THE U.S. SUPREME COURT DESERVES ACCOLADES FOR THE BRUEN DECISION, BUT NEW YORK’S CHANGES TO ITS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAW MAKE CLEAR THERE IS NO CAUSE YET FOR JUBILATION

POST-BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS AND WHAT ITS IMPACT IS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT AND CHERISH THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO DO NOT; THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY TO DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART SEVEN

NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LAW WAS ALWAYS A MESS—AND IT CONTINUES TO BE A MESS!

The Amendments to the New York State handgun regime are a “mess.” That one word is the best descriptor of them and for them, and for the entire State handgun licensing regime. These Amendments do nothing to alleviate the past difficulties an individual has had attempting to secure an unrestricted handgun carry license. These Post-Bruen Amendments merely substitute one ludicrous arbitrary and subjective, and vague handgun licensing standard, “Proper Cause”/ “Demonstration of Extraordinary Need,” for another nonsensical subjective and vague handgun licensing standard, “Demonstration of Good Moral Character.”The present New York Government, referring here to Governor Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, have manufactured a response to the Bruen rulings that is a sham, a dissembling, a pretense at satisfying the dictates of the Court—one that isn’t at all subtle.Implementation of the new handgun licensing standard makes it decidedly and decisively more difficult, not less so, for the average, responsible, rational, law-abiding civilian citizen, to obtain an unrestricted concealed handgun license. In fact, implementation of the new standard makes it more difficult for the average New Yorker to obtain even a restrictive home and/or business premise handgun license.The New York Government has brazenly defied, not obediently complied with, the Court’s Bruen rulings, thereby vitiating the import of Bruen, and violating the Court’s Article 3 Constitutional authority.In her words and actions, Hochul has made her feelings known, and the New York State Senate Majority Leader has echoed those sentiments.Contemptuous of the High Court’s rulings and reasoning, the New York State Senate Majority Leader, Andrea Stewart-Cousins, hurled a stream of invective, at the High Court. She regurgitated the same tiresome, disingenuous, and caustic rhetoric of Anti-Second Amendment fanatics and Neo-Marxist Cultists, proclaiming that the New York Nanny State knows what’s best for the people, not the U.S. Supreme Court. And so, the New York Government informs the Court that New York has no intention of complying with the Court’s rulings. In her Senate Majority Press Release, Andrea Stewart-Cousins retorts——“In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, implying that guns are more important than lives in this country, we are passing legislation to ensure that New York State has safe and responsible gun laws. States are the last line of defense, which is why we are stepping up to protect New York from being easily flooded with concealed weapons and keeping firearms out of the wrong hands. These measures, in addition to the previous anti-gun violence legislation we passed, are vital in a time when there are more guns than people in America. New York will continue to prioritize people’s safety and lives, and I thank my conference, Speaker Heastie, and Governor Hochul for their partnership.” ~New York State Senate Majority leader’s remarks after the NY Senate in Albany passed amendments to the State’s handgun licensing statute in response to the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the State’s concealed handgun carry law.The implication of Stewart-Cousins’ remarks is that the Government's changes to the handgun statute are designed to make it more difficult, not less difficult, for the average civilian citizen to exercise his or her right to armed self-defense in New York, thus necessitating the filing of further time-consuming and expensive lawsuits on the part of the citizen to obtain redress for Government's unconscionable, unconstitutional behavior.It is evident that the goal of the New York Government is to make the process of obtaining a New York handgun carry license—that one requires to lawfully possess a handgun in New York—so difficult, so onerous, so expensive, so time-consuming, so oppressive that one’s desire to exercise his or her natural law right to keep and bear arms is snuffed out, and the individual concedes defeat, and gives up further attempt to secure the right. Of course, some individuals will remain undeterred, and that is to be expected as long as the Second Amendment remains, de jure law, in the Bill of Rights—a thing that angers and frustrates the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist internationalists to no end. For, as long as the Second Amendment remains explicit in the Constitution, the sovereignty of the American people cannot be disturbed, and United States, as a free Constitutional Republic, and independent Nation-State cannot be dismantled and its remains inserted into the “international rules-based neo-feudalistic, neoliberal empire,” a.k.a. “new world order,” a.k.a. “Open Society,” that the Destroyers of independent nation-states have long yearned and aimed and planned for.   New York's handgun regime is where the Globalists/Marxists are focusing their energies. If they can defeat the Second Amendment there, they also defeat the power and authority of the U.S. Supreme Court. So, the puppet-masters have given their puppets, Kathy Hochul and the Democrat Party-controlled Legislature in Albany, their marching orders. The Amendments to New York's handgun law are no less draconian than what stood before. The New York Government assumes that many people who had hoped to obtain an unrestricted handgun carry license easily, Post-Bruen, now realizing the hopelessness of the task, will simply capitulate, surrender the effort to obtain one.And, as the Government has included, in the Amendments, many more restrictions pertaining to places where, henceforth, it will be unlawful for the holder of a valid unrestricted license to carry a handgun in public, that, too—the Government hopes—will dampen whatever residual desire a civilian citizen may have to carry a handgun for self-defense. Obtaining a coveted handgun license will be, at best, at long-last, nothing more than a Pyrrhic Victory—hardly worth the effort.And, so, a recalcitrant, intransigent New York Government pushes hard against those citizens who intend to exercise their Second Amendment right regardless of the obstacles the New York Government places in their path. This means citizens must continue to expend earnest effort filing more expensive, more lengthy, more time-consuming lawsuits against Hochul and her Government. And the Government knows that, given the nature of the legal process, and of the effort, and time, and money involved, all those factors work to the Government’s advantage—not that of the citizen.Hochul's message is clear: “the New York handgun regime is here to stay, and any person who doesn’t like New York’s handgun regime, better have a deep pocket to file another lawsuit like Bruen, and they better have the time and energy and will power to follow through on it. They will need it.”Or, in the alternative, Americans can simply leave New York. Kathy Hochul’s predecessor, Andrew Cuomo—creator of and champion of the notorious New York Safe Act of 2013—has made abundantly clear that members of the GOP who hold “extreme views,” in Cuomo’s mind, are persona non grata. As he says, “you don’t belong in New York.’” See article in New York Post.So, then what? “Just leave?” And to be sure, many American Patriots have left New York. They have also left Illinois and California. But many other Americans, true Patriots, too, have stayed and they intend to fight for their fundamental rights and liberties in their State, their home.After all, many good Americans were born and raised in New York, in Illinois, and in California. These Americans consider those States to be their home. And those States are their home. So, why, then, should they leave? Let the corrupters of those States, like Cuomo and Hochul, and DeBlasio and Eric Adams leave New York. Let corruptors like Pritzker and Lightfoot leave Illinois. Let corruptors like Newsome, and Garcetti, and Breed, and Schaaf leave California, as well they all should. But where do Americans go if the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist cultists take over the entire Country—which is occurring apace? The Biden Administration allows CCP China and the Billionaire, Bill Gates, to buy up vast tracts of land—and to what end? The Administration uses tens of billions of American tax-dollars against the interests of Americans and politicizes Government departments, agencies, and bureaus for its own nefarious ends. The military and police are demoralized and weakened. Our founders are denigrated. Our monuments and statues are defaced, removed, and desecrated.    The Biden Administration has done much to destroy this Country’s economy, infrastructure, and its resources, and its military preparedness and prowess. That is its sole reason for being. It is the sole reason, money, and time, and effort, and massive corruption of the electoral process was expended in getting Donald Trump out and getting Joe Biden and legions of lackeys into positions of power that they may damage the Republic irreparably.It has all paid off for the Corruptors of the Country. The Nation’s vitality is on the wane. This is not due to accident or mere happenstance; nor can it be explained as a product of gross incompetence. It is intentional. It is all part of an elaborate, sophisticated plan; carefully conceived and orchestrated; and methodically carried out.Yet, there are limits to the harm a feeble-minded and physical wreck of a man can inflict on this Country even though Joe Biden is but a titular Chief Executive. But, if California’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, should run for President, and secure the Democrat Party’s nomination for President in 2024, and, horror of horrors, if he became the 47^th U.S. President, what then becomes of the Country.? Newsom’s California will be replicated across the 50 States. Where might Americans run to, then? What State shall be able to operate—may operate—consistent with the Nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights, once tyranny cements itself firmly in the Nation, and reigns unchallenged, supreme over Constitution, Nation, and People?For what Americans have experienced, especially, in the last 19 months, one must conclude the American Revolution of 1776 was less a hard-fought war, won, than it remains a war yet ongoing, with battles Americans must continue to fight against its own Federal and State Governments. For these Governments adamantly refuse to acknowledge and accept the sovereignty of the American people, as first conceptualized by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and then as actualized through the fact of our Nation's well-armed citizenry. But can America's Patriots prevail against such powerful, malevolent, and tenacious forces that dare to suppress our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties and to oppress our people until they capitulate—every one of us—to a world-wide feudalistic empire whose central offices one shall find in Brussels, Belgium?As we have seen, even simple recognition of the sacred natural law right of armed self-defense is not to be found everywhere in our Nation, but only in scattered spots here and there. A tyrannical Federal Government and several more tyrannical State Governments, blotting the National landscape, refuse to countenance such basic right—the cornerstone of our free Republic and of the sovereignty of the American people over Government. Our Constitution demands that Government pay homage to the will of the American people through recognition of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No other Government on Earth allows such. Most other Governments mock the very idea of it. But not here. Yet, today, our Government, this Federal Government, and many State Governments and regional and municipal governments have become like so many others; corrupt, and jealous, and guarded of their powers: a blight on a Free Republic. These Governments demand the American people pay homage to them; not they to the American people!The forces that crush have made substantial inroads into achievement of their goal: the demoralizing, destabilizing, and dismantling of our free Republic. They have corrupted every institution of our Country. They have denigrated our history, heritage, culture, ethos, and Christian ethic. And, they are stripping our Nation of its strength, and will, and fortitude. Only the sovereignty of the Nation’s people remains, albeit attenuated, as our fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, and eternal rights and liberties are being inexorably, and swiftly, eroded before our very eyes. _____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J. Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DOESN’T CARE WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS ABOUT THE STATE'S HANDGUN LICENSING STATUTE

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

NY GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL CONTINUES TO CONSTRAIN THE CIVILIAN CITIZEN'S RIGHT OF ARMED SELF-DEFENSE

PART FIVE

Not content simply to say New York won’t comply with Bruen, the New York Governor’s response to Bruen points to open revolt with the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Constitution.On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court officially released its decision in the Bruen case. On that same date a Press Release appeared on New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s website. It says much about her position on civilian citizen possession of handguns in public and what she thinks about the Court and its decision in Bruen. It reads as follows:“Good morning, everyone. We just received some very disturbing news from Washington; that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has stripped away the state of New York's right and responsibility to protect its citizens with a decision—which we are still digesting—which is frightful in its scope of how they are setting back this nation and our ability to protect our citizens back to the days of our founding fathers. And the language we're reading is shocking.As Governor of the State of New York, my number one priority is to keep New Yorkers safe, but today the Supreme Court is sending us backwards in our efforts to protect families and prevent gun violence. And it's particularly painful that this came down at this moment. . . . Today, the Supreme Court struck down a New York law that limits who can carry concealed weapons. Does everyone understand what a concealed weapon means? That you have no forewarning that someone can hide a weapon on them and go into our subways, go into our grocery stores like stores up in Buffalo, New York, where I'm from, go into a school in Parkland or Uvalde.This could place millions of New Yorkers in harm's way. And this is at a time when we're still mourning the loss of lives, as I just mentioned. This decision isn't just reckless, it's reprehensible. It's not what New Yorkers want. We should have the right of determination of what we want to do in terms of our gun laws in our state.If the federal government will not have sweeping laws to protect us, then our states and our governors have a moral responsibility to do what we can and have laws that protect our citizens because of what is going on—the insanity of the gun culture that has now possessed everyone all the way up to even to the Supreme Court.The law we're talking about has been in place since the early 1900s. And now to have our ability to determine who is eligible for a concealed carry permit—this is not an ordinary permit. This is a special use that you can hide it from people. We have limitations, if it's for a proper cause, someone who's been threatened, someone who needs it for their job as a security guard. We have classifications where it is allowed and has been allowed for over a hundred years.”In tone and content Hochul’s message is astonishing. It is a polemic directed at both present and future handgun license holders in New York. But, more than that, it is a presumptuous and dangerous assault on the Third Branch of Government, the U.S. Supreme Court, and on the sanctity and inviolability of the citizen’s natural law right of armed self-defense as codified in the Second Amendment of the Nation’s Bill of Rights.In that Press Release, Hochul says she’s “still digesting” the scope of the decision. But is that true? Hardly. New York had prepared its response to Bruen months ago.Consider——On July 2, 2022, seven days after the release of the decision, and a scant two days after she called for an “extraordinary session of the Legislature in Albany . . . to discuss the impacts of the [Bruen]. . . decision overturning New York State law that previously placed ‘proper cause’ restrictions on the issuance of permits for concealed carry firearms in the state,” Hochul signed into law an extensive and elaborate array of amendments to New York’s handgun licensing statute, including amendments to related statutes, that sailed through the State Legislature in Albany. See article on the jdsupra website.The speed of the process—from drafting of amendments, to their introduction in the State Senate and Assembly, then on to assignment to Committee, Committee markups, then passage of the amendments by both the Senate and the Assembly and the forwarding of the amendments to Governor Kathy Hochul for her signature—all in the space of a week is remarkable—too remarkable to be believed. One must infer that Hochul had notice of the decision well in advance of the official release of the case decision—probably at some point after oral argument that took place in November 2022. The amendments were ready to go upon official release of the Bruen decision. Hochul’s signing off on the amendments was, then, a foregone conclusion. The release of the Bruen decision simply served to trigger enactment of the amendments to New York’s handgun licensing Statute.How bad are these amendments? They are worse than one can imagine. Present holders of valid unrestricted and restricted New York concealed handgun carry licenses will find renewing their licenses difficult. And first-time applicants for concealed handgun carry licenses will find the requirements for issuance of them no less confounding and onerous than before Bruen, and much more vexing.How did New York get to this point? Actually, New York had been moving toward this point for quite some time!The progenitor of New York’s modern handgun licensing regime codified in NY CLS Penal § 400.00 et. seq., that took effect on September 1, 1967, is the Sullivan Dangerous Weapons Act of 1911. It was enacted on August 31, 1911. Handgun carry licensing is not of recent vintage, then. The State has required handgun licensing for close to 112 years, and the State’s desire to keep it is deeply entrenched in the psyche of the Government, and in the psyche of many residents of the State.New York’s handgun license statute—the Sullivan Act that Kathy Hochul refers to in her Press Release—is a reminder to the State, to the Nation, and to the U.S. Supreme Court that the Sullivan Act is here to stay in New York, regardless of anything the U.S. Supreme Court has to say about it. The Sullivan Act has gone through several incarnations since its enactment in 1967—but it always remains true to form—a handgun licensing regime, whose roots are deep and wide. Ostensibly created to deal with incessant crime by constraining the public’s access to handguns, the Sullivan Act failed in that objective, but New York kept it anyway, adding to it through the subsequent years and decades.Indeed, the fairly recent New York Safe Act of 2013 is merely an aspect and extension of it, not distinct from it. And several amendments to the Safe Act have proceeded since—a flurry of them only in the past couple of years. The most recent amendments, springing directly from the Bruen decision, take effect, formally, on Monday September 4, 2022. As the New York State Court of Appeals has explained, the Sullivan Act qua Penal Law § 400.00 “is the exclusive statutory mechanism for the licensing of firearms in New York State. O’Connor v. Scarpino,” 83 N.Y.2d 919, 638 N.E.2d 950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994). And that means, for the civilian citizen, there is no way to get around it. Handgun licensing is the foundation of New York’s assault on the Second Amendment and that of many other jurisdictions as well.New York’s handgun license statute has gone through several iterations since its enactment in 1967. But the most recent amendments to it, coming on the heels of Bruen, will take effect on September 4, 2022. Section 400.00 plus the Post-Bruen Amendments IS the Sullivan Act brought into the 21^st Century.Back then as now, New York, and other jurisdictions, including California and Illinois, rationalized civilian arms control as necessary to promote “public safety.” And Governor Hochul’s Press Release echoes that sentiment that hearkens back to the turn of the 20^th Century, even as the crime rate in New York in the 21^st Century continues to soar. Continued constraints on civilian access to firearms in defiance of the Second Amendment has become an end in itself although Anti-Second Amendment proponents will rarely, if ever, say that and as many in Government will readily deny it even as they push for further constraints on the exercise of it.“As the California Supreme Court ruled in People v. Camperlingo (69 Cal. 466 [1924]), ‘It is clear that, in the exercise of the police power of the state, that is, for public safety or the public welfare generally, such right [to bear arms] may be either regulated or, in proper cases, entirely destroyed.’ The Illinois Supreme Court ruled in Biffer v. City of Chicago (278 Ill. 562 [1917]) that ‘the sale of deadly weapons may be absolutely prohibited.’” “Firearms Regulation: A Historical Overview,” 28 Crime & Just. 137, by Michael A. Bellesiles, Professor of History, Emory University. The New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, and the State Legislature, and the State and Federal District and U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals are all onboard with this. The average civilian citizen resident of New York has wide chasm to cross to obtain the coveted prize of an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license. And that chasm has just become wider.___________________________________

“PUBLIC SAFETY” IS A RUSE TO GET NEW YORKERS ON BOARD WITH FURTHER RESTRICTIONS TO THE LICENSING STATUTE

PART SIX

The lure of “public safety” explains the Sullivan Act’s longevity. Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions refer to it often. Yet, to what extent Governor Kathy Hochul and the Legislature can honestly be said to believe that stringent curbs to civilian citizen possession of firearms does truly promote public safety—given the horrific upward spiral of violent crime in New York, predominantly in New York City, is open to conjecture. But the fact many New Yorkers believe that keeping handguns out of the hands of average, law-abiding, and responsible civilian citizens does contain violent crime, is apparently enough for both the Governor and for the State Legislature in Albany to continue to promote further and severe constraints on civilian citizen armed self-defense. If “Public safety”—whether clever, deceptive Government ruse or honest, albeit erroneous, Government belief—serves as the raison d’être for the handgun licensing regime, then application of “proper cause” is the mechanism that serves to constrain the average, rational, responsible, law-abiding civilian citizen from lawfully possessing a handgun in the public sphere. Armed self-defense thus remains a privilege in New York, notwithstanding the language of the Second Amendment that professes to express armed self-defense as a fundamental, unalienable right of the people.New Yorkers can change handgun carry laws in New York. And it is a simple process to do so as long as the public has the will to do so: simply vote Governor Hochul and those Legislators who hold the same views as she does toward handgun licensing in New York, out-of-office. New Yorkers have an opportunity to do so this November 2022.If New Yorkers demur, then they will continue to suffer. Violent crime will continue to rise, and innocent people will continue to die.A leap of faith is required here. It shouldn’t be difficult, given the irrationality of restrictive gun measures that simply target the law-abiding citizen, and not the criminal. But strong beliefs, even irrational ones die hard.

NEW YORK GOVERNOR KATHY HOCHUL DOESN’T GIVE A DAMN WHAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT SAYS ABOUT NEW YORK’S HANDGUN CARRY LAW, SHE PRESUMES TO KNOW BETTER THAN THE COURT.

It is one thing for a Government to rely on an erroneous belief as justification for infringing a fundamental, unalienable, immutable, eternal natural law right of the American people. It is quite another thing to brashly defy the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court, substituting one’s own judgment, and normative beliefs, and personal political and social philosophy, for that of the precepts and stricture of the U.S. Constitution.The U.S. Constitution, as promulgated by men much wiser than Governor Hochul and Anti-Second Amendment Legislators in Albany has, through the test of time, proved its value. This Country, in the space of almost 250 years, has outstripped any other modern Nation, becoming by far the wealthiest, most powerful, most prosperous, any Nation on Earth. The U.S. Constitution, grounded on the precepts of Individualism has enabled this. It is no accident.The prescription for the Nation’s success is simple: Government exists to serve the interests of the American people, and they, not Government, are sovereign over Government and over their own destiny.Indeed, the tacit theme of all three seminal Second Amendment cases—Heller, McDonald, and Bruen—is that Government must pay homage to the natural law rights of man.But Governor Hochul and the New York State Legislature will have none of that just that. The forces they represent and pay homage to have other plans for Americans. There is no limit to their disdain for the Constitution, their rudeness toward the U.S. Supreme Court, and their contempt for the American people.Through tortuous, guileful legislative legerdemain, the New York Government has enacted an elaborate set of amendments to the State’s handgun licensing Statute, Section 400.00, and to the concealed handgun carry Section of the Statute, especially, NY CLS Penal § 400.00(2)(f).  These amendments serve merely as a pretense of compliance with Bruen, and a poor one at that.But they don’t fool anyone, especially the Court. On inspection, the State’s “Post-Bruen” Amendments to Section 400.00 are excessively harsh, brutal really.   To understand how that is, it helps to understand what the New York handgun licensing Statute looked like prior to Bruen. We delve into that and compare and contrast the original Section 400.00 handgun licensing Statute with the amendments to it in the next article.

NEW YORK’S HANDGUN LICENSE STATUTE PRIOR TO BRUEN IS BAD; AFTER BRUEN IT IS WORSE

In the most recent iteration, prior to Bruen, applicants for any New York handgun license—whether restricted or not—had to comply with Section 400.00(a), which denies possession of a handgun to anyone who is under disability as defined in Federal Statute, 18 U.S.C § 922.  New York has adopted that Statute for its own use. Up till now, to obtain a concealed handgun carry license, applicants in the general population had to demonstrate “proper cause,” set forth in, but never defined in, Penal Code Section 400.00(a).The State Legislature has left it up to the licensing authorities of the Counties to specify “proper cause,” and what that is has remained quite nebulous. The whole point of this is to make it difficult for the average person to acquire a carry license. So, few have tried, and most that have tried have failed secured such licenses. Under the New York Constitution’s Home Rule provision, though, New York City is permitted to adopt its own “proper cause” requirements for applicants of concealed handgun carry licenses, and it has done so. These are set forth in 38 RCNY 5-03. They are stringent, but, at least, not inherently nebulous.Individuals who presently hold valid concealed handgun carry licenses in the City, which NYPD License Division has exclusive authority to issue, have, through time, adapted to the NYPD License Division’s “proper cause” requirements. These requirements are aimed at providing a mechanism for the City’s entrepreneurial class to obtain licenses.It suggests an explicit attempt at accommodation of business practices—operating as both cause and effect. The NYPD License Division establishes the requirements for business entrepreneurs to qualify for a concealed handgun carry license, and those entrepreneurs do their best to comply with those requirements. Compliance with those requirements have thus enabled a small number of people, New York City’s entrepreneurial class that happens to handle substantial amounts of cash in the usual course of their business, to obtain a coveted handgun carry license. The NYPD License Division establishes the criteria under which applicants for handgun carry licenses can satisfy requirements, and those business applicants oblige the NYPD. So, it has been for decades. That now goes out the door.Under the requirements for a concealed handgun carry license in New York City and in the rest of the State—that take effect in September—the City’s Rules will not be valid. Be that as it may, at present, the NYPD License Division has yet to revise its Rules for issuance of concealed handgun licenses. But the Division will have to. The City’s Home Rule Charter gives the NYPD License Division substantial leeway to establish its “proper cause” criteria, but the City’s criteria have to be consistent with the intent of the Statute. The present rules are not consistent with the amendments to Section 400.00 that take effect in September.Those entrepreneurs who have business establishments in the City and who have adapted their business procedures to cohere to the NYPD License Divisions procedure will find their pro forma renewal process no longer open to them. They are in jeopardy of losing acquisition of concealed handgun carry licenses that heretofore they could rely on as long as their business operations and practices remained consistent through time. Upon renewal of their present license, they must comply with the new requirements or forsake their concealed handgun carry license. We investigate those in the next article, Part Seven of this series._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

BRUEN SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN NEEDED BUT WAS NEEDED BECAUSE COURTS REFUSED TO COMPLY WITH HELLER AND MCDONALD

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART FOUR

As we alluded to, in our earlier articles on Bruen, the High Court’s decision is meant to redirect the actions of those jurisdictions that have misread and misapplied Heller.As one reads the Bruen Majority Opinion, and the Concurring Opinions, it becomes clear that the salient purpose of the Court’s Majority is to redirect those jurisdictions toward a proper understanding of the import and purport of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as explained in Heller and McDonald. Bruen is intended to instill Courts with an appreciation of the proper standard of review to be used when reviewing Courts are called upon to test the constitutionality of government actions that impact the Second Amendment.Too many jurisdictions have, heretofore, intentionally, and stubbornly, or accidentally and carelessly, failed to heed the dictates of the two seminal Second Amendment holdings that impact all Second Amendment cases—Heller and McDonald. Henceforth, in the 21^st Century, this failure to heed Heller and McDonald is not acceptable. The Bruen decision as propounded is meant to correct serious irregularities in the judicial standard those Courts have heretofore employed— “intermediate scrutiny”/ “interest-balancing”—when reviewing the Constitutionality of Government actions impacting the Second Amendment.But truth to tell, this wasn’t the salient reason the High Court took up the case. And, notwithstanding that the conservative wing of the Court reviewed the case at all, this was not by wish of the liberal wing of the Court. It required the assistance of Chief Justice John Roberts, and his faithful colleague, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, as well, if the case were to be reviewed at all. In that regard, Bruen is just like Heller. For Heller to be accepted for review, it required the cooperation of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy. Their votes were necessary if the conservative wing—at the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—were to be able to hold, finally, what had always been plain: that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. It is not connected to one’s service in a militia. The dependent clause provides a rationale for the right—a mechanism to forestall tyranny of Government from taking root—but it is not at all to be considered a limitation on the exercise of the right. That would make no sense, on logical grounds alone, for it would reduce the right to a nullity. But, just as Associate Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice, John Roberts, and to Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy to get both onboard in Heller, so, similarly, Associate Justices Thomas and Alito had to make concessions to the Chief Justice and to Justice Kavanaugh to get them onboard in Bruen. Doing so ultimately made for a debilitated Bruen. And, as we explain in our continuing comprehensive exposition, Bruen is a markedly weak case. Bruen is much less than it could have been and much less than it should have been. That is to say, the entire handgun licensing structure of New York should have been struck down. But it wasn't. The Court could have done this in the New York City “gun transport case” if the Court had decided the case on the merits as both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito wanted. That didn’t happen. Justice Roberts, and the liberal wing of the Court, didn’t want that to happen. And Justice Kavanaugh acquiesced to the wishes of the Chief Justice in that case. Similarly, in Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court might have struck down the handgun licensing structure of New York that had existed for over one hundred years as it is an affront to the natural law right of armed self-defense. But the liberal wing didn’t want that to happen, and Justice Roberts didn’t want to see that happen either. Yet that was the raison d’être why Bruen came before the Court. If but tacitly, Petitioners, nonetheless, sought to strike down the entirety of the handgun licensing regime in New York, as it is an abomination. It was, in its very design, intended to severely hobble those Americans who reside in New York, from exercising their right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense. New York intended to inhibit exercise of those citizens who reside in New York of their God-Given natural law right of armed self-defense.Chief Justice Roberts didn’t want to see the handgun licensing structure of New York struck down, and he cajoled Justice Kavanaugh to join him in preventing a holding in Bruen that would see the Court doing just that: striking down the one hundred-and eleven-year-old Sullivan Act—the progenitor of the entire handgun licensing structure of New York—which has only grown more robust and egregious through time. And the liberal wing of the Court certainly didn’t want to see the handgun licensing regime of New York collapsing. For their goal is to see an end to the Second Amendment. The Sullivan Act is consistent with that goal.Bruen, unlike the New York City gun transport case that preceded it, was decided on the merits, but the ruling of the Court—there really was only one ruling—did not do much for Americans who desire to exercise their right to keep and bear arms unimpeded by Government. To the contrary, it made matters worse—much worse for present holders of New York City concealed handgun carry licenses. Thus, because Justices Thomas and Alito were prevented from striking at the core of New York’s handgun licensing regime, they spent most of their energies laying out the Heller standard for review. If one stops to think about that, the standard of review that Courts are supposed to apply and are supposed to adhere to was never a major issue in the case, and that it existed at all, was only as tangentially related to the key concern: the unconstitutionality of New York’s entire handgun licensing scheme. In other words, if New York Courts had applied the appropriate standard in reviewing Government actions impacting the Second Amendment, as the Courts should have been doing all along, on their own initiative, then Bruen would never have been necessary. The New York Courts would have themselves struck down the New York handgun licensing regime a long time ago, as blatantly unconstitutional, and Petitioners in the Bruen case, and many other American citizens residing in New York, would have, long ago, been able to exercise their right of armed self-defense without Government interfering with their inalienable right to do so. And that in and of itself would have taken care of the notorious crime wave impacting the City of New York, in particular. That New York Courts have failed to do so and that they, in fact, have embraced the unconstitutionality of New York Government harassment of those citizens who simply wish to exercise their right of armed self-defense, the U.S. Supreme Court could have done so in Bruen, and that would make sense after methodically going through application of the Heller test. Yet, the High Court stopped short of doing that. The Court left the handgun licensing scheme intact. It is our belief that Associate Justices Thomas and Alito would have liked to have been done with it, for the last time, and would have done away with it, but for reluctance on the part of the Chief Justice himself, and, on the part of Justice Kavanaugh as well, apart from the liberal wing of the High Court.  For far too long, all too many Federal and State Courts have mangled Heller and McDonald, wrongly reducing the right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right”—a point Justice Thomas made in his comment to the 2015 Friedman case that the Court failed to grant certiorari on, and that he pointed to again in Bruen. Justice Thomas emphasized that the States cannot reduce the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms to a “second-class right.” But many State Governments have done just that. And the State and Federal Courts in those jurisdictions had routinely held such Government actions as Constitutional when they were not.More inclined to adopt Dissenting Justice Breyer’s argument and reasoning and that of other liberal wing Justices in Heller and McDonald, rather than the sound judicial reasoning and rulings of the Majority, the lower Courts were legally bound to follow, those Courts had slowly eroded Heller and McDonald. Through time this resulted in the production of a substantial body of case law that has the invidious and insidious effect of striking down Heller and McDonald majority opinion rulings and reasoning. Thus, the lower federal and state Courts replace Majority Opinion Conservative wing rulings, respectful of the Second Amendment, with liberal wing musings, disrespectful of and abhorrent of the Second Amendment, as is plain from a perusal of liberal wing dissenting opinions—a serious injustice, establishing erroneous precedents across the appellate Court landscape. The United States Supreme Court did have many opportunities for more than a decade to redress the Constitutional irregularities of State and municipal Governments. Plenty of cases came to the High Court requesting review, but the liberal wing of the High Court did not want that. Those Justices that detested the Heller and McDonald holdings would have much preferred the de facto, or even de jure, erasing of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And they would have been well on their way to the attainment of that goal if Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland had acquired a seat on the High Court. The liberal wing Justices were and are always of one mind on matters impacting the Second Amendment. They certainly didn’t want to strengthen, or reinforce, or extend the rulings of Heller and McDonald as a review of those cases would have done if Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy were onboard with that. At the time, Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito would have done just that But, without the support of Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justice Kennedy, that wouldn’t have happened, couldn’t have happened. The Chief Justice and Associate Justice Kennedy most certainly were not prepared to do anything that might strengthen or extend the Heller and McDonald case rulings. It tells a person much about the jurisprudential makeup of the Chief Justice and about Justice Kennedy.So, Heller and McDonald languished. And, the death of Justice Scalia, and Senate confirmation of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch to seats on the High Court, wouldn’t change the equation. The excruciating painful disembowelment of the two seminal Second Amendment cases was inexorable and inevitable. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito were powerless to do anything about it unless they had the votes to prevent this. But, without Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Kennedy—and thereafter, Roberts and Kavanaugh—on their side, they didn’t have the votes. This meant that many Americans, in the interim, were systematically denied the right guaranteed to them in the Second Amendment.That all changed with the Senate confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, who, it is safe to say, supports a robust Second Amendment, consistent with the framers’ intent. With Barrett onboard, Roberts and Kavanaugh would have to lend their support to the Conservative wing, or they would be found out for the imposters they were and are. But they could not be caught operating as devoted companions of the liberal wing of the Court who seek to make mincemeat of the Bill of Rights. That would never do, especially for the Chief Justice to be in the minority on any decision, and certainly not on one impacting a fundamental right of the American people. Now that the Court did at least somewhat strengthen Heller and McDonald, with the Bruen decision, has this rectified the situation for Americans? Have States begun their slow reassessment of the Second Amendment? Have they begun to treat the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a “first-class right” and not a “second-class right”? Perhaps so. Time will tell. Some jurisdictions in fact appear inclined to do so. But, in New York—from where Bruen sprung—not so. Definitely not so! And we will explore why that is in the next several articles on Bruen._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK’S GOVERNOR HOCHUL REFUSES TO ACCEPT THE BRUEN DECISION — “IT’S LIKE DÉJÀ VU ALL OVER AGAIN,” IN THE IMMORTAL WORDS OF YOGI BERRA

