THE UNITED STATES: ON THE ROAD TO PERDITION

The United States of America is going to hell in a handbasket. You know it. I know it. But whose fault is it? No, it isn’t your fault, nor is it mine, nor is it the fault of tens of millions of other Americans who voted for Donald Trump in 2016 and once again in 2020.And why did we vote for Trump? Did we vote for him because of a winning personality or because of having a down-to-earth communication style? Some citizens did so, perhaps. But many of us don’t care about any of that; nor should we.We voted for Trump because we knew he’s our best chance—our only chance—to get our Nation back on track and to keep the Nation on track after the singular mess Bill Jefferson Clinton, George “Dubya” Bush, and Barack Hussein Obama made of our Country.Clinton presented us with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a monstrous, unfair trade deal, devastating to our manufacturing base.Bush embroiled us in a war with Iraq, since metastasizing, across the Middle East into a trillion plus dollar cluster-f**k that has caused death or injury to well over 20,000 Americans and over 1.6 million disability claims, and untold death and misery to millions of inhabitants of the region. And the mess is ongoing. See barbaramcnally.comAnd, as the Great “Apologist-in-Chief,” Obama humbled and humiliated our Nation. See thehill.com and heritage.org.This denigration of our Nation in the eyes of the world was not mere happenstance, it a carefully crafted implemented plan meant to target the psyche of and to work on the psyche of Americans to weaken Americans' resolve, so that they would turn away from their Nation. Once this were accomplished, it would be relatively easy to nudge the public's acceptance of a new world order, one in which America no longer exists as an independent sovereign Nation-state. In concert with this scheme to demoralize and undermine the will of the American people, Obama machinated behind the scenes with powerful neoliberal Globalist Corporatists to develop two massive trade pacts: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP). If implemented, these two mammoth trade deals would have destroyed what remains of our manufacturing base, and in the process, would have undermined our Nation’s Constitution and system of laws, subordinating them to the dictates of international law and foreign tribunals. See eff.org.Hillary Clinton would have signed these massive global trade agreements into law had Trump not defeated her, scotching the entire scheme, that took place in secret, over several years. Trump's action, signing an executive order, making clear to Congress that he would veto any effort to effectuate TPP and T-TIP, effectively killed these two massive trade deals. This, no doubt, enraged the Globalist elites who had spent inordinate money, time, and effort to accomplish their objective, only to see the realization of their efforts come crashing down.TPP/T-TIP was a sticky issue for Clinton during the 2016 election cycle, as Bernie Sanders, the darling of the Radical Left of the Party, whose own run for the Democrat Party nomination for U.S. President had gained increasing, and embarrassing momentum, had, as with Trump, adamantly opposed these trade deals, knowing full well that they would devastate what remained of our manufacturing base.  See npr article. And the the liberal LA Times, had this to say about the matter, back in 2016:“Donald Trump has made opposition to multilateral trade deals like the North American Free Trade Agreement and the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership a staple of his case against Hillary Clinton. And he quickly took the conversation there Monday.He says she supported the former, which the U.S. entered into during her husband’s administration, and the latter, which she helped negotiate as secretary of State.In fact, Trump argued, Clinton decided to oppose TPP only after she saw the popular response Trump was getting for his position.But Clinton has maintained she opposes TPP, a position she has been forced to reiterate with greater clarity.“I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages — including the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” she said at a campaign stop in Ohio in August. “I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president.”So did Clinton flip on TPP? Context is key.The deal would be the largest multilateral trade agreement ever negotiated, involving the U.S., emerging economies such as Vietnam and traditional trading partners including Japan, Canada and Mexico. It’s a major priority for the Obama administration, which sees the deal as key to cementing the president’s so-called pivot to the Asia-Pacific region. Obama hopes to persuade lawmakers to ratify it before year’s end, but Clinton’s opposition now exemplifies the political difficulty.As a member of the Obama Cabinet in his first term, Clinton carried out the president’s priorities. Speaking on a trip to Australia in 2012 as negotiators from the partner nations were still deep in negotiations, she outlined the goals for it.“This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field,” she said then. “And when negotiated, this agreement will cover 40% of the world’s total trade and build in strong protections for workers and the environment. That’s key because we know from experience, and of course research proves it, that respecting workers’ rights leads to positive long-term economic outcomes, better jobs with higher wages and safer working conditions.” Had the Globalist elites and their Governmental puppets succeeded with their insidious, sinister, secretive, and heinous behind the scenes plotting to bring TPP and T-TIP to fruition, Americans would have ambitious trade pacts would have ushered in a new transnational, supranational, world-wide, economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical construct they would be well on their way to realizing their goal of a transnational, supranational corporatist construct. Biden has made plain his intent to return to the Globalist agenda, but that may not sit well with the Radical Left. Biden, not surprisingly equivocates, but when push comes to shove, he will side with the Globalist elites on this.Forbes spins this, as does Bloomberg news, to suggest TPP isn’t such a bad thing.There’s a definite pattern to be observed here. We see, in the actions of these three past President charlatans—and in both the defeated Hillary Clinton and in Joe Biden, the latter of whom may very well be inaugurated on January 20, 2021, as the 46th U.S. President—a vast, global conspiracy; a complex, multifaceted scheme; an act of treachery against our Nation, so monstrous in the conception and expansive in its scope, and elaborate in its e execution, that most Americans cannot begin to fathom the enormity of it or the vileness inherent in it. Yet, no one can reasonably deny it. What has taken place slowly and, therefore, imperceptibly, albeit methodically and inexorably, over the space of thirty years, has accelerated remarkably and in earnest in the past six months with the death of a small time crook and drug addict, George Floyd. His death, ostensibly at the hands of a renegade police officer, served as the pretext for ensuing waves of violence across the Country.The Globalist elites and the Marxist and Anarchist hordes had sought for decades to tear down the entirety of our society. And, in the last six months following Floyd’s death, Americans have seen blatant, obstreperous, transparent attacks on our Nation’s cherished history, on our culture, on our core values, on our institutions, and on our Judeo-Christian ethic.We have seen the reprehensible destruction of our Nation’s monuments and artwork, and the incomprehensible, reprehensible, denigration of the founders of our Nation. The spoilers and destructors of our Nation have pushed to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic. They have subverted the independence and sovereignty our Nation. They seek to reduce the American people to a life of servitude, penury, subjugation, and unending misery, and abject hopelessness, no less than the populations of Third World countries.Americans did fight back.In 2016, Americans rejected the Globalist goals, and in Trump, they voted for a man who said he would return the Nation back to its rightful owners, the American people. And he has been true to his words and to his salient aim, as expressed, in his 2016 motto, “Make America Great Again.” Among Trump’s major accomplishments:He revoked Globalist pacts and treaties, that were designed to sell-out our Nation to Billionaire neoliberal Globalist corporatists.He reversed the disastrous economic policies of his predecessors, improving the life and well-being of average Americans as well as American businesses.He destroyed the Islamic State.He cemented relationships between Arab Nations and Israel, thereby stabilizing the Mideast. He has attempted, despite those who have sabotaged his efforts, to end the insane incessant American commitment to endless warring.He nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, highly capable individuals who have demonstrated a desire to preserve the sanctity of our Constitution, consistent with the intention and wishes of its framers.He has protected our Nation from the dangers posed to American citizens by the incursion of millions of illegal aliens into our Nation. He has strengthened our Nation’s bond to its history and core values and has made clear his continued commitment to the strengthening of our Nation’s fundamental, natural rights and liberties.And he has emphasized his support for the sanctity of our Bill of Rights, especially our right of free speech, free association, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.All these things were no easy tasks that Trump set for himself on behalf of the Nation, its Constitution, and the American people. But they were necessary as they served to undo the harm that fifteen years of Clinton, Bush, and Obama had caused. See recent Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “Trump Makes Good On 2016 Campaign Promises and Has Earned A Second Term,” posted on November 1, 2020. Tens of millions of Americans supported Trump in his worthy efforts and they continue to support him, that he may complete his campaign promises, strengthen our Nation and its Constitution, safeguard its sacred history, heritage, and core values, and continue to create economic opportunity for all Americans in a Land that ensures the life, health, physical safety, prosperity and well-being of all Americans.What could be wrong with this? Anything? Apparently, everything, to some.There exist in the world today powerful and influential forces whose desires and goals are not America’s desires and goals. These forces seek to upend the very concepts of ‘citizen and ‘nation-state.’They talk of a “Great Reset” that purportedly will benefit everyone once Trump leaves Office and is replaced by the Biden/Harris team.But just what is this “Great Reset” that will bring the U.S. back into the fold of the agenda set by the Globalists, that their lackeys, Clinton, Bush, and Obama had worked obediently toward? The Hill explains:“For decades, progressives have attempted to use climate change to justify liberal policy changes. But their latest attempt – a new proposal called the ‘Great Reset’ – is the most ambitious and radical plan the world has seen in more than a generation.At a virtual meeting earlier in June hosted by the World Economic Forum, some of the planet’s most powerful business leaders, government officials and activists announced a proposal to ‘reset’ the global economy. Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations and massive Green New Deal-like government programs. “Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, in an article published on WEF’s website. ‘In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.’ Schwab also said that ‘all aspects of our societies and economies’ must be revamped,’ ‘from education to social contracts and working conditions.’ Joining Schwab at the WEF event was Prince Charles, one of the primary proponents of the Great Reset; Gina Gopinath, the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund; António Guterres, the secretary-general of the United Nations; and CEOs and presidents of major international corporations, such as Microsoft and BP. Activists from groups such as Greenpeace International and a variety of academics also attended the event or have expressed their support for the Great Reset. Although many details about the Great Reset won’t be rolled out until the World Economic Forum meets in Davos in January 2021, the general principles of the plan are clear: The world needs massive new government programs and far-reaching policies comparable to those offered by American socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) in their Green New Deal plan.” Since the day of Trump’s inauguration, the propagandists, that include the Press and Big Tech, went to work. They played on—preyed upon—Americans’ emotions and sense of decency. They conveyed to Americans an America that is out-of-touch with the rest of the world. They conveyed an America that owes its very existence to a lie: the lie of a fair, and just America.They created and perpetrated a myth about America. They sought to instill in Americans ideas that the Nation is inherently evil, racist, inhumane, unjust. These propagandists called America’s core values into question. They even called into question the very foundation upon which our Nation was built and upon which it requires to exist, Christianity, and the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, infinitely just, and infinitely loving and benevolent Divine Creator.The propagandists sought to instill awful, hateful, psychically damaging memes into the core being of each American. These memes caused many Americans to doubt their own morality and their own love of Country, as, of course they were designed to do.New concepts were invented, engineered and then inserted into the psyche of Americans by social media and the Press: ‘white privilege;’ masculine toxicity;’  ‘Cancel Culture;’ ‘Critical Race Theory;’ ‘Christian Nationalism,’ and several others.Many Americans obsessed over these viruses, developed mental anguish over them, became the willing tools of those who sought to tear down our Country. If successful, this would permit the Globalist elites to return to their agenda, which they now refer to as the “Great Reset.” Big Tech was on board. The Tech monopolies prevented other voices from being heard; knowing full well that if these other voices were heard, such voices would dilute the propagandists’ messaging; for sane voices would operate as an effective antidote to the viral propaganda plague.And Big Tech succeeded. Massive disinformation and misinformation campaigns had their desired, intended effect.The Billionaire Globalist elites’ last gambit paid off. With tens of millions of Americans voting for their stooges, Biden and Harris, having fallen victim to years of propaganda, and with significant help from the manufacturers of voting machines, and with assistance from the illegal actions of courts and State officials who permitted massive illegal voting to occur throughout the Country, the stooges, Biden and Harris, seem to obtain more votes than Trump. But appearances can be deceiving.Did Biden and Harris beat out Trump and Pence? Or did millions of seemingly legitimate votes that went to Biden and Pence operate merely as an effective smokescreen to hide the fact that Trump obtained millions of votes more than Biden and Harris?Ought not the DOJ investigate the illegal collusion of the Big Tech companies and polling companies that manipulated the public mind into falsely believing that Trump could not win the election? Did these companies cajole millions more Americans into casting votes for Biden/Harris when they otherwise would not have done so, would likely not have done so, had Americans’ access to all the available information instead of just some of it: the propaganda?Lacking any concrete reasons for not voting for Trump many voters simply relied on their hatred of him based on the constant fake news—a well-organized, well-funded, and well-executed campaign of disinformation and misinformation—dished out by a seditious Press, along with the unconscionable, insufferable censoring of information by Big Tech. This coordinated, interminable attack on free speech amounts to systematic, deliberate information starvation, and methodical psychological conditioning, resulting in ‘mass psychosis.’The propagandists have induced—seduced—millions of Americans into selling their souls, having voted for the Manchurian Candidate and the Globalist’s Delight, Joe Biden, a fourth charlatan, following in the steps of Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama.What these Americans’ think ushers in the Nation’s salvation, instead portends its ruin. This is not an honest deal from the top but “a deal from the bottom” of the deck. We, Americans, will see an end to our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic; an end to our fundamental freedoms that we, as Americans, fought long and hard to secure and, thence, to enjoy. What is difficult to secure and preserve will be extraordinarily arduous to reclaim once lost.This is the first U.S. Presidential election where many in the electorate didn’t vote for a President so much as voting against one, and that shows the extensive power and range of propaganda to influence broad swaths of the population, illustrative of broad-based mind control. Biden and Harris have said damn little about what they intend to do once they become President and Vice President, respectively, if they become Office holders. And they have often contradicted themselves when they discuss their policy aims at all. Still, Americans can glean much from the words and actions of those they obviously represent: The Globalist elites, and the Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists know full-well that most Americans who did vote for them don’t stomach a return to neoliberal globalization and the systematic dismantling of the Constitution. So, the Biden/Harris team handlers told the two to keep their mouths shut. And a compliant Press did nothing to prod the two for information and Big Tech Billionaires kept a lid on alternative news and commentary sources lest the illusion of a return to normalcy and tranquility through a Biden/Harris administration, be shattered. But the life, security, and well-being of America’s children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren will be in jeopardy.The Press and Big Tech induced many Americans to vote against their own best interests. While the Press and Big Tech discouraged what they termed Hate Speech, they did their best to encourage Americans to positively loathe Trump. And, if Biden becomes the 46^th President, they will have done their part to turn the Country back over to the billionaire neoliberal Globalist Destructors of the Old National Order—which saw our Nation become the greatest, most productive, most powerful, wealthiest, on Earth—directing the vestiges of our Nation to embrace their New World Order.With the integrity of our elections legitimately being called into question, most Americans will not accept installation of Biden into Office; nor should they.The result may very well lead to civil war. And, the Globalists will be ready for this too, no doubt.While roving rabid mobs of Antifa and BLM degenerates are certainly no match for vigilant, cool, well-armed American patriots, the new Minutemen, it must need be considered that the Globalists will have, through their stooges, Biden and Harris, access to State National Guard, the U.S. military, even U.N. troops.Expect a long conflict if the 2020 election scandal is not thoroughly investigated and remedy effectuated.We will see how well Biden—this lame, physically and mentally weak “Unity President,”—succeeds in this first big test of “his” Presidency. From what we have seen, just weeks before the inauguration, it doesn’t look good for him; nor for us._________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TURMOIL IN AMERICA OVER THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

ESSAY: A NATION ON THE PRECIPICE OF DISASTER: IF TRUMP LOSES THIS ELECTION, AMERICANS LOSE THEIR COUNTRY; IT'S AS BASIC, AS SIMPLE AS THAT!

OUR NATION-STATE IN THE MIDST OF A HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE STATE OF AFFAIRS!

The headline of the Sunday November 8, 2020 home edition of The New York Times reads: “Biden Beats Trump.”Really? If that headline and many similar ones coming out of mass media are true, then a free Constitutional Republic and independent, sovereign nation-state is on its deathbed and the stonemasons can start carving the Nation’s gravestone setting forth the date of birth and the date of death of that once great Nation-State that once proudly existed but exists no more:

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ JULY 4, 1776 TO JANUARY 20, 2021

Yet, a goodly chunk of the American electorate says, “Hold Your Horses! Not so fast! .” How many American citizens who voted for Trump in the 2020 general election is uncertain at this point. Pew Research says the number stands at just under 70 million Americans. The BBC says the number stands at over 70 million Americans. Indeed, even the seditious USA Today itself acknowledges the number stands at more than 71 million Americans that voted for Trump. Any of those numbers is a record, but less than the 75 million votes cast for Biden, also a record, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, as of November 7, 2020. But are the Biden numbers an overcount? Are the Trump numbers an undercount?Did Biden really win the 2020 U.S. Presidential election or is the Press just pulling the wool over the public’s eyes, as it has done for the last four years in its incessant attacks on Trump, expecting the public to accept the old adage: “saying so means it’s so”?Let us all take a long, deep breath and look at a few critical facts.First, Donald Trump has not conceded the election and should not; not with the sleazy manipulation of and the addition of conceivably millions of illegal mail-in ballots for the Neoliberal Western Globalist elites’ Candidates of choice and the Manchurian Candidates of choice, Joseph Biden, and Kamala Harris.The jubilation felt by Biden supporters—fueled in no small part by false declarations of a Biden/Harris victory by the mainstream media—is a bit early in the day. United States Presidential elections aren’t decided by the media. They can recite raw numbers and make all the declarations they want—God knows Americans have been subject to enough of the nonsense spouted by the mainstream media, for the past four years—but in most cases the result of a U.S. Presidential election isn’t even known on election night, and the Press doesn’t have the authority to decide elections anyway. And, in at least one instance, a Press headline was dead wrong. Rutgers reported,“There have been incorrect or premature claims of victory before, but usually the candidates know enough not to go overboard. Al Gore placed a concession call to George Bush on Election Night in 2000, and then had to withdraw his concession. (The concession is a formality, not legally binding.) With New York governor Thomas E. Dewey, he was predicted – wrongly – to beat President Truman in 1948 and newspapers ran headlines with the wrong news.” Second, the process for declaring a winner is an involved and lengthy one as well it should be given the enormity of the impact on the Nation, and it is precisely stated in Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 of the United States Constitution.Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.Third, there have been catalogued instances of fraud pertaining to both the casting of votes and the counting of them in this election. The DOJ is looking into this and the Arbalest Quarrel fully supports Attorney General William Barr in his efforts to ensure the integrity of our federal elections.And, President Trump has filed several lawsuits at least one of which is up at the U.S. Supreme Court. Trump has often warned of and accurately predicted the very disturbing happenstance that has transpired. There must be and there will be accounting. Trump is doing this less for himself than for the good of the Nation, our Constitution, and our people, consistent with the Oath of Office he took four years ago. The Arbalest Quarrel fully supports Trump in his worthy and critically important efforts to defend the integrity of our federal elections and, therewith, the preservation of our free Constitutional Republic and the sanctity of our citizenry's sacred fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, natural rights and liberties, bestowed on us by the one loving omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and morally perfect and beneficent Divine Creator.

