TRUMP EXPECTED TO QUICKLY NOMINATE AND THE SENATE TO QUICKLY CONFIRM NEW SCOTUS JUSTICE

RADICAL LEFT DEMOCRATS AND MARXISTS IN PANIC MODE

Note to our readers: This is substantive update, September 24, 2020, of article posted on September 22, 2020.“ ‘As worrisome as this conservative court is for progressives right now, it can get a whole lot worse if Trump gets the chance to nominate another justice,’ said Brian Fallon, the head of Demand Justice, a liberal group. ‘Justice Ginsburg’s resilience is utterly remarkable, but hoping for her continued good health is not a sufficient strategy for Democrats. We need to rally around the Supreme Court as an issue and win this election.’”Demand Justice, in concert with several other leading liberal groups, recently began a $2 million advertising campaign in key presidential election states trying to persuade voters that the direction of the court will be set for decades in the coming election.” Citation from a New York Times article, published on July 17, 2020, titled, “Ginsburg Says Her Cancer Has Returned, but She’s ‘Fully Able’ to Remain on Court.”  

JUSTICE GINSBURG'S DEATH, SEVERAL WEEKS BEFORE THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN OVER ONE HUNDRED YEARS, IS AT ONCE TRAGIC AND PROPITIOUS BUT SHOULD COME AS A SURPRISE TO NO ONE

A BIT OF RECENT HISTORY CONCERNING THE LATE JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG

Back in May 2020, the Leftist weblog Politico reported on activist Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dire health and what it would mean if anything untoward happened to her before the General election in November:“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s hospitalization this week and the looming end of the Supreme Court’s term raise the prospect of yet another prized vacancy for President Donald Trump. And if there is a surprise opening or retirement in the months before the presidential election, GOP senators plan to act on it, despite denying President Barack Obama a Supreme Court seat in an election year.Republicans say they wish Ginsburg a swift recovery and have no inside knowledge of a retirement but are prepared to move if a vacancy presents itself.So in what’s already been the most consequential year for politics in a generation, with a presidential impeachment and a rampaging pandemic, Capitol Hill could get significantly crazier.‘If you thought the Kavanaugh hearing was contentious this would probably be that on steroids,’ said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). ‘Nevertheless, if the president makes a nomination then it’s our responsibility to take it up.’In 2016, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said voters should decide in the election which president should choose the next Supreme Court justice because the Senate and White House were controlled by different parties. And in the Trump era, he’s repeatedly asserted that he would fill a vacancy in 2020.McConnell and his allies argue the situation is different because Republicans control both the White House and the Senate. They say that makes the situation far different than when Obama was president and McConnell refused to even hold a hearing for Merrick Garland.Democrats acknowledge they could get run over in the next eight months. Supreme Court nominees can now be confirmed by a bare majority after McConnell changed the rules in 2017 to overcome a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch, Antonin Scalia’s successor.”Subsequently, in July of 2020, the public learned that Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had been battling aggressive cancer for years, had a flare-up. CNBC reported,“ ‘Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital early Tuesday morning,’ the Supreme Court said. ‘She is being treated for a possible infection.‘The Justice is resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment,’ said court spokesperson Kathleen Arberg in a statement Tuesday. . . .’ Ginsburg has survived colon cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer 10 years after that. She was treated for a tumor on her pancreas in August 2019. And in December 2018, she had two cancerous nodules removed from her lungs.”  Recall that, in January, 2020 Ginsburg announced, as reported in health line, referring to an interview she gave to CNN, that she is “cancer-free.” Eight months later Ruth Bader Ginsburg was dead,* as reported by numerous news sources. And, with the death of Justice Ginsburg, one and a half months before the most important U.S. Presidential election in recent decades—and conceivably the most important election since the founding of the Nation—the worst fears of the malevolent, malignant, ruthless, powerful, immoral, repressive forces both here and abroad that seek to upend our independent sovereign Nation and a free Constitutional Republic have come to fruition.In the next several days Trump will nominate Ginsburg’s replacement—his third nomination since he took Office. That he will do so isn’t guesswork. It's a foregone conclusion. It is also a foregone conclusion that, whatever the Democrat Party leadership and Administrative State saboteurs and Radical Left George Soros financed destructors of our Nation have concocted to disrupt and waylay confirmation of Trump’s nominee—and have no doubt, they had made contingency plans in the event of Ginsburg’s death prior to the November election—there isn’t a damn thing these Anti-Constitutional, Anti-American forces can lawfully do to prevent a confirmation hearing and vote on Trump’s nominee, other than do what they have been doing for months: rioting, looting, ransacking, firebombing, threatening the populace, and destroying, killing, and maiming. And, there will be a backlash; no doubt about it. The public has had more than enough of this dangerous nonsense, and will not be placated by claims that all will be well once the senile Biden and the crass opportunist, Harris, take control of the Executive Branch of Government. Extortion doesn't work against Americans. It doesn't sit well in the American psyche or in their blood.

WHY GETTING A STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST ON THE  U.S. SUPREME COURT BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 3, 2020 ELECTION IS CRITICAL

Unless the election results in a landslide for Donald Trump or for the Democrat Party nominee, Joe Biden, assuming Biden doesn't suffer a stroke or other health-related calamity at the Eleventh Hour, in which case Harris will step in as Biden's replacement, the coming U.S. Presidential  election will be contested. That isn't mere conjecture. It is certain.In fact, even if President Trump does win the election by a landslide, the American public can expect Democrats will contest the election results anyway. The obnoxious, repugnant, disgruntled, arrogant, smug Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President in 2016, Hillary Clinton—ever harboring a personal grudge against Donald Trump for dashing her hopes to be the first female U.S. President, a thing she literally lusted over—made that point quite recently, as reported by several news sources. Fox News, for one, reported that,

“Hillary Clinton issued a warning for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden in a new interview released Tuesday, urging the former vice president to not concede defeat on the night of the Nov. 3 election — no matter the circumstances.

“Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances,’ Clinton said. ‘Because I think this is going to drag out, and eventually, I do believe he will win, if we don't give an inch and if we are as focused and relentless as the other side is.’” But, by the same token, President Trump, should not concede the election results either. His loss of the U.S. Presidency, and the loss of the U.S. Senate in November, will mark the end of a Free Constitutional Republic; will doom the Nation's Bill of Rights, will doom the sovereignty of the American citizenry, and will result in the inexorable loss of an independent Nation State.But make no mistake, the ruthless, rapacious, scheming internationalist Marxists and Billionaire Neoliberal transnationalist elites, both here and abroad, through their well-positioned puppet, the Democrat Party Leadership—have pulled out all the stops to take over the Executive Branch along with the U.S. Senate. The Billionaire Globalist elites, including ex-New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the secretive, mysterious, pathological Billionaire George Soros, have spent tens of millions of dollars, and continue to spend untold millions of dollars, to buy this election. Their intention is clear: a return to the Globalist agenda, one commenced decades ago—and one that has gathered steam ever since through the administrations of Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush (George Senior), George W. Bush (George Junior), and Barack Obama—an agenda that came to an abrupt, screeching halt, with the surprising election of a Populist, Donald Trump, to the Office of U.S. President in 2016. For Globalists who have championed the continued erosion of the very concept of independent, sovereign nation-states, the worst thing imaginable for them would be the election of a man who supports strengthening the U.S. as an independent, sovereign Nation-State; who supports the wresting of control of foreign and domestic policy-making from unelected bureaucrats; who has worked tirelessly to halt the erosion of our Civil liberties and fundamental, immutable, illimitable, natural rights; who has emphasized the singular importance of our Nation's Judeo-Christian ethics; who seeks to preserve the foundational juridical, cultural, historical and economic precepts of our Nation, and the sanctity of the Individual soul over recent Collectivist impulses that have denigrated individual thought and expression and that have sought to sow disharmony and dissension throughout America; a man who cherishes our sacred National symbols, and who seeks to preserve and protect them from those scurrilous elements that denigrate them and discourage their continued use; a Nation's leader who demonstrates his singular love and devotion and duty first and foremost to our Nation, to our Nation's Constitution, and to our Nation's people.All that President Trump has accomplished and has sought further to accomplish to benefit our Nation and our people that are encapsulated in his campaign slogans, “Make America Great,” and “Keep America Great”—slogans that are routinely treated like obscenities by the disloyal Marxists and neoliberal transnationalist elites—will likely be lost forever, if Trump loses the U.S. Presidency and if Republicans lose control of the U.S. Senate, in November. In the immediate aftermath of a Trump loss, this Country may very well devolve into Civil War—a clash between Americans who seek to retain the Nation's culture, history, legal, social, political, religious, and economic precepts, consistent with and as embodied both literally and tacitly in our Nation's enduring Constitution, and those Anti-American forces both here and abroad that seek to erase all of it.Ultimately, this election will likely be decided—must needs be decided—in the U.S. Supreme Court. A fair assessment of the General Election results will require fair and impartial U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The public may anticipate a fair assessment from Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and from President Trump's new nominee, once confirmed—certainly someone who fervently respects our Constitution as written, and whose loyalty and interest exists in preserving our Nation's Constitutional foundational framework. Americans may not likely expect a fair assessment of the General Election results from the liberal-wing of the Court, as their goal is to rewrite the U.S. Constitution as the liberal-wing, having taken its cue from their late leader, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, does not perceive the U.S. Constitution as a document beyond reproach, but something that can and should be tinkered with, thereby acknowledging less than a firm conviction in the sanctity and inviolability and immutability of our Nation's Constitution.Recall the late Associate Justice's words in a 2012  2012 interview with Egypt’s Al Hayat TV,  as reported by Real Clear: “ ‘You [referring to the Post-Mubarak Egyptian Government that was looking to the U.S. Constitution as a possible framework for its Nation's governance] should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. . . . It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?,’  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in an interview with Al Hayat TV in Egypt. ’ ” One might well have asked Justice Ginsburg, how human rights are to be guaranteed from the tyranny of Government, the inevitable danger of which our Nation's founders knew first-hand, in the absence of a well-armed citizenry?So, then, as the late Justice Ginsburg obviously emulated and found the Constitution of South Africa superior to ours, the incongruity of her remarks emerges eight years later as a manifestation of unholy and horrific, crushing events transpiring in America today—courtesy of rabid Marxists, whose brutal and incessant rioting and mayhem are all lovingly financed by Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists, like the cold-blooded, cold-hearted George Soros. Since these Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists see the foundational tenets of a free Constitutional Republic incompatible with their goal of a one-world social, political, economic, cultural, and juridical scheme, they intend to cut the legs out from under the Constitution that the framers fashioned and concoct a completely new fabric upon which to dress up the vestiges of the United States that they deign, perhaps, to keep.The integrity of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election is disturbingly very much in doubt, given the recent vote-buying antics of Michael Bloomberg and widespread vote-tampering possible through the vehicle of vote-harvesting fraud among other instances of election fraud, all likely to be compounded exponentially through the mechanism of millions of unverified mail-in votes. Even Progressive National Public Radio, NPR, has acknowledged that an extraordinarily high number, 550,000 mail-in votes have already been rejected so far, even as NPR chooses to discount the significance of that fact. It cannot be reasonably denied that ruthless Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist forces are determined to prevent Donald Trump from serving a second term in Office. It is, therefore imperative that President Trump do everything in his power to ensure the integrity of the upcoming election. Sitting a Ninth U.S. Supreme Court Justice on the Bench, prior to and not subsequent to the election, will definitely help to ensure a fair election, as a majority decision, whether 9-0 (most improbable) or 5-4 (most likely) will decide whom the public will see as U.S. President on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2021.Without an odd number of U.S. Supreme Court Justices serving on the Bench on the day of the election, the High Court will likely not be able to decide the election when the issue of who actually won the election comes to the High Court, which it will, if the election is a contested one, as it most likely will be, unless Americans witness a landslide for one Party candidate or the other. A 4-4 result will get us nowhere, and may lead to all out civil war, as each side claims victory. We anticipate that, once Trump has made his selection, Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee will quickly convene and vote to send Trump’s nominee to the full Senate for a confirmation hearing. We anticipate that the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, will run the confirmation hearing expeditiously and, with a Senate Republican Majority, the Senate will confirm Trump’s nominee  posthaste. Those Senate Republicans who vote against confirmation of Trump’s nominee to sit on the High Court be damned!_____________________________________________

AMY CONEY BARRETT: A PROVEN PRO-SECOND AMENDMENT JURIST

BOTH PRO 2A AND PRO-LIFE, JUDGE BARRETT WOULD STRENGTHEN OUR BILL OF RIGHTS, PRESERVE OUR FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, AND KEEP AMERICA GREAT

The seditious Press has devoted substantial time analyzing and ruminating on Trump’s U.S. Supreme Court list of potential candidates and will continue to do so up to the point of his selecting someone.Almost certainly, Trump will nominate a woman to replace the late vexatious liberal-wing Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And, that nomination is imminent.The current consensus is that Amy Coney Barrett, who presently serves as a Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, will be that person, as she is the front-runner.Judge Barrett is young, personable, and extremely bright. When analyzing and deciding cases, Judge Barrett applies the methodology of the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked after graduating from Notre Dame Law School, fist in her class, Summa Cum Laude.President Trump nominated Barrett, on May 8, 2017, to serve as a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.Consistent with the methodology employed by the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, her brilliant mentor, Judge Barrett construes the Constitution in strict accordance with its original meaning. In that respect Barrett is Ginsburg’s polar opposite.Justice Ginsburg, unlike Judge Barrett, unabashedly and unashamedly interposed her own personal predilections into case analysis. Those predilections invariably informed her decisions, eroding the fundamental rights and liberties upon which a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people rest.The attacks against Barrett coming from the Radical Left seditious Press have just started. Indeed, they have been ongoing for some time.The seditious Press has constantly slammed Barrett’s stance on abortion. That remains its main concern and that, too, of the Radical Left. They haven't attacked her yet on her jurisprudential approach to deciding Second Amendment cases, but that is almost certainly coming. The Arbalest Quarrel has wondered about that: What is Barrett’s stance on the Second Amendment? Fortunately, we have more than a mere clue, we have verified proof of her position, and that proof is consistent with her jurisprudential, methodological approach to case analysis. Judge Barrett is a firm Constitutional originalist and textualist, in the mold of her mentor, the late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia.A fairly recent Second Amendment case, Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019), in which Judge Barrett took part, provides us with a definitive answer.The Plaintiff in Kanter had pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud, a non-violent crime.“Due to his felony conviction, he is prohibited from possessing a firearm under both federal and Wisconsin law. At issue in this case is whether the felon dispossession statutes—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and Wis. Stat. § 941.29(1m)—violate the Second Amendment as applied to Kanter.” Upon his release from Prison, and payment of restitution, Plaintiff applied to the Attorney General for relief from disability so that he could exercise his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.The 7th Circuit Court Majority pointed out that, “. . . the Attorney General may remove the prohibition on a case-by-case basis if an applicant sufficiently establishes ‘that the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant's record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.’” The particulars of Kanter’s felony conviction, as set forth by the Court Majority that decided against Kanter, are as follows:“On May 24, 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Section 1341 carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a criminal penalty of $50,000, and he reimbursed Medicare over $27 million in a related civil settlement. On May 24, 2011, Kanter pleaded guilty to one count of mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 based on a shipment of the noncompliant inserts to a podiatrist in Florida. Section 1341 carries a maximum penalty of twenty years in prison and a $250,000 fine. Kanter was sentenced to one year and one day in prison and two years of supervised release. He was also ordered to pay a criminal penalty of $50,000, and he reimbursed Medicare over $27 million in a related civil settlement.Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.Kanter has since served his time and paid his criminal penalty, and he has not been charged with any additional criminal activity. However, because of his felony conviction, he is permanently prohibited from owning a firearm under federal and Wisconsin law.”The Constitutionality of the Wisconsin law was placed squarely in question. The lower District Court found against the Plaintiff because of his felony conviction and irrespective of the fact that he had served out his sentence and paid full restitution.Two of three of the Appellate Court Judges, the majority, who ruled against the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter, framed the issue as a question whether individuals who have been convicted of non-violent felonies, no less than those who have been convicted of violent felonies, fall within a class of individuals who can never enjoy their Second Amendment right to own and possess firearms.Why the Court majority framed the issue in this way is perplexing since the majority never bothered to formulate an answer to it or a resolution of it. This suggests that the Court had tacitly accepted as a given that citizens should never, can never, be absolved of their past misdeeds, regardless of the nature of their crimes, grounded, therefor, on the mere assumption that a convicted felon can never and must never be perceived as rehabilitated or capable of rehabilitation, at least, as to matters apropos of the Second Amendment, namely, matters pertaining to firearms ownership and possession. The Majority, thereupon concludes that felons remain, forever, a threat to public safety.Having tacitly decided that the Plaintiff Petitioner cannot lawfully own and possess firearms even though, as the Court Majority was compelled to acknowledge, Kanter had paid his full debt to society, the Court pretended to employ a balancing test as between non-violent convicted felons who had paid their debt to society and who subsequently wish to exercise the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, on the one hand, and the State’s  desire to promote public safety by keeping guns from the hands of Americans whom the State deems to be—by the very fact of a prior felony conviction—violent felony or non-violent felony notwithstanding—a perpetual threat to society, essentially, then, wholly beyond redemption, at least in the eyes of the Court.Applying that bald, unsupported assumption to Kanter, the Court said, “Categorical prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons are ‘presumptively lawful,’ even in disqualifying nonviolent felons like Kanter.” The Court thereupon determined that the government had met its burden in denying Kanter the right to own and possess firearms, even though the government really had not, asserting, nonetheless, that the government has shown that prohibiting even nonviolent felons like the Plaintiff Petitioner, Kanter from possessing firearms, is substantially related to its interest in preventing gun violence. The reader should note that the expression, ‘substantially related to an important Government purpose,’ is a court created intermediate scrutiny means balancing test. The Heller Court, in 2008, had considered the tenability of means balancing of interests between a fundamental right a person's interest in exercising a fundamental right, and the State's interest in precluding a person from exercising that fundamental  right on the basis of some presumed State desire to protect theHow so? The Court majority didn’t say. Obviously the Court Majority didn’t care. The Majority simply determined before the fact that a man convicted of a violent crime can never be permitted to exercise the fundamental right to keep and bear arms, after the fact and the Court constructed its argument to cohere with its predetermined decision.The dissenting Judge, Amy Barrett, though, did care. She began her dissent with the following perceptive remarks, which demonstrate her erudition, laser-like legal and logical reasoning, and profound respect for the fundamental, natural, immutable, illimitable, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms:“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns. But that power extends only to people who are dangerous. Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to bear arms simply because of their status as felons. Nor have the parties introduced any evidence that founding-era legislature imposed virtue-based restrictions on the right; such restrictions applied to civic rights like voting and jury service, not to individual rights like the right to possess a gun. In 1791—and for well more than a century afterward—legislatures disqualified categories of people from the right to bear arms only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.” Judge Barrett added that Federal law and Wisconsin State Statute “would stand on solid footing if their categorical bans were tailored to serve the governments' undeniably compelling interest in protecting the public from gun violence. But their dispossession of all felons—both violent and nonviolent—is unconstitutional as applied to Kanter, who was convicted of mail fraud for falsely representing that his company's therapeutic shoe inserts were Medicare-approved and billing Medicare accordingly. Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe. Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment. . . .At this point, however, neither Wisconsin nor the United States has presented any evidence that Kanter would be dangerous if armed. Instead, as the majority notes, ‘Kanter is a first-time, non-violent offender with no history of violence, firearm misuses, or subsequent convictions,’ and he is ‘employed, married, and does not use illicit drugs, all of which correspond with lower rates of recidivism.’”In her concluding remarks, Judge Barrett, citing the seminal Second Amendment Heller case, made the pertinent points that,“If the Second Amendment were subject to a virtue limitation, there would be no need for the government to produce—or for the court to assess—evidence that nonviolent felons have a propensity for dangerous behavior. But Heller forecloses the ‘civic right’ argument on which a virtue limitation depends. And while both Wisconsin and the United States have an unquestionably strong interest in protecting the public from gun violence, they have failed to show, by either logic or data, that disarming Kanter substantially advances that interest. On this record, holding that the ban is constitutional as applied to Kanter does not ‘put the government through its paces,’ but instead treats the Second Amendment as a ‘second-class right’ [a point articulated by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas] subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees. I therefore dissent.” Incidentally, in her dissent, Judge Barrett cited, with approval, to Judge Thomas Hardiman's Second Amendment analysis in the oft cited Second Amendment case, Binderup v. AG of United States, 836 F.3d 336, 357 (3d Cir. 2016) (en banc) (Hardiman, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgments). Judge Hardiman is at present a U.S. Appellate Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Hardiman is also on President Trump’s short list to sit on the High Court, as he was when President Trump ultimately decided to go with Judge Neil Gorsuch, in 2016, just weeks into President Trump's first term in Office. Judge Hardiman was the first runner-up. President Trump recognizes the importance of the U.S. Supreme Court in preserving the structure of our Nation in the form the founders conceived for it. Nominating a jurist to sit on the High Court was one of President Trump's first acts as President, and one that he had promised the electorate; a promise he kept. As a staunch defender of the Second Amendment, Judge Hardiman would, as with Judge Barrett, make an outstanding Justice, and he would be the ideal replacement for Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, a Bill Clinton nominee, who is 82 years old, the oldest Justice on the Court, in the event that President Trump nominates Judge Barrett to take the seat on the High Court, vacated by Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upon the Associate Justice's recent death.Both Judge Hardiman and Judge Barrett utilize the jurisprudential methodology of the late Associate Justice Antonin Scalia when analyzing and deciding cases, and they share the same reverence for the U.S. Constitution and for the Bill of Rights, as conceived by the framers of the Constitution.Of course, the Radical Left Democrats and other Soros funded Marxists don’t give a damn about fundamental rights or logic. They are inherently nihilistic, stubborn, irascible, irrational, obtuse, smugly self-righteous, and abjectly hateful. And they have other plans for our Nation, for our Nation's Constitution, and for our Nation's citizenry. And, in the near future, their aim is to do their damnedest to thwart confirmation of any further Trump nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court followed by attempts, by hook or by crook to defeat a Trump victory in November. If successful in that endeavor, they plan to resurrect Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the form of another liberal-wing activist jurist—perhaps, Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama sought to sit on the High Court to replace Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, after the late Associate Justice's untimely and mysterious death. The Radical Left Marxists feel cheated out of the appointment of a liberal-wing activist jurist to the High Court. They feel disgruntled on two scores: the first, because Hillary Clinton failed to secure the U.S. Presidency, and, the second, because, as a result of her defeat, she could not nominate a liberal-wing successor to the High Court to replace the seat vacated by Justice Scalia after his death—a death, by the way, that has never been adequately explained—which should anger all Americans. Concerning Judge Garland, the Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about the danger  Garland poses to the preservation of the Second Amendment and to a free Republic.Judge Garland has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment. The danger he poses to our fundamental right to keep and bear arms is so obvious and so egregious that we felt the need to write to Senator Grassley, who, at the time, was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We argued strenuously against voting for a confirmation hearing for Judge Garland, lest a vote by the full Senate serve to confirm him. Fortunately, there was no Hearing. See our open letter to Senator Grassley, posted on April 26, 2016.The Democrats were so incensed at the perceived rebuff by Senate Republicans that they scheduled their own pseudo-hearing, ostensibly to demonstrate their anger toward and disdain for Republicans failure to schedule a confirmation hearing for Judge Garland. Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat Party member of the Senate Judiciary Committee presided over the pseudo-hearing that, while doing much, perhaps, to highlight Judge Garland's ostensibly finer qualities, namely his extensive experience as a judge, his intellectual acumen, and his judicial and personal temperament, did nothing to expose the serious flaws in Judge Garland's juridical, jurisprudential, and philosophical approach to the law, the latter of which are equally important for that person who would serve on the Highest Court in the Land. Those severe failings make abundantly clear that, however well-suited Merrick Garland might be to preside as a U.S. Circuit Court judge, the impact of his rulings on the fundamental rights of the American people, namely and particularly, on Second Amendment matters, through which the very sovereignty of the American people over Government is secured, would be in jeopardy, thereby endangering the continued survival of a free Constitutional Republic, as envisioned by the founders of our Nation. Politico reported, back in May of 2016:“Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland won’t be appearing before senators anytime soon for his confirmation hearing. So Senate Democrats are trying for the next best thing.Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will host a forum Wednesday featuring former top legal and government officials who know Garland personally and who will testify on behalf of the veteran jurist’s legal acumen and personal character.Among the names who’ll appear at the event: Abner Mikva, the former Democratic congressman and Clinton White House counsel who, like Garland, served as the chief judge of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.‘The public discussion we are convening this week allows senators, the press, and the public to learn more about this highly qualified nominee and the importance of a fully functioning Supreme Court,” said Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, who will formally announce the event later Monday. “I hope all senators will join us for this public meeting.’ ” They didn't. And Senator Leahy and those Democrats that appeared for the “forum” (really a mock-hearing that Senator Leahy refused to countenance as a mock hearing) only succeeded in making utter fools of themselves. Democrats and their Marxist and neoliberal Globalist fellow travelers continue to lash out like petulant children. They have unleashed and continue to unleash incessant unprovoked, senseless chaos on President Trump, on the American people, and on our Nation. They have pointedly said that they intend to tear down the Nation if they don't get their way. But, then, they intend to tear down the Nation, if they do get their way, anyway, So, then, what's the point of their threat? Let them continue to make jackasses of themselves. Once Trump emerges victorious in November, he will take appropriate action against those elements in society that have made clear their intention to tear our Nation down. That isn't going to happen.U.S. Senate Republicans now have an opportunity to set matters right and, in doing so, render, as well, something in the way of a little payback, which will undoubtedly result in yet more churlish, childish, clownish antics and unseemly behavior.But, nothing the Radical Left Democrats and their mob of malcontents drum up will prevent President Trump from naming a jurist to sit on the High Court seat vacated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, upon her death; and nothing these Radical Left Democrats and their rabid, horde of troublemakers orchestrate to hamper the confirmation process will prevent Republicans from accomplishing their goal, thereby securing a free Constitutional Republic and preserving our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties for generations of Americans to come.The Arbalest Quarrel encourages President Trump to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, or, in the alternative, to nominate Judge Thomas Hardiman, as a replacement for the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, to sit on the high Court. And we encourage Senators Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell to speed the confirmation process through to completion before the coming momentous U.S. Presidential election.And——Woe to those Senate Republicans who fail to vote for confirmation of Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court.___________________________*Months ago, when word came down that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had suffered a recurrence of her pancreatic cancer, first diagnosed eleven years ago, the Arbalest Quarrel was skeptical of news accounts suggesting that Justice Ginsburg’s cancer was under control.We therefore were not taken off guard when we heard that Ginsburg was readmitted to a hospital in July.NPR reported that “Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is back in the hospital, this time to treat a possible infection. She spiked a fever Monday night, according to a press release from the Supreme Court, and on Tuesday underwent an endoscopic procedure to clean out a bile duct stent that was inserted in August [2019?] The procedure was done at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore after Ginsburg was first evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. . . . According to a press release from the court's press officer, the justice is ‘resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment.’It marks the second time Ginsburg has been hospitalized recently. In May, the justice underwent nonsurgical treatment for a benign gallbladder condition at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and she participated in oral arguments from her hospital bed.”On July 30, 2020, the New York Post reported that Ginsburg revealed “she was undergoing chemotherapy for a recurrence of cancer –but insisted she had no plans to retire,” reiterating the point made, as reported in The New York Times, on July 17, 2020: “Justice Ginsburg was typically optimistic in her statement. ‘I have often said I would remain a member of the court as long as I can do the job full steam,’ she said. ‘I remain fully able to do that.’”  In that article, The New York Times pointed to Ginsburg’s Doctors who said that Ginsburg was doing remarkably well, even as they admitted she had advanced pancreatic cancer.Like Chief Justice Rehnquist, Ginsburg refused to step down from the Bench even as Democrats encouraged her to do so. If Democrats are up in arms over the decision of President Trump to nominate a successor to the late Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and if they are in a blood-thirsty rage over Senate Republicans intent to hold a confirmation hearing on that nomination, prior to the U.S. Presidential election, they should blame both fate and themselves for the turn of events, and blame, no less, the late Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, herself, as Justice Ginsburg must have had some understanding, eleven years ago, when Barack Obama was President, that her life expectancy was short, and that resigning at a time when Barack Obama could have named, as her successor, another Leftist activist Associate Justice to the High Court, several years before the next general election would have cemented liberal-wing control of the Court for generations, as the liberal-wing could count on Chief Justice Roberts to sit in their corner on many if not most cases that came before the Court. Certainly one Obama nominee or another would have been confirmed. That nominee, back in 2011, could very well have been Judge Merrick Garland, who had been sitting as a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit since 1995 when then President Bill Clinton nominated him to serve on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Senate voted to confirm that nomination. The Democrats had, for several years, considered Judge Garland to be a strong contender for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. In fact, had he received a hearing by the full Senate, he would undoubtedly have been confirmed. Past U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch made that point crystal clear. Hatch, a Republican no less, hailing from Utah, said he supported Garland's confirmation, and would work to see that Garland was confirmed as an Associate Justice to sit on the High Court. Reuters reported, at the time, back in 2010, that,“A Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee said on Thursday he would help moderate jurist Merrick Garland win Senate confirmation if President Barack Obama nominated him to the U.S. Supreme Court.Senator Orrin Hatch said he had known the federal appeals court judge, seen as a leading contender for the Supreme Court, for years and that he would be ‘a consensus nominee.”Asked if Garland would win Senate confirmation with bipartisan support, Hatch told Reuters, ‘No question.’‘I have no doubts that Garland would get a lot of (Senate) votes. And I will do my best to help him get them,’  added Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman. ’”That happenstance should not be lost on anyone who cherishes preservation of the Bill of Rights and the continuation of a Free Constitutional Republic. To prevent such a calamity is reason enough for Senator Grassley, who then presided over the Senate Judiciary Committee, and for Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, to prevent a confirmation hearing for Garland, as his nomination would endanger the Second Amendment. And if the Second Amendment fell, so, eventually, would fall all the other sacred Rights and Liberties of the American people, an apocalyptic eventuality. Just imagine the turnabout in the Heller case, if Garland had sat in Justice Scalia's seat on the High Court in 2008 when Heller was decided. Let there be no mistake, the Republican controlled U.S. Senate fulfilled its obligation under the Advice and Consent clause of Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Senate did consider Barack Obama's nominee to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Merrick Garland, and thereupon advised the Obama that the Senate does not consent to confirmation. Judge Garland's methodological approach to case analysis, and his jurisprudential leanings make him ill-suited to sit on the High Court. And his experience as a jurist and intellect and legal acumen do not compensate for his errant philosophical bent; one wholly inconsistent with the tenets of Individualism upon which our Constitution rests. Moreover, the fact that the Senate's refusal to permit a confirmation hearing from taking place does not mean that the Senate failed to fulfill its Constitutional requirement of Advice and Consent. The Senate Majority, did fulfill its duty, in Committee. That a confirmation hearing before the full Senate, did not occur, is irrelevant. The decision of the Senate Republican Majority was in keeping with the Constitutional Advice and Consent requirement and consistent with the will of the electorate whom that Republican Majority represents.There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that expressly states or tacitly suggests that the Senate, in its entirety, must hold a confirmation hearing, as the full Senate establishes its own rules of conduct and the full Senate had previously declared the process through which the Advice and Consent requirement of Senate is to be fulfilled. That process is laid bare for all to see at the website law2.umkc.edu: “Judicial nominations are forwarded to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which conducts its own review (using its staff and those of its members) of the merits of the nominee.  Hearings are held in which the nominee, as well as other persons knowledgeable about the nominee's qualifications, offer statements and answer questions posed by Committee members.  After the hearing, the Judiciary Committee votes on whether to recommend confirmation of the nominee by the full Senate.  A nominee who fails to win a majority of Committee votes usually sees his prospects die, unless the Committee chooses to forward the nomination to the full Senate without recommendation. The full Senate, once a nomination is sent to it, will debate the merits of the nominee and schedule a final vote on confirmation.  On rare occasions, as happened when charges of sexual harassment surfaced at the last minute against Clarence Thomas, a nomination might be sent back to the Judiciary Committee for further hearings. A simple majority is required for confirmation.  The average time in recent decades between a presidential nomination of a Supreme Court justice and a final vote by the Senate has been a bit over two months.”So, let the Democrat leadership and Marxists and Transnationalists lament and bemoan their failure to destroy our free Constitutional Republic. The Good Lord Above has ordained our Nation, a free and independent and sovereign Nation, must continue to exist as such; that it should not suffer the fate of Marxist Dictatorships like Venezuela or Cuba, that have fallen into abject ruin, or the fate of such repressive Communist Dictatorships as China that keeps its population under strict surveillance and control, clamping down vigorously on any dissent.If the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg were truly concerned about securing liberal-wing control of the High Court, then she might have acted more pragmatically, voluntarily, if reluctantly, stepping down from the Court when Obama was President, rather than defiantly, stubbornly resisting resignation, perhaps presuming, wrongly, as so many had, that the Executive Branch would remain in Democrat hands; that a smooth transition from Obama to Hillary Clinton, would take place, and that a Democrat in the White House would be making nominations to the U.S. Supreme Court and to the lower federal courts. Ginsburg may have regretted having failed to step down, years earlier. CNN reports that, “Shortly before dying Friday, Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter: ‘My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.’ ”Perhaps Ginsburg did make that deathbed statement; perhaps not. In any event, that utterance, if, in fact, made, must remain, at best, as wish fulfillment, grounded, perhaps, in regret for failing to see that maybe, just maybe, Hillary Clinton would not succeed Barack Obama as U.S. President after all. And, the fact that Hillary Clinton failed to realize her ultimate ambition and the fact that Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists failed to realize their vision for a unified one-world system of governance, amount to an intolerable loss for them as that loss has made all the difference in the world that exists—a world where the United States, and many other independent, sovereign nation states that seek to remain so, have found reprieve—a world that Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists find intolerable and have made clear they will not abide.“The chief of staff to Vice President Pence on Sunday defended the administration's decision to ignore the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's deathbed request not to fill her seat until after the election, telling CNN that it was not Ginsburg's choice to make. ” The choice Ginsburg could have made and should have made if her intent was to maintain a liberal-wing activist majority or, at least, to maintain some semblance of ideological, jurisprudential, and methodological counter-balance to the conservative-wing, the latter of which is loath to tinker with the Constitution, was to resign, back in 2011, when she was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She dismissed out-of-hand any suggestion that she do so.Recall Steve Jobs death from pancreatic cancer on October 06, 2011. Steve Jobs was substantially younger that Ginsburg and therefore, presumably, stronger. No matter; he still died, after battling cancer for seven years. VOA News reported,“Apple co-founder Steve Jobs' death at the age of 56 followed a seven-year battle with a rare form of pancreatic cancer - the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. The disease is hard to treat because it is difficult to diagnose. The pancreas is embedded deep in the abdomen, and often, symptoms of cancer become evident at a very late, advanced stage of the disease.” Given the ominous signs of Ginsburg’s rapidly deteriorating health, in the last several months notwithstanding mainstream media attempts to sugarcoat the prescient signs of Ginsburg’s imminent demise and the penchant of the seditious Press to incessantly and blatantly and unapologetically lie to the American public, the Arbalest Quarrel penned an article in July that we had not gotten around to publish, but feel it still apropos to post here, albeit, after the fact of Ginsburg’s death, as it is an appropriate lead-in to the pressing matter confronting the Nation, now, as Ginsburg's death, coming when it has, is a godsend of a kind, even as it is a personal tragedy for Ginsburg's family nonetheless, for her death truly forces the American public to consider what is at stake. The Nation is able now to cut through the smoke and mirrors of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus plague and the gloomy economy wrought by the plague that the Radical Left have attempted to use to their advantage. The public has a choice and it is a clearly demarcated one: either to retain a free Constitutional Republic where the people are sovereign and Government exists to serve the people; where independence of thought and action is encouraged; and where an American spirit and a Judeo-Christian ethos exists; all of which have benefitted our Country and our people since the Nation's inception; or we can toss it all out the window, and see our Nation merged into a one-world system of governance, one demanding the loss of personal freedom and liberty, the loss of independent thought and action; a world where people exist to serve a grandiose, bloated State and are dependent on Government largess for their needs, a Collectivist nightmare. It is this or that; one or the other; not both, and not an amalgam of the two as they are inherently incompatible. A U.S. Supreme Court comprising multiple copies of Ruth Bader Ginsburg will ensure the existence of the latter. A U.S. Supreme Court comprising jurists in the mold of the late eminent Justice, Antonin Scalia will help ensure the continued existence of the former, one predicated on the tenets of Individualism, not Collectivism.In our unpublished article, drafted in late July, titled, “Is It Too Soon to Consider Another Trump Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court,”  which we feel appropriate to post here, even though after the fact, we wrote,“One year ago, Associate Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then 86 years old, underwent cancer surgery. ABC News reported, at the time, July 25, 2019, that,“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflected on her health amid concerns for the 86-year-old, who underwent cancer surgery in December that caused her to miss oral arguments for the first time in 25 years.The progressive justice, who has become a pop culture icon dubbed ‘the Notorious RBG’ and a hero for young activists, dismissed concerns over her health in an interview with NPR published Tuesday, saying she is ‘very much alive.’”Well, Ginsberg’s assertion that she is ‘very much alive’ is, on one level, certainly true, but trivially so, because, as a matter of elementary logic, one is alive, or one is not. And, apparently, at that moment, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wasn’t dead; ergo, she was very much alive.But, given the nuances of language, the assertion goes to the issue of Ginsberg’s current state of health. Obviously, Ginsberg was, at that time, not in the pink of health. Were she not a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, the concern over Ginsberg’s health or, indeed, whether she was alive or not, would be of little concern to anyone outside of her network of family and friends. But, the fact that Ginsberg is an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, her life and well-being is and should be the subject of intense focus to Americans since, she is one of a select few people who wields substantial power over the life and well-being of the rest of us.On July 14, 2020, news outlets uniformly reported that Ginsberg was in the hospital due to an infection. The irrepressible, CNN, for one, reported that,“Ruth Bader Ginsberg has been taken to the hospital and treated for a possible infection, according to a court spokeswoman.‘Justice Ginsburg was admitted to The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland early this morning for treatment of a possible infection,’ spokeswoman Kathleen Arberg said Tuesday.‘She was initially evaluated at Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington, D.C. last night after experiencing fever and chills. She underwent an endoscopic procedure at Johns Hopkins this afternoon to clean out a bile duct stent that was placed last August. The Justice is resting comfortably and will stay in the hospital for a few days to receive intravenous antibiotic treatment.’It's the latest development in Ginsburg's lengthy history of medical issues while serving on the high court—though she's proven adept at continuing her job without interruption.”One might have pondered if, given the era of the Chinese Coronavirus in which we live, Ginsberg might have contracted the disease, not an unheard-of possibility. But the lack of any acknowledgment of that sort of infection, one could not help but wonder if the news report was a deliberate attempt at obfuscation to mask another malady. And, then, on July 17, it comes to light that Ginsberg is in the hospital because of a flare up of her cancer and that she is undergoing chemotherapy. In bullet points, Business Insider reported that,“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced Friday that she was undergoing chemotherapy treatments to combat a ‘reoccurrence of cancer.’

