WILL THE SECOND AMENDMENT SURVIVE GOVERNMENT ACTION TO DESTROY IT?

PART FIVE

WHAT WILL BECOME OF U.S. SUPREME COURT HELLER AND MCDONALD PRECEDENT?

Commentators and readers—pro, con, or ostensibly neutral toward the Second Amendment—presume the U.S. Supreme Court will soon take up, on review, one or more of the several pending Second Amendment cases awaiting a vote by the Court. But will they?SCOTUS Blog reporter, Amy Howe, reported, on April 28, 2020, that, “We expect orders from Friday’s conference on Monday, May 4, at 9:30 a.m. EDT.Mance v. Barr – Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.Gould v. Lipson – In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.Cheeseman v. Polillo – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.Ciolek v. New Jersey – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.Malpasso v. Pallozzi – In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.Culp v. Raoul – Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.”But, as of the posting of Part Five of this multi-series article on the Arbalest Quarrel, AQ has not yet heard whether the High Court will be reviewing any of the aforesaid cases, even as CNBC News reported, on Sunday, May 17, 2020, that,“The Supreme Court is looking eager to weigh in on the Second Amendment weeks after it punted on its first substantial gun rights case in nearly a decade.”Eagerly looking forward to weighing in on a Second Amendment case? Really? Well, apart from Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, who had previously written or joined dissenting comments asserting strong displeasure for the failure of the Court to take up any one of several cases, to date—and, we presume, apart from Associate Justice Samuel Alito who had penned the McDonald majority opinion, and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who had penned the dissenting opinion in Heller II when he had served as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, before joining the U.S. Supreme Court as an Associate Justice—the idea that the liberal wing of the High Court and the idea that the Chief Justice, himself, John Roberts, also relish the opportunity to review any Second Amendment case, except to rein in the fundamental, natural, immutable, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, if they have the opportunity to do so, is a bit of a stretch. The only other Justice who would, if he could, had a strong desire to review another Second Amendment case would be the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, who had penned the majority opinion Heller rulings and holdings.The U.S. Supreme Court has had many opportunities to do so since the Court’s majority handed down the seminal rulings in the 2008 Heller and the 2010 McDonald cases. But, apart from the quasi Second Amendment Voisine case and the recent New York City Gun transport case, the Court never did review a Second Amendment case. Concerning those two cases, Justice Thomas remarked of the former, that, while the Court did review Voisine, it never did address the Second Amendment issue, which might explain why the Court decided to hear the case at all. And, as for the latter—the New York City gun transport case—the High Court’s majority, comprising the Anti-Second Amendment liberal wing, along with Chief Justice Roberts, and, surprisingly, Associate Justice Kavanaugh, the recent addition to the Court, both ruled against allowing the case to proceed to the merits.Can Americans be so certain that another Second Amendment case is going to be taken up soon? Consider how many writs of certiorari come before the High Court during any term.On the U.S. Supreme Court site, supremecourt.gov, we are told:“The Term of the Court begins, by law, on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October of the next year. Each Term, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court. This is a substantially larger volume of cases than was presented to the Court in the last century. In the 1950 Term, for example, the Court received only 1,195 new cases, and even as recently as the 1975 Term it received only 3,940. Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is currently granted in about 80 of those cases each Term, and the Court typically disposes of about 100 or more cases without plenary review. The publication of each Term’s written opinions, including concurring opinions, dissenting opinions, and orders, can take up thousands of pages. During the drafting process, some opinions may be revised a dozen or more times before they are announced.” Do you honestly think one of the pending Second Amendment cases will garner the four votes necessary for the U.S. Supreme Court to review it, and relatively soon?With a clear schism between, on the one hand, the entrenched liberal-wing of the High Court that detests any notion of a God-given, fundamental, immutable, unalienable, natural right of the people to keep and bear arms, and vehemently disagrees with the majority’s rulings in Heller and McDonald, and, on the other hand, the entrenched conservative-wing Constitutionalists of the High Court, consisting of Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch who are adamant in their desire to preserve the Second Amendment as the framers of the U.S. Constitution had intended, it is to be seen whether Americans will henceforth be able to continue to own and possess firearms as a fundamental and unalienable right, rather than as a mere Government privilege. It will all come down to how Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh decide any such Second Amendment case.Keep in mind, it only takes one vote, either Roberts or Kavanaugh, to rule with the liberal wing of the High Court to affirm the rulings of U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld unconstitutional government actions, counter to the rulings of Heller and McDonald, striking a flagrant blow to Supreme Court precedent. But, it takes two votes, both Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the conservative-wing, to reverse or, otherwise, to modify, or vacate and remand, a badly decided lower court ruling.Our guess is that, with a U.S. Presidential election approaching this year, which will, as well, also decide whether Democrats maintain majorities in the House and secure a majority in the Senate, the U.S. Supreme Court would prefer to await the outcome.If Democrats win the Presidency and take control of the Senate, the liberal wing of the Court may be willing to provide the four votes necessary to hear a Second Amendment case. The liberal wing of the Court would do so not to chastise the Federal Circuits for failing to adhere to Heller and McDonald precedent, but to overturn those precedents, or, at least, to weaken Heller and McDonald, as they always took the position that the majority had wrongly decided Heller and McDonald. Of course, if the four members of the liberal wing of the Court do decide to vote in favor of reviewing a Second Amendment case, it would do so only if they feel confident they would obtain a “conservative” wing majority, meaning that both Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh must join Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, to reverse outright a Circuit Court of Appeals decision that upheld a government action infringing the core of the Second Amendment.But, whatever the High Court decides to do with this new batch of Second Amendment cases, it behooves us to take a moment and proceed down memory lane to contemplate those cases the Court could have reviewed, should have reviewed, but failed to secure even four of nine votes necessary to review a case implicating the core of the Second Amendment: cases decided by U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals that blatantly, defiantly, arrogantly, egregiously denied and defied Heller and McDonald precedent.

CASES ATTACKING THE CORE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REFUSED TO HEAR