THE INTEGRITY OF OUR FEDERAL ELECTIONS AND ELECTORAL PROCESS MUST BE GUARANTEED AND PRESERVED

Trump has every right to question whether some States—principally Arizona, Nevada, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Georgia, Maine, and Pennsylvania—had conspired to secure the number of “mail-in” ballots necessary to get Biden to the magic number of 270—manufacturing the requisite number to tip the State over to Biden. Were each of these States truly diligent and honest in the implementation of their vote counting procedures and in deciphering lawful ballots? Recall that before the election—with paltry news coverage by the mainstream Press and the major networks—Democrats and those ruthless forces adamant in getting Biden and Harris into the White House, whatever it takes, filed a substantial number of lawsuits, 245, as reported by CBS News, to change election laws through Court action, not through the State Legislatures, just weeks before the election. But, under our Constitution, only the State legislatures, not the Courts, nor State Governors, nor State Bureaucrats, and that includes State elections officials', have the authority to enact laws, or implement their own procedures, governing the election of a U.S. President, and the election of Legislators, namely, members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. See U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3, supra.Democrats deliberately, consciously, unconscionably, diabolically sought to weaken safeguards for fair elections, utilizing the pretext of the Chinese Coronavirus to allow for the casting of millions of unsupervised, unsecured mail-in ballots in lieu of voting at the polls. And, for the most part, Democrats were successful, as activist jurists did weaken election laws, allowing for tens of millions of mail-in ballots to be sent out, with insufficient oversight as to how the ballots that were sent in were to be counted. See CBS news article.And, apart from the poll workers, looking at ballots, hand-counting them, deciding which ones to count and which ones not to count, another equally disturbing issue has cropped up, and that pertains to the machines utilized to tabulate votes.These machines are proprietary. One of the biggest purveyors of voting machines, certainly in past elections, is Diebald, Inc., a Company of questionable repute; a Company that is likely in league with the legion of forces marshalled against Trump. See bradblog. A purported computer “glitch” in voting machines manufactured by another Company, Dominion Voting Machines, gave votes to Biden that were supposed to go to Trump. On November 6, 2020, the website NOQ reported,“The same company that reported glitches with software updates in contested polling locations in Georgia is also behind the software glitch that seemingly reversed 5,500 votes in a county in Michigan.Dominion Voting Systems, which claims to work with 1300 voting jurisdictions including nine of the 20 largest counties in the nation, produced the software used in Michigan that erroneously gave Democratic candidate Joe Biden a 3,000 vote advantage in Antrim County. After the glitch was fixed, it was discovered that President Donald Trump actually won the county by around 2,500 votes.”  Problematic voting, discrepancies in tallying votes, vote harvesting, ballot dumps, statistical anomalies, and the fact that historically, incumbents rarely lose elections—these matters and others—all raise doubts as to the fairness of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. Never before in the history of our U.S. Presidential elections has voting—long residing for one day and one day only, in person, at the polls, been relegated to the mechanism of tens of millions of ballot by mail dumps allowing for early voting—often weeks in advance of the election—and late counting of ballots.President Trump and tens of million of Americans who cast their ballots for Trump have every right to be skeptical of the legality and legitimacy of the results, and with the avid assistance of a complicit seditious Press, may well have insinuated  imposter, Joseph Biden, on the Nation. So, yes, Trump has not conceded the election. But that hasn’t stopped the Leftist rag, Washington Monthly, to caustically remark:“So what would it look like if Trump refused to concede? Is there really a way he could stay in office? It’s unlikely. For starters, successful autocrats rarely lose elections. ‘They take steps to rig it well in advance,’ said Steven Levitsky, a comparative political scientist at Harvard University and the coauthor of How Democracies Die. They pack electoral authorities, jail opponents, and silence unfriendly media outlets. America’s extremely decentralized electoral system and powerful, well-funded opposition makes this very difficult to pull off.” In the above citation, zero in on the two sentences, “. . . successful autocrats rarely lose elections. They take steps to rig it well in advance.” True enough. But who is the autocrat, here? And, who likely rigged the election? Is it Donald Trump or the ruthless, powerful, inordinately wealthy, tight-nit, well-organized, and inherently secretive billionaire neoliberal Globalists who have machinated against Trump from the earliest days of his first term in Office, when they realized that they could not control him, to carry out their agenda, as those U.S. Presidents, had willingly done so before him: Bill Clinton, the two Bushes, and Obama. Again calling a person a name, ‘Autocrat,’ is self-serving and amounts to nothing more than a churlish childish prank. Labeling one with a pejorative doesn’t make it so. There is more than a little sleight of hand going on here.Peering at the last four years of Trump’s Administration provides a picture at odds with the bald assertion that Trump is an autocrat. If Trump were truly an autocrat, he has been a remarkably poor one. Apparently defending the U.S. Constitution as written, and supporting the fundamental rights and liberties of Americans, and placing emphasis on the needs and concerns and interests of our Nation and its people, and disdaining the starting of new wars and continuing old ones defines Trump’s Presidency as an autocracy according to the Press. Very odd, that!Still, the seditious Press routinely pushes the idea that Trump is an autocrat. Although the expression ‘autocrat’ refers to one person, consistent with its usual definition—think of such infamous examples as Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, and others of bygone eras or those in our present one, reigning in third world countries and in failed states—the fact of the matter is that the import of the term has expanded exponentially. Autocracy is where this Country was headed under the Administrations of Trump’s immediate predecessors: a new world order autocracy. See Sheldon Wolin’s profoundly well-reasoned and prophetic work, “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” Yes the specter of totalitarianism, i.e., autocracy, tyranny, is alive and well, and a Biden/Harris Presidency is just the ticket to return the Country back to the game plan to convert our Nation into a totalitarian nightmare.The game plan was well underway and almost completed under Obama’s Presidency and would likely have been completed under the Hillary Clinton Administration—that is—before a wrench was thrown into the well-greased, well-oiled machine chugging toward the dissolution of our Nation-state.The hidden autocratic architects of our Nation’s downfall will be back on track on January 20, 2020 if it is Biden who is inaugurated President of the United States.And, no, Biden and Harris are not, themselves, autocrats, in any real sense, either, although they might appear to be. They are, rather, the willing puppets, the playthings, the chosen actors, of those who sit behind the scenes controlling the play as it unfolds here in the U.S. and on the world stage. The true autocrats are the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists—a few here at home and many others overseas—whom Biden refers to as our “allies.” It these secretive, sequestered Plutocrats who are the real autocrats, the ones calling the shots from afar.Apart from their new essential mainstays, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists have operated and continue to operate through a ragtag assortment of heterogenous groups: Globalist Marxists, Anarchists; Congressional Democrats; Bush Republicans; Radical Left academicians and jurists; tens of thousands of Radical Left federal bureaucrats securely ensconced in the Administrative Deep State; smugly complacent and sanctimonious Hollywood types; Radical Left Technology moguls; members of the central banking community; and, of course, a compliant, sympathetic seditious Press.These elements don’t care that Biden suffers from obvious mental and physical infirmities or that the duplicitous Harris has a loathsome, almost infinite capacity for crass opportunism and self-aggrandizement, who had been, unsurprisingly, rejected as a possible candidate by her own fellow democrats among the polity, during the Democrat Party Primaries. And yet, here they both are, seemingly out of nowhere, selected by the puppet masters as the stars in a new Broadway production, and on the brink of victory if the Billionaire Globalists have their way.The forces that have supported and worked to get these two into the White House find the character qualities of Biden and Harris just what they want, what they need. These two, Biden and Harris, are duplicitous, avaricious, amoral, obsequious toadies of the hidden puppet masters. Biden has sold out our Nation, during his tenure as Vice President under Obama, and both of them would do so now.The ruthless elements that support these two frauds do not represent the interests of this Nation; nor do they respect the Constitution. They are contemptuous of the fundamental rights and liberties of the American people. Biden and Harris share their sensibilities.This isn’t to say Trump is a saint. He isn’t, never was. He is impetuous, boastful, prideful, like many successful, ambitious people. But Americans should look past this. When one considers Trump’s many accomplishments, on behalf of the Nation and its people, it is odd that many Americans would discount this, or ignore this altogether. Also see The Gadsden Times report on Trump's long list of major accomplishments. Rather, those Americans, unable to control their temper, having, it seems contracted an acute case of canine distemper, rage nonstop against Trump, eliciting the usual specious, insufferable comment that “Donald Trump doesn’t appear Presidential.” Or, they will echo the erroneous and ludicrous remark heard myriad times in the seditious Press that “Donald Trump is a racist, sexist, homophobe” and, they will, of course, invariably reiterate one comment heard, perhaps, more than any other, that “Trump is an autocrat.” The public internalizes and, as if on cue, obediently parrots back the viral memes they have heard ad nauseum by the seditious Press: lame remarks indeed. Indeed, this seditious Press admits that when looking at those Americans who exhibit open hostility toward Trump, we see that this is predominately characterized and predicated on certain presumed personal characteristics; not on his politics. Many of these Americans will even acknowledge his positive accomplishments or admit their confusion in coming up with an accomplishment they disagree with. Still they voted against him, which says much about the power of the Press to sway public opinion. See AP news accounts. The seditious Press and those others who detest Trump and constantly rage against him fail to mention or even to consider that Trump has  always faithfully executed the laws of the United States, consistent with his duties under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It is far easier for the Press simply to ignore the truth of his faithful execution of his duties or to deny the fact out-of-hand, as as self-evident, true, when in fact the Press is simply a conduit for the expression of false narratives and utter bald-faced lies.Furthermore, Trump has completed or is in the process of completing many of his 2016 campaign promises. See Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “Trump Makes Good On 2016 Campaign Promises and Has Earned a Second Term.”Trump's accomplishments and his decisive attempt to make good on or having fulfilled many of his 2016 campaign promises during his first term in Office says volumes of his ability, intelligence, stamina, fortitude, dogged determination, and personal integrity. These are not only admirable character traits of any American citizen who would serve as the U.S. President; they are character traits that Americans have a right to expect from that citizen who would lay claim to the highest political position in the Land. They are character traits that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have not. But malevolent, malignant elements both here and home and abroad don’t care about any of that. What they want from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are obedient servants; that is to say, obedient servants to them, not to the American people, and to the Nation, and, above all, to the Nation's Constitution, without which the Nation ceases to exist. What these awful, ruthless malevolent, malignant Billionaire Globalist elites want are lapdogs; loyal servants to them upon whom they will lavish all manner of gifts. All that Biden and Harris need do, is obey the commands given to them, as would any obedient dog. These ruthless forces understand that the positive qualities of President Trump, to serve God, Country, people, and the U.S. Constitution, is of no value; it is of no moment; it does not serve their interests. So, it is not what they want. It's not what they ever wanted. It's not what they expect from the President of the United States. It is not what they bargained for. It's not what they expect from their President; their toady. It is not a component of their game plan. Service to God, to Country, to the American people, and to the Constitution, are all detrimental to their plans for a one world government. The system they envision has no use for God, or for independent, sovereign nation states, or for the well-being of the citizenry of those nation-states, or for the system of laws that undergird those nation-states, or for the history, traditions, culture, core values that have come to define the people of those nation-states.The forces that seek to crush Americans into submission have invested much time, money, and resources to disassemble the United States, and they seek a final return on their extensive investment. And that return they expect, covet, and intend to reap, entails completing the program that was rudely interrupted when the electorate voted Trump into Office. The forces that crush know that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will give them everything they want; everything Hillary Clinton would have given them had she been elected to succeed the Administration of Barack Obama. Clinton in the White House had been expected. More, it had been, in their minds, ordained. And they were both embarrassed and enraged when they failed to sit their puppet in the Executive suite. With their lapdogs, Biden and Harris, in Office, they will move at warp speed to move well beyond even the illusion of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State. It is time now for the great reset.What these Billionaire Globalists and Corporatists been working so very long and tirelessly for is control over America’s resources; control over the geographical mass; and for inclusion of the tattered remains of the Nation-State, that was once an independent, sovereign Nation-State, into a global economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical amalgamation of those political and social and economic and cultural and juridical constructs that once existed as independent, sovereign nation-states; that had once been subject to their own rules of law; their own customs, their own culture. The success of the Billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites portends a hollowed out America; a diminished America not unlike the diminished nations of the EU. For these ruthless, amoral elements, such things as national pride, national identity, a shared national culture and history, have no place, no purpose. These things are to be tucked away as relics of a by-gone age, much as our historical flags and monuments have already been tucked away, boxed up, and carted off to the dark recesses of a museum or have otherwise been dismantled or destroyed outright. Only the trappings of the Nation will exist, will be permitted to exist, if only for a time: the Nation’s flag, perhaps, even as it is mocked by Radical Left Marxists, and by Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists. Perhaps a few of the Nation’s monuments—those considered innocuous, and that do not harbor even an inkling of national pride or significance—will be allowed to stand; and perhaps a few seals and emblems here and there; and, perhaps, a few documents will be allowed to be kept, albeit as historical curios, oddities, but as nothing more than that.

A DIMINISHED COUNTRY REQUIRES FOR ITS LEADER A DIMINISHED MAN: JOE BIDEN IS THAT MAN

Here we have a man who, as Vice President, in Barack Obama’s Administration, had not the desire to serve his Country but rather had the temerity to serve himself and his immediate family, lining his own pocket and that of his immediate family, by selling favors to and ingratiating himself with foreign adversaries: China, Russia, Ukraine, and other nations. Imagine how much more money Biden would be able to make for himself and his family, will be able to make, selling out our Country as U.S. President, not merely as Vice President of the United States. As the puppet of the neoliberal Globalist elites, Biden will be well taken care of, indeed, just as the Billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites have taken good care of their stooge, Barack Obama, and the Bushes, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. And, once Biden steps down, probably at some point during his first term, the sociopathic disingenuous, hypocritical, duplicitous Kamala Harris will slither in, take over, and, no doubt, run for U.S. President in 2024. 

JOE BIDEN: A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS?

One need not ask how it is that an intellectually deficient, emotionally and physical wreck of a man as he now is—one who has, in any event, when he did have command of his intellectual faculties, accomplished little if anything worthwhile in the half century he had been in politics, and whose own past allegiances and attachments, properly considered, happen to be contrary to the current Radical Leftist cultural milieu—could actually assume the Office of President of the United States? Biden is, on any estimate, extraordinarily ordinary. He is just the sort of man the Globalist elites would want; for he would be exceptionally easy to control; he will be exceptionally easy to control. As he, unlike Donald Trump, will listen to, will adhere to, will happily, eagerly and enthusiastically obey the directives of the experts, who will shepherd him through the intricacies of the Governmental processes, undercutting, erasing, eradicating Trump's myriad foreign and domestic policy accomplishments. The result will be renewed chaos in the Middle East and Africa; the destruction of small business and the American labor force; necessary public reliance on Government welfare assistance to maintain a modicum of survivability and sustenance; erosion of the Nation's sacred, and inviolate, fundamental, natural unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties; persistent, round-the-clock Government surveillance; the rape of our natural resources; hundreds of billions of dollars dropped into States sans adequate oversight; an end to border security; the abolition of any meaningful notion of 'citizen' of the United States; absolute corporatist and monopolistic control over the means of food and materials production, and over the flow of and creation of and distribution of information; degradation of health care; resurgence of a multiplicity of Global economic pacts and treaties that will provide the vehicle for subordination of our Constitution and subordination of our system of laws and jurisprudence; insinuation of Chinese Communist Government as well as Western Globalist elite control over the entirety of our institution of public education, indoctrinating the masses in the ideology and tenets of Collectivism; top-down control of all local, county, and State police forces; relaxing of criminal laws, allowing for waves of habitual criminals and the mentally ill out on the streets to prey on the polity, to keep the public constantly off-guard and in a constant state of fear; the coopting of our military by NATO and the UN; a massive, geometric progression in the accumulation of public debt to feed the insatiable appetite of the billionaire, neoliberal Globalist elites, reducing the Nation's population to an abject and endless state of penury; subordination of the national will to extrajudicial foreign tribunals, NGOs, and international organizations that will be impossible for the U.S. to extricate itself from, which is all by design to make the return to the nation-state construct and ideology of individualism impossible. This is just foretaste of what the American people can expect as the machinery for absolute and iron-clad control over the American people are set into motion during the first few weeks and months of the installation of Biden as the Neoliberal Globalist elite's President.And Joe Biden will be the vehicle through which the downfall of our Nation will occur. Is it really any surprise, then, that Joe Biden would emerge, seemingly impossibly as the Democrat Party's candidate for U.S. President? Could any of the others truly be counted on, so completely, so obediently, to toe the line and, at once, be certain to capture enough of the American vote to mask the subterfuge in vote gathering and tabulating going on behind the scenes? Could Bernie Sanders be counted on to toe the line of the ruthless, secretive Billionaire neoliberal Globalist Corporatists and, as well, be reasonably certain to secure enough honest votes by Americans to hide the subterfuge taking place behind the scenes, involving the millions of  manufactured, dishonest votes surreptitiously introduced into the mix? Who better than Joe Biden to play this role! Could Tulsi Gabbard do this? Or Elizabeth Warren? Or Amy Klobuchar; or Andrew Yang? Or Pete Buttigieg? Or Francis O'Rourke? Or Michael Bloomberg? Who better than Joe Biden has that seeming dignity, solemnity—especially with a little help from a legion of image-makers and handlers? And Barack Obama had his role to play too.Is it really any surprise that Barack Obama didn’t immediately come out in support of his former VP for the Democrat Party’s nominee for U.S. President to take on Donald Trump? Obama would certainly have had his reservations. He would certainly have known that most of the other nominees were in fact more qualified. Was Obama waiting for a cue from his benefactors, the Globalist elites, who had, as well, previously propped him to serve their ambitions? Did Obama therefore wait, obediently for his cue? Still, one might ask how it is that this man, Joe Biden, could garner support from an electorate when he had accomplished nothing useful for the Country, and, who comes with his own "racist" baggage and, yet, is now so close to securing the U.S. Presidency, along with the duplicitous, opportunist, Kamala Harris, in tow, who is chomping at the bit to sit in the Oval Office herself? Well, the Billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites poured a lot of money into this election and were certainly involved in more than a little manipulation in the tallying of votes and in hacking into the voting machines to give Biden a substantial edge, without arousing too much suspicion of underhanded dealing other than what could be plausibly denied. Obviously, elaborately conceived, immaculately planned, hermetically sealed, and extremely well executed chicanery goes a long way in sitting an otherwise distinctly commonplace, mediocre man in high Office—even in the highest Office of the Land.Apparently it is enough to expect from much of the public that they would elect the team of Biden and Harris, not for their policies—which they have kept mostly silent about, even if the public would have had a good inkling of that anyway—but simply because he isn’t Trump. So, apart from machinations at the polls and with mail-in ballots, and with hijacked voting machine software that handed the election to Biden and Harris, is there anything, really, that endears many Americans to this decidedly unexceptional team of Biden and Harris other than the irrational desire to defeat Donald Trump? And that, apparently is enough. And, as a result, this Nation will see the Country eviscerated as various stakeholders—comprising western Neoliberal Globalist Corporatist bosses, and Xi Jinping's Manchurian Communist overseers, and the riff-raff of  the world's Socialists, Communists, Marxists and Anarchists insist on and receive return for their investment in these two.But, average Americans who did cast votes for Biden and Harris, what do they receive for their vote? Sure, they get Trump out of the Oval Office, but what then? Does the Country return to what they think is normalcy? Really? Is it not the case that average Americans have simply been duped? And, if so, How is it that so many educated Americans could have fallen for the charade? The answer to that question rests in something that receives precious little attention but has been central in securing public support for or, at least, public acquiescence to a Biden/Harris Presidency since the outset of the campaign, which, indeed took place not for a period of months, but for a period of years—ever since Donald Trump took the Oath of Office, to serve as the 45th President of the United States.  The American public fell hook, line, and sinker to a massive, rigorous program of brainwashing, of psychological conditioning. The public was the victim of a mammoth Psychological Operations program, or PSYOPS. See recent AQ article, titled, “Americans Embroiled in A Counterrevolution: “The Future Of The Country Rests In The Balance,”  and  AQ article titled, “Treacherous Americans Pose the Greatest Threat to the Survival Of Our Nation,” That many Americans would vote for Biden, given his obvious mental, emotional, and physical failings, along with a lack of integrity and honesty, and with little if any knowledge of what his political, social, economic, and geopolitical policies are, says much about the impact that years of psychological conditioning of the public’s psyche has had on the public’s critical faculties. PSYOPS doesn’t work overnight. It involves a slow, methodical process of conditioning the masses to adopt a particular set of beliefs. More conditioning is required to egg them on to action. The result is that, if enough people can be encouraged to act against their own best interests, a mighty Nation can be destroyed without a gunshot fired. Such is the power of PSYOPS.The father of modern propaganda, Edward Bernays and the proponent and great exploiter of propaganda’s uses, Reich Minister Joseph Goebbels, would be well-pleased if they could but see how their well-honed tool has come to be used to such great effect against the American people.

CAN THE AMERICAN PEOPLE BE ENCOURAGED TO FORSAKE THEIR CONSTITUTION SO EASILY?

That segment of the American public that feels in a partying move should step back for a moment and pause to consider the import of Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:“Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:—‘I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.’”Are these just empty words?How often has the public borne witness to the lies Biden recited during his two debates with Trump or of the blather Biden’s handlers have recently given him to utter, with, no doubt more vacuous pabulum to come in the days ahead?How often have Americans heard the seditious Press cavalierly and perfunctorily dismiss well-documented instances of massive fraud and corruption on the part of Joe Biden and many other senior level Government officials, through utilization of such curt and snippy expressions as: “unsubstantiated rumors,” or “unsubstantiated accounts,” or “wholly debunked reports” or “no evidence of wrongdoing” or “baseless accusations” or “no violations of law,” expecting the public to take these phrases as gospel, self-evident truths? Too many times to count! So, it should not be surprising to anyone that the Press, along with cable “news” shows like CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR, and the big three television networks, ABC, CBS, and NBC would once again fall back on phrases that have become so hackneyed that they have lost any significance. They have become mere substitutes and stand-ins for, rather than assertions of judgment rendered only after hard-slogging investigation of the truth of a matter. But then, “news” sources today aren’t in the business to report the news, to inform the public. They are in the business to spin yarns; to encourage the public to accept fiction merely posing as fact and to get the public to behave in certain pre-defined ways in accordance with the whim, wishes and wiles of their Globalist benefactors.The job of the Press today has been transformed. The job of the Press isn’t to hold Government accountable to the people; to hold Government in check, but, rather, to hold the people in check; to seduce and prod the public into believing and accepting the prevailing myths and memes of the ruthless, powerful, wealthy, jealous forces bent on tearing our Nation asunder, leaving its people in tatters, and its Constitution in shreds, as it subsumes the vestiges of our Country and those of other western nations in a new, massive transnational corporatist confederation: a new world order. Many in the Press have degenerated into collaborators of, indeed prostitutes for, the Globalist elites.The new job of the Press corps is to project carefully sketched narratives onto the public psyche. These narratives are designed to create in the public mind the idea that the Globalist agenda is a good thing, a positive thing for the Nation, when it is nothing of the sort. It is diseased and is intended to sicken and destroy the sanctity of the American spirit, not lift it up and purify it.This, then, is the new undertaking of the Press corps. And, too, it is the job of the of the functionaries of the Globalist elites whose faces they have presented to the public even as these elites themselves remain hidden, sequestered in monolithic homes and offices around the world. The Globalist elites’ functionaries or overseers have included Henry Kissinger; George W. Bush and the late George H.W. Bush; Bill and Hillary Clinton; the late John McCain; Barack Obama; and now they have enlisted the aid of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.But why these last two, in particular, rather than any of the other Democrat Party Candidates for U.S. President? Why, indeed? Is it not but for the reason that the propagandists for the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” have determined that these two, in their very mediocrity and obsequious desire to please those who bestow on them, shower them continuously with material rewards—money, fame, an illusion of power—have the best chance of defeating Trump? The very expression that Biden has used to describe himself— “political moderate”—is in one sense a bald-faced lie, but in another sense it is true, if one treats the word, ‘moderate,’ as a synonym for ‘mediocre,’ ‘middling,’ ‘passable,’ ‘ordinary.’ For the expression is more characteristic of Biden’s nature and much less an apt, accurate descriptor of his politics, as Biden’s politics—if he has any firm convictions on that score—are, at best, cryptic, or, at worst, simply a nebulous, inarticulable muddle.

