HALBROOK’S “THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS” IS MORE THAN A SCHOLARLY TREATISE, IT SERVES AS A WARNING: A NATION PRESERVED OR A NATION EXTINCT

By Roger J. Katz, Co-FounderArbalest Group, LLCMany Americans know Stephen Halbrook as a foremost legal expert on the Nation’s Second Amendment. It is a designation richly deserved, and his latest book, “The Right To Bear Arms,” couldn’t come at a more opportune and pressing time in our Nation’s history as the American people find themselves, at this moment, at a most perilous crossroads.The central theme of Halbrook’s comprehensive, well-researched book is that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is the linchpin of a free Constitutional Republic and of a sovereign people.Since the exercise of the “Right to Bear Arms” is the foundation for a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people, then the only reasonable inference to be drawn from a reading of “The Right To Bear Arms,” is that our Nation cannot continue to exist as a free Constitutional Republic with an American people as the sole and ultimate ruler of their Government, absent robust exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment.Exercise of the Right to Bear Arms is, then, not merely useful to the preservation of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic and to an American people as the Nation’s sole sovereign, it is intrinsic to and therefore essential to the maintenance of both. Halbrook knows this, and his book is a forceful voice in the assent of this point.Those forces intent on destroying a free Republic and a sovereign people know this too. That’s why they seek unabashedly and with single-minded, cold, callous intent to remove the Right from the Nation’s lexicon; to eradicate the Right from the U.S. Constitution; to erase the Right to Bear Arms from Americans’ ancestral memory.This isn’t mere supposition. It is fact. It is part and parcel of an elaborate, diabolically conceived, meticulously crafted, and assiduously implemented campaign of those elements dead set on destroying American society as it presently exists and a free Republic as the Constitution mandates. This concerted campaign of destruction is being carried out by seditious actors both inside Government and outside it. In the desire to achieve their goal, they are deliberately fomenting discord and dissension among the American people. They may talk about unifying Americans. They intend the opposite.Through a massive and unprecedented campaign of psychological conditioning and manipulation of Americans’ thought processes, mass confusion ensues. That is their intention. That is the hoped-for result. And, if they are successful, hysteria and mass psychosis will result. That will lead inevitably, inexorably to societal discord and upheaval, complete societal collapse, and thence to the dismantling, dismemberment, and dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic.Media propagandists are relying on intellectual naivety to warp, subvert, and corrupt the innate moral goodness of Americans, filling their minds with bankrupt political and social ideologies of Collectivism, Multiculturalism, and Moral Relativism, with the aim of creating in the American psyche, a marked disdain for, and even abject hatred and abhorrence of the Nation’s rich cultural history, heritage, and Judeo-Christian ethic.It is in this frame of heightened acuity to the imminent danger facing the Nation and its people, that Halbrook’s book, “The Right to Bear Arms,” takes on added importance.Halbrook captures well the imminent peril that besets the Country through the words that comprise the subtitle of his book. He poses the question:“A Constitutional Right of the People or a Privilege of the Ruling Class?” The question, although merely rhetorical to Americans who cherish the Right, would be considered pertinent to those who don’t cherish it.Framing the subtitle of the book as a question rather than as an exclamatory sentence is no accident or mere afterthought.By posing the subtitle as a question Halbrook tells Americans they have an important—indeed, crucial—choice to make today, just as the framers of the Constitution had a crucial choice to make almost 250 years ago, when, after having emerged victorious after a hard-fought war for independence from tyranny, they found themselves faced with a new, similarly arduous task: hammering out the form of the central Government of the new Nation—the form of the U.S. Government—a “Federal” Government that would not eventually transform into a hideous, rapacious tyrant like the one they fought gallantly and ferociously against, and, surprisingly, to both their British adversary and other nations, to their foe's embarrassing, ignominious, and thorough defeat.The answer to the question, to whom does the Right to Bear Arms apply, was clear enough to the founders, but it was the import of the question that lay at the heart as to why the Right was etched in the Constitution. The framers of the Constitution had to acknowledge that the sanctity and well-being of a free Constitutional Republic and the sovereignty of the American people would rest, ultimately, less in the checks and balances, placed in the Articles of the U.S. Constitution, demarcating the distinct and limited roles of each of Three co-equal Branches, and more, much more, in the incorporation of the “Right to Bear Arms” in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights.And therein rests the singular importance of Halbrook’s latest book, “The Right To Bear Arms.” The main title of the book serves not only as an apt, brief descriptor of the nature of the content of the book, but operates as the raison d’être for the author’s expenditure of significant time and effort to write it.Halbrook’s book is  well-researched, thorough, and yet markedly readable and it serves as a cohesive, coherent, and comprehensive, response to those academicians, news and media groups, members of Congress, bureaucrats, and Billionaire funded, organized, “grassroots” organizations desirous of forsaking a free Constitutional Republic, in favor of a form of Government that serves what the founders of the Republic sought fervently to avoid: the interests of privileged, wealthy aristocrats, a few “elite.” Such an idea was anathema to the founders, as Halbrook makes plain.The “Right of the people to Bear Arms” is inextricably tied to the fate of the Country.The question pertaining to whom that Right belongs that might seem rhetorical to Americans in the past, and that would seem so to tens of millions of Americans alive today, as well, who hold dear to the sacred and natural Right of the People to Bear Arms, is perceived, though, as a legitimate question to many millions more Americans: those millions who, unfortunately, have fallen prey to the endless stream and chatter of media propaganda.Those brainwashed Americans view the Right to Bear Arms as a thing archaic; old-hat; anachronistic; something that may have been meaningful to Americans living in a bygone era of our Nation’s history, perhaps, but a “Right” that has no relevance today; a “Right,” indeed, that should be thought of merely as a mere privilege at best; something to be taken as detrimental to the kind of America the destroyers of a free Republic wish to bring about if such “Right” were continued to be exercised en mass.It is to this group of Americans, especially, that Halbrook’s book, “The Right To Bear Arms,” should be required reading, quite apart from lawyers, jurists, and legal scholars; professors of American history, military history, sociology, anthropology, and political science; and those lay members of the public who do cherish the Right to Bear Arms, and who would obviously be most drawn to Halbrook’s new book.Lest there be any mistake, Halbrook makes clear at the outset to whom the inviolate Right to Bear Arms belongs. He writes,“The Second Amendment refers to ‘the right of the people.’ And who are “the people?” The term ‘people,’ was defined as ‘persons’ in general . . . and the people was defined as ‘the commonalty,’ as distinct from men of rank. . . .”The Right to Bear Arms, as understood by the framers of the Constitution, belongs, then, to the common people. It is not a thing to be enjoyed by and was never conceived by the framers of the Constitution, as a thing accruing to the benefit of a privileged few.The underlying theme of the book is thus directed to the commendable task of staking a reasonable, rational claim in whom this “Right to Bear Arms” belongs when legions of naysayers that control the Nation’s many airwaves, newspapers, periodicals, and social media organizations and enterprises, today, say otherwise.But Halbrook also makes the pertinent point that the“Right to Bear Arms” always existed in the commonalty. It isn't something arising only through ratification of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment codifies the Right to Bear Arms. It isn't the progenitor of it. The Right precedes the embodiment of it in the Second Amendment.The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood that the “Right to Bear Arms” is a PREEXISTING RIGHT of the commoner. It was never perceived as a thing “invented” by the framers. Halbrook makes this point explicitly, cogently. “‘The right of the people’ is significant. The term ‘right’ expresses a preexisting right, not a new right invented for the Bill of Rights. To declare that ‘the right’ to do or be free of something shall not be abridged, infringed, or violated presupposes that the right already exits.”But what is one to make of the dependent “militia” clause? Halbrook addresses that question as well, and, cogently and succinctly, lays to rest, any residual notion that some scholars may have, concerning the meaning of the “militia” clause as it appears in the Second Amendment. Halbrook states,“If keeping and bearing arms was a ‘right’ only of the militia when in actual service, the Framers certainly would have so stated. It would have been odd when guaranteeing ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms,’ had the Framers really meant ‘the right of the militia to keep and bear arms when authorized and activated by government.”Halbrook’s explanation might serve, inter alia, as a tacit and not so subtle remonstration directed to a remark by retired Associate Justice John Paul Stevens who had called at one point in time for outright repeal of the Second Amendment, knowing full well the plain meaning of it. Stevens has also suggested, in the alternative, that the language of the Second Amendment should be modified. In his book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” the retired Associate Justice suggests altering the Second Amendment to read, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”The Framers would be aghast at the audaciousness of anyone, let alone a retired jurist, who would suggest tampering with the “Right to Bear Arms” and who would do so blatantly, shamelessly, who would dare deny to the people—the commonalty—the Right that properly belongs to them, only; that exists inherently in them; and must remain always with them; to be exercised by them, in their individual capacity, without prior restraint, constraint, or condition. In fact, Stevens' suggested modification of the Second Amendment would simply reduce it to a nullity. This is something Stevens knows full well, and that is no doubt his intent in calling for a modification of it, in lieu of outright de jure repeal of it. De jure or De Facto repeal of the Second Amendment doesn't matter to him. He just wants to be done with it, as he fears an armed citizenry no less so than the privileged ruling elite whom he represents and whom Stevens knows can never successfully corral and thereby restrain and contain the commonalty in whom true sovereignty truly belongs and in whom the founders meant for sovereignty over Nation, alone, to remain.Much of Halbrook’s book details the history behind the Right and serves as an interesting backdrop to the imperative for it. The book makes for a fascinating read that brings us to the present day with the seminal Heller and McDonald case holdings that Halbrook also addresses.At the end of the book, as one contemplates the captivating, indisputable facts detailed in it, one comes to an understanding of why the Right to Bear Arms must belong to the commonalty and must never be wielded by a privileged few.If Americans allow the rhetoric of today to cloud their judgment, this Country will truly devolve into a tyranny of the aristocratic elite, even if that fact is masked in the emotionally charged, false, even ridiculous, rhetoric of the claimed need to repair the damage done to a “racially oppressed victim class” by a so-called “white privileged racial oppressor.” Such is the purport behind the Marxist derived “critical race theory” that the secretive powerful, privileged ruling class has induced a seditious media to thrust into the public domain and onto the psyche of Americans, and such is the purport behind The New York Times' fictional “1619 Project” that has insinuated itself into school curricula across the Nation. It is all a hoax. It is all an elaborate, fanciful fabrication, but it is one carefully cultivated and perpetuated through a dutiful, obsequious media and Congress, permeating throughout society, and lavishly funded by that very secretive, inordinately powerful and wealthy “privileged ruling class” that the founders were most concerned about. And it is this dangerous “privileged ruling class,” the ruling aristocratic elite, that Halbrook informs the reader of, and it is this “privileged ruling class,” against whom the American commonalty must forever be wary. The aim of this “privileged ruling class” is not to unshackle a purported “victim race” but rather to shackle and subjugate the American commonalty in totality, a seeming black oppressed and a seeming white oppressor alike. The founders would have seen through the subterfuge. Their descendants would do well to see through the subterfuge, too.Americans, the Nation's commonalty, must remain true to their heritage or face perpetual subjugation and stagnation; and that will happen if they fall for deceptive, emotionally charged fallacious rhetoric. The Right to Bear Arms must remain, sanctified and inviolate, a preexisting, essential Right inhering within the essence of the commonalty, a thing not be reserved to, preserved by and enjoyed by nor meant to be reserved to, and preserved by and enjoyed by a privileged few elite, who would then convert the Right to Bear Arms into a mechanism of oppression and repression, a mechanism to be turned on the American commonalty to secure the blind obedience of, dominance over, and obeisance from that very commonalty. And therein lies tyranny, regained.To prevent this, the commonalty MUST INSIST on its PREEXISTENT innate Right to Bear Arms. It will lose everything the founders have bequeathed to it, and everything Americans have since fought and died for, to keep, if they don’t insist on their preexistent Right to Bear Arms, endowed to them by the Loving, All-Powerful, All-knowing, and Morally Perfect Divine Creator.It is either this or that: To Keep the Right or Lose The Right for all time. It is THE ONE or it is THE OTHER. It is NOT BOTH nor can it be NEITHER. And there can be no compromise on this, no half measure. IT IS ALL OR NOTHING AT ALL. One sees this clearly enough, and clearly laid out, upon a reading of “The Right To Bear Arms.”____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

“THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS”: STEPHEN HALBROOK’S NEW BOOK IS A MUST-READ!

By Stephen L. D’Andrilli, President,Arbalest Group LLC.The title of Stephen P. Halbrook’s new book is the very question at issue in the case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Corlett, which the United States Supreme Court recently decided it would hear in its next term. The timing and importance of both the book and this case couldn’t have been better! See Arbalest Quarrel article on the Corlett case, titled, “Supreme Court to Take Up New York Second Amendment Case At Last!” In Corlett, the applicant for a concealed carry handgun license was denied a license for lacking “good cause” – a purely subjective requirement established by New York State’s highly discretional firearms licensing scheme. The decision, in this case, could strike down, as unconstitutional, Government infringement on a fundamental right – both in New York and in other “may-issue” states throughout the Country where similar practices prevail. What happened in Corlett could happen to you, too!It has been over a decade since the High Court ruled on a major Second Amendment case.In 2008, in District of Columbia vs. Heller, “held that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”The judicial interpretative methodology used by the Court’s majority was based on “text, history, and tradition” and the Court’s majority rejected the judge-empowering interest-balancing inquiry, too often used by liberals, which defers to legislatures to decide if various interests outweigh recognition of a Constitutional right.Two years later, in McDonald vs. City of Chicago, “the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and that the Second Amendment was fully applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.” The Court also made clear that this right is deeply rooted in the nation's history and tradition.The High Court rejected out-of-hand the City’s argument that the Court, “in effect . . . treat the right recognized in Heller as a second-class [“watered down”] right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees that we have held to be incorporated into the Due Process Clause. The Court also, as it did in Heller, “expressly rejected the argument that the scope of the Second Amendment right should be determined by judicial interest balancing.”It’s mind-boggling that some federal and state courts resist these Supreme Court holdings and render conflicting decisions, dismissing fundamental rights that are plainly stated in the Constitution, while inventing others that do not exist in the Constitution.Halbrook’s book serves as a literary weapon in support of our Second Amendment right by clearly identifying what the Second Amendment means and requires.The Corlett case and Halbrook’s book comes to us at a time when the Bill of Rights in its entirety – all ten of them – are on trial!The very soul of our Nation and the meaning of what it is to be “an American” is constantly and relentlessly challenged by well-organized and well-funded Progressive Left-Wing and outright Marxist and Anarchist groups such as BLM and Antifa.These groups promulgate and agitate for “Wokeness” and “Cancel Culture.” They demand the Nation’s institutions implement fictional doctrines such as “Critical Race Theory,” and “the 1619 Project.” They attack dissenting viewpoints with insulting claims of “White Extremism” and “White Supremacy.” They create “Defund the Police” and “Dismantle Police” campaigns. They have gone as far as infiltrating our military with their “patriot extremism.” This threatens our Country. If they weaken our military, we are undone. And they deliberately sow discord and suspicion among Americans to weaken the Country to further their Radical Left agenda.Crime is not only on the rise and has reached historical proportions in major cities across our Country. True as that is, Americans were always mistaken in their belief that they can rely on the police to protect them. The police have no duty to provide protection for individuals, except in rare circumstances.The salient function of the police is to provide general protection for the communities they serve, not to guarantee the safety of individuals within the community. They aren’t personal bodyguards for average Americans.See the following three Arbalest Quarrel articles on the role of the police and the role of the citizen on the matter of personal safety, published on Ammoland Shooting Sports News:“Can We, As Individuals, Rely On The Police To Protect Us,” referencing an article co-authored by Stephen L. D’Andrilli and David Kopel B. Kopel, titled, “Personal Safety: Individual Responsibility,” that is as relevant today as it was when it appeared over thirty years ago, in the May 1989 issue of “Women and Guns;” and, two,“Police Have No Duty To Secure The Life Of Americans From Threat Of Physical Harm;” and, three,“The Government Cannot Protect You! You Must Protect Yourself!”But now, with calls made to defund the police and reduce the number of police, the public cannot even rely on the police to provide even a modicum of general protection for the community, which is and always has been their main function. It is the police who are “handcuffed,” not the criminal element.This means that now, more than ever, people must assume responsibility for their own safety and well-being. And many more Americans recognize this, and they want to own a firearm for personal protection.This turn of events disturbs Radical Left politicians and fanatical Radical Left-wing groups as they intend to prevent average Americans from exercising their Second Amendment right of self-defense to carry a handgun, the best means available for ensuring one’s life.Radical Left-wing politicians and groups obviously don’t care about the life and well-being of individuals. That idea is, after all, contrary to the tenets of Marxism. All they care about is furthering their agenda and wielding increasingly more power and control over the American people — a desire that is insatiable.And this comes at a time when Radical Left Soros funded “prosecutors” refuse to prosecute even the most violent criminals, and release more and more of them out on the streets to prey on innocent Americans. But this, too, is part of the Radical Left agenda. It is all designed to keep the public off guard, in a constant state of bewilderment and fear, as the fabric of society unravels.Meanwhile, the police are constrained from providing even minimal community protection, given draconian policy directives and for fear, not unreasonable, that Radical Left politicians will second-guess their every move and treat them as the criminal element rather than as society’s protector.Since Radical Left politicians fear an armed citizenry more than they do hardened criminals, the public is left essentially defenseless. This is contrary to the Nation’s history and heritage, which Stephen Halbrook lays out in a comprehensive, scholarly manner.He explains clearly and convincingly the import of the right to bear arms and its practice, from its origins in England – going back as far as the early 1300’s – through colonial America, and then through ratification of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, up to the present day. His thorough analysis includes references to and explanations of important state and federal court cases.Given the danger presented to the Nation due to a rampaging Radical Marxist agenda, permeating society from the highest levels of the Federal Government to the local government level, and given dramatic increases in violence on our streets, the Nation’s need for Stephen Halbrook’s book is pressing. The material presented directs the public’s attention back to where that attention needs to be directed: toward an understanding of and appreciation of our Nation’s historical roots.The information provided in Halbrook’s book should be shared by everyone – regardless of political or ideological persuasion – all who truly value and appreciate the freedom, liberties, and rights we enjoy in America.Buy a copy and read it now!____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHAT WOULD MICROSTAMPING DO TO STOP RISING VIOLENT GUN CRIME? NOTHING!

In the immortal words of New York Yankees legend Yogi Berra, “It’s déjà vu all over again.” Anti-Second Amendment forces are at it once more, attempting to get the jump on enforcing the “Microstamping” of all semiautomatic handguns.It is a curious thing that, with rising violent crime in Democrat-controlled jurisdictions, Democrats continue to blame society’s violence on firearms. They blame rising violent crime on the police. They blame it on “systemic racism.” They blame it on “white supremacists.” They blame it on Trump. They blame it on Republicans. They “Blame It On The Bossa Nova.” The Democrats in Congress and in the States, along with the teeming mass of Progressives and Marxists throughout the Country and the seditious Press, continue to blame society’s ills on anyone and anything but where the fault truly rests: on themselves and on their own miserable, flawed, bankrupt political, social, and economic philosophy, grounded on the tenets of Collectivism.In an article posted yesterday on Ammoland, the NRA-ILA pointed to the Democrat Party-controlled State Legislature in Albany that will soon vote on three Anti-Second Amendment bills that recently passed out of Senate Committee. One of these three bills, the Microstamping of semiautomatic handguns, is nothing new. California was the first out of the gate with this when then California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, signed it into law in 2007.An odd thing about that 2007 California law, apart from the fact that it would do nothing to reduce gun crime, is that it could never be enforced because the microstamping technology has patent law protection.In June 2014, in a comprehensive article titled, “Microstamping: What Is It? Does It Work? Why Have It?”, detailing the many problems associated with the technology, the Arbalest Quarrel wrote, in pertinent part:“At the time of the publication of [Dorothy] Kenney’s law journal article, [Firearm Microstamp Technology: Failing Daubert and Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 38, Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. (2012)], California’s microstamp technology law was in effect and had been in effect, thanks – or no thanks – to then Governor Schwarzenegger’s having signed it into law in 2007. And, Kenney said, that, ‘while the Microstamp technology law is currently in effect in California, it is owned solely by a company called Identification Dynamics, LLC, which recently acquired the U.S. patent. However, the California legislature required the Attorney General to certify that the technology was available to more than one [gun] manufacturer unencumbered by any patent restrictions before it could take effect. In essence, the requirement does not activate until Microstamping is outside of patent protection but the manufacturing company has a patent on it that runs until approximately 2023. Thus far, this certification requirement has not been satisfied so the legislation is practically nonfunctioning.’ Be that as it may, on May 17, 2013, Rochelle C. East, the Chief Deputy Attorney General did certify, under California Penal Code Section 31910, Subdivision (b)(7)(A), that very technology. The Chief Deputy Attorney General, Rochelle, said in important part: ‘The California Department of Justice has conducted a review of the known available patent restrictions applicable to the microscopic-imprinting technology described in §31910, Subdivision (b)(7)(A). Based on this review, the department certifies that, as of May 17, 2013, this technology is available to more than one manufacturer unencumbered by patent restrictions.’” In that same AQ article, we also pointed out that, “Apparently, New York is relying on the certification report that the Chief Deputy Attorney General of California published, as New York drafts its own legislation, mandating adoption of microstamping technology in its own State.” An excerpt of the AQ article appeared on Ammoland Shooting Sports News on June 30, 2014; and, on September 27, 2014, Arbalest Quarrel’s President, Stephen L. D’Andrilli, delivered an address on microstamping of firearms at the 29th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference held in Chicago, Illinois. AQ posted, the day before, a summary of Stephen’s address to the Gun Rights Policy Conference.Very recently, on May 23, 2021, California Assembly Majority Whip, Jesse Gabriel, published a Press Release, stating, inter alia,“In collaboration with Team ENOUGH and the Brady Campaign, Assembly member Jesse Gabriel (D - Woodland Hills) announced new legislation today that would make California the first state in the nation to require firearms used by law enforcement to include microstamping technology.The measure, Assembly Bill (AB) 876, would build on the landmark Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) [Cal Pen Code §31910 et.seq.] and mark a major step forward in the effort to require firearms manufacturers to incorporate microstamping technology, which has long been a top priority for gun violence prevention advocates. Importantly, microstamping technology imprints unique markings—known as micro stamps—onto individual firearms as well as discharged bullet casings, thereby allowing law enforcement to connect fired casings to a particular firearm.”Is it just coincidence that New York is now following suit with its own Microstamping Bill, to be voted on in the coming days: 2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 4116 [AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to requiring semiautomatic pistols manufactured or delivered to any licensed dealer in this state to be capable of microstamping ammunition]?”Even so, this isn’t the first time that New York has attempted to enact a microstamping gun law because, in 2007, the New York State Assembly introduced its Bill 2007 NY A.B. 9819. Did New York take its cue from California, back in 2007? Probably. Did the two States work together on this? Are they still working together to pass Anti-Second Amendment legislation, in tandem? To what extent are other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions also coordinating their efforts to destroy the Second Amendment? One can only wonder just how closely these jurisdictions are working together.The 2007 Bill did pass the Assembly but failed in the New York State Senate. New York Anti-Second Amendment proponents had since tried, numerous times, but without success to add a microstamping requirement to the sale of all semiautomatic handguns. But, with the legislature now firmly in Democrat Party hands, 2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 4116 has better than an even chance of passage, notwithstanding the improbability of any New York State Republican Senator voting for it.Important note: the microstamping requirement, as set forth in the Bill, were it to become New York law, does not take effect until January 1, 2023, which happens to coincide, as discussed supra, with the date that Identification Dynamics, LLC’s microstamping patent expires. And, the language of 2021 Bill Text NY S.B. 4116 makes that fact clear. Hence, any jurisdiction that has previously enacted a semiautomatic handgun microstamping law, such as California, cannot enforce the law until the expiration of the patent on January 1, 2023. But, Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions obviously want to get a jump on that. Still, they can't be happy with the wait.We can already hear the grumbling in these Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions as they are compelled to wait several more months before they can begin to enforce this draconian and ludicrous law. ACTION NOTICE ALERT: If you live in New York, do not stand idly, doing anything. Contact your State Senator NOW and tell your New York State Senator that you oppose the enactment of this bill. Required microstamping of semiautomatic handguns should not occur now, nor on January 1, 2023 with expiration of Identification Dynamics, LLC’s patent, nor at any time in the future, so long as this Nation continues to exist as a free Constitutional Republic.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE CANIGLIA CASE: U.S. SUPREME COURT APPALLED BY ACTIONS OF RENEGADE GOVERNMENT AND LAX JUDICIARY

Nothing, absolutely nothing, defines the essence of what it means to be an American citizen more than the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood; in other words, “personal autonomy.” The sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood, i.e., personal autonomy, logically entails freedom from unwarranted Governmental intrusion over person and personal effects. ‘Personal autonomy’ is the sine qua non of what it means to be an American.The notion of ‘personal autonomy’ is embedded in and is the raison d’être of the Nation’s Bill of Rights; the central theme running throughout it, and the predicate basis for it. Without it freedom and liberty in the truest, most basic, and rawest sense are impossible.The Nation’s very existence as a free Constitutional Republic, along with the inherent sovereignty of the American people and the supremacy of the American people over Government, depends absolutely upon it.Caniglia, as treated by both the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island is a “case study” of the mishandling of U.S. Supreme Court precedent by lower Federal Courts—glaringly so. And, as a result, those lower Federal Courts erred in the decision they reached. This happenstance isn’t all that unusual, unfortunately,Too many lower Federal and State Courts—their judgment clouded by unyielding and flawed ideological, philosophical prejudices, impulses, and biases pertaining to the import and purport of the Bill of Rights—routinely misread and misapply U.S. Supreme Court rulings and holdings.This is likely intentional. Many of these Courts know exactly what they are doing but go ahead misapprehending and misapplying High Court rulings, misconstruing High Court reasoning, and blatantly ignoring High Court precedent anyway, cloaking their flawed reasoning, rulings, and logic in abstruse legalese. This is seen most prominently in the mishandling and misreading of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald case rulings. And it occurred most recently in the Fourth Amendment Caniglia case.

