ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES CONTINUE THEIR PUSH TO ERODE THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

NEW JERSEY SENATE BILL S. 3757 IS ONE MORE SLAP-IN-THE-FACE FOR THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND HELLER

PART ONE

The Arbalest Quarrel read with interest the NRA-ILA alert concerning New Jersey Senate Bill S. 3757 “that would force gun owners to store their guns and ammo under lock and key or face felony-level penalties.” We also read with interest and agree with Scott Bach’s well-written explication of the bill. Scott points out, “this ill-conceived bill imposes an absurd, one-size-fits-all totalitarian mandate to keep guns unloaded and locked up inside the home and to keep ammunition separately locked up inside the home, except when ‘in use’ – an utterly undefined term that will surely be interpreted to exclude everything except target practice.”As Scott notes, the New Jersey gun bill is absurd. And it is idiotic on logical grounds alone.But there is also a legal matter attendant to the bill. The bill flaunts and raises a disconcerting matter about the law that needs to be addressed.Just how broadly or narrowly is Heller to be read? This idea is not as simple as it may seem.Apart from the clear and categorical holding that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia—ostensibly knocking down once and for all time the erroneous idea often still propounded by some that the Second Amendment refers to a “collective right”—the Court addressed another matter that directly impacts the New Jersey Senate bill.The Heller Court said——“In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” Does the New Jersey Senate bill square with the Heller holding? And, if it doesn’t, what is the impetus for the New Jersey Legislature drafting the thing at all?Let’s take a closer look at the bill as written.A preliminary “Statement” of intent, in the bill, reads in pertinent part as follows:“This bill, titled the ‘New Jersey Safe Storage of Firearms Act,’ establishes penalties for improper storage of a firearm that results in access of the firearm; requires a warning to be issued to firearms purchasers; and requires the Attorney General to establish a public awareness campaign regarding the risk associated with improper storage of a firearm. The bill also repeals the provisions of current law that establish penalties only for a minor's access of an improperly stored firearm, and makes an appropriation.Under current law, there are storage requirements and penalties imposed if a minor accesses a loaded firearm that is not in use. However, there currently are no general requirements for storing firearms when they are not in use.This bill requires a legal owner of a firearm to: (1) store or secure a firearm that is not in use at a premises under the owner's control unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container; and (2) store ammunition, separately, in a securely locked box or container.Under the bill, if the owner of a firearm fails to store the firearm properly as required under the bill, the owner will, for a first offense, be sentenced to period of community service of not less than 10 hours and not more than 40 hours. For a second or subsequent offense, the owner is guilty of a disorderly persons offense. If an improperly stored firearm is accessed by another person, and the access results in serious bodily injury to or the death of the person who accesses the firearm or another person, the owner is guilty of a crime of the fourth degree. A disorderly persons offense is punishable by up to six months' imprisonment, a fine of up to $1,000, or both. A crime of the fourth degree is punishable by up to 18 months' imprisonment, a fine of up to $10,000, or both.”The language of the bill, proper, says in pertinent part:A legal owner of a firearm shall:

• store or secure a firearm that is not in use at a premises under the owner's control, unloaded, in a gun safe or securely locked box or container; and
• store ammunition, separately, in a securely locked box or container.

The bill also imposes requirements on the firearms dealer: The Superintendent of State Police, in conjunction with the Attorney General, shall adopt guidelines in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act, P.L.1968, c.410 (C.52:14B-1 et seq.), to require each licensed retail firearms dealer in the State, or the retail dealer's employee, to provide to any person who receives, possesses, carries, or uses a firearm, a written warning printed on eight and one-half inches by 11 inches in size paper in not less than 14 point bold point type letters which shall state:“NEW JERSEY STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT ALL FIREARMS MUST BE STORED, UNLOADED, IN A SECURELY LOCKED GUN SAFE OR LOCKED CONTAINER, AND ALL AMMUNITION MUST BE STORED IN A SEPARATE, SECURELY LOCKED GUN SAFE OR LOCKED CONTAINER. FAILURE TO DO SO IS PUNISHABLE BY LAW AND COULD RESULT IN FINES AND IMPRISONMENT.” The written warning provided pursuant to subsection a. of this section shall include the requirements and penalties imposed pursuant to P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this bill).The superintendent shall provide each licensed retail firearms dealer with a sign to be displayed prominently at a conspicuous place on the dealer's business premises at each purchase counter. The sign shall contain the statutory reference to section 3 of P.L., c. (C.). . . .”Left unsaid in the bill, is how the New Jersey Government is to know whether or how a person stores a firearm in his house.Is a New Jersey police officer to be given carte blanche authority to check on this? If so, would this not violate an individual’s Fourth Amendment Right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures?But the more pressing issue is whether NJ S.B. 3757 is, on its face, patently illegal. Is the bill inconsistent with the Heller holding pertaining to one’s right of immediate access to a firearm in the home for the purpose of self-defense? It would seem so. But there is a problem.Just how broadly, in regard to immediate access to a firearm in one’s home, is Heller to be taken? We look at this in the next segment, and consider the ramifications of Heller, for Bruen.__________________________________________

ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT JURISDICTIONS ROUTINELY AND BLATANTLY IGNORE HELLER AND MCDONALD PRECEDENTS

PART TWO

To both proponents of the Second Amendment and its detractors, Heller is known for its salient holding: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. No one has any doubt about that holding whether one accepts the truth of it or not.It is the central holding of Heller and it is a broad ruling; no question about it. This is as it was always meant to be, and the Heller majority opinion says this clearly, succinctly, and categorically. And the Court meant for this holding to have universal application—applicable to every jurisdiction in the Country.Moreover, contrary to what some say or wish to believe, this central holding of Heller is consonant and consistent with the plain meaning of the language of the Second Amendment. The language of the Amendment does nothing more than codify a fundamental, unalienable, illimitable, immutable, natural right that exists intrinsically in every person. The one odd thing about the Heller case is that the High Court would have to point this out at all.Even so—All too many Courts blithely ignore Heller’s holding notwithstanding they are all dutybound to be mindful of and rigorously adhere to the import of it when reviewing government actions that target it. The implication of Heller cuts across and into all government actions directed against the application of the right embodied in the Second Amendment.These Anti-Second Amendment Courts merely rubberstamp unconstitutional government actions when they should be striking down government actions that, on their face, infringe the core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.But there are other holdings in Heller that Anti-Second Amendment proponents and other “neutral” Americans miss.Unlike Heller’s paramount and broad holding pertaining to the universal nature of the right of the people to keep and bear arms as an individual rather than as a mere collective right, there are other seeming “narrow” holdings in Heller.These additional holdings address the District of Columbia’s actions concerning handguns and the right of the people to have immediate access to them in one’s own home, for the purpose of self-defense.The New Jersey gun bill, S. 3757, if enacted, would preclude a gun owner’s immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in the gun owner’s own home. On its face, NJ S.B. 3757 mirrors the major import and purport of the D.C. law that the Heller Court struck down as unconstitutional. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said this:“In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense.” But is this seeming narrow holding, directed as it is to the District of Columbia, truly meant to be confined only to the District? Or, is it a broad-based, universal holding, applicable across the board, to every jurisdiction in the Land even as the High Court addressed the language of a law enacted by the District of Columbia that could only apply to the District?Assume for purpose of argument that this holding is meant to be confined to D.C. This isn’t to suggest that, if the New Jersey’s gun bill were enacted and someone were to challenge its constitutionality on appeal, the High Court would find the New Jersey law to be constitutional when the District’s law wasn’t.With the conservative wing in the majority, New Jersey’s gun bill, if enacted, would be summarily struck down, as patently illegal. No question about it.But who knows if the High Court would ever hear the case? Likely it wouldn’t, presumably because the New Jersey gun bill is similar to the D.C. law that was struck down. The New Jersey Legislature knows this. Very few cases make it to the U.S. Supreme Court for review.The New Jersey bill, as law, would be inconsistent with the D.C. gun bill but would be enforced by New Jersey anyway, unless or until it was struck down.Consider longstanding unconstitutional gun laws such as New York’s notorious “Safe Act”—which, itself, merely expands on unconstitutional laws going back decades. And the New York Legislature still expands upon the “Safe Act” slowly and inexorably engulfing and dissolving the whole of the Second Amendment.The “Safe Act” is, as we have expressly said, not the finalization of the work of Anti-Second Amendment zealots, but a work in progress, building upon the notorious, discriminatory Sullivan Act, enacted over one hundred and ten years ago.And while there have been challenges to New York’s gun laws through the century, following upon enactment of the Sullivan Act of 1911, look how long it took for the U.S. Supreme Court to accept review of a major challenge to New York’s firearms’ licensing scheme. The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., vs. Petitioners vs. City Of New York, commonly referred to and known as the New York City Gun Transport case. That case was decided in 2020, and it did not meet expectations.The liberal wing of the Court, along with the ostensibly conservative wing Chief Justice John Roberts—who, it seems, cajoled the Trump nominee Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh to go along with him, adding a crucial fifth vote—emasculated the Gun Transport case. Justices Thomas and Alito were justifiably outraged.The High Court majority refused to review the case on the merits, thus allowing the massive, bloated, convoluted, confusing gun licensing edifice to remain intact.How much more damage can Anti-Second jurisdictions and the Harris-Biden Administration do to the Second Amendment before a decision in Bruen is published? Even today, we can see the stirrings of unrest among the anti-Second Amendment proponents.Using propaganda to focus the public’s attention anew on guns, the corrupt and senile messenger boy for the Marxists and Globalists is attempting to drum up public support for new assaults on the Second Amendment. Resurrecting the Sandy Hook Elementary School incident, Biden said, as reported by The Hill:“‘As a nation, we owe all these families more than our prayers. We owe them action,’ Biden said in a video message released by the White House.He said the Senate needed to quickly pass three House-passed bills, one to extend background checks, another to keep guns out of the hands of abusers and his Build Back Better act that includes a $5 billion investment in community violence prevention and intervention.‘I know our politics are frustrating and can be frustrating and it’s particularly frustrating now. But we can’t give up hope, we can’t stop,’ Biden said.The president mentioned the school shootings in Parkland, Fla., in 2018 and in Oxford, Mich., last week, adding that similar shootings occur in Black and brown communities every day. The White House unveiled a fact sheet on Tuesday on the work the administration has done to combat gun violence, touting executive orders from the president to reduce the proliferation of ghost guns, which are untraceable guns assembled using parts bought online; regulate stabilizing braces used on firearms and help states enact red flag legislation, among other things. It also noted that local governments have used funding from the American Rescue Plan, which Biden signed into law in March, towards community violence intervention and hiring more law enforcement officers.When asked if there are any conversations about a filibuster carve-out to pursue gun legislation, a senior White House official didn’t comment directly.‘I think the president and the direct to camera really speaks to this issue in an impactful way. He shares in the frustration with gun safety advocates regarding the lack of progress made in Congress, and he also talks about the progress made in the past,’ a senior White House official said, referring to the video released on Tuesday. In the video, the president called Sandy Hook, which occurred during the Obama administration when he was vice president, ‘one of the saddest days we were in office. . . . We have to keep up the pressure.’”This is more than just a veiled threat. The Harris-Biden Administration is preparing a major assault on the Second Amendment, in part to deflect attention from Biden’s dismal poll numbers—hoping that most Americans will support a campaign to destroy the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But it is a dangerous gamble that can backfire. The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalists know this but figure they have no choice given the 2022 Midterm elections that they must prepare for. The economy is in tatters. Foreign and Domestic policy is in complete disarray. Geopolitically, militarily, economically, socially, politically, the Country is in the throes of chaos. This is just as the Destructors of the Marxist/Globalist agenda intend, but they must convince the American public that the Nation is on the right path, “to build back better.”One must wonder who dreamed up that imbecilic slogan. It sounds oddly like the slogan in the old Burger King commercial: “the bigger the burger the better the burger. . . .” And that is what the Destructors of our Nation and their puppets are doing: grinding our Country and its people into hamburger meat._____________________________________

REGARDLESS OF THE IMPACT OF THE BRUEN RULINGS IN NEW YORK, WHAT IMPACT WOULD BRUEN LIKELY HAVE ON OTHER JURISDICTIONS?

PART THREE

A ruling on Bruen likely won’t be handed down until next summer, keeping many New York gun owners and applicants for concealed handgun carry licenses in limbo for months. And it will be months longer still for the State and the New York City Licensing Division to redraft its concealed handgun carry license Rules, assuming a Bruen ruling requires that to happen.And what would be the impact of a ruling on Bruen in all other “may issue” jurisdictions?Would those jurisdictions construe the rulings in Bruen narrowly or broadly: applicable to those jurisdictions as well, or as having no impact on them?Given what we have seen to date, many jurisdictions blatantly ignore Heller whether the Heller holdings and reasoning are construed broadly or not.So, why then would or should one expect other “may issue” jurisdictions to give Bruen any credence?They ought to, of course. The right of armed self-defense, as a natural right, is not to be taken lightly in the United States, even as it goes unrecognized in other western nations, including the Commonwealth Nations and countries of the EU. And it is unrecognized by the UN, as we pointed out in prior articles.The breadth and depth of High Court rulings is not to be considered a matter of academic interest to legal scholars and legal historians only—as rulings to be adhered to or not, or as stringently or not, as this or that lower Federal and State Court wishes.U.S. Supreme Court holdings often do have or should have, real impact on our Nation even as many jurisdictions routinely misconstrue them. But is this inadvertent or not? Do these jurisdictions deliberately twist, contort and distort Second Amendment Heller and McDonald holdings and reasoning they don’t like?Do these jurisdictions alter Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning to suit their personal fancy about guns and gun possession, thus allowing Anti-Second Amendment agendas can continue to be pursued, unimpeded? It would seem so.And, this, is, unfortunately, a disturbingly familiar occurrence we see with those government actions that infringe the core of the Second Amendment.

ON THE MATTER OF “NARROW” AND “BROAD” U.S. SUPREME COURT HOLDINGS

But what constitutes a narrow or broad U.S. Supreme Court holding, really? What does the expression “narrowly tailored ruling” mean?This often perplexes the Federal Appellate Courts.See, e.g., United States vs. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2010). The Seventh Circuit opined,“We do not think it profitable to parse [all the] passages of Heller as if they contained an answer to [all] the question[s] [of what] is valid. They are precautionary language. Instead of resolving questions such as the one we must confront, the Justices have told us that the matters have been left open. The language we have quoted warns readers not to treat Heller as containing broader holdings than the Court set out to establish: thatthe Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates, and what regulations legislatures may establish, were left open. The opinion is not a comprehensive code; it is just an explanation for the Court's disposition. Judicial opinions must not be confused with statutes, and general expressions must be read in light of the subject under consideration.”So, if the issue of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in the home is, as the 7th Circuit says, meant to be broadly construed—then why is it that some jurisdictions routinely choose to ignore Heller?The answer is plain: because they can and because they want to.NJ S.B. 3757 is a blatant example of this practice. The language of this bill is, in its import, essentially a rehash of the original D.C. handgun bill that the High Court struck down as unconstitutional.Many jurisdictions across the Country loathe the Second Amendment. And it is apparent that, given this loathing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, they pretend Heller and McDonald don’t exist. This blatant dismissal of these two seminal cases enrages Justices Thomas and Alito to no end, and justifiably so.But the U.S. Supreme Court has no enforcement mechanism to see to it that its Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning are adhered to.Lower Courts are required to adhere to precedential rulings of higher Courts in their jurisdiction. And all Courts, State and Federal, are required to adhere to U.S. Supreme Court rulings. They are obligated to but often do not.Courts, in a very real sense, are merely on the honor system in this regard. They may be roundly chastised for failing to adhere to higher Court rulings, and should be, but, really, the worst that happens is these Court holdings are, simply, overturned on appeal.Jurists who flagrantly fail to adhere to precedential rulings get a pass. They have absolute immunity from liability.And, as we have heretofore pointed out, even if the High Court rulings were truly expansive, it is unlikely that Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions will pay heed to those rulings. They will attempt to find ways around them just as they have done with the rulings in Heller and McDonald; treating them with the same disdain and incredulity; rendering opinions that serve merely to torture and obfuscate the rulings and reasoning of the High Court. Nothing is likely to change as long as the citizenry keeps voting into Office individuals who support the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist agenda.Anti-Second Amendment State legislatures that enact laws that violate the core of the Second Amendment continue the practice because they know their Courts will uphold the constitutionality of illegal laws if challenged. Thus, plaintiffs who might otherwise challenge the constitutionality of gun laws that flagrantly defy the Second Amendment and blithely ignore U.S. Supreme Court precedent must think twice before doing so. They know they have an uphill battle.The attendant time wasted for plaintiffs, who challenge unconstitutional government gun regulations, and the attendant monetary costs associated with bringing such actions, are significant, and will usually amount to wasted effort.State and local Governments know this as do Anti-Second Amendment members of Congress.One must appeal to the next higher Court to obtain relief from adverse lower Court decisions. And Appellate Courts will often just rubber-stamp decisions of the Trial Courts. And, appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court for review is, especially, no easy task. It is time-consuming and extremely expensive. And the High Court grants review in a pitifully small number of cases.It would be nice if the High Court could issue orders sua sponte, enjoining Governments from enacting laws that blithely ignore its Second Amendment Heller and McDonald rulings. But the Court cannot do this.Indeed, it would require a separate office within the Court just to keep tabs on all the unconstitutional actions of the State and Federal Governments and of the erroneous rulings coming out of lower Courts.But the U.S. Supreme Court doesn’t have the authority even to efficiently monitor unconstitutional actions of government and erroneous rulings of lower Courts that negatively impact the exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, even if it had the wherewithal and resources to keep tabs on unconstitutional gun laws.And within the High Court itself, several of the Justices all too often interpose their own philosophical prejudices and biases on the Second Amendment issues to be decided. And those prejudices and biases come into play even in the very construction of the legal issues.This has disturbing implications for Bruen. We discuss this matter in the next segment and in future articles._______________________________________________

THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT WITH THE HELP OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE CONSTRAINS BRUEN

PART FOUR

It is a rather curious thing, when one stops to think about it, that the broad right of self-defense, and the narrower fundamental right contained in it and inextricably bound to it—the fundamental, natural, and unalienable right of armed self-defense—would have to come up for review by the U.S. Supreme at all. After all, the right of self-defense/the right of self-preservation and the concomitant natural right of armed self-defense are axiomatic; self-evident true.One would think that, a Country such as ours, with a rich heritage of cherishing natural rights, would not have to suffer enactment of laws that place so many hurdles in the path of citizens who wish nothing more than to be able to exercise the rights the Bill of Rights guarantees them. The Second Amendment, though, is treated by those jurisdictions, controlled by Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists as an outlier, even an outcast—a thing inconsistent with international norms and, so, something to be mercilessly attacked and eventually abrogated. Will this change?Many people, both proponents of the natural right of armed self-defense and its detractors, expect a decision in Bruen, when handed down next summer, will be expansive and all-encompassing and resurrect the Second Amendment’s status as a cherished right—a right absolutely essential to the maintenance of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic and for the preservation of the Nation in the form of a free Republic for centuries to come.But, even with an expected Conservative wing majority, a positive decision will likely not be as broad-based and all-encompassing as proponents of the Second Amendment yearn for and expect and as the Amendment’s opponents anticipate and dread.Assume, for purpose of argument, that the High Court does strike down New York City’s notoriously oppressive and repressive “may issue” requirements involving the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses outright. How will this impact similar statutes in other “may issue” jurisdictions? The answer is clear.The Bruen ruling won’t affect other “may-issue” jurisdictions. It won’t affect the prerogative of State and Local Governments in these other jurisdictions that have, in place, their own may-issue procedures. The Chief Justice and the liberal wing of the Court have seen to that in having reframed the issue, as we explain below.A ruling for Plaintiff Petitioner would probably, at best, only serve to strike down unconstitutional procedures established by the City’s gun Licensing Division. Such a ruling would not logically or legally entail the dissolution of “may issue” regulations. It would just impact the particular procedures the City presently employs when rendering its decision.In order for a Bruen majority opinion ruling to be compelling, it would have to be all-encompassing. This means the Court would have to rule that the very notion of “may issue” concealed handgun carry licenses, instead of “shall issue” concealed handgun carry licenses—in the absence of major failings in a person, including, for example, a felony conviction, a dishonorable discharge from the military, mental incompetence, or illegal alien residency in the Country—are logically inconsistent with the import of the right codified in the Second Amendment regardless of procedures utilized. See, 18 USCS § 922(g).And the Court should render a ruling on this because geographical constraints on the exercise of armed self-defense are absurd.For, if a law-abiding, rational, responsible person has the right to preserve his or her life and safety with a firearm, being no threat to another innocent person, how is one’s life and safety to be adduced more valuable in one locale—one’s home say—but not in another locale, i.e., outside one’s home.The Court should respond to this but won’t do that, and the reason is plain: Built-in constraints due to the framing of the issue before the Court preclude a decisive ruling on the exercise of armed self-defense outside one’s home.That is not to say all the Justices would be pleased by this, for the idea behind “may issue” impacts and infringes the very core of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. “May issue” is an affront to the Second Amendment and logically contradicts the very import and purport of the sacred right.From their writings and musings on the Second Amendment, Justices Alito and Thomas would, if they could, strike down “may issue” gun regulations across the board, both as utilized in the City of New York and around the Country. But they can’t. Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court have seen to this.Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court were keenly aware of the ramifications of a major ruling on New York City’s “may issue” regimen if “may issue” were on the table. These Justices abhor other profound rulings as in Heller and McDonald. The entire legality of “may issue” should have been on the table. It should have been on the table, but it isn’t.Roberts and the liberal wing had thought very carefully through this, and they made sure that “may issue” gun licenses would not be targeted, even as Plaintiff Petitioner brought the very issue of “may issue” to the fore, as the question goes to the heart of whether, or to what extent, there should be limitations on where the right of armed self-defense is to be exercised.There should be no geographical parameters defined apropos of one’s exercise of the right of armed self-defense but there will be.____________________________________________

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT DIDN’T LIKE THE ISSUE AS PETITIONERS PRESENTED IT IN BRUEN

PART FIVE

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE LIBERAL WING DEMANDED THE ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED, BE RECAST, TO MAKE IT PALATABLE TO THEM

The question for review, succinctly but broadly presented by Petitioner in his Brief in Corlett(recaptioned Bruen) was,“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”This is a broad-based issue that questions the legality/constitutionality of may issue/atypicality requirements, on any conceivable interpretation.The issue as presented to the Court is meant to question the constitutionality of “may issue” concealed handgun carry regimes not only in New York City but in every jurisdiction in the Land. And that is precisely what Petitioners set out to do.The Bruen Petitioners clearly and concisely challenged the idea of Anti-Second Amendment proponents that an unassailable right of armed self-defense does not extend beyond the doorstep of one’s home.Recall that the Heller Court confined its ruling on the geographical perimeters of armed self-defense to the issue at hand: whether an individual has a right of immediate access to a handgun for self-defense inside one’s home.In answering that question, many jurisdictions interpreted the ruling as applying only to the District of Columbia, when the Court never stated or implied that the ruling on the right of immediate access to a firearm inside one’s home is directed to the District of Columbia gun codes and doesn’t implicate similar gun codes or laws in other jurisdictions. In fact, the implication is that the right of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in one’s home does apply to all jurisdictions.Many State Governments and State and Federal Courts also interpreted the Heller decision as suggesting that a right of armed self-defense doesn’t extend beyond the doorstep to one’s home, regardless of the jurisdiction, but is to be confined—if there is to be such a recognized right at all—only to one’s home.But that idea is simply wrong. The High Court’s silence on the issue meant only that the issue was not before the Court. So, nothing further was to be presumed or deduced from that ruling.New Jersey’s bill, S. 3757, requiring disassembly of firearms in one’s home erroneously presumes the Heller ruling was meant to apply very narrowly only to the District of Columbia. Either that or the New Jersey Legislature didn’t care if the Heller ruling was meant to apply to other jurisdictions, figuring that, if wrong about its application to other jurisdictions, it didn’t matter. The Legislature knew that, if S. 3757 were enacted, a gun owner, unhappy with the law, would have to challenge its constitutionality in Court to obtain recourse—a time-consuming and expensive ordeal.Yet, one’s right of immediate access to a firearm for self-defense in one’s home is not to be presumed to be locale-specific. The ruling applies to all jurisdictions, albeit tacitly, but still unmistakably, by logical implication. Still, the Heller Court ruling didn’t expressly assert the universality of the ruling. It should have done so. The Court should have articulated clearly and categorically that its ruling on one’s Constitutional right of immediate access to a handgun inside the home, for purpose of self-defense—although directed to the D.C. gun codes—was meant to apply, as a general holding, throughout the Country. But the Court didn’t do that.Likely Associate Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito wanted to make the ruling unambiguous on that score but could not do so if they were to gain a majority. That would require positive votes from Chief Justice Roberts and from Justice Kennedy, and those Justices wanted the ruling to remain narrow and nebulous as to its application in other jurisdictions. The only clearly broad-based holding in Heller is that where the Heller Court held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one’s service in a militia.As to the impact of specific rulings on the D.C. gun codes on other jurisdictions, for one to infer or assume that the rulings on the D.C. gun code rulings do not apply and were not meant to apply outside the District is implausible, but theoretically possible—hence the draft legislation in New Jersey:S. 3757. And that follows from the fact that the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kennedy wanted to make clear that the Heller ruling was not intended to constrain the right of States to regulate the citizen’s access to guns. That message came out loud and clear and Justice Scalia was compelled to make that assertion explicit, assertingAnd this takes us back to Bruen.On granting the writ for certiorari in Bruen, on April 26, 2021, the Court recast the salient issue very narrowly: “Granted limited to the following question: Whether the State's denial of Petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court “gamed the system,” even though some legal scholars don’t wish to acknowledge this and some patently deny it.Amy Howe, for one, erstwhile preeminent editor and reporter of SCOTUSblog, who regularly covers U.S. Supreme Court cases, and who ostensibly has an inside track on the musings of the High Court, made light of the Court’s recasting of the issue. Howewrites, in part, “After considering the case at three conferences, the justices agreed to weigh in. They instructed the parties to brief a slightly narrower question than the challengers had asked them to decide, limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment. But the case nonetheless has the potential to be a landmark ruling. It will be argued in the fall with a decision expected sometime next year.” But will Bruen lead to a landmark ruling? Is this recasting of the issue in Bruen a big deal? Amy Howe, apparently, doesn’t think it is, or at least, won’t admit it if she harbors any reservation about it. But we do believe the matter is a big deal and are not reticent about asserting this. If this recasting of the issue in Bruen amounted truly to a slightly narrower question, as Amy Howe asserts, then why would the Court bother to reconfigure the issue at all? The answer to this question is alluded in Heller, as we explain in the next segment.____________________________________

WHY CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS AND THE LIBERAL WING OF THE HIGH COURT INSISTED ON RECASTING THE LEGAL ISSUE IN BRUEN

PART SIX

To understand why Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court were adamant that the Bruen issue be recast narrowly and in the form that it was, it is necessary to go back to the reasoning in Heller. It is pertinent to the matter at hand to understand why the Court dealt with the paramount issue of whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to one’s service in a militia because that wasn’t an issue in the case, as framed. In the opening sentences of Heller case, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said:“We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The District of Columbia generally prohibits the possession of handguns.  It is a crime to carry an unregistered firearm, and the registration of handguns is prohibited [citations omitted]. Wholly apart from that prohibition, no person may carry a handgun without a license, but the chief of police may issue licenses for 1-year periods [citations omitted]. District of Columbia law also requires residents to keep their lawfully owned firearms, such as registered long guns, ‘unloaded and dissembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device’ unless they are located in a place of business or are being used for lawful recreational activities [citation omitted].”The Heller majority opined that the District of Columbia’s total ban on handgun possession in the home along with the requirement of disassembly of all firearms in the home hit at the very heart of the Second Amendment, as the D.C. Government did intend for it to do.But, Justice Scalia, along with Justices Thomas and Alito, knew quite well, that it was impossible logically to rule against the District of Columbia’s draconian gun law without ruling on the ultimate issue—tantalizingly kept at bay since ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791:Does the right of the people to keep and bear arms constitute an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia” or only a collective right, contingent on one’s service in a militia?Of course, to anyone with even a smidgeon of understanding of law and logic, and who is intellectually honest, knows that the import of the right as codified in the Second Amendment is clear on its face.But many academicians and many jurists, too, have for decades, erroneously treated the right as a “collective right” only. And they still maintain that, even after Heller made categorical and irrefutable what was already clear from the plain meaning of the Second Amendment’s language.One’s philosophical or emotional bent often gets in the way of one’s intellectual reasoning faculty.If proponents of the collective right thesis were correct, then any government regulation on gun ownership and possession must be construed as lawful and constitutional so long as a “rational basis” for the government action existed.This means that, while a collective right of the militia to keep and bear arms must be construed as a fundamental right and an action infringing that right would require stringent review of the government’s action, an individual’s right to keep and bear arms would not require such scrutiny. That is bizarre, to be sure, but that is consistent with the “collective right to keep and bear arms” thesis.Taking that thesis as true, arguendo, then an individual challenging the legality of government action, arguing an infringement of his right to keep and bear arms would not invoke stringent court review of the constitutionality of the Court action. A reviewing Court would only have to determine whether the government action bore a reasonable connection to achieving a legitimate State or Federal objective, nothing more. And That is an easy test to meet.Thus, if the Heller Court had not dealt with the underlying issue at the heart of the case—the case would have been decided much differently. The District of Columbia’s total ban on handguns would be ruled legal and Constitutional, as would the government’s requirement that all firearms be disassembled and not available for immediate self-defense use, even in the confines of one’s home. This is tantamount to denying a right to armed self-defense—period.Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito determined that they would not let the opportunity to decide the paramount Second Amendment issue pass. And, given the indomitability of Scalia’s will, and through the power and tenacity of his spirit, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, reluctantly went along. And, so, the Court majority ruled that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia.But Justice Scalia is no longer with us. Can Justices Thomas and Alito take up the slack? Bruen likely won’t be the next blockbuster case supporting the right of the people to keep and bear arms to the extent that Heller is. And, a decision on the merits, unlike the New York Gun Transport case, will be forthcoming. The New York Government cannot amend the gun licensing scheme in a manner that would keep the entire structure intact as it did in the Gun Transport case.For “may issue” is really at the heart of New York’s licensing regime. If “may issue” goes, the entire New York handgun licensing structure comes crashing down._________________________________________

WHY ANTI-SECOND AMENDMENT FORCES ABHOR AND FEAR HELLER

PART SEVEN

The U.S. Supreme Court, knows that the driving mechanism of the right of the people to keep and bear arms rests on the assumption, taken as axiomatic, self-evident true, that the right is grounded on the natural, fundamental right of armed self-defense that itself is inextricably bound to the basic right of self-preservation and personal selfhood, i.e., personal autonomy. The right exists inherently in each person as an individual Soul, as the Divine Creator intended.If the Second Amendment were to be treated as a “collective right,” that is tantamount to saying there is no right at all. The right would be nugatory, because  right would belong solely to the State, not to the person.The framers of the Constitution couldn’t have meant that. They didn’t put pen to paper just to waste ink. Moreover, such an interpretation would conflict with the very import of the Bill of Rights, essentially deflating the import of the entirety of it. For, without a personal right of armed self-defense, man is vulnerable to attack from predatory beast, which is bad; and from predatory man, which is worse; and  from the predatory government, which is worst of all.So, in Heller, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito took that opportunity—when it finally came around—to pointedly and decisively hold that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. This of, course, is plain from the text of the Second Amendment but since many courts and scholars choose to ignore it, pretending that the language of the Second Amendment doesn’t mean what it says, the High Court made the point clear, so that no one can conveniently obfuscate the meaning of the language.Note: the issue as to the meaning of the nature of the right of the people to keep and bear arms was never before the Heller Court. The only two issues before the Court were whether:“the total ban on handguns under D.C. Code §§ 7-2501.01(12), 7-2502.01(a), 7-2502.02(a)(4), as well as the requirement under D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 that firearms be kept nonfunctional, violated exercise of the constitutional right of the people to keep and bear arms.”But, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito knew that striking down these Statutes would do little to constrain a government that abhors civilian citizen exercise of the Second Amendment right, unless the High Court made clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, and not a privilege to be bestowed on a person by government prior to exercising the right.The District of Columbia would continue to enact new laws that did much the same thing as the old laws. Anti-Second Amendment Governments would have to exercise more discretion and creativity in denying Americans their God-given right.Once the right is understood clearly, succinctly, and unambiguously, to be an individual natural right, rather than a Government bestowed privilege, it is easy for reviewing courts to ascertain whether government action constrain exercise of the core individual right.Of course that should happen but didn’t happen. The recent New Jersey bill, for one, is evidence of  rabid disdain of many in Government toward the Second Amendment. It also demonstrates the tenacity of Anti-Second Amendment in continuing to drum up more and more unconstitutional codes, regulations, ordinances, and statutes despite of and in spite of the clear pronouncement in Heller. Resistance to Heller is obdurate.Still, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito had held out the hope that a clear and categorical pronouncement on the import of the Second Amendment would constrain resistant vocal forces in Government. And, in fact Anti-Second Amendment Courts cannot dismiss the salient holding of Heller out-of-hand, but must remark on it, even as they strain to uphold unconstitutional gun laws, as they continually do.Be that as it may—At least in Heller, with the idea that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a collective right now, finally, laid to rest—and not to be denied out-of-hand the Heller Court could deal effectively with the issue at bar in Heller. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, said,“We turn finally to the law at issue here.  As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. It also requires that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.” But, the impact of Heller on Bruen may be minimal. Even if the High Court finds the New York City Rule to be unconstitutional and strikes it down, this only amounts to a finding simply that the decision on the Plaintiff Petitioners’ applications for an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license was unconstitutional. An answer to the “narrow question” as reframed, only requires that; nothing more.At best, the High Court can, consistent with the rephrasing of the question on review, find the City’s procedures for determining whether an applicant meets the stringent requirements of ‘atypicality’ to be inadequate.If that is to happen, a remand of the case to the trial court would require the trial court to strike down the procedures now in place in New York City, and instruct the Government to promulgate new procedures for handling the licensing of concealed handgun carry licenses. This, unsurprisingly, is what the Respondents have requested. It would be a satisfactory win for them. For the constitutionality of atypicality would go unanswered: The handgun licensing structure of New York would remain intact; and the core issue the Petitioners wanted decided—an unqualified right of armed self-defense outside the home—would remain unresolved.And the redrafting of New York City’s “may issue” procedures would likely be no better than the ones currently in place, because the NYPD License Division would still retain authority to grant or reject applications: an inherently subjective judgment call.Moreover, the ramifications of “may issue” procedures only impact New York—consistent with the issue as restated. Other “may issue” jurisdictions can proceed as they always have.Anyone who questions “may issue” procedures in other jurisdictions would have to file their own challenges. This would necessitate another appeal, by another petitioner, to the High Court, requesting review of another “may issue” procedure of that other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdiction, assuming relief from a lower court is not forthcoming.The ensuing problems for Americans who simply seek to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms are endless and intractable. And the Court is not likely to take up a similar issue, leaving forever open the right of armed self-defense.But the most critical point to be made is one that no one else, to our knowledge has even considered. It is  that—The right of the people to keep and bear arms tacitly embraces the right of self-defense which entails the right of personal autonomy——the quintessential right upon which the sanctity and inviolability of one’s own Soul depends.The framers of the Constitution took that most basic of natural rights to be self-evident true. They took this fact to be so obvious that express mention of it was deemed unnecessary—even by the Antifederalist framers who demanded that several of the salient natural rights be codified.Thus, the Second Amendment expressly asserts and emphasizes only the need for the people to always be armed and at the ready to secure a free State, against incursion of tyranny of Government. It is for this reason that the people remain armed that the sanctity of their Selfhood can be free from Government intrusion and free from Government impediment: untouched, unsoiled, untrampled, undiminished.Having successfully fought off one tyrannical government, the founders of the Republic had dire concerns of any strong centralized government. Even with the checks and balances of the Federal Government they constructed, they knew that this Government, too, had within the seeds of it, the danger of tyranny—an unavoidable fact of the worst of human nature. An armed citizenry was the ultimate preventive medicine against that.But, if armed defense is contained and constrained within the confines of one’s home, then the implicit message is that no American has the unalienable right to employ defensive arms against tyranny of Government, for the structures of Government power exist outside one’s home.And containment of the Second Amendment and the panoply of other Rights of the Bill of Rights is just how Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists presently running the show in Government and throughout the Country intend to keep it at least for the time being, until such time as they consolidate enough control and power to erase all of it.___________________________________

DON’T EXPECT BRUEN TO BE THE DECISIVE PRONOUNCEMENT OF ONE’S SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHT AS HELLER AND MCDONALD PROVIDED

PART EIGHT

The issue before the High Court, as reformulated, in Bruen, requires the Court only to determine whether the City’s rules for granting concealed carry handgun licenses are arbitrary and capricious.The Court thus leaves undecided the principal issue that the Petitioner wanted the Court to review, namely whether the right of armed self-defense extends beyond the confines of one’s home, making clear what the Heller Court didn’t rule on: the expansiveness of armed self-defense—beyond the confines of the home—as the founders of a free Republic understood the natural right.After all, what is one to make of saying a person has a right to armed self-defense in some places but not others, other than to reaffirm the right of Government to continue to place unconstitutional restrictions the on exercise of the right of armed self-defense. The idea is absurd on its face, and negatively implicates the very notion of self-defense, armed or otherwise.Of course, Justices Alito and Thomas could write concurring opinions taking the Court to task for not ruling on the most important issue, whether armed self-defense extends everywhere; and probably will do this if one or the other Justice is not assigned to draft the majority opinion. But a concurrence would amount to dicta only, not a Court ruling.The High Court will most likely confine its ruling, or rulings, to addressing New York City’s “may issue” procedure, which is the way Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court had the issue restructured and that is what the Respondents wanted.This smacks of a “cop-out.” And we have seen this before, in the Court’s handling of the previous New York City Gun Transport case. That is what the Respondent City had in fact requested in oral argument. If the City gets that much, then they essentially win, and anti-Second Amendment advocates will breathe a collective sigh of relief. For, the salient issue, as to whether the right of the people to carry firearms for self-defense outside one’s home, which Heller didn’t address and, in fact, painfully avoided—as Roberts and Kennedy likely insisted upon—remained unexamined.And, this would be just as Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court would want to continue to leave it, as this would keep the perceived “damage” ofHeller and McDonald within rigid, narrowly defined contours.Anti-Second Amendment Courts and governments will continue operating as they have been operating all along: pretending Heller and McDonald never existed, and continually pressing for more and more repugnant, restrictive, repressive firearms' laws. And as those seminal Second Amendment cases have routinely been ignored, now one would add Bruen.This must have vexed Justice Scalia. The Chief Justice, John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy, compelled Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito to soften the impact of Heller, which, at its core made clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms rests well beyond the lawful ability of Government to abrogate. But tension would remain between the categorical natural right of the people to own and possess firearms and the desire of State Governments to exercise their own police powers to constrain and restrict the right to the point that the right would cease to exist. And, the Federal Government, for its part, would have its own reason to erase the idea of a right of the people to keep and bear arms that rests beyond the lawful power of that Federal Government to erase, modify, abrogate, dismiss, or simply ignore. For an armed citizenry would, in its very existence threaten tyranny. And that is something the Federal Government has always been uneasy with, and all the more so now, with Counterrevolutionary Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists hell-bent on disassembling a free Constitutional Republic and independent, sovereign nation-state that it may be successfully merged into a supra-national, transnational governmental construct.Did the late Justice Antonin Scalia surmise this? Did he see this coming? Did he attempt to prevent it? And did powerful, ruthless forces, beholding to no nation and to no set of laws recognize this, and initiate plans to prevent anyone and anything that might thwart their plans for a new political, social, economic, financial, cultural, and juridical governmental construct: a new world order. In such a scheme the concept of the nation-state is archaic, serving no functional purpose. And the idea of a people as sole sovereign ruling body over Government is particularly dangerous and abhorrent. _________________________________

THE HELLER CASE ILLUSTRATES THE TENSION AT WORK TODAY IN AMERICA, BETWEEN TRUE PATRIOTS WHO WISH TO PRESERVE THE NATION AS A FREE REPUBLIC AND THE TRAITORS INTENT ON DEMOLISHING ALL OF IT

PART NINE

In the last paragraph of the Heller majority opinion, one sees the results of the demand placed on Justice Scalia. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy compelled Scalia to expressly assert the right of States to exert control over the right of the people to keep and bear arms.There is manifest tension here between the right and of the individual to retain sole and absolute possession and control over and enjoyment of use in his firearms as his personal property and the State's opposition to the individual's absolute authority over his personal property rights in his firearms. The State insists on placing constraints on the exercise of the citizen's control over his own firearms, and the citizen insists on repulsing the State. Scalia was forced to make allowance for Government to constrain what is an irrefutable, absolute right. He was compelled to throw a bone to the Anti-Second Amendment Marxists and Globalists by making explicit the reference to “gun violence, they insisted on.But one also sees Scalia’s intention to have the last word, both alluding to and denying that the Second Amendment will not be made extinct—at least not on Scalia’s watch. The pity that this eminent, jurist, who had demonstrated true reverence for our Nation’s Bill of Rights would have no hand in penning an opinion in Bruen. That Justice Scalia is no longer with us, Americans are all the worst without him.For the danger of tyranny of Government is most acute today, and there is no greater need for an armed citizenry today, to thwart tyranny. And Justice Scalia knew this well. He ended the Heller majority opinion with these words: “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.  The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns [citation omitted]. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.  These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem.  That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.”Unfortunately for us Americans, the Second Amendment could very well go extinct given the current unhealthy climate in this Country, deliberately worsened through Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist provocation, driving the Country to a Civil War.Retired Justice John Paul Stevens and Justice Stephen Breyer responded directly to Justice Scalia’s closing remarks in Heller. They caustically remonstrated against him, provoking him by asserting erroneously and absurdly that, to call the right of the people to keep and bear arms an individual right, is to have the Court create a right that doesn’t exist in the Bill of Rights. Really?And, Stevens and Breyer further insulted the late Justice by remarking that it is for Government to define the rights that the people have through the policy choices that Government makes. Justice Stevens and Breyer invoked the tired erroneous claim that whatever right to keep and bear arms exists in the Second Amendment,that right is a collective right, which is to say, a Government sanctioned privilege. In so saying they rebuked Justice Scalia, and Justices Thomas and Alito, casually dismissing out-of-hand, the salient, paramount holding of Heller.In their joined Dissent, Stevens and Breyer write,“Untiltoday, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia.  The Court's announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations.  Today judicial craftsmen have confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a ‘law-abiding, responsible citize[n]’ the right to keep and use weapons in the home for self-defense is ‘off the table.’    Given the presumption that most citizens are law abiding, and the reality that the need to defend oneself may suddenly arise in a host of locations outside the home, fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table.”“I do not know whether today's decision will increase the labor of federal judges to the ‘breaking point’ envisioned by Justice Cardozo, but it will surely give rise to a far more active judicial role in making vitally important national policy decisions than was envisioned at any time in the 18th, 19th, or 20th centuries.” Note, that Breyer, who still serves on the High Court, asserts his fear, in Heller, that the Court might actually proclaim that armed self-defense does exist outside the realm of one’s home.If Justice Scalia were still alive and serving on the Court, he would indeed make clear, in Bruen, that the right of armed self-defense outside the home is within the core meaning of the language of the Second Amendment. But, with Scalia gone, the Bruen case—that would have become the third seminal Second Amendment case—creating a triumphant Second Amendment Triumvirate of seminal cases, sanctifying the Bill of Rights, will not be.The Destroyers, Destructors, and Defilers of our Republic will continue pressing to wear down the American psyche and spirit.The Bruen rulings will likely amount to little more than a bee sting to the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, having little negative impact on New York, and no impact on Anti-Second Amendment Governments across the Nation and no discernible impact on Anti-Second Amendment forces in the Federal Government.The “atypicality” requirement will remain. Just the procedures in granting concealed handgun carry licenses in New York City would change.And nothing would change for other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions as they will retain their own “atypicality” requirements unless those procedures are successfully challenged in their own Courts of competent jurisdiction.All the problems attendant to the Federal and State Governments’ refusal to recognize the sanctity and inviolability of the right of the people to keep and bear arms will remain unscathed.And, from what we gather coming out of Biden’s maw and that of the illustrious Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Governor of California, Gavin Newsom, of late, the seeming impenetrable castle walls assiduously built by the Heller and McDonald rulings and reasoning, remain under siege, and in danger of successful breach at the first opportunity._____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

TYRANNY, FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, AND THE ARMED CITIZEN

ARMED SELF-DEFENSE AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT

PART ONE

Is armed self-defense a basic human right? That is the crux of an ongoing debate for many people in the United States. It shouldn’t be but it is.The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution makes clear that armed self-defense is a fundamental human right. If anyone harbors doubt about that, the United States Supreme Court settled the question in 2008, in the seminal Second Amendment case, Heller vs. District of Columbia.The late eminent Associate Justice, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, opined “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”This means armed self-defense is not to be perceived as a thing apart from the broader notion of self-defense, but, rather, is subsumed in it. The sole issue in Heller was “whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution.”In ruling that an outright ban on the use of a handgun for self-defense in one’s home does violate the core of the Second Amendment right, the majority also held that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia. This ruling is consistent with and is implied in the Court’s ruling on the salient issue.Moreover, the High Court made patently clear that Government didn’t create the right of armed self-defense but simply codified it, for the right of armed self-defense exists intrinsically in one’s being.The Court said,“Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment like the First and Fourth Amendments codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it ‘shall not be infringed.’”The recent Kyle Rittenhouse case is a textbook study of the utility of a firearm in effective defense of self against aggressive predatory attack.But this idea doesn’t sit well with Anti-Second Amendment proponents:“Gun rights are not human rights.”So says “democracy and human rights advocate,” Rukmani Bhatia who had served in the Obama Administration.Her assertion is posited not as a thesis to be proved but as an assumption to be accepted as self-evident, true, notwithstanding the plain meaning of the Second Amendment and the High Court’s rulings in Heller.No matter——Bhatia makes the assertion in a “Report” published by the George Soros funding Marxist think tank, “Center for American Progress,” on August 12, 2020.The Report is titled, “Untangling the Gun Lobby’s Web of Self-Defense and Human Rights,” and is subtitled, “Peddling False Rights, Profiting Off Fear.” Bhatia writes, in pertinent part,“Today, alongside this rights-based narrative, a parallel narrative exists that is perpetuated by the U.S. gun industry as part of a multifaceted effort to increase gun sales. This so-called gun-rights narrative manipulates the ideals of human rights to establish not only an inalienable right to life but also an unfettered right to armed self-defense to protect oneself from any perceived threat of harm. This narrative hinges on fear and the need to defend oneself and loved ones from unknown but ever-present threats through whatever means necessary and without regard to the rights of others. It is grounded by the false claim that the most effective means of self-preservation involves using a firearm.”From her remarks, dubious and outlandish as they are, one detects a note of irritation and frustration, borne of a deep-seated ethical or aesthetic abhorrence of guns and of the citizen’s right to keep and bear them. But there is more to be gleaned from this account.The Marxist antagonism directed to armed self-defense, as reflected in Bhatia’s “Report,” hides a sinister agenda.It is an agenda at loggerheads with the sanctity and inviolability of personal selfhood and one inconsistent with the preservation of the United States as a free Constitutional Republic.Grounded on the tenets and precepts of Collectivism (See e.g., Arbalest Quarrel article on the differences between Collectivism and Individualism), the Marxist intends to thrust their vision of reality on the entire Nation. Most Americans find that vision disagreeable if not thoroughly reprehensible and repugnant.The Marxist isn't unaware of this and resorts to artifice and chicanery to seduce the polity. The Marxist relies on the legacy Press and social media to assist in making it palatable to the public policy goals designed to transform a free Republic into a Marxist Dictatorship.Marxists mask their disdain for the dignity of man by disingenuously claiming to venerate it.At the outset of her Center for American Progress Report, Bhatia cites Article 1 of “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (“UDHR”) a document crafted by the United Nations, where, citing Article 1 of the UDHR and then expanding on the sentiments of it, Bhatia writes,“Every human life has inherent value and dignity, and every person has the right to life, liberty, and personal security. These truths are codified in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR was historic, with nations coming together to explicitly recognize the need to protect and preserve these fundamental rights, structuring constitutions to explicitly defend their citizens’ human rights, and particularly their rights to life, freedom, and security. The protection of human rights continues to be a defining pillar to secure a stable, peaceful liberal world order. But in the United States, some groups—such as the gun lobby—are seizing upon this rights-based narrative to justify, dangerously, the right to bear, carry, and use firearms.”The United Nations says this about the development of the UDHR:“Drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds from all regions of the world, the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 (General Assembly resolution 217 A) as a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations. It sets out, fundamental human rights to be universally protected and. . . is widely recognized as having inspired, and paved the way for, the adoption of more than seventy human rights treaties, applied today on a permanent basis at global and regional levels. . . .” Extolling the sentiments of the UDHR, as Rukmani Bhatia does in her Center for Progress Report, is all well and good. But how is one expected to effectively confront an aggressive, vicious attack that emanates from the predatory beast, predatory man, or the tyrannical, predatory Government if not through armed self-defense? The Marxist, Bhatia, doesn’t say, which begs the very question at issue in her Report. Is Bhatia not aware of this? Perhaps, she is aware of this but consciously chooses to slither around it, hoping no one perceives the gaping hole that she has left open in her Report.In an attempt to avoid dealing with the question, head-on, Marxists, like Bhatia, simply take the easy way out. They deny the essence of the problem, claiming, as Bhatia does, and as she argues, that the threat of harm isn’t real, was never real, but is and always was grounded in an unwarranted fear of harm.But the threat is real, and the fear isn’t unwarranted, and Americans are witnessing all of it. And it is painfully evident through the inaction and empty posturing of effete and impotent Federal and State Governments to the harm generated.Either the Marxist-controlled Federal Government and similar Marxist-controlled State and local Governments are simply inept and incompetent and, so, wholly unable to deal with the harm, or they welcome, even encourage, the attendant harms to the citizen and society alike. Likely it is a combination of both.The framers of the United States Constitution had the answer to the threat of harm caused by predatory beast, predatory man, or predatory Government, an unwelcome one for these Marxists, to be sure, as they aim to break apart American society and culture so that they can rebuild society in accordance with the strictures of Marxism.The answer rests in the Nation’s Bill of Rights (BOR), specifically in the citizen's exercise of his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. This, more than anything else, is the answer to the bedlam and mayhem wrought by those that seek the Country’s undoing. Small wonder, then, that these Marxists desire to destroy the Right._______________________________________________

THE UNITED NATIONS IGNORES ARMED SELF-DEFENSE AS A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT; THE UNITED STATES EMBRACES IT

PART TWO

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations crafted a document, titled “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The document is a litany of 30 Rights (“Articles”) that ostensibly proclaims the dignity of the human being and his right to life, liberty, and security.The Preamble of the United Nations’ UDHR sets forth: “Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,Now, therefore,The General Assembly,Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.” These are all noble sentiments, as articulated, of course. But there is a major problem the UDHR fails to address: How is a human being supposed to secure these lofty ideals for him or herself? The drafters of the United Nations’ UDHR fail to say.In the litany of over two dozen fundamental rights set forth in the UDHR’s “Articles,” there is no mention whatsoever of a right of armed self-defense. In fact, there is no mention in the UDHR of a right of self-defense, armed or otherwise.By failing to acknowledge self-defense, and its corollary armed self-defense, as basic human rights, the United Nations’ UDHR undercuts “the inherent dignity and . . . equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” that it claims pompously to venerate.The UDHR is intentionally deceptive; a ploy of international Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism. It is designed to seduce nations into forsaking their independence and sovereignty, reducing both nation and population to misery and servitude, all the while claiming to promote the “equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” But note: even in this seemingly clear, unambiguous exposition, there is a sinister uncurrent. The UDHR speaks of purported inalienable rights to be enjoyed by the human family in a group capacity, that is to say, as a collective. There is no suggestion, no intimation these rights are to be enjoyed by human beings in an individual capacity. 