A TICKET INTO THE WHITE HOUSE? ATTACH ONE PLACID, UNASSUMING, NONTHREATENING PERSONAGE TO ANOTHER ASSERTIVE, CAUSTIC, PSEUDO-CHARISMATIC BLACK FEMALE

The propagandists and image makers have come to realize that, given the antipathy toward whiteness and maleness that many Americans have come to embrace through carefully nourished psychological conditioning, these Americans are anxious to place a black female in high Office.Kamala Harris is the perfect complement to Joe Biden, as he is a non-descript, non-threatening exemplar of the new male. The propagandists and image makers, on behalf of their Globalist benefactors, had apparently concluded that the best way to maximize votes and the best chance to gain control of the reins of Government and thereby return that control over their benefactors, the Neoliberal Globalist elites, is to plant an unassuming man in the Oval Office. Once that is accomplished, and realizing that there is just so much they can do to keep up the pretense of maintaining a man suffering from the throes of incipient dementia in Oval Office, is to slowly ease him out of Office, replacing him with a younger, energetic, intelligent black female.With their placeholders safely ensconced in Office, the Globalist elites will once again be able to return to their agenda, having complete control over one Branch of the U.S. Government, and having much and perhaps total control of the Legislative Branch of Government as well. That will leave them to contend with the third Branch.While Biden can, as Chief Executive, easily eliminate and will eliminate all of Trump’s executive orders, and as he can and will slowly work, as ordered by his overseers, to unwind Trump’s foreign and domestic policies with the help of a generally, compliant, complicit Congress, it is quite another matter having to deal with Trump’s three U.S. Supreme Court nominees, now firmly residing on the High Court Bench. They will take action to neutralize the impact of a five to four Conservative-wing, Strict Constitutionalist Majority.The Globalists chose their puppets well: basing their selection on outward superficialities, anticipated to be amenable to the public, and inward horrific character flaws, which would be useful to the Globalists themselves. Thus, Biden and Harris are mere placeholders, nothing more. They will be given money, and prestige, and a semblance of power, and, in return, they will obey all directives presented to them by their benefactors. Pretending to serve the interests of Americans, the Nation and the Constitution, they will, instead, subvert all three.That Biden is obviously in mental decline and emotionally more sycophant than leader and that Kamala Harris has all the characteristics of a sociopath: ruthlessly opportunistic, mendacious, unemotional, uncaring—indeed, everything that Hillary Clinton is and that every normal person is not—it is most telling that the worst sort of people can end up in control of the second Branch of Government, subservient to their Globalist overseers; and most happy to serve them as their own goals have now been realized.And, in this realization, we see the faults that inured to Donald Trump—faults unforgivable to the Globalist elites.The Billionaire Globalist elites unleashed the dogs of war on Trump and never let up. Their minions unleashed incessant, unparalleled attacks on Trump and on those closest to him, including his own beautiful, respectful, and devoted family. And they did this because Trump would not toe the line. He refused to accept and work toward fulfilling the Globalist agenda. He would not play the role his predecessors played. In fact, he was antithetical to playing any role.Trump took his “America First” and “Make America Great Again” slogans to heart. These slogans when converted into actionable policy objectives are antithetical to the Globalists’ goal for a one-world system of governance. So, the slogans had to be treated not only as inappropriate catch phrases for America, but as inherently evil; irreligious; even obscene. His policies had to be sabotaged. Trump had to be removed. And the seditious, compliant, obedient Press, and academia, and Big Tech, and the Democrat Party leadership, and Wall Street, and the Government Bureaucracy, and the Bush Republicans, too, all went diligently to work.For the last four years, ever since Donald Trump took the oath of Office as the 45^th President of the United States, the sanctimonious, seditious Press—the foghorn of Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists and Radical Left Marxists—has sought to destroy this man, as their benefactors, the Globalist “elites” demanded. The Press sought to take down this man whom the American people had elected to return America back to Americans. They elected Trump to the highest Office in the Land for the singular purpose of preserving their Nation and the fundamental rights that undergird the Nation. And Trump sought, for four years, to do just that, and, whether motivated principally by personal ambition or by true concern for the American people, the Nation, and the Constitution, in accordance with the Oath he took, the Globalists would have none of it; could stomach none of it; would not abide it. For over two decades, under the Administrations of their puppets, the Secret Society Skull and Bones Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, they quietly, inexorably moved the Nation toward dissolution. Much of the electorate had seen this and understandably rebelled.In a very real sense, then, the impact of the present election shouldn’t be construed as an isolated event, critical as it is; but simply one more tool in the Globalist elites’ armory that was retooled to accomplish the Globalists’ purposes. But, despite tens of millions of people whom the seditious Press was able to turn against Trump, through relentless, unceasing campaigns of disinformation, noninformation, and misinformation, there were tens of millions more who supported him as they did in 2016. Indeed, he brought into the fold, minority groups as well, much to the consternation and dismay of the Globalists and their Democrat Party cohorts.These powerful forces never believed that Trump would or could actually secure the Presidency in 2016, and, so, the allowed, the U.S. electoral process to proceed sans tampering. Much to their chagrin they realized that Trump had secured the majority of electoral votes necessary to snatch victory from their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, the unholy offspring of the forbears. But it was too late to prevent Trump from assuming the U.S. Presidency.These same powerful forces may have attempted, for a short period of time, to encourage, and then cajole to work with them on their behalf as his predecessors had done. When it was clear Trump wouldn’t oblige them, they went to work to remove him from Office, trusting they could do so before Trump’s domestic and foreign policy objectives would cause irreparable damage to their plans for global control. They failed, but not for want of trying.Recall those attempts to bring Trump down during his first term in Office. Those strategies included: a lengthy DOJ probe into purported illegal dealings of Trump’s Campaign Associates with Russia; a House impeachment bizarrely grounded on one perfectly reasonable, aboveboard call between U.S. President Trump and the President of the Ukraine; inappropriate utilization of the 25th Amendment to the United States; and outright sabotage of Trump’s foreign and domestic policies. Yet, despite all these well-planned and executed, time-consuming, costly, mammoth efforts to unseat Trump, that the malevolent, malignant forces had marshalled against Trump, each of them came to naught. If they were to succeed in dumping Trump, they would have to do so through manipulation of the Electoral process.Seen in this light, is the likelihood of massive election fraud, beyond the realm of probability? Is it not, rather, the last-ditch effort of desperate elements at home and abroad to take out Trump, once and for all?Understandably, President Trump, and the tens of millions of Americans who voted for him, have every right to be skeptical about events that have unfolded during this election. Indeed, has not Trump warned about this eventuality months before the election, fully aware that the powerful, malevolent forces aligned against him would not permit him to serve a second term in Office, and would be perfectly capable of creating the illusion that their feeble-minded stooge would actually garner the necessary electoral votes to defeat Trump—that Biden would emerge victorious, and that the process would be all nice, tidy, and seemingly legal? And, has not the seditious Press sounded the Halcyon alarm, telling the public that Trump would, after all, contest the fairness of the election, which they knew he would do, must do; and, so, having sounded the alarm in advance, did they not intend to create the illusion that the results of the contest would be fair and aboveboard knowing full well that they are not; that the fix was in; and that Trump was simply a “bad sport;” would always be a sore loser, and was doing what had been expected of him and that the public should not be surprised—turning attention again on Trump and away from their own illegal, reprehensible antics?So the burning question remains. Did Biden receive sufficient legitimate votes to actually turn the tide, or did Trump actually obtain more votes—votes sufficient to get him to 270, as he succeeded in doing in 2016?The Globalists were this time mindful of the uniqueness of America’s Electoral College and they made sure that, with a little nefarious help from friends, from collaborators in the kitchens where a few special votes could be prepared, and where a few more votes could be cooked up in special computer program ovens, Biden would indeed make it over the 270 hurdle.But, again, we note, Trump hasn’t conceded the election. And, again, we say, he should not; must not. There is too much at stake—the very existence of a free Constitutional Republic. And there is clear evidence of wrongdoing even if the Press argues otherwise, and attempts, once again, ever again, to deter, like a carnival magician, the public’s gaze from the truth; declaring Biden the winner, even though the seditious Press has no such power to declare anything; only to report the news  which it rarely does and to draw attention away from critical matters which it always does.  The U.S. Supreme Court has to take a look at a few of those State “kitchens” to see just what has been cooked up and baked.As the seditious Press heralds Biden’s seeming victory, on behalf of the Globalist elites and Xi Jinping’s Communist China, Americans should not fall for this new subterfuge; for subterfuge it is.

ANYONE WHO CLAIMS BIDEN IS THE PRESIDENT-ELECT IS EITHER LYING OR MISINFORMED

Yes, the NY Times shamelessly and irresponsibly blurts out that “Biden Beats Trump,” but it carefully couches its words in a discrete caption in that same November 8, Sunday Times article, when it says: “Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Kamala Harris were declared the victors on Saturday after they widened their unofficial margin in Pennsylvania.” The use of the passive voice in the caption gives an inkling as to the truth of the matter. For one must ask, who declared Biden and Harris victors? The Press cannot really do so, and, in that small caption, it doesn’t say, because it cannot. In fact no one can say for certain, at this point in time, who won the election. Times reporters reiterate the assertion that “Biden was declared the winner,” slyly utilizing the same passive voice to mask the fact that, Biden has won nothing because only the U.S. Senate has ultimate authority to officially certify the winner of a U.S. Presidential election, and the Country is far from that goal. So far, the only declarations of Biden's purported victory in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election have come from the seditious newspapers and from some cable and network pseudo-news shows that raged against Donald Trump's Presidency since the day he took the Oath of Office. But, the declarations of the seditious Press and other seditious media sources don't mean a damn thing except to their base and to other uneducated, uninformed individuals among the electorate who fervently wish to believe that Biden won the election or who otherwise accept, if only reluctantly, the statements of media who deliberately, happily spread the lie, like all the other lies and fabrications they have spun for the last four years that have done nothing to benefit the security and well-being of the Nation and the well-being of the American people and have done everything to harm the Nation and its people.The certification process of a U.S. President is a complex, multi-step process, with several critical steps along the way. See the website, the conversation:“Once a final tally of voters’ in-person, mail-in and provisional ballots has been concluded, all 50 governors prepare their state’s Certificate of Ascertainment, a document listing their electors for the competing candidates.Each state completes that process at its own rate. This year, because of the pandemic, finalizing the electoral vote count will likely take a lot longer. Once completed, copies of the Certificate of Ascertainment are then submitted to the U.S. Archivist.After the governor submits names to the Archivist, each state’s Electoral College electors meet in the state capital – D.C.‘s meet in D.C. – to formally cast their votes for president and vice president on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. This year, that’s Dec. 14, 2020.On Jan. 6, Congress convenes to count the electoral votes and certify the winner of the election.Because the sitting vice president also serves as president of the Senate, Mike Pence will preside over this count in 2021, just as Vice President Joe Biden did in January 2017 when Donald Trump officially became president-elect. Each state, called upon in alphabetical order, files its votes. . . .At the end of the Senate’s electoral vote count, the vice president announces the results and asks if there are any objections. . . .After the Senate certifies the election results, all the Certificates of Ascertainment and Certificates of Vote then become available for public review at the Office of the Federal Registrar for one year, then transferred to the National Archives for the permanent record. Those who question the outcome of a U.S. election, in other words, can actually double-check the tabulations themselves.Established almost 250 years ago, this complex process is a foundation of American democracy. Many have questioned whether this antiquated system truly represents the will of the people in modern America.But for 2020, it remains the process that will decide the presidential race.” Given these lengthy, involved steps and given the fact of Hillary Clinton’s downfall in the last election, this helps explain why the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites through their toadies in the Democrat Party would like nothing better than to do away with the Nation’s Electoral College and the complex, comprehensive, seemingly, as they see it, messy process required.The Globalists want to adopt a simple process, oft referred to as the national popular vote. On the face of it, absent serious reflection, it may seem, to some, to make sense: one man equals one vote. Tally up all the votes and see who wins. But like so many seemingly simple answers to complex questions, this one hides a den of vipers.First, going to a national popular vote format to decide U.S. Presidential elections invites mob rule. It is easy to manipulate the minds of the masses. It is much more difficult to control the mind of the individual as is necessary with the present Electoral system we have in place.Second, the national popular vote idea isn’t really democratic at all, as it would allow a few major geographic regions to decide America’s future for the greater segment of the Country, denying many States any participation in the selection process at all; hardly fair, then. That is why the framers of our Constitution, having decided against a national popular vote—and they did consider it, along with other mechanisms as it isn’t a recent, novel idea—decided that use of a national popular vote mechanism to select our Nation’s President is not a sensible idea at all.The last four years, and especially the last few months, should convey to any reasonable mind the dangers of mob influence and mob rule. See the website liberty talks. Utilization of a national popular vote to replace the Electoral College is a horrible idea, but one the Democrats and their Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist benefactors have latched onto. Another similar horrible idea, really an extension of the national popular vote scheme is referred to as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. If instituted this would destroy the very idea inherent in Federalism, as a few States with extraordinarily large populations, concentrated in a few major urban areas, would decide U.S. Presidential elections. The majority of States and their citizens would be aced out. Votes cast in those States would be reduced essentially to a nullity. This is Gerrymandering extended to the entire Country. Unscrupulous agents of this approach would only need to control small highly concentrated centers of individuals, utilizing them as a convenient proxy for the entire Country. The Neoliberal Globalist elites and their toadies in Congress, in the Press and in the academia don’t want to have to cope with a Nation of tens of millions of critical thinkers. No! They want a collection of sheep that can be and are easily led simple, carefully designed slogans. They then sprinkle those slogans with feigned notions of morality to tug at the public’s emotional strings. Lastly, they repeat these slogans over and over through the echo chamber of a seditious Press. The mob internalizes these slogans into their subconscious. The slogans become part of their sacred belief system, their new religion. They think the ideas implicit in the slogans are their own ideas. They are oblivious to the fact that these aren’t their ideas at all. They are false memories; planted in their psyche by the propaganda masters.Consider some of the relatively old, well-worn slogans, expressions, and verbiage and some relatively new ones that have been projected into the public psyche. Some are straightforward, some simplistic; some complex.These memes, i.e., mental viruses, some of which may become archetypal patterns firmly planted in the collective unconscious, which are designed to create a specific response in the psyche, positive or negative, include:

• Black Lives Matter
• Trump is a Racist, Sexist, Xenophobe, Homophobe, Misogynist . . .
• White Privilege
• White Supremacist
• Critical Race Theory
• Biden is a ‘Political Moderate’
• MS 13 gang members are human beings, not animals
• Trump keeps children in cages
• “People will do what they do”
• Antifascists aren’t Fascists
• Systemic Racism
• Police are Racists
• Christianity is the White Man’s Religion
• America was built on slavery

And on and on and on.Many Americans seem to be more susceptible to these memes; easily sensitized to them; their psyches highly malleable. Thus, they accept policy prescriptions designed to destroy their individuality and selfhood, and withal, their fundamental rights and sovereignty which they willingly cede over to Government.Apart from outright lies, news blackouts, comprehensive misinformation and disinformation campaigns, and construction of elaborate fictional narratives engaged in by the seditious Press, Americans have witnessed massive censorship conducted by the major social media and internet monopolies, namely, Google, Facebook, Twitter, MSN, and Amazon.com. These elaborate, mammoth propaganda campaigns which, together, amount to one huge RICO enterprise have increased exponentially since the day Trump took Office. The American public has been the target and test subject of information distortion the likes of which have never before existed in human civilization. The seditious Press and social media distorts and contorts reality to such an extent that Americans view of their Country as represented to them is the polar opposite that which exists. The idea imprinted on the mind of the public that Trump is an autocrat is but one salient example. One other is presented in the following assertion by, what is referred to as the LGBTQ Community on the website LGBTQNation. On its website, they posted the following, which reads in pertinent part:“During the late 1940s, researchers, led by Theodor Adorno, studied the historical conditions that paved the way for the rise of fascist regimes in the 1920s and 1930s, World War II, and the Holocaust. They theorized about individuals who would support the growth of fascism.They suggested that people of a certain personality type, which they labeled the “authoritarian personality,” were most ripe for extremism, in this case, those most susceptible to anti-Jewish prejudice and anti-democratic political beliefs.They relinquished their autonomy and critical thinking faculties for the prospect of going back to a future reminiscent of a (mythic) idealistic past of economic, political, social, cultural, and personal security, where their “ingroup” won and led, and those “outgroups” served obediently and acquiesced to “ingroup” needs and demands.They relinquished their autonomy and critical thinking faculties for the prospect of going back to a future reminiscent of a (mythic) idealistic past of economic, political, social, cultural, and personal security, where their “ingroup” won and led, and those “outgroups” served obediently and acquiesced to “ingroup” needs and demands.They pledged obedience and allegiance to a powerful leader or social institution. In other words, they surrendered their freedom for the promise of social and personal security, which usually includes the suppression of those outside the circle, the “others.”So why did so many Americans vote to reelect President Donald Trump, a dangerous demagogue?He painted a gruesome image of a post-apocalyptic United States, replete with vicious marauding gangs, gunshots whizzing throughout the inner cities, decrepit crumbling structures and highways, rampant poverty, declining socialist-inspired health care systems, imminent terrorist attacks, ruthless criminal drug-dealing rapist invaders from our southern border.He continued to incite hatred and violence at his rallies, and fear, stereotyping and scapegoating all Muslims and so-called “illegal aliens,” promised to punish women who have had and their doctors who have performed abortions, argued that he would continue to restructure the Supreme Court to an ultra-conservative majority, which would, thereby, reverse both Roe v. Wade and marriage equality.And he perennially pledged to “Make America Great Again.” ” Pay particular attention to the paragraph: “They relinquished their autonomy and critical thinking faculties for the prospect of going back to a future reminiscent of a (mythic) idealistic past of economic, political, social, cultural, and personal security, where their “ingroup ” won and led, and those “outgroups” served obediently and acquiesced to “ingroup” needs and demands.”Autonomy and critical thinking are qualities embraced in the tenets of Individualism, which are the foundation of the fundamental rights and liberties of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, along with the Constitution's Articles that establish a Federal Government of very carefully delineated, limited powers. Those qualities are not existent in Collectivism which is the obverse of Individualism, which the LGBTQ community, at least this faction of it, adheres to, as is evident in their emphatic, unrestrained, libelous attack on Trump. But, more to the point, as can be seen from the above passage of LGBTQNation, and the reason we cite it, is not to launch an attack on LGBTQ members but, rather, to illustrate how propagandists coopt sacred ideas for ignoble purposes to support the antithesis of what these organizations espouse. This is a recurrent theme of the propagandists. The last thing they want to embrace is a Nation of autonomous individuals and critical thinkers. And now we are at the precipice of disaster. Once this Nation falls off the Cliff into the Abyss below, it will be impossible to to soar back to the Cliff's edge. The best our Nation can hope for at that point is to conjure up a parachute in the hope of slowing the descent so as to lessen the impact of a hard landing. And good luck with that.If Biden is in fact elected U.S. President, our Nation's people will witness the very thing that the Press is telling us we have avoided were we to see a second term of Trump in Office. That is a bald-faced lie. Biden and Harris are tools of the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites. With each passing day Americans will see how their fundamental rights and liberties are curtailed. First Amendment speech will abridged and the Second Amendment will slowly, inexorably be constricted until it exists, at best, as a privilege. Get set for Tyranny, writ large for we are doomed. In our earliest articles that the Arbalest Quarrel posted on its website, we dealt in detail with New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's passion, the New York Safe Act of 2013. We wrote about the  NY Safe Act at length, and pointed to Cuomo's intent to see the NY Safe Act as the model for the Nation. It would be an irony for the ages to witness the NY Safe Act adopted for the entire Nation in lieu of National concealed handgun carry reciprocity legislation that this Nation could have seen when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress back in 2014. Legislation did pass the House, but Senator McConnell allowed it to die in Senate Committee, and once Democrats regained control of the House, such legislation would never be passed. The question now is whether and to what extent the Second Amendment can withstand a Biden Presidency if in fact it is he and not Trump who takes the Oath of Office on January 20, 2021 and if the Republican Party loses control of the Senate. Do not expect the Heller and McDonald cases to withstand a concerted effort by Radical Left Democrats to overturn the central holdings of those cases. With Biden in Office and with Democrats in full control of the House, Congress will draft legislation and will enact legislation to pack the Court, to negate a conservative-wing majority. It would then be a relatively easy matter for a new Second Amendment case to wend its way to the high Court and, with a new liberal-wing majority, the central holdings of Heller and McDonald will be overturned. This isn't mere supposition. It is the goal of the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites to destroy independent sovereign nation-states to use transnational economic pacts and treaties to gain political control of all western nations just as the nations of the EU are subject to political, social, cultural, and juridical control through Governmental arms located in Brussels. An armed citizenry is both antithetical to and an anathema to the Collectivists, and de facto erasure of the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms is high on the list of those who are anxious to bring the U.S. into the EU fold.Clearly, the fix was in prior to the present election. The election we have witnessed is simply an extension of what we have seen before; the engineering of Trump's downfall, which entails the downfall of the Nation, the dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic, and the subjugation of the American citizenry, reduced to penury and unending misery. And we saw the machinery in motion with a sudden revamping and loosening of State elections law procedures through the courts at the behest of the Democrat Party machinery, bankrolled by Billionaire Globalists. If these ruthless forces can get away with this, America’s worst fear will be realized. After 244 years, the Nation will have died. Has it all come to that? Has a Nation that was born in fire and flame now to die by nary anything more than a mere whimper, through nefarious undertakings by forces that have sought his Nation’s demise for decades?The seditious Press has long pointed to a Biden/Harris win, citing their preferred polls to support that fervent wish, albeit the election never became the voter blow-out they had wished for and had apparently expected, contrary to the predictions of their favored pollsters. But perhaps that was all shadow play to discourage Trump supporters; to hide what they expected, indeed what they long knew could be a victory for the incumbent, Donald Trump, despite the savaging of the life of many Americans and the destruction of the economy, courtesy of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus unleashed upon the Nation and the world.Knowing this, fearing a Trump victory, one must ponder whether powerful forces manufactured tens of thousands of fictitious ballots and developed other strategies to make certain that Biden would edge out Trump in the coming election.Was the election truly aboveboard and fair or was it more akin to those we see in Banana Republics and which we roundly denounce: an illusion, a puppet show, an abject farce?Keep in mind that it is rare for an incumbent U.S President to lose an election. Even so, the mainstream seditious Press dismisses out-of-hand the suggestion that massive fraud had occurred, falling back on the usual verbiage to perfunctorily deny that Trump could have won the election; denying out-of-hand that Trump win the election. The Press can have none of that. The Globalist elites can have none of that. The election was their last chance to destroy the Trump Presidency and they made certain that they would not screw this up.Trump’s legal team is, at best, fighting a rearguard action. This buys time for Trump and for the electorate who had cast their votes for him, and it is predicated on the fact that much of the votes for Biden are not legally cast votes at all. If true, the question is: how many ballots comprise unlawful, illegal attempts by fierce opponents of Trump who insist on dragging the feeble Biden and his duplicitous cohort, Harris, across the finish line to take illegitimate control of the Executive Branch of Government? If those unlawful, illegal votes are greater in number in certain specific States that went to Biden when the votes really went to Trump, then the electoral map that the seditious Press displays is erroneous.Of course, the collaborators in the charade could easily hide their tracks, and probably did so. Many of the illegal votes cast have not been segregated from the legally cast votes. So, the American public will never know the truth. Those that have been deluded into thinking they want the Biden/Harris team in the White House will be thrilled and don’t care how the team gets there; just that it does. Other Americans do care and will and ought to care deeply that those in the White House, namely Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, are imposters, and don’t belong there at all. If the integrity of the electoral process is justifiably in doubt, there can be no unity in this Country, and Biden’s call for unity is not only impossible it’s insulting and absurd.