WHY DID THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DECIDE TO REVIEW THE CANIGLIA CASE?

It is rare for the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case, any case, for review. Petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, demand that the High Court do so.Rarer still does the Court come to a unanimous agreement in cases that it does review. Nonetheless, all nine Justices came to a unanimous agreement in Caniglia.This happenstance is all the more remarkable today, where differences in jurisprudential and methodological approaches to case analysis exist and where philosophical differences between the two wings of the High Court are so vast and so stark as to make well-nigh impossible nine Justices coming to a mutual agreement on anything.A broad gulf exists between the liberal wing and the conservative wing of the Court, and that wide divide and bright-line are mirrored in Congress and in the Nation at large.Also remarkable is the fact that Caniglia is short in length and that several Justices wrote independent concurring opinions, joining in the concurring opinions of the others, suggesting they were much of one mind.For all these reasons and for one more, that the case at bar involves an issue that goes to the very core of a fundamental right, with ramifications on several others, the Caniglia case begs for close scrutiny.Caniglia speaks volumes about the importance—at least in some instances, as in the case at bar—where the liberal wing of the High Court, attaches as much importance to the sanctity and inviolability of one’s personhood, and, by extension, to one’s personal effects, as does the conservative wing of the Court.Also, as noted by many writers, Caniglia touches upon, albeit briefly, so-called “Red Flag” laws. Justice Alito mentions this in his Concurrence, asserting: “This case also implicates another body of law that petitioner glossed over: the so-called ‘red flag’ laws that some States are now enacting. These laws enable the police to seize guns pursuant to a court order to prevent their use for suicide or the infliction of harm on innocent persons. . . . Provisions of red flag laws may be challenged under the Fourth Amendment, and those cases may come before us. Our decision today does not address those issues.”Since the liberal wing of the High Court is loath to strengthen, or for that matter, loath to preserve exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, Alito asserts his hope that the Constitutionality of “Red Flag” laws might at some point be addressed by way of the Fourth Amendment, rather than via the Second since the liberal wing is sensitive to the Fourth Amendment. He seems to direct this point to his brethren in the liberal wing. That would explain why he bothered to mention “Red Flag” laws in his Concurrence. After all, Petitioner's firearms were unlawfully taken from him, and Petitioner did raise the Second Amendment issue in his complaint at the U.S. District Court level. The Second Amendment was certainly implicated even if the Second Amendment issue wasn't addressed at the U.S. Supreme Court level.Red Flag laws are the sort of thing that the Progressive Left in our Nation and the far more extreme Marxist faction have pushed for in the last few years in their ongoing overzealous attack on the Second Amendment to the Constitution—a full-frontal assault on the Second borne from their singular, rabid abhorrence of it and of their marked frustration with it, exemplified in caustic and frenzied desperation to do away with it once and for all time. Progressives and Marxists see this as necessary because, for them, the very existence of an armed citizenry is an anathema, something totally at odds with their agenda, the ultimate goal of which is the realization of a single, all-powerful, one-world government. Achievement of that goal is impossible as long as the Nation’s Bill of Rights, and especially the Second Amendment, continues to exist.Progressives and Marxists all ascribe to the principles and tenets of COLLECTIVISM, encompassing a vast domain and array of political, social, economic, and cultural precepts all of which are antithetical to the core principles and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM, upon which the free Constitutional Republic was constructed. INDIVIDUALISM is the polar opposite of COLLECTIVISM, as the precepts of COLLECTIVISM are precisely what the founding principles and tenets of our Nation ARE NOT grounded on.The tenets and principles of INDIVIDUALISM extol the virtues and qualities of Personal Autonomy and Personal Responsibility. Morality emanates from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, loving, Divine Creator. COLLECTIVISTS deny this. They argue that morality is an artificial social and political and cultural construct, and they infer that the Nation’s Bill of Rights, are, as well, nothing more than a set of social and political constructs devised by Government that may be lawfully dispensed with by the Government that creates them.As the principles and tenets of COLLECTIVISM gain prominence and impetus in America, concomitant with control of the Legislative and Executive Branches firmly in the hands of Progressives and Marxists, the principles and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM lose prominence and recede into the background; eventually to be erased from the public's awareness. and, thence, from the public's memory.To accomplish the task of eroding the historical, cultural, and ethical foundations of our Nation, the Progressives and Marxists will leave neither Americans nor their institutions alone. They intend to use their power to encode an entirely new set of precepts in the psyche of Americans, grounded in the precepts of COLLECTIVISM. This requires controlling both thought and conduct. Progressives and Marxists intend to preclude all dissent and to corral and redirect all impulses toward an embrace of COLLECTIVISM.Progressives and Marxists argue that all behavior and thought that does not cohere to dictated Governmental norms is deviant and contrary to the running of a well-ordered society and must not and will not be tolerated. Progressives and Marxists insist that Americans must learn to behave to the New Order. Americans must acquiesce to Government encroachment in and intrusion upon all aspects of their lives.Naturally, Progressives and Marxists would be and are suspicious and jealous of those Americans who wish for nothing more than to be left alone and who insist on being left alone; Americans who cherish and revere above all else the right of the individual TO BE individual; free from suffocating rigidity of thought and conduct thrust upon them by the mindless drones of a NEW DOGMA, who compel blind, obsequious obedience to the dictates of “DIVERSITY, EQUITY” and INCLUSION—the new mantra of the Authoritarian Progressive and Marxist extremists.“RED FLAG” laws—the common vernacular for the more accurate, legal expression, “EXTREME PROTECTION ORDERS” —have become a prominent fixture in the mind of the Anti-Second Amendment, seditious Press and in the mind of other Anti-Second Progressive Left and Marxist elements in our Nation.With control of the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch of Government presently in the hands of Radical Democrats, these Progressives and Marxists have now launched a full-frontal assault on the Second Amendment, borne from their singular, rabid abhorrence and naked fear of it and from their marked frustration with it. Their recent actions, of which the American people have obtained as yet just a foretaste, are exemplified in caustic and frenzied desperation to do away with the Second Amendment altogether.Group Responsibility and, concomitantly, Group Dynamics are features of and critical to the tenets of Collectivism. Collectivism eschews the notion of personal autonomy and personal responsibility in favor of Group identity where the Self is immersed in and lost in the Societal Collective, the Hive.The impetus behind the enactment of and application of “Red Flag” laws is to quell even minimal threats to the cohesiveness of the Collective, the Societal Hive. To contain the “Threat to Self and Others” by dispossessing a person of his firearms is the purported goal of “Red Flag” laws, or so those who ascribe to their enactment say. But containing the perceived “Threat to Self and Others” is itself a basic tenet of Collectivism. For, personal autonomy is itself the basic threat to Self and Others.Progressives and Marxists believe that the Individual Self is only adequately contained when the Self is fully immersed in and merges with THE GROUP, in THE COLLECTIVE, i.e., when one loses Oneself to the Group. Only then is the threat of SELF ‘TO ITSELF’ and ‘TO OTHERS’ contained, neutralized. And, as the ‘FIREARM’ is identified with and emblematic of SELF and with “PERSONHOOD,” and with “PERSONAL AUTONOMY,” in a clear and emphatic way, the FIREARM, the “GUN,” must be removed from the “SELF.”And this brings us back to consideration of the critical importance of the Caniglia case.The truly frightening thing about the actions of the police in Caniglia, and with the lower Federal Courts’ handling of Caniglia is not the allusion to the creeping, dire influence of “Red Flag” laws on one’s personal identity and autonomy, horrible as those laws are, but, rather, that the Police didn’t even comply with those laws, and the lower Federal Courts didn't so much as suggest that they should have done so. The police didn't obtain a judicial warrant but unlawfully intruded upon Petitioner's home; unlawfully confiscated his personal property, his firearms; and unlawfully intruded upon Petitioner's right of personal autonomy, the right to the integrity of Body, Mind,  and Soul.This is particularly worrisome and distressing because Rhode Island did enact a Red Flag law. The Red Flag law of Rhode Island is found in the General Laws of Rhode Island, Title 8, Chapter 8.3—Extreme Protection Orders, Sections 8-8.3-1—8-8.3-14 et. seq.These laws lay out in minute detail:Filing of the Petition for an emergency protection order; Contents of the petition; Temporary Order Proceedings; Hearings on the Petition, including grounds for issuance, and the Contents of the Order; Service of One-Year Extreme Protection Orders; Termination, Expiration, including Renewal of Orders; Firearms Return or Disposal; Penalties; Liability; Required Notice on Orders and Confidentiality of Proceedings; Appeal; and Severability.In particular, R.I. Gen. Laws § 8-8.3-8, provides that, (a)Any firearm seized or surrendered in accordance with this chapter shall be returned to the respondent upon his or her request, within ten (10) days, when:(1) The respondent produces documentation issued by the court indicating that any extreme risk protective order issued pursuant to this chapter has expired, terminated, or has not been renewed. Respondent shall not be required to acquire any additional court order granting the return of seized or surrendered firearms; and(2) The law enforcement agency in possession of the firearms conducts a national criminal records check and determines that the respondent is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law.Rhode Island’s Red Flag laws, had they been adhered to, would have provided at least a modicum of due process, at least in respect to Petitioner's firearms, because judicial intervention would have been necessary before the Government could dispossess an American citizen of his firearms. In Caniglia, though, the Red Flag laws weren’t applied. They could have been, but they weren’t.In Caniglia, the police not only unlawfully confiscated Petitioner’s firearms but forced a psychiatric evaluation on the Petitioner. The police unlawfully invaded the sanctity of Petitioner's house; they unlawfully deprived Petitioner of his personal property; they violated Petitioner's personal liberty in unlawfully compelling him to undergo a psychiatric evaluation; and they violated the sanctity and the inviolability of one's own Self in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The police further compounded their unlawful actions by refusing to return Petitioner's firearms to Petitioner upon Petitioner’s release from the hospital the following day when he lawfully demanded the police to release his firearms to him. Petitioner was compelled to retain the services of an attorney to retrieve his firearms.  Yet the lower Federal Courts saw nothing wrong in any of this. Ostensibly relying on a U.S. Supreme Court case that they took completely out of context, the District Court and U.S. Circuit Court essentially relied on common law, and, applying it ad hoc, deprived an innocent man of his fundamental right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of both personhood and personal property. The danger of reliance on interest balancing is immediately seen in the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ assertion that,“Although an individual has robust interests in preserving his bodily autonomy, the sanctity of his home, and his right to keep firearms within the home for self-protection, these interests will sometimes have to yield to the public's powerful interest ‘in ensuring that 'dangerous' mentally ill persons [do] not harm themselves or others.’”Isn't it nice of the Court to acknowledge the right of personal autonomy, the sanctity of home, and the right to keep firearms within the home for self-protection? These are fundamental rights that the Court felt the Government, in its wisdom, could violate when “in ensuring that ‘dangerous’ mentally ill persons [do] not harm themselves or others.’”But, was Petitioner mentally ill? Hospital staff found he wasn't mentally ill, and promptly released him. And it certainly wasn’t so obvious to all the police who came to Petitioner’s house, as they didn’t think so. The facts as recited by the Court itself refutes the accuracy of the Court’s own inference:“When the officers asked him about his mental health, he told them ‘that was none of their business’ but denied that he was suicidal. Officer Mastrati subsequently reported that the plaintiff ‘appeared normal’ during this encounter, and Officer Russell described the plaintiff's demeanor as calm and cooperative. This appraisal, though, was not unanimous: Sergeant Barth thought the plaintiff seemed somewhat ‘[a]gitated’ and ‘angry,’ and Kim noted that he became ‘very upset’ with her for involving the police.The ranking officer at the scene (Sergeant Barth) determined, based on the totality of the circumstances, that the plaintiff was imminently dangerous to himself and others. After expressing some uncertainty, the plaintiff agreed to be transported by ambulance to a nearby hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.” Caniglia vs. Strom, 953 F.3d 112 (lst Cir. 2020).One might make a strong argument that Petitioner’s surprised reaction at seeing the police showing up at his house was completely understandable and rational.Justice Thomas who drafted the main opinion, laid out the serious error of both the Government and the Courts at the outset of the opinion. Justice Thomas opines,“Decades ago, this Court held that a warrantless search of an impounded vehicle for an unsecured firearm did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433 (1973). In reaching this conclusion, the Court observed that police officers who patrol the ‘public highways’ are often called to discharge noncriminal ‘community caretaking functions,’ such as responding to disabled vehicles or investigating accidents. Id., at 441. The question today is whether Cady’s acknowledgment of these ‘caretaking’ duties creates a standalone doctrine that justifies warrantless searches and seizures in the home. It does not.”The horror of the Caniglia episode is that the Government deprived a man of his fundamental right to liberty, personal autonomy, personal property, the integrity of the body, and the integrity of Self, and, all of this without application made to the Court for a warrant that even the most draconian of a State's Red Law procedures required. When the police officers arrived at Petitioner's home, in response to Petitioner's wife's request, they should have stated to Petitioner's wife that, absent a warrant from the Court, they could not lawfully compel Petitioner to undergo a psychiatric evaluation; nor could they lawfully confiscate the Petitioner's firearms. Petitioner's wife had made clear she did not feel threatened by her husband, and there was nothing in Petitioner's behavior upon which the officers could reasonably infer that Petitioner constituted a threat either to himself or to his wife.The police should have informed Petitioner's wife that if she truly felt the need to dispossess her husband of his firearms she should petition the Court for an Order. That the police failed to adhere to the law, illegally compelling Petitioner to undergo an immediate psychiatric evaluation and then confiscating Petitioner's firearms anyway, when telling Petitioner that they would not do so, and in fact could not legally do so. The actions of the police and the acquiescence of the District Court of Rhode Island and of the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Government's actions, illustrate just how far this Nation has slid on the road to tyranny.This is not to suggest that “Red Flag” laws aren't to be seen as a dire threat to the Nation's fundamental rights and liberties. They are. But if, as in the Caniglia case, the State can deny a man his liberty and property, ignoring even the constraints of bad law, as “Red Flag” laws are, as Rhode Island’s Red Flag is, and if a heedless, feckless Judiciary gives the State the Court's imprimatur to establish that such actions are acceptable, even commendable, then our Nation has found itself in uncharted, perilous waters, unlike any our Nation has countenanced before.In Caniglia, the Government operated completely outside the law, invading and violating both a person’s sacred, inviolate “Self” and his personal property. This was awful. Yet, the Rhode Island Federal Courts, rather than calling out the Government for their lawless acts, demonstrated a profuse and odd proclivity to defend those lawless actions. If Government can get away with that, Government can get away with anything, for, at that juncture, neither the Constitution nor Statute means anything. Written laws are seen as nothing more than a set of guidelines at best, to be followed or not as the Government wishes; and, at worst they are simply empty vessels existing simply to give the populace a false sense of security from the specter of tyranny looming over it, even as that tyranny has long taken root and has acquired a firm hold on the Land, and long after the American citizenry has been demoralized, degraded, and subjugated.Since this is something the Progressives and Marxists want, what they are working toward, what they are attuned to, what they identify with, what they long for, they see the annihilation of a free Constitutional Republic and the debasement of a once-proud sovereign people as a good thing, a positive thing, as they never believe in the sanctity and inviolability of the human being anyway. All they believe in and are concerned with is the well-being of the COLLECTIVIST HIVE, and they believe a dominant and domineering, omnipresent, omnipotent, centralized Government, giving marching orders to the States and to the people is the best vehicle for ensuring the well-being of the HIVE, the HERD. And a BEEHIVE or a HERD OF ANIMALS is how these Progressives and Marxists perceive the American citizenry, and an overbearing,  Government is just the sort of mechanism for keeping an unruly herd of animals or a nameless, swarm of bees in check. But this is something that the U.S. Supreme Court—all nine Justices—could see manifesting in the actions of the Rhode Island police and in the reasoning and rulings of the U.S. District Court of Rhode Island and as those rulings were affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The High Court must have seen the danger a renegade Government and a conniving or oblivious Judiciary pose to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic and to a Sovereign People when Government operates completely outside the law to deprive an innocent American citizen of his personal property and worse when that Government and Judiciary deprive a man of the sanctity and inviolability of bodily integrity and Personal Selfhood.To see even the liberal wing of the Court aghast by the actions of both Government and the Rhode Island Judiciary must give one pause.But how long will the U.S. Supreme Court retain even a vestige of independence if the Progressive Left and Radical Marxists, that presently control two Branches of Government, take firm control of the Third Branch as well?____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SUPREME COURT TO TAKE UP NEW YORK SECOND AMENDMENT CASE, AT LAST!

After an eternally long hiatus, the U.S. Supreme Court will take up a Second Amendment case. And it is only right this case should come out of New York after the Court majority’s disastrous handling of the “gun transport” case, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. City of New York, 140 S. Ct. 1525 (2020).  As you may recall, The Petitioners in the “gun transport” case challenged a New York City rule pertaining to the transport of firearms outside the home. The Federal District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that routinely find for the Government on Second Amendment matters, rejected the claim. Petitioners appealed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.Stunned by the High Court granting review, and evidently knowing the New York City law violates the Second Amendment guarantee and aware, too, that a finding on the merits against the government would have negative repercussions extending far beyond the confines of the City and State of New York, the anti-Second Amendment forces attempted to waylay a what would have otherwise resulted in a certain reversal the Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision. The State of New York amended its firearm licensing Statutes and the City amended its rules so petitioners could henceforth transport their firearms to a second home or shooting range.The gambit paid off. It gave Chief Justice Roberts just such the excuse he needed to side with the radical left-wing of the Court. But his vote wasn’t enough. Roberts must have cajoled the newest member of the Court, who at the time was Brett Kavanaugh, to play along. It worked. Kavanaugh sided with the majority but, likely having felt put upon, wrote a singularly bizarre concurring opinion, ostensibly to shore up the idea, as conveyed during a tumultuous and rancorous confirmation hearing, that he does, after all, support the Bill of the Rights. But does he? Kavanaugh’s concession, reluctant though it may well have been, gave Roberts and the radical left-wing of the Court the fifth vote, necessary to nullify a hearing on the merits which undoubtedly would have gone to the petitioners.Now, one year after the “gun transport” case was shunted aside and the Court did not take up another 2A case before the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, the High Court will take up, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Corlett, 140 S. Ct. 1525. The Corlett case is no trivial Second Amendment case if any Second Amendment case can ever be considered trivial. The implications of Corlett extend far beyond the “gun transport” case, if the Justices agreed to hear the merits of it because the issue in the “gun transport” case was directed to the import of the City’s highly restrictive “Premise Residence” and “Premise Business” handgun licenses. But, in Corlett, the High Court must zero in on the notion of “good cause.” New York requires applicants who seek to acquire a concealed handgun carry license to proffer a reason sufficient—in the mind of the licensing officer—to justify the issuance of one.Because the issue in Corlett attacks a central pillar of the New York State firearms’ licensing scheme, the New York State and City Governments cannot weasel their way out of a hearing on the substantive merits as they did in the “gun transport” case, by amending New York firearms’ laws and regulations. To do so here would require New York officials to gut New York’s dubious and nefarious firearms licensing scheme—something Anti-Second Amendment zealots would never do, as the salient issue in Corlett strikes at the very heart of government licensing of firearms: that government officials have legal, binding authority to place arbitrary restrictions on the exercise of a natural, fundamental, unalienable, immutable right.To obtain a concealed handgun license in New York, an applicant must overcome two hurdles. First, the Applicant must demonstrate he or she does not fall into a disability that precludes the Applicant from lawfully owning and possessing firearms. That hurdle is essentially an objective one. Once over that hurdle, the applicant faces another, much more difficult hurdle. The applicant must demonstrate “good cause” for the issuance of a concealed carry license. This is a subjective test.The police licensing official has substantial discretion to grant or deny the issuance of a concealed handgun carry license. And, since New York traditionally frowns on civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms, the vast majority of applications for concealed carry handgun licenses, are routinely denied. Most individuals fail to demonstrate “good cause” for obtaining a license under New York law.The applicant can, of course, appeal an adverse administrative decision to the Court. But, if the applicant expects to successfully challenge a denial in Court, that applicant must prove, to the satisfaction of the Court, abuse of discretion by the licensing official; and this hurdle, too, is difficult to overcome. Moreover, a Court review of denial is time-consuming and inordinately expensive.In Corlett, the petitioner unsuccessfully applied for a concealed handgun carry license in Steuben County, New York. The denial letter of the County judge and handgun licensing officer was general in content and condescending in tone. It read, “‘the decision [was] based upon concerns expressed in the Sheriff's investigation,’ specifically ‘concerns about your being sufficiently responsible to possess and care for a pistol’ and concerns ‘that your history demonstrates that you place your own interest above the interests of society.’”Note the barely tacit implication in the denial letter: the interests of the Hive outweigh the interests and needs of the individual. This, in a nutshell, describes the nature of the internal, taxing war now upon us: the tenets of Collectivism, upon which totalitarianism is grounded versus the tenets of Individualism, upon which our free Constitutional Republic is grounded.No less than the Nation’s Bill of Rights itself is on trial. It will be interesting to see how the so-called “Conservative” Chief Justice Roberts will rule on this case and whether Associate Justice Kavanaugh will follow Roberts’ lead.

HOW ARE MAJOR NEWSPAPERS HANDLING THE ANNOUNCEMENT?

Well, one leading newspaper, The Wall Street Journal recognizes the importance of this case: a landmark case that will serve either to strengthen Heller and McDonald or will whittle them down.Another newspaper, The New York Times, is notably and noticeably silent. Apparently, the newspaper that boasts of reporting “All the News That’s Fit to Print” doesn’t feel that the most important Second Amendment case to be taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court since the seminal Heller and McDonald cases isn’t worth a mention in today’s newspaper, and notwithstanding this is a 2A case coming out of New York. Still, the paper’s publisher, and editors, and reporters know of it, and can’t be happy about it. And, even as they would like to ignore it, at some point, they must acknowledge it.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK SENATOR CHUCK SCHUMER’S RESPONSE TO RESIDENTS’ CONCERN OVER FUTURE CONGRESSIONAL “GUN CONTROL LEGISLATION” LEAVES MUCH TO BE DESIRED

Concerned American citizens, residents of New York, recently reached out to the new Senate Majority leader, Chuck Schumer (D-NY) expressing legitimate concern over Democrats’ goals pertaining to “gun control legislation.” They looked to the Senator for clarification and for assurances that the Democratic Party has no intention of gutting a sacred, cherished, fundamental, natural right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.It was, perhaps, in the hope of hearing something new, something refreshing, something positive for a change—anything but the usual depressingly familiar contrived nonsense—that may have prompted the query to the new Senate Majority Leader in the first place. If that was the questioners’ hope, they were sorely disappointed. But give Schumer credit for something, as he did, at least, respond.In a carefully worded letter, ostensibly written with the intention to allay the legitimate fears of American gun owners that the right of the people to keep and bear arms remains an endangered species, one, indeed, on the verge of imminent extinction, under both a Democrat-Party controlled Congress and Democrat Executive Branch, the Senator merely regurgitates the usual Party-line patter, platitudes, clichés, and banalities that Americans had heard from the Democratic Party leadership ad nauseum for the past three decades, and now, as then, delivered in the same distant, smug, superficial, disingenuous, and oily tone. Schumer writes,“Thank you for contacting me regarding gun control legislation. Like you, I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution's Second Amendment.While I respect the Second Amendment to the Constitution, I believe that we have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance.I have long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms. After the tragedy at Virginia Tech in 2007, I took a leading role in passing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act through the Senate. This legislation, supported by the National Rifle Association, authorizes funds for states to compile required background data into the shared NICS database. Ensuring that this information is comprehensive and up to date will better prevent criminals from illegally purchasing and possessing firearms.I have also fought to create new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. That includes working to expand hunting grounds in NYS by creating a financial incentive to allow private landowners to allow hunters to access their property.”Senator Schumer’s letter demonstrates neither an understanding of the import of the sacred, fundamental, natural, and immutable right of the people to own and possess firearms nor does it exhibit a true appreciation for the level of concern that prompted Americans to contact Schumer.On the surface, Schumer’s letter may come across to some as polite and respectful, but beneath the surface, the letter exhibits a cold and callous impatience and an odd, almost clinical detachment, along with more than a smidgeon of condescension that detracts from what little of worth, if anything, can be derived from the letter’s content. And it is that content that we discuss here.But, before proceeding with an analysis of Schumer’s remarks, we wish to point out that subsequent to Schumer’s response to New York residents’ request for clarification as to Democrat Party’s intentions pertaining to antigun legislation, Joe Biden made abundantly clear to the American citizenry of his own intention to go after the right of the people to keep and bear arms. He did so in a carefully worded statement delivered to the Press in the Rose Garden, on April 8, 2021, and we assume that, whatever the Democrat-controlled Congress has in mind in terms of dealing with civilian citizen gun ownership and possession, those Congressional plans will be consistent with, and in full accord with, and likely coordinated with Biden’s Presidential actions.In his delivery to the Press, Biden declares that he will be signing several executive orders to address gun violence, and that he will be directing his administration to tighten restrictions on so-called ghost guns, or untraceable weapons that can be constructed from parts purchased online. See USA Today report on this. And, a CNN report on Biden’s Rose Garden address mentions that Schumer will be scheduling votes on gun legislation, demonstrating the Biden’s executive actions and Schumer’s Congressional gun legislation plans are being coordinated behind closed doors, after all.So, now after an initial flurry of executive orders and other actions rubber-stamped by Biden, the destroyers of our Constitution and Republic are, as we expected getting around, as we knew they would, to their pet fetish, attacks on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and they are doing so in a robust fashion.Biden’s remarks delivered with the dry, emotionless, mindless hesitancy, one invariably witnesses from a person in the throes of incipient and imminent mental decline, will be dealt with in turn—along with his executive actions—once he signs them, in a subsequent Arbalest Quarrel article, along with his soon to be released executive orders.We now return to Schumer’s letter. Below are the key points Schumer makes. We first list those points and then address them.