• The 87-year-old had recently been hospitalized for an infection stemming from a medical procedure on a tumor found on her pancreas.
• ‘I am tolerating chemotherapy well and am encouraged by the success of my current treatment,’ Ginsburg said in a statement.
• ‘I will continue bi-weekly chemotherapy to keep my cancer at bay, and am able to maintain an active daily routine,’ the statement said. ‘Throughout, I have kept up with opinion writing and all other Court work.’

Following another recent heath scare, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg announced Friday that she was undergoing chemotherapy to treat a ‘reoccurrence of cancer.’Ginsburg, 87, has survived cancer four times before.”The Daily Mail reported, on July 17, 2020, Ginsberg’s remark that, although she revealed that her cancer has returned, she “will not quit Supreme Court while she can work ‘full steam.’. . . ‘I have often said I would remain a member of the court as long as I can do the job full steam. I remain fully able to do that.’” Ginsberg’s remarks are all well and good, but one is reminded of Rehnquist’s intention to remain on the Court even as CNN remarked, on June 22, 2005 that, at that time, the Chief Justice looked “frail” and that, “He has been on a physically demanding pace since October, when he had an emergency tracheotomy after being diagnosed with thyroid cancer, for which he later endured weeks of chemotherapy and radiation.The chief justice has released no information about the seriousness of his condition, but his treatment regimen led cancer specialists to conclude he had a serious, invasive form of cancer, with a possibly dire prognosis.”Less than two and a half months later the Chief Justice was dead, as reported by fox news.This brings us back to the question of Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health. She is 7 years older than the Chief Justice, and she is most certainly unwell.Imagine for a moment that Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s health neither improves nor remains at a plateau but declines precipitously between now and the fall.There is an election looming—certainly most critical in the last one hundred and fifty years. When Justice Scalia died—by natural means or not—in 2016, Trump made poignantly clear his intention to name a successor, quickly. And he did so, fulfilling a critical campaign promise. The New York Times reported, “Pledging to move quickly to fulfill what he has called the most important promise of his campaign, President-elect Donald J. Trump said on Wednesday that he would name a nominee to the Supreme Court ‘within about two weeks’ of his inauguration on Jan. 20.At a news conference in Trump Tower, he thanked the leaders of two prominent conservative groups for their help in vetting candidates, a strong indication that his main priority remains choosing an unwavering conservative to fill the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died last February.Democrats are promising a furious fight over any nominee they consider to be out of the legal mainstream, saying that Republicans effectively stole a Supreme Court seat from President Obama by refusing for almost a year to consider his nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland, a respected appeals court judge with a moderate record.”And furious fight the Democrats waged when Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch for U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But even that nomination fight paled in comparison to the gladiatorial circus on display during the Kavanaugh Senate confirmation hearing. Imagine the battle that will loom if Ruth Bader Ginsberg dies a month or so before the election.And, that that has in fact transpired. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg is now dead, we will soon see just how calamitous the aftereffects of that event will be on our people and on our Nation._______________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A LACKLUSTER NYC MAYOR AND NYPD’S BRASS THAT WON’T SHINE

PART ONE

NYC MAYOR DE BLASIO’S RECIPE FOR DISASTER

Crime is rampant in New York City today. A rational person would expect the Mayor of the City, Bill de Blasio, to work diligently with the Commissioner of Public Safety to develop and implement a comprehensive, concrete plan to deal expeditiously and effectively with this public disorder. Instead, the Mayor remonstrates against the police and essentially orders the police to stand down. This suggests either that the Mayor doesn’t comprehend the severity of the problem affecting the City and is incompetent or he is intentionally inviting anarchy to reign in the City, and the man is insane.In a City as large as NYC the Mayor’s failure to take charge and deal with the mounting violence and chaos amounts, at the very least, to a serious dereliction of duty. Perhaps the Mayor thinks violence and chaos will sort itself out by itself. It won’t; it never does. A person must be dull-witted to think otherwise. Something must be done. Consider——New York City, with a population of over 8.7 million people, is the largest City in the Country,  and among the largest in the world.Moreover, NYC has the highest density of any major U.S. City, with over 27,000 people per square mile. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/planning/planning-level/nyc-population/population-facts.page.But does population density itself have an impact on crime? If so, does population density tend to increase the crime rate, or reduce it?In 2011, the Radical Left publication “The Atlantic,” writing about population density and crime rates,said this:“To offer a policy observation, higher density helps reduce street crime in an urban environment in two ways. One is that in a higher density city, any given street is less likely to be empty of passersby at any given time. The other is that if a given patch of land has more citizens, that means it can also support a larger base of police officers. And for policing efficacy both the ratio of cops to citizens and of cops to land matters. Therefore, all else being equal a denser city will be a better policed city.” The Atlantic’s first observation, that higher population density reduces street crime in an urban environment, is false.Professor Keith Harries, Department of Geography and Environmental Systems at the University of Maryland, posted, in an academic publication—“International Journal of Criminal Justice”—his study that deals with the issue of population density and crime rates and refutes the Atlantic’s conclusion. The Professor’s article serves as a well-reasoned, scientifically supported counterpoint to the Atlantic’s assertion.In the opening abstract to the study, published in July 2006, Harries states that——“The role of population density in the generation or suppression of crime has been the subject of debate for decades. The classic argument is that high density offers opportunities for property crimes, given that it is a surrogate for the distribution of private property, much of which offers attractive targets to thieves. On the other hand, densely populated areas offer natural surveillance that has the effect of inhibiting violent crimes in so far as witnesses are more abundant and events are more likely to be reported to police. In this analysis, property and violent crimes were selected from a database of over 100,000 crimes reported in Baltimore County, Maryland, U.S.A., in the year 2000. Densities of population and of property and violent crimes were calculated for city blocks. Blocks with population densities above the mean of all blocks were then retained for further consideration.” Professor Harries concludes—— Analysis demonstrated that both property and violent crimes were moderately correlated with population density, and these crimes largely affected the same blocks. It was concluded that at the block level of geography, no evidence of a differential between property and violent crimes based on population density could be detected.” So, contrary to The Atlantic’s naked, unsupported remarks, the size of population and density do correlate with both property crime and violent crime; and they do so directly, not inversely, which means that, as population density increases in a given “block level of geography,” both property crime and violent crime increase as well.The Atlantic’s second observation is that, as the size of a community grows, a community’s police force also grows and, concomitant with a larger police force, “all else being equal a denser city will be a better policed city.”That observation, true once, perhaps, in all jurisdictions, is true no longer—not today—and certainly not in the jurisdictions comprising the Radical Left’s bizarro world.

DESTRUCTION OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS THE END GOAL OF THE RADICAL LEFT

Radical Left mayors, taking their cue from domestic terrorist organizations like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, have defunded their police or are seriously considering doing so. They have substantially reduced the number of police—despite or, perhaps, in arrogant defiance of the continuous, rampant violence afflicting their cities, and notwithstanding the absence of a corresponding decrease in population size—or have seriously considered doing so.These Mayors have also hamstrung those police remaining in their community—those who have not been summarily let go or who have otherwise voluntarily, and certainly understandably, resigned or who have taken early retirement—and in droves.After all why should police officers, honorable citizens, subject to the same feelings and emotions of any other law-abiding American citizen, wish to remain in service to a community when a city’s leadership prevents those officers from effectively performing their duties to preserve and protect the residents of their community and to maintain public order, civility, and decorum; when a city’s leadership refuses to prosecute crime; when a city’s leadership establishes policies that do nothing to constrain or curtail crime, and actually endanger the lives and well-being of police officers; and when a city’s leadership castigates and demoralizes the police, by continually railing and remonstrating against them, and, at once, extolling as virtuous the very rabble that seeks to tear down a community—a community that is the home of the police officers themselves.In fact, some Radical Left mayors have even considered eliminating police departments from their communities. The result is, as any reasonable person would expect, utter chaos, wanton destruction of public and private property, contempt for both the police and the criminal justice system; and willful and horrific violence directed against both police and innocent people.Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, Chicago represent,  for the political and social scientist, pertinent case studies of what happens when a City is rudderless and law and order break down; when politicians and the Press, too, deny the fact of and the scale of the horror that besets a nation; when public leaders act like irresponsible children, falling in line with a seemingly popular but misguided clique of sanctimonious, pretentious do-gooders who have nothing beneficial to offer the American people except venom, vitriol, and spite.The police are not society’s enemies. America’s police departments are the guardians of society. The Radical Left knows this. Anarchy reigns if the police are not permitted to function. They know this too. That is why they attack the very concept of  the ‘community police department.’ They know that, once the police go, society goes with it—down the drain. That is what they want: The United States, a free Constitutional Republic eradicated; erased; the vision of the founders forgotten. That is the aim of the Neoliberal Globalists and of the Radical Left of all stripes: A Counter-Revolution to reconstitute America into a thing utterly alien: a hideous, despondent, depleted mutant creature.New York City—as with Portland, Seattle, Chicago, and Minneapolis—is metastasizing into just such an abhorrent creature; and, if uncontained and unconstrained, it can bring down the rest of the Country with it.The burning question: With a huge and heterogenous population, the City requires an equally massive police force—one capable of quelling riots, suppressing crime, and maintaining peace and public order. But is New York up to the task? It is possible, but not with a Marxist Nihilist City Mayor like Bill de Blasio at the helm.___________________________________________________

MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO STANDS IN THE WAY OF A SAFER NEW YORK

PART TWO

AN AMERICAN CITY REQUIRES BOTH A COMMUNITY POLICE FORCE TO MAINTAIN THE PEACE AND TO PROMOTE PUBLIC ORDER, AND A WELL ARMED CITIZENRY TO PROTECT PERSONAL LIFE AND PROPERTY AND TO GUARD AGAINST TYRANNY. UNDER DE BLASIO NYC HAS NEITHER ONE

America’s cities, as components of the Nation—a free Constitutional Republic—require both a community police force to maintain peace and to promote public order, and a well-armed citizenry to protect personal life and property and to guard against tyranny. Each component lends to peace, prosperity, and liberty. They each work in tandem, for the benefit of all Americans.Through time, how well has New York City faired in the matter of maintaining a capable, efficient, effective police force and in recognizing the right of the people to keep and bear arms? Let us see.

IS THE NYPD UP TO THE TASK TO PERFORM ITS DUTIES IN A MAMMOTH, HIGHLY CONCENTRATED AND DIVERSE POPULATION?

On its website, this is what the NYPD tells us—“The New York City Police Department (NYPD) is the largest and one of the oldest municipal police departments in the United States. . . . The NYPD was established in 1845, and today, is responsible for policing an 8.5-million-person city, by performing a wide variety of public safety, law enforcement, traffic management, counterterror, and emergency response roles.” The NYPD adds this comment on its website: “In the past 25 years, the department has achieved spectacular declines in both violent and property crime, ensuring that New York City has the lowest overall rate of major crimes in the 25 largest cities in the country.” Does this statement ring true? Well, it was once true.Under former City Mayors, Rudolf Giuliani and Michael Bloomberg, crime was in fact brought under control. And it in fact took 25 years to do so—to repair the carnage wrought to the City under the stewardship of David Dinkins, a Democrat, who served as Mayor for one term: from January 1, 1990 through December 31, 1993.The public had had enough of Dinkins. He was defeated by a Republican, Giuliani, in 1994.We compliment Giuliani and Bloomberg on what they did right, improving the City’s economy and taking a hard stance on crime. But their consistent attack on the fundamental, natural right of armed self-defense is indefensible.A WELL-EQUIPPED, WELL ORGANIZED, WELL-FUNDED, COMMUNITY POLICE DEPARTMENT IS NECESSARY TO FIGHT CRIME, TO MAINTAIN ORDER, AND TO KEEP THE PEACE IN INDIVIDUAL COMMUNITIES; BUT A POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT STAND AS, AND CANNOT STAND AS, A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE ARMED CITIZENRY, AS ONLY AN ARMED CITIZENRY CAN ADEQUATELY PROVIDE FOR, AND HAS THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE FOR ITS OWN DEFENSE AND TO SERVE AS THE BEST DETERRENT OF AND THE FINAL FAIL-SAFE TO THWART THE ONSET OF TYRANNY; THEREFORE IT IS WELL SAID AND HAS BEEN ETCHED IN STONE THAT “A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”The maintenance of public safety and order, to preserve and protect a community, is, and always has been, the frontline duty of a community’s police force. That is why the modern police department exists and has existed in our cities since at least the first third of the 20th Century, although the institution of policing existed much earlier, going back to the colonial days.But the duty to preserve and protect one’s own life and that of one’s family is personal, and the duty to ensure the security of and continuity of a free state and the immutable, illimitable sovereignty of the American people over Government remains forever in the hands of the people themselves; never in a standing army; nor in a federal or state or local police force; nor in the Nation’s massive intelligence apparatus, nor even in the Nation’s system of laws, which are, as has been disturbingly, depressingly shown, especially in the matter of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, susceptible to flagrant abuse; nor, as it has come to pass, in a Press that has misused its freedom, selling out our Country and our Nation’s people. And, of late, the Press has done so with wild abandon: officiously, audaciously: sermonizing endlessly, and sanctimoniously, and condescendingly to the American citizenry, as if the citizenry were merely an ignorant flock of sheep that must be constantly herded lest it go astray.Only through force of arms does the raw and awesome power of the American citizenry ring true. Only through force of arms can the American citizenry maintain the security and continuity of a free State as against those—be they inside or outside the Nation—who would dare usurp ultimate authority from the citizenry in whom that authority and sovereignty rightfully belong. Only through the force of arms can those who would dare hobble the American spirit be effectively constrained and contained and learn well that Americans are not to be toyed with.Apparently, neither New York City mayors nor New York State governors have gotten the message. Or, if they have, they have failed to heed it, and must be reminded of it.And it isn’t the duty of the police to provide for one’s personal safety; nor is it the duty of the police to guarantee the security of a free State, and never was. That duty rests solely, as it always has, as it always must, and as it was always meant to rest, in the people themselves.Yet, the City’s mayors have invariably, and grievously, and notoriously mistaken the duties, and functions, and responsibilities of the one with the duties, and functions, and responsibilities of the other; ultimately conflating the two; inferring, whether erroneously or disingenuously, that the police are fully capable of and should alone be tasked with the duties, functions, and responsibilities that the founders, in their wisdom recognized, and mandated must rest, as the Divine Creator intended, in full accord with the natural order of things, solely on the individual.The founders codified that natural law in the U.S. Constitution. More than two centuries have past since ratification of the U.S. Constitution. The Nation has adhered to natural law. Natural law is the foundational strength upon which the Constitution, the blueprint of our Nation, rests: the Nation's Bill of Rights. And through no accident, our Country has become the happiest, most productive, most  prosperous, most powerful, and most beneficent Nation on Earth.Now, though, we see cracks, deep fissures forming in our beautiful, wondrous blueprint. Why is that? How did that come about? There are sinister, ruthless, and jealous forces at work who are hell-bent on destroying the foundational principles of our Nation. Although these forces have actually been at work to tear down our Nation since the moment it came to fruition, in 1788, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. But only recently has the full nature of and fury of these malevolent, malignant forces come to light. Americans are seeing unnatural, loathsome elements taking control of many major urban centers. And the Democrat Party—or, rather, what the Democrat Party, controlled by their own Globalist puppet-masters, has devolved into—is using these abhorrent hordes in a bid to take complete control over the reins of Government. These rabid, mindless hordes are operating with near complete abandon in several major urban centers. If the Democrats take control of Government in November, this rancid mob of malcontents will be unleashed, infecting all Cities, townships, and villages. Armageddon will ensue across the Nation.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS WAS CODIFIED IN THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO PREVENT THE NATION’S ANNIHILATION: THE VERY THREAT PRESENTED TODAY

Most States recognize the transcendent soundness of the Nation’s Bill of Rights and have adopted its language in their own State Constitutions, mirroring the Nation’s Constitution, including, most importantly, the language of the Second Amendment. But seven States have demurred, thinking they know better. One of those seven States is New York.THE SECOND AMENDMENT PRESERVES THE COUNTRY’S STABILITY; ITS LACK WILL END ITThe language of the Second Amendment appears nowhere in the State’s Constitution. Rather, the Second Amendment language, taken verbatim from the U.S. Constitution, but for the substitution of the  word 'shall' for 'cannot'—“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed,”—appears in the Consolidated laws of New York, Article 2 (Bill of Rights) of the Civil Rights Law, along with certain other “Rights” but notably, not in THE Bill of Rights, Article 1 of the State Constitution itself.This means New York considers the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be statutory, not fundamental, and, hence, debased to the status of a privilege, not a true right, subject, then, to constant modification and tinkering, which of course it has been.The 2008 U.S. Supreme Court Heller case made clear what sensible Americans always knew; that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not tied to one’s service in a militia, and the subsequent 2010 U.S. Supreme Court McDonald case held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms applies to the States as well as to the Federal Government. No matter: New York, and several other jurisdictions routinely and contemptuously ignore those clear, adamant U.S. Supreme Court holdings. And New York’s residents pay the price for the New York judiciary’s insolence and contentiousness. Rampant destruction, understandable fear among the polity, and needless, senseless loss of life follow where armed self-defense ceases to exist.

NEW YORK CITY, A MAJOR URBAN CENTER, PROVIDES AN OBJECT LESSON IN THE TRAPS AND SNARES OF WRONGHEADED, PIGHEADED MAYORAL LEADERSHIP, COMMENCING WITH THE LUDICROUS IDEA THAT AN ARMED CITIZENRY ENDANGERS THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF THE CITY, RATHER THAN ENHANCING THE CITY’S SAFETY AND SECURITY

The NYPD doesn’t comprise legions of personal bodyguards to serve millions of New York City residents. It has neither the resources nor, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the legal responsibility to do so. And, pretending that the NYPD can fulfill that function—a function, duty, and responsibility of the average citizen residing in New York—has had disastrous consequences for the City.Truth to tell, the constant danger posed to average, innocent citizens residing in New York requires both a massive police presence to provide public order and safety and an armed citizenry to promote armed vigilance and safeguard one’s personal life and well-being. It isn’t an either/or consideration. See Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on November 21, 2019, titled, “Can We, As Individuals, Rely On The Police To Protect Us?” 

THE IMPLOSION OF NEW YORK CITY OCCURRED ONCE, TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO, UNDER DAVID DINKINS; UNDER DE BLASIO IT IS HAPPENING AGAIN, ONLY WORSE!

The Former New York City Commissioner of Public Safety (Police Commissioner), Bernard Kerik, recently and accurately pointed out, in newsmax, that,“Twenty-five years ago, New York City was about to implode.Violent crime and murder rates were the worst in the United States, tourism was declining, real estate values were plummeting, and economic development was in regression.There were close to 1.6 million people on welfare, and neighborhoods of color looked like the remnants of war-torn Beirut.City streets and highways were cluttered with stolen and abandoned cars.As Rudolph W. Giuliani focused on his second attempt to become New York’s mayor, most New Yorkers believed that New York City was just too filthy, corrupt, and violent to manage.Giuliani possessed a different view: He was adamant that no one wants to live, work, visit, or go to school in a place where they're not safe.For every percentage point he reduced violent crime, we witnessed increases in economic development, rising real estate values; and all-time highs in tourism. As he walked out of City Hall on his last day, there was close to 800,000 less people on welfare.New York City had become the safest large city in America.Over the next 12 years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly carried on Giuliani’s anti-crime strategies, both achieving continued reductions in violent crime and murder.Mayor Bloomberg used that success to trumpet New York City as America’s economic and business capital of the world, which opened the floodgates for thousands of new companies and jobs.By 2014, New York City was one of the cleanest, safest, and fastest growing cities globally.Then came Mayor Bill de Blasio.” What happened next?Bill de Blasio single-handedly undid all the positive work of Giuliani and Bloomberg in rebuilding the City and making the City a safe place to live and to work. This hasn’t gone unnoticed; not least of all by police officers themselves. Retired NYPD sergeant, Joseph Giacalone, points out:“There have been more shootings so far this year in New York City than in all of 2019. . . . ‘“It only gets worse from here,” warned Joseph Giacalone, a retired NYPD sergeant and an adjunct professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.’”The NYPD would do well to update its website to reflect the stratospheric rise in crime under the stewardship of Mayor Bill de Blasio. The Mayor, taking his cue from the domestic terrorist organization, Black Lives Matter, has completely hobbled the police, but, at one and the same time continues to resist recognition of the citizen’s right of “armed self-defense.”The right of the people to keep and bear arms continues to be a persistent bugaboo of all New York mayors. It is all the worse, today, in the topsy-turvy City of New York where a Marxist Mayor treats gang bangers, common criminals, dangerous lunatics, and Marxist rioters with kid gloves while at one and the same time castigates the police and spurns the public safety needs of ordinary citizens. The result——Bill de Blasio has single-handedly turned a once safe and thriving City into utter chaos, giving the green light to criminals and rioters and endangering the lives of average, law-abiding people.Quite an accomplishment! And de Blasio seems pleased with himself. His continuous obsequious behavior toward and grotesque relationship with Black Lives Matter demonstrates the toxic brew this creates, and the danger that such a coupling of Radical Left political leaders and domestic terrorist organizations poses to the stability of our Nation.The New York Post recently reported de Blasio as saying,“It was exactly the right thing to do to paint that mural and we’re going to keep sending that message constantly that Black Lives Matter in New York City, . . .”Marxist organizations—like Black Lives Matter—only matter to de Blasio. It is the organization, after all, that matters, and not actual Black lives.And, of course, de Blasio regularly denounces the NYPD. He has disbanded successful anticrime units; has demoralized the rank and file; has placed police officers in personal danger with his new policies; and he has advocated for the defunding of the entire Department.In having aligned himself with a domestic terrorist organization, Mayor de Blasio had apparently forgotten how he had not that long ago heralded the NYPD. Once, a little over a year ago, when Bill de Blasio hoped to secure his Party’s nomination for U.S. President, to take on Donald Trump—a long-shot bid if ever there was one—he realized that, to make headway, against a large field, he would have to take a major risk. He agreed to appear on Fox News, to be interviewed by Sean Hannity. The question of “gun control” came up.“Bill de Blasio defended his stance on gun control during an exclusive interview with Sean Hannity.De Blasio, the mayor of New York City, claimed New York is the safest large American city and that the police are the best outlet to keep people safe, on Wednesday’s ‘Hannity.’‘You’re in the safest big city in America. . . with the finest police force in America,’ he said.‘We keep people safe. Crime’s gone down for the last six years on my watch.’‘I believe right now what’s wrong in this country is not that people have rights around guns, it’s there are no gun safety measures like background checks.’” Of course, this exchange took place well before de Blasio hopped into the sack with Black Lives Matter. He has since forsaken the NYPD. Like many politicians, de Blasio is routinely dismissive of his audience, surmising wrongly, that the public is either too stupid or too gullible to notice the inherent inconsistencies and hypocrisies manifested in his bombastic utterings. See Arbalest Quarrel article, “NYC: The New Badlands,” posted on July 27, 2020.But, even if some Americans are oblivious to the pompous and vacuous assertions of this Mayor, they certainly cannot ignore what they see taking place; changes occurring at lightning speed; emphatic, insistent, and none of it pleasant: a City in turmoil; declining property values; the City’s economy shot-to-hell; skyrocketing crime; people leaving in droves; a Paradise to some—masochists and nihilists, likely—a vision of Hell to most; New York transformed into Venezuela.Governor Cuomo and Bill de Blasio continually bicker and snipe at each other, and blame their own failings on racism, Trump, Russia, or on anything or anyone else but for themselves. But they are of one mind when it comes to their Collectivist Dystopian vision. A Biden-Harris Presidency will see that Nihilist vision come true for the entire Nation.______________________________________________________

NYC MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE NOW

PART THREE

New York City cannot tolerate Bill de Blasio for the duration of his term. He must be removed before the City turns into the New Badlands. See, supra, Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “NYC: The New Badlands,” posted on July 27, 2020.

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THIS MAYOR?

Most New York City residents desire stability and cherish the free Constitutional Republic our founders placed their life on the line to give us. These New Yorkers do not much appreciate or accept the Mayor’s policies. They reflect his Marxist principles and philosophy, antithetical to their own. And the negative impact is plain: a once safe, secure, vibrant, and economically thriving City drained of all vitality.Can the Mayor do whatever the hell he wants and get away with it? No!Mayor de Blasio may think his policies are a step in the right direction even as peace and public order have been shot to hell. Any normal, rational person, though, would say the Mayor has utterly failed at his job.This brings up a pressing question: what are the Mayor’s duties, after all? New York law spells this out.

A MATTER OF LAW AND THE RULE OF LAW IN NEW YORK

In the reign of Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York City, the City’s residents would do well to peruse New York law. It says much regarding the duties and responsibilities of the Mayor who is supposed to serve them, but isn’t.NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 54 (Duties of the Mayor) sets forth that,“It shall be the duty of the mayor to see that the city officers and departments faithfully perform their duties; to maintain peace and good order within the city; to take care that the laws of the state and the ordinances of the common council are executed and enforced within the city. . . .”Further, NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 57 (Additional powers and duties) sets forth:“The mayor shall have such other powers and perform such other duties as may be prescribed in this chapter or by other laws of the state or by ordinance of the common council, not inconsistent with law. In case of riot, conflagration or other public emergency requiring it, the mayor shall have power to call out the police and firefighters; he or she shall also have power to appoint such number of special police officers as he or she may deem necessary to preserve the public peace. Such special police officers shall be under the sole control of the regularly appointed and constituted officers of the police department. They have shall have power to make arrests only for disorderly conduct or other offenses against peace or good order. In case of riot or insurrection, he or she may take command of the whole police force, including the chief executive officer thereof.”Do you think the Mayor is complying with NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 54? Clearly not!Mayor de Blasio has done nothing to end riot, conflagration, and public emergency. To the contrary, he has stoked it. He should be removed from Office. But can he be?The short answer is, “yes;” the Mayor can be removed from Office, prior to election. The process in New York isn’t quick and it isn’t easy, but it can be done.Unfortunately, New York doesn’t have a recall procedure, unlike other cities. Removing the Mayor from Office through the electoral process, prior to the general election, isn’t open to New York City’s citizens. And the next regular election won’t take place until November 2021. So, removing de Blasio, sooner, barring death, must be done, if at all, through the Courts.But can the Mayor be taken to Court? He can if he is considered an “officer” under New York State law, who has committed crimes under color of law.Under New York law, the Mayor is an officer of the City: an ‘elected officer,’NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 11 (Elected officers) provides that:“There shall be elected by the qualified electors of the city, a mayor, comptroller, treasurer, president of the common council and four assessors. There shall be elected by the qualified electors of each ward of the city an alderman and a supervisor. There shall also be elected by the qualified electors of the city and of the wards thereof such other officers as may be provided by law.”State law sets forth the grounds for removal of city officers. The mayor comes under the purview of NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 20 (Charges against city officers): “An officer of the city . . . shall be removed only upon charges, such charges shall be for disability for service or neglect or dereliction of official duty or incompetency or incapacity to perform his official duties or some delinquency materially affecting his general character or fitness for the office unless otherwise specifically provided by law.” The follow-up question is this: Has there been “disability for service or neglect or dereliction of official duty, or incompetency or incapacity to perform his official duties” sufficient to support a legal basis to remove de Blasio from Office?As an avowed and devoted Marxist, de Blasio operates in accord with the tenets and strictures of Marxist Collectivism. His supporters might argue he’s faithfully carrying out official duties, consistent with his ideological bent, namely, to promote Marxism. And many City residents seem satisfied with that, having voted him into Office in the first place.But there is a specific act de Blasio has undertaken that is inconsistent with his duties as Mayor, rendering the matter of his political and social philosophy and posture irrelevant.The Mayor is a trustee of the public’s property. Under NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 22, the Mayor, no less than any other officer of the City, whether elected or appointed, including members of the common council,“are hereby declared trustees of the property, funds and effects of said city respectively, so far as such property, funds and effects are or may be committed to their management or control, and every taxpayer residing in said city is hereby declared to be a cestui que trust in respect to the said property, funds and effects respectively; and any co-trustee or any cestui que trust shall be entitled as against said trustees and in regard to said property, funds and effects to all the rules, remedies and privileges provided by law for any co-trustee or cestui que trust; to prosecute and maintain an action to prevent waste and injury to any property, funds and estate held in trust; and such trustees are hereby made subject to all the duties and responsibilities imposed by law on trustees, and such duties and responsibilities may be enforced by the city or by any co-trustee or cestui que trust aforesaid. The remedies herein provided shall be in addition to those now provided by law.”Bill de Blasio has made clear his intention to defund the police to the tune of one billion dollars. But those funds are police funds, part of the budget necessary to maintain public order. His intention to take money away from the police is prima facie inconsistent with the Mayor’s principal duty “to maintain peace and good order within the City.” Doing so, during a period of rising crime—indeed, a stratospheric increase in crime—amounts to an act in flagrante delicto.The Mayor’s dislocation of valuable police resources, including disbanding anticrime units, hamstringing police operations, rewriting police policy to cohere with Marxist objectives that are wholly inconsistent with traditional and accepted police practice, destroying cohesion within the ranks of the police, and misappropriation of public funds necessary to the proper functioning police operations, demonstrate clear evidence of massive dereliction of official duties and incompetency, demanding de Blasio’s immediate removal from office.Of course, a lawsuit against de Blasio might not, and probably would not, succeed—as Radical Left forces along with a seditious Press would be marshalled against such a lawsuit—but it would send a clear and stark message, to both de Blasio and to those who support a Radical Left insurgency, nonetheless; a message that reverberates throughout the Country, that, yes, Radical Left political leaders can be prosecuted for their crimes, too.

WHAT OTHER ACTION MIGHT BE TAKEN TO CONSTRAIN A RENEGADE MAYOR?

Lawsuits against public officers are an expensive and time-consuming process. Can something expeditiously be done to curb de Blasio’s actions?As a stopgap, the present Police Commissioner, Dermot F. Shea, can try, at least, to keep the Mayor’s power in check, refusing to implement policies that endanger public order and safety. But would Shea even want to?Remember, Mayor de Blasio appointed Shea. He did so obviously because they share a similar political and social philosophy. In fact, The New York Times quoted de Blasio as saying he selected Shea “because he is a ‘proven agent’ of change.”And we know what kind of change de Blasio has in mind for the City: Marxist Collectivism.But even Shea realizes de Blasio is operating erratically, as the Times pointed out in that same August 3 article. “[Shea’s] criticism of Mayor Bill de Blasio’s law enforcement policies was stinging.” Apart from publicly criticizing the Mayor, Shea seems reluctant to go any further than that; he is unlikely to take action to countermand the Mayor’s policies concerning police operations. If he were to do that, Shea would jeopardize his own position because de Blasio would likely fire him. It is the Mayor’s prerogative to do so since the Police Commissioner is appointed by the Mayor. Shea knows that.In New York, as in many jurisdictions, the Police Commissioner, i.e., the “Commissioner of Public Safety,” isn’t elected by the people, so he isn’t directly answerable to the people. He is answerable to the Mayor who appointed him.NY CLS Sec Cl Cities § 12 (Appointive officers) provides that,“There shall be appointed by the mayor a corporation counsel, city engineer, commissioner of public works, commissioner of public safety, commissioner of public welfare and sealer of weights and measures.”Perhaps New York law should be changed to enable the residents to elect their police commissioner directly, as they do their mayor. If so, the police commissioner wouldn’t be answerable to the mayor, but directly to the people who elected him. That might help.But, in the interim, unless a party with standing—who also has the time, money, the moral fiber and strength of spirit—to file a lawsuit to remove a recalcitrant, intransigent de Blasio from Office, the public is stuck with him until the next mayoral election in November 2021.What kind of shape do you suppose the City will be in fifteen months from now with de Blasio still in office? Can the residents of New York City afford to wait that long? The prognosis isn’t good.Representative Lee Zeldin (R-NY) told Fox News, bluntly:“ ‘I don’t believe New York City is going to survive the remainder of Mayor de Blasio’s term in office,’ he told Fox News. ‘Certainly there are individuals who live in New York City who will not literally survive without any type of a change in the way New York City approaches policing, law and order, safety and security.’” _______________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE SAVAGING OF AMERICA: FORGET ABOUT BIDEN; IT’S GOING TO BE TRUMP VERSUS HARRIS

MOBOCRACY VERSUS REPUBLICAN DEMOCRACY

PART ONE

Marcus Antonius spoke, thus, “And Caesar’s spirit, raging for revenge,With Hate by his side come hot from hell,Shall in these confines with a monarch’s voiceCry, “Havoc!” and let slip the dogs of war, That this this foul deed shall smell above the earth With Carrion men, groaning for burial. Citation from Shakespeare’s historical play, Julius Caesar, Act 3, Scene 1War is upon us. Make no mistake about it. Be prepared to arm up. The survival of our Republic is at stake!The sad thing is very few people will acknowledge this, even as some do embrace it, want it, even demand it. Many deny it, scoff at the idea of it, but most everyone, at some level, feels it.All that we Americans have seen and heard in the last few months compels our acceptance of it, the hard, cold realization of it; and what it means for us.But is this a modern American “civil war”—a race war—a clash between purported do-gooders demanding an accounting for people of color and privileged white oppressors, as the hordes of mindless Radicals endlessly shout and as a seditious Press echoes?No! this is not a “race war” and never was, and calling it so, doesn’t make it so.This is mere artifice, a stratagem concocted by the Nation’s Destructor Antagonists—the discontented Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Neoliberal Billionaire Globalists who have lost patience with the American electorate—an electorate that threw a wrench in their plans for world domination; an electorate that audaciously voted into Office an outsider, a businessman, who sought merely to return the Country to its rightful heirs: the American citizenry.The Antagonist Destructors of our Nation see this and won’t allow it; won’t permit President Trump to serve a second term in Office. They plan to defeat Trump in the coming election by chicanery and unlawful acts if they can; by brute force if they cannot. They haven’t disguised their intentions. They really cannot. This is their last chance and they know it.They have brainwashed many; hoodwinked many others. The Nation is in their grasp: November 3, 2020 is the date set for the Governmental coup d’état.These ruthless forces both here and abroad have embraced a strategy to destroy the U.S. Constitution itself, the very fabric of our Nation. Once accomplished they will go to work immediately to disassemble a free Constitutional Republic.They will do so by executive fiat. They will rewrite our Constitution; eradicate our God-given sacred rights and liberties; open our borders to tens of millions of the world’s dregs; bankrupt our Nation; subject our citizenry to conformity in thought and uniformity in behavior; reduce the populace to dependency on Government largess for its existence. They will erase our Nation’s history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian Ethic: all of it must go. Our Nation, in the form the founders bequeathed to us, will effectively cease to exist.And these Antagonists, these would-be Destructors, will proceed forthwith, with blinding speed once they have taken over the reins of Government. They have legions of stooges and toadies to assist them—those who have assisted them since Day One of the Trump Presidency.