ABOUT THAT ELECTION PROCESS IN EACH OF THE STATES—

Each State, through its Legislature, establishes the mechanisms governing the procedure to be utilized in federal elections. Uniformity from State to State doesn’t exist; isn’t meant to exist as none is required. Still, whatever those mechanisms and procedures for casting, collecting and counting ballots, are, and whether one votes at the polls or—more frequently now—by applying for an absentee ballot or, as in some states, by ballots mailed to households (notwithstanding that such States have no assured way of knowing who is residing in that household), one thing about voting in federal elections is absolutely clear: only a citizen of the United States has the legal right to vote in federal elections, to select members of Congress and to select the President of the United States.Of course, with Biden in the White House and both Houses in control of Congress, Congress could enact a law to permit non-citizens the right to vote in federal elections. The U.S. Constitution itself does not appear to prevent that. Even so, if Congress is reluctant to extend the right to vote to some non-citizens, they can more easily at least expand the domain of individuals who are not, at the moment, citizens of the United States such as those who fall under the purview of DACA. That would provide Democrats with millions of new voters likely to vote for Democrats. Then there is the matter of the the 26th Amendment to the Constitution, which requires that a citizen be at least 18 years of age to vote. A Constitutional Amendment to lower the age to, say, 16, might be within the realm of possibility with a new era in America that sees the Collectivist vision taking hold. And, there is still a question whether citizens who are convicted felons or who have been adjudicated an incompetent or who have been disenfranchised for violations of election laws may still vote in federal elections. Each State has established its own requirements. But, a Democrat Party controlled House and Presidency can see enactment of federal law allowing voting rights extended well beyond anything that many States presently provide for and allow.At the moment lax elections laws, many of them, most curiously, concocted very recently, are an open invitation to widespread voter fraud. Thus, what should be deemed a notable strength of our democratic process, can also operate, and apparently has operated, as a serious weakness and notable flaw. We see this in the present election, where extraordinarily powerful, inordinately wealthy, innately ruthless forces, intent on making sure Trump doesn’t secure a second term in Office, have reconfigured elections laws so that the voting process can be easily manipulated, thereby ensuring that Biden/Harris cannot lose. Thus, tens of thousands—perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions—of unlawful ballots may have been counted and accepted as legitimate votes when they should have been thrown out. Similarly, lawful votes may not have been counted, skewing votes in favor of Biden over Trump, giving Biden—the Globalists’ favored candidate—votes necessary to win a State’s electoral votes. Knowing the critical importance of the rust-belt States, and of the importance of Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina, one must need ask: “did vote tampering occur?” Or, more to the point, “how could vote tampering have not occurred, given so many new and lax elections’ laws sanctioned by courts just days or weeks before the election, and without input from State legislatures as required by the U.S. Constitution?”And then there is the issue of illegal aliens in this Country, tens of millions of them. What assurances do Americans have that these people have not cast votes in the 2020 election. If we are to believe that Biden secured four million more votes than Trump, who among those who cast votes for Biden, votes that then were harvested, might not be illegal aliens? Since the vast majority of votes cast in the 2020 election were mail-in ballots and, in many  States, ballots were sent to homes absent a specific request for a ballot. What sort of verification process, if any, did such ballots go through? Given the consequences of this election on the future of our Nation, this matter deserves careful consideration. The organization Fairus.org writes,___________________________________Mass immigration has had a significant effect on American electoral politics. Despite the fact that it is a crime for aliens to vote in federal elections, noncitizens and illegal aliens are counted when apportioning congressional districts. This means that areas with large numbers of illegal alien residents gain additional representatives in Congress. This also translates into more electors under the Electoral College for such states, which means that noncitizens also exert an indirect influence on presidential elections.In addition, there is evidence that both foreign nationals who are lawfully present in the United States and illegal aliens – who have already broken the law by their unauthorized presence in the country – have voted in recent elections. During the 2016 election cycle, noncitizens were discovered on voter registration rolls in both Virginia and Pennsylvania. And the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of New York charged a Canadian woman with making a false claim to citizenship after she registered and voted in more than 20 elections.Several past elections – for the presidency and other offices – have been extremely close. Accordingly, ballots cast by noncitizen voters have the potential to improperly alter the outcome of elections. Consider how close the 2000 presidential election was – and how tight recent congressional and gubernatorial elections, have been. Could the outcomes have been affected by noncitizen voting? The answer is probably yes.With the 2020 election fast approaching, the possibility exists that voting by noncitizens could significantly influence the results. Many “immigrants’ rights” groups contend that noncitizen voting constitutes a harmless misunderstanding of the rules and should not cause great concern. Even worse, a small but vociferous and radical minority of open-borders enthusiasts has claimed that noncitizen voting is actually a good thing! However, this approach undermines the rule of law. It also enables individuals whose interests may not coincide with those of the American people to exert influence on our domestic politics. Given the rate at which both the legal and illegal alien populations have been allowed to grow, the United States should be concerned with ensuring that the electoral power of U.S. citizens is not undermined and with protecting the United States from foreign influence through “diaspora diplomacy.”Proponents of noncitizen voting point out that the practice was common throughout much of U.S. history. This is true, but also quite misleading. Yes, aliens were often allowed to vote from the 1780s into the early twentieth century. However, this was a way to encourage the settlement and development of America’s vast territories. Moreover, noncitizen had to fulfill certain conditions to vote, e.g. the ownership of 50 acres of land and two years of residency in a territory, or declared intent to become a U.S. citizen.In addition, there were ethno-racial and socio-economic aspects to noncitizen voting in the early Republic. As one proponent of alien voting (and a current Democratic Congressman from Maryland) admitted: “the early spirit of political openness toward aliens was perfectly compatible with the exclusionary definition of ‘the American people as Christian white men of property.’”With the expansion of voting rights during the early twentieth century – including, in particular, to women – the practice was brought to an end, with Arkansas being the last state to outlaw noncitizen voting (in 1926). In addition, the First World War not only energized patriotic sentiments but also brought home the potential threat posed to the integrity of our elections by allowing the citizens/subjects of hostile powers to vote.Currently, elections in the United States are governed by a complicated mix of federal, state, and municipal election laws. As a rule, noncitizens are prohibited from voting and are subject to criminal penalties if they do.__________________________________________The article by the organization FAIR, came out in July 2020. The purport of the letter was to draw attention to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, expressing dire concerns over the integrity of it. The 2020 Election is now come and gone. And, we, Americans, may have to deal with the lasting negative consequences of the elections for the life of this Nation, however much time is left for it and that may not be much longer if Trump fails in his pursuit to have a full audit of the votes cast and a full transparent accounting of the election. It should never have come to this. Playing catchup after the fact is never easy. It is the realization of the myth of Sisyphus, a true uphill battle, with legions of anti-Trump anti-Constitutional Republic forces to contend with, it may well be much too late.These forces proceeded as carefully, as methodically, and as discreetly as they could to bolster their chances for success. Polls gave numerous false forecasts to disillusion Trump supporters. Big Tech engaged in rampant censorship of pro-Trump articles and messaging. The Press continued its rabid disinformation campaigns, ramping up their dirty work in the weeks leading up to the election. Democrat Party controlled States quickly had elections laws illegally changed, to reduce election security and safeguards, inviting widespread fraud through the vehicle of millions of mail-in ballots, allowing complicit poll workers and politicians to engage in massive overcounts of ballots cast for Biden, and they quickly covered up their tracks, making post-election audits extremely difficult.With multitudinous, powerful forces aligned against Trump, this election was their last chance to remove him from Office. It was this or nothing. If they could get their toadies Biden and Harris into Office, this would allow the ruthless Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites to return to completing their agenda’s principal goal: de facto dissolution of the United States as an independent, sovereign State and, concomitantly, its insertion into a new, radically transformed economic, political, social, cultural, and juridical construct operating in a completely new environment. What they envision would first comprise a loose amalgam of increasingly fractured nation-states, such as those comprising the present EU. Eventually the Countries of the EU, along with that of the U.S., and the Commonwealth Nations would all be subsumed into a tight transnational, supra-Marxist monolithic corporatist (non-capitalist) construct, one grounded in the philosophical tenets of Collectivist dialectical materialism. Can the the vast majority of the American public really want this? Of course not. Does the public even realize what is in store for them and for the Nation? No; not at all. The vast majority of Americans would deny what they see before them anyway. It doesn't matter. The downward spiral has commenced. The goal of the Nation's spoilers may well come to pass. Trump's lawsuits and Barr's investigations are likely to come to naught. The forces aligned against our Nation are too powerful, too well-organized, and well-entrenched in the very core of our Nation; at all levels, in all sectors of business and government. And these forces have captured the minds and hearts of great segments of the population. Still——

IT IS WONDROUS STRANGE HOW SO MANY AMERICANS CAN BE SEDUCED INTO VOTING AGAINST THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS, SOME EASILY, OTHERS IF ONLY THROUGH A LITTLE MORE EFFORT.

It is interesting to reflect on how otherwise intelligent Americans can be so thoroughly conditioned to adopt a way of thinking that is decidedly, perversely irrational. Yet, through four years of Press employment of fictitious narratives, of keeping critical news accounts from the public, and creating false reports out of whole cloth, and of the steady bombardment of reprehensible attacks on President Trump, is it any wonder that the psyche of many Americans has softened, turned to mush?Tens of millions of Americans have voted for a person for U.S. President, Joe Biden (to be replaced soon thereafter by the abominable Kamala Harris) whom they know, in the back of their mind, to be mentally, emotionally, and physically fragile, as well as corrupt, and therefore clearly incapable of serving in the most demanding job a human being can possibly perform, the job of President of the United States.But many Americans have voted for Biden and Harris, nonetheless. The fault rests upon years of psychological conditioning. Many Americans have, in Donald Trump, turned away from a man who has proved strong, capable, resilient, adaptable, resolute; a man who has implemented policy both domestically and abroad that has benefitted the Nation and its people. Yet, perversely, many Americans have dismissed all of this. They cavalierly dismiss Trump’s accomplishments out-of-hand because they have been psychologically conditioned to do so. Many other Americans, true, were able to retain their sense of rational, critical thinking. But all too many have, unfortunately, allowed their emotions to get the better of them. The seditious Press engaged in a massive disinformation campaign. They deliberately played upon and preyed upon those very emotions of Americans, and thus found a useful pathway into the psyche through which the Press could do its damage on their psyche.Trump has demonstrated his ability to protect and preserve our great Nation and he has done so. Whether motivated by selfishness or a selfless desire to serve the best interests of this Nation and its people, or a combination of both, this is of no moment. Yet many Americans are oblivious to Trump’s many positive accomplishments. They shun him anyway. They do so, tenaciously, remorselessly, egged on by a malevolent Press.And of their support for Biden, what is one to make of it? Their support of Biden isn’t predicated on what Biden has to offer the Nation. Indeed he has said little about that. Many Americans voted for Biden not because they love or respect him, but, rather, because they loathe Trump, which, if that is all there is to it, is decidedly unreasonable if not altogether irrational. And why do many Americans loathe Trump? They loathe him because the Press has preyed on their psyche. Everything the Press says about Trump is negative and boils down to a simple mantra: “Trump is despicable.” That message has lodged in the psyche of millions of Americans, and we are all in danger of losing our Country forthwith because of this.

AMERICANS ON THE PRECIPICE OF DISASTER

We are on the precipice of losing our Country. We are on the verge of losing our most cherished, priceless gifts—gifts that the founders of our Nation and millions of Americans who followed them have fought hard to secure; gifts difficult to maintain absent a concerted effort on all of us to do so: a free Constitutional Republic; the sovereignty of the American people; and our Nation’s fundamental, natural, sacred, unalienable rights. Once these gifts are lost to us, they will never be regained. They will be lost forever. And, under a Biden/Harris Presidency, we will lose these cherished gifts.Our diminished status will be reflected in the fact that the United States no longer exists as an independent, sovereign nation-state, where the people are the rulers, not Government, not Big Tech, not the Big Banks, not unelected bureaucrats, not foreign interests. But apparently many people have forgotten this if they have ever realized this salient truth at all.Our diminished status will be reflected in the fact that the reality of fundamental rights, intrinsic to man as bestowed on and in him by a loving Creator, will be modified, abrogated, ignored or reconstituted as, at best, weakened appendages of what is left of our equally weakened Constitution. Such sacred rights that we, as a people, once had exercised will be reduced to mere privileges bestowed on this or that person by grace of the State and unceremoniously rescinded at will by that State; and otherwise unlawful if exercised by a person absent State sanctioning of the privilege.The use of propaganda and the infusion of money has taken its toll. Americans will lose everything they hold most dear if Biden and Harris are seated in the Executive Office, and it seems more and more likely that they will do so.The election of the U.S. President in 2020 was the last battle for control of the soul of America. Biden also says that the election has been a battle for the soul of the Country. But what does he really mean? With him in Office, operating at the behest of his benefactors, the Globalist elites, and their toadies in Congress, and in the Bureaucratic Deep State, he will be presiding over a vanquished soul, a dead soul.A glimmer of hope yet remains if the DOJ and FBI undertake a thorough investigation to ascertain whether a conspiracy of fraud in mail-in ballots has wrested control of the election process—fraud not undertaken by Russia but by those close to home and those from afar whom Biden refers to as our allies: namely those ruthless elements that reign over the nations of the EU. But, if this is happening behind the scenes, we haven’t heard about it from the Trump Administration, and we would not hear about it from the seditious Press in any event. In fact, as reported by the Washington Times, back in August 2020, Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, flatly rejected the likelihood of fraud emanating from the utilization of millions of mail-in ballots in lieu of traditional voting at the Polls. Does Senator McConnel still believe this in light of poll workers signing affidavits attesting to the existence of fraud during ballot counts? Apparently so. The Courier Journal recently reported, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell weighed in on the 2020 presidential election Friday morning but did not directly address President Donald Trump's baseless claims that it's being rigged against him — and repeatedly refused to do so when reporters pressed him on the issue.”

There is no evidence of illegal votes being counted or of election fraud despite Trump's allegations Thursday night that illegal votes are being tallied in an attempt to ‘steal’ the election from him [but adds] ‘Here’s how this must work in our great country: Every legal vote should be counted. Any illegally-submitted ballots must not. All sides must get to observe the process. And the courts are here to apply the laws & resolve disputes. That's how Americans' votes decide the result. ’ ”

This is all well and good, but, McConnell's remarks beg the question whether only legal votes are being or have been counted, and whether or to what extent the tampering can be uncovered after the fact as the fraudsters will obviously try to hide their tracks and will be able to destroy much of the evidence as they are in control of it. Allegations of election results tampering are widespread and involve many States. The present situation is wholly unlike the issues that surrounded the Bush/Gore election that only involved Florida, and involved the mechanical issue of interpreting chads on punch cards. One cannot really decide which way McConnell will ultimately turn. He is a wily fox, indeed. His instincts for survival are second to none. In his latest November 10, 2020 comments, as reported by the NY Times, McConnell backpedaled his previous calculatedly cautious comments, demonstrating much stronger support for the President, during his speech in the Senate. He said,“President Trump is 100 percent within his rights to look into allegations of irregularities and weigh his legal options. Let's not have any lectures about how the President should immediately, cheerfully accept preliminary election results from the same characters who just spent four years refusing to accept the validity of the last election.”The Senate Majority Leader's clearly stronger statement in support of Trump's position may reflect the meeting that McConnell had with Attorney General Barr, as reported by Reuters. Reuters reported matter-of-factly that,“McConnell met privately with Attorney General William Barr.” Reuters went on to report that, “In a speech on the Senate floor, McConnell did not acknowledge Biden as president-elect nor his running mate, Senator Kamala Harris, as vice president-elect. The Republican also took a swipe at media outlets that called the election for Biden, saying “ ‘the Constitution gives no role in this process to wealthy media corporations.’ ”Kudos to Senator McConnell for refusing to give credence to seditious Press and media reports that treat the 2020 election like it's done deal. It isn't. And the Press and media are doing a disservice to treat this most serious matter as if Biden is the President-Elect Joe Biden. He isn't. He's nothing of the sort. The Press and Biden can fume all they want over Trump's rebuff of Biden's their desire to see Biden receive daily intelligence briefings. But, there is a very good legal reason to preclude Biden from receiving these, quite apart from concerns whether he is a person who should be trusted to deal with the Nation's foreign policies anyway. For, if Trump were to deign to allow Biden access to those briefings, that act would defeat the President's contesting of the results of the election. It would amount to conceding that Biden won the 2020 election and is entitled to the designation, President-Elect. Of course, the U.S. Senate would still have to certify Biden as having won the election and that would only follow on the Electors of the States meeting in D.C. to cast formal votes. But, the concession on the part of Trump would result in immediate challenge to the import of the President's lawsuits. So, under no circumstances should Trump agree to allow Biden to receive daily intelligence briefings. And this brings us to ex-President George W. Bush, who coming out of the woodwork, offered his own two cents about election fraud, which amounts to as much vacuous blather as do the noxious, incessant news and media accounts. ABC Affiliate KTSP reports:“Former President George W. Bush says the American people ‘can have confidence that this election was fundamentally fair, its integrity will be upheld, and its outcome is clear.’ He says in a statement that ‘no matter how you voted, your vote counted.’  And Bush says President Donald Trump has the right to request recounts and pursue legal challenges, with any unresolved issues to be ‘properly adjudicated.’ Bush says now is the time when ‘we must come together for the sake of our families and neighbors, and for our nation and its future.’ Bush says he's spoken with Joe Biden and thanked the president-elect for what Bush says was ‘the patriotic message’ in Biden's national address on Saturday night after being declared the election winner.’ ”Bush says in a statement that while he and Biden have political differences, the former president says he knows Biden to be a good man who has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country.”Ahh, yes, George W. Bush “knows Biden to be a good man who has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country” in the same way no doubt that Bush himself has won his opportunity to lead and unify our country: throwing our Nation headlong into a multi-trillion dollar cluster-f**k in the Middle East that we have yet to extricate ourselves from, and then sending our Nation into the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression of the 1930s. One good man to another; indeed!Recall that it was Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, who was successfully unwinding the mess that Bush and the Neocons created and embroiled us in. In fact, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton only worsened the situation in the Middle East by extending the Middle East conflagration to Libya. And Donald Trump really did a better job improving the U.S. economy than did Barack Obama. See Bloomberg Quint report. Sure, the economy tanked, as did the economies of the rest of the world, and we can all thank the Chinese Communist Government of Xi Jinping for that. Whether the unleashing of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus plague on our Nation and on the rest of the world was the result of negligence, gross negligence, reckless indifference, or willful, intentional malice amounting to an outright act of war, the resulting devastation to our economic life, and to the physical and emotional life and wellbeing of the individuals, cannot and ought not be laid at the feet of President Trump even as the seditious Press and the insufferable Democrat Party leadership and many of its members consciously, unconscionably do just that, giving the Chinese Government a pass all the while, blaming Trump for all of it. One must wonder about that. And, now we have George W. Bush, gushing all over Joe Biden. Does his pronouncements concerning the manner in which this 2020 election has been handled to date inspire confidence? Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside? It shouldn't. If anything, the remarks of this Skull and Bones member Globalist warmonger should set off alarm bells. His condescending tone alone should anger any adult American. Condescension is the hallmark of the Globalist elites when talking to, or about, anyone who isn't one of them, part of their select club. They can't help themselves in reverting to form when talking to the Hoi Polloi. Condescension, patronizing airs is in their nature. Biden will unify nothing. Hell his Party has spent four solid years deliberately tearing the Nation apart, insidiously and maliciously and diabolically creating the impetus and climate for the divisions and divisiveness that have constantly beset our Country up to this very moment. That won't change if the U.S. Senate does certify this man; and, with Harris, waiting expectantly, impatiently in the wings, a person even worse than Joe Biden, a true sociopath, who has as much compassion for her fellow Americans as one might find in a jumping cholla cactus. Between the lines of his remarks, Bush is saying to Americans, the jig is up. No more pretense; none is necessary:“You, Americans, have lost your war of independence. It just took we, transnationalist elites, 144 years to wrap it all up. It has been a hard fought battle. Granted you have given us a run for our money. But it's over. The Counterrevolution has succeeded. The Nation is no longer yours. Accept this or face the dire consequences of your intransigence and stubbornness.”The same disingenuous, at best, desultory words, calling for unity, are echoed in the recent speeches of Biden as concocted by his handlers. This 2020 election should raise the concern of tens of millions of Americans who voted for President Trump's election. What Americans today bear witness too is on an order of magnitude far greater than anything that has transpired in and confronted the electorate during the 2000 Bush/Gore election fiasco.We Americans are facing right here, right now, not just a coup attempt, but the final blow to our Nation's Government: the coup d'état.