• Schumer claims to support the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, specifically saying, “Like you, I believe the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution's Second Amendment.”
• Schumer claims to believe that we—meaning all Americans— “have a collective interest in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to harm the innocent. I believe it is possible to strike a reasonable balance,” he says.
• Schumer asserts that he has “long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms [that he] took a leading role in passing the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act through the Senate” and that NRA supported this.
• Lastly, Schumer exclaims how much he has “create[d] new opportunities for law abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. That includes working to expand hunting grounds in NYS by creating a financial incentive to allow private landowners to allow hunters to access their property.”

The first thing that strikes us and at once rankles us is Schumer’s pretense of being one of us, i.e., an American who cares deeply about safeguarding the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms, when he most certainly does not.

THE FIRST ISSUE: ON THE MATTER OF SCHUMER’S “BELIEF”

Schumer says he “believes the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Constitution’s Second Amendment.” But does he, really? No!The duplicity of Schumer’s remark is betrayed by and laid bare in the letter’s verbiage as well as in his Congressional “accomplishments,” during his lengthy tenure in Congress, both as a U.S. Representative in the House, and as a U.S. Senator. All of his actions against securing and preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms are recorded for posterity.But, let us return to Schumer’s “belief,” and,  from a logical and semantic standpoint, elucidate the meaning of ‘belief,’ for believing something to be true, doesn’t make it true. Schumer says he “believes in the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment.”  That is all well and good if we take the assertion at face value, but the right of the people to keep and bear arms is based not on one’s mere belief that it is so, but on the fact that it is so.Whether one chooses to believe in the right or not, the right exists, irrespective of belief. Many “Americans” choose not to believe in the fact of the right, and loudly and endlessly say so, and with marked disdain. So, what? Does a raw belief in something or other, in the evidence of rational reflection, make it so?There are false beliefs and there are true beliefs. Beliefs that cohere with or correspond with states of affairs, a posteriori, are true, otherwise, they are false.There are also truths that follow from pure, reason, i.e., priori, as do mathematical truths and the existence of a Divine Creator.And there are beliefs derived from one’s value system that don’t reflect inherent declarative truths but say much about a person’s motivations that inform their actions.Democrats’ 180-degree about-turn on the issue of illegal immigration is illustrative of this. Democrat Party leaders, including Chuck Schumer and even a past U.S. President, Barack Obama, at the time a U.S. Senator from Illinois, clearly and cogently asserted, “We are a generous and welcoming people here in the United States—but those who enter the country illegally, and those who employ them disrespect the rule of law. They are showing disregard for those who are following the law. We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently and lawfully to become immigrants.” See, e.g., Townhall report.And recall Schumer’s own remarks on illegal immigration—a position cogently and categorically stated—but that he has since disavowed.“‘Illegal immigration is wrong, plain and simple’ Chuck Schumer said during a 2009 speech. This was during Obama’s presidency, mind you. ‘People who enter the United States without our permission are illegal aliens,’ he continued. ‘When we use phrases like “undocumented workers,” we convey a message to the American people that their government is not serious about combating illegal immigration.’” From the website, Political Insider.So, even accepting for purpose of argument, that Schumer is being honest about his belief here, however dubious, he need not stand by it, just as his early assertions about illegal immigration—delivered with an air of pomposity, false piety, and moral certitude and conviction, at the time, turned out to be as fleeting and as ephemeral as a wisp of smoke.By reducing the right of the people to keep and bear arms to mere belief, and perfunctorily asserting a belief in the right sans even a hint of conviction, Schumer is suggesting he could be wrong about his belief, and thereafter he can and would certainly claim he was simply mistaken about the very guarantee he claims he once believed in. Both he and the rest of the Party can then proceed merrily along their way to erode the American citizenry’s exercise of a fundamental right and continue to enact legislation to constrain the exercise of it. This includes legislation creating onerous costs in time and money, and further burdensome restrictions on use, contrary to private property protections codified in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Such restrictive gun legislation also intrudes on one’s privacy, in contradistinction to the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment.At the moment Schumer, and other Party leaders, demur explicitly and categorically from denying the import of the fundamental, natural, and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms, outright, but give them time.Schumer’s goal and that of others who abhor the very notion of an armed citizenry is de facto repeal of the Second Amendment, accomplished through incremental action. By slowly, inexorably legislating away the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, outright de jure repeal of the Second Amendment—is unnecessary, and at the moment given that outright repeal of the Second Amendment not only immensely difficult but empirically impossible. Once exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment has been effectively nullified by Congressional legislation, U.S. Presidential executive action, and Administrative agency rulings, Schumer and others of his ilk can give up any pretense that they support the “guarantee” of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. At that point Schumer would have no compunction of admitting his error in ever having held to a “belief” in the Second Amendment, any more than he has disavowed his earlier remarks concerning his stance on illegal immigration. But, if one can change his belief system as easily and as one changes his clothes.But, seriously, if one were to take Schumer at his word that he does honestly believe in the “guarantee” of the Second Amendment, one would expect his past actions to align with the assertion. The website “On the Issues,” though paints a different picture.In a nutshell, this is what Schumer’s belief in the Second Amendment’s guarantee has amounted to when words are compared to actions:

• Enforce gun laws on national security grounds. (Dec 2003)
• Renew assault weapons ban - no legitimate use for them. (Nov 2003)
• Penalize cross-state gun traffickers. (Sep 2003)
• Cutting record-keeping limits fosters gun sale fraud & abuse. (Jun 2001)
• Voted YES on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
• Voted NO on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (Apr 2009)
• Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (Sep 2007)
• Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)
• Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (Mar 2004)
• Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (May 1999)
• Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (May 1999)
• Close the Gun Show Loophole; restrict show sales. (May 2009)
• Ban large-capacity ammunition. (Jan 2013)
• Supports restrictions on right to bear arms. (Nov 2016)
• Co-sponsored background check for every firearm sale. (Jan 2019)

It is difficult to square Schumer’s Congressional actions that demonstrate a marked consistency for constraining the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms with his assertion he believes in the guarantee of the Second Amendment. But, this point leads into the most critical issue that Schumer's letter raises which goes directly to the relationship between the Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental Rights that the Amendments refer to. For, if THE GUARANTEE of the Second Amendment or of any one of the other Nine Amendments is predicated on, depends upon the incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the U.S. Constitution, this logically implies that preservation of—nay, the very existence of—the underlying Right depends upon or is a function of incorporation of the Amendment into the Constitution, itself. But, is that true? This certainly holds true for some Amendments—namely and particularly some of the Amendments ratified and thereupon incorporated into the U.S. Constitution subsequent to ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, subsequent Amendments that, in language, are of a procedural nature or that did not entail fundamental, natural rights, unlike those comprising the Bill of Rights. But, does that assumption hold true across the board? Senator Schumer obviously thinks so as do other Democrat Party leaders. And they certainly treat the Bill of Rights as if this were true. But this is where Schumer and other Democrats of like mind are wrong, horribly wrong. And the consequences of their horrendous error allow for, provide the rationale for, are the functional basis for, and are at the very heart of present, furious and rapid actions of the Democrat Party leadership to erase the Bill of Rights; reinterpret the Constitution's Articles, and ultimately disassemble the U.S. Constitution; and if successful, this will lead, cannot help but lead, inevitably, inexorably to a very different America: transforming a free Constitutional Republic, an independent, sovereign Nation-State, a sovereign American people into something monstrous, something hideous; something outside the bounds of rationality; certainly something anathema to the founders' vision of a Nation founded on and grounded on the principles and tenets of Individualism. And the fruits of the founders' vision is seen and clearly recognized in a Nation, that, in the space of well less than three hundred years, has grown to become the most powerful, the wealthiest, the most beneficent, morally sound, economically healthiest, and geopolitically most secure Nation on Earth; truly the envy of the world. And, yet, Democrats and their benefactors are working toward, and lackadaisical Republicans are allowing to happen, a horrific disassembling of our Nation and the enslavement of our people, and in very short order.  

THE SECOND AND MOST CRITICAL ISSUE AND MOST DAMNING EVIDENCE OF SCHUMER’S DUPLICITY: SCHUMER CONFLATES THE NATURAL “RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS” WITH THE NUMBER RANKING OF THE RIGHT, “SECOND AMENDMENT,” PRESUMING, ERRONEOUSLY, THAT THE RIGHT, LIKE THE NUMERICAL CONVENIENCE, IS MANMADE RATHER THAN GOD-BESTOWED.

Schumer, as with other Democrats, have a penchant for claiming to respect the second Amendment but those claims are belied by their actions as they proceed to systematically disassemble exercise of the right embodied in it. They seemingly avoid the duplicity, hypocrisy, and inconsistency between assertion and action by attempting to draw a distinction, albeit tacitly, between the words, “Second Amendment,” and the Right embodied therein.This distinction is aptly illustrated in a passage from a Press Release of another anti-Second Amendment fanatic, Senator Leahy—one of several he released to the public during the U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing of Sonia Sotomayor, back in 2009. Leahy states,“When the Supreme Court handed down its decision in District of Columbia v. Heller last year, I applauded the Court for affirming what so many Americans already believe: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a firearm.  The Heller decision reaffirmed and strengthened our Bill of Rights.Vermont has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country.  One does not need a permit to carry a concealed firearm, and Vermonters are trusted to conduct themselves responsibly and safely. In my experience, Vermonters do just that. Like many Vermonters, I grew up with firearms and have enormous respect and appreciation for the freedoms that the Second Amendment protects. In fact, I own many firearms. Like other rights protected by our Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is a right I cherish.”Recall this is the same man who would later hold a mock Confirmation Hearing for Judge Merrick Garland. He held a mock Hearing to demonstrate his anger over then Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnel’s decision not to hold a U.S. Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing on Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, knowing full well that Garland, along with “Living Constitution” liberal-Wing Justices of the Court, and with the pseudo-Constitutional Originalist/Textualist, John Roberts, would shred the right embodied in the Second Amendment if given the opportunity to do so.See Arbalest Quarrel article, posted on May 31, 2016.  Merrick Garland’s track record demonstrates clear antipathy toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms. See also Arbalest Quarrel letter directed to Senator Grassley, posted on the Arbalest Quarrel, as an open letter, on April 27, 2016.It is a curious thing and more than a trifle baffling to witness the hypocrisy and rank disingenuousness of those Democrat Party Leaders, like Chuck Schumer, who declare support for the Second Amendment even as their policy goals and initiatives demonstrate their transparent disdain, contempt for, and even loathing of it.But then, it need be mentioned and emphasized that Democrats never refer to the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms apart from their reference through invocation of the words: “Second Amendment.” Does reference to the words, “Second Amendment,” in lieu of the words codified in the Second Amendment or as used together with the actual statement of the Right mean something different than straightforward assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? It does.

WHY DO PEOPLE LIKE SCHUMER CONSTANTLY CLAIM TO RESPECT THE “SECOND AMENDMENT” BUT REFRAIN FROM SAYING THEY RESPECT “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS”?

Let’s go back to the opening statements of Schumer’s letter, the Senator says he believes in the Second Amendment and he goes on to say in that letter that he believes in the right to bear arms “as guaranteed in the Second Amendment.” He invariably mentions support for the “Second Amendment” but never support for the language Of the Second Amendment, codified IN the Amendment.Schumer is never heard to say in his letter to New York residents or, to the best of our knowledge and belief, anywhere else in any written or oral statement, during his tenure as a U.S. Senator or as a Congressman, that he accepts as true, and beyond refutation that“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”Is this a mere quibble on our part? No, it isn’t!Schumer and others who detest the very existence of an armed citizenry very carefully refrain from referring directly to the language of the Right, OF and IN the Second Amendment, apart from mere reference TO the “Second Amendment.” This is no accident.The delineation of a sequence of Amendments, from One to Ten, in the Bill of Rights, are manmade constructs.These constructs MUST BE distinguished from the natural, GOD-GIVEN RIGHT, itself.The fact of the matter is the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists intrinsically in man. The Right is existent in man’s very being. It is bestowed on and in man by the loving Creator. The right of the people to keep and bear arms as a natural right is not a creature of Government and is not properly to be construed as such.But it’s easy for a person to mistake a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT for a MANMADE RIGHT, by equating the words, ‘SECOND AMENDMENT,’ a manmade construct and an obviously mutable and destructible construct, with the RIGHT, itself, contained in the AMENDMENT, which is immutable and indestructible.The importance of this distinction has legal and logical consequence and is not to be trivialized.Recall for a moment Biden’s assertion during his Rose Garden address, on Thursday, April 8, 2021, to the Press. Biden asserts, at one point, as his speechwriters required of him, that,“No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute. You can’t yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.” From Fox news story, titled, “Biden on the Second Amendment: ‘No amendment is absolute.’” It is one thing to say an “AMENDMENT” to the U.S. Constitution is not absolute, just as no “ARTICLE” in the U.S. Constitution is absolute. But this only means the Articles of the Constitution as with a delineation of numerical “Amendments” are both manmade constructs. Indeed some Amendments to the Constitution, such as the Amendment prohibiting alcohol, could be and were subsequently repealed. But, then, the prohibition on alcoholic beverages was never a natural, God-Given right.The RIGHTS comprising the Bill of Rights are NATURAL—preeminent and preexistent—and, so, are not subject to lawful Governmental manipulation that would transform a FUNDAMENTAL, RIGHT into a mere IMPERMANENT GOVERNMENT BESTOWED OR GOVERNMENT RESCINDED PRIVILEGE.Thus, while it is true that the Second Amendment, perceived as an enumeration in a table, didn’t exist prior to ratification of the Bill of Rights, as Biden asserts, this isn’t to mean the Right, itself, to which the Second Amendment refers didn’t exist prior to the Amendment. The Amendment serves merely as an explicit codification of the Right that always DID exist, just as the Divine Creator DOES ALWAYS EXIST.In that regard, recall that Biden’s writers did not have Biden assert, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” isn’t absolute. Why is that? Biden’s writers and handlers didn’t allow Biden to say that because the right itself, bestowed on Man by the Divine Creator, cannot lawfully be modified, abrogated, abridged, denied, or ignored. The Right, itself, IS ABSOLUTE.On some level, the writers of Biden’s Rose Garden speech must be aware of the distinction between the RIGHT, as DIVINE LAW, and the descriptor that merely alludes to it, because they know the framers understood the Rights, they codified in the BILL OF RIGHTS, are FUNDAMENTAL, and, by that understanding and, by that logic, must be construed as ABSOLUTE, even if Biden’s handlers, who prepared his Rose Garden address to the Press don’t accept the truth of the idea of fundamental, preexisting, natural, God-given Rights.Still, the Bill of Rights is grounded on that idea, and that idea is the foundation of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic and of the sovereignty of the American people and of the bedrock principles of Individualism.But then, what are Americans to make of the inexorable whittling away of a fundamental Right and an American’s absolute right to exercise that Right?Any action to dilute a God-Given Right by Government, on the ground of arguably ostensible pragmatic necessity must be carefully considered from the perspective of the possible deleterious ramifications and effects of that Governmental action on the sanctity and inviolability of the individual Soul, as a person’s autonomy proceeds from and is governed by NATURAL LAW, not from MANMADE LAW. Pragmatic necessity may dictate restrictions on exercise of fundamental rights, but such pragmatic necessity is by definition unlawful, as contrary to Divine Law. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS DOESN’T EXIST BECAUSE OF OR FOLLOW FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT. THE RIGHT EXISTS INDEPENDENTLY OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, i.e., THE RIGHT EXISTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT MANMADE CONSTRUCT. The Second Amendment, as a codification of Divine, Natural Law, ISN’T identical to, synonymous with, or a substitute for the Divine, Natural Law itself.Schumer, Leahy, and others mistakenly assume that since the right of the people to keep and bear arms was placed into a manmade Document, the BILL OF RIGHTS, and given a number—2—along with other RIGHTS that were each given numbers and also placed into that manmade Document, this must mean that the BILL OF RIGHTS, as with the ARTICLES of the CONSTITUTION, and all subsequent Congressional statutes, agency rules, and executive actions, orders, and edicts are to be construed as nothing more than manmade creations, subject to modification, or abrogation. So, they say. But such a notion is both false and dangerous.Such a notion is false because—and it bears repeating—fundamental Rights do not emanate from man; they emanate from God. And the notion is dangerous because it undercuts the very structure of our free Constitutional Republic that is predicated on the sovereignty of the American people over Government.Schumer and Leahy and others mistake the INSUBSTANTIALITY of the mere words, ‘Second Amendment,’ for the REALITY of what it is that the words denote: THE SUBSTANTIAL, FUNDAMENTAL, IMMUTABLE, ILLIMITABLE, ETERNAL, INDESTRUCTIBLE, NATURAL, DIVINE RIGHT, ITSELF. This is no small matter to reflect upon for it informs every action people like Schumer and Leahy and others take as they attempt to enact legislation to erode Natural Rights that are not lawfully susceptible to erosion precisely because Natural Rights aren’t themselves manmade laws.AMERICAN HISTORY BEARS OUT THE SINGULARLY IMPORTANT IMPERATIVE: NATURAL RIGHTS MUST NOT BE TOYED WITH.The words, ‘Second Amendment,’ as with descriptors for the other fundamental, natural, unalienable Rights, the First, Third, Fourth, and so on—as the framers of the U.S. Constitution knew full well—are merely an acknowledgment of the Divine nature of the Right to which the descriptor alludes; it is that and nothing more than that. American History reinforces the truth of this statement.Among the framers of the U.S. Constitution, there were two factions: The Federalists and the Antifederalists. But, unlike Chuck Schumer and other politicians today, the Constitution’s framers—whether they were Federalist or Antifederalist—all recognized the existence of a body of basic, natural, Rights that exist in Man, independently of Government. Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democrat Party leadership do not recognize the existence of natural Rights that predate the Constitution and that preexist in Man.The Federalists felt a written document, delineating God-Bestowed Rights—as codification of natural law—need not and ought not to be codified. They felt codification of natural law is at best redundant and therefore unnecessary and, at worst, self-defeating because codification of natural law might be perceived as self-limiting in the sense that only those natural laws expressly stated could lawfully be exercised by Americans as only those rights, explicitly delineated, would be recognized by the Federal Government.The Antifederalists disagreed with the reasoning of the Federalists and, for Americans who truly cherish a codification of natural law, it is fortunate that the Antifederalists won the day.The Antifederalists realized that failure to codify natural law could very well lead future Government servants to deny the existence of natural law if such law weren’t explicitly set down and incorporated into the Constitution.Redundancy was of little concern to the Antifederalists. But if a document delineating natural law were to be perceived as self-limiting, as the Federalists rightfully feared and as they posed to the Antifederalists, that would be problematic, but it was a problem easily circumvented through the addition of language in the Bill of Rights.The Antifederalists resolved the problem by use of a catch-all Ninth Amendmentthat reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”Curiously, many legal scholars to this day give little credence to the Ninth Amendment precisely because they eschew the notion of natural law that has not been expressly articulated in the Bill of Rights, demanding therefor that natural law be delimited to those Rights explicitly stated and enumerated and not allow for others. But this just goes to show the Antifederalists’ concern over and demand for a codification of natural law was pertinent and prescient. Imagine if the Bill of Rights had not existed. You certainly wouldn’t hear people like Senators Schumer and Leahy claiming the existence of a natural right to keep and bear arms, would you?Schumer and Leahy only acknowledge the Right because they are compelled to do so, and they are compelled to do so precisely because of the law’s explicit delineation in the Bill of Rights. But, because they invariably refer to the manmade Descriptor of the natural God-given Right, either mistaking the Descriptor for the Right itself or doing so intentionally so as to deceive the public, they conclude, whether intentionally deceptively so or not, that the Right, like the Descriptor, ‘Second Amendment,’ is manmade. In this, they are either, unbeknownst to themselves, victims of logical error, or they know are cunning liars.But, whether through honest mistake or devious, diabolical deception, they plow ahead anyway. Thus, they have no compunction against enacting more and more restrictions on the exercise of the Right of the people to keep and bear arms embodied in the Descriptor, the Second Amendment, with the goal of eventually legislating the Amendment out of existence, and with that, denying to Americans exercise of a fundamental, natural, immutable, and indestructible Right that Government cannot lawfully deny Americans from exercising.But, because the Right is cast as an Amendment to the Constitution rather than as a mere Statute enacted by Congress, they recognize the difficulty in erasing the Right outright, much as they would like to do so. They are left to the need to nullify it slowly, incrementally, through Statute. This they have done and continue to do and that distresses them to no end.

THE THIRD ISSUE: SCHUMER’S OFFER OF PROOF OF SUPPORT FOR THE “SECOND AMENDMENT” IS DUBIOUS

In his letter Schumer says he backed the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 that was supported by the NRA. In fact, Schumer is correct that the NRA-ILA did support this Act, which amended NICS to provide federal funding for the maintenance of up-to-date mental health records in the national background check system. And it isn’t necessary to take Schumer’s word for this, because NRA’s argument for supporting this legislation is found on its own website.But, Schumer also makes much of the fact, in the letter that he has “long advocated for faster and more accurate background checks so legal purchasers can receive their guns quickly while ensuring criminals do not illegally purchase and possess firearms.” Fine. But now let’s jump ahead to the present day; and we see Democrat Party attempting to do what Schumer, in his letter, congratulates himself for not doing: creating roadblocks for American gun owners, to delay completion of firearms transactions; to create unnecessary paperwork, more time and monetary expense, and to create a federal firearms’ registry. See article in Second Amendment Daily News.If Schumer is being honest in his remarks to New York residents, as set forth in his letter, he would not support House bills, H.R. 8 and H.R. 1446, or any antigun bills like them that might happen to wend their way to the U.S. Senate.And we know that Senator Schumer is himself taking the lead in advancing further gun control measures in the Senate. In particular, we wish to ask Schumer why, in fact, he is working toward enacting more draconian gun background checks since he argues in his letter that he has already taken care of that issue. See recent Hill article:“Majority Leader Chuck Schumer pledged the Senate will take on gun control measures in the wake of Monday's Boulder, Colo., mass shooting that left 10 people dead, including a police officer.Schumer, D-N.Y., said the Senate will specifically move to expand gun background checks—an effort that has long evaded passage in the upper chamber.” It’s one thing to prevent criminals from having access to firearms. But why is it that the vast majority of antigun legislation targets tens of millions of average responsible, rational law-abiding citizens? Schumer dodges that question in his letter and dodges, as well, talking about his long history of promoting and supporting extraordinarily restrictive gun laws, impacting on every American but the career criminal.But let’s look closer at home at what Schumer is doing OR NOT DOING on behalf of his own native New Yorkers on familiar New York City home turf from whence he sprang.