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART TWO

“I reiterate: All that we decide in this case is that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding people to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense and that the Sullivan Law, which makes that virtually impossible for most New Yorkers, is unconstitutional.” ~ Closing paragraph of Part One of Justice Alito’s Concurring Opinion in BruenThere are two key components of Bruen. One involves the test that Federal, and State Courts must employ when they are called upon to review Governmental actions that impact the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The second involves the matter of “proper cause”/ “may issue” that is at the heart of the gun licensing regime of New York and that was the central topic of concern at oral argument in Bruen. And Bruen impacts other jurisdictions around the Country that have similar handgun licensing structures. As we all know, the High Court in Bruen struck down the foundation of the New York's concealed handgun carry license regime—the salient constituent of which is the unrestricted concealed handgun carry license component. Few people in New York "are privileged" to hold such valued and rare licenses, as those that have them can rely on handguns for self-defense in the public sphere, i.e., outside the home as well as inside it—a right denied to most all New York residents.First things first. We deal with the test that reviewing Courts must use when reviewing Governmental actions impacting 2A. The U.S. Supreme Court did articulate in Heller the test to be utilized by the Federal and State Courts when reviewing Governmental actions impacting the Second Amendment, but all too many Courts demonstrated a barely disguised antipathy toward it, or otherwise exhibited a tired apathy apropos of it. In either case such jurisdictions resorted to their own case precedent.The appropriate test to be employed—the Heller test—involves a two-step process.The first step is easy or should be easy if a reviewing Court doesn’t make what is a simple matter difficult.A reviewing Court first ascertains whether the Governmental action conflicts with the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. This means simply that the Court looks to see if the Governmental action affects the Second Amendment at all. If the Governmental action impacts on the individual right to keep and bear arms, then, the first part of the test is met. The Government action is presumed unconstitutional and the burden to prove that the action is constitutional rests on the Government, not on the individual asserting the right to be exercised—the right of the people to keep and bear arms.Thus, in the second part of the test, the Government must prove that the action is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm’s regulation. If the Government fails to establish historical precedent, then the regulation must be struck down.Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, said this:“We reiterate that the standard for applying the Second Amendment is as follows: When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only then may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command.’”Pay close attention to the phrase, “we reiterate” as utilized by Justice Thomas in the main Majority Opinion and as also utilized by Justice Alito in his Concurring Opinion. In colloquial parlance, the word, ‘reiterate’ means ‘to say something again or several times, typically for emphasis or clarity, and often alluding to a feeling of weariness for having to do so.’ Such is the reason for the term’s appearance in Bruen and such is the profound frustration apparent in the Majority Opinion. By using the word, ‘reiterate,’ in Bruen, the High Court expressed its disdain with the lower Courts for continually failing to heed Heller. This may be due to antipathy, even spite toward the Heller decision. Or it may be due to ignorance, apathy or sloppiness, or philosophical leanings, or stubborn adherence to lower Court precedence. That it happens at all is a dreadful thing—thus the need for Bruen—and, still, we see the Federal Government and State Governments and State and Federal Courts contending with Heller and with McDonald, and intending now to contend with Bruen, as well. How many cases must the U.S. Supreme Court hear before Government gets the message: that the right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution is a natural law right: fundamental, unalienable, immutable, illimitable, eternal, and absolute?Heller laid out the test and the Majority Opinion stated that fact explicitly. —The point being that the High Court wasn’t positing a new standard of review of Second Amendment cases in Bruen, but it was merely confirming the test as promulgated in Heller that all too many lower Courts had heretofore failed to apply. And in that failure, the lower Courts were jeopardizing the sanctity of the fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms, as an individual right unconnected with one’s service in a militia.Justice Thomas, writing for the Court Majority, was telling those lower Federal and State Courts that had heretofore applied a ‘means-test analysis’ in Second Amendment cases—a test also referred to as an ‘interest-balancing approach’ or ‘interest-balancing inquiry,’ or, in Court vernacular, an ‘intermediate scrutiny test’ in testing the Constitutionality of a Governmental action—that those Courts had gotten it all wrong! Those lower Courts were giving their imprimatur to Governmental actions that all was well and good when nothing was well and good with those actions as they infringed the clear intent of the Second Amendment. The Courts should have struck those actions down. They didn’t. And in affirming the constitutional correctness of unconstitutional acts those Courts compounded their sin against the people and against the Divine Creator. For the Divine Creator had bestowed on man and in man the right of self-defense. And the general sacred right of self-defense subsumes armed self-defense, which is but a species of the Divine Right of personal survival of body, mind, and spirit against those people or Government that would dare to destroy or subjugate body, mind, or spirit to another’s will or to the will of the State over the Self.There are several examples of this failure to heed Heller, but the starkest example is Friedman vs. Highland Park, 784 F. 3d, 406 (7th Cir. 2015), cert denied, 577 U.S. 1039 (2015). The Friedman case is particularly noteworthy, especially today, because the Court had the opportunity to deal head-on with the issue whether so-called “assault weapons” fall within the core of Second Amendment protection. Had the Court taken that case up, it would have ruled that “assault weapons” do fall within Second Amendment protection, and that would have saved the American people a lot of aggravation and heartache that is at present heaped on them by a treacherous and obstructionist Biden Administration, a treacherous, obstinate Democrat Party-controlled Congress, an obstreperous, perfidious legacy Press, and a painfully passive, acquiescent, obsequious, worthless Republican Party.Of course, the expression, ‘assault weapon,’ is a fiction. That’s all it ever was. It isn’t a military term of art, and never was a military term of art; and it isn’t and wasn't ever used in the arms industry as such either.Propagandists devised the term for politicians and a seditious Press for its effect on gullible members of the American public who allow the Government and the Press to do their thinking for them—seducing them through emotive words and images to sacrifice their God-Given Rights for nothing but an illusion of or false hope of security if they would but place their faith in the State to protect them, but from what is never made clear. What is clear is that the State wishes to protect itself from the armed citizenry, as it is the end goal of the State to oppress the citizenry, not provide for the citizenry's succor, much less its salvation. For salvation can only come from the Divine Creator anyway, not from the State—a false god, a fake, cardboard god.Propagandists originally meant to ascribe the expression, 'assault weapon,' to some but not all semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns. But, of late, especially with the latest Texas school shooting incident—with the Biden Administration, riding a wave of public anxiety and anger over public school shootings—the Administration has chosen to exasperate public anxiety rather than allay it, seeking to ban all semiautomatic weapons or placing them under the purview of the NFA and that means under the heavy hand of the ATF. And this is as we at AQ had predicted long ago.But this would all be a non-issue if the U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to rule on “assault weapons” in the years following the Heller decision. The Court certainly had the chance to do so in the Friedman case. And, God knows, Justice Thomas for one wanted to deal with this matter, but obviously could not get support from the liberal wing of the Court or from the Chief Justice, John Roberts, or from Justice Kennedy both of whom had no stomach for establishing clearly and categorically the salient reason for the Second Amendment: which is that Government was created to serve the American people, not the other way around.An armed citizenry signals to Government that the people are Sovereign over Government and over their Nation, and that firearms provide the means by which Government must bow to the will and sovereignty of the people, whether Government reluctantly agrees to do so or not.It is a curious thing that the supporters of tyranny constantly complain about the firepower of modern semiautomatic weaponry, emphasizing in a hysterical way that such weapons are designed for the military—the standing army of the Federal Government. To be sure, that weaponry of the American citizen is supposed to be military weaponry, designed for just such a cataclysm: to prevent an unrestrained Government and its standing army, and its militarized police, and its vast intelligence apparatus that seeks to bend the citizenry to its will. The right of the people, and the duty of the people, and the ability of the people to resist Government oppression and subjugation is only feasible where the citizenry is armed, and armed to the hilt, and armed with military weapons. In fact, it is not just the semiautomatic weapons that Americans have a fundamental right to possess then; it is the selective fire weapons and fully automatic personnel weapons that Americans have a God-Given right to wield. Of course, a tyrannical Government would attempt to prevent the citizenry from having access to just that sort of weaponry by which the people might succeed in resisting tyranny. The NFA should be repealed; no question about that. Instead, the Harris-Biden Administration wants to extend its purview over semiautomatic weaponry and, of course, eventually over all weapons. A dire confrontation between the citizenry and the Government is inevitable if the Executive and Legislative Branches do not soon come to their senses and acknowledge that those that serve in those Branches of Government owe their allegiance to the U.S. Constitution as written, and to the American people they have a duty to serve. It is not the American people that must bow down or defer to these Government servants, much less deify them. It is they, the smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous servants of Government that need to be put in their place, and that place may well be the chopping block.______________________________________

THE “ASSAULT WEAPON” TEST CASE: WILL NEW YORK REVERT TO “INTEREST-BALANCING” AFTER BRUEN TO SAFEGUARD AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL HANDGUN LICENSING REGIME?

PART THREE

As explained by the Seventh Circuit in Friedman, “The City of Highland Park has an ordinance (§136.005 of the City Code) that prohibits possession of assault weapons or large-capacity magazines (those that can accept more than ten rounds).” See AQ article published May 1, 2018, for further explication of Government failure to recognize the Constitutionality of civilian ownership and possession of semiautomatic weapons, derogatorily and erroneously referred to as “assault weapons.” The High Court in Heller ordered Courts not to utilize interest-balancing when reviewing the constitutionality of a Governmental action impacting the Second Amendment. That was explicit. The Seventh Circuit used that test anyway and found the ordinance did not violate the Second Amendment. That was hardly surprising. Whenever a reviewing Court uses interest-balancing to test the constitutionality of a Governmental action impacting the Second Amendment, the Court invariably finds an unconstitutional act to not violate the Constitution. That is why the U.S. Supreme Court dispensed with interest-balancing. When a Court uses that test, it gives the illusion that the Court is truly balancing the interests between the State action and the individual right. But the individual right always loses to the State action. That is inevitable. To add insult to injury, the Seventh Circuit was using the very test that Justice Breyer championed in Heller, and which he referred to again, in Bruen. But Breyer was writing a dissenting opinion in Heller, and he stuck with it in Bruen. A dissenting opinion isn't the Court's holding. But many jurisdictions wanted the dissenting opinion to operate as a holding in Second Amendment cases. And so, they pretend the dissenting opinion in Heller was the majority ruling opinion. It is incredible. Such rulings of lower Courts utilizing a test that the majority in Heller did not countenance and explicitly and emphatically refuted, would rely on that test, interest-balancing, anyway.In Friedman, the Seventh Circuit decided to go with the dissent’s reasoning rather than with the law as propounded by the Majority in Heller. Justice Thomas was justifiably furious. And he took the Seventh Circuit to task, and, by extension, tacitly chastised those members of the High Court who did not want to hear the case. Given its importance to the reasoning and ruling in Bruen we cite at length the comment of Justice Thomas in the Friedman case which the High Court refused to grant hearing on. Justice Thomas said, in substantial and pertinent part—with the late, eminent Justice Scalia joining him, “Based on its crabbed reading of Heller, the Seventh Circuit felt free to adopt a test for assessing firearm bans that eviscerates many of the protections recognized in Heller and McDonald. The court asked in the first instance whether the banned firearms ‘were common at the time of ratification’ in 1791. But we said in Heller that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’ The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’  The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess Moreover, the Seventh Circuit endorsed the view of the militia that Heller rejected. . . .The Seventh Circuit alternatively asked whether the banned firearms relate ‘to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’  The court concluded that state and local ordinances never run afoul of that objective, since ‘states,  which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military-grade firearms.’ But that ignores Heller’s fundamental premise: The right to keep and bear arms is an independent, individual right. Its scope is defined not by what the militia needs, but by what private citizens commonly possess. The Seventh Circuit ultimately upheld a ban on many common semiautomatic firearms based on speculation about the law’s potential policy benefits.  The court conceded that handguns — not ‘assault weapons’ — ‘are responsible for the vast majority of gun violence in the United States.’  Still, the court concluded, the ordinance ‘may increase the public’s sense of safety,’ which alone is ‘a substantial benefit.’  Heller, however, forbids subjecting the Second Amendment’s ‘core protection . . . to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. . . .’ There is no basis for a different result when our Second Amendment precedents are at stake. I would grant certiorari to prevent the Seventh Circuit from relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right [citations omitted; passim].”

THE HELLER TEST

Justice Thomas spent considerable time in Bruen outlining the Heller test so that there would be no doubt as to the standard of review lower Federal and State Courts must employ when a Government action impinges upon the Second Amendment. He said:“The test that we set forth in Heller and apply today requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding. . . .”“In Heller, we began with a ‘textual analysis’ focused on the ‘normal and ordinary’ meaning of the Second Amendment’s language. That analysis suggested that the Amendment’s operative clause—‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed’—‘guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation that does not depend on service in the militia. From there, we assessed whether our initial conclusion was ‘confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. . . .’ We looked to history because ‘it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment . . . codified a pre-existing right.’ The Amendment ‘was not intended to lay down a novel principle but rather codified a right inherited from our English ancestors.” After surveying English history dating from the late 1600s, along with American colonial views leading up to the founding, we found ‘no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.’ We then canvassed the historical record and found yet further confirmation. That history included the ‘analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed adoption of the Second Amendment’ and ‘how the Second Amendment was interpreted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century,” . . . . When the principal dissent charged that the latter category of sources was illegitimate ‘post enactment legislative history’. . . . We clarified that ‘examination of a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification’ was “a critical tool of constitutional interpretation. . . .’”This boils down to the following:First, look at the plain meaning of the Second Amendment: The right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The militia clause sets forth simply a rationale for it—to inhibit the incursion of Tyranny in Government—which therefore emphasizes the need for the American people—as individuals—to keep Tyranny in check through the best means available: force of arms. In fact, this is the only way to keep Tyranny in check. And we see this now. Tyranny now exists in Government. Sadly, there’s no question about it.It is more than mere wish that drives Anti-Second Amendment usurpers to deny Americans their right to keep and bear arms. It is abject fear, even panic, which motivates them to openly defy the transparent and categorical meaning of the Second Amendment.Among many Americans who had placed their faith in Government but who hadn't succumbed to Government's new religious dogma of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion”—upon which the Destroyers of our Nation, and of our Constitution, and of a free and sovereign people insidiously cloaked their aims to dismantle the Republic so that they may thrust the remains into the “NWO” a.k.a. “Neoliberal World Order” a.k.a. “International World Order,” a.k.a. the “Open Society,”—the truth is becoming known. Even the most obtuse of American sees that the Federal Government and that the Soros-funded State and local Governments are moving this Nation perilously close to destruction and oblivion. And it is much too late for these ruthless creatures that seek the demise of a free Constitutional Republic and a Sovereign American people over Nation and Government to disguise that fact.The Bruen decision establishes the stakes for the American people. It is a zero-sum game. There is no compromise. There can be no compromise with a Tyrant. Americans have a fundamental God-Given unalienable right of armed self-defense against predatory beast, predatory man-beast, and predatory Government, i.e., tyranny. Heller and McDonald made this Truth plain. The Federal Government and many States refused to listen. So, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated the right of armed self-defense. Will the Federal Government and the States listen? Judging by what we see from the actions of New York, the State Government intends to do war with Americans. Far from complying with Bruen, Governor Hochul and the New York Legislature in Albany have no intention of complying with Bruen, any more than New York did with Heller and McDonald. In fact, Bruen makes gun ownership in New York worse, much worse, especially for those that wish to secure an unrestricted concealed handgun carry license.The New York Government has told the U.S. Supreme Court plainly "to go to Hell," and they mean the same for those citizens who reside in New York who wish to exercise their God-Given right of armed self-defense. The danger to the security of a free State is currently very much in doubt. That is why we are spending considerable time on Bruen and will continue to do so in the next several installments, leading up to the critical Midterm Elections in November._________________________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NEW YORK CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY SINCE BRUEN: A STEP FORWARD OR A STEP BACKWARD?

POST BRUEN—WHAT IT ALL MEANS BOTH FOR THOSE WHO SUPPORT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS AND THOSE WHO SEEK TO UNDERMINE AND EVENTUALLY DESTROY EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT

MULTISERIES

PART ONE

TO UNDERSTAND BRUEN, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO UNDERSTAND HELLER, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TWO; BRUEN DOESN’T REFORM OR REPLACE HELLER, IT BUILDS ON IT.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF BRUEN

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen, 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3055, ___ S. Ct.___. The Court reversed the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The High Court held that, “Where the State of New York issued public-carry licenses only when an applicant demonstrated a special need for self-defense, the State’s licensing regime violated the Constitution because the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protected an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. A State could not prevent law-abiding citizens from publicly carrying handguns because they had not demonstrated a special need for self-defense.” The Court thereupon reversed and remanded the case for action, consistent with the Court’s ruling.The holding of the Bruen case makes clear that a person has the fundamental right of armed self-defense outside the home no less so than he has the right of armed self-defense inside it. The implication of that holding is far-reaching:

• The language of the Second Amendment logically entails the fundamental right of armed self-defense.

• The carrying of a concealed handgun for self-defense outside the home as well as inside it is protected by the Second Amendment because it reflects the very intent behind the Second Amendment: the natural law right of armed self-defense.

• The Second Amendment is the codification of natural law, not man-made law, and Government and the Courts must adhere to the plain meaning of that natural law right, as codified.

• Demonstration of proper cause, i.e., proof of special need to carry a concealed handgun outside the home is inconsistent with the natural law right of armed self-defense, both inside the home and outside it. A person doesn't need to demonstrate a special need.

• The right to self-defense inside the home or outside it is governed by the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. One man doesn't need to prove to another or to an agent of Government that he has some especial need for a gun for purpose of self-defense to exercise the fundamental right of self-defense. For, the right of self-defense exists intrinsically in man. If Government fails to recognize and acknowledge this, requiring of one that one demonstrate especial need to purchase from Government a thing that man already owns and what Government, then, has no lawful right to sell to him—a property right that belongs to man and not to the Government—then all the worse for Government and its agents that would compel one to remit payment to Government for something freely given to man by the Divine Creator. The right of armed self-defense is a thing of immense value that Government audaciously and erroneously claims sole ownership of and demands remuneration for when or if Government offers it for sale, which is a rare event indeed and is a thing coveted and a thing hoarded by Government as if Government could ever successfully purloin it from man.

• Requiring proof of special need to carry a handgun outside the home is incompatible with the holdings of the two prior seminal U.S. Supreme Court Second Amendment cases, Heller, and McDonald.

• Requiring proof of special need to carry a handgun outside the home is not supported by historical precedent.

• New York concealed handgun carry law is incoherent, and, in its application, lends itself to partiality in treatment, resulting in disparate outcomes among applicants who have similar backgrounds. This invites corruption, at worst, and, at best, frequent errors in judgment by the NYPD Licensing Officers who are given vast decision-making authority.

• The recent amendments to New York’s handgun licensing regime don’t alleviate the vexing legal problems attendant to the previous handgun licensing regime; they exasperate those problems.

• New York’s requirement for a showing of proper cause by a person applying for a New York concealed handgun carry operates as a condition precedent to exercise of a natural law right. This means the applicant, who is not under any Federal Statutory disability, can demand that the Government issue him a concealed handgun carry license as matter of Right. But, in New York the applicant still cannot do this because the issuance of a license remains, in practice, a privilege, not a right. But this flies in the face of Bruen.

• Since, consistent with Bruen, a person, not under disability, has a right to demand issuance of a handgun carry license, as the Constitution mandates this, issuance of a license to carry a handgun for self-defense in the public sphere merges with the Right. Thus, a license to carry a handgun in public is truly redundant. If then, the Government insists on licensing the right, then the applicant, not under disability, is entitled to receive a license on demand so that he can exercise his fundamental and unalienable Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

• To refuse an applicant a valid concealed handgun carry license for self-defense outside the home, renders exercise of the Right both legally and logically nugatory and therefore vacuous—which it always had been prior to Bruen and Heller.

• Therefore, if a government insists on maintaining a handgun licensing structure, the act of issuing a license is reduced to a non-discretionary ministerial act and is therefore redundant, i.e., logically unnecessary. But, if the Government intends to maintain handgun licensing as a discretionary act, then any refusal of Government to issue a person a concealed handgun license, after Bruen, operates as an unconstitutional act of Government in naked defiance to the rulings and directives of the U.S. Supreme Court.

• It is the U.S. Supreme Court, alone that has sole authority under Article 3 of the U.S. Constitution to say what the law is.

• The New York Government for one, is deliberately ignoring High Court rulings, where the Court has spoken and has stated clearly and categorically, “what the law is.”

New York Governor, Kathy Hochul, along with the Democrat Party controlled State Legislature in Albany, New York, have implemented substantial amendments to the State’s handgun licensing regime that make it harder, not easier, to obtain a concealed handgun carry license. But, to understand how it is and why it is New York’s licensing regime is unconstitutional now as before Bruen, and now even worse than before, we will peruse both Bruen and Heller, at length, looking closely at the test that Courts are obligated to apply and to adhere to when confronted with a challenge to Government action that impacts the very core of the Second Amendment Right. ____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

ARMED SELF-DEFENSE UNDER ATTACK IN THE U.S.

Is armed self-defense a basic human right? The question may seem rhetorical, even nonsensical to a rational mind. “Of course armed self-defense is a basic human right,” you would say. Or is it?In the countries of the EU, it isn’t; nor is armed self-defense acknowledged and accepted as a fundamental human right in the countries that comprise the British Commonwealth.Forget about those Countries of the British Commonwealth and the EU. They are lost.But, what about the United States? Do Americans have a right to armed self-defense?The natural law right codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights makes plain that Americans do have a natural law right of armed self-defense. And the seminal Second Amendment holdings in Heller, McDonald, and, most recently, in Bruen explicitly assert that. So, why does that remain a question for us? But a question for us it is, disturbing as it is.The Neoliberal Globalist elite puppet-masters and the Neo-Marxist internationalists do not acknowledge—in fact do not recognize—the right.Of course, it should not matter what these creatures think. But so long as Americans vote their proxies into public office, the right of armed self-defense remains, in practice an open question in many jurisdictions across the Country, despite the clear meaning of the Second Amendment and irrefutable U.S. Supreme Court precedent.The fact remains that in the U.S. the natural law right of armed self-defense is not to be denied, ignored, dismissed, or abrogated.The right of armed self-defense is itself subsumed in the broader category of the right of self-defense, i.e., the natural law right of a person to defend him or herself against predatory attack whether from predatory four-legged beast, two-legged beast, or predatory Government.Armed self-defense simply means that a person has the natural law right to possess the best means for ensuring both his physical survival and his autonomy of self against those forces that dare crush body, mind, or spirit. For centuries that best means of self-defense was a firearm. And so, it remains.And, as the forces that crush have garnered more sophisticated weapons to destroy body, mind, and spirit, so, too, have the commonalty of the United States acquired the weaponry and technology necessary to repel attack.Through the years, we have written extensively on this. See e.g., article of December 2, 2021, titled, “Tyranny, Fundamental Rights, and the Armed Citizen.”See also article in Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy.In a world moving closer and closer to Armageddon, in the form of transnational tyranny, and as CCP China and western neoliberal Globalist overseers carve up the world between them, the U.S. as a free Constitutional Republic cannot long remain separate and apart from the emergence of a one-world neofeudalistic governmental empire unless the American people assert their sovereign authority over Government. This should not be difficult but, through time, it has become so, for many Americans. Why is that? It is for these major reasons, among others:

• Consolidation of information organs into one massive organ of propaganda, targeting the public on an industrial scale;
• Incessant, noxious surveillance of the movements of the mass population; 
• Consolidation of federal police, military, intelligence apparatuses into one uniform command structure;
• Merging of Federal Executive and Legislative Branch functions; and attempts to merge the Judicial Branch into the fold; and
• Governmental Social Engineering and Psychological Conditioning Campaigns aimed at confusing, and demoralizing, and inducing fear and hysteria in the polity.

