York City ordinance that burdened the right recognized in Heller.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?

The Supreme Court Majority did not want to deal with the Second Amendment if that would jeopardize the Heller and McDonald precedents. The liberal wing of the Court for its part would wish to avoid a review if the outcome would serve to strengthen the Heller and McDonald precedents.Of course, the liberal wing never agreed with or accepted the Heller and McDonald rulings, and has consistently gone along with government actions to infringe the Second Amendment as if Heller and McDonald rulings never existed.But, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch have had enough.Alito made clear New York City’s rescission of the transport gun case rule simply amounts to City’s acknowledging the unconstitutionality of the rule and that the high Court would overturn it.Justice Alito said, in closing:“In sum, the City’s travel restriction burdened the very right recognized in Heller. History provides no support for a restriction of this type.  The City’s public safety arguments were weak on their face, were not substantiated in any way, and were accepted below with no serious probing. And once we granted review in this case, the City’s public safety concerns evaporated. We are told that the mode of review in this case is representative of the way Heller has been treated in the lower courts. If that is true, there is cause for concern. This case is not moot. The City violated petitioners’ Second Amendment right, and we should so hold.  I would reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case to the District Court to provide appropriate relief.”The liberal wing of the Court consistently legislates from the Bench. They abhor the Second Amendment and if they were confident that they could overturn Heller and McDonald, they would do so in a heartbeat. At the moment, they cannot.Chief Justice Robert’s decision comes as no surprise. Justice Kavanaugh’s vote does, however. His concurring opinion reflects that his heart and mind are with Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, but he went along with Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court anyway. Why did he do this? To say that the Court will have other opportunities to deal with unlawful attacks on Heller and McDonald doesn’t explain why he would pass on dealing with an outright attack on those seminal cases with a clear opportunity to do so with the gun transport case before him.  That is a “cop-out” pure and simple and Kavanaugh, a careful, perspicacious legal thinker and writer must be called out for an obvious act of frailty, unbefitting him.Is Kavanaugh so really afraid the Radical Left will impeach him, as they have threatened? Does he think they will make good their threat if Biden defeats Trump in the upcoming General Election and if the Democrats not only hold onto the House, but win a majority in the Senate, too? Is the New York City gun transport case just an anomaly or does it signal what we may expect from Kavanaugh in the future: currying favor with the Radical Left and betraying intellectual honesty to halt an impeachment proceeding and trial?On January 24, 2019 AQ wrote an extensive article on the New York gun transport case that, at the time, the high Court agreed to take up. Mayor DeBlasio and The New York Times were fearful and furious. You may read our article, “U.S. Supreme Court To Hear New York Gun Case; Mainstream Media Visibly Worried.”In a forthcoming article AQ will analyze Alito’s dissenting opinion, along with Kavanaugh’s odd, evasive concurring opinion. We will deal with the issue of mootness which deserves serious attention; and will examine how dangerous this decision is for the entire Nation._____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SEDITIOUS U.S. PRESS APPEASES CHINA BUT ATTACKS TRUMP

PART FIVE

A PLAGUE IN OUR MIDST

There is a viral plague in our midst. It is a thing both tenacious and relentless; implacable and ruthless; furtive and evasive; grievously painful and deadly. It is a scourge, spreading rapidly across our Nation, suffocating the very life out of Americans, and crippling our Nation. What is this debilitating virus?No, we are not talking about the Chinese Coronavirus.Sure, Premier Xi Jinping’s Coronavirus is horrific. And, it has become a useful, effective bioweapon of war for Xi, whether the unleashing of the viral plague on the U.S. and the world was the Regime’s intention or not.Consider: As of April 20, 2020, the CDC  reports the Chinese Coronavirus has killed almost 80,000 Americans and has sickened almost three-quarters of a million more. And,  epidemiologists suspect hundreds of thousands more Americans have contracted the disease—asymptomatic carriers of the disease, capable, unintentionally, of passing the disease on to others.There is much speculation about the movement of the Chinese Coronavirus plague in our Nation and much disagreement as to the best ways to deal with it and to protect our people and also to get our economy up and running. But one thing is clear and indisputable: The Chinese Coronavirus has ravaged our land and our people. And it is devastating our economy. It is everything loathsome, vile, disgusting, and deadly. Because of this "Gift" from China, our lives are changing, perhaps forever.But as dreadful as the Chinese virus is, there is another virus in our midst that is more horrific; more rapacious and voracious; more ferocious and tenacious; and more noxious, and it has been with us much longer than the Coronavirus. It is a parasitic virus, a silent plague; carefully cultivated and nourished, right here at home. It doesn’t attack and destroy the body. It latches onto and destroys the mind; the spirit; the soul. Many Americans have a natural immunity to it. Most, unfortunately, do not. It is endemic to our Nation but rarely mentioned. There is no known cure for those who contract the disease. And, for those who succumb to it, the virus turns a person into a numb, unthinking automaton, an obedient drone.And this parasitic virus has a vile, odious feature the China Coronavirus doesn’t have. It is seductive.This parasitic virus in our midst is the mainstream Press. It is a plague upon us; one that has been with us for decades.Where did this plague come from? Disturbingly, it arose from and took root in the U.S. Constitution itself through a corruption of the First Amendment. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The freedom of speech is, of course, a fundamental, unalienable, immutable right: a right that exists intrinsically in man, bestowed by a loving Creator in man. Is freedom of the Press distinct from the freedom of speech? Legal thinkers in the past didn’t think so. In fact——“Through most of our history the distinction has not seemed important because the terms freedom of speech and freedom of press have been used more or less interchangeably. In the last decade, however, the press has begun to assert rights arising specifically from the press clause—the right to maintain the confidentiality of sources, the right of access to prisons and courtrooms, the right to keep police from searching newsrooms,  and the right to prevent libel plaintiffs from inquiring into journalists’ thought processes. Thus far the Supreme Court has declined to give independent significance to the phrase ‘freedom of the press.’ It has refused to give the press any more protection than an individual enjoys under the speech clause.” The Origins Of The Press Clause., 30 UCLA L. Rev. 455, February 1983, by  David A. Anderson, Professor of Law, The University of Texas at Austin.If the freedom of the Press exists implicitly in the freedom of speech, why did the founders reference it in the Constitution? We guess they did so to emphasize the import of “free Press Speech,” apart from general public “free Speech,” evidently assuming that the energies of a free Press would be directed to safeguarding the Nation. Many of the founders therefore trusted in an unencumbered, unrestrained, unconstrained free Press. Many did; but not all.But, the founders did, as one, foresee the innate tendency of the federal Government to accumulate power unto itself. And that concern informed the founders’ blueprint for the Nation. They concluded an unshackled free Press, in tandem with the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, were two effective guardians against a tyrannical Government. But did the founders misapprehend the Press? Did they fail to see that an unrestrained Press, far from safeguarding a free Constitutional Republic, would endanger it?The founders correctly deduced the tendency of the federal Government to unlawfully amass power, even as the Constitution's first three Articles, carefully delineated the powers and authority that each Branch may lawfully wield. The founders also correctly deduced that an armed citizenry would effectively counter encroaching tyranny. But the founders evidently did not believe a Press, far from serving as a mechanism to ward off tyranny, might one day become the agent of it, even as some, notably Thomas Jefferson, harbored serious misgivings about Press Freedom as reflected in his writings. In those writings Jefferson expressed uncertainty, even equivocation, despite the fact that many commentators, today, deny this, arguing Jefferson unequivocally supported Press Freedom. He did not.John Norvell, U.S. Senator from Michigan, January 26, 1837 – March 4, 1841, wrote to Jefferson, explaining how he would one day wish to enter the field of newspaper publishing:“It would be a great favor, too, to have your opinion of the manner in which a newspaper, to be most extensively beneficial, should be conducted, as I expect to become the publisher of one for a few years.Accept venerable patriot, my warmest wishes for your happiness.” Jefferson composed a stern letter to Norvell, warning him of the dangers of the Press.“To your request of my opinion of the manner in which a newspaper should be conducted, so as to be most useful, I should answer, ‘by restraining it to true facts & sound principles only.’ Yet I fear such a paper would find few subscribers. It is a melancholy truth, that a suppression of the press could not more compleatly deprive the nation of its benefits, than is done by its abandoned prostitution to falsehood. Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day. I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens, who, reading newspapers, live & die in the belief, that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time; whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected . . . but no details can be relied on. I will add that the man who never looks into a newspaper is better informed than he who reads them; inasmuch as he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. He who reads nothing will still learn the great facts, and the details are all false.”—Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Norvell, 14 June 1807And, 200 years after composing his cautionary letter to John Norvell, the fear that Jefferson expressed has come to pass as many academicians hold to the theory that Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Press are two conceptually distinct freedoms; one accorded to the body politic generally, and the other accorded to mainstream “professional journalists.”The schism has resulted in the false idea that Press Free Speech is of a higher order of Right than the general Free Speech Right accorded the ordinary masses'; that "professional journalists" should be designated a privileged group; that Press freedom should be accorded more deference than speech freedom. This is a dangerous idea, not only detrimental to First Amendment Free Speech but to the very sanctity of a free Constitutional Republic. And the danger isn’t theoretical; it is actual.We see the danger of an unshackled Press manifested today in two ways: one, in an unconscionable attempt to silence the masses from exercising their personal right of free speech because that tends to dilute the voice of the Press; and two, outright sedition. The mainstream Press is actively working with ruthless forces at home and abroad who desire to destroy our free Constitutional Republic; to institute tyranny; to exert control over the American people. There is proof aplenty for this inference. The Press is not content simply to report the news and to critique the Government. No! The Press has itself become an instrument of repression as it strives to constrain our fundamental rights and liberties, to overthrow a duly elected President, and to undermine a free Constitutional Republic.The Press has engaged in a continuous brash, malicious, conscious assault on the Trump Presidency with the unapologetic aim of sabotaging if not destroying Trump. This has been the modus operandi of the Press since the inception of the Trump Presidency.Matea Gold, the investigations reporter for the Washington Post, made this point clear on January 17, 2016, in her call to action article. Matea's remarks are all the more alarming because they saw expression in a “news” piece, not an Op-Ed. She writes:“The effort to impeach President Donald John Trump is already underway.At the moment the new commander in chief was sworn in, a campaign to build public support for his impeachment went live at ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org, spearheaded by two liberal advocacy groups aiming to lay the groundwork for his eventual ejection from the White House.”The reader should take note that this Washington Post reporter doesn’t mention a basis for calling for the extraordinary process of impeachment of the U.S. President. Evidently, Matea Gold didn’t consider a legal reason to be necessary. One would arise, she may have thought, or one would be manufactured.The Collectivists, like this Washington Post reporter, simply want Trump “gone” and, she wants those Americans who support a free Constitutional Republic and unfettered exercise of fundamental rights to be gagged; denied expressing their views. If the Collectivists do succeed in getting Biden, or some other Clown, into Office, the Radical Left Democrats and the seditious Press will see their wish fulfilled. They will be well on their way to gutting the U.S. Our Country will devolve into something less than a sovereign independent Nation-State._____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

SEDITIOUS PRESS AND RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS GO TO BAT FOR CHINA, NOT TRUMP, DURING GLOBAL PANDEMIC CRISIS

PART FOUR

CHINA AND RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS WELCOME ECONOMIC DEVASTATION WROUGHT BY CHINESE CORONOVIRUS TO HASTEN DEMISE OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

The seditious Press and the Democrat Party leadership, along with the other Radical Left members of Congress, assail Trump in his efforts to protect this Nation and its people in the midst of the worst pandemic to hit both the U.S. and the world since the Spanish Flu pandemic of 1918, over a century ago. But, even as the Press and Democrats continue to assail the U.S. President, they either ignore, or defend, outright, China’s response to the plague, notwithstanding that the Coronavirus arose in China, and notwithstanding that, far from acting as a harbinger of the danger to the world presented by this novel and deadly virus, China’s Premier Xi Jinping hid the spread of the virus in China, for several weeks, “silencing” medical practitioners in Wuhan who sounded the alarm, or who sought to sound the alarm, and denying access of medical CDC experts from the U.S., willing to risk their own lives to assist China in containing the spread of the disease.Premier Xi has, as a matter of policy, either permitted or orchestrated the rapid dissemination of the virus across the world: hitting Italy, Spain and, ultimately, the U.S., particularly hard.Arguably, Premier Xi and his Government deliberately abetted the spread of the virus across the world. This would be consistent with his objective, not merely to enhance China’s prestige in the world but to make China the preeminent power in the world.Undoubtedly, the Autocratic Communist Regime of Xi Jinping poses the gravest economic, military, and geopolitical threat to the security and well-being of our Nation and people since the mid-twentieth century, when the USSR posed the greatest threat to our national security. Was the release of the viral plague upon the U.S. and upon the rest of the world, a secretive, diabolical component of Premier Xi’s geopolitical strategy to acquire economic dominance over the U.S.? Conceivably!In one respect, China poses a greater threat to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic than the USSR ever posed. One could never imagine the USSR buying up our Nation's assets. But, during the last decade, China has been doing just that: quietly purchasing our Nation’s real estate and industrial assets. Why would a powerful enemy nation go through the trouble of attempting to destroy another powerful nation militarily, when that enemy might feasibly, by keeping an enemy nation intact, take over that nation's assets and resources, using those assets and resources to extend its own power and influence?China is adept at using our own market principles and the naked greed of pseudo-Americans against us; relying on pathological, ruthless, amoral business interests and, worse, ruthless, amoral members of our own Government, willing to sell out our Nation for their own short-term personal gain.Hillary Clinton represents one textbook example of a pseudo-American who shamelessly, unabashedly had used her position as Secretary of State in the Obama Administration for personal gain, amassing a fortune for herself, her husband, and her daughter. One can imagine how Hillary Clinton might have misused the Office of the Chief Executive of the Nation to extend that personal fortune a hundred-fold or a thousand-fold, profaning the Constitution, and irreparably harming the Nation and its people. And, then there is Joe Biden, the Democrat Party's remaining nominee (among a stellar cast of also-rans) for U.S. President, who, as Obama's Vice President, happened to make a tidy sum for himself and his son, selling our Country out to China. As reported in Breitbart:“In 2013, less than two weeks after accompanying his father on an official visit to Beijing–and despite his lack of pertinent expertise–Hunter Biden secured $1 billion (later raised to $1.5 billion) from the state-owned Bank of China for his newly formed investment firm, Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). This was in addition to the first-of-its-kind deal the Chinese government awarded Biden’s private equity firm Rosemont Seneca in the recently formed Shanghai Free-Trade Zone, a deal that allowed the firm to focus on international acquisitions.‘With the backing of the state-owned Bank of China, one of the country’s ‘big four’ financial institutions, BHR had access to the types of deals that most Western firms only dreamed of, including IPOs of state-owned companies,’ Schweizer and McLeod write, noting that Biden’s firm “invested in strategically sensitive assets in both China and the United States.”One can only imagine the sort of shady deals Biden would make with China's Premier Xi if Biden were to become U.S. President: Xi and Joe, business partners—Xi using Joe for a sinister purpose; to extend the power of China throughout the world; and Joe, using Xi, for a most ignoble, seditious purpose; making a killing for himself and for his family, enabling the Bidens to retire in regal splendor, perhaps on Bora Bora, for the rest of their natural lives. And, now Joe has the endorsement of Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and, yes, ex-President, Barack Obama, himself. No contested Democrat convention, after all. How wonderful. China's Xi must be chomping at the bit, hoping against hope that Biden would indeed emerge as the U.S. President in the coming General Election: Biden, the Democrats' crowning achievement, and the true Manchurian Candidate for U.S. President. China definitely has an interest in buying up American assets. The website, usnews.com reported alarming purchases by Chinese interests of our Nation's assets in the last five years, especially:“The concept of ‘Made in America’ is slowly giving way to ‘Made by China’ in America,’ as Chinese investors are increasingly snatching up U.S.-based companies and assets and raising the eyebrows of some regulators and market spectators.Since the turn of the new year, Chinese suitors have either announced interest in or closed on several multibillion-dollar acquisitions of American institutions, such as General Electric's appliance wing, construction manufacturer Terex, Starwood Hotels, California-based tech company Ingram Micro and finance and production outfit Legendary Entertainment.And although the full value of the deal has yet to be publicly unveiled, the Chicago Stock Exchange announced in February that it planned to be acquired by the China-based Chongqing Casin Enterprise Group at some point later in 2016.‘This proposed acquisition would be the first time a Chinese-owned, possibly state-influenced firm maintained direct access into the $22 trillion U.S. equity marketplace,’ a group of congressional representatives said in a letter to a top Treasury Department official back in February, requesting a ‘full and rigorous investigation into this proposed acquisition to address our concerns and provide clear information to the American people.’Chinese foreign direct investment into the U.S. hit a record $15.7 billion in 2015, up 30 percent from the year prior, according to economic analysts at the Rhodium Group. A separate Rhodium report published last month estimated 83 percent of America's congressional districts were home to some form of Chinese investment.In few industries is China's investment growth more apparent than real estate. A report published Sunday by the nonprofit Asia Society and the Rosen Consulting Group estimates Chinese buyers between 2010 and 2015 spent at least $93 billion on American residential property, with total expenses rising at an average annual rate of about 20 percent each year.Over that period, Chinese companies and individuals also bought up at least $17.1 billion in existing office buildings, hotels and other commercial buildings on U.S. soil. By the end of 2015, the report found, China was the source of at least $350 billion in U.S. real estate holdings and investments, and costs for Chinese-backed construction projects in the U.S. had climbed to at least $15 billion.‘Chinese direct investment in U.S. real estate was negligible until 2010 but has since grown dramatically and visibly,’ the report said. ‘While it is not as politically sensitive and does not directly impact national security as does Chinese investment in U.S. technology or telecommunications, real estate affects more people and communities and involves policymakers at multiple levels.’To be sure, foreign investment is neither specific to China nor inherently problematic. In fact, American companies' own outbound investments in 2014 to countries around the world clocked in at more than $4.9 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.China's investments alarming to some American analysts. Beijing officials are heavily involved in China's private sector and have at times frozen the domestic stock market and changed other finance rules on the fly in the interest of economic self-preservation.So, when a Chinese investment group buys up, say, a major stock exchange in Chicago – or a group of investors throws billions of dollars into America's real estate sector – Beijing suddenly has an inroad to some of the gears that make the U.S. economy tick.‘The Chinese economy revolves around the artificial boosting of domestic firms,’ the U.S. members of Congress' February letter said. ‘Furthermore, government manipulation of currency in the Chinese marketplace continues to be an unresolved problem for the United States government.’So, is the rapid Chinese buying spree a political ploy? Is the Chinese government trying to infiltrate America's economic bedrock through the purchase of domestic companies and real estate assets?”Not exactly, says David Dollar, a senior fellow with the Foreign Policy and Global Economy and Development programs at the Brookings Institution. ‘I see most of this capital outflow is commercial, not strategic or political,’ Dollar said last month at an event in Washington. ‘I don't see much strategy there. I see diversification, which is a smart strategy for a very big investor.’Dollar said the eclectic pool of U.S. investments and holdings tied to the Chinese – including New York's Waldorf Astoria hotel, the national AMC Theatres cinema chain and Smithfield Foods, America's largest pork producer – isn't indicative of a coordinated political power play. Rather, he suggested Chinese companies – possibly at the behest of the Chinese government – are attempting to buy up international assets in a less volatile economy like America's. ‘By spreading out Chinese-owned assets, the country can better protect itself from an unexpected domestic crisis’ ” [like unleashing a viral plague on the U.S. and the rest of the world, perhaps? Hmm]. Note, this usnews.com article came out on May 17, 2016. But, in February 2020, after the unleashing of the Chinese Coronavirus on an unsuspecting world, the Brookings Institute issued this statement, on its website:“China has emerged as a truly global actor, impacting every region and every major issue area. To better address the implications for American policy and the multilateral order, Brookings experts are undertaking a two-year project intended to furnish policymakers and the public with a new empirical baseline for understanding China’s regional and global ambitions.”Perhaps David Dollar of the Brookings Institute would revise his May 2016 assessment, as provided to the usnews.com in light of recent events.If China had, for the past five years, an interest in gobbling up America's assets, that appetite will certainly continue, and will likely become even more voracious if Biden were to gain the White House.But China's interest in purchasing America's assets is not the only scurrilous activity China engages in. Chinese espionage activity is pervasive in our Nation. Consider one recent example, among many—and one implicating those connected with a premier U.S. academic institution, Harvard University. The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued this statement, on January 28, 2020:“The Department of Justice announced today that the Chair of Harvard University’s Chemistry and Chemical Biology Department and two Chinese nationals have been charged in connection with aiding the People’s Republic of China.  Dr. Charles Lieber, 60, Chair of the Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Harvard University, was arrested this morning and charged by criminal complaint with one count of making a materially false, fictitious and fraudulent statement.  Lieber will appear this afternoon before Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler in federal court in Boston, Massachusetts.Yanqing Ye, 29, a Chinese national, was charged in an indictment today with one count each of visa fraud, making false statements, acting as an agent of a foreign government and conspiracy. Ye is currently in China. Zaosong Zheng, 30, a Chinese national, was arrested on Dec. 10, 2019, at Boston’s Logan International Airport and charged by criminal complaint with attempting to smuggle 21 vials of biological research to China.  On Jan. 21, 2020, Zheng was indicted on one count of smuggling goods from the United States and one count of making false, fictitious or fraudulent statements.  He has been detained since Dec. 30, 2019.”China is stepping up its efforts on multiple fronts to press for world economic, geopolitical, and military dominance.This is a singularly depressing commentary on the present state of affairs in our Country. And, what is the seditious Press and other Anti-Constitutional elements within our Nation doing to sound the alarm over the threat posed by China to our National Security? Nothing. The Press and the Democrat Party Leadership and other Radical Left members of Congress, along with the Bureaucratic Deep State, seem, rather, fixated on Russia, a minor player in present world affairs, and no appreciable threat to our Nation when compared to the present and dire threat posed by China. In fact, this seditious Press, the Democrat Party Leadership, and Radical Left members of Congress, along with the Bureaucratic Deep State seem intent on either ignoring China or defending China and Chinese interests; and portraying the Globalist elites of Europe, who embrace the concept of, and are working toward, the creation of a unified transatlantic Government, comprising the EU, the U.S., and the Commonwealth Nations, as our friends; all the while denigrating, besmirching, antagonizing, and working endlessly on the task of undermining our own President, Donald Trump, who is attempting to place our Nation's interests first, and who is attempting to preserve the independence and sovereignty of the United States. Imagine that! This sorry state of affairs points to the colossal and imminent danger to both the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic and to the preservation of the fundamental, immutable, and unalienable rights and liberties of the Nation’s citizenry that reprehensible, disruptive, disreputable forces--both inside and outside our Nation--continuously pose for our Nation and for our people._____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

RADICAL LEFT AND SEDITIOUS PRESS WEAPONIZE CHINESE VIRUS TO ADVANCE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL AGENDA

RADICAL LEFT AND SEDITIOUS PRESS WEAPONIZE CHINESE VIRUS TO ADVANCE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL AGENDA

PART THREE

THE ATTACK TO OUR NATION AND ITS PEOPLE FROM WITHIN

“A scorpion, which cannot swim, asks a frog to carry it across a river on the frog's back. The frog hesitates, afraid of being stung by the scorpion, but the scorpion argues that if it did that, they would both drown. The frog considers this argument sensible and agrees to transport the scorpion. Midway across the river, the scorpion stings the frog anyway, dooming them both. The dying frog asks the scorpion why it stung the frog despite knowing the consequence, to which the scorpion replies: “ ‘I couldn't help it. It’s in my nature.’” The fable of the Scorpion and the Frog as posted in Wikipedia. A rendition of this fable, as delivered by the character played by the actor, Forest Whitaker, appeared in the 1992 thriller, the Crying Game that also starred Stephen Rea. Americans have been carrying a scorpion on their back for decades but many do not know this. And, what is this scorpion? It is an amorphous collection of diabolical, amoral, ruthless, powerful interests bent on destroying the very fabric of our Nation: a free Constitutional Republic. These ruthless elements, adherents of the ideology of Collectivism, loathe the idea that in, our Nation, the American people are sovereign, not Government. The Collectivists routinely ignore the fact that the sovereignty of the American people is etched in stone—etched in that critical part of the U.S. Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights.The Bill of Rights is a codification of fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights that exist intrinsically in each American. These rights cannot be lawfully modified, ignored, or abrogated; ever. That some rights exist in man, beyond the lawful power of the State to modify, ignore, or abrogate, is repugnant to the Collectivists and always has been. They deem the American citizenry as pawns of the State. But, as long as our Constitution survives intact, the Collectivists cannot modify, ignore, or abrogate our fundamental rights. So, they are attempting to regulate those fundamental rights out of existence and to replace them with others: such as the fundamental right of a pregnant woman to murder her own child. See article on abortion posted in the Arbalest Quarrel on July 4, 2019While the nation-state still held a measure of utility to the Collectivists, decades ago, they stood back, patiently awaiting the day when they could proclaim the U.S. Constitution—the backbone of our nation-state—to be archaic, obsolete. Now, however, these ruthless interests feel the very concept of ‘nation-state’ no longer has utility. So, these Collectivists are not standing back any longer. They are attacking the concept of the nation-state head-on. The U.S. Constitution that Collectivists claim to be a “living” Constitution—and by the term, ‘living’ Constitution they mean a Constitution subject to change in accordance with a changing world—is actually a “dead” Constitution; namely, a Constitution that has no further use in a one-world Collectivist State, in which vast populations are controlled and subjugated by a small ruling elite.This scorpion on our back—the Collectivists comprising the Democrat Party Leadership along with other smug, sanctimonious Radical Left and New wave Progressive Left elements, pockmarked and permeating through business, government, academia, the entertainment establishment, and the Press—has been spreading their noxious, deadly poison for decades. Many Americans, perhaps most, haven’t been keenly aware of this because the insidious effort to overthrow of a free Constitutional Republic has, heretofore, taken place systematically, and quietly in the shadows; but, no longer, and the effects of the disassembling of a free Constitutional Republic is plain.Americans have seen the erosion of their First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of religion. They have seen more and more brazen attempts to weaken the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms to the point where exercise of it would be reduced to a nullity—this in spite of U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald. They have seen the erosion of our fundamental Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures as the surveillance State engages in the unconstitutional act of profiling every citizen and obtaining every iota of data on that citizen. Americans have seen a once mighty manufacturing base gutted and sent off packing to China, along with the Nation’s technology, and our money. Americans have seen the Government waste trillions of dollars on foreign intrigues and escapades that serve to weaken our Nation’s security, rather than strengthening it. And, Americans have seen the Southern border opened up to criminal cartels and to waves of discontented flotsam from other Countries whose governments are all too happy to rid themselves of the carrion that feeds on our own Government largess, only to leave our own people destitute. And, Americans have seen the Federal—that is to say, “Private”—Reserve engaging in unconventional monetary policies, doing what exactly? Operating for the benefit of average Americans or operating solely for the benefit of its own member banks and for multinational corporations, housed both here and abroad; leaving the Nation gutted of its wealth; laden with more and more debt.Like a scorpion, the dangerous, ruthless forces here at home, that would crush our Nation and our people into submission as they thrust their vision of the world on all of us, seem oblivious to just how pernicious and damaging their Collectivist vision is for both our Country and our people. Either these abjectly ruthless forces are oblivious to the dangers they would dare inflict on our Nation and our people, or they simply don’t care.

THE COLLECTIVIST VISION AND THE THREAT OF GLOBALIZATION

The impact of the Chinese Coronavirus on our people and our economy is horrific. But even as it devastates our Nation, the Collectivists in the Press and in Congress seek to use this pandemic to their advantage, against the President and, by extension, against the American people. Still, even as our economy suffers and as our people suffer, and as a seditious Press continues an unrelenting, remorseless attack on President Trump at the behest of the ruthless Collectivists, with whom the Press is in league, these Collectivists must realize that Americans are seeing the negative consequences of Globalization in a way they have never seen before. The viral pandemic is not, then, something that the Collectivists can effectively use to force their bizarre vision on our Country. The pandemic has demonstrated the danger of relying on other Nations to provide for our economic needs.If our Nation’s medicines and medical equipment, and medical apparel were solely manufactured at home, as once was the case a half-century ago—before the vast  majority of our manufacturing was handed over to Asia, particularly to China—China would not be able to threaten our healthcare system, as it is threatening our healthcare system now. Breitbart says:“China could effectively shut down America’s healthcare system within months given the one-party state’s ‘global chokehold’ on the manufacturing of medicines and medical supplies, explained Rosemary Gibson, author of China Rx: Exposing the Risks of America’s Dependence on China for Medicine.”It is ironic that China, the Nation that bears sole responsibility for unleashing this virus on our Nation and on the rest of the world, whether wittingly or not, could and would dare to choke the lifeblood out of us by denying us vital medicines and medical supplies. Such is the result of Globalization and our dependency on other Nations, even our enemies, to supply us with our basic needs.We see that the instrumentality of ‘Globalization’  is vital to the realization of the Collectivist vision of a one-world government; heralding, indeed hastening, the end of independent, sovereign nation-states that have lost their self-reliance and resiliency precisely because of Globalization.  The website Investopedia, defines the word, thus:“Globalization is the spread of products, technology, information, and jobs across national borders and cultures. In economic terms, it describes an interdependence of nations around the globe fostered through free trade.”But Globalization involves something much more devious and insidious: the restructuring of the entirety of the social, political, economic, educational, legal, and cultural domain in which man lives.The Collectivists see Globalization as a good thing, an inevitable thing, and a necessary thing if they are to realize their vision of a one-world government. Not surprisingly, the concept of 'globalization' has parallels in the material of Karl Marx. In Das Kapital, Marx lays out his economic theory. But, Das Kapital, is, more broadly speaking, a discourse on the social evolutionary process of man, as Marx sees it.Elizabet Sahtouris, an essayist, who was almost certainly familiar with the writings of Karl Marx and possibly emulated him, posted, on July 21, 2001, an essay for the Living Economies Forum, titled, “Globalization as a Natural Evolutionary Process.” She begins her essay with this:“Globalization, from the perspective of an evolution biologist, is the natural, inevitable, and even desirable process by which humanity matures as a species, shifting from the competitive, acquisitive mode of a juvenile species to the cooperative, sharing mode of a mature species.In any case, globalization is already well on its way and is not a reversible process. Some aspects of it beautifully demonstrate our ability to cooperate.” Globalization is one of a handful of implements in the Collectivists’ toolkit they have utilized to engineer the destruction of independent nation-states, including our own.  The phenomenon of globalization has become ubiquitous and may very well be impossible to curtail. Collectivists intend for globalization to usher in the New World Order. But, with a world-wide viral plague upon us, the inherent complexity, unwieldiness, and attendant deficiencies of globalization have been illuminated. Because of the viral pandemic, nations now realize they must regain and thenceforth retain economic self-sufficiency that globalization has harmed. So, even as the economic health of our Nation and that of other Western Nations has deteriorated, the realization that each Nation must once again relearn self-reliance and self-sufficiency may secure the survival of independent sovereign nation-states, much to the chagrin of the Collectivists.In hindsight, then, the assertion that globalization is “natural, inevitable and, even desirable,” must invite incredulity and skepticism, not enthusiasm and trust, for Globalization is really none of those things.Globalization is an artificial construct, not a biological necessity. It isn't inevitable; and, while it may be desirable to some, i.e., a few wealthy, powerful transnationalist Collectivists who envision a one-world government that they alone preside over, such an eventuality would be a veritable Hell for everyone else._____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHETHER BY ACCIDENT OR DESIGN, CHINESE CORONOVIRUS BRINGS GRIEVOUS HARM TO BOTH AMERICA AND WORLD AT LARGE

PART TWO

CHINA THREATENS FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC: THE ATTACK TO OUR NATION FROM WITHOUT

“Much of the debate about China’s rise in recent years has focused on the potential dangers China could pose as an eventual peer competitor to the United States bent on challenging the existing international order. But another issue is far more pressing. For at least the next decade, while China remains relatively weak compared to the United States, there is a real danger that Beijing and Washington will find themselves in a crisis that could quickly escalate to military conflict. Unlike a long-term great-power strategic rivalry that might or might not develop down the road, the danger of a crisis involving the two nuclear-armed countries is a tangible, near-term concern—and the events of the past few years suggest the risk might be increasing.” Introduction to article, titled, “China’s Real and Present Danger: Now Is the Time for Washington to Worry,” appearing in “Foreign Affairs, September/October 2013, (seven plus years before the deadly Chinese Coronovirus outbreak) Xi Jinping, the current Premier of the autocratic Communist Chinese Government, headquartered in Beijing, intends for China to supplant the United States as the preeminent world economic and military power. This isn’t mere wild speculation. It’s ice-cold fact. Evidence of this fact is legion: in academic treatises, in textbooks, in periodicals, in news accounts; and in a multitude of commentary and analysis on the internet.The virulent Chinese Coronovirus arose outside the United States, in the Wuhan Province of China. That, too, isn't mere speculation. It's ice cold fact. No one can legitimately deny this; not that Premier Xi’s Government hasn’t tried, claiming that the Chinese Coronovirus originated in the U.S. The British newspaper, The Guardian, reports  Chinese propagandists for the Chinese “news” paper, the “People’s Daily,” ridiculously claiming that:“‘The US has finally acknowledged that among those who had died of the influenza previously were cases of the coronavirus. The true source of the virus was the US!’ one commentator said. ‘The US owes the world, especially China, an apology,’ another said. “American coronavirus,” one wrote.China also ludicrously asserts that American soldiers brought the virus to China. Yet, even The New York Times that reported the China's claim, pointed to the utter absurdity of it.Try as Premier Xi might to offload responsibility for the viral plague on to the United States, the Chinese Coronovirus must be placed squarely at the feet of China. That fact is clear and inescapable. But two matters aren’t clear: first, how the Chinese Coronovirus happened to manifest and propagate itself in China; and, second, how the Chinese Coronovirus happened to propagate and to disseminate rapidly across the world. Was the origin of the virus and its massive spread to the rest of the world due to accident? reckless disregard? Negligence? Diabolical design on the part of China’s autocratic Government?Whether or to what extent the unleashing of the viral pandemic on America and the world was due to naivety, or to indifference, or to reckless disregard, or to gross or ordinary negligence, or to outright cold, calculating, malevolent design on the part of the autocratic Communist regime of  Xi Jinping, one matter is indisputable and irrefutable: Premier Xi’s Communist regime bears initial and ultimate responsibility for the horror unleashed here, at home, and around the world, and specifically, for the Government's failure to timely warn the U.S. and the rest of the world of the new anomalous virus that can lead to deadly pneumonia in its victims.Why do we accuse Premier Xi and the Government of China? We do so because of what we do know, as events unfolded.First, we know that Premier Xi hid evidence of the Coronovirus. The Chinese Government deserves our condemnation for concealing the Chinese Coronovirus from the outside world. This enabled the rapid spread of the virus.U.S. News and World Report confirms this:“The disclosure of [Premier Xi’s February 23, 2020] speech indicates top leaders knew about the outbreak’s potential severity at least two weeks before such dangers were made known to the public. It was not until late January that officials said the virus can spread between humans and public alarm began to rise.” Second, Xi would not allow epidemiologists and virologists into China to study the virus, and to assist the Chinese Government in effectively containing it. That is one matter that remains to be studied in depth at a later date. But, Bloomberg news, in a February 2020 article, titled: “U.S. Experts Seeking Outbreak Access Kept Waiting by China,” said:“U.S. officials have said they’ve offered for weeks to send front-line disease experts to China to study the outbreak, which originated in the city of Wuhan, and consult with colleagues there on how to stop it.‘We haven’t been invited yet,’ Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, told reporters Wednesday.”“ ‘We’ve offered the Chinese the opportunity to have American doctors from CDC, NIH and others,’” National Security Adviser Robert O’Brien said Tuesday evening {February 11, 2020} in Washington. “ ‘That offer’s not been accepted at this point, but it’s an outstanding offer.’” Third, Xi’s Government knew of the serious threat posed by the virus outbreak, as his Government wanted him to take no chances when he made a publicity tour visit to Wuhan Province. The Asian Times reported on March 11, 2020, in a news article, titled, “Xi’s trip to Wuhan fails to restore confidence:“Chinese President Xi Jinping has finally visited Wuhan, ground zero of the still-unfolding pneumonic plague, reportedly spending less than 10 hours in the virus ravaged central Chinese city on Tuesday, before flying back to Beijing in the evening. . . . Reporters with state media told Asia Times on condition of anonymity that Xi’s whirlwind visit only lasted for a little over nine hours. After touching down at Wuhan’s airport, he was whisked off to a local hospital in a limo fitted with top-grade antiviral and biohazard gear.” Fourth, Xi’s Government hid and continues to hide evidence of the impact of this virulent disease from the world, as it forces U.S. reporters to leave China. See, e.g., articles posted online in theguardian.com and in news.com.auFifth, while it is clear the Chinese Coronovirus originated in China, what isn’t clear is how the virus manifested in China. Did the virus originate and spread from an outdoor food market, as widely reported? If so, that would suggest mere accident at best or, at worst, gross negligence or reckless disregard for the health and well-being of the common people of China apropos of, one, how food happens to manufactured and distributed in China and, two, the sort of things the Chinese people consume. But, what if the Chinese Coronovirus did not originate from disseminate from an outdoor food market, as widely reported. What if the virus did not arise in nature but was artificially created by the Chinese Government, in a biological weapons lab? If so, was this virus then recklessly unleashed, or, conceivably, deliberately deployed on the world? Is this idea far-fetched? One U.S. Senator thinks the matter deserves investigation. Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) suspects that the Chinese Government created this virus as a biological weapon, as he reports his suspicions on Fox News.And, the dailymail.co.uk reports:“Chinese scientists believe the deadly coronavirus may have started life in a research facility just 300 yards from the Wuhan fish market. A new bombshell paper from the Beijing-sponsored South China University of Technology says that the Wuhan Center for Disease Control (WHCDC) could have spawned the contagion in Hubei province.'The possible origins of 2019-nCoV coronavirus,' penned by scholars Botao Xiao and Lei Xiao claims the WHCDC kept disease-ridden animals in laboratories, including 605 bats. It also mentions that bats - which are linked to coronavirus—once attacked a researcher and ‘blood of bat was on his skin.’”The Conservative New York Post writes:"At an emergency meeting in Beijing held last Friday, Chinese leader Xi Jinping spoke about the need to contain the coronavirus and set up a system to prevent similar epidemics in the future.A national system to control biosecurity risks must be put in place “to protect the people’s health,” Xi said, because lab safety is a “national security” issue.Xi didn’t actually admit that the coronavirus now devastating large swaths of China had escaped from one of the country’s bioresearch labs. But the very next day, evidence emerged suggesting that this is exactly what happened, as the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology released a new directive titled: ‘Instructions on strengthening biosecurity management in microbiology labs that handle advanced viruses like the novel coronavirus.’ What’s more, the People’s Liberation Army’s top expert in biological warfare, a Maj. Gen. Chen Wei, was dispatched to Wuhan at the end of January to help with the effort to contain the outbreak.According to the PLA Daily, Chen has been researching coronaviruses since the SARS outbreak of 2003, as well as Ebola and anthrax. This would not be her first trip to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, either, since it is one of only two bioweapons research labs in all of China.Does that suggest to you that the novel coronavirus, now known as SARS-CoV-2, may have escaped from that very lab, and that Chen’s job is to try to put the genie back in the bottle, as it were? It does to me.Add to this China’s history of similar incidents. Even the deadly SARS virus has escaped — twice — from the Beijing lab where it was (and probably is) being used in experiments. Both “man-made” epidemics were quickly contained, but neither would have happened at all if proper safety precautions had been taken.And then there is this little-known fact: Some Chinese researchers are in the habit of selling their laboratory animals to street vendors after they have finished experimenting on them.”Curiously, the seditious Leftist mainstream media won’t touch this story. Perhaps The New York Times and the Washington Post, along with CNN and MSNBC, believe the story to outlandish to investigate and comment on. Or perhaps they don’t wish to antagonize Premier Xi.  Not that these seditious “news” sources don’t ever concoct wild yarns and endlessly regurgitate nonsense.Certainly, the origin of the Chinese Coronovirus deserves more attention. Yet the mainstream media accepts the notion and propagates the basic story line that the virus somehow arose, accidentally, in an outdoor food market. It then leaves the matter at that, apparently afraid to antagonize Premier Xi; and yet demonstrates no reluctance in castigating President Trump for what he did or didn’t do, after the fact, to contain the spread of the deadly virus in the U.S. We discuss the reprehensible actions of the seditious U.S. Press, in our next, upcoming, segment on the Chinese Coronovirus. Yet, the Slate, despite its left-wing bent, is one website that seems to have developed a pang of conscience. The Slate is no friend of the U.S. President, but, even a leftist website apparently feels there is a limit to the onslaught of vituperative vitriol that mainstream journalism pours without letup onto Trump, in this time of crisis.The Slate writes, in its article, titled, “China Is Not the Hero of the Pandemic:“You can criticize Trump without parroting Beijing’s propaganda.“When Chinese scientists identified a mystery virus in December 2019, they were ordered to stop tests, destroy samples, and suppress the news. When Chinese medical professionals began to sound the alarm, they were seized by police. For weeks, when Chinese state media went on air or to print, they ignored the virus’s spread. When government cadres heard rumors of some new SARS-like virus, they kept their heads down and continued praising party leader Xi Jinping. China’s strategy to fight COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus, though later praised by the World Health Organization and scientists worldwide, consisted of cover-ups, lies, and repression. It also failed miserably, exposing the world to this deadly sickness. After claiming yesterday to have no new cases of the virus, China is now trying to take a victory lap, emphasizing the strength of its response—and the United States’ apparent failures—while spreading conspiracies that the U.S. government manufactured the virus. And while U.S. President Donald Trump’s sluggishness toward the outbreak merits criticism, China’s endangering of the world with its initial incompetence is certainly more to blame. Some of Trump’s fiercest public critics, however, have in their condemnations of the president remarkably ignored China’s faults or even praised the Chinese Communist Party’s response. In doing so, they are propagating falsehoods—and Chinese propaganda."Sixth, Despite the unrelenting seditious mainstream Press attack on the autocratic regime of Putin’s Russia, it is the autocratic regime of Xi Jinping’s China that has been, for decades, the greater threat to our Nation’s free Constitutional Republic.So, then, whether through accident or secretive, insidious design, the release of the Chinese Coronovirus into the world has had devastating impact on both the physical health and well-being of our people and on our Nation’s economic health and upon the rest of the world. And this viral pandemic plays well for China in its ongoing quest for world economic and military domination.As Xi asserts with great bombast and bravado, as reported by cnbc:“We absolutely will not permit any person, any organization, any political party — at any time, in any form — to separate any piece of Chinese territory from China,” Xi said to applause. “No one should expect us to swallow the bitter fruit of damage to our sovereignty, security and development interests.” Apparently, the Chinese Premier feels that Tibet is one of those Chinese territory pieces that China will not permit anyone to separate, and that includes the people of Tibet. And the U.S. doesn’t call China out!Apart from geographical regions of the world that Premier Xi considers to be a "piece of Chinese territory," Americans might rightfully ask if Xi’s “development interests,” extend to the United States. Does Xi wish to “swallow” the U.S.? Quite possibly. As illustrated in a CNBC youtube video, “Billions of dollars flow into the U.S. from China every year, and some of China’s biggest assets are held in New York."Investopedia reports that China holds $1.1 Trillion of American debt.What this means is that China need not attempt to destroy the U.S. militarily. Why would it bother to do so? why would it want to and risk its own demise, when it can pursue a safer course, purchasing the major assets of the U.S., making the U.S. into a satellite of China and hasten things along, by obliterating the economy and weakening the American spirit through the mechanism of a viral plague.Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, there exists another threat to America's free Constitutional Republic and to the preservation of a free sovereign people. A major aim of the Western Neoliberal Globalist Collectivist elites’ agenda is to pull the U.S. into its own orbit. The U.S. is caught in the middle between the two, in a viselike grip: Xi Jinping in the East, and the Neoliberal Globalist Collectivist elites of the West; each operating like an immense, competing private equity Goliath; each seeking to commandeer America’s many assets into its own portfolio, and in the process, hollowing out our once Great Nation.Unfortunately, Radical Left and New Progressive Left politicians and multinational business interests in this Nation, have, themselves, no love of and, apparently, no further use for the U.S. continuing as an independent, sovereign Nation State, and for a free sovereign people.  These ruthless, voracious Collectivist forces want our Nation-State to die, and with the unleashing of the Chinese Coronovirus, they realize they have a vehicle to hasten the Nation's death, along with reducing the citizenry population envisioning a new transnational world order, emanating from both the ruins of the U.S. and the Nations of Europe.Perhaps this new world order will comprise a Duopoly: a world in  which China, on the one hand, and the Neoliberal Collectivist Globalist elites of Europe and the U.S., on the other, divide the world up between them. And the seditious carpetbaggers, among the Democrats and Centrist Bush Republicans wouldn’t mind making a little profit, for themselves, from the “estate” sale of our Nation. Through Democrat Party ascendancy—with Biden as U.S. President, before he most certainly, and unceremoniously, steps down, in favor of his Vice-President successor, this would obviously benefit many anti-Constitutional, anti-American interests, at home, who see the divestiture of U.S. assets with greedy eyes.It is the American people who will lose out. But, then, their lives are of little if any consequence to domestic and foreign profiteers anyway.*__________________________________________*Biden and his son have made out like bandits selling America out for their own selfish interests. See NY Post articleAnd then there are the Multinational corporate executives, safely ensconced in the U.S., who, along with Congressional Democrats, appear more concerned about their personal well-being than of the well-being of our Nation. See, e.g., the hightower lowdown_____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SEDITIOUS PRESS GOES TO BAT FOR CHINA, NOT TRUMP, DURING GLOBAL PANDEMIC CRISIS

PART ONE

THE WORLD IN THE GRIP OF AN OMINOUS, DEADLY PLAGUE: THE CHINESE CORONOVIRUS*

Is this the day? Is this the beginning of the end? There is no time to wonder. No time to ask why is it happening, why is it finally happening. There is time only for fear, for the piercing pain of panic. Do we pray? Or do we merely run now and pray later? Will there be a later? Or is this the day?Opening narration from an episode from the original Outer Limits, sci fi series, first televised on September 20, 1963.**The number of Hollywood films utilizing the trope of alien invasion—and we are referring here to outer space alien entity invasion, not inner space illegal alien invasion—is legion.A common theme of these sci fi films centers around our little world, Planet Earth, on the brink of nuclear annihilation. The major powers arm up and prepare to battle each other. But, at the Eleventh Hour the nations of Earth face a common threat: a malevolent, and immensely powerful adversary from deep space. The nations realize the necessity to set aside their differences and band together to defeat a ruthless, relentless, and sinister foe; one that poses a threat to the entire human race.The world is now faced with an enemy as aggressive and as merciless as any threat posed from outer space. This is not Hollywood cinema; this is real. The ongoing pandemic is the most serious threat facing the world today and, in fact, the worst threat facing the world for decades. The COVID-19 Pneumonia Virus, commonly referred to as the Coronovirus, by virtue of club-shaped spikes on its surface is also referred to as the Wuhan or Chinese Virus, and those appellations are apt, since China—and specifically the Chinese Province of Wuhan—is the place where the virus originated.The threat this Chinese Coronovirus poses to the life, health, and well-being of the populations of Earth bears a commonality with an alien invasion from outer space. Like a ferocious, seemingly unmanageable, implacable,  foe from outer space, the Chinese Coronovirus doesn’t discriminate against particular nations or people. It coldly, unemotionally attacks all alike, both high and low in the social pecking order as the BBC, reports, exclaiming that, "His Royal Highness," Prince Charles has contracted the disease.The virus has traveled quickly around the world. It propagates rapidly, mercilessly, and relentlessly, injuring or destroying everything in its path. And it does so with cold, callous, methodical, precision, at a geometric rate, until “IT” becomes satiated, if it becomes satiated and allows ITSELF, to burn itself out. As of this writing, we have yet to see that happening. Indeed, the appetite of this virus appears insatiable, expanding rapidly throughout the Nation.And, what are we doing about it? There is just so much the Trump Administration can accomplish alone but he did act quickly when he imposed travel restrictions from China in early February 2020. That is indisputable fact, and, in hindsight, Trump’s quick action on behalf of the American people, proved entirely appropriate, even as, at the time, seditious media outlets, such as CNN, citing their own cadre of “experts,” condemned Trump’s actions as precipitous and ill-advised. The CNN had this to say, on February 7, 2020:“‘All of the evidence we have indicates that travel restrictions and quarantines directed at individual countries are unlikely to keep the virus out of our borders,’ Jennifer Nuzzo, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, told lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week. ‘These measures may exacerbate the epidemic's social and economic tolls. And can make us less safe.’‘The director-general of the World Health Organization also weighed in this week, calling on countries not to impose travel restrictions.’”Fake cable news shows, like CNN and MSNBC, and seditious newspapers, like The New York Times  routinely cite experts, such as Dr. Nuzzo, who support the newspaper's narratives. Each New York Times' narrative is grounded on one or more baseless assumptions. The paramount assumption of those Times' articles that have, as the central theme, the U.S. President, Donald Trump, is that Trump  is an unworthy and illegitimate President.In its endless, vicious, vindictive attacks on the President, The New York Times has in recent months cited to Dr. Nuzzo, whom the paper mentions as "a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security." Apparently, Dr. Nuzzo doesn't support the President's policy initiatives pertaining to the horrible Chinese Coronovirus. That makes Dr. Nuzzo a useful expert, since her medical opinions cohere with the newspaper's narratives--the theme of which is to attack the President at every turn. For example, on March 29, 2020, the Times quoted Dr. Nuzzo saying, "the Trump Administration had 'incredibly limited views' of the pathogen's impact.'" In an earlier Op-Ed, authored by Dr. Nuzzo, appearing in the Times' newspaper on March 20, 2020, Dr. Nuzzo authored a piece titled, "We Don't Need to Close Schools to Fight the Coronavirus." The article is subtitled, "Shutdowns could likely do more harm than good, since there's little evidence that children are a major source of the spread," Dr. Nuzzo writes in substantial part:"Facing an accelerating spread of Covid-19, Italy and Japan have closed schools to impede the epidemic. Some communities in the United States have done so too, agreeing to significantly disrupt people’s lives on the theory that it will prevent deaths and serious illness.

But there is no clear evidence that such measures will slow this outbreak.

Most of what we know about the impact of school closings on disease transmission relates to influenza, to which children can be particularly vulnerable, sometimes dying or becoming seriously ill from it.

Children are important drivers of influenza infections because they have more interactions with people than do most adults and also give off more of the virus. Closing schools, it is assumed, reduces the number of contacts and thus the rate of transmission.

During the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, schools across the country were closed. A C.D.C. study showed that parents largely supported these measures, but other studies found that children frequently got together outside the home or visited public sites, despite official recommendations not to do so. Fortunately, schools reopened in less than three days in most cases because data showed the flu strain wasn’t as severe as had been feared.

Still, some evidence suggests that these measures didn’t reduce the number of infections and only slowed the spread — although that could help reduce burdens on health systems.

That’s influenza, though. Covid-19 is different.

There have been very few reports of children contracting Covid-19. It’s not clear why. It’s possible that children do get infected, but so mildly that it is not noticed or tested.

If children don’t experience severe illness from or contribute to the spread of Covid-19 — and so far we have found no clear evidence that they do — it’s likely that school closings will have little effect on its spread."

A few days after the article's posting, President Trump declared a National Emergency. Curiously, immediately following the President's National Emergency Declaration, Governors in twelve states immediately shut down their schools, to protect the children from the virus, notwithstanding that Dr. Nuzzo felt school closures, across the board, were unnecessary, since, as she says, such "school closings will have little effect on its [the virus'] spread." Maybe the State Governors hadn't read Dr. Nuzzo's Op-Ed. Or, perhaps, they did read the Op-Ed, but weren't convinced, adhering to the adage that "prudence is the better part of valor." The Governors were taking no chances where the lives of the children are at stake, as the USA Today article makes very clear.In the March 13, 2020, USAToday article, titled, "Coronavirus updates: Trump declares national emergency; schools in 12 states shut down; cruise lines halted," the authors of the USAToday article write:

"Twelve states and several large urban school districts are shutting down all K-12 schools as part of a sweeping attempt to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

Ohio, Maryland, Oregon, New Mexico, Michigan, West Virginia, Virginia, Louisiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Washington and Alabama have ordered all schools closed. The governor of Kentucky has recommended closing all schools in that state. Major metropolitan districts in Atlanta, Denver, San Francisco, San Diego, Washington, D.C. and Austin, Texas have also shuttered. And a growing number of smaller districts around the country have also chosen to close.

The actions are the first wave of widespread school closures in the U.S., and they stand to upend school and family routines for millions of children. 

Thus far Washington State appears to have put the longest closure into place. There, public schools will not reopen until at least April 24 by order of the Governor. Gatherings and events of more than 250 people are banned statewide

Such closures will also throw into sharp relief the deep socioeconomic divides in American education. Disadvantaged families who rely the most on schools for stable services, such as meals and access to learning materials, will be some of the most negatively affected."

Dr. Fauci, the National Institute Of Allergy And Infectious Diseases Director (NIAID) and a member of the Coronavirus Task Force formed by President Trump in late January might disagree with Dr. Nuzzo's apparent certainty about keeping schools open. Dr. Fauci, appearing on a Hannity Fox News segment, that aired on March 10, 2020, the same day that Dr. Nuzzo's Op-Ed, supra, explained:"But, Sean, to make sure your viewers get an accurate idea about what goes on, you mentioned seasonal flu. The mortality for seasonal flu is 0.1. The mortality for this is about 2, 2.5%. It's probably lower than that, it's probably closer to 1. But even if it's 1, it's 10 times more lethal than the seasonal flu. You’ve got to make sure that people understand that."

Actually, as Chinese Coronovirus spreads rapidly across the United States, it turns out Trump was absolutely correct in taking the actions he did. Dr. Nuzzo, the Johns Hopkins expert, might wish to walk back her February 7 comments and the certainty she expresses in her March 10 Op-Ed.For his part, Dr. Fauci would air on the side of caution. The Daily Caller asked Dr. Fauci his opinion about the dangers of public contact and whether major business and school closures during the spread of the Chinese Coronovirus is the appropriate response:"When asked directly if that meant closing bars and restaurants, Fauci said, 'Obviously, you’re going to have people go to restaurants anyway, but for the most part, and particularly if I can say this, this is particularly appropriate and relevant for people at the high risk: the elderly and those who have underlying conditions, right now should really hunker down.' When asked about closing schools, the doctor insisted that 'you always want to be ahead of the curve. The golden rule I say is that when you think you’re doing too much, you’re probably doing enough or not enough.'"The Washington Post reports that:"Public health experts, school administrators and parents are divided about the risks and benefits of school closures, sparking debate in communities where the virus is rampant and in places with only fleeting exposure.Even the nation’s top disease experts seem unable to provide clear guidance. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said Tuesday that a decision about closing schools depends on how far the disease has spread in a community. If the virus has spread little, there’s no point in closing, he said. But wait too long, and closings will not help.