WHERE ARMED SELF-DEFENSE IS ABSENT, TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT IS UNAVOIDABLE

The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”)  mentions, in its Preamble, that “it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law.”The American public hears much about the importance of  “the Rule of Law” from Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists. The EU also makes much use of this phrase, as does the UN in reference to human rights as noted supra.Supposedly Government’s application of “the Rule of Law” operates as a hedge against encroaching tyranny. But does it? Vainglorious are those who make constant reference to it—U.S. politicians in particular. But, what does ‘rule of law’ really mean? The appeal to it is subterfuge, dissembly.In the absence of a useful definition, the expression, ‘Rule of Law’ is vacuous. And, that is just the way politicians want to keep it. Don’t ask them to define the expression. They have no idea what it means and would be thunderstruck if anyone were to ask them to provide a definition. A declaration of human rights that avails itself of the words “Rule of Law” as the primary or sole check against the tyranny of Government is devoid of substance.The UN’s UDHR is deceptive. The claim of sanctifying human rights is belied by the emptiness of the gesture. How are human rights to be actualized or, if need be, how are they to be vindicated? In the “Rule of Law?” Really? How is one to understand this “Rule of Law?” And, from whom is one to receive “Rule of Law” relief from tyranny? From that very Government that imposes tyranny on the populace?Yet, the United Nation’s UDHR relies on the ‘Rule of Law’ as the check on tyranny. That is all one obtains from the UDHR; that is all the UN delivers to “the human family” that it claims to care so deeply about.The United States’ BOR, unlike the UDHR, doesn't expect the citizen to place his reliance on arcane nomenclature to provide a check on the tyranny of Government. A check on the tyranny of Government rests in the physicality of the armed citizenry, not on empty pompous verbiage.The framers of the Constitution wouldn’t waste ink on ‘Rule of Law’ when preparing the Bill of Rights. The framers of the BOR did not expect the ‘Rule of Law’ to protect them from the tyranny of George III of England. They placed their faith in the force of arms, not in arcane, abstruse concepts to release them from tyranny. And they would place the future security of a free Republic in nothing less than dint of arms.The only functional check against the tyranny of Government is the physicality of “armed self-defense.” Armed self-defense is what worries, even terrifies, the Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist, and with good reason. For the aim of these internationalists is to create a top-down autocratic Government, that is to say, “Tyranny.” But Tyranny is not able to gain a foothold in a nation where the citizenry is armed.The Tyrant fears Tyrannicide at the hands of the armed Citizenry and, so, demands that the Citizenry surrender its arms to the Tyrant. The Citizenry fears Democide at the hands of the Tyrant's agents, and, so, refuses to surrender its arms to the Tyrant.The United States, as a free Republic, must never forsake the sacred right embodied in the Second Amendment. To do so would be tantamount to the destruction of the Republic and enslavement of the populace.The American people must never for one moment trust the Government or its propagandists who proclaim that for the public harmony, safety, and order it is in the best interests of the polity to surrender its firearms. The day the citizen does so will be the day the citizen should be prepared to sacrifice his autonomy, his dignity, his soul, and his life.___________________________________________

THE CITIZEN MUST BE EVER ON GUARD OF GOVERNMENT THAT PROMISES HARMONY, SAFETY, AND TRANQUILITY IF HE BUT SURRENDER ALL ARMS TO THE STATE

PART THREE

Unlike the United Nations that doesn’t mention a natural right of armed self-defense in its Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), our Nation embraces it.The States ratified the Nation’s Bill of Rights (BOR) on December 15, 1791.The BOR predates the UDHR by over one hundred and fifty years even as the UN heralds its own UDHR as “a milestone.”  In codifying the right of armed self-defense in the BOR, the Framers of it at once proclaimed the sanctity of Personal Selfhood and provided a rationale for it: the need for the citizen to remain wary of the tyranny of Government.The Second Amendment provides both a stark warning to the Government and a categorical prohibition on Government apropos of it.The people need not and must not abide by the tyranny of Government, and Government is prohibited from tampering with this perfect fail-safe mechanism by which the American people may effectively resist the inception of tyranny.The language of the Second Amendment to thwart tyranny is self-executing. In fact, the clearest indication of the Government’s slide into tyranny is through the unlawful attempt to eradicate the American citizenry’s exercise of the right embodied in it.The only reason the Government would dare to take such action to eradicate the exercise of the right of armed self-defense would be to preclude the citizenry from exercising the means by which it is well capable of repelling the insinuation of tyranny on the citizenry.The danger of ever-present tyranny is manifest in the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment—pointing to “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” And the subsequent independent clause of the Second Amendment provides the ultimate fail-safe mechanism of which the citizen shall avail himself if Government devolves into tyranny: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”The framers of the Bill of Rights recognized that man cannot secure his life, safety, and well-being from the predatory beast, predatory man, or predatory government in the absence of an effective means to do so—as only a firearm provides.Superficially, the United Nations’ UDHR and the BOR may seem similar, as both documents point to and allude, in their language, to the higher aspirations and Rights of man.But, on the crucial matter of self-defense, the principal difference between the two is laid bare.The United Nations doesn’t presume or countenance individuals as having the wherewithal or even the right and responsibility to provide for the defense of Self.The United Nations only makes reference to ‘self-defense’ in its Charter, signed on June 26, 1945. And in its Charter, self-defense is referenced only in one of its Articles, and, then, only in relation to the rights of nations, not in respect to the populations of those nations.Article 51 of the UN Charter says,“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”Self-defense remains a prerogative and responsibility of the UN apropos of nations, whether in an individual or collective capacity. The UN does not recognize “Self-defense” as a right intrinsic to individual human beings, whether in an individual or in a collective capacity.Moreover, the rights promulgated in the UDHR, noble aspirations though they may appear to be, as articulated, are understood by their crafters, to be man-made constructs. Thus, they do not even operate in the UDHR as true fundamental rights. The suggestion is mere pretense. And that is another major failing with the UDHR. Fundamental Rights are Natural preexistent Rights—existing intrinsically in man. They aren’t creations of man.The “Articles” qua Rights, delineated in the UDHR, are considered mutable and limitable. They are not to be perceived as—and were never intended to be perceived as—independent of the dictates of the United Nations, but were, in their creation, considered subordinate to the UN's dictates.This is evident from a perusal of Clauses 2 and 3 of Article 29 of the UDHR:“In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”“These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.”Article 29 demonstrates the vacuity of the entire enterprise.Unlike the Rights codified in the U.S. Constitution’s BOR, the Rights delineated in the UDHR remain subordinate to the crafters of it, who retain ultimate and exclusive authority over it: to keep it, modify it, or erase it, as they wish.Yet, a declaration of purported human rights that cannot stand on its own, independent of the sanctioning authority that created it, is an edifice built on sand.The Bill of Rights, unlike the UDHR, is the genuine article, not a vacuous simulacrum of noble aspirations.The Nation’s Bill of Rights is to be understood as a codification of natural law rights, not man-made conventions. That point is significant.The framers took as axiomatic that natural law rights are fundamental, unalienable, immutable, and illimitable. As such, they are not lawfully subject to modification, abrogation, or abandonment by the Government; nor can Government perfunctorily dismiss them.The implication of this is clear: ultimate power, authority, and sovereignty rest solely in the American people, not in the Federal Government.Any attempt by the Government to limit, abrogate, or deny to the American people the unalienable exercise of their fundamental Rights amounts to an unlawful intrusion on and unlawful usurpation of power belonging solely to the American people, and an unlawful encroachment on the sovereignty of the people over Government.An assault by the Government on the sovereignty of the American people over Government constitutes Tyranny of Government. Tyranny of Government is Treachery of Government. And, Treachery of Government is Treason by Government directed against its own people.Armed self-defense is the best hedge against the most serious danger to a free man: the predatory, tyrannical Government. In dicta, the Heller majority acknowledged this, citing for support, The Federalist 29: “when able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.”Since the Marxist vision of Government and the citizen’s relationship to it requires subordination of the will of the citizen to Government, Marxists abhor the very notion of the “armed citizen.”Not by accident, then, is there any mention of “self-defense,”—armed or otherwise—in the UDHR. A laundry list of Rights (“Articles”) never so much as alludes to one’s unalienable right of armed self-defense or even of a general right of self-defense.But, if a man isn’t allowed the exercise of the fundamental right of armed self-defense—if in fact, the very notion of self-defense is not to be perceived of as a basic human right—wherein, then, shall a man look to secure the “inherent value and dignity” of his life that the UN crafters of the UDHR talk so floridly about? In Government? In the new “liberal world order” qua “new world order” that Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists proclaim to be a good thing? Please!The American people must resist subtle and overt coercion by these Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists who urge them to forsake their elemental right of armed self-defense. To do so will imperil both their own lives and well-being and that of a free Constitutional Republic.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE RIGHT TO DISSENT AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS ARE A BULWARK AGAINST TYRANNY

Americans remain at the moment privileged to celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas, Independence Day, Labor Day, and other Holidays. But, for how much longer.A year ago July, Independence day we wrote of the dire threats to our Nation, coming from within.“With Independence Day only days away, this Country can hardly be in a celebratory spirit, as the very words, ‘nationalism’ and ‘patriotism’ are treated like obscenities.We witness two-legged predators laying waste the Land, destroying property, intimidating innocent Americans, causing bedlam and mayhem. The police, under fire, are ordered to stand down. Government cowers. Law and Order breaks down everywhere. The seditious Press and Radical Left members of Congress, along with Radical Left State Governors and City Mayors give their blessing to the perpetrators of this violence.”  See also our sister article, posted a few days earlier. Has anything changed, almost seventeen months later? Yes, the threat to our Nation has only grown direr.The Trotting Horse of American Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism is now running at full gallop. It is charging directly toward a formidable defense to be sure—the Bill of Rights. But it is determined to break through, destroying the Constitution of the United States, annihilating a free Republic, subjugating a free and sovereign people.Evidence for this is everywhere, including, inter alia:

• Government acquiescence to violent rioting, and looting in the Nation’s cities
• A systematic plan to indoctrinate the Nation’s youth with “Critical Race Theory”
• Constraints on the exercise of Free Speech/Intolerance toward Dissent
• Violations of Due Process and Equal Protection Guarantees
• Violations of the Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
• Unlawful Government orders and mandates, such as mandatory COVID Vaccinations
• Failure of Government to Enforce the Nation’s Immigration Laws
• Debilitation of the Military: Purging of the Ranks, Politicization of Upper Echelons, Creating Dissension, and Destroying morale
• Consolidation of Governmental power in a single Branch
• Expanding Federal Government power over the people and the States
• Emasculation of State and Community Police Forces
• Politicization and Corruption of Executive Branch Departments
• Deliberate Destruction of the Nation’s Economy
• Collusion between the Government and the Press to Distort News and to indoctrinate the public
• The defacing, destroying, and removing of national monuments
• Denigration of the American Flag and other national emblems
• Belittlement of the notion of “Citizen of the United States”
• Ennoblement of Marxist Lawbreakers and Illegal Aliens

And most ominously,

• Concerted Attacks on Civilian Possession of firearms and of the inherent, natural Right of Armed Self-defense.

THE ERA OF “HYBRID WARFARE”

The Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist forces that dare to crush both the institutions of our Nation and the spirit of our people, are engaging in a new, sophisticated multilayered stratagem. It has a name. It is called, “Hybrid Warfare.” This is an expression that entered the political and military lexicon in 2008.“In the twenty-first century, wars are not declared or waged conventionally; instead, conflicts are instigated by clandestine agents using military, non-military, media, cyber tools, information operations, NGOs, nonstate actors, intelligence agencies, economic tools, propaganda, ambiguity, terrorism, and insurgency or rebel movements. In hybrid warfare, the lines between peacetime and wartime and between combatants and civilians are blurred. Further, systemic aggression is imposed on the targeted state using gray zones, nonlinear warfare, unrestricted warfare, unconventional warfare, and color revolutions to avoid attribution and possible retribution against the aggressor.The threat posed by hybrid warfare is real. hybrid warfare employs a wide array of power tools, including: political, economic, military, asymmetric, civil. Additionally, it includes informational tools such as: diplomacy, terrorism, proxies, and economic attacks to persuade populations or to divide societies. hybrid warfare targets the vulnerabilities of a society and system while deliberately exploiting ambiguity to avoid detection. It is usually detected only when it is fully functional and capable of inflicting harm. Some researchers believe that lawfare (in which law is used as a tool of aggression) is also a branch of hybrid warfare. John J. McCuen, in his 2008 paper ‘Hybrid Wars,’ describes hybrid warfare as ‘spectrum wars with both physical and conceptual dimensions: the former, a struggle against an armed enemy and the latter, a wider struggle for control and support of the combat zone's indigenous population, the support of the home fronts of the intervening nations, and the support of the international community.’ McCuen sees hybrid warfare as using a variety of tools to persuade the domestic population of a targeted state.”  ~The Rise Of Hybrid Warfare, 10 Notre Dame J. Int'l & Comp. L. 173 (2020), by Waseem Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan.Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, are using hybrid warfare against Americans. Be cognizant of it: what it is; how and where it is employed against our Nation and its people; and its impact on the Nation and on the people. Its effects are both subtle and lucid.The application of hybrid warfare is subtle where it attacks the mind, psyche, and spirit of the American people.It is lucid where it attacks the tangible infrastructure of our towns and cities along with the intangible fundamental institutions of the Country, the very fabric of our society. These fundamental institutions include education; health; law; business and finance; and family and religion.It is all under attack.But the most insidious attack against the American citizen is the subtle—the attack on the psyche of the American people.The Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have attacked the very core of the American psyche in its attack on natural law rights:The most fundamental Natural Law Right—the Right of Self-defense— includes the Reciprocal Natural Law Responsibility of Self-defense.Armed Self-defense provides the best means available to protect one’s physical being and that of one’s family.The idea of “Self-defense,” generally, and “Armed Self-defense, especially, embody the concept of the sanctity and inviolability of Self.The Right of Free Speech also goes to the sanctity of one’s Selfhood. The Right of Dissent is intrinsic to Selfhood.The unalienable, immutable, illimitable right of the individual to be individual means Government cannot lawfully impinge upon or encroach on one’s Selfhood.The sanctity and inviolability of Self are at the core of what it means to be an American. The framework of our Constitution is grounded on that sacred, inviolate, Truth. It is the single source of our Nation’s power and success.The Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists know this to be so, and they are chiseling away at all of it. They intend to destroy the Soul of the American citizen. To effectuate this it is necessary to destroy the exercise of armed self-defense and exercise of free expression.If the Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists defeat the exercise of armed self-defense and the exercise of free expression, they have succeeded to defeat the two salient avenues of resistance to their iron will.For, if one is prevented from exercising one’s freedom of speech—the freedom to dissent, the freedom to exercise independence of thought—one’s mind, spirit, and soul is damaged.And, if one is prevented from exercising his freedom to bear arms—one’s right of defense against a predatory beast, predatory man, or predatory government—then the safety and well-being of one’s physical Self are imperiled.The two most basic rights—the right of self-protection and independence of thought—go together.To lose the one is to lose the other.Autonomy of Selfhood is impossible where the individual is helpless—physically, psychically, mentally, intellectually, spiritually.The Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists intend to cripple mind, spirit, and soul, and they are doing this through the propagation of disinformation, misinformation, and psychological conditioning.Control of government and the Press and social media provide them with powerful mechanisms to accomplish this.Americans must do what is necessary to see that these ruthless, jealous, rapacious forces do not succeed.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.     

THE RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENSE WAS ON TRIAL IN THE RITTENHOUSE CASE; AND THIS TIME WE THE PEOPLE, WON!

A couple of days prior to the jury’s decision in the Rittenhouse case, the New York Times posted an editorial, titled, “The Truth About Kyle Rittenhouse’s Gun,” by Times Opinion Columnist, Farhad Manjoo. In part, the Columnist said this,“I’ve spent the past couple of weeks riveted by the murder trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the white teenager who shot and killed two people and injured a third during a night of Black Lives Matter protests and civil unrest in Kenosha, Wis., last year.It was a turbulent case. For many days the prosecution was on the ropes — some of the state’s witnesses seemed to bolster the defense’s case that Rittenhouse acted in self-defense. But on Monday, the lead prosecutor, Thomas Binger, offered a meticulously documented closing argument that deftly summarized all the ways Rittenhouse acted unlawfully. That’s because it cleverly unraveled some of the foundational tenets of gun advocacy: That guns are effective and necessary weapons of self-defense. That without them, lawlessness and tyranny would prevail. And that in the right hands — in the hands of the “good guys” — guns promote public safety rather than destroy it.In the Rittenhouse case, none of that was true. At every turn that night, Rittenhouse’s AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle made things worse, ratcheting up danger rather than quelling it. The gun transformed situations that might have ended in black eyes and broken bones into ones that ended with corpses in the street. And Rittenhouse’s gun was not just a danger to rival protesters. According to his own defense, the gun posed a grave threat to Rittenhouse himself — he said he feared being overpowered and then shot with his own weapon.This is self-defense as circular reasoning: Rittenhouse says he carried a rifle in order to guarantee his safety during a violent protest. He was forced to shoot at four people when his life and the lives of other people were threatened, he says. What was he protecting everyone from? The gun strapped to his own body, the one he’d brought to keep everyone safe.” ~ Portions of an article from an Editorial appearing in The New York Times, on November 17, 2021, titled “The Truth About Kyle Rittenhouse’s Gun,” by Times Opinion Columnist, Farhad Manjoo.Well, the jury in the Rittenhouse case just blew this absurd New York Times editorial out of the water.At the core of the Second Amendment rests the right of self-defense. This isn’t a supposition. This isn’t theory. This isn’t opinion. And it certainly isn’t a mere fervent wish. Self-defense is at the heart of the inviolability of personhood; the sanctity of mind, body, and spirit.No other Nation on Earth, but the United States, talks about the Right of self-defense as a fundamental, unalienable, natural law right, and truly means it; has etched it in stone in its Constitution.What does the International Community have to say about this? Read all the documents you will, disseminated by the UN and the EU. They all go on about human dignity and the right to life, sure. But you will struggle to find one that even mentions the right of “self-defense.”You won’t see it. You won’t find it. It doesn’t exist. But, then, are not the words, “right to life” and “human dignity” vacuous in the absence of the inherent, natural, God-given right of self-defense to secure one’s life? And isn’t individual responsibility an important component in that equation?The Right of self-defense is embedded in the right of the people to keep and bear arms.A firearm is the best means of self-protection and has, for centuries, been thus.The right of the people to keep and bear arms is merely a reiteration of and reminder to Government that the Right of the people to keep and bear arms means the Right of self-defense, be it employment of self-defense against attack by beast, person, or the tyranny of Government.Make no mistake—the most cherished right of every human being was on trial in the Rittenhouse case: The right of self-defense.The seditious Press will play the outcome of this case as it has from the outset; as the aforementioned splice from The New York Times editorial presents—that the Rittenhouse case is about guns and the need to place further constraints on the Right to keep and bear them.That has been the messaging droning on, all along: guns promote lawlessness; guns threaten public safety and order; guns don’t belong in a civilized society; guns aggrandize vigilantism; and so on and so forth.But the Rittenhouse case isn’t really about guns. It never was.The case is about the inherent, natural, immutable, God-given Right of Self-Defense. And as the case proved, armed self-defense works damn well. Kyle Rittenhouse would have suffered serious injury and probable death had he not been armed. No question about it. No one seriously doubts it.A brave, young man, looking for neither glory nor condemnation, went to Kenosha, to protect the city of his father from destruction. He did that because the police couldn’t because an effete State Government wouldn’t let the police fulfill its main function; its official mandate: to protect the community it serves.The people themselves would have to step up, and one young man did.Many journalists and commentators will say, in the days, weeks, and months to follow, that the jury came to the wrong conclusions in each of the counts against Kyle Rittenhouse. Some, though, will admit that the case was a weak one from the start. The seditious Press will rant and rave, fume, and make excuses, and will issue dire warnings of what the outcome of this case portends for society, which undoubtedly the Press will, wittingly or not, foment.But the truth of the matter is that the case against Kyle was, from the start, not only weak, it was absurd.Video evidence alone demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that an angry mob, out for blood, intended to seriously injure or kill Kyle Rittenhouse. The mob was chasing after Kyle. Kyle wasn't chasing after them. Kyle did his level best to avoid confrontation. And that is a critical point where a person claims self-defense.The State’s case against Kyle was nonsensical from start to finish. It was an oblique attack on the inherent right of self-defense. But it was also a direct assault on civilian ownership and possession of firearms.The prosecution argued that, if a person has a right to self-defense, Kyle certainly didn’t because he didn’t play fair: he brought a gun to a knife fight, notwithstanding that one of the attackers did bring and did point a loaded handgun at Kyle.But the prosecutors never charged that third attacker, Grosskreutz, for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon. Strange that.The prosecutors created a story that Kyle, by carrying a rifle that night in Kenosha, was looking for trouble. The State constantly used a buzzword, “active shooter” to describe Kyle.The prosecutors employed rhetoric instead of reason to entice, seduce, and mislead the jury. It didn’t work. The jury saw through the sham. They were never taken in by it.And, fortunately, justice was served. The jury obeyed the instructions as given them by the Judge. The jury wasn’t deluded by Biden’s insulting and ludicrous and false assertion that Kyle is a “white supremacist” or by claims that the Rittenhouse case is all about vigilantism—as if any of that would or should have bearing on the case, anyway.But let’s cut to the chase. This case was and is about one thing: the right of self-defense, and whether the employment of it was reasonable under the circumstances. Wisconsin law is clear about this:

• Wis. Stat. § 939.48 Self-defense and defense of others, says this:

“A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.”The jury found that, on all Counts, Kyle Rittenhouse complied with the Wisconsin law of self-defense. He never shot to kill. He shot to stop aggressive attacks on life, and when the threat passed, Kyle stopped. And one should take careful note:Wisconsin law doesn’t assert or imply a limitation on the use of firearms for self-defense.On the contrary, the State Supreme Court of Wisconsin reiterated the right of armed self-defense.In the recent case, State vs. Roundtree, 395 Wis. 2d 94, 952 N.W.2d 765 (2021) the Court opined that “the core right identified in Heller, is ‘the right of a law-abiding, responsible citizen to possess and carry a weapon for self-defense. . . .’”See also State vs. Christen, 396 Wis. 2d. 705, 958 N.W.2d 746 (Wis. 2021), and note, once the defendant successfully raises the self-defense privilege, the State has the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. And that standard is a difficult one for the State to overcome. Moreover, if the State cannot meet the standard of proof, then the privilege automatically applies to any crime based on the conduct directed to the criminal charges.  “Wisconsin has codified the privilege of self-defense. § 939.48(1) (‘A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person.’). This self-defense privilege extends further in the context of the home where the privilege may include the presumptive right to use deadly force. See § 939.48(1m)(ar). When a defendant successfully raises the self-defense privilege, the State has the burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, ¶106, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413. If the State cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt at trial that the defendant did not act in self-defense then the self-defense privilege serves as ‘a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct.’ § 939.45.” The jury, in the Rittenhouse case, obviously determined the prosecution failed to overcome the self-defense privilege in each of the charges brought against Kyle Rittenhouse involving the use of his weapon for self-defense. Hence, all the charges related to the use of his weapon for self-defense automatically drop.The Press will, no doubt, have a field day with this turn of events. Let us hope the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruen, will recognize and make abundantly clear the right of armed self-defense doesn’t stop at the doorstep of one’s home.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.   

IN THE ABSENCE OF FREE EXPRESSION AND FORCE OF ARMS A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC CANNOT LONG STAND

MULTISERIES ARTICLE

THE GOAL OF A TYRANNICAL AMERICAN GOVERNMENT: DIVIDE AND SILENCE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND DISARM THE CITIZENRY

PART ONE

A VIGOROUS SEDITIOUS PRESS AND ROGUE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ACCELERATE THE NEO-MARXIST PLAYBOOK

“We live in an insane society in which people have agreed that certain behaviors qualify as sane and, so long as you follow those behaviors, you will escape scrutiny.Wisdom and experience, which are cousins, tell me there are certain beliefs I need to carry humbly and hold loosely, while others are more objectively true. Rain is wet. Open-mindedness to counter-arguments might appear more diplomatic, but you don’t really mean it because, come on, water is wet.‘The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.’   George Orwell, 1984But what if they tell you water isn’t? What if they tell you it isn’t and mean it?Here, then, is our situation, our conundrum, and no, none of this is hypothetical, not one syllable:What if you know what you see with your own eyes but others insist you don’t see it, including some you once trusted? What if they tell you that you have some condition, some mental problem that causes you to overreact and start to see things that aren’t there (or not see things that are)?”  ~From a sermon by Mike Rumley-wellsAre the Harris-Biden Administration and the Pelosi-Schumer-Controlled Congress stark, raving mad? And, is the legacy Press abetting an insane Federal Government?To look at the policies of this Administration and the bills of Congress, and the effects of these policies and Congressional bills on our Nation and on our people, a rational mind would think so. But with a Government whose intent it is to destroy the United States of America as an independent sovereign Nation and a free Constitutional Republic, and whose actions demonstrate the expansiveness and intensity of effort to accomplish that goal, what recourse does a sane mind have in a Nation whose Government claims a need to destroy the Nation in order to save it? The Government has waged a war on the minds of Americans, begun in earnest, at the turn of the 21st Century. A short span of societal order returned to the country between 2016 and 2020. That was when the public, having had enough of the destruction of the economy and of our National Security wrought by the Bush and Obama Administrations, voted for a change to set the Country back on course, to allow it to operate in a manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution, not against it. The Nation voted for Donald Trump, who sought to Make America Great Again. And he commenced to do just that, to strengthen our Nation and to proclaim to the world that the United States still existed and intended to continue to exist as a sovereign, independent Nation, in accordance with the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism as the framers of the Constitution intended. The framers' design is antithetical to that of present-day Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists. They don't wish for the Nation to remain a free Constitutional Republic at all. Their belief system is grounded and structured on the tenets, precepts, and principles of Collectivism, as exemplified in Communist China and as is coming to fruition in the Countries of the EU. Collectivism is the antithesis of Individualism. See article in Mises:“From the viewpoint of Marx and Engels, the individual was a negligible thing in the eyes of the nation. Marx and Engels denied that the individual played a role in historical evolution. According to them, history goes its own way. The material productive forces go their own way, developing independently of the wills of individuals. And historical events come with the inevitability of a law of nature. The material productive forces work like a director in an opera; they must have a  substitute available in case of a problem, as the opera director must have a substitute if the singer gets sick. According to this idea, Napoleon and Dante, for instance, were unimportant—if they had not appeared to take their own special place in history, someone else would have appeared on stage to fill their shoes.” These Anti-American forces seek to transform our Nation into a Collectivist society for its eventual inclusion into a new world order, sans national borders and nation-states. And, for us, in America, that would mean oppression, repression, and poverty, drawing this Nation down to the horrific standards of living existent in most of the world. That would be the price Americans would be required to pay for a Collectivist world governed by the tri-Satanic precepts of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion—an ambitious project of the UN, first instituted in the EU, and planned for in the U.S. And now that the puppet-masters of a new world order had succeeded in machinating an election outcome that would place a corrupt, senile charlatan in the Oval Office, and had consolidated their power in Congress, they could return to their original game plan, moving rapidly ahead to make up for lost time, having failed, originally, to place their stooge, Hillary Clinton, in Office in 2017.Two Branches of this Government, along with the Legacy Press, have successfully conditioned a small section of America to adopt a new way of thinking, to inculcate a new social, political, and economic dogma—a dogma that even comes with its own religion: The Cult of the State—the State (the Government) as God.To accept this new dogma, the American citizen must forsake everything he or she had previously learned and inculcated. One must accept the new dogma fully, and completely—in body, mind, and soul. This new dogma requires one to disavow past core ethical values. The American citizen must disavow his or her heritage, and history, and pride in one's Country, and in the National ethos—forsake all those tenets, precepts, and principles grounded on the sanctity, autonomy, and inviolability of the individual, and on the indomitability of the human spirit. The Cult of the State requires one to disavow the importance of family. One must disavow belief and faith in the Divine, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, benevolent, and morally perfect Creator, the one perfect God, upon which a great Nation was founded, upon which the Nation and its people have prospered; upon which the import of human life and dignity have been exalted; and upon which the promise of the soul’s immortality, and of life, peace, salvation, and happiness, everlasting in God, alone rest.But all of that must go. The Cult of the State demands it. And Truth and Sanity, too, must go by the board. So, then, what does one do; what can one do? Succumb willingly to psychosis? Some Americans have. Most have not. But many are buckling under, hoping the “Thought Police” won’t see them, won't harass them. But, what then? Is capitulation to the Cult of the State the answer? Accept our fate? But, then, is this TO BE our fate—is it to be the destiny of our people, of our Country, a free Constitutional Republic? Must Americans now face the fact, accept the fact as propagated by the media, that a once-powerful, and happy, and healthy, and successful Nation that once existed, should exist no more? And is this not predicated on the notion that Americans should sacrifice what is in their best interests and in the best interests of the Nation to the Greater Collective good of the whole? And, what does the expression 'Collective Good of the whole' mean that Americans should surrender their interests to it? Is that notion not based on utilitarianism?But, then, who defines 'utility.' Is that not the State? And, is it not, then, to the State, alone, whom the American citizen must assent to entrust all of morality and ethics?  Is it not, then, to the State, alone, whom the American citizen must assent to assign the meaning of  “the Good?” And, is not the whole of morality and ethics—“the Good”—bound up in, inextricably tied to the notion of “the Collective as the Supreme Good?” Is not the Collective, then, God?And, one does not need ask, cannot ask who or what controls “the Collective?” God IS the Collective. The Collective is its own “ Controller,” and the Controller of life and liberty IS the State. And what is “the State?” The State IS Government. They are one and the same.But, is the State qua Government, not that monstrous entity the Founders of our Republic had, with good reason, to dread? And, had the Founders not carefully thought to design a central, “Federal,” Government” in a manner to constrain its worst tendencies and excesses, so that it would not become the Lord and Master over its true Master, the American people? But, if the State, if this State, THIS Federal Government, cannot be constrained and restrained, and will not allow itself to be constrained and restrained by the people, then the monster the Founders had sought to contain in a carefully constructed cage of Three Co-Equal Branches, would be let loose. And, with the aid of technology and a willingness to pervert the U.S. Constitution, Americans are now witnessing the dreaded power of Government, the Founders' worst fears realized. The carefully constructed cage to contain the Beast has failed. A new era in our Country has commenced. Having been infected from the virus of the EU that is infecting all of western civilization, the Cult of the State, a world Government is taking shape. The Founders who had fervently sought to contain this creature, a thing they knew could never be tamed, and so must always remain caged, is now loose, running rampant across America, devouring this Country and all of western civilization.It is the State, as a massive Collective, a worldwide Government that defines “the Good,” a thing bound up in, inextricably tied to the Collective and where the State has the power to define “the Good,” the State takes on itself the mantle of Deity—the Cult of the State (a world Government) commences, Tyranny writ large.Had the founders of our Republic thought that caving in, acceding to tyranny would be the best, most propitious, or, at least, the most pragmatic course of action, then this Country, the United States, a free Constitutional Republic—a Country where the people, NOT Government, is sovereign—would never have existed. Tyrants make very jealous masters. The lust for power is overwhelming but it is ultimately nihilistic, carrying within itself the seeds of its own destruction, but, in the process, bringing everyone and everything down with it; complete Chaos, Armageddon. 

THE CENSORING OF FREE SPEECH

Unfortunately, the framers of the Constitution thought, or hoped, that, at the end of the day, a free Press would sound a clarion bell, warning the people about the rise of tyranny in their midst if Government contained in its carefully constructed container, remained quiet, and conformed to the will of the people to whom and for whom it was created. That didn't happen. That hasn't happened.Tyranny did arise, but the Press never warned the public of it. The Press never sounded an alarm to the public. Rather, the Press capitulated to the Tyrant of  Government. But, unlike the Tyrants of the past, this new Tyrant is sophisticated. It lurks, silently, unseen, but is omnipresent. The U.S. Constitution means nothing to this Tyrant. This Tyrant has broken through the Cage (the Three Branch System of Government) and lurks outside its Cage, unseen, its harmful effects felt throughout the Nation.The Constitution of the United States is, for this Tyrant, only a temporary hindrance, a minor annoyance. And the intent of this Tyrant is much more ambitious than control of one Country. This Tyrant has greater ambitions, worldwide ambitions to consolidate all political, social, economic, juridical power in itself. The vast intellectual, military, technological, industrial, and scientific resources of the United States upon which this Tyrant feeds, allows it to grow unchecked. It is difficult to see this Tyrant, except in the faces of the so-called “Open Government” it projects to the public and in the gargantuan awfulness of its effects on the citizenry of the United States and on the Nation's institutions and on its cultural roots. This Tyranny has a name: “Inverted Totalitarianism,” an expression coined by the political philosopher, Sheldon Wolin. The expression, “Inverted Totalitarianism,” is an apt one to describe Tyranny of Government worldwide, but if Wolin suspected that this Inverted Totalitarianism would or could extend beyond the confines of the United States, affecting institutional, cultural, juridical structures beyond the geopolitical, financial, and economic of those forces and powers operating secretly in the United States—capturing the whole of western civilization, societally—he did not, apparently say. But the possibility is logically consistent with his concept. And it has come to pass. And a Free Press does not carry the message, doesn't sound the alarm, doesn't warn the public, for the Press itself has been taken over by the Tyrants of this Inverted Totalitarian structure that has embraced the United States and the nations of the EU and the Commonwealth nations. The separate parts desire to be merged into a whole.The United States, though, has something that the other western nation-states do not: A Bill of Rights, a TRUE Bill of Rights, a set of natural law, beyond the control of Government because Government is not the creator of natural law. The right of free speech, the right to dissent, is bound up in autonomy of Self, the Right of the Individual TO BE Individual. It was the hope of the founders that a free Press, as a component of free Speech, would serve as a vehicle to give voice to the many members of the public but the Press failed to carry the message. So, the people must carry the message themselves, and the Government cannot lawfully constrain that Right. But, how long will free speech—the right of dissent—last? Already speech is censored. Dissent is roundly condemned and callously, perfunctorily squashed. The Government, itself, and through its actors, the major social media companies and major technology companies, operate with impunity outside the bounds of law. The Government has the power to do so, but not the right to do so. The Constitution is failing to constrain Government.That leaves one Ace in the Hole: the armed citizen: the last and best hope for a free State and a free and sovereign People. The framers of the Constitution planned well. At the moment, the Government and the Press haven’t instituted measures to inflict a fatal blow on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They can't; at least not at this point. The puppet-masters realize it would be suicidal for them to do so; to try; not at this particular juncture. But, the time is getting closer when they will attempt a fatal blow on the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.  And these Tyrants will have no choice. The concept of a citizen army of the common people is not compatible with tyranny, especially the ambitious tyranny that the puppet-masters sitting at the top of the pyramid have in mind for Americans, and for the populations of western Europe, and for the populations of the rest of the world. For a comprehensive, insightful, analytical overview of the import and importance of an armed citizenry composed of the common people—today comprising tens of millions of average Americans—see Stephen Halbrook's essay, titled, “The Right of the People or the Power of the States,” subtitled, “Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment.”The Government is still marshaling its forces; testing the will of the people. And, with the help of the Press, the Government hopes the resolve of the people will soften, weaken—to the point where Tyranny can, at long last, strike the fatal blow against liberty, and, with the quashing of liberty—destroy the American spirit. The legacy newspapers, in league with the Government, at the behest of the puppet-masters, are whittling away at the peoples’ resolve. How are they doing this and why did it happen? Had the major newspapers been the enemy of the people all along and the people simply failed to notice this? Had the framers of the Constitution placed too much belief in the ability of a free Press to resist the power of the Federal Government? Have the puppet-masters successfully bribed the publishers of the Legacy Press to betray the American people, the Nation, and the U.S. Constitution? Or, have publishers, editors, and reporters, simply fallen prey to the insanity of their own messaging—a belief in Marxism, Neoliberal globalism; societal Nihilism?It seems now that major legacy newspapers, including The New York Times, New York Daily News, the Jeff Bezos owned Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today never really intended to function as the honest, reliable source of news that they projected to the public, but simply pretended to function as a reliable news source and as a check on the tyranny of Government. If they ever really did have such goals, they don't any longer. Even a modicum of pretense at serious news reporting and safeguarding liberty is gone.Publishers and editors don’t encourage accurate, neutral reporting of the facts, and the Reporters for these newspapers no longer attempt to write news in the sober, neutral language that they may inform the public, engage the intellect, appeal to the rational mind.Rather, news reports aim at sensationalizing. News accounts distort the facts, omit pertinent details, embellish the facts, or blatantly lie.Serious news goes missing. These papers routinely publish stories that hide the Harris-Biden Administration failures or bizarrely twist abject failures into successes.It is clear these newspapers have intentionally colluded with the present Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Administration and Pelosi-Schumer-Controlled Congress as they all engage in a deliberate campaign of gross deception, targeting the American people.Government policies and initiatives are designed to undermine the integrity of the Nation’s institutions and the security of the Nation; to hobble the economy, and disrupt society, and harm the health, safety, and well-being of the American people. If Government and the Press direct tax-payer resources against the American people, the Government itself becomes the enemy of the people. The Government itself has committed treason against the people.Treacherous forces in Government and in the Press were actively at work sabotaging President Trump’s attempts to secure the Country from all threats both foreign and domestic and to take care that all laws of the United States are faithfully executed. Do you see Joe Biden doing this? Is Harris-Biden Administration securing the Country from all threats both foreign and domestic and is he faithfully executing the laws of the United States? Not at all. The Country as an independent sovereign Nation is more weakened, economically, militarily, and geopolitically than at any time in the Nation's history. Joe Biden carries the title of President of the United States, but he is only nominally the Head of State. The corrupt and senile Joe Biden is merely the false projection of power of the Executive Branch of Government. His role is that of messenger boy. And it is even doubtful that he even understands the messages that he periodically relays to the public. Often inconsistent in the content of the messaging and incoherent in the delivery of the messaging, it is clear to the American citizenry and to the rest of the world, that Joe Biden is nothing more than a puppet. Joe Biden is nothing more than a stand-in, a cardboard cutout, a storefront fixture for the true decision-makers, the real policymakers, the real rulers: the secretive, powerful, inordinately wealthy, and innately ruthless powers behind the “Open Government” that the public and the rest of the world sees. The “Open Government” is merely a prop, projected onto the Nation and onto the world, nothing more. A sinister “Shadow Government,” whose existence is hinted at through its effects, is where the true power rests. And that Government is opaque, invisible, indiscernible. And its aims and goals and purposes have nothing to do with protecting the Nation and its people from harm and those aims and goals and purposes have nothing to do with serving the needs and interests of the American people. In fact, the aims, goals, and purposes of the hidden rulers, power brokers, and decision-makers are diametrically opposed to the safety and security of the United States and the well-being of its people. The hidden powers projected their puppet as a political moderate, whatever that means, and as a Grand Unifier. That was just a ruse. And many Americans were taken in by it, accepted the lies; wanted to believe the lies. And, what has occurred: a turbulent weakened America, and in every conceivable way. The American society is crumbling. And it is happening deliberately. And, even in the obvious midst of it, the puppets speak their lines to the American people, blatantly lying to the American people even as Americans see disaster in their lives. The entire society is breaking down, and it is all expected; more, it was desired planned for. It is all part of one grand design. The plan calls for the dismantling of the underpinnings of the Nation in its present form, as a Free Constitutional Republic. Only the shell, the resources, are to remain. And a new regime is to be engineered from the remains. And that remains are to be merged into a new transnational, multicultural governmental scheme. The public nominal faces of power in the Federal Government and in many of the States have provoked rather than ease tensions in society.Instead of calming tensions, these treacherous forces in both State and Federal Governments, along with the assistance of a seditious Press and of social media, have harnessed the frenetic, frenzied energies of Neo-Marxist and Anarchist agitators to disrupt and to destroy communities across America. It is precisely in vein with the puppet-masters goal of dismantling western nation-states. It continues to this day.