Thus, the forces that crush slowly whittle away at the integrity of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation and slowly soften the resolve of vast swaths of the polity that would otherwise enable the polity to ably resist both the inexorable march toward tyranny and usurpation of the peoples’ sovereignty over Government.The founders of our Nation fought against one tyranny, a long time ago, and, despite insurmountable odds against the British empire—through the titular monarchic head, King George III, and via the true head of Government, the Bank of England, run by the Rothschild banking family—won their freedom from despotism.The Rothschild clan and their henchmen have, through the ensuing years, decades, and centuries, fought to take back what they had lost to what they perceived as merely a ragtag band of colonists.With the aid of technology and advances in the art and science of mass social engineering and psychological conditioning, their despicable efforts have been made appreciably easier. And these Obstructors and Destructors have made vast strides in corrupting the Nation from within, eschewing use of military, at least for the moment; operating surreptitiously; slyly; always in the shadows.In a feudalistic nation that America is becoming, devolving into, the common man—today’s serf—counts for naught.How does one come to see this, to know this? He does so by realizing that the average citizen can no longer, as a matter of natural law right, exercise that natural law right of armed self-defense or, for that matter, self-defense at all. Armed self-defense is not a privilege to be bestowed on one by the grace of Government. It is a natural law right bestowed on and in man by the Divine Creator. It is a right intrinsic to one's very Being. See recent Arbalest Quarrel article published on June 16, 2022, when we discuss this matter at length.The natural law right of self-defense, armed or not, is under attack by a tyrannical Government and by a compliant, obedient legacy Press. This failure to recognize the natural personal right of self-defense and, indeed, to attack the very idea of it, is not happenstance. It is consistent with anti-natural law philosophy as long promoted by and that is a mainstay of the UN, the EU, and of the Council of Europe and which the Biden Administration wholeheartedly complies with, adheres to and endorses, as is clear from the Administration's words and policies. It would be futile to look for any mention of a personal right of self-defense, let alone any mention of a personal right of armed self-defense in the writings of the UN, EU, and Council of Europe. There is none. See Arbalest Quarrel articles on this, especially, our article of December 2, 2021, titled, “Tyranny, Fundamental Rights, and the Armed Citizen,” cited supra; article of February 23, 2022, titled, “Martial Law in Canada; Can it happen in the United States?”; and article posted on March 4, 2022, and article posted on May 1, 2020.A transnationalist, post-nation-state world view—manifesting as a unified global technocratic, corporatist, neofeudalistic empire embracing the world, where the populations of the world are reduced to servitude and must comport with uniform and rigid standards of thought and conduct—is incompatible with the precepts of Individualism, upon which the United States, as a free Constitutional Republic is grounded. Thus, the Biden Administration, as the Obama and the Bush Administrations before it, must be circumspect and devious in devising and implementing policies and initiatives that are antithetical to the strictures of the United States Constitution, and, especially, those of the Bill of Rights—that component of the Nation's Constitution upon which the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood and personal autonomy is predicated and guaranteed, and upon which the sole sovereignty of the American people over Government is promised and upon which that sovereignty rests.But as the Rothschild henchmen in control of the levers of the Federal Government and of the Press and of the multinational corporations have sown the seeds of our Nation’s destruction—even impacting the States, through the efforts, and money, and organizational acumen of the Henchman in Chief, George Soros, who has, alone, done much damage sowing the seeds of our Nation’s destruction down to the regional and even local levels—there will come a time, which is rapidly approaching, where the puppet-masters, through their legions of pawns, will make known and transparent, the elaborate plans and machinations heretofore prepared in secret, feeling, perhaps concluding, that stealth and concealment is no longer necessary and, in fact, is no longer possible.Consider the circumstances surrounding the prosecution—more to the point, the persecution—of a young American Patriot, Kyle Rittenhouse. Here is a man who sought merely to protect a small corner of society from destruction; such instability, and violence, and destruction that the Neoliberal Globalist Billionaires and Neo-Marxist internationalist Obstructors and Corrupters of our society concocted, funded, organized, and promoted; and then, through command of their "attack dogs," an assortment of dangerous, fanatical, and deranged agitators, unleashed on American society to create fear, and chaos. And, of course, the Kenosha police stood on the sidelines, but they did so because they wanted to let radical Marxist psychopaths tear down the City?  No! Their training and instincts would be to protect the City and its residents from riots spawned by the Government lackeys of the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist puppet masters who needed a pretext for a controlled political riot, consistent with their aim to destabilize society and to demoralize the polity. Fox News laid this all out. See Fox News Commentator, Tucker Carlson, explaining the circumstances that led to the riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the news account titled, "Tucker Carlson: Why did the people in charge let Kenosha be destroyed?" The news story was published on November 17, 2021.Carlson says, in pertinent part:“So it's worth pausing for a moment to ask, how did we get here? Well, here's one summary that caught our eye. Today, a Hill staffer called Billy Gribbin summed it up in the following way, 'We're waiting to see if riots break out because of media lies about a case from a riot that happened because of media lies.'Well, that's nicely put and it's totally true. The August 2020 riot in Kenosha wasn't really a riot in the way that we understand riots. It was an outbreak of political violence. It began three days after the Democratic convention. That was the context for it. It was, in fact, one of many riots that summer across the country, all of which were explicitly supported by the leadership of the Democratic Party. We're not making this up. Look it up. What was the point of these riots? Big picture, the point was to unseat Donald Trump. In the specific case of Kenosha, we know exactly the chain of events that led to where we are today. A man called Jacob Blake was shot by the police. Immediately, the media and the Democratic politicians they serve lied about what happened. So they told us that a cop shot Jacob Blake in the back for no apparent reason – and by the way, Jacob Blake was unarmed, he was helpless, they just pulled him out of a lineup and shot him because that's what America is like.Based on the first false stories from the news media told intentionally, our leaders suggested that these riots in Kenosha were somehow justified and then allowed them to continue. So this is what Kenosha looked like the night that Kyle Rittenhouse arrived to help defend local businesses. You can't allow that because if you do allow that, people get killed – as they did. But local police, you should know, did virtually nothing to stop any of the things you just saw. From the very top of the power structure, the state of Wisconsin, the word was let it happen. Various scenes of vandalism, looting, arson and riotingWell that's not a civil rights protest, that's not people fighting back against oppression, systemic racism. That's just people destroying things they didn't build. That's people wrecking our civilization. In no normal country would that be allowed, it would be put down immediately with force. That's why we have police. “The governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, turned down an offer from Washington to send federal officers in order to help get Kenosha under control, to save the city. That was a shockingly irresponsible decision, it was an immoral decision. But Tony Evers still defends it, 'I have no regrets.'” Really? That's because he doesn't live in Kenosha. Downtown Kenosha burned. It will never be rebuilt. Talk about a city that doesn't deserve any of this. Kenosha is just a town of 100,000 people, many of them Hispanic, if that even matters. But it's true, they're not rich people who live there.Kenosha is far past its prime. It was part of the industrial base that built this country that built the modern world. Now it's suffering even more than it was before the riots because a bunch of entitled antisocial lunatics broke things for no reason. Because our leaders allowed them. A city official estimates the damage from last summer's riots at about $50 million. That's a lot in Kenosha, in fact it's about more than half the entire municipal budget for the city of Kenosha.”  Only Fox News bothered to delve into the circumstances of the riot. The seditious legacy Press, on the other hand, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, along with major Cable News organizations including CNN and MSNBC never did bother to ask why the Police had allowed rampant disorder to occur in Kenosha, Wisconsin. It wasn't the fault of the police. The fault rests solely on the State Government and specifically on the Governor, who, after the fact, brazenly. incomprehensibly asserted that he has 'no regrets.'The Governor of Wisconsin, Tony Evers, a Democrat, ordered the police to stand down and refrained from accepting assistance that the Government in Washington, D.C.,Evers not only allowed a City in Wisconsin to burn and allowed residents of the City to be terrorized. He condoned it. In fact, he enabled it. He wanted this to happen.A rational person must therefore conclude that it wasn't mere incompetence that led to the destruction of a City. It was a deliberate act on the part of Government to allow for this; to enable this; to want this to happen, as Governor Evers was aware of the imminence of the danger to citizens and to businesses in Kenosha.So, it was left to an armed citizen to take upon himself the responsibility that the police, whose duty, and obligation it was to preserve and protect public order in the community, had instead consciously, deleteriously, and unconscionably relinquished, surrendering meekly, abjectly to a psychopathic and psychotic mob.For his troubles—this American Horatius, guarding "The Bridge" in Kenosha, Wisconsin—Kyle Rittenhouse, was charged with several felony counts; the most serious involved his shooting of the psychotic animal, Joseph Rosenbaum. Video evidence alone made clear beyond a reasonable doubt to the public and to the jurors who sat in judgment of Kyle's actions, a case for justifiable homicide, grounded on the legal right of self-defense—a long held in law and well-recognized—defense to threat against one's life, and an absolute defense, when the individual asserting the right is not the aggressor. And, despite the imbecilic prosecution of Kyle in which the prosecutors sought to treat Kyle, inter alia, as the aggressor, rather than the victim, the jury saw through the prosecution's ruse and wouldn't buy into it. The incident occurred back in 2020.Yet, the puppet-masters demanded the head of Kyle Rittenhouse because Rosenbaum and others were, consciously or not, tearing down the fabric of American society in furtherance of the nightmarish Soros/Rothschild goal to destroy the Nation. For, once that was accomplished, the remains of the United States may be merged effortlessly and seamlessly into a greater neoliberal international world order a.k.a. new world order a.k.a. the Soros “Open Society.” The puppet-masters had to make an example of Kyle Rittenhouse. When the puppet-masters order the destruction of Towns and Cities in America, those who attempt to defend against the destruction of those American Towns and Cities are the criminals—not the psychopathic and psychotic destroyers of the Towns and Cities—for they are the tools of the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist puppet-masters, doing the bidding of them and for them. None of those rioters were ever charged with a crime, and Wisconsin' s Governor was never called out for greasing the skids, enabling for the riot to happen. Only Kyle Rittenhouse was charged with a crime: several crimes, in fact, including the worst of crimes: murder. Defense of self against psychotics and psychopaths intent on killing one count for nothing against a charge of murder, when those psychopaths and psychotics are working on behalf of Government, that itself is the progenitor of destruction of America. It is a topsy-turvy Country, indeed, that we live in when it is innocent 21st Century American Patriots that are the one treated as the scourge of society, rather than the actual would-be destroyers of it.Fortunately, for both Kyle Rittenhouse and for the rest of us, a jury of his peers did not buy into the moronic insult. The jury realized the right of armed self-defense for them, no less than for the man on trial, realizing that all Americans were on trial here. The message is plain: self-defense is not considered a legal defense against a charge of homicide when the perpetrators of violence and the aggressors in a confrontation are treated as the non-aggressive victims, and the true victim is, himself, treated as the violent aggressor.The incident here occurred in 2020. The trial—itself a travesty—demanded by the Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters—should never have taken place and would never have taken place if the rotten weeds that Soros had planted at the local and regional levels had not taken root. See Arbalest Quarrel article on the Kyle Rittenhouse case, published on November 19, 2021.More recently, an innocent man, a naturalized citizen from the Dominican Republic, Jose Alba, was immediately arrested for killing a vicious predator, a creature with a lengthy rap sheet, Austin Simon.Alba, like Rittenhouse, had successfully defended his life against predatory attack from an unrepentant, serial criminal. See, e.g., article in the New York Post. For his trouble, having had the audacity to defend himself against a psychopath and surviving the vicious attack, found himself, oddly and absurdly, on Riker’s Island, courtesy of a Soros backed and funded prosecutor, Alvin Bragg, Manhattan District Attorney.One cannot but wonder: if the tables were turned, and the psychopath, Austin Simon had killed Jose Alba, would Bragg have sent Simon immediately to Rikers Island? Judging by Bragg’s performance to date, protecting predators, which would never have happened. See article titled, “Self-defense is Now Murder,” in the Daily Sentinel.See also Tucker Carlson’s news coverage and video on Fox News.Bragg’s audacious attack on a citizen who defended himself with a knife makes patently clear that the incessant attack by the legacy Press, by the Democrat Party-controlled Congress, and by the Harris-Biden Administration about “guns” isn’t really about guns at all. The public is recognizing an assault on the natural law right of self-defense itself against predatory man, predatory beast, and, most importantly—for survival of a free Republic—predatory Government. If a man has a lawful, Constitutional right to repel tyranny, that fact vindicates the right of self-defense. But a tyrant can never allow for that, hence the attack on the natural law right of self-defense.Had Alba defended his life with a firearm, rather than a knife, the Manhattan DA’s handling of the case would not have been different. But Bragg and the Press would have inserted the issue of guns into the narrative if they could. In the Alba case, they couldn’t do that, even though in some instances, the seditious legacy Press does interject discussion of guns even if doing so is discordant.But the fact that an instance of self-defense occurred, via knife, and not a firearm in this instance is telling. It points to the fact that Government, be it Federal, State, or municipal—when under the thumb of the ultra-wealthy and powerful Neoliberal Globalists and wild and rabid Neo-Marxists, in league with the Globalists, as they happen to share the common goal of dismantling a free Republic—does not recognize the sanctity of Selfhood, the right of a person to be free from Government intrusion on one's autonomy of Personhood. What better evidence of this invasive, arrogant assault on the inviolability of body, mind, spirit, and soul, than for Government to usurp for itself an individual's natural law right of personal defense and doing so without reference to firearms as a factor in the story's telling. Might the Press not wish to talk now about banning knives? Great Britain has done so because the Nation has already banned guns; so, the next weapon to ban from the commonalty, lest the common people have the mind to rebel against tyranny, must need be the "knife." See article by Thomas Xavier, writing about UK Knife prohibitions and restrictions, citing to the UK website, reciting UK "Knife laws", a draconian over-the-top response—but, more likely, simply a pretext—to "rising knife crime" in the UK.So, knives are the next in a natural progression to keep the public defenseless and fearful in the UK and, just as likely in the U.S. down the road as well, if or when guns are banned. This would require the American public to look only to the Government for succor and safety—succor and safety that is always in short supply in Government and doled out sparingly, in major part to keep the public in a constant state of fear and tension. It isn't a pleasant scenario for the British, and certainly would not be a pleasant scenario for Americans. Neither a ban on guns nor knives should a Country, namely the U.S., conceived in freedom and liberty, wish to emulate of the British subject. But we are moving inexorably and rapidly in that horrible direction. The actions of the Soros installed Alvin Bragg as Manhattan District Attorney, in audaciously arresting Jose Alba, and initially charging him with murder for defending himself against a threat to his life by a psychopathic serial criminal— and the bizarre Courtroom arguments of Kenosha County District Attorney, Thomas Binger, charging Kyle Rittenhouse with serious felonies, including, inter alia, first degree intentional homicide and first degree reckless homicide and prosecuting him for those crimes, despite incontrovertible video evidence supporting a finding of justifiable homicide on the basis of self-defense—are scenarios both pointing to a disturbing development and trend  in our Nation's jurisprudence.Americans are witnessing confounding but irrefutable evidence of Government antipathy toward the sanctity and inviolability of one's Selfhood—too prevalent and too conspicuous to ignore or to perfunctorily dismiss.The recognition that the State doesn't recognize one's natural law right of self-defense logically entails the proposition that the State no longer recognizes and will not acknowledge that one's life is truly one's own. The actions of the Kenosha and Manhattan District Attorneys point to this outrageous and deeply troubling revision of centuries of American jurisprudence and clear renunciation of the central tenet of the Bill of Rights: In America, one's life belongs to the State by tacit State edict, not to oneself, by grace of the Divine Creator. This means that it is the State, and the State alone, not the individual who decides whether one lives or dies; whether one has a right to life or not; and whether the taking of the life of another is to be declared lawful or not. Thus, the Biden Administration that would at once deny an American citizen's right to use a firearm in one's own defense and would, simultaneously, declare that it is the will of the State to decree whether an unborn child has the right to life, substituting its will for that of the Divine Creator. These are incredibly obtuse and pompous ideas.The Rittenhouse case in Kenosha, Wisconsin takes on clarity and renewed importance in view of the recent Jose Alba case, in New York City. The Alba case in the news draws a narrow focus on self-defense sans guns. The issue transcends the matter of armed self-defense, which is subsumed in the more general God-Given Right of Self-Defense itself. The issue of "Right-to-Life" be it the unborn child or the right of one born are equivalents: THE RIGHT TO BE. The core natural law right and legitimacy of self-defense, THE RIGHT TO SURVIVE IN BODY, MIND, AND SPIRIT, is at stake, irrespective of the means. The State/Government has fixated on firearms only because the State/Government as the ultimate, dangerous predator recognizes that it is most threatened itself by the armed citizenry. Unarmed individuals pose little threat to THE TYRANT. Numbers by themselves are of little concern to a Tyrant State/Government backed by a massive standing army, equally massive paramilitary police force, a massive intelligence apparatus, and a massive propaganda/media organ. But one hundred million well-armed citizens pose a clear and present danger to the Tyrant' power and control over the citizenry. This explains the constant media attention spent not only on the armed citizenry but on the nature of the firearms, component parts of firearms, and the kinds and extent of the ammunition held by that armed citizenry. There is constant gibberish over "assault weapons," "weapons of war," "large-capacity magazines," 50 caliber ammunition, armor-piercing ammunition, suppressors, body-armor—anything and everything that the State/Government infers to pose an imminent and existential threat to its own vast power and control over the citizenry. Yet, one should stop and think for a minute that the framers of the Constitution intended the armed citizen to be equipped with personnel "weapons of war" precisely to operate as a counterweight to the State/Government precisely because of the tendency of the State/Government to usurp the sovereignty of the American people and become the master rather than the servant of the people. A free Constitutional Republic has nothing to fear from its citizens. A Tyrant, on the other hand, has everything to fear from its citizens, as well it should fear its citizens, in that eventuality.Is it coincidence this present Federal Government has taken a much more concerted stance against the right of the people to keep and bear arms of late? Should the public not prick up its ears at this disturbing series of Government bravado and action?The aim of the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist push to destroy the Nation from within is insidiously directed to rendering the citizenry helpless while the forces that crush, plot and machinate to devastate the economy, mock America’s Christian faith, and promote societal decay. But total societal collapse cannot occur and will not occur so long as Americans remained armed and armed to the hilt. That is our winning hand: a royal straight flush. And the would-be destroyers of a free Republic know this. A truly free Constitutional Republic as the framers of the Constitution had designed for us need not fear its armed citizenry. In fact, the Federal Government should welcome it, take pride in it. The fact that it does not and openly fears this armed citizenry should tell the citizenry much of where this Government intends to take us. And it is not a good place.The Majority of the U.S. Supreme Court is aware of the dire state of our Republic, and it intends to remind Congress and the Biden Administration and the Corruptors of our Nation that the American people are still sovereign over their Nation and over this Government, and they intend to remain so. The Government and the Neoliberal Globalists and Neo-Marxist internationalists don't want to hear this and they are pushing back, they are pushing back hard; doubling down on their efforts to consolidate as much power as they can prior to the November Midterm elections to weaken a Republican Party sweep of Congress.So it is that, even as the right of the people to keep and bear arms gains support through most members of the U.S. Supreme Court, the pawns of the puppet-masters will continue to thwart the citizen’s right to keep and bear arms as long as they can to the extent that they can.One of the puppets, New York Governor Hochul, has made plain that she doesn’t give a damn about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bruen. In fact, New York’s recent enactment of amendments to its concealed handgun carry license structure set forth in Penal Code Section 400.00 now makes it even more difficult to obtain a concealed handgun carry license than before the Bruen ruling.The Governor’s defiance and that of the New York State Legislature in Albany is so blatant, so arrogant, so odious, so all-encompassing as to draw incredulity but for the fact that it is not merely rumor or extravagant musing. It is all etched in stone—and we lay all of that out for you in our next few articles.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.         

REMEMBRANCE FOR THE FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY 2022

REMEMBRANCE FOR THE FOURTH OF JULY HOLIDAY 2022Every year, on the Fourth of July, Americans take a day off from work to relax and to enjoy an evening of hot dogs, hamburgers, cold brews, and fireworks.But how many Americans recall—or for that matter, how many Americans, especially among the younger generations have even learned—the reason for our commemoration of the Fourth Day of July, every year; the reason for our celebration of it?In this era that sees the creation of a plethora of inane new Holidays that kowtow to the dogma of American Collectivism and “Wokeness” many seek, insidiously, to replace our truly noteworthy Holidays, of which three, The Fourth of July Holiday, Memorial Day, and Veterans Day stand apart as most significant. Consider how Neo-Marxists have co-opted and befouled Columbus Day for their own use. It is now, through proclamation by Joe Biden, to henceforth be referred to and celebrated as “Indigenous Peoples Day.” Thank you very much, Joe!And we see the insinuation of Holidays that celebrate Neo-Marxist “Wokeness” such as “Juneteenth Independence Day,” which undermines, as it was no doubt intended to do, the importance of our Nation’s one true “Independence Day” Holiday. Even the name, “Juneteenth” sounds ludicrous.The creators and promoters of this new “Juneteenth Independence Day” Holiday intended to use it to slither around and into the Nation’s July fourth “Independence Day” Holiday.But the Fourth of July is sacred. It serves as commemoration for the Birth of a Great Nation, conceived in freedom and liberty and for those Americans, the First Patriots, who are remembered for their courage and sacrifices without which our Nation would have never come to be.  It is for these reasons we celebrate every Fourth Day of July.What, on the other hand, Juneteenth celebrates is anyone's guess, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Birth and preservation of a free Constitutional Republic. If one were to hazard a guess Juneteenth celebrates the repudiation of the Birth of our Nation. It seeks to go back to a time before our Nation's Birth and to abort the infant.The American Revolution against Tyranny arguably commenced on April 15, 1775, just over one year before the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776, when the British “Redcoats” and the colonist “Minutemen” exchanged gun fire for the first time. The first major battle, the Battle of Bunker Hill,” took place on June 17, 1775.Some may argue the American Revolution effectively ended with the entrapment of the British Army on Virginia's Yorktown peninsula in 1781, which forced General Cornwallis to surrender to a joint force of American and French troops. Many would argue that the American Revolution officially ended with ratification of the Paris Treaty, on September 3, 1783 when the original 13 States gained their independence from British Tyranny. See Timeline.But a few might ask, did the American Revolution ever truly end? And, we do wonder, especially in this era of incessant, insidious, and noxious attacks on our Nation, on its history, heritage, and culture, on its people, on its Constitution, and on Christianity, the ethical, moral basis of the Nation.Consider the slippery, slimy, sludgy way the legacy Press defiles the Fourth—much worse than simply calling for the abolishment of the Holiday because it doesn’t comply with historical Critical Race Theory revisionists, whose poison has infected the curricula of grade schools and high schools across the Country.Consider an Op-Ed that appeared last month in the seditious New York Times: “Let’s Have a New Gun Law for Independence Day.”So reads the title of an Op-Ed, by Gail Collins, a regular columnist for The New York Times. The Op-Ed appeared on June 16, 2022.The irony in the title and in the content of the recent NY Times article is lost on its author. Collins, an anti-Second Amendment fanatic, judging from both the content and tone of her articles about guns in America, cannot appreciate the oddity and absurdity of juxtaposing gun control legislation with our Fourth of July Holiday.But for the well-armed American colonists, the first American Patriots, we would not have a Country that ensures the very freedom and liberty that Gail Collins and others of like kind, incessantly, and vociferously, and sanctimoniously disparage and debase.Our Nation’s Founding Document, the “Declaration of Independence,” signed by the Country’s first Representatives on that momentous, pivotal Fourth day of July 1776, set forth the natural law right of free men to overthrow the tyranny of Government. That required a well-armed people—the very thing Collins seeks to destroy.That Eighteenth Century Tyrant, the British Empire, under the titular head George III, the reigning monarch, along with the financial, and actual head of the British Empire, the Central Bank of England—run by the immensely wealthy and ruthlessly covetous Rothschild Clan—were a mighty Foe.George III is long since dead. But the effete and decadent monarchy, a relic long shorn of true power yet allowed to continue as an emblem of and living embodiment of extravagant Rothschild wealth, is much alive.The Rothschild Banking Dynasty is intent on taking back control of the American colonies lost to it in the American Revolution that commenced in 1775, one year after drafting and signing of the Declaration of Independence. And newspapers like The New York Times, and its regular columnists, are helping the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist overseers do just that. In fact they are agents of these overseers.Our Nation’s Fourth of July Holiday operates as a constant and a bitter-tasting reminder to the Rothschild Clan of what they lost to a ragtag band of colonialist malcontents, who, through stoutness of heart, strength of will, and force of arms defeated the British military, successfully throwing off the yoke of a mighty Tyrant.In her NY Times Op-Ed, Gail Collins, through her call for the erosion of the fundamental, unalienable natural law Right codified in the Second Amendment has, wittingly or not, attacked the very foundation of a free Republic and a sovereign people: the armed citizenry. Collins’ article is perverse, a defilement of a sacred Holiday.Collins starts off her article with this——“The Fourth of July is coming, and if all goes well — crossing many fingers — before Congress leaves town to celebrate, the House and Senate will have passed the first substantial gun safety legislation in nearly 30 years.Yeah, the last big reform was in 1994.”And, Collins ends her article with this——“There’s a lot of territory to cover before we get to anyplace sane on the gun front. To anyplace near where surveys tell us the American people would like to go. But it’d be nice if, on July 4, we could celebrate with more fireworks and less gunfire.”What “Americans” are you referring to Gail?  You haven’t begun to see gunfire and what that looks like from 100 million American Patriots—if the present Tyrant attempts to confiscate our firearms.”The Arbalest Quarrel has constantly warned of the need for all Americans to remain vigilant to and armed against the dangers posed by the Destructors and Obstructors of a free Republic and a free and sovereign people. America’s enemies are everywhere, in every institution, in every business sector.Well, Collins got her wish.CBS News reported a while back:“The House on Friday approved bipartisan gun legislation that was overwhelmingly approved by the Senate late the night before, sending it to President Biden for his signature. It marks the most significant update to the nation's gun laws in nearly three decades.The bill, called The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, passed the lower chamber by a vote of 234-193, with 14 Republicans joining all the Democrats.House Speaker Nancy Pelosi read the vote tally after it concluded to applause from the members of Congress on the floor.Congress applauds the disembowelment of our Country? And then there is the Grand Harlequin in Chief, Joe Biden who signed the damned thing. The Washington Times Reports:“President Biden on Saturday signed into law the nation’s first new gun control bill in decades, one day after Congress passed the legislation marking a huge victory for Democrats. ‘This is a monumental day,’ Mr. Biden said during a brief signing ceremony at the White House. ‘This is a time, when it seems impossible to get anything done in Washington, we are doing something consequential.’”Is there any greater proof of tyranny existent and thriving in “our” Federal Government to see The Executive Branch of the Federal Government, along with the Legislative Branch, cheering and extolling actions directed to the dissolution of America's armed citizenry?The Fourth of July celebration, at its core, really stands as a renewal of faith in the Nation’s armed citizenry, the very thing the Nation's Obstructors and Destructors seek to abolish.If not for America's armed Patriots, back then, our free Constitutional Republic would never have existed. And but for the preservation of the Nation’s armed Patriots, today, a free Constitutional Republic will not, cannot continue to exist.NY Times’ Gail Collins’ Independence Day article does not constitute a tribute to the memory of America’s First Patriots. And the recent Anti-Second Amendment bill, now signed into law by Democrats and feckless Republicans, amounts to the renunciation of our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic and of the indomitable spirit of those First Patriots.The Government and the Press make a mockery of our Nation's first Patriots, and all in the name of present-day Neo-Marxist “wokeness.”The Arbalest Quarrel warned of this. At the start of our Independence Day tribute of 2020, we wrote,“Dear Fellow Americans,As we approach the celebration on Independence Day this coming July 4th weekend, we should think about the significance of the War that was fought against tyranny and the sacrifices that were made to give us a Nation unlike any other; one conceived in liberty. We should give thanks to our founders, and give serious thought to where we are today, and how we see ourselves tomorrow. . .  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.”  The title of our Fourth of July 2020 tribute qua warning, was: AN “Important Message to All Americans on Independence Day 2020.”And, for our Independence Day Tribute in 2021, we wrote in pertinent part,“. . .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.The title of that article is, “Marxists Seek To Disarm Citizens, Eliminate All National Holidays, Monuments, And The Nation’s Flag!”We followed up that July 2021 article with one in November 2021. We began by referencing what we had written apropos of our 2020 tribute, asking,“Has anything changed, almost seventeen months later? Yes, the threat to our Nation has only grown more dire.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.” The title of that article was, “The Right To Dissent And The Right To Dissent And The Right To Bear Arms Are A Bulwark Against Tyranny.”Back in 2021 we were less secure than we were in 2020. And now, in 2022, we are even less secure than we were in 2021. The Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist captains and lieutenants and foot soldiers of the Rothschild-Soros gang have conquered back everything they had lost from the years that President Trump had tried—and accomplished to his credit, under great odds—much of his goal to make American Great Again. But, with the puppet-masters’ lackeys in firm control of two Branches of Government, and with their eye on undermining the Third, and with their control over most of the Press, media, Academia, and over much of Corporate America, the American citizenry has never stood closer to utter ruin than now. Americans are witnessing the collapse of their Republic, the loss of their sovereignty over Government, and the further erosion of their most cherished and sacred Rights and Liberties with each passing day.Americans are in danger of losing everything vital to the maintenance of the last bastion of freedom—the United States—in a world awash in misery stemming from tyranny of government.The U.S. Supreme Court did provide us Americans with a reprieve in Bruen, by reaffirming the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But that will not be enough. America’s true Patriots must reaffirm that sacred right at each moment as they take a breath of air.Keep your arms and ammunition always close at hand. The Tyrant is knocking at your door!____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT IS A PROTECTOR OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT, BUT FOR HOW LONG?

When recounting the import of U.S. Supreme Court case holdings, especially pertaining to our Nation’s fundamental rights and liberties—the most important of which is codified in the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights—one must be reminded that the Third Branch of Government is not a distant poor cousin of the other two and is not to be treated as if it were such. Yet, it is often denigrated as such, especially when some case decisions, like those in the recent Bruen and Dobbs cases, happen to throw some people into a fit of rage, threatening the Court and threatening the life of some Justices within it, and threatening the viability and “legitimacy” of the High Court.Two co-equal Branches of the Federal Government, the Executive and Legislative, along with assistance from the legacy Press, do nothing to curb this insult and danger to the third co-equal Branch. Instead, these two Branches, along with the Press, either remain silent, or actively, avidly encourage the disassembling of the Third. Hence the concerted effort to “tame” the Court through the device of “court-packing,” a thing the Biden Administration looked to accomplish through creation of a commission for just that purpose.  Fortunately, that came to naught. Still, these are the sort of antics of Americans come to expect from the Harris- Biden Administration. And we see these antics from a bloated, rancid, unelected, and unaccountable Administrative Deep State; and from an obstreperous, preening, arrogant Congress; and from a seditious, treacherous Press; and even from some academicians whose essays exhibit an unrestrained, radical Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist oriented socio-political bent.Americans see a treacherous Federal Government, a seditious Press, and large multinational conglomerates uniting in a collective effort to erode the underpinnings of a free Republic and eventually eradicate it. And it does so because a free Constitutional Republic doesn’t address their wants and desires—as if it ever should have been so.The present Administration does nothing to prevent a vicious, vile mob from attacking the Court, but remains painfully silent. And members of Congress go further, even inciting a mob to violence. Schumer, who should know better, as a Harvard educated lawyer—although he never practiced law—threatens a Justice at the steps of the High Court, and a would-be assassin eventually tries to oblige.  And Maxine Waters, a sociopath and lunatic if there ever was one, marches with a mob to the doors of the U.S. Supreme Court, shrieking: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.”More restrained in his remarks belittling the Court, but no less dangerous because of the nature of them, a Law Professor at Pepperdine University, one, Barry P. McDonald argues the founding fathers had intended to relegate the Supreme Court to second-class status. But, if true, the impact of that inference has dangerous repercussions not only for the Government itself but for the peoples’ right to check the power of that Government through force of arms. The Constitution to this scholar is nothing more than an amorphous, shapeless lump of clay to be reshaped and remolded at will or whim, not unlike a potterer producing a clay pot on a ceramic pottery wheel, changing the design as his fancy suits him, as the wheel goes round and round. McDonald’s essay was published as an Op-Ed in the NY Times, a few days after the Senate voted to confirm Brett Kavanaugh as an Associate U.S. Supreme Court Justice. Obviously, Professor McDonald disapproved of the confirmation, no less so than The New York Times that sought him out as a credentialed college professor to give weight to its own abhorrence of the Court and of the confirmation of Kavanaugh to sit on it as Justice Kavanaugh. McDonald wrote, in principal part,“When the founders established our system of self-government, they didn’t expend much effort on the judicial branch. Of the roughly three and a half long pieces of inscribed parchment that make up the Constitution, the first two pages are devoted to designing Congress. Most of the next full page focuses on the president. The final three-quarters of a page contains various provisions, including just five sentences establishing a ‘supreme court,’ any optional lower courts Congress might create and the types of cases those courts could hear.Why was the judicial branch given such short shrift? Because in a democracy, the political branches of government — those accountable to the people through elections — were expected to run things. The courts could get involved only as was necessary to resolve disputes, and even then under congressional supervision of their dockets.It was widely recognized that the Supreme Court was the least important of the three branches: It was the only branch to lack its own building (it was housed in a chamber of Congress), and the best lawyers were seldom enthusiastic about serving on it (John Jay, the court’s first chief justice, resigned within six years and described the institution as lacking ‘energy, weight and dignity’).When disputes came before the Supreme Court, the justices were expected to ensure that Americans received ‘due process’ — that they would be ruled by the ‘law of the land’ rather than the whims of ruling individuals. In short, the court was to play a limited role in American democracy, and when it did get involved, its job was to ensure that its judgments were based on legal rules that were applied fairly and impartially.What about the task of interpreting the Constitution? This question is the subject of some debate, but the founders most likely believed that each branch of government had the right and duty to determine for itself what the Constitution demanded, unless the Constitution was clearly transgressed. If the Constitution was clearly transgressed, the Supreme Court had a duty to hold Congress or the president accountable — but only in the case before it. The founders almost certainly did not envision a roving mandate for the Supreme Court to dictate to Congress, the president or state governments what actions comported with the Constitution (unless they were a party to a case before it).” So, we are to believe that the founders thought less of the High Court because of the Building they were housed in, or because they devoted a few lines to the Judicial Branch in Article 3 of the Constitution, or because we are to accept Professor McDonald’s on faith that the founders expected each Branch to decide for itself the expansiveness of its powers? And where, in all of that jockeying for power among the servants of the people in Government does that leave the people of the United States, who are the true and sole sovereign over Government? To give credence to this odd notion that the High Court is relegated to a humble position in the Federal Governmental structure, Professor McDonald intimates that John Jay resigned from the Court because he thought the Court lacked “energy, weight and dignity.”Professor McDonald fails to cite anything to support the inference or provide context for it.  The actual letter, where that phrase appears, a letter from John Jay to President Adams is available for viewing on the founders' archives website.  It is clear from a perusal of Jay’s letter to President John Adams, declining the President’s invitation to serve once again as Chief Justice of the High Court, that John Jay’s declination was not tied to a belief, contrary to what Professor McDonald intimates, that the framers must have had a low expectation for the Court and that, therefore, John Jay no longer wanted to be a part of the Court. Such an idea is absurd; yet McDonald places significant reliance on it for his thesis. But, if John Jay had such misgivings about the Court, he would not have served as Chief Justice of it, in the first place, nor stayed on the Court for as long as he did. The facts are as follows: “In 1789, after Jay declined George Washington's offer of the position of Secretary of State, the president offered him the new opportunity of becoming Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, which Jay accepted. He was unanimously confirmed on September 26, 1789 and remained on the bench until 1795. As this was an inaugural position, many of Jay's duties involved establishing rules, procedure, and precedents.” So, Justice John Jay, a founding father, did much to develop the federal judicial system and resigned, when elected Governor of New York. See article in NYCourts.gov.  A few years later, John Adams, the second President offered John Jay the Chief Justice position once again. He declined the offer but did so not because he thought the Supreme Court had been accorded no real power under the Constitution, but, rather, because he felt the Executive Branch of Government would not allow the Court to exercise its Article 3 powers as the Constitution intended, dismissing the Court’s authority and power out-of-hand. This early power grab by the Executive Branch came to a head in the famous case of Marbury vs. Madison, when Chief Justice, John Marshall, asserted the Court’s rightful powers that the Executive Branch had chosen to ignore. And in that struggle it was Thomas Jefferson, the third U.S. President, who acceded to Marshall, acknowledging, if only reluctantly, the Supreme Court’s Article 3 authority that the Executive Branch sought to ignore.The Federal Government was just in its infancy, but, even then, the three Branches had started to jockey for power. Even so, usurpation of power is patently contrary to the dictates of the Constitution which delineates the powers and authority of each Branch, thereby establishing the parameters for the exercise of powers so delineated for each Branch. No Branch is permitted to transgress the Constitutional boundaries of power set for it. Had the framers of the Constitution sought to place the High Court under the auspices of another Branch as in the English Parliamentary System, the framers would have plainly provided for that. They did not.There were many possible Governmental forms and many permutations within any Governmental form to choose from.  The framers of the Constitution considered many configurations of Government and rejected all but one: A tripartite co-equal Branch Republican form of Government in which each Branch would be accorded its own set of limited, clearly articulated, and demarcated powers and authority. Thus, the Framers constructed one form of Government they hoped would be the least susceptible to insinuation of tyranny. Still the framers of the U.S. Constitution harbored doubt that their best efforts to establish a Government of three co-equal Branches would be sufficient to forestall the insinuation of  tyranny into the Government. Their concerns were justified.They knew that such is the nature of Government that no Governmental form would suffice to prevent the inevitable and inexorable tendency of a centralized Government with a standing army to resist the irresistible tug, and urge, and itch, to gather ever more power for itself.Since the Federal Government was constructed to be the servant of the people, the founders made certain that the American people would bear arms to secure their freedom and liberty from tyranny and they understood that the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms would rest—must rest—beyond the power of Government to toy with. For it is only through an armed citizenry that Government—especially one that is hell-bent in exercising absolute power and concomitantly oppressing the citizenry—can be kept from usurping the sovereignty of the American people and subjugating them in the process.Exercise of Governmental Power has shifted between and among the Branches through the decades, as they jockey for power and this is inconsistent with the plain text of the Constitution that demarcates the power and authority of each Branch; the power and authority that each Branch was allowed to wield, and not intrude on the domain of another Branch.The American people as the sole sovereign over Government would check the insinuation of tyranny—a given—through exercise of the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that would remain an immutable “constant,” irrespective of the machinations of the Three Branches of Government.And it is the stubborn constancy of the Second Amendment continues to rankle Big Government and its supporters to no end becoming more noticeable as the Government continues to devolve ever further into tyranny.  Today, we see the coalescing and merging of the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches. And we see attempts to bring the Judicial Branch into the fold.  And none of this bodes well for the American people. This means the right of the people to keep and bear arms grows more insistent. Consider——The Biden Administration, with a compliant Senate, has barreled through confirmation the first of a new kind of Supreme Court Justice: one who has no regard for the rights and liberties of the American people. This person, Ketanji Brown Jackson, is a person of mediocre talents at best, according to a National Review report. She was selected by the Administration’s shadowy puppetmasters, precisely because she is a dutiful proponent of the Marxist dogma of “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.” Did the National Review provide support for her nomination? One reporter did. See an article in the Federalist about this, chastising the National Review because of this. This nomination and confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson and more like her would not bode well for the independence of the Court.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through DOJ/FBI and ATF misuse of its Administrative Rulemaking authority.And, does anyone doubt for a moment that five Justices—the faux Conservative-wing Originalist, Chief Justice Roberts, and four liberal-wing Associate Justices, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, plus Garland, wouldn’t have overturned the rulings of the seminal Second Amendment Heller and McDonald cases, using the Bruen case for just that purpose, apart from affirming the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, for the Respondent City of New York, against the Petitioners. In a nightmare world that could have happened, and, indeed, would have happened. And, here in reality, the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists are more than annoyed at the outcome of Bruen and Dobbs, that their dream of negating the Second Amendment did not happen. They are absolutely apoplectic over that. Just look at how this obsequious, fawning head of the DOJ, unlawfully but dutifully targets Americans for special treatment at the behest of the Biden Administration and at the behest of other radical groups like the National School Board Association.    The framers of the U.S. Constitution would not be pleased but not all that surprised at the Government’s turn toward tyranny. As the framers wrestled with and finally settled on a Republican form of Government, consisting of three co-equal Branches, they also created a “failsafe” to offset the tendency of Government toward tyranny. Government would serve at the behest of the American people, the true and sole sovereign of Government and Nation but only if that Government is kept in check by an armed citizenry, whom, Constitutionally, it has no control over as it is prohibited from infringing the natural law right of the people to be armed.  Thus, the cause of frustration of those forces that seek to usurp the sovereignty of the American people by controlling their possession of and access to arms and ammunition.The British Empire sought to do this once and failed. Much more insidiously, the Government of the United States, today, seeks to do the same thing and this Government has been busily at work, especially in the 20^th Century and to the present day, to dispossess the American people of their firearms and stocks of ammunition and, further, to destroy their will to resist.Imagine the fate of Americans today if Congress could legislate away exercise of the fundamental rights as codified in the Nation’s Bill of Rights and if the Executive Branch could do much the same through ostensible DOJ/FBI and ATF Administrative Rulemaking authority. Not to be long forestalled by the inconvenience of the U.S. Constitution, the Nation’s Tyrannical Government has attempted to do just that. The first major Federal legislation infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms was in the 1930s with enactment of the appalling National Firearms Act of 1934 and Congress added to that infringement with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the “Gun Violence Prevention Act of 1994.” And the threat continues to this day. These enactments conflict with the primacy and supremacy of the Second Amendment to ward off the threat of tyranny and are prima facie proof of the Government’s embrace of Tyranny. Yet——Historical events demonstrating the fact of Government usurpation of powers and authority that belong alone to the American people become of themselves legal justification for controverting the dictates of the Constitution.But Government action that erodes fundamental Rights and Liberty should not operate as prima facie evidence of the lawfulness of those actions merely because they occurred. But that is what we have. Historical events demonstrating unequivocal illegal Government action infringing Americans’ fundamental rights manifest, paradoxically—like a conjurer’s sleight of hand—as self-justifying evidence for the legality and propriety of the actions—a kind of historical necessity: “it happened, so it must be right and proper.” The historical antecedent event thus transforms as a transcendental moral truth.That is the argument the Biden Administration makes for corralling the Second Amendment. And that over-reliance on history and on the appeal to history as part of the Court’s standard of review of the legality of laws impinging on the Second Amendment point to a serious flaw in Bruen. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Amy Coney-Barrett must know this.In fact, Justice Amy Coney-Barrett specifically points to the problem of utilizing history as a standard by which to ascertain whether a particular Governmental action unconstitutionally infringes the Second Amendment. In a short concurring opinion which, curiously no one joined, she says, in part, this: “I write separately to highlight two methodological points that the Court does not resolve. First, the Court does not conclusively determine the manner and circumstances in which postratification practice may bear on the original meaning of the Constitution. . . . Scholars have proposed competing and potentially conflicting frameworks for this analysis, including liquidation, tradition, and precedent. . . . The limits on the permissible use of history may vary between these frameworks (and between different articulations of each one). To name just a few unsettled questions: How long after ratification may subsequent practice illuminate original public meaning? . . . . What form must practice take to carry weight in constitutional analysis? . . . . And may practice settle the meaning of individual rights as well   as structural provisions? . . . The historical inquiry presented in this case does not require us to answer such questions, which might make a difference in another case. . . . Second and relatedly, the Court avoids another ‘ongoing scholarly debate on whether courts should primarily rely on the prevailing understanding of an individual right when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868’ or when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. . . . Here, the lack of support for New York’s law in either period makes it unnecessary to choose between them. But if 1791 is the benchmark, then New York’s appeals to Reconstruction-era history would fail for the independent reason that this evidence is simply too late (in addition to too little). Cf. Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, 591 U. S. ___, ___-___ (2020) (slip op., at 15-16) (a practice that ‘arose in the second half of the 19th century . . . cannot by itself establish an early American tradition” informing our understanding of the First Amendment). So today’s decision should not be understood to endorse freewheeling reliance on historical practice from the mid-to-late 19th century to establish the original meaning of the Bill of Rights. On the contrary, the Court is careful to caution ‘against giving postenactment history more weight than it can rightly bear [citations omitted].’” We discuss this problem of history as a component of a new standard of review in Second Amendment cases in future articles analyzing Bruen._________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved   

“THE PRIVILEGE” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

“THE PRIVILEGE” TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED?