Because the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in cases discussed infra, had blatantly ignored and dismissed Heller and McDonald precedent, Justice Thomas and the late Justice Scalia, and, later, Justice Gorsuch, were visibly annoyed, angered really, at the failure of the High Court to take up any of the cases, as evidenced in several dissenting comments.Those Justices were confident that, had any one or more of the below cases secured the four votes necessary for a Second Amendment case to be heard, Justice Roberts, and, at the time Justice Kennedy, would have been compelled to join the Conservative wing, reversing the decision of the Circuit Court.Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy would have been required to join the conservative wing even if they had a predilection against doing so, based on their own obvious lukewarm regard for the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution. They would have had to overturn any U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision that clearly attacked the core of the Second Amendment, as the below cases attest to. They would have been obliged to do so, consistent with Heller and McDonald precedent, and, more particularly, consistent with those Justices own decisions in Heller and McDonald, having joined the majority in those decisions. And, given that imperative, they evidently decided to take the “safer” course of action. They refused to hear any one of those cases.These cases include:Silvester vs. Becerra: Petition for certiorari denied on February 20, 2018“Issues: (1) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit improperly applied lenient scrutiny in a Second Amendment challenge to the application of California’s full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers who pass their background check in fewer than 10 days and already own another firearm or have a concealed carry license; and (2) whether the Supreme Court should exercise its supervisory powers to cabin the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit’s concerted resistance to and disregard of the Supreme Court's Second Amendment decisions.” California’s full 10-day waiting period to firearm purchasers remains in effectJustice Thomas was livid:The ABA pointed out: “Justice Clarence Thomas asserted the Second Amendment is ‘a disfavored right’ in the U.S. Supreme Court when he dissented Tuesday from the denial of certiorari in a gun case.Thomas said the Supreme Court should have heard Silvester v. Becerra, a challenge to California’s 10-day waiting period for gun purchases. His dissent starts on the 34th page of the Supreme Court order list.In upholding the law, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals used rational basis review, though it claimed to be using intermediate scrutiny, Thomas said.‘If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this court would intervene,” Thomas wrote. “But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this court.’”In his dissent for failure of the high Court to hear the case, Justice Thomas said with particularity and with righteous indignation:The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to respect that right, McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 749-750, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (plurality opinion); id., at 805, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (Thomas, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Because the right to keep and bear arms is enumerated in the Constitution, courts cannot subject laws that burden it to mere rational-basis review. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 628, n. 27, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008).But the decision below did just that. Purporting to apply intermediate scrutiny, the Court of Appeals upheld California’s 10-day waiting period for firearms based solely on its own ‘common sense.’ Silvester v. Harris, 843 F. 3d 816, 828 (CA9 2016). It did so without requiring California to submit relevant evidence, without addressing petitioners’ arguments to the contrary, and without acknowledging the District Court’s factual findings. This deferential analysis was indistinguishable from rational-basis review. And it is symptomatic of the lower courts’ general failure to afford the Second Amendment the respect due an enumerated constitutional right.If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court. Because I do not believe we should be in the business of choosing which constitutional rights are “really worth insisting upon,” Heller, supra, at 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, I would have granted certiorari in this case.Drake v. Jerejian: Petition for certiorari denied on May 5, 2014No hearing; no comment“Issue: (1) Whether the Second Amendment secures a right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense; and (2) whether state officials violate the Second Amendment by requiring that individuals wishing to exercise their right to carry a handgun for self-defense first prove a ‘justifiable need’ for doing so.”The weblog, outside the beltway, had this to say about the case:“Well it’s official. The Supreme Court has abdicated the Second Amendment.No Second Amendment right, in New Jersey, to carry a handgun outside the home; and proof of “justifiable need” to carry handgun outside the home for self-defense remains in effect in New Jersey“Today, the Court denied cert in Drake v. Jerejian, the New Jersey carry case. This case offered a perfect vehicle to test whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home. It was relisted a few times, which this term has been a prerequisite to cert. Yet, it was denied today.Since the Supreme Court decided McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, they have not deigned to take a single Second Amendment case. Not one. Several have been relisted a few times, but all ultimately denied, with not even a statement concurring or dissenting from denial of cert.As I noted in this post, this strategy of ‘deny, deny, deny’ is reminiscent of the absence of Cert grants in cases concerning Guantanamo Bay. There, the Court seems content to let the D.C. Circuit rewrite habeas law. I suppose, in a similar fashion, the Court is happy with a plethora of nation-wide Circuit splits about the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms.” Jackson vs. City & Cnty. of San Francisco: Petition for certiorari denied on June 8, 2015 “Issue: Whether San Francisco’s attempt to deprive law-abiding individuals of immediate access to operable handguns in their own homes is any more constitutional than the District of Columbia’s invalidated effort to do the same.”Requirement to keep handguns inaccessible in home remains in effect in San Francisco.(Thomas dissenting; Scalia joins dissent) Thomas with righteous indignation, writes:“‘Self-defense is a basic right’ and ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment’s  guarantee of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. McDonald v. Chicago 561 U. S. 742, 767, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894 (2010) (emphasis deleted). Less than a decade ago, we explained that an ordinance requiring firearms in the home to be kept inoperable, without an exception for self-defense, conflicted with the Second Amendment because it ‘ma[de] it impossible for citizens to use [their firearms] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 630, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008). Despite the clarity with which we described the Second Amendment core protection for the right of self-defense, lower courts, including the ones here, have failed to protect it. Because Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document, I would have granted this petition.”Friedman vs. City of Highland Park, Illinois:Petition for certiorari denied on December 7, 2015 “Issue: (1) Whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with a class of constitutionally protected ‘arms’ that includes the most popular rifles in the nation; and (2) whether the Constitution allows the government to prohibit law-abiding, responsible citizens from protecting themselves, their families, and their homes with ammunition magazines that number in the tens of millions and make up nearly half of the nation’s total stock of privately owned ammunition magazines for handguns and rifles.Semiautomatic weapons defined as ‘assault weapons,’ even if in common use remain illegal in City of Highland Park, IllinoisThomas dissenting: “The City of Highland Park, Illinois, bans manufacturing, selling, giving, lending, acquiring, or possessing many of the most commonly owned semiautomatic firearms, which the City branded “Assault Weapons.” See Highland Park, Ill., City Code §§136.001(C), 136.005 (2015), App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a, 71a. For instance, the ordinance criminalizes modern sporting rifles (e.g., AR-style semiautomatic rifles), which many Americans own for lawful purposes like self-defense, hunting, and target shooting. The City also prohibited “Large Capacity Magazines,” a term the City used to refer to nearly all ammunition feeding devices that “accept more than ten rounds.” §136.001(G), id., at 70a.The City gave anyone who legally possessed ‘an Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine’ 60 days to move these items outside city limits, disable them, or surrender them for destruction. §136.020, id., at 73a. Anyone who violates the ordinance can be imprisoned for up to six months, fined up to $1,000, or both. §136.999, id., at 74a.Petitioners — a Highland Park resident who sought to keep now-prohibited firearms and magazines to defend his home, and an advocacy organization — brought a suit to enjoin the ordinance on the ground that it violates the Second Amendment. The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment to the City.A divided panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The panel majority acknowledged that the prohibited weapons ‘can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter than many rifles and less dangerous per shot than larger-caliber pistols or revolvers,’ and thus ‘[h]ouseholders too frightened or infirm to aim carefully may be able to wield them more effectively.’ 784 F. 3d, at 411.The majority nonetheless found no constitutional problem with the ordinance. It recognized that Heller ‘holds that a law banning the possession of handguns in the home . . . violates’ the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 407. But beyond Heller’s rejection of banning handguns in the home, the majority believed, Heller and McDonald ‘leave matters open’ on the scope of the Second Amendment. 784 F. 3d, at 412. The majority thus adopted a new test for gauging the constitutionality of bans on firearms: ‘[W]e [will] ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, . . . and whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense.’ Id., at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted).Judge Manion dissented, reasoning that ‘[b]oth the ordinance and this court’s opinion upholding it are directly at odds with the central holdings of Heller and McDonald.’ Id., at 412.We explained in Heller and McDonald that the Second Amendment ‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.’ Heller, supra, at 592, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2797, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 657; see also McDonald, supra, at 767-769, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3036-3037, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 914-916. We excluded from protection only ‘those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.’ Heller, 554 U. S., at 625, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2815, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 677. And we stressed that ‘[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.’ Id., at 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 682 (emphasis deleted).Instead of adhering to our reasoning in Heller, the Seventh Circuit limited Heller to its facts, and read Heller to forbid only total bans on handguns used for self-defense in the home. See 784 F. 3d, at 407, 412. All other questions about the Second Amendment, the Seventh Circuit concluded, should be defined by ‘the political process and scholarly debate.’ Id., at 412. But Heller repudiates that approach. We explained in Heller that ‘since th[e] case represent[ed] this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.’ 554 U. S., at 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 683. We cautioned courts against leaving the rest of the field to the legislative process: ‘Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.’ Id., at 634-635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 683.Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms ‘were common at the time of ratification’ in 1791. 784 F. 3d, at 410. But we said in Heller that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’ 554 U. S., at 582, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2792, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 651.The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’ 784 F. 3d, at 410 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ Ibid. But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. 554 U. S., at 592, 627-629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2797, 2817-2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 657, 678-680. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. We explained that ‘Congress retains plenary authority to organize the militia,” not States. Id., at 600, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2802, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 662 (emphasis added). Because the Second Amendment confers rights upon individual citizens—not state governments—it was doubly wrong for the Seventh Circuit to delegate to States and localities the power to decide which firearms people may possess.Lastly, the Seventh Circuit considered ‘whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense,’ and reasoned that the City’s ban was permissible because ‘[i]f criminals can find substitutes for banned assault weapons, then so can law-abiding homeowners.” 784 F. 3d, at 410, 411. Although the court recognized that ‘Heller held that the availability of long guns does not save a ban on handgun ownership,’ it thought that ‘Heller did not foreclose the possibility that allowing the use of most long guns plus pistols and revolvers . . . gives householders adequate means of defense.’ Id., at 411.That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627-629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817-2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 678-680. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624-625, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2815-2816, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 676-677. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes. Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767-768, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3036-3037, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894, 914-915; Heller, supra, at 628-629, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2817-2818, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 679-680.The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits. See 784 F. 3d, at 411-412. The court conceded that handguns — not ‘assault weapons’  — ‘are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.’ Id., at 409. Still, the court concluded, the ordinance ‘may increase the public’s sense of safety,’ which alone is ‘a substantial benefit.’ Id., at 412. Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s ‘core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach.’ Heller, supra, at 634, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, 683. This case illustrates why. If a broad ban on firearms can be upheld based on conjecture that the public might feel safer (while being no safer at all), then the Second Amendment guarantees nothing.IIIThe Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions. E.g., Maryland v. Kulbicki, ante, at 1 (per curiam) (summarily reversing because the court below applied Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), ‘in name only’); Grady v. North Carolina, 575 U. S. ___ , 135 S. Ct. 1368, 191 L. Ed. 2d 459 (2015) (per curiam) (summarily reversing a judgment inconsistent with this Court’s recent Fourth Amendment precedents); Martinez v. Illinois, 572 U. S. ___, ___ , 134 S. Ct. 2070, 2077, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1112, 1120 (2014) (per curiam) (summarily reversing judgment that rested on an ‘understandable’ double jeopardy holding that nonetheless ‘r[an] directly counter to our precedents”).There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right.Kolbe vs. Hogan: Petition for certiorari denied on November 27, 2017No hearing and no comment Issues: (1) Whether District of Columbia v. Heller excludes the most popular semiautomatic rifles and magazines from Second Amendment protection; and (2) whether they may be banned even though they are typically possessed for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home.Maryland’s ban on ‘military-like’ ‘assault weapons’ and ‘high-capacity magazines upheld. To provide ostensible legal support for an inherently unconstitutional State Government action, the Fourth Circuit Court majority said, in pertinent part,‘Being satisfied that there is substantial evidence indicating that the FSA’s prohibitions against assault weapons and large-capacity magazines will advance Maryland’s goals, we conclude that the FSA survive intermediate scrutiny. Simply put, the State has shown all that is required: a reasonable, if not perfect, fit between the  FSA and Maryland's interest in protecting public safety. And, as for plaintiff’s equal protection claim, the Fourth Circuit said: ‘The Supreme Court has recognized that equal protection ‘is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.’ [citation omitted] Thus, a plaintiff challenging a state statute on an equal protection basis ‘must first demonstrate that he has been treated differently from others with whom he is similarly situated and that the unequal treatment was the result of intentional or purposeful discrimination.’”In other words, the average person is just a peasant. If one dies at the hands of a predator because he could not adequately defend himself, he can rest in peace knowing that every other peasant may well receive the same end: as the lives of all peasants receive equal treatment: the lives of all peasants are equally worthless.Peruta vs. California: Petition for certiorari denied on June 26, 2017Issue: Whether the Second Amendment entitles ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in some manner, including concealed carry when open carry is forbidden by state law.California law denying law-abiding citizens the Second Amendment right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in the absence of a showing of “good cause” remains in effect.Thomas Dissenting; Gorsuch joins dissent:The Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arm[s] shall not be infringed.’ At issue in this case is whether that guarantee protects the right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Neither party disputes that the issue is one of national importance or that the courts of appeals have already weighed in extensively. I would therefore grant the petition for a writ of certiorari.ICalifornia generally prohibits the average citizen from carrying a firearm in public spaces, either openly or concealed. With a few limited exceptions, the State prohibits open carry altogether. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§25850, 26350 (West 2012). It proscribes concealed carry unless a resident obtains a license by showing ‘good cause,’ among other criteria, §§26150, 26155, and it authorizes counties to set rules for when an applicant has shown good cause, §26160.In the county where petitioners reside, the sheriff has interpreted ‘good cause’ to require an applicant to show that he has a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. The sheriff’s policy specifies that ‘concern for one’s personal safety’ does not ‘alone’ satisfy this requirement. Peruta v. County of San Diego, 742 F. 3d 1144, 1148 (CA9 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, an applicant must show ‘a set of circumstances that distinguish the applicant from the mainstream and cause him to be placed in harm’s way.’ Id., at 1169 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). ‘[A] typical citizen fearing for his personal safety—by definition—cannot distinguish himself from the mainstream.’ Ibid. (emphasis deleted; internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). As a result, ordinary, ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens,’ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 635, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (2008), may not obtain a permit for concealed carry of a firearm in public spaces.Petitioners are residents of San Diego County (plus an association with numerous county residents as members) who are unable to obtain a license for concealed carry due to the county’s policy and, because the State generally bans open carry, are thus unable to bear firearms in public in any manner. They sued under Rev. Stat. §1979, 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that this near-total prohibition on public carry violates their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They requested declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the sheriff from denying licenses based on his restrictive interpretation of “good cause,” as well as other “relief as the Court deems just and proper.” First Amended Complaint in No. 3:09-cv-02371, (SD Cal.) ¶¶149, 150, 152. The District Court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment, and petitioners appealed to the Ninth Circuit. In a thorough opinion, a panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. 742 F. 3d 1144. The panel examined the constitutional text and this Court’s precedents, as well as historical sources from before the founding era through the end of the 19th century. Id., at 1150-1166. Based on these sources, the court concluded that “the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense . . . constitutes ‘bear[ing] Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment.” Id., at 1166. It thus reversed the District Court and held that the sheriff’s interpretation of “good cause” in combination with the other aspects of the State’s regime violated the Second Amendment’s command that a State “permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home.” Id., at 1172. The Ninth Circuit sua sponte granted rehearing en banc and, by a divided court, reversed the panel decision. In the en banc court’s view, because petitioners specifically asked for the invalidation of the sheriff’s ‘good cause’ interpretation, their legal challenge was limited to that aspect of the applicable regulatory scheme. The court thus declined to ‘answer the question of whether or to what degree the Second Amendment might or might not protect a right of a member of the general public to carry firearms openly in public.’ Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F. 3d 919, 942 (2016). It instead held only that “the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public.” Id., at 924 (emphasis added).IIWe should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case.’AThe en banc court’s decision to limit its review to whether the Second Amendment protects the right to concealed carry—as opposed to the more general right to public carry—was untenable. Most fundamentally, it was not justified by the terms of the complaint, which called into question the State’s regulatory scheme as a whole. See First Amended Complaint ¶63 (‘Because California does not permit the open carriage of loaded firearms, concealed carriage with a [concealed carry] permit is the only means by which an individual can bear arms in public places’); id., ¶74 (‘States may not completely ban the carrying of handguns for self-defense’). And although the complaint specified the remedy that intruded least on the State’s overall regulatory regime—declaratory relief and an injunction against the sheriff’s restrictive interpretation of ‘good cause’—it also requested ‘[a]ny further relief as the Court deems just and proper.’ Id., ¶152. Nor was the Ninth Circuit’s approach justified by the history of this litigation. The District Court emphasized that ‘the heart of the parties’ dispute’ is whether the Second Amendment protects ‘the right to carry a loaded handgun in public, either openly or in a concealed manner.’ Peruta v. County of San Diego, 758 F. Supp. 2d 1106, 1109 (SD Cal. 2010). As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed out, ‘[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing   scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense in any manner.’ 742 F. 3d, at 1171. The panel further observed that although petitioners ‘focu[s]’ their challenge on the ‘licensing scheme for concealed carry,’ this is ‘for good reason: acquiring such a license is the only practical avenue by which [they] may come lawfully to carry a gun for self-defense in San Diego County.’ Ibid. Even the en banc court acknowledged that petitioners ‘base their argument on the entirety of California’s statutory scheme” and ‘do not contend that there is a free-standing Second Amendment right to carry concealed firearms.’ 824 F. 3d, at 927.BHad the en banc Ninth Circuit answered the question actually at issue in this case, it likely would have been compelled to reach the opposite result. This Court has already suggested that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public in some fashion. As we explained in Heller, to ‘bear arms’ means to “wear, bear, or carry upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.” 554 U. S., at 584, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125, 143, 118 S. Ct. 1911, 141 L. Ed. 2d 111 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting); alterations and some internal quotation marks omitted). The most natural reading of this definition encompasses public carry. I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen. See Drake v. Filko, 724 F. 3d 426, 444 (CA3 2013) (Hardiman, J., dissenting) (‘To speak of ‘bearing’ arms solely within one’s home not only would conflate ‘bearing’ with ‘keeping,’ in derogation of the [Heller] Court’s holding that the verbs codified distinct rights, but also would be awkward usage given the meaning assigned the terms by the Supreme Court’); Moore v. Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933, 936 (CA7 2012) (similar).The relevant history appears to support this understanding. The panel opinion below pointed to a wealth of cases and secondary sources from England, the founding era, the antebellum period,  and Reconstruction, which together strongly suggest that the right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms in public in some manner. See 742 F. 3d, at 1153-1166 (canvassing the relevant history in detail); Brief for National Rifle Association as Amicus Curiae 6-16. For example, in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846)—a decision the Heller Court discussed extensively as illustrative of the proper understanding of the right, 554 U. S., at 612, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637—the Georgia Supreme Court struck down a ban on open carry although it upheld a ban on concealed carry. 1 Ga., at 251. Other cases similarly suggest that, although some regulation of public carry is permissible, an effective ban on all forms of public carry is not. See, e.g., State v. Reid, 1 Ala. 612, 616-617 (1840) (‘A statute which, under the pretence of regulating, amounts to a destruction of the right, or which requires arms to be so borne as to render them wholly useless for the purpose of defence, would be clearly unconstitutional’).Finally, the Second Amendment’s core purpose further supports the conclusion that the right to bear arms extends to public carry. The Court in Heller emphasized that ‘self-defense’ is ‘the central component of the [Second Amendment] right itself.’ 554 U. S., at 599, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. This purpose is not limited only to the home, even though the need for self-defense may be ‘most acute’ there. Id., at 628, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637. ‘Self-defense has to take place wherever the person happens to be,’ and in some circumstances a person may be more vulnerable in a public place than in his own house. Volokh, Implementing the Right To Keep and Bear Arms for Self-Defense: An Analytical Framework and a Research Agenda, 56 UCLA L. Rev. 1443, 1515 (2009).CEven if other Members of the Court do not agree that the Second Amendment likely protects a right to public carry, the time has come for the Court to answer this important question definitively. Twenty-six States have asked us to resolve the question presented, see Brief for Alabama et al. as Amici Curiae, and the lower courts have fully vetted the issue. At least four other Courts of Appeals and three state courts of last resort have decided cases regarding the ability of States to regulate the public carry of firearms. Those decisions (plus the one below) have produced thorough opinions on both sides of the issue. See Drake, 724 F. 3d 426, cert. denied sub nom. Drake v. Jerejian, 572 U. S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2134, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1124 (2014); 724 F. 3d, at 440 (Hardiman, J., dissenting); Woollard v. Gallagher, 712 F. 3d 865 (CA4), cert. denied, 571 U. S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 422; 187 L. Ed. 2d 281 (2013); Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 701 F. 3d 81 (CA2 2012), cert. denied sub nom. Kachalsky v. Cacace, 569 U. S. ___, 569 U.S. 918, 133 S. Ct. 1806, 185 L. Ed. 2d 812 (2013); Madigan, 702 F. 3d 933; id., at 943 (Williams, J., dissenting); Commonwealth v. Gouse, 461 Mass. 787, 800-802, 965 N. E. 2d 774, 785-786 (2012); Williams v. State, 417 Md. 479, 496, 10 A. 3d 1167, 1177 (2011); Mack v. United States, 6 A. 3d 1224, 1236 (D. C. 2010). Hence, I do not see much value in waiting for additional courts to weigh in, especially when constitutional rights are at stake.The Court’s decision to deny certiorari in this  case reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right. See Friedman v. Highland Park, 577 U. S. ___, ___, 136 S. Ct. 447; 193 L. Ed. 2d 483 (2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (136 S. Ct. 447; 193 L. Ed. 2d 483, 484) (‘The Court’s refusal to review a decision that flouts two of our Second Amendment precedents stands in marked contrast to the Court’s willingness to summarily reverse courts that disregard our other constitutional decisions’); Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco, 576 U. S. ___, ___, 135 S. Ct. 2799; 192 L. Ed. 2d 865 (2015) (same). The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its preferred rights. Id., at ___, 135 S. Ct. 2799; 192 L. Ed. 2d 865, 866) (‘Second Amendment’ rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document’). The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 177 L. Ed. 2d 894. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem antiquated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it. I respectfully dissent.”Justice Thomas is absolutely right.Justice Thomas is absolutely right. He asserts over and over again: The Second Amendment is not to be treated as “a disfavored right.” It isn’t a “second-class right.” “Second Amendment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document.”  “This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurisprudence is with respect to the Second Amendment as compared to the First and Fourth Amendments.” And, still, the liberal wing of the High Court does just that. Because the liberal wing of the Supreme Court finds the fundamental, unalienable right embodied in the Second Amendment personally distasteful, it allows itself to embrace the pretense, or more likely the delusion, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is to be expressed today as something less than the fundamental, unalienable right that it in fact is; indeed, that the right embodied in the Second Amendment isn't to be treated even as a minor, non-fundamental right, but, rather, as nothing more than a minor concession, a privilege, to be bestowed on American citizens at the whim of Government; something even less than “gender rights” that Radical Left groups, such as overbrook.org would dare raise to the level of a fundamental right, contorting, distorting, twisting the U.S. Constitution to such an extreme extent that it becomes unrecognizable as the sacred, immutable document it once was and was forever intended to be, becoming a horrible mutation; a grotesque travesty of what was once something profound, beautiful, sublime.Radical Left and New Progressive elements in American society today, prefer to call the U.S. Constitution, as they choose to perceive it today, a so-called “Living Constitution,” grounded on what some legal scholars and academicians refer to as “living Constitutional theory;” a theory opposed to “originalism,” the latter theory of which seeks to preserve the U.S. Constitution as written, and that seeks to preserve a free Republic as the Founders of the Nation intended. See, e.g., “Living Constitutional Theory,” by Andrew Coan, Duke Law Journal, Volume 66, June 2017. Not surprisingly, proponents of so-called living Constitutional theory would attempt to buttress this new living constitutional theory by denigrating originalism, and its corollary textualism, by misquoting the late Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia.It is one thing for a lower Federal Court to abdicate its responsibility to defend and protect the U.S. Constitution. It is quite another thing for the U.S. Supreme Court to do so. Yet the lower Courts take their cue from the Highest Court in the Land. If the U.S. Supreme Court abdicates its responsibility, it should well expect the lower Courts to do so. And, they have.______________________________