THE JUDICIAL STRUCTURE OF THE UNITED STATES IS ON TRIAL

The circus trial against an innocent young man, Kyle Rittenhouse, is emblematic of the attempt by the Shadow Government to manipulate the citizenry into a frenzy of self-immolation. The ludicrousness of the trial carries a message to all Americans. And the message is that we are all on trial.Every American who holds to the principles of the Founding Fathers is now treated as a potential terrorist—a Domestic Terrorist.The puppet-masters have orchestrated an elaborate campaign to destroy the Republic. Our Nation has been turned literally inside out by forces both inside Government and outside it, and both inside the Country and outside it, to create mass confusion and mass hysteria in our society.The greatest, gravest threat to forces that dare to crush our Country into submission is in the continued existence of the armed American citizen.To effectively corral a force of tens of millions of armed Americans, it is necessary to create a force of tens of millions of other Americans who have been seduced into surrendering their rights and liberties and to have them contend against each other; to waste their energies on each other. The ground of contention is a phantom Bogeyman: Race Hatred. It is all a myth, and it is nothing new. And it sprang from the mind of a lunatic, Charles Manson. But a maniac can’t convince a rational public to accept an insane delusion. Yet, an insane Government, coordinating with an insane Press, can, for they have the resources in time, and money, and organization, and they have something more: an air of sanity.Radical Marxist and anarchist riots are routinely portrayed as civilized protests. A young man who attempts to defend business property from the wanton destruction of BLM and Antifa mobs in his father’s town is condemned for doing just that. Enraged the mob turns on the man. His name is Kyle Rittenhouse. The young man retreats, attempting to avoid confrontation. And the police and National Guard are nowhere to be seen. The young man is forced to defend his life—a clear case of armed self-defense if ever there was one—all captured on film just so there is no mistake. The video recordings provide a classic example of the utility of a firearm, and of the right of a human being to defend his life. That is most dramatically in evidence where there are no police around, and a man must take responsibility for his own life, safety, and well-being. The entire confrontation between a sane, rational, responsible person defending his or her life and a rabid mob that sought to end that life, lasted a few minutes. The mob lost. But, rather than praising the man, the State Government actors condemned it, for the mob was acting under its auspices, bringing about the very destruction of the town that the Government was expected and legally obligated to guard against, but failed to do so, requiring the courageous actions of an average citizen to take up the burden upon himself.The young man’s actions were heroic: face-to-face contact with at least three people who attempted to kill him. Kyle Rittenhouse was only 17 years old at the time. At 17, Kyle would have required parental consent to enlist in the military. Yet a seasoned soldier couldn’t have performed more appropriately and bravely—and would have warranted a bronze or silver star for that bravery. The bronze star is awarded to members of the armed forces for either heroic achievement, heroic service, meritorious achievement, or meritorious service in a combat zone. The City of Kenosha, Wisconsin that night, was a combat zone. The silver star is awarded to members of the armed forces for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States. That enemy, intent on destroying a community in America comprised an enraged, mindless mob.Kyle Rittenhouse deserves commendation for his heroic actions, not condemnation. With virtually no investigation, the Government condemns Kyle Rittenhouse. Casting the young man as the aggressor, despite clear video evidence establishing the contrary, the Government utilizes Rittenhouse as a vehicle to attack civilian possession of firearms and to attack the very principle of self-defense.Within forty-eight hours the City charges Kyle with the most serious crimes imaginable under Wisconsin law: attempted First-degree intentional homicide; First-degree reckless homicide; First-degree recklessly endangering safety; and, just for good measure, Kyle was charged with “use of a dangerous weapon,” which, as The New York Times pronounces, with obvious glee, “extends the maximum sentence for crimes committed while possessing, using or threatening to use a dangerous weapon. The criminal complaint invokes this provision for all five felony counts; in each case, it could add up to five years to the prison sentence for that count, if Mr. Rittenhouse is convicted.”But Kyle didn’t receive a military award because he was too young to serve in the military and he wasn’t, ostensibly, in combat with an enemy, because radical, rabid Marxists and Anarchists do not fall within the legal definition of ‘enemy of the United States,’ even thought these rabid Marxists and Anarchists who have made clear their intention to tear down society, all of it, are just that: enemies of the United States. But, that is not how the puppet Harris-Biden Administration portrays them, for they, like the titular Head of State, are playing their roles, as the script requires, and it isn't necessary that these minor players know that. And, the Shadow Government puppet-masters intend to protect these players, the mob of Marxists and Anarchists who, perhaps, unbeknownst to them, are working against their own interests or what they think is to arise from the ashes of society's destruction: a Utopian Collectivist Communist State, that will usher in a new era of peace and contentment for the populations of the world, all living together in harmony. It is silly, even nonsensical, in the very conception of it. But, the puppet-masters utilize that myth for it furthers their goal that requires destabilization of all the institutions of society, none more important than the judicial structure of the United States. In a topsy-turvy world, those who would destroy society, the mobs that comprise the Neo-Marxist mobs, are protected, even heralded, while those Americans who attempt to preserve and protect their communities and who seek to preserve a free Constitutional Republic, consistent with the framer's intentions are treated as anachronistic, reactionary elements, to be treated with scorn. So, it is that a young man, Kyle Rittenhouse, has become a standard-bearer for those Americans who wish to preserve the Nation in the form the Founders created for it: a free Constitutional Republic. This young man never intended to be a standard-bearer; never wanted to be one, and never would have been one, if the mob had never come to Kenosha, Wisconsin in the first place. Kyle Rittenhouse simply wanted to protect his community and so became the standard-bearer for the preservation of a way of life that the puppet-masters intend to upend.It is the angry mob that the public sees the Press and, President Joe, and the State Prosecutors defending and, in so doing, the public sees firsthand the abject absurdity of the Government's position and the audacity of its goal: to undercut the fundamental right of armed self-defense. The right of armed self-defense—defense of Self through the most effective means available, a firearm—is inextricably bound up with the right of defense.By undercutting the fundamental right of armed self-defense, the Destructors of a free Constitutional Republic have made abundantly clear their desire to undermine the more inclusive natural law right of defense of self. And the natural law right of Defense of Self—self-defense—is itself inextricably tied to the most inclusive natural law right of all: the natural law right of autonomy of Selfhood; the sanctity and inviolability of the Soul and Spirit.The prosecution of Kyle Rittenhouse made a mockery of our sacred rights, and, in so doing, tarnished the entire System of Justice. But the jury, fortunately, saw through the façade manufactured by the prosecutors; a fairy tale story created out of whole cloth: that of an aggressive “active shooter” waging aggressive war on innocent protestors, peacefully protesting for racial justice.At the end of the day, true Justice did prevail in the case. It was a major case, to be sure. But it is only one case. Two Branches of the Federal Government are teetering; at the moment the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have control over both, the Legislative Branch and the Executive Branch. Only the Third Branch, the Judiciary has a modicum of independence, but with a few individuals on the U.S. Supreme Court and with those in control of the first Two Branches seeking to transform the Third, to bring it and the other Two under one banner, natural law rights are in danger of toppling.On the law of armed self-defense, outside the home, the U.S. Supreme Court can deal squarely with it, as it impacts the Country, as the issue was originally framed. But the Court can narrow its focus to New York. Since the Roberts’ Court reframed the issue. The Court may leave unsettled the broader issue of the right of armed self-defense outside the home, open, even as the illimitability of the exercise of that Right is implied in the language of the Second Amendment.Hopefully, in light of the Rittenhouse case, the High Court will, address the need for clear instructions to State and Local Governments, and to the courts, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms does not stop at the doorstep of one’s home.___________________________________________________And just so you know, the humanoid creatures whom Kyle Rittenhouse shot in defense of his life, were upstanding citizens, who, according to Snopes deserve “martyrdom,” even as this Leftist website felt obliged to acknowledge that the individuals whom Kyle shot were convicted felons, whose felonies involved crimes of violence. The left-leaning website Snopes, says:“And though the rumors about the shooting victims varied in severity and nature, many alleged this: Huber was a known offender of domestic violence and rapist; Rosenbaum had sexually abused children; Grosskreutz had been arrested on suspicion of multiple crimes, including felony burglary, and all three victims were convicted felons. Based on court records and inmate rosters, aspects of those claims were indeed accurate, while others were outright false.”The website Snopes doesn’t bother to explain what those claims about these three convicted felons are false but wants everyone to know, as it further states, that:“No evidence showed the victims’ histories had anything to do with the protest, which began as a peaceful showing of people against racism by U.S. law enforcement after a white police officer days prior shot and wounded a Black man, Jacob Blake, who is now paralyzed from the waist down.” And it all “began as a peaceful showing of people against racism”—and ended up like what, exactly? Snopes’ writers don’t say. And that was the intent all along—peaceful protest? Sure!And, about Jacob Blake—he, too, is a real gem. As the New York Post reports,“Blake is accused in the criminal complaint, which was obtained by The Post, of breaking into the home of a woman he knew and sexually assaulting her. . . .  Police filed charges against him for felony sexual assault, trespassing and domestic abuse in July when a warrant was issued for his arrest.”Curiously, of the ostensible “victims” of shootings—violent felons all—no one bothers to mention that Kyle, himself, has no police record. Odd that, isn’t it? The Press, though, plays Kyle as the “Bad Guy.” But, really, he is just the “Fall Guy,” here. But, Rosenbaum was a peach.By the way, one of the supposed victims, Gaige Grosskreutz, who pointed a loaded gun at Kyle’s head was never charged with any crime for his part. The website, Wisconsin Right Now, reports,“During dramatic testimony in the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, Gaige Grosskreutz, the only man who survived being shot by Rittenhouse, testified he was pointing his gun at Rittenhouse and advancing on him when Rittenhouse shot him.”“Grosskreutz also admitted that he was carrying a gun, at times stuck into the back of his waist, that night even though his concealed carry permit was expired. It’s illegal to carry a gun concealed in Wisconsin without a permit, but Grosskreutz was never charged with that offense. He said he frequently carried guns at protests because he believes in the Second Amendment.”It is a curious thing that Grosskreutz, a serial criminal, and convicted felon would claim a right to carry a gun at a protest because he believes in the Second Amendment. Apparently, Grosskreutz doesn’t believe that same right extends to another person, namely a person who would have the audacity to protect himself with a firearm when faced with the imminent threat from Grosskreutz, himself.Under direct examination, as a prosecution witness, Grosskreutz projected a picture of himself as a real stand-up guy. 5Chicago news reports,“ ‘I thought the defendant was an active shooter,’ the 27-year-old Grosskreutz said. Asked what was going through his mind as he got closer to the 17-year-old Rittenhouse, he said, ‘That I was going to die.’Rittenhouse shot Grosskreutz in the arm, tearing away much of his bicep — or ‘vaporized’ it, as the witness put it.Rittenhouse, now 18, is on trial on charges of killing two men and wounding Grosskreutz. The one-time police youth cadet from Antioch, Illinois, had gone to Kenosha with an AR-style semi-automatic rifle and a medical kit in what he said was an effort to safeguard property from the violent demonstrations that broke out over the shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, by a white Kenosha police officer.Prosecutors have portrayed Rittenhouse as the instigator of the bloodshed. His lawyers have argued that he acted in self-defense. He could get life in prison if convicted of the most serious charges against him.Under questioning from the prosecution, Grosskreutz said he had his hands raised as he closed in on Rittenhouse and didn’t intend to shoot the young man. Prosecutor Thomas Binger asked Grosskreutz why he didn’t shoot first.‘That’s not the kind of person that I am. That’s not why I was out there,’ he said. ‘It’s not who I am. And definitely not somebody I would want to become.’”That was under Direct examination.“But during cross-examination, Rittenhouse defense attorney Corey Chirafisi asked: ‘It wasn’t until you pointed your gun at him, advanced on him . . . that he fired, right?’‘Correct,’ Grosskreutz replied. The defense also presented a photo showing Grosskreutz pointing the gun at Rittenhouse, who was on the ground with his rifle pointed up at Grosskreutz.Wisconsin municipal code prohibits the carrying of a concealed weapon.And it should be noted, that, unlike Grosskreutz, Kyle Rittenhouse wasn’t carrying a firearm concealed. But Rittenhouse was charged initially with carrying a firearm when it was perfectly legal for him to do so. Yet Grosskreutz, for his part, was carrying a handgun concealed. There was no question about it, and he admitted as much. Grosskreutz had broken Wisconsin law. But he was never charged with a crime for doing so. The administration of Justice is broken on that score, but the puppet-masters intended to protect him because he was a worthwhile pawn in a game of destabilizing American society, planned for, orchestrated, and executed by the puppet-masters of the Shadow Government.

• Sec. 50-32 Carrying concealed weapons prohibited; certain weapons prohibited.

 Concealed weapons prohibited.(1) Prohibition. No person shall, within the city, wear or in any manner carry under his clothes or conceal upon or about his person any weapons or dangerous weapon, provided this subsection shall not apply to a peace officer or such persons as may be authorized to carry such weapons.(2) Dangerous weapon defined. The term ‘dangerous weapon’ means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm, or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm.And the Wisconsin Criminal Code mandates charges against Grosskreutz as follows:941.20. Endangering safety by use of dangerous weapon.(1) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:(a) Endangers another’s safety by the negligent operation or handling of a dangerous weapon.And isn’t there concrete, convincing, undisputed, evidence to support a showing that Grosskreutz assaulted Rittenhouse with a deadly weapon with a clear intent to kill Kyle Rittenhouse? See Fells vs. State, 65 Wis. 2d 525 (Wis. 1974).The Supreme Court of Wisconsin opined,“There is a general legal presumption that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. Where the act is assault with a deadly weapon, the presumption is that the person intended to kill. In Austin v. State this court approved the following jury instruction which was used in the instant case:‘Wis J I—Criminal, Part II, 1105, states and we approve the following as an accurate statement of the law:“ ‘. . . . If one person (assaults another violently with a dangerous weapon, likely to kill), . . . then when there are no circumstances to prevent or rebut the presumption, the legal and natural presumption is that death was intended.’”Wasn't it clear from the video evidence and from Grosskreutz's own admissions in open Court that in pointing a gun at Kyle Rittenhouse's head, the legal and natural presumption is that Grosskreutz intended to kill Kyle Rittenhouse? And, given that natural presumption from the evidence and testimony of Grosskreutz, two inferences can and ought to be made: one, that Grosskreutz intended to kill Rittenhouse, and Kyle Rittenhouse had reasonably concluded that Grosskreutz intended to do just that. Yet, the State never charged Grosskreutz with the attempted murder of Kyle Rittenhouse. Didn't the prosecutors know the import of Wisconsin law on a natural presumption of death if a person assaults another person with a dangerous weapon? Of course, they did. Yet the State charged Kyle Rittenhouse with attempted first-degree intentional homicide in shooting Gaige Grosskreutz. But, the State never charged Gaige Grosskreutz with the same crime for pointing a loaded, concealed handgun at Kyle Rittenhouse. Why is that? Did it have to do with the fact that Kyle Rittenhouse happened to shoot Grosskreutz before he shot Kyle? But, if Kyle Grosskreutz had gotten the upper hand, likely Kyle would have been seriously injured or, worse, dead. And, given that Wisconsin law makes clear a presumption that Grosskreutz intended to kill Kyle, as Kyle never aimed and shot his rifle at Grosskreutz until Grosskreutz aimed his handgun at Kyle Rittenhouse, as testimony in Court proved, Grosskreutz should, at the outset, have been charged with the very crime that the State charged Kyle with, and Kyle should never have been charged at all as his claim of justified self-defense would be implied, and moot, based on video evidence proved and the State's own interview of Grosskreutz would have certainly borne out. But, so it goes in a Government gone mad. Innocent people are charged with a crime because they represent America as the framers of the Constitution intended. Imagine that! But, Americans are now living in an America that the puppet-masters intend to destroy.Marxist and Anarchist agitators will be and are routinely protected by the Government, both by the Federal Government and by friendly “Blue” State and Municipal Governments. They are either let free from detention without the need to post bail, regardless of the heinousness of the arrest warrant and regardless of the inherent danger they pose to society or they fail to be charged with a crime, at all.But, then these sociopathic Marxists and Anarchists, including outright psychopathic freaks, bent on destroying life and property are given free rein to indulge their dangerous urges passions. Maybe they are on the active payroll of the Federal Government or secretive contractors of the Government; maybe not. It doesn’t matter.The present rogue, treacherous Administration, along with an equally treacherous Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-Controlled Congress intend to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic. That much is clear. It is also clear that a radical, rabid mob, assists in that effort.And, this concerted, elaborate, multi-layered plan—really a decades-long,  project, with its origins going back centuries, as a response by the Central Banking empire builders in Great Britain to the overthrow of British rule by the American colonies through the successful American Revolution of 1776—involves an extraordinary cast of characters. There are the present-day powerful, wealthy, shadowy puppet-masters, themselves that would certainly include the descendants of the original Rothschild Banking clan, the creators of the Central Banking system that has infected the major nation-states around the world, along with wealthy industrialists and the nouveau riche technology Billionaire class who have joined the conspiracy to overthrow the present political western nation-state system. Next, there are the public faces of the puppet-masters, the messengers who deliver the obfuscations, deflections, diversions, double-talk, and outright lies and fluff, to hide the true objectives of the puppet-masters and to explain away evident policy “failures” as due to unforeseen events, unfortunate happenstances, anomalies, or that embrace a flurry of factors that rest beyond the power of the “Open Government” to navigate, to deal with, or compensate for. In some cases, these “Open Government” puppets will baldly, blatantly, arrogantly lie to the American public, denying the truth of something that cannot reasonably, rationally be denied. For example, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Alejandro Mayorkas will deny that there is no Open Borders policy and that the Southern Border of the United States, isn't open, notwithstanding video footage demonstrating that the Southern Border is wide open; that thousands of illegal aliens are streaming through the Border every month, and that, since the beginning of the year, close to two million more illegal aliens walked through the Southern Border and are residing in the United States. Sometimes “Open Government” puppets, like Jen Psaki, will perfunctorily dismiss out-of-hand outright inconsistencies in policies. Once, when Fox News Reporter Peter Doocy questioned the Harris-Biden Administration's draconian COVID vaccination requirement for citizens but no COVID vaccination requirement for migrants at the border, Jen Psaki responded at once blithely and curtly, “that's correct,” and moved on to another reporter before Peter Doocy could ask a follow-up. The “Open Government” stooges will often pass off incontrovertible failures as roaring successes. Case in point, the “Grand Unifier,” Joe Biden, insists that the disastrous withdrawal of Afghanistan was “an extraordinary success.” And, the “Open Government” puppet, Merrick Garland, Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney General has the gall, during a Congressional hearing of the Judiciary Committee, to callously lie to Congressional Republicans that the DOJ/FBI isn't “tagging,” American parents, treating Americans as terrorists for purpose of blatant harassment. The number of instances of callous, caustic, contemptuous, and cavalier behavior toward Americans, exhibited by the Shadow/Dark Government puppet-masters through their toadies in the “Open Government” is now so prevalent and so perverse that a reasonable person cannot help but infer that there the puppet-masters can drop the “Open Government” pretense facade. This marks an important turning point for our Country. The puppet-masters have, in recent months, felt confident that they have consolidated the necessary threshold of power over the Country that they need not bother wasting further time devising strategies to mislead or to placate the public. In any event, the use of such strategies would prove futile. The public is well aware that the Government no longer considers itself to be a servant of the people and so has made clear enough that it no longer needs to answer to the people and that pretending to do so would only serve to make foster further anger among the electorate. The transformation of the Country toward Collectivist totalitarianism cannot be rationally denied and the timetable for doing so is back on track and moving apace. The puppet-masters have captured much of the ground previously lost during the Trump years. The worst that can be said about those lost years from the standpoint of the puppet-masters, is that the entire Nation is now well aware of the game. It is no longer a matter of suspicion. The goal of the puppet-masters, to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic, to merge the remains of the Country into a mammoth political, social, economic, juridical, multicultural, transnational governmental scheme is now beyond plausible deniability as a mere conspiracy theory. In fact, the expression, “new world order,” a short descriptor of the agenda, is no longer denied, shrugged off, or treated with levity by the puppet-masters and their toadies. As the puppet-masters stooges in governments around the world, are themselves are regularly utilizing the expression, expressly asserting it, or clearly alluding to it in their remarks, the puppet-masters have evidently given the go-ahead to do so. So, understandably, the use of the expression by the average person uttering it is no longer treated with the customary derision and condescension. The plot to weaken and dismantle the political, social, economic, juridical, and economic systems and institutions of these nation-states, along with the history, heritage, ethos, and ethical/moral grounding of those nation-states—the substantive fabric upon which a cohesive, coherent national identity exists, without which a nation-state ceases to exist—is upon this Nation and upon all nation-states. The concept of the modern 'nation-state' has been the salient glue binding western civilization for at least 300 years, and it is rapidly coming to a close, a screeching halt as the tenets, precepts, and principles of Collectivism, grounded on a completely different societal structure is coming to fruition. The American people do not have control over, nor should they have control over, the political, social, economic, juridical, and cultural governmental, and societal structures adopted by other populations. But, by the same token, we should not be strapped into another socio/political system. But, as the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist agenda requires the dissolution of all nation-states, the fate of ours logically is implicated.Must an adult rely on a child to blurt out the truth? Must an adult be afraid to openly defy a renegade Government, when doing so requires merely that an adult assert the “naked” truth of what he knows to be true? Must he play along with everyone else and deny the emperor is wearing clothes when he knows the emperor is not? Is the tale of the Emperor Has No Clothes merely a child's parable, for a child? Is this not an important question, especially today. Is not the public being told that the Emperor has no clothes?Well, consider, everyone knows that there are two sexes: male and female. Is that not true? And, if not, if there are more than two genders, then how many, in fact, are there?One site now posits 81. Is that a joke? Is it part of a comedy routine? Can a comedian even joke about that sort of thing today?Think back 20 years ago. Would such an idea be not only perverse but so incongruous, as to be of no use even for a comedy routine? Yet, today, the concept of gender is not merely a matter for academic discussion. Its impact is felt in society. It has even infected our public schools.And, quibbling about whether the term 'gender' is or is not equivalent to 'sex' is missing the point. The import behind the attempt is what is important here. The Intent is to confuse the mind. And, why is that?The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist goal is to dismantle the Republic. To accomplish that task it is necessary to disrupt the underpinnings of our society. That society is predicated on the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism and on the Judeo-Christian ethic, not the amoral tenets, precepts, and principles of Collectivism, pervading society, permeating throughout it. The manipulation of language plays an important part in the attempt to transform America into a Collectivist Dictatorship.Language offers a more emphatic and critical need for serious discussion. For political theorists and sociologists, the politic0/socio import of reshaping language is important. It is certainly important to the Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic. It is important for the Destroyers of our Nation to change our perception of it; of its basic underpinnings. Manipulation of language becomes an important tool in the arsenal of those forces bent on dismantling a free Republic.If language is perception, and reality is built on perception, and a million people say the emperor is wearing fine apparel, when he is stark naked, is this delusion then to be taken as reality? Perhaps not; probably not. But, if a few sane people exist in a Nation that has gone insane, who claim to see the emperor as he really is, “in the buff,” and dare to say it is so, these rational individuals will not be long tolerated in a Country that has gone mad. They must play along, just as the masses have played along. But, through time, the delusion becomes more entrenched. And as more and more people seemingly “buy into” the delusion, to avoid negative repercussions for pointing out the delusion, then the distinction between reality and illusion will truly become blurred, distorted, and at some point, the intellect will not be able to tell the two apart.The few outliers must agree to play along, just as the masses have played along, pretending, at first, to see that the emperor is fully draped and in his finest apparel, and to acknowledge that it is so, lest they be targeted for special and unpleasant treatment.Perhaps, at some point in time, the world of illusion will become reality. If society's laws and mores and behaviors reflect 81 genders or 181, or what have you, then the notion of two sexes becomes an archaic concept. It has no practical significance. Compunctions of custom and consensus of opinion mandate a new order of reality, and that reality dictates thoughts and beliefs; habits, and actions. But, we are not quite there, yet. Sanity may still prevail.Many Americans are coming to perceive of imminent threat the Marxist/Globalist poses to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic. Americans see that the Marxist/Globalist aims are not compatible with natural law rights that go unchecked. One or the other must go. The tenets, precepts, and principles of Marxism/Globalism require are incompatible with natural law rights. And so the Marxists and Globalists censor free speech and constrain free association, and undermine the right of personal autonomy, and the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and restrict one’s control over one’s own personal property.And Americans are also coming to see that the Marxists and Globalists abhor one natural law right over all the others: the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Marxists and Globalists view the right of the people to keep and bear arms as not only dangerous to their well-ordered, tightly controlled society, but incoherent. For, the language of the Second Amendment implies that the people are sovereign over Government. That notion is the obverse of that held by Marxists and Globalists because, for them, Government is the supreme sovereign. For them, hundreds of millions of common people are merely viewed as cattle and the idea that cattle should be allowed to keep and bear arms is an anathema to them.Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” view the very concept of ‘natural law rights’ as inimical to the maintenance of a well-ordered Collectivist society they envision. And, in fact, the exercise of basic natural law Rights is dangerous to a society that is predicated on principles that have no use for them because the continued exercise of them would upend a rigidly controlled society. The armed citizenry is seen as especially dangerous to the Collectivist society. Anyone who insists on arming him or herself will be seen and is coming to be seen as engaging in behavior considered toxic to the operation of a well-ordered Collectivist society. And the public, from child to adult, is slowly, methodically, inexorably being conditioned to perceive guns and the wish to exercise one's right to keep and bear them in defense of one's self, home, family business, and as the ultimate fail-safe mechanism to thwart tyranny as an anathema, as a neurotic or psychotic aberration that is not be condoned.The insanity of a renegade Federal Government isn’t going to cure itself. And the failure of the public to recognize and acknowledge the insanity of a renegade Government will only serve to entrench all the postulates of an insane Government on the psyche of the American people. The illness will only get progressively worse, the rot infecting more and more of the Nation until the Nation dies. It happened to Rome. But, then, Rome didn’t have access to modern information technology. Nor did the civilization of Rome see advances in communication. Nor did Rome have access to precise social engineering tools, or knowledge of psychology and neurology and other neurosciences that has made possible the Government's ability to successfully indoctrinate, “reeducate,” and condition the minds of the people, and on an industrial scale.Pay close attention to the manner in which the Government, the Press, and social media handle the Rittenhouse case. And pay close attention, in the next several months, to the weaponization of the Department of Justice as it begins to target more and more average citizens. And pay particular attention, in the next several months, to Governmental policies that slowly and increasingly negatively impact speech, gun rights, privacy, and the application of justice.The seditious Press and its fellow travelers in the network and cable news have regularly persisted in posting deliberate lies, misinformation, and selected information to sway public opinion against the Rittenhouse case and to encourage mob retaliation against any verdict the Marxist and Anarchist rabble happen to disagree with. And, now, a major cable news organization, MSNBC, has gone a step further, intimidating the jury, in that case, is a serious crime. The New York Post just reported the following:“The judge presiding over the Kyle Rittenhouse trial banned MSNBC from the courtroom on Thursday after a man claiming to be a producer for the network was accused of following jurors.The man, who identified himself as James Morrison, was pulled over Wednesday after he allegedly blew a red light while pursuing a bus that transports jurors from the Kenosha County Courthouse, Judge Bruce Schroeder said.“He stated that he had been instructed by [a superior] in New York to follow the jury bus,” Schroeder said.Police confirmed Thursday that there was an “incident with a person who is alleging to be affiliated with a national media outlet” and the suspect was issued several traffic citations.“Police suspect this person was trying to photograph jurors. This incident is being investigated much further,” police said.Schroeder called the incident an “extremely serious matter” and barred any journalists from MSNBC from attending the ongoing trial.” The puppet-masters through their toadies will continue to aggressively attack anything they find detrimental to their intention, goal, desire to destroy the Republic. Even the sanctity of the Judicial system in the United States is considered fair game to these powerful, ruthless forces. They are getting the Marxist and Anarchist rabble to once again unleash its mindless, senseless, radical, and rabid vindictiveness against a City and against the Country.Many Americans are beginning to fight back, asserting their sovereignty over the Government. They are beginning to fight back against the concerted effort by Government, by the Press, and by other malevolent forces, intent on destroying the Republic. The U.S. Supreme Court can assist in this effort through the Bruen case. A strong, unequivocal statement of the right of armed defense outside the home would go a long way in strengthening the Nation’s Bill of Rights upon which the American people depend to maintain their sovereignty over the Government. ____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK TIMES UNLEASHES ATTACK DOGS IN OP-ED ON EVE OF ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT IN BRUEN

The U.S. Supreme Court hears oral argument today on the  Second Amendment case NYSRPA vs. Bruen (previously captioned NYSRPA vs. Corlett).This is the first major case to come before the High Court after Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joining the Liberal wing of the Court, punted on last year’s New York City Gun Transport case. Let’s hope the Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kavanaugh don’t get cold feet this time.But there are enough Anti-Second Amendment fanatics, including, unfortunately, jurists and attorneys, waiting in the wings, to castigate the Justices if they should—horror of horrors—actually strike down unconstitutional laws.One can perhaps understand the “walking dead” among the living who pay too much attention to the nonsense spouted by jackasses in the Government, in the Press, in social media, and in Hollywood—allowing others to do their thinking for them. And the message is always the same:“Surrender your firearms and peace will rain down upon you from the heavens.” And “the walking dead” nod their heads in mindless, senseless bovine agreement.At one time the fiction might have been somewhat believable, even though patently untrue. That was in the day when communities actually had well-funded police departments to provide at least a modicum of security. Now, however, police departments in major cities are underfunded, defunded, and emasculated, or are on the verge of extinction.One is left to ask, plaintively: “who will protect me if there are no police around and I’m not permitted a handgun to protect myself?” And, one is left befuddled at the reply given him from the vacant-eyed cultists: “That’s your white privilege talking.”But, when some jurists and attorneys claim a person’s right to defend him or herself with a firearm must stop at the doorstep of one’s house, such an assertion is untenable and unconscionable.Yet, that is what the public gets.In an Op-Ed titled, “Prominent Conservatives Back Letting States Limit Guns in Public,” published in The New York Times, on November 2, 2021, one day before the oral hearing in Bruen, J. Michael Luttig, a former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, and Richard D. Bernstein, an appellate lawyer, make clear their disdain for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”They demonstrate their abhorrence of the unfettered Constitutional Right of Americans “to carry loaded concealed weapons in public and in public places, wherever and whenever they believe they might need their guns for self-defense.”They assert, “The announcement of such an absolute and unfettered right would be shocking and disquieting to most Americans. . . .” The appropriate, if curt, reply to this ridiculous remark is, “so what!”Since when is a decision on a fundamental, natural law Right to be treated like a Beauty Pageant—as a matter for popular acclaim?These two ostensible legal experts, continue:“The Supreme Court is not constitutionally empowered to make these decisions, and it is ill-suited to make them. For the justices to begin deciding for the people exactly where and when a person has a right to carry a handgun in public would be to establish the court as essentially a National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations, precisely the kind of constitutional commandeering of the democratic process that conservatives and conservative jurists have long lamented in other areas of the law, such as abortion. It would be hypocritical for this conservative court to assume what essentially would be a legislative oversight role over public-carry rights, when conservatives on and off the court have for almost 50 years roundly criticized the court for assuming that same role over abortion rights.”Former Judge Luttig and Attorney Bernstein simply construct a strawman to unceremoniously knockdown.The U.S. Supreme Court isn’t operating as a “National Review Board for Public-Carry Regulations,” when deciding matters of Constitutional law. That IS precisely their Article 3 duty.Apparently, these learned gentlemen have forgotten what they came across during their first-year Constitutional law class: Marbury vs. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”This function and the sacred obligation of the Judiciary do not fall to Congress. It doesn’t fall to the U.S. President. It doesn’t fall to State and Local Governments. And it sure as hell doesn’t fall to an uninformed, angry mob.It is the duty solely of the U.S. Supreme Court, to interpret the law—to say what the law is.Yet, Luttig and Bernstein would dare deny the Court its Constitutional function. They don’t just suggest this. They blurt it out,“Conservatives, textualists and originalists believe — or should — that the Second Amendment ought not be interpreted to take from the people and their legislatures the historical and traditional authority they have had for centuries to decide where handguns may be carried in public and in public places.”They continue,“Historically and traditionally, legislatures have restricted the public carry of guns, from medieval England to colonial times, through the founding and to the present day. In fact, many of those early laws were more draconian than our own, banning the carry of guns in public places generally, without offering any exceptions like those New York provides for people who can demonstrate an actual need to defend themselves. Those restrictions extended far beyond public locations with a large and continuous armed police presence, such as government buildings and courthouses, to almost any public place — fairs, markets and indeed wherever a person would ‘go armed.’”Reliance on historical anecdote—and Luttig and Bernstein do not offer support for any of this—has limited prudential value at best. That is why originalists do not place much stock in it, and should not.In the first instance and in the final analysis, one should go to the written language of the law:The Second Amendment says,“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.”Where in the language of the Second Amendment is there any statement of limitation on the exercise of the Right?The danger of overbearing Government action is most acute where fundamental rights are involved. Governments must act circumspectly. They rarely do. Government justification for infringing a fundamental right on the pretext of pragmatic expediency must be scrutinized by the Courts.New York gun legislation is a case study of heavy-handed action by the Government. The Second Amendment Right is converted into mere privilege and one that the Government rarely grants to the American citizen.Luttig and Bernstein apparently aren’t even aware that, in blindly defending the New York City handgun licensing scheme—requiring the applicant to show actual need before obtaining a concealed handgun license—they fail to see the inherent absurdity of it.Why should a person be forced to proffer a reason to a Government official that one’s life is worth defending with the best means available for doing so—a handgun? It presupposes one’s life isn’t really important. And, the entire exercise comes down to an arbitrary, perfunctory, and often futile and expensive ordeal for the citizen; one inviting corruption and unfair dealing of which the NYPD Licensing Division is notorious.Lastly, Luttig and Bernstein have the audacity to give advice to Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, attempting to thrust her own words back upon her. They assert,“Two years ago, then-Judge Amy Coney Barrett called English and founding era statutes ‘the best historical support for a legislative power’ to restrict firearms.”The case Luttig and Bernstein refer to is Kanter vs. Barr, 919 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 2019).But, what Justice Barrett said, in her dissenting opinion, apropos of that passage, in full, is that:“The best historical support for a legislative power to permanently dispossess all felons would be founding-era laws explicitly imposing—or explicitly authorizing the legislature to impose—such a ban. But at least thus far, scholars have not been able to identify any such laws. The only evidence coming remotely close lies in proposals made in the New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania ratifying conventions.”Justice Barrett wasn’t advocating for use of historical support for legislative power to curb the exercise of one’s Second Amendment right. On the contrary, she was claiming the jurist should be wary of relying on it.In the case before the Seventh Circuit, Judge Barrett argued for the reinstatement of Plaintiff Kanter’s right to own and possess a firearm; not to dispossess him of it. She concluded her dissent, saying,“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.’ Absent evidence that Kanter would pose a risk to the public safety if he possessed a gun, the governments cannot permanently deprive him of his right to keep and bear arms.”Luttig and Bernstein should have given proper context to Justice Barrett’s dissenting opinion in Kanter, or have shown her the courtesy to refrain from quoting her at all.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.            

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS GONE ROGUE

MULTI-SERIES ON THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

PART SIX

SUBPART A

“All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.” ~ attributed to George OrwellThe central theme of our multi-series set of articles on “treason,” and the principal focus of our series, is that treason, as defined in the U.S. Constitution, has been operating at the highest levels of the Federal Government since the inception of the Harris-Biden Administration, on January 20, 2021.Our discussion here is dedicated to laying out a case for the inference of treason in the legal sense of the word, and not in a mere colloquial, hyperbolic, or pejorative sense. This treason exists in and has infected the whole of the present Administration, and this infection extends to Congress.The Government under the Harris-Biden Administration is rogue and renegade.Our central thesis is that the extent of and expansiveness of infection is so pervasive, so dominant, so permeates the Administration that an inference of treason by Government against the Nation, Constitution, and People must be drawn.Corruption of Government extends to the Pelosi-Schumer-controlled Legislative Branch of Government, working in lockstep with the Executive Branch.Beyond the present policy decisions indicative of treasonous intent on the part of Joe Biden and other known and unknown individuals who control and manipulate him, the Administration intends to corrupt or control or neutralize the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary.The Three Branches of Government have, since the creation of the Federal Government, through ratification of the Constitution, operated as discrete independent bodies—Legislative, Executive, Judicial.Each Branch is expected to perform its tasks within the confines of the limited powers and authority ascribed to it by the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, always operating in and remaining within its own orbit, its own sphere of influence and activity, as each was meant to.This Governmental construct was meant not to be a stopgap measure for the Federal Government, but a permanent fixture in it.The doctrines of “Separation of Powers” and “Co-Equal Branches,” that underlie the Federal Government construct for this Nation, were designed to discourage and forestall, if not prevent, the inception of tyranny in the Federal Government.Having successfully defeated the tyranny of one regime through armed revolt, the framers had no wish to plant the seeds of tyranny for another through the Government they would create that would, ironically, come from their own hand. So, they gave scrupulous attention to the creation of a Government that would have the best chance of avoiding the tyranny that besets a monarchy—even a Constitutional Monarchy—that England ostensibly had. They sought to create a Government for a new Nation that would best secure for themselves, and for their fellow Americans, and for generations that followed, one conceived in liberty.The Founders determined that a Republican form of Government would best serve the interests of the American people and would be least likely to turn against the people. They constructed a Federal Government that rejected a monopoly of powers in Government.The first three Articles of the Constitution attest to the Framers’ intention to preclude the consolidation of legislative, executive, and judicial power in one body. And they hoped that clear division of authority and power would also prevent the accumulation of power in two or all three Branches of the Government.That structure is now crumbling. Two Branches of Government—one controlled by the Harris-Biden Administration and the other controlled by the Pelosi-Schumer Congress—are overlapping, embracing each other; converging and merging into each other; operating in unison as a single entity.The intention of both the present Administration and the present Neo-Marxist-led and controlled Congress is to bring the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court, into their fold.And their actions to date demonstrate this maneuvering to consolidate power into one super organ of Government.If this process continues, there is nothing to stop the Government from collapsing in upon itself, centralizing power of the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches in one Branch even if the trappings of separate, co-equal Branches should continue. It would all be an illusion.The aim of the present Administration and the Democrat Party-controlled Congress in orchestrating consolidation of power is, as is self-evident, to streamline and to steamroller execution of Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist policies. Thus, the Government avoids debate among the few dissenting voices in Government that would be able to stop the operations of a rogue Government and avoid accountability to the polity that would justifiably object to and reject those policies.Further consolidation of all the power functions of Government, if left unchecked, would degenerate into Authoritarianism and eventually to outright Totalitarianism. The Federal Government would have long ceased to operate and function in accordance with Republicanism.At that point even the vestige of a Federal Government ruled by law and not by men would be dropped, as there would no longer be any need for it.The citizenry would live under perpetual surveillance: thoughts and behavior strictly controlled; dissent denied; the armed citizenry, disarmed.The Executive and Legislative Branches of Government are being drained of vitality as they lose their respective independence of function.The Federal Government is coalescing into autocratic rule.But whatever the form of autocracy—Authoritarianism, Totalitarianism, Fascism—it all denotes TYRANNY. This Country is treading close to that. And we may already be there.The legacy Press fails to acknowledge this even as the public recognizes it; is forced to come to grips with it; accept the disturbing, frightening reality of it.Tyranny is rapidly coming to fruition because—The Harris-Biden Administration and the Pelosi-Schumer-Controlled Congress do not perceive the Constitution as an essential framework within which they are to exercise their respective powers in a lawful manner. Rather, this Government perceives the Constitution merely as an obstacle, an obstacle to be overridden by Congressional statute and/or by Executive fiat, or simply ignored.

THE ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS ARE OPERATING OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The Executive Branch, the Office of the President of the United States, is operating in contradistinction to its Constitutional directive in defiance to the “TAKE CARE” CLAUSE of the Constitution.Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution says, in pertinent part, that the U.S. President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”This isn’t a suggestion or wish. This is an obligation and one that the present Administration has not only flaunted but has dismissed out-of-hand.And the Legislative Branch, Congress, is failing to heed its salient obligation to Nation, Constitution, and People, in contradistinction to the “NECESSARY AND PROPER” CLAUSE of the Constitution.As set forth in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18 of the Constitution, it is the function of Congress,“To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The Neo-Marxist Pelosi-Schumer-controlled Congress extracts from the “NECESSARY AND PROPER” CLAUSE what it wants.But, this clause DOES NOT grant to Congress unlimited power to alter the Constitution as it wishes, outside the strict bounds set by the Constitution.“The Necessary and Proper Clause does not vest Congress with any power to alter constitutional structure by statute. Congress may only use that Clause to assist itself and the other branches by providing the means for carrying into execution a power already possessed by a branch of the federal government.” “The President’s Power to Execute the Laws, 104 Yale, L.J., 541, by Steven G. Calabresi, Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law; J.D. Yale University; and Saikrishna B. Prakash, J.D., Yale University.The only way Congress can change the Constitution, lawfully, is through the Amendment process. That process is set forth in Article 5 of the Constitution. It is a difficult, complex, time-consuming task; deliberately so.This is as the Founders made it, lest unscrupulous, ruthless individuals in Government attempt to utilize the Constitution to corrupt it, transforming the Government operating under Republicanism into Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism.But, even if the Pelosi-Schumer Congress or some other unscrupulous Congress could convince enough States to cede power to it, through the Article 5 Amendment process, this would amount to the shredding of the doctrine of Federalism.The amendment process would drastically alter the framework of Government grounded on REPUBLICANISM. But that is the goal: to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic, unimpeded. It would be an impossible task, as well it should.A massive reconfiguration of the Federal Government even if attempted lawfully, through the application of the Article 5 amendment process, would require:

• REPEAL OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

• REVISION OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Let us look at this more closely.

REPEAL OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Congress cannot modify or abrogate the Bill of Rights through Article 5 of the Constitution, even theoretically. The reason is this: The Bill of Rights is a codification of Natural Law Rights. These Rights precede the creation of Government.Natural law Rights exist intrinsically in man, bestowed by the grace of the Divine Creator. They aren’t bestowed on man by the grace of Government.The Article 5 amendment process would also require repealing Article 4 of the Constitution.

REVISION OF ARTICLE 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION

Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth in critical part that, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion.”

THE “GUARANTEE” CLAUSE

The first clause, the “GUARANTEE” CLAUSE, isn’t a suggestion or wish, or whim. It is a mandate, guaranteeing REPUBLICANISM.Even if it were theoretically possible to erase Republicanism through the Article 5 amendment process, most States would never agree to this.But, AUTHORITARIANISM in the Federal Government cannot logically coexist with REPUBLICANISM in the States. These two forms of Government are logically, not simply empirically, incompatible.The Government would either have to reject AUTHORITARIANISM or convince the States to agree to AUTHORITARIANISM as the new mode of Government in the Nation.

THE “PROTECTION AGAINST INVASION” CLAUSE

The Federal Government isn’t protecting the States from invasion. That is a fact. The Harris-Biden Administration is actively inviting the invasion of the Nation through its “OPEN BORDERS” policy.The States, as sovereign entities themselves, have every right, and duty, to take those steps necessary to protect themselves from invading hordes if the Federal Government cannot or, as is evident, will not protect the States from invasion.Texas and Florida are therefore compelled to act to protect themselves from invasion and have done so since the Harris-Biden Administration has refused to do so.The Administration even tries to prevent the States from protecting their own borders.These facts suggest the Administration isn’t merely enabling invasion of the Country, it is involved in orchestrating it. This is unconscionable.The States—all fifty of them—have every right to protect their borders from invasion. They are sovereign entities. The sovereignty of the States is manifested through the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.  The Tenth Amendment sets forth,“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”The Tenth Amendment is a statement of FEDERALISM. This means that sovereignty is shared between the Federal Government and the States.The Administration’s actions are inconsistent with the sovereignty of the States, protected under the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and with the DOCTRINE OF FEDERALISM, underlying the Tenth Amendment.The Administration’s actions are also inconsistent with the DOCTRINE OF REPUBLICANISM, mandated by Article 4 of the Constitution, and inconsistent, as well, with its obligations to the States under Article 4.The States would never agree to revisions of the Constitution that would operate as waivers of Federal Government obligations under Article 4 of the Constitution and of States’ sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.The Administration’s unwillingness to protect the States from invasion and, at once, attempting to foreclose States from protecting themselves, is not only unconscionable, it is patently illegal, amounting to treachery and betrayal of the Nation, Constitution, and People.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ESCHEWS ANY DISCUSSION OF ARTICLE FIVE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IN A MONSTROUS PLOT TO RESHAPE EVERY INSTITUTION OF THE NATION

The Pelosi-Schumer Congress and the Harris-Biden Administration realize the Herculean task if not outright impossible task of utilizing Article 5 of the Constitution to transform the Nation into a functioning Neo-Marxist Dictatorship. The difficulty of doing so is no accident. It is by design. It is as the Framers of the Constitution intended.“Amending the Constitution should of course be undertaken with the gravest of care. After all, there is a reason why constitutional designers impose special rules for amending a constitution. If it were just as easy to amend a constitution as it is to amend an ordinary law, there would be nothing special, more authoritative, or more meaningful about it than a statute. It may admittedly be unwise to fiddle with the constitutional text because frequent constitutional changes breed uncertainty, which itself undermines the stability that government requires to function properly. Stability was in fact a chief objective in the minds of the Framers as they set out to establish the parameters for amending the constitution. Other objectives which Article V serves are popular legitimacy and federalism,  the former oriented toward ensuring that any amendment may be said to flow from the durable will of the people, and the latter permeating the entire constitutional text and indeed its very genesis. The high procedural hurdles of Article V that citizens and legislators must clear in order to perfect a constitutional amendment also entail considerable investments of time and cost, which together serve an important purpose of diluting the passions that may otherwise suffuse the daily business of popular politics.” “The Constitutional Politics Of Presidential Succession, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 497, Spring 2011, by Richard Albert, Assistant Professor, Boston College Law School; Yale University (J.D., B.A.); Oxford University (B.C.L.); Harvard University (LL.M.). The frustration of the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists is palpable.They reject Republicanism for Authoritarianism or Totalitarianism, either of which requires the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic. The tacit goal is to INSTITUTIONALIZE TYRANNY of Government.This monumental task cannot be undertaken through the lawful operation of Article 5 of the Constitution. That would be much too time-consuming and, in part, logically, as well as legally, impossible. So the Government attempts to reconfigure the political, social, economic, and legal fabric of the Nation, avoiding Constitutional stricture, through the operation of statute and executive fiat; openly denying and defying the Constitution.Is this radical, illegal alteration of the structure of a free Constitutional Republic truly coming from the faces of Government that the American people see? Or is this transformation coming from unseen forces behind the scenes?If an unseen hand is making executive-level policy decisions, then this points to treachery and betrayal of the Nation, Constitution and people, for the Chief Executive cannot Constitutionally delegate executive-level policy decision-making authority to unnamed, unelected individuals.Article 2 of the Constitution places EXECUTIVE DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY in one person, and one person, only: The President of the United States.The President is the only person who has executive-level decision-making authority. THIS IS NOT DELEGABLE.It is a violation of the Constitution if Biden did attempt to delegate this authority to others or consciously or unconsciously acquiesced to it.If Biden is not making executive-level decisions or even involved in the policy-making process, he is not serving as U.S. President. That means he is merely a figurehead, a placeholder.If true, this means the Nation is devoid of a sitting President of the United States.

THE SALIENT PROPOSITIONS THAT COMPRISE MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED IN OUR ESSAY ON TREASON INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING:

• The present Government’s actions amount to treachery and betrayal of the Nation, the Constitution, and the People in failing to perform and in actively disregarding its core functions and duties to preserve, protect, and defend the Nation, the States, and the People.

• The present Government has not only failed to perform its duties and to comply with its obligations under the Constitution of the United States but has unlawfully usurped power and authority that resides solely in the States and in the People as codified in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

• The present Government’s usurpation of power and authority residing in the States and the People reflect a conscious effort of the Government to undermine the security and well-being of the Nation, the States, and the People.

• The present Government’s policies and actions are directed to harming the States and the people and to the eradication of, not the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic.

• The present Government’s actions are directed to transforming a free Constitutional Republic into an autocratic regime, inconsistent with the Constitutional Requirement and mandate of Republicanism.

• The insinuation of Autocracy in the present Government is incompatible with and constitutes a direct assault on the continued existence of a free Constitutional Republic.

• Treachery against the States and the people constitutes a betrayal of the U.S. Constitution, the Nation, and the People.

• The Treachery of the Federal Government is equivalent to the Tyranny of the Federal Government.

• The Tyranny of Government directed against the States and the people has its expression through the subversion of the Constitution and of the law; contempt for and defiance of the Rule of Law; disrespect for and denial of the sovereignty of the States and of the ultimate sovereignty of the American people over Government; suppression of the Peoples’ right to exercise their Natural Law Rights and Liberties, codified in the Bill of Rights; and repression, oppression, subjugation, persecution of, and unlawful prosecution of the people in defiance of due process and equal protection under the law.