A ONE-DAY CIVIL WAR-(COUNTER-REVOLUTION): NOVEMBER 3, 2020

The nature of the present major conflict facing Americans has aspects of both a civil war and revolution, creating a unique hybrid.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CIVIL WAR AND A REVOLUTION?

There is a distinction to be drawn between the expression, 'civil war,' and the expression, 'revolution.'“The word revolution is derived from the Latin ‘revolutio’, meaning ‘a turn-around’. Revolution results in a mutational change in organizational structure quite amazingly in a short period of time. Revolution brings about a change in the power too.Revolutions took place through history. It is interesting to note that apart from the change in power, revolution brings about change in cultural and economical situations as well of a country or a region. Socio-political scenario gets completely changed by a revolution.It is interesting to note that the term revolution is used to indicate changes that take place outside the political arena. Culture, philosophy, society and technology have undergone marked transformations by these revolutions.A civil war is defined as a war that takes place between two organized groups within the same nation state. In short it can be described as a war between factions in the same country. One of the best examples of a civil war is the American Civil War (1861-1865). It is otherwise called the War Between the States that took place as a civil war in the United States of America.It is important to know that the two organized groups that take part in the civil war are normally bent upon creating their own governments and having organized military. The most important difference between a revolution and a civil war is that civilians directly revolt against the government in a revolution whereas factions wage a war against each other in a civil war.”The American Revolution established freedom from tyranny and the creation of a new Nation-State.The founders of this Nation-State, the framers of the U.S. Constitution determined that the Nation would exist as a free Constitutional Republic. Theirs was no easy task. But they accomplished it. The founders of the new Nation designed a central, “Federal” Government of three co-equal Branches; each Branch keeping the other in check through carefully delineated, demarcated, limited powers.The people would retain sovereignty over Government, not by dint of faith that the servants of the people would not usurp power, but through the realization that these servants of the people would, as is human nature, attempt to do so. To prevent that from happening the founders incorporated into the U.S. Constitution, a Bill of Rights—a codification of fundamental, God-given, natural, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights, including, first and foremost, the right of the people to speak their own mind and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Thus, would unlawful usurpation of power by the servant of the people be kept in check. Our Nation is founded on the tenets of Individualism: a recognition of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual and the import of the integrity of Self.Even during the horror of the American Civil War, neither side, not the Union nor Confederacy, questioned the tenets of Individualism; never questioned the veracity and venerableness of the Bill of Rights. It was never in doubt.But, today, though, there are forces that do not accept the tenets of Individualism and forsake the primacy of the Bill of Rights. These are the proponents of the tenets of Collectivism; those who will not suffer individual expression nor abide a sovereign, well-armed citizenry. They believe in uniformity of thought, conformity in behavior. Their model of societal perfection is that of the beehive or the ant colony; order maintained through the destruction of the human spirit. The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about the differences between Individualism and Collectivism. See, e.g., our article, posted October 6, 2018, titled, “A Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”Today, forces both inside the Nation and outside it, utilizing the vehicle of the Democratic Party, along with the acquiescence of many within the Republican Party, have engineered a counter-revolution.They envision a greatly expanded and expansive Federal Government with vast, virtually unlimited powers. To keep Americans in check they have been outspoken in their call for substantial constraints on free speech and the elimination of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. These counter revolutionaries intend to use our Constitution against us. Once in power the Constitution will be erased.Although not carefully distinguished between two military camps—the Blue and the Gray—of the American Civil War, the clash of ideas is very much a bright line: Individualists versus Collectivists, and a mighty physical confrontation may yet emerge.The Collectivists have, to date, failed to unseat the Individualists’ candidate, Donald Trump. Americans elected Donald Trump to preserve a free Constitutional Republic, thereby securing the Nation the founders bequeathed to us through the difficult war they fought and won: the American Revolution. And President Donald Trump has done a commendable job, despite unimaginable obstacles to preserve the Nation in the form the founders gave to us.The Collectivists have one last card to play: one which they had hoped to avoid: the U.S. Presidential election of 2020. The outcome may be the endgame for one side or the other. Or it may very well be the opening salvo of a Modern American Civil War qua Counter-Revolution to undercut the American Revolution.­­­­­­­­­­­­______________________________________________________

BIDEN WILL NEVER DEBATE TRUMP, HARRIS WILL

PART TWO

TRYING TO PLAY AMERICANS FOR FOOLS FAILED ONCE; DEMOCRATS WILL NOT PERMIT THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN

“ ‘Clinton’s dream also includes a Western Hemispheric common market, like the European common market that is dissolving in chaos, fear and debt. . . .’ ‘If that is indeed her dream, then she dreams the internationalist dream that would end America.In a 2013 speech to the National Multi-Housing Council [Clinton] said, ‘I mean, politics is like sausage being made. If everybody’s watching, you know, all of the backroom discussions and the deals, you know, then people get a little nervous, to say the least. So you need both a public and a private position.’Which is an excellent example of hypocrisy — a Hillary Clinton trait.American voters don’t want open borders or anything akin to a European Union common market. But Hillary Clinton does.Hillary Clinton would tear America down. She is totally unfit to be president.Donald Trump is the anti-establishment candidate. He’s not politically correct, and he’s not running for saint. He’s running to Make America Great Again. Elect him and he will.”~Pastiche from a story, titled, “Playing us for Fools,” published in the Carteret County News Times, one month before the 2016 Trump versus Clinton U.S. Presidential electionThe forces that seek to crush Americans into submission failed had a wrench thrown into their well-oiled machine. They thought Hillary Clinton could hold her own against Trump in a match-up against him. They were wrong, dead wrong.Do you honestly think these sinister, ruthless forces will make that mistake a second time by allowing Biden—infinitely less mentally sharp than Clinton—to debate Trump? Not a chance!The doddering, confused, senile Cardboard character, Joe Biden, has played his role for these Antagonist Disruptor Destructors of our Nation. He is no longer needed and will soon be dispensed with.Biden has previously stated a desire to serve one-term only, exemplifying his lack of desire in the Presidency. In some dim part of his addled brain, he must have known he is wholly unqualified to lead the Nation.As reported in The Hill, back in December 2019,“Former Vice President Joe Biden has reportedly signaled that he would only serve one term in the White House if elected in 2020 as the top-tier Democratic candidate faces questions about his age. Four people who regularly speak with the 77-year-old Biden told Politico that it is unlikely he would run for reelection in 2024, when he would be in his 80s.‘If Biden is elected,’ an adviser to the campaign told the news outlet, ‘he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.’‘He’s going into this thinking, “I want to find a running mate I can turn things over to after four years, but if that’s not possible or doesn’t happen then I’ll run for reelection.” But he’s not going to publicly make a one-term pledge,’ another adviser reportedly said.”

IS IT JUST AGE THAT HAS INFORMED BIDEN’S DECISION TO SERVE JUST ONE TERM, OR IS IT WEAKNESS IN MIND AND BODY?

Consider: Bernie Sanders is one year older than Biden. The old Socialist is as sharp as a tack and never asserted or even suggested he would serve only one term in Office if elected.Donald Trump, too, was 70 years old when he assumed Office, the oldest person to serve as President on the day of his inauguration as reported by Business Insider. But age has never impacted his physical strength or mental alertness. He has always demonstrated boundless energy and keen mental acuity; a sharp understanding of policy and what it is he wishes to accomplish, in accordance with his duties as President and consistent with his promises to the American people. He never so much as intimated a desire to serve only one term in Office.Trump has weathered a withering stream of vile, vicious, vindictive personal attacks against him, against his staff, even against his family. Through it all he has remained steadfast, never doubting himself, never wilting. To the contrary, he has become stronger, frustrating those who have attempted to aggrieve him, turning their arrows back on them. He has shown his mettle; the true mark of a leader.Can one imagine Biden standing up against the same ceaseless, remorseless violent onslaught? Would Biden not have crumpled years ago; drained, emotionally and physically. Indeed, can one imagine any other politician able to repel the violent personal attacks that President Trump has ably withstood for the past four years and, through it all, still manage to accomplish many of his policy objectives?Biden, in comparison, stands alone as the single figure in American history, coming up with lame excuses to mask his obvious mental and physical infirmities, all the while boasting that he can lead this great Nation. And there is the Press, for example, the Washington Post, always at the ready, to give Biden an assist, writing specious reports to cover his blaring inane remarks, or to attempt to counter justifiable concerns pertaining to his health. See, e.g., a U.S. News.com report The Press says Biden would give Kamala Harris substantial power as his VP if elected President. That is all the more surprising since, as also reported FP Insider Access, the two have had a rocky relationship, which raises the question whether Biden did choose Harris as his running mate or if, more likely, the DNC foisted Harris on him.But don’t be surprised to find Biden stepping down a few weeks before the election, not a few days, or weeks or months into a first term in Office, let alone upon completing one full term. He must. Why? It isn’t that his handlers can’t control Biden. They can. They already have. That is plain, and Biden doesn’t have a problem with that. Still, there is a problem. Biden’s handlers cannot be certain he can defeat Trump, regardless of what the polls say. Certainly not if a dimwit’s obvious dimwittedness becomes apparent as it would during a U.S. Presidential debate, were he to debate. After all, who would be on hand to lend Biden a hand if he were to become befuddled over a moderator’s question or shows his ineptitude in parrying a death-dealing verbal thrust to the heart?So, the Destructors of our Nation are faced with a conundrum. And that dilemma rests with the nature of our Presidential Debates.The public expects them. But only the U.S. Presidential candidate of one Party can debate the candidate, or incumbent, of the other Party.It would look awfully strange to see Biden’s VP, Harris, debating Trump, as Biden’s VP, instead of Biden, himself. It would be unprecedented.Of course, the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require Presidential debates. Americans, though, would be annoyed and suspicious, even outraged if denied a debate, especially given the present deeply polarized Nation. A match-up is highly anticipated.In the recent Arbalest Quarrel article, “Debate This,” published on August 6, 2020, we said,“U.S. Presidential elections are never small matters. But, this coming Presidential election, less than three months away, takes on inordinate importance—more so than any other Presidential election in our Nation’s history. For, depending on the outcome, Americans will either preserve their history, along with their sacred heritage, culture, and Christian ethos, or they will lose all of it. Recent events bear this out.The continuation of our Nation in the form our founders established for the American people, a free Constitutional Republic, and a sovereign people rests in the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights bestowed on them and in them by the loving Divine Creator—rights codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights: most importantly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the right of free speech.”Biden has shown, during the few times his handlers have allowed him to speak at all, that he has trouble expressing a coherent thought. He would collapse if he had to face Trump one-on-one in a debate.Even with assistance from friendly debate moderators, Trump would eviscerate him, and Biden’s handlers know this. The bottom line: Biden will not debate Trump.

HARRIS WILL RUN AGAINST TRUMP, NOT BIDEN. SO, IT IS HARRIS WHO MUST DEBATE TRUMP, NOT BIDEN.

If only one Presidential debate is held, Harris will debate Trump. That means Harris will be the Democrat’s nominee for U.S. President, not Biden.The puppet masters will not risk losing an election by allowing Biden on the National and, hence, world stage, making a jackass of himself, for all to see, and, thereby making a true, not merely symbolic “jackass” of the Party. That helps to explain why the puppet masters have scheduled the first debate at the end of September, not the beginning, contrary to what Trump and many Americans wanted and expected.Having a debate scheduled one month prior to the election buys the DNC time for the media image makers to shape the image of Harris they expect the public to buy: an impression that Harris is indeed the pragmatic moderate the script calls for and not the selfish, shallow, callow, opportunist she in fact is: simply a simulacrum of Hillary Clinton. They have only a few weeks to prop this stick figure up, allowing it to take hold on the public, to gel in the public psyche. Harris is giddy with expectation and delight, barely able to contain herself.So, as the days march on, Americans will see less and less of Biden and more and more of Harris, but precious little of both. Little will come out of either one’s mouth; and a sympathetic Press won’t “press” them to discuss their policy prescriptions.And then something untoward will happen to Biden. Expect this.The Democrats and the Billionaire Globalist puppet masters would trust the public won’t be shocked—if a trifle dismayed, and the Radical left positively gleeful—when Harris steps into Biden’s shoes at the last moment even as that moment is unprecedented.But neither one, Biden nor Harris, will do much talking to the Press before the Presidential debates, when it comes to pass that Harris faces off against Trump.It is either that or the DNC will have to conjure up a plausible explanation why there won’t be a Presidential debate at all. That scenario is unlikely. The public would feel cheated, and rightfully so.

HOW WILL THE BIDEN-HARRIS SWITCHEROO TAKE PLACE?

Prior to the debates, the DNC will declare, through the Press, that Biden has suffered a heart attack or a stroke; something or other, health-wise, not altogether implausible. After all Biden has had medical problems beyond incipient dementia and that isn’t a secret. There will be little explanation, and a sympathetic Press won’t probe. But obviously his lack of mental acuity will be the reason for it. Even the Washington Post, the Radical Left newspaper of the centi-billionaire Jeff Bezos speculated that Biden suffers from dementia.It is highly unlikely that a major supporter of the Democrats, and a man obviously “in the know,” Jeff Bezos, would allow his editorial staff to so much as intimate Biden’s unsuitability for the highest public Office in the Land, unless something major was afoot. So, quietly, surreptitiously, his tabloid, the Washington Post, has alerted the public to the possibility of the big switch.The DNC will have to scramble to appoint a VP for Harris. Likely, the DNC already has a VP in the wings: another woman no doubt, and conceivably another woman of color.So, the public will be fed a lie and that lie will suffice, must suffice, to get Biden out of the way before the first scheduled debate lest he make a fool of himself in front of the Nation and the world, and therein scotch the entire scheme of the Globalists and Marxists to take over the Government and the Country—just a few weeks prior to the most important election in modern times.________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A BIDEN PRESIDENCY PORTENDS ASSAULT ON OUR CONSTITUTION AND ON A FREE REPUBLIC

DEBATE THIS

U.S. Presidential elections are never small matters. But, this coming Presidential election, less than three months away, takes on inordinate importance—more so than any other Presidential election in our Nation’s history. For, depending on the outcome, Americans will either preserve their history, along with their sacred heritage, culture, and Christian ethos, or they will lose all of it. Recent events bear this out.The continuation of our Nation in the form our founders established for the American people, a free Constitutional Republic, and a sovereign people rests in the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights bestowed on them and in them by the loving Divine Creator—rights codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights: most importantly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the right of free speech.A reasonable person need not guess but knows there are forces both inside and outside our Nation that intend to destroy our free Republic and to subjugate our people. This has been well underway for thirty years.Americans certainly sensed it. They saw it in those who previously served as U.S. President.The process to destroy our Country and to subjugate the American people had been well underway for thirty years. Americans certainly sensed it; saw it in the characters that had served as U.S. President: two Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. The process to undermine the Nation was expected to continue under another Clinton, Hillary, but that process was derailed.Those forces were in for a shock. The shoo-in for the President lost, and the meticulously orchestrated process to destroy our Republic derailed.The electorate voted into Office a successful businessman, not a Washington politician, Donald J. Trump.The electorate voted into Office a populist; an outsider, not a Washington, D.C. politician. They voted into Office a successful businessman who swore to bring the Nation back to its roots, Donald J. Trump, and President Trump has done his best to do so, much to the anger of the a multitude of forces arrayed against him.Not surprisingly, the pushback against Trump came swiftly and severely. The pushback came from multiple quarters within our Nation. These repugnant, reprehensible forces include a loose coalition of Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, Neoconservative Statists, Neoliberal Globalists, and Radical Feminists. Not surprisingly, they would back an individual whom they know they can control. demonstrating to all Americans just how extensive and complete the infiltration of our Nation by seditious forces was. And, those forces aligned against Trump never, for one moment, eased up on their assault against Trump, his Administration, his family and his domestic and foreign policies.Unperturbed, Donald Trump worked tirelessly, doggedly during these past four years, doing his best to preserve to our Nation in the form the founders gave to us; and it has been no easy task for him, and painful for those who voted for him, to watch.Americans saw firsthand how relentless the assault on the 45^th President of the United Sates became and how vengeful they could be. Americans witnessed ludicrous attempts to oust him from Office. Americans saw ruthless personal assaults on both Trump and his staff; and horrendous acts of sabotage by seditious spies and saboteurs, planted inside the Administration. As if that were not bad enough, Americans bore witness even to attacks on his family, including his youngest son, a mere child.Unperturbed Trump soldiered on, ever mindful of his Oath of Office, set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution, and of the faith the American electorate placed in him to adhere to his Oath. All attempts to oust Donald Trump have, fortunately, failed and failed miserably.At their wit’s end, unable to oust Trump from Office or to unnerve him emotionally, these malevolent, malignant, sinister forces aligned against the American people dare to end the Trump Presidency and crush the American citizenry into submission. But they must now do so at the voting booth. That is all they have left. And who have they selected? It is Joseph R. Biden, the proverbial politician. Biden is nothing more than a doddering fool; a physical, emotional wreck of a man; a mentally feeble, corrupt and corrupting figure; a man lacking conviction, moral compass, or even a sense of purpose; a specter; a shell of a man; more dead than alive—Biden is someone who will not and cannot lead a Nation; someone who is, unsurprisingly, emblematic of and perfectly suited to the task of serving as a figurehead; a stand-in for those forces that seek only to increase their personal monetary wealth at the expense of the Nation, and to usurp the power from the American people, dragging an independent, sovereign Nation State down to ruin.The electorate has but one opportunity to save itself and the Nation and so, the electorate has a critical decision to make: it can retain the 45^th President of the United States, Donald Trump, for a second term, or it can vote in a simulacrum and totem in Trump’s stead, i.e., Joe Biden. But——

CAN AMERICANS EXPECT A FAIR ELECTION IN NOVEMBER?

The forces that have rallied against Trump have no intention of permitting a fair election. They have no intention of permitting the public to catch anything more than a glimpse of their decrepit choice for U.S. President. That is clear and obvious.In the few instances where Biden’s handlers allow him to speak at all, Biden’s mental confusion manifests itself excruciatingly and embarrassingly to all who bear witness to his public speeches.Understandably, Biden’s handlers would wish to keep him under wraps and they have been successful in doing so, as much as they can, given, after all, that the public expects to see a person who would be President of the United States if only, once in a while. But can they prevent Biden from debating Trump one-on-one? The Press has presented arguments against a debate, but those arguments are hardly convincing and plausible, as Fox News reports:“As the 2020 election steadily approaches, there have been growing calls from the media for Joe Biden not to debate President Trump or the debates to be scrapped altogether.There appears to have been an evolution from some members of the media regarding the debates. Back in June, an op-ed in The Washington Post declared ‘it's time to rethink the presidential debates.’Columnist Karen Tumulty laid out suggestions to improve the political matchups like getting rid of a live audience and conducting them in a television studio. As she noted, the elimination of a crowd would make it more challenging for Trump to "pull stunts," citing his invitation of four Bill Clinton accusers during his town hall debate with Hillary Clinton.However, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote a piece in July urging Biden not to debate the president unless "two conditions" were met.‘I worry about Joe Biden debating Donald Trump. He should do it only under two conditions. Otherwise, he’s giving Trump unfair advantages,’ Friedman began his op-ed.Friedman said the ‘conditions’ should be that Trump must release his tax returns from 2016 to 2018, and that both campaigns should agree on having a ‘real-time fact-checking team’ hired by the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates.The columnist suggested ‘10 minutes before the scheduled conclusion of the debate, this team report on any misleading statements, phony numbers or outright lies either candidate had uttered. That way no one in that massive television audience can go away easily misled.’The Times columnist said the debates will not be a ‘good way’ for Biden to ‘reintroduce himself’ to the American people—particularly during the coronavirus outbreak when the former vice president has largely hunkered down in his Delaware home instead of being out on the campaign trail.‘He should not go into such a high-stakes moment ceding any advantages to Trump,’ Friedman wrote. ‘Trump is badly trailing in the polls, and he needs these debates much more than Biden does to win over undecided voters.’”

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SEE THEIR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES DEBATE WITHIN THEIR VERBAL CROSSHAIRS

The forces that wish to defeat Trump in November express justifiable concern if there’s a debate.Joe Biden would crumple, and they know it. Even assuming the assistance of sympathetic debate moderators, Trump would flay Biden alive. Biden would have nowhere to hide.Trump has shown his mettle in resisting relentless, vicious, virulent, vile attacks by Democrats and the Press.It is difficult to believe Biden could withstand the pressures a U.S. President must contend with. Trump has become a tested, battle-hardened warrior. Biden, in comparison, hasn’t even undertaken basic training. He would be manipulated by and intimidated by others.In the few instances where Biden’s handlers have allowed him to speak at all, Biden’s mental confusion manifests itself. It is excruciating and embarrassing to watch. He is a man obviously in the throes of irremediable, crippling dementia.Understandably, Biden’s handlers would wish to keep him under wraps. But, the public wants, even demands, to see how Biden stacks up one-on-one against Trump. So, despite the many serious and obvious risks, Biden’s handlers and supporters have had to acquiesce to the call for debates, however grudgingly.“The nationally televised presidential debate occupies a role of singular significance in American politics. In sheer scope of importance, in extent of audience interest and breadth of media coverage, the debate stands alone among campaign events. In short, in an age in which the importance of media exposure for informing the electorate, amassing voter support, and waging a successful campaign is axiomatic, televised presidential debates matter.” “Non-Major-Party Candidates and Televised Presidential Debates The Merits Of Legislative Inclusion., 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 973, January, 1993, by Keith Darren Eisner, Cornell University; J.D. Candidate 1993, University of Pennsylvania.Consider the results of the 1960 election.“Over 100 million Americans saw at least one of the debates, and the average audience for the four debates was around 71 million viewers. These viewers saw a contrast in images and styles that ultimately helped determine the winner of the 1960 election. . . . Post-election polls found 57% of voters reporting that the candidates’ performances in the debates had ultimately influenced their voting choice; 6% reported that they based their final decision on the debates alone—and Kennedy won the support of 72% of this group. If the poll results are accurate, then two million people voted for Kennedy strictly on the basis of the debates—a margin more than sufficient to change the outcome of the election.” “The Designated Nonpublic Forum: Remedying the Forbes Mistake,” 67 Alb. L. Rev. 89, 2003, by Tim Cramm, M.D., University Of Arkansas, 1997; J.D., University Of Iowa, 2002.Americans expect debates, and they have a right to see how the two candidates for the highest post in the Land fair against each other; battling it out one-on-one in the Gladiatorial Arena of political debates. For tens of millions of Americans, U.S. Presidential debates allow these Americans a rare opportunity, indeed the only opportunity, to view the candidates side-by-side. Not only can the electorate compare political track records and the policy stances of each candidate, the electorate is able to decipher at once, who is the most commanding person—who, in fact, looks and acts and holds himself out as the more “Presidential.” If Americans follow no other political news, they will watch a U.S. Presidential debate. A Presidential debate is akin to Football's Super Bowl.How many times, during the last four years has the Press been heard to chant, ad nauseum, the absurd claim that President Trump doesn't act, "Presidential?" Yet, for all these inane attacks on Trump's character and bearing,  it is most curious that there has been a paucity of Press coverage suggesting that Biden has the strength of character and bearing of a U.S. President.Is the reticence of the Press accidental on that score? Obviously not.Had Biden been the incumbent, instead of Trump, one might make a plausible argument that, as incumbent, Biden need not debate and should avoid doing so, as the public would have had four years to view him as President and he would wish to stand on his record, assuming he were not an total flop, and if the latter were the case, that would be reason to avoid debating as well. But Trump has succeeded. And that is all the more remarkable given the sinister forces at work, and still at work, that have placed constant and formidable obstacles in his path.But, generally, where a person is the challenger, it is bizarre to argue that a challenger need not debate a sitting President.In fact, the challenger should want to go head-to-head with the incumbent; should, in fact, insist on it. But Biden's assertions that he is looking forward to debating Trump are few and far between. He is allowing his handlers to make that decision for him; claiming, implausibly, that Biden is ahead in the polls and that is reason enough not to debate Trump. But is he really ahead in the polls and, if that were true, would that argument, propounded by the Radical Left New York Times reporter, Friedman, supra,  be reason enough to avoid a debate.Recall that most polls asserted that Hillary Clinton was ahead of or way ahead of Donald Trump, in the running for U.S. President, assuming the stories the Press was feeding Americans were really true. In any event, no one, including Clinton herself, professed an unwillingness to debate Trump. Nonetheless, she received plenty of help from the Press, when she did debate him.The Press fervently wanted to see Clinton as President, no less so than Clinton herself, who unabashedly lusted over that prize. Each wanted to debate the other for the U.S. Presidency. They were both contenders for the Champion’s Belt.Yet it is now Trump who, as the sitting President, is constantly and avidly calling for debates: several debates and he is chomping at the bit to do so; not so Biden, nor Biden’s handlers. If Biden's handlers truly thought that Biden had the edge on Trump, on the debate stage, or that Biden was at least Trump's equal, they would be calling for more debates, not fewer debates; and they would be calling for debates at an earlier stage before the election, not, as they have done, setting up a debate schedule, commencing at the end of September, one month before the election, when many early votes have already been cast. One would also expect that Biden would have taken control of the process and demanded an opportunity to push up the schedule, not permit his handlers to dictate the debate schedule, pushing that schedule as far back as possible. This is all singularly odd; the reversal of what one would expect.Consider the relationship of a Champion prizefighter to a Contender. The Champ doesn’t have to prove himself and would have practical reason enough not to take on any further contenders as he, having reached the pinnacle of success, having proved himself worthy of the title from so many scrapes on his way to the top, has nothing more to prove, nor to gain, from another battle, and he has everything to lose. But the Contender has everything to gain and nothing to lose. It is the Contender, then, who is the hungrier of the two fighters, not the Champ, and that makes perfect sense.In the political sphere, recall that it was President Lyndon Johnson who refrained from debating his challenger Barry Goldwater. It was Goldwater, the contender for the Presidency, who, after all, wished to debate Johnson, not the other way around, and that is understandable.But, in the present instance, in this topsy-turvy political venue we are living in, it is Biden and his handlers who are shying away from debating Trump, and it is Trump, the Champion, who is itching for a fight.Biden’s reluctance is doubly suspect given the fact that the Press incessantly attacks Trump’s own character and bearing, claiming that he is decidedly un-Presidential, but curiously never exclaims that Biden appears and acts Presidential.You would think the Press would encourage a lively debate between Biden and Trump, but it doesn’t. Quite the opposite. It adamantly opposes a Trump and Biden match-up. And it isn’t hard to figure out why.Biden is weak and intemperate. He is a little man. He is small in mind and body, and in will and spirit. Everyone knows that to be true. So, unlike a true Contender who relishes taking on the Champ in the Ring, who would, in fact, insist upon it, Biden’s handlers and the seditious Press expect Biden to claim the Champion’s Belt without undergoing the obligatory rite of passage: an actual bout.If Biden does pull out a victory against Trump it can only occur through subterfuge. His handlers throw in the towel before he goes even one round with Trump yet would still audaciously claim a victory for Biden if they can get away with it through skullduggery.In some dim part of Biden’s brain, he, himself, knows he is a fraud. He knows he is no match for Trump, either in intellect or in strength of will. So, like a petulant child, Biden is content merely to revert to name-calling from afar; careful never to face his nemesis face-to-face.Biden is content to rely on a battalion of surrogates to do his fighting for him. It is remarkable that such a wimp would be able to garner any votes at all. In fact, those who support him do so out of self-interest. It is doubtful anyone in his camp respects him. He would be a travesty as President of the United States, but a fitting emblem of the Nation’s demise. And, if he were to actually make it all the way to the Office of U.S. President, he will be delegating all policy decisions to surrogates as well. This is evident enough now, as Biden has scrapped all pretense of being a political moderate that the Press has falsely claimed him to be, adopting, point-for-point, the policy planks of the most radical elements of the Democrat Party.It would be remarkable that the wimp, Biden, would be able to garner any votes at all. But, then, those who support him do so out of self-interest. It is doubtful anyone in his camp respects him. He would be a travesty as President of the United States, and a fitting symbol of the Nation’s demise. So, Biden must be defeated. But—

CAN THE PUBLIC TRUST IN A FAIR, IMPARTIAL U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER?

Apart from the matter of U.S. Presidential debates, there is the real concern of voter fraud.“It is unfortunately true that in the great democracy in which we live, voter fraud has had a long and studied role in our elections. Maintaining the security of our voter registration and voting process, while at the same time protecting the voting rights of individuals and guaranteeing their access to the polls, must be our foremost objective. Unlike what certain advocates in the civil rights community believe, these goals are not mutually exclusive. Every vote that is stolen through fraud disenfranchises a voter who has cast a legitimate ballot in the same way that an individual who is eligible to vote is disenfranchised when he is kept out of a poll or is somehow otherwise prevented from casting a ballot. In other words, violations of criminal election crimes statutes are just as important as violations of federal voting rights statutes and both cause equal damage to our democracy. “Securing the Integrity of American Elections: The Need for Change,” 9 Tex. Rev. Law & Pol. 27, Spring, 2005, by Publius (pseudonym); Publius is an attorney who specializes in election issues. Many politicians complain of disenfranchisement of people, when they argue against the need for ID to verify the legitimacy of the person who claims a right to vote. Many of these same politicians also argue for allowing convicted felons to vote, as well as allowing for illegal aliens the right to vote. While States may permit illegal aliens and convicted felons to vote in local elections, illegal aliens cannot lawfully vote in federal elections, and likely convicted felons, who have not secured a restoration of civil rights, cannot lawfully vote in federal elections either.Voting by mail is becoming ubiquitous, overshadowing voting at polls, and may, eventually, become universal, making voting at polls obsolete. But, at what cost to the maintenance of honest elections? Is it really the answer to getting more Americans to vote?“In the past, many states required voters who requested to vote by mail to provide an excuse for why they could not vote at the polls on election day [“absentee ballot voting”]. States often created lists of permissible excuses entitling voters to mail-in ballots. Today, twenty-seven states (and the District of Columbia) allow no-excuse absentee or mail-in voting.  Three states, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, are experimenting with all-mail elections, doing away with polling places altogether. In addition to expanded mail-in voting, many states have introduced and expanded early in-person voting opportunities (EIPV). As distinguished from voting by mail, EIPV allows voters to cast ballots at designated locations for a specified period before election day. Early voting garnered significant attention in the 2012 election. Campaigns pushed supporters to cast early ballots for a variety of strategic reasons. In 2012, President Obama became the first major presidential candidate to cast an early vote.” Id.While the Press uniformly denies incessant and widespread voter fraud in previous State and federal elections, the critical impact of the coming election on the fate of the Nation, on the Constitution, and on the American people, should not be lost on anyone.It is clear enough that the noxious, disgusting Radical Left and the wealthy, powerful, ruthless Globalist forces, both desirous of taking over the reins of Government don’t care one wit about the fairness of our elections. They only care in one thing: toppling Trump and taking control of both Houses of Congress, so they can continue where they had left off—after Trump “rudely” defeated Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—tearing down the Nation and eventually merging it into a new one-world governmental political, social, economic, and cultural scheme.Four years of vicious, violent, virulent, unethical, even illegal attacks on Trump, his Administration, and those closely connected with him, demonstrate clear evidence that those malevolent, malignant forces aligned against Trump will use whatever means they can—legal, quasi-legal, or outright illegal—to prevail in November 2020.At the very least, the electorate should not be in doubt that a person voting in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election has a legal right to vote. Voter ID procedures and all election procedures must be reasonable, fair, and impartial, thereby ensuring transparency and honesty in elections, true; but those responsible for establishing Voter ID and election procedures must be held absolutely accountable for the procedures they create and implement.Mandating Voter ID in order to vote does not mean that a jurisdiction is imposing an inherently burdensome requirement on the electorate, and the reason for it is obvious. A person is simply asked to to provide concrete evidence that he or she is whom that person represents him or herself to be and that the person has a lawful right to vote.Photo ID as issued by State motor vehicle departments have, traditionally, provided evidence of this. If adequate in the past, such licenses, though, are not, in some jurisdictions, adequate proof of citizenship today since some States, such as California and New York, are now issuing photo ID drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens. To deal effectively with the very real problem of illegal aliens voting in federal elections, Photo IDs today should also clearly set forth whether or not a person is a citizen of the United States and whether or not that person, if a citizen, is under any disability that would preclude his voting in a federal election as, for example, if a person were a convicted felon who has not been issued a valid relief from disability order from a Court of competent jurisdiction.Those politicians who disagree with the requirement that a voter demonstrate his or her U.S. citizenship and that he or she is under no civil disability should be prepared to explain why they disapprove of such a requirement, beyond falling back on the imbecilic charge of “racism” that has become no more than a wearisome cliché, elicited like a burp or hiccough.U.S. citizens, not under civil disability constraints, do have a right to vote, and they also have a right to demand that their elections be fair and honest.Going into the November 2020 election, it is unfortunate that Americans will have no certainty that fraud won’t occur. The messy election outcomes we have seen of late would suggest that inefficiencies, mistakes, and, not least of all, massive fraud will be rampant in the ensuing general election.A paucity of concern expressed by politicians over securing the upcoming U.S. Presidential election against rampant fraud is itself alarming and leads one to wonder whether the November election may not already be lost, and with that loss, whether we, Americans, have not already lost our Nation—a loss without a fight.So, then, can the public be assured that the coming general election will be aboveboard and secure from fraud?If voting by mail is the wave of the future, overshadowing voting at polls--becoming, eventually, universal--thereby making voting at polls obsolete, one has a right to ask: at what cost to honest elections? Making voting easier so that more Americans can vote in federal elections is one thing; but if such procedures also allow millions of illegal aliens and tens of thousands more convicted felons to cast their fraudulent votes, then ease of voting comes at a cost wholly out of proportion to any desired benefits.“In the past, many states required voters who requested to vote by mail to provide an excuse for why they could not vote at the polls on election day [“absentee ballot voting”]. States often created lists of permissible excuses entitling voters to mail-in ballots. Today, twenty-seven states (and the District of Columbia) allow no-excuse absentee or mail-in voting.  Three states, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado, are experimenting with all-mail elections, doing away with polling places altogether. In addition to expanded mail-in voting, many states have introduced and expanded early in-person voting opportunities (EIPV). As distinguished from voting by mail, EIPV allows voters to cast ballots at designated locations for a specified period before election day. Early voting garnered significant attention in the 2012 election. Campaigns pushed supporters to cast early ballots for a variety of strategic reasons. In 2012, President Obama became the first major presidential candidate to cast an early vote.” Id.The forces driving Biden’s White-House bid don't care how Biden comes to be elected U.S. President, as long as he is elected U.S. President. And, it appears more and more likely that this can come about only through deception. Will the upcoming November 2020 Presidential election be reasonable, fair, impartial, transparent, and honest? Biden’s image makers know the less the public sees and hears Biden, the better. Biden’s surrogates, a host of handlers, and a sympathetic, seditious Press have constructed a false image of Biden. It is a fragile image easily undercut through public appearances and shattered by a one-to-one match-up with Trump. This is precisely why the Press, along with Biden’s handlers, support early voting and why they seek to delay a Presidential debate.Unfortunately, at this moment Americans have no certainty that massive voter fraud won’t occur. The messy election outcomes we have seen of late show inefficiencies and mistakes, both of which lend to the possibility of rampant fraud occurring in the general election.Going into the November 2020 election, it is unfortunate that Americans will have no certainty that fraud won’t occur. The messy election outcomes we have seen of late would suggest that inefficiencies, mistakes, and, not least of all, massive fraud will be rampant in the ensuing general election.A paucity of concern expressed by politicians over securing the upcoming U.S. Presidential election against rampant fraud is itself alarming and leads one to wonder whether the November election may not already be lost, and with that loss, whether we, Americans, have not already lost our Nation—a loss without a fight. And the Radical Leftists and Neoliberal Globalists would rather rely on subterfuge than an all-out war if they finally succeed in taking control of the Government through a quiet coup than by  violent overthrow.Beyond the ramifications of the election process, there is the matter of Biden himself. Biden’s image makers know the less the public sees and hears Biden and hears of Biden, the better. Biden’s surrogates, a host of handlers, and a sympathetic, seditious Press have constructed a false image of Biden. It is a fragile image easily undercut through public appearances and shattered by a one-to-one match-up with Trump. This is precisely why the Press, along with Biden’s handlers, support early voting and why they seek to delay a Presidential debate.The Radical Leftists and Neoliberal Globalists, frantically seeking to install their puppet, Biden, in the Oval Office, must therefore rely on, one, early voting; two, fraudulent mail-in voting; and, three, Presidential debate avoidance to enhance Biden's chance of defeating Trump this November 2020. The impact of the Chinese Coronavirus on the upcoming election, along with the devastation wrought to the economy, can only help the Radical leftists and Neoliberal Globalists up to a point. The ransacking of American Cities and unjustified, unprovoked attacks on our community and federal police forces, along with the concomitant horrendous increase in crime, and the noticeably cavalier attitudes of Radical Left politicians toward constant riots, vandalism, arson, looting, wanton destruction of public and private property, and increasing numbers of assaults and murder on innocent people, is much more likely to hurt than help Biden's bid for the Oval Office. But, if successful, the forces that have worked for decades to destroy our free Republic and to erase our Nation’s history, heritage, and culture will be able once again to press ahead with their plans, and they will likely succeed, as there will be nothing outside of outright civil war to return the Country back to the rightful owners: the American people. To prevent destruction of our Nation, Trump must prevail in November. Much is up to you.________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT PROTECT YOU! YOU MUST PROTECT YOURSELF!