'Everything is on the table for consideration,' he said. Closing all schools in the country would not be appropriate, he said, but it might make sense for a community “when you start to see, ‘we’re getting a little bit of danger here.’ ” The goal, he said, is to 'do real mitigation sometime before you think you really need it.' '

The reactions by districts to similar facts have varied widely."

And the reactions of the experts and of the newspapers on how best to deal with the Chinese Coronovirus also demonstrates a variance in opinion. But that doesn't stop the seditious mainstream media from glowering openly, unabashedly, and unceasingly that, whatever the President does to battle this plague, it is wrong. That negative reporting on President Trump's efforts doesn't do anything to benefit the citizenry and makes abundantly and disturbingly clear that, even in a time of horrific crisis, the seditious still continues its relentless assault on the President and that is equivalent to a relentless assault on our Nation and on our people. Where, then, does the allegiance of the mainstream media fall?

And, this brings us back to the Director-General of the World Health Organization (“W.H.O.”). For his part, the Director-General—the obsequious toady of China’s Xi Jinping, the principal responsible party for this world plague—clearly has an agenda, at once duplicitous and hypocritical, directed to harming the well-being of the world, not protecting the world from global pandemics, predicated on its stated, ostensible mandate. We provide evidence infra, showing Premier Xi is the Director-General’s overseer.

HAVE THE NATIONS OF THE WORLD COME TOGETHER TO BATTLE A GLOBAL PANDEMIC, OR IS IT THE CASE OF DIFFERENT SIDES-DIFFERENT ALLEGIANCES?

You would think the nations of the world would set aside their differences and definitely, definitively, unite, at least for a time, to battle a common scourge to humanity. You would think that, perhaps; or you would like to think that. But, unlike a Hollywood film, the nations of the world do not always unite to battle a common threat. Such is sadly in evidence here.The Chinese Coronovirus has brought into high relief a sad reality about the functioning of some Governments and some of their agents, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)—and we are thinking here of the Chinese Government and of a specific NGO, the World Health Organization (“WHO”). We, Americans, bear witness to how the NGO, “WHO,” a puppet of the Chinese Communist Government of Xi Jinping was slow, deliberately slow, in communicating to the world just how dangerous and prolific the Chinese Coronovirus is. We see this Government and the Non-Governmental Organization “WHO,” using this threat for their own nefarious purposes.True to form, we see the Communist regime of Premier Xi Jinping the Director and its obsequious puppet, the Director-General of the World Health Organization doing their damnedest to mask their own failure to timely warn the world of a coming plague, and at once, dare to chastise and blame other Nations for failing to act timely enough to curb the spread of the Chinese Coronavirus.We must ask: Does this blatant attempt by Premier Xi and by the Director-General of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, to shift blame for the present scourge negatively impacting the world—and particularly negatively impacting the physical health and well-being of Americans along with the American economy—suggest collusion: a criminal conspiracy; a secretive, orchestrated scheme, to deliberately sabotage global efforts to effectively, timely eradicate this plague so that China can gain economic supremacy? If so, Can we, Americans, and can the citizens and subjects of other nations, not rightfully, justifiably, ascribe to the Chinese regime and to the NGO, “WHO,” an elaborate, well-organized, highly coordinated, and secretive scheme concocted by both the Chinese Premier and by the Director-General of “WHO,” directed to disrupt the economy of the United States? And, have not the Chinese Premier, Xi Jinping, and the Director-General of “WHO,” implemented a False Flag Operation—as a component of their scheme to disrupt the U.S. economy—designed and calibrated to shift blame for the global scourge onto our Nation and others? Is the unleashing of a viral plague on the U.S. and upon the world at large, all part of a malevolent, malicious, deceptive, duplicitous, hypocritical plot to devastate the U.S.economy so that China emerges as the sole economic power of the world?If so, then sacrificing the lives of tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives, or, conceivably, even millions of innocent lives—including many in China, which, with a population of 1.4 billion people, may willingly suffer the loss of a few million of its own people—to secure global economic dominance may have been factored into the equation. Is this idea really so far-fetched? Consider———

THE FAILURE OF CHINA TO TIMELY WARN THE WORLD OF THE CHINESE CORONOVIRUS THREAT

The website, Foreign Policy, FP, reported in in mid-February 2020:“As the deadly coronavirus began to spread, Beijing wasted the most critical resource to fight it: trust.Are China’s official reports, including claims that its control efforts are succeeding and the epidemic will soon peak, credible? Omens look bad. Once praised by the World Health Organization (WHO) and scientists worldwide for its quick, transparent response to the newly named COVID-19, China now faces international vilification and potential domestic unrest as it blunders through continued cover-ups, lies, and repression that have already failed to stop the virus and may well be fanning the flames of its spread”.

THE FAILURE OF THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION TO TIMELY WARN THE WORLD OF THE CHINESE CORONOVIRUS THREAT

The sinister World Health Organization is a component of the United Nations. That fact, alone, should tell Americans much about the danger this NGO represents to the well-being of the U.S. and of the well-being of other Nation States. The website study.com points out this Organization’s ties to the UN:“The World Health Organization, or the WHO, is a part of the United Nations that focuses on global health issues. This organization has been working for over 60 years on such issues as smallpox eradication, family planning, childhood immunizations, maternal morbidity rates, polio eradication, and AIDS.”But, does the World Health Organization, “WHO,” really operate for the betterment of the world’s population? The website, Business and Politics, BPR, reported very recently, in March 2020:“The Director-General of the World Health Organization admonished the world’s “slow” reaction to the coronavirus outbreak though his organization downplayed the seriousness of the now-global pandemic months ago.WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus is under fire for remarks on Wednesday saying the ‘world was slow to react to the coronavirus’ even though he previously praised China’s handling of the outbreak and WHO officials claimed in January the virus could not be passed by human-to-human contact.”

BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES, THERE EXIST COLD, CALCULATING, RUTHLESS FORCES THAT SEEK DOMINION OVER AMERICANS AND OVER THE POPULATIONS OF OTHER COUNTRIES

No less than the Regime of Xi Jinping, and its puppet, “WHO,”  we, Americans, bear witness to a sinister cabal within our own Government. There are those who seek a political, social, economic and cultural metamorphosis of our Nation into something hideous; something antithetical to the philosophical underpinnings of a free, Constitutional Republic. These elements seek to turn Americans against each other even as they proclaim the opposite intention. They seek political, social, and economic upheaval.With the coming general election in November 2020, and as all previous attempts to destroy the Presidency of Donald Trump have failed, malevolent forces have one remaining gambit: use of a global pandemic to excoriate the President.Back in mid-January, well before the U.S. and other nations were apprised of the threat of the Chinese Coronovirus, Fox News contributor, Andy Puzner, pointed out that———“Over the last six months, it has become increasingly obvious there is no limit on how far Democrats and their media allies are willing to go to bring down President Trump. Because of their obsessive hatred of the president, they have wantonly placed our economy at risk of collapse, created a false constitutional crisis, and most recently, opposed the takedown of an Iranian terrorist leader.”The Fox News article illustrates the bizarre and sad truth about the cold and ruthless ambitions of those elements within our Nation that will use any calamity to their advantage. Remember the coarse and callous words of Rahm Emmanuel, prior Mayor of Chicago and Obama’s White House Chief of Staff:“You never want a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”Compare Rahm Emmanuel's disturbing comment with the very recent and equally disturbing remark of Representative James E. Clyburn, (D-SC), the House Majority Whip.During Congressional Republican and Democrat negotiation of the $2.5 Chinese Coronovirus relief package for the Nation, Clyburn could hardly contain his exuberance over a horrific event that he sees as an "opportunity" and that most Americans see as a National crisis.The mainstream media was obliged to acknowledge Clyburn's off-putting remark. Try, as it might, even the seditious New York Times could not put a good spin on Clyburn's audacious remark. The New York Times reported:"Republicans were . . . outraged when they saw the draft House bill, a $2.5 trillion measure that included an array of progressive policies well beyond the scope of emergency aid, saying Democrats were trying to use the crisis to advance a liberal agenda. They seized on a comment by Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the No. 3 House Democrat, who said on a private conference call with Democrats that the pandemic presented “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to our vision” — a comment Mr. McConnell brought up repeatedly."People such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, puppets, of the transnational Global "elites," have not been able to take down the U.S. President, Donald Trump, try as they might. They could not do so so through the fanciful and abjectly wasteful Mueller probe; nor through the imbecilic impeachment hoax; nor through the hyped up Ukraine nonsense. All attempts by the Radical Left Democrat Party Leadership to destroy the Trump Presidency have failed. But, still they persist.The Radical Left Democrat Party leadership now has, at its disposal, a new, potent weapon in their arsenal: the Chinese Coronovirus; something they did not create but which presents for them, as James Clyburn refers to it, an "opportunity" that, in the words of Rahm Emmanuel, they dare not "waste": their vision for the Country: A Socialist nightmare.We point out, as the Democrats know full well: The U.S. economy under Donald Trump has prospered. But the impact of the deadly Chinese Coronovirus viral plague is devastating our economy, through no fault of the Trump Administration. But, instead of working willingly and diligently to work with President Trump and with Congressional Republicans to protect the critical health needs of Americans, together with the U.S. economy, we see Pelosi, Schumer, and others of their ilk in Congress doing so only grudgingly, planting obstacles in his path, attempting to take advantage of a horrific situation, to pursue their agenda. Even Joe Biden has gotten into the act. These Radical Leftist malcontents, along with a seditious Leftist Press are even now trying to  figure out how best to use this viral pandemic to promote efforts to unseat Trump in November 2020. The Washington Times makes this point clear, reporting in mid-March 2020:“No matter what Mr. Trump does, he will be accused of 1) reacting recklessly; 2) reacting too slowly; 3) being racist; 4) ignoring medical advice; and 4) treating the health crisis as a partisan issue.” 

TO PRESERVE THE FOUNDERS’ VISION OF OUR NATION, IT IS IMPERATIVE, NOW, MORE THAN EVER, THAT WE SUPPORT OUR PRESIDENT, DONALD TRUMP

Ever since President Trump swore his Oath of Office to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States, there have been efforts both at home and abroad to unseat him. The Founders’ vision of a Nation where the American people themselves are sovereign is now looked on by ruthless elements, both at home and abroad, as archaic and injurious to their own plans for a new world order. They have been engineering our demise as an independent sovereign Nation-State for decades.The autocratic regime of China’s Xi Jinping operates as one monstrous threat to our Nation’s continued survival as a free Republic and as the most powerful economic engine and military power in the world. The transnationalist corporatist elites of the West—those who have already harnessed the Nations of Europe into a centralized union that they alone control—represent the other major threat to our Founders’ vision, as they seek to expand their domain to include the military and economic assets of the United States. And then there are the centrist status quo Republicans, and Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats, both of whom fear and loathe the Trump Administration. Both of these groups, here at home, have been quietly engineering the creation of a shadow Government within our Government; a Government that doesn’t serve the best interests of our Nation and its citizenry, but is one decidedly detrimental to and antithetical to the preservation of our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic—a Nation where, as the founders intended, the American people themselves are sovereign and the Federal Government is servant. These two groups are working hand-in-hand as puppets of the West's transnationalist corporatist elites; but they are certainly not averse to striking side deals with the Chinese Premier, Xi Jinping, in order to line their own pockets. And, as the Chinese regime steals our technology, and gobbles up U.S. Corporations and real estate, that is of no apparent consequence to these Congressional sell-outs who see no profit in preserving a free Constitutional Republic.Anti-Constitutional elements within our midst--who take money from the Chinese Regime to line their own pockets and, at one and the same time, willing toadies of the European Rothschild clan and its minions who seek the abolition of nation-states and the creation of a one world political, social, economic, and cultural government--are the worst sort of people. They are the "dry-rot" that eats away at the frame of a house, from within.Ruthless, remorseless elements, both inside our Nation and outside look upon our Nation’s resources jealously. They seek at once to mine our Nation and its physical resources and to discard our people, hollowing out our Nation, as private equity firms hollow out companies, leaving our people destitute and our Nation, an empty shell. The present Chinese Coronovirus pandemic has provided abjectly ruthless, evil elements with a useful weapon. And we, Americans, find ourselves caught in the middle of a titanic struggle between two brawling monsters, both of which view the United States with covetous eyes.In the next two articles we will explain in more detail the dire threat posed to our Nation and our people by the Xi Jinping Regime of China, and by those evil and ruthless forces right here at home.____________________________________________*Note to our Readers: This article segment includes new content, added, on March 31, 2020.**Further, from the sci fi series the Outer Limits episode, "The Architects of Fear":“The world has entered a Cold War-like setting in which nuclear holocaust appears imminent. In the hope of staving off an apocalyptic military cen.wikipedia.org/…/The_Architects_of_Fearonfrontation between nations, an idealistic group of scientists working at United Labs plans to stage a fake alien invasion of Earth in an effort to unite all humanity against a perceived, common enemy. The scientists have managed to study the planetary conditions on the planet Theta. They draw lots, and physicist Dr. Allen Leighton is chosen to undergo radical surgical procedures that will transform him into an inhabitant from the planet Theta. Leighton's death is faked, and the bizarre series of transplants and modifications to his body proceed. His wife, Yvette, persists in not believing he is dead; she even feels sympathetic pain as Allen suffers on the operating table. Complications arise when the effects of Leighton's transformation extend beyond his physical appearance and begin to affect his mind, a situation compounded by the scientist's strong emotional connection with his now pregnant wife.The scientists' plan is for Dr. Leighton, as the Thetan creature equipped with an energy weapon and spaceship, to land at the United Nations in an effort to create initial panic. This panic, in theory, will be resolved as the world unites to fight the invader. Leighton, now a perfect simulation of an inhabitant of the planet Theta, is launched into orbit as a weather satellite, but the mission goes awry when the spaceship comes down off course and lands in a wooded area near the United Labs facility. After disintegrating their station wagon with his laser pistol, Allen is severely wounded by three armed hunters as he emerges from the underbrush. With nowhere else to go, Allen stumbles back to the lab. Yvette, sensing trouble, hurries to the lab looking for her husband. She arrives as Allen, now hideously transformed, enters and collapses to the floor. Before dying of mortal wounds, Allen makes a sign in the air with his hand, one familiar to his wife, and she then realizes the horrifying truth that the alien is, in fact, her husband.”Closing narration:“Scarecrows and magic and other fatal fears do not bring people closer together. There is no magic substitute for soft caring and hard work, for self-respect and mutual love. If we can learn this from the mistake these frightened men made, then their mistake will not have been merely grotesque, it would at least have been a lesson. A lesson, at last, to be learned.” ____________________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BIDEN’S ODIOUS REMARKS TO CURTAIL SECOND AMENDMENT INVITE QUESTION OVER HIS ELECTABILITY AND SUITABILITY FOR HIGHEST OFFICE

JOE BIDEN WANTS YOU TO KNOW HE SUPPORTS THE SECOND AMENDMENT; IT'S JUST THAT HE DOESN'T SUPPORT YOUR OWNING AND POSSESSING FIREARMS

PART ONE

“Hello, I'm Mr. Ed.A horse is a horse, of course, of course,And no one can talk to a horse of courseThat is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.Go right to the source and ask the horseHe'll give you the answer that you'll endorse.He's always on a steady course.Talk to Mr. Ed.People yackety yack a streakAnd waste your time of day.But Mr. Ed will never speakUnless he has something to say.A horse is a horse, of course, of course,And this one will talk till his voice is hoarse.You never heard of a talking horse?Well, listen to this:‘I am Mr. Ed.’”(Song lyrics to farcical television comedy, airing on CBS from 1961 to 1966)Can anyone talk to Mr. Joe Biden? Here is a man who tends to yackety-yack a streak even when he has nothing to say—which is all the time, or nearly all the time. You would think a person running for President of the United States would have something intelligent to say, and that he would be willing, able, and capable of orating intelligently, eloquently, and solicitously to the American public. That, though, isn’t Joe Biden.Biden is a windbag filled up with ill-conceived, half-formed thought forms, many false; dredged up from his distant past, sloppily pasted together, and then delivered pontifically to the American public as an incomplete, incoherent, haphazard, unconvincing, rambling sermon on the purported foibles of the Trump Administration; providing, too, an inkling of the way things will be and ought to be once he, Joe Biden, becomes President of the United States. Mr. Ed, at least, can speak coherently. Maybe Mr. Joe should receive coaching lessons on the art of oral communication from Mr. Ed.Consider Biden’s policy prescriptions for dealing with American’s fundamental, immutable, unalienable natural right as codified in the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights; a right bestowed on man by a Loving Divine Creator; natural law, not man-made law; God-given law, not Congressional enacted law; natural law upon which a free Constitutional Republic rests; upon which the personal autonomy of Americans depend; upon which the sanctity and inviolability of the individual is grounded, and upon which the sovereignty, supremacy of the American people over a centralized Government and over the crushing power of the State, is maintained—the right of the people to keep and bear arms; a right that shall not be infringed.And, yet there are those, both inside the Federal Government and outside it, who are all too happy to infringe this hallowed  right, this sanctified law, even as they say they would not; that they never would infringe it.Recall Hillary Clinton blatantly lying to the American people about her position on firearms and the Second Amendment when she gave her acceptance speech at the 2016 Democrat National Convention:The website Vox reported: “Clinton wants you to know one thing about her position on gun control: ‘I’m not here to repeal the Second Amendment. I’m not here to take away your guns. . . . I just don’t want you to be shot by someone who shouldn't have a gun in the first place.  ‘We should be working with responsible gun owners to pass commonsense reforms and keep guns out of the hands of criminals, terrorists, and all others who would do us harm.’Clinton is essentially sticking to the stance that Democrats, including President Barack Obama, have followed over the past few years: They want to restrict certain weapons and keep certain people from getting guns, but they’re not interested in taking away everyone’s firearms.”Clinton has offered up a policy prescription, amounting to a logical contradiction. So, reading between the lines, what Clinton is saying is this:I don’t want to take away your firearms and you can trust me when I tell you I will not take away your firearms; it’s just that you have to realize I do need to take away your firearms, much as I don’t want to; and, so, I will be taking your firearms away, and this is for your own good; to keep you safe from yourself and to keep me safe from you. I hope you understand, and I hope you’ll vote for me. Oh, and have a Good Day.Recall, too, Senator Leahy’s (D-VT) blatantly dishonest remarks, during Elena Kagan’s Confirmation Hearing as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010, prompting Kagan’s dutiful reply. The website, On the Issues, reported:Senator Leahy: “‘I am a gun owner, as are many people in Vermont, and I agreed with the Heller decision. And just yesterday in McDonald v. the City of Chicago, the Court decided the Second amendment right established in Heller is a fundamental right that applies to the States as well as the Federal Government. Is there any doubt after the Court's decision in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment to the Constitution secures a fundamental right for an individual to own a firearm, use it for self-defense in their home?’ SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan: ‘There is no doubt, Senator Leahy. That is binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case. So that is settled law.’”Sure, Heller and McDonald are settled law—until they aren’t—and they won’t be if the Left-wing of the high Court, gains ascendancy. It will overturn those seminal Second Amendment cases if Radical Left and  new wave Progressive Left Democrats are able to “pack” the high Court with Left-wing Justices.And, this brings us back to Joe Biden, the apparent presumptive Heir Apparent Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President in 2020. How can a person believe Joe Biden’s claim of devotion to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution—the mere assertion of his claim to support it—when his policy plank and his policy prescriptions serve clearly to shred it.When an American citizen dares demand that Biden provide concrete support for his policy position and policy prescriptions on the Second Amendment and on firearms, Biden is unprepared to discuss his position and the policy prescriptions he would implement. He becomes visibly, plainly flustered, and loses his temper. He lashes out. This unseemly behavior occurs because Biden doesn’t expect Americans to speak out. He perceives this as audacious conduct rather than acceptable behavior. Yet, you would think a U.S. Presidential candidate should expect questions from the public; that a Presidential candidate would invite and welcome questions concerning his or her policy prescriptions; and that the candidate would be able and willing to discuss, candidly, cordially, even cheerfully one’s policy prescriptions.A U.S. Presidential candidate should come before the public, fully prepared to clarify and support his or her policy positions and prescriptions—especially those affecting fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural rights, not least of all the right impacting firearms and the American citizens’ unconditional right to own and possess them.Yet, Biden lashes, out; he treats the American public as if it were a conglomeration of stupid Hinterland Hicks; nothing more than a herd of dumb beasts; or a pack of feral dogs; or a brood of undisciplined, wayward children whom, as in time past, were expected to be seen and not heard.Biden’s detestable behavior was on full display when, during the Michigan Primary on March 10, 2020, a Detroit auto worker respectfully but pointedly challenged Biden on the claim repeatedly made that he supports gun rights. As reported by the website Mediaite:  “Former Vice President Joe Biden got into a heated exchange with a Detroit autoworker over gun rights Tuesday, with votes coming in during the Michigan primary.‘You are actively trying to diminish our second amendment right and take away our guns,’ one autoworker yelled at Biden while appearing to be looking at his phone.‘You’re full of shit,’ Biden fired back, adding, “I support the second amendment.”‘From the very beginning, I have a shotgun, I have a 20 gauge, a 12 gauge, my son’s hunt,’ Biden said, adding, ‘I’m not taking your gun away at all.’‘If you need 100 rounds,’ Biden said, before being interrupted while trying to find common ground with the union member.Biden then dismissed viral videos the autoworker was citing as not accurate and mentioned ‘AR-14’s’ [?]‘Look, here’s the deal, here’s the deal,’ Biden said. ‘Are you able to own a machine gun? Under the law?’Biden’s campaign has said previously that if elected, he would ban assault weapons.‘Machine guns are illegal,’ the autoworker responded.‘That’s right,’ Biden responded, adding, ‘So are AR-15’s illegal. . . .’‘There are more deaths in America from handguns then what you call assault rifles,’ the autoworker said, ‘why are you advocating for assault rifles. . . .’The autoworker then continued to argue with the former Vice President before being pulled away by a union leader.”Breitbart reports more of this exchange:“‘This is not okay,’ the man said, creating a buffer between the finger and his face.‘Don’t tell me anything, pal,’ Biden demanded.The worker continued to defend the Second Amendment and disputed Biden’s interpretation of ‘assault rifles.’‘Don’t be such a horse’s ass,’ Biden said before he walked away.” “Horse’s ass?” And Who is it that is really the talking Horse, here? Is it the autoworker or Biden? Is it Mr. Ed or Mr. Joe? And, what’s the deal Joe? What’s the deal? This, of course, isn’t the first time Biden lost his temper in front of the Nation; and there will be other times he will lose his temper as well. Yet, when confronted by average Americans who simply expect Biden to support his positions when queried about them, Biden should be willing and able to do so. He isn’t.As the purported remaining “moderate” Democrat Party Candidate for U.S. President, Biden wants, indeed expects, the public to take on faith he supports the Second Amendment when he doesn’t.This is deception and a poor attempt at deception, at that. Unfortunately, we have seen this deception at work many times before and we will continue to see it in the run-up to the General election in November 2020, as the ruthless, secretive, wealthy powerful, amoral, Centrist Neoliberal Transnationalist Anti-Constitutionalist, Anti-Second Amendment Collectivist Plutocrats and Oligarchs push their lackey, Joe Biden, on all of us.With Joe Biden in the Oval Office, the Globalists will then be able to move ahead once again with their agenda, and agenda that President Trump had cast aside, as he would not do their bidding. They will not abide further interruption of their goals: dismantling a free Republic, overriding the Nation’s Bill of Rights, overthrowing the sovereignty of the American people, subjugating the masses; subordinating the citizenry to their new dictates; and bending the citizenry to their will, that the U.S. might eventually be integrated into a one world political, social, cultural, and economic governmental scheme._________________________________________

TO COMPROMISE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS TO ENDANGER THE EXERCISE OF IT

PART TWO

Worse than thieves, murderers, or cannibals, those who offer compromise slow you and sap your vitality while pretending to be your friends. They are not your friends. Compromisers are the enemies of all humanity, the enemies of life itself. Compromisers are the enemies of everything important, sacred, and true. ~ L. Neil Smith, Libertarian, novelist, and non-fiction writer; from his political essay “Lever Action”Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles. ~Ayn Rand, writer and philosopher; from “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal”Biden, like all scheming Anti-Constitutionalist Anti-Second Amendment Neoliberal Transnationalist Globalist Collectivist Establishment politicians, is an obsequious, compliant stooge of the secretive Billionaire Globalist Corporatists. He duplicitously and hypocritically claims to support the Second Amendment, when he does not. He suggests that compelling Americans to compromise the exercise of their fundamental, primordial, immutable, unalienable right—such as forcing Americans to surrender their semiautomatic firearms, and confining ammunition magazine capacity—is fully consistent with his claim to support preservation of the elemental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Does he really expect the American public to believe him? To accept Biden’s incoherent nonsense is the height of absurdity. Does Biden hold the American citizenry in such low regard that he expects the citizenry to accept his deceitful lies as self-evident truths. Who is Biden really fooling, here?The word, ‘compromise,’ has two alternate, incompatible meanings. It can connote: a ‘settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions; namely ‘something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things;’ ‘an agreement between two sides who have different opinions, in which each side gives up something it had wanted.’ But, the word, can also connote, ‘a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial a compromise of one’s principles;’ namely, ‘to expose or make vulnerable to danger, suspicion, scandal, etc.; jeopardize: e.g., a military oversight that compromised the nation's defenses.’ Here is Barack Obama’s view of the word, ‘compromise’: “A good compromise, a good piece of legislation, is like a good sentence; or a good piece of music. Everybody can recognize it. They say, ‘huh. It works. It makes sense.’” From the New Yorker, May 31, 2004. Huh. It works. Makes sense? Asserting one’s support for the Second Amendment by simultaneously demanding concessions from those who wish to exercise the right is an odd way of asserting one’s devotion to a fundamental, unalienable, immutable and natural right.It is clear how Biden and, by extension, how all Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats use the word, ‘compromise,’ apropos of the Second Amendment. They suggest, deceitfully to the public, that they mean ‘negotiate’ “commonsense” restrictions on the exercise of the natural right. But, what they really mean, if only tacitly, is to eventually ‘prohibit’ exercise of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms.As reported by the Washington Examiner, on August 10, 2020:“Joe Biden is calling for a cultural shift around how the country thinks about gun ownership.‘The Second Amendment — no amendment is in fact absolute,’ Biden told the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund's Presidential Gun Sense Forum Saturday in Des Moines, Iowa. ‘Folks, don't apologize at all about the Second Amendment,’ Biden advised, explaining how the amendment allows for limitations on who can own a weapon and what type. ‘These guys will tell you, the tree of liberty is watered with the blood of patriots. Give me a break.’‘Can you go out and buy a flamethrower? Can you go out and buy an F-15?’ he added. “If you want to protect yourself against the federal government, you’re going to need at least an F-15.’”It defies belief that anyone, let alone a U.S. Presidential candidate, can, through his remarks, fall prey to such an abundance of fallacies—“red herrings,” “false analogies,” and “overgeneralizations,” to name but a few—or that a Presidential candidate could be so excruciatingly incoherent.Biden’s remarks amount to a mouthful of bland, flat, bald-faced lies and gross exaggerations, assuming one can decipher his remarks at all, as so many incoherent declarations emanate from him. Mostly, his remarks devolve into a series of rambling incoherent musings, inconsistencies, and mind-numbing disconcerting schizophasia—meaningless blather—all but impossible to unscramble, and apt to cause a migraine headache for anyone who tries.Listening to Biden yap, brings to mind the comedian Irwin Corey, the master of double-talk. The two would have made a fabulously successful comedy team in the fashion of Abbott and Costello, and the Smothers Brothers. Biden has missed his true calling.The sad and tragic thing is that Biden expects to be taken seriously. If he were a stand-up comic, it would be amusing to listen to him, all the more so since he tends to come across as patronizing—a nice touch were that a part of his comic skit. Biden must think that the failure of the public to understand him is due to the inability of most people to fully appreciate the intricacies of his genius; his mind a steel-trap; impossible for those of lesser intellect to fathom.The Washington Examiner had this to say about Biden, back in 2019:“Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic front-runner crowd, left some in the crowd at the Iowa State Fair mystified when he told them: ‘We choose truth over facts.'"Does Biden know what he is talking about? I don’t, and I would assume you don’t. And my guess is that Biden doesn’t know what he is talking about either.The words, ‘true’ and ‘false’ are referred to in logic as “Truth-bearers.” Truth-bearers aren’t facts, and facts aren't truth-bearers, but it is both wrong and incongruous to say a person chooses one over the other. And, Biden is correct, although unwittingly, when he implies that truth-bearers are not facts. But, that has nothing to do with the notion of choice. One doesn't choose truth over facts or facts over truth. That assertion is discordant. Logicians, mathematicians, and epistemologists do not conceive of facts and truth-bearers as incompatible things; as antinomies. Facts and Truth-Bearers,  are two distinct kinds of things, but the two do work in tandem. Logicians, mathematicians, and epistemologists know that the concepts, ‘truth’ and ‘falsity,’ are properties of propositional forms—not of  events, i.e., “facts.” Anyone who has taken an elementary course in symbolic logic learns that.And there are many different theories of truth. Under a typical theory, say, the correspondence theory, ‘truth’ does make use of ‘facts;’ better referred to as ‘events;’ or better yet, ‘states of affairs.’ A proposition is said to be ‘true’ if it corresponds with or mirrors a ‘fact,’ and a proposition is said to be ‘false’ if it doesn’t correspond to a fact. Thus, the proposition, ‘Joe Biden will become the 46th President of the United States,’ is said to be true, if the event, state of affairs, or “fact,” does comes to pass, i.e., corresponds with or mirrors the fact that Joe Biden does become President of the United States. And, the proposition is said to be false if the event, state of affairs or fact, does not come to pass. Whatever event happens to transpire, the event, (or state of affairs, or fact) is not itself, ‘true’ or ‘false;’ it simply is or is not the case. But the proposition or statement about the matter is the thing to which one properly utilizes the concept of truth, under the typical correspondence theory of truth. These critical points.Now, when Biden says that, “We choose truth over facts,” it may be Biden is enunciating or, at least, intimating a new, dramatic theory of truth. If there is anything to it, the impact on our understanding of logic, mathematics, epistemology and of any of the hard sciences—indeed, on the very notion of reality and ‘real things,’ impacting ontology, metaphysics, and information science—must be drastically revised; and Biden ought to be lecturing at M.I.T. or Cal Tech, and not wasting his talents on the campaign trail, yapping it up in front of we, the mere Hoi Polloi.The question of Biden’s mental acumen, for Americans, were he to become U.S. President, is no small matter. It is material and profound: Is Joe Biden a genius in disguise or an idiot? If the former, we should take notice. He may be a Godsend; or the Devil incarnate, heralding the End of Days, not only for Americans but for all of humanity. And, if he is a dolt, then the prospects for our Nation, our Constitution, and our people is no less horrifying, if he were to become U.S. President. In either event, evil genius or dullard, it says something, not particularly pleasant, about the Democrat Party that they would thrust Biden on all of us; that this is the Party’s best prospect for our Country; that he is the Great Hope they are banking on to defeat their nemesis, Donald Trump. But be not mistaken: Such horrors await us beyond imagining if Biden ekes out a win in 2020 and takes possession of the Oval Office. We will all be catapulted head over heels, into a Hellish realm. The Hellraiser Horror film franchise comes to mind.

LIKELY, BIDEN IS MORE BUFFOON AND HALF WIT THAN INTELLECTUAL MASTERMIND; BIDEN  DARES LECTURE THE PUBLIC ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The problem for Americans is that Biden, the presumptive U.S. Presidential nominee of the Democrat Party, can feasibly become U.S. President. That fact makes Biden less amusing, and more frightening. Among those who are markedly incompetent to serve as U.S. President, we find Joe Biden. But, if he were at least affable, we could laugh at this clown, rather than frown. Americans know when politicians come across as crass, insulting, and derisive. A person cannot effectively serve as the leader of the Nation if that person treats the general public as contemptible lowborn plebeians. That was a major failing of Hillary Clinton, among a litany of others. Something she could not hide. And, Biden’s low regard for the average American has also become clear. We saw Biden’s churlish behavior recently, during his exchange with a Detroit auto plant worker. “Fox News later interviewed the Detroit auto plant worker, Jerry Wayne, regarding what became “an apparent contentious argument with former Vice President Joe Biden about Biden’s position on gun rights.”Jerry Wayne chatted with Fox & Friends on Tuesday and said Biden ‘could have easily said “I’m not taking questions” and I would have very respectfully walked away. But he wanted to listen to my question and I don’t think that he was ready for it.’ Wayne also noted that he tried to ask Biden questions about how he was going to improve the situations of union workers like himself in the future.‘We bare arms and we like to do that. If he wants to give us work and take us [sic] guns, I don’t know how he will get the same vote,’ Wayne said. He also called it ‘disturbing’ when Fox & Friends asked for his reactions to a clip of Biden expressing his view that assault weapons should be confiscated.‘Were you surprised that you asked a simple question and Joe Biden just went off the deep end on you?’ Steve Doocy [host of Fox & Friends] asked.‘Yeah. I thought I was pretty articulate and respectful,’ said Wayne. ‘I didn’t try to raise any feathers. And he kind of went off the deep end. I saw he was digging a hole. I just kind of let him talk for a while to dig a hole.’”Politicians love to equivocate, and Biden is no exception. But equivocation is hardly a talent of these people. And they love to talk about the Constitution, even when it appears they lack an understanding of Constitutional law and especially lack an understanding of the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. That should prevent them from proselytizing to the American public about a matter they know very little if anything about. But, then, they lack humility as well—another disturbing and all too common failing among many politicians.You would think a politician would be perspicacious enough to refrain from lecturing the public about matters that a politician knows little if anything about; let alone legislate over it; but a politician doesn’t refrain from lecturing the public or from legislating in ways catastrophic to the well-being of the Nation.Politicians, especially those on the Radical Left and new Progressive Left of the political spectrum, proceed along their merry way, seemingly having not a care in the world, either oblivious to the fact, or, perhaps, all too mindful of it, that the actions they take as legislators, compromising the citizenry's most sacred rights and liberties, diminishes them as Americans, undermines the Constitution, and creates a hell for the rest of us to live in.Yet, there is no compromise (in the sense of negotiation), on a fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural right; nor can there be compromise. The word ‘compromise,’ here, denotes outright capitulation. That, of course, is what the Democrats want, and the Detroit autoworker, Jerry Wayne, was doing the public a favor in bringing to light the irrationality of Biden’s remarks on the Second Amendment. Biden obviously wasn’t able to respond effectively to the irrationality of his own position. How could he? His position is self-contradictory.One cannot claim rationally to support the Second Amendment, when one wishes to take steps to erase it. Biden may have realized the inconsistency inherent in his position on the Second Amendment when Jerry Wayne, the Detroit autoworker, had pointedly and demonstrably presented the inconsistency out to him. But, instead of admitting this, or otherwise doing what politicians are generally good at—disengaging and talking about something else when they do not wish to answer a question directly or cannot answer a pointed question directed to them—Biden lashed out, like a petulant child. This is a common failing of the Radical Left and Progressive Left elements of our society. They do not wish to debate; they would rather shout a person down. That is much easier for them.Sincerity was never Biden’s long suit; nor is controlling his anger. Biden’s obvious disinclination to engage the public, despite his efforts to demonstrate the contrary, comes across plainly and painfully. His rancor and deceit, irascibility and dissembling, along with an inability or lack of desire to even try to control his temper should not be lost on anyone.______________________________________________

HOW IS IT THAT BIDEN HAS  EMERGED, OVERNIGHT, AS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY’S FRONT RUNNER FOR U.S. PRESIDENT?

PART THREE

Joe Biden, the most mediocre candidate in a bloated field of mediocre Democrat Party candidates for U.S. President had, just a few short weeks ago, looked like his campaign was dead; that he would pass, like the rest of the field, into obscurity, leaving the “Democratic Socialist,” Bernie Sanders—who is a much better orator—as the de facto Party nominee for President, going into the Democrat Party Convention in July 2020. Such, apparently, is not meant to be.Instead, Joe Biden has mysteriously and miraculously become the frontrunner. James Clyburn (D-SC), “speaking to NPR on Tuesday night, Clyburn said, ‘I think when the night is over, Joe Biden will be the prohibitive favorite to win the Democratic nomination,’ adding, ‘If the night ends the way it has begun,’ then it's time to ‘shut this primary down,’ apparently meaning that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) should choose to cancel future debates.”This is most curious. The DNC, has, of course, manipulated the 2016 Primary to ensure Hillary Clinton would get the Party’s nomination to take on Trump, explaining then, as now, that Sanders is unelectable. It is obvious the DNC is doing the same thing now. The How and why is it that Biden has become the front runner?The seditious Press has weaved a fairy tale around this man. Consider the inescapable facts. Biden is politically inept. He is boring and stale. He is ordinary in demeanor. He is bereft of charm and charisma. He is devoid of character. He is an inveterate liar and clearly corrupt. He is spiteful and quick to anger. And, he lacks even rudimentary oratorical skills.One cannot choose but wonder how Biden has become the Democrats’ likely choice to represent our Country. But, on reflection, the reason manifests.Joe Biden can be and would be controlled by the Globalist Establishment. Biden knows this, accepts this, probably even relishes this, as it saves him from actually doing the duties of a U.S. President: namely, setting the foreign and domestic policy objectives for the Nation. The other candidate, Bernie Sanders—still in the race but losing momentum with each passing day—would not accept control by the Globalist Establishment. And, of course, U.S. President Donald Trump isn’t subject to control by the Globalist Establishment either, which is one solid reason why Americans elected him to Office in the first place. This rankles the Globalist Establishment to no end and explains the intensity and virulence of the attack on Trump, never before seen in our Nation’s history.It is odd to see the Establishment Press at once lauding foreign European EU leaders and excoriating Trump. If the Press doesn’t like Trump, you would think that it would at least respect the Office. But, then, the seditious Establishment Press doesn’t respect the Office either. It, too, owes its allegiance not to this Nation and its Constitution, but to foreign masters that have an agenda that calls for something else entirely: the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic and the shredding of our Constitution.The mainstream Establishment Press and the Global Neoliberal Establishment Collectivist elites’ have no desire to preserve a free Constitutional Republic, but, rather, seek to establish a new framework for our Nation, where the institutions, our culture, the rights and liberties of the Nation exist merely in form; hollowed out. Our Nation is to be inextricably linked to and entwined securely with the EU, losing its sovereignty and independence. The majority of Americans intuit this. They don’t want it. Trump doesn’t either. Americans elected Trump for a very specific purpose: to move our Nation back to its roots: as an independent sovereign Nation, unbeholden to and taking orders from no other transnational oligarchic power center. Our laws are to remain supreme; our rights and liberties strengthened; our history left intact. Biden would be a false leader, delegating policy and decision-making functions to the “Establishment” bosses: the secretive, powerful insider Globalists and their Bureaucratic underlings that demand to pull the strings. Our Nation would backslide into the path Bill Clinton, the Bushes, and Barack Obama had obediently set for us: destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, and the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic. If one can forgive Biden’s multiple personal failings, still, one cannot and must not forgive Biden’s policy prescriptions for our Country.It is on this score Biden and every other Democrat nominee for U.S. President fails, and fails miserably, since none of them would truly defend the U.S. Constitution. Not one of them accepts the fact that the sovereignty of the Nation rests—must rest—on the American people, not Government. None of these candidates can or should seriously be considered a political moderate since not one of them accepts our Bill of Rights for what it truly is: a codification of fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural rights. And, since any one of these candidates, if elected President, would place more and more restrictions on the sacred, inviolate right of the people to keep and bear arms—a necessary condition upon which both a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people over Government rests—none of them merits serious consideration as President of the United States. The expression, political ‘Radical,’ more accurately describes each of them; not the word, ‘moderate,’ nor even the word, ‘liberal.’If Biden stands by this record, attacking the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and if, as is clear from his boastful remarks, he is truly proud of his record, you would think he would at least have the courtesy and common human decency to address the concerns of those Americans who might disagree with him and that he would do so in a calm, respectful, non-caustic, non-sanctimonious manner. After all, the right of the American citizen to own and possess firearms is a natural, God-given right that exists intrinsically in man. It isn’t a right bestowed on man by Government.What Government cannot bestow on man Government cannot lawfully deny to or rend from man. If Biden wishes to trample on a God-given right, one would hope, indeed expect, that Biden would spend a little time, at least, setting out his arguments in support of curtailing a right the framers of the Constitution felt important enough to include in the Constitution; and which has stood the test of time for well over 200 years. Yet, Biden cannot, apparently, be troubled with Americans who disagree with him. Of course, it may just be that Biden becomes visibly upset because he doesn’t have an answer for anyone who disagrees with him. He becomes flustered and attempts to cover up his discomposure and agitation with anger and resentment.

BIDEN’S CHARACTER FLAWS ARE SEEN IN ALL RADICAL LEFTISTS

Biden exhibits a disturbing character flaw common to all Anti-Constitutional Radical Left Collectivists. He is so smugly confident of the truth of his political, social, and ethical position that he feels it beneath his dignity to have to support his beliefs with cogent argument. If one persists in demanding a cogent, coherent, response, he becomes angry. Sometimes he rages. Recall his bizarre antics in Iowa, as reported in the Daily News.

Joe Biden angrily confronted a voter at an Iowa town hall who asked about the Ukraine scandal involving his son — and whether he is too old to take on President Trump.

When the voter questioned if Biden was “selling access” by letting Hunter Biden take a position on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma, Biden appeared to lose his cool.

“You’re a damn liar, man. That’s not true,” Biden said, walking up towards the man at the town hall in New Hampton.

The tense face-off came as Biden continues his “No Malarkey” bus tour of rural Iowa. Although Biden remains the Democratic front-runner in national polls, he is struggling mightily in the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

Biden forcefully told the man he was physically and mentally ready to face off against Trump.“Let’s do push-ups together, man. Let’s do whatever you want to do,” Biden said. “Let’s take an IQ (test).”Biden is of a kind with these peculiar people on the Radical Left of politics. He cannot be and will not be bothered with anyone who happens to disagree with him. He loses patience. He becomes spiteful, testy, indignant, even belligerent.Biden, as U.S. President, would only be required to maintain composure. But, from what we have seen of him to date, even that would be a difficult task for Biden.There is a takeaway from Biden’s apparent inability to effectively and successfully cope with criticism. From an emotional standpoint Biden obviously isn’t adept at responding honestly to or otherwise parrying tough questions, or abrasive comments. Instead Biden lashes out, like a petulant child. This suggests Biden lacks the will power to handle his emotions. This also suggests that Biden lacks the sharp mental acuity, capacity, and quick wit to proffer effective responses that one expects from a nation’s leader.If Joe Biden does become the presumptive 2020 Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, each American should honestly consider and ask him or herself this question:Is this truly a man whom you would wish to elect President of the United States, to place your faith in to effectively lead this powerful Nation and to protect it against all enemies, foreign and domestic? If your answer is “yes, then, are you willing to surrender your Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms along with your other natural God-given rights?___________________________________________________________

A CONSTITUTIONAL FREE REPUBLIC CANNOT LONG EXIST IN THE ABSENCE OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY TO DEFEND IT AND BIDEN HAS NO WISH TO PRESERVE THE NATION'S ARMED CITIZENRY

PART FOUR

“No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.” ~Matthew 6, King James VersionJoe Biden is the Establishment Democrats’ choice for U.S. President. The American people should have no illusion about that or about what that means and whom it would be that Biden would serve were he to become U.S. President. Biden pays homage to the inordinately wealthy, highly secretive, abjectly ruthless, extremely powerful and well-organized Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment “Elite-Elect.” That was true when Biden served as Barack Obama’s Vice President. Neither Biden nor Obama has truly defended the U.S. Constitution; and neither has served the interests of this Nation and its people. Both Biden and Obama have served foreign masters and a foreign Globalist agenda. And Biden would continue to do so were he to become U.S. President. Biden would never truly defend the U.S. Constitution; nor would he serve the best interests of this Nation; nor would he serve the best interests of the American people. He cannot serve two masters: Either the Nation and its Constitution or the Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment Elite-Elect: one or the other but not both.Consider Biden’s quick rise to front runner status among the Democrat Party contenders for U.S. President. Biden’s campaign was essentially dead. He had little funds and his campaign organization was in disarray. Yet, in the span of a few weeks, everyone but Bernie Sanders has dropped out of the race. What might explain this odd and extraordinarily rapid turnabout? How has Biden won so many States with a campaign in shambles? Who is behind Biden’s meteoric rise? We can reasonably infer the Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment “Elite-Elect” is supporting Biden from the shadows. He knows that. So, whatever he tells the American public, the fact remains Biden owes allegiance to Americans' adversary: those that seek to undermine the Republic and to destroy the Constitution.Biden would be a false leader, delegating policy and decision-making functions to the “Establishment” bosses: the secretive, powerful insider Globalists, the Establishment Collectivist Elite-Elect Globalists, along with their Bureaucratic underlings that demand to pull the strings and that would pull the strings.Our Nation would backslide into the path Bill Clinton, the Bushes, and Barack Obama had obediently set for us:destruction of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, and the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic. Biden would not make policy. Rather, he would dutifully carry out policy as dictated to him by the Oligarchic Elite-Elect, the Shadow Government that pulls the strings behind the scenes, taking his orders dutifully from them, kowtowing to their dictates, allowing the bloated to the  federal Bureaucracy, that, itself takes its orders from the Elite-Elect, to set and implement domestic and foreign policy: the secretive wielders of financial and corporate power. Biden would exist as a mere puppet, a figurehead, a standard-bearer for the Elite-Elect.And, can we forget that Biden even mentioned that he would only serve one term? What Candidate would make such a statement. If he had a policy agenda for the public would he not seek eight years to fulfill it? No President has ever made such a statement or intimated as much. Even the Left-Wing Politico has admitted that Biden claims to step down even before he has been elected to one term in Office. If so, why campaign at all for even one term? What would motivate a man to merely run for one term in Office? If he his not prepared to serve two terms because he might think himself incapable of doing so, why should the public feel Biden is physically or, for that matter, mentally equipped to serve even one term? This must have befuddled the Leftist website Politico that reported it:“Former Vice President Joe Biden’s top advisers and prominent Democrats outside the Biden campaign have recently revived a long-running debate whether Biden should publicly pledge to serve only one term, with Biden himself signaling to aides that he would serve only a single term.While the option of making a public pledge remains available, Biden has for now settled on an alternative strategy: quietly indicating that he will almost certainly not run for a second term while declining to make a promise that he and his advisers fear could turn him into a lame duck and sap him of his political capital.According to four people who regularly talk to Biden, all of whom asked for anonymity to discuss internal campaign matters, it is virtually inconceivable that he will run for reelection in 2024, when he would be the first octogenarian president.”Sanders would be an octogenarian, too, but he, certainly, hasn’t signaled a desire to step down after a first term in Office. It seems that Biden’s heart isn’t in this job. So, why run at all?And, then, we must consider Biden’s policy prescriptions.If one can forgive Biden’s multiple personal failings, still, one cannot and must not forgive Biden’s his policy prescriptions for our Country.It is on his policy prescriptions that Biden, and every other Democrat nominee for U.S. President, fails this Country and its people, and fails miserably, since neither Biden nor any of these also-ran nominees would truly defend the U.S. Constitution. Not one of them accepts the fact that the sovereignty of the Nation rests—must rest—on the American people, not Government. None of these candidates, then, can or should seriously be considered a political moderate.A couple of synonyms for ‘moderate’ are, one, ‘conservative’ and, two, ‘reasonable.’ There is nothing about these Democrats that is either conservative qua reasonable in their political outlook. Each of them desires, indeed demands, radical change to our free Constitutional Republic.Not one of these candidates, it is abundantly clear, accepts our Bill of Rights as a codification of fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural rights. Rather, each of them holds an extreme view of the very meaning of our basis rights, suggesting they are man-made constructs and therefore can be modified, ignored, or abrogated.Each, if given the chance, would work toward containing and constraining the Right of Free Speech radically, and erasing the right of the people to keep and bear arms, entirely. And they have shown a penchant for rewriting the Articles of the Constitution.The first order of business for any of them, were any one of them to be elected to the Office of Chief Executive of the Nation, would be to place more and more restrictions on the sacred, inviolate right of the people to keep and bear arms. How harmful that action would be to the preservation of a free Republic is apparent when one recognizes that the Second Amendment is a necessary condition upon which both a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people over Government rests. But these Democrats would make the exercise of this sacred Right extremely difficult, and eventually impossible. None of these people ever merited consideration as President of the United States. The expression, political ‘Radical,’ more accurately describes each of them; not the word, ‘moderate,’ nor even the word, ‘liberal.’As reported by the National Review: “Here’s Joe’s combination of fantasy, braggadocio, and rodomontade on guns:‘We increased that background check when — when — during the Obama-Biden administration. I’m also the only guy that got assault weapons banned, banned, and the number of clips in a gun banned. And so, folks, look, and I would buy back those weapons. We already started talking about that. We tried to get it done. I think it can be done. And it should be demanded that we do it, and that’s a good expenditure of money. And lastly, we should have smart guns. No gun should be able to be sold unless your biometric measure could pull that trigger.’” Really? The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about smart guns. Back in 2016, we explained in detail why smart guns are not a smart idea.As with Barack Obama and the Clintons and, yes, the Bushes, Joe Biden doesn’t want to take away everyone’s firearms. He merely wants to take away the firearms of some Americans’ firearms. He wants to take away YOUR firearms; those of the Hoi Polloi, those whom these Globalist Neoliberal Establishment Collectivists consider the Preterite of American society; those firearms belonging to tens of millions of average  rational, responsible, law-abiding Americans. Biden doesn’t want or expect the especial, wealthy, powerful, Elite-Elect of society to surrender their firearms or surrender those firearms of their personal bodyguards.If Biden—the presumptive Democrat Party nominee—stands by his pronouncements and his record, attacking the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and if, as is clear from his boastful remarks, he is truly proud of his record, you would think he would at least have the courtesy and common human decency to address the concerns of those Americans who might disagree with him and that he would do so in a calm, respectful, non-caustic, non-sanctimonious manner. After all, the right of the American citizen to own and possess firearms is a natural, God-given right that exists intrinsically in man. It isn’t a right bestowed on man by Government.What Government cannot bestow on man Government cannot lawfully deny to or sever from man. If Biden wishes to trample on a God-given right, one would hope, indeed expect, that Biden would spend a little time, at least, setting out his arguments in support of curtailing a right that the framers of the Constitution felt important enough to include in the Constitution; and which has stood the test of time for well over 200 years. Yet, Biden cannot, apparently, be troubled with Americans who disagree with him.__________________________________

JOE BIDEN, THE POLITICAL “MODERATE,”  THROWS TEMPER TANTRUM WHEN QUESTIONED ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART FIVE

WHAT IS THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION, ‘POLITICAL MODERATE?’

The seditious mainstream media refers to the former Obama Vice President, Joe Biden—the increasingly likely Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, to take on President Trump—as a political “moderate.” But, is he? Is Biden really a political moderate?  The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines the noun form of the word, ‘moderate,’ as ‘not violent, severe, or intense.’ As applied to politics, the Dictionary defines, ‘moderate,’ as ‘professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme.’ As an adjective, the word, ‘moderate’ means, ‘avoiding extremes of behavior or expression: observing reasonable limits.’ When used either as an adjective or noun, the word, ‘moderate,’ as applied to Biden, is a misnomer because one thing Joe Biden is not is “moderate.” Intemperate both in his public discourse and in his policy statements, Biden is anything but moderate.If Biden isn’t able to control his anger when an American citizen politely, if firmly, questions him on policy, how will Biden control that anger when goaded by professional journalists if he were to become President? Granted, he would never be disrespectfully, unceasingly hounded by the Press as the Press hounds Trump, as Biden and the seditious Press kowtow to the same Globalist elites. Biden is their man; their shill; their toady, and they would go easy on him. But he would still be subject to criticism, now and then, and he should expect that, and he should be able to respond effectively to criticism, when it occurs, without losing control of his emotions.If subject to a hot temper, a politician must learn to control that temper. Biden obviously cannot. Imagine, as a thought experiment, the Press hounding a “President” Joe Biden as that same Press has viciously, vilely, unceasingly hounded President Donald Trump. That would never happen of course; but Biden would still have to deal with day-to-day pressures unlike that of any other person.Would Biden be able to handle pressure? Trump has shown he can. In fact, Trump thrives under constant pressure. He has to. He has never crumpled, and that rankles the Establishment Press even more. But would Biden be able to control pressure? Based on his campaign performances to date, the answer is a definitive, “no, he would not; could not.” Biden would rapidly fall apart. But, then, the Bureaucratic Deep State would cover for him. They would be developing policy and implementing policy. Biden would merely be signing off on that policy. During the impeachment trial of Trump, this fact came out. Democrats argue that the Federal Bureaucracy develops the Nation's policy, and that the U.S. President must be mindful of that and treat the Federal Bureaucracy, the Deep State, with deference. Of course, that idea turns Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution on its head, for the Constitution says something much differently. There is only one policy maker, and it isn't the Federal Bureaucracy. It's the U.S. President. Biden, as U.S. President would delegate that policy making responsibility to the Federal Bureaucracy. But, there's the rub. The Policy Making duties of the U.S. President cannot be lawfully delegated. It is a core function of the U.S. President.To delegate a core function of the U.S. Presidency would be not only to discredit the Office of the U.S. President but it would amount to the emasculation of the Executive Branch of Government. In the Biden Presidency, Biden would be a mere figurehead. That wouldn't bother Biden. It should bother him, but it wouldn't. That would be his job as the lackey of  the Neoliberal Corporatist Globalist Collectivist Establishment “Elite-Elect”  and of the Elite-Elect's servants, the Federal Deep State Bureaucracy. But, even as a mere figurehead, Biden would still be the face of the Nation. Imagine that, if you will.Apart from Biden’s abjectly poor emotional demeanor, the use of ‘moderate’ as a political descriptor for Biden is patently absurd, as exemplified by his position on a fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural right.Granted, expressions such as ‘moderate,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘radical,’ ‘centrist’ ‘conservative,’ and the like, as applied, inter alia, to political belief systems and policy positions are inherently vague if considered in a vacuum, nonetheless these terms do have explanatory value when comparisons are made between two or more political belief systems or policy.For example, one might conceivably infer Joe Biden to be a political moderate if one compares Biden’s political beliefs and policies to someone like Vladimir Lenin or Joseph Stalin, notwithstanding that application of Biden’s political policy prescriptions, if actualized in the U.S., would move our Nation toward a totalitarian political and social system and, so, must be rejected out-of-hand if Americans truly wish to preserve the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic.Words such as ‘moderate,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘radical,’ ‘centrist’ ‘conservative,’ when used in a political context, must, then, be construed relative to a particular system of governance and relative to specific policy prescriptions if they are to have any real meaning.One must look to the political and social and economic belief systems of a person and to one’s policy prescriptions as applied to our present system of governance and, more to the point, as applied to our system of governance relative to the citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties, if any sense is to be made for calling a person a political moderate, or a political liberal, or a political radical, or a political conservative or, any political whatever.In the context of our own system of governance and when compared to Biden’s policy prescriptions pertaining to the Bill of Rights, Joe Biden is definitely not a political moderate.The use of the expression, ‘political moderate,’ for Joe Biden by the mainstream media, tells the American public more about the desire of that media to intentionally confound the public than to accurately inform the public about where a politician’s belief system and policy prescriptions accurately stand, on the political spectrum.Americans should not be duped by short descriptors the mainstream media uses to typecast politicians. Those are often merely a blind. Rather, Americans should look to a politician’s policy prescriptions. Most importantly, Americans should pay particular attention to a politician’s stance on the Bill of Rights, especially the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is a simple a foolproof test of a politician’s loyalty and fealty to Nation, Constitution, and People.If a politician does not accept as an absolute, the idea of an armed citizenry, upon which the sovereignty of the American people necessarily depends, through which a free Constitutional Republic is preserved, then that politician does not and cannot serve the best interests of this Nation; nor does that politician serve the best interests of the Constitution; nor does that politician serve the best interests of the American people. Such a person is Joe Biden. He does not and cannot serve the best interests of Americans. Bereft of ability, intelligence, candor, integrity, moral courage, and antithetical to the very concept of an armed citizenry though which, and only through which our Nation can continue to exist as a free Constitutional Republic, this man, Joe Biden, owes loyalty only to his wealthy benefactors, the Oligarchic, Globalist, Elite-Elect. And, this wealthy, powerful, ruthless, and secretive Shadow Government has no regard for the American citizenry, whose power it envies, and in whom it sees only as a pathogen, dangerous to the world-wide schema they seek to implement.One of the first orders of business, if not THE first order of business for Biden, at the behest of his masters, will be to constrain the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. Look to see a number of executive orders emanating from his Office were he to become the 46^th U.S. President. Indeed, it would not be surprising to see Biden, at the behest of his masters, declaring a National Emergency, warranting imposition of Martial Law, banning civilian ownership and possession of weapons. When the Shadow Government can emerge from the Shadows, no longer afraid to admit to the American public that the public was right all along in having inferred such a creature was lurking behind the curtain of open Government, and that Shadow Government now becomes the Open Government, as it would have no reason, any longer, to lurk in the shadows. The public would witness a new Order, a new Reality, taking shape before its very eyes, and it would have absolutely no say in the matter.____________________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER: EVIL CARETAKER OF GOVERNMENT ATTACKS JUSTICES GORSUCH AND KAVANAUGH

PART ONE

“I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. “You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions. We will tell President Trump and Senate Republicans who have stacked the court with right-wing ideologues that you’re gonna be gone in November, and you will never be able to do what you’re trying to do now ever, ever again!” Schumer, speaking at a pro-Abortion rally run by the “Center for Reproductive Rights”Senate Democrat Party Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s recent threat directed to two U.S. Supreme Court Justices—Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, both Trump nominees—is outrageous, shameful, reprehensible, and unforgivable, surely; and it deserves our Nation’s condemnation, of course. But there is something in Chuck Schumer’s actions more disconcerting and alarming than the rant itself: something below the surface that is both telling and dire.  Consider where Senator Schumer delivered his rant: Note, it wasn’t delivered to his fellow Senators in the U.S. Senate Chamber. He delivered his rant on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court in front of a crowd of angry pro-abortion demonstrators, during oral hearing on a Louisiana abortion case.*Schumer’s choice of forum was no accident. Schumer, has consciously, presumptuously, arrogantly, and inexcusably attacked the very fabric of the Nation itself: the U.S. Constitution. He has also shown visible contempt and disdain for the Nation, for the Constitution, and for the American people.He has disgraced himself and the Chamber of Congress he represents, the U.S. Senate, even as he, quite apparently, seems oblivious to this. Schumer has also denigrated the memory of our Nation’s founders and he has maligned the memory of all Americans who have served our Nation in battle and who have sacrificed their lives to preserve a free Republic. This man is beyond redemption.Instead of using his stature as a U.S. Senator to reduce anger and tension, Schumer ramped it up; and he did his rabble rousing in front of a sympathetic Press, for maximum effect. Schumer knew exactly what he was doing. It is nothing new. We have seen this before, and often. Creating divisiveness among the populace and fomenting violence comes straight out of the Radical Left’s playbook.The Democrats’ end goal is clear: take down a duly elected President; rewrite the U.S. Constitution; destroy an independent, free Republic; break the will of the American people by controlling thought and action; and deny to the American people their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, that tyranny of Government may be prevented and the sovereignty of the American people may be maintained.