QUOTATION LEAD-IN TO ARTICLE

“It is time for us to think outside the box and form two countries. Instead of civil war I propose civil separation. We are two countries, so ideologically opposed that each feels victimized and dominated by the other. Political leaders need to step up and brainstorm next steps. Clearly lay out the two ideologies and give each state a vote as to where they belong.” ~“Opinion Letter” from reader of The New York Times posted on June 5, 2022, responding to May 27, 2022 “America May Be Broken Beyond Repair,” by the Political Progressive Columnist for the Times, Michelle Goldberg. The letter writer, Dawn Menken, a Psychologist, from Portland, Oregon, is the author of “Facilitating a More Perfect Union: A Guide for Politicians and Leaders,” published in 2021*

THE CONCEPT OF ‘PRIVILEGE’ ISN'T AT ALL THE SAME THING AS AN ‘UNMODIFIABLE, FUNDAMENTAL, IMMUTABLE, ILLIMITABLE, AND ETERNAL GOD-BESTOWED RIGHT’, BUT THE TWO CONCEPTS ARE OFTEN, AND ERRONEOUSLY, CONFLATED

If the American public didn’t know the truth before, it knows it now: the battle for the very Soul of the Country is on the line, and Ground Zero of that battle isn’t Uvalde, Texas. It’s New York City, New York.The Nation is indeed “two Countries,”—no less so now than at the time of the American Civil War: friend against friend, brother against brother, uncle against cousin, father against son. But, what is different today is that ideologies cut across and into the very notion of what it means to be an American. There are those who hold to the meaning and purport of our Nation as set forth in our Constitution and especially in the Nation's Bill of Rights. And there are those who wish to jettison all of it in the erroneous belief that our Nation is at its core,  immoral, even evil. They wish to destroy the very fabric of a free Constitutional Republic. These adherents of the ideology of Collectivism have, with the aid of nefarious and shadowy and powerful forces, residing both here and abroad, gained control over much of the Federal Government. And having gained control over much of the Press and of media, as well, they propagate their message to the American people incessantly and vehemently. But one thing these Collectivist overseers have not gained control over: America's armed citizenry. And that disturbs and perplexes them and places them in a quandary as to what to do about it. For doing something about that, these Collectivists must. One cannot destroy a Nation if one cannot gain control over those who have the will and means to effectively resist the insinuation of tyranny over them.But, how does one go about separating an estimated 400 million firearms (according to American Gun Facts) in the hands of one-third of the target population. According to a November 2020 Gallop Poll, thirty-two percent of Americans possess firearms. See also report of the Rand Corporation, a 2017 report of the Pew Research Center, titled, “the Demographics of gun ownership,” and an SSRN 2021 “National Firearms Survey.” Seditious newspapers, like the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and USA Today, and seditious Cable and Broadcast news organizations, including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, and NPR disparage guns and gun ownership so frequently and so vehemently that a person is led to infer that their business models are designed around that one narrative. The amount of air time and Press coverage these news organizations devote to defensive use of arms is so scarce as to be essentially nonexistent. Such mention that is made of effective defensive use of arms to thwart criminal because of too much internet chatter regarding it, is given curt treatment with the hope that it will eventually dissipate on its own. Instead the American psyche is bombarded with viral memes. Injected with and subjected to verbal and visual memes on a daily basis, the American develops a phobic reaction toward guns and toward those who possess them: word phrases such as Gun Violence, Gun Culture, Mass Shootings, Assault Weapons, AR-15 Rifles, Weapons of War, Large Capacity Magazines, when coupled with images of violence operate as visual and auditory cues, that induce a neurotic reaction in the target population. This is to be expected; in fact this is intended. The goal is to create in the mind of the target a feeling of physical revulsion and repulsion toward guns.But, is it really a concern over the safety of innocent people that motivates a vigorous response against firearms and firearms' ownership, misguided though that be, or is there something more sinister at play? If it were the former, one would expect a harsh response toward the massive wave of everyday criminal violence infecting our Country, especially in the major urban areas. But, we see no such response. Those State and municipal Government officials and legislators who rabidly attack guns in the hands of average, rational, responsible, individuals handle rampant violent and vicious crime infecting their locales with an air of casual indifference and diffidence. So, it cannot be violent crime generally or violent gun crime committed by drug-crazed lunatics, psychopathic and psychotic gangbangers, and by garden-variety criminals that motivate these officials. What might it be, then? Why would Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Government officials, along with their compatriots in the Press, go off half-cocked whenever a rare occurrence, invariably avoidable, of "mass violence" arises, occasioned by the actions of a solitary lunatic? Why would Government officials and legislators shriek for more nonsensical gun laws, targeting tens of millions of average Americans, predicating the need for it on the lowest common denominator among us: the lone wolf psychotic. The answer is plain. The actions of the lone wolf psychotic merely provide a convenient pretext. It isn't the criminal actions of the lone wolf malcontent psychotic that Government is concerned about. For that lone wolf doesn't pose a viable threat to a Government. Rather, it is the armed citizenry that poses a threat to Government and by the very fact that the citizenry is armed. But, why should Government fear its own citizenry? It shouldn't and wouldn't unless Government seeks to usurp the sovereignty of the citizenry, as it clearly aims to do.A perspicacious Tyrant would know it is a Tyrant. But this Federal Government doesn't know it. So entrenched in Tyranny is this Federal Government through years and decades of usurpation of the authority rightfully belonging to the American people, that it has grown oblivious to its unlawful usurpation of power and authority. The Federal Government has amassed power and authority that doesn't belong to it, and never did belong to it, believing, wrongly, that the power it has usurped from the people is rightfully its own. And the Government has become jealous in guarding this power, hoarding it all for itself.It then stands to reason that the Federal Government would come to perceive the armed citizenry as a potential rival to crush, rather than as a master to serve. But, even in that the Federal Government, as Tyrant, is really but a caretaker to those bankers and financiers who are plotting the demise of this western Nation-State and all western Nation-States.Americans celebrate July 4 every year, since July 4, 1776, the Day America's first  Patriots declared their independence from tyranny. The Declaration of Independence was a righteous but defiant act. It led to war. It was a war hard fought. And the seeming underdog vanquished the mighty British empire. July 4, 2022, is just around the corner. But every year, since the turn of the 21st Century, Americans have had cause for concern, whether this July 4th Celebration would be our Nation's last.The founders created a Republican form of Government, having considered and dismissed many others. the American people would themselves be sovereign rulers where their representatives would serve and represent their interests. A Republican form of Government as envisioned and as created is antithetical to a Dictatorship, where Government is sovereign over the people.The British monarchy would eventually come to terms with loss of the American colonies. The Rothschild clan, on the other hand, would not forgive nor forget the loss of those colonies, and the loss of financial riches across the Atlantic Ocean. With the help of other financiers they realized it best to use subterfuge rather than arms to defeat the colonialists descendants. With the creation of the Federal Reserve System and with the seeding of money to the representatives of the people, to do their bidding and not that of the American people, and with their control over vast levers of power of Government, and with their control of the Press—the mechanism of dissemination of information—the Rothschild clan and its captain have gained back in two hundred and fifty years all that they had lost in eight years of the American Revolutionary War—but for one thing:

UNLIKE THE PEOPLE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND OF THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH NATIONS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE AN ARMED PEOPLE

A Tyrannical Caretaker Government for the Rothschild and Soros Financiers and Globalist Billionaire elites cannot gain control over a citizenry that has the requisite will and the means to effectively resist oppression and subjugation.Americans are well aware that the loss of their Republic, their Sovereignty, of their God-Given Rights and Liberties is at hand—but for the fact that Americans are armed.The senile, corrupt, weak-willed, and weak-kneed puppet of the Globalist elites, signed a flurry of executive orders on a wide variety of matters, rescinding and countermanding the gains made by Donald Trump in returning our Nation to prosperity and prominence on the world stage. But, the policy-makers wisely refrained from taking any action, curtailing the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The puppet masters knew that they would need time to consolidate their power even with the feeble, frail Biden puppet and legions of other lackeys at their disposal. And time they now had with Trump removed from Office. And they knew that it would be just a matter of time before some lunatic with a gun would create a furor that the Press could pounce upon. Perhaps, they even had a hand in prepping their psychotic robots to instigate the events that would serve as the quasi-plausible pretexts upon which to launch a flurry of new anti-gun legislation.All of this would be necessary. A new soci0-political-economic paradigm embracing the entire world is an ambitious project. And the remains of the United States is a vital component for bringing that project to fruition. Pragmatic concerns mandate this. But emotions probably also play a part. The Rothschild clan could see, not only in the demise of the United States, but in the manner of that demise—Americans denigrating their own history and heritage, destroying their own monuments, disparaging their own Founders—a malicious joy in that undertaking would be something the Rothschild clan and George Soros et. al. would chuckle over.The nascent American people effectively resisted tyranny once before, long ago, against immense odds, and overthrew a tyrannical Government, the British Empire. That empire was nominally ruled by a Monarch, George III. But it was  effectively ruled by the Rothschild Banking Cartel.George III was long laid to rest. The present British Dynasty, the House of Windsor, is decadent, effete, corrupt, and a major expense to the English people. Once Queen Elizabeth dies, the monarchy will quickly wither under King Charles if he becomes King at all. The English Parliament, like the monarchy operates more by empty ritual. The real power resides in the Bank of England, just as the Federal Reserve presides over the Government of the United States.The United States Supreme Court will soon release its decision in Bruen, and the puppet masters and their minions in the Press and in Government are worried; frantic, really. What claim can they make on the Nation if sovereignty over it continues to rest, not in them, but in the American people?Much more concerning to the Nation’s Destructors than a High Court decision in the Dobbs abortion case—a leaked version of which created a furor as it was designed to do—is retention by the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms. Unrestrained exercise of this Fundamental God-Given Right by the people goes to the heart of our Nation’s history, heritage, traditions, ethos, culture, and ethical and legal foundation.The Nation’s enemies, both inside it and outside it, detest America’s armed citizenry. They hate the Nation’s freedoms and liberties. They disdain the Nation’s belief and faith in Divine Natural Law.That abhorrence isn’t grounded on mere aesthetics or even on ethical concerns. It is based on frustration, rage, and fear. The Bill of Rights prevents America’s domestic and foreign enemies from taking control over the Nation and its people.In colorful language, The NYTimes explains this frustration, rage, and fear—one borne of Americans’ insistent adoration for its Bill of Rights. The Times says:“Most Republicans in the Senate represent deeply conservative states where gun ownership is treated as a sacred privilege enshrined in the Constitution, a privilege not to be infringed upon no matter how much blood is spilled in classrooms and school hallways around the country.” ~ from an article in The New York Times, May 26, 2022, by Carl Hulse, Chief D.C. correspondent for the NYTimes.That aforementioned article came out in late May. Two weeks later, ten U.S. Republican Senators, “Ten Little Indians”,** broke ranks. They betrayed their Oath to their Constituents. That was bad enough. But, they also betrayed their Oath to Country and to Constitution. That was worst of all. For, in doing so, they betrayed their Faith and Allegiance in the Divine Creator in daring to circumvent Divine Will. They have joined the ranks of the Democrat Party Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Satanists. These “Ten Little Indians”—these ignominious United States Republican Party Senators, ten in number—should, properly, justifiably, suffer the fate of those “Ten Little Indians” of poem.The Hill reports, “A bipartisan group of senators announced a deal Sunday on framework legislation to address a recent surge in gun violence in the U.S.The proposed legislation includes funding for school safety resources, strengthened background checks for buyers under the age of 21, incentives for states to implement their own red flag laws, penalties for straw purchases of firearms and increased protections for domestic violence victims.The bipartisan group was made up of 20 senators, including 10 GOP lawmakers, many of whom are strong supporters of gun rights and political allies of the powerful National Rifle Association (NRA).”With support from those 10 Republicans, the legislation likely has the votes to overcome the 60-vote threshold to avoid a filibuster in the Senate. And what caused these 10 Republicans to take affirmative action against preservation of an absolute and essential fundamental Right—the Natural Law Right of Armed Self-Defense? What caused these Republicans to capitulate to the Neo-Marxist Democrats: Bribes of Money? Desire to appease an angry mob of Neo-Marxist Cultist lunatics? Fear of physical assault from this angry mob of Neo-Marxist Cultist fanatics and lunatics if these Republicans failed to bow down to the mob and to a renegade Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Congress and to the powerful and ruthless forces that control them both? Or, were they of that mindset all along:The Destroyers of our Nation don’t even deign to refer to gun possession as a Basic Right—the most basic Right: one grounded on personal survival, be it from predatory creature, predatory man, or predatory Government. Rather they utilize the word, ‘privilege,’ in lieu of ‘right,’ to describe those who seek to exercise it. Tacit in the word, ‘privilege,’ is the idea of something wonderful that some people attain by dint of birth advantage or connection made or acquired—but that most do not.This substitution of words is no small thing. To be sure, the words, ‘right’ and ‘privilege,’ are often conflated. For example, in the Merriam-Webster dictionary——“A privilege is a right or advantage gained by birth, social position, effort, or concession.” Yet, a “Right’, i.e., a “Fundamental God-Bestowed Right” is something beyond mere “Privilege.” It is a thing intrinsic to a person—derived from natural law. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy elaborates on this:

• “To have a right is to have a ‘valid claim.’”
• “‘In the strictest sense’ all rights are claims.”  
• “A right, in the most important sense, is the conjunction of a [privilege] and a claim-right.”
• “All rights are essentially property rights.”
• “Rights are themselves property, things we own.”

This distinction between ‘fundamental right’ and ‘privilege’ rests at the root of  Bruen, whether one knows this or not, and therein rests its singular importance for Americans.And the Bruen case is more important to the preservation of a free Republic than many Americans can truly appreciate or the legacy Press and Government will let on.In its Brief for review, on December 17, 2020, the Petitioner presented the issue thus:“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”The issue as stated goes to the heart of the import of the Second Amendment. Do Americans have a fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, or not? Petitioners meant to bring that salient issue front and center. Heller made clear that a person has the unalienable right to keep and bear arms in defense of hearth and home. But, the underlying basis for that ruling and the substructure of it is this: the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right. The tacit implication is this: exercise of that right is grounded on natural law, and beyond the power of the State to meddle in it, i.e., the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms is God-bestowed, and, therefore, Absolute.In an attempt to lessen the impact of a ruling expected to favor the Petitioner, the Robert’s Court limited the scope of the issue on review to consideration of the Constitutionality of the City’s procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses. The High Court redrafted the issue on review to this:“Whether the state of New York's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”John Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court attempted to chop off the legs of the issue at the knee: reducing the reviewable issue merely to the constitutionality of  NYPD procedures.In light of the recent Uvalde, Texas incident, an incident that the Harris-Biden Administration, along with a Democrat-Marxist-controlled Congress and seditious Press, has irresponsibly, reprehensibly, unconscionably, shamelessly and incessantly focused the public's attention on and magnified to further its goal—the eradication of the Nation's Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights and the toppling of a free Constitutional Republic—the Bruen case takes on heightened importance. This Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist abhorrence of the armed citizenry is borne of outright fear. The Tyrant always hates and fears an armed citizenry. But, what might Americans expect from the High Court apropos of Bruen.In a worst-case scenario for the puppet masters and their minions who seek the dismantling of our free Republic, the Court will strike down the entire handgun licensing regime. If that were to happen, the impact would be felt across the Nation.Americans would immediately commence filing lawsuits challenging restrictive concealed handgun licensing regimes across the Nation, as well they should.The Bruen case was/is primed to do just that. And, after more than a decade— and with Marxist/Globalist Government's continuing consolidation of power, methodically and inexorably stripping the citizenry of its Fundamental Rights and of its sovereignty over Government—it is high time for another seminal Second Amendment case. Only through the preservation of the armed citizenry can America's Patriots ever hope to preserve the Founders hard-fought victory over oppression and Tyranny. Only through steadfast defense of the meaning, and purpose, and  the American Revolution of 1776, can Americans effectively repulse the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Open Society/EU/UN/New World Order Collectivist Counterrevolution of the 21st Century.___________________________________

DON’T RELY ON THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO PROTECT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

THE FORTHCOMING BRUEN DECISION IS LIKELY TO BE MORE DISAPPOINTMENT THAN JOY—JUST LIKE THE NEW YORK CITY GUN TRANSPORT CASE DECISION THAT CAME BEFORE IT.

Even the most politically naïve of Americans and even the most devout of the Democrat Party faithful must now have serious misgivings about the future well-being of our Nation. They must now recognize that the Federal Government—after Trump—is not what they counted. It is not what they bargained for. They must now recognize that the Federal Government—this Federal Government—does not serve their interests and that it does not have their life, safety, and well-being at heart: quite the opposite in fact. The Executive Branch and the Democrat-Party-controlled Congress are two institutions serving the interests of the lunatic fringe Neo-Marxist Cultists and Neoliberal Globalist Billionaire Bilderberg Group Clubbists, only.The shared aspiration of both is to witness the demise of the United States as an independent sovereign nation-state; the destruction of a free Constitutional Republic; the annihilation of a once proud and sovereign American people and their concomitant debasement and devolution to subjugation, and servitude. And all that is occurring swiftly.Nor should Americans pin their hopes on the High Court—the Third Branch of the Federal Government—to save them from the mess deliberately propagated by the first two. If Americans believe that the U.S. Supreme Court will surely preserve and protect the Constitution and staunchly defend their Bill of Rights, they will surely be sorely disappointed.If the New York City gun transport case is a harbinger of things to come from the rulings in Bruen, then Bruen is likely to be a hollow victory at best. Less a third seminal Second Amendment case building on Heller and McDonald, Bruen is likely to read more like the Roe v Wade abortion case—a sorry attempt to satisfy everyone, it will likely do little to satisfy anyone. And, why do we say this:First and Foremost, Consider——The Roberts Court's reconfiguration of the issue in Bruen was meant to forestall  a cataclysmic ruling that would put a stop to the very notion of open-ended “gun regulations”—the bane of the Second Amendment—that would serve to buttress and strengthen the Heller and McDonald rulings. Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the High Court wanted none of that. And the restructuring of the  issue in Bruen was meant to guarantee that noxious, heavy-handed and clearly unconstitutional handgun licensing schemes, would be here to stay, at least in some jurisdictions. Thus, it behooves the American Patriot, to be wary of High Court meddling, no less so than Executive and Legislative Branch meddling in the matter of fundamental, immutable, absolute—yes, absolute—Rights. The Third Branch of the Federal Government—this Roberts Court, sans Scalia— no less than the first two Branches, will not zealously defend the Bill of Rights, and especially the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding the integrity and fortitude and intellectual  acumen of Justices Thomas and Alito. For they are only two stalwart American Patriots remaining now that Justice Scalia is no longer with us. But, then, the Framers of our Constitution, with Divine guidance, did intend and did provide, through inclusion of God-Given Absolute Rights, existent inherently in man, that the American citizenry would be wanting if bereft of support from any one or more or all three of the three Branches of the Federal Government. The American people require not assistance in defense of the Nation's elemental Rights and Liberties, for the Federal Government cannot excise them away. The Executive Branch cannot issue Presidential edicts or Bureaucratic Rules to blunt the exercise of them. The Legislative Branch cannot enact laws to nullify them. And the Judicial Branch cannot issue opinions to deny their import. All attempts to modify, repeal, abrogate, dismiss, ignore, or reinterpret God-Given Rights by Governmental artifice is unlawful from the get-go. The plain, succinct, categorical language of the sacred Rights of the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution makes transparent, the immutable, illimitable, eternal, non-modifiable, absolute nature of them and demonstrates the irrationality and incongruity of any attempt by the Government or by its proxies to diminish them.But, then, should Americans ever have placed faith in this Federal Government, above their faith in Divine Natural Law. Of course not! Does not this Federal Government, not unlike any other Government in history, have, within it, the seeds of repression, oppression—in a word, 'tyranny'? Assuredly so!Truly, to defend Liberty, Freedom, and Sovereignty, the onus will always rest, as it has in the beginning, and as it must in the end—on the people themselves— to defend their Liberty, Freedom, and sovereignty against all threats whether emanating outside the Country or writhing within its very bowels.Thus, Americans should not place, their hopes and dreams in the High Court as their main, much less their sole, source of and mechanism for their salvation. That Branch of Government, as with the other two, is ultimately a "political organization," as unreliable and as conniving as the other two. Sure, Justices Thomas and Alito are known quantities: men of unparalleled principle and ethics. But, only the late Justice Scalia had sufficient, formidable strength— capable of standing up to Chief Justice Roberts; keeping both Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court in check.But the eminent Justice Antonin Scalia is, unfortunately, no longer with us. He died under mysterious circumstances: circumstances never resolved, events not adequately explained; circumstances unlikely ever to be resolved or adequately explained to the public's satisfaction.So then, what will Americans likely see from the upcoming Bruen decision? The U.S. Supreme Court will strike down New York City’s procedures for issuing concealed handgun carry licenses, and it may do so on grounds of vagueness or arbitrariness; but that will still leave the heart of “may-issue”/“proper cause” in force. Stephen Breyer and the other liberal wing Associate Justices will file their lengthy and vehement dissents. And Associate Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito—with Amy Coney-Barrett, perhaps—will probably file concurring opinions. And, if so, they will likely point to, explicate, and expound upon the illegal and illogical “may-issue”/“proper cause” construct. But the concurrences as with the dissents will be dicta only. They will not have the force of law, i.e., they will not operate as binding holdings/rulings.The case holdings/rulings will, then, likely come up short. Given a reworking by the Roberts Court of the issue, as presented in Petitioners' Brief, it is unlikely  the Conservative Court majority will be able to strike down the entirety of concealed handgun licensing structure of New York even if Justices Thomas and Alito would be willing and prepared to do just that. For, if that were to happen, it would implicate and therefore jeopardize similar handgun licensing regimes in other Anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions. Justice Roberts and the liberal wing would never allow that to happen. And Justice Scalia isn't here to see that it would happen.See, e.g., article in Syracuse News, where one New York  District County attorney predicts that the Court's ruling in Bruen will be very narrow.

“Locally, law enforcement officials don’t expect the decision will affect the policing of guns or safety.

'I think (the court is) going to take the narrowest route possible' said Onondaga County District Attorney William Fitzpatrick.”

Strong concurrences by Justices and Alito and Thomas would only operate as dicta, not actionable case rulings/holdings. Thus, a minimalist Bruen decision would hearken back to the limp and lame New York City handgun transport case. That would be a blow to the sanctity and inviolability of the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  The validity of New York's concealed handgun licensing regime, along with the underlying methodology/paradigm model of “may-issue”/“proper cause” will remain intact. But that is what we will see. The Arbalest Quarrel hopes we are wrong in our estimates. We would be surprised but pleased if that were to happen, but we don't expect that it will.A minimalist High Court ruling in Bruen would also disparage the import of the Court’s rulings in Heller and McDonald. The Nation’s enemies would be pleased. America's Patriots, rightfully, would not.Such a paltry ruling would not bode well for the continued security of a free State, especially in the present unhealthy political, social, and economic climate.But, even a minimalist ruling favoring the Bruen Petitioners will not be good enough for Anti-Second Amendment news organizations such as CBS News, whose doom and gloom prognostications only see the upending of the entire New York State concealed handgun licensing regime:“The Supreme Court is on the verge of ruling on a case that could overturn New York state's gun carry law. Records obtained by CBS2 show as many as 20,000 more guns could inundate the streets of the Big Apple, following such a decision.”That isn't likely to happen even on a best case ruling scenario. For, contrary to this reporting, the constitutionality of the entire New York State concealed handgun carry regime isn't at issue. The issue on review goes to the procedures created by the NYPD Licensing Division. Chief Justice Roberts saw to that. So, we know where his sentiments rest, even if, as a matter of logic alone, and not law, the Constitutionality of the entire New York handgun licensing regime is impacted. As we expect, the underlying handgun licensing structure will remain unscathed, consistent with the restrictions made by the Roberts Court on the issue to be decided in Bruen.Suppose, then, that consistent with the constrained issue, the Court's majority does strike down the City's concealed handgun carry license procedures, only, leaving intact the salient structure of the State's handgun licensing regime. That won't do much for Petitioners' rights; at least not immediately, and, perhaps, not ever.New York State and New York City will take their good time in developing and  instituting new concealed handgun carry license procedures for issuance of unrestricted and restricted handgun carry licenses both in the City and across the State.CBS News, of course, sees a slow-walk as a good thing, as they assert in the afore-referenced article:“. . . a high-ranking source tells CBS2's Marcia Kramer it could take the city years to comply.”See also articles in other Anti-Second Amendment sources such as Gothamist and in the seditious CNN and NY Times.And the New York Government would take its own good time in concocting a new set of arbitrary procedures to replace the ones struck down. New Yorkers would then be back to square one. America’s enemies would breathe a collective sigh of relief. There is no doubt about that! The NY Times reported on June 6, 2022, the following:“In New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul has said that she would consider calling a special session of the State Legislature if the law were overturned. And after a shooting in Buffalo last month in which a teenager motivated by racism killed 10 Black people at a grocery store, she brought up the law unprompted, saying that her administration was ‘preparing our state for what could be a Supreme Court decision that allows people to carry concealed weapons. We’re ready.’A spokeswoman for the governor declined to elaborate further on the preparations.”One need not wonder of the impact the Uvalde, Texas Elementary School shooting incident will have on Hochul. She will only become more entrenched in slow-walking or sabotaging, outright, a Bruen High Court decision that strikes down the New York City' Police Department License Division's procedures for issuing concealed handgun licenses.More importantly is the question what impact the recent shooting incident will have on the U.S. Supreme Court itself. Has the Court made changes to the majority, and concurring, and dissenting opinions, as a result of that incident in light of immense news coverage of it and Congressional action on it?Americans will no doubt see the liberal-wing in rare form, writing political and public policy tracts disguised as legal opinions. And, don't be surprised to see Chief Justice Roberts doing the same. The danger here is that Roberts and Kavanaugh may, at the Eleventh Hour, do a one-eighty switcheroo and join the liberal wing of the Court. That would give the liberal wing of the Court the majority it needs to rule for the Respondent New York, against the Petitioners. New York’s unelected Governor, Kathy Hochul, true to form—hateful of the Second Amendment—is going ahead full throttle to destroy the Right of the people to keep and bear arms as if Bruen never existed, even though a decision in the case is imminent. She has made this patently clear in a flurry of Anti-Second Amendment legislation she has very recently signed, as well as in her executive orders.And the New York City Mayor, Eric Adams, is 100% onboard with Hochul, as he backs her continuing control of the State. An affiliate of NBC News, 4NewYork News, reports:“New York City Mayor Eric Adams endorsed New York Gov. Kathy Hochul for a full term on Wednesday, praising her as 'an amazing governor' who deserves a full term.Adams, a centrist Democrat like Hochul, told supporters at a Manhattan union hall that voters need someone who can 'get stuff done in the state of New York.' Hochul, the former lieutenant governor, is running to keep the job she has held since August 2021 when Andrew Cuomo resigned amid allegations of sexual harassment, which he has denied.”The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist-controlled Federal Government and the Soros backed and funded Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist State and Municipal Governments across the Country do nothing to hide their visceral contempt for the American people or their outright loathing of the Bill of Rights. One sees all of this through their failure to comply with the strictures of this Nation's body of laws and its Constitution. Worse, one sees increasing intimations of brazen seditious meddling with and offending of Bill of Rights imperatives. Nothing  constrains the actions of the Collectivists' insinuation of tyranny throughout the Republic, much as they, together with CCP China, consolidate their control over the nation-states of the EU and over the British Commonwealth Nations.Still, the United States has one thing no other Nation or group of Nations or other political construct has: a true Bill of Rights that incorporates the preeminent Right: that of Armed Self-Defense. But, how many firearms are in private hands is not known, only guessed at, and that is a good thing.Government is not in the business of and should never be in the business of knowing or attempting to know who among the citizenry is armed and the manner of their armament. That fact goes hand-in-hand with the unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms.The armed citizenry is the singular source of this Nation's strength, vitality, and well-being; the basis for the sanctity and inviolability of Selfhood; the foundation of a free Constitutional Republic; the necessary condition through which that free Republic may be maintained; and, the ground upon which the sovereignty of the American people over Government is secured and upon which tyranny is resisted, restrained, and repulsed.The High Court should keep all of this in mind when deciding Bruen. But, even a ruling in favor of Petitioners against New York, will not of itself secure the Republic against encroaching Tyranny. For the forces that seek to impose it are powerful, well-organized, and deeply entrenched in our private and public institutions.Governor Kathy Hochul has powerful, ruthless, and inordinately wealthy allies, who will support her if she does not comply with the High Court's rulings, striking down New York City's concealed handgun carry procedures. Indeed, they will certainly dictate policy for her as they have done all along, just as they are doing for New York City Mayor, Eric Adams. The public simply sees in Hochul's policy aims and actions an inkling of the face that hides in the shadows, dictating her policy aims and actions. Hochul's stubbornness, in failing to heed U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Bruen, will certainly tell all Americans, but especially those residing in New York, everything they need to know of the unbridled contempt both she and those that pull her strings have for our people; for our Republic; and for our Nation’s Constitution.Disdain toward High Court rulings does not bode well for the continued security of a free State in the present unhealthy political, social, and economic climate. We have seen this abject disdain played out by State Governments and lower Courts toward Heller and McDonald. Much the same disdain will be played out again in Bruen. That is why Americans must stay true to the plain meaning of the Bill of Rights, especially when it comes to matters of armed self-defense against Tyranny. At the end of the day, the Bill of Rights is all that they have to assert their will on a renegade Government. For the Nation's first Patriots, a firm conviction in the righteousness of their cause, a blanket refusal to surrender their firearms to tyrants, and a valiant will to use those firearms against tyranny, sufficed to vanquish a mighty but ignoble foe. At the time, the Bill of Rights was inchoate. But, the germinating idea of the immutability and illimitability of the natural law right of armed self-defense against tyranny sufficed to win the day.  The germinating idea of the immutability and illimitability of the natural law right of armed self-defense against tyranny sufficed to win the day against seeming insurmountable odds. Today, the Bill of Rights is manifest, and we, the armed citizenry, are legion. We descendants of the first Patriots should be able to repulse tyranny that once again threatens a free and sovereign people. Can we do so, if the need arises? If we have the will and wherewithal to resist tyranny, then we, Americans, will have all that is necessary to vanquish tyranny once again._____________________________________________*Menken’s book purports to be a guide for political leaders on how to bring the Country together to resolve the Nation’s differences. Yet, one year after publication of her book, it is clear from her NYTimes letter Times, that Menken has had a change of heart; surrendered to the truth that reconciliation is impossible. That should have been obvious to her. It wasn’t. How can there be a meeting of minds?There are two antithetical ideologies at play. One ideology is grounded on the principles, precepts, and tenets laid down in our Nation’s sacred documents. The other intends to set it all aside. One ideology was forged in the Nation’s struggle for independence from tyranny. The proponents of that ideology seek to preserve the Natural Law Rights and Liberties of the people. They intend to maintain and preserve the success of the American Revolution.The other ideology, grounded on the principles, tenets, and precepts of Collectivism, much in evidence today, seeks to upend the hard-fought battle for Independence from tyranny. For Collectivism is predicated on Tyranny. It is inextricably tied to it. In our website, we discussed all of this in several articles some time ago. See, e.g., our article posted four years ago, in 2018, titled: “The Modern American Civil War: A Clash of Ideologies.”At the very birth of the Nation, the enemies of a free State, went immediately to work to waylay and destroy it. These enemies, the Globalist Banking Cartel, commenced a quiet Counterrevolution to dismantle a free State and to usurp the authority of a sovereign people, bending them to their will.The descendants of the Nation’s enemies, the international financiers and their minions, alongside rabid Neo-Marxist radicals, residing inside and outside the United States, are dead-set on destroying this free Republic, as assuredly and as thoroughly as would occur by overt military conquest.Theirs is a Collectivist Counterrevolution. Utilizing modern tools of information and computer technology, psychological conditioning, organizational acumen, inexhaustible reserves of money, and control over Government and over the levers of commerce, media, and finance. They intend to destroy the political, social, economic, and juridical foundations of the Country, merging its remains into the nascent EU/UN super-state that is taking shape throughout the world._______________________________**The poem: “Ten little Indian boys went out to dine; One choked his little self and then there were Nine. Nine little Indian boys sat up very late; One overslept himself and then there were Eight. Eight little Indian boys travelling in Devon; One said he'd stay there and then there were Seven. Seven little Indian boys chopping up sticks; One chopped himself in halves and then there were Six. Six little Indian boys playing with a hive; A bumblebee stung one and then there were Five. Five little Indian boys going in for law; One got into Chancery and then there were Four. Four little Indian boys going out to sea; A red herring swallowed one and then there were Three. Three little Indian boys walking in the Zoo; A big bear hugged one and then there were Two. Two little Indian boys were out in the sun; One got all frizzled up and then there was one*. One little Indian boy left all alone; He went out and hanged himself and then there were none. (*In some versions Two Little Indian boys playing with a gun; One shot the other and then there was one.) ~From IMDB, referencing the afore-recited poem, Ten Little Indians, from the 1965 mystery film thriller by the same name.”___________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved  