• The present Government’s actions evidence a deliberate intention and desire to impose Tyranny on the States and on the American people.

• Imposition of Tyranny of Government extends to the institutionalization of Tyranny in the Government and throughout the Nation.

• Tyranny of Government constitutes a Treason of Government directed to and against the States and the People.

• Treachery of Government is equivalent to Tyranny of Government.

• The Treason Clause, Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, extends to Treachery of Government directed against the States and the People.

• Application of the Treason Clause of the Constitution was intended not only as of an assertion of treachery directed against the United States and against the United States Government but as the assertion of the treachery of the United States Government directed against the States and/or the People.

• The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was designed to be the ultimate protector of the States, the People, and the United States, not only against their enemies, both foreign and domestic but as a defense against the tyranny of the United States Government and its standing army as might be directed against them—namely, the States and the People.

______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S ASSAULT ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS BETRAYS THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND "WE THE PEOPLE"

MULTI-SERIES ON THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

PART FIVE

SUBPART A

IS THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS PLAYING AMERICANS FOR DUPES?

“I can forgive a foe, but not a mistress and a friend; treason is there in its most horrid shape, where trust is greatest!” ~aphorism by John Dryden, English Poet, Literary Critic, and Dramatist, 1631 to 1700In our multi-series treatise on treason, it is possible that some readers may view these articles as discrete vignettes or snapshots on the topic of treason. That would be wrong. It is our intention readers see each article as connected to the one before it; each article progressing sequentially to produce a unified whole.Treason is operating at the highest levels of the Federal Government. That is our main contention, our central thesis, our salient focus. And, we are talking here of Treason as actionable crime, not mere political rhetoric, dramatic theater, inflammatory invective, hyperbolic epithet, or coarse name-calling. There is too much of that already in the media. It gets us nowhere.The crime of treason committed by High-Level Government Officials, of the Harris-Biden Administration should not be handled obliquely or alluded to delicately. It must be dealt with head-on.The Administration’s blatant, unprecedented attack on the rights of free speech and free association, the right to be free from unwarranted intrusion, the right to be free from unlawful detainment, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, are signs of a concerted effort on of Government to assail civil liberties.This wide-ranging, calculated, and deliberate assault by the Federal Government on fundamental rights and liberties signals the unlawful takeover of that Government that belongs to the American people, and not to those who serve in Government.This callous, caustic, sinister assault on the elemental, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties of the people attests to an aggressive attack on the sovereignty of the American people. It announces a clear intent to undercut the very sovereignty and authority of the American people over the Government. The Destructors and Obstructors know that with the eradication of the authority of the American people over their Government, a Constitutional Republic cannot long stand. And, in that vacuum that arises, tyrants are there to fill it. Totalitarianism is born.The harm this Government has done to the Country, the Constitution, and the people isn’t difficult to ascertain.Consider—

INTENTIONAL DISSOLUTION OF OUR NATION’S GEOGRAPHICAL BORDERS UNDERCUTS THE PHYSICAL INTEGRITY OF OUR NATION. CAN THIS BE TREASON?

The Administration’s blatant, unconstitutional open border policies, along with its unabashed attacks on, and emasculation of, Customs and Border Protection Officers, Border Patrol Agents, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents are all signs of loss of the integrity of our Nation-State. See article in New York Post and article in the website think civics. The effect of massive migration here and across Europe is deliberately designed to destabilize all of western civilization.The Administration has released over a half-million illegal aliens into our Country, in accordance with its blatantly illegal open border policy, and intends to release tens of thousands more into the interior of the Country. The Administration knows its actions are brazenly and flagrantly in violation of Federal Statutes, and in violation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution; and in violation of Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. So that his Administration doesn't admit to a violation of federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution, Biden's handlers instruct Biden and his Cabinet officers, and other high Government officials, to overtly lie to the American public.Since Biden's Director of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas, cannot overly admit to deliberate, obvious violations of federal Statute pertaining to immigration and the U.S. Constitution, and so, lies overtly and cavalierly to the public. He says the borders are not open and that aliens are not free to cross over to this Country and that if they do, they will not be allowed to stay.  See, e.g., article in United News-Post.These blatant lies to the public demonstrate the Administration's open contempt for the American people. See article on Culture dispersion and immersion is the goal, from a publication funded by or associated with the University of California, Berkeley.  See also, Center for Immigration Studies Report. And how many of them have the COVID? See the article posted on reason.com.  The UN’s articulated goal of moving tens of millions of people to the U.S. and EU is designed to destroy national borders and to de-stabilize western nation-states, thereby rupturing both the physical, geographical integrity of western nation-states as well as the social, cultural, political, and economic integrity of those nation-states. See the article in “Defend Europa” about the UN Migration pact.This UN Migration pact is nothing less than a brazen attempt to expunge the idea of the traditional nation-state and acts as a blueprint for a 3rd world invasion of Western countries. In short, the pact seeks to normalize mass migration and to establish migration as a global human right. After it’s enacted migrants from all over the world will be able to go where they want, when they please, and for whatever reason.”Through the deliberate rupture of the old nation-state governmental paradigm, a new transnational, multicultural, multi-ethnic borderless, world would emerge, but benefitting whom, exactly? To control billions of people across the entire world, a strong dictatorial regime would need to be imposed on billions of people. And, with the aid of mass surveillance that modern technology provides, the overseers of the new international order can accomplish that.The EU is already living under tacit Dictatorship disguised as Liberal Democracy. And yet Countries like Poland and Hungary, that recall the domination of the Soviet Union, know better. So, the overseers in Brussels treat them like pariahs for asserting their Sovereignty, lest other member states take notice and act similarly.The New York Times wrote, recently:“In a tart statement, the European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm in Brussels, said the Polish ruling ‘raises serious concerns in relation to the primacy of E.U. law’ and vowed to uphold ‘the founding principles of the Union’s legal order, namely that: E.U. law has primacy over national law, including constitutional provisions.’”But, does EU law control the law of its member nations? The website Full Fact says it does. See also an article from the BBC. See also report in Euronews.  Doesn't this raise a question as to the original, secretive intent behind those who constructed the EU? And, one must wonder of the UN's complicity in all this; a concerted plan to dismantle nation-states and to rupture the sovereignty and independence that one had defined them.The Constitution of the EU, unlike that of the U.S., has undergone several iterations. The draft treaty of 2003,  following upon the Treaty of Lisbon of 2001, recites, in its Preface,“The Convention was asked to draw up proposals on three subjects: how to bring citizens closer to the European design and European Institutions; how to organize politics and the European political area in an enlarged Union; and how to develop the Union into a stabilizing factor and a model in the new world order.”Consider the implications of this.See the EU Parliament's Resolution of 2005.  This concept of EU sovereignty over Nation-State sovereignty is the topic of much discussion. And, through it all, there is a common disquieting theme, of the systematic erosion of National Sovereignty to a transnational State. See, e.g., world101 Report, and article by aalep.In the U.S. we are seeing something similar occurring, as the Federal Government asserts its dominance over the States. This is a direct and unconstitutional assault on and violation of federalism—the sharing of sovereignty between the Federal Government and the States.In contemptuously ignoring and decimating the Bill of Rights, along with the doctrine of federalism, the Federal Government has taken arms against the authority of the American people, in whom ultimate sovereignty over all government rests, as the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights mandates and makes abundantly clear. The Government is “We The People.”Government’s actions against, we the people, is no less than the deliberate debasement and betrayal of the sanctity and inviolability of the U.S. Constitution and of the sanctity and inviolability of the personal autonomy and of the inherent and absolute sovereignty of the American people over Government. The government’s actions signify treachery beyond all precedent.These perpetrators of this treachery to Country, Constitution, and people have constructed and implemented a comprehensive, elaborate plan to usurp the sovereign authority of the American people over Government just as the Government of the EU in Brussels has betrayed its member countries.The usurpation of authority by the EU Government over its member countries is occurring simultaneously with the usurpation of authority by the Federal Government over the States and the people. Can this be a mere coincidence? Is this not all concomitant of a concerted plan to eventually bring the U.S. into the orbit of the EU, along with the Commonwealth Nations? And, isn’t the grand scheme being concocted through the UN, masking the move toward a one-world government through international pacts, treaties, and initiatives? Consider the import of the ambitious “Sustainable Development” initiative of the  UN., which apparently subsumes the broader “Global Compact.”And there is the deceptively named UN “Programme of Action on small arms and its International Tracing Instrument” that is really an oblique assault on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Biden intends to sign on to this. To do so is treachery of the highest order. See, e.g. article in Small Arms. Implementation of this treaty in the U.S. is unconstitutional because it is in direct conflict with the sovereignty of the American people through their unalienable right to keep and bear arms, even though it isn’t in conflict with the Constitution of the EU.The complexity and convoluted mess that this EU structure IS, and the machinations of the UN, spill over to the U.S. It all serves to hide an insidious intent: to bind and then absorb first the Countries of the EU into an intricate web that they cannot extricate themselves from, and eventually bind and absorb the Commonwealth Nations and that of the U.S. The UN is actively involved in this projectAmericans can’t control events in the EU, but they sure do have the authority to demand accountability from their own Government.Americans are witnessing a cold, calculated, callous, insidious attack by the Federal Government to wrest control from the States and from the people the citizenry's control over their own country, much as the EU is slowly entangling its member Countries into a sticky web. There is a word for this. It is called TYRANNY.The founders of the Republic had good reason to fear TYRANNY. After all, they lived, for a time under it. And it took a war for the American colonists, the first patriots to extricate themselves from the morass of this TYRANNY.They designed the Country to be a free Constitutional Republic. And they made sure the people, as the sole sovereign ruler of the Nation and of its federal Government they constructed, would forever retain and maintain arms to prevent TYRANNY from ever again enfolding upon and entrapping the people in a spider's web. Along with the equally important right to DISSENT against Government policy that the people perceive as eroding the Republic, the people will forever be able to remind the Government that it is the people who are sovereign over their Nation and their Government. And that:THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, NAMELY THE RIGHT TO DISSENT, AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS PROVIDES THE PEOPLE WITH THE MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST ENCROACHING TYRANNY.And we are moving ever closer to tyranny. One must ask,DOES THE TREACHERY OF GOVERNMENT AND BETRAYAL OF THE OATH TO THE NATION, CONSTITUTION, AND PEOPLE AMOUNT TO ACTIONABLE TREASON?Treason by Government, if it exists, means Government operating not on behalf of and in service to its people but actively, avidly, assiduously, and decidedly against them, against their interests, and thwarting any attempt by the people to counter the dire threat to their absolute sovereignty over Government.____________________________________

DIRECT ASSAULT ON THE INTEGRITY OF THE FAMILY UNIT AND ON THE EDUCATION OF OUR CHILDREN

SUBPART B

Treason is not own’d when ‘tis descried; Successful crimes alone are justified” ~aphorism by John Dryden, English Poet, Literary Critic, and Dramatist, 1631 to 1700The Administration’s recent weaponization of the DOJ, FBI, and NSD against average American citizens, treating them as domestic terrorists and pariahs is patently illegal, unconstitutional, and unconscionable. It is clear evidence of tyranny of Government over the people. See the Leftist “Daily Beast” making light of the matter, giving cover to the actions of the Attorney General, Merrick Garland. The propagandists attempt to deflect the tyranny of the Government by reflecting that tyranny duplicitously back onto the people, asserting——“This is about intimidation and bullying, pure and simple. That behavior is aimed at school officials—and especially the members of school boards.” See the article in the daily beast. But, is this really about intimidation and bullying of members of school boards? Isn’t it really intimidation and bullying by members of the school boards themselves directed on the parents of those schoolchildren who simply want a say in the education of the children as is their right, even duty, as parents? Consider the remarks of Terry McAuliffe, Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate, as reported in the National Review. McAuliffe, baldly and shamelessly retorts, as reported in the national review, to wit:“I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions,” . . . “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” . . .  “Listen, we have a board of ed working with the local school boards to determine the curriculum for our schools. You don’t want parents coming in every different school jurisdiction saying, ‘This is what should be taught here’ and, ‘This is what should be taught here.’” But, parents should care about their child’s education. See article in great schools. And, do you remember an organization called PTA—Parent Teacher Association. It once had importance, but no longer; why is that, do you suppose?Take a look at Garland’s Memo to the FBI, local law enforcement, and the U.S. Attorneys of each State. Garland is ordering a nationwide strategy session to implement “measures for the benefit of our nation’s 14,000 School Districts” . . . “to ensure our children a proper education in a safe environment. . . .” See Justice Department Memorandum of October 4, 2021.But, more to the point, it is singularly odd that Garland would use the phrase “our children” in his memo, and yet fail to mention even once in that memo, the word ‘parent.’ It is, after all, the parents of these children whom Garland is targeting. One would think he would at least mention that fact. Yet he says nothing. But, against whom would he be unleashing the dogs of war if not the parents of these children?But Garland doesn’t do that, and one must ask, “why is that?”  In the final analysis aren’t local school boards answerable to the parents of the children, in whom they entrust to the schools and local boards’ care? Garland must not be naïve to think otherwise. He knows his attack on the parents is patently illegal.Garland intends to induce fear of Government retaliation against these parents—any that dares to raise a voice in anger to outrageous conduct of the School Boards. That much is obvious.The school boards don’t work for the Federal Government or for the major school unions. And any concern over the understandable anger of parents elicited by the parents over these School Boards' actions isn’t a matter for the Federal Government. There are no civil rights violations here, except those committed by the local school boards themselves in promoting racism and sexual promiscuity in the schools. This is a state and local government matter.The Harris-Biden Administration’s actions are all in “vein” (yes, in ‘vein,’ not ‘vain’)—i.e., all in character. These actions are all part of a grand design to disengage, decouple, and disconnect the American people from their Constitution; their own fundamental, unalienable rights. Understandably pushback has come. The Federal Government must have seen this coming; must have expected it, and they planned to deal with it, knew how they would have to deal with it, and they have—ergo, Garland’s memo to use the full sources of the Federal Government and even mandating local and State governments action against the residents of their own State.Congressional Democrats know the jig is up. More Americans have caught on to the elaborate plan to eradicate the U.S. Constitution. And, Government wants to keep this all nebulous. The Government wants to keep the public off balance. And Congress pretends to be upset with this and drafts a detailed letter to the AG, saying so. Even some Republicans sign it.But, the attempt at bipartisanship on this matter is disquieting. Is something sinister going on here?Are Republicans in on the charade too? Are both Neo-Marxist Democrats and placid, obsequious Republicans simply Gatekeepers, playing each American off against the other to wrench power from all of us? Granted, a few Republicans drafted and signed their own letters, even as they also signed on to the Democrats' letter to the DOJ AG, Merrick Garland. See, e.g., letter to Garland from Senators Cruz, Blackburn, and Lee.But, the overall effect smacks of an elaborate hoax perpetrated on the American people to keep them guessing as to what Congress and the Administration will do next.Americans are led to believe that:“Sure, the U.S. Government may seem to be warring against your own best interests, but don’t worry, Government is safeguarding, protecting and preserving your Country, your Constitution, and your well-being against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” in full accord with the stated purpose of the Constitution. And, what is the stated purpose of the Constitution? Take a look:“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”But is the sentiment reflected in the Preamble still hold true by those IN the Government?Reflect for a moment on the sheer number of, the scope of, and nature of all those seeming misadventures, misunderstandings, misconceptions,  misapprehensions, and mistakes that have plagued this Nation since the puppet-masters installed their frail, fragile, imbecilic puppet, Joe Biden, in the highest Office of the Land in January 2021.And, contemplate how these five Stooges—Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Charles (“Chuck”) Schumer, and, oh yes, Mitch McConnell, too—dangle limply, lifelessly, from their strings in the Grand Deluxe Puppet Theater that our Nation has become, waiting obediently, expectantly for their next set of orders from on High, to spring to action. And so many Americans clap in appreciation as these rag dolls tap dance across the puppet stage, keeping the public amused so it fails to notice the firestorm raging all around the Nation’s puppet theater—until it is too late to react.But some Americans do notice the firestorm. And, against these Americans, who fail to be mesmerized by the puppet show, who fail to be taken in by the illusionists’ tricks, the Administration is clamping down, and clamping down hard.The marriage of “Big Business” with “Big Government” is the hallmark of Fascism, be it on the far left of the political spectrum, or on the far right. It is all part and parcel of the broad political, social, and economic ideology of Collectivism—an ideology anathema to that of Individualism. For it is upon the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism, not Collectivism, that our free Constitutional Republic exists, in accordance with the sovereignty of “we the people” over the Government, as maintained principally through the unalienable rights to be heard and to bear arms.America’s “Progressives,” i.e., America’s Neo-Marxists, co-opt “we the people” and then twist the idea of “we the people” “all around the mulberry bush,” for their own advantage to fool the unwary. Their notion of “we the people” is as “we a majoritarian mob” dancing to the tune of tyrants, doing their bidding. Did we not see this through the crimes of assault, arson, and intimidation by members of anarchist group ANTIFA and by the Neo-Marxist group, BLACK LIVES MATTER?  These so-called Progressives, a euphemism for Marxists which, at the moment isn't a popular word, don't represent “we the people.” But the dead giveaway is seen through their use of the phrase, ‘imperialism.’The word, ‘imperialism’ is used by Marxists and others who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism. They use ‘imperialism’ invariably to refer to Capitalists and Capitalism. See, e.g., essay in the Marxist, by a chap named Paul Costello.Americans, are rightfully outraged by the disgusting actions of the Harris-Biden Administration aren’t fooled by any of this.Not without reason do they dissent, and vociferously, against the Administration’s absurd policies and initiatives, attacking both speech and gun possession and ownership, with a vengeance. As for the latter, much of the Administration’s policy goals are presented matter-of-factly, albeit cloaked under the guise of protecting the public from the purported scourge of the “Gun Violence Epidemic.”The Administration's answer to the scourge of gun violence, as the Administration sees it, is, as it has always been: disarming the citizen and treating all those, who happen to wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as pariahs. To effectuate the eventual disarming of all Americans, the Administration is treating gun ownership as a sickness, as an abomination.Psychiatric news, for one, emphasizes that the simple act of owning a gun is considered a risk factor that should be a target for behavior modification.The disinformation campaign of treating gun ownership as psychosis, or as a trigger for those who suffer from psychoses or neuroses that they are more likely to harm themselves or others, has been in operation for quite a while, much of it done just below the level of conscious awareness. And many in the medical community have jumped on board. But, what is really the point of this from the Government's perspective: is it really to protect tens of millions of average, trustworthy, responsible, rational people from themselves lest, at some indefinite point in time, they happen to go off the deep end, or, rather, is it to remove a potential threat to Government that the mere existence of an armed citizenry poses? But, as for the latter, wasn't it always the purpose of an armed citizenry to protect itself from tyranny? If a Government adheres to its Constitutional duties and accepts the fact that the people are the sovereign authority over Government, then what is there for Government to fear from the people, as there is nothing Government has taken from the people. But, if Government has ambitions to amass power that belongs to the people, to dictate how a person should live his life, and to oppress that person, then Government has reason to fear an armed citizenry as was the intent of the founders of a free Republic. And, the citizen, for his part, as reason enough to be wary of such a Government that would take from the people that ultimate authority that belongs only to the people, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that Government has no ownership over.The dissolution of the armed citizenry of America, through which the sovereignty over Government is enforced, IS THE POINT of Biden’s 6-point policy plan. The sixth and last point of Biden’s plan requires the appointment of David Chipman, as Director of the ATF.That last policy objective of the Administration's 6-POINT PLAN to subvert the right of the people to keep and bear arms didn’t pan out. That was an unexpected and unfortunate setback for the Administration. The Harris-Biden Administration was puzzled and more than just a trifle upset, considering the ease by which the Administration was able to place so many other Neo-Marxist Internationalists in high Government posts in and across the Administration.But, the failure to secure David Chipman as Director of the ATF is no small matter for the Administration. Had Chipman been confirmed by the Senate, the Administration would have had its “Tool” in place for banning all semiautomatic firearms through the mechanism of a simple Rule Change to the definition of “machine gun.” That was the plan, and during his Senate confirmation hearing, after dogged questioning by Senate Republicans, Chipman finally admitted it even though he pointedly said that the banning of semiautomatic firearms is the role of Congress. But, the intention all along was to accomplish this quietly, surreptitiously, through the Administrative Rules process.Recall how Trump banned “Bump Stocks” through the Administrative Process, bypassing Congress—altogether unconscionable and patently illegal—it was done anyway.Subsequent to a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court, that kept the bump stock ban in place having decided not to rule on the merits of the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in The Sixth Circuit ruled against the Bump Stock ban in Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Garland, 992 F.3d 446 (Sixth Cir. 2021). ruled against the bump stock ban. This was cause for rejoicing. See, e.g., articles on sites, “Reason” “the federalist.” But the elation was short-lived.In an en banc hearing of the entire complement of Sixth Circuit judges, the decision of the three-judge panel was vacated. See Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Garland 2 F. 4th 576, 2021 U.S. App. (6th  Cir. 2021), 2021 WL 2621112. A U.S. District Court of the Seventh Circuit also found the ruling of the ATF under the Administrative Procedures Act to be lawful in Doe v. Trump, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185138. That decision is now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appeal was filed, September 29, 2021.In the next several weeks and months pay close attention to Administration attempts to undermine the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms unlawfully through executive orders and Administrative Rules. The Harris-Biden Administration and the Schumer/Pelosi Controlled Congress has shown its propensity to violate the Constitution with abandon in the areas of immigration, elections, censoring of speech, COVID mask and shot mandates, to name just a few. Should the public not also expect this Government to go after firearms ownership and possession in violation of the Bill of Rights with the same abandon and zeal?______________________________________________

IF THE PEN CAN BE CENSORED, CAN THE SWORD ALSO BE CENSORED?

SUBPART C

ATTACKS ON THE FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENTS BEST EXEMPLIFY TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION

I must own, I know not what Treason is, if sapping and betraying the liberties of a people be not treason, in the eternal and original Nature of Things.” ~ John Trenchard (1662-1723) & Thomas Gordon, English Journalists and political theorists of the late 17th and early 18th Centuries, the two writing together under the nom de guerre, “Cato.” The passage comes from  “Reflections upon Libelling,” June 10, 1721. Ref: Cato's Letters; or Essays on liberty, pg 249 (1737).  Citation obtained from the website, “the liberty tree” Back in 2003, before the Heller decision of 2008 and the subsequent McDonald decision of 2010, a legal scholar considered whether the protections underlying the First Amendment against censorship can also be applied to the Second Amendment.The author of a Law Review article, from whom we borrow words of the title of our article from the title of his, wrote, in part:“The First and Second Amendments differ in both their construction and in the nature of the rights that they secure; it seems that the text of the Second supports a more expansive reading than that given to the First. Despite (or perhaps because of) these differences, legal scholars and philosophers have recently started to wonder what justifies giving the Second Amendment a narrow construction at the same time one gives an expansive interpretation to the First? . . .  [The] text cannot help, since both amendments are equally susceptible to either narrow or broad constructions. Reliance on precedent also cannot solve the problem since the narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment is not so settled by a series of Supreme Court decisions that it could not be revisited.  One plausible approach is to apply analogous First Amendment standards to Second Amendment issues. This approach would clearly be neither perfect nor universally applicable, but there are some broad principles that would serve as valuable tools in this developing area of the law.To justify the application of First Amendment standards to the (very different) Second Amendment, one must begin by noting the fact that the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and free press, as well as the Establishment Clause, incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment, are constructed as a restraint on federal and state governments.The Second Amendment, by contrast, is a ‘right of the people,’ one that secures a specific and individual liberty. This difference in construction is significant because, as the Second Circuit has noted ‘the Establishment Clause, unlike the Fourth Amendment, contains no limiting language. Indeed, the basic structure of the Establishment Clause, which imposes a restriction on Congress, differs markedly from that of the Fourth Amendment, which confers a right on the people.’” ~ from the Law Review Note, “Treating the Pen and the Sword as Constitutional Equals: How and Why the Supreme Court Should Apply Its First Amendment Expertise to the Great Second Amendment Debate,” 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2287 (April 2003), by David G. Browne.The author of the above-mentioned law review article could not know, in 2003, that the U.S. Supreme Court would, in fact revisit the import and purport of the Second Amendment, a few short years later. And the Court majority did rule, clearly and categorically, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia. But let us be clear about this: The salient holding in Heller and McDonald didn’t expand the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Rather, it simply acknowledged what was always there in the language of the Second Amendment—that the Right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not an amorphous collective right. It is a right of the people to be enjoyed irrespective of one’s service in a militia. This is a critical point. We, therefore, disagree with the author’s contention that the text of one fundamental Right can ever be construed to be more or less expansive than any other fundamental Right.It is incongruous to give wide latitude to one Fundamental Right and less latitude to another. To conclude otherwise means the framers of the Bill of Rights intended to place limitations on the exercise of Fundamental Rights. They didn’t.The idea that some scholars, commentators, and politicians have that they did intend to place limitations on the exercise of Fundamental Rights is both erroneous and ludicrous.  Yet, it is an error many scholars, commentators, and politicians do make, and they make that error often. And frightful, dire repercussions follow from that error. Politicians piggyback off the error. They continually restrict and constrict exercise of Americans’ fundamental rights, with the aim, eventually, of eliminating all of them, as presently codified in the Bill of Rights, to be repackaged as Government sees fit; but this time merely as a set of rules, not Rights, to be changed or cast aside, as the Government from time-t0-time wishes, attempting to win over the populace. And some come to believe that Rights aren't such things Americans inherently possess, but, rather, are prizes to be won from or privileges of a sort to be bestowed upon them by Government, through proper obeisance to Government.Therein does Tyranny of Government over the citizenry reside, winding, and wending its way in and through the Nation, insinuating itself on everyone and everything.But, was the Bill of Rights ever supposed to be thus. Surely, there is nothing in the characterization of the text of any of the Rights, set forth in the Bill of Rights, to suggest constraints and limitations to be attached to one or the other or to all of them. Surely, there is nothing to suggest that these God-Given Rights were never to be perceived but merely beneficent privileges created by the Government itself to be awarded to some and withheld from others, subject merely to the whims, vagaries, and inclinations of arrogant overseers of Government.Thus, we must agree with the author of the 2003 article that it makes no sense to treat the Second Amendment as the poor cousin to the First and we agree that it is incongruous to give wide latitude to one Fundamental Right and less to another. But, at one and the same time, we must take exception with the writer's belief or supposition that the text of any one or more of the elemental Rights codified in the Bill of Rights bespeak, or were meant to bespeak, any limitation by the American people in their exercise of them.Tyranny of Government proceeds from its failure to heed to the dictates of the Bill of Rights as a set of fundamental rights emanating from the will of the Divine Creator.

TENETS OF THE NATION'S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

• The language of the Second Amendment, as with all other fundamental, unalienable rights, exists intrinsically in Man.

• Fundamental Rights are Primordial Rights, i.e., Natural Law Rights, preexistent in Man that precede all manmade governmental structures.

• Fundamental Rights as Primordial Natural Law Rights aren’t privileges to be bestowed on Man by grace of Government, nor can they be taken from Man at Government’s whim.

• Since Government did not create and cannot create Primordial Natural Law Rights, Government cannot lawfully modify, dilute, abrogate, or ignore these Rights.

• Since Primordial Natural Law Rights are not man-made rules, they cannot be treated as mere privileges to be granted to some and denied to others by the grace of Government, nor can they lawfully be rescinded at the whim or pleasure of Government.

• Because Primordial Natural Law Rights are unalienable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal, i.e., existing for all time, such Rights are not and cannot reasonably, rationally be perceived as transitory, archaic, anachronistic, antiquated, or conditional, i.e., merely applicable to particular time periods, particular conditions of man, or to particular governmental and societal structures.

• Primordial Natural Law Rights, as creations of the Divine Creator, are absolute, permanent, and perfect; sacred and pure, sanctified and inviolate, residing in the Divine Creator and, by the Creator’s Grace, in the Spirit of Man.

• The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution is to be perceived as the codification of a set of Primordial Natural Law Rights laid down by the Divine Creator. They are not to be construed merely as the codification of a set of higher, mutable, aspirations of man, conceived by and inspired by man, independent of God’s Hand.

• Man is incapable of perceiving Primordial Natural Law Rights, as High Moral Precepts, but for the Divine Creator instilling these Rights in Man’s Spirit.

• Each Primordial Natural Law Right recited in the Bill of Rights is to be perceived as part of a unified whole; no Right is to be considered irrelevant, extraneous, redundant, or noncontiguous with any other. They operate from and derive their ultimate strength and potency as a Divine whole.

ONLY THROUGH FREE AND ABSOLUTE EXERCISE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS CAN TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT BE FORESTALLED AND PREVENTED

The United States, conceived as a free Constitutional Republic, is on a collision course with tyranny and in the most literal sense precisely because of the degradation of the Bill of Rights and because of the arrogance of those in power who have forgotten that they rule at the pleasure of the people.The author of the afore-cited law review article, hoping for a revitalization of the Second Amendment, in line with the First Amendment, could not have foreseen the irony playing out in the Country today, with the denigration and degradation of both. Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear, in the Heller case in 2008, that the right codified in the Second Amendment is an individual right and that the holding in Heller applies to the States as made clear in the McDonald case of 2010. But, State and local governments routinely, blatantly, and unconscionably ignore the rulings of Heller and McDonald. Will the upcoming Second Amendment Corlett case strengthen Heller and McDonald? That is the hope of those Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights but it remains to be seen. Ultimately, Corlett may not make a damn bit of difference.Concomitant with the erosion of the Second Amendment, in spite of Heller and McDonald, the fundamental Right of Free Speech of the First Amendment is also being eroded. If the sanctity of the First was to help buttress the sanctity of the Second, both may ultimately be discarded. There is a sad irony in this.  The expansive First Amendment has been radically constricted by the power of a seditious Press and a sympathetic technology sector that exerts massive control over information content and information flow.An Administration that won’t tolerate dissenting speech, most certainly won’t long abide an armed citizenry either.If “the pen” can be muzzled, then, so too, can “the sword” be broken. This is the hallmark of an Authoritarian or full-bore Totalitarian Nation-Regime. Dissent is deemed intolerable and an armed citizenry, insufferable. The United States, conceived as and constructed as a free Constitutional Republic, with a free and sovereign citizenry, is rapidly degenerating into the founders’ worst nightmare.In the next segment of our series, PART SIX, in our continuing series on treason, we dive deeply into this notion of ‘Tyranny of Government.’We ask, and resolve to answer—If the vast apparatus of the Federal Government devolves into Tyranny, does that not support a finding that high-level officials and officers within it can be charged with and tried for “treason” and suffer the consequences if convicted of it? And, if so, cannot and ought not the American people dismantle a Government that has been irreparably damaged by their treacherous, traitorous servants? And might not the people try once again to reconstruct a Government in the form it was originally designed and meant to be, one surely serving their interests, and truly answerable to them?__________________________________________________

AN AUTHORITARIAN OR TOTALITARIAN REGIME WILL NOT LONG SUFFER THE DISSIDENT VOICE

SUBPART D

If the present Administration won’t tolerate dissent, it is equally clear that dissent in the Second Amendment won’t be tolerated either, as we pointed out in our previous article. The exercise of one's Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms can also be considered a form of and therefore equated with speech. Thus if “the pen” can be muzzled, then “the sword,”  as we said, in Subpart C, supra, can be broken, which is to say, “the gun” can be confiscated. That is how intolerance of Dissent is handled in a totalitarian Country as this one is rapidly becoming. In its drive to subjugate the American people, the Harris-Biden Administration understands the necessity of eradicating the armed citizenry. The Administration is doing this incrementally. The Administration's extraordinarily expansive, vicious, and virulent attack on dissenting speech is to be properly perceived as an oblique attack on the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, as well.Now when it comes to dissent, as speech, the Harris-Biden Administration won’t tolerate it, notwithstanding that the right of free speech, i.e., the right to dissent against Government policy that the public disagrees with, is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., article in “daily truth report,” and in thought crime radio. Finding overt evidence of the Government clampdown on speech is easy to come by. Consider Google’s search algorithms.Do a search on Google Chrome and you will find page after page after page of search results concerning the clampdown on dissent in many Autocratic Countries like China, Russia, Myanmar, Belarus, Turkey, and Tunisia and on, and on, and on, but nary a word about clampdown of dissent in the United States.But, then, the U.S. is still a free Constitutional Republic, isn’t it? Of course it is! And, woe to any American who dares say, “no,” that we  “once lived in a free Republic, but no longer.” Government, through the information technology monopolies, is actively, avidly, rabidly censoring speech. Unfettered exercise of Free Speech and of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms are the most crucial rights, without which a free Constitutional Republic cannot survive, and tyranny arises.Recall Google’s fatuous motto “Don’t Be Evil.” Is that still Google’s motto? It once was, but no longer. That was many moons ago. Today, as pointed out by the website Gizmodo,“Google’s unofficial motto has long been the simple phrase ‘don’t be evil.’ But that’s over, according to the code of conduct that Google distributes to its employees. The phrase was removed sometime in late April or early May, archives hosted by the Wayback Machine show.”Gizmodo goes on to say, “When Google was reorganized under a new parent company, Alphabet, in 2015, Alphabet assumed a slightly adjusted version of the motto, ‘do the right thing.’ ” However, Google retained its original ‘don’t be evil’  language until the past several weeks.” But the “past several weeks,” was back in 2018 when that story broke.Just a slight change in Google’s motto? One must wonder: what ‘does the new motto, “Do the right thing” mean? It means do the right thing for itself, consistent with the goals of the Administration and of the Neo-Marxist-led Congress. A documentary that came out in the same year that Google did away with its “don’t be evil” motto, explains.See “The Creepy Line,” a documentary that “. . . reveals the stunning degree to which society is manipulated by Google and Facebook and how they do it.” But “Big Tech” isn’t working alone.The Harris-Biden Administration and the Pelosi-Schumer-controlled Congress are in bed with Big Tech. See article in Deep State Journal, for one.  But, wasn’t there a whistleblower that came out to warn Congress of the danger of Facebook, Frances Haugen? It seems there is more to this story than the legacy Press would like you to know. See, e.g.,  article in the Conservative Tree House, the daily wire,  and scheerpost. With massive censorship of speech, and with so many people being “canceled” for voicing their opinion and with Government and the Technology monopolies refusing to permit vigorous debate—the hallmark of a democratic society—tyranny is a heartbeat away from rearing its ugly head, and thence, “treason.”The Administration attempts always, with the assistance of the legacy Press and Big Tech to keep one step ahead of the public, to keep Americans off-guard, off-kilter through constant vague, inconsistent, messaging, and ludicrous denials, like the Secretary of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas baldly, absurdly proclaiming to the public, that the Nation’s borders aren’t open. See, e.g., article in the NY Post. In other words, “don’t believe your lying eyes.” And, it doesn’t end there:Consider—The impact of the Nation’s retreat from Afghanistan, leaving billions of dollars of sophisticated weaponry in the hands of our enemy, an enemy we have been at war with for almost 20 years. Are Americans expected to treat this as a mere accident? And, the Administration doesn’t even claim there was an accident. Everything worked out fine—more than fine, really. Biden’s handlers instructed the idiot to assert the Afghanistan withdrawal was an “extraordinary success.” If Biden had any “gray matter” left in his skull, one would think he would have objected to reciting such a line. Biden’s handlers must think the public is as blockheaded as Biden, himself.No, the Afghanistan withdrawal wasn’t a success, extraordinary, good, adequate, satisfactory, or even passable. It was an unmitigated disaster and the repercussions from this disaster are so awful, so horrific, that one cannot pass this off as simply ineptitude or mistake. One must infer the actions of the Government to be by design.Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, had done much to stabilize the Middle East. Yet now, once again the region is destabilized. Worse, the disruption of the Middle East under the present Administration is even than under Obama’s. The present Administration has endangered the security of the Nation and that of the world. Indeed it compounds the threat a thousandfold by airlifting tens of thousands of unvetted Afghans into the Country, to be secreted silently and secretly throughout the interior of our Nation. See, e.g., articles in red voice media, the Washington Examiner, and in town hall.  Also see the YouTube video with Michael Franzese, “Our Government Is Screwing Us.”Do you recall the old slogan, “if we don’t fight them over there, we will fight them over here?” Back in 2006, the leftist Daily Kos made light of this. A website called the new Federalist, playing off the name of the well-known and ostensibly Conservative website, “The Federalist,” apparently with no association with the federalist shrugs off the danger to the stability of nation-states.These Sixth Century sheepherders are unassimilable, as are hundreds of thousands of other ignorant, poverty-stricken populations, many of them carrying the Chinese Communist Coronavirus, often referred to simply as COVID; or they may be, and probably are carrying other abominable, highly communicable, and dangerous infectious diseases. These illegal aliens are all given carte blanche entry into our Nation. These alien populations have a culture, heritage, and ethos antithetical, and our culture, heritage, and ethos are altogether incomprehensible to them to our own. Many have a religion that does not cohere with Christianity and does not recognize the legitimacy of other religions, especially Christianity. And these are the sorry creatures upon which the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and the billionaire Neo-liberal Globalists intend to fracture our society, bringing it to complete ruin. These populations completely dependent on subsistence from the taxpaying citizenry have little to no formal education and will require substantial taxpayer outlay to assist them with their health care, housing, and a host of other welfare needs. These populations have little to no formal education and will require substantial taxpayer outlay to assist them with health care, housing, and a host of other welfare needs. The drain on Americans and on the economy will be substantial, immense, catastrophic. And, Americans are obtaining just a glimmer of what lies in store for them, why it is that the Administration and the Neo-Marxist Democrat Party-controlled Congress are Hell-bent on passing a multi-trillion-dollar so-called Human Infrastructure spending plan. This does nothing to help Americans. This plan is designed to destroy the Country and oppress the citizenry, using the citizenry's tax dollars to pay for the upkeep of tens of millions of illegal alien freeloaders, the new dependent American, happy and content to live under oppression for a few trinkets and a few welfare checks a month upon which to subsist. And the American citizenry will be taxed into penury itself, and become itself dependent on the largess of Government to survive.And, once the will of the American citizenry has been broken, and the Nation's institutions destroyed, and the history and heritage and Christian ethos but a distant memory if memory remains at all, the new international world order will rise as the Devil-Spawn from the skeletal remains of this Nation of all the others that once comprised western civilization.A once-proud, healthy, wealthy, secure, powerful, independent sovereign Nation and a free and sovereign American people will live under constant surveillance and oppression, sans liberty, happiness, and hope for their future.

THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S POLICY DECISIONS HARM THE NATION CATASTROPHICALLY AND IRREVOCABLY, AND THAT IS THE POINT.

But the American people must first recognize and acknowledge that deliberate policy decisions of the Federal Government do constitute actionable treason if the people are to hold onto their Republic as the Founding Fathers intended and as the Constitution mandates. Their Republic is rapidly slipping from their grasp.As mentioned in our opening, we said the Federal Government has committed actionable treason against the American people. That is our thesis. Many scholars say this is impossible. They contend that, as a matter of law, Government cannot commit treason against its people even if Government intentionally operates to the detriment of the people.If Big Tech and Big Government routinely and brazenly censor speech, censorship of guns, i.e., confiscation of firearms, cannot be far behind.In the next few articles, we deal squarely with whether Government can, theoretically, as a matter of logic and law, commit treason against its people where Government deliberately takes action against the interests of the people. Is this the stuff of treason by the Government against its own people? We shall see. We now peer at the concept of TYRANNY.______________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IF TYRANNY IS TREASON, ONLY A WELL-ARMED CITIZENRY CAN EFFECTIVELY RESIST IT AND HAS THE DUTY TO DO SO

MULTI-SERIES ON THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

PART FOUR

TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT IS TREACHERY TO A NATION'S PEOPLE

Quotations to ponder apropos of “tyranny of Government as actionable treason against the American people”“If there is a clear distinction between a Republican and a Democrat during these trying times, it has to be boiled down to this single truth: Republicans trust our neighbors with their God-given rights and ask to be left alone; Democrats extend privileges to their neighbors and become little Robespierres to see whether or not those privileges should continue to be extended. That’s it.” ~Shaun Kenney, a contemporary web blogger, of the website, The Republican Standard, reflecting on the thoughts of C. S. Lewis on tyranny. “All tyrannies rule through fraud and force, but once the fraud is exposed they must rely exclusively on force.” ~from an essay by George Orwell, novelist, journalist, essayist, who is best known for his satirical allegory on totalitarianism, “Animal Farm,” published in 1945; and for his dystopian novel, “1984,” published in 1949.“The greatest tyrannies are always perpetuated in the name of the noblest causes.” ~Thomas Paine, American Patriot, Philosopher, and Political Theorist“I think myself that we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious. Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have. . . . The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases. The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.” ~Thomas Jefferson; Founding Father of our Nation, Third President of the United States, Statesman, Philosopher, and Lawyer; quotation taken from a letter from Jefferson to William Ludlow, September 6, 1824. “Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty.” ~quotation attributed to John Basil Barnhill, anti-socialist writer, editor, politician, and debater of the late 19th Century and Early 20th century.“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. . . .” ~C.S. Lewis, novelist, essayist, and lay theologian; from his essay, “God In The Dock: Essays on Theology and Ethics” (1948)Tyranny is here, in America. It is here now, today. That this is so, is indisputable, irrefutable fact; unsettling and distressing as this fact may be to contemplate.The Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Mega-Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists of present-day America would vigorously deny this, of course, when confronted with the inescapable ample evidence for it.The actions of a Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist led and controlled Congress and Executive Branch of the Federal Government glaringly demonstrate the truth of this. They are responsible for it, and what is more, they know it to be so; they welcome it; they have planned for it; they intend to see it come to fruition—tyranny imposed on the people by a rogue Government.But they assiduously try to hide the truth of their crimes and sins from the people, lest the people rebel. The people cannot be allowed even to whisper the truth while these Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists go about conjuring up a drastic transformation of our Country.The Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are methodically, inexorably dismantling a proud, sovereign, independent Nation, a sovereign people, and a free Constitutional Republic; rendering it an afflicted, wretched, borderless, amorphous territory—eventually to be merged into a globalist totalitarian new world order. This massive, horrific transformation of a free Constitutional Republic is taking place quickly. Already, in the space of eight months, after the puppet-masters evicted Donald Trump from Office through the unethical and criminal manipulation of the electoral process, the Nation is unrecognizable. Although powerful, secretive Destructive elements had been machinating to dismantle the Republic at its inception, upon Ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788, the process of dismantling the Republic had heretofore proceeded relatively silently, furtively plodding forward at a snail's pace. It was only at the dawn of the 21st Century upon the inauguration of the “Skull and Bones” President, George Bush, that the process of dismantling the Republic pushed forward openly, fervently, rapidly, in earnest. The Bush Administration with the assistance of Alan Greenspan, Chair of the Federal Reserve, along with a host of neoconservative henchmen,  embroiled the Nation in an expensive escapade in the Middle East, from which we have never really extricated ourselves, and which resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives, trillions of taxpayer dollars, and the collapse of the American economy in 2008. The Grand Apologist, Barack Obama, compounded the Nation's economic and geopolitical plight. As another puppet of the shadowy Destructors of our Nation, Obama attempted, through secretive, negotiations with other nations and multinational businesses, to bind the Nation to two massive transnational trade deals: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (T-TIP). Had those international trade agreements materialized, they would, in their operation, have severely weakened the Nation's Constitutional underpinnings. It was expected that Hillary Clinton would have continued the Obama policies had she succeeded him. And, many there were, both here and abroad, that presumed Hillary Clinton was a shoo-in to succeed Obama. They were wrong. Clinton lost. Donald Trump became President and threw a wrench into the grand scheme of the Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists to dismantle the Republic. The shadowy puppet-masters who oversaw all of this were enraged. They made sure Trump wouldn't serve a second term in Office. Once their physically frail, emotionally weak, and cognitively challenged puppet was firmly ensconced in Office, they wasted no time completing the process of destroying the Country from within—not only economically, but politically, societally, juridically, and culturally. Already, we see inklings of the resumption of TTP and T-TIP.The seditious Press and social media are collaborating in all of this. They are baldly, blithely censoring speech and endlessly, relentlessly pumping out gibberish on behalf of the puppet-masters. They have obtained the cooperation and acquiescence of many Americans; some capitulating, resigned; reconciled to their fate; others avidly embracing it.Americans’ brains have turned to mush. Many of them ardently support the takeover of the Nation, ravenously gobbling up all the nonsense generated by the Press and social media that an omnipotent Government, doling out occasional dollops of “freedom” and a few trinkets to those Americans who obey their dictates is a good thing; a right and proper thing; and they think: “woe to those Americans who do not heed the dictates of the Government taskmasters.”Americans who have bought into the nonsense, daily and malevolently spun by the propagandists, don’t realize or, more likely—especially the “Baby Boomer” Generation—did know, as well the public schools at the time had taught them, but now have long since forgotten, that our Nation was conceived in liberty.The ruination of a free Constitutional Republic is at hand and with it, the suppression of our sacred freedoms.The Neo-Marxists have taken over the education of our youth. They have rewritten the civics and history curricula of our public schools. They have recast the entirety of a Nation’s glorious history and Constitution to create a false narrative, one completely at odds with the truth, and one alien to and antithetical to the nobility of man, as they usher in a new era. It is one devoid of the notion of the sanctity, invincibility, and inviolability of the rights and liberties of man; of the autonomy and sanctity of the individual over the Collectivist State.But freedom is not a privilege to be dispensed occasionally to some and denied more frequently to others—at the whim of and by the grace of Government.‘Freedom,’ ultimately, is an incommensurable, irreducible, ineffable, elemental concept, actualized as an illimitable, immutable, unalienable right of the people. It is intrinsic to the people, bestowed upon them and into their very being by a loving God. Yet, Government usurpers pretend that freedom is an artificial construct. These usurpers see, in “Freedom” something akin to candy; a reward to be given to those who willingly bow to their will.To these usurpers, “freedom” is nothing more than a commodity, a thing created by or manufactured by the Government and therefore a thing within the lawful power of Government to mete out or to revoke, as Government alone, at its whim, decides.THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE FREE EXERCISE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND ITS DISDAIN FOR THE NATION'S CONSTITUTION AND LAWS IS THE SINE QUA NON OF TYRANNY. Not without reason, the founders were much concerned with tyranny. And, a deep and disquieting concern over the unintentional resurrection of tyranny in a fledgling independent sovereign Nation informed the founders’ thinking as they fretted mightily over the shape a new Government, one conceived in liberty, should take.For, they knew it would be the greatest of ironies indeed, if, at the end of the day, a Federal Government they created for a new Nation—one conceived in liberty—would fall victim to the very thing they had with no little effort defeated. They determined that a true Republican form of Government would best stave off a rebirth of tyranny.But even a Republican form of Government, with powers carefully delineated and demarcated among three co-equal Branches, would of itself be insufficient to defeat tyranny. For ambitious powerful men would undoubtedly attempt to usurp powers the Constitution forbade. Thus would spawn a new tyranny—the very thing the founders had defeated and had no stomach to see arise anew.The founders realized the most effective weapon to check the natural inclination of those wielding power to acquire ever more power beyond the limits imposed on them by the Constitution would require an omnipresent armed citizenry. And as they perceived as self-evident true that the right of the people to keep and bear arms preexists in man—they etched that Divine Right in stone. The usurpers of the sovereignty of the American people don't care about any of that. Their sacrilege against the one true Deity knows no bounds.An explicit Bill of God-Given Rights incorporated into the Constitution would make clear to those who serve in Government that what the Divine Creator gave to man, no artificial Government construct can lawfully take from man. For any attempt to do so would be an assault not only on the dignity and autonomy of man but a mortal sin against the will of the Divine Creator, not that the usurpers wouldn’t attempt, or, for that matter, haven’t already attempted to do so.THEY WILL GO AFTER AMERICANS’ FIREARMS AS THEY MUST BECAUSE AN ARMED CITIZENRY CONSTITUTES AN IMMEDIATE AND DIRE THREAT TO THE EXECUTION AND COMPLETION OF THEIR GOAL: THE IMPOSITION OF TYRANNY.The usurpers know that wresting firearms from Americans would be a far more difficult proposition than constraining the right of free speech and association, which they have been doing with relative ease, and abrogating the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, which they have already accomplished.Actions of the Biden-Harris Administration and of the Pelosi-Schumer Congress are a conscious, unmitigated assault on the Constitution, on the Nation, and on its people. Together these actions constitute the imposition of tyranny on the American people. 