A TUTORIAL IN GOVERNMENT FOR THE SENATE MINORITY LEADER, CHUCK SCHUMER

LISTEN UP CHUCK!———

Our Nation, Chuck, isn’t a Parliamentary Democracy with Monarch; it is a free Constitutional Republic, sans Monarch. The two systems are completely different.The integrity of our Nation’s free Republic is grounded in and maintained through the U.S. Constitution. Our Constitution, Chuck, comprises four salient, inextricably linked components.The first component, the Preamble, sets forth the general purpose of the Constitution.The Second component, the Articles, establishes the nature of, parameters of, and operation of Government. The first three Articles define the respective and limited powers of three co-equal and independent Branches of Government, Chuck.Article One establishes Congress, the Legislature. Article Two establishes the Executive, the U.S. President. Article Three establishes the U.S. Supreme Court, the Judiciary. The third component, the Bill of Rights, is a codification of fundamental, elemental, immutable, unalienable, natural law. The Bill of Rights establishes the sovereignty of the American people over Government. Contrary to some speculation, these Ten Amendments cannot be modified, repealed, or ignored, even theoretically. Since natural law isn’t created by man; man cannot change, abrogate or dismiss natural law. And, apart from law, as a matter of logic, our Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic, in which Government is subordinated to the people, would cease to exist were the Bill of Rights to be dismissed or ignored. The Nation's Bill of Rights is absolutely essential to the existence of and maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic.The fourth component of our Constitution comprises a series of additional Amendments that were ratified subsequent to ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791. These additional Amendments serve to change certain regulatory features of the Articles; to clarify the relationship between the people and the States, as in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment; to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction, “except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted;” and to clarify voting rights in the Nation.

CHUCK: YOU APPARENTLY THINK A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS EQUIVALENT TO A PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY; IT ISN’T!

This may be news to you, Chuck, but, in the U.S., unlike the UK, no Branch of our Federal Government takes its orders from any other. Yet, you presume to tell the high Court how it is to decide cases. Your remarks amount to an imperative that the U.S. Supreme Court—the Third Branch of the Federal Government—is expected to take its marching orders from the Legislative Branch. The idea is not only false, and ridiculous, and impertinent; it is repugnant and dangerous.Apart from your intimidation of two U.S. Supreme Court Justices, and apart from your incitement to violence—as you have made your remarks in front of an angry mob—you have denigrated the doctrine of separation of powers among each Branch, and you have deprecated the importance of our system of checks and balances among the Branches. You are laying the foundation for a Legislative Branch power grab and urging infighting among the Three Branches of Government. Your remarks do nothing but weaken the integrity of our Three Branch system of Government. Whether through callous disregard of the impact of your actions, diabolical planning to disrupt the operations of Government, or simple, inherent, irreverent stupidity, you have harmed our Nation, perceiving it to be something it is not and ought not to be. Our Government isn’t modeled after that of the United Kingdom and was never meant to be.The United Kingdom, unlike the United States, is a parliamentary democracy, it isn’t a free Constitutional Republic. In fact, the UK doesn’t even have a Constitution. “The UK Parliament is a ‘sovereign parliament’ – this means that the legislative body has ‘absolute sovereignty’, in other words it is supreme to all other government institutions, including any executive or judicial bodies. This stems from there being no single written constitution, and contrasts with notions of judicial review, where, if the legislature passes a law that infringes on any of the basic rights that people enjoy under their (written) constitution, it is possible for the courts to overturn it. In the UK, it is still Parliament (and not the judges) that decides what the law is. Judges interpret the law, but they do not make the law.” See, the website, Law TeacherIn the UK, Chuck, you would have the authority to tell the judges what the law is. But, in the U.S., Chuck, you have no such authority to tell our U.S. Supreme Court what the law is. That is the sole duty of the high Court, as made clear in Article Three of our Constitution, and in an early seminal U.S. Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).And, yes, Chuck, sometimes the decisions of the Justices are unpopular to some people.** But it is the duty of the high Court to defend the Constitution as written.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a natural right, codified in the Constitution. If there were any doubt about that, the seminal Second Amendment cases, Heller and McDonald, make that clear, even if you, Chuck, and other Radical Leftists, do not agree with the decisions of the Court and detest the idea and incontestable fact that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Contrariwise, there is nothing in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution to even suggest that murdering an unborn child is a fundamental, natural, unalienable right.You and your ilk, Chuck, have an odd predilection for denying the existence of fundamental rights etched in stone in our Constitution, when you happen to find such rights distasteful to your sensibilities; and, curiously, you harbor no reticence in creating “new fundamental” rights out of whole cloth where none exists in the U.S. Constitution.But, neither you, nor New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, nor any other person has the authority to rewrite the Constitution to cohere to personal philosophical quirks.Asserting a fundamental right to murder an unborn child does not make it so. And to coerce the U.S. Supreme Court to create a work of fiction out of the Constitution is crass, presumptuous, foolhardy, and even demented. See Arbalest Quarrel article, published on September 27, 2019, titled, "What Does Abortion Have To Do With Gun Control: Nothing? Perhaps Everything!"You pompously declare: “My point was that there would be political consequences for POTUS and Senate GOP if their newly appointed justices stripped a woman's right to choose. We have an obligation to the women of America to fight for their constitutional right to choose.” See quotation from NewsmaxYou have personal thoughts concerning abortion, Chuck. Fine. We get it! So, then, write an Op-Ed for The New York Times or the Washington Post or some other Radical Left rag. If you prefer, pontificate to the American people on the Floor of the Senate or remonstrate loudly on CNN or MSNBC. But, do not purport to tell a co-equal Branch of Government what the law is when it is the duty of the Court, not you, not the Legislature to say what the law is. It is not up to you to thrust your personal annoyances onto the U.S. Supreme Court. And, yes, Chuck, the Justices have an obligation too, no less than the Legislature to operate in accordance with the strictures of the Constitution. You must operate within your province, Chuck, and you must let the high Court operate within its province.What you and the wild new wave Radical Left and new Progressive Left want to accomplish is the very thing that the founders sought to prevent: the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic. Political activism has no place on the U.S. Supreme Court.*** Your inept attempt to explain your actions doesn’t absolve you of your sin against the Nation and the American people. Instead, you only dig a deeper hole for yourself.Our Judiciary must show modesty even as you, Chuck, and most members of your Party, never demonstrate modesty, and have no desire to do so. Yet, if you wish to play the Fool, Chuck, then have at it. But, henceforth, please refrain from playing the Court Jester in front of the Nation’s high Court. _______________________________________________________

PART TWO

AMERICANS MUST NOT LET SCHUMER OFF THE HOOK: MUCH IS AT STAKE FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR NATION

Justice Roberts properly chastised the Senate Minority leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY). And Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has introduced a Motion to censure Schumer. But you should make yourself heard as well. We urge you to call members of your Congressional Delegation. Tell them to take firm action against Schumer, as he has disgraced the Nation. The phone number is:  202/ 224-3121. That number will connect you to the switchboard operator in the Capitol Building, who will patch you through to your Congressional Representatives and U.S. Senators.

THE ENTIRE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS “UNHINGED.”

Representative Steve Scalise (R-LA) had a point when he said the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi is “unhinged,” after she made an absurd and reprehensible show of ripping up the printout of President Trump’s State of the Union Address. But it isn’t Pelosi, alone, who is unhinged. The Radical Left and the so-called Establishment itself is unhinged.Very few people expected Trump to prevail over Hillary Clinton. But prevail over Clinton, he did. Donald Trump, not Hillary Clinton, is sitting in the White House because the American people realized that our free Constitutional Republic was being eroded. The American people elected Trump to be our 45^th President to set our Nation back on course to preserve our Republic, in accordance with the blueprint established for our Nation, as created by the Nation’s founders: the U.S. Constitution. But there are forces at work in the world that will have none of that; want none of that.There are forces at work that seek to crush our Nation and its people into submission. These forces are massive and formidable. They comprise the Radical Left in Congress; the bloated Bureaucratic Deep State; the seditious Mainstream Media; much of the academia; various powerful and inordinately wealthy business and financial neoliberal Globalist interests; and Radical Left and New Progressive elements in local and State Governments and among the polity. Since the early 1990s, through the Administrations of Bill Clinton, two Bushes, and Barack Obama, our Nation has set the wrong trajectory. They have taken measures slowly, quietly, and inexorably to destroy a free Republic and sovereign independent Nation-State. These anti-American Presidents have joined forces with Globalist elements both here and abroad to create a one-world Government; to merge the U.S. into the EU, as they seek the establishment of a “New World Order.” The election of Hillary Clinton would have continued that process. The American people sensed this. They didn’t want it. They threw a wrench into the Globalist Collectivists’ plan through election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency, not Clinton. And, ever since, the Globalist Collectivists threw the weight of their resources to dislodge Trump, trying to convince the American public that this is a good thing to do, the right and moral and proper thing to do.These ignoble, ruthless Globalist Collectivist forces couch their goal in terms of a “moral” duty to unseat—as they falsely assert—an “illegitimate” President. And they suggest this is necessary to serve the best interests of the American people. But that is a blatant lie. The real objective of these vile, loathsome, duplicitous forces is not the salvation of the American people, but the subjugation of the American people and that entails destruction of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic.The imbecilic Mueller investigation was the first assault against our Nation, our Constitution, and our people. It failed. The ludicrous impeachment inquiry and Senate trial to remove Trump from Office, was the second assault, and that, too, failed. The Ukraine nonsense was the third assault against our Nation, our Constitution, and our people, and that failed, as well.The only weapon left in the arsenal of these massive, formidable forces that are orchestrating our downfall is the upcoming U.S. Presidential Election. But, these forces have doubts about the outcome. They cannot trust the American people to do the right thing, and elect a “Democrat,” as the corrupt, loathsome Congressman, Adam Schiff, admitted, during the Senate trial to remove President Trump; hence, the desire to prevent the American people from exercising their Constitutional right to select the President to lead this Nation. Schiff claims to to support a "fair" election. But, he wants anything but that, were the American people to cast their ballot for Trump. For these Radical Leftists—Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, and the rest of the sorry lot in the House and Senate—'fairness' equates with 'results consistent with the Radical Left agenda.'Evidence of the ultimate weakness inherent in—along with the corruption, bankruptcy and emerging madness of the forces that seek to destroy this Nation—is seen in the Democrat’s remaining choices as potential nominees to take on Trump: one, an aging, crusty, angry Marxist, Bernie Sanders, who fashions himself as a “Democratic Socialist” (whatever that means); and, two, an aging, corrupt, so-called “Moderate,” Joe Biden, one-time VP who is showing unmistakable signs of incipient dementia.The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” know they can control the doddering old fool, Biden, but not the old Marxist, Sanders. The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” want to establish a unified one-world political, social, and economic governmental scheme overseen by them: the corporate and financial oligarchs, presided over by the Rothschild clan. They do not envision a unified one-world political, social, and economic governmental scheme beholden to the proletariat masses. But neither scenario is acceptable to Americans who wish to preserve the Nation in the form the founders of our Republic bequeathed to us.Election of Trump to a second four-year term will secure the continuation of our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic. With continued Republican control of the U.S. Senate, Trump will almost certainly be able to secure at least one and possibly two more confirmations to the U.S. Supreme Court. And, Trump will certainly nominate individuals to the high Court who would preserve the U.S. Constitution as conceived by the framers of it; as written; using the jurisprudential methodologies of textualism and originalism, championed by the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia.Use of the methodologies of textualism and originalism in Constitutional case analysis serves to preserve our Nation’s Bill of Rights as fundamental, unalienable, immutable, natural law. Thus, the American people will enjoy, inter alia, the continuation of free, uncensored speech. Most importantly, the continued presence of an armed citizenry will guarantee both the sovereignty of the American people and preservation of our Country as a free independent, Constitutional Republic. That prospect makes both Globalist Marxist Collectivists and Globalist Neoliberal “Establishment” Plutocrat Collectivists apoplectic with fear and rage._____________________________________________________* June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, the justices consider whether Louisiana’s law requiring abortion doctors have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals conflicts with the court’s decision just four years ago in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt striking down a similar law in Texas. There is also the cross-petition from Louisiana about whether abortion providers have third-party standing to challenge health and safety regulations on behalf of their patients.  June Med. Servs. L.L.C. v. Russo, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 905, | __ S.Ct. __ | 2020 WL 871679; February 24, 2020, Decided; No. 18-1323._____________________________________________** “Since judges must sometimes make unpopular decisions, their power depends greatly on their sense of public legitimacy. And of course, they should be accountable in the public arena. But when public figures—especially legislators who have the power to weaken our courts—cross the line from ordinary criticism to destructive and misleading attacks on the very work of the courts, they send a signal to the public that the judiciary's work is not to be respected.” BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION AND ATTACKS ON THE COURTS, 37  The Brief 66, by Bert Brandenburg"Bert Brandenburg is a writer for the Justice at Stake Campaign. He would like to acknowledge Maneesh Sharma and Jesse Rutledge for their help in researching and reviewing this article. This article was originally published in 2004 by the Justice at Stake Organization to provide background for reporters on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark school desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education. It is reprinted with permission from a Justice at Stake Reporters Guide published in 2004."See Stake Organization "Justice at Stake, founded in 2000, was a nonpartisan organization dedicated to securing fair and impartial courts, by educating the public about the role of the courts, and advocating for reforms protect courts from politics and special interest influences. After 16 years as a leader in the fair courts field, in 2017, Justice at Stake closed its doors. This page preserves some of Justice at Stake's resource pages, reports, and videos."_______________________________________________*** “I think his [John Roberts'] idea that judges should show modesty and be faithful to the Constitution, his expression that the greatest threat to the Court could be judicial activism, where the people feel the judges are not faithful to the Constitution and are imposing their political views on the people that are not required by the Constitution, that this is a threat to the rule of law because at some point in the future the Court may have to call on the American people to do things they do not want to do, they may not be popular, to be faithful to the Constitution. To erode and give away that good respect the American people have for the courts and the law would be a mistake.” Prescient comments of Senator Jeff Sessions, during the Senate’s debate on consideration of John Roberts nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005. EXECUTIVE SESSION, 151 Cong Rec S 10395, September 26, 2005_________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

GOVERNOR ANDREW CUOMO'S SAFE ACT: A WORK IN PROGRESS TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT*

NY SAFE: THE HYDRA BEAST WITH SEVERAL HEADS

PART ONE

Andrew Cuomo, the rabid anti-Constitutionalist Governor of New York, currently serving his third term in Office, signed the New York Safe Act more than seven years ago.Coming on the heels of the tragic Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting incident, occurring in Newtown, Connecticut in December 2012—and ostensibly because of it—Cuomo demonstrated to New York’s residents that he would be the first Governor out of the gate to dramatically increase his State’s already highly restrictive gun laws, and it became so.On his website, Cuomo describes the Hydra monster he unleashed on New York, thus: “The SAFE Act stops criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying a gun . . . and imposes the toughest assault weapons ban in the country. . . [but that] For hunters, sportsman, and law-abiding gun owners, this new law preserves and protects your right to buy, sell, keep or use your guns.”  This is pure claptrap.The Arbalest Quarrel exposed the truth about Cuomo’s Safe Act and wrote extensively about it when first enacted and signed into law. We pointed out that Cuomo’s ambitions for disarming the public extend well beyond the confines of New York. He intends to make the Safe Act the model for restrictive gun laws throughout the Nation.We also pointed out that Cuomo has always intended for the Safe Act to be construed as a work in progress, not an end in itself. We concluded that, as with all anti-Second Amendment rights’ zealots, Cuomo would not rest until the Nation’s armed citizenry ceases to exist. The true scope of the anti-Second Amendment zealots’ agenda, as directed against the very idea of a “citizen army,” isn’t mere hyperbole. It is fact, and it is a critical step in the Collectivists’ goal to destroy the fabric of a free Constitutional Republic, along with the sacred, fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people that come with it.The sheer tenacity of Collectivists’ efforts to eliminate exercise of the Second Amendment, and the feral ferocity they have unleashed in our Nation, has been on public display for at least the last three decades and continues—a constant reminder that Anti-Second Amendment Collectivist fanatics, such as Andrew Cuomo, thoroughly detest the Second Amendment and will machinate and orchestrate behind the scenes, fanatically, frantically, tirelessly with like-kind—in the mainstream Press and in social media, in academia and in the technology, business, and financial sectors, in State Legislatures and in Congress, and in various Grassroots anti-Second Amendment groups and in segments of the medical community—to destroy it.Consider the glee with which The New York Times reported—on January 29, 2019, scarcely two months after Cuomo’s election to a third term as New York’s Governor, in an article titled “New York Passes First Major Gun Control Bills Since Sandy Hook”—the Governor’s extraordinarily wide-ranging assault against the Second Amendment:“New York lawmakers on Tuesday approved the most comprehensive set of gun bills in the state in six years, including measures that would ban bump stocks, prohibit teachers from carrying guns in schools and extend the waiting period for gun buyers who do not pass an instant background check.In total, six gun bills passed easily through the State Senate and Assembly, a remarkable sight in a Capitol that for years had resisted almost all new legislation on the subject.Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, a Democrat, last ushered a major gun safety package into law in 2013, after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. 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.Mr. Cuomo has described the Safe Act as one of his signature achievements. ‘Sometimes history irrefutably bears out your actions,’ the governor said on Tuesday, at a news conference lined with gun safety advocates. ‘Today is the next evolution in this ongoing crusade.’The relative ease of the laws’ passage highlighted, for the second time in just two days, the upheaval that November’s election brought to Albany. Democrats captured the Senate for the first time in a decade, delivering one-party control of state government. Since the legislative session began this month, both chambers have sent long-stymied bills in rapid-fire procession to the governor’s desk.”Collectivists, anti-Second Amendment advocates and anti-Constitutionalists, all, not only abhor the import and purport of the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, they detest the precious idea embedded in it and embedded in the entirety of the Bill of Rights of which the Second Amendment is an essential component. They refute the idea, the founders of our Republic took as axiomatic, that a body of rights and liberties exist in man, bestowed by the Divine Creator in man—salient rights and liberties intrinsic to man’s very nature—that are independent of any man-made laws and other ostensible rights (really privileges) bestowed on man by other men through man-made artificial, mutable and malleable political structures, namely governments.The notion that a body of rights exists, independent of and beyond the government’s lawful power and authority to modify, ignore, or abrogate, is anathema to the Collectivists’ ideology. Collectivists do not accept and, in fact, find, abhorrent the notion of and reality of natural law that falls beyond the power of government to lawfully regulate and manipulate.Proponents of Collectivism take as axiomatic that all law is a creation of man and therefore is subject to amendment or repeal by man, as time, circumstance, and even whim, dictates. The import and impact of the Collectivist ideology are evident in the Collectivists' constant, belligerent, bellicose attacks on the Nation’s fundamental, immutable, unalienable, primordial, and absolute rights and liberties. No clearer illustration is there than in their disregard and contempt for the elemental right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The very existence of an armed citizenry is, on a physical level, a bane to a government’s power over the citizenry. But, on a philosophical plane, the notion of an armed citizenry, one absolutely “necessary to the security of a free state”—grounded on the Divine right of a people to own and possess firearms, predicated on Divine law, independent of artificial social and political constructs designed by man, and arising from a teleological, God-based ethical and moral system—is a notion logically incompatible with the tenets of the Collectivist ideology and repugnant to those who adhere to those tenets.Specious rationales for enacting more draconian firearms’ laws are, then, unsurprisingly, no longer deemed necessary, thanks to well-funded, sophisticated media propaganda that has been successful in deluding many citizens; convincing the citizenry they no longer need their Second Amendment; that Government will surely provide for them and will assuredly secure their physical safety and well-being.What is behind the blatant falsehood? We know the reason, although it is never mentioned by the seditious Press. It is to destroy the armed citizenry.It’s the imposition of Government tyranny—clothed in innocuous terminology, suggestive of the “Nanny State”—that the Anti-Constitutionalist forces want. Yet, it was specifically tyranny against which the founders of our Nation revolted; it was tyranny the framers of our Constitution loathed and sought ever to prevent in the Constitutional Republic they created. But it is tyranny the American citizenry of the present day will certainly get if the Collectivists—Anti-Constitutionalist Democrats—do gain complete control over the reins of Government. If that should occur, the new wave Progressive and Radical Left Democrats will then have the necessary power to impose their will on the American public and do with the citizenry whatever the hell they want.We see this playing out in recent days in several States: a dangerous precursor to what Americans may expect to see played out on the National stage if either the New wave Progressive and Radical Leftists that the seditious mainstream media refers to, euphemistically and erroneously, as liberal Democrats, or if the establishment, statist Democrats, that the seditious mainstream media likens to political “moderates,” gain control of the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government and, inevitably, the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government, as well. Both factions of the Democrat Party adhere to the philosophical tenets of Collectivism. But, the philosophy of Collectivism is anathema to adherents of the philosophical tenets of Individualism, upon which our Nation was founded, the blueprint of which is manifest in the Constitution. The proof of the Collectivists’ goal to undercut the fabric of our free Constitutional Republic—predicated on the tenets of Individualism—is demonstrable and undeniable. See the Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “The Modern Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”The transnational world order that Collectivists envision and wish to implement is inconsistent with the very notion of a free Constitutional Republic, the blueprint of which exists in the Nation's Constitution.But, to destroy a free Constitutional Republic, it is essential for the Collectivists to first destroy the one impenetrable barrier to the realization of their vision of a transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance that transcends all nation-states. Collectivists must destroy the one guarantor of our free Constitutional Republic. They must eliminate the citizens’ exercise of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms. That means they must destroy the armed citizenry.___________________________________________

BILLIONAIRE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, GLOBALIST ELITE, WLL SPEND WHATEVER IT TAKES TO WIN THE U.S. PRESIDENCY AND, IF SUCCESSFUL, WOULD THEN PROCEED WITH HIS GOAL TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART TWO

WERE MICHAEL BLOOMBERG TO WIN THE DEMOCRAT PARTY'S NOMINATION FOR U.S. PRESIDENT AND TO PREVAIL IN THE 2020 GENERAL ELECTION, HE WOULD, AS HIS FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, UNDERMINE THE SECOND AMENDMENT, PAVING THE WAY FOR DESTRUCTION OF THE NATION’S FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

There are two strains of Collectivism in evidence in the modern Democrat Party: one, the Universal Socialist stateless world union governed by labor, as envisioned by Karl Marx, and, two, the Universal stateless Corporatist world, governed by an elite ruling Class: a central banking oligarchy. Either governmental construct is anathema to those nation-states that function as Constitutional Republics. And, only one true and free Constitutional Republic presently exists: The United States. The Blueprint of this free Constitutional Republic is the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution is grounded on, one, a federal government of specific, limited powers provided to and spread out among three co-equal Branches, and, two, a recognized body of elemental, primordial, fundamental, unalienable, unfettered, immutable and boundless natural rights and liberties that reside only in the American people, beyond the lawful power of the federal government’s to delimit, abrogate, modify, or ignore. Political and Social Conservatives recognize the importance of the Nation’s Bill of Rights to a true functioning Constitutional Republic, where the citizens are sovereign. Radical Leftist and Progressive Marxist Globalists, along with Centrist Corporatist Globalist elites (the world banking community), do not. The latter two groups are presently battling for control over the Democrat Party. But, on two matters, the respective Transnational Collectivist ideologies converge. Both groups would implement extraordinarily expansive and highly restrictive gun measures, with the aim to contain, constrain, and eventually curtail, an armed citizenry; for neither group accepts as a presumptive absolute: the fundamental, immutable, unalienable right of the American people to own and possess firearms, and, in fact, are adamantly opposed to the very existence of an armed citizenry because the presence of an armed citizenry poses an inherent and existential threat to governmental authority, and to the implicit idea of a centralized government—the idea that government is presumptively sovereign, not the people. But that idea turns the U.S. Constitution on its head. Collectivists also operate under the presumption of a "borderless nation-state." This is an oxymoron since, as a necessary condition, nation-states are defined by specific geographic borders, recognized by and respected by other nation-states. But, the Marxist-Socialist Democrats, on the one hand, represented prominently by Bernie Sanders and his adherents, and, on the other hand, the establishment neoliberal Globalist financiers, represented prominently by Michael Bloomberg and his adherents in the wealthy Global community of multinational corporatists and central bank financiers, both blatantly ignore the import of Congressional immigration laws that specifically prohibit, as a matter of law, illegal trespassing by aliens onto our sovereign territory. Failure to recognize the force of, and failure to support President Trump’s enforcement of, Congressional law apropos of our Nation’s immigration laws—which the President has a Constitutional duty to enforce, pursuant to his Article 2, Section 1 Oath of Office—is demonstrable evidence of Democrat Party disavowal of the Rule of Law that Democrats hypocritically claim to adhere to; peculiarly believing that the public is blind to the Democrats' obvious hypocrisy. That surly, disdainful attitude, dismissive of the import of our immigration laws is bad enough. But the impertinent, imperious and cavalier dismissal of our natural rights and liberties, and utter contempt for the Constitutional imperative demanding that these rights and liberties be treated as sacrosanct and inviolate, is of another order of magnitude. Both factions of the current Democrat Party may accurately be described as anti-Second Amendment—and, broadly, anti-Constitutionalist—Collectivist zealots and fanatics.But what is the explanation for the flurry of recent anti-Second Amendment bills coming out of State Legislatures? We certainly do not see Anti-Second Amendment Collectivist zealots, of late, falling back on their usual pretext for further firearms’ restrictions, namely, “mass shootings,” when pushing for more restrictive firearms legislation targeting the average, rational, responsible, law-abiding firearms' owner, as they have previously done. But, then, there has been a paucity of “mass shootings” of late. And, given the paucity of “mass shootings,” the anti-Second Amendment zealot Collectivists have been unable to rely on their usual pretext for a new wave of expansive firearms restrictions; and they simply do not wish to wait for the next pretextual exigency to occur. Perhaps this explains the recent push by anti-Second Amendment zealots and Collectivists for a new round of restrictive firearms measures.Or perhaps these anti-Second Amendment zealot Collectivists believe they now have sufficient backing from the polity and feel that they longer require a pretext to attack the Second Amendment with renewed vigor.Or, perhaps given the fact, in 2019, of Democrat Party majorities in some State Governments, such as—and most prominently—Virginia and New York, there no longer exists reliance on the heretofore necessary pretext for enactment of more restrictive anti-Second Amendment measures, which we now see rolling out in record numbers.Previously, when Republicans were in the ascendant, it would not have been possible or propitious for these Collectivists to ram through such restrictive anti-Second Amendment measures. They seem to be making up for lost time, for we see, today, a deluge of extraordinarily harsh, overbearing, and outlandish measures being tossed about with careless abandon.Whatever the reason for dispensing with the usual pretext, the recent spate of anti-Second Amendment bills coming out of State Legislatures, principally New York and Virginia, cannot be attributed to the occurrence of a specific tragedy—a knee-jerk reaction to the latest “mass shooting” which had previously been relied on as the obligatory rationale for instituting further restrictive firearms' measures, directed, as they generally were and still are, to the average, rational, law-abiding, responsible American firearms' owner, rather than to such societal luminaries, as your garden-variety career criminal, psychopathic gang member, religious “Allahu Akbar” fanatic, and occasional lunatic.And, so, the anti-Second Amendment zealots, advocates, and adherents of the tenets of Collectivism— heavily financed by Globalist billionaires, intent on creating a one-world political, social, economic, legal, and cultural construct, that they alone control—proceed on their merry way, drafting ever more restrictive firearms measures, targeting the average civilian citizen as they were ever wont to do.The American public is witnessing, today, an exceptionally well-funded, well-organized, precisely engineered, highly coordinated, intensely focused attack against the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms; unleashed with fury and unrestrained irrational ferocity, attributable to anxiety and impatience, no doubt to frustration that, after decades of effort, the Second Amendment still, obstinately exists.Most prominent and visible among the Globalist billionaires involved in heavily financing, orchestrating, and implementing expansive, precision attacks on the Second Amendment, in States across the Country, is Michael Bloomberg. He is the recent addition to the group of Democrat Party U.S. Presidential hopefuls. He has already plowed hundreds of millions of dollars of his own extraordinary wealth into his campaign, and he is prepared to invest hundreds of millions of dollars more.Was it Bloomberg’s personal wish to enter the Democrat Party contest, or did the “Globalist elites” encourage Bloomberg, as one of their own, the Apotheosis of the neoliberal Globalist elite, to enter the fray? Whatever the truth about Bloomberg’s sudden entry into the Democrat Party race, he intends to see it through, and the DNC is bending over backward to push his candidacy forward.Said one source, as reported by  Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire: “Mike will spend whatever it takes to defeat Donald Trump. The nation is about to see a very different campaign than we’ve ever seen before.” But, what is a promise to the establishment Democrat Party Globalist elites, is a threat to Americans who wish to preserve a free Constitutional Republic and their fundamental rights and liberties.Bloomberg is a darling child, the public face and great hope, of the centrist, establishment Globalist Corporatist power elites. These power “elites” are banking on Bloomberg—their proxy—to wrest control from Donald Trump, over the reins of Government, in 2020.The centrist establishment Corporatist neoliberal Globalists are adamant that the U.S. must return to the path that they had set for the Country, decades ago—moving inexorably, ever more quickly, since the early 1990s, toward its transformation—one bespeaking the demise of our Country as an independent sovereign nation, and its inclusion into a one-world system of governance.The Globalist elites’ agenda was rudely interrupted with the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. Presidency. But, with implosion of Biden’s campaign, and fear over the ascendancy of the avowed Marxist Socialist, Bernie Sanders, and with dawning awareness of deficiencies inherent in the so-called “moderates,” it is now clear the Globalist elites are impatient, frustrated, and furious over the probability that Trump will indeed be elected to a second term in Office. Such a happenstance is abhorrent to them and absolutely intolerable.So, despite his lack of oratorical polish and obvious dearth of charisma, Michael Bloomberg’s insertion into the race for the Democrat Party nomination, at this late stage, and Bloomberg’s extraordinarily fast rise among those remaining in the race, is a testament to the expansiveness of Bloomberg’s personal monetary resources that has artificially bought for him an enviable position among the present pack of disconcerted front runners who have, themselves, been in the race for months. But it is a testament also of the Neoliberal Globalist elites’ tenacity, temerity, and managerial ability to exert power behind the scenes to insert Bloomberg into the race at a late stage. And it speaks also to the ability of these ruthless, secretive forces to artificially boost Bloomberg's standing in the national polls, through dint of extensive advertisements that no other Democrat Candidate can ever hope of matching. And, Bloomberg has at his command a legion of behind-the-scenes image-makers, campaign pollsters, a bevy of personal advisors and strategists, and spokespeople; ubiquitous stand-ins for Bloomberg himself, effectively making up for Bloomberg's lack of charisma and oratorical ability.The mainstream media, including major cable news networks, radio, and major newspapers, such as the Washington Post and The New York Times have thrown their support to the establishment Globalist, Bloomberg. And we see them, at once, denigrating not only Donald Trump but also Bernie Sanders. And what are they doing? They are making the same tired, imbecilic claims they have made for years: that the Russians are interfering in our elections.But, is it Russian interference in our elections that the American public should be concerned about or is it the Transnational Neoliberal Globalist “elites” whom the public should be concerned about? Since the Neoliberal Globalist elites can “control” neither the President nor Sanders, they evidently hope that by manipulating public thought and behavior—directing attention to the bogeyman, Russia and its leader, Putin—they can induce the electorate to vote in another establishment candidate. If successful, the Neoliberal Globalists will once again move ahead with their agenda to finally cement for the 21^st Century, their goal of a transnational government that they had been on track to realize up until the time their rapid movement toward that goal was rudely interrupted by the election of Trump as U.S. President.The Globalist elites' operational plan requires a Chief Executive, who is either “one of them” such as the Bushes and the Clintons, or is one whom they were able to control, namely Barack Obama. The fact the DNC has, of a sudden rewritten its rules to permit Michael Bloomberg’s inclusion in the race, and to debate on the national stage is demonstrable and irrefutable evidence of the extraordinary power of these ruthless and amoral Corporatist Globalist puppet masters, and evidence also of their reach, across Nations.Will the Transnational Corporatist Globalist Bloomberg become the Democrat Party’s Nominee for U.S. President to take on Trump? Or, will it be the Internationalist Marxist Socialist, Sanders?Whomever it is, the Nation will face complete ruin. For, in either event, the existence of a free Constitutional Republic is incompatible with the ideology of either faction of Collectivism. The framework of the Nation the founders created and fought so hard to foster cannot exist under any world governmental scheme. The Nation will falter and fall.________________________________________________

VIRGINIA AND NEW YORK AT THE FOREFRONT IN ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICA’S SACRED SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT

PART THREE

A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC CAN ONLY PREVAIL WHERE THE CITIZENS ARE ARMED; TAKE AWAY THE CITIZENS FIREARMS, AND A FREE REPUBLIC MUST AND WILL FALL

The State Government of Virginia has wasted no time in waging war against the Second Amendment. Virginia’s Government, long a bastion of support for the Second Amendment, has reversed course with alacrity and speed.With the reelection of the Radical Leftist Anti-Constitutionalist fanatic Ralph Northam, and with Virginia’s Democrats in firm control of the Virginia State Legislature, thanks to Michael Bloomberg’s infusion of millions of dollars into the State elections, the Second Amendment is under concerted attack in Virginia. This turn of events would heretofore have been thought unbelievable. But, with a new wave of people moving into Virginia—those who hate the Second Amendment or who simply see it as irrelevant—and with Bloomberg’s able and substantial financial assistance, a new disturbing reality faces those Virginians who trace their ancestry back to the origins of the Nation.Indeed, it is mystifying and ironic that this old “Commonwealth”—a term which denotes that Virginia truly belongs to the people—no longer does belong to the people. And, that is, evidently, perfectly acceptable to many recent residents of Virginia, who obviously have no appreciation of, or even comprehension, of the Nation's Bill of Rights, and of the critical importance the Bill of Rights has to the very existence of and preservation of a free Constitutional Republic, a Republic where the citizens are truly Sovereign—a fact that no other Nation on Earth can honestly claim for itself.Virginia’s proposed expansive “assault weapon” ban bill—receiving massive pushback, to the surprise and consternation of Northam and other anti-Second Amendment zealots—has been tabled for a year, pending debate. This speaks to the determination, will, and fortitude of Old Virginia.And this brings us now to a discussion of New York. With Andrew Cuomo safely, securely ensconced as New York’s Governor, for yet a third term, and with Democrats now in firm control of the State Legislature in Albany, the Second Amendment is under renewed aggressive, vigorous assault.Cuomo is plowing relentlessly ahead with his anti-Second Amendment agenda. He is not one to accept delay, and he is using the Safe Act, as the framework upon which to launch a further offensive against the Second Amendment.Recall, although the Safe Act is often perceived principally as an Act placing a ban on a substantial number of semiautomatic weapons, the Act is much broader in scope, attacking the right of the people to keep and bear arms on multiple fronts. The Safe Act is New York’s many-headed Hydra beast.Significantly, Cuomo aims, one, to expand both the domain of banned firearms and the domain of Americans who cannot lawfully own and possess them; two, to attack companies and organizations that support the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and, three, to make the ownership and possession of firearms for those few New Yorkers, who can still lawfully own and possess firearms, so oppressive and repressive that they will eventually capitulate and voluntarily forsake the exercise of their sacred right.With Anti-Second Amendment, Anti-Constitutionalist Democrats holding majorities in both the State Senate and Assembly, a full-frontal assault on the Second Amendment is once again rearing its ugly head and is well underway. But, then, Andrew Cuomo promised those who elected him to Office that he would not ease up on his assault on the Second Amendment and would launch an aggressive new offensive against it. He is hell-bent on seeing that effort through, as New York’s “red-flag law” and other insufferable and restrictive  anti-Second Amendment bills sadly but clearly illustrate.

DO YOU WANT A GUN? CUOMO DEMANDS MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION!**

THE NY SAFE ACT INFRINGES EVER FURTHER ON THE CITIZENRY’S UNALIENABLE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

New York State Senator, James Sanders, Jr. Democrat, introduced New York Senate Bill 7065, on January 8, 2019.A few days later, on January 15, 2019, New York Assemblyman, Thomas J. Abinanti, introduced a mirror image of the Senate bill, in the New York Assembly: Assembly Bill 1589.These bills are directed to expanding the domain of Americans residing in New York who cannot lawfully own and possess firearms.While this Act does not have a short title descriptor, a synopsis of does set forth its purpose:“AN ACT to amend the general business law, the mental hygiene law and the penal law, in relation to requiring a mental health evaluation prior to the purchase of any firearm, rifle or shotgun.”Further, although this new Act makes no reference to the Safe Act, the allusion to the Safe Act is clear enough, as both bills amend sections of New York’s Consolidated Laws that were first amended in the Safe Act, and they operate to constrict the rights of New York gun owners further. Thus, logically, it is appropriate to consider New York’s Safe Act, and any subsequent restrictive firearms’ measure, as part and parcel of one expansive and unified anti-Second Amendment program, implemented incrementally and systematically to undermine the rights of New York’s gun owners. The aim of the New York anti-Second Amendment agenda is to whittle away at the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to the point that the exercise of it in New York essentially ceases to exist.In that effort to undermine the Second Amendment we see New York doing the following: one, further constricting the types and number of firearms the average American civilian citizen who happens to reside in New York may own and possess; two, further contracting and constraining the domain of individuals in New York who may lawfully own and possess firearms; three, making gun ownership and possession so costly, and the regulations and licensing requirements so confusing and oppressive, among those few remaining civilians who may still lawfully own and possess firearms, that the psychological stressors become overwhelming and gun owners capitulate, voluntarily forfeiting their firearms, foregoing their exercise of the sacred right to keep and bear arms; and four, going after firearms’ manufacturers.Many New York gun owners may simply go “underground” but that opens them up to serious retribution if found out. Thus, they become felons and are no longer lawfully permitted to own and possess firearms in New York: an outcome that Cuomo and the other Anti-Second Amendment Zealot Collectivists find as no less an undesirable outcome. For this will mean the number of New York residents lawfully owning and possessing firearms is effectively, massively reduced.But what is happening in New York and Virginia is a foretaste of what Americans can expect if either the Marxist, Socialist Radical Left and Progressive Democrat Globalists of which Sanders is emblematic, or the Centrist transnational Corporatist Globalists of which Bloomberg is emblematic, take control of our Nation. We will rapidly see the decline and fall of our great Republic. Those of us who wish to preserve our Free Constitutional Republic know that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is absolutely essential to maintenance of that free Constitutional Republic and to the sovereignty of the American people; and to the autonomy of the individual; to the integrity of Self, and to a non-relativistic ethical system grounded in the eternal existence and vigilance of the Divine Creator. We know how President Trump feels. He has been under incessant, vile, relentless attack from the day he entered the Republican Party race for the Party’s nomination for U.S. President, through the point in time he took the Oath of Office, and up to this very moment. There has been no let-up, and there won’t be as long as Trump remains in Office. Similarly, the constant, obdurate attack by those elements both here and abroad who seek to tear down our Nation, and to tear down the very concept of the independent, sovereign nation-state, as evidenced through the artificial, bizarre, oddly cobbled-together EU, know full well that the U.S. can never become a cog of a transformative stateless new world order as long as an armed citizenry exists. The armed citizenry is an impossibility in the EU and in other Governmental constructs, such as exist and persist in the Commonwealth Nations, whose citizens—essentially subjects of the realm—are not permitted to own and possess firearms unless the Government deigns to bestow that privilege onto them, a privilege rarely provided the Hoi Polloi of society; and so, by that fact alone, the populace is perceived to be and is, in fact, dependent on, submissive to, and degraded and subjugated by the Government and will always remain so.______________________________________

WHAT DOES THE PROPOSED NEW YORK ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION BILL SAY?

PART FOUR

The merger of the New York Senate and Assembly bill, if enacted, would amend several sections of the Consolidated Laws of New York.Preeminent among the amendments is proposed Section 898 of the General Business Law of New York.A new proposed subsection of the General Business Law, subsection “1-A” of Section 898 reads: “Before any sale, exchange, or disposal pursuant to this article, a purchaser of any firearm, rifle, or shotgun shall submit to a mental health evaluation and provide the seller with proof of his or her approval to purchase such firearm, rifle or shotgun pursuant to subdivision (M) of Section 7.09 of the Mental Hygiene Law.”Proposed Section “2-A” would apply the same standard to anyone who wishes to sell, exchange, or dispose of a firearm, rifle, or shotgun.Proposed Section 7.09 (M) of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law sets forth the framework for a mental health evaluation:“The Commissioner shall establish within the Office of Mental Health and administrative process for the mental health evaluation of any individual prior to such individual’s purchase of any firearm, rifle or shotgun. The Commissioner shall promulgate regulations to establish the mental health evaluation process which shall include but not limited to provision relation to: (1) the mental health professionals approved to perform such evaluation, (2) the process for evaluation by such mental health professionals and (3) the development of a standardized form to be used by the Mental Health Professional performing such evaluation to approve or deny an individual for purchase of a firearm, rifle or shotgun. The denial of an individual for purchase of any firearm, rifle or shotgun may be reviewed de novo pursuant to the proceedings under Article Seventy-Eight of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.”For context, keep in mind that Federal law already addresses the mental health issue relevant to firearms ownership and possession. Federal Penal Code, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), says:“It shall be unlawful for any person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”Since federal law has long since established mental health criteria apropos of firearms' ownership and possession, Cuomo's present New York law mental health reporting requirement is not only unnecessary, it is in conflict with Federal statute. Moreover, under Article 6, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution, referred to as the “Supremacy Clause,” the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land.” This means that the federal Government, when exercising any of powers enumerated in the Constitution, prevails over and preempts any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of power.Federal law places clear and very strict parameters around the use of mental health criteria, related to gun ownership and possession, and does so for very important and obvious reasons. First, the diagnosis of mental health conditions is often highly subjective, as much an art as a science, and deciphering the line between serious and non-serious mental health conditions is not and never has been clear-cut. There is a large, amorphous gray area. Second, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a right that shall not be infringed, as expressly codified the Second Amendment, is a fundamental, immutable, unalienable, and natural right, intrinsic to man’s very being. This means that Government shall respect the right as sacred and inviolate. The infringement of the Second Amendment’s core is forbidden.Careful circumspection of Governmental action against it is essential and must be maintained if Governmental intrusion on the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to pass rigorous, strict Constitutional scrutiny. The NY Safe mental health reporting requirement and the proposed mental health evaluation bill impermissibly infringe upon the rights and liberties of the American people and also violates the Supremacy Clause of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution.To understand how pernicious both the NY Safe mental health reporting requirement and the proposed mental health evaluation bill are, we will drill down into the critical mental health area of both the reporting requirement of the NY Safe Act that has been enacted into law—Section 9.46, Subsection (b) of Article 9 of the Mental Health Law of the Consolidated Laws of New York—and the proposed mental health evaluation requirement, Proposed Section 7.09 (M) of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law. You will come to understand why it is and how it is that the mental health reporting requirement of the NY Safe Act is bad enough, and how it is that, as bad as that reporting requirement is, the proposed addition to the Mental Hygiene Law is substantially worse. You will see how the proposed bill builds upon the present mental health law affecting New Yorkers who simply wish to exercise their Second Amendment right, tightening the noose on those New Yorkers; for it is in New York’s Mental Hygiene Law that things become both interesting and dire.______________________________________________

THE SAFE ACT’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS REPORTING SECTION IS BAD BUT THE PROPOSED MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION BILL, DIRECTED TO WOULD-BE GUN OWNERS, IS MUCH WORSE

PART FIVE

We will now drill down into the critical mental health area of the new restrictive New York gun bill so you can see and truly appreciate the extent to which the proposed bill builds upon the present mental health law affecting New Yorkers who simply wish to exercise their Second Amendment right, tightening the noose on those New Yorkers who wish to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; for it is in New York’s Mental Hygiene Law that things become interesting and dire.

THE NEW YORK SAFE ACT'S MENTAL HEALTH REPORTING REQUIREMENT

When Cuomo signed the New York Safe Act into law in 2013, Section 20 of the Safe Act was codified into law.A new State governmental reporting system was added to the Mental Health Law that did not previously exist. Section 20 of NY Safe, codified in Section 9.46, Subsection (b) of Article 9 of the Mental Health Law of the Consolidated Laws of New York, sets forth:“Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, when a mental health professional currently providing treatment services to a person determines, in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment, that such person is likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others, he or she shall be required to report, as soon as practicable, to the director of community services, or the director’s designee, who shall report to the division of criminal justice services whenever he or she agrees that the person is likely to engage in such conduct. Information transmitted to the division of criminal justice services shall be limited to names and other non-clinical identifying information, which may only be used for determining whether a license issued pursuant to section 400.00 of the penal law should be suspended or revoked, or for determining whether a person is ineligible for a license issued pursuant to section 400.00 of the penal law, or is no longer permitted under state or federal law to possess a firearm.”Section 9.46 (b) of the Mental Health law of New York insinuates itself not only into the Second Amendment but also insinuates itself into the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment and violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well. No less Proposed Section 7.09 (M) of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law unconstitutionally infringe upon fundamental rights, but, its impact of those American citizens and residents of New York who wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms is even more intrusive and egregious.

WHAT DOES NEW YORK’S ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION DO?

There is an obvious presumption in favor of maintaining sensitive medical information among medical providers. New Yorkers expect this as does every American. If that were not the case Americans would, quite understandably, be reluctant to divulge such information, especially if doing so might negatively impact the exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms.But, New York State Government officials have their own agenda—and that agenda is unrelated to the needs and best interests of the individual. And the danger is very real since Government bureaucrats, operating with the “Hive Mentality” of all Collectivists, likely don’t give a damn about the privacy concerns of individual Americans, anyway. And, even if they did care about individual Americans' privacy concerns, they would be obliged to relinquish such concerns consistent with the requirement of their jobs and their wish to hold onto their jobs.Proposed Section 7.09 (M) of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, were it to become law, would permit the State Government to entwine itself extraordinarily deep into medical matters, where it should never go, and it does so, even more so—much more so—than the mental health reporting requirement as set forth in the present New York law.No other State has anything like this or has, to our knowledge, proposed anything, as yet, quite like it. Andrew Cuomo wants New York to be in the vanguard of the most extreme and outrageous anti-Second Amendment measures existent in the Nation and he is succeeding in that endeavor. That was the purpose for Cuomo’s having pushed, quickly through the State legislature, in the dead of night, by emergency decree, sans debate, his New York Safe Act. And that is what informs Cuomo’s actions to this very day. But, you might wish to ask the New York Governor and the other anti-Second Amendment zealots who drafted the mental health evaluation bill why they feel that enactment of this bill is necessary since the Safe Act already requires mental health providers to divulge confidential mental health matters to State Government officials if those providers believe that a patient poses a danger to self or others.Keep in mind Section 9.46, Subsection (b) of Article 9 of the Mental Health Law of the Consolidated Laws of New York, itself, impermissibly infringes upon fundamental rights and liberties and impermissibly infringes on the Supremacy Clause of Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution as well. The application of Section 9.46, Subsection (b) of Article 9 of the Mental Health Law of the Consolidated Laws of New York, isn’t clear-cut either. For, drawing a medical conclusion as to whom poses a clear and present danger to others is often highly subjective; and reporting confidential information to New York State Government officials would likely create a chilling effect as New York residents could reasonably think twice before visiting a mental health provider since they must know that sensitive medical matters could wend their way into State Government records. And that fact could have potentially devastating impact on their lives, and in myriad ways that go well beyond the ownership and possession of firearms.Even so, one may well ask why Governor Cuomo and anti-Second Amendment New York State Legislators felt it necessary to interfere further in a citizen’s personal medical matters anyway, since federal law already forbids the seriously mentally ill from owning and possessing firearms, and does so, unlike the New York bill, by striking a very delicate balance between the fundamental right of individuals to own and possess firearms and the obvious right of everyone else to remain safe from dangers posed by the criminally insane. But we know the answer to that question, don’t we?Cuomo and New York’s anti-Second Amendment zealots so abhor the Second Amendment, that they have shown no reticence from treading willy-nilly on the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans, and on the centuries-old doctor-patient relationship, and upon common ethical standards of human behavior that recognizes the sanctity and inviolability of the individual and the inherent right to privacy. Cuomo’s Government recognizes no such inherent right of privacy, and recognizes no inherent right of the citizen to own and possess firearms, and cares not one whit about the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship where that relationship happens to touch upon or can conceivably touch upon exercise of the one's fundamental right to own and possess firearms. Cuomo’s Government is a prime example of the manner in which the ideology of Collectivism operates. Proponents of Collectivism will always run roughshod over individual rights and liberties. They deny outright the autonomy of the individual. They subordinate the individual completely to the dictates of the State, and they will invariably subjugate the polity to the perceived needs of the Greater Society, the Collective, the Hive.The New York Safe Act and New York's new mental health evaluation bill opens the floodgates to impermissible Constitutional infringement of a fundamental right from the get-go, unconstitutionally infringing exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms of every New York firearm's owner: tens of thousands of New Yorkers.

THERE IS ANOTHER REASON CUOMO AND THE ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT LEGISLATORS WISH TO ENACT THE MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION PROPOSAL INTO LAW AND THAT REASON ALLUDES TO THE TRUE HORROR OF THE  MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION PROPOSAL WERE IT TO BECOME LAW.