REMARKS OF ARBALEST QUARREL FOUNDER, STEPHEN L'DANRILLI, ON STEPHEN HALBROOK ARTICLE PUBLISHED IN AUGUST 2020 NRA PUBLICATION, AMERICA'S 1ST FREEDOM

As a NYPD veteran police officer, and Adjunct Professor/Lecturer of Police Science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, National Rifle Association Certified Firearms Instructor (pistol, rifle, and shotgun), and Training Counselor, and active member of the International Association of Law Enforcement Firearms Instructors, and lifetime resident of New York City, I have dedicated my life to the preservation and strengthening of our cherished Second Amendment. This is no easy task, especially today, as we see constant, concerted, vigorous attacks on the fundamental right of personal defense with firearms.So, it was with more than a little interest I read Stephen Halbrook’s article, “How Does New York City Get Away With This,” published in the August 2020 edition of NRA’s publication, “America’s 1^st Freedom.”Stephen Halbrook is a Second Amendment Constitutional law expert and a prolific writer and author who has argued and won several important Second Amendment cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.In his article he provides a brief history of restrictive handgun licensing in New York City. He correctly observes that “[i]t all started with the Sullivan Act of 1911, the first law in any state (other than the slave codes) to require a license for mere possession of a pistol even in the home.”  Toward the end of the article, he makes the point that:“Nothing has changed since 1911 when [an Italian-American] Mario Rossi carried a pistol for protection against the Black Hand, for which he was sentenced to a year in prison.” It is of course disturbingly, depressingly, frustratingly true that, indeed, nothing has changed in New York City since 1911, insofar as the City continues to require a valid license to lawfully possess a handgun.Still, in a few important respects, much has changed, and for the worse, since enactment of the unconscionable and unconstitutional Sullivan Act.In the 109 years since handgun licensing began, New York City’s laws have become more extensive, more oppressive and repressive, and confoundingly difficult to understand. These laws are a labyrinthine maze of ambiguity and vagueness, and they are singularly bizarre.Unlike many other States that wisely preempt the field of gun regulation, as failure to do so invariably promotes and leads to confusion and inconsistencies across a State, the York State Government, in Albany, has not preempted the field. The New York Legislature gives local governments wide discretion in establishing their own firearms rules as long as local government enactments don’t conflict with basic State law mandates.Albany traditionally allows, and even encourages, local governments to devise their own, often numerous and extremely stringent, firearms rules. New York City has done so, and with glee, devising an extraordinarily complex and confusing array of rules directed to the ownership and possession of all firearms: rifles, shotguns, and handguns.New York State law, NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (1) sets forth the basic handgun licensing scheme, applicable to all New York jurisdictions, making clear that possession of handguns falls within the province of the police and that,“No license shall be issued or renewed pursuant to this section except by the licensing officer, and then only after investigation and finding that all statements in a proper application for a license are true.” NY CLS Penal § 400.00 (3)(a) provides that,“Applications shall be made and renewed, in the case of a license to carry or possess a pistol or revolver, to the licensing officer in the city or county, as the case may be, where the applicant resides, is principally employed or has his or her principal place of business as merchant or storekeeper.”New York City builds upon State Statute, establishing a mind-numbing set of tiers of handgun licensing, mandating the extent to which New York residents may exercise the privilege, not the right, to possess a handgun for self-defense.The Rules of the City of New York, specifically 38 RCNY 5-01, has established, at the moment, at least, no less than 6 different categories of handgun licenses:

• Premises License—Residence or Business
• Carry Business License
• Limited Carry Business License
• Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License
• Special Carry Business License
• Special Carry Guard License/Gun Custodian License

New York City’s tiered handgun licensing scheme is not only inconsistent with the Second Amendment, but it also promotes unlawful discrimination under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment and invites both abuse by and corruption in the City’s Licensing Division. In fact, the City’s insufferable and puzzling handgun licensing scheme is, from a purely logical standpoint, apart from a legal standpoint, internally inconsistent and incoherent.Premise residence and business handgun licenses place considerable restraints on a licensee’s right of self-defense. Unrestricted handgun carry licenses, on the other hand, are issued only to a select few people who satisfy arbitrary “proper cause,” requirements. Of course, powerful, wealthy, politically-connected “elites” are exceptions, routinely obtaining rare and coveted unrestricted handgun carry licenses, unavailable to the average citizen, residing in the City.And criminals don’t obey handgun licensing rules or any other State law or City code, rule, or regulation pertaining to firearms. So they don’t care what the laws say. And this hasn’t changed.But it is deeply troubling, indeed mind-boggling, to believe New York City’s harsh, brutal, even despotic handgun licensing scheme continues to escape Constitutional scrutiny, a point Stephen Halbrook makes at the outset of his August 2020 NRA article, when he says,“‘Under New York law, it is a crime to possess a firearm’, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in U.S. vs. Sanchez-Villar (2004). This ruling was based on the state’s ban on the possession of an unlicensed handgun. This prohibition did not offend the Second Amendment, said this ruling, because ‘the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.’ Later rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court—D.C v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010—begged to differ. . . . But the Second Circuit must not have gotten the memo. . . .”Stephen Halbrook makes clear that the New York licensing scheme is unlawful on its face because the very concept of licensing is grounded on the erroneous idea that gun possession is a privilege and not a fundamental right, a notion that is completely at odds with the Second Amendment and with High Court rulings. And I agree with Stephen Halbrook’s assessment.The Arbalest Quarrel has pointed out the Constitutional flaws inherent in gun licensing schemes over and over again, through the years, commencing with our first series of articles on Governor Andrew Cuomo’s draconian and inane New York Safe Act of 2013.We called the Governor out on New York’s unconstitutional licensing scheme. See, e.g., our April 30, 2014 article where we concluded with this: “To suffer bad law is unfortunate. But, forced submission to State law that infringes a fundamental right is sinful.” New York City residents have been forced to submit to unconstitutional firearms laws since 1911. New York’s gun control laws were and continue to be enacted to disarm the honest citizen and to discourage personal self-defense.If a person insists on possessing a handgun for self-defense, New York insists on one’s first obtaining permission from the police department to do so, through the acquisition of a license, issued by the police.Yet, the imposition of stringent handgun license requirements is inconsistent with the import of the fundamental right to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.Redress is necessary. It’s about time.Still, Anti-Second Amendment proponents and zealots interject that every State requires that a motorist obtain an operator’s license to lawfully operate a motor vehicle on public streets, and they ask, “why should gun possession be any different?” But in posing the question, these Anti-Second Amendment activists demonstrate an intention to reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to the status of mere privilege, which, in fact, is what a motorist’s license is; merely a privilege to drive an automobile on public roadways. It is logically and legally wrong to view and to treat a fundamental right as a mere privilege.New York attempts to skirt addressing the inherent unconstitutionality of the entire firearms’ licensing scheme through pompous, imbecilic assurances that a person doesn’t need a handgun to defend him or herself because Government, protects a person. That is patently false and, in any event, it is wholly beside the point, as the Arbalest Quarrel made clear in an article posted on our site on November 21, 2019. That article was reprinted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News on November 26, 2019, although in a different format with some editing.As we said, under the ‘doctrine of sovereign immunity’ the police are not, as a general rule, legally obligated to protect and guarantee the life and safety of any individual, and they cannot be held legally liable for failing to do so. Courts have routinely so held, including New York Courts. But many Americans fail to realize this because the seditious Press and politicians routinely lie to them.The purpose of a community police department is to protect the society-at-large, nothing more. I had pointed this out 30 years ago, in an article I co-authored with Second Amendment scholar, David Kopel. And that basic doctrine has not changed since.But, very recently, something has changed and drastically.Radical Left State and local governments are no longer even allowing their police departments to provide a modicum of protection for their community. This follows from the unrestrained actions and antics of volatile Marxist and Anarchist groups whom they kowtow to. They have called for the defunding of and disbanding of community police departments across the Country and some jurisdictions have done so. In New York City the Radical Left Mayor, Bill de Blasio, has slashed $1 Billion from the NYPD budget. This comes at a critical time when soaring crime and daily riots demand more funding for police, not less.This is a major change because the average American can, now, no longer depend on the police to provide even general protection to the community.It must be noted, too, that there are attempts by Marxists and Anarchists to rewrite the laws on sovereign immunity, to hold police accountable for harming citizens. But this is not for the purpose of securing more police protection and for making the police more accountable to the law-abiding public at large.To the contrary, the purpose of overturning police sovereign immunity rulings is  to provide the public with less protection and, at once, to allow lawless rioters, looters, arsonists, and assailants to engage in attacks on the police and on innocent people without having to fear justifiable retribution for their lawless acts.So, in some ways, matters have changed. Radical Left Governments are leaving communities less safe by preventing the police from promoting law and order, and they are even prevented from protecting themselves as lawlessness occurs all around them, rendering them powerless to engage lawbreakers.The public sees the disturbing results: demoralized officers and less safe communities as police are not permitted to provide communities with even a modicum of safety. This obviously is not for the better.Moreover, even as Radical Left Government leaders restrain and constrain the police, they continue to resist recognition of the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms for their own defense. These Marxist leaders demonstrate their contempt for the very sanctity of human life, even as they claim disingenuously to care about human life. They don’t care and they never did. Theirs is a recipe for disaster: for a complete breakdown of law and order in society.But a breakdown of society is precisely what these Radical Left Governments want. They wish to tear down the Nation, so they can reconfigure it in a manner completely at odds with the preservation of the free Constitutional Republic our founders gave us.Yet, despite the intentions of the Radical Left Collectivists, they can’t subvert the dictates of natural law. Natural law dictates that the right and responsibility of self-defense rests today, as it always did, on the individual.Americans must not listen to the seditious Press and duplicitous politicians who claim that defunding or eliminating the police is necessary and, who claim, at one and the same time, the necessity for curbing the personal right of armed self-defense as well; that taking these actions will improve society. That is not only false, it is absurd. The seditious Press and Radical Left politicians don’t have, and never did have, the best interests of the Nation or its people at heart. This is now transparent and, given the present state of affairs afflicting our Country, this fact is irrefutable.Although I have always been a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, I never advocated that everyone should get a gun. I did support and continue to support freedom of choice in owning and possessing firearms. But now, it is time for every law-abiding American citizen to be armed. Learn how to properly use a gun and how to safeguard it.Our Country is at a crossroads. We stand to lose everything near and dear to us if we don’t pay to heed to the threats directed against us, bearing down relentlessly on all of us.It is the responsibility of all citizens to safeguard their own life and safety and that of their families, and to preserve our Republic as the founders intended; to protect it from the insinuation of tyranny that the Radical Left would dare impose on Americans.Stephen L. D'Andrilli________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

TREACHEROUS AMERICANS POSE THE GREATEST THREAT TO THE SURVIVAL OF OUR NATION

[Note to our readers: The below Three-Part Series Article was delayed publication on AQ due to a pressing need to finalize the publication of a Seven-Part Series Article that was posted earlier today. The present Three-Part series Article was posted in segments, several days ago, on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, whom we support and where AQ is privileged to serve as a contributing writer]

PART ONE

THE “FREE PRESS” AND BIG TECH USE PROPAGANDA TO ENSLAVE US: CONTROL OF SPEECH AND BAN ON FIREARMS

“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. “If we understand the mechanisms and motives of the group mind, it is now possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it. In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.” ~ two quotations from the book, “Propaganda,” by Edward Bernays, Early 20th Century proponent of Propaganda and “Father of Public Relations” Government, the mainstream media, transnational corporations and global technology companies are all avid users of psychological warfare and have been using it to their advantage and to great effect to control and to direct the public’s thought processes and behavior.Through the decades propaganda has become a powerful if subtle mechanism of mind control over a large swath of the population.No greater threat to our fundamental rights and liberties exist today than the power of propaganda to provoke public antipathy toward those sacred rights and liberties through which the individual retains his personal autonomy, power over selfhood; and power over Government: specifically through the God-given right of free expression, as codified in and guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms, as codified in, and guaranteed under the Second Amendment. But today, the right of free expression and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is under constant, concerted, and vigorous assault. How and why has this turnabout happened? The question of why this turnabout occurred is readily apparent.There are powerful, sinister, secretive, ruthless, well-organized, and deep-pocketed forces at work today both inside our Nation and outside it that renounce the continued existence of nation-states. As they have accomplished in Europe, they intend to accomplish here.These forces intend to hollow out our Nation; to confiscate the mineral resources of and harness the talent, and power of our Nation’s extensive military, intelligence, and federal police apparatuses for their own benefit and inscrutable purposes; tacking our Nation onto the others, and eventually merging the entirety of western civilization into a single, unified, global system of governance, a new world order, which the late Senator McCain referred to as a good thing. McCain had also expressed his concern that Trump and Russia would “change” that “world order,” as reported on the website, Real Clear Politics.Notions of pride in Country and of citizenship, of loyalty and devotion to one’s Nation; a sense of national identity, integral to the maintenance of independent, sovereign nations are antithetical to the creation of a transglobal political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical system of governance—a new world order—that the Destructors of the United States and of other nation-states intend to force upon the citizens of our Country and of the Countries of Europe and of the Commonwealth Nations.Consider: our Government has long utilized propaganda to target foreign governments and foreign nationals to accomplish foreign policy objectives, just as those Governments have and continue to target Americans to accomplish their own foreign policy objectives.But in recent years our Government has directed propaganda attacks against a new target. It is the American public itself. This is dismaying, disturbing, disjointed, and alarming; and up until 2013, this practice was illegal.Congress enacted a law in 1946 to prohibit the Government from directing propaganda campaigns against its own citizens. It was called the Smith-Mundt Act. Over a half century later, Congress shifted course.

THE SMITH-MUNDT ACT

“For over sixty years, the Smith -Mundt Act [1946 22 USCS § 1461] prohibited the U.S. Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) from disseminating government-produced programming within the United States over fears that these agencies would ‘propagandize’ the American people. However, in 2013, Congress abolished the domestic dissemination ban, which has led to a heated debate about the role of the federal government in free public discourse. Although the 2013 repeal of the domestic dissemination ban promotes greater government transparency and may help counter anti-American sentiment at home, it also gives the federal government great power to covertly influence public opinion. “Apple Pie Propaganda? The Smith—Mundt Act Before And After The Repeal Of The Domestic Dissemination Ban,” (Abstract), 109 NW. U.L. Rev. 511 (Winter 2015), by Weston R. Sager, Northwestern School of Law, Fulbright Scholar.But it isn’t simply Government’s use of propaganda against its own citizens that alone prompts concern. Powerful internet Companies, like Google, Facebook, and Twitter, dominate information access and they have a tremendous impact in shaping public opinion as they have the means and the motivation to censor free speech.As private companies, information platforms do not come under the purview of the Smith—Mundt Act, and they never did. But these information platforms deserve renewed scrutiny. As internet platforms—pipes of communication—Government has long treated these internet platforms like phone companies. But unlike phone companies, these internet platforms are not mere neutral pipes or conduits for the conveyance of information. They control data and information. In that respect, they operate more like the traditional “Press.” Yet, unlike the Press, these internet platforms cannot be held liable for censoring information.Congress has enacted specific legislation that provides these internet platforms with complete immunity from prosecution for censoring data. The legislation is titled, “Communication Decency Act of 1996,” codified at 47 USCS § 230 Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material. 47 USCS § 230(c) provides in pertinent part, that:(c) Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material. (1) Treatment of publisher or speaker. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.(2) Civil liability. No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; Pay close attention to the words, “or otherwise objectionable” that appear in 47 USCS § 230(c)(2)(A).These words are vague and overbroad, deliberately so. They provide Internet platforms with cover to censor at will anyone they wish to deny use of their platform or any information they find otherwise objectionable. This Statute gives internet platforms, like Google, Facebook, and twitter complete immunity from liability for anything from anyone they wish to censor. And, since they all have a very radical left political, social, and cultural bias, they use their control over the flow of information to benefit the Radical Left Democrat Party agenda, that seeks, unabashedly to curb our most sacred rights, the right of free speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Given the immense power these Internet platforms hold over the flow of information, it isn’t surprising that the Government itself utilizes these platforms for its own propagandizing efforts, and a disturbing alliance between Democrats and these tech companies has emerged. The agenda of Radical left politicians is unconstrained but the voice of conservative values is routinely shut out.The framers of our Constitution had no reason to suspect that a few private companies holding monopolistic power over the flow of information would one day, more than two hundred years after ratification of the Constitution, begin to consolidate their power over the flow of that information and would wield essentially unlimited power over it. But, in their failure to deduce the power of a few monopolistic private companies would wield, undermining the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people, the framers erred.Unscrupulous forces, never desirous of a Nation existing as a free Constitutional Republic in which the people themselves are sovereign, utilized holes in the Constitution with the goal of one day dispensing with it. And the rapidity and rapaciousness of the effort to transform our Nation into a Collectivist tool of Globalists and Marxists is apparent on the run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election.________________________________________________________

THE PATH TO TYRANNY RESTS IN THE DENIAL OF FREE SPEECH AND THE DISARMING OF THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY

THE DEADLY THREAT TO OUR NATION IS NOT THE CORONAVIRUS BUT THE CORRUPTION IN THE BODY POLITIC

The concern of our founders was directed to preventing a strong, centralized Federal Government from usurping power that rightfully belongs to the American people. They felt that, apart from a three Branch Government, wielding distinct and limited powers, the free Speech clause within the First Amendment and the right of the people to keep and bear arms clause in the Second, would be the principal fail-safe mechanism through which we would be able to maintain their authority over Government if the threat of tyranny should arise.But the framers could not have imagined the marriage of certain factions of Government to modern internet platforms that, working together, could one day effectively undermine the sovereignty of the American people. The First and Second Amendments to the Constitution were designed to prevent this.To the First Amendment, the framers added—what is arguably redundant—the freedom of Press clause, as they felt the Press, as a distinct and critical extension of the people, or perhaps, as a mechanism separate and apart from the people, would nonetheless constitute a staunch ally of the people to help prevent the insinuation of patterns of conduct within Government that might well lead to tyranny. In drawing that inference, the framers erred as well.“Freedom of the Press” even as it appears in the Bill of Rights, is not a codification of a natural right at all, and, so, should not be construed as such. After all, “the Press,” as with the Government itself are artificial man-made constructs, not God-bestowed natural rights intrinsic to man himself. And, as with all gargantuan, bloated constructs, the Press, as an institution, to which we can add the cable news networks, talk radio, and the monolithic internet platforms has grown to dominate free speech.The Press expresses consternation over and is antagonistic toward the public that would desire to exercise its own fundamental right of free speech, as freely and as independently as this “Press.”

A NEW THREAT TO LIBERTY HAS EMERGED: THE PRESS

The framers of our Constitution never envisioned, in their wildest dreams, that the people would one day elect a man to Government—the best the people could achieve at any rate, at this moment in the Nation’s history, Donald Trump—who would better defend the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people than did his predecessors who machinated to weaken those very rights and liberties.The people elected a man who would implement foreign and domestic policies to benefit the United States as an independent Nation-State rather than implement policies, as his recent predecessors had done, that serve to benefit not the American people but a monstrous, labyrinthine transnational neoliberal oligarchic empire Collective, into which the hollowed-out shell of the United States would one day be fastened.The framers of the Constitution would be surprised to learn that the agency of information, the Press, that was expected to keep the Government in check would one day work, seditiously, not for but against the American people, colluding with like-minded members of Congress and like-minded unelected officials of the federal bureaucracy to destroy a President whose unforgivable crime, in their mind, was striving to serve the Nation, its Constitution, and its people rather than working against it as recent former Presidents had done, in service to destructive forces with a perverse agenda.If the framers recognized the danger that the Press—along with modern versions of the Press, the information technology platforms, cable news and other mechanisms for conveying information—would one day pose to the fundamental rights and liberties of the citizenry, they would likely have forborne inclusion of free Press protection in the First Amendment and left intact the right of free speech.But the framers learned men and courageous men, and far-sighted visionaries as they were—even they—could not have conceived the potential for First Amendment free speech abuse by private parties, wielding unheard of monolithic, monopolistic powers over information dissemination.The framers would be both horrified with, transfixed by, and thoroughly ashamed of their failure to foresee the danger posed to the sovereignty of the American people by a seditious Press. They would be aghast to see a few private companies wielding unimaginable power over the free flow of information—more power than the Federal Government itself had wielded, could ever wield and that would use that power with impunity in service to forces desirous of undermining a Free Republic and a free people, rather than preserving a Free Republic and a free people.Internet companies like Google, Twitter, Facebook, and Amazon control the dissemination of vast quantities of information. They determine what information can or cannot be disseminated. They control thought and discourse and attempt to affect change in accordance with a Collectivist agenda.Since these power brokers support the Radical Left agenda, they have a vested interest in and the power to control how public policy is made; how opinions are expressed and generated.With their powerful lobbying activities, they essentially control Congress: Democrats surely, with whose policy objectives they are sympathetic to, sharing the same political and social philosophy, but Republicans too—many of whom are on the lobbying payroll of the big tech companies.______________________________________________

THE KEY TO SURVIVAL OF A FREE REPUBLIC AND A SOVEREIGN PEOPLE: CONSTANT VIGILANCE AND A WELL ARMED CITIZENRY

PART THREE

Are The Bilderberg Group And Other Secretive Organizations Interested In Promoting The Continued Existence Of Independent Nation-States? Not Likely!Major newspapers like the New York Times have attended secretive Bilderberg Group meetings.For example, David Sanger, National Security Correspondent for The New York Times was a named attendee for the conference scheduled for May 30, 2019 through June 2, 2019, as reported by publicintelligence.net.Yet curiously, the Times itself does mention—we should add, rightfully so—that Trump Administrative Officials, Mike Pompeo and Jared Kushner, attended that same conference. It is, of course, deeply disconcerting and mystifying to learn of Trump officials’ attendance at a secret Bilderberg conference. But, failing to mention that one of its own people would be attending a Bilderberg Group conference as well, is telling. The New York Times long associated with attendance at highly secretive Bilderberg conferences never spoke of its attendance at such meetings. Apparently, the Times’ publisher and editors felt that such an item does not fall within the scope of “all the news that’s fit to print.” See NY Times section Week in Review. Still, complicit, as well, in the endeavor of those destructive forces that seek to harm a free Constitutional Republic and a free, sovereign people and have been working tirelessly to accomplish that end for the last several decades; certainly since the inception of the Bilderberg group in 1954, as pointed out on their home website. https://www.bilderbergmeetings.org/The attendance of Trump officials at last year’s Bilderberg group conference raises an important matter for speculation. Obviously, the seditious NY Times wishes to convey the impression to Trump supporters that Trump cannot be trusted. After all, the NY Times and other seditious newspapers like the Bezos owned Washington Post, and the majority of radio and cable news outlets, have waged an unending, vicious, virulent, reprehensible campaign to destroy the Trump Presidency since the day Trump took the Oath of Office.But, the fact that the New York Times, in particular—as an important arm of the Radical Left Democrats and of the fabulously wealthy, well-organized, highly secretive, and abjectly ruthless transnational neoliberal Globalists—would convey information to the public of Trump officials’ attendance at a Bilderberg meeting is obviously directed to supporters of Trump as the very expression, “Bilderberg,” is synonymous with deep, abiding contempt for the continued existence of independent nation-states and for the common people who reside in those nation-states.Trump officials attendance at a Bilderberg conference does raise serious, unsettling questions. Still, knowing this, we must ask, why did Pompeo and Kushner attend the Bilderberg conference, and one year before the election?Did the Globalist “elites” suspect Trump was likely to win a second term in Office and sought to control him by bringing him into their nest, to make him one of them? Was he always aligned with them? Perhaps? Or perhaps Trump is a true outsider and wanted to know what the Bilderberg “elites” were up to, in implementing their plans; consolidating their power over the populations of Europe, the Commonwealth Nations, and the United States. Having Pompeo and Kushner at the meeting Trump would have an opportunity to find out.These facts can certainly lead all Americans to suspect corruption and villainy of all or virtually all elected and non-elected Government officials. But this isn’t to suggest that Trump, and House and Senate Republicans, shouldn’t receive our support in November. They should because the danger to our free Republic posed by the Democrats is more insistent, more troubling, more aggressive, and more perilous to our fundamental rights and liberties in the immediate short term than is the extension of the Trump Presidency and the retention of a Republican-controlled Senate, in the longer term.What does all this mean? Americans must hold onto their firearms more tightly and express their objections to mob rule more loudly.When weighing incipient danger to our sovereignty, a Trump Presidency and a Republican-controlled Senate is infinitely preferable to a Democrat Party controlled Senate and Presidency. As long as Americans can express their ideas freely, and as long as they retain control of their firearms, a free Constitutional Republic, as envisioned by our founders, will endure. Otherwise it will not.As one J.D. Candidate poignantly stated in a law review article:“The abuses of the British monarchy led the founding fathers to adopt the principle that the ultimate power should be vested with the people and not with any government organization. This concept, that the people and not the king or the federal government hold the ultimate sovereignty, is embodied in the Preamble of the Constitution that states, ‘we the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union.’ The sovereignty of the people has important implications for First Amendment jurisprudence because if the channels of free speech are manipulated, so is the sovereignty of the people. A democratic society based on the sovereignty of the people demands the free flow of ideas in order to operate. Anything less is not sovereignty, let alone democracy.” Bankrupting the First Amendment: “Using Tort Litigation to Silence Hate Groups,” 37 Cal. W. L. Rev. 395 (Spring 2001), by Jason Paul Saccuzzo, J.D. Candidate, April 2002, California Western School of Law. To these points we would add the critical importance of the Second Amendment. Speech can be easily manipulated and we are seeing the sad results with inclusion of recent Orwellian neologisms like ‘cancel culture; ‘reimagine policing;’ ‘white guilt;’ ‘black victimhood;’ ‘deep equity;’ ‘racial literacy;’ and so forth and so on.But as for the firearms in one’s possession, those are not intangibles. The firearms themselves cannot be manipulated; they can only be utilized if needed or relinquished if compelled. But, as long they remain in one’s hands, they are a force to be reckoned with.Recall the quotation from the 1982 cult classic fantasy sword and sorcery epic, “Conan the Barbarian,” starring Arnold Schwartzenneger and James Earl Jones. While the fantasy adventure is ridiculous and innocuous fun, there is a point to be made from it: “the riddle of steel” that, in the remark, has a golden kernel of truth that can be applied with equal efficacy to the modern weapon, the firearm, to keep tyrants at bay.“Fire and wind come from the sky, from the gods of the sky, but Crom is your god. Crom, and he lives in the earth. Once giants lived in the earth, Conan, and in the darkness of chaos, they fooled Crom, and they took from him the enigma of steel. Crom was angered, and the earth shook, and fire and wind struck down these giants, and they threw their bodies into the waters. But in their rage, the gods forgot the secret of steel and left it on the battlefield, and we who found it, are just men, not gods, not giants, just men. And the secret of steel has always carried with it a mystery. You must learn its riddle, Conan, you must learn its discipline, for no one, no one in this world can you trust, not men, not women, not beasts, [but] this you can trust.” [Conan’s father points to his sword] 1982 classic fantasy sword and sorcery epic, starring Arnold Schwartzenneger and James Earl Jones.There is a riddle to be learned, as well, in one’s ownership of, possession of, love of, and respect for one’s firearms, the modern sword of today. And there is a riddle about firearms as with the riddle to the weapon of time’s past: the Knight’s sword. Thus, we see recent attempts to manipulate the public’s thoughts pertaining to guns and to one’s ownership of, possession of, and love of them; and one’s respect for them. To force a Nation to its knees, literally as well as symbolically, destroy the ability of a people to resist domination and control. Deny to them their ability to effectively resist; snatch their firearms from them. And destroy even their desire to survive; make them weak in mind and spirit; abjectly defenseless.In future articles we delve into the insidiousness of the Radical Left’s unremitting effort to divorce Americans’ from their firearms, and the difficulty in doing so, given an equally indefatigable, unwavering determination of many Americans to resist arms confiscation. In this battle, more so than any other, does an epic clash for the very soul of our Country exist. The firearm serves us, Americans, today as it served our forefathers in the past, and as, the predecessor, the sword, served the knight and nobleman and king centuries before. It is a Holy Grail that guarantees liberty. One cannot be vanquished, who bears it, unless one voluntarily relinquishes it. This, Holy Grail of liberty, the sword, was the Holy Grail that rulers in feudal Europe denied to the peasants of that day. And the Holy Grail of liberty today, the firearm, the secret overlords of Europe and America would deny to the commonalty, whom they would they make as the peasants of the present day.Those who seek to destroy this Nation know this full well. Did we not see this in the McCloskey’s stand against rabid creatures who confronted them at their own home, on their own property; threatening to destroy their life and burn down their home, a person’s sacred dwelling. But was not this mindless rabble left only to fume and shout impotently; and forced to take their leave, when confronted with such might and power? And, did not the Soros installed mayor, having recognized that might and power, the firearm, demand the relinquishing of it, the McCloskey’s own Holy Grail, their personal firearms? Clearly the Soros installed mayor, was enraged by the sheer power of that Holy Grail wielded by those whom the ruling class would dare to subjugate but cannot subjugate as long as they are armed.*No Country can long endure where it rots from the inside out. Our Nation can withstand the onslaught of every loathsome plague that besets it. The most loathsome of all, are those viruses that exist in the body politic itself, and the most difficult to restrain and to vanquish. These odious forces that dare to crush Americans in submission know that to do so, they must, by hook or by crook, get Americans to forsake their firearms, their swords—these items that are bound to our very soul: our Holy Grail. Will we do so? If so, we are undone._____________________________________*Epoch Times just reported that Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) has recently drafted a letter to Attorney General Barr, requesting a DOJ probe of the sinister Attorney General, Kim Gardner, to uncover whether this Soros backed toady had violated the McCloskeys civil rights when she ordered the police to confiscate the McCloskeys’ firearms. ___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NYC: THE NEW BADLANDS

THE NEW BADLANDS OF THE EAST SPRINGS UP FROM THE OLD BADLANDS OF THE WEST

PART ONE

“Back in the days of the old West, there were these stretches of territory that I think God and nature just plain forgot about. . . dark and parched and empty as the moons of Mars. Places where sensible men never ventured. . . where only dreams and phantoms walked. Kind of a way station between civilization and the Ninth Circle of Hell—The Badlands.” ~Quotation from the 1991 film, “Into the Badlands,” starring Bruce Dern as a Bounty Hunter, T.L. Barston Has New York City become a new Badlands where even “angels fear to tread?” It would seem so.No reasonable, rational person would venture into New York City unless he or she has to. This isn’t conjecture and it wasn’t always this way, but today it is exactly so, and that statement is true of police officers from neighboring jurisdictions as well.In fact, police officers in hot pursuit of criminals who committed crimes in some New York jurisdictions are now prohibited from entering New York City to continue the pursuit of criminals who make it across jurisdictional lines into the City—a City that has become a safe harbor for vermin. The first New York jurisdiction to ban its officers from chasing criminals into the City is Westchester County.On July 14, 2020, the New York Post reported,“Westchester County is banning cops from the Big Apple, saying the city’s new restriction on chokeholds and other restraints makes it too easy for officers to get jammed up.The new decree, laid out Thursday in an internal memo obtained by The Post, comes on the heels of legislation approved last month by the New York City Council that bans chokeholds and prohibits officers from sitting, kneeling or standing on a suspect’s chest and back.Mayor Bill de Blasio signed the bills this week.‘Given the likelihood that the restraint of a non-compliant individual during the course of making a lawful arrest often requires kneeling on the torso of the suspect for at least a brief period of time,’ the Westchester memo said, ‘this order is intended to protect sworn members from criminal prosecution for actions consistent with their training and department policy.’‘Effective immediately and until further notice sworn members shall not conduct any enforcement activity within the confines of the City of New York,’ it said. Officials from three police departments overseeing a region that neighbors New York City have ordered their officers to halt any enforcement activity in the city out of concern over a recently enacted chokehold ban that places limitations on the ways in which arrests can be made.The new limitations prompted one New York Police Department-linked executive to slam Mayor Bill de Blasio for turning the Big Apple into “the new Rikers Island PRISON without walls[a containment center of unarmed citizens].Westchester County Police told its members on Thursday that they ‘shall not conduct any enforcement activity within the confines of the City of New York,’ including ‘pursuing subjects into the City of New York for offenses committed in Westchester County,’ according to the interim order, which was shared online by Ed Mullins, president of the Sergeants Benevolent Association for the NYPD.‘All 5 Boroughs of NYC soon to be the new Rikers Island PRISON without walls,’ Mullins wrote in the tweet late Thursday. ‘NYC Alienated by law enforcement agency as a result of horrific law sign by [Mayor Bill de Blasio].’‘Administrative Code section 10-18, makes it a misdemeanor crime for an arresting officer to restrain someone in a manner that restricts the flow of air or blood by compressing the windpipe or the carotid arteries on each side of the neck, or sitting, kneeling, or standing on the chest or back in a manner that compresses the diaphragm, in the course of effecting or attempting to effect an arrest,’ according to the bill.”Two days later, the New York Post reported that neighboring Nassau County followed Westchester County’s lead, reporting,“Nassau County police brass this week ordered on-duty cops to avoid the Big Apple unless accompanied or approved by a supervisor, according to a memo issued days after Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a bill making it a criminal offense for officers to use a chokehold on a suspect.The memo, issued Friday, outlines the city’s new ‘unlawful methods of restraint’ law and notes violators could end up with a year in jail.‘In light of the above law, members shall not conduct police business in New York City unless it has been approved by their Commanding Officer,’ according to the document.Nassau cops now must be accompanied by a supervisor, notify the local precinct of their activities ‘unless doing so would cause danger’ to the officers, and officers ‘should have clearly identifiable police insignia when taking police action,’ the memo reads.” These policies aren’t anomalies. They arise from a new sober reality, and as we write this article, other New York counties have followed or are likely soon to follow suit.These unprecedented police policies are obviously and justifiably designed to protect officers from facing criminal charges themselves if they happen to utilize a martial arts maneuver meant certainly not to maim or kill an arrestee but to subdue and secure him, quickly, effectively, and safely, to protect both the arrestee and the officer and to bring an aggressive assault to an end, allowing the officer to effectuate the arrest.Moreover, if police officers are denied the ability to utilize a proven martial arts technique that may at times be necessary, as police training dictates, dangerous individuals may escape police custody, thus endangering the community at large and requiring further expenditures of time, money, and additional police resources to hunt down a perpetrator of a crime, anew, that would not and should not have been necessary.And this all comes about because of New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio acquiescing to the demands of domestic terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter. Neither de Blasio nor domestic terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter have any true understanding of the nature of, demands of, exigencies pertaining to, or real life dangers involved in police work.On July 8, 2020, the New York Post reported,“NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan on Wednesday doubled down on his criticism of the City Council’s police anti-chokehold bill, calling a portion of it ‘dangerous.’Monahan, speaking during a PIX11 interview, said he does not have a problem with the bill that will make it a criminal offense for cops to use chokeholds but takes issue with its ban on maneuvers that would press a suspect’s diaphragm.‘The idea of the diaphragm bill — and I call it a diaphragm bill — because we have no objection to the chokehold portion of it, but any cop who’s ever fought with someone on the street, trying to get him into cuffs, there’s a great possibility that your knee is going to end up on that individual’s back, and now this new law is criminalizing it,’ Monahan said.‘We try to avoid that, but in the midst of a fight, it’s pretty hard to make sure that doesn’t happen,’ said Monahan. ‘When you have to worry that someone who may have taken a shot at you that you are now arresting, if your knee hits their back, you become the criminal.’Monahan said the department is ‘absolutely’ lobbying against the diaphragm portion of the anti-chokehold bill.‘It is a dangerous, dangerous portion of that bill,’ he said.”On July 15, 2020, The New York Post wrote,“Mayor Bill de Blasio signed a suite of six NYPD reform bills Wednesday, including a ban on chokeholds, while acknowledging concerns that the new laws will make it harder for cops to do their jobs.‘People want to be safe. They need to be safe. They want to work with the NYPD and they want respect in turn,’ de Blasio said while signing the legislation package in the Bronx after joining activists to paint ‘Black Lives Matter’ on Morris Avenue between 161st and 162nd streets.‘I also want to be honest when there are concerns out there. It makes sense to talk about it, not to run away from it,’ de Blasio said.On the bill that will make it a criminal offense for cops to use chokeholds, de Blasio said, ‘I know many in the police department including many I truly respect are concerned.’‘Because although they agree 100 percent and it’s been the policy of the police department, we cannot have chokeholds, there’s concern around some of the additional language around diaphragms.’In addition to criminalizing chokeholds, the bill includes a prohibition on other restraints of a person’s diaphragm or ability to breathe such as sitting, kneeling or standing on someone’s chest or back. Last week NYPD Chief of Department Terence Monahan called the diaphragm portion of the legislation ‘dangerous’ [to police officer safety].‘The idea of the diaphragm bill — and I call it a diaphragm bill — because we have no objection to the chokehold portion of it, but any cop who’s ever fought with someone on the street, trying to get him into cuffs, there’s a great possibility that your knee is going to end up on that individual’s back, and now this new law is criminalizing it,’ Monahan said during a PIX11 interview.‘We try to avoid that, but in the midst of a fight, it’s pretty hard to make sure that doesn’t happen,’ said Monahan. ‘When you have to worry that someone who may have taken a shot at you that you are now arresting, if your knee hits their back, you become the criminal.’But Monahan’s warnings didn’t prevent the mayor from making the bill law.‘I am signing this bill because I believe we can make it work,’ the mayor said Wednesday.De Blasio made no mention of an earlier incident on the Brooklyn Bridge where Monahan’s finger was broken when he was attacked by a group of people who were at a George Floyd protest. {As reported by a local ABC affiliate news station, abc7, “Protesters at the ‘ encampment clashed with police and at least seven NYPD officers suffered injuries—Monahan suffered a hand injury, a lieutenant was struck in the head, a sergeant was struck in the head and a lieutenant suffered an eye socket fracture. The other three officers suffered minor injuries.”} The last thing the police, the community, and any reasonable, sensible person would want is to have the police embroiled in a physical confrontation with an anxious, temporarily irrational, deranged or inherently dangerous arrestee itching for a fight that devolves into a lengthy street brawl. Apparently, de Blasio hasn’t considered the real possibility of this scenario or otherwise simply doesn’t care because he has political points to rack up with the Radical Left contingents that support him, along with well-to-do uninformed New York City residents who have the luxury of residing above the fray of dangerous street encounters and live securely ensconced in extravagant, luxurious abodes, but for the latter group that is really just illusion.Yet, this is all welcome news to the common criminals, lunatics, and murderous gang members, and dangerous Marxist and Anarchist group members, and other assorted riff-raff who now enjoy an extended “field day” in New York.Is it any wonder, then, that neighboring New York State jurisdictions have implemented their own policy, precluding their own lawenforcement officers from pursuing criminals into the City, once those criminals have crossed into the jurisdiction of New York City?_______________________________________________________________