IS THERE ANYTHING LEFT OF OUR COUNTRY TO BE SALVAGED FROM THE DESTRUCTORS OF IT?

It is singularly odd  that Republicans would pick up several seats in the House and remain on a knife's edge in the Senate yet lose the Presidency. Of course, Republicans still do not control the House, and they may yet lose control of the Senate. Still, the idea that Republicans would gain seats in the House if Trump truly did lose the election doesn’t make sense. For it suggests that Republican voters would wish to destroy Trump’s Presidency, which would lead to a complete reversal in his policies, but at the same time somehow think that they will still be able, somehow, to salvage some of those policies in Congress if they happen to retain control of the Senate and increase their seats in the House.  The NY Times says this is perfectly reasonable; that Republicans are merely hedging their bets. Really? What does that even mean? What it means is that Bush era Republicans, along with Democrats, both wish to get back to the agenda that their Billionaire Globalist benefactors had laid out for them: inexorable dissolution of our Country as an independent sovereign nation-state; and this means the eventual merging of the remains of our Nation into a one-world Government. The EU is the Globalists’ blueprint for that eventuality.

WILL TRUMP ULTIMATELY BE FORCED TO CAPITULATE OR WILL HE FIGHT COME WHAT MAY?

This much we do know as of the posting of this article: Trump’s legal team has filed several lawsuits in a number of States and is preparing to bring his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. But what can the Supreme Court truly do to thwart a concerted effort by devious forces that have worked long and hard on removing Trump from Office? Their dubious election tactics and strategies for pushing a feeble Joe Biden across the finish line may have likely succeeded. And that is fine for many Americans.Keep in mind that the psyche of many average middle-class and upper-middle class Americans who voted for the Biden/Harris ticket has been softened through years of quiet, constant, inexorable psychological conditioning. They honestly believe Trump’s Presidency represents nothing more than an anomaly, an aberration, a quirk, an oddity, a momentary digression; that a Biden/Harris Administration will represent a return to normalcy. But is that true? What does that purported return to “normalcy” portend?Is it rather not the case that 15 years of this Country suffering under the Administrations of Bill Clinton, two Bushes, and Barack Obama, have given many Americans the illusion of normalcy, of normality, even as these Americans have seen the slow dismantling of the Country; have slowly seen our Country turning away from its sacred roots. Do they not realize that what they have taken to be normal—fifteen years of foreign and domestic policy that has severely weakened this Nation—has been something decidedly and decisively abnormal?Of course most Americans have realized what was occurring, and they were deeply concerned, seeing the slow dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic. That is why they voted for Trump in the first place. The selection of Trump was then no anomaly. It was no aberration. The idea that the Trump years amounts to an anomaly, an aberration is simply a fiction drummed up by the Press, to once again hoodwink Americans into believing that the years prior to Trump, under his immediate predecessors were normal when in fact they were not.Trump may be perceived as a spoiler by some. But, if so, he was a spoiler that the electorate wanted; that the electorate demanded; that the Nation required: a man who had turned our trajectory back toward its sacred roots, back to normalcy and normality, not away from that, contrary to what the seditious Press, incessantly propagandizing to the masses, has continually pumped into the public’s mind.If Trump loses this election, whether by hook or by crook, what may America expect from Biden and Harris once they take over the Executive Branch of our Government?We provide a glimpse of this, and it illustrates the enormity of our loss; demonstrating, irrefutably, that, what these two and their puppet-master have in mind for our Country is dangerous, poisonous to the security of a free State and one that, despite what some Republican Senators and Representatives have to say, will not be capable of undoing.A few months of the horror of what has befallen our Country is only a foretaste of what Americans can expect. Below, we recite a few more of the changes that a Biden/Harris Administration would bring:

• A flurry of executive orders reversing Trump’s policies
• Rapprochement with China, clinching China’s geopolitical, economic, and military superiority over the United States
• Open Borders. Millions of migrants will flood into our Nation, looking for and expecting, even demanding America welfare assistance
• Trafficking in drugs and sex will grow frequent and uncontrolled
• Crime will run rampant and unchecked through our States, Cities, and towns as prosecutors refuse to prosecute crimes, and the prisons around the Country are emptied of inmates. Riots will not decrease. They will increase. The public will be in a constant state of agitation and fear. This will all be by design.
• The New York Times 1619 Project, to undercut our history, traditions, and core values will become part of the core curriculum in our Nation’s schools.
• Laws enabling Abortion on demand, up to the very moment of birth, will be lawful throughout the Nation. The U.S. Supreme Court will not be able to handle the caseload.
• We will see a resumption of hostilities in the Middle East, along with new escapades in Africa. Defense Contractors will have a field day. Trump’s foreign policy successes will be erased.
• Debilitating tax hikes will be levied on all Americans regardless of income level to cover the resumption of extraordinarily large payments to support NATO; and to support free public college; and to support Medicare for all; and to support the costs of the “Green New Deal,” among other costly Government programs
• Robert Reich’s “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” will be established
• The Right of free speech will be severely curtailed
• The Right of the people to keep and bear arms will be further whittled away to enlarge the number of banned firearms; and to enlarge the domain of individuals who are forbidden to own and possess them; and to place further draconian restrictions on those individuals whom the Government does permit to own and to possess firearms
• Likely a Commission will be established to consider ways to degrade the Electoral College; and to consider statutory changes that impact the import and purport of the Constitution as written
• Resumption of Globalization efforts with the signing of the TPP and other treaties that benefit the multinational corporations but that harm small business and our workers
• Citizenship will be granted to all individuals who come under the purview of DACA, and naturalization laws will be rewritten to allow anyone who seeks to immigrate to the U.S. to be allowed to do so
• The Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations will be implemented, paving the way for a Socialism
• Attempts “to pack” the U.S. Supreme Court
• Expand voting rights in federal elections to younger Americans, to convicted felons, and to illegal aliens
• Attempts at Statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico
• Many State and local police departments will continue to be defunded; federal regulations will be promulgated to override State control over their own police departments
• The Durham Investigation Report will never see the light of day, and high-ranking Government officials that should be indicted and would likely be indicted if Trump served a second term in Office, will never be brought to justice
• The FBI and Intelligence apparatuses will continue to be politicized.
• Political Dissent will be crushed under the auspices of governing “hate speech”
• The U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will be disbanded or otherwise severely curtailed, leaving our Nation open to millions of people, including dangerous criminals
• A new Joseph McCarthy era will spring up, this one directed to attacks against and ostracization political and social conservatives

A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC PRESERVED OR A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC WELL LOST?

Biden is incapable of rational decision-making. Both he and the Press refer to him as this political “moderate.” But in truth he is neither a political moderate nor political liberal. No political leaning can be ascribed to him both given his nature and his present infirmities.Biden has neither the intellect nor the fortitude for occupying the seat of the Chief Executive of the Nation. Americans must resist this last gambit of the forces that would crush our Nation and its people into submission.Congress has failed us; and many Americans have been hoodwinked. Don’t believe for a minute that a Republican Senate majority will be able to withstand the rabid forces unleashed by a Biden/Harris Presidency and a House of Representatives still in the hands of Pelosi. And there is no assurance that Mitch McConnel will still be the Senate Majority Leader. As of this writing, the Senate is still up for grabs.The Third Branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court, is our last refuge; our best hope to set matters aright. That may very well be the best and most sustainable of Trump’s legacy. But the Biden/Harris Administration and a sympathetic and compliant Congress may negate the ability of the Third Branch of Government to preserve a free Constitutional Republic and the fundamental rights of the American people.We fervently hope and pray that Trump’s legal challenges will prove successful and his Presidency saved. For that will ensure a critically important reprieve for our people, our Constitution, our sacred rights and liberties, and our free Republic. Trump is a fighter. And, we, who support him, in defense of our free Republic, must be prepared to be fighters, too.With a full complement of Justices on the High Court, and, hopefully, with enough Justices who truly seek to render decisions consistent with the Constitution as written, as the framers clearly intended, our Nation may just yet be spared the  worst threat to its existence since its birth on July 4, 1776. But we fear that won’t be enough. The Globalist and Marxist Counterrevolution may have already succeeded to wipe away our Nation.One is reminded of the 1939 Classic Film, “Gone with the Wind.”The Confederacy died but the Union survived. Yet, the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist elites and the Marxist Globalists and Anarchists seek an end to the Union as well. They have made that plain enough. It isn't National unity they seek; that is another bald-faced lie. What they promise is what they have been delivering: further strife, disorder, chaos. They mean to destroy those of us who do not bow to the new transnational order.Perhaps the salient question to ask as we head into 2021 is this: Will there be enough patriots around to keep the vision of our founders true? Dare we say that Americans keep their firearms close at hand and their ammunition at the ready. Be ever vigilant in these ominous, harrowing times, for “Here, There, Everywhere, There Be Tygers, Lurking and Ready to Pounce on the Unwary!” _________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TRUMP MAKES GOOD ON 2016 CAMPAIGN PROMISES AND HAS EARNED A SECOND TERM

An old adage goes, “There are Promises and there are Promises.” The import of what would otherwise be a banal assertion is clear: there are sincere promises and there are insincere promises.Every Presidential Candidate makes promises and pledges while on the campaign trail. Are those promises and pledges made in earnest? Are they made half-heartedly? Or are they outright lies?Has a U.S. Presidential candidate equivocated or attempted to deceive the public outright concerning his or her policy objectives? These are critical questions. The measure of a man proceeds from the words he utters and the actions he takes.The public learns whether a person is a truthteller or a liar once that person become President, and can then judge the measure of a man, whether he is a man of integrity.No Presidential candidate should make promises he has no intention of fulfilling. But suppose a President does try to make good on a promise he made while on the campaign trail but fails to accomplish it when in Office?If a President tries to make good on a campaign promise but fails when he should have succeeded—which is to say he failed because incompetent—then he should be faulted for it.But, if a President enters Office with no intention of fulfilling his pledge—which is to say he lied to the electorate that voted him into Office on the promises he made—that is disgraceful, and he should be roundly condemned for it. How does Trump measure up during his first term in Office?In looking back at Donald Trump’s first term in Office, comparing the promises he made on the campaign trail with his accomplishments, we see that Donald Trump was never insincere. He never made a promise he didn’t fully intend to keep. That is not to say he was able to fulfill all of his promises, but he was always aboveboard about his intentions. That says much about why Congressional Democrats, Bush Republicans, the Deep State Bureaucracy, the mainstream seditious Press, the Radical Left intelligentsia, Big Tech, the Banks, and Wall Street, never wanted him in Office in the first place. It wasn’t that they thought Trump had lied to the electorate about what he sought to accomplish. Rather, they took him at his word as well they should. They didn’t like what they heard and didn’t like that he intended to make good on his word, and that, for the most part, did. The many forces aligned against Trump became agitated, frustrated, enraged when they couldn’t dissuade him and, attempted, at the very outset of his first term, to thwart his efforts at every turn.Below we look at a few of the major promises Trump made; those he kept and those he has tried to keep, despite fervent and fervid efforts of obstreperous, ruthless, powerful forces aligned against him.We point out, first, that Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is not mere puffery or wishful thinking. The slogan encapsulates Trump’s salient policy objective, grounded on the fact and supportive of the present reality that the United States is—and in accordance with the U.S. Constitution—is meant to remain an independent sovereign nation-state. This means that, when weighing the import of specific policy goals, Trump considers first and foremost the extent to which those policies benefit our Nation primarily, not secondarily to the wishes of Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists.The slogan “Make America Great Again” is an anathema to the Radical Left and Progressives because it is antithetical to their goal of a one world Government: one devoid of nation-states. Understandably, the mainstream, lamestream seditious Press, in league with Globalist forces, perceives the slogan, “Make America Great Again,” and its acronym “MAGA,” to be emblems of defiance. They treat them like obscenities, encouraging the ignorant rabble to verbally and even physically assault those Americans who dare utter the words or dare, as they perceive it, to flaunt those Trumpian symbols.Other recent Presidents—Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—subordinated America’s needs and concerns to those of the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists. The electorate saw this and, after fifteen years, seeing the Nation dispirited and on the verge of utter ruination, had more than enough of it, and voted an outsider; a Populist who extolled, did not apologize for America’s Greatness, America’s Nationalist spirit and fervor. And Trump, for his part, for the most part, did not disappoint the electorate. He has earned a second term in Office.

PROMISES MADE; PROMISES KEPT

• Trump made clear during his first run for the U.S. Presidency that he would veto Obama’s secretive Globalist Trans-Pacific Partnership Treaty (TPP), and likely intended to veto the equally horrid European Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Trump knew these Neoliberal Globalist trade agreements would do nothing positive for the United States, its small businesses, or its labor force; but would further ravage our economy, devastate our small businesses and work force, and subvert our legal system, effectively reducing the U.S. to the status of pawn of the Neoliberal Globalist elites; leading us inexorably, inevitably down the path to the destruction of our sovereign, independent Nation State and to the subjugation of our Nation’s citizenry. Trump made good on his promise to scuttle this ignoble, seditious attempt to undermine our Nation’s economy and sovereignty. See January 23, 2017 Fox News Report.

• During his first run for the U.S. Presidency, Trump told the electorate that he would renegotiate NAFTA which had been a debilitating legacy and relic from the Bill Clinton era. Trump made good on his promise, replacing NAFTA, in 2019, with the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, USMCA. Even the Congressional Democrat Party leadership realized Trump had, with the USMCA, brokered a much better deal for Americans. See report by WRCBtv and report by the Washington Examiner. But the Democrat Speaker of the House, Nancy, Pelosi would only admit Trump's success grudgingly, attempting to take credit for it herself, as reported by Fox Business.

• Trump made border enforcement a mainstay of his campaign. See Politifact report. Although the Press has long derided Trump for claiming to make Mexico pay for a border wall between the U.S. and Mexico, the salient issue is whether Trump intended to make good on his promise to strengthen border enforcement—something his predecessors either lied about or failed miserably at. Bloomberg.com acknowledges that Trump did intend to build a wall and that he has proceeded diligently on that task, no easy thing. The task has been made all the more difficult by Congressional Democrats who have thrown obstacles in Trump’s path. Apart from specific construction of a Border wall, Trump has made protection of our Southern Border with Mexico a substantial part of his domestic policy initiative. Border wall construction is not to be construed as something important for its own sake, but should be understood as critical in the broader context of national security.  An effective wall on our Southern Border helps protect the Nation from the scourge of illegal drug and sex trafficking, and is also responsive to the burden and menace posed by millions of poverty-stricken, often disease ridden, uneducated illegal aliens, marching enmass to our Country, demanding to be let in; looking for Government largess, all at taxpayer expense. Trump, more so than any other President, has promised to implement and has , true to his word, implemented broad strategies to secure and maintain the integrity of our Nation’s borders. This has been no easy task given constant blowback from a seditious Press; from Congressional Democrats; and from the Chamber of Commerce, who see, in these continuous, and massive illegal migrant waves—cheap labor, a new indentured servant class, and, for Democrats, a new voter bloc, easily manipulated and controlled, responsive to the Democrat Party leadership's every wish, enabling Democrats to maintain control of Government in perpetuity.

• Trump promised to reinvigorate the manufacturing base in our Country, bringing back jobs to our Nation that has been ravaged by years of Neoliberal Globalist policy. The seditious Press claims that Trump has overstated his pro-growth accomplishments on that front; asserting, disingenuously and erroneously that Obama did a better job. But Forbes points out that Trump’s pro-growth policies have been successful; more so than anything Obama and the Democrats claim to have accomplished. An important clue of the success of Trump's policies over those of Obama is found in Forbes article assertion that President Obama merely created more Government jobs. Government jobs do little to sustain economic growth. President Trump, though, created more private sector jobs, which are a much better indicator of economic progress and sustainability. This is a  point that Democrats don't care to acknowledge, as they merely emphasize number of jobs created, deliberately ignoring the nature and quality of the jobs created: private sector employment versus public sector employment. Productivity gains are realized in the private sector, not in Government, the latter of which is characterized more by monetary waste and bloat.

• During the 2016 Campaign, Trump stated and reiterated his strong stand on the Second Amendment. Truth to tell, Trump’s support of the Second Amendment has been a mixed bag. See Ballotpedia.  Trump’s action on bump-stocks is abhorrent, and his assertions on National concealed handgun reciprocity, duplicitous. See Arbalest Quarrel Article posted December 31, 2018. The best that can be said is that Trump hasn’t denigrated the right of the people to keep and bear arms and hasn’t tried to subvert the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Democrats, on the other hand have made clear their absolute loathing of guns and gun possession. They have said, unabashedly and shamelessly, that they will do whatever they can to hurry the demise of the Second Amendment if they hold onto the House, gain control of the Senate, and are able to secure the Presidency. In that light Trump’s position on the Second Amendment certainly looks good when juxtaposed point by point with the Democrat Party’s stances, assertions, and actions which, admittedly, isn’t saying much. Still, if a bill to strengthen the Second Amendment came to Trump’s desk, there is no reason to believe he wouldn’t sign it into law.

• Trump promised to get tough on China, to protect our Nation's interests, unlike his predecessors, and he has done so. See CNBC report, and he has done so, imposing crippling tariffs on China. See China Briefing. Some economists attack Trump for this, arguing his policies are simply embroiling our Nation in an oppressive trade war. But Trump’s hard-edged economic stance on China is long overdue. China is a geopolitical and military rival. Trump is the first President to push back hard China. Previous Presidents have simply capitulated to China. Trump hasn’t done that, and will not do so. China’s “Belt and Road” Initiative is a clear threat to our survival as a Nation, and Trump's hard line toward China cuts deeply into their ambitious plan for economic, military, and geopolitical superiority over the U.S. and the rest of the world. A Biden Presidency cannot possibly be tough on China, as Joe Biden and his family, long involved in racketeering influence peddling, having raked in tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars from China, are so thoroughly compromised by China, that, far from representing our Nation's interests, a Biden administration would capitulate to China, endangering the very security of our Nation.

• Trump promised to repeal and replace the ACA (Obamacare). Much depends on how the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the ACA. Trump has not gone back on his word to get rid of the ACA, which the Democrats see as an attack on a thing they consider to be among their great achievements. Indeed the liberal Brookings Institute slams Trump for his actions on the ACA. But the price tag of Obamacare is enormous; amounting to a tremendous waste of money to keep it functioning. It serves very few Americans, at best, and, at worst, severely cuts into Medicare for seniors and subverts the quality of healthcare for every American. See The Motley Fool report.

• Trump promised to rescind Obama’s horrible Iran deal as it served merely to appease Iran and play Americans for fools. Trump has made good on his promise. He has played hardball with Iran. Obama merely capitulated to Iran, which is reprehensible and no less incomprehensible, given our Nation’s obvious economic superiority over Iran and incomparable military strength. Iran doesn’t even merit rational consideration on either score. See Jewish Journal commentary. Moreover, Trump’s Middle East policy has helped to stabilize the entire region. Bush and Obama created a mess for Americans at the cost of several trillion dollars, over two decades, with the incommensurable loss of American lives. Even the mainstream seditious NY Times felt compelled, if only grudgingly, to admit that Trump’s foreign policy has met with success.  See also commentary from the Federalist. 

• Trump promised to cut taxes and he has fulfilled this 2016 campaign promise. But is this to be seen as a good thing or bad thing? Forbes says it is something of a mixed bag. 

• The New York Times has quoted Trump as saying, back in 2016, that “I think the big problem this country has is being politically correct. I’ve been challenged by so many people and I don’t, frankly, have time for total political correctness. And to be honest with you, this country doesn’t have time, either.”  This may not seem like something to be seen as a campaign promise, but, in light of recent events, when Americans see the Nation being torn apart by roving, ravaging bands of Marxists and Anarchists, while Democrats ignore or actively encourage the destruction of our Nation’s history, traditions, and core values, it is refreshing, to hear someone push back against this  bizarre phenomenon of political correctness. 

• During his 2016 campaign, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump promised sweeping deregulation of natural-gas, oil and coal production as part of an “America-first energy” plan and he has worked tirelessly to accomplish the goal of energy independence. This included a general plan to reduce a bloated bureaucracy.