As horrible as the New York Safe Act reporting requirement is, the mental health evaluation bill is many times worse. The NY Safe Act requirement depends upon mental health provider acquiescence to the reporting law.Under the provision of the New York Safe Act, the mental health provider must weigh the centuries-old sacred doctor-patient privacy right against a modern-day assault by Collectivist ideologues, who, abhorring the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, care not that the centuries-old sacred trust between a patient and his physician—and by extension, as between a mental health provider who may not have an M.D. degree but who is nonetheless a confidante of sensitive, personal medical information—has gone by the wayside.Cuomo and other Anti-Second Amendment zealots must have realized that mental health providers might very well be reluctant to violate a sacred trust between physician and patient--as doing so would be detrimental to the health and well-being of the patient, and contrary to the faith the patient has placed in his medical provider that the patient's sensitive medical information will remain confidential, and contrary to the rights and liberties codified in the U.S. Constitution. After all, there is an obvious presumption in favor of maintaining sensitive medical information. In fact, New Yorkers may, quite understandably, avoid conveying embarrassing and sensitive personal information to their physician or mental health provider if they believe such information can and will be divulged to New York State Government officials who have their own agenda—unrelated to the needs and best interests of the individual. That concern is very real, since Government bureaucrats, consistent with the “Hive Mentality” of Collectivists, likely don’t give a damn about the needs and concerns of individual Americans. And, even if they did care about the individual Americans' privacy, they would be obliged to relinquish such concerns consistent with the requirement of their jobs and their wish to hold onto their jobs.So, realizing that the mental health reporting requirements would not, or could not, and, perhaps, have not, yielded the results they wanted, the Anti-Second Amendment Collectivist zealots went back to the drawing board and devised a new scheme to avoid the problems inherent in the mental health reporting requirement as it presently exists. The scheme cunningly devised, as illustrated in the new mental health evaluation bill, essentially dispenses with the need for the New York Safe Act's mental health reporting requirement since New York State administrators, or those mental health practitioners working directly for the State Government, insinuate themselves directly into the firearms acquisition process in the first instance, obviating the need for mental health providers to get involved in the second instance.If the mental health evaluation bill were enacted into law, a person who wishes to acquire, sell, exchange or dispose of a firearm must undergo a mental health evaluation, irrespective of any ongoing relationship a person may have with a personal mental health provider.Behind this bizarre and sinister proposal--truly an enterprise--is an obvious desire of anti-Second Amendment zealots, such as Cuomo, to strongly discourage anyone from possessing a firearm. For, if an individual realizes that he or she must undergo a mental health evaluation that will forever be part of the State records, that person may have second thoughts about obtaining a firearm in the first place. Cuomo, along with the Legislative team that drafted the mental health evaluation measure, must have known this, and anticipating the results, are hopeful that many would-be firearms' owners would voluntarily forsake exercise of their fundamental right. After all, it would be far easier for Cuomo's Government if law-abiding New York residents were simply discouraged from being compelled to jump through the labyrinthine hurdles of obtaining a firearm at the get-go than it would be and, in fact has been, to attempt to divest New Yorkers of their firearms after the fact, when they would be more averse to do so. Cuomo, along with the Legislative team that drafted the mental health evaluation measure, would have known this—in fact, must have known this—hence the reason for proposing such a bill at all.If the mental health evaluation bill were enacted into law, a person wishing to acquire, sell, exchange or dispose of a firearm, must, at the inception, undergo a mental health evaluation, irrespective of any ongoing relationship that some individuals may have with a personal mental health provider. Such a scheme is extremely pernicious, even diabolical.Sure, the present NY Safe Act's mental health reporting requirement is, itself unconstitutional. But, if Cuomo and the other anti-Second Amendment zealots feel secure in the knowledge that the law will withstand legal action in New York’s State and federal Courts, they would certainly feel convinced of their invulnerability and invincibility and will be brazen enough to propose and enact increasingly more outrageous firearms’ measures. That may well explain how New York's mental health evaluation bill happened to be crafted in the first place._______________________________________________

NEW YORK’S MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATION BILL FOR WOULD-BE GUN OWNERS RAISES A “RED FLAG” OF ITS OWN

PART SIX

The proposed New York mental health evaluation bill, like the Safe Act of 2013, before it, is facially unconstitutional. It likely would be contested on Constitutional grounds were it to become law, and it likely would survive attack when brought before New York’s anti-Second Amendment federal and State Court jurists, who generally hold a jaundiced view of the Second Amendment.So, with a plethora of anti-Second Amendment jurists presently sitting on State and Federal Benches, we would expect to see this unconstitutional firearms' measure passing Constitutional scrutiny in the State and Federal trial and appellate courts, as have so many other measures, were New York's mental health evaluation bill to come before New York courts, once challenged, after enactment. And, there is no guarantee the U.S. Supreme Court would even take up the case on a Writ of Certiorari. And, even if the high Court did take the case up on appeal, resolution of high Court cases takes time and considerable sums of money to battle. Cuomo knows this.Still, we can only hope that enough New York Legislators will seriously consider the dire ramifications of the New York mental health evaluation bill before voting to enact it sans debate. They may take their cue from Legislators in Virginia who, fortunately, have, voted to table the ludicrous, “assault weapons” bill, at least for a time, to give Legislators an opportunity to debate it before voting to enact it.But, as for New York's mental health evaluation bill, the Arbalest Quarrel would like to give New York's Legislators a heads-up on this score.To fully appreciate the full extent of New York’s latest horror that anti-Second Amendment zealots, proponents, and fanatics would love to see enacted, we delineate below some of the specific problems with it; pertinent questions that can be legitimately raised about it; legal and ethical concerns that operate against it; and matters that ought to be addressed before the New York Senate and Assembly vote on it.First, Cuomo has said the NY Safe Act is designed to prohibit “dangerously mentally ill” persons from purchasing a gun. Is not the intent behind this bill nothing less than a presumptuous, arrogant attempt to unconstitutionally expand the domain of people who are to be denied possession of firearms? Keep in mind that Federal law already prohibits gun ownership and possession by individuals who have been voluntarily or involuntarily committed to a mental health hospital, i.e., the dangerously mentally ill, that Cuomo refers to. Yet New York’s proposed amendment attempts to skirt Federal law by potentially prohibiting anyone who has even a scintilla of “mental health issues” from possessing a firearm. This is an implicit presumption of the bill and indicative of Cuomo's intention and that of the like-minded anti-Second Amendment Collectivist New York Legislators' to use the NY Safe Act as a building block upon which they seek to enlarge New York's massive, tottering Anti-Second Amendment structure.Second, would retired police officers come within the purview of the bill? If not, why not?Third, who would design the battery of mental health tests?Fourth, how extensive would the mental health evaluation process be?Fifth, would the person who desires to obtain a firearm be responsible for remitting payment for the mental health evaluation process, or would taxes be raised on, and the costs borne by, the entire New York population to cover the cost of these new administrative procedures?Sixth, what is the proposed cost for designing the evaluation process and implementing it? Wouldn’t it be advisable to do a feasibility study to ascertain the costs of designing, implementing, and administering this program before enacting the bill into law?Seventh, who would administer the tests: A psychologist? A psychiatrist? A team of mental health practitioners? An Administrator who has no mental health training, for example, a police officer?Eighth, how would a mental health practitioner determine the relationship between the mere desire to possess a firearm and the mental health acuity of the individual who desires to possess a firearm? In that regard, might not the mere desire to possess a firearm be construed as suggestive of mental deficiency? In fact, is this not the rationale behind the bill, evidencing its ulterior motive?Ninth, would mental health tests extend to and be permitted to probe a person’s present life situation in minute detail; and, if so, would not that infringe on the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?Tenth, suppose a person is presently seeing a mental health practitioner or had, at one time, seen a mental health practitioner; or, perhaps, a person is taking antidepressant medications or had, at one time, taken such medications associated with mental or emotional conditions. Would questions be directed to probe and elicit that information? If so, would that not illegally invade a person’s privacy and unlawfully impinge upon the sacred doctor-patient relationship? And, would not such an evaluation impermissibly intrude upon and undermine the treatment of the patient by his or her own physician or mental health practitioner if the patient is undergoing treatment?Eleventh, how extensive would the mental health evaluation be? What would the test components comprise? Twelfth, would Government officials assess the statistical validity and reliability of those mental health evaluation tests that are devised, before their implementation, assuming new tests are constructed? If not, why not? And, who would assess the statistical validity and reliability of such mental health evaluation tests employed? Further, if Government officials make use of presently existing mental health tests of purposes of the proposed bill, wouldn’t those tests still need required scrutiny to ascertain their applicability to firearms ownership and possession?Thirteenth, who would be responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of these new mental evaluative test records and, would the individual’s personal physician or mental health practitioner have access to them? Would the person being evaluated be able to obtain a copy of or at least be able to view his or her mental health evaluation records? If not, why not?Fourteenth, what recourse would examinees have whose confidentiality is violated? Would examinees even know whether the records of their mental health evaluation had been misused, misplaced, hacked into, lost, stolen, or wrongly distributed or disseminated to individuals, Government agencies, private entities, academia, or the CDC, contrary to law or procedure? Would the New York State Government have a legal duty to inform the examinee of such loss or misallocation of sensitive, confidential, personal records? Would the examinee have legal recourse to obtain damages?Fifteenth, on what grounds might one appeal an adverse result, and what would be the costs of de novo review? And who would be required to bear those costs?Sixteenth, what is the time frame between setting up an evaluation process and obtaining the results of an evaluation?Seventeenth, can the mental health evaluation be reviewed and overturned by one’s own physician or mental health practitioner? If not, why not?Eighteenth, why should a person who has received an adverse decision be required to go to Court to obtain a reversal of an adverse decision? Why isn’t there a mechanism for a less costly and time-consuming intermediate administrative appeal process as there exists, for example, in present New York City handgun licensing rules and regulations?Nineteenth, after the mental evaluation process has concluded, and a person has passed the mental health evaluation process, what are the post-administrative steps?Twentieth, why must it be necessary for a person who has passed a mental health examination to be repeatedly required to take another mental health evaluation for every instance in which a firearm is purchased, exchanged, or disposed of? Would not this requirement be deliberately oppressive and also unnecessarily expensive, and unnecessarily administratively burdensome? Moreover, undergoing a mental health evaluation at all may work in ways that have negative unintended or intended consequences after the fact. Have such possible consequences been explored? If not, why not?Consider, for example, a person who has undertaken a mental health evaluation, and, then, whether passing the examination or not, happens to move to another jurisdiction. That jurisdiction may inquire of a person whether that person has ever had a mental health evaluation. The New York mental health evaluation may follow that person wherever he or she goes. And there is nothing in the bill, as presently drafted, that would prevent the New York State Government from divulging to another State Government, or to the Federal Government, the results of such mental health evaluations—especially, those suggesting negative outcomes—when, perhaps, a person seeks to obtain a firearm in another jurisdiction.All sorts of negative results ensue from this New York mental health evaluation bill were it to become law.Above, delineated, are just some of the legitimate concerns and questions that can be raised. There are certainly dozens more. But, as with the original Safe Act, and with other restrictive gun laws, we see Cuomo—and other anti-Second Amendment fanatics, who express a fervent desire to enact ever more restrictive, outrageous, or duplicative anti-Second Amendment laws in their own jurisdictions—again perfunctorily side-stepping the critical legal, ethical, Constitutional, and administrative ramifications of, and issues attendant to the measures he wishes to impose on American citizens who reside in New York.This callous disregard for the principle of fundamental fairness and for the sanctity of Americans’ fundamental rights and liberties isn’t alone peculiar to anti-Second Amendment proposals of Radical Leftists like Cuomo. It is characteristic of all those who espouse the Collectivist vision of governance.Cuomo and other self-righteous Radical Leftists are so convinced of their own moral superiority, and invincibility to criticism, and so invested in their smug self-assurance that it is little wonder they would tread on the rights and liberties of Americans with impunity—all to effectuate their new Collectivist vision on the Nation and to thrust their beliefs on everyone else. Radical Leftists don’t concern themselves with the Constitutional framework of a free Republic. Why should they? After all, they intend to dismantle it!Anti-Constitutionalist, Anti-American legislators, bureaucrats, jurists, and academicians treat the Constitution as if it were a compilation of mere rules of antiquated etiquette rather than an inviolate framework of governance; and they believe that the fundamental, immutable rights and liberties incorporated into the Constitution can be modified, set aside, or even dispensed with altogether in furtherance of their grand vision. And, what is their vision? It is a Socialist nightmare they intend to impose on the entire Nation. To make their Dystopian vision for the Nation a reality, these Anti-Constitutionalist Collectivists intend to systematically deny all average, law-abiding, rational, responsible Americans their unalienable right to keep and bear arms. Governor Cuomo and the rest of these Radical Leftist Collectivists are working feverishly to see that their vision for the Nation becomes a reality; and in short order.Implementation of New York’s recent Anti-Second Amendment mental health evaluation bill is representative of New York's Cuomo most recent attempt to unconstitutionally and unconscionably constrain the exercise of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. This recent bill is unseemly, unwarranted, and demonstrably inconsistent with our Constitution and our heritage as Americans. The bill is extraordinarily bizarre, predicated on a phobic fear of anti-Second Amendment zealots that every American is potentially a psychopathic criminal or psychotic maniac, or that an American will be magically transformed into an irrational, raving lunatic--a maniac on the prowl, looking for people to shoot--merely given that a person happens to own and possess a firearm. Upon perusal of New York’s mental health evaluation bill, one cannot but conclude it has been devised by fevered, paranoid minds that, may, themselves, do well to obtain a mental health evaluation from a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist, to get to the root of the problem concerning their own singular abhorrence of the Nation's Second Amendment and of their own peculiar, pathological fear of firearms and of those law-abiding Americans who happen to own and possess them._____________________________________________*Regular readers of the Arbalest Quarrel know that we review previous articles posted, making changes and corrections with some frequency. However, on very rare occasions, when amendments are extensive and where we rethink the content presented, we will delete the original article from our site and substitute that article with the reworked article. We have done so here. We apologize to our readers and hope that it does not cause undue consternation._____________________________________________**The Arbalest Quarrel wishes to acknowledge David LaPell’s timely reporting of this matter which he brought to the attention of Ammoland Readers on January 29, 2020. AQ takes an especial interest in New York’s restrictive gun laws, having written several articles on Cuomo’s NY Safe Act of 2013. Our present article on New York's new troubling, extraordinarily restrictive firearms' proposal, negatively impacting any law-abiding citizen, who simply wishes to exercise his or her fundamental, immutable, unalienable right to own and possess firearms, is not a rehash of David’s excellent exposition, but a supplement to it.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

MITT ROMNEY, THE NATION’S JUDAS, NOW CROWNED HARLEQUIN KING BY DEMOCRATS

A MESSAGE FOR MITT ROMNEY

With your vote to remove U.S. President Donald Trump, you have betrayed your oath; you have betrayed your Nation; you have betrayed the Constitution; and you have betrayed the American people.You must know the President is a staunch defender of our fundamental rights and liberties. Most importantly President Trump is a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and is committed to preserving the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms. As our founders knew, a free Republic without an armed citizenry is undone.If you had any integrity and common sense you would realize your duty to vote for acquittal. You should have done so. You did not.You might think that voting to acquit the President on one false charge but voting to convict the President on a second false charge absolves you of your treachery. It does not.You cannot “split the difference” here, much as you wish. You do not have the wisdom of King Solomon who, in order to determine a baby’s true mother, among two women each of whom claimed the baby for herself, suggested splitting a baby in two. Of course, the true mother would plead, and did plead, for the baby’s life to be spared. The false mother agreed to have the baby killed. King Solomon then gave the baby to the true mother.Your attempted gambit to appease both Republicans and Democrats has not worked. It never could. You have appeased no one, and you have fooled no one, except, perhaps, yourself.You thought you would appear reasonable, honorable, even righteous to the Senate and to the public. Instead, you come across as you really are, smarmy, shifty, vindictive, self-righteous, hiding behind a false cloak of piety, morality, and religion.On the floor of the U.S. Senate, you talked about the oath you took as a U.S. Senator. This is what you said:“As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise ‘impartial justice.’ I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.”You were “not wrong?” Really?When you say you are “not wrong” to vote to convict the President of high crimes and misdemeanors, you are also saying that your fellow Republican Senators, to a person, are wrong, in having voted to acquit the President; and that tens of millions of Americans who elected Donald Trump to serve as the President were wrong in placing their faith in him.Did you not see the President’s Defense team successfully tear the arguments of Schiff and Nadler to shreds? Is it not clear to you that the impeachment and attempted removal of the President from Office was a sham from the start?Can you not see that Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler, and the other Radical Left members of the deformed, mutated Democrat Party, desire to destroy our Constitutional Republic and to destroy the sacred rights and liberties of the American people.Can you not grasp that the Radical Left cannot destroy a Constitutional Republic until they first destroy President Trump who is a bulwark of our Nation’s freedoms and liberties?Do you not see what is plain to every other American? Can you not see that Democrats’ desire to impeach and remove Trump from Office was not based on any action he had taken while in Office but was a part of the Democrats’ design to undermine the Constitution before Trump even took the Oath of Office?Can you not see that these Democrats are once again hatching more schemes to prevent the President from performing his duties? Can you not see the dangers these Democrats pose to the security of our Nation, where the American people are sovereign, not Government?You have allowed your own passions to override your reason and have joined forces with the enemy from within.If you could not stomach the thought of acquitting the U.S. President because of your own personal animosity toward him, why didn’t you at least think about what your actions might do to the entirety of the Nation; to its people, and to the U.S. Constitution before casting a vote to convict the President of the United States on a bogus charge of “Obstruction of Congress.”Is it any wonder the Demo-wrecking crew Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and the other swarm of oily Democrats, along with their friends in the seditious media, would seemingly welcome you with open arms into their ranks, to be employed as their useful tool. Your hypocrisy and duplicity are on full display before the Nation, as are the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Radical Left Democrats. You belong with each other.Better it would have been if you had never entered politics. But, having done so, your best recourse is to resign from the U.S. Senate. We suggest you go back to your work in private equity, serving your own needs, and not pretend like the hypocritical and duplicitous Democrats, to serve the needs of the Country and its people.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

HOW CAN THE JEWISH PEOPLE BEST DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST VIOLENT ANTI-SEMITIC HATE-CRIME?

The recent violent attacks against Jews in New York City and in other cities around the Country are not the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last. But all Americans can be subject to violence.National pro-Second Amendment websites such as Ammoland Shooting Sports News, NRA, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, The Truth About Guns, Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, Second Amendment Foundation, and the podcast Lock N Load Radio, among many other pro-Second Amendment rights websites, podcasts, and pro-Second Amendment alternative media organizations, know this.Immersed in illusion and delusion, incessantly bombarded by lies spawned by the seditious mainstream media propaganda machine which controls much of what the average person sees and hears, Americans are not only encouraged to act against their own best interests but are psychologically conditioned to do so. Mass psychosis is slowly and inexorably descending on the American citizenry, callously orchestrated and mercilessly executed through a massive, monstrous indoctrination and brainwashing disinformation campaign.The Radical Left and mainstream media argue that the Second Amendment is no longer a necessary guarantor of Americans’ life and liberty but a dated and useless artifact.Many Americans, especially those who are members of minority communities, learn this the hard way when they face brutal attacks. They find that responsibility for one’s physical safety and well-being rests, as it must and always did, with them, as individuals, and not in others; and certainly not in Government—and that Government, amassing complete control over the thoughts and actions of the American public, would be the ruin of us all.First, the Government, through the police, does not have the resources to protect every citizen even if they wanted to. Second, there is no legal requirement that the police have a duty to guarantee the physical safety of an individual even when informed of an imminent threat to the physical safety of that individual. The Courts have made this point clear, as the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out.It is deception on the part of both government officials and the mainstream seditious Press to suggest otherwise, and it is deceitful of Government and the Press to keep this critical information from the American public. Why do Government and the mainstream seditious Press do this? They do this because they want the American people to believe that the police exist to protect Americans, as individuals. Police, though, cannot protect the life of every innocent American and they do not have the legal duty to do so except in very rare circumstances. These Radical Left government officials, and the mainstream seditious Press that is in league with them, are needlessly placing the lives of innocent people at serious risk of harm. Even as they claim to care about the sanctity of human life, they demonstrate their blatant disregard for it. The Arbalest Quarrel has written about this, pointing to the inconsistency, duplicity, and hypocrisy of the Radical Left government officials and the seditious Press that echoes their sentiments. On October 27, 2018, a lunatic shot and killed eleven people and wounded six other Congregants of a Synagogue, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Then, fourteen months later, another raging, rabid, hate-filled lunatic, armed with a machete, brutally stabbed and slashed, one critically, members of a deeply religious sect of the Jewish Community in New York, who were simply, innocently celebrating their Holiday at the home of their Rabbi. This incident received wide coverage, and ABC News did extensive reporting on it, providing New York's Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and New York City's Mayor, Bill de Blasio, another political platform in which to enunciate the usual platitudes. And what were their answers to horrific violent hate-crime? As one might expect Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio merely offered Government as the sole solution to violent hate crime.On his website, Governor Cuomo reiterates with pretentious certitude the demonstrative falsehood that the public can rely on government alone for protection. Cuomo snorts: “And government’s jobs is to protect people and this state government will protect people of the Jewish faith and every other religion in this state.”Americans, though, are coming around to the truth; and the truth is that one’s physical safety and security rests with the individual. What counts is meaningful action, not more hollow government rhetoric.Following the brutal attacks on innocent people, the Arbalest Quarrel consulted with a Rabbi, a leader of the York City Jewish community, who expressed concern over the proposed solutions offered by Cuomo and de Blasio. The Rabbi asked us: “What can members of the Jewish community, as individuals, do to truly protect their life and that of their friends and family members.” We stated matter-of-factly that the answer is self-defense and that “self-defense is not only a fundamental, natural right but a duty, and the best means of self-defense is a firearm.”Having made the points that we did, the Rabbi asked us how individuals in his Congregation can responsibly protect themselves with a firearm. We told the Rabbi that we would consult with the Seneca Sporting Range, and, after doing so, we prepared a letter on behalf of the Range which then sent the letter to members of the New York City Jewish community. The exact content of the letter is as follows:__________________________________SENECA SPORTING RANGE RESPONDS TO THE URGENT NEEDS OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK CITYJanuary 10, 2020The recent violent attacks against Jews in New York City and in other Cities around the Country are not the first and, unfortunately, won’t be the last.How can Jews best protect themselves and their families against continued violent attacks spawned by hate? Governor Cuomo and New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio recognize the threat.Governor Cuomo says that the December 28, 2019 violent attack on the home of a Hasidic Rabbi is an ‘act of domestic terrorism.’ New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio calls the recent attack against Jews, a ‘crisis.’ And, in response to the horrific attack Mayor de Blasio announced more police patrols in Jewish communities and ordered an “‘intensified curriculum’ focused on anti-Semitism, to teach young people that attacks motivated by hate or ignorance breed more violence.”City officials said they would add more security cameras and light towers in ultra-orthodox Jewish Communities.This is all fine, but the burning fact remains antisemitism and violent attacks against Jews are not a new phenomenon.The burning question is why didn’t Governor Cuomo and Mayor de Blasio implement enhanced security measures all along to prevent from happening the very tragedy that occurred?The problem is that politicians tend to operate reactively not proactively, and all too often a government’s response to a crisis is half-hearted, insufficient, and demonstrably deficient, aimed at defusing political fallout rather than on actually solving a serious problem.But, if Mayor de Blasio’s proposals if implemented are not adequate to provide the Jewish community with the safety and security it needs and deserves, what, then, is the answer?What can the Jewish community do? What can you do? The first thing you can and, in fact, must do is accept the fact that the matter of securing your physical safety and well-being and that of your family rests ultimately on you, not Government. We are talking here of personal defense: self-defense.Self-defense is a fundamental, immutable, unalienable right. It is a primordial right and the most sacred of God-given rights. And self-defense is an absolute duty.Further, contrary to common belief, it is not the duty of Government, through the police, to guarantee your personal safety, security and well-being, and it never was. The Government is immune from liability to individuals for failure to ensure their protection. You can read about this here: http://arbalestquarrel.com/can-we-as-individuals-rely-on-the-police-to-protect-us/ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IS THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST AGGRESSIVE ATTACKA firearm in the hands of a responsible, law-abiding, trained individual is the best defense against a serious physical threat. This isn’t supposition. It is fact. But, the decision to obtain a firearm is a serious one; never to be taken lightly.At Seneca Sporting Range we take the ownership and possession of a firearm seriously.We provide a complete package of services that includes preparation of City handgun license applications.Our certified instructors will guide you in the selection of and training in the use of and proper, safe handling and caring of a handgun. You will learn how to shoot a handgun and will gain proficiency in doing so. We will teach you techniques and the strategies of armed self-defense.I am here to assist you in your personal decision to lawfully possess, handle, and safeguard your firearm. Please call Seneca Sporting Range at (917) 414-2186.Our website is at this link: www.senecasportingrange.com. We operate by appointment only and all communications are confidential.Sincerely,John Deloca,Owner, Seneca Sporting Range, Inc._______________________________________It is our fervent hope that we can eventually change the false perception about guns and gun ownership that Radical Left politicians and a seditious Press have planted in the mind of many Americans. It is unfortunate that it takes a horrific act of violence before many Americans come to their senses and realize that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not an archaic and obsolete phrase, but an immutable, unalienable truth, as relevant and as necessary today as it was when the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791.A Grassroots Movement in America has begun as a response to the serious imminent threats to the physical safety of individuals. Conversations are underway in Synagogues, Churches, Mosques, and other places of worship. And discussions are also taking place, if quietly, in our schools, universities, and workplaces, over the question of how a person can effectively defend his or her life in light of Government’s obvious failure to do so.A firearm in the hands of a law-abiding, responsible, trained individual was, is, and will forever be the best means of self-defense. It is futile, dishonest, and vain for anyone to deny this.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

RADICAL ELEMENTS HAVE HIJACKED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY AND WILL ABOLISH GUN RIGHTS AND OUR OTHER NATURAL, RIGHTS IF THEY REGAIN THE WHITE HOUSE AND U.S. SENATE

PART ONE

The Radical Left has hijacked the Democrat Party. That fact is clear and irrefutable. The Democrats have misused the impeachment clause of Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution in a calculated attempt to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. They sought to undo it. To further show their contempt for the U.S. Constitution and for the Second Branch of the Federal Government, the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, in a presumptuous attempt to control the Senate trial, has withheld submission of the impeachment charges for weeks. That has now changed as Pelosi’s gambit has not paid off. The Republican-controlled Senate refused to play her game and has made clear it will dismiss the charges against Trump outright if Pelosi were to hold onto the impeachment charges indefinitely.Pelosi knows that impeachment is and was a sham from the get-go and that the Republican-controlled Senate will not convict Trump. It is nothing more than a naked attempt to delegitimize the 2016 election and to scuttle Trump’s election to a second term in Office in 2020. That was the true reason for and purpose behind Democrats’ impeachment of President Trump. Pelosi obviously doesn’t want to dilute the impact of the unconstitutional actions of the Democrat Party stooges, Schiff and Nadler, by deigning to pass an impeachment trial to the Senate, over which she has no control.A Senate trial will do nothing positive for Democrats except to expose, glaringly, the specious nature of the charges against the President. As the New York Post recently reported, Pelosi probably regrets capitulating to the Party’s Radical Left base and wishes the Democrat Party contrived impeachment nonsense would just go away.Trying desperately to save face, she is left spewing a vapid, childish “so there” comment, damning the President and thumbing her nose at the Senate: “This president is impeached for life regardless of any gamesmanship on the part of Mitch McConnell. . . . There is nothing the Senate can do to ever erase that.”The raison d’être of the Democrat Party and its bullhorn, the mainstream media, is quite simple really: drive a wedge between the American people and Donald Trump, to foreclose his reelection to a second four-year term in 2020. And it has always been thus; since the very day of Trump’s inauguration, which saw intimations of a takeover of the Democrat Party by Radical Left, Marxist, Socialist, and Communist elements.So, Americans do need to worry. No question. They have need to worry about a Democrat Party victory in 2020, were Democrats to control both the Executive Branch and both Houses of Congress.It isn’t enough that Radical Left elements have hijacked the Party and control the House. If Democrats succeed in winning the Presidency in 2020, and if they take control of the Senate, as well, they will hijack the Nation, too.How will they do this? The answer is clear. They intend to dismember the U.S. Constitution, stone by stone—a goal that had been quietly underway in Barack Obama’s administration and was to continue under a Hillary Clinton administration.Democrats, of course, deny this. Indeed, they claim they support the Constitution and to operate within the confines of it, but their agenda tells a much different story even as Democrats claim disingenuously to adhere to the dictates of the Constitution and to the Rule of Law. It is all pretense to suggest they do. They don’t.

DEMOCRATS’ AGENDA TO RESHAPE OUR NATION IN ACCORD WITH THE SOCIALIST TENETS OF COLLECTIVISM IS REFLECTED IN A PATHOLOGICAL DESIRE TO DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Democrats’ incessant assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, never truly in abeyance, has gathered steam since the early 1990s. The public has evidence aplenty of Democrats’ strong aversion to the Second Amendment.What is taking place, recently, in Virginia is a microcosm of what Americans can expect if the Democrats take control of the entire Nation.The first order of business for the Northam administration and the Democrat-controlled Virginia Legislature is to emasculate the Second Amendment right of Virginians--as citizens of the United States, not simply as residents of the State of Virginia--to keep and bear arms. Democrats, who now hold majority control of the Virginia State Government, are attacking the Second Amendment through the enactment of a flurry of antigun laws. Their reprehensible actions would appall the framers of the U.S. Constitution.Nothing speaks more plainly of the faith the framers placed upon it than the inclusion of the Second Amendment within it. And through the words of it, the framers made clear the sovereignty of the American people over Government; and the sanctity of each American soul. But these ideas are anathema to the proponents of Collectivism which the Democratic Party leadership and Radical Left elements within the Party in Congress and in the States, ascribe to. They intend to destroy the Second Amendment even as the natural right embodied in it—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—rests wholly beyond the lawful power of Government to regulate out of existence and eradicate outright.

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS IN OUR NATION PRETEND, HYPOCRITICALLY AND DUPLICITOUSLY TO VALUE OUR CONSTITUTION

Contemplate how the Radical Left claims, cunningly, craftily, to adulate Democracy, to uphold Democratic principles, yet eschews all reference to our Nation as the Constitutional Republic, which it is. The Daily Signal makes the point, too, that our Nation is a Republic, not a Direct Democracy. There are specific, meaningful differences. Emphasizing its zest for and extolling the virtues for democratic principles but, at once, avoiding reference to the expression ‘Republic’ isn’t an accident. Through its stranglehold on the Democrat Party, the Radical Left intends to upend our Republic. It intends to subvert our Constitution and to convert our Nation into one controlled by Leftist power brokers, a Socialist autocratic oligarchy. A ponderous Socialist Government would pretend to take its cue from the majoritarian mob, but that is subterfuge as the Radical Left controls and manipulates the masses through control of the media and through Government largess: all of it a sham.As for those Americans not so easily seduced through propaganda, a Leftist Government oligarchy intends to disarm the citizenry, leaving it defenseless, preyed upon by an unshackled criminal class and wholly dependent on Government to provide the populace with a modicum of protection, altogether inadequate and inept.

THE THREAT TO PRESERVATION OF OUR FREE REPUBLIC IS BOTH PLAIN AND PERVASIVE

Do you think Democrats’ threat to the preservation of our free Republic is farfetched? It isn’t. Not at all. Consider how Democrats through a seditious media have designed, since the inception of Trump’s Presidency, to attack and to warp our view of Government, of our history, of our culture, of our Judeo-Christian ethic—indeed of our very Selves, as a unique, proud, independent-minded and resourceful people. But, the Radical Left Democrat Party leadership and proponents of the tenets of Collectivism—will have none of that. They want none of it.The new wave of Democrats—comprising Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Leftist anarchist, and so-called New Progressive Left ideologues—working with their fellow travelers in the EU, intend to introduce and induce massive societal upheaval in our Nation. They seek to implement a transnational social, political, economic, and cultural construct—one wholly compatible with their wild and bizarre schemes and policies. But to succeed with a transformation of society, consistent with the Collectivist vision of reality, they must first rid themselves of the template the Founders utilized in constructing our Nation: the U.S. Constitution.Our Constitution, though, is no small thing. But for it, our Nation would cease to exist, as our Nation is nothing without it. This isn’t hyperbole. It is an ice-cold fact. The U.S. Supreme Court made this very point:“The United States is entirely a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 270 (1990).The Democrat Party leadership and Radical Left elements in the Democrat Party, in media, in academia, in the Government Bureaucracy, in State and Federal and in the various sectors of commerce know this to be true. This explains why they desire to upend the Constitution, for the structure of our Government and the natural rights of the American people underlying that structure are inconsistent with the tenets of Collectivism.Thus, they demonstrate both fear and contempt for the Constitution. Preservation and strengthening of it are inconsistent with the Collectivist view of a world—a world devoid of independent, sovereign nation-states and a world devoid of a nation-state especially like our own: one consisting as the true Constitutional Republic.__________________________________________

PART TWO

THE RADICAL LEFT’S AGENDA FOR OUR NATION IS SMUG AND AMBITIOUS: NOT SIMPLY CONTENT TO ATTACK PORTIONS OF OUR CONSTITUTION, THEY WISH TO RETIRE AND REPLACE IT, BEGINNING WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Recall, it wasn’t long ago that retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, remarked that the Second Amendment should be redrafted to make clear and unequivocal that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not an individual, unalienable, immutable right. Stevens authored a book audaciously titled, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” In it, he proclaimed the need for a massive redraft of the Bill of Rights. Disagreeing with the idea of a set of fundamental, immutable, natural rights implicit in it, he wished to replace it, to reflect his vision of the world, one at odds with the vision of the framers.In his book, Stevens devotes attention to the Second Amendment to reflect his philosophy, his vision of America. His remarks constitute a vehement denunciation of the Heller rulings—as penned by the late eminent high Court Justice, Antonin Scalia—a strong denunciation Stevens dared not articulate in his dissent to the Heller decision.But, on further reflection, Stevens evidently felt that a substantial redraft of the Second Amendment would be insufficient to set the Country on the course he sought: one cohering with the tenets of Collectivism. So, he went further. He argued for the outright abolition of the natural right of the people to keep and bear arms. The left-wing Magazine Time, citing John Paul Stevens’ Op-Ed appearing in The New York Times, wrote:“Retired Associate Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has an idea for addressing gun violence in America: repeal the Second Amendment.”Unfortunately, John Paul Stevens isn’t the only Supreme Court Justice who has condemned and has exhibited contempt for the Constitution the framers gave to us. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who presently sits on the Supreme Court, has also espoused little regard for our Constitution. The Daily Signal took Ginsburg to task:“Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution.Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s ‘respect’ for the Constitution. . . for example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as the model for Egypt’s new government. The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is ‘a rather old constitution.’ Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are ‘much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.’ Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining influence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to ‘Windows 3.1’—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant. Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although first articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature. The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that creates a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times.”Slightly over a year ago, the National Review pointed out that, with the various changes Democrats would like to make to the U.S. Constitution, they dared not mention, at that time, what they really are after. They realize that to make their Collectivist nightmare of America a reality, it is necessary to do away with the Constitution as it is the framework for our Constitutional Republic, which they seek to undo.But even as Congressional Democrats do not, at least at the moment, talk expressly of rewriting the U.S. Constitution in its entirety, the Democrats’ bullhorn, the mainstream media, has shown no such reluctance in doing so: proclaiming what the Collectivist world view requires.The Leftist magazine, Harper’s, emblazoned its October 2019 cover with an incredibly audacious question, as the lead-in to the magazine’s featured article, “Do We Need the Constitution?”Perusing the article, the reader comes to understand that the question is not only audacious; it is rhetorical. A subtitle within the magazine makes that clear, as Harpers presumptuously asks: “Has America’s founding document become the nation’s undoing?” Several Radical Left academic luminaries, namely Donna Edwards, Mary Anne Franks, David Law, Lawrence Lessig, and Louis Michael Seidman, address the presumed and misplaced—as they see it—subservience of the Nation to the U.S. Constitution. Harpers’ readers are obviously supposed to take on faith that the arguments evinced are logically sound, reasonable, and profound. But even a perfunctory analysis makes clear enough that the remarks amount to nothing more than sophistry, a collective superficial polemic, scarcely hiding the academicians’ contempt for the very framework of our Nation. Consider: how is it that Harpers and the Radical Left academicians would reconcile abandonment of a Constitution, one that has stood the test of time, with the idea implicit in the concept of "Rule of Law" that they apparently subscribe to and to the notion that they would ostensibly also ascribe to, namely that, in our Constitutional Republic, we, as Americans are ruled by law, not by men? Without a Constitution, as the backbone of our body of law built up over time, how might the American citizenry fare, under a new transnational system of governance--one predicated on Collectivist tenets that, at their core, eschew the dignity, sanctity, and inviolability of the individual?The slippery slope of incessant, incendiary, insufferable Leftist attacks on various parts of the Constitution in the Harpers’ feature article, ends with a proclamation in response to the rhetorical question, do we need the U.S. Constitution? “No we don’t need this U.S. Constitution at all”—which is to say, the concept of our Sovereign Independent Nation-State, as a Constitutional free, Democratic Republic, as laid out in our “rather old Constitution,” as Ruth Bader Ginsburg asserts, is too old-hat, to continue to exist and should be replaced: but replaced with what exactly? Through the words and actions of the Democrat Party leadership, along with the words and actions of Radical Left elements within the Party and within the greater society at large, and with the policy prescriptions of the Democrat Party Candidates for U.S. President, as mentioned in the Party debates, the American people should have a pretty good clue what these people they have in mind for the Nation if they gain the reins of power.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE RADICAL LEFT’S PLAN: PROTECT CRIMINALS; CONSTRAIN THE POLICE; AND LEAVE THE PUBLIC DISARMED AND DEFENSELESS

PART ONE

THE RADICAL LEFT CALL FOR MASSIVE BAIL REFORM MAY BE A BOON TO CRIMINALS, BUT IT IS A THREAT TO THE PUBLIC

In the summer of 2015, The Left-wing New York Times, ever the friend and close confidante of seditious Deep State Government Bureaucrats and of smug, fabulously wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, and abjectly ruthless Radical Left establishment “elites,” ran a feature in its Magazine, titled “The Bail Trap.” The Times ran the story as a purported exposé of an unfair criminal justice system. The Times’ reporter, Nick Pinto, laying out the theme of the feature story, wrote: “thousands of innocent people are sent to jail only because they can’t afford to post bail, putting them at risk of losing their jobs, custody of their children — even their lives.”Typical of “feature” stories at the NY Times’ newspaper, the writer of this feature, “The Bail Trap,” attempted to garner public sympathy for the plight of seemingly innocent people by drawing the reader’s attention to one cherry-picked anecdote.The NY Times writer, Pinto, mentioned a New Yorker, Tyrone Tomlin, who, having been arrested for carrying a controlled substance, was faced with one of two unpleasant choices resulting from that arrest: one, Tomlin could either plead guilty to a misdemeanor, serve thirty days on Rikers Island, and then walk free; or, two, he could plead not guilty and then await trial. The Court set Tomlin’s bond at $1,500.00 if Tomlin refused the plea deal and wished to remain free while awaiting trial. Tomlin did refuse the plea deal, pleaded not guilty, but, unable to post bond, had to remain in jail until his trial date. The NY Times thought this patently unfair: namely the bail, not the circumstances leading to Tomlin’s arrest the latter of which Tomlin bears sole responsibility for as there was no doubt about Tomlin carrying a controlled substance.The Times’ reporter, alluding, as he apparently thought, to the immorality of arresting a person for simply carrying, and not selling a controlled substance, did acknowledge that Tomlin had a lengthy criminal history, and that history included multiple felony convictions. Still, unperturbed by and dismissive of the fact of multiple felony convictions, the reporter argued that requiring bail of individuals like Tomlin, who, apparently, can ill afford bail, is patently unfair. The gist of Pinto’s argument became the germ for radical bail reform measures Leftist governments would institute several years later. The article demonstrates how closely tied a seditious activist Press is to Radical Leftists in Congress and to Leftist State Governments—constantly feeding ideas to each other for the purpose of dismantling our Constitution, undermining our fundamental, immutable, natural rights, and destroying a free Republic.The New York Times feature writer, Pinto, sanctimoniously and deceitfully remarks:“Of the 2.2 million people currently locked up in this country, fewer than one in ten is being held in a federal prison. Far more are serving time in state prisons, and nearly three-quarters of a million aren’t in prison at all but in local city and county jails. Of those in jails, 60 percent haven’t been convicted of anything. They’re innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases. Some of these inmates are being held because they’re considered dangerous or unlikely to return to court for their hearings. But many of them simply cannot afford to pay the bail that has been set.”“. . . innocent in the eyes of the law, awaiting resolution in their cases”? The Times’ feature writer is evidently referring to the oft-used mainstream media phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ a well-known platitude.The idea conveyed is that the accused is presumed innocent until or unless guilt is proved in a Court of law. Often bandied about as self-evident true, this notion, as with so many others—some concocted out of whole cloth, like the idea that semiautomatic weapons that may happen to look like military weapons are to be classified as ‘assault weapons’ and are therefore to be banned from the civilian citizenry as ‘weapons of war’—is facially false. Yet the false idea, taken as true and absolute, becomes the basis for instituting a plethora of unconstitutional and bizarre governmental policy measures.That is the case with the presumption of innocence platitude. The false idea behind the platitude becomes the rallying cry of Leftists calling for extreme criminal reform measures—measures that are both unnecessary and that, once implemented, are dangerous to the safety and well-being of the polity.

THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE DOES NOT APPLY TO AN ARREST, ARRAIGNMENT, OR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION

Radical Leftist activists of all stripes—Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and Leftist anarchist groups—misapprehend, misconstrue the legal significance of the concept of ‘presumption of innocence’ that they flippantly and frivolously toss around in their baseless attack against the criminal justice system.The phrase, ‘presumption of innocence,’ is nothing more than an informal and inaccurate banality. It is not an affirmation of innocence. Yet, Leftist activists, such as our NY Times Reporter, ever evincing concern, real or imagined, over the seeming plight of criminals awaiting trial, lose sight of this fact. They attach more import and purport to the platitude than the platitude merits, and fail to appreciate, or otherwise ignore, what it does apply to. We explain, below._____________________________________________

LEFTISTS CRY OUT: “GET RID OF BAIL AND REMOVE GUNS FROM CITIZENS!” AFTER ALL, “INNOCENT” CRIMINALS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!”

PART TWO

WHAT DOES THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE REALLY MEAN AND WHEN AND TO WHOM DOES IT TRULY APPLY?

The presumption of innocence platitude applies to criminal trials. It has no application to pretrial events: arrest, arraignment, or detention awaiting trial. The platitude alludes to a legal procedural safeguard afforded the accused at trial, nothing more. The phrase appears nowhere in the U.S. Constitution and does not invoke a substantive right. It is merely a colloquial expression, not a legal term of art, and, like many colloquial expressions, it conveys erroneous and exaggerated ideas that the seditious Press and Leftist activists latch onto in their ceaseless attack against our Constitution and our system of laws.

UTILIZATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE PLATITUDE IN A CRIMINAL TRIAL

The prosecution must, in the first instance, present evidence to prove the accused’s guilt of a crime. The accused does not bear the initial burden of having to prove his innocence. And the prosecutor’s burden—guilt beyond a reasonable doubt—is a difficult one to meet; deliberately so, decidedly so.Further, the burden of proving guilt in a criminal prosecution falls solely on the Government. The accused need not present evidence in his or her defense. What does that mean? It means the accused need not make a showing of—namely demonstrate—his or her innocence at all. If the prosecution fails to make a case for the accused’s guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt—the highest bar set in our system of law and justice—the Court must acquit the accused of the crime. The Court has no other choice.If, however, it appears the prosecution has met the difficult burden of proof, it behooves the accused to present evidence to rebut the State’s evidence. But the accused need not do so. The accused need not do anything to prove his or her innocence of the crime charged, and the prosecution must do everything to convince the trier of fact that the accused is guilty of the crime charged.The presumption of innocence platitude does not, then, really attach to anyone or to anything.The platitude simply alludes to the burden of proof and the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. In a criminal proceeding the burden of proof rests initially, and, in fact, solely, on the prosecutor, not on the accused.The prosecutor must prove, one, that a crime has been committed, two, that each statutory element of the crime has been met in the proof; and, three, that the person accused of committing the crime probably did commit the crime, beyond a reasonable doubt. The platitude, contrary to common belief, does not impute innocence onto the accused.Once trial concludes, the trier of fact, often a jury but sometimes the Court itself, if the accused agrees to a “Bench Trial” in lieu of a jury trial, considers whether the prosecution has met its burden of proving the accused committed the crime he was charged with, weighing the prosecutorial evidence of guilt against such contrary evidence the accused presents if the accused wishes to present any evidence in his defense. The trier of fact then renders its verdict: to convict or to acquit.The prosecution has a heavy burden to lift and won’t generally prosecute a crime unless there is substantial and compelling evidence of the accused’s criminal conduct.Critically, such evidence a prosecutor wishes to introduce at trial must be admissible, which means that, on occasion, evidence of guilt of the accused may be incontrovertible and, yet, inadmissible in Court because, under the rules of evidence, the evidence that the prosecutor would like to use but cannot, is legally tainted.Thus, if a prosecutor does bring a case to trial, the prosecutor does so because the accused likely did commit the crime he or she was charged with, and the prosecutor has substantial, compelling, and admissible evidence to support a conviction.*Leftist activists, though, ever quick to condemn our system of laws, justice, and jurisprudence, in their zeal to promote the welfare of criminals over that of the safety and security of the law-abiding citizen, demonstrate their obliviousness to the heavy burden our legal system imposes on the State to prove the accused committed the crime he or she is charged with.Leftists routinely attack and constrain the police and concoct schemes to undermine our legal system. One such scheme involves bail reform. By ‘bail reform’ they mean doing away with the requirement of bail altogether, because they assume, erroneously, that the requirement for bail is inconsistent with the presumption of innocence platitude, which, as we explained, supra, doesn’t apply to pre-trial events at all. If the requirement of bail were incompatible with due process in all criminal proceedings, the Bill of Rights would have condemned the requirement of bail as inconsistent with a person’s necessary, fundamental, immutable, natural rights and liberties. Yet, that is not the case at all, as the Eighth Amendment makes abundantly clear. The setting of bail is permissible, but it cannot be excessive.

IS BAIL REFORM AND CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF THE POLICE REALLY A GOOD IDEA AS THE RADICAL LEFT AND NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT MAINTAIN?

A seditious Press, like the NY Times, operating in flagrant disregard to news accuracy and truth, obsessively desirous of and complicit in achieving the Radical Left agenda, in service to millions of criminals and illegal aliens who daily dare to flaunt our laws—undermining our institutions, preying on our citizenry—argues for application of the prosecutorial burden at trial to pretrial events. Thus, a misunderstanding of the phrase “presumption of innocence” becomes the impetus for enactment of ludicrous laws and dangerous practices such as doing away with bail altogether and harboring a dismissive attitude toward prosecuting crime at all.Flash forward in time: NYC’s lackluster Mayor, Bill de Blasio, whose bid for the DNC nomination for U.S. President quickly fizzled out, devised a plan to protect the criminal class: simply do away with the requirement for posting bail, while awaiting trial, and hamstring the police while you’re at it. The New York Post writes,“New York City voters passed a ballot measure Tuesday that will boost a government watchdog’s oversight of the police department — coming just a day after the resignation of Police Commissioner James O’Neill and after years of tense cop-community relations.The amendment to the city constitution gives the Civilian Complaint Review Board more power to investigate cops it suspects lied to the panel regarding alleged brutality or other misconduct.“This slate of reforms will make the CCRB more efficient, make discipline more transparent, and bolster public confidence in the integrity of the agency’s process,” he said.But police unions fired back that the public’s decision undermined cops.“Today the NYPD was stabbed in the back by the very same people we swore to protect. With bail reform taking effect in January of 2020 and the passing of CCRBs political power grab, New Yorkers can only expect the NYPD to provide paralyzed policing on city streets,” said Sergeants Benevolent Association President Ed Mullins.O’Neill — who is leaving to take a private-sector gig in California — had been heard repeatedly warning others in law-enforcement that “It’s only going to get worse” under the changes, police sources have told The Post.”­­­­­­­­­­­It’s wondrous strange that New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio claims the public doesn’t need firearms for self-defense because, as he contends, the police provide the public with all the safety they need. At least this is what he told the political commentator Sean Hannity on Hannity’s nightly Fox News program.But now we learn that Bill de Blasio doesn’t even want the police to do a modicum of police work, as he hampers their work, second guesses their actions, and releases hundreds of individuals charged with serious crimes from jail without requiring bail, presenting a threat to the safety and well-being of the citizenry.And, lest we forget, New York City is making it next to impossible for average American citizens residing in New York to obtain a handgun license for self-defense. And Leftists contend they care about the value of human life? Really? It is as if the Leftists in their condemnation of civilian ownership and possession of firearms and in their hasty desire for criminal reform, do intend to leave the citizenry defenseless. But, then, this is all part of the Radical Left and New Progressive Left game plan: to conduct a scarcely soft revolution, to tear down our free Republic.We are even now seeing the results of the Leftist game plan tragically playing out in major cities across our Nation.______________________________*Corrupt prosecutors may, as we unfortunately learn, manufacture false evidence of a crime or fail to provide exculpatory evidence of innocence. That’s always a problem, and, on an “industrial” scale, a serious problem, dangerous to the integrity of our entire judicial system. The sham Mueller investigation is a casebook study of a massive prosecutorial corruption scheme instituted for the sole purpose of unseating a duly elected President and harming many law-abiding citizens on the way. Ruthless forces both here and abroad, that seek to destroy the Trump Presidency, planned and carried out this charade. And the charade continues today, now in the guise of a Congressional impeachment against Trump. The forces that seek to unseat Trump perceive his policy goals summed up in the campaign slogan, “Make American Great Again,”—which, for Radical Leftists, amounts to a four-word phrase obscenity—as incompatible with their own goal of a one-world system of governance. But these forces that would crush this Nation and its people into submission don’t stop there. Through the despicable secretive actions of George Soros, a henchman of the Globalist “elite,” prosecutors of a different sort, who Soros has inserted into several City Governments: Radical Left activists or willing toadies of Soros and of the Radical Left, who won’t prosecute crimes, even serious crimes, at all. As reported by the Washington Times, these puppets of neoliberal, Globalist, Transnationalist forces—who include Chesa Boudin in San Francisco, Kim Foxx in Chicago, Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, and Rachael Rollins in Suffolk County, Massachusetts—regularly refuse to prosecute crimes, thereby endangering the safety and well-being of the public and making a mockery of our entire system of law and justice. That, of course, is all in accord with the Radical Left’s plan intentionally to disrupt the judicial process to destroy our Country from within.______________________________________________

PART THREE

NO POLICY IS TOO EXTREME FOR THE RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVES IF IT SERVES THEIR AGENDA

Just how far is the radical Left willing to go to carry out their vision for a new America? Well, let’s consider how far one Leftist, namely, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, is willing to go. The Wall Street Journal provides us with an inkling, reporting on May 28, 2019:“More teens accused of serious felonies will be released from jail without bail under New York City’s latest push to limit incarceration, Mayor Bill de Blasio said Tuesday.The new policy, which begins June 1, would affect hundreds of teens accused of serious crimes like assault, robbery and burglary, allowing them to be eligible for release without bail, while they await adjudication of their case.”Releasing dangerous people, charged with serious crimes, on the street, and, at once, hamstringing the police will hardly make the City safer.And doing away with bail altogether serves only to worsen the situation. Doing so is foolhardy and takes the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which cautions that bail cannot be excessive, too far. The Eighth Amendment mandates only that the bail amount set must be commensurate with the crime. But there is nothing in the Eighth Amendment to suggest that the imposition of bail is inconsistent with due process in criminal proceedings.The Eighth Amendment sets forth:“Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”Obviously, bail has a basis in criminal law and procedure. It isn’t a mere legal nicety. It has a place in our criminal justice system to ensure the accused will appear for trial. A dollar amount set by the Court reflects the seriousness of the crime charged against the accused. If the accused does not have funds on hand to meet bail, the accused has recourse to bail bondsmen.But Leftist activists like de Blasio have an agenda and that agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with safeguarding our citizenry and preserving both a free Republic and the Constitution. The Leftist agenda has everything to do with tearing down our free Republic and rewriting the Constitution to cohere to the Collectivist tenets of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism—tenets at odds with those of Individualism upon which our Constitution, the blueprint of our Republic, rests.Recently, the New York Post reported:Nearly 900 city jailbirds could be celebrating Christmas early courtesy of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a plan to quietly free them before the state’s bail-reform law goes into effect next year, The Post has learned.And if that weren’t enough of a gift, Mayor Bill de Blasio is promising to follow up with even more presents for the lucky accused criminals — by giving them free baseball tickets, movie passes and gift cards to encourage them to return to court, sources familiar with the program said.'You’re literally rewarding them for committing a crime,' said a disgusted senior staffer in Manhattan Criminal Court.The proposed early jail release is tied to a law that Cuomo signed in the spring to eliminate bail for defendants charged with an array of misdemeanor and felony crimes.The more than 400 offenses include such heinous acts as criminally negligent homicide, aggravated assault on a child under 11 and selling drugs on or near school grounds, according to a memo being circulated by prosecutors across the state and obtained by The Post.The law goes into effect Jan. 1 but it will be retroactive — meaning inmates who are already locked up on such cases can apply to have their bail lifted and to be freed.In the Big Apple, court officials estimate that 880 prisoners — about 16 percent of all pretrial detainees housed by the Department of Correction — will be eligible for the get-out-of-jail-free cards.”

A PERSON ACCUSED OF CRIME ALREADY HAS A FULL PANOPLY OF PROTECTIONS BUT DE BLASIO AND CUOMO DO NOT SEE THIS AS ENOUGH

Substantive and substantial legal Constitutional and Procedural safeguards and protections exist to protect the rights of the criminal accused at trial. We don’t need more. This would only serve to endanger the public.First, common law crime no longer exists in our Country. No conduct is illegal unless such conduct is set forth statutorily, in our State and Federal Criminal Codes. The elements of each crime are set forth clearly and unambiguously. To support a conviction, the prosecution must prove each element of a crime.Second, the accused enjoys substantial procedural safeguards under extensive State and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.Third, and most critically, the U.S. Constitution accords the accused a full panoply of substantive, fundamental, natural rights. Under the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments of the Bill of Rights, along with rights laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment, the accused has substantially more legal protections than those accorded the accused in any other Nation.Regardless, Radical left activists continue to malign our Constitution and our system of laws, contending that those charged with crimes don’t have enough legal protection. That notion is patently false; even ridiculous. But, why does the Radical Left constantly go on about the presumed inequities and iniquities of our criminal justice system? Is it that they truly care about what befalls serial criminals or do the motivations of Leftist activists lie elsewhere?

WHY DOES THE RADICAL LEFT CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THE WELFARE OF CRIMINALS OVER THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE POLITY?

Radical Left groups and politicians, along with a seditious Press, foment societal confusion, dissension, and unrest. They encourage disrespect for our Constitution, our laws, our social and political institutions, our culture, our history, our core ethical Judeo-Christian values, and our National identity.Through a caustic, diabolically planned and orchestrated agenda, they seek to induce mass hysteria and rend the very soul and psyche of the Nation, thereby disrupting societal cohesion and creating societal instability. Thus, the polity becomes soft, malleable; and open to a completely new vision of reality: The Collectivists’ vision; a vision that entails the end of our Nation-State; the end of our fundamental, natural rights and liberties; and the insertion of the tatters that remain of our Nation into a new transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance where the polity sees itself subject to abject penury and misery, subjugation and harassment, and under constant surveillance.Leftists, swift to promote social justice for the criminal class, in their zeal to tear down the social order and to rebuild it in accordance with the tenets of Collectivism, the criminal class becomes a useful tool to accomplish their goals, and, so, dismiss the safety and welfare of the law-abiding citizenry.Thus, do Leftists show their disdain for the welfare of human beings, as they, one, release upon the citizenry, a plague of criminals, free to disrupt and harm; two, constrain the police, making it difficult for them to promote the public welfare; and, three, dispossess average, law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans of their firearms, leaving them defenseless in the face of the criminal element now given carté blanche to run amok in society. This, then, is a major component of the Leftist plan for the re-ordering of society.Would these Leftist policies establish a Socialist or Communist Utopia? If so, what might that Utopia look like? Do you really want to know? Peer down at Cities like Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York. Do you like what you see? If so, you will be most happy to know this is what the Radical Left has in store for the entire Nation.__________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CAN WE, AS INDIVIDUALS, RELY ON THE POLICE TO PROTECT US? A REPRISE OF OUR EARLIER ARTICLE

MULTI SERIES ARTICLE: CAN AMERICANS TRULY RELY ON THE POLICE TO PROTECT THEM?