PART TWO

WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE ISN’T ALWAYS GOOD FOR THE GANDER

What is good for the worst elements of society, though, is bad for everyone else who happens to call New York City their home, including those relatively well-to-do liberal, progressive New York City residents who believe they are above the fray but really aren’t.Bill de Blasio, though, as New York City Mayor, doesn’t have to worry about NYPD police protection. The Mayor enjoys, for himself and for his family, all the comfort and peace of mind that comes from obtaining the very security that he denies the community at large, and from the very Police Department that he publicly excoriates. And he means to keep that special police protection both for himself and his family.This specialized modern day Praetorian Guard who protects its Emperor, Bill De Blasio is called the “Executive Protection Unit.” In April 2019, Daily News reported,“The embattled head of Mayor de Blasio’s NYPD bodyguard unit remains in his prestigious post — and sources inside the department believe it’s all thanks to the man he’s supposed to protect.Sources tell the Daily News that Inspector Howard Redmond was going to be removed from his role as commanding officer of the Executive Protection Unit — that is, until the mayor stepped in.The decision to reassign Redmond was made by Intelligence Division Chief Thomas Galati and Commissioner James O’Neill in the summer, sources said, as The News ran a series of stories about turmoil within the EPU.But sources close to the troubled unit believe de Blasio then intervened and saved Redmond’s job. Only de Blasio would have the authority to override Galati and O’Neill’s decision.When people get to the point where they think they are untouchable, it’s not surprising,’ a police source said. ‘None of this would have happened at any other level in the NYPD or any other department. It was a ground ball they let go into the outfield.’”And, Back in October 2019, the Daily News reported that,“Mayor de Blasio ordered his NYPD security detail to repeatedly take his son back and forth from Yale University during his first years at school, the Daily News has learned.Executive Protection Unit detectives drove Dante de Blasio to or from New Haven, Conn., at least seven or eight times, the sources with direct knowledge said. Members of the detail also took Dante to visit his uncle, who lives nearby, sources said. Dante faced no security risks at the time, the sources said.”Well, the public doesn’t have available to it the special Executive Police Protection that Bill de Blasio demands for himself and his immediate family. Nor do the very wealthy in New York City need to be unduly concerned for their own physical safety and well-being as they reside in extravagant and highly secured fortresses in the City and retain a retinue of highly paid private bodyguards to protect them when they venture into the jungle outside, and a very dangerous jungle New York City has indeed become, courtesy of that very Mayor, Bill de Blasio, whose policies have transformed the City into a cesspool of violence.What can the average, rational, responsible law-abiding, New York City resident rely on for self-defense? The answer is obvious. The best security for the average New York City resident is a handgun for protection in the home and when venturing outside. But try to obtain a license, necessary to protect one’s own life if you are a New York City resident!A restricted New York City Premises handgun license is difficult enough to obtain. A highly coveted unrestricted concealed handgun carry license is next to impossible. Good luck in getting that!

WHERE DOES ALL THIS LEAVE THE AVERAGE NEW YORK CITY RESIDENT?

First, the average City resident cannot rely on the police to provide them with even a modicum of community security and this comes at a time when the City suffers heightened unease and tension due to mob violence. Second, because New York traditionally frowns on civilian ownership and possession of firearms, the average New York City resident is denied effective means of self-defense. Third, the news media refuses to acknowledge that the City is facing the worst violence in years.In this constant state of paroxysms of violence devastating urban centers across America, it is remarkable that the mainstream media invariably refrains from use of accurate descriptors such as ‘assailant,’ or ‘attacker’ or ‘law breaker,’ or ‘agitator,’ or ‘provocateur,’ to refer to the agents of this violence; invariably resorting to or falling back on innocuous and general expressions ‘protestors’ or ‘demonstrators’ when referring to everyone taking part in this carnage.And, you never hear the mainstream media referring to the weeks of wanton, numerous, endless, and horrendous acts of vandalism, and looting, and of the defacing, defiling, and destroying of monuments, statues and artwork and of the incessant rioting, assaults, and muggings, and even of acts of murder—and all of it on a massive scale and all of it occurring in major cities across the Country for weeks on end—as ‘civil disturbances,’ or ‘civil unrest,’ or’ ‘civil upheavals,’ or ‘mob violence,’ or ‘lawlessness,’ or ‘violent disorder,’ which is what these acts are.The Press is careful not to employ any of the many available and more accurate descriptive words and phrases and nomenclature to describe those who individuals who are engaged in a large number of clearly serious criminal acts. The mainstream media insists on utilizing the expression ‘protest’ or ‘peaceful protest’—sometimes even resorting to using the illusive and evasive and absurd phrase, ‘mostly peaceful protest,’ abjuring the cardinal journalistic rule to avoid use of adverbs in news accounts, and avoid use of ambiguity and vagueness.The seditious New York Times, on those occasions when it deigns to recite acts of violence occurring in cities across the Country, still resorts to prefacing those acts as protests and even denying that physical confrontations are anything other than lawful acts of civil disobedience, insisting on employing the generic expression, ‘protest,’ or the deliberately vague expression, ‘unrest,’ even though whatever may have commenced weeks ago as a ‘peaceful protest,’ ostensibly triggered by the police killing of a petty criminal and drug addict, George Floyd, has long transcended anything that can remotely be reasonably categorized as a ‘protest,’ peaceful or otherwise.Cities have devolved into essentially free fire zones. Nothing occurring in our major urban centers today can reasonably be described as a “lawful peaceful protest,” guaranteed under the First Amendment of the Constitution. In fact the mainstream media continues to denounce the police, referring to any action that might have resulted directly or indirectly to harm against an agitator, as the fault of the police. Apparently, it never occurred to any of these newspaper reporters to consider that it wasn’t the police that rounded up people, placed them on a street, and told them to stir up trouble. It was the looters, and rioters, and agitators that brought the police out, in an attempt to maintain some semblance of law and order as required of them.Since Radical Left City and State political leaders have essentially handcuffed their police officers, preventing them from even attempting to maintain a modicum of law and order, these “peaceful protestors” realize they have carte blanc to physically assault the police, and they are going at it with relish. New York City is a prime example of what happens when a Radical Left mayor, such as Bill de Blasio allows people to act like animals; many of them will do so.If perchance, a NYPD police officer should arrest these “peaceful protestors,’ they know the Courts will immediately release them, sans bail. And this is exactly what New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio wants. This is what his policies dictate. And innocent New York resident bear the sad consequences.______________________________________________________

HOW DID NEW YORK CITY GET TO THIS POINT: ATTACKS ON POLICE AND THE ARMED CITIZENRY, LEAVING BOTH DEFENSELESS?

PART THREE

We postulate: the desire to protect health and hearth, life and well-being, self-identity and personal autonomy is encoded into a person’s very being at the very point of conception, when the child is imbued with an immortal soul by a morally perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Divine Creator.This desire of man is manifested in Divine Law, grounded on the sacred principal of the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. These assertions are axiomatic, self-evident, a priori true. For, it is said that our God is a Creative God, and we, human beings, exist as an important part of his Divine Creation.We as finite beings, yet created in the image of God, given free will, are created to be creators ourselves; free to express our own individuality; free to do so as long as we allow other human beings to freely express their individuality as well.Equally self-evident, a priori true is the raw desire of Government—a man-made institution—to enfeeble man; to crush man into submission.Governments exist, after all, as a collective of men who, wielding power over others, and given the gift of “freedom of choice” as the Divine Being gifts to all human beings, choose unwisely, attempting to exert their will on others, and often, as we have seen throughout history, succeed.The very institution of Government evolves. Eventually, inexorably, inevitably it becomes an unholy creature, one that cannot help but dominate, subjugate, and destroy personal individuality, independence, initiative. Government attempts to destroy the very integrity of Self. In a sudden paroxysm of violence, like the cataclysmic death of a star, the Government destroys itself and everything and everyone else along with it.

NEW YORK MAYOR DE BLASIO BARKS THAT PEOPLE DON’T NEED HANDGUNS; THEY HAVE THE POLICE

Bill de Blasio argues that average New York City residents don’t need a handgun license at all because the NYPD provides them with all the safety anyone would need.And, Didn’t de Blasio make that very remark and continue to reiterate if when pressed by evening Fox News Host Sean Hannity, one evening, many moons and ten thousand years ago, as reported by Fox News in an exchange between de Blasio and Hannity, when de Blasio—then running for the Democratic Party nomination—attempted, albeit unconvincingly, to explain, to Hannity’s listeners why he, de Blasio, would be the best candidate to take on Trump in November; that the Country needs a man like him to lead our Country?“Bill de Blasio defended his stance on gun control during an exclusive interview with Sean Hannity.De Blasio, the mayor of New York City, claimed New York is the safest large American city and that the police are the best outlet to keep people safe, on Wednesday's ‘Hannity.’‘You're in the safest big city in America. . . with the finest police force in America,’ he said.‘We keep people safe. Crime's gone down for the last six years on my watch.’‘I believe right now what's wrong in this country is not that people have rights around guns, it's there are no gun safety measures like background checks.’In response, Hannity said he had to submit to a background check to obtain his gun permit in the state of New York.De Blasio said the background checks should nonetheless be more ‘sufficient.’‘Ask the NYPD and they'll tell you they believe in strong gun laws to keep officers and civilians safe,’ he added.‘Everyone deserves to be safe. The answer is not for everyone to have a firearm—any more than the answer is not for every teacher to have a firearm.’‘I believe we should have background checks. We need an assault weapons ban.’Responding to the mayor, Hannity said the presidential hopeful was dodging the question of personal firearm ownership.‘All the guns that are out there, that are threatening our officers and our civilians alike. . . I believe people have rights, I believe in gun safety laws,’ he responded.‘I believe we should have background checks. We need an assault weapons ban.’Responding to the mayor, Hannity said the presidential hopeful was dodging the question of personal firearm ownership.‘All the guns that are out there, that are threatening our officers and our civilians alike. . . I believe people have rights, I believe in gun safety laws,’ he responded.‘We have a police department. . . that is making it safer all the time—that's the best way to protect people.’When Hannity pressed further, de Blasio quipped, ‘I ain't buying what you're selling.’”Needless to say Hannity was having none of that. He remained, unconvinced; incredulous, even baffled by the nonsense that kept coming out of de Blasio’s maw.Now jump ahead ten thousand years, to the present day. Juxtapose de Blasio’s earlier remarks to Hannity:‘We have a police department. . . that is making it [the public] safer all the time—that's the best way to protect people’ ———with de Blasio’s recent and massive Police budget cut to the tune of $1 Billion—coming at a time when, reasonably, rationally, de Blasio ought to be adding $1 Billion to the Police budget, not slashing the budget, in a time of massive violence across the length and breadth of the City.About that $1 Billion budget cut, the New York Post recently reported:“The latest evidence comes with his agreement to cut police spending by about 17 percent, including the cancellation of a new class of rookies. With retirements soaring, that guarantees fewer cops on the street just as murder and mayhem are turning much of the city into the Wild West.Murders are up 25 percent this year and the police counted 63 shootings last week, compared with 26 for the same week last year.The violent tide suggests the bad guys have no fear of being ­arrested. Why should they? And if they are, the new bail law requires judges to release most of them ­immediately anyway.Meanwhile, the domino effect will add to the city’s misery. The crime spurt, including the tragic murder of 17-year-old Brandon Hendricks, while the police force is facing reductions means the NYPD will have little or no resources for less serious but still important quality-of-life issues.The illegal fireworks exploding all over the city with impunity are but a loud foreshadowing of the disorder to come. Consider, too, that it took the city more than a month to move a homeless man, often naked, out of the dry fountain at Washington Square Park.For de Blasio, the police budget episode has been Exhibit A of how he is both hapless and unscrupulous.At first, he tried to dance around the far-left pressure to defund cops, but after he was booed and heckled off the stage at a June 4 ­memorial for ­George Floyd in Brooklyn, he instantly embraced the national madness.Within days, de Blasio was throwing the mob a bone, saying that while he didn’t agree with calls for $1 billion in cuts to the NYPD’s nearly $6 billion in spending, he would propose ‘something substantial.’Given the backdrop of protests, riots and looting, even that was reckless pandering. These ‘mostly peaceful protests,’ as much of the media still insist on calling them, destroyed hundreds of businesses and scared sensible people out of their wits — and sent many of them to the exits.A good, courageous mayor would have stood up to the anti-cop crowds and reminded them that the NYPD had saved thousands of black lives by taking illegal handguns off the street, and that a declining prison rate was another consequence. It was the police, not the protesters and rioters, who had made New York the safest big city in America.Such a mayor also would have reminded all New Yorkers that a continuing exodus of taxpayers will leave the city with even less money to spend on anything and everything.But expecting de Blasio to be a good, courageous mayor is a fool’s errand. He caved into the demands and instead of nibbling at police spending, agreed to slash it.”How does de Blasio respond to reality? Simple; like all Radical Left Marxist and Anarchist crazies he denies reality, and huffs and puffs in rage that millions of rational New York City residents would question his judgment, obsequiously bowing to the Mob that is as crazy and as obsessed as he is with tearing down a Nation that the founders placed their life on the line to create and that millions of Americans thereafter placed their life on the line to sustain.Sean Hannity’s media room reports,“Embattled Big Apple Mayor Bill de Blasio enraged millions of angry residents Thursday; saying New York City is “safer and better” with “fewer people in our jails.”‘We now have fewer people in our jails than any time since WW2 and we are safer for it and better for it!’ yelled De Blasio.”The Mayor then goes after the police union. Sean Hannity’s media room again reports:“Big Apple Mayor Bill de Blasio publicly attacked one of the city’s biggest police unions during his daily press briefing Thursday; saying they “foment hatred” and have no interest in ‘moving forward.’“The Sergeants Benevolent Association has only practiced division. They foment hatred. . . . They do not try to help us move forward,’ de Blasio said during a press conference Thursday. ‘They don’t try to create anything good. I have no respect for the leadership of the SBA.’”So much for both public safety in New York and personal safety in New York.We have to ask: Who the hell votes for dangerous jackasses like Bill de Blasio, anyway, and for all the other flotsam and jetsam peppered throughout our Nation, destroying it with all the rapidity, mercilessness, horror, anguish, and mindless terror of the ‘Bubonic Plague?’ Apparently a lot of people once did, at least, support de Blasio, back in 2017, as reported by City & State, at any rate, which suggests that a lot of New York City residents must be into masochism Big-Time. PJ Media writes, anecdotally, and somewhat tongue-in-cheek,“After a couple of conversations with comedian friends of mine from New York this week I am more mystified than ever as to how Bill de Blasio got re-elected. One of my friends is conservative, the other liberal, and both hate de Blasio with a white-hot passion.When Mayor Moron was first elected almost everyone I know who is well-versed in New York City politics was convinced that he would be a one-term wonder. As he went about dismantling twenty years of progress in the city it seemed almost certain that he would be shown the door, Apparently, everyone in New York was drunk in 2017, and de Blasio was given another shot at screwing everything up.”And what does the run-up to the 2021 NYC Mayoral race portend at the moment? The Gotham Gazette writes,“But one year from now, New Yorkers will cast their ballots in another primary election, one that will likely determine the slate of leadership of New York City for the next four years, including the next mayor. With Mayor Bill de Blasio term-limited, the stage is set for a fierce competition, which may not really take off until just after this year’s presidential election but has already begun.With the economy in shambles and the streets echoing with the exasperated cries of a city disillusioned with current leadership, political analysts say New Yorkers will look for a steady hand to guide them through the city’s many crises, whether it’s the lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, structural and systemic racism, economic devastation, perennial unaffordability, entrenched homelessness, crumbling public housing, and more.”The entire race will hardly matter to anyone if the Radical Left Democrats take over the Federal Goverment. It will be the end of the Republic. That much is certain.But assuming, hopefully, Trump does win a second term in Office and Republicans manage to hold onto the Senate, the dire situation affecting NYC then and now will be of concern primarily to New York City residents and less of concern to the rest of the Nation. Still, it should be remembered that New York City hadn't always suffered fools for mayors and crime had been brought into some semblance of control.Under the leadership of Mayor Rudolf Giuliani, the extraordinarily effective “Broken Windows” policing policy significantly reduced criminal activity in the City. Even under the leadership of Radical Left virulent Anti-Second Amendment hater, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, criminal activity in New York City remained significantly lower than had existed under the leadership of Radical Leftist Mayor David Dinkins. Bloomberg implemented a highly effective “stop and frisk” policy that took firearms out of the hands of criminals.Bloomberg later, of course, and, unsurprisingly, disavowed the City’s “stop and frisk” policy when he, late in the game, joined the race—semi-seriously, it seems—for the Democrat Party’s nomination for U.S. President in the upcoming 2020 General Election.Now, though, under the pseudo-leadership of the Radical Left fanatic, moronic and abjectly hopeless, helpless, and thoroughly contemptible, Bill De Blasio, the City has once again reverted into a sordid, fetid, festering, extraordinarily dangerous hellhole.To hardened serial criminals, raving lunatics, illegal alien drug cartel gangs, murderous drug lords, dangerous psychopaths of all types, along with home-grown domestic Marxist, Socialist, Communist, and Anarchist terrorist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa and other sociopathic organizations, New York City is looked upon and, in fact, has become a shelter, a haven, a safe harbor, a playground sanctuary where the creatures of the night may rant and rave, shout and scream, rampage and pillage, and assault and murder with total abandon, preying mercilessly on innocent, bewildered, forlorn disarmed citizens.Better, then, for normal, sane, law-abiding residents to remain in secured buildings—apartments, lofts, cooperatives, condominium units—as they have more to fear from the viral flotsam and jetsam of society than from the ravages wrought to our society by the Chinese Coronavirus.To normal, rational, responsible, hard-working people who do not call New York City their home, the City has become a veritable containment center, a quarantined area, a contaminated zone, where no one in their right mind would willingly venture into if that can be avoided, and that now includes police officers from neighboring jurisdictions.Unfortunately, New York City isn’t alone. The Radical Left mob has infected other jurisdictions, resulting in pandemonium, across the Nation. Crime and mayhem are the abnormal norm in major Cities around the Country—those led by Radical Left mayors and Radical Left State Governors, and the Radical Left Democrats in Congress are all too busy whipping their whirling Dervishes up to a fever pitch, and the Republicans are all too lame to oppose them, leaving the President himself, as always, to take up the slack.Where does this leave innocent, rational, law-abiding citizens? Best for them to be well-armed with substantial ammunition. And, if average, responsible, rational law-abiding citizens do not have a firearm in their possession, they ought now to seriously consider acquiring one for their own peace of mind and self-defense because the police will have enough on their mind to secure their own safety. But, if you happen to reside in New York City, your chance for acquiring a firearm for home defense is perhaps 50/50. And, if you wish to carry a handgun on your person for self-defense at all times, you will need to acquire an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license to do so lawfully. And your odds of obtaining one is, if we were to hazard a guess, about .00001%, and that is being optimistic.And, if Biden becomes U.S. President, most of us will be in the same boat as your average New Yorker. Expect to see civil unrest, disorder, and destruction expanding, spreading throughout the Country down to the smallest rural village.The first order of business of the Radical Left will be to implement a large-scale plan to collect firearms from the citizenry. Expect to see life in the U.S. taking on the look, and quality, and feel of Venezuela, Cuba, and Mexico, not the picturesque seeming quaint serenity of such quasi-Socialist Nordic States like Sweden and Denmark.______________________________________________

DE BLASIO’S THREE-PART RECIPE FOR DISASTER: DEFUND AND DISMEMBER THE POLICE; DISMANTLE CRIMINAL JUSTICE; AND DISARM THE CITIZEN

PART FOUR

NEW YORK CITY: ON THE VERGE OF MELTDOWN

How has the jabbering, Bill De Blasio, single-handedly turned the safest Big City in America into a snake pit? Consider what this present New York City Mayor has done——1) He has welcomed criminals with open arms, releasing hardened dangerous, sociopathic and psychopathic inmates from prison; tolerates or actively encourages unruly protests, riots, arson, vandalism, and looting; and has implemented a no-bail policy requiring Courts to release countless more dangerous criminals onto the City’s Streets.2) He has hand-cuffed the City’s own police, the NYPD, preventing law enforcement from providing even minimal protection for the community at large, and has effectively alienated them; treating the New York City Police Department like pariahs as if the police were the enemy of the community rather than the community’s protectors, even as he welcomes private police protection for his own personal security.3) As an anti-Second Amendment fanatic, he, along with the Governor of New York Andrew Cuomo, continues to discourage civilian ownership of firearms.Unfortunately, de Blasio isn’t a one-of-a-kind loon. There are many others. The dangerous, ruthless, inordinately wealthy and secretive Marxist Globalist, George Soros, has quietly seeded a plethora of Radical Left Marxists leaders throughout the Country, down to the local level of Government, and the results of his well-organized plan to destroy our Nation from within are in evidence.These Radical Leftists are dutifully operating, as Soros expects them to. We see them working either in concert with or otherwise as passive sympathetic observers of virulent Marxist and Anarchist groups that have been deliberately fomenting violence in Cities across America; engaging in continuous, massive seditious acts of unbridled destruction to property and deliberate, unprovoked assaults on civilians, police, and military—goading and baiting the police and President Trump, daring them to try to stop the rampaging plague of violence.And the seditious Press and Radical Leftist Democrat Party leadership and its members blatantly, chillingly, caustically ignore the carnage and ravaging and rampaging rioters; refusing even to acknowledge their existence; continuing to refer to them peaceful protestors and not agitators, rioters, looters, arsonists, and assailants, even murderers, which is what they are; incongruously blaming the existence of and continuation of violence on President Trump.Community Law enforcement officers, in particular, are ordered by the radical Left local and State governmental leaders either to stand down, or have become wary of doing their job lest they place their own life in danger or face criminal charges themselves, given new police policy directives, designed to constrain them from effectively and quickly and safely restraining vicious predators and rioters. The result is that they have become the target of violent attacks.New police policies are often deliberately vague, ambiguous, or altogether incoherent. And they are clearly inane.NYPD Police Officers, for example, face recriminations or criminal charges themselves for simply attempting to perform their duty: promoting at least a modicum of safety for the community.Not surprisingly, police from neighboring jurisdictions are loath to venture into New York City to apprehend criminals fleeing their own jurisdictions.keep in mind that, under the laws of New York, and around the Country, police do not have a duty to protect the life and safety of individual members of the community, except in very narrow, carefully defined circumstances.The duty of ensuring one’s own life and safety and that of one’s family rests on the individual. See the November 21, 2019 Arbalest Quarrel Article, titled, “Can We, As Individuals, Rely On The Police To Protect Us?” But, as the recent situation with the McCloskey couple of St. Louis, Missouri, makes manifestly and disturbingly clear, the Radical Left intends to handcuff the police, preventing the police from, at the very least, protecting communities at large and; but, at one and the same time, the Radical left has precluded law-abiding, rational, responsible, American citizens from defending their own life and property. See the website, law enforcement todayThus, with their hands effectively tied, NYPD police officers—and those police officers of other communities whose departments have faced defunding and downsizing, disassembling or dismantling—have left their communities in a precarious situation, as those communities do not have even a modicum of protection from the worst elements of society. Residents of these communities cannot now rely on armed police to provide them with even general community-wide protection. And, as if this state of affairs weren’t outrageous enough—brought about by the apathetic and pathetic and totally irresponsible and useless Radical Left State and local governments, innocent, law-abiding, rational, and Americans of these communities once mercilessly denied their God-given right to defend their own life and well-being utilizing the best means available to do so, the firearm. This state of affairs is truly mind-boggling and it is continuing non-stop and likely will continue in the run-up to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.If a Government denies a person the means to protect his or her own life and safety, Government generally covers the gap, bestowing substantial power to the police to maintain law and order and to provide for the safety, security, and well-being of the community at large. This also means that Government would not suffer criminals gladly or kindly but would enforce criminal laws quickly and stringently. Convictions rates would be high and recidivism low.Countries such as Singapore that fashions itself as a Constitutional Republic but, in practice, operates as a “benign” Dictatorship, and China that, curiously, also calls itself a Republic operates as an oppressive, repressive Communist Dictatorship. Both Countries have relatively low violent crime rates. Private ownership of firearms is prohibited in both Nations. The Governments of these Countries don’t tolerate crime. Crime is stamped down fast and it is stamped down hard.  See, e.g., crimes rates by Country, 2020.Other Nations, Switzerland and Luxemburg, may best be described as Democratic Republics. Luxembourg, though, has a strict policy against private firearms ownership. Switzerland’s policy encourages private ownership of firearms. Both Nations have extremely low crimes rates. The populations of both Countries are small and homogenous. See, e.g., crimes rates by Country, 2020.And Venezuela and Mexico both have extremely strict gun control policies but Venezuala, in particular, has exceedingly high crimes rates. And, extremely strict gun control policies in Mexico belie the claim by antigun zealots that Mexico's high rates of gun violence that high gun rates and lax gun laws are directly related, albeit, antigun zealots argue that guns in Mexico emanate from the U.S., as Newsweek reported last year. But, then, who, in Mexico is responsible for all the shootings and killings? Newsweek would rather not say, but the photo accompanying the story more than suggests that it isn't your average law-abiding Mexican citizen who is responsible for the carnage. Dollars to Donuts, we would wager the violence in Mexico is concomitant with rampant criminal activity. In our Nation, companies settle their differences in Court. In Mexico, drug cartels settle business differences through other means.Both Venezuela and Mexico refer to themselves as Republics. They aren’t. The former is an oppressive Marxist Dictatorship. The latter is more accurately described as a Narco-State—that is to say, a Country essentially controlled by criminal gangs. Neither Country is politically, socially, economically, or jurisprudentially functional in any practical sense. The term ‘Republic’ is ubiquitous as a descriptor for governments of Countries around the world; curiously, even among those Countries in which the term is clearly a misnomer.The most oppressive dictatorships invariably refer to themselves as “republics,” ostensibly to convey the idea both to their populations and to the outside world that—however obviously false the nomenclature is to reality—these Countries are responsive to the needs of the people and operate through the consent of the governed.Despite the strenuous and strident arguments generated by those governments and organizations that are vehemently opposed to private ownership of firearms, there is no demonstrable causal connection, nor even a correlation, between high rates of violent crime in a Nation and liberal policies pertaining to private ownership of firearms. This becomes obvious when size of a nation’s population and ethnic and racial composition of that population—whether homogenous or heterogeneous—are factored into the equation, as they should be but rarely are. Nations that historically encourage, even strongly encourage, the private ownership of firearms, such as Switzerland and the U.S., have a relatively low violent crime rate. Nonetheless, Anti-Second Amendment groups and other Radical Left and Progressive political groups proclaim endlessly and vociferously, but erroneously, that the U.S. suffers from a brutally high violent crime rate and that this is due predominately if not exclusively to the notion of too many firearms in the hands of too many people. The conclusion is false. It is predicated on a calculated and deliberate failure of anti-Second Amendment groups to consider critical factors, such as population size and population density in urban areas, the diversity of the ethnic and racial makeup of the population, and lax enforcement of criminal laws, which has grown noticeably ever more lax in recent weeks. _____________________________________________

PART FIVE

THE RADICAL LEFT’S AGENDA AGAINST TRUMP: IGNORE ACHIEVEMENTS; MAGNIFY PERCEIVED FAILURES

The U.S. has the third-largest population of all nations.The Nation's urban centers have dense concentrations of people. And the ethnic and racial composition of the U.S. is extremely diverse. Yet, despite all these factors that contribute to crime, the violent crime rates have, in the last few decades have been falling in the U.S., and the most dramatic decline in violent crime has come during the last few years. This comes to the consternation of the Radical Left in this Nation as President Trump can take credit for that. On October 10, 2019, Forbes reported that:“The FBI released its annual crime report a few days ago, showing the violent crime rate has dropped 4.6% since President Trump took office. Had the violent crime rate in 2018 remained at 2016 levels [that is, during the Obama era], almost 58,000 additional murders, rapes, robberies and aggravated assaults would have occurred.The major property crime rate has also continued its steady national decline, with the rate of motor vehicle theft resuming its downward rate in 2018.” This is no accident. President Trump has focused his energy to reducing crime in our Country, not in constraining and restricting private ownership of firearms. The Pew Research fact tank reports:“Donald Trump made fighting crime a central focus of his campaign for president, and he cited it again during his January 2017 inaugural address. His administration has since taken steps intended to address crime in American communities, such as instructing federal prosecutors to pursue the strongest possible charges against criminal suspects. Here are five facts about crime in the United States.Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century. The two most commonly cited sources of crime statistics in the U.S. both show a substantial decline in the violent crime rate since it peaked in the early 1990s. One is an annual report by the FBI of serious crimes reported to police in more than 18,500 jurisdictions around the country. The other is a nationally representative annual survey by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which asks approximately 160,000 Americans ages 12 and older whether they were victims of crime, regardless of whether they reported those crimes to the police.Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 51% between 1993 and 2018. Using the BJS data, the rate fell 71% during that span. The long-term decline in violent crime hasn’t been uninterrupted, though. The FBI, for instance, reported increases in the violent crime rate between 2004 and 2006 and again between 2014 and 2016. Violent crime includes offenses such as rape, robbery and assault.”Consider: According to the worldometer, there are at present 235 Countries and dependent territories. Of those 235 Countries and dependent and territories, the three largest, by population, include China, India, and the United States: China has over 1.4 billion people; India has almost 1.4 billion people; and the United States has 331 million people.But, despite the size of the U.S. population, the third largest of all Nations and dependent territories in the world, as of 2020, the U.S. doesn’t even rank in the top 20 nations in violent crime, as pointed out by the UK news source, the Independent. Obviously, the Radical Left Democrat Party leadership, along with their wealthy powerful and secretive benefactors, are desirous of destroying Trump’s singular achievements: a fall in crime rates and a rise in economic activity and growth.But one year before the election the Radical Left Democrats, along with the transnationalist Globalists, realized they had to turn these positive indices of Trump’s effectiveness as U.S. President, around. And, with a few short months remaining before the most important U.S. Presidential election in the last several decades, they have grown desperate. But, in recent months, given two recent events, they are now succeeding: a global pandemic brought about by the Chinese Coronavirus, and by one event horrific caught on video, there has been a marked turnaround.The economy has crumbled and societal breakdown is occurring. But neither one of these two, events, one continuous, one incidental, can reasonably be attributed to President Trump, nor should they be. Yet, the forces at home and abroad that desire to destroy the Trump Presidency have milked these events—a global pandemic and the evident murder of a petty criminal and drug addict by a sociopathic police officer—for all they are worth. None of this is by accident. All of it is by design.The inception of the Chinese Coronavirus pandemic has served the Disruptors and Destroyers of a Free Constitutional Republic well even as the illegal coups to bring down the Trump Presidency through the reprehensible Mueller probe, the ludicrous House impeachment proceeding, the half-hearted and ridiculous effort to utilize the 25^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the insertion of spies and saboteurs into Trump’s inner circle—all this, in a cold, callous, concerted, and calculated effort to undermine and bring to a halt Trump’s policy initiatives and goals—have failed.That Trump has been able to accomplish any policy goal at all in the face of constant, concerted, well-organized attacks directed against him, coming from numerous and diversified forces—including the Democrat Party leadership and rank and file members, Bush Republicans, the massive Deep State Bureaucracy, the mainstream Press, Big Tech, and even the Courts—says a great deal about Trump’s fortitude, his stamina, his tenacity, and his capacity for leadership.For the last three-plus years, Trump has in fact faced more adversity from forces within the Nation than from anything emanating from outside the Country.The Democrat Party has consistently and rapaciously attacked him, refusing to work with him; the bloated Bureaucracy covertly and systematically machinated against him, sabotaging the President’s policies, having the audacity, no less, to admit this and gloat over it; the mainstream media scurrilously and scandalously denigrates him, refusing to credit his many successes, magnifying his perceived failures, even manufacturing lies and attributing all sorts of misdeeds against him; and the large technology companies utilize their power over information dissemination to control messaging, often censoring the President and censoring those Americans who support them.Progressive and Radical Left Marxist and Anarchist groups—unable to get close enough to the President to endanger his life and that of his family—do what they can to physically threaten and assault members of his Administration: his advisors, and administrative staff, attempting to discourage Americans from working for him. And FBI, CIA, and DOJ leadership, for their part, working within the Bureaucratic Deep State, have unlawfully used the awesome power and authority they wield to conspire against those who have assisted the Trump campaign.The misdeeds of those forces at home that have orchestrated and implemented campaigns against Trump to disrupt and disable his Administration, as shameful and disgraceful as those misdeeds are, such misdeeds must be understood, as well, as direct and ignominious attacks on the Nation itself.Those forces aligned against Trump that have worked unceasingly to destroy his Presidency, have, as well, harmed the Nation. They have insulted the American people. They have undermined our system of laws and jurisprudence and have demeaned the very sanctity of our Constitution. They have trampled our sacred symbols and monuments and have made the Nation look ridiculous in the eyes of the world. Their misdeeds are unprecedented in number, wide in scope, and audacious beyond anything previously seen in the annals of history.But, in all this, the forces aligned against Trump have failed to prevent him from attempting to accomplish his goals. They have failed to weaken his resolve or to weaken the resolve of the many Americans who support him.But, in all that these malevolent, malignant forces have attempted to defeat the President and to destroy the Nation—and it is now clearly evident the would-be Destroyers of the Trump Presidency have in mind, have always had in mind a goal beyond even that of disrupting the Trump Presidency, as they truly do wish to destroy a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people—they have not yet succeeded and would not succeed. But, with the onset of a Global pandemic, they might yet succeed.The Global pandemic wrought by the Chinese Coronavirus has devastated our Nation’s economy: quickly and effectively just a few months before the U.S. Presidential election. The pandemic has left millions of Americans out of work, and has left thousands of small companies, and large companies, too, in serious financial straits.And the killing of a small-time criminal and drug addict, George Floyd, has provided the pretext to undermine the safety and security of our communities and of the well-being of our citizenry, thereby undercutting the achievements of a President who, having unerringly focused his energies on having successfully and substantially reduced violent crime in our Country—a singular achievement that none of his predecessors had effectively accomplished or for that matter had even tried to accomplish as they had not seriously focused their energies on trying to reduce the rate of crime in our Country.The plan to secure a Radical Left Marxist victory in November 2020 is actually straightforward. It is grounded on an amalgamation of enticement, fear, and guilt:  Entice the American people into accepting the false belief that the violence impacting our Nation is a result of two centuries of pent-up rage of Black victims at the hands of White oppressors, caused by systemic racism infecting all American institutions; that it is reflected in White supremacism that resulted in the election of Trump as U.S. President; that, if Trump is re-elected, violence will continue; and that such violence will only recede if the electorate repudiates Trump and elects a Democrat in his stead.The Marxists, now controlling the Democrat Party, have a solution. Once they get into Office, they suggest that they will do what, they say, Trump cannot do: restrain the violence infecting our Nation because, after all, they control the mob. This of course amounts to naked extortion. And what will these Radical Left Democrats do, if they take control of the reins of Government?Revamp all political, social, legal, and educational, and cultural institutions in America through stringent, uniform norms that are designed and administered by the Federal Government; disarm the citizenry; control all manner of speech and association; flood the Nation with a new class of indentured servants, namely cheap labor from Third World Countries; reduce or keep the mass of citizenry in a state of penury; convert the Nation into a massive Welfare State; and accept the lion’s share of the burden in arms, manpower, and money, for Europe’s military defense.How will this massive federal Government stay afloat, as we see it?Through increased taxation of what remains of middle America and, conceivably, through private and secret bankrolling and funding by a close, tight-knit, transnational oligarchical world order that controls major economic sectors including finance; technology; agriculture; health; energy; construction; telecommunications; raw materials production; defense; consumer staples; and manufacturing._______________________________________________