• Trump promised to nominate to the federal Courts and U.S. Supreme Court, judges and justices who were counted on to preserve and strengthen the U.S. Constitution as written, and not decide cases with the intent to rewrite the Constitution to cohere with purported modern-day international constructs inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution. And, the seditious Press does at least acknowledge that Trump made good on this promise. The leftist USA Today newspaper writes, “One of President Donald Trump's key promises during the 2016 campaign was nominating conservative judges to the nation's highest court. He's delivered resoundingly on that pledge. With the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created by the death  of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Trump has become the first president since Richard Nixon to name three judges to the nation's highest court during a first term. Barrett joins Neil M. Gorsuch, who was confirmed in 2017 to fill the seat of the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, and Brett M. Kavanaugh, confirmed in 2018 to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a conservative who often acted as swing vote on the court.” Trump was also responsible for a significant number of nominations to the lower federal Courts, as pointed out by the liberal Brookings Institution. 

• Perhaps no better barometer exists of a President’s concern for his Country than the interest he shows for the well-being of our Nation’s military. Previous Presidents have been derelict in their treatment of our military as witnessed by the sorry state of our VA Hospitals. Under President Obama’s watch, a scandal ensued when it was learned that veterans died while waiting for health care. This is reprehensible. As reported by Fox News, President Trump fulfilled his 2016 campaign promise to reform the sorry state of our VA Hospitals. Fox News writes, “President Trump . . . signed Veterans Affairs reform legislation meant to protect whistleblowers while making it easier to fire problematic employees at the department. The Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act passed by Congress earlier this month streamlines the process to remove, demote, or suspend VA employees for poor performance or misconduct. In addition, it authorizes the VA secretary to recoup any bonuses awarded to employees who have acted improperly. “Veterans have fulfilled their duty to this nation and now, we must fulfill our duty to them,” Trump said. “So to every veteran who is here with us today, I just want to say two very simple words, thank you.” Under the new law, protections for whistleblowers will be expanded and the VA will be prevented from dismissing an employee who has an open complaint against the department. The bill was prompted by the 2014 scandal at the Phoenix medical center where patients died while waiting for health care. “What happened was a national disgrace and yet, some of the employees involved in these scandals remained on the payrolls,” Trump said. “Outdated laws kept the government from holding those who failed our veterans accountable.” On the campaign trail, Trump called the VA, the government’s second-largest department, the “most corrupt” and “most incompetently run agency in the United States.” The legislation helps Trump follow through on a 2016 campaign promise. He said at the signing that the law represents one of the biggest reforms to the VA in a generation and promised even more changes – “until the job is done.”

• During the 2016 campaign, Trump also made clear his intention to strengthen the military and to make NATO pay its fair share, as reported by the Military Times, quoting Trump: “After the Cold War our foreign policy veered badly off course," he told a Washington, D.C., crowd just hours after another sizable primary win the previous evening. "As time went on, our foreign policy began to make less and less sense. Logic was replaced with foolishness and arrogance, which led to one foreign policy disaster after another. "Our foreign policy is a complete and total disaster. No vision. No purpose. No direction. No strategy." Trump's own outline was billed as a broad overview of his general philosophy on international relations and security, and stayed away from specifics on spending and diplomatic moves. . . . One of the few specifics he did offer was in criticism of President Obama's military spending strategy, which he repeatedly tied to the policies of Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. "Our active-duty armed forces have shrunk from 2 million in 1991 to about 1.3 million today," he said. "The Navy has shrunk from over 500 ships to 272 ships during this same period of time. The Air Force is about one-third smaller than 1991. Pilots flying B-52s in combat missions today. These planes are older than virtually everybody in this room." The solution, he said, is ensuring that the military is "funded beautifully" but also added "we will look for savings and spend our money wisely." That includes not just the Pentagon but also "our trade, immigration and economic policies to make our economy strong again." Trump also chastised NATO allies for not spending enough on their own defense forces, vowing to make them accept their fair share of the expense and responsibility." 

WILL THE UNITED STATES CONTINUE TO EXIST AS A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC?

Americans are faced with sharply defined choices in the upcoming election. Two visions for our Country are on the table, but only one of the two visions is possible.Trump represents the Country in the form the founders bequeathed it to us, a free Constitutional Republic, grounded on a set of fundamental, natural rights, guaranteeing the sovereignty of the American people, and the continued independence of our Nation.Biden represents Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, both of whom believe that the concept of independent nation-states is an archaic concept that has outlived its usefulness. Both Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists seek an end to our Nation and its submergence into a one world system of governance, requiring uniformity in thought and conduct; subjugation and penury.Will Americans remain in control of their destiny or will they relinquish that control to Government bureaucrats who are themselves controlled by a small group of Neoliberal Globalists mega-billionaires, dictating how Americans should live, and think and behave; and confiscating our vast resources of capital, labor, and military, along with our non-renewable natural resources for their own illegitimate, personal, sordid, selfish purposes.The differences in vision could not be starker.Unfortunately, the Press has brainwashed the masses who believe, erroneously, that Trump is such a threat to democracy that they are willing to place their bet on anyone else, regardless of who it is and what they have to offer. Many Americans fail to see the truth before them: A Country torn apart at the seams; an orchestrated scheme of the Marxists and Globalists to destroy our Nation.The Press refers to Biden as the “moderate,” a voice of reason, who will bring the Nation together. It is all sham. How many have been taken in by it by the ruse? Americans and the world will soon learn which vision of America prevails: one aimed at preserving a system that has served the Nation and its people well for over two hundred years and has made us the envy of the world; and the other aimed at the destruction of the Nation, grounded on the lie that this Country is not so great and never was; that the Country is not worth preserving, and that there is something positive to be gained through the Nation’s destruction and immersion into a new and ostensibly “grander” political, social, economic, and cultural world community scheme.

_____________________________________________________________

Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

AMERICANS EMBROILED IN A COUNTERREVOLUTION: THE FUTURE OF THE COUNTRY RESTS IN THE BALANCE

THE 2020 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: AN ELECTION LIKE NO OTHER IN HISTORY

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION VERSUS A MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION

Both Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have said, repeatedly, that this election is a battle for the soul of the Nation. See, e.g., USAToday story. In all other respects they are both duplicitous liars, often contradicting themselves, positing the most ludicrous and monstrous of ideas. But they are dead-on right in their assertion that the coming election amounts to a battle for the soul of the Nation. And, if Satan wants our Nation's soul, then Biden and Harris are his agents, intent on obtaining it for him, gladly wresting it kicking and screaming, if necessary, from the Nation's psyche.At no other point in time, since the opening salvo of muskets marking the commencement of the American Revolutionary War in 1775, a war against the tyranny of King George III, a war that gave birth to the most powerful, most prosperous, and most beneficent Nation on Earth, have we Americans—the beneficiaries of the sacrifices made by those founders of our Nation, the first Patriots, and of the millions of soldiers who have fought and of the many who died to protect and preserve our Nation since—faced our truest test of faith.

WILL THE COUNTERREVOLUTION OF 2020 UNDO THE SUCCESSFUL REVOLUTION OF 1776?

A general election is rapidly approaching to choose a U.S. President. The election of a U.S. President is as much an historical tradition as a Constitutional requirement under the Twelfth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The upcoming election will determine not only which Party controls the critically important Executive Branch of Government, but which will control the all-important U.S. Senate.This is no ordinary U.S. Presidential election. For this election will determine, once and likely for all subsequent time, whether our Nation continues to exist in the form the framers of our Constitution constructed and intended for it, a free Constitutional Republic where the people themselves are sovereign and where Government exists to serve the people, not the other way around, or whether Americans capitulate to ruthless, jealous forces both here at home and abroad, who have made patently clear their desire and intention to dismantle it.This isn’t hyperbole notwithstanding that many Americans, those seemingly sensible middle and upper-middle class Americans who define themselves as socially and politically liberal—and who may, or may not, object to the antics of the Radical Marxists and Anarchists who have been rioting and causing general mayhem in our Cities for months on end—think that a Biden/Harris White House and a Democrat controlled Senate, along with a Democrat Controlled House of Representatives, doesn’t portend the end of our Republic, but simply a return to normalcy. But, in that, these ostensibly sensible, pragmatic middle and upper-middle class Americans are dead wrong.Unbeknownst to these Americans, a war is being waged against the United States. This war has been taking place for decades and it’s a war that is rapidly coming to a head. This war is being fought between two factions.One faction consists of those Americans who seek to preserve our Nation as handed down to us by the founders of it: an independent sovereign Nation-State and free Constitutional Republic grounded in a formal Constitution, governed by the American people themselves—through their elected representatives. The other faction consists of Counterrevolutionaries: those who are dead-set intent on tearing our free Constitutional Republic down, and constructing an entirely new Order—a true Marxist State—not to be seriously construed as a genuine sovereign, independent nation at all, one that is defined by geographical borders.The Counterrevolutionaries have in mind an ambitious project. They seek to create an amalgam, comprising the remains of western nation-states, where the governments of these nation-states exist are paper relics, as the real dictates of these nations—these geographical regions, emanate from Brussels. This is apparent from an analysis of the governing authority of the purported nations-states comprising the European Union. The Western titans of industry and finance are the true rulers of this new Order, governing the world through their proxies.The European Union constitutes the germ of these Counterrevolutionaries grand design. Other western nations are to be brought into the EU’s orbit, including the Commonwealth Nations. But the Counterrevolutionaries real prize, the one they covet most of all, is the United States.With its technological expertise and vast natural resources, along with its extensive and unparalleled array of military, police, and intelligence apparatuses, the forces that crush intend to bring the United States into their fold.The Chinese Communist empire has its own designs, ambitions, and objectives for the Nation, and Joe Biden is their “Manchurian” Candidate in a very real sense. China has bought and paid for him and they intend to profit handsomely from him.Communist China’s aims are primarily geopolitical and military. The aims of the Counterrevolutionary Western titans of industry and finance are, as they essentially have always been—monetary—but they cannot ignore the import of geopolitical and military dominance lest they be run over by China. The formation of an uneasy world Dyarchy appears to be on the horizon for the world.Of the mass of the commonalty in Europe, the Commonwealth Nations and of the commonalty of China, and of Russia, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, they are already doomed. It is no accident the poor, impoverished, or outright lazy, would make a mad dash for the United States.And, what of the citizenry of the United States. At the moment all that stands between them and annihilation, is their fundamental, natural, unalienable, illimitable, and immutable, right of free speech right and right to keep and bear arms—rights bestowed on man by the Divine Creator himself, as etched in stone in the Nation’s Bill of Rights. Both these crucial God-given rights are being whittled away to nothing.If sleazy, Manchurian Joe and the sordid, horrid Kamala get into Office and if the contemptible, deceitful Chuck Schumer becomes Senate Majority leader, we Americans—who have, to date, seen but a foretaste of erosion of their fundamental, illimitable, immutable, unalienable right of free speech and right to keep and bear arms— will see these rights not only sharply curtailed, but obliterated, extinguished.An armed citizenry and a citizenry that speaks its own mind cannot long remain in tyranny. Such rights are inconsistent with the objectives of the tenets of Collectivism and cannot be condoned and, so, must not, will not be tolerated. The threat posed to the rulers of the New World Order, and the uniform, exacting order they impose on the commonalty would not be possible. Their New World Order would all come crashing down.The American Heritage Dictionary defines ‘counterrevolution’ as ‘a revolution whose aim is the deposition and reversal of a political or social system set up by a previous revolution.’ That is precisely what is taking place in our Nation today.Ruthless, malicious, malevolent, antagonistic forces both inside and outside the United States are responsible for the unrest and violence emanating in our Nation’s Cities today.These extraordinarily, inordinately powerful, wealthy, devious, malignant forces have orchestrated, bankrolled, fomented, and provoked a Counterrevolution in our Nation. And this Counterrevolution, along with the Chinese Communist Coronavirus plague, is metastasizing across the Nation, encouraged by placid, weak, and favorably disposed politicians; milked by a seditious Press, supportive of, and receptive and responsive to the aims of the Destructors of our Nation.You will note that the definition of ‘counterrevolution’ doesn’t mention or even allude to the use of firearms.This present war isn’t being fought with guns and cannons—at least not yet—but that is likely to change if the forces that dare crush Americans into submission do take complete control of the reins of Government.But the absence of use of firearms at the moment is not to say or to suggest that the present Counterrevolution—the Revolt against the American Revolution—isn’t being waged with weapons. For there exist many kinds of weapons. This Counterrevolution is at the moment being fought with words, conveyed with great effect through the most potent information dissemination engine yet devised by man: The Internet.The Internet has, just in the space of a few decades, grown into a behemoth. Thousands of Petabytes of data—information—are continually disseminated around the world. It is both a new battlefield and turf to the Counterrevolutionaries intend to gain control over. But can they? Will they?It is virtually impossible for one person or one organization to gain complete, exclusive control over the internet But, a few powerful technology companies, true behemoths, have nonetheless, through the space of two or three decades, gained control over broad swaths of it. Their names are known to the public—Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter. The inner workings of these multi-layered Goliaths are tightly guarded, unfathomable, formidable.These technology goliaths are an empire unto themselves, contained by and constrained by no Nation, their tentacles large and sprawling, entangling the world in their embrace.The originators of these beasts and their chief executive officers have forged an unholy alliance with Globalist Billionaires in finance and industry both here and around the world and they have entered into pacts with China. They, together, plan to take control over the resources of our Nation, jettisoning the Nation’s institutions, its culture, its traditions, its history, the very Constitutional framework of it—leaving the Nation a dry, barren husk, an empty shell; its people subjugated, thoroughly demoralized, wholly or primarily dependent on Government largess, reduced to abject penury and servitude.And therethrough they are being assisted with the help of a massive Fifth Column in our Nation—comprising Democrats and Bush-centric Republicans in Congress; a massive federal Bureaucracy, the Administrative Deep State; rabid, radical Marxist and Anarchist groups, and the Marxist intelligentsia; and a compliant, obsequious, sympathetic Press.With unimaginable wealth and tenacity the forces that seek to crush our Nation and its people into submission can succeed, and they intend to succeed, and they will succeed if they take control of the Executive Branch of Government along with the U.S. Senate.____________________________________________________

COUNTERREVOLUTION ON THE HORIZON: CONTROL OF AMERICANS’ PSYCHE AND CONTROL OVER AMERICANS’ ARMS

The Counterrevolutionaries—the powerful, wealthy, and ruthless Neoliberal Globalists—whom the Democrats’ contender, the frail Joe Biden calls our duplicitously and disingenuously calls our allies—want to take control of the Nation’s vast land and resources, technological knowledge, and institutions of Government, but they want the physical structure of the Nation to remain, intact, not in ruins, as does the Chinese regime under the ruthless, conniving Xi Jinping that has its own designs on our Nation. But that is no easy task. It requires winning over the hearts and minds of over hundred and twenty million Americans, whom these evil, poisonous malignant forces perceive as mere fodder; riff raff; the Proletariat; the Hoi Polloi—a populace that must be contained and constrained; corralled and controlled.Americans, though, had pierced through the multivarious veils of deception, although it took fifteen years for them to do so, following the Neoliberal Globalist Presidents Bill Clinton; George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, both members of the secretive Skull and Bones Society; and Barack Obama. All of these reprobates were slowly, inexorably, through their execrable foreign and domestic policies, dismantling the very foundation of an independent sovereign Nation and free Constitutional Republic, insinuating the United States into an intricately framed and inextricable new geopolitical, social, cultural, and economic world order whose system of laws and norms would override and supersede the Constitution of the United States. The process of inclusion of the U.S. into this new world order would achieve completion through the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist puppet, Hillary Clinton.Americans saw what was coming if Hillary Clinton succeeded Barack Obama, but the electorate—apart from the liberal, progressive, and radical Left, situated primarily in the Country’s North East, West Coast and in historically Leftist run Cities such as the Midwest’s Chicago—had had more than enough.The election of an outsider Populist and Nationalist, Donald Trump, who promised to hold firm to the dictates of the Constitution as written, consistent with the tenets of Individualism, upon which the Nation was founded, was seen as the only way to avoid the otherwise certain takeover of the Country and the certain bloodbath that would follow once the Counterrevolutionaries gained iron control over the Government and proceeded to gain similar control over the citizenry itself through massive reformation and revision of the citizenry’s fundamental rights, commencing with a firm lock on speech and association, and a complete ban on private ownership and possession of firearms.But with the defeat of the Globalists’ placeholder, Hillary Clinton, they were forced temporarily to shelve their agenda. They had to devise and carry out detailed plans to take down Donald Trump; and, in the process, they were compelled to make plain—albeit they didn’t want to until they obtained control of Government—their intention to systematically denigrate and thence to obliterate Americans’ cherished history, traditions, Judeo-Christian ethic, culture, and historical symbols.In the proceeding four years of Trump’s Presidency they utilized several mechanisms in a reprehensible attempt to frustrate Trump’s Administration, and to unseat him. These included shameless calumny; sabotage; sedition; betrayal by several of those closest to him; impeachment in the House, and trial in the Senate; even preposterous and bizarre utilization of the 25th Amendment. Everything these Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist Destructors, and their puppets in Congress and in the Federal Bureaucracy, attempted, failed, often backfiring on them. But, their insidious attempts, funded no less by the American taxpayer, cost the Country tens of millions of dollars in the process of engaging in their despicable, fruitless endeavors. All the while Democrat Party politicians and Bush Republicans cared not one whit that their incessant and insufferable ridicule of and caustic enmity directed toward Trump has caused the Country a significant loss of prestige and respect in the eyes of the world, from which the Nation may never recover. But, then, it is the desire of the Destructors of our Nation to destroy the Nation and the citizenry’s very national identity anyway, as the U.S. is to be de facto or de jure merged into the EU or whatever the EU further mutates into.But the salient weapon in the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist Destructors’ arsenal—a slow-acting poison—had been injected into the body politic since the first days of Trump’s campaign for U.S. President and that poison has worked on many Americans; and the effects of that poison may well impact the outcome of the election. This is the Destructors’ last shot, and they know it!These Destructors of our Nation realize they need to bring Americans over to their way of thinking. But that involves use of a specific kind of military weapon: psychology; but psychology employed on an industrial scale.The utilization of Psychology as Psychological warfare is referred to as Psychological Operations, or, as it is known in the trade: PSYOPS. A principal tool of Psychological Operations, or PSYOPS, is Propaganda. Forged originally for, and actively utilized by the military, against foreign governments, and foreign nationals, Psychological Operations, PSYOPS, have been reconfigured and reprocessed for use against the American citizenry, right here at home.But propaganda isn’t something new, even if it is generally considered a modern phenomenon. It has actually been around for centuries. Through the ages, though, it has come to be a well-honed tool for controlling the thought processes of entire populations. If done correctly, it works marvelously well. But what is propaganda, really?One source, the Cambridge Dictionary, defines ‘Propaganda, ’as ‘information, ideas, opinions, or images, often only giving one part of an argument, that are broadcast, published, or in some other way spread with the intention of influencing people's opinions.’But this definition doesn’t really capture the truly diabolical nature implicit in it or give the student of propaganda a true appreciation of the enormity of it.Further explanation of propaganda is given by the International League of Antiquarian Booksellers: ilab. See also, the American Historical Association’s explanation for it, demonstrating the multivarious dimensions and facets of it. The concept is a multifaceted one; not easy to grasp when closely peered at.Perhaps the concept is best understood, in its modern incarnation, by someone, a practitioner of it, who was truly adept in its use: Reich Minister, Joseph Goebbels, an avid proponent of it, developed the modern use of it and used it to great advantage to condition and control the mindset of the German people. The Reich Minister provides, perhaps, the best explanation of it, showing the true insidiousness of it, as its impact drills deep into the mind of the target. That target comes to believe, erroneously, that his perceptions—political persuasions—are his own when in fact, they are not; they are delusions projected onto the target’s psyche by the propagandist. Joseph Goebbels has said,“It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”“Success is the important thing. Propaganda is not a matter for average minds, but rather a matter for practitioners. It is not supposed to be lovely or theoretically correct. I do not care if I give wonderful, aesthetically elegant speeches, or speak so that women cry. The point of a political speech is to persuade people of what we think right. I speak differently in the provinces than I do in Berlin, and when I speak in Bayreuth, I say different things than I say in the Pharus Hall. That is a matter of practice, not of theory. We do not want to be a movement of a few straw brains, but rather a movement that can conquer the broad masses. Propaganda should be popular, not intellectually pleasing. It is not the task of propaganda to discover intellectual truths.”It should not be too difficult for an American to step outside the box the seditious Press has placed him in, and consciously, candidly reflect on and assess the many instances, in the past four years, that the Press, along with the Democrat Party leadership, has attempted to poison American's attitudes toward the President Trump and to poison Americans' attitudes toward their own history, traditions, culture, and, indeed, themselves, by floating ideas that, at first glance, may seem lofty and sensical, but on even  a cursory analysis can be seen for what they really are: superficial, simplistic, trite, flawed, vacuous, even self-contradictory. Has not the Press taken a page out of Joseph Goebbels' playbook?___________________________________________________