POSTSCRIPT———

CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS IS DEAD WRONG: SOME JUSTICES DO WORK IN A POLITICAL MANNER

OVERTLY POLITICAL LIBERAL-WING OF SUPREME COURT INTENDS TO CONSTRAIN AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY THE SECOND AMENDMENT

Given the substantial opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to review several U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions that upheld facially unconstitutional Government decisions, infringing the very core of the Second Amendment, it is remarkable that the  High Court failed to take up any one of them. One would have thought the High Court would have done so, would have been compelled to do so, consistent with their Oath to do so. And one would have thought the High Court would relish doing so, given blatant lower Court hostility toward the Second Amendment and a dismissive attitude toward clear, categorical Supreme Court precedent as laid down in the 2008 Heller and 2010 McDonald cases. But, many Justices obviously were not content to do so. That the Supreme Court failed to garner even four votes on any one of a substantial number of cases, coming on the heels of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald U.S. Supreme Court cases, where State, County, or Municipal Governments visibly, defiantly, blatantly, defiantly attacked the very core of the Second Amendment, this necessarily bespeaks a decided, decisive, and unruly antipathy expressed by many Justices on the High Court, toward the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas rightfully, justifiably, and clearly articulated his frustration with both the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal in his comprehensive, dissenting comments in several of those Circuit Court of Appeals cases.If the High Court had taken up any one of the myriad Second Amendment cases within the first few years that Heller and McDonald were decided, it is likely the writs filed in many of the cases, mentioned and discussed, supra, would never have been filed; would never have to be filed, as the U.S. District Court Judges and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judges would be loath to attract the righteous ire of the U.S. Supreme Court. But, as the High Court routinely refuses to hear any one of many egregious U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decisions, these Courts, not surprisingly, continue to dismiss the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, and, just as blatantly dismiss out-of-hand the rulings of the Supreme Court in Heller and McDonald.Of course, the normally reticent Chief Justice, John Roberts, doesn't normally interject remarks outside the Court setting but felt no reluctance to do so when, the U.S. President, Donald Trump, correctly exclaimed how political the Supreme Court is.The New York Times, always a media source that can be counted on to incessantly, viciously attack the President and laud those who do the same, was quick to jump on the remarks of the Chief Justice in late 2018, reporting: 

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. defended the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary on Wednesday, rebuking President Trump for calling a judge who had ruled against his administration’s asylum policy “an Obama judge.”

The chief justice said that was a profound misunderstanding of the judicial role.“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”The Times took another dig at the U.S. President, when, almost one year later, they again reported with glee, on Chief Justice Roberts' further jabs at President Trump, reporting:

“We don’t go about our work in a political manner,” he told an audience of some 2,000 people at the Temple Emanu-El’s Streicker Center in Manhattan.

Asked about President Trump’s attack on a decision he said had been rendered by an “Obama judge” and a recent brief from Democratic senators that questioned the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, Chief Justice Roberts said he had no objection to criticism of the court.

“We probably do a better job criticizing ourselves in our dissents than anybody else could,” he said.

But he added that the outside criticism did not affect the court’s independence. “A lot of the criticism is based on a misperception,” he said.

People often note that the court is made up of five Republican appointees and four Democratic ones, he said, and they expect predictable 5-to-4 decisions along those lines.

“Last year,” he said, “we had 19 5-to-4 decisions, and seven of them were divided with the five justices appointed by Republican presidents in the majority and the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents in dissent.”