A FURTHER LOOK AT THE QUESTION OF POLICE DUTY IN THIS PRESENT ERA OF SENSELESS, INCESSANT, REPREHENSIBLE ATTACKS ON THE POLICE AND UPON THOSE AMERICANS WHO, UNHINDERED, WISH TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR OWN PHYSICAL SAFETY AND WELL-BEING THROUGH EXERCISE OF THEIR NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

PART ONE

WHAT IS THE DUTY OF A COMMUNITY’S POLICE FORCE TOWARD A CITIZEN WHOSE LIFE IS IN IMMINENT THREAT OF ATTACK?

Do the police have a legal duty to come to the immediate assistance of an innocent American whose life is in imminent danger if the police are notified of that imminent danger? We had asked this question in a previous article, and ask it once again in light of present Leftist attacks on both the police and upon those American civilian citizens who wish to exercise their natural and fundamental right to keep and bear arms. Although the responses to the aforesaid question will be varied, as we noted, we expect that many people—perhaps most—would respond with the following: “that’s a silly question; of course, the police have a duty, and that is their job, to come to the immediate assistance of an innocent American whose life is in imminent danger.” For many people, the answer to the question may seem so obvious as to make the question itself rhetorical. But is it? For those people who are unarmed, and who choose not to possess firearms, the police, who are armed, are in the best position to secure the physical safety of unarmed civilian citizens, and such people fully expect the police to come to their assistance if they notify the police of an imminent threat to their life and safety.But take a closer look at the question. Focus on the word, ‘legal duty.’ The question posed is distinct from another question we might have asked: Would you expect the police to come to the immediate assistance of an innocent American whose life is in imminent danger if the police are notified of that imminent danger? Many Americans, certainly those who abhor firearms and who would never think of possessing a firearm, conflate the two questions. And, that is understandable, if presumptuous, as many Americans, even those who do exercise the natural right of self-defense through possession of a firearm would invariably expect the police to respond immediately to a “911” emergency.But, even if that expectation seems reasonable, is that expectation misplaced? Suppose the police don’t timely respond to an emergency, or, for one reason or another, the police do not respond at all. And, suppose the failure to protect results in injury or death to that person.Does the injured party have a cause of action in negligence against the police? And if death results, does the deceased’s estate have a cause of action for wrongful death, against the police? To answer these questions, we must pose another, but a more basic question that we had begun to deal with in our previous article. So——

WE AGAIN ASK: HAS SOCIETY PLACED THE BURDEN OF PROTECTING THE LIFE AND WELL-BEING OF EACH AMERICAN, ON THE POLICE?

The answer is “unequivocally, and demonstrably no.” The police do not have a legal duty to come to the assistance of any American even if notified of an imminent threat to the life and well-being of that individual. And that legal position is true today, as it was true decades—even centuries—ago, at the birth of our Nation. Yet the mainstream media and Leftist politicians routinely keep the public in the dark about this. That is bad. But worse, they lie to the public about this. That is despicable. Here and there, however, the truth does come out but only if the American people pay close attention. Unfortunately, most Americans do not pay attention to the import and purport of our laws, and the public must dig deep to learn the truth. So——Thirty years ago, Stephen L. D’Andrilli, co-founder of the Arbalest Quarrel, and David B. Kopel, writer, attorney, and Constitutional law expert provided an answer to this question. They laid out the unblemished truth. They co-authored an article, titled, “Personal Safety: Individual Responsibility.” The article appeared in the May 1989 issue of “Women and Guns.” In the article the authors made clear both the state of the law and the dire consequences of the law, notably where the lives of women are endangered and the police do nothing to protect them. What Messrs. Kopel and D'Andrilli said in 1989 is as true today, as it was then. The law pertaining to the matter of police duty remains the same. Nothing at all has changed.Two seminal Court cases on the matter of police duty stand out as mentioned in the Kopel and D’Andrilli article. Both cases, curiously enough, come out of jurisdictions that frown on civilian possession of firearms for self-defense and both cases establish the essence of the issue of “duty” as it relates to the police in communities around the Country. One is a New York case; the other comes out of California. The state of the law, today, as set forth in those two cases, remains unchanged; and the law in jurisdictions around the Country mirrors the law of California and New York.The 1989 Kopel and D’Andrilli magazine article discusses both cases, and the Arbalest Quarrel provides additional commentary in our follow-up article.From the two Court cases that the Kopel and D'Andrilli magazine article mention, we learn that the onus of protection of one's life and well-being rests upon one's self. That duty does not and cannot reasonably, rationally be relegated to the Government, even as Radical Left Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, and those so-called New Progressive Leftists proclaim vociferously, hypocritically, disingenuously, and erroneously that the health, safety, and continued well-being of Americans do rest safely, securely, and firmly in the hands of Government. They don't and never did.   ______________________________

PART TWO

TWO DECADES OLD COURT CASES LAY BARE THE SAD TRUTH: POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO SECURE THE LIFE OF AMERICANS FROM THREAT OF PHYSICAL HARM EVEN UPON NOTICE OF IMMINENT HARM

In the New York case, the police responded to the imminent threat posed to a young woman, but did so too late. In the California case, the police did not respond to the call for immediate protection at all; blatantly shrugging it off.Consider, first, the facts of the 1968 case, as laid out in detail by the dissenting judge, in Riss vs. New York: “Linda Riss, an attractive young woman, was for more than six months terrorized by a rejected suitor well known to the courts of this State, one Burton Pugach. This miscreant, masquerading as a respectable attorney, repeatedly threatened to have Linda killed or maimed if she did not yield to him: ‘If I can't have you, no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no one else will want you’. In fear for her life, she went to those charged by law with the duty of preserving and safeguarding the lives of the citizens and residents of this State. Linda's repeated and almost pathetic pleas for aid were received with little more than indifference. Whatever help she was given was not commensurate with the identifiable danger. On June 14, 1959 Linda became engaged to another man. At a party held to celebrate the event, she received a phone call warning her that it was her ‘last chance’. Completely distraught, she called the police, begging for help, but was refused. The next day Pugach carried out his dire threats in the very manner he had foretold by having a hired thug throw lye in Linda's face. Linda was blinded in one eye, lost a good portion of her vision in the other, and her face was permanently scarred. After the assault the authorities concluded that there was some basis for Linda's fears, and for the next three and one-half years, she was given around-the-clock protection.”A little late in the day for police protection, no? Linda’s life was forever ruined.Two members of the Court of Appeals, the Majority, sided with the police, affirming the decision of the trial court, against Riss even though the Court acknowledged that New York had removed application of the doctrine of sovereign immunity through which the government is immune from liability to individual members of a community. No matter. The Court inferred the State was still immune from liability under straightforward tort principles because, as the Court majority opined, the duty to protect the New York public does not extend to protection of individual members of the public, in the absence of an exception, carved out by the Legislature. And the Court’s Majority found none.The Dissenting Judge took strong exception to the Court Majority’s ruling, saying the ruling was nothing more than a “question-begging conclusion,” grounded on mere policy matters. “It is not a distortion to summarize the essence of the city's case here in the following language: ‘Because we owe a duty to everybody, we owe it to nobody’ [emphasis my own]. Were it not for the fact that this position has been hallowed by much ancient and revered precedent, we would surely dismiss it as preposterous. To say that there is no duty is, of course, to start with the conclusion. The question is whether or not there should be liability for the negligent failure to provide adequate police protection.”The Dissenting Judge said the case should have been remanded to the trial Court. He opined that, since the police had “actual notice of danger and ample opportunity to confirm and take reasonable remedial steps, a jury could find that the persons involved acted unreasonably and negligently. . . . Linda Riss is entitled to have a jury determine the issue of the city's liability.” But Riss never received that opportunity.The second seminal case, a 1975 California case, Hartzler vs. City of San Jose, involved a wrongful death action. These are the facts of the case, as set forth verbatim by the Court:“In a wrongful death action against a city, it was alleged that decedent telephoned the main office of the city police department and reported that her estranged husband had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. Decedent requested immediate police aid, but the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when her husband had arrived. Approximately 45 minutes later, the husband arrived at decedent's home and stabbed her to death. Some time later, the police arrived in response to the call of a neighbor. The trial court entered a judgment of dismissal, following the sustaining of the city's demurrer without leave to amend. The police told the decedent to call the police when her husband arrived? What good would that have done? The blasé attitude of the San Jose police borders on reckless disregard for the life and well-being of an innocent American  the police could have secured, but didn't. Nonetheless, the Court ruled in favor of the City against the decedent’s estate. Why did the Court of Appeals find against the decedent’s estate?In the California Official Reports Summary, we learn that “the claim was barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act, particularly Gov. Code, § 845, providing that neither a public entity nor public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or for failure to provide sufficient police protection service, and concluded that the police department enjoyed absolute, not merely discretionary, immunity.”The California Court of Appeals held that, in the absence of a “special relationship” owing between the police, as a governmental entity, and an individual, the State enjoys “absolute immunity” from liability. The Court, having found no special relationship existing between the deceased woman and the police, affirmed the dismissal of the suit for wrongful death. So, where does that leave us, average, law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans?

IF THE POLICE DON’T HAVE THE LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT INNOCENT, LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS, IT IS IRRATIONAL TO ARGUE AMERICANS OUGHT NOT HAVE FIREARMS FOR THEIR OWN DEFENSE.

It is mind-boggling that jurisdictions like New York and California would frown on civilian ownership of firearms for self-defense and yet find, as a matter of law, that the police have essentially no duty to provide that protection to innocent members of a community even when the police are on notice of a real and imminent threat to human life and well-being and fail to provide that protection.Leftist Antigun governments and antigun proponents hide from the public that police have essentially no legal duty to protect individual members of a community even when placed on notice of imminent threat to human life.Instead Leftists perpetrate a myth that police do provide a community with all the safety the members of a community need and, so, the individual members of a community don’t need guns for self-defense.When Leftists argue they wish to rid the Nation of civilian ownership and possession of firearms, they claim they only wish to do so for the sake of public safety and public order. And the compliant, seditious Press consistently, incessantly, repetitively, and nauseatingly drums this nonsense into the ears of the public.That, then, is what Leftists and their friendly travelers in the Press say, but what do they really mean? Simply this: they are referring to the public as a Collective, a Hive. Leftists don’t give a damn about the life, safety, and well-being of individuals who comprise the public.If Leftists did give a damn, they would either encourage civilian ownership of firearms for self-defense, as the police have no duty to safeguard the life of individual Americans, or these Leftists would amend the laws of their jurisdiction, concerning police duty, making clear that police do owe a duty of care to the individual members of a community, to protect the life, safety, and well-being of those members of a community. Leftists, if they truly gave a damn about the life and welfare of the American citizenry, would make clear that police and other Government officials are wholly accountable to the individuals of a community—that is to say, they will be held legally liable—for such injury or death resulting from the breach of that duty. But we see no such thing happening on either account.* So, who are these Leftist scoundrels kidding?________________________________________*Recent Bail reform measures in Leftist jurisdictions, like New York and California, together with the election or appointment of Soros financed activist Leftist prosecutors who refuse to prosecute crime, further complicate efforts by police to provide even a modicum of protection for the welfare of the public, the Collective. And, since the police do not have, and never did have, a legal duty to protect any individual member of a community, even when on notice of imminent threat to the life and well-being of that individual, means that the onus of personal protection, now more than in the previous century, rests upon each American. Yet, Leftists still bizarrely argue for constraining average, law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans from possessing firearms for their own defense and for the defense of their families.So where does this leave Americans since police have absolutely no duty, except in extraordinarily few, extremely rare instances, to provide personal protection to individual Americans—apart from the personal protection they routinely provide to certain Government officials, like Mayors and Governors—and where average, law-abiding, innocent American citizens who cannot afford the services of a licensed and armed personal bodyguard are discouraged by Radical Left Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, and by the New Progressive Left, from providing for their own armed defense?________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CAN WE, AS INDIVIDUALS, RELY ON THE POLICE TO PROTECT US?

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPAL DUTY OF A COMMUNITY'S POLICE FORCE?

PART ONE

Do the police have a duty to protect American citizens if their life is in danger? If you were to ask the average American this question, you would likely obtain one of four basic responses: one, “of course they do;” or, two, “no they don’t;” or, three, “it depends on the circumstance;” or, four, “I don’t know.”The disparity in responses is disconcerting as one would think the answer to this question would be straightforward and beyond dispute, given the enormity of it.After all, when it comes to one’s life and safety from threats posed by a psychopathic criminal, or from a psychotic killer, or, when the threat to one’s life and safety arises from a domestic spat or from some other dispute among two or more people, that escalates to the level of a life and death situation, one should know whether a community’s police department does have a duty to protect the life, safety, and well-being of each American citizen whose life is threatened. The idea implicit in the statement is that an armed police officer, or, in the alternative, an armed and licensed personal bodyguard, serves as the most effective deterrent to a dangerous threat posed to an innocent person’s life, safety, and well-being, precisely because the defender of life is armed. No one can seriously doubt that.And if, assuming a community’s police department does have a duty to come to the assistance of an innocent member of a community whose life is threatened by a would-be assailant, the question then becomes whether the police can and do provide a prompt response to that threat. Obviously, response time is a critical factor when an imminent threat to loss of life exists.Now, public officials, such as mayors of cities and governors of States, do not have to concern themselves with police response time because they have armed police officers assigned to them. And, for the very wealthy, who can afford private armed security, police response time to a dangerous threat posed by a would-be assailant is not an issue either.But, what about the average, law-abiding citizen—in other words, everyone else—who does not have access to a police security detail and who cannot afford the protection of an armed bodyguard? For common folk the issue of police response time is not an insignificant matter.Of course, a police department’s response time is, understandably, subject to many factors. Still, where a few minutes or seconds may mean the difference between life and death, police response time should be immediate and not subject to doubt. Police response time, where an innocent person’s life is in the balance, must be quick and immediate. Americans should not have misgivings or any false belief about this. Reliance on prompt police response time is critical if the average American is to place his or her faith, alone, in the presence of armed police, to deter the threat to one’s life or to one’s family.For those average, innocent, law-abiding persons who do place an abundance of faith in the ability and wherewithal of police to respond immediately to a 911 life and death emergency, there is the presumption—referring to the salient question posed at the beginning of this article—that “of course” a community’s police department has a legal duty, not merely an ethical or moral duty, to protect the life and safety of each innocent American whose life is threatened by a dangerous aggressor. But, is that true? If it isn’t, then those Americans who choose to place their faith alone in armed police to secure their life and safety and that of their family when faced with a life and death situation posed by an aggressor are sorely mistaken in their belief.Placing misguided faith in a community’s police department to protect one’s life and that of one’s family when faced with a direct threat posed by an assailant can have catastrophic results when the need arises to rely on the police, and the police do not timely respond to that threat. In whom does blame, then, truly reside? And, apart from a moral or ethical imperative, if no legal duty exists, on the part of the police to come to the aid of any American when that American is confronted by an imminent threat to life, then where did a presumption of legal duty arise in the first place? Likely, the presumption derives from a common shibboleth, true enough, that the primary purpose of a police department is to preserve and protect the well-being of a community. But, does that purpose to preserve and protect the well-being of a community extend, legally and logically, to protection of the life, safety, and well-being of each individual resident of a community? The shibboleth undoubtedly was reinforced through a slogan that once appeared—but apparently no longer—on the side of many community police cruisers around the Country: “to preserve and protect.” But, preserve and protect who? The meaning of the slogan is vague and ambiguous. Yet, many Americans still accept as self-evident true, even if the notion is only wishful thinking, the idea that a community’s police force does have a legal duty to come to the aid of each individual American resident whose life is endangered by a common criminal or crazed assailant. Well, let’s suppose, for purpose of argument, this to be true. What does that really mean? It means that an innocent, law-abiding resident of a community has good reason to expect that the police will do their level best to come to the immediate assistance of an innocent law-abiding resident of a community whose life, safety, and well-being is imminently threatened, say, by an aggressive intruder; and, further, that a community’s police must come to the immediate assistance of an innocent law-abiding resident of a community whose life, safety, and well-being is in imminent threat.Now, suppose the police do not respond in time to a threat to one’s life. Suppose that, through reckless indifference to a threat posed to a resident’s life and safety, or through simple or gross negligence, or even through an intentional, willful failure to respond to an immediate threat to a resident’s life and safety, a resident suffers serious injury or even death as a result of that imminent threat to a person’s life.Does that resident have a legal cause of action against the police department for injury suffered, or, in the event of death, does the deceased person’s estate have a cause of action against the police department for wrongful death? Well, if the police in fact owe a duty to protect the life and safety of the individual residents of a community and fail for one reason or another to do so, then the issue before a Court of competent jurisdiction goes not to the issue of a legal duty of care which is presumed to exist, but goes at once to the issue of damages to be assessed to the Governmental entity through a police department’s negligence toward or willful disregard for the life, safety, and well-being of the affected resident. It is certainly problematic if the police do owe a duty to individual members of a community but fail to do so. But that doesn’t seem to be problematic to people who abhor guns and who do not countenance law-abiding civilians owning and possessing them.It is disconcerting to those of us who choose to exercise our God-given, natural, fundamental, unalienable, and immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms for self-defense, and as a check against tyranny, to truly comprehend the position of those Americans who are vehemently, even virulently, opposed to an armed citizenry. For, while we can agree that antigun fanatics, who, being true to their convictions would choose, for themselves, not to possess a firearm, it is wholly unacceptable, legally and ethically, for those people to thrust their belief system onto everyone else who does wish to exercise the sacred right to possess firearms. Yet, time and time again, we see antigun zealots audaciously attempting to compel those of us who do not agree with them to forsake our firearms as well. Americans should keep this fact in mind when they go to the polls in November 2020.____________________________

ANTIGUN PROPONENTS PROMOTE “SOCIETAL” WELL-BEING AT THE COST OF THE WELL-BEING OF AMERICAN CITIZENS WHO COMPRISE THAT SOCIETY

PART TWO

These antigun zealots exhibit a cavalier attitude when asked how they propose to deal with predators who, at any given point in time, might pose a direct and very serious threat to their own life and safety. They may claim, as many in fact do, that the police will protect them. And, in making the claim, these antigun zealots attempt to avoid the issue of whether the police have a legal duty to do so at all, or these antigun zealots may simply perfunctorily and presumptively assume the police do in fact have such legal duty to come to the aid of Americans who face imminent threat to life and well-being, when the police really do not have such a duty to act.Even so, what might one gain from the presumption of a legal duty on the part of police to deter a threat to the life of innocent Americans, if the police are unable to thwart an imminent threat to one’s life and well-being, in time, anyway? For one to dismiss concern on the ground, before the fact, that such attacks on an innocent person are rare would, in retrospect, provide a person little solace, indeed, when, in that rare instance, after the fact, one does come face-to-face with just such a threat to his or her life.Curiously, these same people who oppose civilian possession of firearms argue for mass confiscation of semiautomatic weapons from law-abiding citizens—tens of millions of us who possess them—on the ground that a few lunatics might go off on a killing spree, when such instances of “mass killings” are few and far between, even as mainstream media accounts create the illusion that such events happen with great frequency, when, in fact, they do not.Yet, for adherents of the tenets of Individualism, upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded, the question of police responsibility for failure to respond to an imminent threat to one’s life, safety, and well-being may well be irrelevant, whether a legal duty exists or does not.Americans who ascribe to the tenets of Individualism do not rely on the police, in the first instance, to protect them and their families against imminent threats posed by dangerous individuals. Proponents of the tenets of Individualism recognize their sacred, fundamental, natural, immutable, and unalienable right of self-defense—a primordial right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and as reiterated in the U.S. Supreme Court 2008 Heller decision. Yet, the idea that a firearm offers the best means to protect one’s life and safety, should not come as a surprise to any rational person, even among those who adamantly oppose civilian ownership and possession of firearms.For, among those people who are antithetical to civilian ownership and possession of firearms and do not and would not think of possessing a firearm for self-defense for themselves—who choose to place their life, safety, and well-being in the hands of the police exclusively—have chosen to place their life, safety, and well-being in the hands of the police precisely because the police carry firearms; suggesting, then, that because the police have firearms, no one else needs them. So, even those people who abhor guns and fervently, even virulently, oppose civilian ownership and possession of firearms, and would never think of wielding a firearm themselves—leaving that responsibility to the police—know full well that armed protection against aggressive, dangerous assailants provides extremely effective protection against such threats. But, is it sensical or is it foolhardy to believe that the police will be at one’s disposal when one is in serious need of the police? The answer should be obvious. Such belief is foolhardy, and in the extreme whether the police have a legal duty to protect the life of an innocent American from a direct threat posed by an assailant, or not. That being so, the attempt of antigun zealots to constrain all of us who wish to exercise our right to keep and bear arms is indefensible, and that should and does rightly anger us.If antigun zealots eschew possession of a firearm for self-defense themselves, that is certainly their prerogative. But, what is deeply disturbing and mystifying is that many of these same people presumptuously and audaciously dare to thrust their personal feelings about guns and gun ownership on everyone else—namely those Americans—tens of millions—who do wish to exercise their fundamental, natural, unalienable, immutable, and sacred right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.It is strange, indeed, that in a free Republic, grounded on a Constitution that incorporates certain sacred, fundamental, natural, unalienable, and immutable rights codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights, there would be many Americans who, abhorring guns and the exercise of the right to possess them, would seek to thrust their own value judgments and morality on the rest of us; those—the vast majority of us—who have chosen to exercise the right of the people to keep and bear arms.For those members of society who abhor the very notion of firearms in the hands of the average, law-abiding civilian citizen, they take as self-evident true the idea that a community’s police department will in fact secure the life and safety of the average citizen. Such is the belief of Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and others who ascribe to the tenets of Collectivism: the idea that one need only place, and should be content to place, one’s faith in Government, rather than in one’s self, to provide for one’s basic needs, including defense of life; eschewing the very notion of an indisputable, fundamental, immutable, unalienable, absolute right of self-defense at all; and eschewing, especially, a sacred right to wield a firearm for self-defense.________________________________

NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR CUOMO AND MAYOR DE BLASIO FORCE AVERAGE CITIZENS TO RELY ON THE POLICE FOR ARMED PROTECTION, RATHER THAN UPON THEMSELVES

PART THREE

Among antigun proponents and zealots, apart from the hoi polloi of antigun zealots, there are the wealthy and powerful “elite” of American society. These people can ably afford to retain, and many of them do retain, private, licensed, armed bodyguards to provide for their protection and for that of their families.The “elite” in American society don’t have any illusion about the inability of a community’s police department to provide adequate protection to an imminent threat to life, whether the police have a duty to provide such protection to individual members of a community, or not. Among those "elite" are Government officials, mayors and Governors who do have police security details assigned to them. Yet, these same “elite” of society disdain the idea that average Americans who do not have access to a personal police security detail and who can ill afford a private armed and licensed bodyguard should nonetheless be denied the right to purchase a firearm for their own protection.Worse yet are those upper social strata antigun proponents, who, with their powerful political connections, carry a handgun for their personal protection and may have personal bodyguard protection as well, but are dismissive of average, law-abiding, responsible individuals possessing a firearm for their own protection.Consider the position of New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, whose infamous New York Safe Act does nothing to protect the safety of innocent New York residents but, instead, places innocent life in jeopardy by making it extremely difficult for the average law-abiding New York resident to exercise his or her Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. And, consider the remarks of the Mayor of New York City, Bill de Blasio—the failed candidate for the Democratic Party nomination for U.S. President—who, with a smirk, refused, when repeatedly asked, to answer the critical question of Fox News host, Sean Hannity, not long ago, whether residents of New York City have the right to possess firearms for self-defense. Instead Bill de Blasio proffered that the police provide safety to New York residents, implying, then, that the average, law-abiding New York resident does not need a firearm.Well, the police certainly do provide protection for de Blasio and for Governor Cuomo. No doubt about that! But, do New York’s police provide—can they in fact provide—protection for millions of law-abiding New York residents—who, at any given moment in time can, and often do, face serious threat to life and safety. De Blasio perfunctorily, matter-of-factly claims police do provide all the safety that New York residents need. The remark isn’t even remotely plausible in a City comprising millions of souls, and small finite number of police officers.And, as the proponent of one of the Nation’s most restrictive gun laws, it’s clear that Governor Cuomo, for his part, isn’t at all concerned for the safety of innocent New York residents from very real and very dire threats posed by hardened criminals and by more than a few lunatics roaming the streets.As with all proponents of the tenets of Collectivism, the concern isn’t for the health, safety, and well-being of individuals who comprise society, but for the Collective, for the Hive. Collectivists, such as Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, individuals are dispensable, like ants in an ant colony or bees in a beehive. So, it is all in vein that these people would eschew an armed citizenry and promote a well-armed Government.We see this view on constant display in the spurious, simplistic, disingenuous, and condescending remarks of antigun politicians, like Governor Cuomo, Mayor de Blasio, and in the remarks of the sordid group of Democratic Party Candidates for U.S. President. They know full well that armed police cannot possibly come to the aid of every individual, in every instance, who happens to face imminent threat to life and well-being from dangerous predators.Yet, it is a common and tiresome refrain of antigun politicians, and of their friends in the mainstream media, and of the pretentious, sanctimonious, and ill-informed, members and hangers-on of antigun groups, that would dare deny to average, law-abiding, responsible American citizens the natural, fundamental, unalienable, and immutable right to defend themselves with a firearm, claiming that the police are, after all, around to protect the life, safety, and well-being of all Americans. Such is the naïve belief, engendered in equal parts self-delusion and deception.But, is such faith that antigun proponents place in the notion that a community’s police department does in fact owe a duty of care not merely to the community as a whole, but to each member of it, legally sound, whether or not one might at least expect the police to have a moral duty to secure the life, safety and well-being of each member of a community? For, if, legal liability of a police department does not accrue for failure to secure the life, safety, and well-being of each member of a community, then the idea that the average, law-abiding American citizen should nonetheless be denied the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense loses any rational efficacy and is reduced to a bankrupt, empty policy position of the antigun movement on that ground alone. But we need not guess. There is an answer.To answer the question of whether the police have a duty to protect each member of a community, we must consider the ramifications of the Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the application of the legal concepts of ‘sovereign immunity,’ ‘qualified immunity,’ and of the ‘public and special duty doctrines.’ If a community’s police department does have a duty to secure the life, safety, and well-being of each member of a community, then it is necessary to explore the legal aspects of such duty if such duty exists at all. This issue cannot be reduced to simplistic and dismissive political, rhetorical soundbites and antigun messaging, asserted by arrogant, deceitful, condescending blowhards like Governor Andrew Cuomo, Mayor Bill de Blasio, and many other politicians who adamantly oppose guns in the hands of the average law-abiding, responsible American citizen. But no American should fall for those ploys. Andrew Cuomo, Bill de Blasio and other politicians like him, weave wild fables. They oversimplify, obfuscate and deceive.Unfortunately, it is a common and tiresome refrain of antigun politicians, and of the mainstream media, and of pretentious, sanctimonious antigun groups, that would deny to average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizens the absolute right to defend themselves with a firearm, as these politicians claim that the police are, after all, there to protect the life, safety, and well-being of each American; so, then, a person doesn’t need a firearm for self-defense. Really? Are we to take that bald assertion on faith?What, really, is the truth behind the presumption espoused by many politicians and the media and which many Americans have come to believe, namely that the police have a duty to protect and preserve a community? What does that even mean?Does the duty of the police to protect a community from imminent threat to life, safety, and well-being actually extend to all of the individuals in it, or is that a deliberately deceptive conflation of police function that antigun proponents of all stripes have have sought to convey to the American public to obscure the fact that the police really don’t have such a duty of care at all; and that they have created a myth and have promoted it to make confiscation of firearms among civilians more palatable, suggesting, then, that civilian ownership and possession of firearms for self-defense is unnecessary and therefore, seemingly, unreasonable.Is this, then, the reason behind the idea of a police duty that is owed, not only to the community, but to the individuals in it? Is this grounded in fact or is this mere myth: myth that has been deliberately promulgated, propagated, and perpetuated? And, if this idea is myth, what is the real reason for it? Can it be that powerful, ruthless forces both inside this Nation and outside it consciously wish to deceive Americans? Do these powerful, ruthless forces seek to hide the fact that the police have no duty to ensure the life and safety of each member of a community so that Americans will be amenable to forsaking firearms’ ownership and possession, notwithstanding our heritage?Do these powerful, ruthless forces know that the average, rational, law-abiding, responsible, American can truly protect his or her life, and that of one’s family from dangerous assailants only by wielding a firearm but that, because these ruthless forces fear an armed citizenry and because they seek to undermine the sovereignty of the American people, and because they seek to dismantle our Constitution and to disassemble our free Republic, that they would prefer to leave the average law-abiding American citizen defenseless, open to predators? Is it, then, for these reasons that extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, highly resourceful, abjectly ruthless, and innately secretive forces both in this Country and outside it, have concocted and disseminated a fairy tale of police protection for the American citizenry?We will explore the truth and do our best to answer all these questions in forthcoming articles.________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TYRANNY IS AT HAND WHEN A NATION’S CITIZENRY IS DISARMED

THREATENED BY A SEDITIOUS PRESS, A DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED HOUSE, AND AN INSOLENT BUREAUCRACY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS HIS HANDS FULL, TRYING TO PRESERVE AND STRENGTHEN THE SOVEREIGNTY AND INDEPENDENCE OF OUR NATION; THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NATION'S BORDERS; THE SUPREMACY OF OUR CONSTITUTION AND LAWS; AND THE AUTONOMY AND SANCTITY OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY

When considering the myriad threats to the preservation of our Nation’s Constitution and to the underpinnings of a Free Republic, generally, and when considering the myriad threats to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and, especially, when considering the ever-present threat to the fundamental, immutable, unalienable, and absolute right of the people to keep and bear arms, upon which a free Republic—a truly free Republic—rests and exists, attention is invariably directed to vicious, virulent, constant, and noxious attacks by anti-American, anti-Second Amendment members of Congress and by those anti-American, anti-Second Amendment politicians in the State Governments hell-bent on weakening, through enactment of crass, unconstitutional legislation, the American citizen’s sacred Second Amendment right to people to keep and bear arms. But how is it that the public becomes aware of the sordid work of these public servants who betray their masters, the American people?The presence of oppressive Federal and State antigun legislation and attempts by anti-American legislators to enact ever new anti-Second Amendment legislation is invariably on the public’s radar, and it is on the public’s radar for two reasons. First, Congress and State Legislatures generally conduct their business in the open—albeit not invariably—as we unfortunately see most recently, in Congressional Democrats’ ongoing, outrageous operation to destroy the Trump Presidency through a ludicrous impeachment inquiry that has essentially shut out Republican oversight of and participation in the proceedings.Anti-American legislators openly, even brazenly, carry on their efforts to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They apparently believe that, by actively and vociferously communicating their efforts to rein in and ultimately to destroy the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, they are in fact doing a great service for and on behalf of the American people. And they apparently believe that by vocalizing their efforts raucously and vehemently, and by turns chiding, scolding, and condemning all Americans who might happen to disagree with them, they can prevail, winning most Americans over to their side. And, many uninformed Americans are drawn over to their side, readily seduced by empty political rhetoric. Not only do such Americans come to accept constraints on the Second Amendment, they come to appreciate, even laud the efforts of those politicians who, far from preserving and strengthening the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, dare to cheat Americans out of their most precious gift—a gift that the founders fought and died for to provide for us; a gift that many Americans, down through the ages fought and died for to secure for us. No matter. The betrayers of America intend to destroy all of it.The betrayers of America intend to undercut the Constitution; the very soul of our Nation. But, legislation to destroy fundamental rights and liberties must take place primarily in the open even if political wrangling and plotting, machinating and scheming all aimed at deluding and deceiving the American people must take place in the shadows; behind closed doors; out of sight and earshot.Second, the anti-Second Amendment legislators’ friend, the ubiquitous, seditious Press, avidly and vociferously hawks the ostensible benefits of reining in the citizenry’s gun rights. The Press has devolved into an effective propaganda tool of those elements operating in concert both here and abroad who seek to undercut our Constitution, thereby paving the way for our Nation’s inclusion in a new, transnational, supranational political, social, economic, and legal system of governance. A new world governmental order in which the very concept of  ‘citizen,’ and the concept of 'sovereign, independent nation states' and of national borders are viewed as archaic constructs, useful, perhaps, once upon a time, as in a fairy tale, but no longer. To make a go of it, the notion of fundamental rights and liberties that inhere in man must be swept aside, as something that once was seen, perhaps, as noble, but is now perceived as simply quaint and archaic; for that notion is not at all consistent with the onset of a new trans-global system of governance, marked by an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent ruling class, jealous of its power, and suspicious of the subject populations, falling now within a massive world Government enterprise.And, what of the idea of an armed citizenry—the only true and tenable check against tyranny of Government? That idea must be categorically denounced as not only anachronistic but dangerous—a visible threat to State power and authority. So, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution must go. And there is no pretense anymore by those who abhor and who have always loathed the very idea of an armed citizenry. No longer do we hear any antigun politician, prefacing his or her remarks against guns and gun ownership by asserting, “. . . but of course I respect and support the Second Amendment.” That dissembling is now a thing of the past.So, a seditious Press tries to sell the citizenry on the notion that the Second Amendment has no rational purpose in a modern society. The public is told that, for the good of society as whole—that is to say, for the good of the Collective, for the good of the Hive—for the maintenance of public safety and public order, it is necessary to ban all guns from the civilian populace, commencing with those whom the antigun politicians categorize as 'assault weapons' (a political fiction, to be sure, created for no purpose other than as a vehicle through which more and more firearms are to be banned, until all firearms are banned).The seditious Press falling in lockstep with the destroyers of our free Republic, takes the position that gun rights are best when exercised least. So it is that the Press, operating on behalf of anti-Second Amendment advocates in both State Legislatures and in Congress safety argues that public order and public safety is best served by extending the scope of gun background checks; and that public order and public safety is best served through enactment of laws making gun ownership and possession increasingly onerous; and that public order and public safety is best served through enactment of laws that restrict the number of and kinds of firearms, and the amount of and kinds of ammunition, the average, law-abiding, responsible American citizen is permitted to hold; and so forth and so on, until lawful civilian ownership and possession of firearms is effectively eliminated, making the Second Amendment essentially nugatory.But is public safety and public order secured by denying the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Of course not! That is merely a makeweight. The real goal is civilian population control; to prevent the very thing the framers of our Constitution intended to assure the American people of: that they would be able to deal effectively and harshly with those people in Government, who decide they would rather be the masters of the American people than the servants of the American people.Beyond calls for more and more restrictive State and federal gun legislation and for more and more restrictive local governmental gun codes, gun regulations, and gun ordinances, we hear Leftist politicians that are running for the Democratic Party nomination chiming in how Commonwealth Countries like Australia and New Zealand implement antigun laws easily, and that only in the United States is it difficult to do so and shouldn’t be. Never mind that neither Australia or New Zealand even recognizes a fundamental right of their people to keep and bear arms.In fact, such rights that do exist in New Zealand’s bill of rights aren’t meaningful rights and liberties at all. New Zealand’s bill of rights is nothing more than a collection of ordinary statutes--not a true bill of rights at all--subject to Government censure, or interpretation, or abrogation, essentially at will. And, Australia, for its part, doesn’t even have a bill of rights. And neither Nation recognizes a right to own and possess firearms for self-defense. Fancy that!Yet Democrat Party candidates for U.S. President believe our Nation should follow suit with these Commonwealth Nations. They perfunctorily deny, even betray, our own sacred right to keep and bear arms, rather than reverently lauding it.  And these Democrats, were any one of them to be elected President, have gone so far as to assert a willingness to create antigun law through Executive Branch fiat if need be if Congress doesn’t act in accordance with their personal beliefs concerning, and animus toward, guns and toward civilian gun ownership and possession. These Democrats denounce our Nation’s Constitution; our Nation’s culture; our Nation’s Judeo-Christian ethic; our Nation’s history. And, yet they consider themselves good and proper prospects for U.S. President. The idea is both shameful and absurd.These same politicians, with a sympathetic Press, also ignore or slam the seminal U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Heller and McDonald making clear that the right codified in the Second Amendment is not to be denied or circumvented, as the right set forth in the Second Amendment is an individual right, accruing to each American citizen. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a “collective” right accruing to the State; and it is not to be construed as such.The American public should keep well in mind that, in the final analysis, no better guard against tyranny exists than through the presence of a well-armed citizenry; and no better evidence is there of some politicians’ desire to pave the way for the very inception of tyranny than in legislation to rein in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT DOES GUN CONTROL HAVE TO DO WITH ABORTION: NOTHING? PERHAPS EVERYTHING!

PART ONE

A NATION IN CRISIS: LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS INTEND TO DESTROY THE VERY FABRIC OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

Politicians should articulate sound and rational policy positions for the Nation, and those policy positions should  be consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, to preserve and strengthen it, not undermine it. Is that really unreasonable? Surely, politicians cannot and ought not expect the polity to endorse slipshod, simplistic policy prescriptions, especially those prescriptions that are inconsistent with and antithetical to the original meaning of the Constitution and which are inconsistent with and which therefore negatively impinge on or infringe fundamental rights and liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. Yet, time and time again we see many Democrats, especially those on the Radical Left of the political spectrum, articulating and supporting policy that, even on a cursory analysis, is inapt and inane, even insane.

From guns, to abortion, to immigration, Democrats have gone off the rails. Yet, many Americans seem to think that Democrats’ policy stances and prescriptions make perfectly good sense, and that these policy positions and policy prescriptions bespeak, rather than, belie, the best interests of the Nation and its people. But, do they? Do they really?Take one example: guns. To listen to Democrats go on about the need for more and more gun restrictions, one might be led to think that the reasoning behind Democrats’ desire to impose more and more burdensome, even asinine, gun restrictions on law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans is predicated, as they will constantly remind you, on a desire to promote public safety. These Left-wing extremist Democrats suggest they place a premium on human life and therefore hold the moral high ground, implying, then, that political and social Conservatives do not. But is that true? Are Democrats—especially extremists on the Left who yell loudest for more and more restrictive gun measures—the paragons of virtue they claim to be? If you think so, then ask yourself this: How can a politician claim to value human life by denying an individual the most effective means available to defend his or her life and that of innocent others, namely with a firearm, and, yet, encourage the whole-sale taking of life—the most innocent of human life, through the savage practice of abortion.Can these two policy stances—civilian gun confiscation measures and late term, at will, even at birth, abortion stances be reconciled? Americans have a right to expect—in fact should demand—an answer to this question before jumping on the Radical Left bandwagon. The mainstream media, though, demonstrates no interest in resolving this question. Indeed, the mainstream media doesn’t even bother to ask the question. But, this should come as no surprise to anyone since the mainstream media is no longer the guardian of a free Republic and defender of the Constitution, but, rather, walks in lockstep with extremists in Government—those who desire to undermine our Constitutional Republic, and disassemble our sacred rights and liberties. Rather than taking the would-be destroyers of our Nation to task, we see a seditious Press commending them for it; actively, avidly promoting the Radical Left agenda to the detriment of our Nation and of our people.But, beyond the wild, fantastic idiocy of the Radical Left’s policy stances, as articulated to the polity—the Radical Left’s policy positions, especially those pertaining to guns and abortion—aren’t even coherent or consistent with each other.Consider the nonsensical remarks of two representatives of the Radical Left: U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), contender for her Party’s nomination in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election in 2020, and Andrew Cuomo, third term Governor of New York. Both politicians espouse extreme views on firearms’ ownership and possession, on the one hand, and abortion, on the other. Each of them, at once, denies the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, unalienable, and immutable, notwithstanding codification of that primordial right in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. And, at one and the same time, each argues for a woman’s right to late term, at-will abortion; and each dares to raise abortion to the status of a fundamental right, even though nothing in the Constitution expressly or tacitly supports such a bizarre and outrageous notion.In this essay, we will look at the gun policy and abortion policy prescriptions of both Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo, in depth. We will demonstrate that, while these Left-wing Radical Democrats treat abortion and guns as distinct, incommensurable issues, they really aren’t. Gun policy, if it is to pass Constitutional muster, must always be consistent with the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and the language of the Second Amendment is to be understood as a codification of the natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment, as with the other nine Amendments, is an affirmation of the value of human life, not its denial.The Second Amendment does not entail, explicitly or implicitly, the idea of death, but, of life: the life of the Nation by discouraging tyranny; and the life of the individual, by discouraging threats to that innocent individual. Abortion entails, by definition, death: and death of the most innocent human being of all: an unborn child. There is no way around that conclusion. Any discussion of abortion as a policy choice and any discussion of a restriction on the exercise of one’s fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, as a policy choice, must start with the same standard. One must ask: does that policy choice promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or does that policy choice operate to impede if not altogether preclude life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?The central theme of the Bill of Rights, perceived as an inseparable whole, speaks undeniably to the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo attempt to undercut the Second Amendment by refusing to accept it for what it is: an unconditional, fundamental, unalienable, natural, and immutable right, a right bestowed on man by a loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator; and, as such, a right, as with the other Nine Amendments, that cannot be dismissed, modified, abrogated or ignored. In their refusal to accept the plain import and purport of the Bill Rights of the U.S. Constitution, Harris and Cuomo at once deny the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. Their denial, a casual and callous dismissal of the Second Amendment, operates, by implication, as a casual and callous denial of the Bill of Rights as an integrated whole.Their dismissal of the Second Amendment, amounts to a refutation and dismissal of the entirety of the Bill of Rights as an integrated set of profound, fundamental, unalienable,  immutable rights and liberties. Their dismissal of the sacredness of the Second Amendment Bill of Rights is blasphemy pure and simple.Yet, it is wholly consistent with a temperament that could casually and callously dismiss a fundamental right, and, by logical implication, dismiss all fundamental rights embodied in our Constitution, that Harris and Cuomo would attempt, perfunctorily and arrogantly, to create another, substitute "right" out of whole cloth, namely a State-created “right to abortion,” even surmising that a woman’s right to destroy a living being within her is an independent right in and of itself or that it is somehow implicit in a general right to privacy. It isn’t; and it cannot be. A presumed right of Abortion does not exist in the Constitution. Further, abortion, logically, cannot be seen as implicit in any natural right codified in the Bill of Rights; nor can it be rationally perceived as some sort of new fundamental "right" compatible with the true rights codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. For, abortion is altogether unnatural. Abortion involves the absolute, annihilation of a human being. Absolute destruction of life is contained in and embodied in the very idea of it. It is an anathema. Abortion is the polar opposite of life. The practice of it amounts to the denial of the sanctity and inviolability of the human being. It is not a “right” at all. Abortion is an unspeakable act; an abomination. It cannot, legally or logically, be part and parcel of our Bill of Rights; nor can it be conceived as a right owing to anyone at all. And, any attempt to do so, any attempt to raise abortion to the level of a right—any kind of “right,” whether fundamental or secondary—is  fraught with peril: a thing that threatens the preservation of our Nation as a Constitutional Republic; a thing that threatens preservation of our Constitution; a thing that threatens the continuation of our Judeo-Christian ethical heritage; and a thing that threatens the continued existence of the American citizenry, as a free and sovereign people.__________________________________________________________

IF YOU’RE GOING TO KILL A BABY, DO SO WITH A KNIFE, NOT A GUN!

PART TWO

HARRIS ON THE ISSUES OF GUN POSSESSION AND ABORTION

Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) has been an outspoken critic of the Second Amendment and a strong proponent of gun control for years. She has vigorously attacked civilian ownership and possession of modern sporting and self-defense semiautomatic rifles—what antigun zealots pejoratively and erroneously refer to as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war’—and has called for an “assault weapons” ban. In fact, she has made pushing for an “assault weapons” ban one of her top two legislative priorities. At a town hall, hosted by CNN Anchor, Jake Tapper, on April 4, 2019, Senator Harris stated,“ ‘There is no reason that in a society we have assault weapons around communities that can kill babies and police officers,” Harris said during her CNN town hall with Jake Tapper. ‘Something like universal background checks. It makes perfect sense that you might want to know before someone can buy a weapon that can kill another human being. You might want to know, have they been convicted of a felony where they committed violence? That’s just reasonable.’” Note Harris’ reference to “babies,” in the above cited passage. Kamala Harris argues for an outright civilian ban on semiautomatic weapons, ostensibly to protect babies and police officers, but without explaining how an outright ban on semiautomatic weapons would in fact protect babies and police officers. Apparently, Kamala Harris, and other Radical Left politicians believe this to be a self-evident truth. It isn’t, and the proposition that a ban on possession and ownership of semiautomatic weapons would protect the lives of babies, police officers, or anyone else is false, a pure fabrication, designed to appeal to the American public's emotion, not to the American public's reason.There are, of course, obvious massive legal, logical, and ethical holes in Senator Harris’ claim—a bare unsupported assumption—that banning semiautomatic firearms will in and of itself curb the threat to the life of innocent people, most notably, that of infants. But, her fantastic, remarkable, absurd assertion isn’t the  point to be addressed at length here. What is stunning is that Harris’ stance on abortion is, on logical grounds, alone, at loggerheads with her pretentious claim that it is the lives of babies she is most interested in protecting. She isn’t interested in protecting the lives of babies; not at all. Just take a look at her policy prescription on abortion. If implemented, her abortion policy wouldn’t protect babies. Instead, implementation of her abortion policy, nationwide, would result in the lawful massacre of hundreds of thousands and, conceivably, millions of unborn babies a year.A baby’s death is no less certain whether by knife, ostensibly done lawfully, or by gun, unlawfully. But, Kamala Harris isn’t the least bit troubled by the glaring inconsistency in her policy positions. Since she intends to raise abortion to the level of a basic right, she must, of course, insist that abortion be all nice and legal. Harris seems to fail to recognize, though, the obvious contradiction in her policy stances. She asserts the need to constrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms ostensibly to protect babies, and, yet, asserts, contemporaneously, an unconscionable desire to open the floodgates to wholesale slaughter of innocent babies, through the vehicle of abortion.Whatever protestation Senator Harris might happen to make against the claim that her policy position on guns on the one hand and that of abortion on the other are inherently incompatible, the fact remains that, on logical grounds, alone, they are inconsistent. And, that being so, one cannot choose but must draw the irrefutable conclusion that it isn’t an innocent infant’s life that is an abiding concern for Kamala Harris at all. It’s just the mode employed for ending that life that is of pressing concern to her. Harris isn’t troubled by infant deaths in the slightest. Her attempt at dissimulation is both plain and disconcerting and ineffective. Her blatant dishonesty serves to do nothing but undermine the efficacy of both policy stances.Kamala Harris will take firearms away from the American citizenry ostensibly to protect the body politic and the life of babies—or, so she says. It is all just a makeweight, a pretext, to disarm law-abiding citizens, so that tyranny, in the form of a Left-wing Marxist/Socialist autocratic Government, that she envisions, isn’t threatened by a rebellious citizenry. And, Harris will allow abortion on demand, ostensibly to promote a State-created right to do so, dismissing out-of-hand, not merely deemphasizing, the fact that a human life is the regrettable price to be paid for implementation of that State-created right. Is it just a callous disregard for the life of a human being that drives Harris’ abortion stance, or is it something even more perverse? With a new population consisting of millions of uneducated illegal aliens in the wings—aliens who have no comprehension of and little concern for our Constitution, and who have no comprehension of and even less concern for the concept of a Bill of Rights consisting of natural, fundamental, and unalienable rights and liberties, and who have no comprehension of and no concern at all for the concepts of personal autonomy and of personal responsibility—Kamala Harris and other Radical Left-wing elements may have seen, in the implementation of policy of on-demand abortion, a sure-fire recipe for encouraging abortion in the native population. Abortion as policy could and would operate, then, as an insidious, fiendish strategy through which Marxist/Socialist Collectivists might undercut the population of native born Americans, thereby changing the very structure of the American population through introduction of an entirely new population—one not reared on our history and heritage and on our core values; and one not reared on our system of laws; and one not looking for personal autonomy; and one that does not pride itself on integrity of Self. This new artificial population has one objective and need in mind: welfare. It is a population looking only for Governmental largess. And, it is that which has driven this alien population to demand entry to our Nation in the first place.On May 28, 2019, The New York Times reported on Harris’ abortion plan, stating:“Senator Kamala Harris of California unveiled a plan on Tuesday that would require states and localities with a history of unconstitutionally restricting abortion rights to obtain federal approval before such laws can take effect.Ms. Harris, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for president, called for what is known as a ‘preclearance requirement’ in the plan, released as numerous states have passed laws to sharply limit abortions.‘When we look at a law like what’s happening in Alabama and they’re saying they’re going to sentence a doctor to 99 years, as a prosecutor, let me tell you, I got a real problem with that,’ Ms. Harris said on MSNBC on Tuesday night, referring to an Alabama law intended to ban most abortions in the state.‘We cannot tolerate a perspective that is about going backward and not understanding women have agency, women have value, women have authority to make decisions about their own lives and their own bodies,’ she said.’”“Going backward,” Oh really? And, where do we see concern for innocent human life in the above account? How many human beings will die as a result of implementation of Harris' abortion policy prescription? Let's juxtapose loss of young life by abortion with loss resulting from the misuse of guns. How many young children died by gunfire last year?USAToday reports that 73 juveniles, aged 12 or less, died by gunfire in 2018, a figure that has remained essentially constant for the previous five years, according to the newspaper. Compare that figure to unwanted babies that were deliberately killed through abortion.The website Abort73 reports that, in 2017, over 862,000 abortions were performed in the U.S. Abort 73 further reports that,“According to the United Nations' 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.”Obviously killing babies is not an issue for Harris. It is how babies are killed that is her sole concern. So it is, that, on the subject of firearms, Harris talks about protecting the life of babies. She does so in order to make a faulty case for gun confiscation. And, on the subject of abortion, no discussion of babies ensues. How can it? The whole point of abortion is slaughter. So, Harris limits her remarks to a discussion on the purported right of a pregnant woman to kill a life inside her, without talking about that innocent life at all. That life lost, is, in total absence of discussion of the life lost, is reduced in status to something less than a human being. In fact the unborn child is perceived by Harris as a non-entity; nothing more than an unwanted body part._________________________________________________________

IF YOU’RE GOING TO KILL A BABY, DO SO WITH A KNIFE, NOT A GUN!