U.S. PROPAGANDA: POINTED OUTWARD TO THE USSR AND THENCE INWARD TO THE USA

During the Cold War, our Government had used propaganda extensively, targeting both the people of the USSR and foreign nationals of the Soviet Socialist Republic, “SSR”, Baltic States. The U.S. Government did this as an application of the Government’s foreign policy objectives to weaken the Soviet Union; and the Soviet Government, for its part, targeted the American citizenry, enlisting the aid of a Fifth Column here at home, the Communist Party USA, the CPUSA.The CPUSA still exists today although Americans never hear about it. But, the Party is likely actively involved with and in league with the Press and with Democrats in Congress, albeit surreptitiously, along with the Socialist Party USA, SPUSA and all working in unison, fomenting a Marxist Revolution: their Counterrevolution to undercut the success of the American Revolution, paving way for a one-world Governmental scheme, a New World Order.And, while the Governments of Russia, Iran, and, yes, China, too, especially China, engage in covert propaganda operations against us, it would be a mistake to believe that our Government is no longer involved in the same activities against those Countries as well; as well they ought to be, even if the Press cares not to shed light on that little fact. For propaganda is a powerful tool in implementing foreign policy.Realizing the power and efficacy of propaganda in manipulating the thought patterns of populations and, therein, fully cognizant of the danger of it if turned against our own people, Congress enacted the Smith-Mundt Act, in 1946.The Smith-Mundt Act made it unlawful for the U.S. Government to target its own citizens. And it remained unlawful for the U.S. Government to target Americans for 70+ years—until, that is, recently.Something happened in the last few years. Our own Government, under the Obama Presidency, decided that it would be okay, indeed, a worthwhile endeavor, to target the American public itself.This is particularly disconcerting, as one must infer that our own Government seeks to manipulate the American psyche to serve and further its own selfish ends--which ends are often, if not invariably, at loggerheads with the beneficial needs and wishes of the the Country and its people, and inconsistent too with the dictates of the Nation’s Constitution that those Government servants took an oath to protect.“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.” See “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.Of course the targeting of the American citizenry with overt propaganda had been occurring well before Congress gave its imprimatur on the matter, having decided it would be okay to deceive the American public. George W. Bush did it, and we then became immersed in a trillion plus dollar clusterf*ck in the Middle East. And, Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton doubled down on that mess, when they decided how nice it would be to take out Muammar Gaddafi in Libya, effectively destabilizing a region in North Africa, allowing the rabid Islamic State to further spread its cancer, and leaving it for President Donald Trump to clean up the mess, for which the seditious Press gives him no credit, as that would not serve their narrative, a narrative that requires the discrediting of Trump at every turn.Unlike the Government itself, powerful Internet Companies, such as Google, Facebook, Amazon, and Twitter do not come under the purview of the Smith-Mundt Act, and never did. But they should because these information platforms have a decided and decisive impact on the dissemination of information and therefore on our fundamental right of free speech.Indeed, the Government itself utilizes these platforms for its own propagandizing purposes. But these Internet Companies, too, propagandize by controlling whom it is that may utilize their platforms and what information can be acquired from a search. We have seen the pernicious effect of this dominance in massive censoring of information of those deemed Conservative voices, especially in weeks leading up to the U.S. Presidential election. This is no accident. And it is especially reprehensible that Twitter and Facebook would dare inhibit President Trump himself from reaching out to the American public.That these powerful Internet Companies dare censor the President and those who support him, and do so frequently, with impunity and with bravado, and that the Press itself fails to condemn such actions of censorship, says much of the power of propaganda to sway public opinion.These Companies may claim that they seek only to filter out misinformation and so-called “hate speech.” But who is to say what constitutes false or otherwise misleading information and what constitutes “hate speech?” But, more to the point, does it and should it even matter? The U.S. Supreme Court, historically, takes a dim view—and rightly, an exceedingly dim view—of any attempt to constrain speech as to do so leads the Nation down a clearly steep slippery slope to thought control, ergo, tyranny.The so-called “free” Press has systematically—especially in the Trump years—stunted the reporting of information and slanted those stories that it does print. The NY Times is especially guilty of this false, malicious, and inflammatory reporting. The Times’ motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print,” has more than a tinge of irony to it. The Times routinely masks Op-Ed pieces as news reports, conveying pernicious lies and false narratives to undermine not only the Trump Presidency but the very underpinnings of our free Constitutional Republic.The seditious Press attempts to mold and shape public opinion against the public’s own best interests, and worse, seeds doubt and hate in the minds of the public, turning American against American; creating political and social problems and issues where none existed, do not exist, and ought not to exist; claiming duplicitously all the while that its false and illusory constructions point to real problems and to real issues and that the cause therefor rests with Trump and with those Americans who support him.In so operating as they do these propagandists deflect attention away from the nefarious aims and goals of their benefactors. In that way they hope Americans will elect their stooges, who, at present, reside in their carefully chosen and groomed manikins; mere placeholders: Biden, and Harris.If successful, the Destructors of our Nation hope to get back on track with their original game plan: one requiring the dissolution of the Nation and its Constitution, and the systematic subjugation and degradation of the American people. But to succeed, it isn’t enough to gain control over the reins of Government alone. The Nation’s Destructors must gain control over the thought patterns of over 320 million people. And, that is not an easy task.________________________________________

MASS PSYCHOSIS AGAINST TRUMP THREATENS OUR NATION’S SOVEREIGNTY AND AMERICANS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

The Destructors and Obstructers of our Nation cannot abide and will not abide millions of Americans thinking “bad thoughts” and wielding millions of firearms. This requires attacking Americans’ natural, immutable, illimitable, unalienable fundamental rights head-on.The propagandists’ attack on the First and Second Amendments of the Bill of Rights is the most odious; an attempt to manipulate the public psyche to loathe the very rights bestowed on them by a loving Divine Creator; but in the loss of their most cherished rights, Americans will lose their sovereignty and their very soul. But this attack against on the First and Second Amendments should not come as a surprise to anyone. It has been taking place for some time. After all, the forces that seek to destroy this Nation cannot do so if the citizenry has a well-honed critical mind, capable of independent, conscious thought and reasoning, a mind that perceives well the unconscionable wresting of the Country from its grasp, and is armed and able to resist; and is able to employ those firearms effectively against its usurpers.The question becomes, then, for the Destructors and Obstructers of the Nation: how does one control the thought processes of the citizenry so that the citizenry willingly surrenders the very means by which and through which it maintains its sovereignty over Government; defending itself capably against all manner of predators and tyrants?To be embroiled in guerilla warfare is costly and time-consuming where tens of millions of Americans are well-armed. The American Revolution is a testament to that, as George III learned.The Neoliberal Globalist Destructors’ Counterrevolution against the American Revolution, that forged a free Constitutional Republic, is no more likely to succeed than did the campaign of George III against our forefathers two centuries earlier, as Americans are no less well-versed today in the use of their firearms. They are well capable of employing those firearms to good effect when necessary and are not reluctant to do so now.This is a major conundrum for the Destructors and Obstructers of the Nation: how do Tyrants achieve their objective—creating a docile citizenry out of an inherently courageous citizenry? How do tyrants avoid the use of force of arms against a citizenry loath to surrender their arms; more inclined to use those arms against those who dare impose their will on a free, indomitable people.More seductive means must be employed. To date, the most effective means—one that has worked on millions of Americans—involves “training the mind” of Americans to be fearful of and to abhor firearms.Behind the campaign to defeat Donald Trump in the coming U.S. Presidential election lies the invidious propaganda campaign to push the public to embrace the most lackluster pair of individuals to ever lead the Nation—an obviously senile and servile Joe Biden, and a craven, duplicitous, hypocritical Kamala Harris—two brazenly corrupt puppets chosen by the Globalist puppet masters who have been appointed for one major purpose: returning the Nation to the trajectory of dissolution set for it before a wrench was thrown into their plans with the advent of Donald Trump.Biden and Harris are no more than props, just as the two Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama were “front men” for the Globalists, and as Hillary Clinton had she obtained the mantle of the U.S. Presidency; a thing that was expected to be a foregone conclusion. Americans, though, had other plans. They sensed they were losing their Country. So, it was no accident, no anomaly that led to the election of Trump in 2016, even if some people otherwise believe the election of Trump to be nothing more than a troubling aberration.The Propagandists have been busy at work ever since the inauguration of Trump, to set things right as the Propagandists saw it: to return to the agenda of slow disemboweling of the Nation that had been set for it decades before, an agenda that Bill Clinton, two Bushes, and Barack Obama had dutifully followed, and which Hillary Clinton would have continued to follow had she and the Party and the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalist Destructors not miscalculated the intelligence and perspicuity of the American electorate.The Propagandists spent the last four years attempting both to destroy the Trump Presidency and to soften the public up, turning the mind of many Americans to gelatin. They attempted to get the public to reject Trump out-of-hand. And many Americans have done so, without even understanding why, as Trump has proven to be an exceptional President—which was all the more remarkable given the forces at home and abroad working strenuously against him—succeeding in the areas of both domestic policy and foreign policy. To get the majority of the electorate to reject him, given such exemplary accomplishments, would require more than even the modern tools of propaganda could muster. What was required was no less than the likely intentional unleashing of a Global pandemic by the Chinese Communist Government upon the world, which could not have been unknown to the Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists, exemplifying the extraordinarily malevolent and horrific steps that both China and the Western Establishment Globalist elites would go to to undermine Trump's achievements, to harm his chances for reelection, exemplifying, too, just how desperate the New World Order overseers and Xi Jinping's Regime had become to get Trump out of the way, and the lengths they would go to, to undercut the one man who had done his level best to accomplish one primary goal: to return Americans to its historical and sacred roots, and its former greatness. That could not be countenanced. That would not be permitted.

THE DESTRUCTORS' TWO-STEP ENDGAME TO ANNIHILATE THE NATION: FIRST, PREVENT TRUMP'S ELECTION TO A SECOND TERM; SECOND, DISMANTLE THE U.S CONSTITUTION, COMMENCING WITH FURTHER CONSTRICTION OF AND RESTRICTIONS ON THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, AND STRANGULATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

In the next several articles, we discuss how many Americans have been slowly, inexorably, unconscionably conditioned, brainwashed—especially in the last thirty years—to develop a deep-seated, unnatural antipathy toward firearms and firearms’ ownership. As a result of this carefully cultivated psychological conditioning, more and more Americans have gravitated toward political leaders who promise to rid the Nation of the “plague of guns and gun violence.” Understand: To destroy a free Constitutional Republic—a Republic in which the people are sovereign and Government is the servant of the people—it is imperative that the Globalist Neoliberal Destructors and Obstructers of our Nation and its Constitution control the spread of information and implement a national plan designed to strongly urge Americans to surrender their firearms to Government authorities. And, for those Americans who are reluctant to do so, who have failed to be swayed by propaganda because the Bill of Rights has been deeply ingrained into their very being, then they will be forcibly compelled to do so.Recall what Kamala Harris, the mouthpiece and puppet of the Globalist Destructors said during a Town Hall in 2019: “Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the Courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws,” Harris responded, according to a transcript of the event. “And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.” See weblog, noisyroom. Is this simple boasting and hyperbole? We think not.If Trump loses the upcoming election and Republicans lose control of the U.S. Senate, the loss cannot be regarded as something simply inconvenient for our Nation’s people. The loss will be catastrophic. Americans will lose their Country; their Sovereignty; their National Identity; their very Soul. What is at stake for Americans and for their Nation in the upcoming election is as simple and as straightforward as that.No American should think their vote doesn’t count; that their vote is unimportant; irrelevant. Not so. That one vote + one vote + one vote + one vote . . .  will make all the difference in the world._____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT IS THE TAKEAWAY FROM JUDGE AMY CONEY BARRETT’S CONFIRMATION HEARING?

AN ARBALEST QUARREL PERSPECTIVE

Liberal and Radical Left media sources made much of Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s failure, as they perceived it, to respond candidly and honestly to questions thrown at her by Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats during her confirmation hearing.The Progressive news source, The American Independent, for one, said this:“Over the three days of hearings by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court, Barrett refused to answer 95 questions posed to her by members of the committee.In declining, she repeatedly referred to the words spoken by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her own confirmation hearing in 1993: ‘A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.’” Notwithstanding the words of the late liberal-wing leader of the U.S. Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the seditious Press concluded that, while they would gladly dismiss the late Associate Justice’s own reticence, they were loath to absolve Judge Barrett for doing the same, attempting, lamely, to draw a distinction between Justice Ginsburg's justifiable hesitation to discuss the specifics of a particular case, and Judge Barrett's demonstrating a similar restraint.MSN news, had this to say about Judge Barrett’s responses Senate Democrat Committee members’ questions designed to commit Judge Barrett to taking a particular stand on Constitutional issues.“During a nearly 12-hour question-and-answer session, Judge Barrett evaded Democratic senators’ attempts to pin down her views on the Affordable Care Act, abortion rights, gay marriage, and a possible election-related case. She played down her history of taking conservative stances in legal writings and personal statements, arguing that she might view issues differently as a sitting justice. ‘I have not made any commitments or deals or anything like that,’ she told the Senate Judiciary Committee on her second day of confirmation hearings. ‘I’m not here on a mission to destroy the Affordable Care Act. I’m just here to apply the law and adhere to the rule of law.’. . . Judge Barrett’s refusal to discuss specific cases or commit to recusing from particular matters was in line with a decades-old playbook used by Supreme Court nominees to avoid giving substantive answers during confirmation hearings. But her attempts to deflect such questions were more conspicuous than usual, given how explicit Mr. Trump has been about how he would want his nominees to rule.” Huh? Judge Barrett's attempts to deflect questions were more conspicuous than the late Associate Justice Ginsburg's deflecting of questions?The mainstream seditious Press dares to suggest that Judge Amy Barrett’s justifiable wariness to being pinned down—and therefore, thereafter, constrained—were she to give categorical responses to matters of Constitutional dimension amounts to a disturbing lack of candor on her part, if not outright insolence. This is a conscious, unconscionable attempt to malign Judge Barrett.But Judge Barrett needn't assert and, in fact, shouldn’t assert how she would decide legal issues before the fact. Indeed, how could she? Activist jurists, of course, do so all the time as the public knows full well. Reflect, for a moment, if you will, on any one of a plethora of decisions handed down by activist Judges on Second Amendment and immigration matters. Activist judges almost invariably prejudge cases that come before them. They work backward from their decision to the central issue, constructing premises along the way, designed to cohere with the decision they have already made.But a methodical, meticulous, jurist, such as Judge Barrett, is perspicacious, not judgmental.Judge Barrett carefully analyzes a case; draws her inferences therefrom; and comes to a purposeful, informed, well-considered decision, never a spontaneous one. As Judge Barrett has demonstrated through her dissenting opinion in the Second Amendment Kanter case, she applies sound logical reasoning before rendering a decision. See Arbalest Quarrel article. And Judge Barrett complies with, is devoted to, and pays assiduous, diligent, and laborious attention to firmly established jurisprudential doctrinal methodology, a methodology grounded in strict adherence to the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution as written, consistent with and faithful to the intention of the framers of it. In this way—and only in this way—can a jurist know that he or she is protecting the fundamental, natural, rights and liberties and sovereignty of the citizenry, and preserving a free Constitutional Republic.Of course, ruthless elements both here and abroad want none of that. They have made clear an intention to tear down our Republic, erase our history and traditions, destroy our sacred rights and liberties, and undercut our Judeo-Christian ethic and faith in a loving Divine Creator. And they have been assiduously, seditiously at work and, now, openly rewriting the U.S. Constitution to cohere with a weakened Nation, a subjugated, subservient citizenry, and a bloated Government subordinated to the will and dictates of the EU and Xi Jinping's China.These ruthless elements, through their puppets—Democrats sitting on the Senate Judiciary Committee—do not want a jurist on the High Court who happens to appreciate, and who esteems, and who cherishes the U.S. Constitution as written. They want a jurist who does the bidding of Democrats in Congress, thereby turning the Court into an adjunct of the Legislature and of the ignorant mobocracy among the polity who obediently obey the commands of their taskmasters as conveyed to them through incessant, noxious propaganda.The Democrat Party lackeys of China and of secretive Billionaire Globalists are, understandably, upset with Judge Barrett, sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court; as she is a person “who will not get with the game plan,” who will not pay homage to them and who will not defer to their wishes. That is something they cannot and will not abide.Judge Barrett has made abundantly clear to all who would pay note, that she is a person of integrity, both in her personal conduct and in her role as a jurist. She has made clear that, as a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, she will never interpose her personal predilections in the judicial decision making process. She hasn't done so as a Judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and she would not do so as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. How can the American public be certain of this?It is through the methodology employed in deciding cases that the full measure of a jurist can be accurately, adequately deduced. And, on that score, Judge Barrett has been honest, forthright, and open, and, on the methodology she employs in deciding cases, she has been completely candid. That should give Americans—who, as with Judge Barrett, cherish a free Constitutional Republic, who cherish the U.S. Constitution as written, and who cherish our natural, fundamental rights and liberties, as bestowed on and in man, etched into man's very being by a loving Creator—the necessary, requisite assurances that Judge Barrett qua Associate Justice Barrett will never betray the Constitution and will always remain true to our sacred, natural, fundamental rights and liberties.  This of course drives the Destructors of our Nation into a psychotic rage as they have other plans for our Nation, for our Constitution, and for our people; and they have not been shy about what those plans portend. If these Destructors can deceive enough Americans to vote for the so-called “moderate” Joe Biden and if they are able to take control of the United States Senate, then all is lost. The American electorate must see to it that this doesn’t happen.___________________________________________________________

JUDGE BARRETT'S METHODOLOGY FOR DECIDING CASES EXPLAINED

Unlike activist lower Court Judges and liberal-wing High Court Justices who routinely affirm legislative enactments they find palatable, couching their personal predilections in convoluted legalese, rubber-stamping unconstitutional government action, Judge Barrett—soon to be Justice Barrett if all goes well—stated clearly, unequivocally, and categorically that she does not and would not render judgment on the basis of personal bias for or against a particular statute. And, from the cases she has heard and opined upon as a Judge, sitting on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and from her academic writings, Americans can rest secure in the knowledge that Judge Barrett, will remain true to the written word of the U.S. Constitution and to the sanctity of the Bill of Rights.Judge Barrett grounds her decisions on legal and judicial considerations alone, not on legislative policy considerations that fall within the purview of legislative bodies, outside the purview of courts.She asks: “Is this legislative enactment consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, as written?” She frames her analysis accordingly, and her decision follows logically from that analysis. Judge Barrett does not ask, nor should she ask: “Does this legislative enactment cohere with prevailing public whim and fancy, fashion and sentiment, shaped and molded by Progressive ideologues with whom I must adhere?”Through Senate Democrat questioning of Judge Barrett, it becomes abundantly clear that Democrats perceive the U.S. Supreme Court not as an independent Third Branch of Government, but merely as an adjunct of the legislature—a body that has no other purpose than to rubber-stamp Congressional enactments—statutory enactments that cohere with international law and norms, superior to the U.S. Constitution and dismissive of and antithetical to our citizenry’s fundamental rights and liberties. That is what these Democrats want. That is what they desire from a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. But that isn’t what they will get once Judge Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed to sit on the High Court as Justice Amy Coney Barrett. And that enrages Democrats. And, so, they threaten “to pack the Court” if they are able to gain control of the Executive Branch of Government, along with control of the U.S. Senate.During the Senate confirmation hearing, Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lindsey Graham, Republican South Carolina, asked Judge Barrett matter-of-factly how she perceives the role of a jurist.Senator Graham's question was a proper and fitting one to ask of a nominee who might sit on the U.S. Supreme Court, and Judge Barrett welcomed the opportunity to answer the Senator's question, and she was remarkably candid in her response.Senator Graham likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, first, to impress on members of the public—many of whom probably have little comprehension of the specific and appropriate role of a jurist—what the proper role of a jurist is under our Constitutional and jurisprudential framework. And he likely asked this question of Judge Barrett, second, to impress on Senate Democrats who most certainly do comprehend the proper role of a jurist but who desire to impose an improper role on our jurists, that their insinuation that Judge Barrett must do the bidding of Congress—that she owes her soul to the company store, so to speak—is wrong and wrong-headed, for such a role that Senate Democrats demand of our jurists is: one, antithetical to our Nation's Constitutional framework; two, antithetical to our Nation's jurisprudential traditions; and three, antithetical to the separation of powers doctrine. The desire of Senate Democrats to impose their will on judicial nominees was clearly apparent through their long-winded, generally imbecilic monologues and through their impertinent, often insulting queries directed to Judge Barrett. Senate Democrats' insinuation that the U.S. Supreme Court belongs to Congress, and must do the bidding of Congress, is blasphemous. It is dangerous to the well-being of our Nation. It is arrogant in the extreme, and wholly untenable.In response to Senator Graham, Judge Barrett, explained clearly and succinctly: “I interpret the Constitution as a law, that I interpret its text as text, and I understand it to have the meaning that it had at the time people ratified it. So that meaning doesn’t change over time and it’s not up to me to update it or infuse my own policy views into it.” See, Washington Examiner article, as posted by MSN news.Judge Barrett explained that the framers of our Constitution never meant for the U.S. Supreme Court to operate like Congress, and, more to the point, never intended for the U.S. Supreme Court to take its cue from Congress, advocating for and on behalf of Congress.Congress enacts laws predicated on policy choices. Those policy choices may or may not be consistent with the Constitution. If those policy choices, as reflected in law, are at loggerheads with the textual meaning of the Constitution as the embodiment of the intent of the framers of it, then the Court must step in to overturn the law. That is the solemn duty of an American jurist.That isn’t what activist Judges and Justices do and, so, that isn’t what Senate Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wanted to hear. They want docile, obedient jurists, answerable to Congress. Their frustration with, resentment of, even anger with Judge Amy Coney Barrett, was painfully evident.They remonstrated over Judge Barrett's refusal to take a definitive stand on pending legal issues and on legal issues apt to come before the U.S. Supreme Court in the future. They insisted that she acquiesce to their absurd policy objectives; demanding that she declare categorical, unequivocal, acceptance of and adherence to their pernicious, horrific Collectivist vision for the Country, one that reduces Americans to subservient cattle. This Collectivist vision is characterized by uniformity in thought and conduct among the masses; dependency on Government largess for one's physical needs; and the deliberate inculcation of confusion and fear in the masses, effectuated through a targeted campaign of systematic predation on the polity that is unable to effectively defend itself because firearms will have been universally banned.It was all on constant, ignominious display throughout the hearing. And through it all Judge Barrett remained noticeably and notably calm but alert; courteous; unruffled; even, at times, convivial. And that must have enraged Senate Democrats even more; their vote against confirming Judge Barrett to a seat on the High Court a foregone conclusion, a vote that Senate Republicans, fortunately, do not or ought not need._______________________________________________