“That shouldn’t come as a surprise because we don’t go about our work in a political manner,” he said.”“That shouldn't come as a surprise”? There is something else that doesn't come as a surprise, but would be a nice indeed surprise were it to come about, namely, the judicial philosophy and attitude of Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, toward the fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The American public knows where those Justices' allegiance rests when it comes to the Second Amendment. They seek to defeat it at every turn. Chief Justice John Roberts doesn't bother to direct the public's attention to that disturbing and hardly incidental fact about them; a fact that is anything but anomalous. This isn't a matter of judicial independence, where each Justice does whatever he or she wants. This is a matter of personal integrity, judicial restraint, the obligation to one's Oath, and reverence toward the sanctity of our natural rights, to be understood and applied to the facts of a case in controversy in strict accord to the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, as written, and as ratified, as the Framers intended.The Oath of the Supreme Court Justice is set forth in Statute: 28 U.S. Code§ 453. Oaths of justices and judges:Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”____________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: FRIEND OR FOE OF THE NATURAL RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

PART FOUR

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” ~ Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from the Birmingham Jail; often miscited in abbreviated form as: “Justice delayed is justice denied.” Various renditions of the quotation have come down through the ages, recited by many learned and famous men. The origin of the quotation likely came from William Penn (1644 to 1718), who asserted, “To delay Justice is injustice.”

WHAT IS JUSTICE?

Black’s Law Dictionary says this about the concept, ‘justice:’ “In jurisprudence. The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due. . . . In the most extensive sense of the word it differs little from ‘virtue;’ for it includes within itself the whole circle of virtues. . . . But ‘justice,’ being in itself a part of ‘virtue,’ is continued to things simply good or evil, and consists in a man’s taking such a proportion of them as he ought. Bouvier. Commutative justice is that which should govern contracts. It consists in rendering to every man the exact measure of his dues, without regard to his personal worth or merits, i. e., placing all men on an equality. . . .”

WAS JUSTICE METED OUT TO PETITIONERS IN THE NYC GUN TRANSPORT CASE?

Some good Americans think the principal Petitioner, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) prevailed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020), simply because New York City—evidently fearing loss if the case were decided on the merits—capitulated, redrafting New York City regulations and New York State Statute, permitting New York City holders of restricted handgun premise licenses to lawfully take their firearms out of the City. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the mootness issue and found for the City against NYSRPA.  Nonetheless, can this case legitimately be considered a win for NYSRPA? Holders of such New York City restricted handgun licenses are not permitted to use the firearm for self-defense outside of the residence or business to which the license confers or deigns a “right”  (more a “privilege”) of use for self-defense? And questions remain as to limitations on the import of travel to and from the residence or business establishment—questions that could only have been resolved were the case to be decided on the merits.Some Second Amendment scholars with whom AQ has since spoken believed the New York City case was not a good Second Amendment case to be decided by the Court, not least of all because it allowed the City to exploit the problems, predictably. These scholars believe that Kavanaugh, having urged, in his concurring opinion, for another Second Amendment case—among those presently pending on a writ of certiorari—to be taken up by the Court means that the Court will, shortly, take up another Second Amendment case. The idea, then, is that the NYC case was important for that reason alone.Be that as it may, it still does not explain why, if Justice Kavanaugh agreed with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court in ruling in favor of New York City, against the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (NYSRPA) in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020), on the mootness issue.Why didn’t Justice Kavanaugh just add his name to that of the liberal wing of the Court and to that of Chief Justice Roberts, in deciding in favor of the City, and leave it at that?Did Justice Kavanaugh feel a jurisprudential need to write a concurring opinion, knowing that going along with the liberal wing is not what would be expected of him, given his past deference to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights, in his well-reasoned, comprehensive dissent in Heller II?Did Associate Justice Kavanaugh feel he needed to write a concurring opinion, knowing that siding with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court, against the conservative wing, comprising, Justices, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch, would lead the American public, to infer, not unreasonably, legal and logical inconsistency and incongruous intellectual dishonesty on Kavanaugh’s part—something impossible for him to hide? Perhaps. But no one really knows because no reporter or commentator has even bothered to hazard a guess as to Justice Kavanaugh’s motivation for drafting a concurring at all.Does Justice Kavanaugh know for a certainty the High Court will in fact take up for review another and more significant Second Amendment case and did he intend to use a concurring opinion specifically to inform the legal community and the public of that fact?No commentator, to date, to our knowledge, has explored these questions and that leaves us in a quandary as to Kavanaugh's intentions.For example, on April 27, 2020, Amy Howe, independent contractor, and reporter, who writes regularly for the SCOTUS blog, simply reiterated the simple fact that—“Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion in which he explained that he agreed with the majority that the gun owners’ original claims are moot and that the new claims should be addressed first by the lower courts. But Kavanaugh also indicated that he agreed with Alito’s ‘general analysis of Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago,’ in which the court made clear that the Second Amendment applies fully to the states, and that he shares Alito’s ‘concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald.’ Kavanaugh posited that the Supreme Court ‘should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.’”In her follow-up article, dated April 28, 2020, on SCOTUS blog, Amy Howe, reiterated the  fact that:——“The court’s electronic docket reveals that Kavanaugh’s suggestion may come to fruition soon: By the end of the day yesterday, the Supreme Court had distributed for consideration at Friday’s conference 10 cases that had apparently been on hold for the New York case.”In that April 28^th post, Howe mentions the following cases to be reviewed on Friday, April 29, 2020, which we cite here, directly from her commentary:“Mance v. Barr – Whether the federal ban on interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment or the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.Rogers v. Grewal – In a challenge to New Jersey’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.Pena v. Horan – In a challenge to a California law banning most commonly used handguns, the petition asks the justices to weigh in on the scope of the Second Amendment.Gould v. Lipson– In a challenge to Massachusetts’ handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense; and whether the government can condition the right to carry a handgun outside the home on the showing of a special need to carry a firearm.Cheeseman v. Polillo – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.Ciolek v. New Jersey – Challenge to New Jersey handgun carry permit scheme.Worman v. Healey – Challenge to Massachusetts ban on the possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.Malpasso v. Pallozzi – In a challenge to Maryland’s handgun carry permit scheme, whether the Second Amendment protects the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense.Culp v. Raoul – Whether the Second Amendment requires Illinois to allow nonresidents to apply for a concealed-carry license.Wilson v. Cook County – Challenge to Cook County’s ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines, as well as to the Second Amendment analysis used by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit to uphold the ban.”

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC SHOULD BE WARY OF THE LIBERAL WING OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT, AND WARY, TOO, OF CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND ASSOCIATE JUSTICE KAVANAUGH

Yes, so, there are more cases coming down the pike the U.S. Supreme Court may take up. So what? Are Americans expected to wait, with bated breath, for the next Second Amendment case the High Court may or may not take upon review?Recall Justice Kavanaugh’s remark, as reiterated by Amy Howe, “that [Kavanaugh] shares Alito’s ‘concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald’” [and] “that the Supreme Court ‘should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.’” Is this a cause for rejoicing simply because writs of certiorari in several Second Amendment cases have been filed with the Supreme Court and are pending a vote? The idea that the Supreme Court ‘should’ address the issue whether Courts are properly applying Heller and McDonald, doesn’t mean that the Supreme Court ‘will’ address that issue.Are those writs not simply a fervent hope of Americans who venerate our Bill of Rights hoping against hope that maybe, just maybe, the Supreme Court will review another Second Amendment case, if only reluctantly?But possibility is not the same thing as probability, and even less, certainty, that the High Court will agree to hear another Second Amendment case. And, if the Court does agree to hear another Second Amendment case, when might that be? And, if soon, will the Court actually address the issue whether Appellate Courts had properly applied Heller and McDonald?Recall the Voisine vs. United States case the Court took up prior to the New York City case—a case that, as Justice Thomas insisted, did include a tenable Second Amendment issue; yet the Court refused to consider the implications and ramifications of the Second Amendment. Would the Court refuse to consider the impact of Heller and McDonald in any future Second Amendment case it does deign to hear, lest a Supreme Court majority be seen as strengthening the fundamental, natural, immutable, unalienable right that it is loath to do? Lastly, how would such a case be decided? These are not spurious questions. They are serious ones and unsettling ones, worthy of speculation. And the point of this speculation is that the New York City gun transport case was the first case to come down the pike ten years after McDonald, involving a core Second Amendment issue (with the exception of the seeming quasi Second Amendment Voisine case)Keep in mind, too: there have been many Second Amendment cases that came before the High Court on writs of certiorari, in the intervening years between the seminal rulings in Heller and McDonald and negative decision in the New York City gun transport case. Each one of those cases “should” have been reviewed; truly required review, but were not reviewed. What happened to those petitions? The answer is nothing happened. Nothing happened because the high Court voted against taking those cases up.None of the cases garnered four votes necessary for any of those cases to be heard, precisely because the actions of State governments were unconstitutional, clearly so, blatantly so.Had the High Court taken those cases up, it would have had no choice but to overturn government action: egregious government action that clearly infringed the core of the Second Amendment; government action that was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent categorically laid down in Heller and McDonald. By failing to review those cases that meant unconstitutional government actions, upheld by U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, infringing the Second Amendment, stood.State governments and U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals would remain confident that ridiculously, outrageously unconstitutional government action, infringing the core of our Second Amendment right would continue; and that high Court reticence in reviewing unconstitutional State action would thereby allow, invite, even encourage more and more invasions of a fundamental right, each one building on the one before; becoming more flamboyant, more destructive of Americans’ exercise of their natural right to keep and bear arms.In our next segment AQ provides the good reader with a reminder of several of those critical Second Amendment cases the U.S. Supreme Court could have taken up for review in the last several years; cases the High Court ought to have taken up; but cases, alas, the liberal wing of the High Court, together with the presumed “moderate Justice,” since retired, Anthony Kennedy, along with Chief Justice Roberts, likely didn’t want to take up, didn't dare to take up, and, so, didn't take up precisely because if those cases had been taken up, they would be compelled—unlike the liberal wing of the Court—to overturn unconstitutional State government action, as demanded by Heller and McDonald case law precedent; case law precedent that they, unlike the liberal wing of the Court, helped set.Those cases the Supreme Court failed to review involve actions of U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal that, to a one, reflect decisions blatantly, defiantly, irrefutably egregiously dismissive of binding precedent laid down in Heller and McDonald.

POSTSCRIPT——

In future segments, we will begin our comprehensive analysis of what to our mind is Justice Kavanaugh’s bizarre concurring opinion in the New York City gun transport case, and we will address the mootness issue head-on.We will strive to decipher Kavanaugh’s concurring to ascertain if Kavanaugh’s decision, siding with the Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court, is merely an anomaly or if it portends something ominous: an entire rethinking of Kavanaugh’s philosophy pertaining to the Second Amendment? Our aim, in forthcoming articles, will be to determine whether Americans can trust Brett Kavanaugh to remain true to his Oath to preserve and defend the Constitution of the United States.And what is that Oath? It is this:Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: “I, ___ ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.” 28 U.S. Code § 453. Oaths of justices and judgesAsk yourself: How many Justices in the past several decades have honorably and honestly sought to comply with the Oath of a Supreme Court Justice? And how many Justices have betrayed their Oath, disdaining and revoking a natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable God-given right, thereby, consciously or unconsciously, making a Pact with Satan? And, yes, agnostics and atheists, and Godless immoral, abnormal, perverse and perverted Satanists, do draw breath and do walk among us.____________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANTIGUN CROWD BREATHES COLLECTIVE SIGH OF RELIEF AFTER SUPREME COURT MAJORITY GIVES NYC A VICTORY IN GUN TRANSPORT CASE

PART THREE

The liberal wing of the High Court sided with Respondent in the New York City gun transport case. No surprise there. The liberal wing of the Court detests the Second Amendment.Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal wing. Robert’s vote gave the liberal wing of the Court—Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan—the critical fifth vote needed to secure victory for the Anti-Second Amendment, Anti-Bill of Rights crowd. A huge disappointment, of course, but no surprise there either, unfortunately. The two-page majority opinion went unsigned.Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote a comprehensive and scathing thirty-plus page dissenting opinion. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas and Trump’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch, joined Justice Alito, in rebuking the majority’s decision.