BUT——DO THESE DELIBERATE ACTS, SINGLY OR COLLECTIVELY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF TREASON AS THE WORD ‘TREASON’ IS DEFINED IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND IN FEDERAL STATUTE?

Does the import of the Treason clause the founders wrote into the Constitution extend to the imposition of tyranny on the people? If so, then tyranny amounts to levying war against the people. This means that the levying of war against the people is no less an act of betrayal, i.e. no less an act of treachery against the people, and, therefore, no less treason committed by the Government upon its own people, than is an unlawful levying of war by the people against Government.But this idea that those individuals serving in Government can, through their actions, commit treason against a people is a novel concept. For the treason laws of all other Nations do not admit of a Government action that can constitute a betrayal of the people. But, then, no other nation on Earth has adopted a Bill of Rights that at once establishes fundamental rights that exist intrinsically in the people; a Bill of Rights that serves as both a categorical declaration and an urgent reminder to those that serve in the Government that Government exists solely to serve the people. This means that the People are the Master, and Government is the Servant. It also means that the People are the sole Sovereign of and over the Nation and thence manifestly Sovereign over the Government and Government is manifestly subservient to the people.Taking these propositions as axiomatic, i.e., self-evident, true, this means that, as a matter of both law and logic, Government itself, through its actions that harm the people——harms that rise to the level of betrayal of a sacred trust binding Government to service to the people for all time——are an UNFORGIVABLE TREASON AGAINST THE PEOPLE. And, the people, for their part, have the lawful right and the lawful duty, under the Treason Clause of the U.S. Constitution, to bring those who betray them, to account for their crimes against them.This notion of “TREASON AS TYRANNY OF GOVERNMENT DIRECTED AGAINST ITS OWN PEOPLE” is a thesis that demands further attention and explication.In the next several articles, we explore this idea of deliberate imposition of tyranny by High Officials of the Federal Government against the people, as implicating the Treason Clause of the U.S. Constitution.____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

DO GOVERNMENT POLICIES AIMED AT WEAKENING THE SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES AND DISARMING THE CITIZENRY RISE TO THE LEVEL OF “TREASON?”

MULTI-SERIES ON THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

PART THREE

As we stated in our first article posted on Ammoland, “Does the Biden Administration’s Assault on the Second Amendment Amount to TREASON,” one must be circumspect in application of a TREASON hypothesis. For, if we are careless in our understanding of the import of it, we risk diluting its significance, mistakenly attaching the duo labels of ‘TREASON’ and ‘TRAITOR’ to those who never warranted it but happened nonetheless to be branded with it and then crucified for it.And we know whereof we speak: Recall the branding of “TRAITOR” to our 45^th President, Donald Trump, and recall the crucifying of him and those closest to him: Those individuals who assisted him in his run for U.S. Presidency; Cabinet-level Officers; close friends and associates; even members of his own immediate family. All of them have been incessantly, rapaciously, relentlessly, viciously attacked and hounded because of service to, or mere association with, the purported traitor, Donald Trump.Trump was called a TRAITOR because of his alleged collusion with Russia—false as it turned out; a complete fabrication, and a pretext to get him out of Office; a well-orchestrated sham for his impeachment. The Neo-Marxist Democrats spent our precious tax dollars to launch an extensive investigation of Trump in launching and conducting it, hoping to find evidence of it; but found nothing, nothing at all for their trouble. A backup plan to destroy the Trump Presidency was then initiated as a pretext to impeach Trump, grounded on the flimsiest of notions: a telephone call to the President of Ukraine. Trump’s call to Volodymyr Zelensky was perfectly lawful, but it was nonetheless blown up to monstrous proportions by the legacy Press in league with the Neo-Marxist Democrats, led by the notorious, power-mad Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. But that time-consuming, wasteful, taxpayer-funded enterprise, too, fell flat.But what was Donald Trump’s worst “crime” for which he was presumed by the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and mega-billionaire Neoliberal Globalists to be a traitor—calling him an autocrat and a threat to democracy and constantly blaring out that he damaged democracy? It was this: support for the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Heritage Society, on September 9, 2020, reproducing an article by the Federalist Society, said this about Trump’s record on the Second Amendment after four years in Office:“In his most recent State of the Union address President Donald Trump promised the American people, “So long as I am President, I will always protect your Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms.” This was certainly a welcome statement from any elected official, particularly from the nation’s chief executive during a time of unprecedented attacks on the Second Amendment by many local, state, and federal lawmakers.But how has the President’s first term stacked up against his grand promise? When we step back from the hype and honestly assess Trump’s performance with respect to the Second Amendment, what do we actually find? Fortunately, when we take a hard look at the bad and the good in three important categories—the President’s rhetoric, policy, and judicial nominations—it is evident that Trump has gotten the Second Amendment right more often than he has gotten it wrong.Actions speak louder than words, particularly when it comes to national policy. But words, especially when they come from a President, are important. A President’s policy agenda often carries great weight with Congress, signaling to federal lawmakers what types of bills they might pursue without risk of a Presidential veto. President Trump’s Second Amendment rhetoric has occasionally been lacking. Yet more often than not, and principally when it has been most important, the President has said the right things.As with Trump’s rhetoric, most of his administration’s policy efforts have been consistent with his promise to protect the right to keep and bear arms.Early in his first term, federal agencies reversed course on several Obama-era policies that would have jeopardized Americans’ Second Amendment rights. For example, under the Trump Administration, the State Department settled a previous Obama Administration lawsuit with Defense Distributed and permitted that organization to publish its blueprints for 3D-printed guns online. This was a win for both the First and Second Amendments. Americans clearly have a right to discuss and disseminate information about how to conduct lawful activities—including how to smith a firearm for personal use.Similarly, the Trump Administration rescinded (before it could go into effect) an Obama-era regulation that would have effectively stripped the Second Amendment rights of any person who checked a particular box on a form submitted to the Social Security Administration. Normally, before the government can prohibit a person from keeping and bearing arms, it must first prove at some sort of hearing or trial that the person is a criminal, seriously mentally ill, or otherwise poses a serious danger to the community. The new Obama rule, however, would have summarily declared tens of thousands of Americans ineligible to exercise a constitutional right without first providing them any semblance of due process.In March 2018, the President signed into law the Fix NICS Act, an effort to strengthen enforcement of existing federal gun laws without expanding them or imposing new restrictions on law-abiding citizens. The federal background check system has long suffered from the failures of states and federal agencies to submit the criminal and mental health records of individuals disqualified from gun ownership. The Act increased federal oversight over federal agencies responsible for submitting records, increased funding to assist states in reporting disqualifying records, and prioritized funding for those states that established plans for increased reporting.Most recently, the Trump Administration lived up to its Second Amendment promise by fighting back against state closures of gun stores, shooting ranges, and government permitting offices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Several states and counties ordered these places shut down or refused to exempt them as “essential businesses.” In some places, this meant that residents who did not already own guns were de facto prohibited from exercising their constitutional rights for the duration of the epidemic.While the federal government could not override state definitions of “essential business,” the Trump Administration issued federal guidelines that deemed gun stores and gun ranges, as well as firearms and ammunitions manufacturers, as “critical components of the nation’s workforce.” The guidelines recommended that states allow those businesses to continue operating during the pandemic.Officially, this federal guidance applied only to the enforcement of federal laws or regulations. Nonetheless, it helped strengthen legal challenges to state closures and suggested that the federal government might intervene in such lawsuits on behalf of gun owners. As a result, several jurisdictions—including New Jersey and Los Angeles County—walked back their original orders to close gun stores.Despite all of these actions, President Trump’s first term saw one clear Second Amendment policy failure. Under his administration, the ATF arbitrarily reinterpreted the federal definition of “machine gun” to include bump stocks, banning their civilian possession and requiring owners to turn in these devices. It did so even though bump stocks do not modify the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, and the agency has no authority to change the meaning of federal law.Regardless of one’s perspective on the desirability, constitutionality, or practical effectiveness of banning the civilian possession of bump stocks, the way in which the ATF went about doing so is troubling. When a largely unaccountable federal agency feels empowered to effectively rewrite statutes in order to create new gun control laws, it poses a danger to the entire Constitution, including the Second Amendment.Thus far, the President’s most enduring legacy with respect to the Second Amendment will likely be his federal judicial nominees, who are primed to stand as a bulwark against future attempts by lawmakers to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. While not all of these nominees have had the opportunity to rule on Second Amendment cases, several high-profile picks have shown they are willing to come to the Amendment’s defense. Most importantly, by nominating judges who properly understand the role of the judiciary—to say what the law is, and not what they wish it to be—Trump has helped decrease the risk that federal judges will undermine the right to keep and bear arms based on their own policy preferences.Many Second Amendment advocates were disappointed when the Supreme Court this term continued its decade-long refusal to take up a meaningful challenge to restrictive gun control laws. The Supreme Court’s reluctance to do its duty with respect to the Second Amendment has been despite—not because of—Trump’s two nominees to the nation’s highest bench. Both Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh have signed on to dissents from denials of certiorari in important Second Amendment cases, expressing their disappointment that the Court has so long declined to adequately protect this right from clear infringement. Moreover, in one of these dissents from denial, Justice Gorsuch did not refrain from attacking the Trump Administration itself over its agency-propagated bump stock ban.The President’s two Supreme Court picks are far from his only judicial nominees to prove themselves stalwarts of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Several of Trump’s lower court picks have made waves for their staunch defenses of the right to keep and bear arms.For example, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a strong dissent in a case where two of her colleagues voted to uphold a Wisconsin law imposing a lifetime ban on gun ownership for non-violent felons. The plaintiff in the case was hardly a violent menace. He had been convicted of a single count of federal mail fraud after submitting sham requests for Medicare to reimburse non-compliant shoe inserts. Nevertheless, under the interaction of federal and Wisconsin law, this rendered the plaintiff ineligible to ever again exercise his Second Amendment rights.Judge Barrett analyzed the case through an originalist lens, noting that “Founding-era legislatures did not strip felons of the right to keep and bear arms simply because of their status as felons . . . but only when they judged that doing so was necessary to protect the public safety.”Similarly, Judge Stephanos Bibas of the Third Circuit wrote a scathing dissent when the other two judges on his panel upheld New Jersey’s ban on so-called “high-capacity magazines” as “reasonably fit[ting] the State’s interest in promoting public safety.” Judge Bibas excoriated the majority for failing to take the Second Amendment and Supreme Court precedent seriously. He reminded them that their job as judges is not to “water [the Second Amendment] down and balance it away based on our own sense of wise policy.” Rather, “the Framers made that choice for us. We must treat the Second Amendment the same as the rest of the Bill of Rights.”Finally, four Trump-nominated Fifth Circuit judges—James Ho, Don Willett, Kyle Duncan, and Kurt Engelhardt—joined together in a notable opinion dissenting from the Circuit’s denial of a request to rehear an important Second Amendment case before all of the Circuit judges. This case involved the federal prohibition on interstate handgun sales, requiring all handgun sales to out-of-state buyers first be transferred to an in-state dealer.As the dissenting judges noted, this law effectively imposes an additional waiting period and tax on certain handgun buyers, without really furthering a compelling government interest. Moreover, as they wrote, the Government “turns the Second Amendment on its head” by arguing that “to protect against the violations of the few, we must burden the constitutional rights of the many.” Importantly, “[o]ur Founders crafted a Constitution to promote the liberty of the individual, not the convenience of the Government.”In his first term, President Trump largely lived up to his promise to protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights. There have been a few missteps along the way, but on the whole, the Trump Administration has kept its word when it comes to our right to keep and bear arms.”You can read the entire article, a commentary on firearms, titled, “Second Amendment Grade for President Trump So Far,” by Amy Swearer, Legal Fellow at the Messe Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, at the Heritage Foundation website. But the words, “So Far,” in the above commentary on Trump’s Presidency must, unfortunately, read, “At the End Of” Trump’s Presidency. There would be no Second Term in Office. The unlawful machinations of Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Mega-Billionaire Neoliberal Globalists would see to that.Trump is now out-of-office. And it matters little at this point whether the failure to secure losing a Second Term was due to a fair and disappointing election outcome, or chicanery of the highest order, even as the latter inference is the sound one to draw from the evidence.Now, as Trump’s legacy is being shredded by the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, Americans face a more pressing and vexing problem: protecting the U.S. Constitution from being shredded and preserving a free Republic that is being systematically dismantled.Americans now have a National embarrassment in the Oval Office: a corrupt, placid, flaccid, and senile shell of a man, Joseph Biden.Economically, Militarily, Geopolitically, Constitutionally, Culturally—this Country faces disasters on multiple fronts. There are three possible albeit mutually exclusive explanations for this. Americans must infer that this sad situation is due to:ONE, A SET OF UNFORTUNATE, PUZZLING CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO CONDITIONS NO ONE COULD REASONABLY FORESEE, THAT PROPER ALLOWANCES AND CONTINGENCY PLANS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE APROPOS OF POLICY POLICIES EXECUTED; OR TOTWO, A CASCADING SERIES OF MISSTEPS TO BE ATTRIBUTED TO DELIBERATE INEPT AND INCOMPETENT POLICY CHOICES THAT BIDEN’S POLICY PLANNERS CONCEIVED, FORMULATED, AND EXECUTED, EVEN IF THE RESULTS OF THESE POLICY CHOICES WERE UNANTICIPATED AND UNWANTED; OR TOTHREE, A CAREFULLY DESIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED SET OF POLICY CHOICES, THE OUTCOMES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED, MODELLED, ANTICIPATED, HOPED FOR: THE DESTRUCTION OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, OF A POWERFUL INDEPENDENT NATION-STATE, AND OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.Any one of these three explanatory scenarios mark the impending doom of the United States engulfing, convulsing, and ripping the Nation apart, and that of the rest of the world. But, only the third explanation bespeaks possible TREASON. That explanation also seems the most plausible to us and, as well, the most disturbing for what it entails: the INTENTION TO PROMOTE OR CAUSE A SPECIFIC OUTCOME.Americans are witness to it all: a meticulously contrived, calculated, calibrated, and executed series of scenes and acts unfolding as if from a monstrous Shakespearian Play, played out on the Nation and the world as STAGE.Be this play comedy or tragedy depends on one’s perspective. But it is a play meticulously preplanned and prearranged; carefully rehearsed and choreographed and assiduously implemented in sequential order.It began with a flurry of executive orders and actions designed to unravel the stability Trump had brought both to and for our Nation and its people, and, by extension, to and for the rest of the world. And it is proceeding apace through deliberate, brazen, scurrilous evasion of and de facto abrogation of our Constitution and federal law.Trump had redressed a multitude of disasters deliberately inflicted on our Country by Bush and Obama. Such disasters were to continue under Clinton, consistent with the orders of a cabal of shadowy puppet masters. For nothing happens but for the “say so” of these puppet masters, whom Trump refused to answer to and obsequiously obey. And so, they had to push him out of the way. And with a last “Hail Mary Pass” they banked it all on the 2020 U.S. Presidential election. With a dementia plagued President Joe Biden and the insufferable Kamala Harris safely ensconced in the Executive Branch of Government, all the wrongs of Bush and Obama that Trump had redressed, and all the safeguards Trump had instituted to protect the Nation and its people, were thenceforth cast aside.Once again, Americans witness a Nation and world returning to a state of volatility and chaos, and all of it deliberately created, deliberately ordained.The goal of this elaborate, extravagant, carefully orchestrated policy agenda now unfolding in the Nation, is to dismantle the underpinnings of the most powerful, successful, and prosperous Nation on Earth.This involves:

• DISSOLVING THE CAREFULLY CONSTRUCTED DEMARCATION OF POWERS AND AUTHORITY EXISTENT BETWEEN THE THREE BRANCHES;

• UNDERCUTTING THE DOCTRINE OF FEDERALISM THAT HAS TO THIS POINT OPERATED EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY TO CARVE OUT AND DELINEATE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S AUTHORITY AND THAT OF THE STATES; AND,

• UNDERMINING THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IN WHOM RESTS ULTIMATE SOVEREIGNTY OVER GOVERNMENT, BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE, AS GOVERNMENT OF ANY KIND IS ULTIMATELY AND ANSWERABLE TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY.

As for the last,the attack on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as the final fail-safe mechanism to prevent tyranny is the most disturbing and alarming. For only by force of arms can the American people truthfully be able to successfully repel attempts to dismantle a free Republic and thrust America into a new Governmental construct: a transnational world order scheme that does not merely diminish the citizen’s sacrosanct and inviolate right of selfhood and personal autonomy but destroys that supreme unalienable Right.Through usurpation of the sovereign authority of the American people over Government and through the destruction of the United States as a free Constitutional Republic, preeminent military and economic world power, and predominant stabilizing influence in the world, a tornado is spawned. That tornado is destined to wipe away the fabric of western civilization—the Nation-State. In its place, comes the inchoate inkling of an “INTERNATIONAL WORLD ORDER,”—a harbinger of pain, misery, penury, and grief to the Nation and the rest of the world.Powerful functionaries of Government both here and abroad have intimated this new world order for some time.The late U.S. Senator John McCain mentioned this back in 2017 (see article in the Independent Sentinel) and that illustrious statesman and regular Bilderberg Group attendee, Henry Kissinger worked tirelessly for its creation, even writing a book about it. That book comes with the hardly inscrutable and singularly uninspiring if, for some, wistful title, “World Order,” published, on September 9, 2014, during Barack Obama’s reign.After defeating Trump, by chicanery on a massive scale, these same forces that crushed Trump, now focus attention on one-third to one-half or more of the American population that continues to support the “MAKE AMERICA GREAT” agenda.In the end, it was always the American people, who, all along, were the true target of the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and the mega-billionaire Neoliberal Globalists. Trump merely represented the wishes and desires of Americans who saw their Nation stolen from them. Most Americans saw their sacred rights shredded: the right of free speech; the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures of their property by the Government; freedom from unlawful detention; and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, necessary to secure their freedom from tyranny and maintain their sovereignty over Government.Most Americans sought to set the Nation’s course back toward the direction set by the founders of the Republic. We have diverged so far from the founders’ vision for us.Under the Harris-Biden Administration, Americans have inexorably moved away from the vision of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, grounded on the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism, and back toward the vision of the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists who envision a world grounded on the precepts, tenets, and principles of Collectivism. Collectivism in such Countries as China, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and those under the domination of Brussels, and in the Commonwealth Countries are in store for Americans.Through an orchestrated program of DEFLECTION, DISTRACTION, DIVERSION, and DIVAGATION, the Nation’s OBSTRUCTORS and DESTRUCTORS who control the legacy Press and social media draw the public’s attention away from Federal Government policies designed to dismantle the Republic in clear violation of and defiance to the U.S. Constitution and to Federal Statute and channel the public’s reasonable, rational concern to the Nation’s DISSENTERS—those Americans who seek to preserve the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic—treating true PATRIOTS as improbable TRAITORS and possible TRAITORS as improbable PATRIOTS. And this topsy-turvy elaborate propaganda campaign reflects the FOUNDERS gravest concerns, their most deep-seated fears.Under the Harris-Biden Administration and Neo-Marxist-led Congress, Americans are witnessing the entire collapse of a free Constitutional Republic, brought about NOT by mere ineptitude and incompetence, awful as those failings are, but by cold, calculated, callous, caustic, and cruel design which is even more disturbing.The American public must hold high officials of the Harris-Biden Administration to account. And this must include Joe Biden himself, along with his secret handlers of whom the American public is not presently privy.Biden claims to take responsibility for debacles plaguing his regime, but does not. His words are obviously contrived; meaningless scripted utterances; ridiculous clichés. His addresses to the Nation, few as they are, fool no one.High-placed functionaries in Biden’s regime routinely blatantly lie to the public. They exude empty apologies when caught; and further seeming blunders are on the way. They always arise, concomitant with policies meant NOT to provide for the public welfare, the public good, but to bring about the demise of the Republic; to usher in the rise of a new international order; one sans independent, sovereign nation-states. And so, the Administration continues along its merry way.Biden and the policymakers and policy deciders DID what they intended TO DO. The nature of events that unfold are the consequence of options considered; the result of policy decisions made.Even if, sometimes, consequences of poor decisions backfire on them, like the drone attack that destroyed the lives of an innocent man and innocent children in Afghanistan—even as results seem unintentional to some—many other horrific events ARE intentional, the direct result of cold, callous planning, and cannot be reasonably denied. And they cannot be reasonably explained away.Consider the recurrence of COVID and other dangerous infectious diseases on the horizon in our Country this Fall. This is due to the Administration’s deliberate release of hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens into a Country, unvetted and unexamined by medical personnel.The Harris-Biden Administration has thrust a dagger into the heart of our Country. Many of the illegal aliens have COVID or other noxious, disgusting diseases. Others belong to murderous international criminal cartels. The Administration has invited all this horror upon us. It wants this. That is plain.The Administration evidently wants instability—social, economic, and health-related upheaval and unrest to occur in the Country. If that isn’t the case, then why deliberately weaken the security of the Nation by opening the geographical borders of the Country? See articles in NY Post article;  National Review; Border Report; and Geller Report.Americans will likely see in the coming weeks and months ahead, horrible diseases coursing through the Nation, along with continued social unrest and terrorist attacks against the citizenry. And there will be no respite from this. Americans will see an onslaught of hundreds of thousands more illegal aliens and purported “refugees” flowing into and throughout the Country before the end of the year, bringing with them the plague, crime, and terror attacks.Do Governmental policy decisions to date support a legal finding of TREASON by Biden and those serving in the Administration? To answer this question it is necessary to understand the law of TREASON—TREASON IN THE LEGAL SENSE, NOT MERELY IN A COMMON OR RHETORICAL OR THEATRICAL SENSE.It is only through a keen understanding of the law of TREASON, that one can establish the elements of treason, applying those elements to the actions of Biden and others, and therefrom know whether those actions amount to TREASON. If so, the American people have a sound and solid basis to bring Biden and others to account for their Treason against the Nation, against its Constitution, and against its people.Through all that we do in our articles on Treason, please etch in your mind the definition for it as set forth in the U.S. Constitution.Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1 “Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. And, “18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason,” “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”In the next article we undertake an examination of the elements of treason in the U.S. so that we can apply those elements to the actions of Biden and others in his Administration.Our end goal is to ascertain whether specific policy choices of Biden and others amount to treason, namely, those policies directed to——

• STABILITY BY FOMENTING DISSENSION AMONG THE AMERICAN PEOPLE; AND,

• INDOCTRINATING AMERICA’S CHILDREN, INTRODUCING MILLIONS OF UNASSIMILABLE ILLEGAL ALIENS INTO THE COUNTRY ALONG WITH MURDEROUS INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL CARTELS AND INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS, AMONG OTHER THINGS; AND,

• SUBJECTING THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY TO UNLAWFUL HARASSMENT; AND,

• TREATING LAW-ABIDING AMERICANS AS “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS” THROUGH DISTORTION OF LAWS DESIGNED TO COMBAT “INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS,” AND OTHER “INTERNATIONAL TERRORIST” GROUPS; AND,

• ERODING THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE AND THE DOCTRINE OF FEDERALISM; AND,

• DISARMING THE AMERICAN CITIZENRY, LEAVING THEM DEFENSELESS AGAINST INCREASING CRIMINAL PREDATION, AND THREATEN THE CITIZENRY’S SOVEREIGNTY OVER GOVERNMENT.

The question is whether any one or more of these policies directed against the Nation, its Constitution, and its people, amount to “levying war against them” and/or encompass “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” We shall see.____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DEVELOPING A DOCTRINE OF TREASON IN AMERICA

MULTI-SERIES ON THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

PART TWO

As we maintained in our first article posted on Ammoland, “Does the Biden Administration’s Assault on the Second Amendment Amount to Treason,” one should be circumspect in the application of ‘TREASON’—this so there is no mistake in our understanding of the import of it, lest we dilute its significance—attaching the dire duo labels of ‘TREASON’ and ‘TRAITOR’ to those who never warranted it, but happened nonetheless to be branded with it, and crucified for it.And we know whereof we speak: Donald Trump, and those closest to him, those who assisted him in his run for the U.S. Presidency, including Cabinet-level Officers; close friends and associates; even members of his own family have branded and crucified the 45^th U.S. President and those connected closely to him. And now with Trump out-of-office—whether the loss of a Second Term was due to a fair and disappointing election outcome, or chicanery of the highest order, those who replaced Donald Trump with a National embarrassment, in the form of a corrupt, placid, flaccid, and senile shell of a man, one, Joseph Biden, must continue with the charade.The forces that crush a Nation and its people into submission now focus their attention on one-third of the population that supported the “MAKE AMERICA GREAT” agenda that sought to reset the Nation’s course back toward the vision of the founders of the Republic.Through an orchestrated program of DEFLECTION, DISTRACTION, DIVERSION, and DIVAGATION, the Nation’s OBSTRUCTORS and DESTRUCTORS who control the legacy Press and social media draw the public’s attention away from Federal Government policies designed to dismantle the Republic in clear violation of and defiance to the U.S. Constitution and to Federal Statute and channel the public’s reasonable, rational concern to the Nation’s DISSENTERS—those Americans who seek to preserve the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic—treating true PATRIOTS as improbable TRAITORS and treating possible TRAITORS as improbable PATRIOTS. And this topsy-turvy elaborate propaganda campaign reflects the FOUNDERS gravest concerns, their most deep-seated fears.The Founders realized, over two hundred years ago that THE BEAST in MAN, such as it is, never changes, and that BEAST would eventually, inevitably bring out THE WORST in MAN. The Founders were deeply concerned that appellations of ‘TREASON,’ ‘TRAITOR,’ ‘BETRAYER,’ and ‘JUDAS’ would be misapplied not to true ENEMIES of the Nation, but to its veritable PATRIOTS, the Nation’s PROTECTORS. The Founders were well aware that unscrupulous, scurrilous, craven, usurpers of the sovereign authority of the American people would damage and disparage and bring to utter ruin the lives and character of innocent people, and do for any of multiple reasons: anger and rage; spite and jealousy, or even for no other reason than political expediency or perceived political exigency.“English treason law influenced America's founding fathers as they crafted the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, America's founders wished to develop a treason doctrine that—unlike English treason doctrine—could not be used to suppress political adversaries.” United States v. Hodges: Developments of Treason and the Role of the Jury, 97 Denver L. Rev. 117, by Jennifer Elisa Chapman, Jennifer Elisa Chapman, Ryan H. Easley Research Fellow, University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law.

THE STUDY OF TREASON IS THE STUDY OF HISTORY

“The study of treason is really the study of history. No other constitutional provision is as deeply rooted in English history as the Treason Clause. William Blackstone wrote that treason ‘imports a betraying, treachery, or breach of faith.’ Treason Blackstone further noted that treason against the sovereign—termed ‘high treason’—amounts to the ‘highest civil crime.’  Due to the gravity of the offense, the crime of treason must therefore be precisely ascertained. ‘For if the crime of high treason be indeterminate, this alone . . . is sufficient to make the Government degenerate into arbitrary power.’“Treason is the highest crime known to law. It is more serious than even murder: the murderer violates a single person or at most only a few, whereas treason cuts at the welfare and safety of all members of society. And the punishment for treason has always underscored the gravity of the offense.“The delegates to the Constitutional Convention faced a significant dilemma when they met to frame a new system of government. On one hand, the new republic would not last if the government could not demand the loyalty of its citizens; on the other hand, history had shown that broad treason laws led to the suppression of political opposition and free speech. English experience had also shown that leaving the definition of treason to judges left the law open to abuse through ‘constructive treason.’ The Framers therefore took upon themselves the difficult task of fashioning a law that would protect the newly formed government from disloyalty and betrayal, while simultaneously preserving the right of political dissent.” State Treason: The History and Validity of Treason Against Individual States,” 101 Ky. L.J. 281, 2012/2013, by J. Taylor McConkie, Brigham Young University, B.A.; Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. Trial Attorney, United States Department of Justice, Civil Division.The Founders were deeply concerned about the misuse of treason by a rogue Government that would use “TREASON” for unlawful, nefarious purposes.“The Framers’ intent for including the Treason Clause within the Constitution was to immortalize the definition thus preventing a rogue legislature from creating what James Madison called ‘newfangled and artificial’ treasons These judge-made expansions of the common law definition of treason more commonly called ‘constructive treasons were made in order to cover conduct that had never before been known as treasonous. This was a common practice in England and is what prompted the passage of the Statute of Edward III in order to control the definition of treason by the legislature instead of the courts. “Another major concern was that the state could use an undefined definition of treason to punish political dissidents or people who opposed the sovereign’s policies. Based on the freedom of speech and freedom of peaceful political expression, later memorialized in the First Amendment, it was important to limit the definition of treason to only levying war and adhering to enemies of the United States by providing aid and comfort to them.’” “The Revival Of Treason: Why Homegrown Terrorists Should Be Tried As Traitors, 4 Nat'l Sec. L.J. 311, Spring/ Summer, 2016, by Jameson A. Goodell, George Mason University School of Law, Juris Doctor Candidate, May 2017; Virginia Military Institute, B.A., International Studies & Arabic Language and Culture, 2014.It is the purpose of these Arbalest Quarrel articles on the subject of “TREASON” to lay all this out for the reader.For, if there be TREASON in our midst, we must recognize the legal contours and parameters of it in the manner the founders of our Republic intended for it to be used, as elucidated further in case law. Thus, before we apply it, we must be reasonably sure of our case against those we deem to have committed it. And, once assured of the efficacy of our case, proceed forward aggressively forward, to bring those charged with treason to account for their treacherous actions against the Nation and its people.Let us be clear. It is not enough to say, for example, that such individuals in Government that have committed treason should simply resign from their posts or should, if they refuse to resign, then be fired.Several media pundits deplore the actions of Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken; Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin; White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan; General Mark A. Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; General Kenneth F. McKenzie, Director of Strategic Plans and Policy on the Joint Staff. And, these media pundits have voiced, vociferously, their anger over the manner in which these individuals handled the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan—a complete debacle. Biden, for his part, not unsurprisingly, stated his support for General Milley and others. Some media pundits in the last couple of days, on Fox News, at least, have even made reference to “treason.” See, e.g., a recent episode on Tucker Carlson. But that is as far as any of the media pundits have, to date, gone and that is, apparently, as far as any of them are will to go. None of them has suggested impeachment of any of Biden's people except, perhaps, in a couple of instances pertaining to Biden, himself, and, even so, no one in the Fox Press Corps, or in any other media organization, that we are aware of, has suggested that Biden himself should be impeached specifically for the crime of “Treason.” And, we can appreciate the circumspection of the Press on that score. For unless a person can articulate the legal basis for impeachment on a charge of treason of Biden, or of impeachment or General Court Martial on a charge of treason of any one else in Biden's Administration, it behooves a person to be very mindful of and careful of what he or she is asserting. Nonetheless, what has taken place in Afghanistan under Biden’s watch, and the many devastating, deadly, horrific repercussions from that debacle which are just beginning to play out in Afghanistan and here in the U.S. and that are having a ripple effect around the globe, cannot be simply wallpapered over through mere resignations or firings of Biden officials even if Biden were to do so.Our adversaries in China, Russia, and Iran as well as our allies have taken due notice of the extent to which this weak-willed, corrupt, compromised, physically ill, and mentally debilitated “U.S. President” has given up all pretense of ability to lead a great Nation. Joe Biden has shown that he has no authority—bullied and pushed this way and that, this Country is going Hell in a Handbasket and taking the rest of the world down with it. In fact, the ineptitude and incompetence of Joe Biden and his Administration—from the instant Biden took Office up to the present moment in time—is so acute and so extensive, that one must wonder if the policy decisions made by Biden or by a secret cabal, operating behind the scenes, can simply be chalked up to a cascading series of unfortunate missteps, a set of deeply unfortunate circumstances and puzzling misadventures that the Harris-Biden Administration could not have reasonably made proper allowances for or contingency plans for because the events that unfolded simply could not have been reasonably foreseen, even as flagrant as those missteps seem to be and even as one remains deeply puzzled that Joe Biden is seen complimenting his advisors for doing a great job. Is he kidding?Anyway, that is one explanation one might conjure up for the disasters confronting our Nation on multiple fronts—disasters that are affecting many countries and that will eventually engulf the entire world. But there is another explanation. It is this:Americans are witnessing precisely what was meant to happen, is meant to happen, a meticulously contrived, calculated, calibrated, and executed series of scenes and acts of a monstrous Shakespearian Play. Be it comedy or tragedy depends on one’s perspective. But it is all preplanned, and prearranged, carried out sequentially, having commenced with a flurry of executive orders and actions designed to unravel the order and stability Trump had brought for our Nation, and, by extension, this order and stability that Trump had brought for the world.The goal of this elaborate, extravagant, carefully choreographed performance that is now unfolding under the auspices of the Harris-Biden Administration is meant to undermine the most powerful, successful, and prosperous Nation on Earth. And with the destruction of the United States as a preeminent world power and stable influence for the world, a whirlwind would materialize to destabilize the entire world and thereby pave the way for a new “INTERNATIONAL WORLD ORDER” that powerful functionaries here and around the world are intimating; a new world order that the late U.S. Senator John McCain happened to mention (see article in the Independent Sentinel, published March 26, 2017) and that the illustrious statesman and regular Bilderberg Group attendee, Henry Kissinger worked tirelessly for and wrote a book about, with the hardly inscrutable and singularly uninspiring if, for some, wistful title, “World Order,” published, on September 9, 2014, during Barack Obama’s reign.We, at the Arbalest Quarrel, are going under the assumption that, whether by sheer ineptitude and incompetence or cold, calculated, callous, caustic, and cruel design, high officials of the Harris-Biden Administration—and this must include Joe Biden himself, and any and all secret handlers that the American public is not privy to if such there be that had a hand in this, and we look at one example here, a real “cluster f**k” that transpired at Kabul airport involving the drawdown of American troops in Afghanistan and the deaths of Americans during that drawdown—DID DO what they intended TO DO even if the consequences of their actions were not what they had in mind, can those policy decisions support a legal finding of TREASON of any one or all of them. And we will look at other policy decisions and the execution of those decisions as well.Through all that we do in the articles to follow, we ask that you etch in your mind the following, for we will be constantly coming back to it:Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. And, “18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason,”“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”The third part of our series on treason follows forthwith.____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

DOES THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION'S ASSAULT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT AMOUNT TO TREASON?

MULTI-SERIES ON THE ISSUE OF POSSIBLE TREASON AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT

PART ONE

THE MEANING OF 'TREASON'

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” ~Attributed to Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.) Roman Statesman, Philosopher and Orator, in a speech he gave to the Roman Senate in 58 BC as ‘Recorded by Sallust’ in the fictional novel 'A Pillar of Iron,’ by Taylor Caldwell (1983), ch. 5. ~The quotation bears resemblance to Cicero's Second Oration in the Cataline war (circa 40 b.c.) Under Biden’s reign, Americans are slowly losing their fundamental rights and liberties. They have already lost any vestige of a fundamental right of privacy as protected under the Unreasonable Searches and Seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment. And the Right of free speech under the First Amendment is, as well, under tremendous assault today.And let us not forget the assault on the right of the people to keep and bear arms as codified in the Second Amendment. For without the citizenry's exercise of the fundamental Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, the exercise of all other Rights is tenuous at best or becomes altogether illusory, leading inevitably, inexorably to subjugation.Americans already see that Biden, and his fellow Progressive and Neo-Marxist Democrats in Congress, and legions of unelected bureaucrats of the Administrative Deep State have made substantial inroads curtailing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But the question is: Do these assaults on sacred Rights truly rise to the level of treason, well beyond the federal crimes of sedition, insurrection, and rebellion, awful as they are?How can the public know? And, if treason does exist, and if the polity shows Republicans in Congress that Biden and/or several of his senior advisors have committed treason, how can Americans persuade their Representatives in the House and their Senators in the U.S. Senate to hold those high-level elected officials and high level unelected military people accountable beyond merely requesting they simply and humbly resign, as some have averred.How can Americans make a cogent argument to legislators so that they will undertake or at least attempt to undertake impeachment of Biden and/or his senior advisors? And for senior officers in the military, how can the public urge that these military advisors be subject to a General Court Martial.The words, ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ are often cavalierly bandied about. The American public has heard it all before, many times, mostly directed to Donald Trump and, by association, directed to all Americans who voted for him or who supported and who continue to support his “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN” agenda.Few people in American history, though, have been charged with “treason” against the United States; fewer still have ever been convicted of it. And no one has been executed for it.* That fact underscores the deadly seriousness of the import of the words despite the oft offhanded use of them, and says much of the true and dire purpose of and hidden motives of those forces that have used the word, ‘treason,’ incessantly against Trump. And many are those who leveled the charge of treason against the 45^th President, Donald Trump. Upon taking the Oath of Office, well-placed operators in the Department of Justice and FBI and in the military and in the intelligence apparatuses of Government, and in Congress, in academia and in the media, and even some individuals closest to Trump in his own Administration went immediately to work to undermine and sabotage and destroy his Presidency from its very inception to the final days. See, e.g., New York Times article.  and an article in The Atlantic.Government, academia, the Press, social media, all operated, in concert—components of an extraordinarily elaborate, well-organized, well-executed series of false flag operations—all designed to bring about Trump’s downfall.And, considering the extent to which these operators plotted to bring about Trump’s downfall, one is led to conclude either that Trump did indeed pose the greatest internal threat ever to befall our Nation, or, like Horatius at the Bridge, protected our Nation, standing alone against the hordes both within the Government and outside it who themselves truly pose the greatest and gravest threat ever to befall our free Constitutional Republic.Calling a person a “traitor” serves as a handy propagandist tool and it is one that is employed for the emotional reaction it is expected to elicit in the American public for the purpose of creating animus toward a person, but often, as well, as a distraction to direct public attention to the innocent person and thereby draw attention away from the real “traitor.”“The crime of treason carries an emotional response unlike any other. Its severity is second to none because one who commits treason aims to support the enemies his government, betray his own nation, and wage war against his own people. Infamous traitors such as Benedict Arnold conjure a near-unanimous feeling of disdain and anger amongst Americans, while others like John Brown do not so easily create the same uniform negative perception. Such is the nature of treason: those convicted of betraying their nation receive the designation of ‘traitor,’ arguably the most severe, polarizing, and stigmatic title law can provide, which may partially explain why the last case of treason occurred in 1952.” ~ from the law review article, “Treason In The Age Of Terrorism: Do Americans Who Join Isis ‘Levy War’ Against The United States?” 9 Am. U. Nat'l Sec. L. Brief 155 (2019) by Stephen Jackson, J.D., Senior Policy Analyst with SAIC.But, when do the words ‘traitor’ and ‘treason’ merely function as expletives and when do they function as true descriptors, indicative of the worst sort of criminal behavior of an American?It is one thing for a person to employ the words ‘treason’ and ‘traitor’ merely as a pejorative. In that case, “You Traitor, You!” is akin to the words, “Damn You, Go to Hell!” or “You Bastard, You!” But it is another thing entirely when the phrase, “You Traitor, You!” is to mean that the targeted person IS TRULY A “TRAITOR,” i.e., a person who commits the crime of ‘TREASON.’ For ‘Treason’ IS a crime.TREASON IS THE MOST SERIOUS OF CRIMES, for Treason is nothing less than BETRAYAL of one’s Country and of one’s people. It is essentially the MURDER of one’s Country and of one’s Countrymen. Betrayal of one’s Nation and one’s Countrymen was considered one of the most heinous crimes going back to the ancient Greeks and Romans. Dante Alighieri, in his monumental epic, “The Divine Comedy,” PLACED THOSE GUILTY OF TREACHERY TO NATION IN THE DEEPEST CIRCLE OF HELL.To apply the term, ‘traitor’ to anyone is no small matter and should not be a matter of casual conversation. It is defamatory if untrue.As applied especially to an elected official, no less a personage than the President of the United States, one should practice circumspection before employing it, in the absence of evidence to support the declaration of it. Unfortunately, we do not see this at all. And, it is all quite remarkable, as the denizens of “POLITICAL CORRECTNESS,”—today’s “THOUGHT POLICE”—so keen are they on remaking the English language so as not to offend, do not apply that prime directive across the board, utilizing the worst invective against anyone, everyone, who happens to hold to a different political and philosophical persuasion than that of the “WOKE” crowd to use of their own neologisms.To our Nation’s founders, treason is the most serious crime imaginable. It is not by accident that it is referenced in the U.S. Constitution.Treason is the only crime BOTH MENTIONED AND DEFINED in the U.S. Constitution. But, through overuse and deliberate misuse of the words, ‘treason’ and ‘traitor,’ by various members of Congress and by Government Officials and by the Press, Americans are unable to gain a clear view of and true perspective of actual instances of treason and of the those who commit it when evidence for it abounds.A person needs to cut through the chatter and chaff of those who cavalierly bandy the term about, misapplying it hither and yon to Donald Trump—and, now misapplying it to Trump’s supporters who number one-third to one-half of the population of the Country.The term, ‘treason’ is a legal term of art that has a clear meaning. One need only go to a readily available source, the U.S. Constitution, to determine its import and purport, and from the definition for it, look for instances of it. Article 3, Section 3, Clause 1, sets forth:“Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”Further, ‘treason,’ as with ‘sedition,’ ‘insurrection,’ and ‘rebellion’, is a statutory offense, Congress reiterates the definition of ‘treason,’ of it. “18 U.S. Code § 2381 – Treason,” sets forth:“Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”Given the seriousness of the crime, the framers of the Constitution severely limited its application to the commission of either one of two, and only two, kinds of acts. The U.S. Constitution leaves no room for constructive treason and Congress could not and has not undertaken to restrict or enlarge constitutional. The Constitutional, as well as Statutory definition for Treason, involves:

• Levying war against the United States; OR
• Giving the Nation’s enemies aid or comfort.

But what does “levying war against the United States” really mean, and what does the phrase “giving the Nation’s enemies aid or comfort” mean?In the next few Arbalest Quarrel articles we look closely at these phrases. For, once we have a clear operational definition of the phrases, we can ascertain if any one or more actions of Joe Biden and of his senior advisors amount to actionable treason.Few people to date have actually applied the appellation or descriptor of ‘treason’ to Biden and/or to his senior advisors although the abundance of misdeeds leads one to wonder whether one or more of those misdeeds rises to the level of treason. Before the Arbalest Quarrel makes its announcement, it is necessary to see if Biden and other senior advisors have plotted to destroy this Nation. As an aside, there is a question of whether Biden is making policy decisions at all. Given the man's obvious and increasingly severe mental infirmities, this strongly suggests that Biden is incapable of sound judgment and reasoning. If true, that means that  Biden's secret handlers are making policy decisions for him; policies affecting the Nation and the rest of the world. And that raises serious legal questions of its own. But as for ‘treason,’ one can, with a clear operational definition, determine if the elements of the crime apply to the conduct of Harris-Biden Administration senior officials who are the decision-makers. But, what can we say about treason at this point before delving into the details of it?In the broadest sense, “levying war against the United States” and “giving the Nation’s enemies aid or comfort” involves the BETRAYAL of one’s Country and one's Countrymen—TREACHERY so extreme that, if tried and convicted of it, must need send the party guilty of it to prison for a substantial period of time and, perhaps warrants a sentence of DEATH. But, whether a TRAITOR to the Country is actually indicted and tried as such, and convicted of TREASON, such an individual rests well beyond any hope of absolution, dispensation, or redemption—ever.Now, among those who hate Trump, anything the man has said or did, during his tenure in Office, amounts to “treason.” Yet, one would be hard-pressed to distill from any of Trump’s actions anything that amounts to betrayal of Nation and people. Nation’s people. To the contrary, on any reasonable analysis Trump was faithful to the Oath of Office he took on Friday, January 20, 2017.Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:“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.”In retrospect, Trump’s actions were always honorable. But, can the same be said of Biden and his top advisors and handlers?From what the public knows about, Trump, it is clear that he fulfilled or attempted to fulfill to his foreign and domestic policies and initiatives, consistent with the promises he made to the American public in his campaign. Trump forged a stronger Nation from the mess created by his predecessors Barack Obama and George W. Bush.; strengthening the Nation in the broadest sense: economically, geopolitically, militarily, and societally. Disruption arose artificially, concocted by elements inside and outside the Country, intent upon undermining Trump’s achievements. Trump sought to protect the fundamental rights of the people—most importantly the sacred rights of free speech and freedom of religion; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; and, critically, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Yet, the legacy Press called him an Autocrat and Traitor; but to whom? Not to the U.S. Constitution, but to those who seek to dismantle the Constitution and to dismantle a free Republic. And they installed their puppets, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, corrupt and unscrupulous people to do just that.In eight months, the senile, weak-willed, and corrupt puppet, Joe Biden, likely dutifully obeying the dictates of his secret handlers, unwound all the positive work for the Country that Trump had achieved. And what do Americans now see? Much, and none of it good: Government policies that promote economic instability and societal unrest—all of it manufactured by an Administration intent on disrupting societal harmony and cohesion.And, because the Harris-Biden Administration refuses to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws, Americans see massive waves of destitute illegal aliens, breeching our Southern Border; with tens of thousands more flooding through the Southern Border each month, along with members of international drug cartels and other assorted dangerous riff-raff; and most of them are disbursing throughout the United States. More recently, the Administration has compounded its unlawful immigration actions, having airlifted thousands of unassimilable Afghans to the U.S., disbursing them throughout the Country, without properly vetting them—a lengthy process to screen out the Islamic terrorists among them.Americans see multiple instances of unlawful federal encroachment on the authority of State. The Administration has openly, unabashedly disobeyed rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court; and is exerting unlawful authority over the polity by mandating COVID vaccinations.Through wholesale adoption of the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist program of “DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION” the Harris-Biden Administration is implementing policies designed to subvert and eradicate our Nation’s culture, history, heritage, and Christian ethos.Given the Administration’s contempt for the Bill of Rights, Americans are witnessing an assault on their basic freedoms, including, critically, the right of free speech and free exercise of religion; the right to peaceably assemble and the right to petition the Government; the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.In the matter of the “Capitol Breach” cases, of January 6, 2021, Americans have witnessed multiple instances of unlawful detention, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, and violations Due Process, and Equal Protection.And the Harris-Biden Administration is quietly, assiduously drawing up Executive Actions and agency rules, to undermine the right of the people to keep and bear arms.And through the implementation of its bizarre and inept military and State Department Middle East Policies, the Harris-Biden Administration has overnight destabilized the Middle East, thereby endangering the security of the United States and the world. Are we looking at mere incompetence here or something ominous: a devious master plan to destabilize society, dismantle the Constitution, destroy a free Constitutional Republic, and reduce the American citizenry to a state of abject penury and misery. Do any of the aforementioned actions by Joe Biden and others arise to the level of actual, indictable treason? In the next few articles, the Arbalest Quarrel will be looking closely at the law of treason with the aim of determining whether any one or more actions of Biden, and of Biden's Cabinet Level Officials, and of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and of Biden’s National Security Council committed actionable treason. ____________________________________________*One academic scholar, and apparently the only one, demurs, asserting that one man was in fact executed for committing treason against the United States. In his book, “On Treason, A Citizen's Guide to the Law” (published September 29, 2020), Carlton F.W. Larson, Professor of Constitutional Law, University of California, Davis, School of Law, avers that Hipolito Salazar, “is the only person ever executed by federal authorities for treason against the United States since the adoption of the Constitution for treason. . . . And the federal government later admitted it had made a terrible mistake—Salazar owed no allegiance to the United States and therefore was not subject to American treason law at all.” (pages 102-103). The execution took place on April 9, 1847, following jury trials “in what was called the ‘District Court of the Territory of New Mexico. ’ Five of the men had been convicted of murder. But, one, . . . Salazar, had been convicted of high treason for levying war against the United States.” (page 102). ____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

AMERICA: “A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC—IF YOU CAN KEEP IT!”