ON THE DOCTRINES OF PRECEDENT AND SUPER-PRECEDENT IN U.S. SUPREME COURT CASE LAW

A legitimate, perceptive question for Judge Barrett—one that has been asked of previous nominees but, was not asked of her, during the hearing, or otherwise was not dealt with in any extensive appreciable way—involves the judicial doctrine of case law Precedent, referred to as Stare Decisis. The Cornell Law School website defines ‘Stare Decisis,’ thus:“Stare decisis is Latin for ‘to stand by things decided.’ In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis ‘promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.’ In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.” Democrats on the Senate Judiciary though weren't interested in eliciting profound, insightful responses  from Judge Barrett on that score, which they certainly could have obtained had they bothered to ask her to expound upon the the doctrine of stare decisis. Judge Barrett would certainly have been inclined to elaborate on that matter. But, Democrats weren't interested in that or on any other jurisprudential or juridical subject of any real significance. They were only interested in, or mostly interested in, scoring political points to help them get the feeble, frail Joe Biden over the finish line in November, and in maintaining a majority of Democrats in the House, and taking control of the Senate. If successful, that would give them all the power they would ever need "to pack the High Court" with their lackeys, thereby neutralizing Judge Barrett's seat on the Court.So caught up were Senate Democrats in the frenzy of the moment that, what otherwise could have been a profitable, informative confirmation hearing, devolved, by turns, into, one, a harangue against Trump; two, an annoying, uncalled for, insulting accusation that Judge Barrett must be a pawn of the President; three, a demand that Judge Barrett recuse herself on this, that, or the other case that might happen to come before her once she is seated on the High Court; four, incessant odious, presumptuous, recitations of  Democrat Party policy positions that Judge Barrett was compelled to suffer through; five, insulting innuendoes concerning Judge Barrett's private life and personal religious convictions; and, six, an extended, extensive Democrat Party campaign advert in support of the Harris/Biden ticket.During the hearing, Senate Democrats made manifestly and adamantly clear their fervent desire and their firm intention to raise both abortion on demand and the ACA to the level of fundamental rights, and, as if that weren't enough, they audaciously sought Judge Barrett's imprimatur on abortion and the ACA. They never obtained it. Senate Democrats also made abundantly clear their vehement abhorrence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms and of their deep-seated, enduring wish to reduce a clear illimitable, immutable, unalienable, fundamental, natural right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms—to the status of a mere Governmental privilege, to be bestowed upon and rescinded at the whim of Government bureaucrats.Had someone but troubled to ask Judge Barrett to expound on a paper she had written on the very subject of stare decisis, she would have acknowledged that resolution of Constitutional issues is not always clear-cut, thereby ameliorating, perhaps, some of the harsh criticism leveled against her by Senate Democrats. Then, too, if Senate Democrats devoted more time eliciting critical juridical doctrinal ideas from the nominee and less time delivering heated polemics and exhibiting fits and bursts of histrionics, the confirmation hearing could have been, and likely would have been, much more productive. Alas, they didn't; and, it wasn’t.In her article, written for a symposium on Constitutional disagreement, Judge Barrett laid out her thesis on U.S. Supreme Court precedent, thus:“Over the years, some have lamented the Supreme Court's willingness to overrule itself and have urged the Court to abandon its weak presumption of stare decisis in constitutional cases in favor of a more stringent rule. Stare decisis purports to guide a justice's decision whether to reverse or tolerate error, and sometimes it does that. Sometimes, however, it functions less to handle doctrinal missteps than to mediate intense disagreements between justices about the fundamental nature of the Constitution. Because the justices do not all share the same interpretive methodology, they do not always have an agreed-upon standard for identifying ‘error’ in constitutional cases. Rejection of a controversial precedent does not always mean that the case is wrong when judged by its own lights; it sometimes means that the justices voting to reverse rejected the interpretive premise of the case. In such cases, ‘error’ is a stand-in for jurisprudential disagreement.”A lesser known, quasi-judicial, principle, that of ‘super-precedent,’—was raised by Senate Democrat Amy Klobuchar, but, unfortunately, wasn't pursued. Senator Klobuchar simply brought up the principle to emphasize and to capitalize on a Democrat Party talking point. She wanted to know whether Judge Barrett thought that Roe vs. Wade was so fixed in Supreme Court precedent that it could not or should not be overruled, which is to say that it should be perceived, then, as a super-precedent.Judge Barrett rightfully demurred. The pointed question pertaining to Roe vs. Wade was altogether inappropriate, and Judge Barrett respectfully, but firmly, declined to take the bait.In any event, Roe vs. Wade may be cast in stone as some people see it, but that is no reason to believe its precedential value is beyond reasonable legal dispute.The fact remains that Roe vs. Wade was a bizarre attempt at a judicial “squaring of the circle.” Yet, it was no more than a crude attempt to create a fundamental right out of whole cloth. Still, notwithstanding that some people strenuously and indefatigably, albeit bizarrely, extol that ruling as a thing sacrosanct and inviolate, is not to mean that the ruling carries with it or should carry with it some paramount attribute or weight and must, therefore, never be overruled—only enhanced, if anything, to the point where the murder of a child is lawfully permitted up to the moment of live birth.In fact, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s law on abortion does allow for abortion up to the very moment of birth, contrary to Cuomo’s claims that the new, strengthened, New York law is consistent with Roe vs. Wade. It isn’t. Cuomo is either a liar or ignorant of the import of his own law because the word ‘abortion’ has been excised from the New York Criminal Code. The AQ has explained Cuomo’s duplicity on this issue.On the other hand, in contradistinction to Roe vs. Wade, one might ask if Heller vs. District of Columbia is super-precedent case law. Senate Democrats and other political and social progressives would argue it isn’t, predicated, no doubt, on their abject abhorrence of and repugnance toward firearms and firearms' possession, which raises an aesthetic and/or psychological argument against the Second Amendment, not a pertinent legal one.The critical legal question in Heller was whether the Second Amendment embraces an individual right.The High Court Majority held that the Second Amendment—the Majority Opinion written by the late, eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia—does embrace an individual right; and that it does so on logical, as well as legal, grounds; for were it not so, then the right codified in it would be reduced to a nullity and there would have been no point to it.Heller, unlike Roe vs. Wade, must, then, be construed as a manifestly super-precedent ruling: a ruling that resists overturning lest irreparable damage be done to the Bill of Rights itself and, no less, to the sovereignty of the American people whose sovereignty is only assured through force of arms; the principal bulwark against the inexorable slide toward and inevitable onset of tyranny.But, assuming arguendo that Heller were to be overruled—something well within the realm of possibility if the Democrats make good their threat “to pack the Court” if they gain control of the Executive and of the Senate, and a Second Amendment case then wended its way to the Court. But, for Heller to be overturned, a High Court majority would be compelled to opine that the original holding was wrong, which is tantamount to saying the Second Amendment has no meaning at all. But Democrats wouldn’t have a problem drawing that conclusion anyway. Yet, it is patently absurd to say the Second Amendment has no import. From a logical point of view, apart from the legal certainty, the Second Amendment does embrace and must embrace an individual right. So the Heller ruling that the Second Amendment codifies an individual right is dead-on correct. This brings us to Senator Dick Durbin, Democrat, Illinois, and to his singularly odd remarks during the hearing. For all that he had to say about firearms, it would have been interesting if he had had the wherewithal to broach the import of, and the historical imperative of the Second Amendment, with Judge Barrett—instead of going on about black powder muzzle-loaders as if he had any idea what he was talking about, anyway. But he didn’t. And that is just as well, for Senator Durbin obviously has no comprehensive knowledge of nor appreciation for the technical characteristics of firearms; nor does he care one whit about the sacred, natural, immutable, unalienable right of the American people to keep and bear them._____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK STATE GOVERNOR CUOMO AND NEW YORK CITY MAYOR DEBLASIO HAVE VIOLATED THE TRUST OF THE PEOPLE AND MUST BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE

MALFEASANCE IN OFFICE IS CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE

It’s a curious thing about upper class and upper middle-class liberals. They routinely support the most blatantly disingenuous, hypocritical, loathsomely arrogant, smugly complacent, and inherently sanctimonious politicians in our Nation.Whether on the local, State, or federal level, these high level Democrat Party functionaries, whom the liberal upper and upper-middle classes invariably vote into Office and whom they insist on retaining in Office, stubbornly holding onto the false belief that these politicians can do no wrong, have done no wrong, even as their Democratic Party run Cities and States implode in chaotic fury all around them.No matter how deceitful and dishonest, incompetent and inept, corrupt and depraved these politicians happen to be, politically liberal upper class and liberal upper-middle class Americans continue to flatter and slobber, slaver and drool all over them, continually dismissing their worst excesses even when those excesses are clearly pointed out to them. They are adamant in their support of them. They routinely vote for them. And they march in lockstep with them, dragging severe economic decline and ruin and as those Cities and States witness extraordinary increases in crime: compliments of their politicians.If these Radical Left politicians, and the fawning electorate that continually votes them into Office and keeps them there, deign to admit of serious problems, they are adept at conjuring up bugaboos: systemic racism, toxic masculinity, the police, Russia, white supremacists, and, of course, Clinton’s “Basket of Deplorables,” and, of course, President Trump—but never, ever blaming themselves. They will never at once admit that the chaos manifest in our Nation is a product of and is exemplified in their own fevered world vision.New York is a case study in the inexorable, inevitable disintegration of the State and of the lives and well-being of those Americans who happen to reside there. The calamity must be laid at the feet of Andrew Cuomo, a man who is presently serving a third term in Office, courtesy of the electorate that votes him into Office. And, given the lack of Gubernatorial term limits, that electorate can keep him there indefinitely, accumulating through the years, as is becoming disturbingly apparent, almost dictatorial powers over the lives of New Yorkers.What does a Cuomo reign, essentially for life, portend? Consider the “accomplishments” to date of the most progressive, i.e., radical, Governor in the State’s history:

• Abortion of human beings up to the moment of birth, making New York the “legal” murder capital of the Nation
• Creation of a set of the most draconian gun laws in the Nation
• Keeping gun stores closed indefinitely, leaving New York’s residents defenseless, during a time of endless rioting and mayhem; claiming, disingenuously that gun stores are non-essential businesses.
• Unparalleled corruption, graft, and scandal plaguing his Administration, leading to indictments, conviction, and incarceration of several of Cuomo’s henchmen
• Failed economic development policies
• Surge in crime throughout the State, and especially in New York City
• Illegal immigration policies costing New York’s taxpayers over five billion dollars a year
• Moving toward making New York a “Sanctuary State” and a haven for murderous illegal alien gang members and drug cartels to operate with abandon
• Failed Chinese Communist Coronavirus policies that have led to more deaths than in any other State

The main takeaway is that Governor Andrew Cuomo demonstrates little regard for human life. That is all the more remarkable since Cuomo was born and raised a Roman Catholic. One would therefore expect Cuomo to support and implement policies that would place a premium on the value of human life. Yet, the Governor's negative stance on abortion, on armed self-defense, and, most recently, on his handling of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus plague stand in marked contrast to what one would reasonably expect from a practicing Roman Catholic.

HOW IS IT THAT THE NEW YORK ELECTORATE CONTINUES TO VOTE FOR PEOPLE LIKE ANDREW CUOMO AND NEW YORK CITY MAYOR, BILL DE BLASIO?

This can be attributed, in part, at least, to a prevailing myth. It is one rarely mentioned but tacitly accepted as self-evident true among those who adhere to the liberal social and political mindset.Those Americans who espouse liberal social and political views consider themselves to be morally—and, no less, intellectually—superior to those Americans who espouse conservative social and political views.Liberals, as adherents of the tenets of Collectivism, claim to place a premium on the value of human life. They assume, erroneously, that Conservatives, adherents of the tenets of Individualism, upon which our Nation is grounded and through which our Nation has thrived, do not.Liberals qua Collectivists assume wrongly that those who adhere to the tenets of Individualism, as Conservatives do, are inherently selfish. That idea is false on its face. But it is a manifestation of the notion that Collectivists do not accept. It is that the responsibility for one’s life and well-being rests first and foremost on one’s self, and that the Country prospers from this inescapable, immutable fact. This idea is incompatible with their core tenets.Collectivists hold that the well-being of the individual derives from the well-being of the Collective and that the ultimate responsibility for the well-being of the Collective rests upon and is the primary function of the State, of Government. But history demonstrates both the falsity of and the futility of this idea. A Nation grounded on this idea is doomed to failure; the populace reduced to penury, subjugation, and abject misery; misery wrought by Government continually tinkering with the lives of the populace, ever suspicious of the populace. Such a society is marked by mediocrity and sameness. The populace becomes ever more dependent on the largess of Government. But where does that largess come from? It has to come from the people themselves, in the form of taxes. And it is a largess that must constantly dwindle; and a vicious cycle of dependency and ever dwindling largess comes into being.Still, adherents of Collectivism—and there are, unfortunately many of them in our Nation—continue to vote for and to support those politicians who hold to a vision of the Country and of the world consistent with that worldview of Collectivism.It is plain to the adherents of Individualism—upon which our Nation was founded, and upon which our Nation has prospered—that Collectivism leads down a blind alley, to degradation of the community, as well as to the Self and to the Soul; to physical, emotional, and spiritual deprivation.One need only look to Countries grounded on the principles of Collectivism—China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela to name a few—to see that Collectivism is bankrupt notion: one that places little regard on the life and well-being of their people.Rather than acceding to the obvious, the bankruptcy of Collectivism, the Liberal-minded Collectivist, “doubles down,” adopting ever more radical beliefs.An Op-Ed, appearing in the Wall Street Journal, in February 2020, explains this tendency of liberals to move toward the radical Left:“George Orwell noted the nervousness of people on the left when confronted by those even further to the left. This nervousness stems from leftists’ fear that they will be taken for impure in their own leftism, that their thought and actions don’t go far enough, that they are, finally, not really on the bus. In America during the 1930s, Communists mocked liberals for their weakness, and liberals worried about not measuring up. Hence the phenomenon of the ‘fellow traveler,’ someone who sympathized with the Communist Party but couldn’t bring himself to join it.”Ever apologetic, concentrating on the Nation’s past sins rather than extolling its virtues, feigning remorse for purported transgressions, these liberals are drawn to and allow themselves to be led by radical Left extremists. And so it is that Americans see Democrat politicians drawn inexorably closer to Radical Left extremism, shaped and molded by their dangerous philosophy. And many liberals, who consider themselves well-cultured and well-educated, jump, unthinkingly, on board the bandwagon; and, just as unthinkingly, dare to drag the rest of us, by rope—together with our Nation's Constitution, and our Nation's Flag, and our free Constitutional Republic—along with them on the ground behind them, leaving us all scraped and battered, in tatters and in ruin.______________________________________________________

AMERICANS MUST NOT GROW TOLERANT OF CORRUPTION AND INCOMPETENCE OF RADICAL LEFT POLITICIANS

CAN ANYTHING BE DONE TO STOP AND REVERSE AMERICA’S INEXORABLE MARCH TO DESTRUCTION?

It is much too late for many liberals who have, with exuberance, jumped on the Radical Left bandwagon. They are lost and beyond redemption. But other Americans who countenance themselves as political and social liberals, yet do not accept the excesses of the Radical Left, must rid themselves of the illusion that, were Biden to be voted into Office, America will return to normalcy and that the Radical Left agenda will be cast aside.The fact of the matter is that the electorate voted Trump into Office precisely because it understood that twenty years of Clinton, Bush, and Obama had slowly pushed the Nation dangerously toward the abyss of Radical Left Marxism. The Trump Presidency—far from moving us toward fascism—was actually a move toward normalcy: a return to our Nation’s sacred roots and to Republicanism. This is something liberals refuse to acknowledge. And, so, they feel that a course correction is necessary: a return to normalcy, when it was Trump who was returning America to normalcy. Liberals fail that a Biden-Harris (or, more likely, a Harris-Biden) Presidency is turning us back toward the trajectory that marks our doom; a jump off the cliff; driving a free Constitutional Republic head over heels into Radical Communism.

WHAT CAN AMERICANS DO TO CONSTRAIN AND REVERSE THE TENDENCY OF OUR NATION TOWARD COMMUNISM?

At the National level, Biden and Harris must be defeated in the coming election. At the State and local levels, Americans must get rid of Radical Left politicians, either through recall efforts, if that mechanism is available, or through Court action, if not.The Arbalest Quarrel has already explained the vehicle for holding New York politicians accountable.Recall efforts are not possible as the State Constitution and State Statutes do not provide for that. But State law does provide a mechanism for dealing with recalcitrant Mayors and Governors. We wrote about this in a comprehensive article posted on our website on August 22, 2020.  Ammoland Shooting Sports News reposted our article on its site, on September 3, 2020.Whether a lawsuits against Mayor de Blasio  for incompetence in Office is successful or not is beside the point. The important point of a lawsuit against these horrible politicians is to demonstrate that Radical Left politicians are not above the law. Clearly, a lawsuit against de Blasio would come as a shock to the Radical Left, just as defeat of Biden, on the National level, would shock the Liberal Left and the Radical Left, as occurred back in 2016 with the defeat of the corrupt Hillary Clinton.Similarly, New Yorkers should bring suit against Governor Cuomo. A specific charge of incompetence can be reasonably lodged against Cuomo for his responsibility in the mishandling of the Chinese Coronavirus, specifically apropos of his directives concerning New York’s nursing homes.The website KHN says Cuomo’s complicity in the deaths of thousands of frail senior citizens isn’t clear-cut. Still, Cuomo isn’t given a pass:“As the virus tore through nursing homes, killing dozens at some of them, Cuomo came under withering censure. His administration’s policy, implemented with an eye toward freeing up hospital beds for an onslaught of COVID patients, seemed to disregard the risks to frail and elderly nursing home residents who were especially vulnerable to the disease.According to the COVID Tracking Project, 6,624 people have died of COVID-19 in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities in New York, accounting for 26% of the state’s 25,275 COVID deaths. Some say the true number of deaths is much higher because, unlike many states, New York does not count the deaths of former nursing home residents who are transferred to hospitals and die there as nursing home deaths.Cuomo’s explanation for the policy — that he was simply following guidance from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — didn’t cut it. A recent PolitiFact piece examining his claim rated it ‘Mostly False.’In May, the governor amended the March order, prohibiting hospitals from discharging patients to nursing homes unless they tested negative for COVID-19.A Misguided ApproachIn the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, when New York was the epicenter and more than a thousand people were being hospitalized daily, there was a genuine fear that hospitals would not be able to accommodate the influx of desperately ill patients.Moving people out of the hospitals and into nursing homes was one strategy to help hospitals meet these needs.According to the CDC guidance cited in the earlier PolitiFact story, there were two factors to consider when deciding whether to discharge a patient with COVID-19 to a long-term care facility: whether the patient was medically ready, and whether the facility could implement the recommended infection-control procedures to safely care for a patient recovering from the virus.A document from the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said nursing homes should accept only patients they were able to care for.Long-standing state guidance is based on the same condition.Still, nursing homes didn’t believe turning away patients with COVID-19 was an option.‘On its face, it looked like a requirement,’ said Christopher Laxton, executive director of the Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, which represents medical professionals in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. ‘The nursing homes we spoke to felt it was a mandate, and a number of them felt they had no choice but to take COVID patients.’” Cuomo certainly has some explaining to do. The AP writes,“New York’s coronavirus death toll in nursing homes, already among the highest in the nation, could actually be a significant undercount. Unlike every other state with major outbreaks, New York only counts residents who died on nursing home property and not those who were transported to hospitals and died there.That statistic could add thousands to the state’s official care home death toll of just over 6,600. But so far the administration of Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo has refused to divulge the number, leading to speculation the state is manipulating the figures to make it appear it is doing better than other states and to make a tragic situation less dire.”Enough facts to support a claim of incompetence, sufficient to remove Cuomo from Office. At the very least a lawsuit will demonstrate to the Radical Left that their leaders aren’t above the law.As the public awaits the results of the Durham probe that would hopefully lead to indictments of high-level functionaries in the Federal Government, Americans should not be remiss in bringing suit against local and State politicians who deserve a day of reckoning, themselves.Americans have been much too passive and accepting of Radical Left criminal conduct. If the Republic is to weather the storm of internal disruption and ultimate dissolution, Americans must take a stand. Now is the time. Tomorrow will be much too late for that.We stand to lose everything of consequence, everything Americans down through the ages fought to protect and preserve: the right of armed self-defense, and the ability to prevent the intrusion of tyranny through the existence of an armed citizenry; the right to speak one’s mind without fear of censor and retribution; our history, traditions, and core Judeo-Christian values. We are at risk of losing our Nation’s very Soul.Our Nation is on a cusp. We, as a Nation, can either keep our sanity which requires maintaining the course correction that President Trump has set for us these past four years. Or we, as a Nation, can lose our grip on sanity by adopting the trajectory that Biden, Harris, and the Radical Left have set for us.We can either preserve a free Constitutional Republic and an independent Nation-State or we can enter uncharted waters—one that bodes ill for us: the loss of our free Republic and the disintegration of our Nation-State. Americans can have one future or the other. In a few short weeks we will know which future that shall be._____________________________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

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.