—OH! AND LET’S NOT FORGET THE LEGAL OPINION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP’S SECOND NOMINEE TO THE SUPREME COURT, BRETT KAVANAUGH.

The anti-Second Amendment, antigun crowd need not have worried itself over Associate Justice Kavanaugh, after all.Associate Justice Kavanaugh joined Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing majority on behalf of the Respondent New York City. Kavanaugh’s decision provided the Court’s majority with a sixth vote. And that is odd! Kavanaugh did know, of course, that jurists, attorneys, academicians, and lay Americans would perceive his as intellectually dishonest; and justifiably so. That explains why Kavanaugh apparently felt the need to write a separate opinion at all; to clarify an odd finding that neither attorney, nor jurist, nor academician, nor layperson would have expected from him.But, you would think that having bothered to draft a concurring opinion at all, Kavanaugh would have written a detailed exposition, setting out in particularity the reason or reasons for his unsettling and inapposite decision, having joined Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court. After all, the New York City gun transport case was, as most commentators assert, the first major Second Amendment case to come down the pike since the Supreme Court decided McDonald ten years earlier.*Moreover, Kavanaugh tends to write detailed opinions, but he didn’t do so here. That is out of character, especially since his decision in the Supreme Court case doesn’t square with the sound and logical and observant and discriminating and comprehensive dissenting opinion he drafted in Heller II when he served as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Columbia Circuit, a typical stepping-stone to an eventual seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. President George W. Bush nominated Kavanaugh to serve as an appellate judge in 2003.Yet, Brett Kavanaugh’s usual perspicuity, inclination, even fervor, for detailed exposition, is altogether lacking in the New York City case. Why is that do you suppose?Justice Kavanaugh provided detailed commentary for his decision in Heller II—a major Second Amendment Circuit Court of Appeals case—but oddly provided no explanation for his decision here in the first major Second Amendment case to be decided by the High Court in a decade (with the possible exception of Voisine) and the first Second Amendment case Kavanaugh had an opportunity to decide once he sat as a Supreme Court Associate Justice.Kavanaugh’s shoddy and vacuous concurring is perplexing. It is also deeply disturbing and disconcerting since, both in form and in substance, Kavanaugh’s concurring doesn’t dovetail with his earlier prolific, well-reasoned dissent in Heller II.The seditious Press, while, pointing to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring merely echoes his pronouncements, but eschews doing any analysis of it, seemingly lacking all journalistic alacrity and curiosity. Why is that?We will consider Brett Kavanaugh’s odd concurring, in detail, in the next several AQ segments. We will deal with the ramifications of that concurring and what it may portend for our sacred Second Amendment right, in the 21^st Century.Is Brett Kavanaugh second-guessing his own jurisprudential methodology and philosophy of the Second Amendment?  We do know that the jurisprudential leaning of Supreme Court Justices tends to evolve during the course of their tenure on the Court, but not with lightning speed as seems to be true of Justice Kavanaugh if the NYC case isn't to be dismissed as a mere anomaly. But, then, is Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring in the New York City gun transport case simply an isolated happenstance, an aberration, or is it an alarming and disheartening precursor of what we might expect from him in the future? We believe this to be a critical question, and, therefore, one worth investigating.__________________________________*Actually, the New York City gun transport case wasn’t the first Second Amendment case the High Court took up for review, since the 2010 McDonald decision. There was an earlier quasi Second Amendment case that the Court took up in 2015, five years after McDonald. The case is United States vs. Voisine.The Arbalest Quarrel wrote about Voisine. We said: “[Although] a salient issue in Voisine [United States vs. Voisine, No. 14-10154 (S. Ct. Dec. 17, 2015)] does involve the meaning to be given a word phrase in one particular section of a lengthy federal Statute, [n]onetheless, the Voisine case is the first Supreme Court case to be heard by the High Court that does impact the Second Amendment. [Justice Thomas made that point patently clear in his dissent in Voisine even if the Court’s majority assiduously refrained from even invoking the words, ‘Second Amendment.’] In fact, Petitioners did timely and properly raise a Second Amendment claim in their Briefs to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. And that claim was preserved, and that issue was ripe for review by the U.S. Supreme Court when it granted Petitioners’ Writ of Certiorari. Moreover, while the Second Amendment issue was set forth with particularity as a salient issue in Petitioners’ Brief, the Second Amendment claim was not set forth as an issue in the Government’s own Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners. And the Government, in its Brief in Opposition to the Brief of Petitioners, addressed Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim only perfunctorily, giving little thought to it, seemingly in deference to and happily therefor to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s treatment of it, for the First Circuit dismissed Petitioners’ Second Amendment claim outright. United States vs. Voisine, No. 14-10154 (S. Ct. Dec. 17, 2015). You can read the entire opinion, as a PDF Document. ____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ANTI-GUN FORCES WON’T REST UNTIL SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT IS ERASED FROM MEMORY

PART TWO

SUPREME COURT MAJORITY JOINS FORCES WITH SECOND AMENDMENT FOES TO CHIP AWAY AT  NATURAL GOD-GIVEN RIGHT.

As reported in the leftist periodical Newsweek, on March 27, 2018———“Young activists calling for more gun control legislation should be more ambitious in their nationwide effort and focus on repealing the Second Amendment, according to retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.“In an op-ed published Tuesday in The New York Times, Stevens praised the students and young people who rallied in Washington and around the country over the weekend as part of the March for Our Lives. The demonstration was sparked by the shooting last month at a Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people, including 14 students, dead.Stevens wrote that he had ‘rarely’ seen such a wide scope of ‘civic engagement’ from young people in his lifetime and encouraged their efforts to go even further.‘That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms,’ Stevens wrote. ‘But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.’”March 27, 2018 article appearing in Newsweek, citing and extolling retired Justice John Paul Stevens, whose Op-Ed appeared in the NY Times on the same date: March 27, 2018. In that Op-Ed Stevens explicitly calls for repeal of the Second Amendment, an extraordinarily extreme position he alluded to but would dare not expressly assert in his dissent in the 2008 Heller case.

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT MAINSTREAM MEDIA REJOICES OVER MAJORITY DECISION IN NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE.

The seditious Anti-Second Amendment Press breathed a collective sigh of relief when the U.S. Supreme Court Majority voted for Respondent, New York City, against the Petitioner, NYSRPA, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners V. City Of New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020).* The New York City gun transport case was the first major Second Amendment case to be decided by the High Court since the McDonald case decision ten years earlier.Although the legal issue, a very narrow one, only implicated the bizarre, abhorrent, draconian, multifaceted, bloated, fascistic, and constantly refined and engineered handgun licensing requirements of New York City, apropos of Section 5-01(a) of Title 38 of the Rules of the City of New York, pertaining to a “premise handgun license,”, the antigun, anti-Second Amendment mob exhibited marked hysteria that the high Court had dared to hear the case at all; concerned that a decision for the NYSRPA against the City would open the floodgates to renewed attacks against restrictive gun regulations across the Country.The weblog “Bearing Arms,” said, at the time, just before oral argument: “Now, the Court is hearing arguments on the case. That’s more than enough to trigger anti-gunners to completely lose their crap.” In its article, Bearing Arms cited an unconscionable, reprehensible story that appeared in the Radical Left weblog news one in which the weblog denounced and denigrated Associate Justice Clarence Thomas for having the audacity to exalt the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Unabashedly mocking the esteemed Associate Justice, as if the writer for news one had any comprehension of U.S. Constitutional Law and of the critical importance of the natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable right of the people to keep and bear arms to the proper functioning of a free Constitutional Republic, the writer blurted out:“Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been one of the most destructive justices on the court. However, his foolishness is about to hit a new level with the Second Amendment being revisited for the first time on the court in over a decade.In case you missed it, the Supreme Court is hearing a case to expand gun rights. Yep, you read that right. The majority conservative court might make it easier to have [sic] gun in a time when the majority of Americans are asking for more gun control.It all has to do with New York City, which has strict rules to protect people from gun violence. In July of 2019, New York City put in a strict rule that limited where New Yorkers could bring their guns, which included transporting legally owned guns outside city limits. No other city or state has this restriction, which was put into place after the horrific shooting of school children in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012.  Twenty-six people, including 20 children between six and seven years old, were killed.Well, Clarence Thomas isn’t happy and wants more people to have guns. The Washington Post reports, ‘Justice Clarence Thomas has complained that the lower courts have been too willing to uphold gun restrictions, accusing the courts of treating the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right.’The Washington Post also asserts, ‘These justices apparently want to adopt a stricter test for courts to apply in Second Amendment cases, making it harder for gun laws to survive a legal challenge. If the court follows suit in the New York case, recent reforms such as red flag laws and universal background checks could be imperiled.’Many states have made their own changes to their gun laws, which the federal government has failed to do. However, if the Supreme Court finds that New York City went too far with the latest restriction, this could be a serious blow to gun advocacy groups like Everytown for Gun Safety, March for Our Lives, Moms Demand Action, and for the thousands of people.Leave it up to Clarence Thomas to be on the wrong side of history.”“Protect people from gun violence”— by removing the most effective means, i.e., a gun,’ with which the average, rational, law-abiding person might capably protect him or herself from a vicious predator? “Wrong side of history”— (i.e., revisionist history) because Justice Thomas defends our Nation’s cherished Bill of Rights?And Fox19 now, noted, after the New York City gun transport case decision came down:“The anti-climactic end to the Supreme Court case is a disappointment to gun rights advocates and relief to gun control groups who thought a conservative Supreme Court majority fortified by two appointees of President Donald Trump, Justices Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, might use the case to expand on landmark decisions from a decade ago that established a right under the Second Amendment to keep a gun at home for self-defense.Lower courts upheld the regulation, but the Supreme Court’s decision early in 2019 to step into the case signaled a revived interest in gun rights from a court with two new justices. Officials at both the city and state level scrambled to find a way to remove the case from the justices’ grasp. Not only did the city change its regulation to allow licensed gun owners to transport their weapons to locations outside New York’s five boroughs, but the state enacted a law barring cities from imposing the challenged restrictions.Those moves failed to get the court to dismiss the case before arguments in December, and gun control advocates worried that the court might adopt the reasoning Kavanaugh used in a 2011 opinion in his former job as a Court of Appeals judge. There, he wrote, gun laws “that are not longstanding or sufficiently rooted in text, history, and tradition are not consistent with the Second Amendment individual right.” Anti-Second Amendment foes need not have worried. But most Americans do need to worry about the future of Americans’ natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable God-given right to keep and bear arms.The New York City gun transport case provides Americans with a blueprint for assessing the predilections of U.S. Supreme Court Justices on matters pertaining to the Second Amendment.First, the liberal wing of the High Court—comprising, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Steven Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan—abhors the Second Amendment. The liberal wing will routinely, if not invariably, rule in favor of Government actions that, on their face, infringe the core of the right. The liberal wing will contort the law to find Government actions constitutional that are clearly unconstitutional and that tend to weaken our fundamental, natural rights and liberties. The liberal wing will continue to demonstrate little reluctance in subordinating the U.S. Constitution and U.S. case law precedent to the dictates of international norms and standards that stand in marked conflict to our system of laws and jurisprudence.Second, the conservative wing of the High Court—comprising, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch—in the mold of the late, brilliant and esteemed Justice, Antonin Scalia, will continue to demonstrate great deference to our Constitution, and will, consistent with their Oath, always strive to preserve and strengthen our natural rights and liberties.Third, Chief Justice Roberts cannot and should not be considered a Judicial conservative. He does not exemplify those Justices of the conservative wing of the Court. Even the expression, Judicial ‘moderate’ may not be an accurate descriptor for him. He does not exhibit the appropriate deference to the Second Amendment as now exemplified in having sided, sans a qualified concurring opinion, with the decision of the liberal—dare we say, increasingly, ‘radical’—wing of the High Court. Justice Roberts will continue to see-saw between the two wings of the Court. But do not expect the Chief Justice to treat our Bill of Rights with deep, abiding respect and reverence.Fourth, prior to the decision in the New York gun transport case, one would have reasonably thought that Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the newest member of the Court—as of the posting of this article—would exhibit the same deference to the Bill of Rights as those Justices comprising the conservative wing of the Court. Certainly, given Justice Kavanaugh’s comprehensive, well-reasoned, and well-written dissent in Heller II, one would have expected Justice Kavanaugh to express the same desire for consistency and detail in his written opinions as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice that he had exhibited as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Sadly, that does not appear to be the case. Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring in the New York City gun transport case appears oddly dull, imprecise, even apologetic in tone. And the decision is not consistent with his dissent in Heller II.Of course, Justice Kavanaugh’s decision would not have changed the outcome of the case, but it does give one pause. For, if that concurring opinion serves as an indication of what we might expect in the future from this Associate Justice, our sacred Second Amendment—along with our other fundamental rights and liberties—may well be in jeopardy; all the more so if the presumptive Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, actually defeats Donald Trump in November. That happenstance would be the manifestation of our Nation’s worst nightmare.Justice Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential philosophy remains at this point inscrutable and that is not a good thing. In the next several segments, we attempt to unpack Kavanaugh’s concurring, along with a review of past Second Amendment cases that the High Court denied cert, and a close look at the issue of mootness, as the majority decision in the New York City case wasn’t consistent with Supreme Court precedence; not even close.____________________________________*SCOTUSblog Holding and Judgment:Holding: Petitioners’ claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City’s old rule on transporting firearms is moot, and any claim for damages with respect to that rule may be addressed in the first instance by the court of appeals and the district court on remand.Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on April 27, 2020. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined in full and Justice Thomas joined except for Part IV-B.____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CANADA JOINS BRITISH COMMONWEALTH NATIONS, AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND, IN BANNING “ASSAULT WEAPONS”