AMNESIA AND DISTURBANCE IN THE AMERICAN PSYCHE

PART SIX

The Destructors of our Nation have created a dangerous illusion, and, through the force of propaganda have force-fed this illusion to the Nation’s people. It is one of systemic racism, endemic in our Nation and, particularly, endemic in the entirety of community police forces.The Destructors of our Nation have created this illusion to divide our Nation; to sow suspicion and enmity, division and divisiveness, confusion and discord between races; and even between the sexes. All of it is fabricated; none of it true. The Destructors of our Nation have orchestrated a strategy that is nothing more than an elaborate hoax; a fairy tale will-o’-the-wisp; an artificial construct crafted and implemented to cement, for these Destructors, a coalition of diverse elements to ensure a victory for them in November 2020.Ever since Donald Trump won the Republican Party nomination and the U.S. Presidential election, the Destructors of our Nation, the Radical Left and Globalist transnationalist “elites,” have worked methodically, unceasingly to engineer Trump’s downfall, thereby allowing them to continue where they had left off—where they were so rudely interrupted after the shocking and humbling defeat of their carefully groomed stooge, Hillary Clinton.These malevolent, malignant forces are now anxious to complete their agenda, an agenda that mandates the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic; the erosion of the very concepts of ‘nation-state’ and ‘citizen;’ the eradication of our Nation’s history, heritage, and culture; the deliberate and disgraceful denigration of our Nation’s founders; the wholesale destruction of our Nation’s sacred symbols; all in a reprehensible and transparent attempt to loosen the ties that bind Americans to one another and bind all Americans to their wondrous Constitution; the foundation of a great Nation, comprising the world’s only truly free and sovereign people.Much more than a mere document, the United States Constitution is a blueprint providing the functional framework of our Nation. It establishes the structure of a central, “Federal” Government, the relationship of this central, Federal Government to the American people, the authority of the American people over Government, and the inherent sovereignty of the American people. The Constitution is the very force that binds Americans to each other.The subversion of a Constitution upon which the reality of our Nation exists and that has served this Nation and its people well for 240 plus years would not only entail the destruction of our free Republic, it would entail the utter annihilation of the very thought of natural God-given fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties, that exist intrinsically in man, well beyond the lawful power of Government to modify, abrogate, or ignore.The import of the twin-goals of denying to the citizenry the general security the police provide and in denying to Americans their God-given right of self-defense with the best means available, a firearm, is by design, not accident. It is all part of a deviously, diabolically clever plan. Through a severely weakened economy and a physically defenseless, and demoralized people, the Nation’s Destructors see a path forward.If the Destructors of our Nation do achieve their goals, it means unraveling the very fabric of our society, leaving the public defenseless during an extensive and intensifying period of chaos.If successful, the Radical Left will have created a Collectivist dystopian morass, forcing Americans to bend to the will of and to rely solely on a massive, strong centralized government to meet all their basic needs: from food, to shelter, to safety; that they may need their basic survival needs. What we are seeing today is no less than a wholesale ransacking of our Nation; the theft of our birthright; the attempt—no longer disguised—to transform a free Constitutional Republic and a free sovereign people to a state of abject servitude.Nothing portrays  the sheer rage and desperation and even depravity of the Radical Left Destructors of our Nation and of our Constitution than in their callous disregard for human life even as they claim to assert concern for it.The inanity is reflected in the duplicitous, hypocritical, erroneous, and even incongruous remarks that these Radical Left Destructors of our Nation and its Constitution constantly make and reiterate. In recent days, the messaging has become even at once more strident and even more incoherent, to wit:“American civilians do not need to be armed because they would likely just harm themselves with firearms and the police provide Americans with all the physical safety and protection they need, but that, since the police are a danger to Americans, too, they must be defunded or disbanded. So, social services will be expanded to provide Americans with physical safety and security.”What this really means is that the Nation’s Destructors trust neither the American people nor, at present, the local and State police because they perceive both as standing outside their control. Thus, they wish to disarm American citizenry and drastically revise the nature of community policing.The Radical Left Destructors of society have shown, of late, where their true sympathies rest, if anyone has had any doubt about that.Those sympathies don’t rest with the people or with the police.The surrogate representative for the common people is now Black Lives Matter which really has nothing to do with the sanctity of human life, be it a “Black” life or that of anyone else. It has everything to do with erasing a Constitutional free Republic and the sovereignty of the American people.Black Lives Matter members have called for defunding the police. And Mayor de Blasio has obliged them, defunding the NYPD to the tune of one billion dollars. The Mayor should be increasing funding to the police, not cutting funding, but de Blasio would rather listen to the demands of domestic terrorists whose agenda has nothing whatsoever to do with promoting safety and security and the well-being of residents of a community and has everything to do with tearing down our nation’s institutions, rewriting history, controlling the habits, thoughts and actions of Americans, thoroughly disrupting the lives of us all; transforming America into a nightmarish Dystopia Collective.The fact that Mayor de Blasio expressly endorses the activities of this domestic terrorist group, Black Lives Matter, demonstrates the extent to which he and other radical Leftists intend to remake society, commencing with a massive reorganization of the Nation’s community and State police forces.Indeed, this domestic terrorist group, Black Lives Matter—that news outlets often refer to by the shorthand seemingly innocuous-sounding and charming acronym “BLM,” ludicrously claims,“We know that police don’t keep us safe — and as long as we continue to pump money into our corrupt criminal justice system at the expense of housing, health, and education investments — we will never be truly safe.”Who is this “we” that this terrorist group is referring to? In what way is the criminal justice system in New York City and around the Country corrupt?Does “BLM” see the criminal justice system as corrupt because “BLM” sees it failing to incarcerate criminals who do in fact deserve to be incarcerated for the crimes they commit? Or does “BLM” see the criminal justice system as corrupt precisely because the system is doing what it should be doing, namely incarcerating criminals for the crimes they commit, and “BLM” doesn’t like this scenario and prefers to “reimagine” the criminal justice system as it “reimagines” policing: doing away with both. If it is the latter, Black Lives Matter utilizes an odd definition for the word, ‘corruption.’And is the incidence of crime really a function of a lack of money poured into public housing, health, and education? Or is that merely a false presumption, and an excuse for destroying a free Constitutional Republic in order to create a Marxist world order, where everyone, Black and White, alike, can live happily ever after in a Stateless State of perpetual penury, strife, and subjugation.?Bill de Blasio ought to be asking this small “BLM” domestic terrorist group—that the Press outsize importance to and that Corporations and Soros-funded Marxist organizations flood with money, explain itself. Instead, the Nation sees this jackass helping Marxist Nihilists paint huge and ugly “BLM” graffiti on the City Streets, in front of Trump Tower.And where did this upstart “BLM” movement come from him? If we are to believe the website, three women started it because, as the website says,“Black Lives Matter is an ideological and political intervention in a world where Black lives are systematically and intentionally targeted for demise. It is an affirmation of Black folks’ humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.” That is the myth at any rate. But, how has this organization happen to emerge so quickly into such prominence? Why does it dominate the news? How has it grown into a world-wide organization if in fact it is truly a world-wide organization? From whom is this organization receiving such vast sums of money, and why? How is BLM spending that money if it is spending it? And who, really, is behind this organization and managing it? Might not BLM be a “front” for something else; something secret, something much more powerful, and something much more sinister? And why do the mainstream media and so many political leaders blindly, reverentially kowtow to this group? Is this organization, BLM, being deliberately used as a vehicle or catalyst to destroy community policing?Understandably, the morale among NYPD police officers, as among police officers across the Country, is at an all-time low and fear and anxiety of New York City residents and those of residents in many other communities, is at an all-time high.The New York City Mayor, Bill de Blasio, treats the NYPD like pariahs, and, concomitantly, he forbids the average law-abiding citizen to arm him or herself.The NYPD has become a passive observer of crimes committed rather than assertive crime preventive actors, and many NYPD officers have not unreasonably, opted for early retirement.New York City residents who have the means to relocate elsewhere are moving away from the City in droves. That leaves the poor—Black and White residents of the City alike—to suffer the consequences of what has metastasized into a complete breakdown of law and order, leaving the wealthier residents who remain in the City to spend exorbitant sums of money to retain well-armed bodyguards or; leaving the less well-to-do to attempt to obtain, and very rarely succeeding, a highly coveted unrestricted concealed handgun carry license.Since it is next to impossible for the average person and business owner to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license for protection in New York City and as it has become increasingly more difficult for those who presently have one of a very few of these licenses to renew it when the license comes up for renewal, the law-abiding public is essentially denied even the basic right of self-defense.In point of fact, Bill de Blasio has single-handedly turned what had become the safest large City in the Country into a cesspool of rampant violence, confusion, disorder, and fear. Why would anyone wish to relocate to New York City or, for that matter, to any other major City that has become a sanctuary for the worst elements of society.Marxist, Anarchist Radical Left Governors and Mayors are encouraging civil unrest rather than discouraging it; emboldening those who seek to tear down our society to indulge themselves rather than attempting to restrain them.And life in this Nation is only going to get worse, much worse, if the Radical Left Democrats take control of this Nation’s Government in November.____________________________________________________

AMERICA’S CHOICE: PRESERVATION OF A FREE REPUBLIC OR ANNIHILATION

PART SEVEN

“The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’” Anecdotal account, cited from the New AmericanThere is a constant push-pull tension between the natural desire of man to be left alone, to create a world for him or herself, within him or herself, free from Government interference. And there is Government that attempts to create conformity and uniformity; destroying all vestiges of individuality; demanding subservience.The founders of our free Constitutional Republic knew all this of course, and wrestled with it; no easy task at all: How to create a centralized, Federal Government sufficiently strong to withstand external pressures from outside a new Nation to be but at once able to resist the tidal forces within it that strive to corral the independent spirit of its own citizens that is grounded on the sacred right to be left alone, turning the Nation into a despotic, totalitarian nightmare: monarchy, autocracy, oligarchy, and, absolute democracy (majoritarian mob rule). The founders pondered how man might live in harmony in a society with other men, free to go their own way, walk their own path, free from interference by a strong centralized Government that strives to defeat the desire of one to be left alone. And the founders came up with an ingenious solution.The founders realized the need to codify God-given rights existent in the American citizenry upon which Government must not, cannot, ever transgress.The First Amendment right of free speech—free expression—is a codification of Divine Law that tells man to be creative. The right of free speech is a codification of Divine imperative that each individual soul is sacrosanct and inviolate. Government is to let each American alone to realize his or her own potential and attain his or her own goals.The Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is a codification of the Divine law that recognizes the cardinal right of defense of self, whether that threat comes from beast, from another man, or from a tyrannical government.The blueprint for such a Nation, a free Constitutional Republic, explicitly established a centralized, “federal” government but with limited powers. These nature of and extent of these powers was set forth in the Articles. But, to contain the urge of those wielding power to amass more power unto themselves as the expense of the public to whom they are sworn to serve, the framers of the Constitution included a Bill of Rights, codifications of God-given fundamental rights and liberties of the people, beyond the lawful power of Government to modify, abrogate, or ignore. This  Constitution has served the American people well through decades and centuries. Our Constitution has successfully resisted all attempts to undermine it. Having allowed the free expression of Americans to flourish unimpeded by Government, Our Nation has become the greatest, most powerful, and wealthiest Nation on Earth.Thus, through a free Constitutional Republic, the framers had developed a political system most beneficial to the individual, and one where man is able to live in a society with other men, in harmony, and through a free Constitutional Republic a society can grow and has grown into a great Nation. This, the framers of the Constitution, the founders of our Republic, had accomplished, but it was no easy task.Yes, our Nation has had its setbacks; a major civil war and economic strife and hardships, but our Nation remained strong; the greatest, most prosperous Nation on Earth; a natural magnet for many people across the Globe.As with the power and might of the Roman Empire that lasted for over a thousand years, our own Nation has, through time, absorbed many different ethnicities, but America was and is perceived as a “great melting pot,” as a unique American ethos was born. This notion of a “great melting pot” is more than metaphor. It says that each American citizen has imbued within him or her a unique American spirit that binds each of us.But something has changed in recent years. A virus has been seeded in the population. This virus is invisible both to the naked eye and to the most powerful microscope because it is non-physical. Yet, it is intensely noxious, highly infective, and extremely tenacious. It affects the psyche of the polity. It has been lying essentially dormant for years in the body politic but has now emerged full-blown, mutating the Nation into a hideous beast.We know the carriers of this plague. We see them. The sources of this plague are New York City Mayor Bill De Blasio and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. In Congress Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and Adam Schiff are the “Typhoid Mary” source of this plague. Billionaire sources of this plague include George Soros and the tech moguls. And, they have infected others: political leaders of States and towns, who in turn have infected millions of others; many of them among the younger population, turning them into unthinking, raging, ravaging and rampaging zombies; mindlessly attacking people; destroying and defacing monuments; defiling places of worship; demanding obeisance to false gods.To create a transnational world order devoid of sovereign independent nation-state, it is first necessary to destroy the notion of national identity as tied to the individual nation-state. As Americans have their own individual unique identity, the transnational Globalists must somehow dislodge what they perceive to be an inconvenient conceit from the psyche of each American, no easy task.It is necessary to replace or redefine concepts that are ingrained in the American psyche. One such concept, deeply ingrained in the mind of each American is that of  America perceived as a “melting pot”—the idea that Americans are diverse ethnically, but they all come to inculcate a unified American spirit.The Radical Left and the transnationalist Globalists understand that this idea must be challenged and reshaped or replaced with another concept; something quite different. And the Nation’s Destructors have devised the concept of diversity in America, but diversity divorced from the concept of ‘melting pot;’ diversity divorced from the notion that Americans do have or even that they can have such a thing as a uniquely American identity. And the propagandists in the mainstream media are conveying that new message: that America isn’t a melting pot at all and never was, and never should be considered a melting pot. According to the new State religion, America consists of diverse, distinct people who happen to reside in a particular geographical region that at the moment happens to be referred to as the United States. Diversity, absent assimilation, breeds hostility, antagonism, suspicion, contempt, between and among people and this is playing out in America today as the Radical Left demagogues and Globalist elite puppet masters intended. It is a plague they have sowed; meant to elicit ill-will. And they pin the division, and divisiveness, the confusion and despair, the violence and travails all on President Trump. It is a lie. It is a  False Flag operation, meticulously planned, and orchestrated.Division, Divisiveness, the plague of Diversity has been created by and is being nurtured and spread by the seditious Press, at the behest of their puppet masters, in a deliberate attempt at spreading enmity and suspicion and hatred among Americans, to turn us against each other—the better to control all of us.How many Americans have already fallen victim to this plague: Any of your friends, family, perhaps? Will you fall victim to this plague of diversity, yourself?The virus is suggestive, highly seductive to many. But you can resist. Be prepared to arm yourself. The zombies are coming for you. They are coming for all of us.___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT DOES A BIDEN PRESIDENCY MEAN TO AMERICANS?

PART ONE

Electing Donald Trump to a second term this November is as critical to our Nation’s preservation as the outcome of the American Revolution was to our Nation’s creation.Some Americans, though, who intend to vote for Joe Biden—assuming the DNC doesn’t pull the plug on him and selects someone else to run against Trump in his stead if Biden’s cognitive decline worsens precipitously between now and the day of the Election—don’t see the election as a watershed moment. They see the coming U.S. Presidential election as they see all Presidential elections: political pendulum oscillations from left to right to center, ever back and forth, analogous to the natural tendency of the stock market to self-correct when discordant fluctuations in the market due to panic selling or exuberant buying inevitably drive stock market valuations back to a more sensible level.Periodically, or so these members of the electorate assume, a pendulum swings too far in one direction. When that occurs, a political course correction is necessary. The pendulum must be brought back to the center: to stability, to normalcy, to stasis, to a point of equilibrium in all matters political, social, cultural, and economic. But, if so, this presumes that Trump's 2016 victory represents a radical shift away from political equilibrium rather than, itself, a self-corrective step toward equilibrium from the irrationality of the Clinton/Bush/Obama eras that saw the Nation moving ever further away from its traditional roots. Of course,  the movement away from our Nation's roots, our Nation's core values, has taken place gradually, imperceptibly, over decades. The American public had been mostly unaware of the shift. Yet, perhaps on a subconscious level, many Americans did come to suspect something awry and that would suggest why the electorate voted Trump into Office. Rather than an anomaly, the election of Trump represents, then, a return back to the political mean; a return to sanity, and not a rocket trajectory away from it that the mainstream media has painted ever since Trump took the Oath of Office.Be that as it may, many Americans, poisoned by media propaganda, truly see Joe Biden as the political “moderate,”  someone who will bring the Nation back to a moderate political, social, cultural, and economic stance; back to normalcy; back to equilibrium. This idea is to us either wishful thinking or delusional, but it explains why the DNC, including the RINOs, believes an otherwise weak candidate like Biden has the best shot at beating Trump in November 2020.The also-ran Democrat Party candidates—charismatic, articulate, and/or merely youthful—fell by the wayside because the DNC concluded they were not well known or were perceived by the DNC and the Democrat Party leadership as politically too far afield for the majority of the electorate, or, as in the case of Tulsi Gabbard, perceived as too mainstream: center-right, or dead center, and therefore distasteful to Democrats who, having grown, through time, so radicalized, cannot stomach Tulsi Gabbard even if she, unlike any of the other Democrat Party candidates, might be more palatable to Americans outside the Party. So, Joe Biden, the most inept candidate of all, becomes the default Party candidate.Many in the electorate see Joe Biden’s obvious mental deficiencies as de minimis, of little concern, or even de rigueur, obligatory: a cognitively impaired, uncharismatic, stumbling, bumbling, rambling, fool—just the sort of person to bring this Nation back to its senses and to a sense of decorum, as this shell of a man cedes authority to the Bureaucratic Deep State. But ceding authority to the Bureaucracy is something Trump would never do; has never done; and, in fact, ought never to do, as no U.S. President should ever do, since the President of the United States is the only person under and pursuant to Article II, who wields Article II authority. But, Trump is so loathed by the “establishment”—that the alternative to a continuation of the Trump Administration, is an Administration grounded on obsolescence and decrepitude, as the “establishment” considers that to be preferable to an Administration run by a President who would actually wield Article II powers that the Constitution provides for him; that the Constitution demands from him; and that the voters who elected Trump to Office expect of him. But, the Democrats and RINOs, these Destructors, want none of that. They wan,t from the person who serves as  President, someone who obediently, willingly, happily, answers to those who are supposed and expected to answer to him: the Federal Bureaucracy. No better person to symbolize that obsolescence, decrepitude, and inanity of the Presidency the “establishment”  seeks to install in lieu of Trump than the frail, feeble, fragile, senile, hopelessly lost, unqualified, and ill-equipped shell of a man, Joe Biden. What better man is there to enfeeble the Nation itself than Joe Biden, the weakest, most feeble, infirm, debilitated man ever to run for political office?Other Americans who plan on voting for Joe Biden in November, assuming he does in fact run against Trump, have, as well, no illusions about Biden’s incapacity for Office. They, too, perceive Joe Biden’s infirmities and deficiencies as a “plus,” an opportunity to wipe the slate clean. These people doubt that Biden, if elected, would serve out one term, let alone two, and that is what they want. Indeed, that is what they are banking on. And there will be no placid course correction to the political center if Biden does emerge victorious in November.Even now The New York Times gloats over the fact that Sanders and Biden are, together, formulating the Radical Left agenda, nothing like it ever seen in our Nation's history: an agenda directed to erasing our Nation's history, setting it up for inclusion in a Global world State. Seeing the political pendulum swinging and sending the political pendulum back to center isn’t what those on the radical left of the political spectrum have in mind. For they have no intention of bringing the Country back to the political, social, economic, and cultural centrist midpoint. They plan to use Biden as a surrogate for Sanders, the latter of whom failed to secure the Democrat Party nomination in two election cycles, throwing his supporters into a tantrum, to send the political pendulum to such an extreme position on the left, that it remains frozen there in perpetuity.

WHAT IS THE COMING 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION REALLY ABOUT?

This general election and the one preceding it isn’t an election between “Republicans and Democrats.” In fact, the terms ‘Republican’ and ‘Democrat’ have long ago lost whatever meaning they originally had.From a political, social, cultural, juridical standpoint, the coming election is one between adherents of the tenets of Collectivism and the adherents of Individualism. It is about those who support the Bill of Rights—and the one fundamental right that preserves all other rights along with the sovereignty of the American people, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—and those who abhor, absolutely loathe, the very notion of the supremacy of the individual over that of the Collective, and who intend to erase free speech, free association, and the ability of the American citizen TO BE his own person, individual; to see Government amass unlimited power, usurping the natural sovereignty of the people. These radical Marxists and Billionaire Globalists do not intend to leave the American citizen alone, but to subjugate the citizen, reduce the citizen to penury, and to keep the American citizen in a constant state of fear. We see the plans of these Destructors of our Nation playing out today, even before the General election. These Destructors of our Nation are providing the American citizenry a foretaste of what it can expect, what it will experience if the Destructors do secure complete control over the Federal Government. They will never permit the individual TO BE individual. They will never leave the individual alone. They will control all thought and conduct. And to avoid revolt, they will never sanction the citizenry's ownership of and possession of firearms and ammunition. Guns and ammunition will be the first things they will confiscate. They will reconfigure the Country, turning it from one where Government is the servant of the people to one where the people are the servants of Government, a Government to be merged into a new world order.Supporters of Individualism are fighting back against this push of Destructors both here and abroad who intend to wrest the Nation from the citizenry. Supporters of Individualism wish to preserve our Nation as the founders presented it to us, as set forth in the Nation’s blueprint, the U.S. Constitution; as the framers of our Constitution intended for our Nation to remain: a free Constitutional Republic, in which the people, themselves, are sovereign. Supporters of Collectivism want to eradicate our Nation’s history, culture, and core Christian values. They intend to create an entirely new and alien economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical construct, grounded on an expansive, powerful, centralized governmental authority through which the lives, thoughts, and actions of individuals are strictly controlled and modulated, according to a uniform standard, permitting no deviancy in thought, action, or conduct.Nothing better exemplifies the vast irreconcilable differences between those who adhere to the tenets of Individualism and those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism than in the manner each perceives the Bill of Rights. Individualists perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as codifications of natural law bequeathed to man by the Divine Creator. The Bill of Rights are fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights, and liberties that rest outside the lawful power of the State to modify, abrogate, or ignore. It is through the exercise of these basic, God-given rights that the American citizenry retains its authority, power, and sovereignty over Government; and this is deemed a good thing; the way things ought to be.Collectivists perceive the Nation’s Bill of Rights as nothing more than codifications of man-made laws that arise with the creation of a State. Collectivists perceive the Bill of Rights as auxiliary laws of man, created by man, bestowed on man by other men; laws that therefore fall within the prerogative of men to modify, abrogate, or ignore at will. They perceive the Bill of Rights, not as permanent ineradicable fixtures, but as an insufferable obstacle to their usurpation of authority. They see the Bill of Rights as no more than a collection of antiquated, obsolete alienable man-made rules, unacceptable constraints on and restraints against their accumulation of Government power; as an unacceptable restraint and constraint on their own unconscionable, unlawful usurpation of authority from and unlawful grasp of the sovereignty of the American people; an unlawful grasp of authority, power, and sovereignty that belongs solely to and rests solely with the American people, themselves, not with Government; not with the usurpers in Government.The Collectivists slowly, inexorably encroach on individual freedom and autonomy; they attack the very integrity of selfhood. They see the average American as intractable, requiring constant guidance and control no less than a wayward child. Thus, Collectivists refuse to accept, cannot even comprehend the idea that, within man's nature, within his very being, exist God-given unalienable rights, intrinsic to man's very being. Collectivists see the Bill of Rights only as mutable privileges, not immutable rights. They perceive the Bill of Rights not as illimitable and expansive in their reach but limited, transitory, to be exercised by the citizenry, if at all, solely by the grace of Government, subject to carefully circumscribed parameters when exercised, at all; privileges that are capable of rescission at any time. These differences in perception of the Divine nature of man and of the relationship of man to Government have more than philosophical import. They have real-world consequences for every American. See the Arbalest Quarrel article on "The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies."Collectivists do not perceive the Bill of Rights as sacred and inviolate but as obstacles to control over the citizenry; and they are correct in their observation that the Bill of Rights does operate as an intolerable, insufferable, frustrating obstacle to those in Government who desire to wield absolute control over the thoughts, actions, and conduct of the citizenry, as of course, the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent. This is as the framers of the Constitution intended so that the sovereignty of the Nation would always rest in the hands of the citizenry, not in the hands of Government, and it is this idea, crystallized in the soul of the American psyche, indefatigable, tenacious notion that Americans will not so easily relinquish, that Biden and his handlers, as with all those who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism, intend to wrench from the American citizen. But to accomplish this, the Destructors of our Nation must corral the Bill of Rights; they must turn the Constitution on its head. And they are making headway: shaming Americans, humiliating them; creating victims of us all.______________________________________________

TO CONTROL AMERICANS, DEMOCRATS MUST CONTROL SPEECH AND FIREARMS

PART TWO

Collectivists are sly, deceitful creatures. They erode our fundamental rights under the cloak of morality and pragmatism, hoping that few Americans will notice.Consider the Biden campaign’s war on the fundamental right of free speech. Recently, Biden and other Collectivists argue that free speech ought not to extend to “hate speech.” Superficially, that may seem reasonable to some Americans. But is it? What constitutes “hate speech?” Indeed, what constitutes “speech” as free expression under the Constitution? Does Flag Burning constitute “speech” protected under the First Amendment? Does the display of firearms at rallies constitute “speech” protected under the First Amendment? Is the latter an expression of “hate speech and not the former? If so, how does one make that determination?As one academic writer aptly said: “Hate speech is a vague concept with varying definitions. Generally, it includes speech that is abusive, offensive, or insulting that targets an individual's race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin.” “Verbal Poison—Criminalizing Hate Speech: A Comparative Analysis and a Proposal for the American System,” 50 Washburn L.J. 445, Winter 2011, by Thomas J. Webb, J.D. Candidate, Washburn University School of Law. The author continues, “Regulating hate speech in the United States is problematic because of the value the nation places on free speech. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that, ‘Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. . . .’” The author adds, “There are three prominent justifications for protecting free speech: (1) it acknowledges human autonomy and dignity, (2) it promotes the marketplace of ideas, and (3) it is an effective tool of democracy.”But, the Collectivist Democrats and other Collectivists of all stripes—Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Globalists, Anarchists, and others—will have none of that.But, assuming that Congress could devise an operational definition of ‘hate speech,’ would such statute prohibiting such speech still conflict with the First Amendment? Yes! The U.S. Supreme Court has made this point clear, succinct, and categorical, opining, in Snyder V. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011): “Such [hate] speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. ‘If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.’ Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L. Ed. 2d 342 (1989). Indeed, ‘the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.’ Hurley v. Irish-American  Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 574, 115 S. Ct. 2338, 132 L. Ed. 2d 487 (1995).But Collectivists don’t give a damn about the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause; nor do they give a damn about the High Court’s interpretation of it. As a prime example of what this means, what this entails, consider the Collectivists' seamy, degenerate attacks on Zuckerberg's social media vehicle, Facebook. The Collectivists’ have recently vented their fury on Zuckerberg’s Facebook. And, the toady and mentally deficient, presumptive Democrat Party nominee for U.S. President, Joe Biden, in whose name the Collectivists present their aims to the American public, doesn't really have a clue what is going on all around him; how it is the Collectivist puppet masters are playing him for the fool he is and parading him, now and then, before the public.Of course, Biden’s policy planks, marching ever leftward toward a cliff, are and must be coextensive with those of the Collectivists, who are feeding Biden his lines; his messages. They have simply stepped in his shoes, and, in his dim-witted muddled mind, Biden accepts whatever his handlers require of him, understanding nothing, and caring little, if at all, of the clown he has become; his words meaningless jabber, both to him and everyone else. The website, Reason, says,“After being asked by the Times about previous comments Biden has made regarding Facebook's refusal to remove negative ads targeting his campaign, the Democratic front-runner attacked both the social media platform and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.‘I've never been a fan of Facebook,’ Biden says. ‘I've never been a big Zuckerberg fan, I think he's a real problem.’Biden and Facebook have been feuding for months, as Reason has previously covered. In an October letter to Facebook, Biden's campaign called on the social media site to reject political ads containing ‘previously debunked content’—like a Trump campaign ad linking Biden and his son, Hunter, to corruption in Ukraine. Shortly afterwards, Zuckerberg said the company's policies were ‘grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.’Zuckerberg is correct, but that didn’t sit well with Biden. In a CNN town hall event in November, Biden said he would be willing to rewrite the rules for all online platforms in order to force social media companies to ‘be more socially conscious.’”The Collectivists have gone to task on Zuckerberg. On July 9, 2020, as reported in the NY Times, Facebook’s “auditors,” said, “the prioritization of free expression over all other values such as equality and nondiscrimination is deeply troubling.”Deeply troubling to whom? The Collectivist censors? Apparently, these Facebook auditors aren’t familiar with the critical importance of the First Amendment in a free Constitutional Republic.“Free expression” isn’t a mere “value,” it’s a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, natural right, bestowed on man by the Divine Creator, and its meaning is straightforward. The expressions, ‘equality,’ and ‘non-discrimination,’ though, are vague concepts and apply to aspirations, not fundamental rights.In the absence of explication, expressions such as 'equality' and 'non-discrimination,' that the Facebook auditors mention, do not, however, denote “rights,” fundamental or secondary. Equality for whom and in what sense? And, non-discrimination in terms of what? People as individuals are decidedly unequal. Some have been blessed with one or more gifts such as intelligence, or beauty, or athletic ability, or business acumen. Others do not have such gifts. In terms of talents, abilities, physical features, and even with respect to motivations and drives, people are decidedly and decisively unequal. Yet, even in physical, mental, and emotional attributes, Collectivists strive to force commonality on everyone, destroying that especial aspect of a person that defines the individual soul. This generalized, nebulous concept of 'equality' the Collectivists allude to has nothing to do with equal protection under the law as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.But, apropos of “free speech,” everyone has an “equal” right to say their mind. If someone’s words hurt me, then all the worse for me. If my words hurt another, then all the worse for him. But all the worse for both of us and our Nation if the Collectivist censors determine what either of us can assert verbally or in writing, thereby denigrating and curbing the force of the free speech clause of the First Amendment.Similarly, people discriminate all the time: in terms of their interests, their proclivities, their passions, the people with whom they choose to associate or not, and in terms of their political and social and religious preferences; and, while the law prohibits discrimination, as for example, on the basis of race, color, age, or sex, and as, for another example, in employment, and in restaurant or hotel accommodations, anti-discrimination laws are statutory constructs, not fundamental rights.But, Collectivists subsume aspirations to the level of fundamental rights. They raise secondary man-made rights, such as ‘abortion,’ to the level of fundamental rights. And, they dismiss out-of-hand rights that are natural, fundamental, God-given, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment.Biden and his handlers have made clear that preservation of the Second Amendment does not factor into their Party plank. While some Collectivists, like retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens would strike the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights altogether, Biden and the Democrats are, at the moment at least, circumspect about their intentions, couching the denial of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in terms of a desire to curb “gun violence” and a desire to end what they refer to as a “gun culture” existent in America. See: “The Biden Plan To End Our Gun Violence Epidemic.”And, keep in mind how the Biden gun safety plank insinuates the First Amendment into the Second Amendment, and observe how the Destructors of our Nation don't attack the Second Amendment head-on, but obliquely:“Close the ‘hate crime loophole.’ Biden will enact legislation prohibiting an individual ‘who has been convicted of a misdemeanor hate crime, or received an enhanced sentence for a misdemeanor because of hate or bias in its commission’ from purchasing or possessing a firearm.” This “hate crime loophole” would add another criterium to the Federal Penal Code, denying a person the right to possess firearms for “thought” crimes. Eventually, the Collectivists wouldn’t even bother to use the excuse of a misdemeanor conviction to deny an American the right to keep and bear arms. If one’s speech is construed as “hate speech,” that would be enough to deny a person the right to own and possess firearms, expanding the domain of those not permitted to own firearms, exponentially. Would Collectivists argue that merely to desire to own and possess a firearm is tantamount to “hate speech” on its face? Considering how far the Radical Left Collectivists have come since Charlottesville—defacing the monuments of Confederate War Heroes—to arguing for the removal of monuments to the Father of our Nation, George Washington, and to the other Founders, there is no limit to the extravagant outrageous, laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, and executive orders that will come down the pike if the Collectivists take control over all three Branches of Government.But if Radical Left Marxist control of all thought, deed, and action is what you fancy, then feel free to give a sawbuck or two to Biden’s campaign at “Can you donate to Elect Joe Biden?” I’m sure he would appreciate it.___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL AMERICANS ON INDEPENDENCE DAY 2020