THE FOURTH ISSUE: SCHUMER DOESN’T EXPRESS AN INTEREST IN PROTECTING THE CITIZENS OF HIS OWN HOMETOWN EVEN AS HE PROFESSES TO CARE ABOUT NEW YORK STATE

What is Schumer doing to get the Marxist Mayor, de Blasio to get off his duff. If de Blasio won’t allow the police to provide protection for the City, why doesn’t Schumer utilize his considerable clout as Senate Majority Leader to demand that de Blasio see to it that New York’s residents can at least be allowed, what natural law demands: the right to protect one’s own life and that of one’s family. Schumer has done nothing. The website, hotair has this to say about the problem New York residents have in attempting to obtain a firearm for self-defense.“Nervous residents of New York City (at least those who haven’t already fled the area) have been signing up in increasing numbers for firearms permits, many for the first time in their lives. Given the conditions on the ground there, that’s understandable. But making the decision to take advantage of your Second Amendment rights and actually laying your hands on a firearm legally are two very different things in the Big Apple these days. The New York Post is reporting that there’s a significant backlog in permit applications this season, and among those that do manage to get processed, nearly nine in ten are denied. The NYPD’s License Division hasn’t had too much to say about it, but local gun dealers suspect that this isn’t entirely accidental, while a variety of factors have led to the surge in demand.The Big Apple’s staggering surge in shootings amid the COVID-19 pandemic has led nearly 9,000 terrified New Yorkers to apply for gun permits — but the NYPD has signed off on fewer than 1,100, The Post has learned.The 8,088 applications for first-time pistol and rifle permits submitted since March 22 — when coronavirus-related restrictions went into effect — represent a threefold-plus increase over the 2,562 submitted between March 22 and Dec. 31, 2019, NYPD statistics obtained by The Post this week show.But only 1,087 applications were approved, far less than the 1,778 granted during the same period last year, according to the official data.There are two primary aspects of this phenomenon to consider, those being why approval rates are down and why demand is so high. The first one is the more disturbing of the two.Last year, between March and December, the gun permit approval rate was close to 70%. But during the same period in 2020, the approval rate is less than 14 percent. You might be tempted to believe that these figures represent a lot more people applying who turn out to have criminal records or other disqualifying factors, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Some (probably larger) percentage are being denied, of course, but a lot of the applications simply aren’t being processed. One reason is that many officers from the NYPD’s License Division have been pulled off and sent to other assignments during all of the riots and unrest. But some cops believe that this slowdown is being at least partly driven from the top down.The cause for the surge in demand seems more obvious. Shootings and murders are up significantly in the city, as are robberies. There are still regular massive gatherings in the streets and you never know when the “peaceful protesters” are going to suddenly turn out to be an angry mob that’s trying to drag you out of your car and beat you. People are frightened and looking to defend themselves if they can.In fact, sources inside the NYPD have noted that this slowdown in permit approvals isn’t something that just cropped up recently. It began when the George Floyd protests kicked off in the spring.A source familiar with the situation said would-be gun owners began flooding the department with permit applications shortly after the May 25 police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which sparked widespread protests, including in the Big Apple.Some of the local demonstrations led to riots and looting, including the ransacking of Macy’s famed flagship store in Manhattan’s Herald Square.No matter what combination of factors is driving this issue, it’s unacceptable. Many of the people who have seen their applications simply disappear into the void have no criminal record should easily have been approved. The Post spoke to owners of jewelry stores that have been robbed repeatedly during the riots who have waited all year for a permit and are unable to get one. But City Hall doesn’t seem the least bit interested in investigating and resolving this problem.”Schumer says not a word about this perplexing, confounding, and outrageous problem on his own home turf. Instead, Schumer concludes his letter by saying,“I have also fought to create new opportunities for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to use guns. That includes working to expand hunting grounds in NYS by creating a financial incentive to allow private landowners to allow hunters to access their property.”Why should this even be required? It shouldn’t even register on the psyche. The right of private landowners to allow hunters access to their own property should follow from the natural right of a person to have exclusive use and enjoyment of his own property, anyway, both realty and personalty. To say that he will provide legislation to allow this implies that a person doesn’t have the right of enjoyment of his own property unless or until the Government deigns to permit exclusive use and enjoyment of one’s property. That is bizarre in a free-market Capitalist economy, as an extension of a free Constitutional Republic that extols the right of individual ownership of and enjoyment of one’s property, free from Governmental interference.In any event, while Schumer demonstrates an apparent desire to assist human beings to hunt animals on their own property—which they ought to be able to do anyway—he demurs from allowing human beings the effective ability to protect themselves from two-legged animals that prey on innocent humans on the streets of New York City and that threaten the innocent in their own homes and businesses.Good going Chuck! It’s nice to see that you have a good sense of just where your priorities need to be!____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

A DUAL COVERUP: SENILITY OF A PRESIDENT AND THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY BY A SON

What’s going on in our Country? Biden’s administrative staff attempts to cover up Biden’s serious cognitive decline with the ferocity of a mother hen guarding her chicks, and Biden’s secret service detail operates like strong-arm enforcers of an old-world crime syndicate to cover up his son’s illegal possession of and further misuse of a firearm.Recall that, back in December 2020, before shadowy powerful Globalist elites worked their sorcery to transform a clear Trump U.S. Presidential victory into a weird defeat—YE OLDE SWITCHEROO—Joe Biden appeared on Stephen Colbert’s comedy show, to defend his son Hunter who had some explaining to do regarding his taxes.“President-elect Joe Biden defended his son Hunter Biden amid an ongoing investigation into the younger Biden’s taxes.During an interview with Stephen Colbert that aired Thursday night, Biden sat alongside his wife, Dr. Jill Biden, and expressed ‘confidence’ in his son.In raising the subject of Hunter Biden, the liberal comedian Colbert claimed to Joe Biden that ‘the people who want to make hay in Washington are going to try to use your son as a cudgel against you.’‘How do you feel about that?’ Colbert asked. ‘And what do you have to say to those people?’‘I have, we have, great confidence in our son,’ Biden responded. ‘I am not concerned about any accusations being made against him. It's used to get to me. I think it’s kind of foul play but look, it is what it is and he’s a grown man, he is the smartest man I know. I mean, from a pure intellectual capacity – and as long as he’s good, we’re good.’” Fox News “Hot Topic” report, published, December 17, 2020 “As long as he’s [Hunter’s] good, Biden is good,” so said the present “President of the United States back in December 2020. Jump ahead to March 2021. It is quite apparent that neither Hunter Biden, nor his father, Joe, is doing “good.”“The President,” Joe Biden,” for his part, is doing exceedingly poorly. This we know; it is an open secret. Joe Biden obviously has acute and chronic dementia, probably Alzheimer’s, which is the most prevalent form of dementia, according to the CDC.And that sad excuse for a Press Conference, delivered on March 25, 2021, didn’t allay concerns about Biden’s precipitous mental decline. It only reinforced our suspicions about Biden. Look at his eyes when he speaks: vacant; indicative of Alzheimer’s disease. And this is the “President of the United States?” He’s an apt symbol of our Nation’s incipient decline under the Democrats and Bush Republicans.Juxtapose Donald Trump’s commanding presence before the cameras with Biden’s sorry performance at his first Press Conference, and perhaps his last; tame, lamblike; and one cannot but conclude that Biden has neither the bearing and character of a leader of a proud and powerful Country such as ours, nor the physical stamina and mental acuity to stand firm against our Nation’s competitors and enemies: just what the neoliberal Globalist elites and Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists wanted, and what the American people now have.Take a look at this October 2020 article in the New York Post:“Former White House physician Ronny Jackson told reporters Tuesday he was ‘convinced’ that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden, 77, does not have the cognitive ability to be commander-in-chief. . . .”“As a citizen, not as a candidate running for Congress, but as a citizen of this country, I’ve watched Joe Biden on the campaign trail and I am concerned and convinced that ‘he does not have the mental capacity, the cognitive ability, to serve as our commander-in-chief and our head of state,’ he went on.”See also article from the Alzheimers Association. See also Webmd and health digest. Health digest points out that: “According to the Alzheimer's Association, the disease progresses as time passes, with symptoms of memory loss and recall of even simple tasks growing worse. There is no cure, and treatment focuses on managing symptoms and slowing the progression.”

HOW TO DEAL WITH A PERSON WHO HAS ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Notice how the Press and staff indulge Biden, so as not to upset him; how deferential they are toward him. But then, that is the key when dealing with a person who suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. That is how a caregiver should treat a person suffering from that debilitating mental disease. Indulge that person. Put that person at ease. Never anger or confuse that person. And that is what Biden’s handlers and the Press do. See article in better health while aging: Surviving Alzheimer's Managing Difficult Behaviors Cheatsheet“Put the person with dementia's feelings first. He or she cannot change; YOU have to change, or you have to change the immediate environment.  Collect yourself (no matter how irritated you are). People with dementia are sensitive to others' moods and will pick yours up and mirror it. So take a deep breath. Count to 3. Or do a silent scream in the bathroom. Remind yourself, ‘It's not him/her. It's the dementia!’  Avoid making the mistake of assuming they'll forget your angry moment. Although it's true that people with dementia tend to quickly forget what was said, the emotional impact of an encounter (negative OR positive) lasts much longer! Do: Approach slowly and from the front. You're less apt to startle, confuse, or provoke. Play back the person's emotions and ask questions: ‘You sound upset.’ ‘You look sad. Can I help?’ ‘I know this bothers you. Let's see what I can do.’  Try developing a go-to mantra for soothing: ‘I'm here.’ ‘Everything's OK.’ ‘Not to worry, love.’  Make your body language match your words. Avoid sighing or rolling your eyes. Smile, nod, use a friendly tone, relax your posture. Unspoken factors convey more than half of any message. Try touching an arm or shoulder.” Golden Carers say that cue cards are a good mnemonic aid for those suffering from early-stage Alzheimer’s.“Cue Cards are inexpensive to make and may be tailor-made to the needs of each individual. They are a feasible alternative to hi-tech, expensive tools.

• Cue cards should be in black and white and with or without pictures depending on the individual.
• Cue cards should be written in a large font (as large as the need be) so the individual is able to read them easily.
• Cue Cards should contain words or short sentences.
• Stick to one medium: stick figures, line drawings, cartoon-like, or pictures (Remember that people with advanced dementia are better off with black & white cue cards).
• Laminate for endurance.” 

EVIDENCE THAT SOMETHING IS VERY MUCH AMISS IN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE ADMINISTRATION ISN’T TO BE REFERRED TO AS THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION ANY LONGER, BUT AS THE BIDEN-HARRIS ADMINISTRATION

Apart from Biden’s odd reference to Kamala Harris as “The President,”—which might have been discussed in closed-door meetings with Biden, suggesting that Biden will soon be stepping down, which might also explain why the mentally confused Biden mistakenly referred to Harris as “the President”—the public recently learned that the “Biden Administration” is now, officially, the “Biden-Harris Administration.” And, during the Press Conference, as if to allay any concern about Biden's precipitous and obvious mental decline, Biden says he plans on running for a second term in 2024. The question about his plans came from one of the friendly Press reporters who likely was tasked or pegged beforehand, in this highly orchestrated Press Conference, to ask that very question, even as Biden, through his surrogates had said, back in December 2019, according to US News and World Report, that Biden would only serve one term. And this term will probably be abruptly curtailed in the next few months, given the rapidity of Biden's decline, which probably is due in great part to the stress of merely sitting as a cardboard cutout in the Oval Office, as Biden is given little to do except, occasionally, to come before the public to mouth a few nonsensical platitudes and false pronouncements in attempt to placate a skeptical American public. CBS News reports,“President Joe Biden said Thursday that it is his ‘expectation’ to run for reelection in 2024. The president was asked if he planned to run for a second term during his first White House press conference, which took place 65 days after he took office.‘My plan is to run for reelection. That's my expectation,’ Mr. Biden said in response to a question from CBS News chief White House correspondent Nancy Cordes. The president added that he ‘would fully expect’ that Vice President Kamala Harris will remain on the presidential ticket, and called her ‘a great partner.’” Biden's handlers are working on the fly to change the structure of the Administration to reflect Biden's swift mental decline and to create the illusion of continuity. The Biden  Administration thus devolves into the Biden-Harris Administration.BPR reports,“The White House has now begun officially referring to President Joe Biden’s administration as the “Biden-Harris administration” and has instructed federal agencies to begin referring to it as such as well.”And then what? Is the Biden-Harris Administration to devolve into the Harris-Biden Administration? It is more than just a little disconcerting to hear this. This state of affairs isn’t good for the Country. It isn’t good at all. This isn't something that can be made palatable to the public. For, never before in our Nation’s history has the President of the United States officially disclosed the express sharing of power of the Executive Branch. In fact, this sharing of power can’t ve lawfully be done, even as it becomes plain, that Democrats do not respect the U.S. Constitution, but twist and contort and distort to cohere with their ultimate goal and that of their Globalist puppet masters: transforming a Free Constitutional Republic into a totalitarian oligarchical dictatorship, to be merged at some point into a much larger transnational governmental scheme. But for the nonce it is clear that, so long as we have a United States Constitution, there can be no lawful sharing of power in the Executive Branch of Government. The Constitution is explicit about this.The first sentence of Article 2, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, sets forth succinctly and categorically that, “The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” There is only one Chief Executive of our Nation and only one who can serve at any one time. If the Chief Executive cannot serve, for one reason or another, then the Vice President of the United States serves in his stead. That is the salient reason why the Constitution makes specific reference to a Vice President, who then presides over the Executive Branch if or when the President is unable to continue serving as President. Thus, The President is either in or he’s out. The President either serves as President or he doesn’t and steps aside. Now, this is not to say that the President cannot delegate power. Indeed, that is the principal purpose of having a “principal officer in each of the executive departments,”  i.e., Cabinet Level officers, as the Constitution also provides for in Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.”But, Vice Presidents, themselves, traditionally have had little power. The Constitution does not even suggest that they have an advisory role, as advisory roles go to Cabinet-level officers of the Executive Branch of Government, as the Constitution provides for in Article 2, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Consider these quotations from “Everyday Power” that exemplify the lack of a defined role for the person who serves as Vice President during the tenure of the President:

• “I do not propose to be buried until I am dead.” — Daniel Webster, turning down the vice presidency in 1839

• “Being vice president is comparable to a man in a cataleptic fit; he cannot speak; he cannot move; he suffers no pain; he is perfectly conscious of all that goes on but has no part in it.” — Thomas R. Marshall, vice president under Woodrow Wilson

• “I am vice president. In this I am nothing, but I may be everything.” — John Adams

• “The second office of this government is honorable and easy, the first is but a splendid misery.” — Thomas Jefferson in 1797, when he was vice president

• “I would a great deal rather be anything, say, professor of history, then vice president.” — Theodore Roosevelt

• “I have no interest in it. Might very well turn it down, indeed, and probably would.” — Al Gore

• AND THIS ONE FROM JOE BIDEN: “I never had a boss. I don’t know how I’d handle it.” – Joe Biden, when asked in about the possibility that they might select him to be Barack Obama’s running mate.

The President can, of course, delegate power to his Vice President as he sees fit, as the U.S. Constitution is silent about this, and delegation of power to the Vice President isn't inconsistent with the dictates of Article 2. Under the Bush Administration, George W. Bush, the 43rd President of the United States, who served from 2001 through 2009, did delegate substantial power to his Vice President, Dick Cheney. That was probably the first time in American history that a Vice President actually exercised considerable power in the capacity of Vice President.It was common knowledge that Cheney wielded considerable power within the Executive Branch, as the left-wing periodical, “the Nation” pointed out, going so far as declaring that Cheney was the most powerful Vice President in the Nation’s history. Be that as it may, it was understood that, despite wielding substantial power, Cheney was still only the Vice President. It was George W. Bush, not Dick Cheney who always appeared front and center before the public, declaring the decisions that he, as U.S. President made, as well that should be for it was George Bush, not Dick Cheney, who was elected U.S. President; and it was clear to the public that George Bush was in fact “THE” U.S. President. There was no sharing of power between the two to even suggest that there existed a Bush-Cheney Administration.  THE U.S. CONSTITUTION ABSOLUTELY FORBIDS THE SHARING OF U.S. PRESIDENTIAL POWER IF THAT IS TO MEAN THAT THE VICE—PRESIDENT OR ANY CABINET LEVEL OFFICIAL MAKES DECISIONS CONTRARY TO THE WILL OF OR IRRESPECTIVE OF THE WILL OF THE U.S. PRESIDENT.DELEGATION OF SOME ACTIVITIES OF THE PRESIDENT? YES, AS THE PRESIDENT FROM TIME TO TIME SO WISHES. BUT SHARING OF POWER? NO! ABSOLUTELY NOT!But at this moment in time, it is fair to ask whether the statement by “the Nation” publication, referred to supra is still true, now that Harris and the Cabinet have taken over the basic functions of the Presidency and that Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are now truly sharing power, i.e., sharing the decision-making authority as the official categorization of a “Biden-Harris Administration” clearly suggests and is obviously meant to suggest.

IF BIDEN’S COGNITIVE ACUMEN IS INDEED IMPAIRED, AS CLEARLY IT IS, DOESN’T THE AMERICAN PUBLIC HAVE A RIGHT TO BE TOLD THAT, AND SHOULD NOT BIDEN IMMEDIATELY STEP DOWN?

Back in March 2017, The Hill pointed out that,“Information that could be damaging is often withheld from the public. When Woodrow Wilson suffered a stroke, his wife and physician covered up his condition rather than installing a designee to assume the powers of the office. FDR’s disability from polio was masked; questions still linger over whether Ronald Reagan’s Alzheimer’s disease had begun to affect him in his second term.It would seem that the public’s right to know would outweigh the right to privacy of the candidates, which begs us to wonder if there should be a standard procedure to determine and reveal the medical history and status of presidential candidates, including their mental health.The same logic applies to determining when a sitting president is unfit to serve. The 25th Amendment of the Constitution provides for succession if the President dies, resigns or is unfit to discharge her/his duties. However, there are no specific criteria to define the latter, an issue that is further compounded when it concerns mental disability.The 25th Amendment has been invoked six times since its ratification, from reasons ranging to the scandals of the Nixon administration to presidents who underwent medical procedures requiring general anesthesia. No one would argue with the possibility of a disabling presidential infirmity for reasons of mental disorder. Psychosis, dementia, depression and addiction could be severe enough to impair a president's ability to discharge his or her duties. However, we lack a process and criteria to apply this constitutional mechanism for reasons related to mental function.”Since assuming Office, has the public ever received a pronouncement from Biden’s attending physician as to the state of Biden’s physical and mental health? Apparently not!But, back in July 2020, The American Spectator reported this about Biden:“It’s clear that Joe Biden is showing signs of mental aging: his speech is garbled, his sentences diverge into asides without coherence, and his numbers and names are scrambled in laughable ways (‘We have 120 million dead from COVID!’ he informed Americans last month).Biden, who was first elected to the Senate 48 years ago, has been known for decades for his verbal gaffes. Democrats usually exploit this flaw to explain away their presidential candidate’s confused speech, claiming his lackluster abilities are evidence of a life-long quirk rather than a sign of cognitive decline.‘It’s not a product of age; it’s just who he is,’ wrote Paul Waldman in the Washington Post last April.” Biden’s mental state hasn’t plateaued since assuming Office. It has only gotten worse, much worse!Pelosi and other Democrats say nary a word about that, but they weren’t reluctant about raising false flags about Trump, during his tenure in Office.As early as October 2017 Democrats raised the false and ludicrous spectacle of Trump’s mental acumen. NBC News reported,“The 25th Amendment is the ultimate constitutional ‘check’ — a corrective mechanism for an American president who is physically or psychologically unable to lead. Most important, it grants legal authority to those closest to power — first, the vice president and Cabinet members, then members of Congress — to stage an intervention. At the very least, these individuals are authorized to call a temporary timeout if the president is judged unfit to govern. Is America today in need of such an unprecedented intervention?” And, three years later, Pelosi and the Democrats were still at it: Heavy.com reported,“During a Thursday interview with Fox, President Donald Trump said, “I’m back because I am a perfect physical specimen and I’m extremely young. And so I’m lucky in that way.”Speaking at her weekly press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded by saying that Trump was ‘in an altered state’ and ‘the disassociation from reality would be funny if it weren’t so deadly.’Pelosi then announced that Democrats would meet on Friday to talk about the 25th Amendment, which, as The Guardian pointed out, ‘contains a clause that allows a president to be removed from office against his will because of physical or mental incapacity.’” Trump fired back at the Speaker, tweeting, ‘Crazy Nancy is the one who should be under observation. They don’t call her Crazy for nothing!’”And, as late as January 9, 2021, the Los Angeles Times shamelessly, scandalously,  disseminated disinformation, asserting that Trump has a ‘delusional disorder.’“As the gatekeepers of our democracy, they need to inquire about whether Trump is potentially dangerous as the commander in chief — including raising questions about whether he has a reality-distorting mental state.One such condition is ‘delusional disorder,’ which is unique among psychiatric conditions in that the area of dysfunction can be highly circumscribed. An individual with this disorder often has a single fixed delusion and otherwise functions normally, setting it apart from illnesses such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, in which the patient typically experiences broad impairment in social and occupational functioning.” Yet, the Press and the White House remain painfully silent about Biden’s obvious slide into serious dementia, and yet gets seemingly distraught when Russia provides the truthful information that the U.S. Government and the Press deny the public access to, claiming Russia is engaged in a campaign of disinformation. ABC News asserts,“The Department of Homeland Security has found that Russia is spreading disinformation regarding former Vice President Joe Biden’s mental health, according to a DHS bulletin obtained by ABC News.ABC News previously reported that DHS withheld publication of an intelligence bulletin warning law enforcement agencies of a Russian scheme to promote ‘allegations about the poor mental health’ of Biden. The draft bulletin, titled ‘Russia Likely to Denigrate Health of US Candidates to Influence 2020 Election,’ was submitted to the agency’s legislative and public affairs office for review on July 7. The analysis was not meant for public consumption, but it was set to be distributed to federal, state and local law enforcement partners two days later, on July 9, the emails show. It was not— and after an uproar in the media an updated version of the bulletin was released Tuesday, providing details on what the Russian operation looks like.” Granted Russia has its own agenda, but, because Russia makes reference to Biden’s ‘poor mental health,’ is this is to mean that Russia’s pronouncements are, ipso facto, false? Rather, isn’t the U.S. Government and the “free Press” engaging in its own disinformation campaign by deliberately denying the public access to Biden’s serious mental decline? And, if so, why; what does this portend for a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people?Honestly, who has the public more to fear? Russia or a seditious Press and a renegade U.S. Government that is dead-set on destroying its own Nation; in emasculating its own military; attacking its own people; denigrating its own history, heritage, and culture; tearing down its own geographical borders and opening the Nation up to a flood of tens of thousands of diseased and poverty-stricken illegal itinerant aliens, international crime cartels, and an assortment of international terrorists; capitulating to a powerful, belligerent China, and to ruthless billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites, and Radical Leftist Marxists and Anarchists; brainwashing the American public; dumbing down America’s youth; barricading the U.S. Capitol with high walls, razor wire, thousands of heavily armed troops and police; engaging in a National terror campaign targeting Americans for holding “wrong” political beliefs, and creating out of whole cloth a new category of persona non grata, referred to as a “domestic” terrorist; and tearing apart the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties of the American citizenry.The official declaration of a new Administration, only two months in, and tagged the Biden-Harris Administration is not something to treat as trivial, and to dismiss as unimportant as the idea of shared power in the Executive Branch of the United States was never contemplated by the framers of the Constitution and is clearly illegal under Article 2 of the Constitution. See argument, supra. And it definitely is not cause for celebration.Kamala Harris does not herself appear to suffer from acute dementia, but her judgment definitely raises cause for concern. Here, as reported by Fox News, is a person who giggles at the thought of visiting the Southern Border, as if the colossal mess at the Southern Border is a laughing matter, and yet she is the point person whom Biden’s handlers now have placed in charge of the crisis and chaos on the Nation’s Southern Border, as reported by The Blaze. And, the American public is supposed to feel all warm and bubbly, and safe and secure, knowing that Kamala Harris is now in charge of the crisis and chaos at the Border. Really? And what other major foreign and domestic policy decisions is Harris making on her own that one would expect of the President, as Article 2 of the United States Constitution requires? Well, she discusses policy directly with foreign leaders. See Washington Times article. Taking calls from and meeting with foreign leaders a job specifically for the United States President, not the Vice President. After all, IT IS THE U.S. PRESIDENT, not the Vice President, who takes the Oath of Office, as set forth in Article 2, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, to wit:— “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.”So, we have some idea what Kamala is doing. But we must ask: what is it that Joe is doing? What, EXACTLY, does Joe Biden do with his time these days? Joe doesn’t tell us. It is his Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, who tells us. And Psaki informs us that, as the Washington Times reports in the same Washington Times article, supra, the staff “keeps him pretty busy.”“‘The President himself would tell you that we keep him pretty busy, and he has a full schedule this week,’ Ms. Psaki told reporters in a Feb. 8th press briefing. Note the phrasing, ‘we’ the staff, keep the president busy.”The staff keeps Joe busy with a “full schedule”? The staff keeps Biden busy doing what?Whatever it is, apart from signing documents that Biden’s staff gives to him to sign, we would like to know what other things Biden does as purported leader of the Nation, and we would like to hear that from Joe, not from his Press Secretary lest the public is left to reasonably surmise that, whatever it is Joe Biden does with his time these days, it is pretty clear he isn’t running the Country.Maybe the staff keeps him busy playing with “Tinker Toys” or with coloring books. It’s certainly a fair question to ask of the President: Just what it is this man is doing in the name of the American people, as the ostensible leader of the Nation in accordance with Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution?The public never had to ask that question of Trump’s staff. For all the vicious, vile, virulent attacks on Trump, no one ever needed to ask who it was that was running the Country.The seditious Press abhorred Donald Trump, but it wasn’t because the Press thought Trump wasn’t leading the Nation. They knew full well Trump was performing his Article 2 duties as U.S. President, and they hated him for it. They hated President Trump because he wasn't taking orders, and wouldn't take orders from the unelected “experts” of the Federal Bureaucracy. Well, that's just too bad. The electorate didn't vote Trump into Office so that he would simply be a good little fellow who, like Bush, or Clinton, or Obama, would “know his place,“ and would allow the “experts” to run the Executive Branch of Government. That's not why the American people voted Trump into Office. That wasn't what the public expected of or wanted from him. And that wasn't what the framers of the U.S. Constitution ever expected of a U.S. President either. It is the U.S. President who is expected to be the policymaker and the decision-maker, setting the course of the Nation in accordance with the will of the electorate, consistent with the authority vested in the U.S. President under Article 2 of the U.S. Constitution.  If an “expert” wishes to play the part of decision-maker, rather than a mere advisor, then that “expert” should run for elected Office himself, and attempt to convince the public that he is the best man to set policy for the Nation as President of the United States. Unelected, so-called “experts,” ever lurking in the shadows, should not be dictating policy for the Nation as behind-the-scenes surrogates for the Commander-in-Chief of the Nation. They are policy advisors only. They are not policymakers, and they are not decision-makers. Biden is neither a man with vision, nor policymaker, nor decision-maker. He is simply a messenger boy and a decidedly poor one at that as is clear just from listening to the man. Through garbled, incoherent speech, anyone can see that he hasn't a clue what it is he's talking about. And Kamala Harris is hardly more convincing as a messenger boy.And this brings us back now to Biden’s son, Hunter, whom Joe refers to as “the smartest man I know”—this coming from a man with acute dementia. If true, if Hunter is such an intellectual whiz, maybe Hunter should be running the Executive Branch of Government. But then, again, maybe not.This just out as reported by the New York Post:“The Secret Service intervened in an investigation into a 2018 incident involving Hunter Biden and his girlfriend at the time — his former sister-in-law, Hallie — in which she took his gun and tossed it into the trash, thinking he was going to kill himself with it, according to a report.When she returned to retrieve the gun, it was gone, Politico reported on Thursday.Police in Delaware launched an investigation in case the gun, left in a trash can across from a high school, had been used in a crime, the report said.But Secret Service agents contacted the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork recording the sale, Politico reported.The owner, Ron Palmieri, at first balked at the request, suspecting they were attempting to hide Hunter’s ownership of the gun, but ultimately complied and turned over the documents to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the government agency that oversees federal gun laws.The Secret Service said it has no record of agents investigating the incident and said President Biden was not under protection at the time.Then, several days later, the gun was returned by a man who searches trash.There were no charges filed or arrests in the incident.The role of the Secret Service remains unclear.Hunter answered ‘no’ to the question on the transaction asking, ‘Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?’ . . . .Lying on the form is a felony.” Okay, so here we have a man, Joe Biden, who wants and intends to take away “assault weapons” from the civilian population—that is to say semiautomatic firearms—from tens of millions of law-abiding, responsible, rational American citizens. And, the public learns that Joe’s son, Hunter—someone who suffers from chronic illicit drug addiction as Hunter Biden readily admits, and as the Guardian newspaper, for one, reports—has gotten hold of a handgun which he isn’t supposed to have possession of precisely because of his addiction, but obtained a gun anyway because he lied on Federal ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record (Form 4473) regarding his drug addiction. Lying on ATF Form 4473 is a felony. This is bad enough. But what is worse is that the Secret Service, operating ostensibly on behalf of the President of the United States, has, it is apparent, misused its substantial power and authority in an inglorious, disgraceful attempt to cover up the President’s son’s felony, and, in doing so, compounding the wrongdoing and making a blatant hypocrite of Joe Biden in the bargain.Biden, you see, prides himself on being tough on gun issues and on keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn’t have them. It's the one thing, perhaps the only thing, that he has retained any lasting memory of and conviction about. And, given his recent remarks, both he and Harris seek to impose new, extremely stringent firearms measures on responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens—making it unlawful for the average, responsible American civilian citizen to possess any semiautomatic firearm.What, then might American citizens make of all of this?We have seen duplicity and hypocrisy by Democrats and their friends in the Federal Bureaucracy before, and with disturbing regularity. And that duplicity and hypocrisy continue.The public has certainly seen more than a few examples of egregious unethical and illegal behavior on the part of high-level DOJ and FBI, who have made unethical and illegal behavior common practice. During the entirety of Trump’s tenure in Office, the DOJ and FBI became a political tool of those both within the DOJ and FBI and outside it who waged a concerted war to destroy Trump, his Administration and those closest to him; all in a shameful, ignominious, unlawful attempt to undermine the will of the electorate who voted him to Office.And now we see apparently unlawful behavior on the part of the Secret Service running interference for the President and his wayward son to hide the evidence of Biden’s son’s illegal purchase of a firearm.With scarcely more than two months into the so-called Biden Presidency (now Biden-Harris Presidency)—the coup d’état completed—it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say our Country is going to Hell in a Handbasket.Excuse us. Our Country isn’t going to Hell in a Handbasket; we are already there!____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE BIDEN PLAN FOR THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL REMAKING OF THE AMERICAN LANDSCAPE: PARTS ONE THROUGH FOUR OF ESSAY