PART ONE

DO NEOLIBERAL GLOBALISTS AND NEO-MARXISTS HONESTLY BELIEVE AMERICANS WILL MEEKLY SURRENDER THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES?

“‘The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, ‘Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?’ With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, ‘A republic, if you can keep it.’”  ~quotation from an article by John F. McManus, published on November 6, 2000, in The New American, referencing an “exchange . . . recorded by Constitution signer James McHenry in a diary entry that was later reproduced in the 1906 American Historical Review.”Benjamin Franklin’s seemingly droll, yet, at once, sagacious response to Mrs. Powel’s query as to the salient nature of our new independent sovereign Nation, “A Republic If You Can Keep It,” echoes down from the ages to this precarious moment in our Nation’s history.While most Americans do fervently wish to retain our Nation in the form the founding fathers bequeathed to us, a free Constitutional Republic, some there are who do not. Their hostility toward the Nation’s continued existence as a free Constitutional Republic is both intense and blatant; and disturbingly, they control the Government, the legacy Press, social media, our educational system, and our financial system; and, most importantly, many of the “TOP BRASS” of the military.These would-be Destructors and Obstructors of our free Republic are ruthless, even rabid in their condemnation of our Country’s history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethic. They intend to destroy all of it. To date, they have undermined much of it, and they have corrupted the minds of many Americans: youth, adolescents, and adults alike.They have corrupted innocent, impressionable school-age children, who are unable to comprehend the poisoning of their young minds. They have corrupted undergraduate university youth, who—so enthralled with and enraptured by a Marxist college professor’s pretentious, false erudition—are unable to recognize and therefore appreciate the difference between a cogent, logical, sound argument on the one hand, and what amounts to elaborate, artful sophistry, on the other. And they have corrupted tens of millions of adults—those too simple-minded to notice, or too gullible to accept the mounting evidence before them; or those who feel too intimidated or threatened to voice an objection, or simply too jaded to care.Yet there are many Americans who do see the Nation transforming into a disgusting, leprous monstrosity. There are Americans who have taken notice of the dire threat to the Republic and cannot and will not deny the truth. They do care, and this is what they see: Two mutually exclusive, antagonistic visions for America; the one in open conflict with the other. Only one WILL prevail. Only one CAN prevail—One pure and sanctified by the Lord; the other a product of the Beast, the defilement of nature, the poisoning of all that is good and proper in America.See the Arbalest Quarrel articles, detailing the distinguishing features of INDIVIDUALISM and COLLECTIVISM in “The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies;” posted on October 6, 2018; and our prescient article on the dismantling of the Nation, “In the Throes of America’s Modern-Day Civil War,” posted on October 28, 2018.One vision holds true to the Declaration of Independence and to the United States Constitution. That vision preserves the Nation in the form the founders gave to us and intended for us: an independent sovereign nation-state and free Republic, grounded on the tenets and precepts and principles of INDIVIDUALISM, sanctified by the Divine Creator.The other vision looks to the Communist Manifesto for guidance. That vision portends the end of a free Constitutional Republic and, further, the end of the very concept of a nation-state and true morality. The political, social, and economic scheme envisioned is diametrically opposed to that of a free Republic and a sovereign people, a vision of America grounded on the tenets and precepts of COLLECTIVISM; the needs, wishes, and concerns of the individual not only denigrated but denied.The Collectivist vision eschews individual needs, wants, and desires as irrelevant and antithetical to the goals of COLLECTIVISM. It is a vision of America that denies and rejects the Divine Creator outright, and worships, instead, such false gods as Satan, Mammon, and Asmodeus: the gods of wrath, greed, and lust.The architects of this new model for America view people as little more than cattle. People are herded into groups. Uniformity and conformity of thought and conduct are engineered into society to better effectuate control. The enslavement of mankind is the result. The subjugation of man’s will and spirit is the end goal.George Orwell, in his epochal work, “1984”, published in 1949, showed the FACE of the BEAST; and Taylor Caldwell displayed the BEAST’S UNDERBELLY, in her monumental work, “Captains and the Kings,” published in 1972.One cannot but wonder that some Americans would willingly surrender their Fundamental Rights and Liberties and forsake the sanctity and inviolability of the individual spirit for a life of servitude and perpetual misery under transnational alien rule—all for a few crumbs doled out by a Nanny State guilefully intent on keeping the polity indolent, somnolent, and dependent. It is happening even now.Is it not true the United States became the wealthiest, most productive, and most powerful Nation on Earth—the veritable envy of the world—through the foresight of the Nation’s founders, who fashioned a Country, unlike any other then existent or presently existent on Earth?The founders fashioned A TRULY FREE REPUBLIC, WHERE THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES ARE SOVEREIGN, NOT TYRANTS. They were of one mind against the construction of a MONARCHY, DIARCHY, TRIARCHY, OLIGARCHY or other AUTOCRATIC, DICTATORIAL “—ARCHY,” composed of plutocrats or monarchists who would, through those systems, systematically and brutally oppress, repress, and suppress the human will and spirit—all ostensibly, as they would no doubt tell themselves—for the well-being of a proper, well-ordered, well-engineered, society, operating in a perpetual, albeit meaningless, vacuous stasis.Prime examples of the sort of governmental schemes the framers of the Constitution would abhor include the LENINIST/STALINIST REGIME imposed on the people of Russia, and the MAOIST DICTATORSHIP imposed on the people of China.How well did these seemingly harmonious societal constructs pan out? How well are they working out now? How are the TOTALITARIAN regimes of Venezuela, Cuba, and other countries across the globe doing?How is it that those who viciously condemn our Nation’s history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethic, can explain away the fact that so many people in countries around the world seek to come to ours if our Nation is such a terrible place to anchor as the haters of our Country proclaim? The answer is: they cannot do so, and they do not even try. Rather, they simply create false narratives of America as a racist Nation; an ignoble Nation; a Nation that lacks, in their words, proper “DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION.” Yet, what DO THEY REALLY MEAN by those words, in practice, that they plaster all over the place? We have a pretty good clue given what we have seen. It is all a façade:

• ‘DIVERSITY’ REALLY MEANS ‘NON-ASSIMILATION’ AND ‘SOCIETAL CHAOS’

• ‘EQUITY’ REALLY MEANS ‘INEQUITY,’ ‘INEQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY,’ AND ‘SOCIETAL IMBALANCE’

• ‘INCLUSION’ REALLY MEANS ‘EXCLUSION’ AND ‘REJECTION’

We, as a Nation, have come full circle, from 1776 to 2021: from the inception of our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic to the possible collapse of it.Are Americans witnessing the death throes of a free CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, and doing so in REAL-TIME?Just as Americans now seek to preserve a Republic from those who seek to wrest it from our grasp, back then there were colonists who sought to sever ties with Great Britain and there were those who sought to retain those ties. See the article on the website revolutionary-war.net.“The Revolution is usually portrayed as a conflict between the Patriots and the British. But there is another narrative: the bloody fighting between Americans, a civil war whose savagery shocked even battle-hardened Redcoats and Hessians. As debate and protests evolved into war, mudslinging and rhetorical arguments between Rebels and Tories evolved into tar-and-feathering, house-burning, and lynching.The colonists themselves were divided. Tories were colonists who helped and even fought with the British during the American Revolutionary War. Also known as Loyalists for their loyalty to the British crown, their contention with the Whigs (Patriots) was so intense that their savage fighting can justly be called America’s first civil war.By one process or another, those who were to be citizens of the new republic were separated from those who preferred to be subjects of King George. Just what proportion of the Americans favored independence and what share remained loyal to the British monarchy there is no way of knowing. The question of revolution was not submitted to popular vote, and on the point of numbers we have conflicting evidence. On the patriot side, there is the testimony of a careful and informed observer, John Adams, who asserted that two-thirds of the people were for the American cause and not more than one-third opposed the Revolution at all stages.”And, now today, there are Americans, most of us, who wish to preserve the Republic. They are the true Patriots, true to the vision of the founders of the Republic, true to the tenets and precepts of INDIVIDUALISM the blueprint of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, and its Bill of Rights. And, then there are those, the Collectivists; those who intend to unwind the Republic and to rend the Constitution as the Constitution is wholly inconsistent with the tenets and precepts of COLLECTIVISM.Among those who seek to destroy a free Republic and independent sovereign Nation-State, there are various factions. They include, inter alia, Neoliberal Globalists, Marxists, Socialists, Communists, Anarchists, and Maoists, Leninists, Stalinists, and Trotskyites—all bound by a common desire to bring to a close the era of a free Republic forged in steel on THAT FATEFUL DAY of JULY 4, 1776, that ushered in the AMERICAN REVOLUTION and the Birth of a new Nation, conceived in LIBERTY. But, the Collectivists of the 21^st Century in America disparage it; want none of it; are bent on destroying all of it.The COLLECTIVISTS are a selfish lot. The COLLECTIVIST MEGA-BILLIONAIRE NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST FINANCIERS AND CORPORATISTS, never sated, want to control ALL copper, gold, silver, platinum coinage, and, by flooding the market with worthless paper, i.e., “Federal Reserve Notes,” reduce the American polity to a state of abject poverty, penury, indigence, and misery, and despair, completely dependent on Government largess for basic survival.And the POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTIONIST COLLECTIVISTS look forward to a day when they can lower the American Flag one last time; celebrate the fall of the Republic; and observe the remains of the United States, “ONE NATION, UNDER GOD,” at long last merged into a mammoth global political, social, economic, transnational Governmental scheme—a new regime; one devoid of the very concept of an American citizenry, and of an American ethos, and of an American psyche, and of a Nation sanctified by the Divine Creator.Unfortunately, many Americans, while definitely loath to sacrifice a free Constitutional Republic, feel helpless to prevent its demise and, so, have resigned themselves to accept defeat. Still, there are those Americans who will fight, as the Patriots of old, to protect their birthright.THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776 PRESERVED versus THE NEO-MARXIST INTERNATIONALISTS’ COUNTERREVOLUTION OF 2021 ATTEMPT AT REVERSALDo Americans retain and maintain their Republic as founded or allow it to be extinguished, erased, abandoned? WHICH SHALL IT BE?____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE ROAD TO SOCIALISM IN AMERICA—PAVED WITH NOT-SO-GOOD INTENTIONS

WHEN DO AMERICANS BEGIN TO REALIZE THEIR COUNTRY NO LONGER BELONGS TO THEM?

PART FIVE

Take a moment to ponder a portion of President Donald Trump’s last State of the Union Address. Consider his most important remarks to the Nation, as reported on, and poignantly elucidated by Rebecca Walser of Fox News Business, on February 19, 2020, eleven months before the corrupt, senile store-window manikin, Joseph Biden, was sworn in as the 46^th President of the United States:“Who would have ever thought that any president of these United States of America would have to stand before Congress—and before the American people—and publicly declare that the United States is a free country, standing for liberty.In his State of the Union address on Tuesday, President Trump made an unequivocal pronouncement against the multiplying cries for socialism in America.‘Here, in the United States, we are alarmed by new calls to adopt socialism in our country,’ the president said. ‘America was founded on liberty and independence—not government coercion, domination and control. We are born free, and we will stay free. Tonight, we renew our resolve that America will NEVER be a socialist country.’ [Emphasis added.]Unsurprisingly, many on the Democratic side of the chamber did not stand in unison to agree, nor did they even clap. No, no, they have the wheels of the socialism freight train started now, and they will give not an inch to stop it in its tracks.Free lunch? Yes please, that sounds nice. Hmm, how about a free education with a side of free health care?  Why don’t we even throw in student loan forgiveness, free housing, a guaranteed job, or forget the job, and let’s just give – you guessed it – free universal basic income while we are at it.America’s unique origin in escaping an overbearing, oppressive and overly-taxing government is likely the reason we have historically supported more freedoms, including economic freedoms, than our European cousins. But that is undeniably changing now.The shifting political winds are reflective of an underlying new positive attitude toward socialism in America. A recent Reuters poll found that 70 percent of Americans support Medicare-for-all, which includes a majority of Republicans. (A new poll released by the Kaiser Family Foundation found support drops, however, when participants were told the plan could lead to higher taxes.) . . . .This is our failure America, in not holding our government accountable. They have been allowed for too long to fake it, to spend money that we do not have to pay for services we cannot afford on a sustainable basis.For the last three decades, we have spent significantly more than we have collected in tax revenues resulting in a federal debt of $22 trillion.This has been carried out for the last 30-plus years such that the American people have been lulled into believing that we can spend without end, without the pain of an European tax scheme (40 percent to more than 60-plus percent). So why shouldn’t we add Medicare-for-all, free college education and even UBI – universal basic income?But it is all an illusion. . . .Others say that you can just print more money, but inflating our way out of this economic hole is a non starter, since both Social Security and Medicare make inflation-adjusted payments. This means that if we try to inflate our way out, the costs of our biggest social programs just go up proportionally—solving nothing.Economic equality comes at the heavy price of freedom (yours). People logically act in their own self-interest even if it is to their long-term detriment, like a bug sucking its host dry. Most will take advantage of the government’s offer for "free" anything – thus the reason the road to America is packed while the road to Venezuela is empty.But let’s be clear – ‘free’ is not free to our country. The great Roman empire imploded and collapsed under the weight of their own debt and extreme taxation. Are we determined to go down that same road?Let us have renewed hope today that President Trump stands to say no.”Unfortunately, eleven months after this story and analysis broke, Trump is no longer President. The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” along with their sidekick, the Neo-Marxists, that together share achieving their common goal of a one-world, uniform Super-State governmental scheme, with the U.S. to be unceremoniously merged into it and consumed by it, made sure that Donald Trump would never serve a second term in Office, and, more to the point, would never be permitted to serve a second term in Office, which might also explain why powerful Neoliberal Globalists have continued to attack him and to attack over a third of the Nation that had voted for him in the 2020 General Election. And the prognostications of Rebecca Walser as laid out in her 2019 Fox Business Report, have eerily, and uncannily, and no less dishearteningly, come to fruition.The American people are disillusioned and disenchanted. And the U.S. is well on its way to becoming a Socialist Country, despite Trump’s remarks to the contrary.So, then, was Trump wrong in his assertion—at once a sacred promise to Americans and a pronouncement of defiance to the Neo-Marxists of all stripes among the Democrats—even as Pelosi in a choreographed fit of pique, rips up her copy of the President’s address, thereby demonstrating her utter contempt for the U.S. President, the Country, the American people, and the Constitution.No, Trump wasn’t wrong. Yet, there is an unintended, unplanned, unforeseen irony in Trump’s assertion “that America will never be a socialist Country,” insofar as the Country is headed in that direction under a Neoliberal Globalist and Marxist-Controlled Congress and a Neoliberal Globalist controlled Executive Branch. The U.S. is in fact turning inexorably, and possibly inevitably and irrevocably toward Socialism. But if that should happen, if that would befall our Country, then the COUNTRY WILL NO LONGER BE AMERICA, for our Country will no longer be a free Constitutional Republic, and so THE COUNTRY WILL CEASE TO BE.Indeed, the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists don’t even refer to our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic; never did. Back in 2018, Nancy Pelosi, the House speaker, did say, of course, that:“We’re capitalists, and that’s just the way it is” which makes the Neoliberal Globalist “capitalist” monopolists happy to hear, who, for all that, eschew true competitive capitalism.But, has Pelosi ever been heard to reaffirm our Country as a “free Constitutional Republic?” In fact, has the infirm, corrupt, senile Joe Biden or the vacuous, opportunist Kamala Harris ever reaffirmed our Country as a “free Constitutional Republic? Has anyone in Biden’s Cabinet or Administration affirmed our Nation as a “free Constitutional Republic?”It stands to reason that the current crop of Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists in control of two Branches of Government have little if any regard for the Constitution. At best they give lip service to it, as they go about operating in the denigration of it. And no one in the legacy Press calls them to account for their abject failure to heed to the dictates of it. And we, Americans, are all the worse for it.________________________________________

HOW MANY AMERICANS APPREHEND THAT THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND?

PART SIX

It may be remarked—nay, must be proclaimed loudly, passionately, continuously as all too many Americans lose sight of the fact—that the Supreme Law of the Land is the U.S. Constitution. This isn’t mere supposition. It is fact.Neoliberal Globalist “elites” know this to be true, but they have no use for the Constitution as it intrudes upon their ability to consolidate economic power for themselves across the globe, at the expense of the economic well-being of the American people and at the expense of the well-being of the Country.And the sworn enemies of the U.S. Constitution and of a sovereign American people, America’s transnational Neo-Marxists, know this to be true as well because the U.S. Constitution is grounded on the tenets of Individualism, embracing the core notions of personal freedom and liberty—tenets and precepts and principles antithetical and anathema to those of Collectivism, upon which classic Marxism, and the spawn and shades of Marxism spring from. But they all come from one cloth, and they are all vehemently opposed to Individualism.For the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism, alone form the foundation of the U.S. Constitution, and they are inconsistent with and in clear contradistinction to those of Collectivism that insist on the subordination of the human will, soul, and spirit to and that demand obsequious devotion to and subservience of the individual to the State. That explains why the callous, caustic, fabulously wealthy Neoliberal Globalists and the idiosyncratic, cold-hearted Neo-Marxists are both of one mind in their stated objective to rid themselves of it.And so, with Trump out of the way, and as the Neoliberal Globalists and as America’s Neo-Marxists have brazenly, audaciously taken over the institutions of Government and of the Press and of much of society, they have begun in earnest to consolidate their power over the Nation and over the citizenry, in defiance of the plain import of the Constitution.And now they feel that the political and social and economic climate of the Country has changed to such an extent in their favor, that they feel no reticence in openly questioning the continued need for it. They have even gone further than that, questioning the very legality of it, and withal, cloaking their anathema to it and animosity for it, rebelling vociferously against it—the academia especially expounding through more and more rhetorical flourish and through sophistry, posing as a sound erudite argument, their naked abhorrence of it.See, e.g., the 2013 Article, in Harper’s Magazine, titled, “Constitution in Crisis;” and an article in The Atlantic, titled, “The U.S. Needs a New Constitution—Here’s How to Write It.” And, in a lengthy New York Times’ Op-Ed, the paper has tacked together several essays by various legal scholars who propose amending the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and Articles. A simple web search keying in the words, “do we need a constitution,” brings up a plethora of articles challenging the continued need for the U.S. Constitution—the blueprint of a free Republic that ceases to exist the moment the Constitution ceases to be.The reader should note that all or virtually all these articles arose in the most recent decade of the 21^st Century, and several of them within the last few weeks or months.But what explains this flurry of articles, and essays coming to the fore now? This cannot be accidental. Indeed, it isn’t.If the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists thought the Constitution was simply irrelevant, they likely would have given little thought to it, would simply ignore it, and in the actions of the Harris-Biden Administration, the American people have witnessed just that: the blatant failure of Biden to faithfully execute the laws of the United States as required of him, spurning his Presidential duty under the “take care clause” of Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This failure goes beyond an arguable difference of opinion as to the President’s duty, or to incompetence of which Biden has more than an ample supply. It is much more than that.Biden’s actions amount to outright subversion and sedition. And the Neoliberal Globalists and International Neo-Marxists are perfectly content with this. They have expected it of Biden. More, they have demanded it of him. And, he has delivered, doing all that his handlers expect of him, even as he makes a fool of himself during the few times his handlers allow him, albeit reluctantly, to appear before the public, hewing to script—at least to the extent that a person suffering from dementia can.Perfunctorily dismissing Congressional enactments such as the Nation’s immigration law, in direct defiance of the Legislature’s Article 1 authority, see irli.org, and dismissing out-of-hand U.S. Supreme Court rulings on evictions, demonstrating his contempt of High Court Article 3 authority on questions of law, if he ever thought about it, to the extent he is capable of coherent thought at all. See article in christianaction.org and article in theweek.com. Biden has not only defied the authority of two other co-equal Branches of Government, he has also spurned his own duties under the “take care clause” of Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution.But there’s more to the Constitution than the Articles demarcating and limiting the authority and powers of the three co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, critical as those Articles are to the foundation of a free Constitutional Republic.Even as few give little thought to it, there is one set of laws that preside even over that of the Supreme Law of the Land, the U.S. Constitution. It is Law bestowed on man by the Divine Creator. It is the Law of Natural Rights, and there is no inconsistency in averring the authority of and the awesome power of natural law above even the U.S. Constitution. The framers of that great document, the Constitution of the United States, conceded as much, through the codification of Ten Amendments to it thereby embracing and enshrining Divine Law within it, an integrated part of it, inextricably bound to it, so there is no inconsistency between the import of Divine Law and ofthe U.S. Constitution’s deference to Divine Law.

THE PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

The Bill of Rights is of paramount importance to, and a singularly critical component of the U.S. Constitution, both shaping the nature of a free Republic, and establishing the role of Government vis a vis the American people, subordinating Government to the people.It is the Bill of Rights, especially, that has provided the U.S. Constitution with its true staying power; and that has allowed the Country to survive and thrive as a free Republic. The Bill of Rights is one feature of the U.S. Constitution that cannot be readily ignored or dismissed out of hand by the Neoliberal Globalists and the Neo-Marxists, much as they wish to do; much as they try to do.The Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic can, truth to tell, continue to exist, at least for a time, even where a corrupt Executive Branch and a corrupt Legislative Branch give little heed to limitations built into their own authority and duties under the Constitution. And, that is true of the Third Branch of Government, the Judiciary, as well.The Bill of Rights, though, exists and operates on another plane; another order of magnitude; well beyond even the Articles, a human construct, and well beyond such man-made procedural Amendments that came thereafter. For, the Bill of Rights codifies Divine Law.The contents of the Bill of Rights isn’t a human construct because it isn’t a mere compilation of man-made law even though some there are who might perceive it to be such, namely the Neoliberal Globalist corporatist “elites,” and the transnational Neo-Marxists, and other Collectivists who, all of them, deny this, of course. Even to describe the Ten Amendments of the Bill of Rights as little more than an elucidation of and edification of man’s greater potential fails to hit the mark as to their true significance and purpose. For, it is only by the grace of Divine Providence that man can, a priori, recognize the Creator’s gifts to him, bestowed on man by the Creator as the supernal omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and morally perfect Being. These God-given Rights and Liberties, Natural Law, preexist within man, exist, then, prior to the creation of Government by man.It is not given to man, by mere experience, a posteriori, through man’s five sense organs, that man comes to know of his true Nature made in God’s own image but, through man’s non-physical Spirit that the fact of and nature of the fundamental, immutable, illimitable, unalienable Rights come to be apparent to man. How, then, can man’s nature be lawfully subordinated and subjugated to State control and dominance, since Government is a man-made construct, and such manmade device offends and subverts the will of the Supreme Creator, where man’s will, and soul, and spirit are quelled and suppressed?Such a Government transgresses God’s will and such Government that dares to subvert the integrity and sanctity of man’s spirit and soul is heresy, and this heresy is the goal of this new, obscene non-American Governmental scheme that has begun to take root in the Country, and it is growing apace, to be merged into a new world order, to bring man low. Americans must fight the attempt with all the power they can muster. The way they can do this is to insist that their fundamental rights are not subject to negotiation or compromise. That which is given to man by the Divine Creator cannot lawfully be revoked by the State, and cannot be contracted or purloined away.______________________________________

AS LONG AS AMERICANS ARE ABLE TO EXERCISE THEIR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS, SOCIALISM CANNOT TAKE ROOT.

PART SEVEN

Only through exercise of the peoples’ fundamental rights can the citizenry hope to withstand the onslaught from those disparate evil forces consisting, inter alia, of a heterogenous assortment of Neoliberal Globalists, Corporatist Monopolists, Internationalist Neo-Marxists, Government Neoconservatives, liberal Progressive and Marxist members of Congress and of the Federal Bureaucracy, the seditious legacy Press, and Marxist elements in academia, all hell-bent on disassembling the United States, transforming the Country from its root structure as a free Constitutional Republic and independent sovereign Nation-State into an autocratic lackey of a larger autocratic super-structure, embracing the entire world.On some level the combined power of these terrible, ruthless, amoral and immoral forces operating both inside the United States and outside it, Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists alike, adopting a common Collectivist ideology, an ideology incompatible with the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism upon which the U.S. Constitution is grounded, driven by a singular lust for amassing wealth and power—of benefit to themselves at the expense of the American polity—continue to plot, connive, conspire, and machinate toward realization of a similar goal: the creation of a one-world transnational super State; a mammoth transformative political, social, economic, and juridical construct; a global totalitarian regime embracing and subsuming all present western nation-states; erasing all geographical boundaries; eliminating and eventually erasing from the memory of the polity any sense of a once-shared national identity, a once-shared history and heritage, a once-shared civic culture, a once-shared Christian ethos and a once-shared Judeo-Christian ethic. It would all cease to exist. Yet, for the U.S. to become merged into this transnational one-world, totalitarian Super-State, it is essential that the U.S. Constitution first be abrogated, and that means abrogation of the citizens’ Fundamental Rights and Liberties. All of it must go. But there is a tenaciousness to the Constitution, especially that part of it that speaks to the fundamental, unalienable Rights and Liberties of the citizenry: the Nation’s Bill of Rights.Even with vast sums of money spent behind a massive propaganda campaign to denigrate the Nation’s revered history, heritage, and culture, and to challenge the inviolability of God-bestowed Rights and Liberties, set in stone in Nation's the Bill of Rights, most Americans maintain and exhibit a deep attachment to and devotion to their Country and to their fundamental Rights and Liberties upon which the sovereignty of the American people over Government is preserved. And, on some level all American citizens understand that God-given Rights and Liberties cannot be simply ignored and dismissed out-of-hand, if the Nation is to survive as a free Constitutional Republic; and the American people will not long abide usurpers in Government who betray their Oath to the United States Constitution, whether it be the President of the United States who betrays the Oath of Office he is required to take, pursuant to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the Constitution, to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States;”whether it be those in Congress who betray the Oath they are required to take, pursuant to Article 6, Clause 3 of the Constitution, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States; or whether it be those in the Civil Service or uniformed services of Government who betray the Oath they are required to take, to “defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;” pursuant to 5 U.S.C.S. § 3331. The solemnity of the Oaths of those sworn to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution are not to be taken lightly. And, if these betrayers of their Oath think there will be no accounting for an act of betrayal to the Constitution of the United States, the American people shall demand an accounting, as they are the sovereign rulers of the Nation as established by the U.S. Constitution. Those who serve in Government are the servants, not the masters of the American people, and the ultimate enforcement power that the American people wield over Government is made abundantly clear not in the electoral system through which the American people have a say only in the vote they cast for this or that servant of the citizenry, but in one especial fundamental, immutable, illimitable, unalienable Right: the inviolate Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.______________________________________________

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS CANNOT BE LAWFULLY APPROPRIATED OR COMMANDEERED  BY THE STATE; AND IT ISN’T FOR SALE!

PART EIGHT

The Bill of Rights cannot be easily supplanted, ignored, dismissed out-of-hand, as the fundamental rights and liberties are engrained deep in the psyche of most American citizens and they are loathed to surrender their sacred God-bestowed Rights and Liberties, knowing that, to do so, means the loss not only of their Country but of their own Soul.One natural, God-given right, in particular, the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, codified in the Bill of Rights as “the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms,” is Divine Law that happens to have been codified into law by man. More to the point, this Divine Law is written into man's Spirit. That is what makes the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, Divine Law, and not mere man-made law. This Divine Law serves to prevent the takeover of the Nation’s Country by tyrants. The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, isn't for sale!The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, as Divine Law, is subsumed in a more elemental Divine law: The Right of Personal Self-Defense, against a predatory animal, whether that predatory animal hops on two legs or runs on four, and against a predatory, tyrannical Government. Further, the Natural God-bestowed Right of Personal Self-Defense is itself subsumed in the God-bestowed Right of Personal Autonomy, for it is through Self-Defense that man is able to preserve and has the solemn duty and cardinal responsibility to preserve and secure from harm not only his physical well-being but his psychological and spiritual well-being; his individuality; the sanctity of Self-hood; the inviolability of his Soul, sanctified by the Divine Creator.If unable to exercise the God-bestowed Right of Self-Defense, of which the firearm is the most efficient means of Self-Defense, man cannot effectively persevere against those forces that would dare crush his will and spirit into submission; would not be able to effectively defend against those forces at work in society today that compel uniformity and conformity in all thought and conduct; would not be able to resist evil forces that insist on transforming a Nation of individual Souls into a collection of mindless, senseless drones, an obsequious, obedient, formless glob—a monstrosity, a thing created by evil forces in clear defiance to the Creator's will. For the Creator intended for man to be noble, that he might, through his individual Soul, be a demi-Creator in his own right, set out on his own path, realize his full potential as an independent creative Spirit; for he is made in God's Image.Yet, it is a thing strange that, given the plain meaning of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in clear, precise, concise words in the U.S. Constitution, it would come to pass that an American citizen would find it necessary to petition the Judiciary to secure for him a God-given Right that Government or private enterprise interests—artificial constructs of man—would dare deny him. Yet for decades, before the seminal Second Amendment Heller case was heard, ignoble forces were at work to subvert the plain meaning of the Divine Law, arguing that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms was not an Individual Right at all, and certainly was not to be perceived as a Natural Right, but one bound up in service to a collective, a militia. This idea is false on its face, and, when one realizes that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, codified in the Second Amendment, isn't a man-made law at all, but Natural Law, of Divine Origin, pertaining to the Individual Self, to the Individual Soul, to one’s personal autonomy, then any notion that the Right is to be understood as, to be taken as, something that applies to and has meaning only in the context of groups, to a collective, falls apart of its own weight as a matter of logic, as well as of law. One comes to realize that the mistake of law and logic that arises from the conclusion that the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms has meaning and purport in the context of one's service in a militia, in the context, then, of one's service in a group, is due to problematic, false assumptions. The mistake of law and logic that some academic scholars as well as the lay public fall prey to commences from an assumption, taken as axiomatic, as self-evident, that the Bill of Rights, is simply a creation of man, an artificial construction of the government, an arbitrary formulation by State actors in Government, not unlike the Articles of the Constitution, or later procedural amendments to it, and not unlike other man-made common or codified law. In that case, grounded on acceptance of false assumption and illogical reasoning, one draws the illogical conclusion that fundamental rights are no more than privileges to be bestowed onto this one or that one, or to this group or to that group by the grace of the State, and, just as readily, rescinded by the State, as the sole creator of the Right. Through acceptance of the false assumption that the Bill of Rights is really a set of State created privileges, all sorts of inanities arise therefrom, such as the idea that the Ten Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights can readily be amended no less so than the Articles of the Constitution or the procedural amendments subsequently ratified and added to the Constitution or just as readily repealed. But, the Bill of Rights is no mere collection of Rights and Liberties, for they were not created by man. They are codifications of Divine Law. As such, they existed prior to any artificial governmental construct of man. As Divine Law, not man-made law the Bill of Rights cannot be lawfully amended, modified, abrogated, or ignored. The Rights codified in the Bill of Rights exist internally in and eternal in man. They aren't creations of the State, of Government, of man. This fact, the Neoliberal Globalist and Neo-Marxist Counterrevolutionaries both inside Government and outside it, will not accept—indeed cannot accept—for the idea that some Rights exist beyond the lawful power of the Government to whittle away at, to reinterpret the import and purport of, or to nullify outright, frustrates these evil forces to no end, as that idea makes impossible the realization of their goal of a one-world transnational governmental regime in which man is subjugated to the dictates of Government, as the State, alone, to these Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxists, is to be perceived as god, having power of life or death over the men they rule.__________________________________________

LOOKING BACKWARD TO HELLER AND MCDONALD AND FORWARD TO THE UPCOMING BRUEN (CORLETT) CASE

PART NINE

The late, eminent Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, announced in Heller, what was always patently clear, but often denied: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The clear language of the Right should have been enough to evince the Omni-expansiveness of it; the elemental inalienability, immutability, and illimitability implicit in it. Yet, from the inception of Heller, there was hesitancy and arrogance among many academicians and Government functionaries that compelled them to disavow the plain import and purport of the Right, grounded most likely on jealousy to concede the obvious import of the Right, having no desire to admit that sovereignty over Government is not a shared power or one that belongs only to those who serve in Government, but is sovereignty that rests solely with the American people. The servants of Government exercise such limited authority that the Constitution provides for and that authority is exercised only with the consent of the citizenry. That consent can be withdrawn. And the servants of Government well aware of the limitations inherent in their power constantly seek to constrain the sovereignty of the American people and they have been at work, enacting countless laws, rules, codes, regulations, and ordinances to constrict and restrict the right of the people to keep and bear arms notwithstanding the reaffirmation of the import of the right as categorically stated in Heller.And Anti-Second Amendment State Governments, as well as the Federal Government, are always looking for a way to avoid the import of Heller to affirm the legality and Constitutionality of State Action infringing the core of the Right protected. The first major attack against Heller took shape in the Anti-Second Amendment jurisdiction of Chicago, Illinois, with the City pointedly arguing that the Heller rulings pertaining to the right of Americans to utilize handguns for self-defense in their own homes, only operates as a constraint on the Federal Government, not on the States. Justice Alito who penned the majority opinion in the second major Second Amendment case, McDonald vs. City of Chicago, set forth at the outset of his remarks, the nature of and extent of Chicago’s defiant stance on the matter:“Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 171 L. Ed. 2d 637, this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home. Chicago (hereinafter City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws effectively banning handgun possession by almost all private citizens. After Heller, petitioners filed this federal suit against the City. . . . They sought a declaration that the ban and several related City ordinances violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Rejecting petitioners' argument that the ordinances are unconstitutional, the court noted that the Seventh Circuit previously had upheld the constitutionality of a handgun ban, that Heller had explicitly refrained from opining on whether the Second Amendment applied to the States, and that the court had a duty to follow established Circuit precedent.”The McDonald case made clear the rulings in Heller applied to the States too. In pertinent part, Justice Alito, wrote:“. . . we must decide whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty. . . .Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.  Explaining that ‘the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute in the home . . . we found that this right applies to handguns because they are 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family. . . . ‘[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon’). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted ‘to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”Heller makes it clear that this right is ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition. . . . Heller explored the right's origins, noting that the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.’Blackstone's assessment was shared by the American colonists. As we noted in Heller, King George III's attempt to disarm the colonists in the 1760's and 1770's ‘provoked polemical reactions by Americans invoking their rights as Englishmen to keep arms.’The right to keep and bear arms was considered no less fundamental by those who drafted and ratified the Bill of Rights.In Heller, we held that the protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.”Yet, the apparatus of Anti-Second Amendment forces in Government remained undeterred. These forces continued their efforts to find ways around Heller and McDonald through more and more comprehensive and Government licensing schemes.State and local Government firearms’ licensing schemes became progressively bloated through time, and with that bloat the language of them became increasingly vague and ambiguous; and, in the worst instances, became convoluted, inconsistent, and incoherent. Anti-Second Amendment Courts continually, blatantly misinterpreted the rulings of Heller and McDonald, setting down their imprimatur on unconstitutional Government actions.Perhaps the most voluminous Anti-Second Amendment regime to be constructed and one of the earliest, and one of the most insidious; a regime that was continually expanded and revised through time, is that one emanating from New York.Not surprisingly, the first major case the U.S. Supreme Court accepted for review, almost a decade after the seminal Heller case, was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, et.al. v. The City Of New York And The New York City Police Department-License Division, commonly and colloquially referred to as the “New York City Gun Transport Case.”The case held a lot of promise for Americans who cherish their right of self-defense and the right of personal autonomy, for having granted Petitioners’ writ of certiorari, these Americans expected quite reasonably that the U.S. Supreme Court would apply its precedents in Heller and McDonald to affirm the unconstitutionality of the constraint on one’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, outside the home, at least for the purpose of transporting a handgun to a locale outside the environs of New York City. New York’s Courts had hitherto placed burdensome constraints on transportation of handguns outside the home for those New York residents who held valid but restricted handgun premise licenses.Although some Americans might see the New York Gun Transport case as a win for those who cherish the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it wasn’t. Rather, it was a lost opportunity. Consideration of and a decision on the merits of the case were sidestepped. Now Americans who cherish their Second Amendment right are looking to a second New York case, NYSRPA vs. Corlett (now captioned, NYSRPA vs. Bruen*) on which to pin their hopes for reaffirmation of the significance of the Heller imperative. The case will be heard in November 2021 and decided probably at some point in early summer, 2022.Our concern is whether and to what extent—even with a complement of three new Justices, all Trump nominees, who would seem to adhere to the methodology of the late eminent Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, when analyzing and deciding cases—the Bruen case will be decided in a manner that will reinvigorate and clarify the rulings and holdings and reasoning of Heller and McDonald.To get a good handle on the New York Bruen case, and to assess various outcome scenarios, it is necessary to understand what transpired in the earlier New York Gun Transport case, along with a few major post-Heller D.C. gun cases and others.Our focus going forward will be directed to the elucidation of four matters:

• THE IMPORT OF GOVERNMENT FIREARMS’ LICENSING SCHEMES GENERALLY AND THOSE OF NEW YORK PARTICULARLY
• THE FRAMING OF THE SPECIFIC LEGAL ISSUE BY THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IN THE BRUEN CASE
• STANDARDS OF REVIEW EMPLOYED BY THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURTS AFTER HELLER
• A PERSPECTIVE ON THE JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACHES OF THE JUSTICES

As for the first bullet point, firearms licensing schemes are a fact, and Heller’s position on them isn’t crystal clear. The mere fact of them and the propensity of Courts to align themselves with Government to stamp their imprimatur upon them are inherently in tension with the import and purport of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, a tension that Heller did little rectify.As for the second bullet point, the Court has recast the issue for review. This recasting of the issue is critical to the decision to be reached and we will speculate on why the Court recast the issue and analyze what that may portend.As for the third bullet point, many lower Courts have routinely fallen back on judicial standards of review that majority opinion in Heller considered and rejected. The High Court may wish to clarify the standard that should be employed in Second Amendment cases where the Government actions impact the core of the right.As for the fourth bullet point, while the legacy Press constantly refers to the High Court as comprising 6 Conservative-wing Justices and 3 Liberal-wing Justices. That is an incorrect statement by the legacy Press and it is one constantly projected by the Press to express the need, as the Legacy Press sees it, for a contingent of new Justices, in the mold of the late Associate Justice, Ruth Bader-Ginsberg, and in the mold of the three remaining liberal Justices, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. These liberal-wing Justices, as often described by the Press, all ascribe to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a “Living Constitution,” (See, e.g. Acton Institute Article), which really calls for the death of the U.S. Constitution. These liberal-wing Justices' utilize a methodology for deciding cases that looks beyond the original text of the Constitution. These Justices believe in an expansive view of Constitutional analysis that routinely interjects ever-changing international law and international norms into their juridical pronouncements. This analysis is antithetical to and anathema to the methodology employed by the late Justice Antonin Scalia who realized that to interject international law and normative views of foreign countries into judicial decision-making is to denigrate the U.S. Constitution, subordinating the Supremacy of the Constitution and the Sovereignty of the United States to that of a Global initiative and Global objectives, at odds with the preservation of the U.S. Constitution in the manner the framers of it intended. Thus, these liberal-wing Justices find a strict reading of the Bill of Rights, for example, to be inconsistent with international law and norms and, so, rather than reject international law and international norms and standards, they would reject the language of the Constitution. This is most blatantly illustrated in their desire to reduce the fundamental Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms as codified in the Second Amendment, to a nullity. Thus, they seek to undercut the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald case rulings and holdings, and their opinions demonstrate their clear animosity to the methodology employed by the late Justice Scalia in deciding cases: originalism and textualism. Associate Justices Thomas and Alito also adhere to the methodology of originalism and textualism, which demands strict adherence to the plain meaning of the Constitution and especially of that critical component of it: the Bill of Rights.Chief Justice, John Roberts, who wields considerable power as the Chief Justice, is not to be seen as an avid proponent of the Second Amendment, and, apart from Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, whose commitment to the defense of exercise of the Right embodied in the Second Amendment is established beyond doubt through a large body of Supreme Court Opinions, the commitment of the newest members of the Court—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—to the sanctity of the Second Amendment and to the other Nine Bill of Rights is not firmly established. And, as for Justice Kavanaugh, along with Chief Justice John Roberts, their dubious commitment to the preservation of the Second Amendment is manifest from a perusal of their handling of the New York Gun transport case. These latter two Justices demonstrate significantly less commitment to and decidedly less ardor toward the Second Amendment than do Associate Justices Thomas and Alito and as did the late esteemed Associate Justice Scalia. This is expressed in their failure to adhere unerringly to the methodology of originalism and textualism that serves to preserve the Constitution as written, upon which the continued existence of the Nation, as a free Constitutional Republic, necessarily depends.Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kavanaugh do not employ—with the same devotion as do Justices Thomas and Alito, at any rate—the juridical methodologies of textualism and originalism, heralded by the late Justice Scalia; nor do they apply Supreme Court legal doctrines, uniformly and evenhandedly. This is apparent from their handling of the legal doctrine of “mootness,” which led to a less than optimum result in their handling of the New York Gun Transport case as a consideration of and decision on the substantive merits of the case were dispensed with.We discuss these matters in-depth in our upcoming articles._________________________________*When the Corlett case first wended its way up through New York’s Court, the Defendant, Keith M. Corlett, happened to be serving as the Superintendent of the New York State Police, the 16th Superintendent. But at some point, after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take up the “Corlett” case for review, Kevin P. Bruen replaced Corlett as the New York State Police Superintendent: the 17th Superintendent of the New York State Police. The case now reflects Bruen as the proper Defendant-Respondent and properly the case should be referred to as the Bruen case even though many journalists who discuss the case continue to refer to the case as originally captioned. See New York State Police website.____________________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

SIX MONTHS INTO THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND THE PROCESS OF DISMANTLING A FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC IS WELL UNDERWAY

NEO-MARXIST INTERNATIONALISTS AND NEOLIBERAL GLOBALIST ELITES TAKE A JACKHAMMER TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION*