PART THREE

ANDREW CUOMO ON THE ISSUES OF GUN POSSESSION AND ABORTION

Governor Andrew Cuomo’s policy prescriptions on guns and abortion are as equally inconsistent and as absurd as those policy prescriptions heralded by Senator Harris.Andrew Cuomo, as with Kamala Harris, demonstrates an odd schizophrenia when it comes to the issue of life and death. He is so concerned about Radical Left policy objectives, he apparently fails to see and appreciate the inconsistency, inherent incoherence and abject irrationality of those policy prescriptions.With passage of the horrific Reproductive Health Act of 2019, Governor Cuomo has shown a predilection for permitting the killing of babies. And, in that regard, it must be pointed out that New York has always embraced lenient abortion laws. But, the Reproductive Health Act goes far, far beyond previous law and policy. It is both deviously clever and fiendishly pernicious. It has little if anything to do with a woman’s reproductive health and everything to do with promoting death.Similarly, the New York Safe Act has little if anything to do with gun safety and it has everything to do with restricting a law-abiding citizen’s ability to defend his or her life. The Safe Act bans a substantial number of firearms that are in common use and therefore fall within the scope of Second Amendment protection. New York has always had extraordinarily restrictive and pernicious gun laws. But, with enactment of the Safe Act, gun laws have become increasingly burdensome. Law-abiding New York gun owners are now plagued by a substantial number of confusing, oppressive gun regulations. They are even denied the right to bequeath their private property to next of kin. Apart from directly infringing the Second Amendment, the so-called “Safe” Act actually makes those individuals who wish to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms, less, not more, safe, given the sheer number of new restrictive gun laws and abstruse, often inscrutable legal text.A law-abiding gun owner who misinterprets the New York gun code sections—an easy thing to do—may lose one’s gun license, along with one’s firearms, and can face criminal penalties as well. Thus, one may easily lose the best means available to protect one's life. How, then, does the “Safe Act” make a law-abiding gun owner safe? Since enactment of the NY Safe Act, Cuomo has constrained exercise of the Second Amendment even further, demonstrating, as Cuomo has acknowledged, that the NY Safe Act was never meant to be an end in itself but merely a work in progress. Cuomo won’t be satisfied until every law-abiding American citizen residing in New York is disarmed. And still he would not be done. His wish is to make the New York Safe Act the model for Congressional legislation, affecting the entire Nation. One must ask: is the Safe Act a prescription for preserving life or merely a pretext for disarming the public? When one looks at Cuomo’s stance on abortion side-by-side with his stance on civilian ownership and possession of firearms it is clear that Cuomo isn’t concerned with promoting public safety and protecting life at all.Six years after signing into law his signature antigun measure, the New York Safe Act of 2013, on January 15, 2013, Cuomo signed the Reproductive Health Act into law on January 22, 2019. The name given to New York’s abortion law is as misleading and deceptive as the name given to New York’s antigun legislation. Just as the New York Safe Act has little if anything to do with promoting public safety, New York’s Reproductive Health Act has little if anything to do with promoting a woman’s reproductive health and well-being.The very notion of promoting “reproductive health and well-being” as the rationale for enactment of the Reproductive Health Act is a “blind.” It is a pretext; and an obvious pretext at that. Ending a human life has nothing to do with promoting a woman’s reproductive health and well-being; and ending a human life certainly has nothing to do with promoting the reproductive health and well-being of the life slaughtered. Aborting a baby doesn’t produce life, it ends it. Ask yourself: what does ending life have to do with propagating life? Answer: nothing. New York’s Reproductive Health Act sanctions murder. That is all the Act does; and on that score, it works very, very well.Although ostensibly created to be consistent with the standard established in the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade, the Reproductive Health Act isn’t consistent with the Supreme Court ruling at all, as the Supreme Court ruling does not sanction abortion after the second trimester of pregnancy and the New York abortion law does. The New York abortion law lawfully permits abortion after the second trimester of pregnancy. The liberal website, Politfact, citing the Sponsor of of New York’s Reproductive Health Act, maintains that the Act is quite similar to the original abortion laws of New York:“Previously, women in New York could only get abortions after 24 weeks of pregnancy if their lives were threatened,’ according to Justin Flagg, a spokesman for [the Act’s Sponsor, State Senator Liz] Krueger. Under the new law, he said, women can also get an abortion after 24 weeks if their health is threatened or the fetus isn’t viable. Jen Villavicencio, an ob-gyn in the Midwest who provides abortions, said in a statement to PolitiFact that the post is ‘inaccurate.’ ‘Abortions are not performed at 40 weeks on healthy, viable pregnancies,’ she said. ‘Overwhelmingly, abortions that occur at this point in pregnancy are pregnancies where lethal fetal anomalies have been diagnosed.’ ”The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on the legal import of the Reproductive Health Act of 2019. See our March 29, 2019 article. The statement by Jen Villavicencio is deceptive.Flushing out the language of the entire Act, not just portions of it, one sees a deliberate inconsistency which, on analysis, makes abundantly clear that, contrary to the arguments of naysayers--those people who support on-demand abortion--who argue disingenuously (as if they gave a damn) that the New York Reproductive Health Act only permits on-demand, at-will abortion during the first two trimesters of pregnancy, ostensibly consistent, then, with the Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade. That is blatantly false, and Cuomo and the drafters of New York's abortion Act, must know that to be false. With passage of the Reproductive Health Act, a pregnant woman can obtain an abortion on-demand at any point in time, whether in the first, second, or third trimester of pregnancy--indeed up to the very moment of birth, and, conceivably, even at the very point of live birth. How do we know this to be true? The language of the Act itself is its own damning indictment against itself.Prior to enactment of the New York’s Reproductive Health Act, late term abortion was, except in rare circumstances, actionable as a very serious crime: manslaughter. But, under the new law that Cuomo has aggressively pushed for, and which a compliant State Government in Albany, has enacted, and which Cuomo, with great flourish and fanfare signed, into law, abortion no longer exists as a crime in New York, under any circumstances. This fact is critical to an understanding of just how far removed New York's new abortion Act, deceptively named the Reproductive Health Act, is from New York’s original abortion laws. Consider: if the Reproductive Health Act simply allowed for lawful abortion where a fetus isn’t viable, as a new condition, allowing for lawful abortion, apart from consideration of the life of the mother, alone, then a change to the original law need only account for that one new condition. It doesn't. The Reproductive Health Act, goes far beyond the simple addition of a new condition for lawfully terminating a pregnancy during the third trimester. The Reproductive Health Act is an extensive rewrite of abortion in New York, impacting several sections of the Consolidated laws of New York. So, the Governor and those who drafted the Reproductive Health Act must have had other factors in mind when drafting New York's new abortion Act. And, a close reading of the Act--all of it and as actually written--makes abundantly clear just how far-reaching the Reproductive Health Act is. The Act goes far beyond anything contemplated in previous New York abortion law. The one critical change is that the crime of abortion has literally been stricken from the Consolidated laws of New York. What does that mean, then? What is the effect of striking ‘abortion’ from the Penal Code of the Consolidated laws of New York? We explain.Since abortion is no longer a crime in New York, a viable human being can be legally aborted up to the very moment of birth. If there is no punishment attached to an act, there is no purported wrongdoing. So, while one may frown on abortion in the absence of a stated condition for it, the absence of any associated penalty for abortion after the third trimester of pregnancy not predicated on a stated condition ostensibly allowing for lawful abortion is, nonetheless, lawful. Thus, the Reproductive Health Act creates the illusion that only two conditions exist, after the second trimester, that permit lawful abortion in New York: the life of the mother and the viability of the baby. If the life of the mother is at stake or if the baby is not viable, then, according to one section of the Act, the life of the baby may be lawfully terminated. That is true enough, and that is what those who support abortion on demand argue. But, they are wrong; or, more likely, they know what the truth is, and they simply wish to deceive the public. That makes them cunning. For, suppose, after the third trimester the mother wishes to abort her baby notwithstanding that her life would not be in jeopardy if the pregnancy is allowed to continue or notwithstanding that the baby isn't viable. May she still lawfully have an abortion? The unequivocal answer is, "yes." Why is that the case? For this reason: Again, if there is no penalty attached to an act, there is no crime. Since the very word, 'abortion,' has been stricken from the New York Penal Code and since coroners in New York are not permitted to investigate an act of abortion--any act of abortion conducted in New York, under any circumstance--it logically follows that a pregnant woman can lawfully abort a baby at any point in time, up to the very moment of live birth. There is, then, no crime of abortion in New York; not any longer, at any rate. This uncomfortable, indeed disturbing, fact makes New York one of only a few States, if there exists any other at all, that legally permits at-will abortion, up to the very moment of birth. Thus, contrary to pro-abortion accounts and arguments presented, the Reproductive Health Act goes far beyond anything contemplated in Roe v. Wade. The Reproductive Health Act operates, then, in a different manner than what Roe v. Wade discusses and permits. The Reproductive Act is, then, a far cry from the standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court that has placed specific restrictions on late-term abortion. New York's Reproductive Health Act is therefore, on its face, unconstitutional. But, as with unconstitutional gun laws, unless a party with proper, legal standing challenges an unconstitutional law in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and unless, after trial, the Court rules in favor of the plaintiff, the law will stand and the law will be enforced. And, at the moment, the Reproductive Health Act does stand, like the New York Safe Act, as valid law of New York, even though, both laws are unconstitutional, as they are both inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and with U.S. Supreme Court precedent and they are, as well, ethically unconscionable law. The New York Safe Act and the New York Health Reproductive Act are representative of the kinds of policy prescriptions Americans can expect from Radical Left and New Progressive Left politicians. These Left-wing extremists, supportive of the tenets of Collectivism, do not have the best interests of this Nation and of its citizenry at heart. They mean to destroy our Constitutional Republic, and to erase the Bill of Rights. They fear an armed citizenry and they reject the notions of individual autonomy, integrity of Self, and the inherent sovereignty of the American people over that of Government. The idea they seek to engender through on-demand, at-will abortion isn't meant to empower women, their assertions to the contrary. It is meant to enslave women by denying to women that which is and ought to be most sacred: the life they bear within them. Apart from destroying the most innocent of life, the practice of abortion is an apt metaphor for the contempt in which these Dead Souls of the Radical Left and the so-called New Progressive Left hold all people as they seek to exert maximum control over the thoughts and behavior of every American.What can Americans expect will occur from enactment of the Reproductive Health Act in New York, this year? We can expect that New York will become the murder capital of the world, as women from all over the Country and from other Countries as well will flock to New York to destroy their child, and will not be hampered, as women will be able to lawfully abort their baby, for any reason or for no reason at all, and may do so at any stage of pregnancy, up to the very moment of live birth. There is nothing in New York law, any longer, to prevent abortion. All previous stumbling blocks have been removed. The number of abortions that had been falling around the Country in the last few years can now be expected to increase once again, and to increase rapidly and exponentially; and we have Andrew Cuomo and the Reproductive Act of New York, that he signed into law with a flourish, to thank for that.Andrew Cuomo should be absolutely ashamed of himself, pushing for enactment of and then signing the Reproductive Health Act into law. Moreover, Cuomo’s stance on abortion is not only morally repugnant, it is inconsistent with his own religious upbringing. Cuomo is a Roman Catholic, and still claims to be a practicing Roman Catholic. Roman Catholicism has a very clear stricture when it comes to the matter of abortion. The Catholic Church categorically condemns abortion and calls it out for what it is: the murder of an innocent human being.Cuomo, though doesn’t seem to be bothered with any of this. He sees no inconsistency in his having signed infanticide into law as Governor of New York, and remaining, in his own eyes at least, a follower of Roman Catholicism.As he suffers to explain it, Cuomo sees his duties as Governor as distinct from those as a Roman Catholic. Cuomo says that, as Governor, his job requires him to uphold the Constitution, not to uphold the stricture of the Catholic Church. In his twisted, distorted logic, as cited in the Catholic website, Patheos, Cuomo asserts:“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.”This isn't sound logic; it is sophistry. Cuomo’s reference to both the New York State Constitution and the anti-establishment of religion clause inthe First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, ostensibly to support infanticide and any late-term at-will abortion of an innocent human life, does not support enactment of the Reproductive Health Act at all. His argument in support of the Act is patently absurd.While Pope Francis has handled enactment of New York’s Reproductive Health Act obliquely, gingerly, and obviously reluctantly, New York's, Cardinal Timothy Dolan has exhibited no such restraint, commenting directly and forcefully against the abortion Act and took Cuomo’s lackadaisical, dismissive attitude toward abortion to task, as the Arbalest Quarrel pointed out in a previous article, posted on the website on May 19, 2019.Apart from the Catholic Church’s condemnation of abortion, the U.S. Constitution, and New York's own Constitution, too, neither condones nor permits the murder of innocent human beings. Cuomo apparently knows this, and that is why he has not stopped at merely signing the Reproductive Health Act into law, horrible as that Act is—making late-term at-will abortion, lawful, in New York.Apparently realizing that the Act will be challenged and attempting to prevent a successful Court challenge, Cuomo has proposed an Amendment to the New York Constitution, that effectively raises infanticide to the level of a fundamental right in New York!Cuomo exclaims with customary, disingenuous exuberance and bravado on the Governor's website:“ ‘As Washington seeks to limit women's rights, we seek to protect them, and as they threaten reproductive rights, I propose a constitutional amendment to write Roe v. Wade into the New York State Constitution to prevent any attack on the right to choose,’ Governor Cuomo said. ‘We will not allow the progress of the women's movement to be stopped, and we must seize this opportunity to bring the state and the nation forward and stand up for women's health. Make no mistake, we will always protect the right to choose in New York.’”How does Governor Cuomo seek to protect “women’s rights?” He does so by offering up as sacrifice, what ought to be received as the Divine Creator’s Greatest gift to human beings: a being created in his own image. Again, as with Senator Kamala Harris, no mention is made of the destruction of human life. With much fanfare, though, Cuomo and Harris proselytize about women's rights, whatever Cuomo and Harris claim those rights to be. But, any discussion of babies is noticeably, painfully absent, tucked completely away from view. Cuomo thinks that a constitutional amendment, inserting the Court's opinion into the State Constitution will legally protect and sanctify the Reproductive Health Act. It will do no such thing. Since the language of the Reproductive Health Act, when taken as a whole, is at odds with high Court law, insertion of the Roe v. Wade into the State Constitution would more likely serve to nullify the Act, not strengthen and preserve it. So have at it, Governor Cuomo!What is perceived with the liberalization of abortion, albeit with decidedly less fanfare, and more pain, for anyone who wishes to see it, is human sacrifice raised to the level of official edict. How is this different from human sacrifice performed by pagan religions of centuries past! We are beginning to see the Radical Left’s model for Liberal Democracy; for our new Age of Enlightenment; for a New World Order!Cuomo, ever the politician, contorts and distorts both U.S. law and the Judeo-Christian Ethic in a naked attempt to make the U.S. Constitution and Western morality and ethics cohere with his own warped view of both—one consistent with the Marxist-Collectivist ideology. But that ideology is absolutely inconsistent with the import and purport of our Nation’s Constitution and that ideology is absolutely anathema to the Judeo-Christian ethical foundation of our Nation. Cuomo doesn’t care and Harris doesn't care. They are both on an Unholy Crusade; Anti-Christs, ready to remake the World in their own ungodly image!It is plain to see that Governor Cuomo and Senator Harris have not been and will not ever be constrained by law or logic or morality or even by simple common human decency. Arrogant and sanctimonious to the extreme, obsessed with smug self-aggrandizement, avidly supported by a seditious Press, by Billionaire Globalists, and by Hollywood celebrities, emboldened by a surge of radical Leftist social and political sentiment plaguing our Nation, obstreperous and defiant to criticism, flagrantly violating our Constitution and system of laws, violating all compunctions of custom, these Radical Left political animals are beyond all redemption. Cuomo and Harris will gladly sell their soul to the Devil for personal gain, and, by all accounts, with all that we have to date seen, they have already done so. Unfortunately, with the power they wield, as recognized through their words and deeds, they may very well have the ability to take the Nation and its citizenry down to perdition with them._________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A SOCIALIST TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA IS INEVITABLE IF THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITHERS AND DIES

A SEDITIOUS PRESS AND THE NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT DEMOCRATS SEEK TO UNDERMINE A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

“If the media were honest, they would say, Look, here are the interests we represent and this is the framework within which we look at things. This is our set of beliefs and commitments. That’s what they would say, very much as their critics say. For example, I don’t try to hide my commitments, and the Washington Post and New York Times shouldn’t do it either. However, they must do it, because this mask of balance and objectivity is a crucial part of the propaganda function. In fact, they actually go beyond that. They try to present themselves as adversarial to power, as subversive, digging away at powerful institutions and undermining them. The academic profession plays along with this game.” Quotation one, ~Noam Chomsky, American linguist, philosopher, cognitive scientist, historian, social critic, and political activist, from Lecture titled, “Media, Knowledge, and Objectivity,” June 16, 1993“Control of thought is more important for governments that are free and popular than for despotic and military states. The logic is straightforward: a despotic state can control its domestic enemies by force, but as the state loses this weapon, other devices are required to prevent the ignorant masses from interfering with public affairs, which are none of their business . . . the public are to be observers, not participants, consumers of ideology as well as products.” Quotation two, ~Noam Chomsky, from article, titled, “Force and Opinion,” in Z MagazineThe picture of the world that’s presented to the public has only the remotest relation to reality. The truth of the matter is buried under edifice after edifice of lies upon lies. It’s all been a marvelous success from the point of view in deterring the threat of democracy, achieved under conditions of freedom, which is extremely interesting.” Quotation three, ~Noam Chomsky, from his book, “Media Control: The Spectacular Achievements of Propaganda”

PART ONE

With this latest “mass” shooting, in Odessa, Texas, the antigun zealots and their fellow travelers in the Press lost little time in exploiting the tragedy. The antigun seditious Press, always protective of its fundamental right  of freedom of the Press  under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, misuses that fundamental right to launch a vicious assault on another but equally, sacred, fundamental right—a sacred, inviolate right that tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, and rational citizens exercise every day, as is their prerogative: the sacred, inviolate, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms—a right as fundamental, immutable, unalienable as is the freedom of the Press that our seemingly Free Press seems exclusively concerned about securing, perhaps well aware that the seditious dogma it propagates can and should be constrained.In that regard it should be mentioned that President Trump can certainly take action to choke the Press for the malicious, bald-faced lies elicited from it, if he had the mind to do so; but he hasn’t done so, which speaks to his restraint, something that can’t be said for Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, who, as the Baltimore Examiner reported, prosecuted and spied on reporters to constrain the Press, and he did so several times. Obama’s actions amounted to an abuse of power that Obama never had to answer for. President Trump’s actions unlike those of Obama have amounted to amounted to mere rebukes against the Press. But Trump, unlike Obama, did have and does have every reason to clamp down on the Press for having orchestrating a comprehensive attack on him, an attack that goes well beyond criticism, amounting to vicious defamation of character and a fusillade of malicious lies. The Press sneers at the President, castigates him, ridicules him; derides, mocks, and taunts him viciously, constantly, relentlessly. The Press refers to Trump as an autocrat, and a danger to our Nation. Honestly? Which President is it who has really demonstrated autocratic tendencies? The answer is obvious, isn’t it? And, if, God forbid, any of the current crop of Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President is elected President in 2020, it will be that person that ushers in a totalitarian regime.Yet, the seditious Press, ever protective of and jealous of its own inviolate right and prerogatives codified in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, perverts that right and has done so, since the earliest days of Donald Trump’s Presidency, launching endless scurrilous, pernicious, bombastic, inflammatory ad hominem attacks on Trump and on his Administration’s policies; trying to frustrate him at every turn, in every manner; intent on accomplishing that detestable aim; deliberately, seditiously making it difficult for the President to perform his duties in accordance with his Oath of Office set forth in Article 2, Section One, Clause 8 of the Constitution—doing everything it can to wear the President down, sabotage his efforts, and blind to the fact that harming the President means harming the Nation, the Constitution, and the American people. Trump has persevered through all of this, weathered the storm of noxious, incessant verbal and written assaults on his character and his policies and that speaks volumes to his fortitude, stamina, strength of will, to overcome adversity—adversity that, unfortunately and disturbingly, emanates from within the Nation, than outside it.

AN ATTACK ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AN ATTACK ON THE NATION, ON THE CONSTITUTION, ON THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, ON THE FOUNDERS AND ON THE FOUNDERS’ VISION FOR THIS NATION

The attack by the Press is pervasive, vigorous, vicious, vile, and all-consuming: a constant barrage of invective directed against President Trump, against the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, against guns and gun owners, against NRA; even against the founders of our Republic, and their vision for our Country of which the Constitution is the Nation’s blueprint. The Press has conspired with others who are intent on undermining all of it. This virulent, seditious, antigun Press is intent on denying to Americans their sacred, inviolate, unalienable right to defend their life, safety, and well-being, with the best means available, a firearm. Through its incessant assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and through its never-ending, attack on the President who has, for the most part, defended that right, and against NRA that tirelessly protects it, the Press would also, not surprisingly, place obstacles in the path of Americans who recognize that the most effective way to guard against the insinuation of tyranny into our Nation is by dint of an armed citizenry.Obviously, a seditious Press knows this, and, as that same seditious, incorrigible Press, is in league with Left-wing extremists—who some people refer to as the New Progressive Left—whose sick and bizarre vision for America mandates the establishment of a Marxist/Socialist dictatorship, a dictatorship our Nation is inexorably chugging along toward. The public should well take note of what a Marxist/Socialist Dictatorship shall bring: misery, oppression, hopelessness for and in the lives of every American. And, don’t think that such a hell-world cannot come to pass. For, if the New Progressive Left actually succeeds, in the forthcoming General Election, in taking control of both chambers of Congress, and of the U.S. Presidency, as well, autocracy will manifest itself, and it will manifest quickly. Tyranny of Government—the very fear of the founders of the Republic—will be inevitable.A vision of our Country grounded on the tenets of Collectivism, rather than on the tenets of Individualism, as it presently is, is now a stark possibility, as extremist Left-wing elements have high-jacked the Democratic Party. That is plain. And the Press knows this too; welcomes it; nurtures it. And why not? After all, the seditious Press has been high-jacked by extremist Left-wing elements, too, using its First Amendment freedom, ironically and disturbingly, not to defend, safeguard, preserve, and strengthen our Constitutional Republic—but to undermine and destroy it, commencing with an unending parade of indictments against the Second Amendment and vicious and unparalleled attacks on the President and, indeed, on the very institution of the Presidency that this Nation has never before seen.But, to condemn one fundamental right is to condemn them all, including the Freedom of the Press—a singular right that Mark Levin, an attorney, author, and true Patriot, has perceptively referred to as the "Unfreedom of the Press," and has so titled his recent best-selling non-fiction book on the subject of the Press; as the Press, today, has corrupted the very right it disingenuously defends and extols, but misuses to undercut the Second Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and, in fact, undermines the very right, the Freedom of the Press, that it seemingly fervently defends; for all ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights go together to form a single coherent, comprehensive whole. The Bill of Rights is a unique testament to the importance the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, placed in the American people; for it is American people in whom sovereign power over the Nation rests, not the federal Government.The Government the framers constructed is a Government divided into three separate but co-equal Branches, each with its own set of limited powers, as meticulously set out in the Articles of the Constitution. 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 as set forth in and made abundantly clear in the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. And, if those who exert power and authority in Government ever forget where it is that true lawful, sovereign power resides, then the right codified in the Second Amendment exists to remind them that Government was created to serve the American people, and not the other way around; nor does Government exist to serve itself.The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution, would be absolutely appalled to witness the Press’ perversion of its sacred freedom. These extremist Left-wing elements that have taken over a substantial part of our news media and news commentary are a deadly contagion, spouting vile venom and filth, dispersing it with pomposity and sanctimony, on radio, on television, in printed media, and over the internet—indeed, everywhere throughout the Country and the world.And this so-called New Progressive Left plague is firmly planted in and dispersed throughout our institutions of Government—federal, State, and local—and it is a prominent fixture in the entertainment business. The New Progressive Left is pervasive in the Press and in media. It has permeated the major technology companies. But all this spawn of the New Progressive Left know full well it cannot dismantle a free, Constitutional Republic so easily. The New Progressive Left brood cannot long survive as long as there exists an armed citizenry. The root system of the New Progressive Left will wither and die as long as there exists an armed citizenry in the U.S. But an armed citizenry will only continue to exist if the American public manifests and maintains its strength of will and an indefatigable faith in our founders’ vision for our Nation and does not fall prey to the specious emotional laden nonsense constantly flowing through and out of the radical Left’s echo chamber: the Unfree Press.__________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST NOT BUCKLE UNDER TO THE PRESS AND TO DEMOCRATS WHO EXPLOIT TRAGEDY TO UNDERCUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART TWO

“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”~ George Orwell, writer and essayist, from his novel on a Dystopian society, "1984"

ENGAGING IN COMPROMISE WITH THOSE WHO ABHOR FIREARMS AND WHO DETEST THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEIR SACRED RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WILL SERVE ONLY TO COMPROMISE THAT RIGHT, DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The American citizenry are a free, powerful, sovereign people living in a free Constitutional Republic; a Nation that belongs to the entire citizenry, not to a select few individuals among the citizenry; and definitely not to the Government, an entity created to serve the citizenry, not to subjugate and oppress it. The words codified in the Second Amendment make this fundamental truth plain. The exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms make this truth a reality. The New Progressive Left seeks to erase the words of the Second Amendment from the Constitution. The New Progressive Left demands the surrender of all firearms from the hands of the citizenry. Government control over an armed citizenry is impossible. Those Leftist radical elements know this and it infuriates them. The need for an armed citizenry, as the framers of the Constitution planned for, intended, and made eminently clear in the words of the Second Amendment, is indisputable, inescapable; and, as we see more so, today, than ever before, their vision for this Country cannot remain true and pure without an armed citizenry. The Leftist extremists come up against an impenetrable roadblock in the very existence of the Second Amendment. They realize their vision of a Marxist/Socialist Country, where America is merely a small cog in a mammoth Marxist/Socialist new world order, cannot come to fruition as long as the American people possess firearms, and they find this state of affairs intolerable.But, as long as the founders’ vision for our Nation remains fixed in the psyche of the American citizenry, and as long as the American public remains mindful, vigilant, and  undeterred by the dire threat the New Progressive Left poses to our Nation, and as long as the American public, the silent majority, is resolved to prevent the Left’s replacing the founders' vision for our Country with that of their own, will the American public be able to effectively resist and forestall the establishment here of a Marxist, Socialist dictatorship--a dictatorship in which the betrayers of our Nation, consisting of the New Progressive Left itself, but also comprising crass opportunists, stand willing to sell their very souls to secure for themselves nothing but personal aggrandizement—bootlickers and lemmings all—ready to abase themselves, obediently taking their marching orders from their overlords holed up in Brussels.If these radical Left-wing elements succeed in compromising the Nation by undercutting the Constitution, then the American people, like the populations of the EU, will face unending misery; misery manifesting in the suppression of basic freedoms, constant surveillance, control over thought and conduct, and penury; a sad, oppressive life, nay, something less than life: mere existence—in a new political, social, economic, and cultural construct; one that has erased the independence and sovereignty of our Nation and of all Western nation-states; destroying, as well, the constitutions, laws, and jurisprudence of all nation-states.But to accomplish their goal, the New Progressive Left in our Country must indoctrinate our children, and reeducate those adults who aren’t so easily susceptible to prolific proselytizing and propagandizing; those adults who are not so willing to accept the fiction that our fundamental rights and liberties aren’t rights at all and never had been, but are merely man-made constructs, mere privileges, bestowed on the American people by grace of Government and by that same authority of Government would those same privileges be rescinded.If the public believes the fiction—if, in fact, the public believes that fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights are not, at all, rights preexistent in man, bestowed on man by a loving Divine Creator, but are mere privileges, vouchsafe granted by Government to men—then these Marxists, Socialists, and Communists, will find it much easier to weaken and ultimately negate the one right that alone serves as the means of preventing subjugation of the American citizenry, and it is that one, fundamental right that most concerns them: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The problem for those of us who seek to preserve and strengthen our sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms is found less in the Radical Left or New Progressive Left elements now controlling the seditious Press and who have insinuated themselves in and are now legion in the Democratic Party, and more in the growing possibility that the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans might actually consider negotiating with the Democrats and in so doing, weaken rather than preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What we must do is to make plain to both the U.S. President and to Congressional Republicans that they must not capitulate. We must make clear to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that to cave in to Democrat demands for “muscular new gun control proposals,”—that Progressive Left Democrat Candidates for U.S. President, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren, are calling for, as reported by The New York Times, on September 3, 2019, in an article title, “Demanding Gun Control, but Differing on Tactics,”—is not the way to deal with these gun grabbers.Our Nation already has more than enough restrictive gun laws. We don’t need more; for more gun laws will not make this Nation safer. More restrictive gun laws, targeting the tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizen, which is the aim of the New Progressive Left Congressional Democrats will only make this Nation less safe--will leave those Americans without the means of adequate defense against the psychopathic criminals and dangerous psychotic lunatics who prey on innocent Americans. And, be well aware of this: The gun control proposals of Democratic Party candidates policy goals is specifically designed to target the millions of average, law-abiding gun owners, not the common criminal, the vicious drug cartels, or the occasional lunatic. We know that; and Democrats know that too. And, they don't deny it. The Press doesn't ask these candidates for U.S. President what their gun measures are really designed to do, whom it is they are really targeting. But, then, they are of one mind with antigun New Progressive Left. And, apparently, the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans aren't asking either. These “muscular new gun control measures” various Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President are calling for are directed squarely at the millions of law-abiding gun owners, not common criminals, not psychopathic gang members, not psychotic lunatics, all of whom are not permitted to own and possess firearms under current federal law, anyway—federal law that in many instances isn’t enforced. And this indisputable truth compels one unmistakable, disturbing conclusion: That further gun control laws the New Progressive Left Democratic Presidential candidates are vociferously and blatantly arguing for are not directed to reducing gun violence; nor, for that matter, are they directed toward the reduction of violence of any kind. The appeal for more restrictive gun measures is a makeweight, a platitude, for on close inspection, the logic behind the appeal falls apart, and one realizes the scam for what it is and that those demanding comprehensive gun control are really calling for comprehensive population control. The expression 'muscular, ' in muscular new gun measures' even sounds ominous. It alludes to something a criminal psychopath would utter, as the Progressive New Left intends to "muscle" the  average, honest, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizen out of  their firearms--in other words, force average Americans to surrender their firearms on pain of serious repercussions for an American citizen who fails to do so. But, even taking the implausible platitude of ending gun violence for what it is, namely a ruse to compel the American citizenry to surrender its firearms—a ruse that has become ever clearer in the assertion, and severe in the contemplation of it—what we need to do is to understand what the core issue really is and drill down to that core issue and resolve that core issue. The question that we need to ask is this: how do we best contain violence directed toward innocent people? Focusing on guns merely serves to obscure the core issue and resolution of it, if we assume, for purpose of argument that containing violence is what the New Progressive Left has in mind and what they really want to resolve as well. But, to cut to the chase: they really don't. The New Progressive Left isn't interested in curtailing gun violence against innocent Americans. For, if they did, they would be approaching the issue sensibly, reasonably. Their objective would be to to curtail violence, whatever the mechanism employed. But they don't do that. And even apropos of guns, the New Progressive Left isn't really interested in curtailing violence committed by criminals and the occasional lunatic. Their interest is simply banning as many firearms as they can and that means targeting as many people as they can who happen to possess guns, namely tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible American citizens. And, even on that score, they aren't honest. For, while it may seem superficially plausible to target as many gun as possible, the reason for doing so has little to do with preventing violence, for if the New Progressive Left were successful in that endeavor all that they would accomplish would be to leave tens of millions of average, law-abiding Americans defenseless, at the mercy of criminal predators and dangerous lunatics who will be able to get their hands on firearms anyway. So, it isn't curtailing violence against innocent people that the New Progressive Left is interested in protecting from "gun" violence. It is those very people that the New Progressive Left fears because tens of millions of armed Americans is a formidable force that can oppose a tyrannical Government, and it is just that sort of Government that the New Progressive Left is intent on creating. Guns themselves are merely an implement. Bad actors, the agents of violence will always be able to obtain firearms as most now do anyway, not in gun stores, or over the internet, or at gun shows, but on the Black Market. So, if it is containing societal violence, then Congress should address that. And, if not, then President Trump and Congressional Republicans should call Democrats out for their ruse. For gun control only increases the risk of societal violence, as gun control that Democrats have in mind is not a surgical strike targeting the criminal and the dangerous lunatic; it is a sledge hammer targeting the law-abiding citizenry.President Trump and  Republicans must not be hesitant in calling these Democrats out. They should ask the question directly, first of themselves and then of the radical Left Democrats: What is the goal of the New Progressive Left Congressional Democrats in calling for gun control? Is their goal to reduce societal violence or is it to disarm the American citizenry? Congressional legislation is a function of the matter to be addressed, and that is where attention ought to be focused. Taking Democrats at their word, if, then, Democrats truly desire to curtail violence in society, thereby promoting public safety, attention should be directed to answering that question, but attention is never directed to that question; not really, for that is not what Democrats want. That is not what they are after. What they seek is comprehensive citizen disarmament, and withal, removing the incipient threat to the unconstitutional usurpation of Government power and authority. In so doing the New Progressive Left turns the paramount concern of the founders of our free Republic, on its head. For an armed citizenry was precisely what the founders prescribed; for their aim was to deter the rise of tyranny, not enable it.The Press, echoing the demands of Democratic Party Presidential Candidates, with whom the Press is in league, pretends to be interested in promoting public safety, failing to realize or even to consider that an armed citizenry is the best defense against armed assailants. The goal of the Progressive New Left isn’t really public safety at all. If it were, attention would be directed to incarcerating serial criminals in prison where they belong; placing the criminally insane in institutions where they can receive the care they need and the public can be spared the danger the criminally insane pose; and deporting illegal aliens who commit the serious crimes of rape, armed robbery, assault, and murder, instead of releasing them out into the public where they can commit crimes anew.But, many Democrats, including their leaders, aren’t concerned about any of that. If they were, then they would spend more time campaigning for toughened sentencing against hardened criminals, and institutionalizing dangerous psychotics who have demonstrated a predilection for violence, and deporting illegal aliens who have demonstrated a proclivity toward violence. But we see none of that happening. We see, instead, Democrats spending much of their time campaigning for more restrictive gun laws, directed to the law-abiding citizen, which, if enacted, would have the perverse result of leaving the law-abiding citizen defenseless. The need for further restrictive gun laws is, then, again, just a ruse—all directed to one ultimate goal: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, after which the amassing of Government power can take off, unconfined by the limitations imposed on Government in the first three Articles of the U.S. Constitution, and undeterred by, and no longer concerned with the threat an armed citizenry poses to Government's usurpation of power, which the New Progressive Left has sought all along. No longer would the need exist for the Government tyrants to go through the motions of complying with the Constitution, for the means to compel Government compliance with the limitations the Constitution imposes on Government. an armed citizenry, would no longer exist.____________________________________________________

NEW GUN CONTROL PROPOSALS ARE CITIZEN/POPULATION CONTROL PROPOSALS; THEY ARE BLATANT ATTEMPTS TO WEAKEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART THREE

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.” ~Noah Webster, American lexicographer, textbook pioneer, English-language spelling reformer, political writer, editor, and prolific author; from his essay, “An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution,” 1787

SO-CALLED COMMON-SENSE GUN MEASURES THAT RESTRICT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS MAKE NO SENSE AT ALL!

THE ANTIGUN NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT DEMOCRATS BETRAY OUR NATION WITH FOUR EXTREMELY RESTRICTIVE GUN PROPOSALS THEY ARE DEAD SET ON IMPLEMENTING AND WILL IN FACT IMPLEMENT IF DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE, THE U.S. PRESIDENCY, IN THE UPCOMING GENERAL ELECTION

We hear the expression "common-sense gun measures" bandied about often enough; so often, in fact, that the average person doesn't bother to give it much thought, but takes the veracity of the expression as self-evident true. But, it it? On even cursory inspection such so-called "common-sense gun measures" that operate to restrict the average, law-abiding, responsible, and rational American's exercise of the natural, fundamental, and immutable, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms makes no sense at all. The expression is an oxymoron and nonsensical. That fact becomes painfully obvious when one takes a long hard look at particular measures these Antigun Progressive New Left politicians have in mind. When these politicians assert that this or that gun measure makes perfect common sense, you can rest assured that it does not. The problem is that, while these politicians will tell you that this or that gun policy or gun measure will reduce "gun violence," they don't provide you with sound evidence to support their statements; nor do they give the American public a good sense of how the restrictive gun measure is designed to work, and how it is expected to be implemented. They probably don't have a clue themselves. Still, once the public gets a handle on what these antigun radical Left-wing politicians are really up to--constraining the exercise of the Second Amendment to the point that the right codified in it becomes essentially nugatory and not, contrary to what they insist, reducing "gun violence," and promoting public safety--it becomes abundantly evident that these gun control measures, when utilized together, are directed to do three things very, very well: all of them directed to disarming the citizenry and, hence, destroying the Second Amendment; and none of them directed to reducing "gun violence" and promoting "public safety"The New Progressive Left politicians' goal of disarming the citizenry through legislation, through Administrative rule-making, and through executive order--operating as a de facto repeal of the Second Amendment--has essentially three components:First, the New Progressive Left politicians seek to expand exponentially the kinds of guns and components of firearms the average law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen will no longer be permitted lawfully to possess, and, for those individuals who are permitted to lawfully possess firearms, these antigun politicians seek to control the number of firearms a person may own and possess and to strictly control the amount of ammunition and the kinds of ammunition that a gun owner is permitted to have. Second, The New Progressive Left politicians seek to expand exponentially the domain of American citizens who are prohibited from lawfully owning and possessing firearms, components of firearms, and ammunition. Third, as for those Americans who are not immediately prohibited from exercising the sacred right that is codified in the Second Amendment, the New Progressive Left politicians' "common-sense" gun policies and  gun measures are designed to be oppressive, exceedingly so, in order to make ownership and possession of firearms, ammunition, and component parts of firearms, an expensive proposition and an administrative ordeal to maintain lawfully, if the gun owner is to avoid loss of his personalty and suffer civil or even criminal prosecution. Below, we discuss a few of the ramifications of the recent antigun proposals the New Progressive Left politicians have vociferously argued for, as echoed, incessantly, by a seditious Press.Note: three of the four restrictive gun measures have been around four decades. Every so often, when a lunatic goes off half-cocked, the gun grabbers bring these proposals out of the closet and try to push them, anew, on the public. These proposals include, one, bans on commonly owned firearms; two, expansive gun background checks; and, three, so-called "gun buybacks." The fourth restrictive gun measure"Red Flag" laws, is fairly new. But, any one of these four draconian gun measures clearly infringes on the Second Amendment and negatively impacts or directly infringes other Constitutional rights and liberties as well. If all of these antigun measures were to be implemented, the Second Amendment would become effectively nugatory. But, that is the point of them. And with the last few shooting incidents, hyped up, endlessly and vigorously, by a seditious Press, we see these politicians and the Press effectively manipulating public opinion to the point that even some Congressional Republicans and Republican State Government Officials are coming on board. The Second Amendment is again under dangerous siege. 

RADICAL AND PROGRESSIVE LEFT’S FOUR-PRONG STRATEGY FOR DESTROYING THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE EVENT DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND THE U.S. PRESIDENCY

FIRST PRONG: INSTITUTE NEW BANS ON SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS , AMMUNITION MAGAZINES, AND OTHER GUN COMPONENTS AND GUN ACCESSORIESIt isn't bans on some semiautomatic weapons that the New Progressive Left is gunning for: It’s a ban on all semiautomatic weapons and on all component parts of those weapons, and on all accessories for those weapons; The very fact that the Radical Left uses vague and scary expressions, 'assault weapon' and 'high capacity magazine' isn’t not by accident, and this point must be clearly pointed out, apart from the pejorative connotations of those expressions. The expressions are deliberately ‘scary’ to instill a feeling of repugnance in the minds of the target audience. And the expressions are vague and open-ended in meaning to allow Congress to place into these categories anything and everything they wish. The Arbalest Quarrel has previously and repeatedly pointed out that the goal of antigun proponents is to ban all semiautomatic weapons, not just some of them, and this has proved prescient as the Radical Left and New Progressive Left antigun crowd is beginning to use the expressions, ‘semiautomatic weapon’ and ‘semiautomatic weapon’ interchangeably. More so than revolvers, semiautomatic firearms have become the weapons of choice for personal defense. They are weapons in common use by millions of Americans, and, they are the weapons that the antigun Progressive New Left is most desirous of banning outright, along with their ammunition magazines. If these radical antigun Leftists are successful, then exercise of the Second Amendment will become increasingly more difficult, and that is the real aim of antigun zealots. Their goal is to destroy the Second Amendment because the citizenry's exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, codified in the Second Amendment, operates as an existential threat to the ultimate goal they wish to achieve: absolute control of the population and subjugation of the citizenry. To achieve the ultimate goal of expanding Government exponentially and controlling all thought and behavior of the American public through absolute control of the police, the military, the intelligence apparatuses, the media, and control of the policy-making arms of Government, the New Progressive Left antigun zealots realize they must disarm the citizenry. De facto repeal of the right of the Second Amendment is, then, their penultimate goal. The New Progressive Left must accomplish destruction of the Second Amendment if they are to be able to subjugate the citizenry, and, in so doing, they will begin to bring to fruition, their ultimate goal: a Marxist-Socialist Dictatorship that will emerge from the tattered remains of our Republic. But, the New Progressive Left politicians must first curry public support for their unconstitutional, unconscionable antigun policy objectives and measures. In that effort we find antigun groups, the Press, and antigun politicians of the New Progressive Left unfailingly and endlessly utilizing the fictions their public relations firms create for the specific purpose of manipulating the public into supporting policies antithetical to preservation of the Second Amendment. These fictions include loaded, emotionally charged terminology: ‘assault weapon,’ ‘military styled assault rifle,’ ‘weapon of war,’ and “high capacity magazine.” The public usually doesn’t even bother to ask for explication of these expressions, and in the few instances when it does ask for an explication, we see the antigun spokesperson often saying that the targeted weapons look like and operate like military weapons. This, of course is a nonsensical response, first, because the military isn't interested in the appearance of firearms merely for the sake of appearance, anyway, and, second, because the antigun pronouncement that civilian “assault weapons” operate like military “assault rifles” is simply wrong.In weapons’ design and fabrication for military application, form follows function, not the other way around, and the critical importance of function of a weapon is that of operation and handling. The military, ‘assault rifle,’ by definition, is a selective fire, intermediate caliber weapon. The civilian version of an assault rifle, if the notion of a ‘civilian version’ of military assault rifle is even meaningful, is hardly an adequate descriptor for weapons found in the non-military marketplace since such weapons are not capable of full auto or short burst auto fire.Antigun politicians and antigun zealots also claim that ‘assault weapons’ aren't utilized for and are not really useful for hunting small game. But, how would they even know? They never bother to explain, and the assertion is hardly self-evident, true. In fact, the assertion is false on two grounds. First, many Americans do use the weapon for hunting. It is light, accurate, and suitable for and, so, often marketed for that purpose. Antigun politicians and antigun zealots also claim that ‘assault weapons’ aren't utilized for and are not really useful for hunting small game. But, how would they even know? They never bother to explain, and the assertion is hardly self-evident, true. In fact, the assertion is false on two grounds. First, many Americans do use the weapon for hunting. It is light, accurate, and suitable for and, so, often marketed for that purpose. Second, even assuming, for purpose of argument, that the antigun zealot’s claim were true, it doesn’t follow that Americans don’t have a right to possess these ‘assault weapons’ for other lawful uses, such as for home defense or simply for target shooting, or for competitive shooting. , even assuming, for purpose of argument, that the antigun zealot’s claim were true, it doesn’t follow that Americans don’t have a right to possess these ‘assault weapons’ for other lawful uses, such as for home defense or simply for target shooting, or for competitive shooting. Those are all legitimate purposes. Further, suppose, an American simply wants a fully functional ‘assault weapon’ as a collectible. Why shouldn’t a law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen be able to own and possess that weapon? It is no answer to say no American needs one. But, that is the answer often given. In fact, why should the law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen even have to proffer a reason for owning and possessing a so-called 'assault weapon' at all. The antigun New Progressive Left activist simply presumes that a person must explain why he wishes to own and possess this or that firearm. No he doesn't. Where in the Constitution, in the Second Amendment, or in any other provision of the Constitution, does it say that an American citizen must demonstrate a purpose for or need for owning and possessing a particular firearm? Nowhere. The implicit understanding of the text of the Second Amendment is that a weapon be a personnel weapon, that, in fact, is expected to be used for, inter alia, military use. So, contrary, to the antigun New Progressive Left’s assertion that civilians are not permitted to own and possess a 'weapon of war,'—a shibboleth that is accepted as true and obviously so—the import of the Second Amendment points to the falsity of the New Progressive Left’s claim. A salient, and, indeed, the salient import of the Second Amendment is that the Nation is to be protected by a citizen army, no less so than by the Government's own standing army to help thwart a foreign aggressor; but also, and more particularly today, to protect the sovereignty, the integrity, and the autonomy of the American people from the visible and perverse threat posed by seditious insurgents within the Nation. The threat that the antigun New Progressive Left poses to the American citizenry is manifest in the desire of the New Progressive Left’s intent on creating a massive, omnipotent, onmniscent, and omnipresent federal Government: the antigun New Progressive Left’s God! To that end, the antigun New Progressive Left has demonstrated an overt proclivity and, indeed, a marked, staunch, and, in their own words, 'muscular' desire to disarm the public, for the unmistakeable, albeit unstated, purpose of controlling it. No better reason, then, for the civilian citizenry of the Nation to be well-armed, and well-armed, to the hilt, and with actual selective-fire assault rifles and submachine guns, not merely armed, then, with what the antigun Progressive New Left refers, inaccurately and pejoratively, as 'weapons of war' and 'as military style assault weapons.’ For rhe real threat posed to the preservation of our Nation to as a free, Constitutional Republic and a free people, comes from those within the Nation, as subsidized by seditious billionaires both within and outside the Country, who desire to destroy the very framework of our Nation, as designed and created by our founders. No better evidence is there of their seditious intent, than their desire to disarm the citizenry; and no better reason, then, for the citizenry to be well-armed. The U.S. Supreme Court held in Heller, the seminal Second Amendment case, has made abundantly clear that firearms in common use, which includes those antigun Leftists refer to under the pejorative ‘assault weapons,’ and ‘military styled assault rifles,’ and ‘weapons of war,’ are a protected category of firearms under the Heller standard. One would wonder whether, given the dire threat posed by insurgents in our midst would not had led the late Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, to conclude that, as consistent with the import and purport of our Second Amendment, a citizen army should be armed with military personnel weapons to best thwart a takeover of our Nation's Government by those hell-bent in instituting a Marxist-Socialist Dictatorship—a form of Government altogether inconsistent with the framework that the founders of our free Republic had heretofore established for it, as set forth in the U.S. Constitution that the States had ratified—a Constitution that includes a well-stocked set of elemental,fundamental, immutable, unalienable rights and liberties that are not to be modified, abrogated, ignored, or perfunctorily dismissed. As for ammunition magazines, the retort to the perfunctory exclamation of the antigun New Progressive Left that no one needs high capacity magazines is threefold. First, we begin with the obvious: ammunition magazines are a necessary component of semiautomatic weapons. And, as for what constitutes an acceptable number of cartridges, and what might, to the antigun radical Left activist constitute an unacceptable, “high capacity,” ammunition magazine, no one can reasonably define what ‘high capacity’ means; any attempt to do so reduces to arbitrary absurdity. Second, an ammunition magazine holding several rounds, for home defense, makes simple common-sense, whether an innocent individual faces one assailant or several assailants. The imposition of limitations on the number of cartridges a given ammunition magazine is, for a particular firearms, under law, permitted to hold, are ultimately arbitrary senseless and pointless. Third, going back to the initial antigun pronouncement that the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible civilian citizen simply doesn’t need a ‘high capacity’ ammunition magazines, whatever that expression, ‘high capacity’ means, simply begs the question whether one does need such high capacity ammunition magazines to adequately thwart a potential threat. "Need," in and of itself, namely "need per se," is defined by purpose. But, the antigun proponent’s pronouncement that a person doesn’t need a ‘high capacity magazine’ is logically faulty on other grounds. There are many things a person possesses that a person may not need. There are wants as well. Suppose I just happen to want a so-called ‘assault weapon’ and so-called high capacity ammunition magazine, as a component of that weapon. Why shouldn’t I, as an average, law-abiding, rational, responsible citizen, be able to have one? It is no answer to say society will be safer if I don’t have certain weapons and certain ammunition magazines. Extrapolating from misuse of any firearm by a dangerous lunatic and psychopathic criminal to me and tens of millions of other Americans who desire to exercise their natural right to own and possess these firearms and ammunition magazines and who are not lunatics or psychopathic criminals is to constrain, unconstitutionally and unconscionably, tens of millions of Americans due to the actions of a few undesirables. Again, the idea promulgated by antigun proponents that society, the Collective, the Hive, will be better off if those tens of millions of law-abiding, rational, responsible citizens don’t have access to these weapons and components even if they themselves are not a danger to society and never would be is to accept an ethical position, utilitarian consequentialist, that most Americans don’t ascribe to: the idea that it is better to lose a few innocent lives for the apparent benefit of a larger group. But, that is an alien concept, abhorrent to most Americans, and certainly abhorrent to those who founded our Nation. People are not ants or bees, even as these New Progressive Leftists believe them to be so, and would treat people as such.And, as 'need' is defined by purpose, no greater need exists, today, than for a citizen army to be well-armed against the real threat of a Marxist-Socialist takeover of the Government and the enslavement of the American citizenry that such a takeover would entail. It is just this dire need that exists and more so now than ever before in light of those who argue that no need exists for so-called ‘weapons of war.’ The American citizenry must be well-armed to thwart a possible takeover of our Government by this antigun New Progressive Left that is intent on destroying our Nation's Constitution; that is intent on erasing our Nation's history; and that is intent on endowing the federal Government with the means necessary to do so: to subjugate the American citizenry, and thoroughly control all thought and action. The American citizenry must never be taken in by the duplicitous, claim made by this insurgent antigun New Progressive Left that its motive for disarming Americans is simply a desire to protect the life, well-being, and safety of Americans and that society, the Collective, is best served if Americans are disarmed, even if that means that the lives of individuals in that society will be placed in danger therewith. What in fact does it even mean to say that it is okay to lose a few innocent lives through the disarming the citizenry if the greater society, the greater Collective, the greater Hive, is secure? If a Left-wing extremist argues that the well-being of ten lives are worth more than the well-being of one, what is the sanctity in numbers if not for the individual? And, how, for that matter, is one better served to have lost his or her life for having not had the effective means a firearm provides to secure it, to be told that his sacrifice is an acceptable loss because the Collective, the Hive has been better served thereby? Really. If the antigun New Progressive Left proponent doesn’t give a damn about the sanctity of the individual, where is the sanctity found in numbers alone? And, why should that Collective, that Hive even bother to exist at all, that the multitude is nothing more than expendable fodder anyway? Who, then, or what, then, is better served? And, is everyone truly in the same boat, abjectly defenseless? What about those policy maker and billionaire elites who live behind gated communities, and who travel in armored vehicles, with a contingency of armed guards? “Oh,” the hoi poloi is told, “they are the queen bees!” “Their lives are worth so much more than yours!” How so? That the New Progressive Left so decrees THAT to be so? But, how does that idea square with the notion that the antigun New Progressive and Radical Left and cares about securing the life, safety, and well-being of Americans, when their Collectivist and Utilitiarian Consequentialist precepts dictates quite clearly that they don’t give a damn at all? It is all just empty words! In fact, the ethical, political, and social position of the New Progressive Left is bankrupt. We see that in the fact that the New Progressive Left supports late term abortion. They don’t care about the most innocent of human life, so it is highly doubtful that they vouchsafe care about ten or twenty, or a hundred, or a thousand, or ten thousand or a hundred thousand lives. Reducing life to mere numbers reduces to absurdity the New Progressive Left’s concern about the value of human life at all. These people are simply masters of emotional rhetoric. Phrases like, military styled assault rifle,’ and ‘weapon of war,’ and ‘high capacity magazine,’ are emotionally charged, deliberately deceptive phrases, intended to and calculated to spark a feeling of unease in the target audience: the American public, thereby making the public receptive to bans on any firearms and any gun components that fall into the named categories. But, the fact that they really don’t care about the life of individuals is reflected in their policy stances on immigration and abortion, as well as on the matter of firearms ownership and possession. Hence, any argument they make even if superficially plausible is vacuous, because the basis for it concern for human life, really doesn’t exist at all. It is just a platitude, a makeweight, a sad, disturbing ruse.

SECOND PRONG: ENCOURAGE EVERY STATE TO ENACT “RED FLAG” LAWS

This restrictive gun policy objective entails expanding the list of individuals who are not permitted to own or possess firearms. New Progressive Left Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President—namely, the front runners—all support across the board State enactment of so-called “Red Flag” laws. Several States have already enacted such laws, and all of them either directly infringe the Second Amendment or otherwise come dangerously close to doing so and certainly impinge upon one's exercise of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms. Although the text of these laws as they presently exist in those jurisdictions that presently have them, or that are otherwise in the process of enacting Red Flag laws or considering enacting Red Flag laws, do vary from State to State. But, all of these Red Flag laws have one defining characteristic: they all operate ex parte. What does that mean? It means that Courts conduct hearings  where only one party to the action is present at the hearing, namely the party who is attempting to obtain a Court order against another party who is not initially present at the Court hearing to defend his interests. The interest at stake here is retention of one's personal property, namely, one's firearms. In an ex parte hearing, under Red Flag laws, one party, or side, at the hearing seeks a Court order requiring the other party, who isn't present at the hearing, an American citizen who has  committed no crime but whom the accuser is claiming is nonetheless dangerous because that person has firearms in his or her possession,. to surrender those firearms to Governmental authority. Thus, the accuser is seeking the removal of that person’s personal property, that person’s firearms— prior to the affected party’s ability to present a case in his or her defense, who would obviously wish to keep his personal property but cannot do so because the affected party has no opportunity to confront the accuser until some point subsequent to the actual removal of the person’s personalty, their firearms, assuming the Court issues an order requiring the surrendering of weapons to Governmental authority. It is only after the fact, the removal of the firearms--the personal property--takes place, that a hearing is conducted where both sides are present and the party, against whom the action was taken, attempts to make a case for restoration of his personal property. All of these “Red Flag” laws, play on some variation of this theme and all of them impinge upon or are in danger of impinging upon the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, all of these "Red Flag" laws are Constitutionally suspect and they all should be scrutinized before enactment to see if they pass Constitutional muster. But, that never happens. The question is do we really need these laws to protect society from the possibility of danger. And that notion of 'possibility' is a red herring. We would ask: How “possible” is that possibility of danger, and how do we know that a person, whomever it is that may target a person’s firearms, is doing so with an honest motive. And even if the accuser has an ostensibly honest motive for bringing action against a gun owner, forcing a person to forsake his personal property by Court order, under a State’s “Red Flag” law, the machinery of justice is, for all that, moving against a person who has committed no crime. The Court is faced with the dubious task of rendering an adverse decision against a person without having actually met with the person and therefore has no opportunity to conduct and to preside over an adversary proceeding to which all American citizens are entitled. Ex parte proceedings are, not surprisingly, frowned on in the law, as they are by nature, contrary to our Nation's sacred jurisprudential principles. Generally, a full adversary proceeding can and should be conducted. Likely, we would see that the person who is making a claim against individual without having to confront that person in open Court, would think twice about the danger presented, if a full adversary hearing were conducted. But, suppose the danger is imminent or appears to be truly imminent. In that event, every State has mechanisms by which a person can request a Court to order a personal protection order against that person who is deemed a threat. That too is handled ex parte, and a Court if convinced that a threat is imminent could certainly issue an ex parte order requiring of the person who is deemed a threat, to relinquish his or her firearms if they have any. Thus, Red Flag laws don’t do anything that personal protection orders don’t already accomplish except they make it easier for more people to make spurious, specious claims against people, often for ulterior motives, and yet avoid having to face the consequences for making those false claims, as Red Flag laws do not generally, if not invariably, provide a mechanism through which a person wrongly targeted can bring action against his or her accuser.Secondly, under federal law, 18 U.S.C § 922(g) and (n), individuals, including those convicted of felonies and those who had been institutionalized for mental illness, are not permitted to own and possess firearms anyway unless they obtain a certificate of relief from disability. Red Flag laws operate as a backdoor for expanding the domain of individuals not permitted to own or possess a firearm. Since antigun proponents denounce out-of-hand the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it should not come as a surprise that they would look for seemingly plausible ways to expand the domain of people considered unfit to own and possess firearms beyond those categories that already exist in federal law, claiming as they always do, that what motivates them is the desire to protect society when that is patently untrue. What really motivates these people is a desire to reduce the Second Amendment to a nullity, under the pretext that they give a damn about the life, safety, and well being of others. But they don’t because they don’t recognize that a person has a right of self-defense and don’t care that a firearm is the best means by which a person can effectively defend themselves against attack; and as they place their faith in Government to control the masses, and don’t trust the citizenry, their entire view of man and man’s relationship to Government and to each other is the obverse of that of the founders of our Nation. The Second Amendment isn’t consistent with the tenets of Collectivism.

THIRD PRONG: "EXPAND" GUN BACKGROUND CHECKS

Expanding background checks, delaying the purchase of, trade, or resale of guns and gun paraphernalia is merely another 'muscular' attempt to slowly whittle away at the true efficacy of the right codified in the Second Amendment. It is merely another mechanism to reduce the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a nullity. It need hardly be said that most criminals don’t obtain their firearms lawfully. They either steal firearms or obtain them on the black market or through straw purchases all of which are illegal, If the stated purpose is to close what antigun proponents point to as loopholes, then let’s take a look at those purported loopholes. One concern mentioned is that people don’t have to go to the holder of an FFL to obtain a firearm if one purchases a firearm directly or if a person purchases a firearm from another person at a gun show, where laws are not enforced. Well, actually they are. No one is permitted to sell, trade, or otherwise dispose of firearms without complying with federal law and applicable State law. Purchases through the internet have to be made through the intermediary of a person holding an FFL. Purchases at gun shows are usually made through a holder of an FFL directly as are purchases made at a retail gun store where the sellers would be required to have an FFL, and possibly a State gun license as well. What about private sales at gun shows? Well, sellers of firearms are still required to comply with the law. No one is permitted to dispose of a firearm to an individual who is prohibited from federal law from possessing a firearm. Antigun groups like to argue that “gun” people are unscrupulous. Well, no they aren’t. Law-abiding gun owners are the most scrupulous of American citizens. See NRA discussion on thisThe antigun New Progressive Left, viewing gun ownership as evil, doesn’t draw a tenable distinction between law-abiding gun owners and criminals. But, this should come as no surprise. The Progressive New Left conflates the two groups, illegal aliens and legal immigrants, to make the spurious argument that President Trump is against immigration. No he isn’t, and never was. During his campaign he pointed out over and over again that what he does oppose is “illegal immigration.” The Progressive New Left seems to have amnesia about this. The President’s immigration policies since holding Office are systematize and streamline legal immigration, and to get a handle on illegal movement of people and drugs across our Nation’s borders that, for decades Congress has failed to deal with. And, so, the problem has worsened through the years, becoming virtually impossible to manage now. And President Trump is receiving no more assistance from Congress now, than had any President before him. He is not suggesting anything unusual. Other Countries control their Nation’s borders. Consider Canada for example. Why should our Nation be different?While blasé about controlling illegal traffic across our Nation’s Southern Border, it is wondrous strange that the antigun Progressive New Left is so particular about clamping down on the law-abiding citizen’s wish merely to exercise his right to keep and bear arms without being plagued by hundreds of extraneous laws drawn up merely to frustrate and oppressive the gun owner. The instant gun background check program has worked fine. Instances of so-called “mass shootings” are few in number and pale into insignificance when compared to the daily shootings due to criminal misuse of firearms. The Progressive New Left seems to be little bothered by that, only drawing attention to, and with great fanfare, the use of a firearm by the occasional lunatic who goes off half-cocked. And their answers are directed not to dealing effectively with those sorry souls, but for tens of millions of innocent, average, law-abiding, rational, responsible individuals.