COMPREHENSIVE ESSAY ON THE PRESENT STATE OF AFFAIRS IN AMERICA UPON THE  ASSUMPTION OF THE GREAT IMPOSTER TO THE OFFICE OF THE U.S. PRESIDENCY IN 2021

A RADICAL PLAN FOR THE POLITICAL, SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICA

PART ONE

AN UNPRECEDENTED BLAST OF UNILATERAL ACTIONS WARN OF TYRANNY AHEAD FOR THE NATION

During his first two weeks in Office, Joe Biden signed over 40 executive orders or similar executive edicts. And he isn’t done. A few days into February and we can expect to see 50 or more Presidential executive orders and other edicts.Even 40 edicts far exceed the number signed by any previous U.S. President during his first days in Office. In fact, during his first five days in Office, Biden’s total is far greater than the signed orders of three recent Presidents, combined: Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama, as reported by the website, Great American Politics:“As of January 25, 2021, Biden has ‘issued 33 executive orders, actions, proclamations, memoranda and agency directives,’ according to CNN. Twenty-one of these, according to the White House website, are executive orders.President Donald Trump signed four in his first week in 2017; President Barack Obama signed five in 2009; President George W. Bush signed none in his first week in 2001; and President Bill Clinton signed one in 1993.”If Biden is remembered for little else, he likely will be remembered for the sheer number of executive orders he signed during his first few days as President.Of course, Biden didn’t draft these orders and edicts, himself. Biden’s staff did, and, likely, these documents were drafted well before Biden took the Oath of Office. All they needed was Biden’s signature, his imprimatur as President. And with great pomp and flourish before the cameras, he gave the public that.A propaganda machine of Joe Biden’s Party, the cable “news” station, CNN, lays out the gist of these official orders and edicts. Many involve the reversal of Trump’s policies and initiatives, and they all lay the groundwork for an expansive Radical Left agenda.Biden has, to date, signed several orders pertaining to immigration, the environment, the Chinese Communist coronavirus, and health; one order each for the census, ethics in government, and government regulation; and a couple pertaining to the Radical Left’s newest invention, something called ‘equity,’ apparently not to be confused with ‘equality.’  Democrats in Congress and in Biden’s Administration have mentioned the term ‘equity’ incessantly of late, albeit without bothering to explain what they mean by it, which begs a person to ask:

WHAT DOES THE WORD ‘EQUITY’ MEAN AND WHAT IS ITS IMPORT?

In a recent Press conference, Susan Rice emphasized the importance of “equity” in Biden Administration policy. Susan Rice, who served as Obama’s National Security Advisor, is now Biden’s Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. Biden’s Press Secretary, Jen Psaki, has also used the word ‘equity’ in her Press briefings; so has Kristen Clarke, Biden’s new head of the powerful Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice.Clearly, the Biden Administration wants to sensitize the public to the mere mention of the word and wants the public to become familiar with it. But that raises a question—and one the Press seems loath to ask anyone in the Biden Administration.The word ‘equity’ seems to mean nothing more than ‘equality,’ a synonym. Okay. But if the two words are synonyms, then why not use the term, ‘equality.’ After all, the word ‘equality’ has historical weight behind it. The word ‘equity,’ by contrast, does not.Apart from extensive use of the word in politics and in the Press, ‘equality’ is a legal term of art, as is the adjectival form of the word, ‘equal,’ appearing prominently in both the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in federal legislation and the import and purport of ‘equality,’ are discussed at length in legal treatises.So, then, what devious intention or nuance lurks behind the use of the word, ‘equity,’ in lieu of the word, ‘equality,’ by Biden’s people?  The Biden Administration can’t be alluding to the expression ‘private equity,’ which applies to and sees prominent use in business and economics.With no apparent allusion to business finance or to the law of contracts, the reference to ‘equity’ by Biden's officers and staff at the Administration's Press conferences is singularly odd and markedly discordant.Is the Biden Administration using the word ‘equity’ in a novel way? If so, then offer an explanation for it.If no novel use for the term ‘equity’ is intended, then why use it at all? The word, ‘equality,’ works just fine. But, having thrown the word out in the public domain, and with Biden’s people excruciatingly mindful of employing and emphasizing the word in their public discourse and when directing that talk especially to the Press, there must be some reason for doing so, and that is itself telling.

DEMOCRATS' USE OF NEOLOGISMS AND COMMON WORDS AND PHRASES WITH NEW TWISTS ALLUDE TO A MASSIVE PROPAGANDA EFFORT TO FORM, SHAPE, AND SWAY PUBLIC OPINION

A RADICAL TRANSFORMATION OF THE NATION IS ON THE HORIZON

The American public has seen that Democrats, generally, and the Radical Left-wing of the Party, especially, have a penchant for using common words and phrases in cryptic ways and for inventing new words and phrases, the meaning of which remains confoundingly mysterious. This must all be by design.How often in the last several months have Democrat Party politicians and their friends and compatriots in social media and in the Press thrown the expression ‘systemic racism’ around? No one bothers to define it or provide evidence for its existence; why is that? Even so, in asserting the words ‘systemic racism’ over again, the expression operates as a viral meme, a painful splinter in the public's psyche, as it was meant to do. The public blithely accepts the existence of this thing, ‘systemic racism’, as it is expected to do, and many Americans obediently comply, accepting the existence of ‘systemic racism’, unskeptically, unconditionally, and uncritically. The expression is thrown out to the masses as a self-evident truth, an assumption that no one can seriously question, or even be permitted to question, as with the issue of the integrity of America's federal elections and whether Trump actually did win the 2020 U.S. Presidential—mainstream media exposition and proclamation to the contrary. Evidently, America's seemingly Free Press takes its cue from the postulates of Reich MinisterJoseph Goebbels, from whom the Press and social media today have inserted Goebbels' profound, elucidating thoughts on the theory and practice of propaganda, into their own playbook: an educational treatise on the practice of manipulating and swaying public opinion over to your side. See Inspiringquotes; AZQuotes; and Quotes from The Goebbels' Diaries, as posted by Goodreads:“A lie told once remains a lie but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.”“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”“This is the secret of propaganda: Those who are to be persuaded by it should be completely immersed in the ideas of the propaganda, without ever noticing that they are being immersed in it.”“Not every item of news should be published. Rather must those who control news policies endeavor to make every item of news serve a certain purpose.”“It is the absolute right of the State to supervise the formation of public opinion.”“The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it.”“Propaganda works best when those who are being manipulated are confident they are acting on their own free will.”“Whoever can conquer the street will one day conquer the state, for every form of power politics and any dictatorship-run state has its roots in the street.“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.”“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”“. . . the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious.”“The war we are fighting until victory or the bitter end is in its deepest sense a war between Christ and Marx. Christ: the principle of love. Marx: the principle of hate.”“Peoples do never govern themselves. That lunacy was concocted by liberalism. Behind its people's ‘sovereignty’ the slyest cheaters are hiding, who don't want to be recognized.”“You can’t change the masses. They will always be the same: dumb, gluttonous and forgetful.”“That propaganda is good which leads to success, and that is bad which fails to achieve the desired result. It is not propaganda’s task to be intelligent, its task is to lead to success.”“One should not as a rule reveal one's secrets, since one does not know if and when one may need them again. The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should like big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”“Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”Is it any wonder that the Biden/Harris Administration intends to dummy down the entire public educational system. This Brave New World that they have in mind can't function where people are free thinkers! But, the success of the Press in manipulating and controlling the thought processes of adults who have progressed through traditional public school education, before it had been dummied down and had become an indoctrination mill to create a population of unthinking drones, still demonstrates the emphatic power of propaganda over even highly educated Americans who consider themselves critical thinkers.Give some thought to the ability of the Press and social media to instill into the mind of many Americans the idea the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was completely fair and aboveboard. Was it really so? Did the DOJ and FBI truly undertake a serious investigation into numerous concrete allegations of election tampering? If so, when did that investigation take place? How extensive and intensive was it? What did the DOJ and FBI investigate? Isn't there a report of the findings of the DOJ and FBI? If so, where is it? Why can't the public see it? Why should the public simply take on faith William Barr's perfunctory, dismissive assertion, as reported by PBS, for one, that the Department found no evidence of widespread fraud? And, apart from the issue of massive vote tampering, isn't it odd that the U.S. Supreme Court would dismiss out-of-hand a serious State versus State elections' case when only the U.S. Supreme Court can provide relief as the Constitution only provides the U.S. Supreme Court with jurisdiction to hear and decide cases between States, as sovereign entities, when a federal question arises. As reported by Market Watch,“Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision to not hear the case, arguing that ‘we do not have discretion’ to turn down suits filed between two or more states, which fall within the Supreme Courts ‘original jurisdiction.’ ” ’The Press and social media not only scoff at the idea of a stolen election, exclaiming, with cavalier and constant bravado that such an idea is false and baseless, but that it is a crime for one to simply utter the possibility of it, and so any discussion is forbidden, as the argument for a stolen election is deemed too outlandish for discussion, dismissed out-of-hand as fantasy, as disinformation or misinformation. But, is it so? Also strange is the fact that the Democrat Party and social media are adamant that no evidence for a stolen U.S. Presidential election can even be entertained. That in itself is food for thought. The Democrat Party, the Press, and social media don't merely dismiss the issue out-of-hand, they become apoplectic if one simply harbors suspicions about the integrity of the election. Given the seriousness of the election of a U.S. President, one would think that, at the very least, the Democrat Party, Press, and social media would at least allow those who would challenge the prevailing opinion a forum to express their belief and to present their case. But, challengers are peremptorily and unceremoniously shut out and down from expressing their doubts about the integrity of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, and, more, challengers are contemptuously and vigorously denounced. Why does their exist such raw anger directed against those Americans who would dare express a contrary opinion, and one that has substantial and significant data to support a contrary finding pertaining to the integrity and fairness of the 2020 Presidential election?Can it be that Trump actually did win the election as he and his supporters claim? But no one dare be permitted to say it, lest the charade of the Great Pretender in Chief be recognized for whom and what he really is? Can it be that the forces that seek to transform our Nation into a Collectivist State cannot, must not, allow for dissension in the public marketplace? Can it be that this free Constitutional Republic is not so free, after all? Can it be that that the Republic no longer exists or else is surely on its deathbed, where only the trappings of liberty remain? Soon, will even the trappings of liberty be dispensed with as things no longer necessary to keep dissident thought at bay because all dissension in public and social thought will at some point be stamped out?If the Country cannot return to its roots, irreparable harm and catastrophe will befall the Nation. That is an ice-cold fact.Division, divisiveness, and suspicion of ‘the other’ have become widespread, and are deliberately being fostered by an Administration that falsely and ironically accuses Trump and his supporters for division and divisiveness in our Country. The fact of the matter is that Biden and his handlers have no desire to unify the Country because the unity they seek isn't really unity at all or otherwise  has taken on a most unusual form, or surely so in a free Constitutional Republic if that is what our Nation still is? Biden's unity is no more than a function of uniformity in thought and conformity of behavior, the antithesis, then, of free, critical thought. The unity the Biden/Harris Administration has in mind is compliance: unity imposed on the polity by Government edict or, where deemed necessary, unity imposed on the polity through the use of brutal, physical force, where the military and police target political dissent. How ironic that our Nation that has hitherto chastized other Nations for not permitting open dissent would not openly embrace its own cardinal sin.This demand for unity through conformity leads inevitably, inexorably into violent conflict and confrontation in society; assaults on innocent people, and the wanton destruction of public and private property. But, this, too, must be by design.  And this, too, is all by design. The malicious, malevolent forces that crush have unleashed their fury against our Nation. A violent clash is apparently welcomed. It is certainly ordained. That is the cost of success for a counterrevolution to overturn the American Revolution. And that is a price the forces that crush are willing to pay, must pay, to overturn 200 plus years of freedom that itself was the price many Americans were willing to pay and did pay to create and then preserve a free Constitutional Republic.Thus the forces that crush deliberately, calculatedly foment chaos throughout the Country. They foster ill-will among America's myriad ethnic groups. They create the very conflict and dissension they disingenuously say they wish to avoid, as they know that only through both psychological persuasion, i.e., propaganda, and through the threat of and through the use of physical force can they contain the righteous indignation of those Americans who are averse to relinquishing their sacred, fundamental, natural, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights. The forces that crush must destroy all opposition.These forces that crush must undermine social cohesion to make their wishes for a one-world political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical system a reality. Thus, they denigrate America's f0unding founders. They defile our cherished history, heritage, traditions, mores, and core values with their lies. They disdain national pride and patriotism, perceiving these as feelings as archaic, atavistic, parochial; such feelings have no place in the new world order they intend to erect.Anything deemed archaic, atavistic, and parochial, these forces that crush intend to eradicate. Even the sacred institution of the family isn't beyond ridicule condemnation.Privacy is also considered quaint and anachronistic. Our Nation has become a surveillance society. Each individual is encouraged to become a shoofly; a spy against one's neighbor and even against a family member.very American is encouraged to report dissenting conduct and speech to the police or whomever the new authority, as established by an oppressive and repressive Government, happens to be.The forces that crush intend to replace our unique national identity with a multicultural perspective that transcends individual nation-states; that transcends OUR Nation-State. The forces that crush intend to replace our Nation's Judeo-Christian ethic with a new ethical standard grounded in the will of the State, where the State itself purports to be a god, and the sole god.Messaging is delivered through old vehicles and new, radio, television, and social media: through the airwaves, digital media, hard copy news media, and even word-of-mouth. The public is systematically subjected to highly efficacious, effective, and efficient modern propagandistic techniques. Yet, the full range, potential, and destructive power of propaganda are visible to those people perceptive enough to peer directly at it, and in so doing be immune from the effects of it. Unfortunately, many people aren't cognizant of the onslaught of propaganda on their psyche, and the impact it has had and continues to have on shaping their belief structures.And, now with the word ‘equity’ bandied about regularly in the Biden/Harris Administration's Press conferences, the propagandists have injected a new viral meme into the public psyche. The full impact and purpose of it have yet to play out, but something is definitely afoot: intimations of something far-reaching that will impact each American. And none of it is good.Consider Democrats’ policy positions on guns and on civilian gun ownership and possession, particularly. None of that is good either. Words DO have meaning. And those words that Democrats and the Press use when talking about guns are meant to amplify their abhorrence of them and to enact laws and to inject social policy directives that serve to undermine the very framework of a stable, cohesive society. The American public had learned the disturbing truth pertaining to Federal and State antigun policy and rhetoric. And that painful truth will shortly be revisited upon them and with a vengeance. This is a major concern for the forces that dare to crush a free Constitutional Republic and a free people, and it is all part of their plan for complete domination over the individual American citizen.________________________________

ANTIGUN LAWS AND ANTIGUN POLICIES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE FOUNDATIONS OF A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

PART TWO

Antigun laws and policies aren’t meant—were never meant—to create a cohesive, stable society, to protect public safety and order. They were meant—are meant and were always meant—to hobble the American people, to subordinate the citizenry to Government. This is contrary to the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution. The framers of the Constitution intended for the American people to be sovereign, not for Government to assume that role, else tyranny looms.Through the incorporation of the Nation's Bill of Rights into the Constitution, and especially through the exercise of the natural, fundamental right of free speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, the citizenry would have and was meant to have the ability to keep a powerful, deceitful, jealous Government and a riotous majoritarian mob, operating at the behest of a tyrannical Government, both in check, and thereby maintain its sovereignty over those forces that would dare to usurp the natural sovereignty of the people.Obviously, the enactment of unlawful, restrictive gun laws and unlawful policies, together with—as we are seeing today—unprecedented restrictions on free speech are designed not to benefit the American citizenry but to harm it, and to do so irreparably, by removing from Americans the only effective means by which and through which Americans can maintain their sovereignty over Government: through exercise of the natural, fundamental right of each individual to speak his or her own mind and through the right of each to own and to possess firearms in defense of self and family and to prevent the unlawful encroaching usurpation of power by and the onset of tyranny by the State.Restrictions on sacred rights are meant to tear down society. And the subordination of the Self to the group Collective is antithetical to the tenets of Individualism upon which our Nation was constructed and upon which it grew and flourished. The forces that crush intend to create something wholly alien to our Nation’s history and traditions and culture.The public meets with waves upon waves of new laws, policies, and initiatives, all meant to defeat this thing ‘systemic racism’ that doesn’t even exist except in the feverish minds of politicians and fanatics, who create a dangerous reality out of nightmarish fantasy harking back to a long ago, dead past. The forces that crush conjured up this fiction of systemic racism as a ploy to tear down the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. The inculcation of the bizarre and ludicrous doctrine of critical race theory now hawked as legitimate science, to be added to the curriculum of public school and higher education, has at its apparent objective the goal of raising up one ethnic group at the expense of the other, which, in itself is dubious and disheartening. In truth indoctrinating young Americans and old in this new doctrine of critical race theory is psychologically debilitating to everyone. It isn't meant to mend feelings among ethnic groups. The opposite is true. It is meant to sow divisiveness and division, discord and discontent, suspicion and hatred among the masses, thereby creating a means by which a small, ruthless elite ruling class can easily subjugate and control the rest of us.The actions of the obstructers and destructors of our Nation do long-lasting if not irreparable harm to the health, safety, and well-being of the populace. It is not something they worry about. It is not something they care about. They see this as necessary to their agenda for absolute control over the population. It is their intention to fracture, destabilize, and tear down society. Once that is accomplished they will then engineer a different social, political, economic, and cultural order from the rubble of the old.A substantial segment of the population sees the intentions of the destroyers of our Country clearly. But, another substantial segment of the population does not. Those that do not have been conditioned to believe that President Trump was an autocrat, a danger to Democracy. it is all false. It is all a ruse.The Democrats had no one to offer as a palatable replacement, other than a feeble, shell of a man, Joe Biden.The Press erroneously and deceptively convinced the public that Joe Biden is a political moderate. They did this to allay the public’s suspicion of Radical Left intentions. Many Americans felt that voting for Biden would be a safe bet for the welfare of the Nation. Sadly, they were wrong. But, what is Joe Biden really?To pin Biden down is a fruitless and pointless venture. He isn’t running the Executive Branch of Government. He isn't running anything, not really. Biden isn’t a leader. He's a follower. and he is being led, and those who voted for him and those who voted against him in the 2020 U.S. Presidential election both know it. Biden is being dictated to by his advisors and he is obediently doing what he is told. Everything he says and does is deliberately and carefully scripted for effect.The goal to be achieved is a radical transformation of society, consistent with the tenets of Collectivism. The EU and Communist China under Xi Jinping, as Collectivist political, social, economic, and cultural constructs, provide, each in its own way, a blueprint for a radical transformation of America that the obstructers and destructors of the Nation envision.And the Biden/Harris Administration is just getting started with the massive transformation of our Nation into a Dystopian Collectivist nightmare.The public is beginning to see the Collectivist vision for America taking shape with increasing top-down Federal Government control of all aspects of American life. And this mammoth undertaking to rupture and destroy a free Constitutional Republic is moving ahead rapidly. Severe restrictions on fundamental rights and liberties are taking shape rapidly.Dissent as protected speech is not only strongly discouraged; it is systematically attacked, debased, degraded. A coordinated attack against the First Amendment is well underway, and a reciprocal attack on the Second is about to be launched.The radical transformation of America has begun and will soon be in full swing. Americans must be proactive to prevent this, using all lawful means to do so.If we fail, we will all soon see our Nation taking a 180-degree turn from a free Constitutional Republic, securely grounded on the tenets and principles of Individualism, to a Marxist, Paternalistic State, grounded on the tenets of Collectivism. This is a thing alien to our Nation's rich and glorious history, heritage, culture, and ethical values; and a thing absolutely antithetical to our founders' beliefs; abhorrent to their sensibilities; and disparaging to their memory.__________________________________

PROPAGANDA IN AMERICA IN FULL-SWING TO UNDERMINE A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC

RENEWED USE OF THE EXPRESSION ‘ASSAULT WEAPON’ TO UNDERMINE THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ON THE WAY; EXPECT IT!