MEMORIAL DAY HONORS AMERICANS WHO DIED IN DEFENSE OF FREEDOM; BUT WHERE IS OUR ‘FREEDOM’ TO BE FOUND IF NOT IN THE ARMED CITIZENRY?

“Within the last year — ever since President Joe Biden signed his four-year lease on the White House — the word ‘freedom’ has taken on an unsavory, sinister connotation.” See report in Newsmax.  Wherefore is our freedom now if not in the armed citizenry? The U.S. Supreme Court can provide a leg-up from the United States Supreme Court.The current U.S. Supreme Court term ends on June 27, 2022, and reconvenes on October 3, 2022, the starting date of its next term. Two major opinions are due out momentarily: Dobbs and Bruen. Dobbs is a major abortion case. Bruen is a major Second Amendment case. A leaked version of Dobbs has unleashed a furor. And an opinion in Bruen, striking down the NYPD concealed handgun licensing procedures will cause its own furor, worsened by the recent elementary school shooting incident in Texas.Only the High Court, the Third Branch of Government, retains, at present, a modicum of independence. The Neoliberal Globalist puppet masters have firm control over both the First and Second Branches, but not yet, over the Third.The Country is in a precarious state: militarily, geopolitically, economically, societally. This is no accident. It is design.The seditious Press tries to explain this away partly by denial. But, knowing this to have doubtful impact, the Press resorts to something more sinister. It tells the public it must accept the fall of the United States from its stature of preeminence. It tells the public that Nations rise and fall, and so must the United States. That is not true. The rise and fall of civilizations and nations isn’t a law of nature. It isn’t written in stone. It may appear so out of empirical necessity, but it is not one of logical necessity.Strong nations weather any storm. Weaker nations do not.Weak nations are doomed to eventual ruin from any force whether that force manifests inside or outside it.Strong nations cannot be destroyed from outside forces, but only from within. Thus, was the fate of the Roman Empire.The stooge, Biden, controlled by powerful forces, malevolent and malignant, lurking in the shadows, sputters their dictates. He is the embodiment of corruption, feebleness and decay: what better emblem to proclaim the dying of the Nation. And he sputters the problems with the Nation, the problems the public must bear, the dying of the Nation, isn’t his fault.Biden implements strategies to disrupt and destroy the Nation, and yet denounces the American people for the very thing this Government fabricates, asserting that “terrorism from white supremacy” is the most serious threat to the Nation. It is not. There is no such threat, there is no such thing; but in the saying of it, Biden, the ever-compliant tool of the puppet masters, the real Tyrant, uses the lie, uses the Government, the proxy, the obedient stand-in for the Tyrant, to direct action against the American people. But the threat is a phantom. That is all it is. That is all it ever was. But it serves a purpose.The lie is but a pretext to cull the Federal Government of those Americans it deems to be a threat against it, against the tyranny that Government imposes on the American people. The lie also becomes the pretext to harass civilians. The Tyrant suppresses all dissent. It aims to quell all perceived threats to it. And threat rests in all that disagree with the Tyrant.The Tyrant proclaims the virtue of its actions to brutally quash dissent. Asserting the necessity for that, the Tyrant posits its wish to promote safety and security, peace and harmony. It is all a bald-faced lied. But many citizens fall for it, comply with it; some there are who even rejoice in it. And the dutiful, foolish citizen dutifully lays down his arms. But most Americans are not foolish. They will not lay down their arms. And therein lies the Tyrant’s phantom, the menace. The phantom threat is tacitly attached to one-third or more of the Nation: acrimonious, noxious descriptors are applied to this group: “Domestic Terrorist,” the “White Supremacist,” “The Racist.” By whatever name, this one-third or more of the Nation is deemed a dire threat to the “Open Society” a.k.a. “New World Order” that the stooge, Biden, humbles himself to. He has agreed to this. And so, he is but a titular Head of State. And the silent, secretive Tyrant has its submissive, pliant, compliant, empty shell of man through whom its edicts come to be reality—Joe Biden, the Tyrant's present puppet.Donald Trump did not accept the concept of the “Open Society.” His “America First” and “Make America Great Again,” were not mere slogans. They were goals, and his policies and initiatives were directed to meeting those goals. Those slogans and aims are antithetical to the goals of the “Open Society,” of a new world order. The slogans are treated as an obscenity. The Tyrant would have none of it; could have none of it if the nightmare vision it had in mind were to become reality. Trump had to go. But, what of the armed citizenry? Trump may not have been a great boon to it, but he never dared to remonstrate against it. The American citizenry is and must always remain an armed citizenry. Make no mistake about that. The citizenry’s sovereignty over the Nation and over the Federal Government, and over any would-be Tyrant, demands that. True freedom and liberty of the people can only exist by dint of arms. For, only through dint of force of arms can Government be kept in check. Only through dint of force of arms can true freedom and liberty be maintained.And many Americans sacrificed their life to preserve a free Republic and a sovereign people. That is the reason for Memorial Day. It’s a day of remembrance to the supreme sacrifice they made.“Originally called Decoration Day, Monday's holiday honors all soldiers who died during service to the nation.Memorial Day was declared a national holiday through an act of Congress in 1971, and its roots date back to the Civil War era, according to the U.S. Department of Veterans’ Affairs.Unlike Veterans Day, Memorial Day honors all military members who have died in while serving in U.S. forces.” From the deaths of the first Patriots, fighting for liberty and freedom against tyranny, to those who lost their life in Afghanistan, we must now ask: were their sacrifices in vain?The Nation is in crisis. But the crisis today is unlike any other in history. For the enemy of a free people lies wholly within. Nothing in the past can compare to it. Even the American Civil War, the bloodiest in our history, cannot match the present threat this Biden Government poses to the American people.Americans face the loss of a free Constitutional Republic, the loss of all unalienable rights and liberties. Such “rights” that remain are treated merely as privileges to bestowed on one or rescinded, at the whim of Government—Tyrant. Americans thus face the loss of their freedom, their sovereignty; their historical memory; their very Soul as a singular sovereign, independent Nation.Only through the presence of the armed citizenry, can Freedom and liberty keep tyranny at bay.Unlike the American Civil War, this present conflict is insidious. It rots the Nation to its core. Americans witness this through the Tyrant’s attack on exercise of all natural law rights.But the Tyrant says this is good, this is right. The Tyrant dares to say our Nation is evil; its traditions, heritage, culture—all reflected in its sacred Documents—are perverse. And many there are who accept the Tyrant’s words as true. They see the necessity of dismantling the whole of a free Republic, and the necessity of surrendering their sovereignty over Government.Will this come to pass?The Midterm elections are soon upon us. The Tyrant and its servants are worried. Congress may be lost to them. And theTyrant and its servants are using the tool of propaganda to incense the public against itself, against its very Soul. They use raw emotion to convince the public that the murder of an unborn child is a good and proper thing if the mother so wishes it. And they use raw emotion to convince the public that disarming the public will serve to protect such of those children born if the Americans will but lay down their arms.Thus, the Tyrant demonstrates his contempt for the common people.And yet, the return of abortion matters to the States rightfully returns authority to the American people, who, through their States, make their own decisions concerning it. Some States will warrant, or have, like New York, already warranted it; other States will not.And, in Bruen, the public might see sanity and reason returned to the Country if the High Court strikes down, as unconstitutional, NYPD procedures for the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses. The Tyrant worries endlessly over the Bruen decision. It abhors the armed citizen.The Tyrant cares not that the citizen might, with firearms, ably defend himself against predatory animal or predatory man, but cares much that the citizen may also defend himself quite ably with firearms against the Tyrant, itself. And it is the threat to its own security posed by the armed citizen that the Tyrant sees as reason enough to wage war against the American people—even a bloody one, if it comes to that.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

THE SOLUTION TO MASS SHOOTINGS IS THE ARMED CITIZEN

ANTIGUN RHETORIC WON’T STOP VIOLENT CRIME; IT ONLY ENCOURAGES IT

It never takes long for Joe Biden, the symbol and embodiment of Democrat-Party incompetence and irascibility, to launch into tiresome tirades over guns. On May 24, the same day a lunatic went on a rampage at an elementary school 80 miles Southwest of San Antonio, the puppet masters’ propagandists drafted up a speech for Biden to deliver to the Nation. Reuters reported his words:“‘As a nation, we have to ask, ‘When in God’s name are we going to stand up to the gun lobby?’ Biden said on national television, suggesting reinstating a U.S. ban on assault-style weapons and other ‘common sense gun laws.’ . . . ‘I hoped when I became president I would not have to do this, again,’ a visibly shaken Biden said, decrying the death of ‘beautiful, innocent’ second, third and fourth graders in ‘another massacre.’”Pay close attention to the buzzwords:

• ‘Gun Lobby’
• ‘Assault weapons’
• ‘Common sense gun laws’

Also consider what’s missing in Biden’s speech. There’s no mention, explicit or tacit, of effective school security measures that, had they been implemented, would have surely blunted the attack.The killer simply walked into the school, into a classroom, and commenced shooting. Had not a police officer arrived quickly on the scene, killing the attacker, many more innocent children and teachers would likely have been injured or killed. See, e.g., KHOU local news report.  Did Biden’s handlers inform him the shooter had simply walked into an unguarded, unlocked school? If not, did Biden bother to ask how the shooter could gain easy access to a school after incidents like this had happened in Schools in the past? Likely not.Biden receives his speech and dutifully recites his lines as best he can, in his debilitated physical and mental state.Still, one would think the matter of school safety and security would have warranted at least some mention after the incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, and would have seen rapid implementation certainly after the subsequent major shooting incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018.Yet, the need for school security is routinely ignored by the present Administration and by the Democrat-Party-controlled Congress and by Democrat-Party-controlled jurisdictions across the Country.But the public does hear often and vociferously that guns are to be blamed; that there are too many of them in the Country; that the Country needs more antigun laws; and that good Americans should rage, and rage some more, over the prevalence of guns in the Country, and over those Americans who insist on possessing “assault weapons.”It is curious, though, the public hears little if any news about infants and toddlers, mostly black, who happen to be caught in crossfires as criminal gangs engage in shootouts in City streets, across America, on a regular basis.But the answer to shootings in schools, or on the city streets, or in shopping malls, or in stores isn’t to be found in getting rid of so-called “assault weapons” in the hands of millions of citizens. And appealing to raw emotion does nothing positive. It only breeds ill-will in the citizenry and demonstrates the contempt Anti-Second Amendment politicians and the Press hold the American public in.The answer to shooting incidents in the schools and to incidents of violent crime elsewhere in the Nation are to be found, first and foremost, in the armed citizenry. But that idea is anathema to the present Administration, and to a Democrat Party-controlled Congress, and to Democrat-controlled jurisdictions around the Country.They refuse to acknowledge that armed citizens would blunt mass shootings and would end violent crime spikes.The Arbalest Quarrel has written extensively on this. In respect to the school shooting incident in Florida, we said,A viable security plan to protect students from harm never existed in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. But other Schools across the Nation that have implemented effective security, have been free from deadly threats to students and to teachers. That means all schools must embrace a proactive, not reactive, stance to threats of violence of any kind. A sound plan to protect students is doable and helpful. Going after guns is not.” The police cannot be everywhere at once. In fact, in this post-George Floyd era, with incessant calls for constraining police, preventing them from protecting their communities, the need for well-trained, astute armed citizens is more urgent and acute. But the public never sees that; never hears that. Instead, Anti-Second Amendment politicians, Anti-Second Amendment policy and political action groups, the Press, and most cable and broadcast TV news networks simply reiterate the same tiresome clichés.They talk incessantly about the need for more “commonsense gun laws.” By that they mean de facto repeal of the Second Amendment.They talk persistently and perniciously about the need to curb civilian-citizen ownership and possession of “assault weapons.” By that they mean a ban on semiautomatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns, across the board, and anything else they can shoehorn under that nebulous descriptor, such as revolving shotguns, and 50 caliber revolvers.And they go on endlessly about the “gun lobby.” And by that they mean any pro-Second Amendment gun Group which, by extension, means millions of average, law-abiding citizens who exercise and cherish the fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms.One doesn’t hear, though, of mass shootings at airports, or in Government buildings, or in schools across the nation where  hardened security measures have been implemented, including armed security officers.But, even if the Federal Government could lockdown the entire Country through implementation of massive military and police presence, Americans would never agree to that; nor should they. That isn’t our Nation’s mindset.Most Americans would not willingly trade away their liberty for a modicum of security. Absence of freedom and liberty is not to be found in our Nation’s history, heritage, traditions, culture, or character. Freedom and liberty runs through and is the cornerstone of all of it.Freedom and liberty is what defines us as Americans. It is part and parcel of our makeup; our identity. Americans would never agree to nor tolerate life in a Country under a constant state of siege. The ostensible cure would be worse than the disease.Stringent control over guns and a population under constant surveillance, as evidenced in China or Singapore, is repugnant to Americans.Yet, even as our Nation moves in the direction of oppression—as Americans’ thoughts are censored, their actions monitored, their privacy invaded—as the surveillance State takes hold and tyranny becomes more evident and prevalent, criminal violence isn’t tapering off. It’s getting worse.And spikes in crime are most evident in Democrat-controlled Cities such as New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and L.A., and Philadelphia, PA.Yet it is these Cities with the highest incidences of crime in the Nation that have enacted some of the most restrictive gun laws in the Nation.These Cities are lenient toward psychopathic criminals on the one hand, and brain-addled lunatics and illegal aliens, on the other. The former have no regard for the law even if they do understand it; and the latter, lacking all comprehension of the law, cannot possibly have regard for it.So, unlike China and Singapore—two Countries that can at least boast of relief from most violent crime—we in the United States under the domination of Democrats have not relief from violent crime even as the citizenry sees systematic erosion of its God-Given rights. The net result is that we have neither security nor liberty.But even as we Americans presently have neither, the pertinent question is this: why can’t Americans have both security and liberty?The idea, thrust on Americans by the Government, that you can have one or the other but not both is a false dichotomy. The two go together. In fact, the two are inextricably bound together.Armed Self-Defense—against insistent and persistent dangers wrought by predatory man, predatory creature, or the predatory Government—is the well-spring of security for preservation of the Republic and preservation of Self. That same right of Armed Self-Defense is also the preeminent and elemental foundation of Freedom and Liberty, upon which all other freedoms and liberty rest.If one is denied exercise of the right of armed self-defense, then preservation of both Self and Country is endangered, and one is not free. Any such “freedom” that one thinks he has or is told by others that he has, in the absence of exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, is illusory.Armed self-defense, necessary for both security of Self and “necessary for the security of a free State” is at one and the same time a basic liberty and natural law right and is codified as such in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.Many of our Nation’s purported leaders don’t see the plain truth of this and, further, deny the fact of it; and too many rank and file Americans don’t see the truth either.And the pity of it is that the rest of us, the majority of us, who are not susceptible to the delusion fostered by Government and a seditious Press must suffer the consequences just the same.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

CORRUPTION AND UNFAIRNESS PLAGUE THE NYPD LICENSE DIVISION

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS AND ON PROBLEMS ATTENDANT TO NEW YORK CITY'S CONCEALED HANDGUN CARRY SCHEMA

PART FOUR

New York City’s handgun licensing rules are bloated and absurd as written and adopted, and are arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory in their application. This engenders abuse of discretion. Even worse, the City’s handgun licensing scheme has, in recent years, invited outright criminal corruption in those NYPD officers whose job it is to administer the licensing process.Stephen L. D’Andrilli, co-author of this article, co-founder of the Arbalest quarrel, and a decorated veteran police officer with the NYPD, pointed all this out when queried about the present licensing scheme in a 2016 CNN Money article, titled, “Only in New York: Bribing cops for a gun license.”The reporter, Aaron Smith, wrote in pertinent part:“Buying a gun in America can be an expensive ordeal. Or it can be cheap and easy. It depends on where you live.Bribing cops for gun licenses could only happen in a place like New York. In most other parts of the United States, licenses are not even required for handguns.‘New York City, as a major city in the U.S., is one of the most restrictive cities in the country concerning gun licensing laws,’ said retired police officer Stephen D'Andrilli, a former NYPD cop who is now a consultant for clients seeking handgun licenses.The licensing system is meant to filter out dangerous applicants, like those with a history of domestic violence. But D'Andrilli, who extolls the ‘utmost importance’ of the Second Amendment through his website the Arbalest Quarrel, said the restrictive laws of New York have created an environment that allows a black market to exist.‘What they're doing is they're creating a privilege for having a gun and licensing it and they're creating this prohibition style system where people are paying someone off to get a gun,’ he said.”The CNN report wasn’t the only piece on NYPD corruption in the License Division. The Daily News published, on April 25, 2016, an article by New York attorney and former NYPD Trial Commissioner, Arnold Kriss. The article is titled, “Massive questions behind the blue wall: We need an independent commission to probe NYPD.” Arnold Kriss said,“For the first time in over 60 years, top NYPD officials are accused of taking money and gifts for favors. Where this will go when the ship-jumping begins and the brass and others start talking to federal prosecutors — non-stop — is anyone’s guess.This is potentially department-shattering stuff.” And, one year to the day after the Daily News article came out, WSJ came out with its story on License Division corruption in an article titled, “Former NYPD Officers Face Federal Bribery Charges”: “Three ex-officers and a former Brooklyn prosecutor are accused of swapping gun licenses for cash, prostitutes, guns and more.In the scheme, so-called expediters, or individuals who charge clients to help them get gun-license approvals, bribed officers in the NYPD’s gun licensing division, according to prosecutors. These officers then approved or expedited more than 100 gun licenses, including for people with criminal histories, prosecutors said.”Outright criminal conduct in the NYPD License Division may have been cleaned up, yet serious problems attendant to the awarding of concealed handgun carry licenses in New York remain. These core problems can only be resolved through a massive restructuring and transformation of the entire concealed handgun NYPD licensing structure in the City.The task ahead is immensely difficult if not well-nigh impossible because the problems that beset the NYPD License Division are inextricably entwined in New York's historical landscape. New York City's present Mayor Eric Adams, isn't the man to take on the task, as he hasn't the will to do so. In fact, his sympathies rest with leaving matters as they are. Even as the City continues to burn, Eric Adams' message doesn't change when it comes to the issue of guns, for he continues to conflate criminal violence with gun violence. Back on January 24, 2022, the Mayor said, as reported by Fox News,“‘We are in the middle of a crisis with guns,’ said Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg over the weekend. ‘You carry a gun in our city, there is no apology to you,’ Adams added.New York state and city have some of the most strict gun laws in the country, prohibiting most people in the state to openly carry, but Democratic leaders point to guns coming in from other states as a culprit behind the skyrocketing shootings.”One should take note that Adams doesn't draw a distinction between guns as carried by average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens for self-defense, and the lunatics and criminals who injure or kill innocent people, regardless of the means employed by these lunatics and criminals. Arming the citizen is not on his radar. From Mayor Adams'  perspective, the armed responsible, rational, law-abiding citizen is as much a threat to the well-being of the City as are the lunatics and psychopaths who prey upon them. The problem is that New York City is far removed from being a tranquil, idyllic paradise. It is a hell-scape. Everyone knows it. Certainly, the Mayor does. But he refuses even to consider the fact that arming tens of thousands of innocent people, who wish to take responsibility for their own life and well-being, as is their fundamental right, might succeed in securing for New Yorkers a truly safe environment that, to date, has stubbornly eluded and resisted remedying. The Mayor surely desires to reduce the plague of incessant violent crime that has gripped the City for years. Or does he? Is it just gross incompetence, or is it  a cultivated habit and predilection against guns that prevent him from trying something new, trying a new tactic that accounts for his failure to get a handle on violent crime that has a vise-grip on the City? Or is it something more alarming and disturbing that prevents him from relaxing the draconian standards that, to date, preclude the mass of average, responsible, rational, law-abiding citizens from securing, for him or herself, a concealed handgun carry license, enabling the citizen to lawfully purchase a handgun in New York, thereby providing the citizen with the means—the only truly effective means—by which that citizen can protect him or herself against violent, irrational, unprovoked, and random, predatory attack? Does Eric Adams have a latent or calculated desire to take an active role in destroying a free Constitutional Republic? And does that latent or calculated desire inform the Mayor's actions and the actions of political leaders like Eric Adams who seem to be incapable of providing for the welfare of the people of his City? Is the placement of Eric Adams in the Office of Mayor of New York City, by the perverse machinations of Neo-Marxist Internationalist Neoliberal Globalist elites, all by design?Is Eric Adams, not unlike the Chicago Mayor, Laurie Lightfoot, and myriad others, who, operating at the behest of creatures like George Soros, see the need for and who tolerate or who even encourage a complete breakdown of America's institutions and societal order that a new, seemingly better global order can take root and eventually supplant all western nation-states? And, to that end, is it not the armed citizen, rather than the armed and crazed criminal or lunatic that these Neo-Marxist Internationalists and Neoliberal Globalists perceive as the true problem? If that is the case, then lunatics, and psychopaths, and garden-variety criminals, and the tens of millions of illegal aliens looking for and promised free goodies at expense of the American taxpayer, and the well-funded, international drug and sex-trafficking cartels hopping into and out of the Nation's Southern Border, at will, all serve a purpose. It is these sordid elements that the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalists see as useful, even necessary tools—operating on their behalf, albeit unconsciously—to hasten the end of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State. And it is the armed American citizen whose presence—indeed, whose very existence—prevents the accomplishment of their goal, whom these ruthless forces that crush view as their one true, intractable and formidable foe. So it is that the message about guns and the tone, coming out of the Mayor and coming out of the tools like him, such as the current President of the United States, Joe Biden, are always the same. The explicit message is that it is guns that are bad; guns that are evil; guns that are the root cause of society's problems—that are the root cause of the Nation's problems. The tacit message is that it is guns in the hands of the citizenry that is the root cause of the Nation's woes; it is the armed citizen who is a danger to Nation and Country, and to “democracy.” And who are these armed citizens? It is those people—those Americans who seek to exercise the right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is those people who pose a genuine threat, an insistent threat, to “democracy.” It is those political “conservatives,” those “white supremacists and racists,” those members of organized “militias”—in fact, any American who happens to hold to a vision of America as reflected in the Nation's Bill of Rights, who view our Nation as the founders of the Republic viewed it; who hold true to that vision, and who fervently desire to preserve the history, heritage, culture, values and core Christian ethos upon which a new Nation rose and rapidly became the most prosperous, powerful, and vigorous Nation on Earth. It is these people whom the hordes of Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” abhor and fear. And it is guns wielded by tens of millions of average Americans that the Marxist internationalists and the Neoliberal Globalist “elites” must contend with, must constrain, must defeat so that the United States can be brought low, and the Nation's remains can be inserted into a new western international order, the “Open Society” that the Globalist kingpin, George Soros, has been entrusted to bring to fruition. But none of this is spoken about by the leaders, the flunkies, the placeholders of high Government Office. Instead, they deflect attention away from the campaign to systematically dismantle a free Republic and entrap and enslave tens of millions of Americans. The matter of Ukraine is a convenient vehicle to direct the American public's attention. Discussion of Ukraine serves that purpose, as it has nothing to do with us, Americans, but serves as a useful mechanism for the forces that crush, providing them with a made-to-order safety valve through which to vent and divert the public's justified attention and concerns over the fate of their Country. The forces that crush have successfully diverted public attention away from the Nation's economy, away from the systematic destruction of the Nation's institutions, away from the industrial scale corruption in Government and its failure to uphold the laws and Constitution of the Nation, and away from the usurpation of the sovereignty of the people over Government, that becomes more and more obvious with each passing day. But, the problem of guns in the hands of tens of millions of citizens remains an intolerable, insufferable problem for these Marxists/Globalists. And a different tack is employed to deal with that: continually attack guns and attack criminal violence through the use of guns. But, as for the criminal or lunatic or psychopath who is responsible for violent crime—that person gets a pass.And as for the issue of guns, the focus is on New York City—as a microcosm, a stand-in for the rest of urban America. It is guns, in the City, then, rather than the individual who misuses them that are responsible for criminal violence; not the sentient mind—not the criminals and lunatics and all the rest of the flotsam and jetsam that are agents of violence occurring throughout the City, who reasonably bear sole responsibility, sole responsibility for that violence. And, even there, the tale of woe in the City isn't about guns—not really. For if the creatures causing the mayhem in New York City and in other major urban areas around the Country are simply—albeit unconsciously—working at the behest of the Neo-Marxists and Neoliberal Globalist elites who seek to hasten the demise of a free Constitutional Republic, then talk about guns as THE problem is really nothing more than a makeweight; or perhaps, not even that. The issue of guns and so-called gun violence is itself simply a deflection. It is a distraction—a distraction away from a discussion of crime and away even from guns, and toward a discussion, tacit as it is, of the armed citizenry, and of the tens of millions of firearms in the hands of the armed citizenry. And, is it mere coincidence, that the Stooge in Chief, the corrupt, demented Joe Biden keeps coming back to the issue of guns, and to the need to curtail them, now especially, with the midterm elections steadily approaching, and with the Democrats/Marxists/Globalists concerned that they are about to lose their tenuous control of Congress?And Eric Adams, himself, may not really fathom the extent to which he, too, is but a useful tool of secretive, powerful, ruthless elements and interests, whose singular goal is the destruction of the most powerful symbol of true freedom and liberty still existent in the world: the United States, as a free Constitutional Republic. So, it is no accident that Eric Adams doesn't even suggest arming the innocent person to combat rampant, violent crime in the City. The whole object is to disarm that person. Better, it is, then—even as it is unstated—to accept the intractable violence. As this state of affairs benefits the Neo-Marxists and the Neoliberal Globalists and their agenda; better it is to accept intractable violence, even use it to advantage, so that citizens remain unarmed and those that are armed—disarm them by any means, legal or not, to effectuate that result. Thus, Eric Adams will not deign to allow innocent New York City residents and workers and visitors to the City, to defend themselves against increasing random violent crime, even as that alone would offer immediate respite for a tired, anxious City, from the mayhem—the “orchestrated” mayhem. But, at least New Yorkers can rest easy knowing that their illustrious Mayor is well protected even if they, themselves, are not. Protecting the Mayor from the orchestrated violence is the first and last order of business. New York residents and workers, and visitors to the City, don't factor into that equation.  As reported by Politico,“[t]he NYPD increased security for Eric Adams Tuesday [April 12, 2022], after complaints about the mayor surfaced on social media in the wake of the subway shooting that wounded 23 commuters. . . .Police Commissioner Keechant Sewell said from NYPD headquarters in Lower Manhattan, where she was joined by police brass and a representative from the FBI. ‘In an abundance of caution, we are tightening the mayor’s security detail.’ Sewell said the references to Adams, while not direct threats, were concerning enough to lead her to beef up the mayor’s security detail, which is currently overseen by his brother.”So, then, what does this report tell you: one, that, Mayor Adams' plan to tackle violent crime hasn't done a damn thing to curb violent crime one bit; two, that the Mayor's well-hyped plan for dealing with violent crime hasn't made a dent in it and, in fact, the City's violent crime only worsens; and, three, that the beefing up of the mayor's own security detail only serves to emphasize the horrific criminal violence, running rampant in the City—which, apparently, is a thing expected; tolerated; even welcomed—as it hastens the destruction of American society and the birth of a globalized slave community of billions of souls.So, the public shouldn't expect to see a paradigm shift in the City's tackling of violent crime; certainly not any time soon—and for the reason set forth above. The salient reason why violent crime in New York City will continue unabated is because that disruption of society is all calculated; it is all by design. It is in strict accordance with the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist game plan: one that started with Bill Clinton; continued under the regimes of George Bush and Barack Obama; and would certainly have continued under a Hillary Clinton Presidency but for the unexpected loss to Donald Trump in 2016, who, despite incessant attempts to sabotage his Presidency and railroad him personally, actually and remarkably brought a measure of stability to the Country, at least for a time; but, then, Trump was cast aside by ruthless and powerful forces both inside and outside the Country. The Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist returned to its agenda, and made up for four years of lost time; continuing apace under the corrupt, effete, emotionally, and intellectually weak and demented Joe Biden—just the unbelievably ridiculous stooge the forces that crush needed and wanted to unravel Trump's accomplishments that served to strengthen and stabilize the Country on all major indicators of health: social, economic, and geopolitical.And, where is this Country now? Economically, socially, and geopolitically, the Country is weak; stagnant. It is in a state of precipitous decline, as intended.Now, more than ever, the Nation's citizenry must be attuned to the wreck of their Country. They must retain control of their weaponry. There may come a time in the not too distant future that the armed citizen will be all that's left to keep the Republic intact. But, as for Cities like New York, the armed citizen, a force otherwise to be reckoned with, will not be tolerated. Fortunately, New York City and several other jurisdictions are beyond the pale. It must be left to the U.S. Supreme Court—the last bastion of hope among the three Branches of the U.S. Government—to preserve the Republic. And the Court's handling of the Bruen case gives the Court ample opportunity. But, will the Justices be up to the task?The belief system of many people in major urban areas that are beset by uncommon violent crime is to reject out-of-hand, recourse to firearms in the hands of the commonalty. And, so, denizens of New York aren't going to see a transformation in attitudes or policies toward civilian citizen ownership. And Mayor Adams, for his part, will continue to reinforce, rather than change, the public's attitudes toward armed self-defense, even in the face of intractable violent crime. That must now be left to the U.S. Supreme Court. And that Branch of Government has also been under attack. The recent Senate confirmation of Ketanji Brown Jackson is a move in the wrong direction. Her methodology for reviewing cases, and her philosophical predilections are wholly distinct from that of Associate Justices Thomas, Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, and the late eminent Justice Antonin Scalia, and that jurisprudential philosophy is altogether inconsistent with the preservation of the U.S. Constitution as written, and, so, as conceived by the framers of it.  It is not expected that Brown will render an opinion on the Bruen case, as a decision on the case is expected in early summer. But, Justice Breyer intends to step down until the current term ends in late June or early July, as reported by Forbes. And that is cutting it close. The danger is that Breyer will leave prior to a decision being handed down in Bruen. Although neither Breyer's bizarre notion of the import of the Second Amendment nor the methodology employed in case analysis is expected to comprise part of the majority opinion if the Conservative wing holds firm, still his jurisprudential philosophy is a known quantity and will be reflected in his dissenting opinions which will comport with his dissenting opinions in Heller and McDonald. But dissenting opinions do have weight, and the analysis therein can be adopted in future case decisions if the liberal wing of the Court secures a majority. As an internationalist, a dissenting opinion in the Bruen case, composed by Ketanji Brown Jackson, is likely to be much more radical than one composed by Breyer. She is likely to imbue her views of guns and the Second Amendment from the standpoint of international law and international norms—that law and those norms fashioned by the United Nations and the EU, and thereby ignore or even refute the principle that High Court decisions involving natural law rights codified in the Bill of Rights—must adhere to the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights which, means, then, the application of American norms, to case law analysis, and must not impose international norms on BOR analysis and decisions. More people like Ketanji Brown Jackson on the High Court will result in a radical contravention of U.S. Supreme Court case review. The Constitution, thus interpreted by international law and international norms standards, which are completely alien to us—that do not, for example, even recognize the right of the people to keep and bear arms as a fundamental, unalienable, eternal, immutable right—would invariably, irreparably damage and upend the Nation's Bill of Rights, upon which individual autonomy, individual liberty, and American sovereignty over the Government rests and upon which a free Constitutional Republic can only hope to survive.How, then, would Ketanji Brown Jackson rule in the Bruen case? One need only look at the presence of New York City's absurd and unconstitutional concealed handgun carry regime to get an inkling of Ketanji Brown Jackson's view of the Second Amendment Right, which she would defend, and which she, no less than the Mayor of New York City, himself, would refrain from ever tampering with.That bizarre mindset—alien to the philosophical underpinnings of our Nation as reflected in its Constitution, and particularly, in the Nation's Bill of Rights—won't change for the following reasons:First, the idea of arming civilian citizens so that they may take an active role in tackling the intractable violence plaguing the City remains more repugnant to the Mayor, and to tens of thousands of frightened New York City residents who voted for him, than is the presence of legions of lunatics and psychopaths who have taken over the City and who continually, and with impunity, prey on, and who pose a constant threat to the millions of innocent people who reside in and/or work in the City. The fear of guns and gun ownership and possession is deep-seated, unconscious, difficult to dislodge from many a New York resident's psyche.Second, reformation of the concealed handgun carry license schema in New York City is difficult—indeed well-nigh impossible—because the regulatory regime is itself a product of, grounded in, and inextricably bound to and entwined in the actions of the New York State Legislature, in Albany. Third, the actions of Albany are tied to New York's historical landscape that bespeaks a long-standing aversion to, and even pathological abhorrence toward the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Fourth, over a hundred years of New York case law is directed to and devoted to the destruction of the natural law right of armed self-defense. The United States Supreme Court rulings in Heller and McDonald, do nothing to dispel the New York Courts antagonism toward the natural law right of armed self-defense. Rather, the State and Federal Courts engage in bizarre jurisprudential contortions, distortions, and confabulations that serve at once to dismiss Heller and McDonald rulings and reaffirm old Second Amendment New York rulings that perpetuate historical prejudices about the Second Amendment and are wholly inconsistent with Heller and McDonald.In our next article, we explain in detail the nature of the difficulties attendant to reforming New York City's concealed handgun carry licensing regime.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS’ “BLUEPRINT TO END GUN VIOLENCE” IS A HOAX