FOURTH PRONG: IMPLEMENT GUN "BUYBACK"  MEASURES 

Gun buybacks fall into two categories. One category utilized by various Cities in the past is “gun buybacks” as voluntary program that antigun politicians draw out of the closet now and again merely as a political stunt. These buybacks are directed, of course, not to the psychopathic killer, common criminal, or to those few individuals who suffer from psychoses that truly represent a danger both to themselves and others abd then goes off half-cocked. No! These gun buybacks are directed to the average, law-abiding, responsible gun owner. But, not surprisingly, gun owners who take part in these programs do not surrender expensive firearms, but, rather, old, probably inoperable firearms. Even the liberal weblog, Trace, admits that the truly voluntary “buybacks” don’t work to lower crime rates, as criminals don’t take part in these programs. Why should they? And, those individuals who do surrender firearms to police authorities for a few bucks aren’t people who misuse firearms anyway. So, then, what seemingly plausible basis is there for these buyback programs? The implicit, but false, assumption, is that by reducing the number of guns in the public domain that will, ipso facto, reduce “gun” violence. Yet, that idea, on its face, is ridiculous, and not simply due to the volume of firearms in the public domain, if that is a sound factor for accounting for “gun violence” anyway because, again, the people who take part in the program are not those who commit crimes with guns—or with any other implement for that matter. So, this category of gun buybacks is at best, a poor solution to resolving the problem of criminal violence and, at worst, it is a cruel hoax, designed to give some ignorant Americans the feeling that Government is doing something effective about crime rates in some urban areas when it really isn’t and is simply a “smoke and mirrors” scheme to create the false impression that Government truly cares about providing a safe and secure City environment for the public, when Government doesn’t really give a damn at all. Antigun groups and antigun politicians are aware of this, of course, but in rebuttal, simply assert that gun buyback programs do work, especially those that are structured properly. The website gunxgun.org, an antigun site, that, curiously, says virtually nothing about itself and, we surmise, is likely a vehicle of large well-funded antigun groups seeking to jump start grassroots efforts to assist them in their agenda, undermining the Second Amendment, to acknowledges that, on a macro level, namely, in the public domain, these gun buyback programs, to date, don’t make communities any safer. What the site does say is that, homes are safer, once firearms are removed from the home: no guns in the home means no gun violence. Well, that point is true, but only trivially so. For, this doesn’t mean people prone to violence in the home won’t or can’t find the means to injure or kill another human being whether a gun is the implement of harm or some other implement. But, what is really interesting about the comment is the implicit point made that is a running theme through all attempts to impose on the public more and more draconian gun schemes. The running theme is that the citizenry cannot be trusted; that all people are potentially a danger both to themselves and to others, and that society as a whole is safer and more secure if firearms are removed from the homes. But, what of the obverse? Aren’t particular individuals in the community thereby made less safe  having lost the most suitable means available to secure both their life and that of their family, namely that a  firearm provides? The fact of the matter is that the antigun New Progressive Left cares little, if at all, for the well-being and safety of individuals in society. They are only interested in protecting the wealthy, and well-connected and powerful. For these people—people who ascribe to the tenets of Collectivism—perceive our Country, our society, as an ant colony or bee hive. As long as the greater Collective, the Hive, is secure—meaning that as long as they, “the elite” of society are safe and secure—that is all that truly matters. They view the mass of society, the Hoi Poloi, as expendable. That is the inference to be drawn from their policy goals. For all their talk about concern for the masses, including illegal aliens—even those who are acutely dangerous to the life, health, safety, and well-being of the citizenry—the New Progressive Left cares little for the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. They seek to control all thought, and all conduct, to treat everyone equally—that is to say, subjugated, submissive to the will of the State, the Government, a Government they control. The New Progressive Left’s vision for  our Nation is the antithesis of that of our founders. It is little wonder then that these people attack their memory, demolish our monuments, and seek to erase our history. The Second category of gun “buyback” programs and one championed by Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Eric Swalwell, and a signature component of his campaign before that campaign came to an abrupt end, isn’t a gun buyback program at all. It’s a confiscation scheme, similar to the infamous gun confiscation schemes employed by the Australian and New Zealand Governments, neither Government of which recognizes the fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of its citizens—really subjects—to keep and bear arms. What Eric Swalwell championed, and what Democratic Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, has taken up is a antigun policy measure mandating that the American public surrender any and all firearms that the Government deems unsuitable for public ownership and possession and which it places under the banned category of ‘assault weapons,’ which means, as we, at the Arbalest Quarrel, have known all along and as we have heretofore so stated on our website: the eventual confiscation of all semiautomatic firearms. The expression, ‘buyback,’ always a misnomer, is, as conceived by and mentioned by Joe Biden and, in fact, as understood and desired by the Democratic Party Progressive New Left, not a buyback at all, under any reasonable interpretation. It is a blatant gun confiscation scheme scarcely cloaked as a “gun buyback.” The program as envisioned isn’t voluntary. It’s mandatory. As conceived, and as it would likely be implemented either by any Democratic Party New Progressive Left—if that Candidate is elected U.S. President—any firearm designated by the New Progressive Left to be an ‘assault weapon,’ would be illegal. Any American citizen who presently has one or more such weapons would be required to surrender them to Governmental authority. If the Democratic Party controls both Houses of Congress we can expect Congress to enact mandatory gun confiscation, along with other draconian “muscular” laws. If the Republicans retain control of the Senate, mandatory confiscation is unlikely to be enacted. But, if a Democrat secures the U.S. Presidency, the American public may very well see a flurry of executive orders operating as law, and accomplishing, then, the same thing as a Congressional enactment. Kamala Harris has threatened to issue just such an executive order were she to secure her Party’s nomination and then secure the Presidency. Such law or executive order would be immediately challenged. A mandatory gun confiscation scheme amounts to an illegal taking under the Fifth Amendment’s ‘just compensation’ clause as semiautomatic weapons--essentially every weapon, now, that the New Progressive Left lumps under the fictions of 'assault weapons' or 'weapons of war'--manufactured by reputable companies like Smith and Wesson, Colt, Sturm Ruger, Beretta, Sig Sauer, Heckler and Koch, Remington, and many others, all of which produce extremely well-designed and engineered products. These firearms cost, on the retail market, several hundred and even several thousand dollars. A gun confiscation scheme would not provide just compensation for these firearms. A gun confiscation scheme would also, and obviously, infringe the Second Amendment. And such a gun confiscation scheme would infringe the Searches and Seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. The gun confiscation scheme targeting semiautomatic weapons would impinge on both the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Even the Freedom of Speech clause of the First Amendment would be implicated and violated as well. But, then, the New Progressive Left doesn’t give a damn about the Bill of Rights, and never did. It is all sham for them to even suggest that they do. But, if it should come to pass the New Progressive Left does take control of Government--both Houses of Congress, and the U.S. Presidency-- the American citizenry will see Government imposing a flurry of unconstitutional, unconscionable gun restrictions on the American citizenry such as this Nation has never seen before. The New Progressive Left intends to force their new vision of America on the Nation, a vision diametrically opposed to that of our founders, the framers of our Constitution. And the New Progressive Left will commence with an attempt at de facto destruction of the Second Amendment. The founders of our free Republic would not abide this; and those of us who believe in our Nation as a Constitutional Republic, where the American people, the citizenry, are the ultimate sovereign of their Nation, not Government, and where Government was created to serve the people and not the other way around, should not abide this occurrence either, and most likely, won't.When firearms are removed from average, law-abiding, rational citizens in violation of Due Process requirements, and when those American citizens, for whom draconian gun laws do not preclude gun ownership and possession, are oppressed by complex gun registration requirements making gun ownership and possession an increasingly difficult, time-consuming and expensive process, and when guns are treated less like personal property and more like State owned property that Americans can only rent for use at a particular time and at a particular place, after which guns must be returned to the State, to be secured and stored, then it should be clear to all Americans that the goal of gun control is not public safety and never was. The goal is population control and always has been.__________________________________________________________

RADICAL LEFT FRAMES FALSE SMOKE AND MIRRORS ISSUES: “GUN VIOLENCE’ AND ‘GUN CONTROL’ TO ADVANCE ITS ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT AGENDA

PART FOUR

It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.” First quotation ~ Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda, Nazi Germany, 1933-1945“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly— it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.” Second quotation~ Joseph Goebbels“The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words.” ~ Philip K. Dick, Twentieth Century American author; prolific writer of science fiction and winner of prestigious Hugo award for best novel: “The Man in the High Castle,” published in 1962It should be evident to President Trump and to Congressional Republicans that all these calls for further gun restrictions, many of them coming from all of the leading Democratic Party Candidates for U.S. President—Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Pete Buttigieg—are evidence of a personal bias against guns generally, and against civilian gun ownership particularly; and all of them vying for a chance to impose their Marxist/Socialist agenda on the entire Nation.Every one of these people clamors for further gun background checks, enactment of “Red Flag laws,” and bans on so-called “assault weapons,”  and so-called "gun buybacks." Not one of these people has the least interest in securing, preserving, and strengthening the Second Amendment. To the contrary, they all wish to dispense with the Second Amendment altogether, and their gun control measures are clear evidence of that, and their recent pronouncements on the subject make that fact abundantly clear. A slippery slope to Armageddon is not fallacy here. Prima facie evidence exists for this conclusion. De facto repeal of the Second Amendment is the goal of the New Progressive Left.The New Progressive Left seeks nothing less than a complete transformation of our Nation into a Marxist/Socialist State, and they have been appealing to the public to make that nightmare a reality.The present crop of Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President know that the transformation sought isn’t tenable as long as the public does in fact keep and bear arms and they mean to change that; to change public attitude toward guns and toward self-defense by means of guns; and, with the Press, with whom these New Progressive Left candidates have an incestuous relationship and with whom they are constantly collaborating, in an attempt to control the running narrative of solving “gun violence” with a new wave of “gun control measures,” we see the New Progressive Act employing a massive Psy-Ops campaign against Americans, inserting memes into the psyche of the citizenry: ‘guns are evil,’ ‘guns cause crime,’ ‘civilized people don’t need guns and don’t want them,’ ‘guns turn good people into bad people,’ and so on and so forth.But, the issue of ‘gun violence’ is nothing more than a fiction, a straw man devised and concocted out of whole cloth by public relations firms for their client, the antigun New Progressive Left. This straw man created is diabolical in the conception, cunningly employed in practice. The New Progressive Left uses this straw man to deliberately draw attention of the public and Congress away from the two truly legitimate issues: the causes of ‘societal violence’ and the perpetrators of it. By framing the issues in the way it does--on implements of violence, rather than on the root causes of violence and on the perpetrators of violence, the New Progressive Left forces Congress and the public to focus attention on a false issue, ‘guns' per se--'gun violence'--as if the gun itself was the perpetrator of violence. But, there is method to the New Progressive Left's madness: An all-consuming obsession with  undermining the Second Amendment; wasting tax dollars pursuing a bugaboo that the radical Left itself had evoked; and deliberately fomenting anger and resentment in the public, in furtherance of its own misbegotten and loathsome agenda. The New Progressive Left, by sleight of hand, conveys the impression that the true threats to society are guns, gun owners, the Second Amendment, the NRA, and firearms manufacturers, notwithstanding that the true threats to societal equanimity and serenity fall squarely on the New Progressive Left itself and on those who sympathize with their agenda: the Hollywood producers who create films that glorify killers and their misuse of firearms, and the radical political Left-wing Hollywood actors who portray these killers, even as they bemoan guns and demean law-abiding gun owners and the NRA off camera; the software programmers, creators of thousands of gruesome video games; and the technology industry whose new and ever evolving products serve, increasingly, to induce human beings to spend more time in the world of virtual reality rather than in the real reality, cultivating real relationships and real human interaction. In fact the New Progressive Left, is directly responsible for creating the environment in which societal violence is nurtured and in which that violence is allowed to grow and flourish. The New Progressive Left does this through the constant vitriol it spouts and the false dichotomy it has conceived--a society of victims and victimizers. It has created a false dichotomy in attempt to foment the very violence it disingenuously tells us it seeks to curtail and that, it claims, deceitfully, would be curtailed, if only the citizenry would surrender its firearms--all of them, as if "the gun" is the root of problem of society, when the root problem, rests, of course, in the disease that is the New Progressive Left itself and in those radical, anarchist elements in society who desire to tear down the very framework of a free Republic that the founders lovingly gave to us. The radical Left elements and anarchists are the rot and cancer that must be cut out, but the New Progressive Left diabolically focuses the public's attention away from itself and  directs the public's attention on the healthy tissue of society, our Nation's Constitution,  urging excision of great portions of the Constitution, commencing, not unsurprisingly, with the Second Amendment--suggesting major changes, involving a general weakening of the other natural, fundamental, and immutable rights; and these unspeakably evil, ruthless elements, are calling for, nay, demanding a major reworking of the Articles of the Constitution. And, many members of the polity have, unfortunately, been seduced by the sanctimonious bellowing of these radical Left elements, and many members of the polity have bought into this dangerous nonsense. How is it that many members of the polity have been seduced?Through use of military techniques of psychological conditioning and brainwashing, the New Progressive Left controls public opinion, and seeks to force Congress to bend to its will. The New Progressive Left has deliberately created a toxic environment throughout the Country, creating division among the polity, fomenting violence, all in an attempt to exert pressure on Congress; to extort concessions from Congress that serve the interests of the Progressive New Left, and not the interests of the public. Through deliberate deception, the New Progressive Left eggs the public on in a naked attempt to cajole both the U.S. President and Congressional Republicans to enact further gun control laws that the President and Congressional Republicans know full well are not in the best interests of the public; are antithetical to the import and purport of the Second Amendment; and are detrimental to the preservation of a free Republic. But how many citizens have fallen prey to the constant, pounding of the deceptive messaging of the Radical Left elements and the Radical Left Press? How many Americans have really jumped on the antigun bandwagon? How many of them have been unconsciously and unconscionably manipulated into fully accepting such ludicrous, outlandish antigun, Anti-Second Amendment policy proposals? How many Americans have been reduced to raging, uncontrollable beasts, the acolytes of the New Progressive and Radical Left politicians, those laughing hyenas and  jackals, sitting in their lofty perches, spurring the doting lemmings on and over the cliff. Apparently, all too many Americans have been seduced. Radical shock therapy may be necessary to draw these Americans out of their brain-induced stupor.___________________________________________

DEMOCRATS AND THE PRESS URGE CONGRESS TO ENACT NEW RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS TO FURTHER RADICAL LEFT AGENDA

PART FIVE

In an article posted in The New York Times, on September 2, 2019, titled, “Congress Faces Fresh Urgency On Gun Laws,” the Times is pressing Congress to cave to the frenetic urging of the Leftist antigun crowd, hell-bent on further weakening the Second Amendment, having found an opening in the recent spate of random shootings that occurred in El Paso, Texas; Dayton, Ohio; and, now, Odessa, Texas; exploiting these tragedies, appealing to emotion, rather than to reason, employing the informal logical fallacy of ad misericordium, a fallacy well known to the ancient Greeks: the fallacy of appealing cunningly to pity, misery, and sympathy--playing on the public's emotions, rather than appealing to the public's reason, to obtain the goal, an unarmed citizenry that, if that should come to pass, will not secure public safety, but will endanger the life and safety of the citizenry and will be an open invitation to tyranny. Where will appeals to pity and sympathy for Americans rest, then?Extremist elements are hammering Congress to enact, first and foremost more gun background checks, even as the New York Times acknowledges in its own story that: “In fact, whether a background check would have prevented the West Texas gunman from acquiring his weapon is not known. Chief Michael Gerke of the Odessa Police Department said the gunman, who had been fired from a trucking job, had used an AR-15-style rifle, but had a criminal record. It was not clear on Sunday whether the gun had been acquired legally, and the authorities stressed that they had not established a motive.”What is deeply disturbing, perplexing and distressing is that President Trump seems to be allowing himself to be caught up in the frenzied emotion of the moment, seeming to give in to moronic emotional, irrational rhetoric, spawned by another convenient shooting incident. We say this because President Trump has himself resorted to using the same language of the antigun zealots, such as “common-sense” gun laws; and “really common-sense sensible, important background checks” as he appears to be considering the proposals coming from U.S. Presidential Democratic Party candidates. The New York Times details all of this in its typical tabloid fashion, using colorful adjectives and inapt language, like, ‘gruesome,’ and ‘ massacre,’ and ‘assault weapon,’ and ‘powerful gun rights lobbying group’—which emphasizes the NY Times own personal distaste for guns generally; its abhorrence of civilian ownership of guns particularly; and its hatred of the NRA, singularly and emphatically. The article, appearing in the national news section of the paper, reads more like an Op-Ed piece than a news story. But, then, from the content of New York “news” reporting today it is clear that no efficacious distinction exists any longer between the reporting of news and opining about it. The use of Section Headings in the newspaper are superfluous, and need no longer exist, but the paper keeps up the pretense, obviously to confuse its readers into believing that what they take for fact is merely personal value judgment, and what they take for personal value judgment is fact and, as between the two, the way the world is and a normative account of the way the world ought to be is, ultimately, the same; that there is no appreciable difference--as fact and value judgment are one and the same so, that, as what is reported as news and expounded upon in the same news story is, in fact, all news, an exposition of and on reality, on the way things are. And, so the seditious Press tries to make its case against guns and civilian gun ownership, as it always, does as the following purported story illustrates. The NY Times “reports/opines”:“The deadly shooting spree in West Texas this weekend — the latest in an especially gruesome summer of massacres — has intensified pressure on congressional Republicans to take up gun safety legislation, giving fresh urgency to a debate that was already expected to be at the top of lawmakers’ agenda when they return to the Capitol next week.The attack in Midland and Odessa, Tex., which left seven dead and 22 wounded, comes weeks after a 24-year-old gunman with an assault weapon killed nine people in Dayton, Ohio, in early August. That massacre, hours after one that killed 22 people at a Walmart in El Paso, thrust gun violence into the Washington debate just as Congress left town for its annual August recess.President Trump expressed new openness to gun safety laws — including, he said then, “really common-sense sensible, important background checks” for gun buyers — and Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader, promised a Senate debate. But in the weeks since, with lawmakers scattered across the country in their home districts, the issue seemed to drift from public view.Now it has come roaring back, with Congress set to return on Sept. 9. At a briefing about Hurricane Dorian at Federal Emergency Management Agency headquarters on Sunday, Mr. Trump, who has a record of flip-flopping on gun safety, pledged to find a way to “substantially reduce” mass shootings. But he earlier appeared to dismiss background checks, telling reporters that “they would not have stopped any of it.”Behind the scenes, in the wake of the El Paso and Dayton shootings, White House officials have been quietly engaged in bipartisan talks with senators who support expanding background checks and so-called red flag laws. The laws make it easier for law enforcement to take guns from people deemed dangerous by a judge who issues a special type of order, called an “extreme risk protection order.”Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, said in an interview on Sunday that the two sides still seemed far apart. Mr. Blumenthal said much would depend on whether the president, who has been consulting with the National Rifle Association, was willing to stand up to the powerful gun rights lobbying group.‘I think there is a sense that the American people just desperately want something to be done, and they have to respond to that imperative,’ he said, ‘but are so far nowhere near crossing the Rubicon to stand up to the gun lobby and the N.R.A. as far as I can tell.’”________________________________________Thank you, New York Times, for working diligently and tirelessly on behalf of the Marxist/Socialist new world order. Profuse thanks for once again misleading the American people, spinning elaborate fairy tales about the horrors of guns and “gun violence,” and about that evil, “powerful gun rights lobbying group.” And what is this all for?” We know the answer; you don’t have tell us. You have written a collection of Grimm’s fairy tales—grim indeed—dedicated to the cause of bringing the United States into line that it may be included in the serried ranks of the EU. To accomplish that, you are doing your part to first achieve the penultimate goal.  So, kudos to you. And, what is that penultimate goal? It is to deny to the American people the ability to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms; of course it is!And, what is the ultimate goal of the Marxist/Socialist new world order? You don’t have to tell us because we know the answer to that question too. Once the American citizenry is effectively disarmed, the Marxist/Socialist dystopian dream—the dismantling of a free, Constitutional Republic—can proceed, unimpeded by a disaffected, unruly and restless, and rebellious American citizenry. Whatever is then left of our Nation can then be thrust into the framework of a new transnational political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance. Quite an accomplishment, that!But, you might want to ask the founders of our Nation, those who risked their lives and well-being to realize their vision of a free sovereign people, living in a free Land, what they happen to think of your new world order you have planned for a new generation of Americans, existing subjugated and subservient to foreign taskmasters. We suspect they would be less than delighted; less than thrilled with the transformation of our Nation into a despotic wasteland. And, we suspect they would be less than overawed at seeing our Nation and the American people controlled with rein, and bridle, and whip by foreign overlords, riding roughshod over them.___________________________________________________________

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST NOT BE PUSHED INTO COMPROMISING THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART SIX

“A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.”~ Samuel Adams, American Statesman, political philosopher, and one of the founding fathers; from his letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” ~Patrick Henry, American Attorney and a Founding Father; and famous Antifederalist; quotation from “Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution” Note: the Antifederalists demanded that Man’s natural rights be codified in a Bill of Rights and that the Bill of Rights be formally incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. The Federalists thought that a formal codification of natural rights, since preexistent in Man (both Federalists and Antifederalists took as self-evident the veracity of certain rights bestowed on man by the Divine Creator) was unnecessary, as the powers of a Federal Government were to be limited; all other rights and powers retained by the States and the people. The Antifederalists feared that Government would not be held properly in check unless those serving in Government were constantly reminded of the fact that the citizenry would be armed. The Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights serves as that reminder—a painful thorn in the side of the Radical Left elements today that are forced to deal with it. Circumstances of the present day aptly demonstrate the Antifederalists concern to be acutely and eerily prescient. Fortunately for us, the Antifederalists won the day, and the Constitution was ratified with a set of the quintessential natural rights etched in stone, an integral part and the most critical part of the U.S. Constitution.“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty. . . . The right of self-defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” ~St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803The Democratic Party Leadership, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi, say they are willing to work with President Trump, as reported by The New York Times. Isn’t that nice! We would advise the President and Congressional Republicans to be extremely wary of the overture coming from those two.In the article published in The New York Times on September 16, 2019, titled, “Schumer and Pelosi, Talking to Trump, Try to Sweeten the deal.” The Times reports that,“The top two Democrats in Congress, seeking to ramp up pressure on Republicans to pass legislation extending background checks to all gun buyers, told President Trump on Sunday that they would join him at the White House for a “historic signing ceremony at the Rose Garden” if he agreed to the measure.The offer, made by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, during an 11-minute phone conversation with Mr. Trump, comes as the president is considering a package of measures to respond to the mass shootings that have terrorized the nation in recent months. The three spoke only about gun legislation, according to aides.Judd Deere, a White House spokesman, said in a statement that the conversation was cordial but that Mr. Trump “made no commitments” on a House-passed background checks bill that Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer are urging him to support.Mr. Trump “instead indicated his interest in working to find a bipartisan legislative solution on appropriate responses to the issue of mass gun violence,” Mr. Deere said.Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Schumer want Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, to take up the bill, but the senator has refused to do so without knowing whether the president would sign it. ‘This morning, we made it clear to the president that any proposal he endorses that does not include the House-passed universal background checks legislation will not get the job done, as dangerous loopholes will still exist and people who shouldn’t have guns will still have access,’ their statement said, adding, ‘We know that to save as many lives as possible, the Senate must pass this bill and the president must sign it.’Their pressure continued a campaign on an issue that has dominated the political debate in Washington and on the Democratic presidential campaign trail since a string of mass shootings over the summer.A White House official, speaking anonymously to discuss internal deliberations, said on Sunday that the president had instructed his advisers to continue to work to find a range of policies that would go after illegal gun sales while protecting the Second Amendment, and expand the role of mental health professionals.”The President needs to be very, very careful suggesting to Schumer and Pelosi that he is conducive to entertaining a gun measure that, on its face, may seem narrowly tailored to constraining the criminal or dangerous lunatic but that can, and most likely would, operate as a backdoor to restricting exercise of the right embodied in the Second Amendment, for the population at large. He may find himself entangled in their antigun mythos. And, if so, he will find it exceedingly difficult to extricate himself from it. Clearly, Left-wing extremists, of which Schumer and Pelosi must be counted among them are desirous of controlling the law-abiding gun owners’ exercise of their Second Amendment right even as they claim only to be concerned with, or suggest that they are only concerned with reducing “gun” violence. But we are talking here of a population consisting of the criminal sociopathic element or dangerous psychotic element of society. Or are we? The Democrats aren’t really saying, and we’ve seen where all of this is headed, before. We know how this plays out; as it always plays out. The Democratic Party Leadership, along with more and more radical Leftist members of the Party, all of whom are taking their cue from members of radical Left-wing Socialist and Communist groups active in this Country, lurking in the shadows, ingratiating themselves with radical Congressional Democrats, have an agenda with items to tick off. One of the items, a key item, is to whittle away at the Second Amendment. An armed citizenry is an abomination for the Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats and for those operating closely with them, orchestrating policy. As they all abhor the Second Amendment, and they are fearful of an armed citizenry, these Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats will use every opportunity they can to constrain law-abiding citizens from exercising their God-given right to keep and bear arms. If they succeed, tyranny looms._____________________________________________________________

HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS WHO DEMAND MORE GUN CONTROL

PART SEVEN

“Ladies and gentlemen, attention, please! Come in close where everyone can see! I got a tale to tell, it isn’t gonna cost a dime! (And if you believe that, we’re gonna get along just fine.)” ~ Stephen King, American author of horror, fantasy, and the supernatural; first quotation from his novel, “Needful Things,” published 1991“There were people who lied for gain, people who lied from pain, people who lied simply because the concept of telling the truth was utterly alien to them . . . and then there were people who lied because they were waiting for it to be time to tell the truth.” ~Stephen King, second quotation from his novel, “Needful Things,” published 1991

PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS MUST NOT BE PUSHED INTO NEGOTIATING WITH DEMOCRATS ON TERMS THAT DEMOCRATS CREATE.

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST CONTROL THE NARRATIVE; TAKE A STRONG STAND AGAINST PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE; AND STRENGTHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

If Government seriously wishes to deal with violence in society, we have an answer for the President and for Congressional Republicans. To begin, the President, along with House and Senate Republicans, should keep uppermost in mind that the issue that they are confronted with involves “societal violence,” not “gun violence.” For, construing societal violence as gun violence tends to create the illusion that societal violence equates with and reduces merely to a consideration of the existence of guns in society. Get rid of guns, so these Democrats will tell the American public and the problem of violence in society will take care of itself. But, that notion is simply false, and somehow suggests that Congress need not concern itself with the motives of a psychopath or dangerous psychotic in committing a violent act, but only with the implement a person prone to violence might happen to use to harm an innocent human being. And, on that score the concern is not with just any implement—a knife, a bomb, a truck, a hammer, a rope, an axe, one’s own hands, or anything else an evil or sick person bent on doing harm to an innocent person might conceive of using and then put to use—but with a very specific implement that the psychopathic criminal or dangerous psychotic lunatic might happen to use to commit a horrific act of violence: namely a firearm. That, of course, is ridiculous. Yet, reducing the issue of societal violence to gun violence compels one, say a medical researcher or legislator, to focus on the implement of violence rather than on environmental factors at work, along with the genetic markers, that predispose a person to engage in violence in first place. Indeed, the very fact medical researchers working for the CDC would waste research dollars focusing on “gun violence” is, in itself, singularly bizarre, as it compels fascination in the implement of violence a psychopath or dangerous psychotic might happen to employ in wreaking havoc, rather than on the state of mind of the psychopathic killer and of the dangerous psychotic that predisposes that person to commit an act of horrific violence in the first place. Yet, this is precisely what the Radical Left focuses on and what it would have the CDC spend time and money on. This is wasted effort directing medical researchers and legislators to chase after ghosts, and bugbears, and bugaboos. But, that is their intent, predicated on a false premise: that guns somehow predispose a person, any person, to commit horrific acts of violence. For, if true—and for those who have a phobia of or personal abhorrence toward guns, they would presume truth where none exists—the conclusion they seek, which is embedded in the premise, is preordained: the citizenry must be divested of its firearms.So it is that Radical Left Congressional Legislators constantly rant and rave over the scourge of “gun violence,” rather than on the real scourge in this Nation: “societal violence.” In so doing, these reprobates in Congress castigate the gun as if the inanimate object were the perpetrator of the violence, rather than the sentient being who happened to use the gun to harm innocent people. It is all a lie. A tale that Radical Left Congressional Legislators weave. These radical Leftists focus their attention on guns as the means to drive the debate and to drive passage of legislation directed to curbing gun ownership among tens of millions of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding, notwithstanding that it is these American patriots who own and possess firearms who can best thwart societal violence. By keeping public attention focused essentially on guns, rather than on the psychopathic or psychotic human agent who misuses guns, Congressional Democrats make clear their desire to enact laws targeting guns themselves and, by extension, targeting the vast majority of those who own and possess guns: the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational gun owner. The argument oft made by Democrats, either tacitly or expressly, is that gun violence is a function of the sheer number of guns that exists in the Nation and that since the vast number of guns are owned by law-abiding Americans, and not by the criminal or the occasional lunatic who goes off half-cocked, it is necessary to attack the volume of guns outstanding and that means attacking the millions of law-abiding citizens who own and possess them. But, one could more sensibly argue that, since the law-abiding gun owner does not commit the crimes that take place, it is illogical to conclude that the volume of guns outstanding is a legitimate factor in accounting for violence that ensues as a result of misuse of firearms as it is the relatively small population of criminals and psychotic lunatics who misuse firearms. So, it is those individuals who should be the focus of attention; not “the gun” nor the law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owner. After all, guns are not sentient beings. Guns don’t commit violence in the absence of a human agent.Radical Left anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, aided by a sympathetic Press, drumming nonsense about guns, fanning the flames of anger toward guns and irrational fear about them, are trying to draw you into the narrative about guns they have constructed. The President and Congressional Republicans must not for this. For the narrative constructed is a fairy tale, the purpose of which is to destroy the Second Amendment. The President and Congressional Republicans must not lose sight of this fact for a moment.The real issue that Congress needs to confront is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence—in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances—the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once you focus your attention on the right issue, you won’t be led astray into the Leftist narrative and you won’t be drawn into a morass, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead Congressional Republicans astray. They intend to  encourage Republicans to enact laws that serve the Radical and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda, as dictated to them by American Socialists and Communists. What they all want to do is continually weaken the Second Amendment, until the right of the people to keep and bear arms is essentially nugatory, amounting to the disarming the tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. It should be manifestly clear to Congressional Republicans that the matter Congress should be addressing is how to minimize acts of violence in society and how to minimize such acts by those who seek to do violence, and that you should not be focusing attention on the mere tool that some of these dangerous elements in society use to effectuate that violence. The President and Congressional Republicans must make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats that the nature of the issue to be addressed is how to best deal with the dangerous criminal element in society and how best to deal with the dangerous psychotic element in society. These are the issues to be addressed; and these issues have nothing whatsoever to do with the issues that the radical Left-wing Democrats seek to direct Congressional attention to, if only obliquely: disarming the law-abiding citizen, and oppressing the law-abiding citizen who seeks to exercise his natural right to keep and bear arms. If the President and Congressional Republicans allow Democrats to frame the issues and, thus, frame the debate, the result attained will do nothing to curb violence in society and will do everything to leave the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen defenseless, and, at once, invite tyranny. But, the most disturbing thing of all is that the President and Congressional Republicans will have had a hand in all of this, unaware that they have been manipulated and played for dupes all along.

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST CONTROL THE "GUN" NARRATIVE; TAKE A STRONG STAND AGAINST PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE AND NOT AGAINST GUNS; AND STRENGTHEN THE SECOND AMENDMENT

The real issue to be confronted is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence, in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances, i.e., the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once the President and Congressional Republicans mist focus their attention on the right issue, to avoid being led astray into the Leftist narrative. Otherwise they will be drawn into a morass, playing the Democrats’ game, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead the President and Congressional Republicans astray. They intend to encourage the President and Republicans to enact laws that serve the Radical Left and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda: weakening the Second Amendment, disarming the tens of millions of average, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. The President and Congressional Republicans must make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats the issues to be addressed and not allow radical Left-wing Democrats to compel them to address issues they wish for the Trump Administration and for Republicans to address. For the goal of Democrats is not the President’s goal or that of Republicans. The Democratic Party leadership and other Radical Left Democrats have only one goal in mind, even if they talk only obliquely about it: eventual total citizen disarmament.________________________________________

DEMOCRATS TREAT GUNS AS SENTIENT BEINGS AND THAT LIE INFORMS THEIR ACTIONS

PART EIGHT

“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.” ~Jeff Cooper, U.S. Marine, firearms instructor, and author of, “The Art of the Rifle”Guns are not sentient beings. They are no more the perpetrator of violence than a knife, bomb, or motor vehicle is the perpetrator of violence. The issue that Democrats want the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans to deal with does not and never did have anything to do with guns, regardless of what those radical Left Democrats have said. They are setting a trap for President Trump and for Republicans if they even begin to think about negotiating with them over new restrictive gun laws. The salient goal of the Democrat Party leadership and of other Radical Left Democrats is to weaken the Second Amendment, not to preserve and strengthen it; and that salient goal has nothing to do with curbing gun violence, or curbing, for that matter, any violence. A Funny thing about that, though: one would think that all members of Congress would be doing their damnedest to preserve and strengthen the Bill of Rights—all ten of them. But, not all of them do. The Radical Left politicians seek to constrain and weaken the Bill of Rights. They seek to weaken the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment. They seek to constrain and weaken the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. They seek to weaken the due process, equal protection, and just compensation clauses of the Fifth Amendment. And, they seek to disembowel the Second Amendment. And, when the Bill of Rights is gutted, our Free Republic will fall. But, placing that hard fact aside, we must ask: What really motivates Radical Left and New Progressive Left Democrats? Do they really seek to promote public safety and public order? Hardly! But, assuming for sake of argument that these Democrats do have public safety and public order in mind as the impetus propelling them to attack the Bill of Rights and, especially, to viciously attack the Second Amendment. At what cost are public safety and public order thereby secured? We know the answer to these question. There’s no reason to guess. The citizenry must forego exercise of the sacred right to keep and bear arms codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. But, then, shall Americans truly forsake their fundamental, natural, immutable, and unalienable rights for purported public safety and public order that Democrats promise to give them in return for the sacrifice of those sacred, inviolate rights and liberties—sacred, inviolate rights and liberties that the founders of our Republic and framers of our Constitution had fought and bled for and gave their life to secure for Americans, thereafter and ever after, and that good, decent, patriotic Americans have since fought and bled for and gave their life to secure for each and every American? If the citizenry does forsake its God-given rights, then the citizenry forsakes the very mechanism by which and through which it holds a capacious and rapacious Government in check. This isn’t bare and base conjecture. This is hard fact. And, this is principal reason why the Second Amendment must always be robustly defended.President Trump and Congressional Republicans must not fall into the Democrats’ snare. For, Democrats view the issue of violence solely from the standpoint of a need to take guns away from citizens as they abhor guns and they abhor civilian gun ownership. And that fact has become more in evidence in recent weeks and months. Democrats don’t even pretend any longer to preface their remarks, as they once did, with the phrase: “of course we respect the Second Amendment.” Obviously, they don’t; and they never did. And, they have since doffed the mask to convey the illusion that they did care in preserving the Second Amendment. The Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans must not go down the path that Democrats are leading them. It’s a no-win situation for them if they do; it's a no-win situation for the Nation; it's a no-win situation for the people of our Nation; and it's a no-win situation for our Constitution.

CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS MUST GET BACK ON TRACK IF THEY ARE TO REIN IN DEMOCRAT PARTY LEADERSHIP AND OTHER RADICAL CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS

President Trump and Congressional Republicans must give no thought to the nonsense spouted by the Radical Left about the need for more restrictive, draconian gun laws: laws needlessly, mindlessly expanding background checks, and Congressional Republicans must give no thought to enacting unconstitutional national ‘red-flag’ laws, and laws that have, as their salient purpose, the removal of firearms—semiautomatic firearms, pejoratively and erroneously referred to as ‘assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war’—that the anti-Second Amendment Left-wing extremists in Congress seek to confiscate from tens of millions of average, sane, responsible, law-abiding citizens. None of these restrictive gun proposals will work to protect innocent Americans. None of these proposals would ever work. And, here’s the kicker: none of these proposals was ever expected or truly intended to work! They are simply designed to whittle away the basic right, that is fundamental to the safeguarding of our Free, Constitutional Republic, and that is fundamental to what it means to be an American citizen. If President Trump and Congressional Republicans think that any one or more of these anti-Second Amendment gun measures would work to curb societal violence, and if they would even think of jumping on the bandwagon just to “play it safe,” politically, that would be one sure way to destroy their political futures. To play the game the radical Left Democrats want the President and Republicans to play means only that they have allowed yourselves to play into the hands of those forces in our Nation who seek nothing less than to destroy the very foundation of our Nation. They seek not to preserve the Nation, nor to preserve the life, safety, and well-being of Americans who reside in the Nation.

THE SUREST WAY TO DESTROY OUR FREE REPUBLIC IS TO UNDERMINE THE IMPORT AND PURPORT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

If someone wanted to destroy our Nation, the surest way to do so would be to undermine the Second Amendment. That, in fact, is what extremists in this Nation, seek to do; to reshape our Nation into something completely at odds with the vision of a free Republic that our founders sought to create and to preserve. Don’t Republicans see that? Can’t they see that? The founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution saw the possibility that the foundation of our Nation could be threatened as much by dangerous, rabid forces within the Country, as well from threats arising outside the Country They knew this to be true. That is why they placed the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights of our Nation’s Constitution, creating a citizen army. And, contrary to what some may Americans may believe, including some jurists, most prominently, the U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, the Second Amendment, along with other rights, comprising our Bill of Rights, are fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights—rights that exist intrinsically in man, and, as such, they are rights that predate the creation of our Nation as a free Republic. The Second Amendment is as important today as it was at the time of the ratification of our Constitution. Indeed, the Second Amendment may be more important today. For, the Democrats, controlled now by the New Progressive Left and other radical Left elements within the Party seek to transform our society beyond anything the founders of our Nation could imagine or foresee, except, perhaps, in their worst nightmares. They would be absolutely appalled to envision our Nation moving in the direction the leading Democratic Party candidates for U.S. President seek to drive our Nation toward: a Marxist/Socialist nightmare, if any one of them were actually elected to that high Officee.____________________________________________________

THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS  MUST CONTROL THE NARRATIVE ON GUN ISSUES, AND THAT MEANS STRENGTHENING THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND DIRECTING ATTENTION ON THE PERPETRATORS OF VIOLENCE, NOT ON LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS WHO SEEK MERELY TO EXERCISE THEIR GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

PART NINE

LEFT-WING EXTREMISTS HAVE HIJACKED THE DEMOCRAT PARTY

“We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.” ~ First Quotation, Vladimir Lenin, Russian Revolutionary, Head of Soviet Russia from 1917 through 1924“The goal of socialism is communism.” ~ Second Quotation, Vladimir LeninUnfortunately for us, Left-wing extremists, Marxists, Socialists, and Communists have hijacked the Democrat Party. They did this so that they could use the Party—a well ensconced institution of Government—to their advantage; to work through their own agenda: an agenda antithetical to the best interests of our Nation as a free Republic and antithetical to preservation of our Constitution; antithetical to the best interests of the American citizenry; and antithetical to our rich cultural and historical heritage. They seek to subvert this Nation. They seek to transform our Nation into a Marxist/Socialist Dictatorship, and thence, to an out-and-out Communist State. But President Trump, Congressional Republicans, and the Americans citizenry know this or ought to know this. Left-wing extremists are unapologetic in their aims. They are inveterate liars and ruthless to the core. Given these facts, why would the President and Congressional Republicans even consider negotiating with these reprobates at all, as these extremists seek, as the first item on their agenda to enact more restrictive gun laws that do nothing to protect the citizenry but leave the American citizenry defenseless—prey to the lowest common denominator in society, the criminal, psychopathic and sociopathic elements and to dangerous psychotic elements; and susceptible to an overreaching, overarching, overbearing Government that is capable of harassing, subjugating, and controlling the unarmed American citizenry?‘These Left-wing extremists seek to disarm the American citizenry, making the citizenry decidedly and decisively less safe. Criminals and dangerous lunatics would have open season on the innocent human beings in our Nation; and the New Progressive Left and other radical Left-wing elements in Government would have open season on the Constitution; ripping it from its moor; thrusting the Nation into chaos; enabling radical elements in our Nation to exploit the chaos to institute revolution—a revolution that is not designed to create a stronger Nation, nor to preserve the autonomy and individuality of each American citizen in it, but to twist and contort the fundamental underpinnings of our Nation into something abhorrent and horrific, something completely antithetical to what the framers of our Constitution, envisioned, proposed, and successfully implemented—a Dystopian vision of our future, completely at odds with the vision of that of the framers of our Constitution, the founders of a free Constitutional Republic..The American people tolerate much and can forgive much. But, Americans are very attuned to duplicity, mendacity, hypocrisy, and outright stupidity. Neither the President nor Congressional Republicans will save their jobs by failing to stand up for the Nation, for the American people, and for our Constitution against the Leftist extremists who seek to destroy it all.To behave like the New Progressive Left and other Left-wing radicals in the Democrat Party will, in the eyes of Americans, would only serve to make the President and Congressional Republicans, one of them. The President and Congressional Republicans will be be dead wrong if they think they can play both sides against the middle.___________________________________________________________________

HOW PRESIDENT TRUMP AND CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD DEAL WITH DEMOCRATS WHO DEMAND MORE GUN CONTROL

PART NINE

NINE POINTS  TO PONDERFirst, understand that the Radical Left Democrats focus their attention on guns as the means to drive the debate and to drive passage of legislation directed to curbing gun ownership among tens of millions of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding, when it is these American patriots who own and possess firearms who can best thwart societal violence. Radical Left anti-Second Amendment members of Congress, aided by a sympathetic Press, drumming nonsense about guns, fanning the flames of anger toward guns and irrational fear about them, are trying to draw you into the narrative about guns they have constructed. Don’t fall for it. For the narrative constructed is a fairy tale, the purpose of which is to destroy the Second Amendment. Don’t lose sight of that fact for a moment. Second, so, then what is the real issue? The real issue you need to confront is how to deal with the perpetrators of violence. The mechanism that perpetrators may happen to use to commit violence—in some instances but not in all instances, and, in fact, not in most instances—the gun, does not address the underlying cause or causes of that societal violence, nor does it serve to deal with the perpetrators of it. So, it is a fruitless endeavor to go after “guns.” Guns are not the key to dealing with violence. The key to dealing with violence is to attend to the perpetrator of it and what drives that person to commit violence at all. Once you focus your attention on the right issue, you won’t be led astray into the Leftist narrative and you won’t be drawn into a morass, proposing solutions that don’t work and, quite frankly, are not meant to work to lessen violence in society. The anti-Second Amendment members of Congress only mean to lead you astray. Don't let them, for they intend to encourage you to enact laws that serve the Radical and New Progressive Left’s own policy agenda: weakening the Second Amendment, disarming the tens of millions of average, sane Americans; utilizing the lowest common denominator in society, the psychopathic killer, the common criminal, and the dangerous psychotic lunatic to attain that singular objective. It should be manifestly clear to you that the matter Congress should be addressing is how to minimize acts of violence in society and how to minimize such acts by those who seek to do violence, and that you should not be focusing attention on the mere tool that some of these dangerous elements in society use to effectuate that violence. You should make clear to radical Left-wing Democrats the issues that you wish to address, and not allow radical Left-wing Democrats to compel you to address issues they wish for you to address, that they may attain their goal: eventual citizen disarmament.Third, so, then, make clear to all Congressional Democrats that you want to address societal violence. To do that, you must gain control of the narrative. Explain to the Democrat Party Leadership and to other Radical Left Democrats that if they truly wish to curb societal violence, then discussion and debate must be directed to the issue of societal violence and the perpetrators of that violence. The issue before you is not about guns or gun violence. The issue of societal violence never was about guns and gun violence. Redirect discussion in the direction it belongs: on the causes of societal violence and the measures to be taken against those that threaten innocent lives, regardless of the implements they use. You must create the narrative, and make Congressional Democrats follow your lead.Fourth if Democrats continue to scream for more gun restrictions, targeting tens of millions of law-abiding citizens, tell them that those laws that target misuse of firearms should be vigorously enforced. The Nation does not need more restrictive gun laws, targeting the average, law-abiding, responsible, rational gun owner, when the laws already enacted are not enforced against perpetrators of violence: the common criminal, the psychopathic gang member, and the dangerous lunatic.Fifth, if Democrats insist on enacting restrictive gun laws infringing the Second Amendment, then force these antigun elements in the Democrat Party to explain how further gun restrictions, targeting tens of millions of average, law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners will curb or curtail societal violence. These radical Left Democrats can’t, of course, offer a sound logical explanation because their goal is to disarm the civilian population. That was always their goal. A rash of “mass” shootings is, for these Democrats, simply a pretext to accomplish that end. But, they will never admit that. So, hit these Democrats with the truth. Tell them that their attack on firearms is and always was a fairy tale concocted by public relations firms at the direction of the extremist Left-wing elements who seek to wrest Government control from the hands of the citizenry, where power truly belongs, and that you will not assist them in delivering that power to those who seek to bring to fruition a new vision of our Country, a vision inconsistent with that of our founders. Tell these Democrats that you will not assist them in tearing down the U.S. Constitution. Sixth, tell these Democrats that you are well aware that their gun policies are not designed to safeguard of our Nation; tell them that enactment into law of the gun policies they seek won’t preserve our Nation, that the gun proposed gun policies they seek to enact into law would only endanger the very foundation of the Nation. Tell these Democrats that you are sick and tired of hearing the same “song” over and over again. Tell them that you have heard well enough from these anti-Second Amendment elements in the Democrat Party, in the seditious Press, and in the Nation at large, once again and ever again, as bring out of the attic the same old tired firearms proposals—and occasionally, as with “Red Flag” laws, concoct new ones—and that all of these proposals are designed for one purpose and one purpose only: to weaken and ultimately to destroy the Second Amendment in order to undercut the entire Constitution, the very foundation and framework of our free Republic, and a free, autonomous citizenry. Tell them you will not tolerate the constant unconstitutional and unconscionable battering of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Seventh, make plain to the reprobates in the Democratic Party that the best way to protect innocent lives is by enforcing those numerous laws against criminals and the criminally insane that we already have on the books, and make clear that Congress must aggressively enforce those laws before considering adding more restrictive gun laws into the mix. Ask those who seek to disarm the citizenry to explain why they think we need more restrictive gun laws, targeting the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen, anyway. Make these reprobates produce sound evidence to support their position. Eighth, force Democrats to acknowledge that they are simply exploiting tragic incidents to bring their ultimate goal into fruition: de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. Force them to acknowledge that what it is they really seek, what it is they really want is not “gun control” but “citizen/population control” and what they truly seek to control is not the common criminal or the occasional lunatic, but the average, law-abiding citizen. Force these New Progressive Left and radical Left-wing Democrats to acknowledge that they see an armed citizenry as the real threat to the kind of Country they envision, and that the kind of Country they want to erect is abhorrent to the Nation the founders sought to give Americans and which they did give to Americans: a free Republic.Nine, tell Democrats that the gun policies they seek to enact into law, including, inter alia, unnecessary gun background checks and extended gun transfer waiting periods, bans on semiautomatic firearms, ‘red flag’ laws, and universal gun confiscation measures disguised as voluntary ‘gun buybacks,’ are inconsistent with the present framework of our Nation, and that, if Democrats are unhappy with that framework and seek to dismantle it in order to create another one to their liking, then you are not interested in talking with them; that the gun measures they seek to implement are beyond the pale, and that you are at an impasse.__________________________________________

IF GUN MEASURES ARE WHAT DEMOCRATS WANT, THEN CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS SHOULD GIVE THEM ONE AND IT IS ONE REPUBLICANS HAVE PROMULGATED BEFORE

PART NINE

“While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of a noble spirit, the most corrupt congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny. ~Reverend Nicholas Collin, writing under the pseudonym,” ‘Foreign Spectator,’ taken from an article he penned, appearing in a newspaper, the Pennsylvania Gazette,  November 7, 1788“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” ~Joseph Story, early Jurist who served on the U.S. Supreme Court in the 19th Century; quotation from Story’s “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” 1833“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it’s not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don’t see the danger of the big picture. They’re courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don’t like.” ~Alan Dershowitz, Contemporary American lawyer and academic; Professor Emeritus, Harvard University; and scholar of United States constitutional law and criminal law; well-noted, self-ascribed Civil Libertarian; now apparently loathed by the Left-wing “power elite” for having the audacity to assail the ACLU, and for defending President Trump; often a guest on Fox News; but shunned by the mainstream networks, CNN, MSNBC, et.al.