PART THREE

As with the odd use of the word, ‘equity,’  in lieu of equality,’ which has been voiced by Biden Administration officials of late, and which is apparently one more vehicle through which the Biden/Harris Administration intends to introduce a mammoth new wave of repressive policy initiatives—yet to be formally announced but surely soon to be activated—the sinister forces that are working feverishly to undermine a free Constitutional Republic have, in the not so distant past, utilized another expression which operated as the springboard for launching a devastating concerted attack on the Nation’s cherished institutions and fundamental rights. And Americans will soon see it utilized actively once again.Recall that Democrat political strategists decades ago coined the phrase ‘assault weapon.’ Politicians and lawmakers utilized the expression as a propaganda tool to constrain, not preserve and strengthen, the exercise of the fundamental, natural right codified in the Second Amendment.The expression ‘assault weapon,’ a fictional phrase that is not used or referenced by the military or by the gun industry, is a vague expression— deliberately vague in meaning—and for good reason. If the expression were well defined, the public would know exactly what firearms fall within the meaning of ‘assault weapon,’ namely the many they own, and they would be perturbed to see those firearms targeted for confiscation.By keeping the expression vague, State and federal governments can place into the category of banned firearms, i.e., ‘assault weapons,’ any firearm they wish to prohibit the public from owning and possessing. And the result is that the domain of ‘assault weapon’ constantly expands under Federal and State law and with alacrity.Each State has its own legal definition for ‘assault weapon.’ In some States those definitions are more expansive than in the gun statutes of other States. And, so the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ remains deliberately amorphous.Had the propagandists began their attack on the Second Amendment by using the expression, ‘semiautomatic firearm,’—an expression that has unambiguous meaning in the gun industry and in the military—that would immediately raise alarm bells among American gun owners and justifiably so.Most firearms owned by the American public today are semiautomatic weapons. By deliberately refraining from the use of the expression, ‘semiautomatic weapon,’ or ‘semiautomatic firearm,’ the political strategists and the propagandists had hoped to disguise the full depth and breadth of their aims, and they have met with a measure of success by opting to target civilian ownership and possession of ‘assault weapons’, rather than by specifically targeting ‘semiautomatic weapon.’ Not that the average gun owner didn't know what was going on—even if many Americans truly did not—but, through the use of a neologism, a coined word, a legal fiction, even more astute members of the public could be under placed under a hypnotic trance, not quite getting the full measure of what was taking place. Such is the power of propaganda. And many Americans did go along, unaware of the deception, oblivious to the ruse. They would see and did see “ASSAULT WEAPONS” as a danger to public safety and public order when they didn't see “SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS” as a danger to public safety and order. In other words they weren't led to believe that THEIR firearms were a danger to public safety and order and, so, they didn't see THEIR firearms as being targeted. Thus, they didn't have necessarily have a problem with laws that restrict access to such things, “ASSAULT WEAPONS” where they definitely would have had a problem if “SEMIAUTOMATIC WEAPONS” were targeted.Reference to the amorphous “assault weapons” rather than to well-defined  “semiautomatic weapons” offered another boon to antigun zealots and antigun proponents, for it left Federal and State legislators free to fashion gun bans in whatever manner they wish. They were free to give specific legal meaning to the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ in whatever way they want, targeting the very firearms and the component parts of those weapons that Americans own and possess and would wish to keep. Those Americans, who might have deemed the assault weapon as a type of firearm that no civilian needs and that no civilian should be permitted to own and possess, would learn too late that they had been hoodwinked and that what they had taken to be a fundamental right to keep and bear arms had, indeed, been unlawfully, unconstitutionally infringed, after all, with an end-run around the problem of semiautomatic weapons in the hands of tens of millions of Americans, through a ruse concocted by the propagandists.When State governments ban “assault weapons,” they must obviously name the weapons they intend to ban; and now the public knows that the firearms they own and possess that were once legal, now aren’t. And that justifiably angers them, but it is much too late in the day to do anything about it. And, as restrictive gun laws are amended and refined, the public sees that more and more semiautomatic weapons are included under the rubric of highly regulated or outright illegal “assault weapons.”The federal assault weapons ban of 1994 (AWB) listed a substantial number of semiautomatic firearms, handguns, rifles, and shotguns. Democrats demonstrate a remarkable proclivity for making illegal a substantial number of semiautomatic weapons, and they relish the chance to do so.The AWB expired in 2004 and Congress didn’t renew it. Democrats attempted repeatedly through the years to reinstitute a federal “assault weapons” ban, but without success. Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein figured prominently in that effort, but, to date, had not met with success. This will soon change now that Democrats have control of the Executive Branch of Government and now that they also control both Houses of Congress.Yet, through the intervening years, between 2004 and 2021, when Democrats in Congress ran into problems convincing Republicans and the public at large to fashion a 1994 national assault weapons ban, did not affect the States. The seeming intransigence of Congress that galled the antigun zealots never impacted States that antigun zealots controlled. These Radical Left States created their own oppressive gun laws, severely restricting possession or banning altogether many semiautomatic firearms under the category “assault weapons.” Broadly construing ‘assault weapon,’ to mean whatever they chose it to mean, these States were free to ban many different firearms with a broad stroke, and they did so with abandon.If the expression ‘assault weapon’ were an industry term of art, as, for example, the expression ‘assault rifle’ is, legislatures would have struggled to lawfully ban large categories of firearms under the rubric of ‘assault weapon.’ But the phrase ‘assault weapon’ is not an industry or military term of art. So the drafters of legislation can include single-action or double-action revolvers, or any other kind of firearm under the rubric of ‘assault weapon’  if they wish. And, at some point, they may very well do so. There is nothing to constrain them.Look at the New York Safe Act of 2013. Under the list of banned “assault weapons” is included revolving shotguns. Revolving shotguns aren't semiautomatic weapons. The expression, ‘assault weapon,’ need not be confined to semiautomatic weapons or to any particular category of firearm.Now that Democrats control both Houses of Congress along with the Executive Branch of Government, we will soon see Presidential executive orders and legislative bills flying willy-nilly off the desks of antigun proponents and zealots. There is nothing to stop them._____________________________________

THE WAR ON AMERICA'S BASIC FREEDOMS, THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, IS UNDER GREATER ASSAULT TODAY THAN AT ANY OTHER TIME IN OUR NATION'S PAST

PART FOUR

Democrats have complained long and hard that, as they see it, too many people have access to “military weapons of war,” a.k.a. ‘assault weapons.’ A flurry of State and local laws and, for a time, federal law, too, strictly regulated the ownership and possession of them. Congressional Democrats now have carte blanc to do what they want. And on the matter of guns, Joe Biden has never equivocated.Back in August 2019, when Biden was just another Democrat Party hopeful to be U.S. President, CNN reported him exclaiming that “he will push to ban assault weapons if elected President in 2020.” And, in March 2020, MSN news, citing a Columbus Dispatch story, reported Biden asserting, “‘Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are designed for no purpose other than to kill quickly and as brutally as possible. No one needs them.’” Unlike with the issues of “court-packing,” coal mining, and fracking, where, during the campaign, Biden made vague pronouncements or outright inconsistent statements he has been unequivocal when it comes to guns.Biden has a deep-seated loathing of guns, especially those he refers to as ‘assault weapons,’—a fiction and pejorative.Yet, noticeably absent from the first few dozens of executive orders Biden signed, there is, momentarily, as of the posting of this article, no Biden order pertaining to guns and gun ownership. Has he forgotten about that? Not likely!Rest assured, those orders are coming, and coming soon. And we will soon see a gale of antigun bills flying of the desks of Congressional Democrats.The twin issues of “guns” and “gun violence” will be much discussed in the weeks and months ahead. That much is certain.Will Biden sign an executive order banning “assault weapons” and will he sign a flurry of other antigun laws as well, not bothering to wait for Congressional enactments?Don’t think this is improbable. In fact, with all the banter of gun-toting “white supremacists” and right-wing “domestic terrorists” and with thousands of National Guard troops camped out in the U.S. Capital, and with the constant denigration of and growing suppression of conservative dissent, something is definitely afoot. In fact, the Democrat Party propaganda machine is in overdrive. The propagandist newspaper, NY Times, for one, has laid the groundwork for an assault on “guns.”Proclaiming with majestic fanfare a massive threat to “democracy” posed by purported well-armed right-wing extremist groups, or so the public is told—and never mind the threat posed by truly dangerous Radical Left Anarchist and Marxist extremist groups that routinely get a pass despite having engaged in an unmistakable reign of terror against the public over the summer, and continue to do so even now—the vast propaganda machine of the “free” Press is setting the stage for a nation-wide gun confiscation program targeting average citizens, similar to the one instituted in Australia some time back, that Hillary Clinton championed.The propagandists have conjured up a new pretext for further undermining the Second Amendment: the threat of “domestic terrorism.”  Old expressions bandied about such as ‘white supremacist,’ and ‘white extremist,’ and new expressions such as ‘domestic terrorist’ and ‘equity’ aren’t defined—are deliberately kept vague—but the public is getting a ferocious blast of “news” reports meant to keep these words and phrases constantly in the public psyche. This isn’t an accident. The reason for this is plain.The Radical Left propaganda machine is softening up the public, turning the mind to mush, conditioning the public, most of them reluctantly, but some of them gleefully, to accept the need for curtailing the citizenry's fundamental rights. the Radical Left is constantly contorting and distorting the import of the U.S. Constitution out of all semblance to its original meaning and intent.The forces that dare crush the Nation and its people into submission—and they are legion—including mega-billionaire neoliberal globalists both here at home and abroad, Communist China, and avowed Marxists, Socialists, Communists, and Anarchists, found in all sectors of Government and in the economy, are succeeding. They have weakened much of the public’s resolve. The dangerous forces that crush entire nations into submission cavalierly usurp authority, denying the American people their rightful sovereignty, slowly suffocating and strangling the public’s will and spirit to oppose them, leaving Americans feeling remorseful, fearful, dejected, without hope, and thereby dependent on the Nanny State. Such is the power of propaganda to bend, shape, and warp the public psyche. The use of words and phrases can have and do have a tangible, debilitating effect.By deliberately keeping expressions vague and ambiguous, propagandists can define words and phrases in whatever way they want, changing the meaning of words and phrases at random, or dispensing with them and replacing them with others, or coining new words and phrases; lumping whatever they want into them. The propagandists have laid the groundwork for a new bogeyman, and they are using that bogeyman to undermine the U.S. Constitution, the foundation of our Government and they are blithely attacking our Nation’s fundamental rights.The forces that dare crush our Nation into submission have taken over the reins of Government. With the ouster of Trump and with control over two of three Branches of Government, and with that of the Judiciary, the third, on the radar, the forces that intend to destroy a free Constitutional Republic have attained much of their first goal. The second goal is now to rein in the sovereign American people themselves.How do you destroy the sovereignty of the American people? Get them to accept the false and dangerous notion that their fundamental, natural, unalienable, immutable, illimitable rights are no longer necessary; that the Democrat Party agenda, when effectuated, can better “serve” the American people and that all will be well with the world once the Nation's old, archaic, atavistic, anachronistic Bill of Rights is erased, and once the plain meaning of the Articles of the U.S. Constitution is modified, upended, reinterpreted, formally dispensed with, or, simply, ignored.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TYRANNY ON THE HORIZON: THE BILL OF RIGHTS ENDANGERED; A FREE REPUBLIC WELL LOST

AMERICANS FACING COUNTERREVOLUTION TO DESTROY A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC: DIRE OMENS

PART ONE

There is a story in ancient Greek Mythology that resonates today. It is a story that every American should know well for in it is a lesson to be learned. It is the story of Cassandra.Cassandra, the daughter of King Priam and queen Hecuba of Troy, was favored by the god Apollo who bestowed the gift of prophecy on her. But she angered Apollo.Apollo’s punishment was a keen example of poetic justice. He didn’t rescind his gift to her. She would retain it, but she would ever suffer anguish from her exercise of it.Cassandra warned Troy of its destruction, if Paris, her brother, one of the Royalty of Troy, ventured to Sparta, a powerful, military Greek City-State. But no one believed her. She was ridiculed by both High and Low of Troy: both Royalty and commoner because Troy was, after all, a powerful City-State of the western world; its military might extraordinary, the walls of its City impregnable.King Priam ignored Cassandra’s prescient warning and permitted Paris to sail with his older brother, Hector, a great warrior, to visit Sparta. Paris absconded with Helen the most beautiful woman in the world, and the wife of King Menelaus.That act of treachery sparked the Trojan war. The Greeks ultimately decimated Troy. Troy ceased to exist.Jump forward to the present time. In America there have been warnings aplenty of the danger posed by malevolent, malignant, secretive, powerful forces, both at home and abroad, intent on softening up and destroying a free Constitutional Republic to pave the way for its incorporation into a massive, diabolical transnational political, social, economic, juridical, cultural governmental scheme. Yes, many Americans understand this; but many more do not and, of those who do not, many of them scoff at the idea, even as they see the truth of the matter all around them. This is unfortunate but more troubling is the fact that many Americans simply don’t care that a free Constitutional Republic is on its deathbed and even more distressing and deeply disturbing is the fact that a substantial number of Americans want the Republic to fall, the Bill of Rights erased, the Constitution wholly ignored. Months of riots and mob violence in major Cities and small alike operated freely with abandon; public and private property vandalized, burned, and destroyed; innocent people assaulted, threatened, even murdered; monuments defaced, toppled.Few of these “protestors” faced arrest, even fewer faced prosecution, and fewer, still, if any, faced conviction and incarceration, for their intentional acts of mayhem, arson, assault and battery, and wanton destruction. When a reporter, at a news conference asked the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, what she thought of the mob violence taking place in Baltimore, Maryland, this past summer, she casually, flippantly, with a smile, no less, retorted, “people will do what they do.”  See, e.g., fox news, and articles posted in the Federalist, and the Washington Examiner.Was Pelosi’s remark taken out of context? No! The remark is a demonstrative, emphatic coda, a fitting finale to Pelosi’s condoning of and even encouragement of violent criminal behavior.Pelosi obviously approves of violence when perceived useful and conducive to the  stated objective: realization of a peculiar vision for the Country, a vision contrary to that of America’s founding fathers, who sought, through the careful construction of the U.S. Constitution—a desire to create and preserve a free Constitutional Republic See article in Real Clear Politics.Most Americans are proud of our Constitution, the longest existing and meaningful Constitution of any government of any nation on Earth. Pelosi obviously is not.Most Americans wish to preserve a free Constitutional Republic where the people are the ultimate sovereign. Pelosi does not.Pelosi and those around her, puppets like her, seek nothing less than the eradication of the Constitution, uniformity of thought and conduct among the citizenry and through that, the subjugation of it; the erosion and eventual erasure of our history, our heritage, our Judeo-Christian ethic, an end to all of it, and therein manifests tyranny—the very antithesis of the wishes and goal of the founding fathers of the Nation.Nancy Pelosi and those who share her political sympathies and who, like her, seek to profit from the demise of our Country demand no less than a metamorphosis of our Country—an extreme and horrifying mutation of it. And, they now have their chance.Since its inception, our weblog, the Arbalest Quarrel, has written extensively of the forces that would dare crush our Republic and its citizenry into submission. We have pointed to their aims, their ambitions, the tenacity of their efforts, and the inherent danger they pose to a free Constitutional Republic and to the fundamental, natural rights upon which our Constitution and the sovereignty of the American people over Government rests.Like Cassandra who warned Troy of its imminent and catastrophic demise if her warnings were not heeded, the Arbalest Quarrel has presented its readers with warning signs of the encroachment of the armies of darkness that Americans blithely dismiss. They cavalierly dismiss the signs of our impending doom. They fail to heed the warning signs of imminent destruction of a free Constitutional Republic.We all have a front row seat of the carnage to follow; the manifestation of our worst nightmare yet to come.With the inauguration of the puppet of the shadowy Obstructers and Destructors of our Nation, the Grand Pretender and Great Imposter, Joe Biden, will be sworn in as the 46^th President of the United States and Americans will soon see the calamity wrought as they lose their most cherished rights, a process already commencing with a multitude of attacks on free expression. It is all appropriately, fittingly in vein that Chief Justice Roberts, who, himself, is a Grand Pretender and Great Imposter, will have done the swearing in. The American citizenry will come face-to-face with their destiny, and it will be a stark, unpleasant future, indeed._____________________________________________________________

AMERICA’S DEMISE AS A FREE REPUBLIC COMING TO FRUITION

PART TWO

Since at least the last decade of the Twentieth Century and into the first decade and half of the Twenty-first Century, most of the American electorate became gradually cognizant of the dire threat to our Nation, to its people, to its core values, traditions, history, and heritage. They voted into Office an outsider, Donald Trump to set things right—to return the Nation to its roots. But the Obstructers and Destructors of our Nation—these ruthless, jealous, malevolent billionaire neoliberal globalist forces that crush—would have none of that. They were contemptuous of Trump and disdainful of the tens of millions of American citizens who supported him.Apoplectic with rage at seeing their secretive, agenda to dismantle a free Republic and to dissolve the Nation’s Constitution going awry, with the shocking defeat of their toady, Hillary Clinton, in 2016, they immediately set to work, formulating their plans to frustrate and bedevil the Trump Administration.These evil, malignant forces inserted spies deep into the recesses of Trump’s Cabinet, and existed en mass in the Federal Bureaucracy, and they were of one mind, with a specific, concerted, uniform aim: sabotage the President’s policy initiatives and objectives. Do whatever it takes to undermine the Trump Administration. And the Democrat Party puppets in Congress spent the bulk of their time and tens of millions of taxpayer dollars in a single-minded effort to remove Trump from Office.The remarkable thing is that, notwithstanding these incessant, relentless multivarious, multi-pronged seditious assaults on Trump, and on his supporters, to waylay his efforts and to destroy his Presidency, Trump was able to achieve many of his goals. The President made good on his campaign promises, consistent with his salient campaign slogans: “America First” and “Make America Great Again.” He worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people, to fulfill his duties in strict accordance with his Oath of Office, under Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution. But the forces that crush perceived Trump’s to treat America First and to Make America Great Again as a slap in the face to their Agenda. They abhorred the slogans, and the intent behind them. Their ultimate goal has always been to destroy the very concept of the Nation-State; to merge the remains of these Nation-States into a one-world governmental scheme, ransacking the Nation-State of everything of value to these overlords of a one-world governmental scheme—including the technology, the military, the police and the intelligence mechanisms and apparatuses—harnessing them all to their own needs and ends. These powerful, ruthless forces that crush were therefore dismissive of the Trumpian slogans, going so far as to treat them as veritable obscenities, refusing to countenance them; encouraging the Press and the politicians whom they control or whom they had compromised, or who otherwise were ideologically aligned with them, to utilize their voices and their print or digital medium to attack anyone who, from their standpoint, would have the audacity to invoke such slogans or emblazon them on hats, shirts, flags or banners. And the ever compliant, sympathetic, obsequious Press and the compromised, bought and paid for politicians obeyed. They went to work. They vehemently attacked what they disdainfully objected to as Trump's unruly, rude, ignorant, obnoxious, unrefined, lewd, provincial base of supporters.With their control of the massive, police, intelligence, and military apparatus, along with a compliant, sympathetic Press, court system, and academia, these powerful, malevolent forces hounded and attacked the man and his followers relentlessly. Their intentions were clear: to destroy not only the Trump Administration, but to destroy the man himself, and those closest to him. And, even as he now gets set to leave Office, still they hound him, intending to carry out an illegal impeachment trial against him, contrary to the Constitution, an act of pure vindictiveness, which led Senator Lindsey Graham to remark to Biden, on Fox News Sunday Morning Futures, hosted by Maria Bartiromo this past Sunday, January 17, 2021: “If you continue to do this, you hate Trump more than you love the country.”The hatred of Trump knows no bounds. The forces that crush worked on Americans, through the Press, to fan the flames of raw, visceral, hatred toward President Trump, to defeat him.And these ruthless, powerful, sinister, and secretive forces that crush have clearly succeeded,  although at no small cost: reluctantly, they had to come out of the shadows. They had to make their existence known. They had to make known the full depth and breadth of their monstrous agenda. And, they had to make known the extent to which they had insinuated themselves into every core business sector and institution of our Country.And, this was no easy effort; more was required to manage and accomplish a mammoth turnaround. They had to bring a substantial mass of average Americans over to their side. They did this through a well-designed, well-engineered, comprehensive campaign of propaganda.For the last four years Americans have been subject to an elaborate scheme of deception, a massive psychological indoctrination program that has no parallel in our lengthy history.But, to take control and sway a Nation of almost three hundred and thirty million Americans of diverse education, cultural, ethnic backgrounds was no easy task.The obstructive and destructive forces, both here and abroad orchestrated and implemented an impressive, multifaceted, multi-pronged strategy, to turn one American against the other and one group against another, emphasizing and magnifying differences between and among Americans, and all but ignoring those qualities and characteristics that bring Americans together. They utilized Anarchist and Marxist groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, to create mayhem and to further sow discord. Insidiously and vociferously they blamed President Trump for societal divisiveness and division that followed, even as it was they who orchestrated and nourished the violence and discord, not Trump.To this day, many Americans who say they not only dislike Trump, but loathe the man, cannot adequately explain or articulate why, other than pointing to superficial matters, such as  his personality and bearing, all but skirting over his singular accomplishments in both the foreign and domestic policy arenas.Trump spared the Nation from expending vast sums of money on unnecessary foreign wars and intrigues, substantially reducing the number of American lives ruined and lost because of them. And he established a foundation for lasting peace in the Middle East.Trump obtained further Arab recognition for the State of Israel and he reined in Iran. Trump stood strong against the growing military, economic, and geopolitical threat posed by China, and he reined in the dangers posed by North Korea.Trump’s economic policies also worked out exceptionally well. He created millions of jobs for average Americans of all ethnic backgrounds and spurred the growth of small business. Wages increased not through Government regulation, but by Government allowing America’s small businesses to function, placing fewer constraints on them,  not more. thereby creating a boon for both business and worker, permitting America’s businesses and America’s workers not only to survive, but to thrive and to compete effectively against China. In the foreign arena, Trump destroyed the Islamic State and contained Iran. The U.S. military footprint was reduced, and the world was safer for it.Everything was going well for the Nation and its people, and that wasn't what Communist China nor the western billionaire globalist elites, nor the Radical Left Marxists, Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists wanted to see. For, it is not easy to destroy a U.S. President whose policies actually strengthen the Nation, and work to the benefit of the citizenry. That would not do at all. Something was needed beyond the use of propaganda to slowly turn Americans against Trump. Something drastic was needed. And something drastic mysteriously arrive out of the blue, just when it was needed by the forces that crush: a severe biological plague; a global pandemic.It was only through Xi Jinping’s unleashing of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus on America and the world, that the economy and the life and well-being of individual Americans have suffered. This was not good for the American citizenry. It certainly was not good for small business. But, it was just the ticket for ridding the Nation of a successful U.S. President, when all else failed: sabotage; the Mueller investigation; impeachment; and trial. Of course, the Chinese Communist plague was not Trump's fault. No matter. Blame Trump, not China. That was the foundation of the game plan; and the new tack to employ to destroy Trump.Not, surprisingly, the forces that crush, these neoliberal globalist elites, through their puppets—the Press and Democrat Party leaders—were quick to blame Trump, not China for the devastation wrought by the plague that China, notwithstanding that it was and is Xi Jinping's regime, not Trump, that bears sole responsibility for the Coronavirus plague, and the forces that crush utilized and played the horror of the plague to their advantage.Given how the plague has taken over the lives and thoughts of Americans completely, it is easy to forget that before the unleashing of the Chinese COVID plague on the Nation, the American economy had grown significantly and without concomitant runaway inflation. Even The New York Times acknowledged Trump’s singular accomplishments in the economic arena, but did so, grudgingly, and did so with but a few days remaining in the Trump Presidency. When was the last time that the Press ever said anything positive about Trump? Apparently to do so now, when it doesn't matter, as Trump's tenure in the White House is over, the Press doesn't mind reporting news.In fact, on January 19, 2021, the Times reiterated the strength of the economy under Trump’s tenure in Office but was careful not to give him credit for it. They didn’t even mention his name. The Times writes, “The humming labor backdrop that existed 11 months ago—with 3.5 percent unemployment, stable or rising work force participation, and steadily climbing wages turned out to be a recipe for lifting all boats, creating economic opportunities for long-disenfranchised groups and lowering poverty rates. And price gains remained manageable and even a touch on the low side. That contrasts with efforts to push the labor market’s limits in the 1960s, which are widely blamed for laying the groundwork for runaway inflation.”Why didn’t the NY Times credit Trump for this economic marvel? Could it be that they didn’t want to allude to the fact that Trump, as portraying him as evil, could not be perceived as having accomplished anything good for the Country. Over and over again, the Press refers to Trump as a Racist. But he was nothing of the kind. But to admit that would go against the mainstream media's own narrative—a narrative that required the Press to constantly and vociferously to denigrate. And being so wrapped up in their own fairy tales they failed to notice that Trump truly was making America great again.  Trump, far from being a Racist actively, avidly attempted, and succeeded to assist those “disenfranchised groups” that the Times’ reporters mentioned in the afore-referenced news article.The NY Times conveniently fails to mention that, back in August 2019, Martin Luther’s niece had this to say about the President, as reported by The Hill:“Martin Luther King Jr.'s niece Alveda King said Thursday that President Trump is not a racist, adding that she has gone up against "genuine racists."In an interview with ‘Fox & Friends,’ the niece of the late civil rights leader said she believed Trump when he said he aims to improve life for all Americans, regardless of race.‘President Trump has said ‘we all bleed the same.’ He's very clear on that, and he has done so much for all Americans, including African Americans,’ she said.‘Trump is not a racist’ she added. ‘I've had the experience of going head to head with genuine racists.’Her comments come after the latest round of criticism aimed at Trump from Democrats, including 2020 presidential candidates like former Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas), who said this week that Trump ‘is a racist, and he stokes racism in this country.’O'Rourke earlier in the week said that he believed Trump bears at least part of the blame for the recent mass shooting in El Paso, Texas, and he cited the suspected shooter's alleged anti-immigrant manifesto that was posted online before the attack.King weighed in on Trump's Wednesday visit to El Paso, where he and first lady Melania Trump met with hospital staff and other local officials.‘What President Trump and first lady Melania did was to go down and look for solutions. We have to overcome evil with good. When people call each other racist — we are one blood. One human race, different ethnicities — we're not color blind, we can see, but that is for the purpose of appreciating each other and we have to do that,’ King said.” See also article in the Atlantic Black Star.Wouldn't it have been nice had The New York Times and other mainstream outlets sought to reduce tension in the Nation and acknowledge the fact that Trump is no racist insisting instead that he is a racist. One need only look to the man’s actions to realize that he isn’t a racist. He has assisted Blacks in the economic, political, social, and cultural spheres. He has done so, admirably, decidedly, and decisively, but the Press gives him no credit for that.An apt reminder of Trump’s desire to assist Blacks especially on Martin Luther King Jr’s Birthday would have done much to help unite Americans, rather than to tear them apart. But, again, that would go against the grain, against the narrative. Yet, the seditious Press desires only to stoke tension among Americans, not allay it. And in that lie, the Press has succeeded well; even using the Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. to assert and reinforce the bald-faced lie that Trump is a racist and that, means, by extension, that anyone who supports Trump, must be a racist too. It is all a pernicious lie, but one the Press has continually and vigorously propagated despite all the evidence to the contrary. And the Nation has suffered and continues to suffer because of it. The Press and the Democrat Party leadership bear primary responsibility for this and should be roundly condemned for it.__________________________________________________________