PART FOUR

The last thing the Neo-Marxist Controlled Congress and Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist handlers of the dimwitted Biden and Harris want to contend with is an armed citizenry. For an armed citizenry is wholly incompatible with the Marxist-globalist agenda and with the construction of a uniform, unified autocratic world government they yearn to create from the hollowed-out shells of old Western Nation States. The U.S. Constitution must go, and a free Republic and sovereign People must go with it, into the dustbin of a forgotten history, making way for and replaced by a “Brave New World,” a technological New World Order, where billions of people, the Hoi Polloi of the Earth, now reduced to mindless, senseless, subservient automatons, no more than—and in a real sense—much less than the AI high-functioning robotic objects operating in this new world, co-existing all around them. Do you think this can't happen? The Deca and Centi-Billionaire Globalists are building these Cities of Tomorrow, right now and then plan to herd the public into them—tens of thousands of people will undoubtedly go willingly, at first, at least, buying into the soft-sell of how wonderful it is is to“live” in a “Smart-City” of the Future—and, eventually, all others will be compelled to do so, corraled against their will into a seemingly placid, tranquil, serene secure landscape. It is unlikely that Bill Gates and other mega-billionaires are buying up huge tracts of land simply to sate their penchant for farming, if that is truly the case, even if the public is told this. Can Gates truly be interested in farming? Is this for the purpose simply to grow food? Really? Huge agricultural combines such as Monsanto and huge food distributor companies like Conagra, already exist. Has Gates, probably at the behest of the Bilderberg Group et.al., of which he is a part, in fact must be a part, given his fabulous wealth, provided him and other Billionaires with their marching orders. The goal in the near term, after developing these so-called Smart Cities, is then selling the idea to the Hoi Polloi as a wonderful place for the Hoi Polloi to inhabit.  See, e.g., globest.com, pymnts.com, techrepublic.com, and iberdrola.com, smartcitiesdive.com, and the ruthless and thoroughly deceitful international management consulting firm, McKinsey, is getting into the act. In fact, a tremendous ad campaign is underway to sell this idea to investment groups, and, ultimately, to the public. See, e.g., SmartCitiesworld.com and Springer Open, and blog.bismart.com. Is this effort grounded on truly creating a better world for billions of common people? Does it even really have to do with making money? When a person has accumulated tens of billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars, does a craving for billions more exist? Is that the motivation of these people? Is the motivation to benefit mankind? Or, rather, is the motivation all-too-human: to ensure a better, safer, more secure world for the multi-billionaire ruling elites, that can only be obtained by herding the billions of common people into vast enclosures, through which these masses can be best surveilled and controlled, effectively imprisoned. This is to be sold to the Hoi Polloi as better living through technology, of course. But, when the truth about the impetus for creating these so-called smart cities slowly dawns on some people at least, it will be much too late to resist. And, what then? Eventually, masses of people will be connected to vast neural networks, kept in check within ever smaller and smaller enclosures, perhaps one-room affairs, or large wards containing beds, of a sort, to which people will live their lives virtually, essentially asleep, needing very little nutrient and water, essentially existing as vegetables. And, what is the third step in this evolving strategy of control? Perhaps these billions of people will be dispensed with altogether. Since there is no need for them, even to perform limited custodial services as the simplest of robotic apparatuses could perform those functions and many such mechanical servants already do perform those services and quite well.But, the goal of shepherding billions of people into enclosures, a process to be replicated throughout the world, cannot be smoothly engineered through the present conceptual idea of a nation-state. This social construct must also be dispensed with as an inefficient use of and in fact waste of monies and resources and an ineffective societal device for controlling large populations of common folk. Obviously, the notion of the dignity of the individual and the idea of the sanctity of the human soul not only lose significance in this technologically balanced, unified, uniform, and well-ordered, and well-engineered, smooth-running, exceptionally streamlined society but are devoid of meaning. The next step in this development of a perfectly stable, well-ordered technologically streamlined world would involve the elimination of most of humanity, as superfluous, a drain on scarce resources. The slow dismantling of and hollowing out of the very concept of the nation-state has been gathering steam for some time.This process has been underway in EU for decades. The European Union operates as the initial experiment in the demise of nation-states. The process was sold on several nations of Europe as not involving the ceding of political and legal control over to a central government operating in Brussels, but, ceding a nation's economic control over to a transnational governing body, benefitting all the member nations. That was how the architects of the EU originally sold the idea of a European Union to the original member nations of Europe. But that was merely a ploy and pretext, and one that soured as Countries like Greece, Spain, and Portugal eventually discovered that, when it came to economic fortunes in the EU, there were winners and losers no less so than there were before the artifice of a supra-transnational European Union of nation-states began implementation. But the true raison d’être behind the creation of the EU went far beyond the notion of an economic union of member nation-states that was sold, deceitfully, to these member states. The goal of the grand architects of the EU involved nothing less than the eventual dissolution of the idea of sovereign, independent nation-states. The grand design of the EU involves the reconfiguring of the member nation-states of the EU into a single monolithic transnational unified, uniform construct, with a super-government reigning body ensconced in Brussels, Belgium. See the official European Union website page, delineating the major organs of Government. And this transformative process has been gaining steam, especially in the 21^st Century, as Brussels has run roughshod over the member nations and their populations. And with ultimate political, social, cultural, and juridical control over the governments of these nations, as well as financial and economic control over the governments of these nations, it became easier to begin the process of erasing the national identity of these individual nation-states. This involves a two-step process. The first step involves destabilizing the societal and cultural structure of the member nations. This is accomplished through insinuating into the member nations of Europe, uneducated, poverty-stricken individuals from alien cultures, namely from the middle-east and from northern Africa. The denizens of those regions of Africa and the middle-east naturally resist the process of assimilation, as the cultures of the nations of Europe are at once incomprehensible to them, and incompatible with their own cultural and religious milieu. The governments of the member nation-states of the EU are denied the ability to effectively control the breakdown of the societal order. Any attempt to do so is met with resistance from the Neoliberal Globalist elites and from the International Neo-Marxists, both of whom share the same goal: the annihilation of all nation-states, and the application of the Neo-Marxist dogma serves that common goal. Neo-Marxists argue that such efforts to control denizens from North Africa and the middle-east that are running amok in the various member nations of the EU are to be perceived as immoral, and contrary to the dictates of the nonsense dogma thrust on the EU member states and in the U.S., as well: i.e., the dogma of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, terminology as meaningless to those elements from the middle east and North Africa, insinuating themselves into Europe, as that terminology is the citizens of the EU's member nation-states who wish only to hold onto their culture and national identity and culture and are prohibited from doing so by the ruling elites' overseers in Brussels and their toadies in some of the member states that weaseled their way into power: for example, Emmanuel Macron of France, and Angela Merkel of Germany, and Mario Draghi of Italy, to name a few.Yet, even as most of the populations of the member states are not  exactly ecstatic over the idea of ceding national political, social, cultural, and legal power over to a central transnational governing body in Brussels, whatever the ostensible benefits of an economic union might present—which is, at best, debatable—some have successfully resisted this unlawfully usurpation of political authority. Looking clearly and honestly at the structure of the EU governing organs, it is now clear to most populations of the member states that that the architects of the EU had engaged its member states with a Devil’s bargain as the these independent, sovereign nation-states would be required to cede all governing powers over to Brussels, not merely some governing power—i.e., economic power. Indeed, to cede economic power is, for all intents and purposes, to cede all other power—political, social, judicial.Countries like Hungary and Poland, though, have had enough of the EU and the unlawful encroachment of Brussels over their national sovereignty. Afraid of a general backlash, the Neoliberal Globalist architects of the EU treat those Nations as pariahs. The Neo-Marxist intelligentsia conjured up a specific derogatory expression to describe these malcontents, calling them seats of “illiberal Constitutionalism.”Legions of media puppets of the EU’s rulers attacked these Nations. The AP, for one, audaciously proclaimed: “Democratic standards in the European Union are eroding in several member countries, particularly in Hungary and Poland where judicial independence is under threat, the EU’s executive commission said Tuesday in its annual report on adherence to the rule of law.”This bit of propaganda, not surprisingly, emanates out of Brussels, the seat of the Globalist ruler “elite.” It is the very assertion of independence that Brussels abhors—a right that, curiously enough, is a right of every sovereign nation. Brussels, through the AP, is declaring that the member nations are not to be construed as truly sovereign countries—at least not anymore—and, in so saying, admits that the creation of the EU is predicated on the gravest of lies—telling each member State that it shall retain its inherent structure, as an independent sovereign nation, which means retaining all political and judicial power, when in fact, the EU governance requires the ceding of all of it, and slowly through the years and decades since the inception of the EU, has been drawing from their member nation-states powers that belong solely to those States. As the populations of all the member States are well aware of the Government in Brussels' unlawful usurpation of powers and authority, some of those member States have drawn a line in the sand, and said this cannot continue. The sovereign Nation-States of Hungary and Poland are two such that have basically told Brussels' tyrants to go to Hell. Unsurprisingly, the tyrants in Brussels haven't taken kindly to the reassertion of power and authority by Hungary and Poland. And the Globalists and Neo-Marxists here in the U.S. are chiming in to support EU's tyrants. Tucker Carlson makes the point in Budapest that it is time that Americans wake up to the fact that they are in danger of losing their Constitutional Republic if they don't reassert their sovereign authority over Government. In fact, our Constitution makes clear that true power and authority rests in the American people, not in Government. Limited and demarcated powers and authority made patently clear in the U.S. Constitution point to the fact that the Federal Government is the servant of the people, not the other way around. But, the Neoliberal Globalists and Internationalist Neo-Marxists don't give a damn whatever the Constitution has to say about the matter in whom sole, ultimate, and supreme authority resides. And the Bill of Rights, apart from the Articles, emphasizes in whom ultimate power and authority reside. The pack of lies coming from the Press that Donald Trump was an Autocrat is belied by the cavalier manner in which these Globalists in the U.S. Government, through their puppet, the senile Joe Biden, has systematically amassed powers in defiance of and in contradistinction to the clear meaning of the plain language of the Articles, and blatantly defies Congressional Statute, of which the Biden's open borders policy is a clear example of, or simply ignores Constitution and Congressional Statute, and operates as if the U.S. Constitution doesn't even exist. Tucker Carlson's visit to Budapest drives home the point that too many Americans have allowed themselves to be blindsided by the antics of tyrants here at home, in Congress and in the Executive Branch, who claim they aren't tyrants even as they go about terrorizing a goodly section of the populace that refuses to submit to their tyranny. Now the Press is going after Hungary and Tucker Carlson for fear that the American public will take notice of the loss of their Country and their liberty to Autocrats and demand an accounting of the actions of these Neo-Marxist Autocrat members of Congress and of the actions of the Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-run Executive Branch of Government.As an example of the Internationalist Neo-Marxist attack against Countries that dare to reassert their National sovereignty and National Identity, the Neo-Marxist Wilson Center think tank attacks the concept of ‘nationalism’ openly and arrogantly, stating, “Hungarian nationalism, indeed all the Central and East European nationalisms, are driven by martyrologies of defeat.” In the article, the Wilson Center makes use of the obligatory Neo-Marxist verbiage, ‘inclusion,’ drawing a contrast with and denigrating the concept of  ‘assimilation,’ as too confining and outmoded, reminiscent of nation-states. No surprise there. The Wilson Center goes on to say: “The word ‘inclusion’ rather than “‘assimilation’ is used in order to shift the focus onto the nation and the process of accepting minorities into a community, rather than on the actions of the minorities who are making the adaptation. Assimilation implies a solution, a kind of permanency, whereas inclusion suggests a process with ruptures and redefinitions. Policies of inclusion can be severed or reinstated more easily than assimilation.” See also the article in the Atlantic Council; the Council contemptuously refers to Hungary and Poland as “as a hotbed of nationalism and authoritarianism, a leading edge of bad trends in Europe generally.”Not to be outdone, the Neoliberal Globalist Jeff Bezos publication, The Washington Post, gets into the act, too, scorning Tucker Carlson for his visit to Budapest and for his meeting with Hungary’s Prime Minister, Vicktor Orbán. Of note, the Washington Post defends Brussel’s criticism of Orban, asserting:“. . . the reason that E.U. leaders have criticized Orban as authoritarian is that he has embarked on an unabashed and explicit effort to shift Hungary away from the traditions of liberal democracy, in which power is assigned through free and fair elections. Orban is criticized as authoritarian because he has embraced autocracy.”Tucker Carlson conducted an interview of Hungary's Prime Minister a few days ago. See Fox News Article, titled, “Hungary's Viktor Orban tells Tucker Carlson: ‘Western liberals can't accept’ right-wing dissent.” During the interview, the Prime Minister said in pertinent part:“‘The Western liberals cannot accept that inside the Western civilization, there is a conservative national alternative which is more successful at everyday life, at the level of them—the liberal ones,’ he said. ‘That's the reason why they criticize us. They are fighting for themselves, not against us. But we are an example that a country which is based on traditional values, on national identity, on the tradition of Christianity can be successful—sometimes more successful than a leftist-liberal government. . . . But you can’t say, okay, it’s a nice country. I would like to come and live here because it’s a nicer life, it is not a human right to come here. No way. It’s our land. It’s a nation, a community, family, history, tradition, language.’”These remarks drove the Marxists in the Press apoplectic with rage. They couldn't let this pass. How dare an American news host take control of the Marxist/Globalist narrative, and attack their unholy Radical Left Gospel of  “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion!”And they let loose their venom on both Orban and Carlson, and, by extension, on American conservatives, as well—those Americans who have the audacity to cherish their history, heritage, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethical foundation and a free Constitutional Republic that the founders of the Nation bequeathed to America's descendants. The New York Times' posted two Op-Ed pieces on the matter, both of which were published in the newspaper on August 6, and 7 2021, respectively. One article deserves especial attention, for its discussion of an essay by George Orwell, ‘Notes On Nationalism,’ That article by New York Times Op-Ed Columnist, Jamelle Bouie, sports the sarcastic title, “Tucker Carlson Has a New Hero,”—a title that manages to convey in six words, the author's contempt for both Fox News Host, Carlson, and Hungary's Prime Minister, Orban. Jamelle's Bouie's article is, though, not to be remarked upon for the unrestrained disdain in which he holds Carlson and Orban, of which the Op-Ed elicits much, but rather, for its attack on the notion of  ‘nationalism,’ which Bouie, perceives as contrary to the spirit of intellectualism and therefore, contrary to rational thought. And he sees the expression of nationalist fervor as a thing as relevant in today's world as corsets and buggy whips and as worthy of emulation as the Dictators of history that Bouie ties to the term. To support his attack on ‘nationalism,’ as something to be despised, he cites George Orwell—but not Orwell's famed novel, ‘1984,’ much-cited today by Progressives, Marxists, Anarchists, and the like, on the Leftside of the political spectrum, and by those on the Right of the political spectrum. Bouie cites, instead, a lesser-known work, a short essay, titled, ‘Notes On Nationalism,’ for the proposition that Orwell considered ‘nationalism’ as anathema to rational thought. But, he made a point of asserting ‘nationalism’ to be a fault as much among the intelligentsia as among the common man.For Orwell, ‘nationalism’ is tied to a narrowness of thought and perception which therefore admits a multitude of sins. But for all that, the term is vague in meaning as is the term ‘patriotism’ which, for Orwell, is a thing to be lauded, not despised, although, here, in the United States at this particular time, the Neo-Marxists do not draw a distinction between the two, unlike Orwell, as the emulation of both is despised by the Neo-Marxists. Orwell writes,“Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.”It is not hard to see that, in our own Country, the Neo-Marxists at once will dismiss their insatiable desire, even lust, for the acquiring of absolute power for themselves, and are therefore nationalists, in a true Orwellian sense, and eschew any notion they are patriots, as that notion is tied inextricably to the American Revolution of 1776, which they revolt against, as they definitely have no devotion to the United States as a free Constitutional Republic, and they definitely do not believe the American way of life to be the best in the world given their desire to dismantle every vestige of the past and to rewrite history in accordance with their mythology. And, since they do indeed have wish to force Marxist Collectivism in this Country and world-wide, they can neither considered to be ‘patriots’ in the Orwellian sense, which happens to be consistent with the sense of the word that America's Conservatives ascribe to.In that Essay, ‘Notes On Nationalism,’ George Orwell further explicates the meaning of ‘nationalism’.  He says, “A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist – that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating – but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the up-grade and some hated rival is on the down-grade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also – since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself – unshakeably certain of being in the right.”But, is this exposition on the meaning of  ‘nationalism’ not an apt description for the political failings of the Neo-Marxist? And, as for the idea of flagrant dishonesty and self-deception that marks the Marxists' inner thoughts and outer actions, we can add that the Neo-Marxists are unabashed, sanctimonious hypocrites whose tenets and precepts aren't even internally consistent and coherent.The New York Times Op-Ed writer, Jamelle Bouie, chides Tucker Carlson for admiring Hungary, and says that this is form of nationalism referred to as transferred nationalism, a term that Orwell coins. But is that so wrong? In fact Tucker Carlson only points to Hungary as an exemplary model because it alludes to a United States that existed for well over 200 years, a United States existing as a free Constitutional Republic, a Republic grounded in liberty, where is not a mere word, but reigns supreme, a Republic where the American people themselves, and only they, are the sole sovereign ruler,  power, and authority in the Nation, over the Federal Government and those who serve in it, at the pleasure of the American people, as the servants of the people, not their overseers. It is this Country, grounded in the tenets of Individualism that the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist abhors and seeks to change both here and abroad; indeed, seeks to transform the entire structure of Western Civilization, grounded on the concept of the nation-state. The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist elite seek to evoke a horrific inter-nationalism or trans-nationalism to replace each independent, sovereign nation-state, and to inflict their radical makeover of Western political, social, economic, and juridical structures to reflect their warped philosophy; and they intend for that philosophy to embrace and shape the entire world, or at least that substantial portion of it included in the domain of Western Civilization. The world they envision is one in which one's every thought and conduct is conditioned and controlled; a world of incessant surveillance, in every sphere of influence, public and private, within the home and outside it; a world that tortures and subjugates body and spirit and that destroys mind and reason and will.The Neo-Marxist is a textbook case example of George Orwell's nationalist—an internationalist mindset that seeks to remake the entire world in accord with its tenets and precepts, and that will suffer no contrary viewpoint; will tolerate no dissenting voice; will abide no demonstration of uniqueness, of individuality; that will brook no interference, no opposition. The Neo-Marxist is one so enamored with him or herself—so certain of the truth of his or her beliefs, and so convinced of the perfection of the morality that undergirds those beliefs, that debate, any debate, is deemed to be unnecessary and superfluous, or worse, to admit of blasphemy or heresy, and must not be entertained, lest the purity of Marxism be contaminated and one's mind be confounded by impure thoughts. One must submit to the orthodoxy or be crushed into submission. This is nationalism as internationalism, transnationalism—the embrace of nationalism as universalism to overtake, overshadow, overpower every other system of belief, on any conceivable topic—Marxism, this new Neo-Marxism, not Classic Marxism, will shape any topic; have something to say about any subject, however prosaic or abstruse; and those entrusted to define and interpret this new Marxism are the lofty Priests of the new Marxism, those who inhabit the highest Caste, and woe be to that person who dares to disagree or, worse, to interfere with the musings of these High-Lord Muck-a-Mucks.Orwell writes,“As nearly as possible, no nationalist ever thinks, talks, or writes about anything except the superiority of his own power unit. It is difficult if not impossible for any nationalist to conceal his allegiance. The smallest slur upon his own unit, or any implied praise of a rival organization, fills him with uneasiness which he can only relieve by making some sharp retort. “Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should – in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 – and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which, it is felt, ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied.”All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts. . . . Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by ‘our’ side. [Think of last Summer's riots in Marxist-led Cities and States].“Every nationalist is haunted by the belief that the past can be altered. He spends part of his time in a fantasy world in which things happen as they should – in which, for example, the Spanish Armada was a success or the Russian Revolution was crushed in 1918 – and he will transfer fragments of this world to the history books whenever possible. Much of the propagandist writing of our time amounts to plain forgery. Material facts are suppressed, dates altered, quotations removed from their context and doctored so as to change their meaning. Events which, it is felt, ought not to have happened are left unmentioned and ultimately denied. . . .  [P]ropaganda is, of course, to influence contemporary opinion, but those who rewrite history do probably believe with part of their minds that they are actually thrusting facts into the past. “Indifference to objective truth is encouraged by the sealing-off of one part of the world from another, which makes it harder and harder to discover what is actually happening. There can often be a genuine doubt about the most enormous events. . . . One has no way of verifying the facts, one is not even fully certain that they have happened, and one is always presented with totally different interpretations from different sources. . . . The general uncertainty as to what is really happening makes it easier to cling to lunatic beliefs. Since nothing is ever quite proved or disproved, the most unmistakable fact can be impudently denied. Moreover, although endlessly brooding on power, victory, defeat, revenge, the nationalist is often somewhat uninterested in what happens in the real world. What he wants is to feel that his own unit is getting the better of some other unit, and he can more easily do this by scoring off an adversary than by examining the facts to see whether they support him. All nationalist controversy is at the debating-society level. It is always entirely inconclusive since each contestant invariably believes himself to have won the victory. Some nationalists are not far from schizophrenia, living quite happily amid dreams of power and conquest which have no connexion with the physical world.”Jamelle Bouie should be careful of whom he cites for support when he demeans and debases a reputable news host and the Prime Minister of a Nation.Bouie defers to the Neoliberal Globalist propagandist messaging that “Orbán's Hungary is corrupt, repressive and authoritarian, a place where democracy is little more than window dressing and the state exists to plunder the public on behalf of a tiny ruling elite.” But consider what Hungary when through in the mid-Twentieth Century, as reported in History.com:“A spontaneous national uprising that began 12 days before in Hungary is viciously crushed by Soviet tanks and troops on November 4, 1956. Thousands were killed and wounded and nearly a quarter-million Hungarians fled the country.The problems in Hungary began in October 1956, when thousands of protesters took to the streets demanding a more democratic political system and freedom from Soviet oppression. In response, Communist Party officials appointed Imre Nagy, a former premier who had been dismissed from the party for his criticisms of Stalinist policies, as the new premier. Nagy tried to restore peace and asked the Soviets to withdraw their troops. The Soviets did so, but Nagy then tried to push the Hungarian revolt forward by abolishing one-party rule. He also announced that Hungary was withdrawing from the Warsaw Pact (the Soviet bloc’s equivalent of NATO).On November 4, 1956, Soviet tanks rolled into Budapest to crush, once and for all, the national uprising. Vicious street fighting broke out, but the Soviets’ great power ensured victory. At 5:20 a.m., Hungarian Prime Minister Imre Nagy announced the invasion to the nation in a grim, 35-second broadcast, declaring: “Our troops are fighting. The Government is in place.” Within hours, though, Nagy sought asylum at the Yugoslav Embassy in Budapest. He was captured shortly thereafter and executed two years later. Nagy’s former colleague and imminent replacement, János Kádár, who had been flown secretly from Moscow to the city of Szolnok, 60 miles southeast of the capital, prepared to take power with Moscow’s backing.The Soviet action stunned many people in the West. Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had pledged a retreat from the Stalinist policies and repression of the past, but the violent actions in Budapest suggested otherwise. An estimated 2,500 Hungarians died and 200,000 more fled as refugees. Sporadic armed resistance, strikes and mass arrests continued for months thereafter, causing substantial economic disruption. Inaction on the part of the United States angered and frustrated many Hungarians. Voice of America radio broadcasts and speeches by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles had recently suggested that the United States supported the “liberation” of “captive peoples” in communist nations. Yet, as Soviet tanks bore down on the protesters, the United States did nothing beyond issuing public statements of sympathy for their plight.” The people of Hungary know their history, and their parents and grandparents knew tyranny firsthand and the history of brutal Soviet oppression and subjugation won't be forgotten. It was no less the oppression of an independent sovereign Nation that is once again under attack, but not from Orbán. Rather this oppression is coming from the EU. It may not be through military force that the EU's Globalists Transnational Government, dictating policy from Brussels, has sought to oppress Hungary and the other nations of the EU that have opposed the usurpation of foreign authority on national sovereignty, but these overseers in Brussels have no less sought unlawfully to impose their iron rule upon Hungary, and the people of Hungary rejected that. Is it so wrong to admire one Nation's resolve against tyranny? But, Leftist writers like Jamelle Bouie are obviously oblivious to what it is in a Country that truly constitutes a trend, a direction toward tyranny. Bouie says,

“But at this moment in American life, it’s conservatives who have set their sights abroad. Parts of the movement have even adopted a kind of anti-Americanism, a contempt for the United States as it exists. These conservatives still call themselves “patriots” — and disdain their opponents as “traitors” — but theirs is an abstract loyalty to an idealized country. “When they contemplate the actual United States,” Beauchamp wrote in Vox, “they are filled with scorn.”

It makes sense that as this tendency develops, so too does the yearning for a country that can be hailed as a model and a lodestar — the soaring and gilded counterpoint to our fallen and decadent society.” 

But that too is projection. And sooner or later, the conservatives who hail Hungary under Orban as an attractive alternative to the United States will see that their vision of that country is as false as their image of this one is.”

“Projection”? Really? That notion is absurd. What it is that draws Americans' attention to Hungary, and why many Americans admire Hungary, is not due to the psychological device of “projection” that the Times' writer Jamelle Bouie recites in his Op-Ed, but to the fact that this small Nation has taken a stand against unlawful usurpation of power by the EU, as political power belongs solely to Hungary, and rightfully so since Hungary is an independent sovereign Nation. It IS Hungary's will to resist unlawful encroachment of power that Americans find a thing to emulate. As Hungary has gained its independence from the Neoliberal Globalist forces in Brussels that dare to crush Hungary's independence, the United States has begun a process of decline in all aspects, politically, socially, economically, militarily, geopolitically, juridically, as those same Neoliberal Globalist forces, together with the Neo-Marxist rabble, seeks to unwind all sovereign, independent Western nation-states and to subsume them in a new transnational world order. The Neoliberal Globalist (these so-called) ‘elites’ and Internationalist Neo-Marxists have taken their cue from the EU, which is what they emulate and seek to replicate in the U.S.: A transnationalist governmental scheme, embracing all the major Western nation-states. In this scheme, there exist no national borders and no defined national identity. These powerful forces that crush seek no less than the annihilation of a powerful, independent sovereign Nation-State, one framed as a free Constitutional Republic in which the citizenry are sole sovereign, and whose power and authority as sole sovereign over Nation and Government derive from and are grounded in a carefully considered, extraordinary Constitution, establishing a Government with clearly defined and demarcated powers, all the rest of which, including Natural Rights existing intrinsically in Man, several of which are codified in the Nation's Bill of Rights, are reserved alone to the several States and to the People. This, the Leftists' Internationalist Marxist intellectual elite and the Neoliberal Globalist elites intend to obliterate. They see this as a good thing and with Donald Trump who sought to preserve the Nation in the form the founders created, callously swept aside through a rigged election, the forces that crush have wasted no time dismantling the U.S. Constitution, erasing all vestige of the Nation's past, destroying the Nation's culture along with the Nation's Judeo-Christian ethic, insinuating itself into every political, quasi-political, and semi-political structure, and institution of State, Federal, and local Government, compelling all private organizations and businesses to prostrate themselves to the new world order to be, deliberately destabilizing society, confounding the public, and denying to the common man the unfettered exercise of his or her natural Rights. This, they see as ‘Liberal Democracy’, something to be applauded.But, the trend toward ‘Liberal Democracy’ is nothing more than a seeming innocuous code for the annihilation of the Nation-State, and the creation of a new political, social, economic, and cultural structure to embrace the entirety of western civilization. The depth and breadth of this audacious effort to reconfigure the entirety of Western Civilization is not confined to Europe or to the U.S. or to the Commonwealth Nations. It embraces the entirety of Western Civilization—it amounts to the most audacious reconfiguration of Western Civilization yet conceived, resulting not in freeing the populations of the West, but, perversely, subjugating those populations, reducing them to abject poverty and to the strictest of control. And to this day, it is remarkable the ease to which the Press and social media redefine concepts or create new concepts out of whole cloth and refer to freedom fighters, such as Orban of Hungary, and Mateusz Morawiecki of Poland, and, yes, Donald Trump, too, as autocrats and despots and authoritarians.It is easy for the seditious Press to point to specific leaders who seek to save their Nations from the insidious encroachment of international Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism, for the public never sees the faces of the true rulers. They guard their secrecy jealously. The public only sees the faces of their current crop of puppets—whom their propaganda organs extol as righteous beacons of “liberal democracy: people like Angela Merkel of Germany, Emmanuel Macron of France, the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen; and other western puppet leaders of the secretive ruling “elite” Rothschild clan, et.al., including marionettes such as Justin Trudeau of Canada, Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand; and, in our own Country, don’t you know—the decrepit, cardboard cutout mannequins of the secretive “elites,” Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.The U.S. is being similarly attacked by the toady media outlets of the Neoliberal Globalists' hidden leaders, and the U.S. is headed for the same usurpation of Nation-State independence as the nations of the EU, despite the apparent pushback in some countries. This unlawful usurpation of power is happening simultaneously throughout the globe.The eventual shakeout, if it comes to pass, will see the political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical structures of government much different than in the past few centuries. The “nation-state” construct will be dissolved. Through the embrace of and charade of economic Neoliberal globalism and Neo-Marxism, the world will be carved up between two ascendant unstoppable totalitarian regimes: on the one hand, a vast Communist Chinese empire and, and, on the other, a reconstituted, completely transformed West, brought under a single, uniform, unified, monolithic supra-national totalitarian governing structure. An uneasy truce will exist between the two, with fractures occurring from time to time, as inevitable flareups and squabbles between the two salient empires occur in parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East.For, a reconstituted, completely transformed West, brought under a single, uniform, unified, monolithic supra-national totalitarian governing structure to be able to successfully, withstand, if at all, the military, economic, and geopolitical might of Communist China, the West's Neoliberal Globalist elites understand that the linchpin for creating a formidable transnational totalitarian Western empire or bloc rests with bringing the EU into the fold of the U.S. and likely that would require Russia as well. China will continue its attempts to neutralize the military and economic power of the U.S. The unleashing of the Communist Chinese Coronavirus plague bioweapon on the world—predominately targeting the U.S., an act of war if there ever was one—has devastated the economy of the U.S. and has provided the impetus for exerting Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist control over the thought and action of the citizenry. The Neoliberal Globalist “elites” were likely in on this which might explain the odd reticence in engaging in a serious investigation of China’s conduct from the inception: involving gain of function research, of which Dr. Anthony Fauci was clearly aware of, and has much to explain to the American people. See, e.g., Fox News story on this, and Wall Street Journal report. This would suggest that the Neoliberal Globalist elites, along with the Neo-Marxists in Congress knowingly, willingly compromised the security of the Nation to amass personal wealth. In other words, the Globalists in the U.S. allowed China to treat their Companies, along with the U.S. Government as a commodity to be traded like any other commodity on the open market. China preyed upon this weakness in America's business and Government leaders; an insatiable lust to amass personal wealth even at the expense of the well-being of the Nation. The well-being of the American public and compliance with our Nation's laws and Constitution apparently doesn't factor into the equation. They have sold out the Nation. Communist China is the Nation's enemy, not merely an economic, military, and geopolitical competitor. Article 3, Sections 3 and 4 of the U.S. Constitution sets forth that:“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”What might be done were Congress itself and the Executive Branch of Government complicit in committing treason? Who is it that might give testimony under oath against a member of Congress or of others in High Office? The Constitution doesn't seem to provide for this eventuality, given the sheer scope and audaciousness of the offense. In fact, it is only through the effects of and tremendous scale of the harm done that any American should see the harm that has been done to the Nation, the U.S. Constitution, and to the American people. But, perhaps it is precisely because of the massive scale of the harm that many Americans fail to take appreciable notice of the extent of it or, one might say that these events are less to be construed as incalculably horrific human misery compounded one tragedy + one tragedy + one tragedy, and so on, each to be pondered, but merely to be seen as a matter of banal Government statistics. In an article published on the website reason on January 7, 2009,  the writer, Ronald Bailey, writes:“ ‘The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.’That's what Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin allegedly once said to U.S. ambassador Averill Harriman. And Stalin was an expert on the topic since his regime killed as many 43 million people. It turns out that the mustachioed murderer may have been expressing an acute insight into human psychology. Earlier this week, the Washington Post's always interesting Department of Human Behavior columnist Shankar Vedantam reported on the research of University of Oregon professor Paul Slovic who looked at how people respond to humanitarian tragedies. As Vedantam explains:In a rational world, we should care twice as much about a tragedy affecting 100 people as about one affecting 50. We ought to care 80,000 times as much when a tragedy involves 4 million lives rather than 50. But Slovic has proved in experiments that this is not how the mind works.When a tragedy claims many lives, we often care less than if a tragedy claims only a few lives. When there are many victims, we find it easier to look the other way.Virtually by definition, the central feature of humanitarian disasters and genocide is that there are a large number of victims’‘The first life lost is very precious, but we don't react very much to the difference between 88 deaths and 87 deaths," Slovic said in an interview. ‘You don't feel worse about 88 than you do about 87.’”The inexorable weakening of the U.S. economy, the death of hundreds of thousands in this Country due to the unleashing of the Chinese Communist Coronavirus in the U.S., whether through reckless or depraved indifference or through cold, calculated deliberation, and as its after-effects are still much with us, and with the rapid unraveling of the social order through the machinations of a well-coordinated and well-funded Neo-Marxist reeducation campaign affecting every institution of our Nation, even our military, and through this Harris-Biden Administration's deliberate, calculated unleashing of millions of destitute illegal aliens into and throughout our Country, many of them diseased—all this human misery and all this major calamity confronting the Country in a Post-Trump Nation bespeaks treachery to Country, to Constitution, and to the citizenry by myriads of humanoid creatures in High Government Office, in the Press, in social media, in our Nation's institution of public education, in high finance, and in academia, that is of another order of magnitude.A backlash, which the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist Internationalists must surely have seen coming, is unlikely to forestall the inexorable dissolution of a free Constitutional Republic, unless Republican legislators—and not the Cheney/Romney/Kinzinger et.al. sort—regain control of Congress in 2022, and the Constitution remains intact. Otherwise, this Nation will continue down the road to dissolution—its skeletal remains to be consolidated with and absorbed into the skeletal remains of the other major Western Nation States. But in the Nation’s death throes a bloodbath is likely to ensue. Americans will not readily surrender their firearms. It is because the U.S. has a well-drafted Constitution—and the longest surviving Constitution of the modern Nation-State and one grounded on the tenets of Individualism—that the adherents of Collectivism, i.e., the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist elites find frustratingly and confoundingly difficult to contend with, despite the powers they wield in America and those they continue to gather up.Enough Americans, tens of millions of Americans—fortunate to have been spared academic indoctrination—resist attempts to dismantle a Free Constitutional Republic—all this in spite of the ever-increasing usurpation of power of the federal Government; the disintegration of a truly independent Press; the entrenchment of Neo-Marxist dogma in society; and the rabid attempt to federalize Constitutional structures historically belonging to and reserved to the several States, under the Tenth Amendment: control of public education; protecting the public health’s and providing for the public’s safety; conducting elections free from federal government interference; making marriage laws; punishing criminals; establishing local governments; and providing police and fire protection.Some powers, and the most important of late, relate to the controlling of borders. The Federal Government has the duty to protect the Nation’s borders from invasion. To the contrary, the Harris-Biden is openly inviting tidal waves of illegal aliens into our Country many of whom bear infectious diseases and deadly exotic pathogens; most of whom are destitute; all of whom are freeloaders; and too many of whom are murderous, psychopathic drug and sex traffickers or otherwise, incorrigible common criminals, including rapists, muggers, arsonists, child molesters, and other assorted lunatics.The present open border policy is not only inconsistent with federal statute it is a violation of the President’s oath of Office under Article 1, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, and it is a violation of duties of both the President and Congress under Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S.  Constitution.Yet the present inhabitants of the Executive Branch of Government pretend the Constitution is infinitely malleable and can mean whatever they wish it to mean, or they simply dismiss the Constitution out-of-hand. That raises the question: who is the Chief Executive of the Nation? Article 2 of the Constitution makes clear that there is, at any one time, one and only one Chief Executive. And the Chief Executive IS the ultimate decider of policy of the Executive Branch. That person is expected to give Orders, not take them.The present occupier of the seat of U.S. President, Joe Biden, is merely the titular Head of State whether in fact he was legitimately elected U.S. President. And there is considerable reasonable doubt as to that. But one thing about Biden, there can be no reasonable doubt and that has to do with whom it is who is making the decisions.No one honestly believes this sorry excuse for the Head of the Greatest Nation on Earth is making any decision for himself apart from deciding the flavor of ice cream he has a hankering for on any given day. For serious doubt exists whether the man is capable of rational thought any longer when it comes to serious matters of State, or whether Biden truly cares about, or even has the capacity to care about, heavy matters of State.And Congress is no better. All too many members of Congress treat the blueprint of the Nation as an ossified relic that ought to be and at some point in time must be formally discarded, and in the interim these Marxists interpret the Constitution Congress in any fanciful way they wish, or otherwise ignore the Constitution’s strictures outright, especially those strictures involving that aspect of the Constitution referred to as the Bill of Rights.We know the Neo-Marxist Congress and the true policymakers in the Executive Branch wish to scrap the Bill of Rights. They do not conceive of the Rights as codifications of natural law anyway. They do not accept the Bill of Rights as a set of fundamental, primordial rights existent in man before the creation of the Republic.Americans are witnessing the rapid decline and ultimate cessation of sacred Rights hitherto exercised. They are witnessing the de facto repeal of basic liberties that cannot lawfully be repealed or denied but are being de facto repealed or otherwise denied. And that portends the inevitable demise of the Republic; for once the Bill of Rights goes the Nation goes out with it. And there is evidence galore for this. We have already seen the Fourth Amendment's dictate against unreasonable searches and seizures essentially eradicated due to Congressional lack of oversight of both Government and of the Internet media monopolies and other technology companies that has resulted in the vacuuming up of every iota of electronic communication, and the attacks against the First Amendment's Right of Free Speech is well underway through censorship of books and curtailing of information on the world web that doesn't comport with the Neo-Marxist dogma and the fluid notions of liberal democracy that the Neoliberal Globalist elites wish to convey to the public. And the public is just beginning to obtain a glimpse of a concerted plan to curtail civilian citizen ownership of firearms, contrary to the dictates of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Implementation of this plan will probably begin in earnest in the coming months by Congressional Marxists, and the Harris-Biden Administration.Even during the first few days of the Harris-Biden Administration, Americans have seen the issuance of dozens of executive orders and other executive actions that the storefront mannequin Biden signed off one after the other. Congress, too, simply, is indifferent to or is defiant of the very laws it has enacted and is contemptuous of the dictates of the U.S. Constitution.The Marxist-controlled Democrat Party Congress is on board with or is one with the Harris-Biden Administration on its single-minded goal to dismantle the Republic. And most of the Republicans have themselves acquiesced or capitulated to or are in league with the Neo-Marxist game plan, if surreptitiously.As events unfold, it won’t be long before the U.S. becomes a hollowed-out shell of a Nation-State itself, not unlike most of those nations of the EU—ripe for a merger with the EU or whatever the EU eventually morphs into. And the remains of the major commonwealth Nations— Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada will follow suit.Six months into the Harris-Biden Administration and we the Anti-American Neo-Marxist Counterrevolution in full swing. The Nation is rapidly transitioning from a healthy, independent sovereign Nation-State and free Constitutional Republic borne of the American Revolution of 1776 into a political, economic, social, and moral decrepitude. Tens of millions of Americans know this to be true.But, having unceremoniously ushered Donald Trump from High Office through the application of massive, unprecedented, and outrageous electoral chicanery, the Neo-Marxists and immensely powerful, well-organized, and incredibly wealthy Neoliberal Globalists are moving apace to destabilize society through a policy of open borders, control of the Federal Government, the Press, social media, the banks, the business sector, many State Governments, Marxist organizations such as the ACLU, and so on and so forth.At some point, Americans will have to take a stand to halt the plunder of their Nation and of their sacred Constitution, and of their sacred, inviolate Rights. Either they take a stand, or they shall lose everything and for all time: Country, Constitution, Liberty, their very Soul. And of that, there can be no reasonable doubt.___________________________________*Article substantially expanded, August 8, 2021___________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT RACIST? SOME “THINKERS” TELL US IT IS.

ANOTHER CRAZY MARXIST NOTION ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

PART THREE

“Gun violence is a public health crisis in communities of color, and the Second Amendment has roots in slavery.” —opening remark in an article titled, “Racial equity agenda must include gun control,” as published in the Leftist website, “Crosscut,” on March 8, 2021.In tandem with the incendiary myth of “critical race theory,” thrust on the public and on our children by a Marxist-controlled Federal Government, a Marxist-controlled public educational system, a seditious, legacy Press, a Marxist-inspired Press, and an arrogant Marxist academia, there is the erroneous and dangerous myth by the Nation’s Obstructors and Destructors that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights has its roots in racism: “The Second Amendment is deeply rooted in America’s racist past, and fundamentally connected to the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others. But to make this connection, one must be a “strict constructionist,” someone who looks beyond the Constitution’s written word to the underlying motives of the founders.At the Second Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787, Southern delegates were fearful the U.S. Constitution they were drafting would restrict their right to own, sell and transport slaves. In response, Northern delegates crafted a document in which nearly one-quarter of the clauses appeased the slaveholding South, and the words “slave” or “slavery” never appeared. The Second Amendment was key among these appeasements.Patrick Henry, a Virginia slaveholder, opposed ratifying the Constitution, fearing it would cede state control of slave patrols (politely called “militias” by the founders) to the federal government. James Madison, favoring ratification, said in a debate with Henry, “If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrection. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.”Take either side, Henry’s or Madison’s, local or federal, and the same fundamental issue remained: preserve slavery at all costs.” Id., supraThis, in essence, as set forth in Ford’s article, is the rationale behind the myth perpetrated and perpetuated by America’s Neo-Marxist zealots, i.e.: “Since the Second Amendment is to be perceived as inherently racist, it must be abolished.”On its face, this is a bizarre, absurd notion, hard to take seriously, but a dangerous one nonetheless because there are many in this Nation who do take it seriously. It is bubbling up and through the Nation, permeating the Nation's universities, seeping into the grade schools and high schools, embracing, as well, the equally ludicrous idea that the United States is a Nation of white Race Oppressors and of black slave Oppressed.  And, although the Neo-Marxists are loath, these days, to use the phrase, “Critical Race Theory,” in the Press and on broadcast and cable news, given the groundswell against this propaganda, now that the public is well-aware of the intent of the Marxists to indoctrinate the Nation's youth, it cannot be denied that “Critical Race Theory” lies at the core of the “1619 Project,” which IS the new comprehensive lesson plan to replace the traditional teaching of history in our Nation's public schools. “Critical Race Theory”  is the salient idea at the core of the Neo-Marxist 1619 Project. See article in CATO.This new attack against the Second Amendment is predicated on the inane theory that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was created by Racist white men to keep oppressed black men enslaved. This idea is of a piece with everything else that Neo-Marxists fault America for: the entirety of our Nation's history, heritage, and culture that they seek to tear down, to pave the way for the shell of what it remains of a once-proud, powerful, and wealthy and healthy, and exuberant independent, sovereign Nation and a free, sovereign people, to be merged into a transformative, transnationalist, Neo-Marxist, Globalist political, economic, social, and cultural governmental scheme, reducing the citizenry as a whole to a sad existence of poverty, misery, and, curiously enough, slavery, too.But of all the schemes falling under the irrepressible, boisterous Neo-Marxist mantra of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,”  it is the elimination of the Second Amendment that is absolutely essential to the Neo-Marxist game plan if their Counterrevolution to the American Revolution of 1776 is to have a concrete effect and lasting success. This little but insistent fact about the need to get rid of the fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is papered over by America’s Neo-Marxists.Claiming the Second Amendment has its roots in racism is simply one more avenue of attack America’s Neo-Marxist leverage against a Country forged on the tenets of Individualism and on a Judeo-Christian Ethic, the predicate basis of the U.S. Constitution; the blueprint of a truly free Republic in which the American citizenry itself is the sole sovereign, and those that serve in Government are the Nation’s mere caretakers.Marxists will make any preposterous argument they can and will undertake any action they can get away with to undermine both a free Constitutional Republic and the indomitable spirit of the American people. And these Marxists are moving ahead quickly, clearly fearful of what the 2022 midterm elections foreordain. So, whether or not the Neo-Marxists believe the nonsense they spout is really beside the point. They apparently think that, or, perhaps, they simply hope that the majority of Americans will swallow this nonsense. And this will be the Marxists' downfall. They take it as axiomatic that most Americans are either uninterested, passive absorbers of banalities and inanities or are abject morons who will uncritically trust whatever it is they hear on the “news.” But this is part and parcel of Marxist thinking.

AS LONG AS AMERICANS REMAIN ARMED AND TRUE TO THEIR HISTORY, HERITAGE, CULTURE, AND MORAL PRECEPTS, AND REJECT, OUTRIGHT, THE INANITY OF THE MARXIST MESSAGING, THE MARXISTS WILL FAIL.

The concepts of a free Constitutional Republic, and a free, independent, sovereign Nation, and an American citizenry as the Nation’s sole sovereign were all borne of the American Revolution of 1776 and these concepts became concrete; a reality; the essential backbone of the United States of America. A free Constitutional Republic, and a free, independent, sovereign Nation, and an American citizenry as sole sovereign—are all seated in fact—resting in the psyche of the American citizenry, residing forever in ancestral memory; and are not so easily dislodged from ascendency, so long as the American people remain armed.It was firearms in the hands of steadfast Americans that won the American Revolution of 1776, and it will be by dint of firearms in the hands of steadfast, resolute, American citizens now, 250 years later, that Americans will be able to preserve their free Republic, their liberty, and their sovereignty against a horrific, usurpacious, rapacious, abrasive, sanctimonious Marxist-led Government; and against this Marxist Government’s fellow travelers in the legacy Press, in social media, in academia, in sports and entertainment; and against an astonishingly gullible, insular, malignant Marxist mob. Mammoth evil forces have a firm hold over our Country, metastasizing rapidly throughout its length, and breadth, and depth.Only through the preservation of an armed citizenry will Americans be able to successfully resist this Anti-American Marxist Counterrevolution of 21^st Century. And these Marxist Anti-American Counterrevolutionaries know this all too well. They are very aware of the indomitability and invincibility of an armed citizenry, and they know they must crush Americans' resolve if they are to succeed in their goal of annihilating every vestige of America's past.

A TRULY MONUMENTAL STRUGGLE IS UPON US.