TRUDEAU ACTS, APPARENTLY UNILATERALLY, AND WITH SPEED, TO BAN "ASSAULT WEAPONS" IN CANADA

On April 30, 2020, the Hill reported that:“Canada’s government is set to announce a ban on assault-style weapons following a deadly shooting in Nova Scotia this month that killed 22 people.Officials told The Associated Press on Wednesday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's administration will announce the ban before the week’s end, though the key provisions have already been decided by his Cabinet.Among the weapons set to be banned include the AR-15 and the Ruger Mini-14. It wasn’t initially clear whether Canadian citizens who currently own such weapons will be required to turn them in.After a deadly shooting in New Zealand, officials banned assault-style weapons and instituted a buyback program.Trudeau’s Liberal Party pledged to enact an assault-style weapons ban in last year’s election campaign, at the time pledging to implement a similar buyback program. The move comes after a gunman killed 22 people, including a police officer, during a rampage through the rural province of Nova Scotia while driving a car meant to look like a Royal Canadian Mounted Police cruiser. The suspected gunman, 51-year-old Gabriel Wortman, was killed by police.”At a news conference on that same day, global news reports, that,“Trudeau was asked during a briefing with journalists in Ottawa on Thursday about a report published by the Globe and Mail newspaper that said the government plans to issue a new list of banned high-power firearms including the notorious AR-15 weapon used in recent mass shootings in the U.S.‘We have made a firm commitment to Canadians to ban military assault-style weapons because, in Canada, there’s no room for weapons made to kill large numbers of people,’ Trudeau said.‘We were almost ready to announce measures to strengthen gun control when Parliament was suspended because of the pandemic and we will be making announcements in days to come and will give more details on this then.’Trudeau made good on his word. On May 1, one day later, the BBC reported Trudeau’s announcement to the world:“Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has introduced a long-promised ban on assault-style weapons following the country's worst gun massacre in April.New rules would make it illegal to sell, transport, import or use 1,500 varieties of assault weapons.The ban is effective immediately but there will be a two-year amnesty period for law-abiding gun owners to comply.Mr Trudeau also said he would introduce legislation, which has yet to pass, to offer a buy-back programme.Unlike the US, gun ownership is not enshrined in Canada's constitution, but gun ownership is still popular, especially in rural parts of the country.Mr Trudeau made a point of saying that most gun owners are law-abiding citizens, but argued that assault-weapons serve no beneficial purpose.‘These weapons were designed for one purpose and one purpose only — only to kill the largest amount of people in the shortest amount of time,’ he said in a press conference on Friday.‘You don't need an AR-15 to bring down a deer.’The call to ban assault weapons was heightened after a number of high-profile shootings—in 2017, at a mosque in Quebec, in 2018 on a commercial street in Toronto and most recently, in a rampage across the province of Nova Scotia that became the deadliest shooting in Canada's history.RCMP have said that the shooter was not licensed to own firearms, but had what appeared to be an assault-style weapon, as well as other guns. The RCMP did not specify which kind, so it is unknown if it will be covered by the ban.Mr Trudeau campaigned on the ban ahead of last November’s election, and he said he was planning on introducing the ban in March, but it was delayed because of coronavirus.His government had already expanded background check requirements and made it tougher to transport handguns, prior to November’s election.So that there is no mistake as to when the ban on “assault weapons,” takes place in Canada, The National Review announced, on May 1, 2020, that, as Trudeau makes clear, Canada’s firearms’ ban takes effect immediately.“ ‘Effective immediately, it is no longer permitted to buy, sell, transport, import or use military-grade assault weapons in this country,’ Trudeau said at a press conference. Trudeau added that Canada was effectively ‘closing the market’ on certain firearms and categorized several mass shootings that have occurred in Canada as a ‘stain our conscience.’”The ban will classify various firearms that have been used in mass shootings in Canada and around the world as ‘prohibited,’ including the AR-15 rifle, M14 semi-automatic rifle, Ruger Mini-14, and others.‘From this moment forward, the number of these guns will only decrease in Canada,’ Public Safety minister Bill Blair said at the briefing alongside Trudeau. Blair emphasized that the ‘vast majority’ of Canadian gun owners are law-abiding and use their firearms safely.Canada’s government will implement a buyback program for current legal owners of one or more of the 1,500 types of firearms covered by the ban. Owners will be granted a two-year amnesty during which time they must participate in the buyback program.”Recall how Australia, back in 1996 also used a “mass shooting” as a pretext to ban semiautomatic firearms. Twenty-two years later in the U.S., Fortune Magazine expressed exuberance over Australia’s actions,“So what happened after the assault-weapon ban? Well therein lies the other half of the story twist noted above: Nothing.Nothing, that is, in a good way.Australian independence didn’t end. Tyranny didn’t come. Australians still hunted and explored and big-wave surfed to their hearts’ content. Their economy didn’t crash; Invaders never arrived. Violence, in many forms, went down across the country, not up. Somehow, lawmakers on either side of the gun debate managed to get along and legislate.As for mass killings, there were no more. Not one in the past 22 years.”Actually, there were never many firearm homicide deaths in Australia, anyway. And, contrary to the Fortune writer's supposition about tyranny having failed to materialize in Australia, tyranny is always just around the corner, up around the bend, where a person's right to keep and bear arms remains a government prerogative rather than a God-given right. In fact, one may well argue that the Australian Government's draconian actions point to the very presence of tyranny in that Country and in others where Government severely restricts or suppresses altogether the individual's right to keep and bear arms. On March 21, 2019, as reported in the weblog, the Conversation,“New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has just announced a ban in that country on specific military-style firearms. It will soon become an offence to own or possess semi-automatic firearms and shotguns with detachable magazines capable of firing more than five cartridges.”“A rigorous study to ascertain ‘. . . the null hypothesis that the rate of mass shootings in Australia remained unchanged after introduction of the National Firearms Agreement’” was reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine, on July 3, 2018. The bottom line: no causal connection can be established. The report states,“ ‘Without a 22-year randomized controlled trial assigning only parts of a national population to live under the National Firearms Agreement, establishing a definitive causal connection between this legislation and the 22-year absence of mass firearm homicides is not possible.’ At most ‘a standard rare events model provides strong evidence against the hypothesis that this prolonged absence simply reflects a continuation of a preexisting pattern of rare events.’” Strong evidence of a causal connection, though, is not definitive evidence, sufficient to establish a causal connection” between enactment of a strict “assault weapons” ban and a reduction in the incidence of “mass shootings.” But, there is a more important point to be made here. The test reported in Annals of Internal Medicine applied the null hypothesis, as they state, only to “mass shooting” incidents, not all shooting incidents, and that limitation already limits and skews the results the null hypothesis at the outset.In that regard the website fee.org reported:“In the wake of the March 15 New Zealand shootings, advocates for new gun restrictions in New Zealand have pointed to Australia as ‘proof’ that if national governments adopt gun restrictions like those of Australia's National Firearms Agreement, then homicides will go into steep decline.‘Exhibit A’ is usually the fact that homicides have decreased in Australia since 1996 when the new legislation was adopted in Australia.There are at least two problems with these claims. First, homicide rates have been in decline throughout western Europe, Canada, and the United States since the early 1990s. The fact that the same trend was followed in Australia is hardly evidence of a revolutionary achievement. Second, homicides were already so unusual in Australia, even before the 1996 legislation, that few lessons can be learned from slight movements either up or down in homicide rates.”

THE TAKEAWAY FROM ALL THIS:

If you would like to live in a Commonwealth Nation, as the subject of the Queen of England, have at it. The Government will take good care of you:Security proffered by Government = TyrannyUnlike the UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the right of the people to keep and bear arms IS enshrined in the United States. Americans consider that a blessing—a fundamental, unalienable, immutable right bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, that no man or government can lawfully deny any man.Let both the Queen of England and her subjects in the Commonwealth Nations and the atheist Marxists and Anarchists in our own Nation scoff at our God-given right, as a free sovereign people, to keep and bear arms.We will never allow our Nation to be overrun with the ugly weeds of tyranny._____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