#gunvote“Americans have the right and the advantage of being armed—unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms ~James Madison.” Federalist 46Dear Fellow Americans,As we approach the celebration on Independence Day this coming July 4^th weekend we should think about the significance of the War that was fought against tyranny and the sacrifices that were made to give us a Nation unlike any other; one conceived in liberty. We should give thanks to our founders, and give serious thought to where we are today, and how we see ourselves tomorrow.Americans are shocked at the outbreak of law and order in our Nation; of the destruction of businesses and private property; of assaults on and murders of innocent Americans; of violent, senseless acts of rioters, looters, and arsonists that go unpunished.We have witnessed the wanton destruction of our Nation’s history, our culture, and our heritage. We see the defacement, defilement, and destruction of our treasured monuments, statues, and artwork.We are disgusted by the reactions of Democrats to the anarchy and chaos happening all around us, and we are appalled at their constant attacks on the President.The reactions of the Radical Left Democrat Party leadership make clear their contempt for our Nation, for our people, and for our Constitution. The weak-kneed reactions of Republicans to this lawlessness are no less disturbing and alarming.But these radical forces have done us a favor. They show us their true colors and tell us what they want: the end of a free Constitutional Republic. Never before has a U.S. Presidential election been so important.This is a modern Civil War. See the AQ article titled, “In The Throes Of America’s Modern-Day Civil War.”    In some ways, though, this modern Civil War bears more relation to the American Revolution than to the American Civil War because we are seeing something different, something potentially more catastrophic. The eradication of our Bill of Rights, all ten of them.Our representatives in Congress do not represent our interests. We had national concealed handgun reciprocity legislation in our grasp but the Senate threw it away. Of all the timely issues the Arbalest Quarrel has written on over the years, this was one of the most important, the right to own and possess firearms unrestricted.If we are to ever see the reality of national carry legislation, we can only do so with Trump as President and with Republican control of both the House and Senate.The 4^th of July should remind all Americans that true freedom and liberty always exists in an armed citizenry.We see, firsthand, in States like New York, Illinois, Washington, and California, to name a few, Democratic strongholds, where State and local leaders have either capitulated to lawless mob rule or have actively participated in the breakdown of law and order.These recent events have also demonstrated how vulnerable the American people are, how helpless they are, and how they are made to feel.Just take a look at New York City. This is a City that had for years seen a reduction in crime. It is now experiencing a massive resurgence as violent crime and murder rates have soared, equal to or surpassing those seen in Chicago.Democrat Mayor Bill DeBlasio has still refused to allow licensed Federal Firearms Dealers, gun stores, and shooting ranges to open as “essential” businesses.Yet, he has let criminals out of jail to prey on innocent people while, at the same time, he has defunded and dismantled the Police Department, disbanded undercover units, given them conflicting orders, and emasculated what remains of the police.DeBlasio has made it extremely difficult for average, sensible, law-abiding citizens to exercise their fundamental right to possess firearms for personal protection. He claims citizens who reside in New York City don’t need firearms because the police serve that function. That, of course, is a bald-faced lie, as the police have no duty to ensure the life and safety of individuals.The function of the police is to protect the safety of the community as a whole. The AQ has discussed this issue at length, in its article, “Can We, As Individuals, Rely on the Police To Protect us?”But, today, DeBlasio isn’t even providing New York City residents with that minimal level of protection. Instead of reinforcing the police, and supporting them, he has bowed to the will of the mob.DeBlasio has empowered the criminal, sociopathic elements. He has demoralized the police and left the average, responsible, law-abiding citizenry helpless. If this is DeBlasio’s intention, he has succeeded. If not, this is evidence that he is an incompetent and moron.This is repeated across the Country. You see it happening every day. America is on fire!Americans need to understand the issues, know the facts, and be proactive.DeBlasio continues to let criminals out of jail to prey on innocent people, leaving them defenseless. While also not allowing licensed Federal Firearms Dealers, gun stores and shooting ranges to reopen because he declares them “non-essential” businesses.This is repeated across the Country. You see it happening every day. America is on fire!These same governors and mayors fail to protect us; fail to protect society-at-large, and deny us the right to protect ourselves. They exercise absolute control. They ignore their own legislatures, arrogantly issuing illegal executive orders to exert control over Americans. They use that same authority to benefit themselves and the Democratic Party platform. This must stop.Well-funded and well-organized Radical Left-wing forces, from within our country and from outside it, have infiltrated our government, our schools, our social and business institutions; our very way-of-life.Their focus, for the time being, is on the Democrat-controlled sanctuary cities and States.These destructive forces aim to accomplish their goals through a seditious “Fake News” media to create a totalitarian regime. They hide behind the protections of  “Free Press.” Beware if you are not “politically protect.”Fortunately, President Donald Trump is not their puppet. He will not stand for their antics. He calls them out for the corrupters they are. He cannot be bought.Radical Left forces intend to defeat Trump, at all costs. They constantly proclaim a runaway “Blue Wave” victory. It is the same strategy they used in a failed attempt to elect Hillary Clinton.These Radical Left forces will be met by a counterforce. It is the same counterforce that succeeded in electing Trump President in 2016. That counterforce will see Trump reelected in 2020.  That counterforce consists of you, and me, and the great “Silent Majority.”We will put out the fire burning in America with a backfire!  The Presidential 2020 Election is only a few months away. The stakes are high.Voting has consequences, as evidenced in the Midterm Elections of 2018 allowing the Democrats to take control over the House of Representatives while the Republicans just narrowly held onto the Senate.The Midterm election upset put a hold on any possibility for the passage of a new “National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity” bill. See the AQ Article,“It’s Time For National Handgun Carry Reciprocity To Secure The Citizen’s Right Of Armed Self-Defense, Throughout The Country.” Then, too, the recent swing-vote by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts on the NYC Gun Transport Case has done nothing to strengthen our Second Amendment rights. The AQ discusses this in its article, “Antigun Crowd Breathes Collective Sigh Of Relief After Supreme Court Majority Gives NYC A Victory In Gun Transport Case.” Only Trump’s reelection, along with Republican wins in the House and the Senate, will preserve a Free Republic and preserve our fundamental, unalienable rights.Republicans must also gain control of States and localities presently under the grip of Radical Leftists.Reach out and touch someone!We cannot take anything for granted. The stakes are too high!We must prioritize and plan our battles. But, to successfully counter the forces that wish to undermine our Nation, we must keep informed.We need to understand the issues, know the facts, and be proactive.Get accurate news through FOX and OAN cable television, and read and subscribe to accurate reporting news sites like the Epoch Times.We also suggest you subscribe to pro-Second Amendment websites. There are several.Among the best of the pro-Second Amendment websites, we strongly suggest you subscribe to the following if you have not already done so:AMMOLAND/Shooting Sports News; NSSF/National Shooting Sports Foundation; DRGO/Doctors For Responsible Gun Ownership; and, our own, ARBALEST QUARREL. All these sites strongly and uncompromisingly support the citizens’ fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.All of us must do our fair share.You can also support us and encourage others to do so as well by reading our AQ articles and to share them on social media sources like Facebook and Twitter.Let your voice be heard.Call President Trump and Republicans in your Congressional Delegation. Let them know how you feel about the important issues. Remind them that they work for you, not for themselves. Make it clear to them that you will monitor how they vote on legislation and that you can easily vote them out of Office as vote them into Office.The Capital telephone number to reach anyone in the Federal Government is 202/ 224-3121. This is a working number and a switchboard operator will connect you to the person you want to reach. We use this phone number often. It only takes a few minutes. You, too, can make a difference.We trust you will share this message with your family, friends, and acquaintances.Remember full well, if we do not retain control of the Federal Government, this July 4^th Independence Day Celebration may well be our last.Sincerely,/s/Stephen L. D’AndrilliAQ President___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A MARXIST COUNTER-REVOLUTION THREATENS THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THREATENED ON INDEPENDENCE DAY

PART ONE

WHO SHALL SECURE THE RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS?

We begin with one simple basic, indisputable, but melancholy truth: No Branch of our Government cares deeply about preserving and strengthening the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; neither Congress; nor the U.S. Supreme Court; nor, for that matter, the Chief Executive of our Nation, President Donald Trump.Sure, there are outliers in Congress and on the High Court who seek to preserve, protect, and strengthen the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, but they are few in number; pathetically few in number; and President Trump’s own stand on the Second Amendment has been lukewarm at best. Yes, the President claims to support the Second Amendment. Like all politicians, he knows how to pontificate, and he does so better than most. But what has he done to set his lofty, grandiose words to action? The only concrete Second Amendment action he has taken that we can recall was one decidedly against buttressing our sacred, inviolate right.Do you remember what President Trump did? He ordered the DOJ to revise the definition of ‘machine gun’ to include bump stocks in the legal definition. The resulting change distorts decades of industry and military usage and understanding of the expression, ‘machine gun.’ Regardless, Trump ordered the DOJ to follow through with this change. He did this ostensibly to placate those folks who don’t want the American citizenry to own and possess firearms at all; to mollify those maniacal ideologues who have a visceral abhorrence of firearms; who harbor ill will toward those who wish to exercise their God-given right to own and possess firearms; and who will not rest until they have: one, banned civilian ownership and possession of firearms; and two, have collected all firearms and ammunition from American civilian citizens; and three, have destroyed all civilian caches of firearms and ammunition, imprisoning those who they deem hoarders of firearms and ammunition; and, four, have erased the language of the Second Amendment from the U.S. Constitution and from all lexicons.The appetite of those Destroyers of our Nation who would crush the American people into submission will never be sated until all thought and action have been brought under complete control through massive indoctrination and confiscation of all firearms from the commonalty.In an Arbalest Quarrel article posted on December 31, 2018, we cited President Trump’s memorandum directed to the Attorney General, who, at the time, was the useless, milquetoast, Jeff Sessions. President Trump wrote, in part:“ ‘After the deadly mass murder in Las Vegas, Nevada, on October 1, 2017, I asked my Administration to fully review how the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives regulates bump fire stocks and similar devices. Although the Obama Administration repeatedly concluded that particular bump stock type devices were lawful to purchase and possess, I sought further clarification of the law restricting fully automatic machine guns. Accordingly, following established legal protocols, the Department of Justice started the process of promulgating a Federal regulation interpreting the definition of ‘machine gun’ under Federal law to clarify whether certain bump stock type devices should be illegal.’”And, what became of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity?On February 18, 2018, the Arbalest Quarrel wrote,“The ‘Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017’ (115 H.R. 38) amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms. Representative Richard Hudson (R-NC), introduced the bill on January 3, 2017. The bill passed the House by Roll Call Vote of 231-198, on December 6, 2017. It was sent to the Senate one day later, where it was read twice and then referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. President Trump supports it. The NRA supports it. And rank and file law enforcement officers support it too. But there has been to date no further action on it. The bill sits in limbo. Its prospect of passage is, at present, low. Why is that?” Did Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, harbor doubts about a national concealed handgun carry reciprocity law? We know McConnell can get things done when he wants to. But apparently McConnell didn’t want this.Perhaps, the Senate Majority Leader was waiting for a signal from President Trump to proceed, grounded on Trump’s stated policy position on the Second Amendment. Do you remember what President Trump originally had told the American public about the fundamental right of self-defense, and, particularly, what the President had to say concerning his position on national concealed handgun carry?The Arbalest Quarrel remembers well what Trump said.In our December 31, 2018 post, we cited Trump’s imperious words that,“ ‘The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then, surely, we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.’ ~ Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms”Sadly, these were just the pompous, pretentious, empty, disingenuous words of a politician. In that same Arbalest Quarrel post, we cited to an article appearing in the Washington Examiner that reported: “ ‘President Trump told Republicans on Wednesday they should not include a measure that allows people with concealed carry permits in one state to carry across state lines in a comprehensive gun bill.‘ ‘I think that maybe that bill will one day pass, but it should pass separate,’ Trump said during a bipartisan meeting at the White House. ‘If you’re going to put concealed carry between states into this bill, we’re talking about a whole new ball game. I’m with you, but let it be a separate bill.’ ’” The President weaseled, giving, at best, only lukewarm support for national concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation.Mitch McConnell likely interpreted Trump’s words to mean the President wasn’t behind national concealed handgun carry legislation, and, so, McConnell wouldn’t support this measure either. McConnell thereupon allowed the bill to die in Committee; And die it did, and that is the last anyone has seen of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity up to this very moment in time.What does this tell you? A Republican U.S. President and a Republican Senate—with both House and Senate in Republican Party majorities at that time—cared little, if at all, about preserving and strengthening the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms.Recall that in the 2018 Midterm elections the Radical Left Democrats took control of the House. National concealed handgun carry legislation became a dead letter and will remain so. Republicans had their chance and squandered it. Obviously they do not hold the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms in high regard.And the failure of the U.S. Supreme Court to defend its own Heller and McDonald case precedents demonstrates that, apart from a few Justices, the High Court has little or no desire to preserve and protect the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.In the upcoming General Election, the Radical Left Democrats intend to keep control of the House, gain control of the Senate—which will escalate New York Senator Chuck Schumer to the Senate Majority leader position—and regain the White House. If all this should transpire, the safety and well-being of the entire citizenry will be at substantial risk. The American public is getting a foretaste of this now as fanatical, rabid, dangerous Marxist and Anarchist protestors, rioters, arsonists, and looters run amok, given a free hand to destroy the very fabric of a free Constitutional Republic, and, in the process, jeopardizing the safety, security, and well-being of us all.What this means is that, despite a timorous, timid Republican-controlled Senate, and an irresolute President, this is the best we can hope for at the moment.Neither Senator Mitch McConnell nor President Trump will take affirmative steps to preserve and strengthen the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But, fortunately, they seem reluctant, at the moment at least, to take steps to severely weaken the Second Amendment.A neutral stance is the best we can expect from either of them. That will have to suffice given the appalling prospect for Americans if the Marxists prevail in the upcoming General election.

AS PUBLIC ORDER DEVOLVES INTO MASS DISORDER, EXPECT CALLS FOR TOTAL CIVILIAN DISARMAMENT

What does the present “summer of love,” as the Mayor of Seattle refers to the violence happening in Seattle and throughout the Country, portend? We are seeing it: a Marxist Counter-Revolution, long-simmering, now boiling over into a full-on Civil War.If ever the right of the people to keep and bear arms had critical import, it does so now; today, at this very moment. But the ruthless Globalist forces fomenting violence do not want to have to contend with an armed citizenry dead-set on preserving a Free Constitutional Republic.So, don’t be surprised to see a concerted attempt by Marxist State leaders calling for suspension of fundamental rights, especially the right embodied in the Second Amendment, in a Marxist led Government.We expect that Radical Left State and local Governments, sympathetic to the destruction of a free Republic, will call for a total ban on civilian ownership of firearms, citing a public emergency, as thousands of rioters, looters, arsonists, vandals, muggers, and murderers cause disruption across the Nation—destruction that these Marxist Governments not only allow to happen but actively encourage.So, then, the answer to the question posed at the beginning of the article, as set forth in the title of the article, is this:It falls to the American people, themselves, to secure their fundamental, unalienable, immutable, and illimitable right to keep and bear arms, thereby preserving and protecting the autonomy of the individual, and the integrity of selfhood, and maintaining the sovereignty of the American people over those serving in Government who would dare usurp power for themselves.The sanctity and inviolability of our Nation’s history and heritage are outrageously attacked from those within our midst. And all this occurs on the eve of our July 4, 1776, Independence Day Holiday. There is much irony in this._____________________________________________________

A NATION LOST: THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF THE 18^TH CENTURY DEVOLVES INTO A COUNTER MARXIST REVOLUTION OF THE 21^ST

PART TWO

The germination of a powerful Nation and a free Constitutional Republic took hold on July 4, 1776, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. A tremendous conflict ensued for control of the American colonies.King George III of England was the visible face of the threat to a Nation yet to be. But the true power behind the throne of King George III was invisible. The true power rested with the secretive, powerful Rothschild clan that provided the financial resources for the English monarchy.In the clash that followed, King George III and the Rothschilds lost. It was a bitter loss. But King George III and the Rothschild international bankers lost much more than control over the colonies. They lost control over both the untapped mineral resources available to the colonies and the massive, fertile geographical region that extended from the Atlantic Ocean on the East Coast to the Pacific Ocean on the West Coast, and that extended northward to Canada and southward to the Gulf of Mexico; and they lost control over the colonies whom they sought to integrate into a unified Global empire. But now, that ambitious goal would lie, not dead, but dormant.King George III would rant, and rage, and fume and he would die and be forgotten. And the power of the English monarchy would wane, as would the might and power of the British empire.But the Rothschild clan would not die, and the Rothschilds could not be forgotten since few ever knew they existed—a hidden den of vipers at the center of every European Country. And, through the centuries they would amass ever greater power, draining the wealth of European Nations for themselves. But the loss of the American colonies would never be far from their mind. And, they machinated and plotted and waited, seeking an opportune time to have their revenge.The American Revolutionary War ended in 1783. The United States became viable, taking its first breath with ratification of the U.S. Constitution in 1789. And, at that moment, the United States of American became an independent, sovereign nation and a free Constitutional Republic. The ratification of the Bill of Rights followed in 1791.Ratification of the Bill of Rights not only confirmed the inherent power of the American people over the three Branch Federal Government system the founders created, but cemented the Sovereignty of the American people over that Federal Government.It was understood among the founders that the government they sought to construct would be one of limited powers, operating only by the grace and consent of the American people, as all other powers and authority, not exercised by a central “Federal” Government, would reside in the States and in the people.In the next 200 years the United States became a mighty Nation; the most powerful on Earth, made possible through the drive, ingenuity, and resourcefulness of the citizenry, and through the Nation’s access to abundant natural resources, waiting to be tapped.During the intervening years, decades and centuries, as the power of the United States would wax, the English monarchy would wane and the once-mighty British empire would diminish and wither.But unbeknownst to most populations comprising Western Civilization, the power of the satanic offspring of the Rothschilds would also wax; their power and wealth increasing exponentially through the vehicle of and their singular control over the central banking system, as conceived and implemented through their founder, Mayer Amschel Rothschild.The Rothschilds would extend their global financial reach throughout the world with one goal ever in mind: the creation of a one-world political, social, cultural, and financial system of governance over which they would reign supreme.And, as the age of monarchical empires came to an end, and as the age of independent nation-states is drawing to a close, the one-world Government scheme envisioned by the Rothschilds began to take shape; sharpening to crystal clarity through the creation of a new artificial construct: the European Union. The EU had its origins in 1945, at the conclusion of the Second World War, and would become concrete with the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, on November 1, 1993. And the commonalty of Europe had no idea that a noose was slowly tightening around their neck, through the secretive machinations of a few men, all of them controlled by the Rothschilds.The Rothschild clan intends to merge more and more nation-states into the EU, on the road to their creation of a one-world governmental construct.Had the colonies lost the American Revolution, America’s resources would now be a prized asset, bound up in the Rothschild portfolio; and the entire geographical region would be merged into the EU; and the American people would be subjugated. But that would be no easy task; after all, the Rothschild clan lost the American Revolution. Yet they never accepted that loss.They were patient; and, through the centuries, they engineered their plan to regain access to America’s resources, and to gain control over the apparatus of America’s Government, and to gain control over America’s institutions and people. But their plan for conquest would not involve an external military invasion. Not this time. It would be accomplished through stealth, subterfuge. An elaborate plan took shape but it would take a couple of centuries to execute. The Rothschilds, through their toadies, would insinuate themselves into every major organ and institution of our Nation.Yes, the Rothschilds had failed to destroy a budding nation, that, at the time of the American Revolution, existed only as a germinating seed, two-plus centuries ago, but the Rothschilds could still emerge victor, and have their revenge.The Rothschilds have waged a quiet, but no less tangible war to destroy the United States, from within. The Rothchild clan’s scheme was all going according to plan, but the election of Trump threw a temporary wrench into that complex scheme, as the Rothschilds did not expect Trump to defeat Hillary Clinton. Very few expected this. Trump might not be as amenable to their control as were the Bushes, and the Clintons, and Barack Obama.After two centuries, dealing with the festering loss of control over “the colonies,” these excruciatingly secretive, fantastically wealthy, extraordinarily powerful, and abjectly ruthless, wily, and cunning Rothschilds, along with their Generals, a cadre of Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist companions, were growing impatient, and angry. They had all demonstrated infinite patience, but their patience had worn thin. They would wait no longer. They have had enough from these unmanageable, intractable Americans.Recently they unleashed their agents: the dead souls and carrion beasts of the underworld to wreak havoc across our Nation—ravaging and pillaging and laying waste to our Land; destroying with complete abandon and with alarming speed our irreplaceable National treasures, the wondrous monuments to our glorious past; desirous even of destroying the icons of our Nation’s Christian heritage; threatening the lives of innocent Americans; erasing all traces and vestiges of our history and culture, anything and everything that might remind Americans of their ancestral past; of their founding fathers’ vision of a Nation as a free Constitutional Republic where the American people are sovereign. But those American people must now be corralled, brought to heel.With the U.S. economy sorely weakened by a Global Pandemic, courtesy of the Xi Jinping of China, it is no longer certain that Trump can secure a second Term in Office. But it was the killing of a black petty criminal by a white psychopathic police officer, caught on video, that could yet more assuredly turn the tide in the Rothschilds’ favor. That killing, caught on video, would be the pretext for fomenting violence across America, bringing the Nation literally to its knees.What would commence as a protest, predicated on the ridiculous charge of systemic police violence targeting blacks, metastasizing into an imbecilic claim of systemic race hatred existent throughout the Nation since the Nation’s inception, has devolved into an explicit call for a Marxist counter-revolution, the purpose of which is to destroy the very underpinnings of the United States as a free Constitutional Republic and independent Nation-State under the sovereign control of the American people, themselves.There is no getting around the danger facing our Nation today. Its very survival as a free Constitutional Republic is at stake.The smug insufferable Globalist Rothschilds—through their captains and lieutenants in Government, industry, media, and academia—are no longer even pretending to mask their intentions. They aim to annihilate every vestige of our free Republic, including the very memory of it: our historical record.Those doing the bidding of the Rothschilds, who have ingratiated themselves with the Rothschilds will be richly rewarded with money and power. But those Americans who have been duped into believing the need for radical change in our Country will learn too late, that they have bought more than mere “change” to this Country, in having acquiesced to the mob. They have ensured subjugation and penury for every American.And no one in Government is truly lifting a finger to stop this; not Republicans in Congress, nor the President. Are they resigned to the Nation’s dire fate? The response to the social and political crisis unfolding throughout our Nation has been limp, at best.Perhaps nothing can be done to stem the overthrow of a free Republic, because the Government, so riddled with saboteurs, is reduced to impotency. Our one and last fail-safe? The armed citizenry!­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_________________________________________________________

INDEPENDENCE DAY HERALDS IN A MARXIST COUNTER-REVOLUTION

PART THREE

With Independence Day only days away, this Country can hardly be in a celebratory spirit, as the very words, ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriotism’ are treated like obscenities.We witness two-legged predators laying waste the Land, destroying property, intimidating innocent Americans, causing bedlam and mayhem. The police, under fire, are ordered to stand down. Government cowers. Law and Order break down everywhere. The seditious Press and Radical Left members of Congress, along with Radical Left State Governors and City Mayors give their blessing to the perpetrators of this violence.In this topsy-turvy climate, we see New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo telling Americans that attacks on monuments are merely an example of “healthy expression.” Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan blathers, “We could have the summer of love;” and Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf bellows, the city will investigate “nooses found on trees” as hate crimes. Yet the police, having investigated Mayor Schaaf's ridiculous assertions found those “nooses” to be merely ropes placed on tree limbs by an individual, several months ago. That individual, a local Black man, no less, intended these ropes to be utilized merely “as exercise equipment,” as reported by PJ Media. One can only wonder whether this radical Marxist Mayor was relieved at this news, or annoyed by it. She should be ashamed. But, these Marxists never are ashamed or embarrassed by being found out and called out for making absurd and dangerous remarks, that serve only to provoke more violence and civil unrest. But, then, that is their aim, isn't it? They just go about making further outrageous remarks to foment yet more division and divisiveness among Americans, and audaciously, irresponsibly, and unconscionably blame President Trump for the injuries to innocent people and damage to property they, themselves, cause.What is manifesting before our very eyes cannot reasonably, rationally be deemed to amount to mere peaceable assembly protected under the First Amendment. It is anything but that; and it is at once disturbing and absurd to behold. Is the control of the Globalist Rothschilds over the machinery of our Federal, State, and local Governments that complete that they can orchestrate wholesale upheaval to our Nation?Americans are witnessing the methodical, inexorable overthrow of their Government in real-time. It is all by design and all orchestrated by the trillionaire Rothschild clan and its legions of toadies that have, through the decades, infiltrated our Government at every level; have infiltrated the academia; have infiltrated the corporate sphere, and have infiltrated the Press.Instead of stopping this outrage—stopping it fast, and stopping it hard—our Government sits idle, committing suicide. And the seditious Press, under the control of the Rothschilds through the clan’s captains and lieutenants actively, avidly encourages the overthrow of our Nation.Serious crimes against the Nation are occurring before our very eyes and the Government does nothing to bring these criminals to justice. The crimes occurring openly, contemptuously, defiantly against us, the American people, are numerous. And among those crimes, we see the most serious of felonies imaginable, yet committed with aplomb and abandon. They include——18 USCS § 2381 (Treason) Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.Note: the crime of Treason appears prominently in Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution, as well. The Founders viewed the crime—treachery to one’s Nation—as the most serious crime, and so, one crime, and the only crime, that is set forth expressly in the U.S. Constitution.18 USCS § 2384 (Seditious Conspiracy) “If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”18 USCS § 2383 (Rebellion or Insurrection) “Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”

THE COLD AMERICAN CIVIL WAR BREWING SILENTLY IN THE 20^THCENTURY IS BURSTING INTO THE HOT CIVIL WAR OF THE 21^TH

The silent and secretive, malignant, and malevolent Destructors of our Country, the Rothschild family of international bankers Rothschild family still reside in the shadows but we see their agents all around us.These agents of destruction and terror include Marxist, Communist, Socialist, and Anarchist groups, most prominently of late: Black Lives Matter and Antifa, along with their sympathizers and various similar and affiliate organizations. These agents also include members of Congress and the people in State legislatures and State Governments. And they include employees of the federal Bureaucracy, the “Administrative Deep State;” along with legions of Radical Left individuals in the academia, and in the Press. And they include several Billionaire Chiefs of companies in the technology sector.We see the intelligence and internal police apparatuses’ M.O. in this, too, as the moles hidden within these organizations have employed tools and techniques to enlist tens of thousands of otherwise decent, but uninformed Americans, to join mindlessly in the destruction of their own Country, as a powerful nation cannot be undone without enlisting the aid or acquiescence of a majority of Americans.The Rothschild clan has built up its forces over time—a massive, intricate interweaving, interlocking network of governmental and multinational corporate groups, including media organizations and the academia. And the horrific colossus they have nourished is bearing its poisonous fruit, causing violence and fear across the Nation.National Guard forces are nowhere to be seen; and State and local police forces have been ordered by their Radical Left Governments to stand down or are being disbanded altogether.What more can occur before this Nation topples into ruin?We are awaiting an order from State and local officials that, for the sake of  “public order” and “ public safety,” it is necessary for those Americans who possess firearms, to surrender them to the local authorities.Expect to hear that order coming down sooner or later. As with Governmental orders pertaining to the Chinese Coronavirus Pandemic—a mere dress rehearsal—expect that this one, too, a far more audacious one will be attempted through executive fiat.After all, with criminals and terrorists running amok, and the police neutralized, the last thing any of these Marxists would want or need are armed citizens banding together to protect self and family; to bring some semblance of order back to American society.The Second Amendment remains the quintessential “fail-safe” to preserve a free Constitutional Republic from encroaching tyranny; and we may very well need to exercise it.The armed colonists, the Minutemen of the American Revolution, gave us our independence from tyranny. We, the Minutemen of the 21st Century, may well be called upon to gather our arms to preserve that independence.___________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ROBERTS’ COURT WILL NOT DEFEND THE SECOND AMENDMENT, EVER!

IMPACT OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART SEVEN

These last few weeks, the Arbalest Quarrel has been working steadfastly on analyzing the NYC gun transport case. We felt a detailed analysis necessary as we had serious doubts the Court would grant cert in any of the ten pending Second Amendment cases.The NYC case provided our best chance for a serious Court review of 2A, ten years after the McDonald decision, clarifying and cementing the import and purport of Heller and McDonald in Supreme Court case law. The opportunity provided the Court is gone. And, that lost opportunity is rightfully placed at the feet of the Chief Justice, himself. We intended to lay out what could have been gained and what was invariably lost from the failure of the High Court to consider the case on the merits; and we had hoped to post a comprehensive analysis of the NYC case prior to a final High Court determination, whether to grant or deny cert on any of the ten pending 2A cases.We expected the Court would once again relist all ten pending 2A cases, denying cert on each at them at the Court’s last conference for the Term. But the Court made its final determination on June 11, 2020.No surprise to us as to the denial of cert, but the final determination came earlier than we expected. Even so, it means something more than, and something other than, most Americans realize. The cryptic, “something other than,” pertains to Roberts.So, then, what went wrong? Actually, for Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court, nothing went wrong. Everything went according to plan.Some proponents of 2A, including some readers of Ammoland, believe the NYC case mootness issue was properly decided. It wasn’t. And, we will be continuing our comprehensive analysis, as our multi-series essay—on the New York City transport gun case, and the ramifications of that decision on the exercise of the elemental, primordial, God-Given sacred and inviolate right of the people to keep and bear arms—continues; all in the context of the singularly critical seminal Second Amendment Heller case, that is constantly under fire.But the mootness issue is and was nothing more than a red herring. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing anticipated that the City would amend its Rules and that the State would amend its laws to avoid a consideration of and a decision on the merits, which would have necessitated consideration of Heller. And that possibility was not be countenanced. It was something that the liberal wing of the Court and Chief Justice Roberts, as well as the City of New York and New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, intended to avoid at all costs.Cuomo and the City of New York did what was expected of them. And Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court did what both they, and both the City and Cuomo, wanted: no review of New York City gun laws.The 2A Heller issue would not be heard.But, why did Kavanaugh side with Roberts and the liberal wing, and why did he write a puzzling and limp concurring opinion, basically telling Americans, albeit in an oblique manner, that he really does support the Second Amendment, and that the Court will have another chance to hear another case and, so, Americans should not worry?Kavanaugh is, at best, a weak supporter of the Second Amendment and of the Bill of Rights of generally but he does appear to adhere to Supreme Court precedent. His learned and reasoned dissent in Heller II is a testament to that.Kavanaugh likely did not wish to side with the liberal wing. We believe Chief Justice Roberts cajoled Kavanaugh into doing so. Why? It couldn’t be because a sixth vote was needed. It wasn’t. Robert’s fifth vote gave the liberal wing the majority it needed to find the case moot.But we are dealing with appearances here: smoke and mirrors. We believe that Roberts may have tried to get another Trump nominee, Neil Gorsuch, to join the majority, too; but Gorsuch would not do so.A 7-2 majority decision would give Roberts even more cover, and cover is what Roberts wants. It is what he needs.Clearly Roberts did not wish to appear alone, siding with the liberal wing of a Court, especially on a 2A matter. So, Kavanaugh reluctantly agreed to give cover Roberts cover, but insisted on drafting a concurring, to suggest: one that he does support 2A, if only half-heartedly; and, two that the Court “should” take up another 2A case soon, even as he knew full well that it wouldn’t—hence his use of the weak obligation word, ‘should,’ in the concurring, rather than the strong obligation word, ‘will.’But, if Roberts holds such antipathy toward the Second Amendment, why did he sign on with the majority in Heller?Roberts did, after all, side with the conservative wing in Heller and McDonald.The Press tells us Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy was the sole hold-out in Heller for the critical fifth vote needed and that the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller majority opinion, had to include language in that opinion to soften the rulings.The Press paints a picture of Justice Anthony Kennedy as the moderate swing vote on the Court. In doing so, the Press is engaging in just another deception.The truth of the matter is that Roberts, no less than Kennedy, and, conceivably, more so, compelled Scalia to add language to the opinion that, despite the rulings, provided Anti-Second Amendment proponents with a safe harbor; allowing Anti-Second Amendment governments to continue to do what they have been doing all along: to whittle away at the import of the Second Amendment.So, then, what does that say about Chief Justice Roberts?Roberts has, for a time, come across as a defender of our Bill of Rights. It was all ruse. He isn’t a defender of our Bill of Rights nor, more specifically, is he a defender of our Second Amendment; and he never has been.Roberts is as much a trickster as the man who nominated him: the “Skull and Bones” President, George W. Bush.Even as the Radical Left tabloid, The New York Times, refers to Roberts as a member of the conservative wing of the Court, he is no such thing, and the Times knows it. Nor is he to be perceived as a judicial, “moderate”—the proverbial swing vote, carrying the mantle of retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy.Roberts has no more desire to see our Second Amendment strengthened than do the Associate Justices of the liberal wing of the High Court, predominately, long "tenants" on the Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.Why, then, did Roberts and Kennedy agree to join the majority in Heller? We think that this says something about the force and indomitability of Scalia’s personality and intellect: something lost when Justice Scalia met with a deeply tragic and clearly puzzling death. And Roberts has no intention ever again to lock horns with another Justice who has the indomitability of spirit of Scalia.It is now Justice Roberts’ Court in fact not merely in name. It is no longer Justice Scalia’s Court.Recall that George Bush nominated John Roberts to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court as the Chief Justice, not merely as an Associate Justice. This was no accident.As Chief Justice of the High Court, John Roberts sets the tone of the Court and wields considerable leverage over the Court, as we deduce from Robert’s obvious success in cajoling Kavanaugh to side with him, to join the liberal wing on the mootness issue.The High Court is said to grant writs in four circumstances, as set forth in detail in the Peter Blair weblog:

• Conflict of law: The Supreme Court may elect to step in and make a ruling when different courts reach different conclusions about federal or constitutional law. With 13 federal circuits and 50 state supreme courts, the U.S. Supreme Court may want to step in and clarify certain legal issues so every court operates under the same law going forward.
• National importance: If a case has national significance and is important to the public as a whole, the Supreme Court may decide to take it on. The Supreme Court has discretion when it comes to taking these cases, such as Bush v. Gore after the contested 2000 election, Roe v. Wade, or US v. Nixon concerning the Watergate tapes.
• Lower courts disregarding Supreme Court decisions: If a case has arisen because lower courts are disregarding past Supreme Court decisions, the Supreme Court may decide to hear the case to correct the lower court or overrule the case without a full trial.
• Justices’ interest: In certain cases, a justice may want to hear a certain case because it addresses an issue in their personal favorite area of law.

In every case that has been brought to the Court’s attention since Heller and McDonald, all four of the above factors are satisfied.Yet, in all instances, the High Court has either denied cert or has side-stepped the Second Amendment issue altogether, as it had done in Voisine and in the recent New York City case.So what does that tell you? It tells you that the Court will take up a case when it wants to. And that’s that!In the instant case, Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court do not want to take up a 2A case, but then, the conservative wing won’t do so either, unless it can be assured that Roberts is on board with them. He isn’t and won’t be, ever.The Roberts’ Court will not take up another Second Amendment case unless the Court is able to sidestep the core 2A issue as in the Voisine case, or in the recent NYC gun transport case, or when or if the liberal wing knows it has a decisive majority. That would be calamitous. It would sound the death knell for Heller and McDonald. Once our right to keep and bear arms is lost, our Nation is undone.Thus, the conservative wing won’t wish to hear a Second Amendment case unless it knows that Roberts is on board, and Roberts will never be on board.Understand, each Justice knows how each of the others would resolve a case before any vote is cast to grant cert or to deny cert on a case.Justice Thomas’s scathing dissents reflect his knowledge—which obviously, he cannot express openly—that Roberts will not support the Second Amendment. It is as simple as that.So, forget further support from the High Court apropos of the preservation of and strengthening of our Bill of Rights, given the Court's current composition with five Justices clearly antithetical to preservation and strengthening of our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties. Those five Justices antithetical to the preservation and strengthening of our sacred rights and liberties include: Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Chief Justice John Roberts, whom the seditious, tabloid, New York Times continually, invariably, and deceptively includes in the roster of the conservative-wing of the High Court. Of the conservative-wing, only Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito adhere, most consistently, to the import of the text of the Constitution as originally ratified and to the import of Statutes as written.The Globalist puppet masters have been utilizing, of late, Radical Left Anarchist groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, along with the common criminal class, to rain havoc on our Nation—to soften the Country up—encouraging rebellion and insurrection, even attempting to destroy public faith in the police. And it is all by design.The last thing these Globalist puppet masters want to have to deal with is internal police forces and an armed citizenry, in the midst of a civil war these puppet masters have, themselves, fomented. They are neutralizing the police, but they cannot so easily neutralize an armed citizenry; and if they cannot do that, they cannot win this civil war.____________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

JUST OUT: SUPREME COURT DENIES WRITS ON ALL PENDING SECOND AMENDMENT CASES

IMPACT OF U.S. SUPREME COURT NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART SEVEN

The U.S. Supreme Court released its orders from the June 11, 2020 conference.  No Second Amendment cases were relisted for consideration. Worse, there will be no Second Amendment cases reviewed this term; all were rejected. The High Court denied certiorari in all of them.This comes as no surprise to the Arbalest Quarrel. We expected this and were making this very point in a comprehensive analysis of the New York City transport gun case we’ve been working feverishly on these last two weeks. Word came down from SCOTUS before we could get our series to print, but we intimated as much in numerous other articles.We realized how important the New York City gun transport case was to the preservation of our sacred Second Amendment right, even if many did not. We knew what a loss meant; and we did lose much, contrary to what some proponents of the Second Amendment may otherwise think. How much we lost is apparent from what just transpired in today’s SCOTUS morning conference.We held little expectation that the High Court would take up any new Second Amendment case, contrary to Justice Kavanaugh’s wimpish suggestion that the Court “should.” And, unfortunately, we were correct.In one of the cases the Court denied cert on, Thomas Rogers, et al. v. Gurbir Grewal, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al. on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, decided June 15, 2020, Justice Thomas wrote another justified blistering dissenting opinion. Justice Kavanaugh joined Justice Thomas except for Part II of the dissent. We will analyze the dissenting opinion in a forthcoming article. But——

WHY DID KAVANAUGH JOIN THOMAS IN THE GREWAL DISSENT?