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS

PART THREE

NYC Mayor Eric Adams’ comprehensive strategy to stem the tide of intractable criminal violence in the City will do nothing of the kind—is doing nothing of the kind. It is a hoax, plain and simple, albeit one well-planned and orchestrated. It is intended to delude the public into placing confidence in his Administration. It is designed to convince the public that the Mayor is doing something concrete to promote public safety. And that is to mean that he has a handle on violent crime. Image is everything, and Mayor Adams maintains vigorous control over that image, carefully overseeing all communications that go out to the Press. See the article in Legal Insurrection, published, on April 4, 2022, titled,  “‘Discipline of Message’: NYC Mayor Adams Wants to Approve All City's Communications.”The “Blueprint,” released with fanfare on the “Official website of the City of New York,” on January 24, 2022, creates an impression, as it was undoubtedly designed to do, that Eric Adams intends to deal head-on with the intractable crime problem—a violent crime wave that continually threatens millions of innocent people in the City, whether they reside there, work there, or are simply visiting.But, how well is this “Blueprint to End Gun Violence” working out? Not so well, it turns out. And that fact is difficult to hide, much as Mayor Adams would like to hide it, regardless of the clampdown on communications from the Mayor’s Office.Even the Radical Left, which supports the Mayor, realizes this and is vocal about it. See MSN.com which cites an article appearing on the website, Slate. The progressive left website, Slate, harbors no illusion about the inherent deficiencies of the Mayor’s “Blueprint,” and expressly asserts its belief about it, referring to the Mayor's plan as a “Trojan Horse.”Be that as it may, “Slate’s” disagreement with Adams’ “Blueprint” has nothing to do with overt concern over incessant crime in the City. Rather, Slate expresses displeasure at the prospect of the Mayor's plan targeting the perpetrators of it, the majority of whom happen to be “non-white” people.Slate posits the plan as racist and, and expresses its indignation and disdain over the implementation, implying that the presence of violent, horrific crime in New York City is preferable to the measures the Mayor intends to invoke to contain it.And violent crime does continue to spiral out of control, as reported on Fox News, on March 2. 2022.See also the article in law enforcement today, posted on April 9, 2022.So, with pushback on Adams’ “Blueprint” coming from polar opposite corners, one wonders if there is a solution to the problem of intractable crime at all.There is a solution, of course. But it’s a solution this Mayor, no less than the previous one, refuses to countenance. For, the perfect solution to incessant, violent crime in the City is one that both Adams, and his predecessor, de Blasio, consider more problematic than runaway horrific violence.And we all know what that solution is: It’s “the armed citizen.”If Eric Adams truly wished to deal effectively with the intractable violent crime problem in the City, he would revise the City’s politically motivated handgun licensing Rules that, on any serious reflection, are absurd. He would have to do this if he were serious about combatting violent crime. And, he doesn’t have to wait for the U.S. Supreme Court to make that decision for him through the Bruen case.But that isn’t a tack that Mayor Adams and Governor Hochul, no less than their predecessors, Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo would ever consider—not in their wildest dreams.In fact, these people have spent considerable time hobbling the average citizens’ access to the most effective means of ensuring their defense against violent crime. Of course, the criminals and lunatics know this too. And that goes far to explain how it is and why it is violent crime in New York continues to increase exponentially. Criminals and lunatics know that it is more likely than not that their targets won’t be armed and therefore need not fear their would-be victims turning the tables on them.From his latest comments, Mayor Adams' posture on the armed civilian citizen is clear enough. And that posture explains why he doesn't refer to armed self-defense at all as a means to deal a blow to violent crime. For, the mainstay of Mayor Adams' approach to curtailing violent crimes involves ramping up police efforts to curb crime. See the recent article in the progressive website Politico published on April 3, 2022.Also see the transcript of April 3, 2022, Face the Nation interview of Eric Adams, and the article in Bearing Arms.Eric Adams refers to himself as the new “face of the Democratic Party,” as reported in the New York Post. But, on reflection, his isn't really a new face at all. It is simply a new mask worn over an old face.It is clear enough, from prior remarks he made, that Mayor Adams is an avid supporter of stringent gun licensing in New York, no less so than the new New York Governor, Kathy Hochul. See February 4, 2021 article in St. Andrews Law Review:“Public officials fear any outcome that curtails their ability to regulate firearms. New York City Mayor Eric Adams said that restricting the state’s ability to regulate weapons will simply instigate violence. Governor Kathy Hochul echoed Adams’ sentiments in similar remarks.” And Arizona State University Crime and Justice News reported this, on Eric Adams' stance on firearms’ licensing, apropos of the Bruen ruling:“The ruling is expected to come down after Eric Adams replaces de Blasio as mayor. Adams, who emphasized public safety as key to the city's recovery during his campaign, said that limiting the state's ability to regulate firearms ‘is a recipe for disaster.’”Thus, Mayor Adams dismisses out-of-hand the most effective means at his disposal. For it is the armed citizen who can, in the final analysis, play an important role in combatting intractable, violent crime in the City.Adams sees, albeit erroneously, the armed citizen as likely aggravating a volatile criminal situation in the City rather than lessening violence. So if New York City is to see any change to the concealed handgun carry licensing Rules, such change will have to come from the rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court itself.See the article in The Ticker:“New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, Mayor Bill de Blasio and Mayor-elect Eric Adams have concerns over this case, primarily from a public safety viewpoint.While safety is certainly a factor that can be used to determine which specific, sensitive public places can prohibit firearms, such as libraries, it cannot be used to serve as a prior restraint to prevent people from being able to defend themselves with firearms outside of their home completely.By the end of the arguments, most of the justices appeared likely to strike down or limit New York’s law.If the court correctly rules in favor of the petitioners, New York could be forced to rewrite its law to allow more citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense, with clearer criteria and less discretionary hurdles.In addition, New York could become a ‘shall issue’ state, which would compel licensing officers to approve applications if they meet objectively set state requirements, such as meeting the minimum age and having no felony criminal activity.While some advocates will argue that allowing more citizens to carry firearms in public for self-defense will lead to an increase in uncontrolled gun violence, the result would be the opposite.Allowing more good citizens to legally carry guns will lead to more deterrence and a higher likelihood that they will be able to successfully defend their families and themselves against criminals.New York is one of the most restrictive states when it comes to allowing citizens to legally have firearms, yet it declared a statewide gun violence emergency in July ignoring the fact that most of the gun violence is a direct consequence of illegal, not legal, firearms.Most states, both liberal and conservative states included, adopted a ‘shall issue’ system in recent decades, yet they have less violence than in New York.”Also see the article in the Free Republic.New York as with several other jurisdictions around the Country gives great latitude to handgun licensing officials to make the decision whether to issue an unrestricted handgun carry license to the applicant, or not. Yet, it is the States with the most restrictive gun licensing that are plagued by violent crime. You would think that Cities like New York would consider relaxing the rules on the issuance of concealed handgun carry licenses, since nothing else, historically and to date works, effectively to deter violent crime. Yet, nothing is done. Go figure.The governing principle of these jurisdictions—that uniformly abhor the notion of the armed citizen who takes responsibility for his or her personal defense—is the “may issue/proper cause” standard to carry a handgun, concealed. That standard, as applied in New York City, is up for review at the U.S. Supreme Court. And a decision is anticipated in early Summer 2022.How will the U.S. Supreme Court rule in Bruen? It is expected that the Court will rule the NYPD standards for determining the propriety of issuing a concealed handgun carry license to be unconstitutional both as constructed and as applied.To be sure, the entire “may issue” structure for issuing a concealed handgun license in any jurisdiction around the Country is misguided from the get-go because the standards created whatever they may be, are inherently subjective as applied. The entire “may issue” structure is unsound and anathema to the fundamental, unalienable natural law right codified in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.The very constitutionality of “may issue/proper cause” was at the heart of the Bruen case, pushing well beyond the borders of New York City and New York State, as the issue was promulgated in Plaintiffs Brief to the Court.But Chief Justice John Roberts narrowed the focus of Bruen, thereby forcing the Justices to consider only the constitutionality of the City’s concealed handgun carry Rules. The salient issue of whether “may issue” infringes the core of the Second Amendment is not up for review.By doing this, the issue, as framed for review, takes as a given that “may issue” is sound and valid but that the City’s Rules regarding “may issue” might not be.It will be interesting to see what Justices Thomas and Alito do with this. Consistent with their opinions in the seminal Second Amendment cases, Heller and McDonald, Justices Thomas and Alito may well view the entirety of “may issue/proper cause schemes unconstitutional, notwithstanding the deformation of the issue by Chief Justice Roberts. In that event, their opinions would be relegated to concurrences; not majority rulings, and other “may issue/proper cause” jurisdictions can rest easy that their own draconian handgun carry licensing rules remain untouched by Bruen. This, no doubt, is what Chief Justice Roberts and the liberal wing of the Court had in mind; had certainly intended to do to soften what otherwise would seem to augur yet another landmark Second Amendment case decision.If a handgun licensing scheme is to be retained in New York City at all, it should be simplified, made straightforward, and applied fairly to all applicants. In particular, concealed carry provisions should address the needs of the average law-abiding, responsible citizens who do business in the City and/or reside there. And provision should be made for those law-abiding, responsible citizens who happen to visit the City.The present New York City handgun licensing scheme is deficient on any rational measure. And it isn’t applied in a fair and impartial manner.And woe to any person from another jurisdiction who brings a handgun into the City, and is found possessing a handgun, sans a valid unrestricted handgun carry license issued by the NYPD Licensing Division. At the moment it is that person, and not the gun-wielding rabid lunatic, psychopathic gangbanger, or garden-variety common criminal who will suffer the greatest wrath from the City’s criminal justice system.It has always been thus. And that fact isn’t going to change soon, regardless of the enormity and severity of crime in the City. See the article posted in Ammoland Shooting Sports News, published, August 6, 2015, titled, “Who’s Packing In New York City?” But, even if the Bruen Court strikes down, or otherwise places stringent curbs on the inordinate discretion presently extended to the NYPD Licensing Division in prosecuting applications for concealed handgun carry licenses, it is another question entirely—and a pertinent one—whether the Mayor’s Office will abide by that High Court decision. And that is worrisome.Consider——Back in November 2021, Mayor-Elect Eric Adams specifically addressed Bruen, on MSNBC News, when questioned by the host, Andrea Mitchell:“‘The concealed weapon ruling that’s going to come about is extremely challenging for us,’ says Adams. ‘This is different from a rural county somewhere. And this could have a major impact on our ability to keep our city safe, but we will adjust.’”So, there you have it! In an act of sly casuistry, rather than clarity, the Mayor says, “we will adjust.” He doesn’t say, “we will comply with the rulings of the Court.”  The Mayor's choice of words is telling. For he would rather suffer continuing waves of violent crime than acquiesce to the Constitutional right of all citizens to bear a handgun outside the home or outside their place of business, for their own defense.Even with a U.S. Supreme Court directive that might strike down the entire licensing structure of New York City, the Mayor of New York City and the Governor of the State will—by dictate of the Neoliberal Globalists and Globalist Marxist forces that secretly control them—fanatically resist the reversal of over a century of ever-growing unconstitutional restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And we know whereof we speak, based on past practices.We have seen how State, local, and county governments, along with lower Courts have—have, through the last decade—blatantly, arrogantly, and contemptuously dismissed out-of-hand clear and explicit rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court in the seminal Heller and McDonald cases.Can one reasonably expect that the State of New York and its major metropolitan area, New York City, will do an immediate and abrupt about-face toward concealed handgun carry when Bruen, as the third seminal Second Amendment case, comes down the pike with further explicit rulings? Sadly, we have to say: Not likely! The State and City will come up with dubious schemes to avoid taking any action that would do harm to a handgun licensing structure that has been in place for over 110 years.New York City residents should not expect the Mayor to reform the City’s draconian handgun licensing Rules even with clear, categorical rulings from the High Court.Mayor Eric Adams is of the same mindset and holds to the same alien ideology as both his predecessor, Bill de Blasio, and the Governor of New York, Kathy Hochul, and boasts the same sympathies of myriads of other Federal, State, and local government flunkies.It would be naïve to think Eric Adams is cut from a different cloth. The secretive powerful interests behind his election are the same as those who thrust de Blasio into Office. These powerful, malevolent interests have made certain that the toadies they place into Office share the same worldview, and that worldview is not amenable to the preservation of a free Constitutional Republic.These forces are intent on replacing a free Republic, and a sovereign people, with an entirely new and ambitious, political, social, economic, financial, juridical, and multicultural construct. It is a paradigm antithetical to the needs and desires and fundamental rights of the American people. This new paradigm or framework goes by many names: “the international order;” “the new world order;” “the global democratic liberal world order;” Kissinger’s “world order,” the “neo-feudal world order,” “liberal internationalism,” and, the “Soros/Open Society.” But, by whatever name, the demise of the United States as a truly sovereign, independent Nation-State, along with the demise of the American citizenry as sole sovereign of their Government and the demise of the very concept of ‘citizen’ are the end goals.To accomplish these ends, the forces that crush are hell-bent on shattering the will, psyche, reasoning capacity, and sanity of the American people.To that end, violent societal upheaval is not to be contained or constrained, but to be encouraged.Americans have in the last few years witnessed violent societal upheaval. They see many of their political leaders embracing, enhancing, aggravating upheaval without care for the horror and misery inflicted on innocent individuals.We have seen this “Democrat Party” tolerating, even coaxing, and encouraging BLM and ANTIFA riots in the Summer of 2020 and the rioting continues today. See, e.g., articles in the Washington Examiner, and The Frontier Post.The vigorous, violent, outrageous assault on the U.S. Constitution and on the American citizenry by the ruthless, powerful, inordinately wealthy, and well-connected forces that crush is plain:

• Conceptualization and Implementation of a coordinated FBI hit job on ordinary American citizens who have justifiably sought a serious, comprehensive investigation of and serious accounting of those shenanigans and machinations involving the 2020 election that improbably ensconced, as titular head of the Executive Branch of Government, an obviously corrupt, emotionally and physically weak, and dementia-ridden shell of a man;

• Outrageous DOJ Persecution of “militia” members and Castigation and Remonstrations against average American parents who simply wish to exercise their fundamental rights of free speech and free association without fear of governmental backlash, interference, and reprisals for harboring ideas and beliefs inconsistent with that of the Administration;

• Endangering the Sanctity and Inviolability of the American Citizenry by unlawfully and brazenly secreting into the Nation hordes of illegal aliens from around the world, including violent criminals—literally millions of them;

• Massive Social Engineering Programs and Social and Psychic Conditioning and Indoctrination of the entire American citizenry: including Adults, Youth, and Children;

• Deliberate Actions aimed at Demoralizing and Weakening the Military and Community Police apparatuses of the Nation;

• Placement of scores of defective, incompetent, easily, malleable people in the highest levels of Government to assist in the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic

• Consolidation of all the Apparatuses of Government by which the dismantling of a free Constitutional Republic can proceed at a record pace, unconstrained, from within.

And the public is expected to do nothing to prevent the coopting of their Country, but simply acquiesce, sit still, and moronically enjoy the hayride to oblivion. And, for those Americans who refuse to submit, who know what is in store for them and their Country, and who refuse to be mesmerized by the claptrap incessantly spread through the airwaves, legacy newspapers, and the internet, they can expect to be unceremoniously crushed beneath the wheels of the hay wagon.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

NYC MAYOR ERIC ADAMS HAS HIS OWN ARMED PROTECTION; WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF US?

MULTI SERIES ON NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS

PART TWO

It is important for Americans to recognize—especially for those Americans who reside in New York City—that the City’s Mayor, Eric Adams, is no friend of the common man even as his image-makers project him out to be just that.Adams isn’t a cut above his predecessor, Bill de Blasio. Rather, he is cut from the same cloth even as he attempts, albeit half-heartedly, to hide that fact.Of course, every Mayor goes about trumpeting his concern for the welfare of his City and the safety and well-being of the residents in it.Dealing with mounting crime in a community is a major component of a Mayor’s responsibility to his or her community and to the people who live or work in it.So, then, as crime in general and violent crime, in particular, continues to plague and soar in New York City, one must pointedly ask what Eric Adams is doing about it?Well, he is doing two quite different things: one thing for himself and one thing for the little people; the commonalty; the preterite: over 8 million people, at last count, according to the NYC Department of City Planning.As for his own life, safety, and well-being, Adams has pursued one course of action. It’s one that receives little publicity and precious little attention. And both he and Progressive/Marxist establishment leaders who pushed for his election, over that of Curtis Sliwa, want to keep it that way.  See also Fox News story.But, for the public at large—the common people of the New York City—Adams’ Administration has taken action that has drawn much publicity. And that is as he, and his myriad “behind the scenes” consultants, image-makers, and powerful Progressive/Marxist/Globalist Leadership Class do want.Let us look at the two different approaches to the matter of personal safety in New York City.  For himself, Eric Adams has surrounded himself with firepower—literally—and a lot of it.In that regard, it is apropos to note that, during his campaign, Adams said he would eschew a security detail.Yet even during the campaign, Adams equivocated. The Daily News reported, in June 2021:“Eric Adams once vowed he would carry a gun and ditch his security detail if elected mayor. Despite his pistol-packing pledge, the former NYPD captain was joined by a phalanx of off-duty cops Tuesday who shadowed the mayoral front-runner as he greeted voters across the city.  Spokeswoman Madia Coleman said a handful of off-duty police volunteered to shadow Adams after a campaign volunteer was stabbed in the Bronx over the weekend. But Adams suggested the detail came at the NYPD’s direction. ‘I only do what the police tell me to do,’ he said and laughed when asked if he was traveling with a detail.”[Of note] Adams didn’t have much to say about the beefed-up security accompanying him.”And now that Eric Adams is Mayor, having successfully duped most New York City residents to vote for him, he has even less to say about his personal security.But he is still laughing. Adams is ever the jovial frontman; the slippery and convivial con man.Dramatically emoting before the cameras, opening his suit jacket, pulling up a leg of his trousers, and dancing around in a circle, Eric Adams means to demonstrate, like a stage magician, that, after all, “there is no gun up his sleeve.” See the article in Bearing Arms on this.Obviously, the NYC Mayor doesn’t need to carry a handgun for personal protection. He doesn’t have to be armed, for he has substantial firepower standing all around him. And this is something the public isn’t supposed to notice.Like the adept stage magician he is, Adams distracts the audience. He directs the audience's attention solely to himself; away from the stone-faced NYPD security contingent standing around him, guarding him, who, to be sure, do have much up their sleeves—those kinds of things that Eric Adams makes clear he doesn’t have, at least on his person.One need not guess, but know, that this security detail has much firepower hidden in their belts and around their ankles. And they care not to exhibit that fact to the public. Unlike the Mayor, they don’t jump up, jump down, turn around, opening suit jackets, and raising the trouser legs, treating the dire business of personal protection like a humorous streetside vaudeville act. But, then, everyone knows the reason why.The Progressive/Marxist Leadership Class, of which Eric Adams is a part, doesn’t like to advertise the fact—an open secret among its members—that the best protection against violent predatory attack is, after all a pistol in the hands of someone proficient in its use. That little fact runs counter to the running narrative that guns are bad, that no one should have them, even as criminals and the well-connected and powerful have no problems obtaining them, and the average law-abiding citizen is routinely denied one.But, the Mayor’s hypocrisy doesn’t end there.Contrary to his assertion that he doesn’t take an active interest in the manner of personal security, the reality is quite different, and that reality includes a bit of good, old nepotism. Adams has appointed his brother to head his personal security.Reuters explains:“New York City Mayor Eric Adams has reassigned his younger brother to a job overseeing his physical security, the New York Times reported on Wednesday, days after naming him deputy police commissioner of the largest U.S. police department.Bernard Adams, a retired police sergeant of the New York Police Department, will serve as executive director of mayoral security, a job with a typical salary of $210,000, the Times reported. He was most recently a parking administrator at Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond, it added.The 56-year-old could have made $240,000 as an NYPD deputy commissioner. The security director role falls within the structure of the department, from which he retired after two decades on the force, the Times said.The mayor's office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.The hiring will require a waiver from the Conflicts of Interest Board, the city agency tasked with enforcing government ethics.Mayor Adams, a former police captain who took office on Jan. 1, on Sunday fended off concerns of nepotism, saying his office had started the process to clear his brother's appointment with the ethics board.”All right. We get it! New York City is a dangerous place and the Mayor qua citizen of New York City needs armed protection: a handgun at least, and, perhaps, a submachine gun, as well, discretely tucked away in one or more of his security escorts’ jacket or coat.But what about the average New York City resident? Is one to conclude that the average “John Q Public” or “Jane Q. Public” doesn’t, apparently, need a firearm for personal protection in the concrete jungle of New York City, or ought not need a firearm for personal protection in the concrete jungle of New York City?  The Mayor's position on this has become painfully obvious.Mayor Adams does nothing to support the common peoples’ quest to secure a handgun for their own protection as they venture out into the jungle that New York City has devolved into.So, then, what is the Mayor’s game plan for securing the safety and well-being of average New York City residents?Obviously, the City cannot, logistically and monetarily, provide NYPD armed security for the average New York City resident.Furthermore, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, community police officers have no duty, except under limited and carefully defined circumstances, to provide armed protection for individuals.This is a significant, consequential point that neither Government officials nor the Press ever mention. On the subject of police responsibility and sovereign immunity, see the Arbalest Quarrel article posted on our website on October 25, 2019, and reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on November 6, 2019, titled, “What Is The Duty Of A Community’s Police Force Toward A Citizen Whose Life Is In Imminent Threat Of Attack?” The article references a 1989 article co-authored by David Kopel and Stephen D’Andrilli, appearing in the magazine, “Women and Guns.” A reprise and update of the October 25, 2019, Arbalest Quarrel article was posted on AQ on November 21, 2019. See also the Arbalest Quarrel companion article, posted on our website on July 31, 2020, and reposted on Ammoland Shooting Sports News, on August 6, 2020, and titled, “The Government Cannot Protect You!” You Must Protect Yourself!”  What was true, then, is no less true today. Ultimately, the responsibility for one’s health, safety, and well-being falls to oneself as well it should; and as it always has. And, taking that premise as self-evident, true, the answer to the problem of increasing violent crime in the City is plain.The Mayor should allow—and, more to the point, should encourage—the law-abiding, responsible individual to take that responsibility upon him or herself.The Mayor should simplify the application process for those individuals who wish to secure a handgun for self-defense. And, it goes without need to dwell upon that a responsible person who wishes to take responsibility for his or her own safety and well-being and the safety and well-being of one’s family by carrying a handgun should become proficient in the safe handling and use of it.The old adage, “what is good for the goose, is good for the gander,” aptly applies to this situation. The Mayor is no less a New York City resident, and no less or more deserving of protection from predators than anyone else who lives and/or works in the City.If the Mayor has the right of armed protection—be it through the carrying of a handgun personally or through services rendered by an armed NYPD security detail—he should strongly urge, not deter, the average, rational, responsible, law-abiding New York City resident or worker from securing a handgun for his or her own protection as that person ventures out in the City, a dangerous environment that no one denies.Adams has much to say about clamping down on illegal gun possession and criminal use of guns, but he says nothing—absolutely nothing—concerning revising the City’s draconian gun laws that prevent rational, responsible, law-abiding people from possessing handguns for their self-defense in a City that has seen an explosion of violent crime against the innocent since de Blasio served as Mayor.Standing side-by-side with Lori Lightfoot, the infamous Mayor of Chicago, whose City has been continuously ravaged by violent crime for years and is deteriorating rapidly, Eric Adams has made clear from whom he obtains his guidance: those of like-mind: Radical Marxists.On March 18, 2022, the New York Post wrote, as the New York Mayor stood next to the Chicago Mayor, at a Press Conference that took place in Chicago,“Mayor Eric Adams promised Friday that he would take his campaign against gun violence national during a press conference with Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot in the Windy City, which has been hit hard by a surge in homicides and shootings.‘We need help from Washington, DC. We need to staff the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] appropriately. We need to do information sharing. We need to focus on those illegal gun manufacturers that are producing these guns that are proliferating our cities,’ [Eric Adams] told reporters there. ‘I’m gonna visit all my mayors across this country that get it.’”Adams later added that he would be ‘going to travel throughout the country and see what others are doing” when it comes to tackling gang and gun violence.’”Yet, for all the bravado about tackling “gun violence,” Adams says nothing about allowing the innocent victims of that “gun violence” from employing the best means available to defend themselves against that “gun violence.”The Justice System of New York City and the NYPD itself are in tatters after the insult the Communist Globalist de Blasio inflicted on those two venerable institutions.It will take a substantial amount of time to repair the damage after years of targeted defilement of both at the hands of Bill de Blasio.And, it doesn’t appear Eric Adams’ heart is truly in setting things right, as he feels compelled to mollycoddle the Radical Left elements.These elements are firmly entrenched in the core of City politics. And Adams continually demonstrates his allegiance to them.All the more reason then for the Mayor to accede to the wishes and needs of the average person who stands ready, willing, and able to take personal responsibility for his or her own safety and well-being and that of their family and business. The incessant threat of predatory attack—a condition that pervades and permeates throughout the City—is not to be denied, and it is not going away anytime soon regardless of what the Mayor does or intends to do about it. In fact, the Mayor tacitly, if grudgingly, admits it, as he must. Yet he adamantly refuses to recognize the fundamental, natural right of the individual to bear arms for his or her own defense. This is evidenced by the Mayor’s continual silence on the subject, leading one to draw the following disturbing but undeniable conclusion:Adams intends to deny to the average person the unalienable, immutable, illimitable, fundamental, natural right of armed self-defense; callously and capriciously dismissing out of hand the very cornerstone of our Nation as a free Constitutional Republic.The Mayor’s stance is unsound and indefensible but there it is nonetheless and the irrefutable fact of it belies anything Mayor Adams says or does to suggest he does care about the life and well-being of the people and that he does cherish the Constitutions of the United States and of the State of New York that he has sworn an oath to serve.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved

NEW YORK MAYOR ERIC ADAMS: DOES HE OR DOESN’T HE —CARRY A HANDGUN THAT IS? SHOULD IT MATTER?

NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ERIC ADAMS IS NO SAVIOR OF THE CITY AFTER THE IGNOMINIOUS, AND DISASTROUS REIGN OF BILL DE BLASIO, AN UNAPOLOGETIC COMMUNIST; HE IS JUST ANOTHER CONJURER, CHARLATAN, AND LIAR.