OUT OF THE SHADOWS: GLOBAL ELITES FORCED TO MAKE THEIR CASE FOR NEW WORLD ORDER

PART ONE

NEW VISION FOR NATION SUBVERTS AMERICAN VALUES; WOULD MAKE AMERICANS SLAVES TO FOREIGN MASTERS

The Radical Left Democrat Party Leadership and the seditious Press represent merely the outward manifestation of the dire threat posed to the sanctity of our Constitution and to the well-being of our Nation and its people. They are merely the mouthpiece for others: powerful, sinister, secretive elements, both here and abroad, intent on destroying the very social, political, economic, financial, and cultural fabric upon which Western Civilization has prevailed for hundreds of years: the independent sovereign nation-state.These extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, abjectly ruthless, amoral sinister forces that comprise a small cadre of Neoliberal Global “Elites,” no longer attempt to hide their intentions from the mass of average, ordinary, law-abiding, morally upright people that make up the majority of the population of our Country; that make up the populations of Western Europe; and that include the populations of the major British Commonwealth Nations: New Zealand, Australia, and Canada. These global financiers and corporatist disrupters, along with their toadies in the Press, both here and abroad, and in the governments of the EU, the U.S., and in the UK Commonwealth Countries, have come to the dawning realization—and for them a disturbing realization, that their goal for a one-world political, social, economic, financial, corporate system of governance, that had hitherto moved methodically, inexorably ahead, according to plan, gathering steam, especially, in the last decade of the Twentieth and for much of the first two decades of the Twenty-first Centuries had hit a confounding brick wall.This brick wall they encountered included: the election of Donald Trump as U.S. President; the withdrawal of the UK from the EU (Brexit); and the growing nationalist fervor of Europe’s populations, who accurately observed, and who justifiably resented, the actions of the EU ruling “elites,” who had, since the inception of the EU, slowly eroded the culture and history of those nation-states and increasingly usurped the political, economic, financial and legal power and authority of Europe’s nation-states, concentrating that power in instrumentalities established in the Belgium Capital of Brussels.The tacit aim of these “New World Order” (NWO) “elites” is to suffocate the life out of, and eventually to eradicate, the independence and sovereignty of the individual nations of the EU. The Neoliberal Global “elites” are accomplishing this goal through centralization of power in Brussels, and through the deliberate infestation of tens of millions of unassimilable malcontents, terrorists, diseased, uneducated, and poverty-stricken people of Africa and of the Middle East to wreak havoc on the culture and core values of Europeans, introducing systemic violence and upheaval in Europe’s nations.The EU institutions of oppression and suppression include inter alia: the European Parliament, the European Commission, the European Central Bank (ECB), and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) The Global elites also exert control over nations of the EU, and over the British Commonwealth Nations, and over the U.S., too, through several international organizations—many tied directly to the UN.The creation of secretive international agreements, pacts, treaties, and accords, have entwined Nations, and their unsuspecting citizenry, in intricate, elaborate economic, geopolitical, and military superstructures, difficult to disentangle and difficult for nations to extricate from; requiring the subordination of a nation’s own body of laws, constitution, and Court structure to nebulous international law and norms and to contractual arrangements established in those nefarious, abstruse and duplicitous agreements, pacts, treaties, and accords, to be enforced through supranational courts and tribunals.The Neoliberal Global Elites wanted their plans for world domination to remain hidden, slowly tightening the noose around the U.S., the nations of the EU, and the British Commonwealth nations, entrapping Western Civilization in a mammoth web of deceit and corruption. But faced with a concerted global backlash, they have come to realize they must come out from the shadows and admit to the world what their plans entail. They realize they have to make their design explicit and make their case directly to the peoples of the U.S., and to the peoples of the EU, and to the populace of the British Commonwealth Nations.In our own Nation, the Neoliberal Global “Elites,”—through the Democrat Party Leadership and other Radical Left Democrats in Congress, and through the mainstream seditious Press, and through Democrat State governments and legislatures across the Country, that comprise the mouthpieces of the Global “Elites”—are beginning to vocalize their case.They are attempting to make their case for upending the U.S. Constitution; for constraining or erasing our fundamental, unalienable, and immutable rights and liberties, especially those pertaining to speech and to the right of the people to peaceably assemble; and to the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and to the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.These Neoliberal Global Elites dare openly and brazenly to thrust an entirely alien political, social, economic philosophy on Americans—one inconsistent with our core values; one that undermines our Judeo-Christian heritage; one that demeans our forefathers; and that denies and denigrates our glorious history. They desire to shame Americans; to compel an absurd, obsequious, repulsive, self-loathing and contrition upon Americans. And through it all, they are becoming increasingly emboldened, and flamboyant about their plans, self-righteously shouting down all detractors, all dissenting voices.They intend to remake the face of America, distorting it into a horrific mask of self-reproach. And, if they succeed, Americans will have no will to fight back, no ability to prevent the coming ruin.The floodgates will spring open. The decrepit, diseased leprous, zombie hordes will descend upon us—tens and perhaps hundreds of millions to overwhelm our Nation, our people, bringing the Nation to its knees.Naturally, these Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and Anarchist Collectivists would remonstrate against and deride Trump’s Campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” (“MAGA”). They would do so because they have no desire to preserve a free Constitutional Republic. They have no desire to defend our Constitution, our Judeo-Christian Ethic, our culture, our morality, our core values, our fundamental rights and liberties. They have no desire to preserve our history. Why would they exalt our Nation? They have only contempt for it.They consider Trump’s Campaign slogan an outrage against the Collectivist vision of a one-world political, social, and economic system of governance, and they will not tolerate it or tolerate those Americans who choose to embrace it. Like Obama and the Clintons and the Bushes, they are apologists for our Nation.It was no accident that New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo remarked, on August 13, 2018,“We’re not going to make America great again. It was never that great. We have not reached greatness. We will reach greatness when every American is fully engaged.” See AQ article, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo Says: “America Is Not Great.”When these toadies for the Neoliberal Global “Elites” say they wish to impose an entirely new vision on our Nation, they mean that literally. Recall, as reported in the Washington Times——“The House Majority Whip [Representative James Clyburn (D-SC)] who almost single-handedly saved Joe Biden’s bacon in the Palmetto State’s primary, advised his fellow Democrats to see this as a ‘tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.’”And, Recall, as reported in Breitbart, that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo seeks to reimagine what we (he) wants society to be——“In his daily press briefings, [New York Governor Andrew] Cuomo [who] said he wants to use the task force to ‘reimagine what we want society to be’ with a focus on ‘better’ public transportation, healthcare, housing, and public safety. ‘Let’s use this as a moment to really plan change that we could normally never do unless you had this situation,’ the governor told reporters about the plan.”A “new vision” for the Nation? “Better public transportation, healthcare, housing, and public safety?” “Every American fully engaged?” How so, and for whom, exactly?What is the nature of this vision, this plan that Clyburn and Cuomo mention, at the behest of the Global “elites,” their puppet masters? The blueprint is well-known; it is predicated on the precepts of Collectivism. But the blueprint for our Nation is grounded not on the precepts of Collectivism but on the precepts of Individualism, set forth in the U.S. Constitution. The two social and political philosophies, Collectivism and Individualism, are wholly antithetical. The two  cannot be reconciled. But then the Global elites never intended for the tenets of Collectivism to be squared with the tenets of Individualism.The Arbalest Quarrel has laid out the basic precepts of each philosophy in a past article: The Modern American Civil WarOut of the frying pan, and into the fire. Is that where our Nation is headed?________________________________________________

A NEOLIBERAL, GLOBAL ELITE SPEAKS OUT IN SUPPORT OF COLLECTIVISM

PART TWO

PETER WALKER, EX-MCKINSEY EXEC, DEFENDS CHINA IN FACE-TO-FACE INTERVIEW WITH TUCKER CARLSON

There are two salient political and social philosophies, upon which a nation-state or other political, social, economic and cultural organization can be constructed: Collectivism and Individualism. One or the other philosophy may be the blueprint for a state or other political, social, economic and cultural entity; one or the other, but not both; and not an amalgam of the two, for the two are wholly incompatible.A brief description of the two philosophies may be found in Peter B. Walker’s book, “Powerful, Different, Equal: Overcoming the misconceptions and differences between China and the US.” Who is Peter B. Walker? He’s a senior partner emeritus of McKinsey & Company. And what is McKinsey & Company? It is an extremely powerful, extraordinarily successful global management consulting firm that was instrumental in convincing major U.S. manufacturers to offshore their business to China. And, McKinsey & Company is growing. On its new website, McKinsey proudly announces:This week [February 29, 2020] we’re starting to roll out a new visual identity to better express who we are and what we do today. For instance, more than half of our work for clients now, in areas like design, digital, and analytics, didn’t exist at our firm just five years ago.“We’re excited about the new visual identity, which we think is beautiful,” says global managing partner Kevin Sneader. “But this is about more than how we look. It’s about updating how we communicate, so we can engage with the world more effectively, now and in the future as we continue to change.”The refresh includes an updated graphic element, new fonts, a new color palette, and a revamped approach to data visualization and photography. Blue still figures prominently, symbolizing the constancy of our mission and values. Only now it’s a deeper shade set against a white background.“We think the contrast depicts our clarity of thought and our ability to cut through and deliver what really matters,” says senior partner Peter Dahlstrom. “It symbolizes our aspiration to bring those qualities to all our clients.”To learn more, check out this overview of the new identity in action. And for a refresher on the importance of good design to business, don’t miss our article, “The business value of design.”Despite the hype and glitz, the Company’s announcement, begs the question, what does the Company really offer; what does the Company provide its business clients—those well-heeled multinational companies that can afford McKinzie’s services? One digs through various webpages on the site to find this:“We help organizations across the private, public, and social sectors create Change that Matters.From the C-suite to the front line, we partner with our clients to transform their organizations in the ways that matter most to them. This requires embedding digital, analytics, and design into core processes and mind-sets, and building capabilities that help organizations and people to thrive in an ever-changing context.With exceptional people in 65 countries, we combine global expertise and local insight to help you turn your ambitious goals into reality.”The Company’s services are curiously, deliberately opaque. Nothing to emulate, really, but it does attract a certain kind of people: the smug, ambitious, amoral, insensitive, and abjectly ruthless. Who are some of these people who have worked for Company, Mckinsey? The names of a couple of them shouldn’t surprise you. They include the Radical Left Globalist toadies: Chelsea Clinton, daughter of Bill and Hillary Clinton; and Mayor Pete Buttigieg, erstwhile contender for the Democrat Party nomination for U.S. President, to take on President Trump in the coming General Election.Senior Partner Emeritus, Peter Walker, is one of the neoliberal global elites who has come out of the shadows, out of the woodwork, in the last few days, to make his case on behalf of the New World Order, and, it would be our guess, on behalf of the Bilderberg Group, whose own seemingly benign opacity, hides a most sinister intent:“Since its inaugural Meeting in 1954, the annual Bilderberg Meeting has been a forum for informal discussions to foster dialogue between Europe and North America. Every year, approx. 130 political leaders and experts from industry, finance, labour, academia and the media are invited to take part in the Meeting. About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields. The Meeting is a forum for informal discussions about major issues.  The Meetings are held under the Chatham House Rule, which states that participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s) nor of any other participant may be revealed. Thanks to the private nature of the Meeting, the participants take part as individuals rather than in any official capacity, and hence are not bound by the conventions of their office or by pre-agreed positions. As such, they can take time to listen and reflect and gather insights. There is no detailed agenda, no resolutions are proposed, no votes are taken, and no policy statements are issued.” 