A GUN MEASURE THAT WOULD WORK TO CURB SOCIETAL VIOLENCE

Democrats have recently proposed a flurry of restrictive gun laws targeting tens of millions of law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owners. Those antigun measures are not carefully constructed to target the criminal and occasional lunatic. The American public knows this. Hopefully, the President and Congressional Republicans know this, too. Such draconian gun measures will not make our Nation safer, and are not designed to make our Nation safer. They are only designed to weaken the Second Amendment. But, if any federal legislation would tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, the Second Amendment, what would that legislation look like? There is such a gun law, and it is one that would enable the average, law-abiding, rational, responsible gun owner to carry a gun for self-defense wherever that person travels in this Nation and in the territories of our Nation. Such a gun law would deal effectively with societal violence. And such Congressional bills had been introduced to realize the goal of reducing societal violence.Perhaps Congressional Republicans need to be reminded that they had a bill once to deal effectively with societal violence. In fact they had several such bills, when they controlled both Houses of Congress when the 115th Congress was in session. These sets of bills involved National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity.* What happened to those bills? One that had actually passed the House, 115 H.R. 38, was allowed to die in Senate Committee. Well, it is high time to resurrect that bill. The best way to deal with Democrats’ concern over so-called “gun violence” is, after all, to enact a bill that deals effectively with all societal violence perpetrated by both the criminal psychopath and the dangerous psychotic lunatic. Looking at the issue of societal violence as “gun violence” in order to deny to the average American citizen the best means available to defend their life and safety, namely through that which a firearm provides, is a blind, nothing more; a media creation, hyped up by Democrats as if it were a real issue. It isn’t. And, media concocted phrases such as ‘assault weapon’ and ‘weapon of war’ are mere pejoratives and erroneous fictions at that. Such firearms are semiautomatic weapons specifically designed for civilian use, for legitimate purposes. Congressional Republicans should tell antigun Left-wing Democrats that Republicans will henceforth refrain from using glib terminology, a fiction, created merely to inflame the public, nothing more. Republicans should not encourage use of fictions that are created merely for their emotional impact and that enable Democrats to control the running narrative against guns and civilian gun ownership in order to promote an agenda designed to weaken the Second Amendment. What Should Congressional Republicans Do?Congressional Republicans should draft a new bill calling for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity. The answer to “gun” violence—an effective answer to any violence, really—is found in firearms in the hands of those who are best equipped to deal with that violence immediately when violence occurs or is threatened, before police officers can respond to it. This means that a firearm in the hands of the average, responsible, rational law-abiding citizen is the best response to a threat of imminent violence. Congress should also enforce laws against perpetrators of violence, and really enforce those laws; not pretend to enforce them. This is absolutely necessary before Congress gets swept up into the maelstrom of enacting any new restrictive “gun” laws that invariably target tens of millions of average, law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizen gun owners.A national concealed handgun carry reciprocity bill will certainly get the attention of Leftist extremists self-righteously exclaiming that it is either “their way or the highway.” Republicans might tell the antigun Radical Leftists to take the highway and leave the Nation alone, in peace, for the tens of millions of Americans who believe our Nation is doing just fine as a free Constitutional Republic, with the Bill of Rights intact. Republicans should tell these radical Leftist Democrats that our Nation’s Constitution does not need more tweaking. It is time for Republicans to control the narrative on guns and on other major issues confronting our Nation, including illegal border crossings and at-will abortion.Republicans can present a reasoned and cogent argument for national handgun carry reciprocity as that law strengthens and preserves the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Sure, the New Progressive Left and other radical Left-wing Democrats will scoff, or laugh, or walk off in a huff, but the fact remains that their attempts to create more and more restrictive gun laws only serves to make a mockery of our Bill of Rights.Did not President Trump make crystal clear in his State of the Union address that this Nation will never become a Socialist State? Did Republicans not notice that most Democrats did not applaud the President when Trump asserted the Nation will never become a Socialist State, but sat sullenly in silence at his remark?Republicans must remain true to the vision that the founders had for this Country, a vision that has allowed our Nation and its people to prosper for over two hundred years; a vision that has made our Nation the most powerful on Earth. Republicans might remind Left-wing Democrats and those who support them that this Nation has succeeded admirably and completely in defeating outside threats; and Republicans should tell these Left-wing Democrats that Americans will succeed in defeating threats emanating from within the Nation as well. President Trump and Congressional Republicans should explain to these reprobates on the other side of the aisle that, despite Left-wing Democrats’ intense distaste for the very existence of the fundamental, indelible, unalienable, immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and despite their singular intent and reprehensible desire to destroy the exercise of that primordial, natural right bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, they will not succeed in their efforts to disarm the American citizenry—ever!__________________________________________________________*The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about this. See, e.g., the Arbalest Quarrel article on House bill 115 H.R. 38 to enact national concealed handgun carry reciprocity, a bill that passed the House but died in Senate Committee. Of Course, a federal law authorizing what already exists intrinsically in man, i.e., the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment, should not be necessary, as such law is at best redundant. But, there is another issue of more pressing concern with a federal mandate, or multi-State compact, permitting a law-abiding citizen to carry a handgun concealed throughout the Nation and throughout the Nation’s territories. There is the incipient danger in even countenancing that such Government action is necessary if the right exists implicitly in the American citizenry. For, asserting that Governmental action is necessary to secure the right, in effect, then, undermines, paradoxically, the very nature of the right secured—turning a fundamental right into something less than it is and what it was, as codified, meant to be—transforming it into a statutory right, which is, then, something less a fundamental right, something more akin to a privilege, which is what a Government-made right really is. For, if, truly, Government bestows a right, that can only mean that the right did not exist until Government created it. And, if Government creates a right that it bestows to this person or that person, then Government, as the creator of the right, may also, ipso facto, rescind one’s exercise of it or repeal it outright so that no one can exercise it. Thus, if Congress were to enact national handgun carry reciprocity legislation, there is a real danger in the public tacitly acknowledging that Government has created a right that had not hitherto existed before Congressional enabling legislation that created the right. This undermines the strength of the Second Amendment, essentially subordinating it to mere Statute; subjecting the Second Amendment to constant tinkering: modification, refinement, and loss of import and purport. But, we talk about the need for national handgun carry reciprocity anyway because of the many laws, through the decades that have whittled away at the efficacy of the Second Amendment; and we see this constant disturbing churning away of a God-given right, continuing through the recent flurry of restrictive gun proposals being actively bandied about now—another disheartening round of efforts to undercut the strength of the fundamental, immutable, unalienable right codified in the Second Amendment._________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

INTRODUCTION TO SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

HOLD YOUR TONGUE AND GIVE UP YOUR GUNS! THE MANTRA OF THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES

PART TWO

THE RADICAL LEFT SPREADS HATRED AND VIOLENCE, NOT PEACE AND COMMUNITY AS THEY THRUST THEIR VALUE SYSTEM ON EVERYONE ELSE

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. . . . Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them. . . he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.” “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” ~  John Stuart Mill, Quotations from his work, “On Liberty”

RADICAL LEFTISTS SEEK TO CONTROL THE NARRATIVE AND SILENCE ALL DEBATE

The Democratic Party’s Radical Left contingent and the Radical Left’s sympathizers in the Press and the polity, namely those who espouse the tenets of Collectivism, contend that they ground their policy choices on morality, asserting the point vociferously—believing, erroneously, that spouting vitriol serves better to convince the public than appealing calmly to reason.All the while, these Radical Leftists maintain that Conservatives—those espousing the principles of Individualism as manifested in our Constitution, upon which our free Constitutional Republic is grounded—are a reactionary force, out of touch with “Neo-modernism,” and that the Conservatives' policy positions are decidedly immoral.But, is that true? Which ideological perspective really fosters amity and which one fosters enmity? Contrary to their assertions, it is the ideology of the Radical Left and the Progressives that is decidedly immoral, not the ideology of Conservatives. And, it is the Radical Left and Progressives that foster enmity among the polity, and, through the device of "identity politics," which the Radical Left and Progressives concocted, they demonstrate a desire not to to bring the Nation together, but, rather, to divide it. They seek to create hatred and fear, hoping that, through the divisions they deliberately create and foster, they can eke out a victory for the Democratic Party in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. And, the Radical Left and Progressives have a very powerful ally in the Press. Since assuming the mantle of the U.S. Presidency, the Press has waged an all-out war against Donald Trump, and those who support him.Instead of reporting the news and informing the public on the important news events of the day, the mainstream media has engaged in a constant, massive disinformation and misinformation campaign in a naked and despicable attempt to destroy the Trump Presidency, attacking the very institution of the Presidency. The mainstream media is actively supporting the Democrats' attempts to transform our Nation into a system that is completely at odds with the tenets of Individualism upon which our Constitution and upon which our free Republic rests. The Radical Left and Progressives that have taken over the Democratic Party adhere to the tenets of Collectivism, upon which the Radical Leftist political, social, and economic systems of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism are grounded. And the Radical Left and Progressives would have the public believe that these political, social, and economic systems--operating through massive Government enterprises, unwieldy, corrupt dictatorial regimes, that persevere only by force of arms, offering nothing for the populace but oppression and misery--are a positive force for good, when the opposite is true. And, these Radical Left systems, Marxism, Socialism, Communism are hardly new inventions. In fact, they are deeply flawed and decidedly and decisively unethical, outmoded political, social, and economic philosophical systems that have failed and have failed miserably in those Nations that have attempted utilization of them,* but which the Radical Left and Progressives, with the assistance of the Press, seek to resurrect from the dead. What they propose for our Country is not subject to criticism and not open to debate. And, that fact, too, is consistent with the Radical Left systems of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. In part, this is due to the weaknesses of the intellectual underpinnings of those systems. Close scrutiny opens up the weaknesses of the systems to the light of day, and that is not something the proponents of those systems want. And, in part the weaknesses of the Radical Left Collectivist systems of Marxism, Socialism, and Communism, are symptomatic of the psychological makeup and predilections of the proponents of them. As the Radical Left has little regard for people, perceiving them to be random bits of energy that need constant guidance and control, like so much cattle that must be corralled, lest they run rampant and amok, destroying the well-engineered, tightly controlled society the Radical Left envisions for them, the totalitarian State will falter, totter and fall. Thus, the populace cannot be left to their own devices in the society to be erected. That society demands uniformity in thought and conduct. No dissenting comments or criticisms are permitted. It is no wonder, then, that the Radical Left and Progressives in our Nation are pressing forward with their goal of admitting millions of illegal, poorly educated aliens into our midst, as they have, then, the kind of people, they want and the kind of population they need for the sort of society they desire, a society comprising a multitude of mindless serfs who willingly allow themselves to be led so long as the Government provides for their basic physical needs. Such is the Nation they will thrust on all Americans. And the last thing the Radical Left and their Progressive cohorts will abide by is an autonomous, independent-minded, critical thinking citizenry that happens to speak their mind and maintains an arsenal of firearms and ammunition, informing the Radical Left and Progressives who it is that is really in charge, and for whom this Nation truly exists. Not surprisingly, the founders of our Republic, the framers of our Constitution—both Federalists and Antifederalists—rejected the Collectivist ideology and the systems so grounded on that ideology, out-of-hand. as the Collectivist vision of society, top down rule, and strict control over the conduct and thoughts of the populace, was clearly not something they envisioned for our Nation, not something they wanted, and, in fact, it was something they absolutely deplored. Why, then, would anyone, after 200+ years of seeing the founders' vision come to fruition in the culmination of a highly successful powerful and free Nation that the founders of our Republic gave us, wish to reverse that course? Is it because these Radical Leftists and Progressives really believe our Nation is grounded on immorality, or so these Radical Left politicians say and would have the American citizenry believe, in order to make them amenable to the creation of a radically changed society, grounded on the tenets of Collectivism. It may be that some of these politicians do truly believe that our Nation is predicated on unethical, immoral tenets, notwithstanding the fact that most Americans have prospered in our Nation, and all Americans have certainly been given the opportunity to prosper in our Nation if they choose to take advantage of the opportunities the Nation has provided for its citizenry. But, if, nonetheless, these Radical Left and Progressive politicians believe our Nation does not deserve to continue to exist as a free Republic, regardless of its success as a free Republic, founded on the principles of fundamental rights and liberties of man, because, simply, to these politicians, and to their hangers-on, the Nation is perceived as immoral and because they perceive the Nation to be grounded on immorality, then these Radical Left and Progressive politicians have a very  odd notion of morality.The oddity of the Radical Left’s morality is reflected in their policy choices. Grounded on the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism, the Leftist extremist and his cousin, the Progressive, do not look to the motives, the intentions of a person’s actions, when ascertaining whether an act is considered morally good or morally evil, but, rather they look to the consequences of one’s actions—and only to the consequences of one's actions.Thus, for the Radical Left and for Progressives it isn’t the person who is the subject of blame for harm he or she does to another person; not really. Rather, it is the result of a person’s action—the consequences, alone—that is deemed to be morally good or morally evil. Further, Leftists infer that it is the negative consequences that one’s harmful actions have upon society as a whole. rather than the impact of the negative consequences on another individual that is considered the seat of the immoral conduct. Thus, for the Leftist Extremist and Progressive one’s conduct, good or bad, is a function of the effect that a given behavior has on society as whole, irrespective of the impact of the conduct--namely the harm imposed on another or benefit derived--that is deemed important in a determination of what constitutes good, morally correct, conduct and what constitutes evil, immoral conduct. For more on this see the Arbalest Quarrel article, “Guns, Knives, and Occams Dangerous Razor,” posted on June 1, 2014, and reposted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on June 2, 2014, under the title, "Coffee Conversations with the Anti Side."

INTRODUCTION TO SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

PART THREE

WHICH SIDE REALLY HOLDS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND: A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE OR THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL LIBERAL, A.K.A., RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVE?

I. THE ETHICAL SYSTEM OF THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES

Consistent with the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism, the value the Radical Left and Progressives place on the life, safety, welfare, and well-being of individuals is essentially irrelevant because the value of any individual human life, in the Radical Left’s ethical scheme, is subordinated to what is presumed to be of benefit to the society as a whole—that is to say, what is deemed most to benefit the safety, welfare and well-being of the Hive; of the Collective. Benefits accruing to individuals do not factor into their analysis of what makes for a sound ethical system. Concern for the individual is essentially irrelevant.A corollary to their ethical system that stresses consequences of actions rather than motives behind actions is that a person, being a component of society, is, ultimately, not responsible for his or her actions, because, as the Radical Leftist and Progressive concludes, a person is deemed to be a product of that society. So, then, the Radical Leftist and Progressive surmises that it is really society itself that is to blame for the harm that one does to others, and the human agent is basically blameless. Is it, then, any wonder that the Radical Left and Progressives seek to empty our prisons, letting even the most dangerous, sordid and loathsome elements of society out into the street to prey once again on the innocent? In the mind of the Radical Leftist and Progressive this is precisely what they want to do, and what they have asserted they will do if they take control of the reins of Government. So, to improve society, the Radical Left and Progressives ask: How can we maximize utility for society as a whole? And they include into the equation, for maximizing utility, the lowest common denominator in society: the illiterate and dangerous illegal alien; the career criminal; members of drug cartels and criminal gangs; the psychopathic killer; and the violent lunatic. The Radical Leftist and Progressive, then ask: What policy choices can we make to maximize public order in society? As proponents of Collectivism, the Radical Leftist and Progressive looks to Government to implement and maintain control over those policy choices. And, while looking the other way where the worst elements of society lie in wait to prey on the innocent, they look to Government to determine what is deemed to be appropriate conduct for everyone else, and they look to Government to curb what they deem to be the worst excesses of human behavior. But, what it is that is deemed to amount to the worst excesses of human behavior is not--contrary to what reason would dictate, and as a reasonable person would surmise--behavior involving physical harm to another, but, rather, behavior manifesting as undesirable political and social belief structures, which the Radical Left and Progressives, themselves, are certain they are in the best position to determine and to define.Understand, Radical Leftists and Progressives, as proponents of the social and political principles and tenets of Collectivism and as strong adherents of the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism, look to a well-ordered and well engineered society as promoting ethical conduct among the populace. But the well-ordered, well-engineered society they conceive of is not one that permits dissenting voices, as that is perceived as threatening public order.Thus, the gravest threat to the well-0rdered and well-engineered society, for Radical Leftists and Progressives is one that fosters freedom of thought and conduct among the polity. What Radical Leftists and Progressives strive for, above all else, is uniformity in thought and conduct. But, what, then, do Radical Leftists and Progressives make of the criminal element and the criminally insane in their well-ordered and well-engineered society?The criminal element and the criminally insane are beyond the pale. That, of course, understood by everyone. But, the career criminal and the criminally insane are not considered an existential threat to the well-ordered and well-engineered society of the Radical Left and of Progressives.The conduct of this lowest common denominator of society does represent a threat to the innocent members of the polity to be sure. But Radical Leftists and Progressives do not concern themselves with the loss of life and and harm that comes to individuals, as long as the inner Hive, the greater society, the Collective remains intact. Behavioral conditioning can be used and would probably be used to keep the lowest common denominator in check. This idea is explored in the 1962 book, "A Clockwork Orange," by Anthony Burgess.But such behavioral conditioning has no impact on rational individuals who happen merely to adhere to a political and social philosophy--distinct from that of the Radical Leftist and Progressive who opposes and denigrates the political and social philosophy of the founders of our free Republic. The Radical leftist and Progressive does not and will not tolerate social and political philosophies that are at loggerheads with their own as we see today. Such people don't even wish to debate differences in philosophies.So, then, suppose a person holds to the ideas of the founders of our Republic who had a firm belief in the existence of  fundamental, natural rights that exist intrinsically in man, as bestowed upon man by the Divine Creator, an idea that operates as the great foundation of our free Republic. But, that idea constitutes a danger to the well-ordered, well-engineered society envisioned by the Radical Leftist and Progressive, and must be censored.If the Radical Leftists and Progressives take control of Government in 2020, they will be in the position of transforming this Nation into a Collectivist nightmare--a society inconceivable to the founders of a free Republic; a society grounded on principles inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights. Hence, if a society envisioned by the Radical Left and Progressives should come to fruition, then those individuals who hold to political, social, and ethical belief systems that are the inverse of those held by the Radical Left and Progressives, will be perceived as a direct and imminent threat to the atheistic ideals of Marxism, Socialism, Communism and to the societal structure grounded on one of those political, social, and economic systems. So, if the Dystopian vision of the Radical Left and Progressives is, in fact, realized, no belief system antithetical to their vision of a well-ordered, well-engineered society that is grounded on the principles of Marxism, Socialism, or Communism will be tolerated, and proponents of such other belief systems will be ostracized at best, and, at worst they will be banished from the Country or held indefinitely in detention centers or in asylums.

II. THE ETHICAL SYSTEM OF CONSERVATIVES

The Conservative, placing value of the life of the individual over that of an amorphous Collective or Society, or  “Hive,” holds individual as ultimate agents of therefore behavior and therefore holds the individual responsible for his or her actions.Such individuals who, then, adhere to the tenets and principles of Individualism, extol a normative view grounded on a deontological ethical system. In accordance with the postulates of this system, a human agent's conduct is determined to be good or evil on the basis of one's human motivation; intentions. A proponent of Deontology looks to a human agent's intentions in assessing whether conduct is good, bad, or neutral. This ethical system often proceeds from the idea that man, being created in the image of God, bears ultimate responsibility for his or her actions. This idea is an anathema to the Radical Leftist and Progressive as their belief systems do not posit the existence of a omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect Being. In fact, their philosophy rules out the existence of a Divine Creator. Thus, it should come as no surprise that Radical Leftists and many Progressives support late-term, at will abortion. But, the point here is that the views of most Americans are altogether antithetical to the tenets and principles of Collectivism and are antithetical to the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism. The Conservative asks: How can the life, safety, and well-being of the individual American citizen be effectively secured? The Radical Left and Progressives, caring little for the well-being of individuals, and more for the ostensible well-being of society, do not profess concern for the individual at all and, so, dismiss the question posed by the Conservative, out-of-hand, as the question is meaningless, or even nonsensical to the Radical Leftist and Progressive.The political and social philosophy of the Conservative, predicated on the tenets of Individualism, as held by the framers of our Constitution, and, contrariwise, the political and social philosophy of Leftists, predicated on the tenets of Collectivism, are antithetical and, so, incapable of reconciliation. There exist two different visions for this Nation: one that seeks to preserve a Free Republic, along with the autonomy and sovereignty of the individual, consistent with the intention of the framers of our Constitution; and the other social and political philosophy that seeks nothing less than to wipe the slate clean, and, then, having stated over, working toward establishing a Marxist society, a Collective, to be injected into a transnational, supranational system of governance, based in Europe.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS ANTITHETICAL TO THE TENETS OF COLLECTIVISM

THE ETHICAL SYSTEMS AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES OF INDIVIDUALISTS AND COLLECTIVIST ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE AND CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH EACH OTHER

THE ETHICAL SYSTEMS AND THE POLITICAL PHILOSOPHIES OF THE INDIVIDUALISTS AND COLLECTIVISTS, RESTING AS THEY DO ON A WHOLLY DISTINCT SET OF POSTULATES, ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE SYSTEMS AND CANNOT BE RECONCILED; THEREFORE NEGOTIATION AND COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE TWO IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. EACH SIDE EVINCES COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VISIONS FOR OUR COUNTRY AND THE VISIONS OF THE TWO SIDES ARE INCOMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER.

We see two different value systems of two distinct political and social philosophies, one reflecting the tenets of Individualism and the other reflecting the tenets of Collectivism. Each side frames the political, social, and ethical questions in mutually exclusive ways, as each side emphasizes different values, and, this in turn, is reflected in the policy choices each side makes, as that side attempts to resolve what it perceives as distinct political, social, and ethical problems and dilemmas. Given this indisputable fact, negotiation and compromise is impossible, as the vision each side embraces for this Country are absolutely at odds with each other.Hence, we see the different value systems of these two distinct political and social political philosophies reflected in the questions each side asks itself and, this, in turn, is reflected in the policy choices each side makes. Thus, we see each side taking completely different policy positions on every major issue: three of the salient, pressing ones, of late, being firearms, abortion, and immigration. But, why is that? Why are there such profound differences on social and political issues--such profound differences, in fact, that each side doesn't even ask the same questions, approaching the issues in such different veins that it is impossible for each side to even begin to understand the other side. It is as if each side is speaking a different language. And this being so, it stands to reason that resolution of political and social issues would reflect demonstrably distinct, antithetical policy choices that make reconciliation between the two sides impossible. It is for this reason that there can be no compromise, no negotiation between the two sides, as any attempt to do so, would be sterile, empty, as one side seeks to preserve the philosophical underpinnings upon which this Nation was created, the free Republic the founders placed their very lives on the line to create and to provide for future generations of Americans; and the other side seeks to rend and replace the Nation the founders created. The profound differences of the two sides being irreconcilable, and so profound, so resolute, and on existing on such a basic, elemental level, that the conditions for the possibility of an actual modern civil war unfolding, are very real.** The Radical Leftists and Progressives seek nothing less than to replace our free Republic with no less than a Marxist styled dictatorship, a regime that is visibly at odds with the Nation as it presently exists, and they intend to follow through with their plans. Those individuals who wish to preserve our Nation as a free Republic, as the founders intended , the political Conservative, will never permit or abide by the uprooting of the philosophical underpinnings of our Nation as a free Republic, where the individual is autonomous and sovereign.Leftist extremists have shown their contemptuousness of and open hostility toward the U.S. President, Donald Trump. They hate him for having the audacity to attempting to preserve our Nation as a Free Republic. These same Marxist, Radical Leftists and Progressives have shown no less a contemptuous attitude and hostility toward the founders of our Nation, the framers of our Constitution. The Radical Left and Progressives that have essentially taken control of the Democrats and of the Democratic Party, demonstrate open disrespect toward, and, in fact, deep loathing of and perverse, monstrous abhorrence toward the founders of our Nation, and have demonstrated their deep abiding contemptuousness of, and, in fact, open defiance toward our Nation's Constitution, and toward our Nation's fundamental, natural rights and liberties, toward our Nation's long, glorious history and culture, and toward our Nation's institutions, the entirety of it. The Radical Leftists disrespect of our Country and of its people, whom they bizarrely and erroneously divide into two disparate, armed camps of victims and overlords (victimizers), is not only extreme in the conception, but pathological in the use. In fact the very notion that this Nation, a Nation of free citizens, is comprised of two broad classes of people, the oppressed and their oppressors is outright ludicrous, but it does serve its ignoble purpose. The ruthless and reprehensible designers of disquiet and disruption in our Nation, the social engineers who desire to disrupt and corrupt the orderly operation of society, to weaken and confound the citizenry, have done so, that they more easily control it; so that they can remold it, reshape it, and insert it anew into the Marxist vision of Hell on Earth they have conceived: a world of vast surveillance and control over the mass of populations; a world where the mass of humanity is reduced to servitude and penury and where those who object, those who dissent, those who demand freedom and liberty are brutally crushed into submission. This cannot be reasonably denied, as there exists mounting evidence to the contrary: the rebellious, disaffected extremists have taken over the Democratic Party. The current Democratic speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, hardly a proponent of the Bill of Rights, has been principally silent. She has lost her grip of the House. Whether afraid to wrest control from the mutinous Radical Left or otherwise through an attempt to retain a modicum of power through obsequious acquiescence to it, Pelosi herself, has become subservient to the frenzied call for immediate transformation of the U.S. into a Marxist dictatorship. Those of the Left seek nothing less now than open revolt, audacious in the conception, frightening in scope; but hardly grandiose; simply disgusting, reprehensible, and absolutely insane. These Radical Leftists, who had sought to reshape society quietly, through the social policies of Barack Obama, and which were to continue through the regime of Hillary Clinton, were dismayed to see the election of Donald Trump and to witness his Administration throwing a wrench into their incremental path to a Marxist world State. And Seeing that their master plan for a quiet progression of the U.S. toward Marxism was failing, possibly could fail, the Internationalist Billionaire architects of a one World Government went to work. Their plans for a one world political, social, economic, and cultural system of governance would now have to be made plain, to be made obvious to the American people. And they set to work to destroy Trump's Presidency. They have attempted to do so audaciously, and they continue to do audaciously, attacking and ridiculing the man himself, as well as attacking the President's policies for returning our Nation to its historical roots. And what they desired to do incrementally, they now seek to do quickly, through one major push, one massive frontal assault on the Nation and its Constitution and its people. Whoever gains the nomination of the Democratic Party and whomever it is that might gain the U.S. Presidency, no longer matters. There are no political Moderates left in that Party who have the Will, the Backing, and the fortitude to wrest control from the dominant Radical Left. Whomever in the Democratic Party it is that retakes the White House, will be taking his or her marching orders from the Billionaire Internationalists, and through their minions in the Party. And, as these supranationalist, one-world Government organizers have lost patience with a slow, incremental transformation of this Nation into a Collectivist one-world State, expecting, anticipating this Nation's slow but inexorable, assured fall into unceremonious ruin, only to be rebuilt, but only to be rebuilt as a cog of a world super-state, they now seek a rapid advance. Should a "Democrat," any so-called Democrat, takes over the reins of the Executive Branch of Government, expect to see a rapid political, social, cultural, economic upheaval to occur, and as the new "President" will have the legitimacy of the Office of President, in which to mount the  upheaval of this Nation internally, it will be difficult to prevent the metamorphosis of this Nation into a Marxist Hell. And, what will all this mean for the American people?These Radical Leftists and Progressives desire to erase the very memory of our Nation as it is, and once was, and is ever to be. They seek to wipe the slate clean, to start over; to replace a free Republic and a free People with a thing that died long ago and that should have remained dead and buried long ago--the Marxist Collectivist Dystopian dream of a one world borderless political, social, economic, construct, ruled by an all seeing, all knowing, all powerful Government. This is the Collectivist nightmare of a world devoid of nations, devoid of free citizens, devoid of hope, dreams, and reason; a world containing serfs, drones, and slaves, all controlled by a small cadre of ruthless overseers, intent on containing, constricting dissent, and bending entire populations to their will, the goal of which is to provide uniformity in thought and conduct, along with confounding, oppressive stasis.____________________________________________**For a detailed account of the major political and social differences between Radical Leftists/Progressives, on the one hand, and Conservatives, on the other, the Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out the salient differences between the two sides, providing then the reason why compromise between the two is empirically impossible. One side ascribes to the basic tenets of Collectivism, an ideology upon which the social and political philosophy of the Radical Leftists and Progressives is predicated. The other side ascribes to the basic tenets of Individualism, an ideology upon which the social and political philosophy of the Conservatives is predicated, upon which our Nation was founded and upon which it presently exists. We invite interested readers to take a look at two Arbalest Quarrel articles on the subject, both of which were posted on AQ in October 2018: "In the Throes of the America's Modern Day Civil War," and "The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies."____________________________________________

INTRODUCTION TO SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

PART FOUR

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THAT EXISTS TODAY COMPRISES FEWER TRUE SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LIBERALS AND MANY MORE ILLIBERAL SOCIAL AND POLITICAL RADICALS AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS

Let us postulate up front that the Democratic Party today reflects a much more radical social and political philosophy than in the past. It is much changed from the Party that existed even a few years ago, under the Obama Administration, extreme as the Obama Administration was.Although the mainstream media, which is in essentially in lockstep with the radical elements of the Democratic Party, manifests a continued predilection to use the expression 'liberal' to describe and represent the basic political and social orientation of the Democratic Party, nonetheless use of that expression to describe the prevalent outlook and orientation of the Democratic Party today is misnomer as the Democratic Party has, today, a clearly different orientation. The Party has been essentially if not completely radicalized, co-opted by the most radical elements in it, and these radical elements clearly present the Party and represent the Party's face to the Nation and to the world.The mainstream media, and, most notoriously, The New York Times, uses the term, 'liberal,' erroneously, and deceptively, and, therefore, to our mind, irresponsibly, to describe the Democratic Party as it is aware that the Party is a decidedly wildly Leftist extremist organization and, so, the term, 'liberal' is therefore wildly inaccurate.The mainstream media continues to use the expression, 'liberal,' instead of the clearly more accurate term, 'radical,' when mentioning Democratic Party politicians, and it does so to create the illusion that the Democratic Party is within the social and political mainstream fabric of the American polity when it knows very well that the Party is not within the political mainstream of the American public.Why, then, does the mainstream media deliberately use an erroneous term to describe the Democratic Party? It does so because the Press is most assuredly aware that the term, social and political, 'radical,' comes across as a pejorative to most Americans; understandably so, as Americans, for the most part, don't have a favorable view of Marxists, Socialists, and Communists--the very groups that, we know, are in league with the new Democratic Party and that are secretly supporting the Democratic Party. Several members of the Party have, indeed, unreservedly fashioned themselves as Marxists, Socialists, and, yes, Communists, too, even if very few of them use any one of those expressions to describe themselves, thus so. Their sympathies are clear enough through their statements and through their policy planks.

THE ILLIBERAL RADICAL LEFTIST AND PROGRESSIVE HAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT VIEW OF RELATIONSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS TO SOCIETY AND TO GOVERNMENT

It is impossible for the Political and Social Conservative, on the one hand, and the illiberal, Political and Social Radical Left and Progressive, on the other hand to come to a mutually acceptable agreement on any public policy issue because, on a very basic, almost subliminal level, the two sides happen to view a human being in a completely different light and happen to view the relationship of the human being to society and to Government in a completely different light.Both the modern-day Conservative and the founders of our Free Republic, placed their faith in the human being and were wary of Government. Contrariwise, the Radical Leftist and Progressive place their faith alone in the State qua Government, not the human being. The Radical Leftist and Progressive are wary of individuals when left to their own devices, and trust Government to curb the worst excesses of the individual, oblivious, then, to the fact that Government itself, composed of individuals, is itself subject to the worst excesses, and, with control over the military and of the police and intelligence apparatuses, as well as over the media, presents the worst of dangers. For Government cannot help but become intolerant, autocratic, and, wielding the tremendous power it does if that power itself is not curbed, will invariably exhibit the worst excesses. It will demand uniformity in thought and action among the polity. It will crush the individual into submission to the Will of the State; and in so doing, will erase the very notions of a individual autonomy and individual self-worth and of integrity of Self. So, it is that the framers of our Constitution limited the powers of Federal Government and took the further step of distributing such limited powers the Government had to three separate but equal Branches of Government as set forth in the first three Articles of the Constitution. And, so it is that we see in the assertions of the Radical Left and in their policy choices, a fervent desire to countermand all that the framers of our Constitution, in their wisdom devised and implemented, as these Radical Leftists desire to place strict and stringent control over each American citizen’s behavior, and, indeed, over the individual’s thought processes as well; duplicitously, telling the public that this is a good thing, that society is better served when, contrary to the concerns of the framers of our Constitution, Government should not be constrained; but should firmly control the conduct and thoughts of all Americans, dictate to each American what constitutes correct and proper thought and conduct. In so doing, the Radical Left believes, society will be better served.It should come as no surprise to anyone, then, that the Radical Leftist and Progressive would seek to destroy the means by which and through which the individual may emphasize his or her individuality. The Radical Leftist and Progressive does not accept, indeed, cannot even understand that the American is expected and should be expected to take personal responsibility over his or her life, safety, health, and well-being, and be left alone, in peace. The Radical Left and the Progressives will have none of that. Thus, they seek to restrain and curb free speech, including the tacit right of freedom of association, codified in the First Amendment. They seek to deny to the individual the unalienable, immutable, natural right to protect him or herself with the best means of doing so, a firearm; more, they seek to deny to the individual the right to protect his or her life and liberty from the tyranny of Government, thus dismissing out-of-hand the idea that Government is best that Governs least; denigrating, obviating the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Ever suspicious of the idea upon which our Nation was founded—that the individual must be left alone, they seek to keep tabs on the individual, to surveil the individual, creating dossiers on every American citizen from the moment of birth to the moment of death. This is, all of it, contrary to the dictates of the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. But, those who hold to the ideas of the illiberal Radical Left and Progressive, care not for the strictures of the Bill of Rights.NOTHING DISTINGUISHES THE TWO POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PHILOSOPHIES—THAT OF THE RADICAL NEW PROGRESSIVE LEFT AND THE CONSERVATIVE ON THE OTHER—MORE THAN ON THE ISSUE OF FIREARMSThe Radical New Progressive Left abhors guns as much from an aesthetic standpoint as from a political, social, and ethical one. Thus, they never fail to use a particularly tragic albeit rare instance of misuse of a firearm by the criminal and the occasional lunatic to denounce firearms ownership and possession generally, vociferously, and this is reflected in the question they ask and the manner in which they ask it: How can society protect itself from the scourge of guns? You will note that their professed concern is that of society, of the Collective, the Hive, not that of the individual, even if they perforce assert that their concern is to protect lives. Be advised, the question they pose is really merely rhetorical as their answer to the scourge of guns is implied in the question as framed, namely: remove as many guns, and as many kinds of guns, and from as many people, as possible, and in the shortest amount of time. But, will doing so, really serve to protect people? The Radical Left and Progressive doesn't really respond rationally to this query, because they accept, as a given, even if statistically untrue; and the assumption is untrue that more innocent lives will be spared once guns are removed from the citizenry. Although the idea is false, one may reasonably ponder whether, on its face, the idea that the public will be served by banning, say,  every semiautomatic rifle, shotgun, and handgun from even plausible? Since millions of average law-abiding, rational Americans do you use semiautomatic firearms for self-defense and since, statistically, in any given years, hundreds of thousands of people and, according to some studies, over one million people, have used firearms successfully for self-defense. See, e.g., See, Guns, Crime, And Safety: A Conference Sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute and the Center for Law, Economics, and Public Policy at Yale Law School: Safe-Storage Gun Laws: Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime, 44 J. Law & Econ. 659, 660-664 (1991) by John R. Lott, Jr., American Enterprise Institute and John E. Whitley, University of Adelaide. Who will protect the lives of the people when they they are denied the best means available for defending their life and the lives of family members? On the issue of gun violence, the Conservative, asks a different question entirely. It is this: How can the citizenry best protect itself from violent acts, generally? Framed in this way, the real issue, for the political and social Conservative, has less to do with guns and more to do with a desire to curb those elements in society that are the cause of violence, whether those elements cause violence by means of guns, knives, bombs, or any other implement, including the use of bare hands.Framing the question in the way that the Conservative does, three things become clear. First, it is manifestly clear that, for the political and social Conservative no less than for the framers of our Constitution, and consistent with the framers political and social philosophy, grounded on the tenets of Individualism, and not Collectivism, the critical concern is directed to maximizing the life, and safety, and well-being of the individual from both the violence of others and from the tyranny of Government. It is manifestly clear, second, that ultimate concern ought to be and must be for the life, health, safety, and well-being of the individual in society, since, for the Conservative, there is nothing beneficial to be perceived in maintaining order in society merely for the sake of the greater society, the Collective, the Hive. Rather, the central focus must be on ensuring the life, health, safety, and well-being of actual people, namely, for the hundreds of millions of innocent individual souls that comprise society. Third, it is manifestly clear that the best means of securing the life, safety, and well-being of the individual in society, and that also serves at the same time to prevent the onset of Governmental usurpation of the sovereignty of the American people—i.e., to prevent tyranny or, at least, to deter the onset tyranny—is by arming the citizen. This the founders new full well and they provided for it in codifying the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Thus, the immediate answer to threats of violence from criminals and from the threat of lunatics hell-bent on creating violence, preying at will on the innocent members of the polity, is by seeing to it that every law-abiding, rational citizen who wishes to exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and to deter the tyranny of Government is not prevented from doing so, as it is self-evident, true, both in the dim past and to the present day, that the individual will have the best chance of successfully thwarting the threat of aggression and violence if he has the best means of at hand of doing so, and that means arming the citizen with a firearm. Further the armed citizenry is the most effective means for thwarting the rise of totalitarianism in the Nation. For the Radical Left and Progressives, though, the very idea of arming the citizen is an anathema to them. They willingly accept, and many of them gladly accept,  the loss of innocent lives as long as the greater society, the Collective, the Hive, is secured; and societal order, as they see it, can only come about through the presence of a powerful Government, overseeing the Radical Left's vision of a well-ordered, well-engineered society. The armed citizen is, as they see it, a dire threat to the preservation of, and, as well, to the very existence of a well-ordered, well-engineered society. This means that any potential threat to the authority of Government must be checked. And, an armed citizenry is perceived as an ominous direct threat to the authority of Government. Of course, the Radical Leftist and Progressive knows well enough that, for what they have in mind, criminal misuse of firearms will continue, unabated, regardless of the insincere messaging the spew out to the public, directly or through their fellow traveler, the Press.But, it is passing curious strange that the Radical Progressive New Left draws attention to rare mass shootings but pays little, if any, attention to the more serious instances of constant shootings, commonplace in Cities like Chicago. Clearly, the Radical Progressive New Left perceive Chicago as a well-ordered society that clamps down on citizen possession of guns, even as rampant crime exists in that City, as the criminal element runs amok. It is obvious these Collectivists do not view crime and deaths by gun violence as a threat at all. Their sole objective is to deny to the average, law-abiding, rational citizen the means to best counter the threat of violence, whether by guns or by any other means, by precluding the law-abiding and innocent citizen the right to keep and bear arms.Thus the extremist Leftist elements have made clear that their disdain and abhorrence of guns is not predicated on a concern for alleviating violence, whether by guns or by any other means, contrary to what they happen to broadcast through the media, as their real fear is not mass shootings at all, or any other criminal act of violence for that matter. What it is they fear most, and what they refuse to countenance, is the continued existence of an armed citizenry. An armed citizenry constitutes the greatest threat, as they see it, to the emergence of an all-knowing, all-powerful Government, along with the emergence of a welfare-dependent citizenry existing in their socially-engineered Marxist-welfare State. It is no mistake, then, that the vast majority of firearms laws—federal, State, and local—that presently exist, and the many more the Radical Progressive New Left wants to enact, are directed to restricting the average, law-abiding citizen's exercise of their fundamental, immutable, unalienable right to keep and bear arms—more so than simply preventing the criminal and lunatic. For if they truly wished to prevent or reduce criminal use of firearms, they would argue for fervent enforcement of the laws that presently exist, and would ascertain that any new law they sought to create would zero in on the criminal and lunatic and not target millions of average, law-abiding, sane gun owners. If question about this, they would be compelled to admit it is so. Their justification is that criminals and lunatics will be brought under the umbrella of further restrictive gun laws and that any law-abiding American who wishes to exercise his or her right to keep and bear arms should understand that forced gun restrictions on law-abiding guns owners is the best way to protect everyone. But, this is no more than a makeweight and arrogant presumption, and it is an erroneous presumption at that.One can, of course, debate the issue of whether the loss of individual safety and well-being is an acceptable price to pay for presumed public safety and well-being. The Conservative would be willing to engage in debate the issue in front of the Nation. The Radical Progressive Leftist would never be willing to do so, finding it easier to shout down naysayers, rather than engaging in calm, rational, intelligent debate. Be that as it may, what is lost in any argument about safety and security is the nature of the right at stake.The founders accepted, as self-evident true that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, natural right existent in the individual American, as bestowed on the individual by the Divine Creator. It is not and never has been a mere privilege, and it is not to be seen as a privilege. But that is how the Collectivist sees it: something created by Government and, as such, the ostensible “right” to possess firearms is really nothing more than a privilege. And if Government creates the privilege, Government can bestow the privilege on some, as Government wishes, and can determine how that privilege is exercised. And Government as the creator of the privilege can just as easily rescind the privilege.Those who hold to the tenets of Collectivism and to the ethical system of Utilitarian Consequentialism view gun ownership and possession only as a privilege, not as right at all, whether fundamental or not. And, in that failure to accept the right embodied in the Second Amendment and the rights embodied in the other Nine Amendments, comprising our Bill of Rights, as things bestowed onto man by the power and authority of Government, must acknowledge that rights, as with any man-made statute, are ephemeral, mutable, subject to modification or abrogation by Government. But, that idea makes a mockery of our Constitution, and, denies, out of hand the sanctity of it and the immutability of the rights and liberties set forth in it, as understood by the founders of our Nation as a free, Constitutional Republic. Thus, the Collectivist denies, out of hand, the very underpinnings of a free Republic and the relationship between the American citizen and the federal Government.But, for inclusion of our Bill of Rights into our Constitution, the notion of gun rights would not exist and the notion of free, unrestrained and unconstrained free speech and unconstrained freedom of association would not exist—not because the rights really don’t exist, they do, but because some would choose simply not to recognize the fact of natural, immutable, fundamental rights preexistent in man. Fortunately, the Antifederalists among the founders made a point of requiring that a certain set of critical natural, immutable, fundamental rights be codified in the Constitution if the States were to ratify it. The Federalists thought it unnecessary to do so since, for them, the existence of natural rights and liberties were self-evident true, understood by all without codification, and were concerned that making a point of listing a few natural rights might lead some people to deny the efficacy of others, a misconception, a misconception of the Federalists but one that the Antifederalists dealt with, anyway, through inclusion of the text of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments into the Bill of Rights.One thing is patently clear: The New Progressive Left Collectivists accept as axiomatic the idea that our Bill of Rights, as with every other part of the Constitution, is infinitely malleable, subject to constant modification, refinement, or outright abrogation. It isn’t and believing it to be so, doesn’t make it so. But they don’t care. It doesn’t matter to them. They have, as is unfortunately apparent, convinced a substantial portion of the polity of this Nation, through incessant irrational and illogical and noxious proselytizing and propagandizing, that the polity would indeed be better off if the Second Amendment were stricken from the Bill of Rights. It would still exist of course since the right exists intrinsically in man’s very being, and not in the written text. But, in the act of striking the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, or simply in ignoring it, the tyranny of Government would be noticeably at hand.

INTRODUCTION TO SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

PART FIVE

THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVE ELEMENTS IN THE U.S.

The Radical Left and Progressive movement seeks the creation of a well-ordered, well-engineered society, one grounded on the realization of the Marxist Utopian vision--a holistic society, one existing beyond the confines of the Nation, embracing the entire world; a New World Order, comprising at first all western nations, and ultimately all nations. In this vision, the very notions of ‘nation-state’ and ‘citizen,’ are obsolete. Also obsolete, are the very  notions of national culture and history. But, this goal can only be achieved if the populace of all nations, including the populace of the United States, are willing, or if not willing then required, to relinquish such rights and liberties specific nation-states may happen to have. The Radical Left and the Progressives envision an omnipotent, omniscient transnational, supranational Governmental construct, and the populations of all Western nations will be required to submit to the dictates of this entity. But, although what they envision may work—indeed is working in the nations comprising the EU, notwithstanding the EU is facing substantial and harsh push-back—and as it has worked or is working in the Commonwealth nations comprising Great Britain, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, it is not something that can work and was never meant to work in the United States. For, unlike all other nations on Earth, the United States alone, has embodied in its Constitution—the blueprint of the Nation as a free Republic—a Bill of Rights. This is the critical Document the Federalists, among the framers of the Constitution, felt unnecessary, to incorporate into the completed Constitution, but a Document the prescient Antifederalists demanded, nonetheless, be incorporated into the Constitution if the States were to ratify the Constitution.Fortunately, the Antifederalists, among the framers, made a convincing case for incorporation of a Bill of Rights into the Nation’s Constitution and it is for this reason alone, and no other, that our Nation, to this day, still exists as a free, Constitutional Republic. The existence of our Bill of Rights,understood to be a codification of natural law, that supersedes all man-made law and that exists intrinsically in man, preexisiting any and all societal and governmental constructs exists is perceived as no less than a slap in the face to Radicals and Progressives.But, for inclusion of our Bill of Rights into our Constitution, the notion of gun rights would not exist; the notion of free, unrestrained and unconstrained free speech and unconstrained freedom of association would not exist.Thus, the Radical Left and Progressives seek to destroy it all and are frustrated and enraged over their inability to do so even as they have apparently convinced a substantial portion of the polity of this Nation, through incessant irrational and illogical and noxious proselytizing and propagandizing, to forsake its God-given, fundamental and immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms and to forsake its other fundamental, unalienable, immutable, elemental, rights and liberties, upon which this Nation was founded and upon which this Nation cannot otherwise exist.____________________________________________*Even in the Scandinavian Countries, especially Sweden, that the Radical Left here refers to as an example of a social and economic system that works, Socialism is not all that it is cracked up to be as reported by the website, frontpage. Further, it must be pointed out that the Scandinavian Countries like Sweden are Countries with a small, homogenous population, unlike the populations of United States and Russia. In fact, it has become apparent that, with Angela Merkel’s influence, the EU has been flooded with millions of refugees, primarily from the Middle East. The political and social and cultural background of these people are extraordinarily rigid. They have no concept whatsoever of the philosophical principles of Ancient Greece and Rome, upon which the culture of Western Nations are grounded, and have shown no propensity to assimilate. In fact, these Middle Eastern refugees have demonstrated a perverse desire to force their own radical social and cultural theocratic value system onto their host Countries, rather than complying with the laws of their host Countries, and inculcating the traditions and culture of their host Countries andUnderstandably, the Scandinavians are not amused by what they have experienced with a flood of Middle Eastern refugess into their Country. Moreover, the apparent Socialism of Sweden—see Forbes article—that might have some efficacy in a small homogenous society like Sweden breaks down quickly when a heterogenous population is inserted, unceremoniously into the Nation, and is immediately looking for, and even demanding, “handouts.” Even the left-wing weblog, Courthouse News Service, that expresses concern over the rise of “Nationalists” in Sweden, admits, if only  grudgingly, that the welfare system of Sweden is crumbling in part, at least, because of the presence of so many unassimilable refugees.Now imagine the impact of millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., and the Radical Left’s argument for a massive increase in the welfare state even as the debt in this Country approaches $1,000,000,000,000! As the Economist Milton Friedman warned, as reported in the website, daily hatch, “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare. You cannot have both. If you have a welfare state, if you have a state in which a resident is promised certain minimum level of income or a minimum subsistence regardless of whether he works or not produces it or not. Well then it really is an impossibility.”You have to ask yourself, do Radical Leftists, like U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who welcome an endless progression of illiterate, illegal aliens, and an expansive welfare State, know what this bodes for our Nation? For the U.S. Senator, he likely does know. Senator Sanders is intelligent. To realize his dream of a Socialist State in America, he wishes to destroy the Nation as a Free Republic, and rebuild it in his image of a magnanimous Socialist Utopia. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, unlike Sanders, is a moron, but simply abhors America and seeks, as well, to destroy it, in order to transform it into a massive welfare State. If they, both of them, have their wish, our Nation would indeed be destroyed. But, no Phoenix would arise from the ashes of that destruction, as they wrongly presume would happen. No! The Nation would be ruined forever; the remains to be subsumed, albeit it in a diminished state, into a new, transnational, supranational political, social, economic, cultural, financial and legal system of governance, likely headquartered in Brussels, which is the very heart and brain of the monstrosity known as the EU, and the the people of those nations and of our Nation, too, will be reduced to penury and servitude, and all subjects, of this new world order (no longer citizens of their Nations as Nations will no longer exist), will live under duress, and under the severe and stern hand of an all-seeing, all-powerful Government, watching one's every move, and controlling every thought. __________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

INTRODUCTION TO ARBALEST QUARREL SERIES ON RADICAL LEFT/PROGRESSIVE DUPLICITY, MENDACITY, AND HYPOCRISY

PART ONE

“Those whom heaven helps we call the sons of heaven. They do not learn this by learning. They do not work it by working. They do not reason it by using reason. To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who cannot do it will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven." ~Chuang Tse: XXIII, translated by the American writer, Ursula K. Le Guin; epigraph to Chapter 3 of her 1971 Sci Fi novella, “The Lathe of Heaven”

THE RADICAL LEFT AND PROGRESSIVES WILL CRUSH AMERICA INTO SUBMISSION IF THE NATION CONTINUES TO LISTEN TO THE NONSENSE  THEY SPOUT, FOR IT ISN'T KNOWLEDGE OR UNDERSTANDING THEY HAVE; AND HAVING NO WISDOM TO IMPART, THEY HAVE NOTHING OF NOTE TO SHARE

LOSS OF OUR NATION BEGINS WITH LOSS OF AN ARMED CITIZENRY

Never in our history, since the birth of the Nation itself, has our Nation faced a direct threat to its survival as it is facing today. This isn’t hyperbole. This is fact. Even in the face of the ravages of the American Civil War, and the calamity of the Second World War, and the threat posed to our Nation by Russia during its existence as the once powerful Soviet Union, during the Cold War era, has this Nation come closer to Armageddon. This fact is plain as day, on constant display, having commenced on the very day the Presidency of Donald Trump began—on noon EST on January 20, 2017, when Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United States.Jealous and powerful elements both here and abroad have mobilized and joined forces to bring Trump down and have failed miserably. They are apoplectic over their consistent failures, and have been raging ever since.Immensely powerful, extraordinarily wealthy, abjectly ruthless, sinister, secretive forces, residing both here and abroad, have operated in concert to attack Trump’s Presidency and by extension to attack millions of Americans who voted for him in the General Election of 2016.These rapacious forces are ever devising and orchestrating, machinating and scheming. And they do so through the amalgam of: a duplicitous and compliant Press; treacherous and hypocritical politicians; recalcitrant and poisonous Federal Government bureaucrats; pestilential sympathizers in the entertainment business; virulent and violent and bellicose Radical Left activists; injurious or lackadaisical jurists; a pernicious academia; rapacious technology chieftains; and a host of hangers-on and fellow travelers and Anti-American sympathizers among the polity, have—all of them—failed to bring destruction both to the man and the Nation. They have failed to topple Trump and to destroy his Administration; and they have failed to destroy the will of the American people; and, to date, they have failed, utterly, to convince Americans to relinquish their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms; albeit, not for want of trying; and they are still doggedly trying.The only thing these perfidious, treacherous, malevolent, abhorrent forces have succeeded in doing is to draw unwanted attention to their goal of sucking the lifeblood out of this Nation, in a naked attempt to bring the Nation to heel; into the fold of the EU; and eventually, inexorably, unerringly into the grip of a new trans-global, supranational political, social, cultural, economic, financial, and legal system of governance; a new socialist world order ruled by a small cadre of sinister ministers, its heart resting in the interstices and bowels of Brussels.With 2020 hindsight the envious, fuming forces that had connived, threatened, and cajoled, albeit all for naught, to bring their stooge, the duplicitous, hypocritical, arrogant, and loathsome Hillary Rodham Clinton, to the seat of power in Washington, D.C., have licked their wounds and are intent on redressing their previous failure; to force the United States back on track toward realization of the goal of a one world socialist Government. And, if these ruthless forces succeed in placing their lackey, their factotum in the Oval Office, in 2020, everything this Nation has gained through the sacrifices of American patriots, from the American Revolution to the present day, will have been in vain. For, Americans will lose everything that has defined them and that has defined the Nation for over two hundred hears, commencing with loss of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the most sacred fundamental, immutable right of all.

WHAT CAN ALL OF US DO TO KEEP THE RADICAL LEFT ANTIGUN MOB FROM INFRINGING THE FUNDAMENTAL, NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, IMMUTABLE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

Tell your Congressional Delegation, and your State and local Legislators that you expect them to honor their sworn oath and commitment to uphold the U.S. Constitution, as this requires them to take action to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and that means protecting the natural right of self-defense. It also means that such firearms that are in common use including semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and handguns, as well as revolvers, should be available to the average, law-abiding, rational American citizen. How can we best to achieve this goal? We can achieve this goal by meeting the threat to our most sacred, sacrosanct right by meeting those who would destroy our Nation’s Birthright head-on. Tell your Congressional Delegation to recommit to passing National Concealed Handgun Carry legislation.The most effective way to attack antigun Radical Leftists seeking to weaken the Second Amendment that it may wither on the vine, is not—as all too many Republicans have been seen doing—by capitulating to the Radical Left on the issue of gun ownership and gun possession; nor is it by sheepishly agreeing with and groveling to Radical Left antigun politicians in the Democratic Party and to Grassroots antigun activists. Doing so won’t serve to preserve our sacred right, but, rather, will compromise our sacred, unalienable right. No! We must not capitulate and we must convince Republicans in Congress not to capitulate to the antigun mob. They must never capitulate.

WE CANNOT SECURE OUR NATION BY RELINQUISHING OUR FIREARMS BUT WE SHALL SURELY LOSE OUR NATION FOR HAVING DONE SO

Americans cannot preserve the Second Amendment by negotiating with those intent on destroying it. And the Radical Left, along with the inordinately wealthy Globalist elites, who lust for world domination, have no intention of preserving the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in any form. Consider: no American can any longer easily and readily obtain a machine gun, submachine gun, selective fire assault rifle, short barrel shotguns and rifles, since they are all stringently regulated by the Federal Government. Even though these rifles, shotguns, and other firearms are personnel weapons, they are no longer readily available to the public, as the availability of these weapons went out the door with the passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), over eighty years. And, as the Arbalest Quarrel has repeatedly stated, the assault on “assault weapons” is an attack on all semiautomatic weapons, as the Radical Left antigun mob is aggressively mounting a campaign to ban all of them, not just some of them. Recently, the Radical Left “Mother Jones” made this very point. The title of the article, written by the Blogger, Kevin Drum, says it all: “We Need to Ban Semi-Automatic Firearms.”At least the guy is being honest, and not pretending to convey the impression that most Radical Left antigun proponents attempt to convey to the public, namely, that they wish to ban only some semiautomatic weapons, not all of them, just “weapons of war,” qua “assault weapons.” Were the antigun mob to get their way, an effective ban on some semiautomatic weapons would lead eventually and invariably to a ban on all semiautomatic weapons. And, from there, the Radical Left antigun mob would move for a ban on revolvers, single action and double action; and, on and on, to a ban on single shot firearms and black powder muzzle loaders. The Radical Left intends to confiscate all firearms, thus essentially negating lawful exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The best way to defend the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms is by clashing with the Radical Left elements in Congress and in the populace who seek to destroy it—bringing the fight directly, unabashedly, unreservedly, and forcefully to them.Keep uppermost in mind: the goal of the Radical Left is the same as the goal of transnationalist Globalist Elites. For, they both seek to undermine the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State—to transform the Nation into a Socialist haven for millions of illegal aliens who have no understanding of our Nation’s history or any appreciation for our Nation’s Constitution, or of the nature of natural rights upon which our free Republic is grounded. The Radical Left and the transnationalists Global elite have no desire to educate illegal aliens, or even legal immigrants, for that matter, that they may readily assimilate; for, to do so, would defeat the aim of the Radical Left and the transnationalist Global elites, as they are in agreement on what they both seek to accomplish. They seek to effectuate a massive political, social, cultural, and economic transformation of our Country and, thereby, to bring the United States into the fold of the European Union. This was already underway during the Obama era, and it was to continue under Hillary Clinton, had she been “crowned” President.Fortunately, the Clinton Presidency bid failed. But, undaunted, the rapacious forces, that have sought ever to destroy this Nation, fervently desire to get back on track and to get back on track quickly, if need be, no later than 2020. They could not do so to date, try as they did, orchestrating a complex strategy directed to impeaching President Trump and removing him from Office. That didn’t happen. And it isn’t going to happen. But, there is no guarantee that these anti-American forces won’t succeed in sitting a Democratic Party stooge in the White House in 2020, and they are plugging away to do just that. But, in the interim, with their plan of undermining the sovereignty of our Nation—if not sooner, then later—they know they must weaken the Bill of Rights. And to do so, they know they must commence with de facto repeal of the Second Amendment. We see this occurring with the latest call for new curbs on semiautomatic weapons that the Radical Left subsumes under the false vernacular of ‘assault weapon.’ We see it in the Radical Left’s call for universal background checks, whatever that means. And, we see it in the call for application of so-called “Red Flag” laws, throughout the Nation.As the Arbalest Quarrel has previously stated, antigun groups have undertaken three salient tactics in their aggressive assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and these tactics are always taken out of the closet whenever a mass shooting occurs, as such a tragic event operates as a useful pretext for through which the Radical Left antigun zealots assail the Second Amendment again and again.Their tactics include, first, expanding the domain of banned firearms. Americans see this in the ferocious, noxious, incessant attack on semiautomatic firearms, aka, assault weapons.Their tactics include, second, expanding the domain of individuals who are not permitted to own or possess any firearm. Americans see this in the attempt to impose draconian, unconstitutional “Red Flag” laws on thousands of average, law-abiding American citizens. Red Flags operate by turning this Country into a Nation of spies, Shoo-flies. Doing so is the hallmark of the Totalitarian State, where people spy on others and pry into the affairs of others.And, their tactics include, third, making it increasingly difficult for Americans to exercise the right to keep and bear arms—increasingly difficult for those Americans who don’t otherwise fall within a statutory prohibition preventing them from owning and possessing firearms or fall victim to oppressive Red Flag laws.This third tactic involves making gun ownership and possession an administratively demanding, daunting, onerous, expensive, and psychologically depressing experience and proposition for gun owners, as gun owners will never know when something they do or something they say might tend to negatively impact continued exercise of their Second Amendment right. Radical Left antigun elements in our Nation, along with their transnationalist benefactors, know that one major stumbling block to defeating the Second Amendment and, in fact, one major stumbling block in compromising any of the other Nine Amendments to the U.S. Constitution that comprise our Bill of Rights, is to effectuate a change in the way in which Americans view their Bill of Rights, to change their mindset. What does that mean? Just this: The founders of our Free Republic perceived the Bill of Rights to comprise laws intrinsic to man. That is to say, the founders perceived the rights, codified in the Bill of Rights, to precede the creation of the Nation. They perceived the rights as an indelible part of the psyche of man. And, what does that mean? It means that the first Ten Amendments comprise rights and liberties bequeathed to man by the Divine Creator. This is what the founders meant by referring to the rights as fundamental, unalienable, and immutable. Since such rights are not created by man, no man can lawfully or morally rescind those rights. This proposition entails that Government, as a man-made construct, cannot lawfully or morally rescind the rights embodied the Bill of Rights, either.For the Radical Left and their transnationalist benefactors, these ideas, that serve both as the cornerstone of our Constitutional Republic, and the cornerstone of individual autonomy, are an anathema. That is why they feel obliged to ignore, modify, abrogate or utterly erase any Right set forth in the Bill of Rights, when circumstance, as they see it, dictates, or mere fancy happens to affect them. For both the Radical Left and for their transnationalist benefactors, no rights and liberties exist that are not perceived as man-made, bestowed on man by other men or by Government; and, so, they perceive nothing in rights and liberties and laws that isn’t subject to refinement or outright abrogation. This is a very dangerous viewpoint; one that is at loggerheads with the very preservation of our Nation as a free Republic; and one that is at loggerheads with the idea of the dignity and autonomy of man.We will explore these ideas in depth in the next several articles, utilizing the assertions and policy statements of two Radical Left “Potentates,” New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and U.S. Senator (D-CA), Kamala Harris, as examples of the logically unsound underpinnings of the Collectivist ideology that the Radical Left embraces.We will demonstrate, through an analysis of their assertions and policy statements, the true danger the Radical Left poses to our Nation, to its Constitution and to its people. By extension we will show how the assertions and policy positions of the Radical Left are incoherent and nonsensical, and that, on logical grounds, alone, do not provide an intellectually satisfactory and morally and legally sustainable basis for transformation of this Nation in the way and manner they seek.The Socialist Utopian dream that both the Radical Left and the Globalist “elites” envision, as bringing public order and comfort to its inhabitants, is doomed to failure. Indeed what it is they truly seek to accomplish is more likely a cold calculated ruse in which to bind this Nation to other Western Nations, in a reprehensible attempt to effectuate a one world Socialist union of once independent nation-states. In that effort, if they succeed, we will witness the dire realization of a Radical Left Socialist Dystopian nightmare; a nightmare that will bring misery, remorse, and profound unease to us all.__________________________________________________________Copyright © 2018 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.