PART ONE

During his Mayoral run, Eric Adams asserted he would carry a handgun for self-defense once he became Mayor in lieu of reliance on a special police security detail.The New York Post, for one, reported, back in January 2020, that,“Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams, a former cop, said Thursday that he’d pack heat if elected mayor in 2021 rather than waste taxpayer money by having his own security detail like Mayor Bill de Blasio and his predecessors.“Yes I will, number one,’ Adams told the FAQ NYC podcast when asked if he’d pack a firearm as mayor.‘And number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city is safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’” Jump forward to March 26, 2022.In a news story titled, “Did Adams follow through on his campaign promise to carry a gun as mayor?”, 1010 News had this to say about Eric Adams’ remarks:“Now, as the mayor of New York City, he still has a security detail and demonstrated at a press conference Friday that he’s not walking around armed.When asked at a traffic safety event if he followed through on his promise, he smiled and opened his jacket to demonstrate he’s not carrying a gun.‘I stated that if I receive a threat from my intel that states there’s a real threat that I would make that determination. Intel protects me,’ said Adams. ‘If I feel the need to do so then I would do so.’[But] His quote from 2020 does not leave much room for interpretation, even if Adams would like to clarify his intent now.A host for the ‘FAQ NYC’ podcast [had] asked him ‘As mayor would you carry a firearm on you even with a security detail?’Adams responded ‘Yes I will, number one, and number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city’s safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’” See also the article in Arbalest Quarrel, titled, “NYPD Officer Shootings Draw Attention To Mayor Eric Adams’ Plans To Make NYS Safe: What Will He Do?”, posted on January 23, 2022. What is a person to make of Adams’ inconsistent remarks?Is the Mayor a hypocrite? Of course. There’s no way for Adams’ to slither around this, try as he might; try as he has.But, then, should anyone be surprised? After all, hypocrisy is a character trait of all politicians. It defines them, and not in a good way.The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word, ‘hypocrite,’ as a ‘person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.’ But there is much more to the word than that. The ancient Greeks from whom the word, ‘hypocrite’ derived perceived a hypocrite to be a heinous individual, deserving of contempt. The Merrian Webster Dictionary goes to some length in discussing the etymology of the word:“A number of different things might pop to mind when we hear the word hypocrite. Maybe it’s a politician caught in a scandal; maybe it’s a religious leader doing something counter to their creed; maybe it’s a scheming and conniving character featured in soap operas. But it’s likely that the one thing that doesn’t come to mind is the theater.The word hypocrite ultimately came into English from the Greek word hypokrites, which means ‘an actor’ or ‘a stage player.’ The Greek word itself is a compound noun: it’s made up of two Greek words that literally translate as ‘an interpreter from underneath.’ That bizarre compound makes more sense when you know that the actors in ancient Greek theater wore large masks to mark which character they were playing, and so they interpreted the story from underneath their masks. The Greek word took on an extended meaning to refer to any person who was wearing a figurative mask and pretending to be someone or something they were not. This sense was taken into medieval French and then into English, where it showed up with its earlier spelling, ypocrite, in 13th-century religious texts to refer to someone who pretends to be morally good or pious in order to deceive others. (Hypocrite gained its initial h- by the 16th century.) It took a surprisingly long time for hypocrite to gain its more general meaning that we use today [as pointed out supra] ‘a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.’” See also the Arbalest Quarrel article, titled, “Truth and Hypocrisy: Bill of Rights Betrayal,” posted on February 18, 2014, one of our first articles. In another Arbalest Quarrel article, posted, five days later, titled, “NY SAFE Advocate and Gun Hypocrite Ferguson: Is the Story Over? Not by a Long Shot,” we dealt further with the notion of ‘hypocrisy.’ Of ‘hypocrisy’ we said, in pertinent part, in that article:“A person who lies does not honor his fellows. No one should lie as a matter of practice. But those who know their words affect the lives of millions of others should be especially mindful of the impact of their words. Those who impact the lives of millions of people through lies are particularly heinous individuals. They do not honor their fellow man. And by failing to honor their fellow man they themselves are not honorable and are not worthy of honor.”Hypocrisy is rife in American politics. Politicians are cut from the same cloth, and Eric Adams, the present New York City Mayor, is no different.Politicians are all consummate actors, but they are actors whose words and actions impact the lives of the citizenry, unlike theater actors whose fictions are confined to the stage.Mayor Adams says he carries a handgun but does not. He says he does not employ an NYPD security detail but he does.Of course, whether or not Adams’ carries a gun when walking around the City is really beside the point. As a retired NYPD police officer, he'd have no trouble obtaining the necessary credentials to do so, anyway. That, unfortunately, cannot be said of the average American citizen who resides in the City. Perhaps a decision in the Bruen case will change that.And, as for Adams’ foregoing an NYPD security detail, the remark is false bravado. The City isn’t any safer under his watch than it was under that of his predecessor, Bill de Blasio. Hence the Mayor’s desire for and need for a security detail exists. Adams is acutely aware of the constant dangers that innocent human beings face in the urban jungle—New York City. Crime continues to surge.As this article goes to publication, March 27, 2022, the New York Post writes: “Major crime and gun violence in the Big Apple have shown no signs of slowing as Mayor Eric Adams pushes people to get back to work and attempts to clean up the subway system.New police data shows that serious crime is up nearly 14 percent this year as of Sunday, compared to the same period in 2020 — when the city was bustling before COVID-19.The early crime trends this year present a challenge for Adams, who last week called for workers to return to New York City — promising a safer city. . . .There have been 300 more serious assaults this year, compared to 2020 — 2,994 versus 2690, an 11.3 percent increase, according to the data released Monday.Burglaries are up 6.6 percent from 1,908 to 2,034 and grand larcenies up 7 percent from 3,753 to 6,763, the data shows.Shootings have also surged nearly 60 percent from pre-pandemic times, from 97 to 154 incidents.There have been 300 more serious assaults this year, compared to 2020 — 2,994 versus 2690, an 11.3 percent increase, according to the data released Monday.Burglaries are up 6.6 percent from 1,908 to 2,034 and grand larcenies up 7 percent from 3,753 to 6,763, the data shows.Shootings have also surged nearly 60 percent from pre-pandemic times, from 97 to 154 incidents.”In light of these troubling crime statistics what is particularly troubling,  galling, and damning is not the content of Adams’ remarks concerning his personal security but the fact that he dared to lie to the public about it, and did so blatantly, casually, with a smile on his face, no less. Has this man so little regard for the average, innocent law-abiding, New York City resident who, unlike him, has no access to police protection and who is denied,out-of-hand, the natural right of armed defense? Does this  Mayor know, or even care, that the average New York City resident must suffer the reality of masses of violent, vile animals, roaming, undeterred, through the streets, subways, train stations, and business establishments of a concrete jungle every day, looking to injure, maim, and kill innocent people—among them, senior citizens and even toddlers? In most of America, the citizenry wouldn't tolerate, for one moment, the horrific conditions existent in and allowed to fester in New York City.And, so, Mayor Adams resorts to lies. And, if he can flippantly lie about one thing, would he not lie about other things—serious matters affecting the physical safety, security, and well-being of the lives of all innocent New York City residents—matters that go beyond those affecting his own life and well-being.Adams brands himself as the “Compassionate Capitalist” ostensibly to distinguish and distance himself from his predecessor, Bill de Blasio. Did Adams come up with that expression, or did his image-makers invoke it, perhaps during a public relations brainstorming strategy session?New Yorkers are constantly confronted with dissimulation, not solutions to real, urgent, and intractable problems. Plans, initiatives, blueprints for action, are little more than shadow play; a ruse; an elaborate, carefully choreographed, managed, and executed masquerade to delude the public. Superficiality overshadows substance at every turn. Everything stays the same; status quo. This is fine for the powers that be, but not for the commonalty.In the next article, we lay this bare, as we continue our exploration of New York City's newly minted Mayor, Eric Adams.____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.   

NOTHING IS MORE CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE PRESERVATION OF OUR NATION AND THE WORLD THAN IMMEDIATE DE-ESCALATION OF TENSION BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES/NATO AND RUSSIA!

In the midst of the present crisis in Europe, some Americans do retain perspective.We, at the Arbalest Quarrel, a website started in 2014 to cut through the chatter, fluff, hyperbole, outright nonsense, and disingenuousness of the usual news coverage and of news commentary, see well that the present conflict between Russia and Ukraine didn’t start yesterday, but can be traced to many upheavals in the past: some quite recent, going back to 2014; some earlier, to the first years of the 21^st Century; others going back thirty years, to the early 1990s; and some going back much further in time; a century ago, to the period of the first world war.A couple of things about Russia and Ukraine are clear:

• Ukraine is a region that has always suffered political and social convulsions; and
• Russia’s ties to and interests in Ukraine have been ever apparent, always unbroken, profoundly earnest and acute, and inherently inextricable.

Russia’s incursion into Crimea in 2014, and more recently a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, is the direct result of conscious decisions of political leaders in Ukraine and Brussels, and of the United States as well.Those decisions resulted in a sequence of events, some planned for and anticipated; others not.Mishaps arose from those decisions; some not envisioned perhaps, but, as they materialized, definitely not wanted.The oratory of politicians, echoed in many major news organs of late, casts the present conflict, as it casts all conflicts, in overly simplistic, deceptive Manichean terms: A battle between good and evil.Unfortunately, many Americans fall prey to Manichaeism, having been psychologically conditioned to do so.Through seductive messaging, selective dissemination of information, and carefully crafted and tempered narratives, many Americans acquiesce to policies that have a deep, negative, long-term effect on their lives, and, by extension, on the lives of the rest of us who are not so easily prone to psychic manipulation.This is nothing new. Many members of the public have previously succumbed to such deceptive messaging of Government leaders and its echo chamber: the legacy Press.Consider America’s misadventure in the Middle East.The consequences of the U.S.-Mideast conflict, at once familiar and disturbing, were predictable: destabilization of the region; disruption, displacement, and senseless loss of civilian life and of the life of our soldiers; the squandering of the Nation’s wealth and resources; not insignificant economic harm; and attendant weakening of our own national security.The same inevitability of outcomes due to geopolitical machinations of Brussels and the United States is apparent in the current situation in Ukraine.The Press bombards the public daily with talk and imagery of the brutishness of Vladimir Putin; of the valor of Volodymyr Zelensky; of the heroic struggle of the Ukrainian people against the onslaught of Russian military; and of the coming oppression of the Ukrainian people under Putin/Russian rule.But little if any mention is made of the political interests of and plight of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, who represent a substantial minority of the population. And no mention is made of political and social upheaval that has plagued Ukraine in the last twenty or thirty years, or of Russia’s close political ties to the Country during that same period, and well before.And there is no mention of Brussel’s own expansionism eastward and of the concomitant impact on Putin’s expansionist impulses westward, driven in part no doubt by not unreasonable concerns over attenuation of Russia’s territorial security interests.Yet, the Biden Administration and the Press analogize this conflict simplistically and insufferably to a schoolroom situation, describing it in sharp dualistic terms of a “bad guy,” Russia, who bullies a weak, innocent, “good guy,” Ukraine. In doing this, the Administration and the Press treat the public like kindergarteners or as outright idiots.Consider Kamala Harris explanation of the Ukrainian crisis:“So Ukraine is a country in Europe. It exists next to another country called Russia. Russia is a bigger country. Russia is a powerful country. Russia decided to invade a smaller country called Ukraine. So, basically, that’s wrong.” ~ from the “Daily Wire” To whom is Harris addressing this polemic? One might reasonably wonder, ponder, and posit, and ask: “who, really, should wear the ‘dunce cap?’”Is Harris behaving deliberately condescendingly? Or, is she simply a moron, a person who has little if any comprehension and appreciation of world affairs and of European history, and discloses that fact painfully, if unintentionally?But the Press echoes the same frivolous, vacuous message; vociferously, stridently, and inelegantly, with each passing day.Because of this simplistic, silly messaging, many Americans—all too many, who do little reflection—have once again acquiesced to the seductive call: to protect Ukrainian people who yearn for democracy against an evil oppressor, Russia. That, anyway, is the message. That is what Americans are told, and it has had the desired effect.Americans inculcate the meme that Russia and Putin are evil, and that, apparently, is all they need to know about Russia. And the expression, ‘democracy,’ overused in discourse and never defined by either the Press or Government officials, has lost whatever import and purport it once had. The expression has devolved into banality.But to the matter at hand: to what end is the United States called upon to render aid to Ukraine? How far is American assistance to Ukraine, expected to go? And most importantly, how does Russia perceive the United States Government’s insertion into Ukrainian-Russian affairs and what will Russia’s response to America be?Somewhere in the American psyche, there is a justifiable wariness, despite the constant drumbeat by the Press and by some in Congress who call for more action, including military action against Russia. It is fortunate that most Americans resist that. But some people do not.At least one person, the irrepressible Lindsey Graham, a Republican U.S. Senator no less, has called for Putin’s assassination. That absurd, reprehensible remark alludes unmistakably to a call for “regime change.” And what, after all, is this thing, “regime change?” It is a bit of American Governmental argot; an utterance at once peculiar, presumptuous, loathsome, and anachronistic.  Not to be outdone by Graham, the obsequious and droll GOP Representative Adam Kinzinger has called for a U.S. enforced a no-fly zone over Ukraine. He goes on to explain that no one should worry, that this does not portend incursion of American troops in Russia. Oh, really? Is not the call for a U.S.-enforced no-fly zone over Ukraine a transparently blatant threat and challenge directed to Russia?If the Biden Administration were, in fact, to institute such a U.S. enforced no-fly zone in a Russian military zone of operation, i.e., Ukraine, the mere issuance of the order, whether acted upon or not, would amount to a declaration of war by the U.S. against Russia. That isn’t supposition. That is a fact.Such statements by Graham and Kinzinger are both unconscionable and moronic. How might Putin react to them, coming from members of the United States Congress?So absurd are they, one could only hope that Putin would be amused rather than enraged by them, delivered as they are by a couple of buffoons who would do well to perform where they can do no harm: in a circus, perhaps, or in an asylum for the criminally insane, but not in the halls of the U.S. Congress.Fortunately, the Biden Administration isn’t taking advice from either Graham or Kinzinger, and the Administration absolutely should not.Yet, the Biden Administration should be forceful in pointing out the need for forbearance by both members of Congress and the Press in reining in their strident calls for vengeance against Russia. The Administration has not done that. Remarks from his communications’ people to date are dry, laconic, perfunctory.Russia cannot and should not be likened to a Country in the Middle East or to one in Africa or to one in South America; nor, to any other Country in the world, apart from CCP China.Russia, like the U.S. and China, has a massive nuclear arsenal. And Putin is not one to bluff. He is prepared to use it.The present crisis is really one that should be allowed to play out between Russia and Ukraine. But America’s blatant insinuation of itself into this drama has grave ramifications and portents we should not ignore.There are two crises playing out today. One is between Russia and Ukraine. That crisis is overt—war. Everyone knows that.But there is another crisis. This other one is tacit. It is one that ought to be of much greater concern to the American people and to the world. A latent crisis between two superpowers, Russia and the U.S., is where serious tension rests. That is where the focus should be directed and concerted efforts to reduce tension should be made.CCP China, which will be venturing into Taiwan—that is a foregone conclusion—is watching closely the U.S. Government’s reaction to the present crisis unfolding in Europe. The American public, though is not; too caught up as it is, attending to irrelevant rhetorical flourishes, pontifications, fallacious moralistic polemics, and irreverent ramblings from the Press, social media, cable and broadcast news and from Congress—some involving Russia and Ukraine, and others relegated to superficial asides, boiled down to one imbecilic bromide, the new dogma of the Neo-Marxist movement in America: “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”This dogma, utilized by masters of brainwashing, originated in United Nations’ pacts, treaties, and position papers, where it is found, albeit with some effort, buried here and there, in seemingly erudite but deliberately abstruse, and muddled language, to hide ignoble intentions.Codified as a single imperative, “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” persistently relentlessly repeated, it is a mantra designed to rot out the brain, down to the core of one’s being; infecting every institution of America; permeating every facet and layer of American society.This mantra, a thing designed to induce a trance in every American, is also a policy directive, worming its way into every policy aim of the Biden Administration. The infusion of “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion,” into the psyche of people, superimposed over reason and sanity, heralds an improbable and absurd world reality.How, then, can Americans be expected to think clearly? Obviously, they cannot. Indoctrination teams train them to react, not to think. To perform like trained seals, not to reason, deduce, and conceptualize as human beings.Should Americans, then, be surprised that this Nation and the world fall perilously and precipitously close to nuclear war?The failure of the American people to appreciate that the world stands at the precipice of a nuclear conflagration is disheartening and disconcerting. Of what is America to gain from vacuous, political rhetoric and pseudo-moralistic sophistry pertaining to the fate of Ukraine in the face of incipient nuclear annihilation of the planet. Some people argue that Putin will push beyond the boundaries of Ukraine. But do we know that for certain? They conceive failure to stop Putin’s advance in Ukraine is a thing to be likened to Neville Chamberlain’s lame responses to Hitler’s advances in Europe. But there were no nuclear missiles in existence back in the 1930s. What should be of concern to us, at the moment, is an appreciation of the nuclear arsenals present in Russia and the United States. And we should be mindful of Russia’s historical ties to Ukraine. Ukraine isn’t the place for either the United States or NATO to establish a red line against Russian military advancement. Russia fears justifiable containment fears by the EU, NATO, and the United States. It doesn’t want the EU or NATO on its doorstep anymore than the United States wanted or would permit the Soviet Union on its doorstep, in Cuba.The use of even one tactical nuclear bomb in Ukraine or any instance of, or perception of, direct U.S. military involvement in Ukraine against Russia on behalf of Ukraine, will lead inevitably, irrevocably to global thermonuclear war. That brute and dire fact should not be lost on anyone.Armed conflict is messy. Anything can happen. There are too many variables. Even a computer algorithm cannot catalog them all or decipher the myriad patterns at play. History tells us that war gets out of hand and messy very quickly, tactically and strategically. And, both the war and America’s conduct in it should give one pause.  On the front page of The New York Times, Sunday, March 6, 2022, a reporter writes,“President Vladimir V. Putin warned on Saturday that crippling economic sanctions imposed by the West were ‘akin to a declaration of war,’ as the Russian military pummeled civilian targets and continued shelling near the first protected routes intended to allow besieged Ukrainians to flee, apparently violating a cease-fire that had been agreed to only hours earlier.” So, here the New York Times acknowledges Russia’s warning to the U.S. and to the EU and NATO to stay clear of interfering with the conflict, but then the Times reverts to form with a rabble-rousing remark intended to incite hatred in the minds of America toward Russia, despite Putin’s clear warning.In the same article, the Times writes,“Mr. Putin, in his first extended remarks since the start of the war, threatened to fully absorb Ukraine, the former Soviet republic of nearly 44 million people that declared its independence 30 years ago.‘The current leadership needs to understand that if they continue doing what they are doing, they risk the future of Ukrainian statehood,’ he said. Mr. Putin added that Moscow would view any Western attempts to impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine as ‘participating in the armed conflict’ against Russia.As Mr. Putin doubled down on his threats against Ukraine and the West, Mr. Zelensky spoke with more than 300 members of the United States Congress on Saturday. He implored them to impose a no-fly zone and to send military jets to his country, according to lawmakers on the call.”The words, “current leadership” that Putin refers to may seem vague, but definitely includes Brussel’s EU, NATO, and the U.S. Government, and it doesn’t appear that they are listening.Concurrently with the posting of the Times article, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken informs the public, as reported in the Daily Mail that,“Ukraine's government has a contingency plan in place if President Volodymyr Zelensky is killed during the Russian invasion, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken revealed on Sunday. Zelensky survived three assassination attempts by Russian-backed groups just this week, the Times reported on Friday. During an interview with CBS News' Face the Nation on Sunday, Blinken was asked if Russian leader Vladimir Putin would face 'consequences' for Zelensky's murder?’ host Margaret Brennan added.Blinken first praised Zelensky and other Kyiv officials as ‘the embodiment of this incredibly brave Ukrainian people.'‘The Ukrainians have plans in place—that I’m not going to talk about or get into any details on—to make sure that there is what we would call ‘continuity of government’ one way or another. And let me leave it at that,’ he answered.”  Blinken’s use of the phrase, ‘continuity of government’ is mystifying and troubling in two respects.First, Blinken is hinting that the United States, EU, and NATO will not permit Putin to take control of Ukraine, even as it is eminently clear that Putin intends to do just that. So, there it is, a bright red line. The U.S./EU/NATO intends to clash head-on with Russia, over Ukraine even though Ukraine is not a member of either the EU or NATO, and notwithstanding that Ukraine is of no practical security concern for the United States and never was.Second, the expression, ‘continuity of government’ is an expression utilized by the U.S. Government in connection with imminent catastrophe, primarily, nuclear war. One official White House Government website is devoted to just that subject, with the specific heading “Continuity of Government.” In pertinent part, the website lays out that:“Since the days of the Cold War, the United States has had a plan in place to continue the operation of the government following a catastrophic attack on the nation’s capital. The 2007 ‘National Security Presidential Directive 51’ directs the geographic dispersion of leadership, staff, and infrastructure in order to maintain the functions of the United States Government in the event the nation’s capital is “decapitated” by a terrorist attack.Buried deep within the 102-page National Continuity Plan is the strategy for the mass evacuation and relocation of every federal government agency including The White House and the military in response to an exceptional catastrophic event within the National Capital Region. Each agency is required to have a detailed Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) in place.Following a catastrophic national emergency, the President, or his successor can authorize the establishment of a temporary ‘Shadow government’ to maintain control of the essential functions of the Federal Government. President Bush activated the shadow government on September 11, 2001, shortly after the second attack on the World Trade Center.Every federal agency has designated key individuals to be part of an ‘Emergency Relocation Group’. These ERGs are assigned to an alternate secure location on a rotating basis and are ready to take over the duty of supporting the National Essential Functions of this nation in an emergency.”Most unsettling, issuance of the “Continuity of Government” order includes “Supplanting the United States Constitution” and by logical implication, that means suspension of fundamental rights, including the most important natural law right of all, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”On reflection, one can see the puppetmasters, who control the Biden Administration, utilizing both the Ukraine crisis and the Freedom Convoy, making its way to D.C., as pretexts to invoke “COG” here at home. If that should occur, the American people will come to understand—must come to the realization, horrible and ugly, but indisputable as it is—that they have lost their Country; that Joe Biden is nothing more than, and never was anything more than, the titular head of a Government.This senile, abjectly corrupt “President of the United States.” He serves as a convenient placeholder and caretaker for the Nation. That is all he is and ever was: merely the custodian for a Nation that no longer belongs to the American people; a Nation no longer deemed to be a free Constitutional Republic.The western Globalists who control Brussels and NATO intend to supplant the sovereignty of the American people over the Federal Government, along with the overt de facto dissolution of the United States as an independent sovereign Nation-State. See article in unlimited hangout.“Though often discussed in relation to nuclear war or a similarly chaotic scenario, ‘Continuity of Government’ plans can be triggered even by popular, nonviolent opposition to an unpopular war abroad. It exists solely to keep the current system in place, regardless of the cost [and it includes “Main Core”] ‘A database of Americans, who, often for the slightest and most trivial reason, are considered unfriendly, and who, in a time of panic might be incarcerated. The database can identify and locate perceived ‘enemies of the state’ almost instantaneously.’ ” Secretary of State Blinken’s use of the phrase ‘Continuity of Government’ (COG) isn’t accidental. Even as Blinken uses that phrase in connection with Ukraine, the import of his remarks implicates the United States as well, for U.S./NATO confrontation with Russia is implicit in his remarks.The similarity of the Ukrainian-Russian crisis of 2022 to the Cuban-Missile crisis of 1962 is clear and categorical and ought not to be casually dismissed or cavalierly denied.But, for that one very public and very brief episode, the world stood at the brink of nuclear annihilation. Never since have Russia, China, or the U.S. confronted each other militarily. Military confrontation and challenges were conducted obliquely through minor proxies only, and for good reason. Dire outcomes were to be avoided and they were avoided. This was understood by all three major nuclear powers.If the American Press ever juxtaposes the 1962 Cuban-missile crisis with the 2022 Ukrainian crisis, we have yet to see it, and why is that? Only Russia has done so and, although the words of Russia’s deputy foreign minister were measured, the message conveyed by those words was clear and unequivocal and clearly directed to the United States Government.“Russia’s deputy foreign minister has compared Moscow’s standoff with the West over a possible invasion of Ukraine to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the tense 1962 confrontation between the US and the Soviet Union that led the world to the brink of nuclear war.Asked if he was exaggerating by comparing the Ukraine situation to the stalemate over the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba, Sergei Ryabkov said, ‘No, not too much,’ Russian media reported Monday.” ~ from the New York Post.And Vladimir Putin himself has purportedly said words to the effect that “a world without Russia would be no world at all.” The language might be cryptic. Its import is not.Whatever political, geopolitical, or economic interest the EU or the U.S. may have or think it has in Ukraine, nothing—absolutely nothing—is more consequential to the preservation of this Nation and the world than immediate de-escalation of tension between the U.S./NATO/EU and Russia.We do not see this happening, but it should; indeed, it must.If there are back channels between the U.S. Government and Russia, the public should gain some intimation of this; some assurance that the United States and Russia are in constant communication. But it is apparent the two are not. The U.S. and NATO intend to repel Russia from Ukraine. And Russia intends to press forward, claiming Ukraine as Russian territory or, at least, as a Russian-controlled region/orbit that serves as a buffer to inhibit EU expansion into Eastern Europe. Both the U.S./NATO alliance and Russia are headed on a collision course.The controlling issue in Ukraine is one of power and who controls the landmass of Ukraine.Given the stakes involved—the possibility of a nuclear conflagration—one must infer this has nothing to do with “democracy” and the sovereign independence of Ukraine. The Ukrainian people, and Zelensky, too, are nothing more than pawns. Their welfare is only a pretext for U.S./NATO/EU expansionism in the East. The two mighty powers, the U.S./NATO/EU on the one hand and Russia on the other are in a contest for control over Eastern Europe. It is anyone’s guess where CCP China stands in relation to this.Under Trump’s tutelage, it is unlikely Russia would have ventured into Ukraine. And if it had done so, Trump would have let the American public and, hence, the world know, and in no uncertain terms, that there would be no military confrontation between Russia and the U.S. over the fate of Ukraine—ever.  Trump sought to reconfirm and cement the United States standing as a true independent, sovereign Nation-State, in a world controlled by powerful, wealthy Neo-Globalist/Neo-Marxist elites whose aim is the dissolution of all western nation-states. They seek no less than the destruction of the very concept of ‘citizenship’ and of the concept of independent sovereign nation-state construct.The end goal of these secretive global “elites” is to see the establishment of a universal, transnational, multicultural, neo-feudalist corporate/financial/political/social empire, sans all geographical boundaries.Trump sought to spare the Nation from that fate. But Trump is no longer President of the United States. Powerful interests have seen to that. This Nation now has Joe Biden; a mentally weak, effete, ineffectual leader, if one can use the descriptor ‘leader’ in any meaningful sense. And the absence of Trump and the ensconcing of Biden into the Executive Branch of Government as titular head of the Nation has made all the difference. The fate of the Country is now in the hands of powerful interests who intend to destroy it.Whatever is going on behind the scenes, Joe Biden is the face of America projected to the world. And, to a lesser extent, his understudy, Kamala Harris, is also the face of America projected to the world.But what it is that is projected does not warrant respect nor engender confidence.Such things as strength, reason, stability, and integrity are sorely lacking here. And that noticeable lack justifiably frightens at least some of us and does so on many levels. It should frighten all of us._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.  

AMERICANS WHO FEARED TRUMP DANGEROUS TO OUR NATION AND THE WORLD NOW FACE THE HORROR OF FORCES FOR A NEW WORLD ORDER/“OPEN SOCIETY”

Americans should take heed of the actions of Trudeau’s Government: for what has been taking shape over there has repercussions over here.Biden is in bed with Trudeau. That fact should not be lost on anyone. The two are operating out of the same playbook and their policies as directed to the populations of their respective Countries have become demonstrably more heavy-handed since the Biden stooge walked into the Executive Suite of Government.Instead of openly and vehemently condemning Trudeau’s overbearing and illegal response to the Canadian Truckers’ protest, declaring martial law through the invocation of Canada’s Emergencies Act—that, incidentally up until the 15th of February 2022, had never been invoked—the Biden Administration demonstrated a noticeable and awkward silence toward it, establishing the Administration’s clear if tacit acceptance of it.Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said nothing about it; nor did Biden’s Press Secretary Jen Psaki say anything concerning it.But, the unequivocal message—“My Administration agrees with you and stands ready to assist you,”—came out loudly and boldly and clearly through the Government’s propaganda news and media organs of the so-called  “Free Press.”This did not escape the attention of Constitutional law expert, Jonathan Turley, a civil libertarian of the classical sort, as is Alan Dershowitz, and not as the ACLU now pretends to be.On his website Turley roundly—and justifiably—condemned CNN and MSNBC commentators for their boisterous, haranguing oratory:“I have previously lamented what I call ‘the age of rage’ and how many seem addicted to rage in our society. That was evident this week as many vented against groups ranging from the Canadian truckers to the unvaccinated. CNN analyst Juliette Kayyem seemed to suggest vigilantism as a proper response to the Canadian protesters while James Carville said that he wanted to punch the unvaccinated. . . . The heated rhetoric highlights the danger of past demands from the left for censoring or prosecuting others for violent speech.On her Twitter account, Kayyem responded to a Wall Street Journal article on the gridlock caused by the truckers: ‘The convoy protest, applauded by right-wing media as a ‘freedom protest,’ is an economic and security issue now. The Ambassador Bridge link constitutes 28% of annual trade movement between US and Canada. Slash the tires, empty gas tanks, arrest the drivers, and move the trucks.’For his part, Carville longs for even more personal satisfaction, saying that anyone without a vaccine was a ‘piece of s–t’ and he wanted to punch them in the face.These snarling, violent comments are all-too-common in today’s environment. However, they also raise the question of how we treat violent speech. Various Democrats are calling for the disqualification of members of Congress, and former President Donald Trump, for their comments made before the January 6th riot. Some members have brought lawsuits over allegations that such speeches constituted incitement for insurrection.”Turley is right. Unfortunately, the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist propagandists easily sway public opinion by oversimplifying complex socio-historical issues to obtain a desired emotional response from the gullible public. Now jump ahead a few weeks.Consider the debacle over Ukraine. Through constant proselytizing by compliant media, see, e.g., an article from CNN, the American public is now overwhelmingly supportive of America taking increasingly strong measures against Russia. Such is the nature of propaganda:

• Simple simplistic, repetitious messaging and use of simple buzz words;
• Conveyed to the public via air of bold, flamboyant, boisterous, righteous indignation and anger;
• Reinforced through a series of graphic photographs—
• —All directed toward inducing, in the public, a mindless, rabid, one-note emotional response to the dictates of a Government that is simply manipulating the people for its own nefarious purposes and the public buys the nonsense——happily jumping off the Cliff like Lemmings. But, the precipice of this cliff is unlike any other. In a conventional world war, horrific as the first and second world wars were, a conventional world would be as nothing compared to a global thermonuclear holocaust.