THE GRAND CONSPIRACY TO DISUNITE AMERICANS HAS WORKED LIKE A CHARM

PART THREE

The Press along with the Democrat Party leadership has actively and avidly conspired to divide Americans, not to unite Americans. They are intent on fanning the flames of hatred, suspicion, and fear among Whites and Blacks where none exists.The lies the Press and Democrat Party leadership deliberately propagate and perpetrate have permeated throughout society, with many Americans believing it, damning both Trump and the tens of millions of Americans who have supported him. Many highly educated, articulate Blacks realize the harm the Big Lie and false narratives do, as they nurture of enmity as, of course, they are designed to do. Treating Blacks as inherent victims serves only to demean the race, evoking a reality that is false and pernicious and reprehensible; and treating Whites as inherent oppressors serves to castigate the race, evoking a reality that, too, is false and pernicious and reprehensible.The orchestrators of this great Myth do so with the intent to create perpetual enmity between the races. They have used it, to date, to great effect to justify the subjugation of all Americans: inducing in the White Race fear a sense of guilt, remorse, despair, along with the desire for redemption; and inducing in the Black Race anguish, rage, a lack of esteem, along with the desire for revenge and retribution. Thus, the proletariat of both races must look to Government alone for succor and security from all harm; not to one’s family, and not to one’s own indomitability of spirt, and not to the Divine Creator.This injurious stratagem is no accident. It has been carefully crafted, calibrated, and implemented to compel mass conflict and to draw attention way from the goals of the real defilers and spoilers of the world who have engineered this stratagem to reduce the citizenry of this Nation to penury and servitude. Black intellectual visionaries and articulate speakers such as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Peter Kirsanow, Jason Whitlock, Horace Cooper, and Candace Owens, certainly see the incipient, imminent danger this stratagem of the neoliberal globalist elites and the Radical Left poses for all Americans. To their credit these sensitive, perceptive, educated African-Americans have called out the purveyors of lies. Apparently the Press and many cable news  broadcast news channels have been too caught up in their own false narratives too notice, as they ARE the purveyors of lies.The forces that crush intend to take us back to a dark time in our history: to recreate it, magnify it, distort it, allow it to gestate and infuse in the masses and to permeate all of society; and to use it as a pretext to undermine the sacred rights and liberties of Americans, and with that—control us all.Trump disagreed with the plan of the forces that seek to crush America into submission. His America First plan emphasized the importance of American initiative; reliance on the individual and of the sanctity of the Self. He applauds American inventiveness and achievement, and he provided the impetus for it. Trump recognizes and has supported the Nation’s Bill of Rights, upon which the sovereignty and well-being of the citizenry depends—has always depended. All this is fact, and Trump has been maligned for it. The Nation’s Bill of Rights mean little if anything to Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and those who pull their strings. They and those who pull their strings are adherents of the tenets of Collectivism. Amorphous Groups, not individuals, are of importance to them, for groups can be easily manipulated. Individuals not so easily.Trump’s extraordinary accomplishments on behalf of the Nation and its people are a testament to his desire and fortitude to serve the Country; its people; and to serve the U.S. Constitution, the bedrock of a free Constitutional Republic. But the well-being of the Country, its people, and the plain meaning of the Constitution mean little to those forces intent on ridding the Nation of Trump. For in ridding the Nation of Trump, as they see it, they also rid the Nation of the need to operate within the constraints of the Constitution they duplicitously and disingenuously say they ascribe to serving.Despite Trump’s singular accomplishments—perhaps precisely because of them—the forces that crush have worked tirelessly, feverishly to bring Trump down. It is because he had proved that America can truly be the World’s leader that he is maligned. He has demonstrated the importance of Nation’s spirit that each Nation should cultivate for itself, on behalf of its own people. He has been brought down not because of any perceived failure, but, rather, because of his admirable successes in both the domestic and foreign policy fronts.With Biden in Office all that Trump accomplished will be reversed. It will be back to foreign wars and intrigues and wasteful loss of American life, wasteful spending of taxpayer monies; obeisance to China; sycophantic behavior to the neoliberal Globalist elites of the EU; an open Southern Border, resulting in waves upon waves of poorly educated illegal alien migrants coming to our Country, drawn to America by the thought of free American largess; thousands more murderous transnational gang members, drug cartels, and sex traffickers following along with caravans of  thousands of freeloaders; top down control of public education; top down control of the police; abortion on demand; the eradication of our civil liberties and the evaporation of our fundamental rights; the annihilation of our history, heritage, traditions, and values; the release of tens of thousands of career criminals and severely mentally ill people onto the streets to prey on innocent Americans; strict control of language, thought, and conduct—and all this just for starters.The new world order that powerful, malevolent, malignant, and secretive mega-billionaire neoliberal globalist Obstructers and Destructors seek to impose on the citizenry, through their puppets in Congress and in the White House, and in the Federal Bureaucracy, requires not the preservation and well-being of this Nation, this Nation’s Constitution, and requires not the inherent sovereignty of the people, but, instead, an end to all of it. And with firm control of the police, military, and the intelligence apparatus, along with the willing cooperation of the Press, academia, and the Courts, and with Big Tech, and Wall Street given free rein to continue to reap billions of dollars at the expense of the average citizen, a free Constitutional Republic, envisioned by the founders of the Republic, is about to become nothing more than a footnote in a massive revisionary historical textbook.We are now truly facing our critical Eleventh Hour._______________________________________________

SHH! DO NOT WHISPER THE TRUTH: “TRUMP WON THE ELECTION”

PART FOUR

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. The election of a U.S. President is as much an historical tradition as it is a Constitutional requirement under the Twelfth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The 2020 U.S. Presidential election was no ordinary election. Most Americans knew full well, as did sinister, powerful, wealthy, jealous, and ruthless forces behind the scenes, that this election, as the previous one in 2016, would determine the future direction of our Country—for the foreseeable future and conceivably for all time.But President Trump lost the U.S. Presidential election. Or did he?There exists substantial evidence of massive elections fraud and illegal manipulation of the electoral process of several key States. Yet, the Press and the Democrat Party leadership vehemently denies this, calls Trump and those who protest the outcome of the election liars, and persecute Americans relentlessly for merely asserting the fact of it. But where is the investigation to prove the assertion, false?The Federal and State Courts have routinely dismissed Trump’s lawsuits out-of-hand.The U.S. Supreme Court, apart from Justices Alito and Thomas, would not allow the critically important Texas case to be heard, patently and ignobly ignoring their Article 3, Section 2 original jurisdiction mandate, that requires the high Court to review cases involving suits between States as no other lower State or federal Court has authority to do so.Texas did have standing to present its pertinent, critical case to the High Court—a case in which seventeen other States joined—challenging the electoral processes of a few other States that intentionally, invidiously violated Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.Chief Justice John Roberts wouldn’t even deign to allow Texas a hearing to present its case, apparently thinking that, to do so, would give credence to the merits of the case, even if the Court were thereafter to decide against Texas, concluding that the mere fact of allowing a hearing before the High Court would only serve to diminish the false narrative the Press had been relaying and playing to the public, denying out-of-hand the very idea that massive elections fraud had in fact occurred, handing the election to the imposter Joe Biden when the election was handily won by Trump. John Roberts, and the other members of the liberal wing of the Court would not allow, must not provide a forum for Texas and 17 other States to make their case that a few critical rust belt States, along with Georgia, had in fact unconstitutionally made changes to their elections laws to assist in the mammoth 2020 U.S. Presidential elections fraud scheme.The question is: why did Associate Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, play along with this? Did Justice Roberts browbeat his colleagues? Consider the report by Vision Times. See also report in Real NSE.And, then there is the odd, out-of-character, perfunctory, oblique, nebulous remark of then Attorney General, William Barr. The National Review, referencing the AP, reports Barr as saying, on December 1, 2020,“There’s been one assertion that would be systemic fraud and that would be the claim that machines were programmed essentially to skew the election results. And the [Department of Homeland Security] and DOJ have looked into that, and so far, we haven’t seen anything to substantiate that.”One assertion of systemic fraud? DOJ looked into that and so far, has found nothing? Really?But when did this investigation commence? Who, exactly, did the investigating? What, precisely, did those “investigators” investigate? Is the investigation ongoing? How much time has been spent on this investigation? Where is the report? Is there a report? Will the public ever see the report, if, in fact there is one forthcoming? Unfortunately we cannot ask Mr. Barr these questions. He abruptly and quietly resigned from Office. CNBC reports that Barr submitted his letter of resignation to President Trump on December 14, 2020,  two weeks after making his comment to the AP. The resignation took effect on December 23, 2020, just before Christmas. And, we haven’t heard a word since from the DOJ.Deputy Attorney General, Jeffrey Rosen, replaced Barr. But, Rosen hasn’t said anything further about the DOJ investigation into elections fraud. We know next to nothing about Rosen. The ABA Journal points out that Rosen has no prosecution. In fact we haven’t heard a damn thing from Rosen about anything—not least of all, about the status of the Durham investigation.As this article goes to publication, soon, very soon, the senile, corrupt Joe Biden will take the Oath of Office, becoming the 46th President of the United States. One should ponder that. Of course, Biden will be served with legions of advisors from the Obama Administration, including those from the banking sector, and those from the technology sector. They likely will make all decisions, with Biden rubber-stamping those decisions. The forces that crush, through their puppet, Joe Biden, will go to work to reverse Trump’s many achievements, returning the Nation back to the Agenda set for it by the shadowy forces that pulled the strings of Bill Clinton, two Bushes, and Barack Obama. As MSN news reports, quoting The New York Times,“President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr., inheriting a collection of crises unlike any in generations, plans to open his administration with dozens of executive directives on top of expansive legislative proposals in a 10-day blitz meant to signal a turning point for a nation reeling from disease, economic turmoil, racial strife and now the aftermath of the assault on the Capitol.” The critical question is this: will the Nation be able to withstand the coming storm, retaining a free Constitutional Republic as the framers of our Constitution constructed and intended for it, a free Constitutional Republic where the people themselves are and remain sovereign over Government—where Government exists to serve the people and not the other way around—OR will a free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people cease to exist; the American people losing their sacred rights and liberties: the right of free expression, association, constrained, attenuated; the ownership and possession of firearms, curtailed; the people under constant surveillance, impoverished physically and spiritually; harassed; subjugated?This question isn’t hyperbole notwithstanding that many Americans, the 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 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 belief, these ostensibly sensible, pragmatic middle and upper-middle class Americans are dead wrong.Happy these Americans claim to be to see Trump go, and they are oblivious to the fact that their own lives are about to take a radical turn for the worse. But they have themselves to blame for that.___________________________________________________________

A WAR UNDERWAY FOR THE SOUL OF THE NATION

PART FIVE

A war is being waged against the United States. This war commenced at the very point Americans achieved their independence from the oppressive monarchy of George III of Britain, and it’s a war against Americans that has gathered steam in the last couple of decades before President Trump brought the Destructors’ Agenda to a screeching halt.This war is being fought between two factions: very much a war of light against the dark.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 a new Order—a true Marxist State—not to be construed as a genuine sovereign, independent nation, one defined by geographical borders, and these Counterrevolutionaries have brought into the fold, millions of ordinary Americans—Americans who have been effectively brainwashed to think that the danger to the Nation existed in the person of Trump and that a Biden/Harris Presidency will thwart “the Trump danger” when nothing could be further from the truth.The Counterrevolutionaries and the sinister, secretive neoliberal Globalist elites who control them, 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 only as paper relics because the real rulers of these “nations”—nations that are now merely vestiges of their former selves, mere geographical regions each containing millions of multivarious impoverished people—emanate from Brussels. This is apparent from an analysis of the governing authority of the purported nation-states presently comprising the European Union. Biden intends to make amends to Brussels, to atone for trump’s apparent sins. but are these overseers of the EU truly our allies? How can they be?The Western titans of industry and finance and technology are the true rulers of this new Order, governing the world through their proxies in the Biden Administration, in the EU, and in other major Western Countries. Above them, we see the Rothschild clan, whose progenitor created the institution of the private Central Bank cartel that has enslaved and bankrupted Nations. And there is the Royalty of Europe. But is there anyone or anything else above these sordid people? Indeed, who can say what manner of man or creature controls the controllers at the apex of the pyramid that IS the “Eye” of the pyramid? And we see the dire effects of their agenda: enslavement of mankind.The European Union constitutes the germ of the grand design of this new transnational world order: the vehicle for enslaving mankind. With the United Kingdom finally out of the EU—after years of attempts to compel the UK to remain—it remains to be seen whether or how long the UK will remain free of the shackles of the EU if in fact it is free of the constraints of Brussels. An eleven month “transition” takes place now. But will the UK really be free of Brussels? We would bet against it. With the neoliberal Globalist elites’ attention and efforts directed first and foremost to undermining the 2020 U.S Presidential election, to ensure that their puppets Biden and Harris take over the reins of the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government, and with Trump about to take his leave from Government, the ruling elite of Europe will draw their attention once again to the problematic UK.Other western nations will eventually be brought directly into the EU’s orbit, namely and especially the Commonwealth Nations. But the real prize, the one the elites and their counterrevolutionary proxies had coveted 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 have now orbit, utilizing these apparatuses for their own selfish and nefarious purposes.And the Chinese Communist empire has its own designs, ambitions, and objectives for the Nation, and Joe Biden is their “Manchurian” Candidate in a real sense, as well as being a puppet of the Western neoliberal globalist elites.China has bought and paid for Biden and they intend to profit handsomely from him.Communist China’s aims are primarily geopolitical and military. The aims of the Western titans of industry and finance and technology 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, these peoples are already doomed. It is no accident the poor, impoverished, or outright lazy, would make a mad dash for the United States, seeking handouts at the expense of Americans, who, like they, will be reduced to abject poverty and misery, as few dollars will exist to benefit anyone at the bottom of society.Can Americans prevent or lessen the severity of what is about to befall them? All that stands between Americans and annihilation, is their fundamental, natural, unalienable, illimitable, and immutable right of free speech and their 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.When the corrupt Joe Biden and the sordid, horrid Kamala Harris get into Office and with the contemptible, deceitful Chuck Schumer as Senate Majority leader, along with the priggish Nancy Pelosi, once again firmly entrenched as Speaker of the House of Representatives, we Americans—who have, to date, been given but a foretaste of erosion of our 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 be tolerated and cannot long remain in a totalitarian environment. Such rights contradict the objectives of the tenets of Collectivism. And the very existence of an armed citizenry is wholly incompatible with and poses an imminent threat to dictatorial rule and to the coming New World Order. An autocracy demands exacting uniformity in thought and conduct among the mass of commonalty and, through their puppets in Congress and in the vast Government Bureaucracy, the secretive, ruthless Globalist elites intend to crack down hard on all dissent and they intend to crack down hard on the means through which the people can assert their sovereignty over Government, i.e., through force of arms, as the founders had intended. The New World Order would otherwise all come crashing down.For the first time in American history, we will see a person take the Oath of Office with few people in attendance. Military and police presence will be massive. This evident show of force is, of course, overkill. But it does have a subtle, sinister purpose. It has less to do with ensuring protection of the inauguration farce that it may proceed unhindered, and it has more to do with demonstrating to the American people that the era of a free Constitutional Republic and of their sovereignty over the Government is about to come to an end. Not surprisingly, the Washington Post, the mouthpiece of the centi-billionaire Jeff Bezos, is letting everyone know that Washington, D.C. is now tied down tight as a corset around a woman's waist. Reading about the lockdown, one gets the distinct impression that the globalist elites are positively giddy that they now have control over our Country. Recall, it wasn’t that long ago the same Washington Post mocked Trump for wishing to stage a massive military parade for Independence Day 2019. Obviously, it isn’t a show of military force that the Press finds unbefitting the United States, but, rather, whom it is that has authorized such a military show of force and for what purpose it has been arranged. A show of force is peculiarly, ironically befitting for the Nation, where, as here, Americans witness one Grand Imposter undertaking to swear in another Grand Imposter to the Highest Office in the Land. Where a show of force demonstrates the idea of a powerful America, demonstrative of Trump’s “America First” principle as an expression of pride of Country, that notion, the Press tells us, is, to be taken as wholly unacceptable. But, where a show of force at the Nation’s Capitol is exalted, as a gesture of defiance directed against the citizenry itself, that, apparently, is quite all right. It is rather odd to say the least, but strangely appropriate if at once unsettling, when one stops to think about it. Such a happenstance is typical of the pomp one sees in totalitarian regimes where the Dictator demonstrates, through an overwhelming show of military force and police presence, both the pretentious, seemingly omnipotent power the Dictator wields over the populace and, paradoxically, the Dictator's real fear of that very populace. But, as for us, it certainly doesn’t smack of a friendly atmosphere for a solemn American event. One might have hoped that the police and military presence would be a wee bit more discreet. But in a topsy-turvy America, to expect some measure of discretion at a U.S. Presidential inauguration would be too much to ask. Civilian presence as virtually nonexistent and military and police presence omnipresent is an apt scene for an Alice-in-Wonderland nightmare such as we Americans now find ourselves in. But, then, Biden never really did draw much of a crowd at an event, did he? With the dawn of a new world order upon us, expect to see mindless circumambulations, bizarre edicts, and implausible, incomprehensible explanations to justify or rationalize the most awful actions Biden/Harris Administration will soon thrust upon our sad Country.Where words of the Radical Left regularly come to signify the opposite of what one might reasonably expect from the usual meaning of them and where untold suffering of Americans is unassuaged by Press assertion of the purported good intentions behind Government action that gave rise to that suffering, and if this is what Americans can expect, is it any wonder that tens of millions of Americans should respond with foreboding of a Biden Presidency?His handlers might wish to present Joe Biden as the Great Healer and Unifier of America—and perhaps Biden really sees himself as such—but from what we can gather to date from Biden’s words and actions, this is all deliberate deception and grand illusion.Biden’s Presidency will sicken the citizenry, not heal it, and his Presidency will divide and is ultimately meant to destroy the Nation rather than unify and preserve it. But then that is the endgame. Suffused with soothing words of calls for unity are concerns expressed aplenty about what to do about 75 million to 80 million people who voted for and who supported President Trump and who supported Trump's policies and initiatives. How can Biden and Congressional Democrats expect to unify the Nation, if in fact, they truly mean what they say, if, in the same breath they claim that Trump supporters are beyond the pale? There is a huge disconnect here. And, the fact of the matter is that Democrats must come to grips with those 75 to 80 million people. If the Biden/Harris Administration and Congressional Democrats continue to act with disdain toward and remain suspicious of Trump supporters, then any attempt at unifying the Nation is doomed at the get-go. But 75 million to 80 million people in a Land of 33o million is not an insignificant number. If the lockdown at the State Capital is any indication, a massive military and police presence in this Nation may become as ubiquitous as the wearing of masks in this era of the Chinese Communist plague. It is very difficult to claim that the United States is now to become a Democratic society, when the Nation did not exist as such under Trump, so the Press tells us, if the entire Nation lives under constant military and police surveillance. Perhaps Biden will tell us that this is necessary in order to preserve public order and safety, even as the prisons and mental institutions are emptied of their many wards, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. If actions belie words, it is the actions that will dictate how the public perceives a Nation existing under the dictates of a Biden/Harris Presidency. But, we know what the neoliberal globalists and Radical left globalist Marxists want to erect, and that bears watching, because it is they who are in control of the U.S. Government, and they are very much concerned about the existence of too much free public discourse and of the freedom of association, and above all else, they are concerned about the presence of a citizen army, the foundation of a truly free Constitutional Republic and of a sovereign, independent Nation-State, which they detest.Both billionaire neoliberal globalists and Radical Left globalist Marxists seek to destroy the Nation-State, rewrite history, shred the Constitution, disarm the citizenry, and clamp down hard on all dissent. In the last several months, up to the last couple of weeks, and to the run-up of the inauguration, Americans have obtained a very, very good foretaste of what to expect from a Biden/Harris Presidency. The coming clampdown of dissent will be couched in such terms as 'insurrection,' 'domestic terrorism,' 'white supremacy,' and 'racism,' the first two of which, 'insurrection' and 'terrorism,' are legal terms of art. The word, 'terrorism,' as defined in Title 18 of the United States Code, is understood to mean 'international terrorism.' And, to our knowledge the expression, 'white supremacism'  and 'racism' are not legal terms of art, only  political and social ones. There is no reference, as yet at any rate,  as far as we are aware, to the application of terrorism in the domestic sphere to the notions of 'white supremacism' and 'racism,' equated with or implied in the notion of 'terrorism.' In fact, 'white supremacism' and 'racism' pervasive or not, prevalent or not (and there is little if any evidence to suggest that even a significant minority of Americans espouse such ideas, apart from incessant railing by the Press and by the Radical Left members of Congress) do not of themselves implicate terrorism in the legal sense. That is likely to change in the Biden Administration, given the abundance of news reporting of late that refer continuously to the notion of 'domestic terrorism.' There likely will be a flurry of activity to enact laws specifically designed to target right-wing political groups, leading inevitably to the disbanding and banning of any such organizations. But, one must ask, will the application of 'terrorism' to those groups espousing right-wing, ostensibly, extreme political thought, but not directed to the use of violent attacks on and upheaval of the U.S. Government, still be treated as illegal domestic terrorist organizations, nonetheless? Probably. But, then, will the same label, name, or appellation not also apply to extremist left-wing political groups, such as Antifa, and Black Lives Matter, that admittedly espouse radical Marxist and Anarchist ideologies and that have espoused and have used violence against both Governmental institutions and Government officials and have utilized violence against private individuals and against private businesses as an obvious terror tactic to tear down society? Ought not those groups also be designated as outlaw domestic terrorist organizations and associations that should themselves be shut down? Not likely. And, that takes us to the expressions, 'white supremacism,' and 'racism.  These are constantly invoked as favorite talking points of the mainstream media. The public is told of the prevalence of white supremacism and racism in our society. But are they really? If so, where are they to be found? All around us, the public is told. A person waves a battle flag of the confederacy. Is the act of doing so an example of illegal conduct, namely insurrection and domestic terrorism that must be stamped out, or is it protected speech, if framed as an defiance? Under our law the waving of a Confederate battle flag IS protected speech, a fundamental, natural right, but doing so may not be treated as such, for much longer. But, suppose someone wishes to wave the Red and Gold Hammer and Sickle flag of the old Soviet Union as an act of defiance, expressing the desire for the creation of a Communist State in the United States. Is the act of waving that flag an example of allowable protected speech and the act of waving a flag of the Confederacy or waving the flag, say, of the Third Reich, untenable, illegal? If so, why allow the one but not the others? Is that not straightforward hypocrisy and duplicity? One need only look to the extent to which the Biden/Harris Administration and the Democrat Party controlled Congress strive to preserve our Nation's fundamental rights and liberties as codified in the Bill of Rights or attempt to constrict them or curtail them outright to be able to infer whether this Nation continues in some capacity, at least, as a free Republic, or whether it truly degenerates into an autocracy, the very thing that the Press has proclaimed that Trump espoused and where the Press and many Congressional Democrats said we were headed under a Trump Administration, but was, for all that, curiously, absent.In the Trump Administration, apart from the misuse of the DOJ and BATF to unlawfully rewrite Federal Statute to ban "bump stocks," and apart from the silent but pervasive invasion of the our privacy through rampant violation of the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, creating a true surveillance society that we can thank both the Bush Administration and Congress for, and which Trump never curbed, still, President Trump's Administration never banned political expression or sought to do so, or strove to curtail the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Quite the Contrary. President Trump strove to preserve our Nation's First and Second Amendment fundamental, natural, unalienable rights, recognizing that the constraining of them or outright curtailing of these rights is incompatible with the tenets of Individualism and incompatible with the sovereignty of the American people, and incompatible with the existence of a free Constitutional Republic. If Trump were truly the Autocrat or Tyrant that Congressional Democrats and the Press say he was, there was no evidence of that. One of the first things a true Autocrat and Tyrant would do is clamp down on speech and curtail civilian ownership and possession of firearms. From what we can see, it is only Democrats and the technology monopolies that wish to clamp down hard on dissenting voices, and we have been getting a good taste where we are headed on that front.Under a Biden/Harris Administration, the public may very well see the unlawful censoring of political expression, couched as it is in moralistic terminology, among other things. The first 100 days of the Biden/Harris Administration will tell the public much about what we may expect. Our guess is that public policy directed to the constraining and eventual curtailing of expansive free speech and stringent constraining of possession and ownership of firearms is, unfortunately, just around the corner, up around the bend (to use a phrase from the lyrics of a catchy Credence Clearwater Revival song).If the destruction of the American spirit and the oppression of the American people are in fact at hand, what will Americans do about it?Is there anything that can be done now to preserve the Republic and the fundamental, natural, unalienable rights and liberties of the American people as the final hours of the Trump Presidency draw to a close, and a horrifying new world dawns? At this point all we can do is hold our breath and wait.