Some Middle Class and Upper-Middle Class Americans who have bought into the myth that the Trump Presidency was the root of all evil—as foisted on the American people by a seditious, obsequious Press, a malevolent, audacious Democrat Party leadership and their hangers-on, by a pompous, academia, and by a rapacious, angry, rabid mob of Marxist and Anarchist BLM and ANTIFA types, and spoiled college-educated children well- trained and versed in the Marxist ideology, wearing the Marxism Badge as if it were a designer bracelet or necklace—are slowly but, assuredly, coming to their senses, discerning the full extent of their error, realizing they have been played for dupes all along, as they see what a Marxist-controlled Government, not the Trump Presidency, has wrought: common criminals, and lunatics, and psychopaths running amok; our Southern Border opened to over one million-plus illegal aliens, and murderous drug cartels, in clear violation of our our immigration laws, and many of these aliens infected with the Chinese Communist Coronavirus, and all of them being shipped, throughout our Country, by our own military; ICE agents and Custom and Border Protection agents being handcuffed, denied the ability to perform their federal statutory duties, requiring them to protect the Nation's borders and the interior or of our Country; community police officers throughout the Country thoroughly demoralized, defunded, and undermanned; the economy floundering through runaway inflation; millions of American citizens treated as pariahs in their own Country; our National Security threatened by a dangerous and emboldened Chinese Communist regime; the family unit and traditional religion being denigrated; the Marxist Harris-Biden Administration and the Marxist-Democrat Party getting set to pass a multi-trillion dollar give-away package to friendly State Governments so they can continue their profligate spending habits; destruction of our energy self-sufficiency under the guise of protecting the Climate. . . and on, and on. Many of these Middle and Upper-Middle Class households who claim a liberal-minded pedigree are leaving their Marxist States in droves, realizing too late that, voting into Office seemingly enlightened politicians, have, through their seemingly oh so lofty moral values transformed their communities into garbage dumps, and they leave the poorest families to contend with the mess as they leave for more idyllic areas in Florida, Texas, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, and others, so they can destroy those States too, with their ostensibly well-meaning liberal attitudes. Soon there will be nowhere left for these people to move to. Hopefully, many more of these liberal, holy-than-thou people, will come to their senses and think twice before voting more Marxist-Democrats into Office.The threat to a free Republic and to Democratic principles was never threatened through Trump's Presidency. He sought to preserve the Nation in the form the founders gave to us and he was moving the Nation in that direction after the disaster wrought by his immediate predecessor, Barack Obama, and no less by George Bush and Bill Clinton. It was, rather, in the feverish rant of those who sought to rid themselves of Trump, knowing the threat he posed to them and to their goal of a one-world Marxist Governmental scheme, in which Americans would be reduced to poverty and subjugation, that the continuation of a free Constitutional Republic and the application of Democratic principles was, and, at present, IS, truly threatened. These Marxists have been attacking the Bill of Rights head-on, unabashedly, incessantly, relentlessly, remorselessly. And, with the aid of their fellow travelers in the Press, and in social media, they have been succeeding on several fronts.Speech is censored; the fundamental Right to be free from the insidious, pervasive, perfidious encroachment and insinuation of the Government and of monolithic, mercenary corporations, now operating at the behest of Government, into the private life of the citizenry is continuously threatened, and may be difficult if well-nigh impossible to safeguard against. But will Americans surrender their access to firearms? To date, despite decades of attempts by the Marxists to effectively defeat the fundamental, unalienable, natural, and sacred Right of the people to keep and bear arms, these Marxists have been able to dislodge firearms from the civilian citizenry and have been unable to change Americans' attitudes and perceptions toward firearms and toward the absolute right of Americans to own and possess them for purpose of self-defense and to thwart the onset of tyranny.Yet, Marxists in Congress and the Marxist Harris-Biden Administration continue to flaunt both statute and the U.S. Constitution, with abandon, and they are indefatigable in their intent to wrest Americans’ firearms from them. But can they meet with success on that front, as they have met with success on denial of Americans' Right to be free from Unreasonable Searches and Seizures under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and as they are meeting with apparent success in denying Americans' their fundamental Right of free Speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as the Government, through a few compliant and sympathetic technology monopolists, has made substantial inroads in undercutting Americans' Right to speak their mind, free from Government and social media interference?Americans are beset by tidal forces intent on destroying not only the structural foundations of the Nation as a free Constitutional Republic, along with the Nation’s long-standing political, social, and educational institutions, but are intent on destroying the very ancestral memory of the people of the United States. To that end, the Marxists find it necessary to undercut the Bill of Rights and especially to annihilate the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, which is codified in the Second Amendment.The existence of an armed citizenry is antithetical to those who espouse Collectivism, in any of its many iterations, e.g., be it Marxism, Socialism, Communism on the Left or Fascism on the Right; for, Collectivism requires subjugation of the masses to the will of a strong centralized authority. An armed citizenry, in its very inception, poses an imminent, intrinsic threat to that centralized authority and so cannot be tolerated.The political, social, economic, financial, cultural, and juridical structure of Government and society that this Nation's Anti-American Neo-Marxists envision and that they are working toward is grounded on the tenets of COLLECTIVISM.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively about the two polar-opposite ideologies, INDIVIDUALISM VERSUS COLLECTIVISM; meticulously laying out the specific precepts, principles, and tenets of both, laying bare the differences, demonstrating that there can be no compromise between the two ideologies.See, e.g., the article titled, “The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies,” posted on our website on October 6, 2018. Is it any wonder that the present Grand Pretenders and Great Imposters Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, presiding in the Executive Suite of Government, along with their retinue of secretive policymakers, the true power brokers orchestrating and choreographing Joe Biden’s and Kamala Harris’ every move, would emulate the Authoritarian EU Government in Brussels, and would tread ever so cautiously when confronting the Communist Chinese Regime in Beijing, with whom they share a similar goal: complete mastery over their respective populations?And, slowly, inexorably, they are drawing a noose around the ultimate failsafe against tyranny: the right of the people to keep and bear arms.To date, the Marxists have been working gingerly around the edges in attacking the Second Amendment, since Biden and Harris, through chicanery, assumed the Article 2 Authority. But, as with every other aspect of American life and as with every sacred fundamental, unalienable right that Americans cherish, they, through their secretive Marxist handlers, are assiduously going after civilian citizen ownership and possession of firearms and, of late, with much more than the usual customary jealous, audacious zeal. They are trying their damnedest to now tie the most cherished of Americans' rights—and the most important to the maintenance of a free Constitutional Republic and to the sovereignty of the American citizenry—to the ever familiar, noxious notion of “racism.” This latest charge is as repugnant as it is absurd.But will the power of the seditious, legacy Press and of the monopolists of social media and of the internet in fomenting and provoking substantial rage against the very notion of an armed citizenry, provide conditions sufficient for military and police action against tens of millions of armed Americans? And, what then? Will Americans “call or fold”?Whether the Marxist Counterrevolution to the American Revolution of 1776 yet succeeds in this Country, it will come down to that ultimate decision of a game of poker, but with the highest stakes on the table: Preservation of, or the loss of, a free Constitutional Republic and a free sovereign people.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

ONLY THE PREPARED ARMED CITIZEN CAN DEFEND OUR FREE CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AGAINST THE MARXISTS

PART TWO

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL VOLATILITY AND UPHEAVAL IN AMERICA IS DELIBERATE

Perpetrating and perpetuating the myth of “systemic racism” in American society serves the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist goal of creating volatility in society and social upheaval.The Harris-Biden Administration at the behest of their Neo-Marxist and Billionaire Globalist handlers, along with the Marxist Democrat Party leadership, need societal volatility—demand that volatility—if they are to succeed in overturning a free Constitutional Republic, transforming it into an obedient vessel of a in new Autocratic Marxist-Globalist world trans-superstate structure, spanning the entre globe.To that end, they have cunningly devised many strategies. One that they have had most success with involves the application of “race” and “racism” to everything Americans hold dear and holy, corrupting it, desecrating all of it—profanely, erroneously claiming that the very foundation of our Nation is rooted in the subjugation of Africans and their descendants.These Neo-Marxists have deliberately thrust on Americans a fairy tale surrounding slaves and slavery, claiming that race and racial identity is the defining feature of American society; that racism and the incitement of racial hatred are endemic to America; that “white extremism” and “white supremacism” are prevalent throughout society, endemic to the core of our Nation even though the fact of the matter is that white extremism and white supremacism is de minimis, representing no tenable threat to the stability of American society. Such instability and volatility that exists and is extant in the U.S. is that manufactured by Marxist Democrat Party leadership and the Harris-Biden Administration, itself, not by infinitesimally small and hardly influential groups like the KKK.The volatility and instability evident in society is a product of Government policy. It is seen in the Harris-Biden Administration’s open borders policy. It is seen in its dismissive attitude toward soaring violent crime permeating society and toward a curious permissive attitude held toward criminals and psychopathic and psychotic lunatics, given incredible latitude to prey on hapless, innocent Americans. And it is seen in the Administration’s cavalier attitude toward agitators belonging to rabid Marxist, Anarchist groups—in particular, “Black Lives Matter” and “Antifa” and other such groups—that have caused and continue to cause mayhem and substantial damage to the institutions of a free Republic. But, of extremist “racist” groups on the Right of the political spectrum, where are they? If the KKK and other “racist” hate groups have threatened a free Republic recently, where does evidence of the damage they cause exist? Answer: there is none. And of the January 6 disturbance at the U.S. Capitol Building, where does evidence exist of a “racist” motive; where does evidence of insurrection exist; a carefully designed, coordinated, and executed plan to take over the Government? Answer: There isn’t any.But Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and her gang are busy at work manufacturing a narrative of white extremism and white racism behind the disturbance at the Capitol, even as such evidence THAT DOES EXIST, points to possible culpability on Pelosi’s own part in having allowed the disturbance to occur, so that she and the other Neo-Marxist Democrat leaders, along with the quiet acquiescence of the Republican Leaders, could use the disturbance as a pretext to institute autocratic actions against the entire Nation. See, e.g., article in en-volve and article in Forbes.The perpetration of, propagation of, and perpetuation the myth of “racism,” “race hatred,” “white extremism,” and “white supremacism” serves the Neo-Marxists’ and Neoliberal Globalists’ end goal: dismantling a free Republic and installing a Marxist totalitarian construct to replace it, to be merged eventually into a transformative transnational world governmental scheme.Thus, in propounding a basis to upend a free Constitutional Republic that Democrat Party Marxists and the Kamala Harris and Joe Biden marionettes desire to accomplish and fully intend to accomplish so long as they can maintain power, it behooves them to resort to chicanery to confuse Americans and to create dissension among Americans.And these Destructors of a free Nation-State—with the assistance of a loyal, avid legacy Press, and with the cooperation of Wall Street financiers and “Big Tech,” and with the FBI, DOJ, DHS, ATF, and other bloated Executive Branch Departments, bureaus, agencies, on their side, including the turgid intelligence apparatuses that are supposed to be accountable to the American people through Congress but aren’t—are pulling out all the stops to succeed in dismantling a free Republic so they can then erect a Marxist totalitarian regime, and they can accomplish that in short order to short-circuit the reelection of a populist President and populist Senators and House Representatives who would return the Country to its rightful heirs and owners: the American people.In much that the Democrat Marxists and the Executive Branch puppets do to bring about a rupture of society they must, at present, resort to psychological measures. Only later, once they have achieved their goal of undermining the confidence and will of most Americans, will they resort to violence to break the back of the remaining third of the Nation, tens of millions of American citizens who are well armed, and well versed in the use of firearms, and who are of the mindset and who have the wherewithal to defend themselves and their Country and their Countrymen against all enemies both foreign and domestic—including a repressive and oppressive Marxist regime.The salient tool of the propagandists is language and the manipulation of it to affect a desired response in the target population, a willing compliance to authority, and to obtain a desired outcome—the destruction of American culture and society and subjugation of the masses; ergo the Propagandist resorts to the manipulation of “race.” And he operates with complete abandon in generating volatility in society through the device of “systemic racism” and “white extremism.”

WHY DO DEMOCRAT MARXISTS AND EXECUTIVE BRANCH PUPPETS SUFFOCATE AMERICANS WITH THESE LUDICROUS NOTIONS OF ‘RACE’ AND ‘RACISM AND ‘SYSTEMIC RACISM’?

The Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists utilize the vehicles of ‘race’ and ‘racism’ and ‘systemic racism’ because they know Americans are acutely sensitive to the concepts—hence the expansive use of these words to drive a wedge among Americans, to cause an ever-widening rift among Americans that cannot be bridged; to change Americans’ perceptions of themselves, to soften them up, and make Americans amenable to the transformative influences of Marxism. And the extensive, intensive use of these concepts in the media is having the desired effect.Thus, the worst elements among the so-called black race, go about rampaging, pillaging, and running amok, knowing full well the police will likely not arrest them, or if the police do arrest them, then the prosecutors will dismiss the charges against them, or the courts will find them not guilty, or merely slap them on the wrist if they are convicted of a criminal act at all.And the so-called white race finds itself uniformly scorned, ridiculed, shamed, and debased, in effect becoming a victim class itself, along with the “colored” race. And, in the end the entire American commonalty is brought low.

WHAT IS ‘RACE,’ REALLY, AND IS IT “REALLY” REAL?

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about ‘race’:The concept of race has historically signified the division of humanity into a small number of groups based upon five criteria: (1) Races reflect some type of biological foundation, be it Aristotelian essences or modern genes; (2) This biological foundation generates discrete racial groupings, such that all and only all members of one race share a set of biological characteristics that are not shared by members of other races; (3) This biological foundation is inherited from generation to generation, allowing observers to identify an individual’s race through her ancestry or genealogy; (4) Genealogical investigation should identify each race’s geographic origin, typically in Africa, Europe, Asia, or North and South America; and (5) This inherited racial biological foundation manifests itself primarily in physical phenotypes, such as skin color, eye shape, hair texture, and bone structure, and perhaps also behavioral phenotypes, such as intelligence or delinquency.Both in the past and today, determining the boundaries of discrete races has proven to be most vexing and has led to great variations in the number of human races believed to be in existence. Thus, some thinkers categorized humans into only four distinct races (typically white or Caucasian, Black or African, yellow or Asian, and red or Native American), and downplayed any biological or phenotypical distinctions within racial groups (such as those between Scandinavians and Spaniards within the white or Caucasian race). Other thinkers classified humans into many more racial categories, for instance arguing that those humans “indigenous” to Europe could be distinguished into discrete Nordic, Alpine, and Mediterranean races.The ambiguities and confusion associated with determining the boundaries of racial categories have provoked a widespread scholarly consensus that discrete or essentialist races are socially constructed, not biologically real.” This Essentialist notion of race was taken as self-evident true, and it tore Germany and the rest of the world apart, leading to a conflagration commencing in 1939 with the outbreak of the Second world war.Curiously, the Great War from 1914 to 1918, also a conflagration, did not involve “race.” Many of Germany’s Jews fought alongside Germany’s non-Jews, seeing themselves as fervently German, no less so than the “Aryan” or “Nordic” German.Jump to present-day America. The use of ‘race’ as a weapon—this time by the Harris-Biden Administration and Marxist Democrats—are again on full disgusting and noxious display.The propagandists have taken a cue from the race proponents of Nazi Germany although with a decidedly peculiar twist.This time it isn’t the German Nordic white “Herrenmensch” who is extolled but the purportedly black “Untermensch,” albeit the rabid Anti-American Anti-white current head of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ, Kristen Clarke, has unabashedly argued that it is the “black race” that is markedly superior to the “white race.” See article in LA Times, referring at the end of the article to remarks of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, which explains why Republicans opposed her confirmation to head the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.

“In opposing her nomination, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a statement Monday that Clarke had a ‘long history of statements that place the nominee on, frankly, the far-left fringe of the political spectrum . . . This is not the right nominee for a crucial post at a crucial time. ’” See also article in the North State Journal:

“Kristen Clarke, Joe Biden’s nominee for assistant attorney general of the United States, once promoted racist pseudoscientific quackery, arguing that the human brain was structured in a way that makes Black people superior to white people, and that “human mental processes” in the brain have chemicals that imbue one race with “superior physical and mental abilities” and “spiritual abilities.”After confirmation, Clarke says, as reported in fox news, that she doesn’t “necessarily” hold to those beliefs. In other words, Clarke still professes a belief in this nonsense, but she cannot be overt and explicit about it. For those who would interject “race” into politics, then it must be faced head-on, rationally, logically, especially in those instances where one accepts the reality of “race” in a concrete, absolute biological sense, and dares to extol the righteousness and superiority of this or that “race.” But what we are seeing is that the would-be Destroyers of our Nation have used the concept of ‘race,’ and ‘racism’ and continue to use “race” and “racism” as an odious political device, a tool, a bludgeon, a battering ram directed against our Nation, against our People, and against our Constitution—with the aim of destroying all of it and replacing it with something loathsome, something detestable, reprehensible. And they seek to erect their evil societal construct to ensnare and enslave us all.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

MARXISTS SEEK TO DISARM CITIZENS, ELIMINATE ALL NATIONAL HOLIDAYS, MONUMENTS, AND THE NATION'S FLAG!

WILL THIS BE OUR LAST FOURTH OF JULY INDEPENDENCE HOLIDAY?

PART ONE

America's Neo-Marxists’ and Neoliberal Globalists’ campaign endlessly and mercilessly to destroy a free Constitutional Republic and a Sovereign American people. Their ignominious design is multifaceted.One facet involves denigration of, renaming of, rebranding of, misappropriation of, or outright elimination of American’s cherished National and Religious Holidays: Columbus Day, Labor Day, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, President’s Day, and Christmas.Concomitantly these Marxists have created or seek to install a set of fake holidays, replacing traditional ones with idiotic surrogates, including “Juneteenth” (which they succeeded in installing), along with May Day, Earth Day, Indigenous People’s Day, and so forth and so on. For a longer list, see, e.g., the website, “war on press.” See also, the article in the website, “state symbols usa.”Even relatively minor Holidays, such as Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, are under the gun meeting with constant Marxist-led derision, as being incompatible with the nightmarish reality Marxists and Globalists intend to impose on Americans.In fact, use of the very words ‘mother’ and ‘father’ may one day become obsolete and forbidden because Marxist Democrat Party leaders maintain they aren’t “gender-neutral.” Only gender-neutral verbiage will be allowed in the Bizarro world of these Democrat Party Marxists. Fancy that! See “msn news article,” citing Washington Examiner. See also article in “Political Patrol;” article in the Daily Signal; and article in “pj media,” illustrating the sheer enormity of the attempt by Marxists to interject artificial language constructs on us hapless Americans, notwithstanding the crass stupidity of the attempt.None of this bodes well for the future of America if the Democrat Party maintains its majority after the midterm elections of 2022.Even now, Americans are seeing the rapid unraveling of their Republic taking place every day, as Marxist propaganda constantly and obnoxiously pervades newspapers, radio, TV, and the internet.This poisonous messaging is being indelibly imprinted on the public psyche. There is no escaping it. There is no respite from it. It is a nightmare from which no American can awaken. It is brainwashing on an industrial scale: disorienting, disturbing, nauseating, and inescapable.Given months of Marxist Democrat Party attacks on every aspect of American life, the Fourth of July Holiday, this July 4 Holiday cannot help but feel incongruous.Behind a veil of fragile inviolability, a lurking menace of a Marxist takeover of our Nation looms.But, as Independence Day 2021 also looms, the Marxist Democrat leadership is loath to disparage it outright, at least for the moment. But will the Independence Day Holiday remain free from Marxist Democrat defilement; will it exist next year if only because it comes prior to the 2022 midterm elections; and, if so, will it then exist the year after if the Marxist Democrats prevail, after the midterm elections, thereby maintaining their majority in Congress? The answer is, “not likely,” at least not in the sense that Independence Day will thereafter have any true import, for it will no longer retain its cherished historical meaning as a Holiday of Remembrance. The Holiday, if it continues to exist, would exist, only, if at all, as a caricature of what it once represented, a pale, fleeting distant memory, a memory for some, for a while, perhaps, of what it once represented; its import and purport eventually disappearing from memory forever because the Neo-Marxist/Globalist Counterrevolution to the American Revolution of 1776 would have succeeded.America's Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists must annihilate the Fourth of July Holiday because it operates each year, every year, as recognition of and a defiant expression of Patriots who rallied, on July 4, 1776 against the tyrannical Government of Great Britain’s George III and against the power behind the throne—the Bank of Rothschild.But for the act of brazen defiance against tyranny, the Nation that would shortly become a sovereign independent Nation-State, would not exist. The landmass of North America and its people would remain a colony of the United Kingdom, evolving eventually into a Country of a kind, but not a true independent sovereign nation because it would remain intricately tied to the United Kingdom (U.K.), as part of the United Kingdom Commonwealth of Nations, alongside at least sixteen other such nations: most notably Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—all of which formally recognize and proclaim the English Monarch as Head of State.And if that were the case, had America’s colonists lost the American Revolution, one must wonder to what extent the Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists would create the fuss they are creating today.George III and the Rothschild Central Banking clan had seen something awry in the Colony, which is why the British attempted to disarm the Colonists. And the Colonists responded with a volley of musket shots directed at the British to punctuate their refusal to surrender their firearms.When July 4 rolls around this year, Americans will be able to demonstrate their patriotic fervor—possibly for the last time—raising the American Flag high, and many Americans will also raise historical renditions of “Old Glory,” in gratitude to the valor of the colonists,’ and of their glorious battle for liberty and of their resounding defeat of tyranny.Children in many jurisdictions will be taught to hate our Country and to despise themselves if they happen to have the wrong skin color. They will be told that Independence Day has no significance other than to represent something negative, something horrible, something to be erased from ancestral memory, to be replaced with the false and poisonous claim that the Fourth of July must be but a reflection of glory for “the white race” and, concomitantly a reflection of racism against the “the colored races.”Many of our Nation’s public schools have a new curriculum ready for implementation for just this purpose; grounded on Marxist “Critical Race Theory” and on its twin sister, the 1619 Project. Both Marxist schemes are designed to psychologically condition and to brainwash the Nation’s youth to abhor their Country and their Country’s history, heritage, traditions, culture, and Judeo-Christian ethic.It is TYRANNY ANEW that the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists intend to impose on Americans.These Marxists and Billionaire Globalist monopolists weave a distorted impression of American history, arguing erroneously that colonists in 1619 sought to foster a new Country but a Country in which “white colonists” could exploit and engage in wholesale oppression of Africans and their descendants—through the construction of an independent, sovereign “Slave Nation.” Thus, July 4 must, for these Marxists and Globalist monopolists hold no significance other than to exalt the creation of a massive institution of slavery, targeting Africans and the indigenous people of North America.But, slavery, such as it existed, at that time, in 1619 was, at most, incidental to, not essential to the life of the inhabitants of Jamestown or to a powerful, independent sovereign Nation that would come to be, over a century later.Slavery did continue, of course, and had its most prolific expression in “the South” because the South relied on cheap labor, “African slaves,” to fuel the engine of an agrarian society. The Industrial North had no such need for slave labor and had none and fought to deprive the South of its Agricultural engine. And when the North prevailed against the South, it commenced a terrible campaign of retribution, repression, and oppression against the “Rebels” who had dared secede from “THE UNION.”Yet, suppose the Confederacy had defeated the Union, and seceded from the Union, what then?In any case, slavery would have eventually ceased since, with time, slave labor would have become both inefficient and unprofitable with advances in technology. The Agricultural South, with its huge plantations, would flourish through the use of machines to farm, not on human beings.To be sure, machines need to be occasionally oiled and greased, and old components changed with new ones. But machines don’t require food, clothing, housing, or medical care.To be sure, machines need to be occasionally oiled and greased, and old components changed with new ones. But machines don’t require food, clothing, housing, or medical care.Moreover, one machine with one operator could do substantially more work than a hundred African slaves and complete work more quickly. And with the cessation of slavery, racism would diminish and eventually dissipate, as it has done.Martin Luther King’s dream of a colorless society would still come to fruition and the color of one’s skin would have no bearing on one’s worth as an individual. Why, then, would Marxists bother to dredge up something long since dead and buried? They would do so because it is necessary to do so if a Free Constitutional Republic is to be dismantled, and a Marxist Totalitarian Regime erected in its place.But the Republic cannot be dismantled in the absence of massive social and political upheaval. It is an upheaval that the Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists want, and it is an upheaval that the Democrat Party Leadership and the Harris-Biden Administration, at the behest of the Marxists and wealthy, powerful, ruthless Globalists, intend to accomplish, that they must fan and nourish if they are to realize their goal of a one-world Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal scheme.When you gather with family and friends this Fourth of July weekend, share this valuable and timely information we are giving you. Use this Holiday to remind others that we must constantly be aware that hard-fought freedoms are never assured.The American citizen must remain keenly aware that dangerous, jealous enemies of a free sovereign people reside within and outside the Country, coordinating their actions, ever scheming to wrest those freedoms from the American citizenry, to reduce the citizenry to penury, servitude, oppression, subjugation, a life, more a mere and meager existence of perpetual misery.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT RACIST?

ANOTHER CRAZY MARXIST THEORY

PART ONE

“Gun violence is a public health crisis in communities of color, and the Second Amendment has roots in slavery.” This is the opening remark in an article titled, “Racial equity agenda must include gun control,” as published in the Leftist website, “Crosscut,” by Clyde Ford, March 8, 2021.In tandem with the incendiary myth of “critical race theory,” thrust on the American public, and especially on our children by an entrenched Marxist-dominated and controlled Executive Branch and Democrat-Party controlled Legislative Branch of Government, quietly but inexorably and insidiously penetrating, permeating, and percolating through the Nation’s public educational system and even through the military—and all with the help of a seditious, legacy Press, an arrogant Marxist academia, and the inordinately wealthy, powerful, and abjectly ruthless Neo-liberal Globalist technology mega-monopolies—is the application of erroneous and dangerous critical race theory to the Nation’s fundamental Rights and Liberties.A new myth recently being propagated by Obstructors and Destructors of a free Republic and being projected into the psyche of the American citizenry is that the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights has its roots in racism:“The Second Amendment is deeply rooted in America’s racist past, and fundamentally connected to the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor and others. But to make this connection, one must be a “strict constructionist,” someone who looks beyond the Constitution’s written word to the underlying motives of the founders.At the Second Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, in 1787, Southern delegates were fearful the U.S. Constitution they were drafting would restrict their right to own, sell and transport slaves. In response, Northern delegates crafted a document in which nearly one-quarter of the clauses appeased the slaveholding South, and the words “slave” or “slavery” never appeared. The Second Amendment was key among these appeasements.Patrick Henry, a Virginia slaveholder, opposed ratifying the Constitution, fearing it would cede state control of slave patrols (politely called “militias” by the founders) to the federal government. James Madison, favoring ratification, said in a debate with Henry, “If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress insurrection. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress.”Take either side, Henry’s or Madison’s, local or federal, and the same fundamental issue remained: preserve slavery at all costs.” From “Crosscut,” supra.This, in essence, as set forth in Clyde Ford’s article, is the argument perpetrated on the American people by Anti-Second Amendment Marxist zealots and, very recently, perpetuated by these Anti-American, Anti-Constitutionalist elements with a frantic, frenetic sense of urgency, for they are hell-bent on making as many substantive changes to a free Constitutional Republic as their fevered sociopathic minds can conceive.In their non-stop campaign to convert a Nation grounded on the precepts, principles, and tenets of INDIVIDUALISM, into a Marxist Hell grounded on the precepts, principles, and tenets of COLLECTIVISM, the latter of which are found operative in Countries such as China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, and, too, are to be seen operative in the European Union since the Nations that comprise the EU are presided over by a COLLECTIVIST Government, presiding in Brussels, Belgium that has usurped much of the power that once resided in the Governments of the individual Countries of the EU and is continually usurping more power. Such is the goal of Marxism and Neoliberal Globalism. And these Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist monopolists intend to bring the people and resources of the U.S. under their umbrella.In their vision of the ideal political, social, economic, and cultural societal construct, individual thought and expression are not only discouraged, but are not to be tolerated; and a Sovereign people whose sovereignty is made clear in the words of the Constitution and whose sovereignty is assured by virtue of their God-given Right to Keep and Bear Arms in defense of Self and Family against those two-legged predators who would dare to harm them physically and in defense against an oppressive, repressive bloated Government that would dare to intimidate them, and to subjugate them, and to reduce them to penury. An armed American citizenry is, to these Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists, an anathema. And these reprehensible and ruthless forces are constantly devising ways to defeat exercise by the citizenry of their unalienable, immutable, illimitable, natural right to keep and bear arms.Although not a new idea, having had its beginnings going back at least as far as the last two decades of the Twentieth Century, the myth has gained renewed attention and vigor from Progressive and Radical Left social media, and Left-wing news organizations, and Marxist academicians. The myth of the Second Amendment having a racist origin, being propagated today is not accidental.The claim of ‘racism’ is, in fact, a major strategy employed by both the Marxists and Neoliberal Monopolist Globalists as they go about attacking and undermining the very foundation of a free Constitutional Republic. These Anti-American, Anti-Constitutionalist forces apply the appellation of RACISM with complete abandon, and amplify it, most notably to:

• OUR NATION’S HISTORY
• OUR NATION’S FOUNDING FATHERS
• OUR NATION’S FOUNDING DOCUMENTS
• OUR NATION’S HERITAGE
• OUR NATION’S INSTITUTIONS
• OUR NATION’S CULTURE
• FREE MARKET CAPITALISM
• OUR NATION’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES
• THE BASIC ETHICAL TENETS OF CHRISTIANITY

Yes, even our BILL OF RIGHTS, CHRISTIAN SENSIBILITIES, and JUDEO-CHRISTIAN ETHIC AND ETHOS are being senselessly and mercilessly attacked by America’s Marxists, and America’s Neoliberal, Globalist monopolists as “RACIST.” And in that, the American people are being systematically robbed of everything they hold dear. And why are these Destructive elements in our Nation employing the charge of racism to everything Americans cherish? These destructive forces and influences of ATHEISM and ANTI-NATIONALISM are attacking such things because these things denote the importance of and, indeed, the essence of American identity and American cohesion rooted in FAMILY, COUNTRY, PERSONAL AUTONOMY, INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND INTEGRITY OF SELFHOOD.The forces of atheism—Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist Monopolists—can have none of that! They have replaced the aforesaid sacred, invaluable treasures of our Nation, upon which the very BEING of our Nation and our ancestral memory depends, with a radically new political, social, and economic paradigm:DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSIONOf all the schemes falling under this paradigm of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—a paradigm operating, too, as an irrepressible and boisterous MANTRA of the Destructors of our Nation, the fact that they are now applying the charge of “racism” very specifically to one fundamental, unalienable, immutable, natural right, demonstrates the importance these Destructors place on the Second Amendment.During the first couple of months in Office, the present Administration, comprising Marxist and Neoliberal Globalists, has consciously ignored tending to the immediate elimination of the Second Amendment, even as they are cognizant of it, having, during the 2020 campaign, made clear their abhorrence and abject fear of it. So, it has never been far from their mind.But now, unmistakably and undeniably, as the Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists have consolidated their power in Government and, therefore, consolidated their power over the American people, they have directed attention back to that favorite nemesis: THE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS.Of course, they planned to do this all along, but, had the Harris-Biden Administration attacked the Second Amendment head-on during the first few weeks of ascendancy, that would have drawn the ire of most Americans immediately, and they were not prepared to do that.The secretive handlers of the newly vested Great Pretenders, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris, wanted Americans to grow accustomed to THIS PAIR in the Executive Suites. Hence, even as the Great Pretender, Biden, signed many more Executive Actions in his first few weeks in Office than had any other past U.S. President, it was hands off the Second Amendment, even as the Second Amendment was always uppermost in mind, as the salient concern.The Harris-Biden Administration handlers believe they can proceed now, as they feel much of the populace has been softened up through weeks of propagandizing—through the constant drone of DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION, playing hypnotically through the various media organs, and they have made much headway, even as they stumble here and there and as they are facing a considerable public backlash against the insinuation of “CRITICAL RACE THEORY” in so many institutions: POLICE AND THE MILITARY; PUBLIC GRADE SCHOOL AND SECONDARY EDUCATION; HIGHER EDUCATION; BUSINESS AND FINANCE; and, now as it is coming to light, THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY, too.The problem for the Obstructors and Destructors of our Nation is that, despite the consolidation of power, they know full well that however well they might cajole Americans to accept many of the Marxist programs, and notwithstanding their successes in whittling away the right of free speech, and freedom of association, and notwithstanding their major successes in destroying the privacy of one’s personal effects, the Counterrevolution of 2021 cannot have a concrete effect and lasting success as long as Americans possess firearms.Claiming the Second Amendment has its roots in racism is just one more avenue of attack, preposterous as the claim is. Marxists will say anything, however absurd or inconsistent their remarks, if it furthers their agenda, and they need to make haste on defeating the Second Amendment before the 2022 midterm elections and the very real possibility of losing control of Congress. This is their most difficult but most critical task.After all, an armed citizenry is the first and last bastion of a Free People—the final FAIL-SAFE mechanism to ensure the continued existence of a Free Constitutional Republic and a Sovereign American people.It was force of arms—THIS AND THIS ALONE—that enabled a ragtag group of colonists to defeat the might and power of Great Britain, that made possible at all the success of the AMERICAN REVOLUTION OF 1776. No less, it is only by force of arms that the American people can hope to prevent the AMERICAN MARXIST COUNTERREVOLUTION OF 2021 from succeeding. It isn’t that Americans will be compelled to resist Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist Monopolists by force of arms. It doesn’t have to come to that. It is in the exercise of the right that the threat to a TYRANNICAL MARXIST GOVERNMENT. Tyrants cannot and will not abide a population of armed citizens. TYRANTS NEVER HAVE ABIDED AN ARMED CITIZENRY AND NEVER WILL. Biden himself may not realize this. It is likely that this man, who is in a state of incipient, cascading, and permanent cognitive decline, understands little of anything that a secret cadre of handlers give him to read to the American people or permit him to utter extemporaneously. And Harris, who is so enamored of the thought of succeeding to THE THRONE—no less than Hillary, before she came crashing to Earth, and remains disgruntled over the reality of her defeat to Trump, to this day—has, as is apparent, no firm conviction about anything other than her own ambitions, and certainly no love of Country.But most Americans do have firm convictions concerning the necessity of preserving the Republic; realizing that loss of the Republic means loss of Country. Only in the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms can both a free Republic and the authority of the American people as sole, supreme Sovereign be preserved. And the reality of this sits firmly in the psyche of the American citizenry, and it is a thing not so easily dislodged. And the Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalists know this all too well and that makes them frustrated and, therefore dangerous, for in their anguish to dissolve the Country as a Free Constitutional Republic and to bring the American people to their knees, they might light a powder keg.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

WHY IS IT THAT THE HARRIS-BIDEN ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESSIONAL DEMOCRATS REALLY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR GUNS?

PART ONE

GUN OWNERS; TRUMP SUPPORTERS; ANTI-MARXISTS; ANTI-GLOBALISTS—ARE THESE THE HARRIS-BIDEN “DOMESTIC TERRORISTS?”

The propagandists for the Democrat Party-controlled Government are nothing if not expert in the art of subterfuge, deflection, artifice, and duplicity. Turning the Bill of Rights on its head, they claim the Country will be better off once the American people just accept constraints on the exercise of their fundamental rights and liberties.But for whom would the Country be better off: for the American people or for the Neoliberal Globalists, along with their cousin Marxists, who intend to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic and merge the skeletal remains of the United States into something truly obscene: a transnational new governmental world order akin to the European Union?Already Biden has made overtures to Brussels, resurrecting the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or “T-TIP,” an arrangement that had stalled under the Trump Administration as did the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP.The true, if unstated, purpose of the G-7 Summit was to reassure Brussels that the U.S. was back on track to complete the agenda commenced in earnest thirty years ago—an agenda that had been making substantial headway under Obama, and that would continue under Hillary Clinton. But that agenda came to a screeching halt when Trump was elected U.S. President, to the surprise and shock and consternation of Neoliberal Globalists and Marxists both inside the Country and outside it, and no less to the chagrin of China, as well.But with the mentally debilitated, and easily manipulated Joe Biden firmly ensconced in the Oval Office, the Globalist and Marxist agenda could get back on track. The EU would get what it wants from the U.S.; China would get what it wants from the U.S.; even Russia got what it wanted. And who was left out of the mix? The American people, of course.But then, the Harris-Biden Administration and their cohorts in the Democrat Party controlled Congress, together with the seditious Press and social media and information technology titans haven’t bothered to ask the American people for their perspective on any of this. They really don’t care. They have effectively shunted Trump aside and they are treating tens of millions of American dissenters as potential “Domestic Terrorists” who refuse to go along with the game plan. The Globalists and Marxists will suffer no dissident thought or action. They are intent on stamping out all dissent. And this portends something serious on the horizon for the well-being of the Country and for the well-being of the American people.

WITH A RADICAL DEMOCRAT PARTY-CONTROLLED GOVERNMENT AND A BELEAGUERED, BESIEGED, WEAK REPUBLICAN CONTINGENT IN CONGRESS, AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BOXED INTO A CORNER AND MUST TAKE MATTERS INTO THEIR OWN HANDS TO REGAIN CONTROL OF THEIR COUNTRY?

The secretive powers operating in the Harris-Biden Administration, along with the Democrat Party have forced Americans into a tight corner. The forces that have boxed in Americans know this to be true. They did this intentionally. They have thrown down their gauntlet. They fully expect a backlash. And they fully intend to counter it.The forces that crush have instituted a comprehensive and insidious program designed to contain and constrain dissenting Americans.Their program must have taken shape during the early days of the transition of Government in 2021. And it is now available for all to see. The PROGRAM—really a POGROM—targeting Americans who refuse to get on board with the game plan is contained in a lengthy document, titled: “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism.”This Document, recently made available to the public,  serves a dual purpose for the Harris-Biden Administration. It operates, one, as a Declaration setting forth the raison d’être for a Marxist Counterrevolution in this Country to overturn the American Revolution of 1776, and, operates,  two, as an express and brazen threat to the autonomy of the American citizen. Never before in American History has the Federal Government professed to declare war on its own citizens. In that regard, the “National Strategy for Countering Domestic Terrorism” goes much further than even the infamousU.S. Patriot Act, in presenting a direct threat to an American citizen's fundamental Rights and Liberties. See also the article on the U.S. Patriot Act by the Electronic Frontier Foundation.But who are these “Domestic Terrorists” that the Harris-Biden Administration has declared war against? In the broadest sense, a “Domestic Terrorist” is any American who professes disagreement with the Globalist/Marxist agenda.

ATTEMPTS AT OBFUSCATION DO NOT DISGUISE THE FACT THAT “DOMESTIC TERRORIST” REFERS TO ALL AMERICANS WHO ACTIVELY DISAGREE WITH AND WHO DISSENT FROM THE HARRIS-BIDEN AGENDA.

The expression “Domestic Terrorist” drags in a sizable portion of the American citizenry, at least a third of the Country, that cherishes the Nation's founding, formative Documents—the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution’s Articles, and the Bill of Rights—and takes them at face value, in accordance with the plain meaning of the language therein.And, what do these Documents proclaim and prescribe? They proclaim and prescribe the preeminence of liberty and personal autonomy and of the existence of natural, God-given rights that exist intrinsically in each person; rights that precede the formation of nations and of governments and make clear that the American people, themselves, and not the Government they happen to form, are the Sole Sovereign of their Nation, and that they alone have the God-given right to control their own destiny.This presents a conundrum for the Harris-Biden Administration, which is to say, a profound dilemma for those secretive, powerful insiders who are orchestrating and choreographing the Administration’s every move.One thing is clear: Those elements presently in control of the reins of the Federal Government do not perceive themselves as servants of the people but, rather, as master over them.The Harris-Biden Administration, the Democrat Party controlled Congress, the Bureaucratic Deep State, the Legacy Press, and the major social media and technology monopolies have dismissed the founding, formative documents of our Country, out-of-hand, and, in so doing, have effectively declared war on the American people.But, a sizable chunk of the American people, though, cherish and extol the tenets, principles, and precepts contained in the Nation’s sacred Documents. That means the American people pose a threat to Government. They must therefore be brought to heel lest they exert their sovereignty over the Government. Imagine that!The Nation’s founding Fathers—yes, dare we use the expression, “THE FATHERS” of the Nation—understood well that a massively large, powerful centralized Government would, if left to its own devices, eventually, inexorably, inevitably usurp from the people,  that sovereign power belonging only to the people.The Founding Fathers knew that, while a Federal Government with limited powers, assiduously demarcated among three salient Branches—Legislative, Executive, and Judicial—may serve to forestall usurpation of power unto itself, the rise of tyranny would be inevitable. It would only be a matter of time. Only the presence of an armed citizenry could prevent this from happening, as the Founding Fathers well knew; hence the reason for the codification of the right of the people to keep and bear arms in an Amendment to the Constitution.It should come as no surprise to any American that the Destroyers of a Free Constitutional Republic would therefore mount a furious assault on the sacred right of the people to keep and bear arms.Not since the Nation’s inception in 1776, have the Obstructors of the Country come so close transforming it from a free Republic into an Authoritarian State—made all the easier through the use of information technology: technology that is capable of exerting vast control over content creation and dissemination of information, and the censure of it; technology that makes possible, the surreptitious, collection of private information and omnipresent surveillance of the Nation’s citizenry.The pillar of free speech, codified in the First Amendment and the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, codified in the Fourth, are both suffering slow strangulation as a result of the application of technology on a massive scale.The public has little to say about the application of, and has even less control over, technological advances that allow Government to nullify the unreasonable searches and seizures clause of the Fourth Amendment.And powerful Liberal Progressive and Marxist interests in the Federal Government flagrantly violate the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause, operating through major social media monopolies, that share Progressive Left and Marxist sympathies and goals. The result is a blatant, shameless, unethical, illegal censure of speech.These elements in Government and business, operating in concert, have been successful at constraining public discourse, in recent years, to an extent never before countenanced. And they intend to upend this Nation’s Constitutional Republic now and for all time.Concomitant with censure of speech, and contrary to the dictates of the First Amendment, destructive forces in Government and in the technology monopolies have unleashed a campaign of propaganda to turn American against American and to indoctrinate children and adult alike. No institution is free from the onslaught; not even the military.

WITH FREEDOM FROM UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES ESSENTIALLY ERADICATED, AND FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER CONTINUOUS, RUINOUS, HARASSING ASSAULT, ONLY FREEDOM TO OWN AND POSSESS GUNS REMAINS, OBSTINATELY RESISTANT TO GOVERNMENT ATTEMPTS TO CONSTRAIN EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT.

Only the right of the people to keep and bear arms effectively resists systematic and debilitating attempts by Progressive and Marxist influences to annihilate the exercise of this fundamental Right. But why is that? The reasons are plain. First, Americans recognize that no other Right defines them or the Country they are sovereign masters of, as the Right to own and possess firearms. So, Americans furiously defend that Right—more so than any other. Second, firearms are after all tangible implements, not intangible, digital objects, like words. It is not so easy for Government to purloin away one’s firearms as they have purloined away Americans’ private conversations and private documents and as they have systematically whittled away at the right of free discourse and free association among Americans of like kind.It’s impossible to take physical control over a citizen’s firearms surreptitiously. A person either has possession of them or he does not. And he will not so easily part with them. This angers the would-be Destroyers of a free Constitutional Republic to no end.How does one effectively separate a person from his firearms without causing a bloodbath in the Nation? This isn’t simply a matter of academic exercise for the Destroyers of our Country. They are well aware that the presence of—the continued existence of—armed citizens poses a direct, imminent threat to the installment of a Marxist totalitarian State and submergence of the remains of a free Republic in a Globalist Marxist new world order. But they also know that any attempt at a wholesale round-up of firearms would result in revolt—that is to say, armed revolt!It follows that no compromise on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is logically sensical despite the remonstrations of “antigun” groups carping endlessly over the need for more “commonsense gun laws”—as if they mean only that and nothing more. The idea is absurd on its face. It is all mere rhetoric designed to deceive. Americans have had more than enough of this nonsense.The question is: Now that Americans know the extent to which a free Constitutional Republic is in the crosshairs for destruction, and that the Federal Government has essentially declared war on its own citizens' sacred Rights and Liberties, what are Americans going to do to safeguard their Bill of Rights and their sovereignty over Government?___________________________________

PART TWO

A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT LONG CONTAIN OR CONSTRAIN AN ARMED CITIZENRY.

If the American people are well-armed, then they can effectively, successfully resist Governmental attempts to control thought and action; they can effectively resist concerted efforts by tyrants to subjugate them; and they will always resist such efforts. But, if the American people are disarmed, they are defenseless before both two-legged predators and a predatory, tyrannical Government. So, the American people must continue to be well-armed. It is that simple.Thus, among those Destructive forces—neoliberal Globalist and international Marxist elements—who strive for firm Government control over the citizenry, the Right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be merely constrained, exercise of the Right must be curtailed. But, because it is immensely difficult to curtail citizen ownership and possession of firearms outright, absent wholesale bloodshed, which is to be avoided, the liberal Progressive Left and Marxists have been forced to undercut the Right of the people to keep and bear arms through a gradual escalating legislative process.The Federal Government’s assault on the Second Amendment started in earnest almost ninety years ago, with the enactment of the National Firearms Act of 1934. As with all antigun legislation, the pretext for the enactment of the NFA was an attempt to prevent criminal gangs from engaging in shooting rampages with certain classes of weapons, primarily fully automatic weapons and so-called short-barreled shotguns and rifles. The impact this law had on crime reduction was and is negligible. Its greatest and gravest impact was on infringing law-abiding American citizens' right to possess those firearms.Apart from actions by several State Americans to continue to enact laws to restrict and constrain the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, the public was provided with a respite from the enactment of wholesale restrictive Federal firearms legislation for a period of sixty years, when Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. That Act contained a subsection titled innocuously, the “Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act” a.k.a. “Assault Weapons Ban,” the latter descriptor of which is more accurate and to the point.Once again, the public was told that the purpose of an assault weapons Ban was directed to curbing violent crimes committed with a certain category of guns. It did no such thing. It was all a lie, having nothing to do with constraining criminal use of firearms.All the Act succeeded in doing and was designed to do was to target average, law-abiding Americans, not to reduce violent gun crime. The salient if tacit purpose of the Act was to ban lawful ownership and possession of a wide range of popular semiautomatic weapons in the hands of tens of millions of law-abiding Americans. The Act wasn’t designed to prevent gun crimes. And the banned firearms were not even utilized in the vast majority of gun crimes anyway.The law was set to expire ten years later, in 2004. It did expire and not surprisingly, it wasn’t renewed. The public wasn’t deceived and demanded access to semiautomatic firearms.Notwithstanding the expiration of the Assault Weapons Ban, that didn’t stop Anti-Second Amendment forces in Congress to try to enact new laws restricting Americans’ access to semiautomatic firearms. They were relentless in their pursuit to curtail the exercise of the right codified in the Second Amendment. And they continued their effort up to the present time. To date, all such attempts have failed, and that has frustrated the forces that seek to destroy this free Constitutional Republic and its sovereign people. It was therefore left to Anti-Second Amendment State Governments to fill the gap and States like New York and California did so, with relish.With the neoliberal Globalist Obama in the Oval Office, to be followed by Hillary Clinton, the Destroyers of an independent sovereign United States felt confident that they could gradually tighten the noose around the neck of the American people so that, by the time the citizenry realized they had lost their Nation, along with their Bill of Rights, it would be much too late for them to do anything about it.But Hillary Clinton didn’t make it into Office. Donald Trump did. And once the sobering reality of that had sunk in for the neoliberal Globalists and the Marxists, they no longer took for granted that they could work leisurely and quietly to reconfigure the institutions of the Nation; disregard the dictates of or redefine the meaning of the Constitution to suit their goals; and implement their plans for a takeover of the Country incrementally.The forces that crush entire nations went to work on our own; frenetically, ceaselessly, assiduously, to sabotage Trump’s policy initiatives; engaging in a virulent media campaign of vicious personal attacks on him, on his family, on campaign officials, and on Americans who voted for and who avidly supported him, who had realized the singular importance of the Trump initiatives and policy goals and promises in getting the Nation back on track to regain its historical roots and sensibilities. Yet, all the efforts to dislodge Trump from Office met with abject failure and Trump was successful in realizing many of his goals.The forces that crush entire nations couldn’t understand Trump’s emotional strength; his resourcefulness, his fortitude; his resilience. The more vociferous and vicious the attacks became, the more implacable did Trump become.The public saw that Trump’s “America First” domestic and foreign policies actually benefitted the American people, Americans of all races. Trump was primed to win a second term in Office.The neoliberal Globalists and international Marxists would have not of that. And they pulled out all the stops to prevent that from happening.So, as a last resort, the enemies of the American people, both within the Republic and outside it, including likely the CCP and the EU Government in Brussels, machinated and conspired to prevent Trump from serving a Second Term. And they succeeded. Now, with Trump out of the way, and with Bush-era Republicans or otherwise meek Republicans offering no meaningful, substantial resistance to the agenda of Marxist Democrats, those Congressional Democrats are wasting no time consolidating their power over the Country and over the American people, before the 2022 midterm elections.

DEMOCRATS' TEN-PART PROGRAM TO CONSOLIDATE POWER AND GAIN CONTROL OVER THE NATION AND ITS CITIZENS

The Democrats' program involves, one, systematically corralling the voices of tens of millions of Americans; two indoctrinating the public in the tenets of Collectivism; three, consolidating control over the military and police; four, continuing to create mass upheaval and volatility in society with the assistance of criminal gangs, and Marxist and Anarchist agitators; five, maintaining dossiers on every person residing in the United States; six, inducing fear in the minds of all Americans that Government may designate them as “Domestic Terrorists” and commence to hound and harass them; seven, asserting Government control over the operation of the entire electoral process in order to control the outcome of elections; eight, continuing, indefinitely, an open borders policy, allowing a continuous deluge of illegal alien migrants and murderous drug cartel gangs to invade our Country, thereby further disrupting society; nine, creating the conditions for hyper-inflation to proceed, to reduce the mass of America to abject penury; and, ten, curtailing exercise of the right of the people to keep and bear arms so as to preclude the ability of the American people to revolt successfully against the inception of tyranny.Concerning the last item of business, expect to see concerted efforts by the Harris-Biden Administration, to implement executive actions, albeit as a “temporary fix” to restrict the possession of semiautomatic weapons. This is being coordinated with efforts by the Democrat-controlled Congress to shoehorn semiautomatic weapons into the NFA, or, perhaps, to enact new stand-alone legislation, or to enact a ban on possession of semiautomatic firearms through obscure means, by placing a gun ban in some larger omnibus bill.Whatever transpires, the American people should be prepared for a very rocky ride in the months ahead as the economy continues to deteriorate, as social volatility and unrest in society crank up, and as the Second Amendment undergoes an assault in a manner heretofore not seen.____________________________________Copyright © 2021 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.