Recall Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the New York City case. Kavanaugh intimated the High Court would be taking up one of the new Second Amendment cases soon. That was nonsense and we suspect Kavanaugh knew it.The tactics and strategy of U.S. Supreme Court review of Second Amendment cases must not be underestimated. It defines what Second Amendment case is heard and when. As of now, it is clear that the liberal wing of the High Court, along with Chief Justice Roberts, intend to block review of any further Second Amendment case that comes before the Court in which the Heller and McDonald rulings come into play. This is no longer theoretical speculation. This is ice-cold fact.We suspect that had Kavanaugh voted to deny the mootness claim in the New York City case, joining the conservative wing—Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—then Chief Justice Roberts would have joined Kavanaugh. He would have been forced to, if for no other reason than for the fact that Roberts did, after all, join the majority in the seminal Second Amendment Heller case.If Chief Justice Roberts were to stand with the liberal wing of the Court, alone, wholly apart from the conservative wing, in the first and only Second Amendment case—where the Second Amendment issue had not been altogether side-stepped as the issue was side-stepped in the Voisine case, to the justified frustration and righteous and virtuous indignation of Justice Thomas—would be untoward, unseemly, awkward. Appearances are, after all, important to the Justices. But when appearances become more important than intellectual honesty and logical consistency, then a Justice should not expect to garner and retain the respect of Americans.Chief Justice Roberts, as the Chief Justice, wishes to give the impression of his “supreme” impartiality and conviviality. But, at what cost to his the principles of intellectual honesty and logical consistency, and at what cost to our Bill of Rights?Each Justice votes to grant or deny a writ of certiorari predicated on his jurisprudential and ideological predilections; and those jurisprudential and ideological predilections reside as much on a visceral level as on an intellectual one. They inform a Justice's decisions—influenced, on occasion, by the internal give and take of political maneuvering and jockeying; but that political maneuvering and jockeying should come by sacrificing one's duty toward preserving and strengthening our Bill of Rights. Yes, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the Conservative wing of the Court in Heller and McDonald, but he would go no further—ever. He has made clear his visceral disdain for the Second Amendment, known.The progressive website, Politicus, made known Writing, today, on the results of the SCOTUS morning conference, Politicus reporters said, in an article with a title meant to “sock it to Trump” and to all Americans who happen to venerate our Bill of Rights. Politicus says, “Supreme Court Rejects 10 2nd Amendment Cases As Trump’s Bad Day Gets Worse”: “Chief Justice John Roberts doesn’t have an expansive view of the Second Amendment, which means that the odds of the Second Amendment being expanded or local and state gun laws being reversed by the high court is practically zero.”Roberts would prefer not to appear like a liberal wing, Anti-Second Amendment, Anti-Bill of Rights Justice, in the vein of the liberal wing, even if he is one. He would not like to be seen standing alone with the liberal wing on a Second Amendment case. The jig would be up if he were to join the liberal wing of the Court, finding the New York City gun transport case moot, and no non-liberal wing Justice stood with him.Did Roberts pressure Kavanaugh to go along with him? It is not improbable. Perhaps, that explains why Kavanaugh’s really did file his singularly odd concurring opinion in the New York City case after all. It may be that Kavanaugh did agree with the Associate Justices, Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—wanted to join them—but was strongly urged by the Chief Justice not to; was cajoled to side with the liberal wing. Perhaps, as the newest member of the Court, Kavanaugh was reluctant to draw the ire of Chief Justice Roberts.Clearly the liberal wing of the Court did not need Kavanaugh’s vote. Robert’s vote gave the liberal wing the fifth vote needed—a majority—sufficient to prevent the substantive merits of the case from being heard. But, Roberts, standing with the liberal wing of the Court on the mootness issue would make patently clear the Chief Justice’s negative views toward the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and would also make clear the Chief Justice’s jurisprudential leanings and tendencies in matters concerning the Second Amendment: those in line with the liberal wing of the Court, comprising: Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Roberts obviously sought to prevent that perception.By voting with the liberal wing of the Court in the New York City case that ruled the case moot, Kavanaugh gave cover to Roberts, and Roberts also gave cover to Kavanaugh. Who loses? We do, the American people.The New York City gun transport case took a page out of the Heller case playbook, albeit to obtain a negative rather than positive result: weakening the Second Amendment; not strengthening it.We surmise that Chief Justice Roberts, no less than retired Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, had an understanding with the conservative wing. They would agree, both of them, to join the conservative wing or neither of them would. Both of them would join the conservative wing or neither of them would. And if they couldn't both get on board, Heller would have failed and we all know how much worse off we would be now for it.The late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, who penned the Heller majority, was compelled to mute what otherwise would have been a stronger opinion that he, and Alito, and Thomas had much preferred to write, making a one-point crystal clear.The point is this: Government action infringing the core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms must be struck down. Courts are forbidden to engage in interest-balancing, which is nothing more than a ruse anyway; a ruse created to rationalize and legitimize unconstitutional, unconscionable government action infringing the fundamental, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. That point was muddied, obfuscated, diluted. It was a concession that Justice Scalia, Justice Alito, and Justice Thomas were forced to make to obtain Chief Justice Roberts acquiescence and Justice Kennedy's acquiescence. To obtain the acquiescence of those two Justices, necessary to obtain a slim, but critical majority, Justice Scalia wrote,“. . . nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” This assertion has nothing whatsoever to do with the Heller rulings and the majority's reasoning. But it had to be made to appease Kennedy and Roberts. The result was to undermine the efficacy of Heller. We have seen in the years since how Anti-Second Amendment governments rely on the softening of Heller to enact laws that directly and contemptuously attack the right of the people to keep and bear arms; and we see courts using interest-balancing to defend these unconstitutional laws. Heller was meant to rein in both government and courts. But, the language that Justice Scalia was compelled to include in Heller gave Anti-Second Amendment State governments and Anti-Second Amendment courts a way to deviously slither around the impact of the Heller rulings and holdings, even if it is clear to everyone what these governments and courts were doing. In fact, to provide a safe harbor for Anti-Second Amendment State governments and Anti-Second Amendment courts, Justice Scalia had to reiterate the point that these governments may do whatever the hell they want to eviscerate the Second Amendment, notwithstanding the dictates of the Second Amendment. The point was made in the last paragraph of the majority opinion. Compelled to humble themselves before the anti-Second Amendment crowd, Justice Scalia, joined by the conservative wing, wrote:“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns.” The sickening concession to anti-Second Amendment amici and Anti-Second Amendment governments and Anti-State Courts that the majority was forced to make and which we, Americans are forced to endure has served the Anti-Second Amendment zealots well. Heller and McDonald are routinely ignored.Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court will make damn sure that the rulings of those two seminal Second Amendment cases will never be clarified. That is where we are now and where we will remain unless or until another Justice sits on the High Court who actually honors the oath he takes to the Constitution.

WHAT IS TAKING PLACE IN OUR NATION TODAY IS NOT A PRETTY PICTURE

We are seeing a massive campaign of brainwashing taking place in our Nation at this very moment, and we are getting much more than a foretaste. We are getting a choking mouthful of what the Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, and billionaire Neoliberal Globalists have in store for each of us.We are holding onto our Nation by a thread. Make no mistake about that. The puppet masters have brainwashed the mass of Lemmings, and they intend to destroy those of us who are immune to the nonsense spouted.Today we see every monument to our glorious past—our ancestral memory—being wiped out; erased. Tomorrow, we will see the absolute destruction of our Bill of Rights. No question about it.If Trump fails reelection and if the Senate is lost, we will lose everything irreplaceable: but likely not before the “cold” War at home turns “hot.”I know what my next purchase will be; and it won’t be a toy.____________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT: OUR BEST HOPE OR OUR WORST NIGHTMARE?

IMPACT OF U.S. SUPREME COURT NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART SIX

CAN AMERICANS TRUST THEIR U.S. SUPREME COURT TO DEFEND OUR SACRED BILL OF RIGHTS?

Of the three Branches of the Federal Government in our federal system, the U.S. Supreme Court is either our best hope for preserving the U.S. Constitution and strengthening the Bill of Rights, or it’s our worst fear realized, if the High Court endangers the Constitution and weakens the Bill of Rights, abandoning the American citizenry to an awful fate.In his concurring opinion in the New York City gun transport case (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. vs. City of New York, New York, 590 U.S ____ (2020)) Justice Kavanaugh asserts, inter alia, “I share Justice Alito’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court.”If Justice Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion is meant to give Americans a modicum of hope, he failed miserably. He has merely raised suspicion as to his true motivations and jurisprudential leanings apropos of the Bill of Rights generally, and of the Second Amendment, particularly.The word, ‘should,’ that Kavanaugh uses, in his concurring, doesn’t mean ‘shall,’ nor does it even mean ‘may.’ U.S. Supreme Court Justices are extremely careful in their choice of words, as every word has legal import and significance as Supreme Court cases carry a substantial impact on the lives of all Americans, even as it comes to pass how many lower Court jurists blithely, and more, unconscionably ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as we see over and over again, in the way that all too many lower courts, especially federal courts, namely the United States District Courts and United States Circuit Courts of Appeal, routinely render opinions that contradict the rulings and reasoning of the seminal U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases, and these lower federal courts do so with crass impunity. It is little wonder, then, that Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and a recent member of the High Court, Neil Gorsuch, are furious over these actions of the lower Courts that constitute no less than mutiny, as serious an offense in the judicial sphere as it is in the military sphere. If one peruses the dissenting comments of these Justices, in those cases infringing the core of the Second Amendment the High Court fails to garner four votes necessary to secure review on, one can detect, also, the conservative wing's frustration with the liberal wing of the Court that routinely votes against hearing Second Amendment cases because the liberal wing does not recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right that accrues to the individual, but only to the militia, i.e., the Collective, and doesn't wish to be placed in the position, a predicament for them, to overturn a lower Court Second Amendment case that fails to adhere to U.S. Supreme Court precedent.So, then, what does the word, 'should,' mean? A short English lesson is in order. As one grammar website explains: “After English students learn the four types of conditionals with if-clauses and figure out when to use each one, they are told that there are other words and patterns to indicate the conditional mood, such as unless, even if, and should.” “Students often struggle with the conditional should (also called should-inversion) for a few reasons. First, the pattern differs from other conditional patterns, and second, the meaning is unrelated to should as a modal of advice. It is also quite formal, so students don’t come across it all that often.But much like any grammar target in English, the conditional should can be explained and learned fairly painlessly using patterns and examples.Conditional should and modal should have very different meanings.Students first learn that should is a modal of advice. The meaning of modal should is a suggestion.

• You should pay attention in class.(I suggest that you pay attention in class.)

Conditional should means if and is used for hypothetical situations.

• Should you need anything else, please call this number.(If you need anything else, please call this number.)” 

Justice Kavanaugh's use of the word, 'should,' in his concurring opinion, in the New York City gun transport case, rather than his use of the word, 'shall' or 'will,' or 'must,' or 'may,' is no accident. The use of the word, 'should,' operates, then, as a mere gesture of hope, nothing more. But, by that token, the U.S. Supreme Court should have taken up any of the two dozen cases that came up for review, in the ten years since the McDonald case decision came down. The Court didn't. Kavanaugh seems to be saying that "I would really like for another Second Amendment case to be heard by the Supreme Court." But, Kavanaugh's personal feelings are irrelevant to case analysis. What is relevant is a jurist's decision in a case, and the reasoning the jurist uses to reach a decision--even if such reasoning amounts to simple rationalization--but Kavanaugh doesn't provide any analysis in his concurring in the New York City case. If he were to provide analysis, we would like to see that analysis for deciding to vote with Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court in finding the gun transport matter moot.  Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch), explained in depth why, specifically, the New York City gun transport case is NOT moot. One would expect that a Justice who troubles himself to write a concurring opinion at all would have realized the necessity of responding to Justice Alito's highly detailed, precise, unequivocal, unambiguous objections to the Court majority's decision on the mootness issue.  Justice Alito's criticisms of the majority's position of the mootness issue in the New York City gun transport case cry out for a response. There is nothing in the Majority opinion to suggest Justice Alito's objections are incorrect and there is everything in Justice Alito's dissenting opinion that establishes why the majority decision is incorrect. Having specifically responded to the majority's argument, the majority, in turn, should have responded to the Justice Alito's criticism of their decision. There is everything in Justice Alito's meticulous dissent that begs for a reply. But, the majority is silent. And, Associate Justice Kavanaugh who writes a concurring opinion is silent as well. Why bother to write a concurring opinion merely to assert that he agrees with the majority. Having drafted a concurring, why didn't Justice Alito tackle the issue of mootness head-on, if for no other reason than to clarify why he decided to cast his lot with the majority rather than with the dissent? That he failed to address Alito's objections at all is itself revealing. Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion bespeaks a man who appears desperately desirous of having Americans believe he unabashedly, resolutely supports the exercise of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even as he defers to Respondent City. But that does not justify the writing of a concurring opinion. Having done so, Justice Kavanaugh clearly demonstrates a willingness to toy with the Second Amendment, to play with it--going along with a liberal wing that detests the Second Amendment and signing up with the Chief Justice whose own jurisprudential leanings, apropos of the Second Amendment, is muddled or neutral at best, and, at worst, manifestly diverges from the jurisprudential leanings of Associate Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch who strongly adhere to the Founders' adoration of our God-given natural, elemental, immutable, unalienable rights--rights that these Founders lovingly, and with clear conscience and conviction codified in our Bill of Rights, lest Government ever dare attempt to deny or ignore such sacred rights of the American people.Justice Kavanaugh's concurring opinion is not to be taken lightly. No opinion of a United States Supreme Court Justice is to be taken lightly. Nothing a United States Supreme Court Justice asserts in opinion is to be taken lightly. All High Court opinions, be they majority opinions, or concurring opinions, or dissenting opinions are to be taken lightly. All high Court opinions carry weight and they exist in our body of law forever. Sometimes silence is the better avenue to pursue. Chief Justice Roberts realized that. Justice Kavanaugh did not. And, his absurd and vacuous concurring will now remain, forever, as a testament to one Justice's sheepish attempt to shore up support from, and the trust of, the American people. The American people will now remain justifiably in doubt over Associate Justice Kavanaugh's jurisprudential leanings toward the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights, and, in doubt, indeed, toward the entirety of our Bill of Rights and toward the very sanctity of such things as natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights, bestowed in the very soul of man by the loving, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Divine Creator.Given the reluctance of the High Court to hear any Second Amendment case, even, and especially, those infringing the very core of it, the prospect of the Court actually taking up another Second Amendment case in the near future is more improbable than likely. Why is that, really?

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT REVIEWS VERY FEW CASES

First, the Court has limited time, given the number of cases that come before it during any term. As set forth in the SCOTUS Blog: “In most circumstances, the Supreme Court has discretion whether or not to grant review of a particular case. Of the 7,000 to 8,000 cert petitions filed each term, the court grants certiorari and hears oral argument in only about 80. Granting a cert petition requires the votes of four justices.” Since the High Court reviews only a fraction of the cases brought to it in any given term, and, since the High Court is averse to hearing Second Amendment cases, it will only be on a wing and a prayer that the Supreme Court is likely to take up any Second Amendment case, given the Court’s present composition. And, if it does so at all, it will likely deny review on the heels of the New York City gun transport case, any further Second Amendment case this Term because the Supreme Court Term is effectively over in late June, hardly more than one month from now as of the posting of this article.Note, “A Term of the Supreme Court begins, by statute, on the first Monday in October. . . . The Term is divided between ‘sittings,’ when the Justices hear cases and deliver opinions, and intervening ‘recesses,’ when they consider the business before the Court and write opinions. Sittings and recesses alternate at approximately two-week intervals.” Moreover, as the site, U.S. Courts.gov points out: “The Court is, typically, in recess from late June/early July until the first Monday in October. . . . The Court hears oral arguments in cases from October through April [and] All opinions of the Court are, typically, handed down by the last day of the Court’s term (the day in late June/early July when the Court recesses for the summer). With the exception of this deadline, there are no rules concerning when decisions must be released. Typically, decisions that are unanimous are released sooner than those that have concurring and dissenting opinions. While some unanimous decisions are handed down as early as December, some controversial opinions, even if heard in October, may not be handed down until the last day of the term.  

SUPPOSE THE HIGH COURT DOES SECURE FOUR VOTES NECESSARY TO REVIEW A SECOND AMENDMENT CASE, WHAT THEN?

Second, even if, by some strange happenstance the Supreme Court does grant review in one of the pending Second Amendment cases, in the next few weeks, especially given the impact of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus, one may justifiably ask when will that case be briefed; when will it be argued in oral hearing before the Court; and when might the case be decided? And, most significantly: how will that case be decided?Given that Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh both sided with the liberal wing of the High Court on the New York City gun transport case, that fact alone is a matter for deep concern.In any event, all of this—from voting to hear a case, to the releasing of a decision in that case—takes an inordinate amount of time and, with a General U.S. Presidential election coming up in November 2020, an election just around the corner, both the liberal wing and conservative wing of the High Court may have their own good reasons for not taking up another Second Amendment case this Term. Consider the ramifications of the results of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, both on the eventual composition of the Supreme Court and on the manner in which a Second Amendment case would be decided.Supreme Court Justices, no less than average citizens, do surely manifest deep concern over the outcome of the upcoming U.S. Presidential election. And whom it is that wins the election will be able to actuate one or the other of two alternate, incompatible, radically distinct visions for the Nation.One vision is grounded on the political and social philosophy of Individualism, championed by the Founders of our Free Republic, and actualized in the Constitution that the States, in existence at the time, had ratified. That Constitution is the blueprint of the structure of our Nation, where the people themselves are sovereign: a notion manifest in no other nation in the world despite talk, for example, by the rulers of the EU, holed up in Brussels, who govern the nations comprising the EU. These so-called “elites” talk endlessly, and disingenuously, and deceptively of the EU’s liberal democratic values. But that is nothing more than flimflam and flummery. The second vision is grounded on the political and social philosophy of Collectivism—a term that is wending its way more frequently into political discourse, as the Radical Left talks carefully, non-critically, and often glowingly, about the benefits of life in both the EU and in the Autocratic, Communist Collectivist regime of Xi Jinping of China. See Arbalest Quarrel Article, titled, “The Modern Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies, posted October 6, 2018.” Note: In that article, we point to Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which, at the time of the posting of the article, had just occurred. Would that we knew then what we know now, having seen Justice Kavanaugh’s insipid, seemingly groveling, duplicitous Concurring Opinion in the New York City Gun Transport case. We said, at the time:“With Brett Kavanaugh now on the High Court, the Individualists’ vision for this Country is now more likely to prevail in the decades ahead than is the vision of the Collectivists. Had Hillary Clinton prevailed in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and thereupon nominated individuals to the High Court who view the Constitution of the United States as a “Living Document,” susceptible to massive judicial and legislative revision, the direction of this Country would have continued along the path created for it by the Bush and Clinton clans, and by Barack Obama. Americans would have seen the eventual loss of this Country’s independence and sovereignty, and, concomitantly, Americans would have seen the loss of the fundamental, unalienable rights guaranteed to them, as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. The losses would have been drastic, and those losses would have been assured. Thankfully, a dire future for this nation and its people is less likely to happen now, as the election of Trump has enabled the Nation to pivot back to the path laid out for us by the founders of the Nation. But there is still much work ahead for the American people. We must remain ever vigilant.”

THE MOST IMPORTANT U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION OF THE LAST TWO CENTURIES IS UPON US

The principles of Collectivism were anathema to the founders of our Nation; and those principles are wholly incompatible with the Constitution the framers designed, predicated on the tenets of Individualism, the foundation of our Nation. The two political and social philosophies, Individualism and Collectivism, cannot be reconciled. And those who wish to implement the principles of Collectivism in our Nation know this. That is why they talk openly of major amendments to the Constitution.Indeed, some Collectivists talk of doing away with the U.S. Constitution altogether, as it would be far easier to draft a new constitution grounded on the principles of Collectivism than to try to reconfigure the original Constitution, grounded as it is on a completely different set of precepts: those of Individualism. And we will be headed in a very disturbing direction if the Collectivists do succeed in taking firm control over the reins of Government._____________________________________________

WITHOUT AN ARMED CITIZENRY EVERY CITIZEN REMAINS AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE

Since an armed citizenry operates as the one true signifier and test of the sovereignty of the people over Government, and the only effective vehicle through which the sovereignty of the people over illegal Government usurpation and accumulation of power is contained, the armed citizenry is truly the sine qua non of a Nation founded on the tenets of Individualism. And in only one such Nation are the people truly sovereign: the United States. Consider: For all the lofty talk of human rights and with all the “rights” delineated in the EU’s “Charter of Fundamental Rights,” as one prime example—and there are over six dozen of them at last count—you would be hard-pressed to find any assertion of the right of the people of the EU to keep and bear arms. There isn’t one. Do you think the omission was an accident? 

THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT EXTOLS THE POLITICAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF THE EU, NOT THE U.S.

Several U.S. Supreme Court Justices such as, and particularly, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, have little regard for the U.S. Constitution, as they consider it to be as she says, “rather old” and, therefore, archaic, reminiscent of an earlier time and earlier values that they also perceive as archaic, mutable, irrelevant, and even counter to the Collectivist political and social orientation they support or sympathize with. Their vision of this Country does not include the presence of an armed citizenry. Thus, they, understandably, would express reservation, hesitation in voting to grant review of another Second Amendment case at this time: one that truly impacts the very core of it. These liberal wing U.S. Supreme Court Justices are awaiting the installation of a Collectivist as U.S. President, as are all those who espouse the principles and tenets of Collectivism.If the Radical Left Democrats defeat Trump in the upcoming November 2020 general election, might not that embolden Roberts to join the liberal wing of the Court, to take up another Second Amendment case for the express purpose to weaken the central holdings of Heller and McDonald, if not to overturn the central holdings of those cases outright?After all, it only takes one Justice, say, John Roberts, to join the liberal wing, to defeat a Second Amendment case. And, what  Justice Kavanaugh would do with it is anyone’s guess, given his awkward, almost servile, and definitely odd concurring opinion in the recent New York City gun transport case.The liberal wing of the U.S. Supreme Court Court has made their deep animosity toward the Second Amendment known. The Liberal wing of the High Court therefore fervently relishes the opportunity to overturn Heller and McDonald. Make no mistake about that. The liberal wing of the High Court has made clear its deep hostility toward and its visceral loathing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That isn’t a secret.This is predicated on the temperament of Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan—a psychological temperament that informs their methodological approach to High Court case analysis; a methodological approach and jurisprudential philosophy that predisposes them to undercut the Second Amendment, always maintaining that the right of the people to keep and bear arms amounts to a collective right if such a right exists at all; conferring no individual right to own and possess firearms.The liberal wing of the High Court long ago opined that both Heller and McDonald were wrongly decided. At the time Heller was decided in 2008, the dissenting Justices included: Breyer, Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg. And, at the time McDonald was decided, the dissenting Justices included: Breyer, Stevens, and Sotomayor.Ostensibly a jurisprudential conservative who retired in 2009, Associate Justice David Souter, nominated by then-President George H.W. Bush, turned out to be a major disappointment. His replacement, Elena Kagan, nominated by Donald Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, would come as no surprise. One needn’t guess her jurisprudential philosophy toward the Second Amendment, all of which is predicated on the temperament of the liberal wing of the High Court that now comprises Associate Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan—a psychological temperament that informs their jurisprudential philosophy and a methodological approach toward case analysis that is wholly unlike that of the late eminent Justice Scalia and that Justices Thomas and Alito.The liberal wing of the Court abhors the very idea that Americans have a fundamental and immutable and unalienable, natural right to own and possess firearms. If they vote to hear a Second Amendment case, it will only be with a view toward undercutting the Second Amendment and they will only vote to hear a Second Amendment case once they feel they have sufficient support to compose the majority opinion on the matter.The New York City gun transport case was the most innocuous of Second Amendment cases for the High Court to take up when compared to other cases that had come before it. Perhaps that was one reason they granted review of the New York City case.Moreover, the New York City case invited the New York City Government to amend the law to encourage the liberal wing of the High Court to avoid deciding the case on the merits.And so, the liberal wing did find the case mooted by a change in the law. No surprise there. And Chief Justice Roberts readily jumped on board. No surprise there either. But the decision of Justice Kavanaugh, joining the liberal wing and Roberts majority rather than the dissenters, Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch—that was a surprise and far, far from a pleasant one.Who is it that Justice Kavanaugh thinks he is fooling? He knows damn well how difficult it is for a Second Amendment case—any Second Amendment case—to be heard. Americans can rest assured that Justice Thomas clued Kavanaugh in on that if Kavanaugh harbored any doubt about that. And Americans are supposed to sit on their hands, and hold their breath waiting for the next Second Amendment case to be taken up by the Court, gaining sustenance from a conjecture tucked away in an absurd Concurring Opinion?Unfortunately, Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh isn’t the only person on the High Court infected with St. Vitus Dance, ever meandering, weaseling, tap dancing around the Second Amendment rather than giving it the attention and respect it deserves, dealing squarely with it, to protect the core of it.And the Third Branch of Government isn’t our only concern.Recall how the Republican-controlled House and Senate failed to enact national concealed handgun carry into law. Republicans could easily have enacted 115 H.R. 38 into law if they really wanted to. But they didn’t. Back on November 30, 2018, the Arbalest Quarrel wrote, in our article titled, “As Deadline Draws Near, Supporters Of Second Amendment Demand U.S. Senate Vote On National Concealed Handgun Carry Reciprocity,”“The Senate Judiciary Committee has been sitting on the bill that was sent to Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell, last December 2017, when it passed the Republican-controlled House. The version of national concealed handgun carry reciprocity that passed the House is designated, 115 H.R. 38, “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.” Once Senator McConnell received it, he sent it immediately to the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Charles Grassley, for action. Clearly, no work was done on it; and a year has gone by since the Judiciary Committee had received it.” Nothing was done by the Republican Controlled Congress in 2017, at that time, to strengthen Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. And, now, at this juncture—with the decision of Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh, having joined the liberal wing of the High Court, in the New York City gun transport case—nothing yet has been done to preserve and strengthen our sacred Second Amendment right.Do you think, perhaps, that all too many legislators and jurists, adherents of Collectivism, who claim to support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, really don’t? Is talk of support for the right of the people to keep and bear arms just that: merely talk? Is preservation of our Bill of Rights merely a will-o’-the-wisp, an elaborate play, the purpose of which is to placate a rightfully embittered American electorate, facilitating the slow, inexorable, erasure of the very notion of fundamental, immutable, God-given rights that fall beyond the lawful power of Government to denigrate and eradicate?As we have pointed out in our previous article, some Collectivists in the U.S. suggest that no constitution is necessary. Taking their cue from Great Britain which is said to have an “unwritten constitution” (which really means NO constitution), the Collectivists surmise that changes to Government and changes to the relationship of the people to Government should always be flexible, malleable—subject to change in accordance with the whims of those who wield power. For these rulers, adherents of Collectivism, any constitution is too restrictive and any rights afforded the populace must always be subject to modification or abrogation as the rulers dictate. And, they have made that plain. The Collectivists seek to rewrite portions of the Articles, and they seek to rewrite, or to torturously and tortuously reinterpret, or to abrogate altogether, or simply to ignore portions of our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, natural rights—our Bill of Rights—giving special attention to the Second Amendment that they perceive as the greatest single threat to their illegal, unconscionable usurpation of power.The American people must not let these Radical Left Collectivist insurrectionists succeed.____________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

CHURCHES “UNDER THE GUN”

“And God spake all these words, saying,I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.Thou shalt have no other gods before me.Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.”  ~from The Old Testament, Exodus and Deuteronomy, King James Version; source: www.Bartleby.com­­­­­­____________________________________________“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” First sentence from the Declaration of Independence, In Congress, July 4, 1776; source: archives.gov

THE DEFIANCE AND BRASHNESS OF STATE GOVERNMENT TYRANTS IS APPARENT FOR ALL TO SEE

America is first and foremost a Christian Nation. This isn’t hypothesis, or hyperbole, or manifestation of hysteria. It is fact. This fact is the backbone and linchpin of our Constitution. It is the foundation of our natural rights; rights bestowed on man by a loving, Divine Creator. It is self-evident true.In recent years, the would-be destroyers of our Nation have attacked this notion; and, with the intentional or reckless unleashing of a pandemic on our Nation and on other nations by the amoral, irreligious, autocratic, and diabolical, Communist regime of Xi Jinping of China, the would-be destroyers of our Nation have renewed their assault on the Christian Church. They have done so with unusual feral ferocity.Who are these would-be destroyers of our Constitution; these betrayers of our National heritage, of our natural rights and liberties; these sowers of ill will; these destructive, hateful forces who disingenuously, hypocritically, coldly, callously, calculatedly assert a need, an impulse to tear down the Christian framework of our Nation, ostensibly, as they say, or so they claim, to save it? We know them. They are all around us. They comprise a heterogenous, amorphous conglomeration of malcontents both here and abroad who seek to remake the world in their own image: Marxists, Communists, Socialists, Anarchists, Neoliberal Billionaire Globalists, and others. They all share the same belief system, the same value system: distrust of the common man; a strong, tenacious, insatiable desire to control and subjugate humanity; and a strong bias toward and a disturbing penchant for Atheism, Agnosticism, or Satanism, and concomitant amorality and immorality, albeit disguised as seemingly benign secularism, moral relativism, and nontheistic humanism.

A MODERN CIVIL WAR

America is in the midst of a Civil War. This war isn’t fought with guns or bombs, at least for the moment. But it’s war, nonetheless. We see this war waged in the attempt to control the mind, the thoughts of Americans. The despoilers of our Nation have sought to drive a wedge between Americans and their sacred rights and liberties. If successful, our Nation will cease to exist, for the sovereignty of the American people exists and thrives only in the unfettered exercise of their God-given rights and liberties. For only in the exercise of those rights and liberties may the power of Government be restrained and constrained.These would-be annihilators of our Nation use calamity to drive a wedge between the citizenry and their fundamental rights and liberties. They are adept at seducing many Americans to surrender their rights and liberties for security. Recall Benjamin Franklin’s famous, oft reiterated, prescient quote: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

THE PRESUMPTUOUS, CALCULATED, CONCERTED, INCESSANT, INSOLENT ASSAULT ON OUR BILL OF RIGHTS

After the attack on the World Trade Center, the assassins of our Bill of Rights said Americans don’t require freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures because Government must protect Americans from terrorists; ergo, Americans came to lose their sovereignty through a slow, inexorable process toward creation of the Surveillance State, and the concomitant whittling away of the sacred right embodied in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.After some lunatics went on a shooting binge, in the last couple of decades the assassins of our Bill of Rights said Americans ought not exercise their unalienable God-given right to keep and bear arms because Government must promote public safety and ensure public order; ergo, we see the rapid evolution toward restricting ownership and possession of firearms, and the concomitant whittling away of the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.And now, with the Chinese Communist Coronavirus unleashed upon us, the assassins of our Bill of Rights have said Government must constrain the free exercise of religion, restrain the freedom of speech, preclude the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to curtail the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; ergo we see the rapid evolution toward controlling the thoughts and actions of the citizenry; the subjugation of the people, and the concomitant whittling away of the sacred rights embodied in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

STATE GOVERNMENTS USE FORCE TO ENFORCE CHURCH CLOSURES

Ironically, it isn’t the Federal Government, now, but the Governors of a few States who seek to curtail the free exercise of religion.With all the bluster of the Radical Left that calls President Trump an autocrat, the actions of Radical Left Governors make plain who the autocrats really are. Their actions are both unconstitutional and unconscionable.Radical Left New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, Illinois Governor, J.B. Pritzker, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, California Governor, Gavin Newsom, and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer have closed churches claiming, as a rationale, the need to promote public health due to the Chinese Coronavirus.Unsurprisingly, a website that calls itself, the “Friendly Atheist,” says, that State Governors can do this:“ ‘Policies don’t violate religious freedom laws if they’re created in order to save people’s lives,’ said Michael Moreland, director of the Ellen H. McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy at Villanova University.” ‘So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them,’ he said. . . . So, yes, governors can and should shut down church gatherings in the same way they’re shutting down public schools and restaurants. Treat them fairly. Treat them equally. There’s nothing illegal going on no matter how many pastors whine about religious discrimination.”Let’s deconstruct a couple of these comments. First, the “Friendly Atheist” draws a false dilemma, claiming that either the Church remains closed or people will fall sick and die. That’s untrue. Churches are cognizant of the threat. Church officials have been implementing proper protocols to preclude the spread of the Chinese Coronavirus all along. Second, the remark of the legal expert, Ellen McCullen is vague and ambiguous. She asserts, “So long as those restrictions are neutral and applicable to everybody, religious institutions have to abide by them.” What is she saying? There are two possibilities.McCullen may be saying that, so long as State Governors force every religion in a State to close its doors, not just Christian denominations, then Church closure orders are lawful. In the alternative, McCullen may be saying that, so long as closure restrictions apply to all political, social, educational and religious associations and organizations, and apply t0 all business establishments—literally to every conceivable entity throughout the State, apart, say, from hospitals, pharmacies, and food establishments—then Church closure orders are lawful. Now, if the former statement is what Ellen McCullen means, then Church closure actions are not “content-neutral,” and are, then, unconstitutional. They are clearly unlawful. If the latter statement is what she means, then Government ordered Church closure actions are still, likely, unconstitutional, and, so, still unlawful.Why? It comes down to what reasonably, rationally constitutes an “essential service” and what constitutes a “non-essential service”: terminology State Governments have themselves concocted to create winners and losers; to divide those whom they count as friends from those they perceive as enemies.No one would deny that severely ill people need the care of health care providers that, in many cases only hospitals can effectively provide. And no one can honestly deny that many people require prescription medicines to remain well. And no one can reasonably deny that everyone requires food sustenance to survive. So a case can be made for application of the essential versus non-essential dichotomy but only if applied in a rational, non-arbitrary manner. What about Churches? Does the Church provide an essential service? Well, houses of worship do fall under the category of essential services, as spiritual need is arguably just as essential to the well-being and survival of a person as are food, medicine, and medical care. Moreover, the free exercise of religion isn’t a mere privilege; nor is it a minor right. It is a fundamental, unalienable right. In fact, the right to worship the Divine Creator in a house of worship, and the right of self-defense, and the right to maintain one's personal autonomy are the most sacred of rights. Yet those State Governors deny a person the right to attend Church, even as they permit a person to visit an abortion clinic, a liquor store, or a cannabis shop. That is the height of arrogance, foolishness, capriciousness, and outright stupidity.

IN A FREE REPUBLIC CHURCHES MUST REMAIN OPEN

These State Governors who would dare close Churches are simply wrong. Churches must remain open.Curiously, it is the U.S. President, not the State Governors who recognize the importance of our sacred rights and liberties. As recently reported in the website, usnews.com, for one:“President Donald Trump on Friday said he has deemed churches and other houses of worship ‘essential’ and called on governors to allow them to reopen this weekend despite the threat of the coronavirus.”“ ‘Today I’m identifying houses of worship — churches, synagogues and mosques — as essential places that provide essential services,’ Trump said during a hastily arranged press conference Friday. He said if governors don't abide by his request, he will ‘override’ them, though it’s unclear what authority he has to do so.So, then: Who is the autocrat? Who is the tyrant? It isn’t Donald Trump. The real autocrats and tyrants are those State Governors who usurp the sovereignty of the American people by denying to the people their fundamental right to worship the Divine Creator: the one Being who gave man free will, and who bestowed on man fundamental, unalienable, immutable rights.There are those of us who adore and worship the Divine Creator; and there are those who don’t.But for those who would deny the Divine Creator, there is no limit to their capacity for evil. They don't wish to attend Church? Fine. But, to prevent others from doing so is not to be countenanced, and should be roundly condemned. These atheists dare to use a catastrophe as an excuse to destroy rights and liberties they never created yet have the audacity and the temerity to annul. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” said Rahm Emanuel, one-time Chicago Mayor and White House Chief of Staff in the Obama Administration.* ______________________________________*Rahm’s Rule—the arrogant “first principle” of the deniers of the Divine Creator.____________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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.