POSTSCRIPT

It is now day’s end January 20, 2021. President Trump has departed the White House, and Joe Biden, now U.S. President Joe Biden, has been sworn into Office by Chief Justice John Roberts. And Kamala Harris, now Vice President Kamala Harris, has been sworn in by Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor. It is all hard to believe and harder yet to take all this in.Some Americans hold out hope on the 2022 Midterm elections when the Republicans have an opportunity to regain control of the U.S. Senate and gain yet more seats in the House, or so some Congressional Republicans tell us. But this is problematic. If, in fact, as substantial evidence of elections fraud points to, the Big Steal occurred, then why should anyone profess faith that elections fraud won’t occur in the 2022 Midterm elections as well. Indeed, did not elections fraud permeate the Georgia runoff elections that had predicted a clear Republican victory? Instead, the Senate obtains two sorry cases: one a wife beater and the other with ties to Xi Jinping’s China, and both likely Communists.Press pronouncements proclaiming the integrity of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election electoral are hardly reassuring when they amount to nothing more than blanket denial. Yet the Press would have the electorate accept Press denials as self-evident truth when they clearly are not. The Press also routinely asserts that claims of elections fraud are unsubstantiated, when, in fact, many have been substantiated and those that haven’t are still predicated on sound and reasonable allegations which courts of competent jurisdiction should have permitted to proceed to discovery, but perfunctorily dismissed the cases, to suggest that the courts did not want the truth to come out. The Press also says that claims of elections fraud have been debunked. But, curiously, the Press never  troubles itself to explain who it was that debunked claims of elections fraud, or when it was that claims of elections fraud were debunked, or how claims of elections fraud were debunked. It is also rather curious that the Press and Big Tech become defensive, agitated, and angry over the entire matter of claims of elections fraud. If those who profess to be certain as to the integrity of the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, are in fact so certain of it it seems odd they absolutely insist that no investigation should ensue. After all, the election of a U.S. President is no trivial matter. Given the sheer number of accounts of elections fraud that beset the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, and the fact that such accounts are compelling, it is highly suspect that those who profess certainty that no fraud occurred should wish to preclude comprehensive investigation of the matter. Investigation would go a long way to allay suspicion of massive elections fraud.To dismiss investigation of elections fraud out-of-hand serves only to invite suspicion and helps explain the consternation and puzzlement of Trump supporters, tens of millions of us. It is deeply puzzling, too, that there would be angry calls for expulsion of Senators Hawley and Cruz from the Senate merely for making their case for an investigation into elections fraud. There seems to be a deep desire on the part of many in Congress and in the media to bury this matter quickly and completely. And the U.S. Supreme Court, as well, apart from Justices Alito and Thomas, express an all too cavalier attitude toward allegations of State violations of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Hope for Republican capture of the House and Senate in 2022 is little merited when Americans must depend on the very integrity of an electoral process that is much in doubt. And, if that is all that we have, after our worst nightmare realized, a Biden/Harris Presidency, and loss of the Senate as well, and two years to wait while the Biden/Harris Administration reverses a good many of Trump's major accomplishments, this Hope is not much of a consolation prize. When Pandora opened the box that Zeus had given her as a "gift," she would have done well to let Zeus keep her gift. Curious to see what that gift contained, she took a peek, and let out all manner of troubles into the world. One item remained: Hope. That was all that was left in the box; nothing more.Better it would have been had Pandora kept the lid of the box shut. The world would not have Hope, true; but, then, the world would have had little or no need of it, anyway, in the absence of Troubles and Worries and Pain, all those things to vex the world that would have been much better left in the box, together with Hope.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE 11TH HOUR APPROACHES: THE FATE OF OUR COUNTRY RESTS IN THE BALANCE

In a few weeks, the U.S. may expect someone to be inaugurated President of the United States. Who will that “someone” be? Most Americans expect the empty-headed, corrupt Joseph Biden will be that person. And many Americans look forward to that event even as they fail to realize they have been hoodwinked, believing that a Biden/Harris Administration to be a godsend for the Nation, rather than the calamity it really portends for the Nation and its people.Even now, the mainstream seditious media continues its incessant, endless, badgering of Trump. His reasonable demands for a serious investigation into the most flagrant, deceitful, reprehensible acts of elections fraud and electoral process manipulation ever to occur in our Nation go unchecked, unanswered.The President can’t even make a telephone call without the Press and the Democrat Party leadership screaming yet again, ever again for his impeachment—doing so with automatic, repetitive, rote, vacuous sameness, no less so than the mad Red Queen in Louis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland,” as she constantly rages: “off with his head; off with his head; off with his head. . . .”The President’s legitimate concerns are continually, consistently met with haughty disdain as the seditious mainstream media reiterates with noxious regularity an empty denunciation of Trump’s reasonable demands for a detailed accounting of and audit of the 2020 election.The Press perfunctorily dismisses rather than troubles itself to admit or, at least, to investigate, incontrovertible proof of massive elections fraud; and, through it all, has the audacity to expect the public to accept the simplistic unsupported assertion that the 2020 election was aboveboard and honest despite a wealth of damning evidence to the contrary.Is not the Press, THIS PRESS, an enemy of the people rather than its guardian? The Press insists on playing the public for fools. The pity of it is that so many Americans are willing to play along with this; indeed, all too many even believe the idiocy. That helps explain why our Country is in the dire state it finds itself now, at this 11^th Hour.

INTER ARMA ENIM SILENT LEGES (“IN TIMES OF WAR, THERE ARE NO LAWS”)

This Country, our Nation, is in a state of war—a war as immediate and emphatic as the war fought by our founding fathers to secure independence from tyranny. An illegal takeover of our Government is about to take place and it is occurring in plain sight.With the U.S. Supreme Court and the Department of Justice having capitulated to secretive, powerful, ruthless forces that have made clear their refusal to permit Trump a second term in Office—and with the ability of these extraordinarily powerful and inordinately wealthy forces to control the mass apparatus of the Press, the courts, the vast military, police, and intelligence apparatuses, they have made abundantly clear, that they intend to destroy our free Constitutional Republic. It is now up to a few courageous members of Congress and for average Americans to prevent this.If ruthless elements both here at home and abroad do secure essentially complete control of our Government, sitting their senile puppet, Joseph Biden, in the White House, then the only thing that will remain of a once great Nation-State and a sovereign people will be but the trappings. The mere skeletal outline of a free Constitutional Republic will remain—for a time—kept merely to fool some and to appease others who remain restless, restive and suspicious.And even the trappings of a free Constitutional Republic will eventually be dispensed with as no longer necessary as the American people will have been completely subdued.We will see the Country quietly, inexorably, and quickly merged into a one world system of governance—a new world order that the neoliberal globalist statists Henry Kissinger and the late U.S. President, George H.W. Bush, and the late U.S. Senator, John McCain, talked glowingly, lovingly about and predicted would occur.The empty-headed Joseph Biden is a mere, and temporary, placeholder for powerful ruthless interests who will use him to consolidate final and complete control over the machinery of Government. And then they will dispense with him, perhaps even in before his first term ends, and he will be happy to go, having dutifully played his part.In his stead they will place Kamala Harris, as a new puppet, ostensibly to placate the Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists.These Marxists and Anarchists share at least one thing with the globalist statist elites: the intention to destroy the Country in its present form as an independent sovereign Nation-state, and a desire to eradicate a Constitution that includes a Bill of Rights perceived as a codification of natural rights bestowed on man by the Divine Creator: rights that exist intrinsically in man; rights that therefore exist wholly beyond the power of Government to lawfully modify, abrogate or ignore.Evidence of the intent of the neoliberal globalist elites and of the Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists is all around us.In the last several months, we have seen:

• The desecration and destruction of our Nation’s monuments
• Insolent, insensitive, disrespectful denigration of our founding fathers
• Presumptuous and Contemptuous attacks on Christianity and on our Judeo-Christian ethic
• Artificial attempts to reconstruct the English Language and to control English usage
• Naked attempts to sow dissension, divisiveness, and discord among ethnic groups and races
• Censoring evidence of Beijing’s massive espionage operations in our Country and cloaking Beijing’s responsibility in the handling of the COVID plague
• Undertaking an extensive campaign of historical revisionism
• Inculcating a false sense of guilt in the psyche of the target (White) population
• Demeaning the Black population by treating Blacks as victims and then raising victimhood to the status of a virtue
• Deliberately inducing fear in the public consciousness and volatility in the public domain by emptying prisons and jails of hardened, dangerous criminals and emptying mental institutions of severely disturbed individual

If the Great Imposter Joseph Biden does ascend to the U.S. Presidency, then further degradation of and subjugation of the American citizenry will proceed apace, and the Country will suffer further dissipation and ruination.With the billionaire neoliberal globalists firmly entrenched in power, we will see, the floodgates opened to tens of millions more of illegal aliens. Included in their ranks will be members of dangerous drug cartels and sex traffickers.The powerful elites of society will amass further wealth and monopolistic power at the expense of hundreds of millions of average Americans, the latter of whom will be reduced to abject poverty, becoming completely dependent on Government to provide for basic physical needs. This will all be by design.Education will be dummied down for the mass of Americans. They will be taught to blindly accept authority. The critical faculties of Americans will atrophy. And this, too, will be by design.The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution will wither and die. Freedom of Speech and thought, and freedom of association and assembly will be strictly controlled.Civilian ownership and possession of firearms will be severely constrained.Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures will cease to exist as dossiers will be kept on every American from the moment of birth until the moment of death. Surveillance of every American will be the norm; privacy will become essentially nonexistent.Even the concept of private property, except for the ruling class, will be imperiled as the concept of ‘private property’ is inconsistent with the tenets of Collectivism.The notion of personhood, of selfhood will also wither and die as the sanctity of the individual will give way to the imperative of the Collective.If anyone believes these outcomes are too fantastical to be realized, one should understand they are already coming to pass. And the defilers of our Nation have the gall to tell us that it is we, Americans and President Trump whom we elected, who are the threats to democracy.The question is, what are we prepared to do to prevent these trends from becoming so pronounced, so entrenched that it is impossible to reverse them?It will be easier, far easier, to preempt these trends if Trump retains control of the Presidency for a second term. After all, it is he who won the 2020 election and who has sought to enshrine the words, “Make America Great Again,”—words that are an obscenity to the globalist elites and to the Radical Left Marxists and Anarchists.To think that it was the insincere, corrupt, and feeble Joe Biden who hardly can speak sensibly who pulled this thing off without a dollop of fraud and criminal machinations here and there to assist him, defies common sense. And the evidence shouts out the lie of a legitimate win for this Great Imposter, Joseph Biden.Our Country will lose its soul if Joseph Biden is installed as U.S. President in Trump’s stead. And with the Democrat lackeys in control of the House and a hairbreadth away of control of the U.S. Senate (as this article goes to print), the Republic may very well be breathing its last.One must wonder and ponder if the present situation is not the very sort of situation for which the framers of the U.S. Constitution codified the natural rights of free speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

THE ABSURDITY OF BIDEN’S CALL FOR NATIONAL UNITY

As this article goes to post on the Arbalest Quarrel, we are only a few hours away from the beginning of the New Year. We would like to say that this New Year, 2021, would see President Trump sworn in on January 20, 2021, for his second term in Office, where he would work further on behalf of the Nation to cement his “America First” Legacy for future generations of Americans to come.As we say, we would like to see this, but it is becoming increasingly evident that we won’t see this even though we should see this.If one but looks at mountains of evidence of elections fraud it has become increasingly apparent to everyone, but the most obtuse among us, that Trump did indeed win the election. But the ruthless, powerful, well-organized, inordinately wealthy and eternally secretive and insufferable neoliberal globalist elites have, with the assistance of the media and Press that they control and with the active assistance of the courts that they oversee, clamped down hard on all attempts to bring this evidence out into the light of day to ensure the integrity of our electoral process, the sanctity of the Constitution and the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic. If anyone harbors doubt about the truth of this conclusion, one need only look at the recent actions of the highest law enforcement official in the Land, Attorney General William Barr, and of the action of the highest Court in the Land, the U.S. Supreme Court.On December 1, 2020, The Associated Press reported Barr as saying that “the U.S. Justice Department has uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.”Let’s take a closer look at this remark. It suggests the Justice Department did find evidence of voter fraud, but Barr refuses to elaborate on the nature of that evidence; how that evidence was gathered; who did the investigating, and the extent of the investigation. And Barr says nothing about releasing a report on that investigation. Moreover, even if it were true that such evidence that was uncovered would not change the outcome of the election, that still begs the question as to the integrity of the 2020 election.Barr’s assertion is nothing more than an oblique attempt to hide from public scrutiny a matter the importance of which goes to the future of our Country as an independent sovereign Nation State. The seditious Press was satisfied with Barr's action. It would be. Not one to investigate the matter of wholesale elections fraud itself, and having taken an active role in ridiculing evidence of fraud, the seditious Press certainly wouldn't take kindly to a DOJ and FBI investigation that put the lie to the Press narrative. Shortly, after Barr made his 0ffhand remark to the AP, Barr submitted his resignation as AG. One cannot  but wonder: Was Barr threatened, compromised? His perfunctory remarks to the AP are wholly out of character. Barr is not the sort of person who would willingly surrender on a matter of such monumental importance — a thing that decidedly and decisively impacts the future of our Country; indeed, a thing that portends the end of our Country as a free Constitutional Republic if it is Biden who in fact takes the Oath of Office on January 20, 2021, and not Donald Trump.Then there is the U.S. Supreme Court. Here we have three perspicacious Justices—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—silently going along with Roberts, who must have made clear to the three junior Associate Justices that under no circumstance must the Texas case, Texas vs. Pennsylvania, 592 U.S. ____ (December 11, 2020) be entertained. Yet, who but the U.S. Supreme Court could allow a State versus State case to proceed?Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth in clear terms:“In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.”In a brief, perfunctory Order, the Court Majority dismissed the case,  asserting that Texas does not have standing to sue. Really?For the Supreme Court to  assert that Texas did not have standing to bring action against another State on the matter of how a state conducts its elections, the Court cavalierly skirted the underlying question at stake: whether the matter in which Pennsylvania conducted the election for the United States President did in fact unconstitutionally negatively impact how Texas and other States conduct their own election. The framers of the Constitution made certain that the Constitution would give, indeed must give, to the Highest Court in the Land original jurisdiction in a State versus State lawsuit precisely because no lower Federal or State Court could ever have the authority to hear a legal dispute between one sovereign State and another sovereign State.And so, we have the prospect that the Great Pretender, Joseph Biden, the Manchurian Candidate and the Neoliberal Globalist elites’ Candidate for U.S. President will become the U.S. President, and thereupon make a mockery of the U.S. Constitution. In administering the Oath of Office to Joseph Biden, Americans will bear witness to the final touch of farce. We may be seeing John Roberts, himself, as having played an active role in the takeover of our Nation, an elaborate hoax, the greatest tragedy to ever beset our Nation as the elevation of the Grand Imposter, Joe Biden, to the highest elected Office in the Land will mark the nadir of the United States. The U.S. will become a Dictatorship, where a consortium of ruthless powerful individuals and groups behind the scenes, along with Xi Jinping's Communist China, operating as the true rulers, utilizing their puppets, Biden and Harris and lesser Government figures, to institute a radical transformation of the Nation, an “inverted totalitarian regime,” to be immersed in and absorbed into a one world system of governance.

JOE BIDEN, THE GREAT UNIFIER?

Joe Biden’s call for “unity” is as nonsensical and as farcical as anything else that comes out of his mouth.Likely, Biden never came up with the idea for he lacks both intellect and imagination. But a vast coterie of Democrat Party handlers, speech writers, political consultants, acting coaches, and image makers apparently thought it would be good thing to utilize; something to wrap this listless, inept, empty vessel in, at once proclaiming this stooge to be a savior that he would deign, or dare, to save Americans from themselves.Have him yap long enough and often enough about unity, cooperation, solidarity, and togetherness and perhaps the American public will warm up to him, come around to accept him as a leader of the Nation, as the leader of the Nation: the Great Unifier, the Grand Unifier, the High Lord muck-a-muck of Civility and Propriety in contrast to that awful Disuniter—that brusque, uncouth, Racist, Misogynist a.k.a. Donald Trump.The mega billionaire neoliberal Globalist elites of the world must take Americans for fools; either that, or they take Americans for complete idiots.Don’t they realize the word ‘unity,’ apropos of a Nation’s people, only makes sense in the context OF A NATION, which, under a Biden Presidency would be a shaky and murky proposition at best. The Billionaire Globalists, along with the Marxist unionists, the Globalist elites’ foot soldiers, want none of that. Their goal is to merge our Nation with those of other western nations into a single world, transnational union—encompassing geographical regions, spread out across the Earth—comprising billions of people, a heterogeneous glob that shares neither common values and culture, nor unifying traditions and histories.If one can sensibly talk of a grand unity at all, it is something the destroyers of our Nation want; what it is the mega-Billionaire neoliberal Globalist corporatists and the rabid, Globalist Marxists and Anarchists both want; and what it is both are intent on delivering to Americans: A Collectivist vision of the world finally realized, a veritable nightmare in which the populations of the developed countries are dragged down to the level of third world countries. Trump’s “Make America Great Again”—perceived by the Globalist elite and by the Marxists as a veritable obscenity agenda to be recast as and transmogrified into “Make America.”Both billionaire neoliberal globalists and trans-global Marxists and Anarchists find common ground on that score, if little else. But their goal of a one world order requires the demolishing of a free Constitutional Republic.The puppet masters’ marionettes, Biden and Harris, will happily assist them in this task, no less so than had Barack Obama, the Bushes, and Bill Clinton before Biden and Harris.But the Collectivist vision of a one world government is not what most Americans want, and it certainly isn’t something they need. It is decidedly and decisively what most of us don’t want and what anyone of us would need about as much as the plague sent to us courtesy of the Chinese Communist Government.The Collectivist vision of a one world government is wholly inconsistent with what our free Constitutional Republic demands: preservation of the Nation’s Constitution, grounded on the tenets of Individualism; an independent sovereign Nation-State where the American people themselves are the ultimate sovereign authority.How can two mutually exclusive visions of political and social reality cohere? Quite simply, they can’t. Still, there are some who talk glowingly of a unifying American spirit that seemingly transcends differing visions of the Nation, of the world, and of reality. But sober reflection demonstrates how preposterous such an idea is.Back in March 2020 the former Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal wrote an Op-Ed for the Wall Street Journal. In that Op-Ed Jindal acknowledged the deep divide in America but claimed a unifying American spirit, reflected in his pronouncement, “there’s a real voter appetite for moderation and compromise.”Jindal wrote in significant part,“America’s current political polarization seems to favor candidates like Mr. Trump and Bernie Sanders, who mobilize their respective bases. The most committed conservative and progressive activists find common ground in their celebration of partisanship. They see fierce competition between principled partisans in the marketplace of ideas as benefiting the nation.Despite their deep ideological differences, they share a grudging respect for their political combatants, preferring them to be ‘cold or hot,’ in contrast with their ‘lukewarm’ fellow partisans. These activists view bipartisan compromises—from the Clinton-era crime and welfare reforms to the Bush-era No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare expansion—as capitulations.Yet Mr. Biden’s decisive victory in South Carolina suggests there’s a real voter appetite for moderation and compromise. He may be wrong about many policies, but he’s right to try to include the other side and to denounce the growing hostility across ideological and partisan divides. Bipartisanship is built on recognizing differences, but also on recognizing that what unites Americans is stronger than what divides us.It is built on humility—on the recognition that the other side has value. Conservatives dedicated to limited government should be grateful for liberals ensuring society considers the needs of the poor. Liberals dedicated to powerful and expansive government should be grateful for conservatives ensuring that society generates prosperity and protects individual liberty.”Bobby Jindal ends his Op-Ed asserting,“A driving force behind today’s polarization is a combination of arrogance and insecurity. Liberals talk confidently of the coming demographic wave—growing numbers of female, young, college-educated, minority, urban and secular voters they believe guarantee them a majority sooner or later. They are impatient for conservatives to convert or die. Many conservatives view their plans as blessed by divine providence. Yet both sides act with a desperate urgency that belies their stated confidence, as if losing the next election could permanently endanger their beliefs.The path to civility requires both parties to display the humble belief that the other side consists of good, patriotic Americans with valuable insights, as well as the confident determination that their own beliefs are enduring and can eventually emerge victorious. That may prove a winning message for Mr. Biden.”Well, if this were Biden’s message it certainly isn’t a winning one.Sure, a few Americans might have viewed Jindal’s March 2020 article, at the time of posting, as conveying a message of hope and yearning for reconciliation.But jump ahead to the post 2020 election—an election result that, on its face, is so statistically anomalous and one that is so laden with criminal fraud and deceit, as to understandably generate and provoke anger and resentment in a vast majority of Americans as they see a free Republic literally wrenched from them.In retrospect, Jindal’s Op-Ed comes across as quaint and flowery, wistful, naïve, and syrupy at best, and, at worst, a thing trite, banal, nonsensical, even insulting.In fact, Jindal apparently realized the flaws in his earlier Op-Ed, for, in August 2020, he recalibrated his remarks. Gone was any message of hope and trust for a better future for our Country. Jindal saw things as they truly are, as manifesting uncomfortably in front of him. He wrote,“Rather than making the traditional move to the center after he secured the nomination, Mr. Biden has continued to move left. He seems more worried about persuading Mr. Sanders’s supporters to turn out than convincing Mr. Trump’s voters to consider a moderate alternative.Mr. Biden embraced identity politics by promising to name a female running mate. Anticipating a sweep of Congress, Democrats have announced their support for abolishing the Senate filibuster and pay-as-you-go rules. Democrats covet these new powers for the majority not to pursue moderate bipartisan policies. They would likely try to expand the courts, grant statehood to the District of Columbia, restrict gun ownership, give unions more power, and ease immigration restrictions and their enforcement.”How much further have we come since Jindal’s August 2020 Op-Ed, on the cusp of a new year, January 1, 2021. In Biden’s staged remarks, and in the selection of his Cabinet, we are witnessing the marshalling of forces to finally cement complete and lasting victory for the adherents of the Counter-revolution: the neoliberal Globalist elites and the transnational Marxists and Anarchists.Newfangled and singularly bizarre concepts of identity politics, critical race theory, intersectionality—mindless neologisms, concocted by and perpetuated by Marxists, all with the blessing of billionaire Globalist elites—have become Biden’s guiding principles, as perceived in Biden’s cabinet selection.In the Collectivist vision of the world, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” imperative, which embraces the notion of “America First,” has no place. Well beyond New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s disdainful remark, delivered in a 2018 speech, that “America was never that great,”—alluding to and mocking Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan and at once contemptuous of our Nation’s traditions, history, heritage, and core values—we now have in Biden’s choice for Secretary of State, the neocon Anthony Blinken who, in a Biden Administration, is a man who eschews the notion of “America First,” whose foreign policy methodology marks a return to multilateral consensus building with western world leaders, all of whom acquiesce to a belligerent Communist China.If Biden does in fact ascend to the U.S. Presidency on January 20, 2021, and that appears to be more and more certain now, those Americans who adhere to their sacred values, traditions, and heritage, must not succumb to the idea that, come 2022, they will hold onto the Senate and retake the House, and that, in 2024, they will have an opportunity to revive a free Constitutional Republic along with their sacred, natural rights by reelection of Donald Trump as U.S. President. That is wishful thinking in the extreme.A Biden/Harris Presidency will move quickly to reverse all Trump’s gains and will plow ahead on many fronts to dismantle our Constitution, and our Nation-State. A free Constitutional Republic is breathing its last.We, Americans, stand to lose everything that truly defines us as Americans, as the concept of ‘American’ would be understood by our founding fathers; not as Neoliberal Globalist power brokers and Globalist Marxists and Anarchists twist and warp the concept out of any semblance of coherent, historical meaning and context.Once lost—our sacred rights and freedoms, our individuality, our existence as a true sovereign, independent Nation—those things that we cherish most are not coming back. The Globalist elites and their Marxist and Anarchist foot soldiers will see to it that they don’t._________________________________________Copyright © 2020 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

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.