PETER WALKER EMULATES POLITICAL POWER BROKERS AND THOSE WHO WORK FOR THEM

Whom does Peter Walker admire? The names shouldn’t surprise you any less than those from the Ivy League schools that desire to work for McKinsey.In his book Walker mentions Henry Kissinger: former Secretary of State; National Security Advisor; architect of regime change in Chile that brought the brutal dictator, Augusto Pinochet to power; author of a book with the candid title, “World Order;” and regular participant at the annual Bilderberg Group conferences.Walker also mentions Hank Paulson, past Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, Secretary of the Treasury under George W. Bush, and principal architect of the massive 2008 Bank bailout.Then there is Thomas Friedman, regular columnist for The New York Times, and perennial Trump hater, whose presumed areas of expertise include global trade, foreign affairs, globalization, and environmental issues, and whom the National Review dubs a “Liberal Fascist.”Walker would be just another secretive Global elite centimillionaire or billionaire, perhaps, but for the fact that he appeared recently on Tucker Carlson Tonight? How did this come about, given the usual almost painful reticence of powerful, wealthy Collectivist Globalists who hate to appear in the limelight?Walker’s name came up in the last couple of days when Tucker Carlson, Fox News host of Tucker Carlson Tonight, explained the tremendous crippling influence of  McKinsey & Company our manufacturing base and, impliedly, how McKinsey has endangered our National Security, helping to make China a preeminent global economic, and geopolitical power.Why did McKinsey CEO appear on Tucker Carlson Tonight. Carlson didn’t indicate that he reached out to Walker. Apparently, Walker reached out to Carlson, not the other way around. Why would Walker do this? Perhaps, he was pressed to do this in an attempt at “damage control” for the Global elites, lest the American public take notice of the threat to the Nation should Trump win a second term in Office and defeat the quest toward NWO Armageddon that Walker and other neoliberal Global elites seek to return to and will be able to return to if they can seat their stooge, Biden, in the White House.Carlson treated Walker respectfully, allowed Walker to talk; wanted him to talk; did not barge in on his responses to questions. And talk and talk, Walker did!Walker said at one point during the fox news interview:“[China] is a collectivist society . . .  That difference between collectivism and common good is a huge disconnect with the U.S. We regard and always have been proud that every human life is sacred and therefore any unjustice or injustice is something we ought to be railing against and they are just not wired that way,” Peter Walker told Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight.” AQ continues analysis of the Carlson-Walker interview in our next segment.__________________________________________________

CHINA OR AMERICA: WHO DOES MCKINSEY'S SENIOR PARTNER, PETER WALKER, REALLY SERVE?

PART THREE

NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST ELITE PETER WALKER SELLS OUT U.S. TO CHINA

What the Arbalest Quarrel found particularly fascinating from Walker’s mostly frank discussion with host, Tucker Carlson, that aired Thursday, April 23, 2020, on Tucker Carlson Tonight, was Walker’s specific reference to the expressions, ‘Collectivism’ and ‘Individualism.’Walker admitted that China is a Collectivist society and that our own Nation is founded on the principles of Individualism. That much is true. But what Walker carefully avoided asserting is that Collectivism is inherently evil, insofar as it is a danger to individual liberty. Walker equivocated, suggesting that Collectivism does have merit. What Carlson didn’t ask Walker and what we would have liked to hear is whether Walker felt it was time our Nation adopted the precepts of Collectivism because Walker’s comments about the origin of our Nation doesn’t mean that he agrees we should continue to adhere to the tenets of Individualism, given especially his effusive praise for China and for the manner in which this Collectivism has worked to benefit China. AQ would have specifically liked to have asked Walker this question: By serving China’s interests as well as McKinsey has, to the detriment of the interests of the United States, how has McKinsey reconciled, or, at least, has tried to reconcile the desires and goals of the autocratic Communist Regime of China, with the desires and goals of our own free Constitutional Republic, whose economic, geopolitical, and military interests are antithetical to our own? We would, then, have liked to have followed up the first question with this one: As an American citizen, do you feel some remorse for having harmed our Nation’s interests, for the sake of profit alone, given the power that McKinsey wields to benefit one Nation, China, over that of your own? And, third, we would have liked to have asked Walker this: How might McKinsey assist this Nation in gaining an edge over China since you have admitted that the key to strengthening our Nation’s economy is to reinstate a measure of self-sufficiency in our productive capacity?But, then, we can intuit the answers to our questions since avoided asserting the U.S. should, after all, remain a viable sovereign, independent Nation-State, where the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people remain intact. Walker, on behalf of McKinsey, has encouraged McKinsey’s business clients to offshore production to mainland China, thereby setting into motion, the very decline of America’s strength as a manufacturing powerhouse. Walker would know that, even if he had some misgiving as to how he helped to weaken our Nation’s economy when he worked as a senior partner for McKinsey, he would know that McKinsey could not, in good faith, reverse that process as that would mean contravening the very advice McKinsey had given to its corporate clients, harming the McKinsey’s own reputation and standing with its clients. McKinsey made a decision early on: either to work for both the benefit of our Nation and our businesses; or join forces with the forces of neoliberalism globalization, for the benefit of the coming dyarchy that it helped to create: a dyarchy comprising, one, China, and, two, a new transnational political, social, and economic global system of governance, composed of the hollowed-out shells of once-powerful sovereign, independent Western Nation-States.Walker asserted, but Carlson didn’t further explore Walker’s dissembling. Simply to acknowledge our Nation’s history doesn’t ipso facto imply or entail Walker’s belief that our Nation should continue to espouse the tenets upon which our Nation, as reflected in the U.S. Constitution, are based: the tenets of Individualism, which Walker explicitly concedes. Walker’s decades at McKinsey would seem to have done nothing to suggest he gives a damn about the well-being of our Nation, its Constitution, and the autonomy and sanctity of the individual, since his efforts have been directed essentially to increase the power and stature of China in the world at the expense of the power and stature and well-being of the U.S., as an independent, sovereign nation-state, and at the expense and well-being of the American people.But AQ wouldn’t describe Walker as a mere opportunist, who has been selling out our Nation for money alone, unlike sell-out Democrats and Centrist Bush Republicans, who simply wish to make a killing for themselves, and to retire in luxury, forgetting that the Oath they took was to serve the Nation and its people by defending the Constitution of the United States, rather than themselves. For, after all, one would expect the servants of the people to rein in China, and therefore to rein in Companies that, in their quest for profit, have irreparably harmed our Nation. But they do no such thing. Rather, they kowtow to lobbyists for China for their own benefit.Certainly, McKinsey’s Walker has done everything in his power to assist China in becoming a predominant geopolitical, economic, and military power in the world and in the process has certainly been able to pad his own wallet. But Walker, it is our opinion, has a bigger picture in mind. As a neoliberal Globalist elite, he must see the world of the future—as we point out, supra—as tending toward a massive Dyarchy, where two emerging powers in the 21st Century—China and a supranational new world order, comprising the shells of Western Democratic States—divide the world between them, keeping each other in check.McKinsey is no ordinary mega-company. It is helping to shape the future of the world on behalf of both the Collectivist superpower China, and the Collectivist neoliberal Global Western elites. Neoliberal Globalist elites are Collectivists. And Walker is no exception. Walker and those employed by McKinsey believe in the tenets of Collectivism and are fervently working toward the realization of the Collectivist super-state goal: China, as the Communist Asian Autocratic powerhouse; and the Western supranational Global empire, ruled by the Rothschild clan and those aligned with them. The world is to be divided between the two. The population of China is subjugated, reduced to penury, and under constant surveillance and control. And the populations of Western Civilization are in the process of being subjugated, reduced to penury, and are, themselves, in the process of losing all freedoms. Worst to be faced with the loss of freedoms are American citizens since, unlike, the populations of Europe, our fundamental rights and liberties are accepted as rights emanating from the Divine Creator, not from man; and, so, cannot be lawfully denied, modified, abrogated, ignored. But, the loss of those God-given rights would ensue anyway as Collectivists do not ascribe to a Divine Creator and do not, therefore ascribe to divinely created rights and liberties that rest beyond the lawful power of man to rescind. But the Collectivists don’t care in sacred Truth. They only care about the effects. They will not abide rights and liberties that impede the creation, implementation, and preservation of the Western Collectivist super-state. In our Nation, at least, the attempt to subvert fundamental rights and liberties, especially the right of the people to keep and bear arms upon which all other fundamental rights and liberties depend, because, only through force of arms, can the American people effectively resist the Super-State from successfully preventing the exercise of any other fundamental, unalienable, immutable right and liberty.___________________________________________________

RADICAL LEFT NEW YORK GOVERNOR CUOMO HIRES MCKINSEY & COMPANY TO CREATE “TRUMP-PROOF” PLAN FOR NEW YORK

PART FOUR

When one makes a pact with the Devil, one shouldn’t expect to receive anything approaching a fair deal. It doesn’t happen. Never would. It is always a deal from the bottom. Yet, Andrew Cuomo has decided to make just such a pact with the Devil. He did so just recently. It has come to light in the last few days. Who is this Devil? Well, the Devil goes by many names. One of the Devil’s names is McKinsey. Why would Cuomo make such a deal?Andrew Cuomo, a Radical Left Collectivist has recently looked to McKinsey to assist the State to recover its edge as a major financial center, given that the Chinese Coronavirus has ravaged the City’s economic vitality. That is rather odd, don’t you think, considering that China unleashed the virus on our Nation, and McKinsey is in league and has been in league with the source of our Nation’s recent woe, and greatest foe, China. Can Cuomo reasonably expect McKinsey & Company would really come to the assistance of the people of New York? What would that even look like? What does Cuomo have in mind? Will Cuomo let New York’s residents in on Cuomo’s deal with McKinsey? How much taxpayer money is Cuomo expending for McKinsey’s “assistance?” These are just a few of the questions we would like to pose to Andrew Cuomo?The website Nation and State recently posted an article by The Epoch Times: “The headline in The Hill screams out: “New York state hires McKinsey to create science-based, ‘Trump-proof’ plan for the safe economic reopening.”“Okay, we live in an era where propaganda dominates our media to an almost unprecedented degree, but this is beyond the proverbial pale and headed for Alpha Centauri.McKinsey? Whose science are we talking about here? The Wuhan Institute of Virology—the laboratory consensus now accepts, from whence the pandemic that destroyed the health and economies of nearly the entire globe emanated? It would seem so.To put it bluntly, McKinsey & Company, the giant American consulting firm with 127 offices worldwide and some 27,000 employees, has been in bed with communist China for decades.But don’t believe me. Believe the unstintingly liberal New York Times that did an extensive exposé of the company in 2018 entitled “How McKinsey Has Raised the Stature of Totalitarian  How McKinsey Has Raised the Stature of Totalitarian Governments”:McKinsey advises a good swatch of China’s state-owned companies, including those building the artificial islands in the South China Sea that the United States and much of the West, not to mention the World Bank, holds to be illegal. These islands are an integral part of the escalating Chinese military threat.McKinsey has also been deeply involved with China’s Belt-and-Road Initiative, a program many see as the linchpin of communist imperialist expansionism. The company has reassured Third World countries about China’s “benign” intentions with this project in places as far flung as Malaysia only to find themselves embroiled in corruption scandals, according to the Times.Domestically, McKinsey, quite recently (November 2019), has also been dealing with a criminal inquiry over bankruptcy case conduct.But even more troubling than the degree to which the company is alleged to have skirted the edges of the law is its formative, and in some ways decisive, role in a once-accepted concept that has lately come under tremendous scrutiny because of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) behavior—globalism.In a Tablet article—‘The Coronavirus Didn’t Cause This Crisis By Itself. McKinsey Helped’— Michael Lind wrote:‘If we ignore our ritual partisan debates and try to be as objective as possible, I think we can agree that the pandemic has exposed two weaknesses in contemporary American society: the loss of critical manufacturing capabilities and the decline of the one-earner family.”See also article in the Federalist, "Cuomo's Handpicked Consulting Firm Has Shady Past With China."In all this turmoil impacting our Nation, Americans must remain steadfast. We are in the midst of a war to be sure. But the Chinese Coronavirus is one major battle within that war. The outcome of the war itself will determine whether our Nation remains true to its origin or loses everything; whether our Nation does indeed return to greatness or, instead, is reduced to a hollowed-out shell.Will our Constitution remain untouched, revered, exalted, or will it be erased and replaced? Will our Nation’s name, ‘The United States of America,’ truly continue to refer to a powerful, independent nation-state where the American people are sovereign, not the Federal Government, or will our Country’s name be reduced t0 an empty phrase, devoid of import and purpose, an expression the Neoliberal Globalist Elites scoff at while bantering among themselves; referencing the Nation's name as a joke they tell each other on occasion, their orchestrated deception on Americans finally accomplished; at last, complete?_____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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.