Yet, it appears that this is where the world is headed. The response of the American public toward the debacle in Ukraine is just what the Rothschild Banking Dynasty puppetmasters want as they drum up public enthusiasm and support for ventures that operate against the common peoples’ interests, innocent Americans at home, innocent Ukrainians abroad, and, yes, innocent Russians, too—along with billions of other innocent people. The expansive reach, power, and influence of the Rothschild Dynasty along with its deca/centi-billionaire Neoliberal Globalist compatriots and minions, operate unchecked with abandon throughout the world. Although this is well-guarded, secretive, and insistently denied, the extensive wealth and power of these creatures is tangible, real, sinister, and venomous, and they have no reluctance in using their dominance to get what they want. And, the common people of the United States and Canada, especially, ignore this at their peril. The Rothschild Dynasty and their many captains and lieutenants control NATO, the global military arm of Europe and North America. And, they control the EU, their political, social, economic, cultural, and juridical arm. And, of course, they created the central banking system in the early 1600s, and it has since proliferated around the world, becoming monolithic and all-encompassing, with some researchers estimating their wealth to exceed 100 trillion dollars. See e.g., articles in csglobe.com, handlebar-online.com, and schengenvisainfo.com.  The shape of things to come shows jockeying for power among three trans-global dominant geopolitical forces: one, the so-called western “liberal-democratic” countries comprising, the EU, the Commonwealth Nations, and the United States; two, CCP China; and, three, Russia. You will note that CCP China and Russia have flexed their muscle most noticeably since the physical, emotional, mental wreck of a man, Joe Biden, was planted in the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. This didn’t happen on Trump’s watch. The world was safer and the U.S. was stronger: militarily, economically, and geopolitically. Under the Trump Presidency, the Nation regained its stature as a dominant superpower, and the U.S. engaged in no new foreign military ventures; nor did the world face conflicts on the world stage, the like of which we are seeing today.  The present crisis in Ukraine didn’t have to happen and wouldn’t have happened under a Trump Presidency. Trump did keep and—had he not been prevented from serving a second term in Office—would likely have continued to keep a lid on China’s global ambitions in Asia and the South Pacific; would have kept Russia contained and pacified, and would have kept the EU’s House of Rothschild in check. But, neither the Rothschilds and its minions, nor CCP China intended to be constrained by a world kept in fragile balance by Trump. China, intending to become a mighty empire in the 21^st Century, and the western alliance nations and nation-groups—comprising the EU, the Commonwealth Nations, and the United States, under the western neo-liberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist ruling “elites,” presided over by the House of Rothschild—had great and grave ambitions. So, China and the west’s ruling class hatched their plan to prevent Trump from serving a second term in office. This was necessary, for the American people, who had calmly slept as the Country was quietly, and inexorably and unlawfully being taken from them, were awakening to the monstrous treachery directed against them. The American people had come to realize their true potential under a Trump Presidency. They had reawakened to their heritage and to their Country’s rightful place in the world as a power to be reckoned with, an independent, sovereign Nation under the heel of no foreign power. And they gained awareness, as well, of their sovereignty over Government. CCP China and the Rothschild Dynasty would not stand for that; would have none of it.Having underestimated Trump’s fortitude and resilience, while in Office, impervious to elaborate, unprecedented, diabolical and reprehensible, attempts to unseat him—never before seen in the annals of American history—the Neoliberal Globalist/Neo-Marxist overlords went to work, hatching an ambitious plot to purloin the election away from Trump. The Attorney General at the time, William Barr, knew of this, but wouldn’t investigate obvious reasonable allegations and evidence for it. The legacy Press and social media ridiculed and dismissed out-of-hand, all mention of it, and censored all information about it. And the Courts, all the way up to the Roberts U.S. Supreme Court, would allow for no challenge to it.And, the collaboration of powerful, wealthy, well-organized forces did defeat Trump. And the American people and the peoples of the world are now paying the price for this. Through the machinations of China, the House of Rothschild, and fifth columnists here at home—in U.S. Government, academia, social media, business, and finance—the American people have what they wanted—a compliant milk-toast, ostensibly presiding over the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. Joe Biden is physically and emotionally weak; docile and obviously senile; irredeemably corrupt; wholly compromised. And this is the way Biden comes across to the American people, and to the peoples and leaders of the nations of the world. More to the point, this is the way Biden was meant to come across; is meant to come across. One sees this in his manner, his speech, in his bearing; in the way he carries himself. This debilitative state of mind, body, and spirit is precisely what a Country should not expect of a leader; certainly should not want in a leader. The American people do not deserve this. They do not deserve him. Should Americans and the rest of the world weep for Biden? Should we forgive him his catastrophic failings; his serious character flaws? No! Biden still has enough mind and brainpower remaining to know he is utterly unfit as a leader. Yet, he has allowed himself to serve as a placeholder, a messenger boy for the totalitarian forces lurking and operating behind the scenes who use him as a public face: a harlequin—beneficial for their purposes but harmful to the common people. Whither Russia? The Rothschild propagandists have presented Putin’s invasion of Ukraine in simplistic terms: a Manichean battle of GOOD vs. EVIL. The propagandists in the Press and social media have created the illusion of Ukraine as a free, independent, liberal democratic Country bludgeoned by a drunken beast, a despotic Russia, that thirsts for power and lusts for territory. This is the message the seditious Press presents to the public, and it is the message the puppet, Biden, delivered to the American people, and it is of a piece of what the American people witnessed in Biden’s inaugural address to the American people, and in what the American people witnessed in Biden’s recent State of the Union Address.HOW THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS SWAYED TO ACCEPT DANGEROUS POLICY DECISIONS THROUGH CAREFULLY CRAFTED MESSAGING“In Joe Biden’s inauguration speech [and in his recent State of the Union speech] we can find standard emotional and rational stratagems that form its persuasive strategy to obtain the public’s approval. The techniques and themes used by the President are the same identified in the modern principles of commercial advertising, of the persuasion theory and of the propaganda discourses, in particular from war propaganda. These techniques and themes consist in revealing a problem in order to suggest the solution, the repetition and the simplicity of the message, the use of a colloquial language and of significant and easily understandable symbols, the participation or the quote of testimonials, the bandwagon effect, the necessity of provoking emotional responses, the plain folks appeal, the card-stacking and the use of glittering words. The attention to the choice of the most persuasive words to express the author’s ideas, to defend an ideal and to restore American identity is impressive. These stereotyped formulas are also used to simplify situations with no need of argumentation.” ~ Abstract of the article titled, “Joe Biden’s Inauguration Speech: A Persuasive Narrative,” By Dr. Pier Paolo Pedrini University of Lugano Global Journal of Human-Social Science: A Arts & Humanities - Psychology Volume 21 Issue 4 Version 1.0 Year 2021 Type: Double Blind Peer Reviewed International Research Journal Publisher: Global Journals Online ISSN: 2249-460x & Print ISSN: 0975-587Yes, Russia invaded Ukraine, and, given that fact, and with four years of venomous vitriol poured on Russia and Trump (curiously not so, with China), the American public has been psychologically conditioned to detest Putin and Russia—made all the easier where one Country invades another through military, naval, and airpower. But the motivation for Putin’s thrust into Ukraine, is, on reflection, not so easily dismissed as the irrational impulse of a crazed madman, as the mainstream Press portrays it. There is much more going on here. And if Putin is an evil player in this, there are others as well, not least of all, Joe Biden, and powerful forces behind the scenes that direct his words and actions and those of others in NATO and the EU. Something complex and sinister is afoot. There is a lot of blame to go around in the matter of the Ukrainian crisis. And the crisis of today in the European Theater is the outgrowth of events occurring twenty years ago.Regardless of how the shills and propaganda organs of the EU, and of the Commonwealth Nations, and of the U.S. “spin this,” what is transpiring in Europe, as played out, at the moment, in Ukraine, is a struggle between two behemoths, the Rothschild Dynasty and Russia. Both seek to accumulate territory in the process of empire-building, but, in Russia’s case, there is also the desire for security. The Rothschild Dynasty seeks to control all of Europe, and to contain, constrain and threaten Russia through its presence at Russia’s doorstep. Putin recognizes the threat from the House of Rothschild/EU and seeks to create a buffer between it and the Rothschild/EU through the acquisition of more territory in Ukraine and the Baltic region, hearkening back to the power of the Soviet Union, in the previous century. With recent talk of bringing Ukraine into NATO, Putin sees this as a further threat to the security of Russia, and an insult as well.IMPORTANT FACTS: RUSSIA AND UKRAINE IN THE 21^ST CENTURY

• CIRCA 2000——PUTIN ASKS TO JOIN NATO AND IS REBUFFED

“Vladimir Putin wanted Russia to join NATO but did not want his country to have to go through the usual application process and stand in line ‘with a lot of countries that don’t matter’, according to a former secretary general of the transatlantic alliance.George Robertson, a former Labour defence secretary who led NATO between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of western Europe. ‘They wanted to be part of that secure, stable prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time,’ he said.The Labour peer recalled an early meeting with Putin, who became Russian president in 2000. Putin said: ‘When are you going to invite us to join NATO?’ And [Robertson] said: ‘Well, we don’t invite people to join NATO, they apply to join NATO.’ And he said: ‘Well, we’re not standing in line with a lot of countries that don’t matter.’The account chimes with what Putin told the late David Frost in a BBC interview shortly before he was first inaugurated as Russian president more than 21 years ago. Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining NATO ‘if and when Russia’s views are taken into account as those of an equal partner’.He told Frost it was hard for him to visualize NATO as an enemy. ‘Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilized world.’” From an article in the British newspaper, The Guardian, November 4, 2021. 

• 2004——ORANGE REVOLUTION IN UKRAINE; NATO EXPANSION IN THE BALTIC STATES

“After the Orange Revolution street protests in Ukraine in 2004, Putin became increasingly suspicious of the west, which he blamed for funding pro-democracy NGOs. He was further angered by NATO’s continuing expansion into central and eastern Europe: Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania chose to join the alliance in 2004; Croatia and Albania followed in 2009. Georgia and Ukraine were promised membership in 2008 but have remained outside.” Id.

• 2010——U.S. OBAMA MEDDLES IN THE AFFAIRS OF UKRAINE

“There is an abundance of outrage in the United States about Russia’s alleged meddling in the 2016 presidential election. Multiple investigations are taking place, and Moscow’s conduct was a major justification for the sanctions legislation that Congress just passed. Some furious political figures and members of the media insist that the Putin government’s interference constitutes an act of war. One especially agitated House member even compared it explicitly to the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks.Such umbrage might be more credible if the United States refrained from engaging in similar conduct. But the historical record shows that Washington has meddled in the political affairs of dozens of countries—including many democracies. An egregious example occurred in Ukraine during the Euromaidan Revolution of 2014.Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych was not an admirable character. After his election in 2010, he used patronage and other instruments of state power in a flagrant fashion to the advantage of his political party. That high‐​handed behavior and legendary corruption alienated large portions of Ukraine’s population. As the Ukrainian economy languished and fell farther and farther behind those of Poland and other East European neighbors that had implemented significant market‐​oriented reforms, public anger at Yanukovych mounted. When he rejected the European Union’s terms for an association agreement in late 2013, in favor of a Russian offer, angry demonstrators filled Kiev’s Independence Square, known as the Maidan, as well as sites in other cities.Despite his leadership defects and character flaws, Yanukovych had been duly elected in balloting that international observers considered reasonably free and fair—about the best standard one can hope for outside the mature Western democracies [if one can say the 2020 U.S. Presidential election was fair and aboveboard; it wasn’t]. A decent respect for democratic institutions and procedures meant that he ought to be able to serve out his lawful term as president, which would end in 2016.The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking.Neither the domestic opposition nor Washington and its European Union allies behaved in that fashion. Instead, Western leaders made it clear that they supported the efforts of demonstrators to force Yanukovych to reverse course and approve the EU agreement or, if he would not do so, to remove the president before his term expired. Sen. John McCain (R‑AZ), the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, went to Kiev to show solidarity with the Euromaidan activists. McCain dined with opposition leaders, including members of the ultra right‐​wing Svoboda Party, and later appeared on stage in Maidan Square during a mass rally. He stood shoulder to shoulder with Svoboda leader Oleg Tyagnibok.” ~ From an article appearing in CATO Institute, on August 6, 2017, titled, “America’s Ukraine Hypocrisy.” 

• 2014——“THE EUROMAIDAN” EVIDENCE OF U.S. INVOLVEMENT TO OVERTHROW YANUKOVYCH

“McCain’s actions were a model of diplomatic restraint compared to the conduct of Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs. As Ukraine’s political crisis deepened, Nuland and her subordinates became more brazen in favoring the anti‐​Yanukovych demonstrators. Nuland noted in a speech to the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation on December 13, 2013, that she had traveled to Ukraine three times in the weeks following the start of the demonstrations. Visiting the Maidan on December 5, she handed out cookies to demonstrators and expressed support for their cause.The extent of the Obama administration’s meddling in Ukraine’s politics was breathtaking. Russian intelligence intercepted and leaked to the international media a Nuland telephone call in which she and U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Geoffey Pyatt discussed in detail their preferences for specific personnel in a post‐​Yanukovych government. The U.S‑favored candidates included Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the man who became prime minister once Yanukovych was ousted from power. During the telephone call, Nuland stated enthusiastically that ‘Yats is the guy” who would do the best job.Nuland and Pyatt were engaged in such planning at a time when Yanukovych was still Ukraine’s lawful president. It was startling to have diplomatic representatives of a foreign country—and a country that routinely touts the need to respect democratic processes and the sovereignty of other nations—to be scheming about removing an elected government and replacing it with officials meriting U.S. approval.Washington’s conduct not only constituted meddling, it bordered on micromanagement. At one point, Pyatt mentioned the complex dynamic among the three principal opposition leaders, Yatsenyuk, Oleh Tyahnybok, and Vitali Klitschko. Both Pyatt and Nuland wanted to keep Tyahnybok and Klitschko out of an interim government. In the former case, they worried about his extremist ties; in the latter, they seemed to want him to wait and make a bid for office on a longer‐​term basis. Nuland stated that ‘I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary.’ She added that what Yatseniuk needed ‘is Klitsch and Tyanhybok on the outside.’The two diplomats also were prepared to escalate the already extensive U.S. involvement in Ukraine’s political turbulence. Pyatt stated bluntly that ‘we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing [the political transition].’ Nuland clearly had Vice President Joe Biden in mind for that role. Noting that the vice president’s national security adviser was in direct contact with her, Nuland related that she told him “probably tomorrow for an atta‐​boy and to get the details to stick. So Biden’s willing.’Both the Obama administration and most of the American news media portrayed the Euromaidan Revolution as a spontaneous, popular uprising against a corrupt and brutal government.A February 24, 2014, Washington Post editorial celebrated the Maidan demonstrators and their successful campaign to overthrow Yanukovych. The ‘moves were democratic,’ the Washington Post concluded, and ‘Kiev is now controlled by pro‐​Western parties.’It was a grotesque distortion to portray the events in Ukraine as a purely indigenous, popular uprising. The Nuland‐​Pyatt telephone conversation and other actions confirm that the United States was considerably more than a passive observer to the turbulence. Instead, U.S. officials were blatantly meddling in Ukraine. Such conduct was utterly improper. The United States had no right to try to orchestrate political outcomes in another country—especially one on the border of another great power. It is no wonder that Russia reacted badly to the unconstitutional ouster of an elected, pro‐​Russian government—an ouster that occurred not only with Washington’s blessing, but apparently with its assistance.” Id. ~ From article appearing in CATO Institute, on August 6, 2017, titled, “America’s Ukraine Hypocrisy; see also article of March 3, 2014 in the Leftist news organization “Democracy Now.”See, also, the article in “Ordo abc chao,” “Former US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland testifying during a hearing on Policy Response to Russian Interference in the 2016 US Elections before the Senate Intelligence Committee at Capitol Hill in Washington (June 20, 2018)January 5, 2021, it was reported that, to serve as Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, then President-elect Joe Biden would nominate Victoria Nuland, who had a complicated history of involvement in exacerbating tensions in Ukraine, by aligning with far-right and Neo-Nazis groups, in pursuit of the US and NATO’s interests in the region. An article in Salon, titled ‘Who is Victoria Nuland? A really bad idea as a key player in Biden's foreign policy team,’ explained:Who is Victoria Nuland? Most Americans have never heard of her, because the U.S. corporate media's foreign policy coverage is a wasteland. Most Americans have no idea that President-elect Biden's pick for deputy secretary of state for political affairs is stuck in the quicksand of 1950s U.S.-Russia Cold War politics and dreams of continued NATO expansion, an arms race on steroids and further encirclement of Russia.  In addition to serving as US Permanent Representative to NATO from 2005 to 2008, Nuland has also been a member of the board of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). Putin has come to recognize that the United States and NATO have made use of Western NGOs and social media attacks, orchestrated from abroad under the pretext of supporting democracy, combating electoral fraud or the corruption of the targeted regimes, to catalyze uprisings such as the Color Revolutions and the Arab Spring. The leading NGOs include the NED, as well as the International Republican Institute (IRI) and Freedom House, which are largely supported by government funds, and billionaire George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF). The NED, an organization often described as an accessory to American intelligence, and which has been financially supported by Richard Mellon Scaife, who has long-standing ties to the CIA and also funded the Heritage Foundation. The first president of the NED confessed to the Washington Post that “a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” Acknowledgment of America’s actions has resulted in a growing worldwide trend of governments seeking to limit and delegitimize foreign funding to local NGOs, including not only Russia, but also India, Ethiopia, Hungary, Qatar, Egypt and Israel. At home, the United States’ actions are excused by the perception that the imposition of democracy is not objectionable because it is not just an American, or Western ideal, but a universal one. As indicated by Robert W. Merry in The Atlantic, given the sizeable expenditures that go into such projects, such intrusion ‘is a foreign-policy issue that deserves more attention than it is getting in American discourse.’ Even if these accusations were to be made public, the general view is, as Merry noted, ‘that these NGO activists are merely doing what comes naturally to those who believe American democratic structures represent universal values that should be embraced universally throughout the world.’ However, numerous critics have confirmed that NGOs have ‘acted as interest groups rather than as promoters of universal standards, and as tools of US foreign policy rather than as local representatives of the ‘global conscience’ or ‘transnational civil society.’ The truth is that the US State Department cannot divulge what are covert foreign policy tactics, and the work of NGOs provide them plausible deniability.’ [Also note connection with the Rothschild/Soros ‘Open Society’ agenda] Formerly the Open Society Institute, the OSF was founded in 1993 by Soros to financially support civil society groups around the world, with a stated aim of advancing justice, education, public health and independent media. In 1991, the Soros Foundation Budapest merged with the Fondation pour une Entraide Intellectuelle Européenne, an affiliate of the CIA’s Cold War front, the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF). Open Society Institute was created in the United States in 1993 to support the Soros foundations in Central and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.” And see the articles in Adara Press and stuartbramhall.wordpress.com. The last article points to a documentary about the 2013 CIA sponsored coup in 2013. {SURPRISE— “SORRY: THE DOCUMENTARY NO LONGER EXISTS”}

• 2022—UKRAINE AS A MEMBER OF NATO—UKRAINE’S WISH AND RUSSIA’S NIGHTMARE.

See February 15, 2022 article in Al Jazeera:“The future of NATO, the transatlantic security alliance, is at the centre of the standoff between Russia and the West over Ukraine.Moscow wants guarantees that its neighbour, a former Soviet state, will be permanently barred from joining the United States-led alliance. It has also called for NATO to cease all military activity in Eastern Europe, blaming it for undermining security in the region.But Western leaders have rejected those demands. They have argued the Kremlin cannot be allowed an effective veto on Kyiv’s foreign policy decisions and defended NATO’s ‘open door policy’, which grants any European nation the right to ask to join.Amid the deadlock, here are five things you need to know about NATO:The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was founded in 1949, in the aftermath of World War II.The alliance was initially part of an effort by the US and its European allies to deter any expansion of the then-Soviet Union (USSR) and reduce the possibility of conflict on the continent by encouraging greater political integration between its powers.In the decades since, it has steadily expanded its orbit, bringing a swathe of central and eastern European states into its ranks after the USSR collapsed.This enlargement has troubled Moscow, which is wary of the Brussels-headquartered alliance edging ever closer to its borders and hemming it in from the West.NATO is comprised of 30 member states.Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the US were its founding members.The newest member state is North Macedonia, which joined in 2020.Three so-called partner countries – Ukraine, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Georgia – have declared their aspirations to become part of the alliance, which says its purpose is “to guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means’.Ukraine has repeatedly stated its intention to become a NATO member state – an objective that is written into the country’s constitution.Joining the alliance would boost Ukraine’s defensive strength, because of NATO’s principle of collective defence. That principle – set out by Article 5 in NATO’s founding treaty –  means an attack against one ally is considered as an attack against all allies, committing them to protect one another.In 2008, NATO leaders promised Ukraine it would one day be given the opportunity to join the alliance. But despite deepening cooperation in the years since, there is thought to be little chance of that happening any time soon.Western powers are yet to be convinced Kyiv has done enough work to eradicate corruption and meet the other political, economic and military criteria required to enter the alliance, as set out in its 1995 Study on Enlargement.NATO’s members may also be wary of Ukraine joining their ranks while tensions with Moscow remain high, as such a move could draw them into a direct conflict with Russia in the event it launches an attack, because of the collective defence principle.On Monday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz said the issue was ‘not on the agenda’ following talks with Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv, despite Ukraine’s president restating his country’s membership ambition.All 30 NATO allies must unanimously approve a new country becoming part of the alliance.Putin has said it is now time for NATO’s waves of expansion to be reversed and for the alliance to guarantee that Ukraine never be allowed to become a member.He argues that the West has betrayed Moscow by breaking alleged verbal commitments made at the end of the Cold War that NATO would not expand eastwards. The alliance denies that any such promises were made.In a show of force, Russia has massed more than 100,000 troops around Ukraine’s borders and sent sweeping security demands to Washington and NATO.In response, the alliance, the US and its European allies have been scrambling to negotiate with Moscow and de-escalate the situation.But the high-stakes diplomatic efforts have borne little success. Washington and NATO have rejected the Kremlin’s central demands – that the alliance cease all military activity in Eastern Europe and Ukraine be barred from membership – while Russia has refused to budge on its requests.As tensions continue to simmer, Western leaders, including US President Joe Biden, have made clear they will not send troops to defend Ukraine in the event of a Russian invasion.But several of Kyiv’s allies in NATO, with the exception of Germany, have supplied Kyiv with weapons as it ramps up preparations to repel a potential incursion. Meanwhile, NATO has moved to reinforce its eastern flank with additional troops and military hardware.” ~from an article in Al Jazeera, February 15, 2022.______________________________________One burning question is: whether and to what extent sanctions on the Russian Central Bank can choke the financial life-blood out of Russia?” See articles in Economic Times. China is watching the Ukrainian conflict carefully. How that unfolds will impact the timing of and the nature and manner of CCP China's insinuation/incursion/invasion into Taiwan.  Notice how the U.S. has been reduced to a minor player in the remaking of geopolitical dominance in the world since Biden took office. The U.S. has become a docile little lamb. And that has emboldened both CCP China and Russia.The Rothschild Dynasty’s propagandists have thrust, into the psyche of the American public, a particular message: The Ukrainian people are fighting for freedom and liberty against a dangerous, monolithic, bestial aggressor, Russia. The purpose of this messaging is to get the American public on board with the game plan: war in Europe. This propaganda is as palpable and as insidious as it is ingenious. And, for this purpose, guns are now seen as a good thing. Vladimir Zelensky urges his people—both old and young—to take up arms against Vladimir Putin. And the Ukrainian police and military are now handing out “weapons of war,” i.e., selective fire rifles and submachine guns, to the commoners, like hotcakes. Isn’t that fascinating? The news media here at home, isn’t suggesting that guns are such a bad thing now even as one must wonder how a person who has never handled a firearm before would know how to handle a selective fire or fully automatic rifle. Breitbart says:“The Ukrainian Parliament greatly expanded the right to bear arms on the eve of the full-scale Russian invasion. A day later, when Russian troops began assaulting multiple major Ukrainian cities, President Volodymyr Zelensky announced the government would give anyone willing to fight the Russian military a weapon, no questions asked.Reznikov issued an update, shared by the Ukrainian armed forces on social media, stating that 18,000 firearms ‘and corresponding combat kits,’ meaning ammunition, were in the hands of Ukrainian citizens, and again inviting anyone willing to fight against the invasion to ask for weapons.”Apparently, when fighting for the benefit of the Rothschild dynasty, guns in the hands of the common people are okay. And any thought of a person accidentally shooting him or herself in the foot or of transforming from a Dr. Jekyll character into a psychotic Mr. Hyde and going on a rampage is of no moment. See ABC News report and report from Armstrong Economics on the arming of Ukrainian citizens.  See also report in Conservative Daily News ———:“Prior to the attack, Ukrainian officials took steps to help Ukrainian civilians protect themselves.‘Ukraine’s parliament on Wednesday voted to approve in the first reading a draft law which gives permission to Ukrainians to carry firearms and act in self-defense,’ Reuters reported.The 30-day emergency order, National Review reports, would ‘grant citizens the right to bear arms.’ It would also allow the government to conscript Ukrainians between the ages of 18 and 60, ‘adding nearly 200,000 troops to the country’s defense.’‘Next Time, Bear Arms Earlier’Permitting Ukrainians to arm themselves is a sensible measure. But as Charles Cooke points out at NRO, ‘it’s also a bit late.’While Ukraine has relatively loose gun control laws by European standards, estimates suggest only about 1.3 million firearms exist in the country, which has a population of some 43 million. This diminishes the chances of Ukrainian civilians being able to offer serious resistance, an idea that is hardly far-fetched, Stephen Gutowski points out at The Reload:‘. . . the history of warfare is rife with examples of smaller, weaker, and less organized forces besting even the greatest militaries in the world. From the American Revolution to Vietnam, Iraq, and multiple wars in Afghanistan, it isn’t difficult to find templates for how a Ukrainian resistance could eventually prevail if Russia attempts to capture and hold it.’It’s wonderful Ukrainian officials are finally extending the natural right to bear arms to its people. The only tragedy is that it took so long. Speaking on CNN, Nina Lvovna Khrushcheva, a professor of international affairs at the New School in New York, also said small arms could be decisive.‘If every Ukrainian takes a gun, Russians don’t have a prayer,’ she told John Berman. ‘I mean the military can fight, but . . . Ukrainians are really ready today.’Ukrainian leaders apparently agree. The government on Thursday took the unusual step of issuing thousands of automatic weapons to civilians, following the issuance of its emergency order. Unfortunately, the likelihood of serious resistance is low because the Ukrainian government embraced the right to bear arms so late.” —And what if Ukraine joins the EU, asks the leftist rag NPR? That will definitely serve to extend the Rothschild empire, but at what cost to stability in Europe and the world?  Is this supposed to deter Putin, as Rothschild-paid toady-commentators posit, or will it simply heighten Putin's resolve to take control over the entire Country? In fact the question is ridiculous. One major reason Putin invaded Ukraine was as a direct response and not unreasonable anger to the CIA/State Department-sponsored/instigated Euromaidan uprising of 2013. But, that little fact is absent from any discussion in Congress and in the seditious mainstream media. Yet, that fact is critical to understanding the present European crisis. Perhaps if the American people were presented with all the pertinent facts, they would not be a bit more circumspect in their harsh judgment of Putin. But, that would work against the agenda of the Neoliberal Globalist House of Rothschild and Soros and their minions. Recall the points made in this article, supra. Consider: the EU is the political, social, and economic arm of the Rothschild dynasty. NATO is its military arm. Although not every member of the EU is a member of NATO, nonetheless, the EU has developed its own military as a parallel construct to NATO to protect all EU member states. See article in worldview.stratfor.com. And see article in eeas.europa.eu. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/case-eu-defense/Likely an EU military arm would at some point merge with NATO. See article in americanprogress.org. By the way, as pointed out by the website influence watch, “The Center for American Progress Action Fund (CAP Action), established in July 2003 by longtime Clinton family confidant John Podesta, liberal billionaire George Soros, and a handful of other former Washington, D.C. Democrats and Clinton administration officials, is a leading force in progressive media as the publisher of the left-wing blog Think Progress.” This Soros/Rothschild NGA is pushing to embroil the U.S. into the thick of the Ukraine/Russia conflict. The U.S. has never faced off against Russia or China directly, and for good reason. Each of these Nations has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the world many times over. That doesn't faze Soros and the Rothschilds in their lust to control all of Europe, and much of the rest of the world. But, the American people should see these creatures for what they are: ruthless, greedy, wrathful killers, no less so than Putin or Xi Jinping.Not surprisingly, the Soros/Rothschild machine is tied to the Democrat Party. See article on the website, Legal Insurrection.“The Center for American Progress (CAP), the George Soros funded Democratic messaging machine, runs the aggressive Think Progress website.Think Progress is obsessed with attacking the Tea Party movement as racist, the Koch Brothers as evil manipulators, and Clarence Thomas as corrupt. Think Progress blogger Matthew Yglesias helped ignite the false story that Sarah Palin’s electoral map was connected to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.Think Progress is the public face of CAP, dominating news cycles with its relentless attacks on anyone who opposes Obama.CAP, which was run for years by former Clinton adviser John Podesta, now is run by a former Obama campaign staffer, Neera Tanden.Now the White House is bringing a senior CAP strategist Jennifer Palmieri into the White House to help prepare for the 2012 campaign.  As reported by Glenn Thrush at Politico:The White House is bringing onboard high-octane Clinton administration  veteran Jennifer Palmieri , a top official at the progressive Center for  American Progress think tank, to beef up its communications unit heading into  2012, POLITICO has learned.Palmieri , who currently serves as president of CAP’s political action fund  and as a senior vice president at the parent organization, replaces former  deputy communications director Jennifer Psaki, who left for the private sector  earlier this fall.A senior Obama campaign official now runs CAP and Think Progress.  A senior CAP strategist now helps run the 2012 campaign from inside the White House.  The full embrace of CAP and Think Progress by the White House is just another sign that 2012 will be the nastiest campaign ever, with the truth the first victim.The merger of the White House and Think Progress is just about complete.  Think Progress is in control, or is the Obama campaign, or is there no difference anymore?”Naturally, the messaging is geared to impress the American people that, Putin's incursion into Ukraine is destined to fail. Below is a recent bit of propaganda put forth by the Soros Globalist Open Society Think Progress website:“Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has turned into a quagmire for Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia is now engaged in a war it cannot win. No matter how events play out on the battlefield, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is a strategic disaster for Russia.The inept Russian military advances and the strong performance from Ukraine’s forces have given Ukraine an incredibly dangerous weapon in war: belief. Ukrainian forces have fought valiantly and withstood Russian incursions. Ukraine has now mobilized as a country to fight and have imposed significant losses on Russian forces. Though it is difficult to assess casualty figures, NBC reported that U.S. and Ukrainian officials both estimate nearly 6,000 deaths compared to official Russian figures at nearly 500. Even if the numbers at the lower end are accurate, that would still amount to a substantial toll. The losses for Russia may worsen, as the war shifts to a more violent phase, with Russian forces trying to take major Ukrainian cities, where they will likely face tremendous resistance.U.S. and Ukrainian officials both estimate nearly 6,000 deaths compared to official Russian figures at nearly 500. Even if the numbers at the lower end are accurate, that would still amount to a substantial toll.Even if Russian forces abruptly take Kyiv or destroy Ukraine militarily, such tactical victories on the battlefield will do little to help Russia govern Ukraine. Politically, Ukraine is lost for Russia. Potential military success won’t make this any less of a political disaster for Russia. It is not just the military resistance to ‘Russian forces that should worry Putin—just as significant are the peaceful protests that are playing out in small towns “seized’ by Russian forces. It is very hard to see how a pro-Russian puppet regime will govern the country. Any installed regime will need the support of a massive security apparatus to terrify the population, arrest dissidents, and brutally suppress any insurgency. There is little doubt that Putin would be willing to proceed down this path. But it is difficult to see how he can do so practically. The military force sent to invade Ukraine might be large enough to take the country, but it is not large enough to govern it.”To control Ukraine, Russia will have to have support from actors on the ground—politicians, police, and other security forces. In the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the United States had some significant popular support from the oppressed Shia majority and was removing a reviled dictator. It is difficult, if not impossible, to see widespread Ukrainian acceptance of a Russian occupation and a pro-Russian leader. Comprehensive Russian military success on the battlefield, coupled with significant financial enticements, might entice some in Ukraine to support such a regime. But given that Ukrainian society has already mobilized for war, there will doubtless be people that keep up the fight and resort to an insurgent campaign to increase the costs of Russia’s occupation. No matter what, Ukraine will be a huge economic and military drain for the Kremlin.”But, who are the Rothschilds and Soros attempting to convince here? Putin or the American people? Putin won't be deterred. And, it is clear from the above commentary, that the House of Rothschild and George Soros know that Ukraine will fall to Russia, and that Putin does not intend to stop at Eastern Ukraine. He intends to take over the entire Country. For Putin this would mean, one, creation of a buffer zone from the EU and NATO onto the doorstep of Russia, two, extension of Russia's own empire; and three, payback for the CIA/U.S. State Department Euromaidan coup that brought a Rothschild puppet into control of Ukraine after deposing Putin's own puppet, Yanukovych, and replacing him with the CIA/U.S. State Department/Rothschild puppet, Turchynov. The Rothschild disinformation machine says that the Euromaidan was a popular protest that had nothing to do with foreign interference. See, the following narrative from euvsdisinfo.eu:“Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative depicting the 2013-14 protests in Kyiv as a coup d’état orchestrated by the West. There was no coup d’état in Ukraine. The onset of the Euromaidan protests was a spontaneous and endogenous reaction by numerous segments of the Ukrainian population to former President Yanukovych’s sudden withdrawal from the promised Association Agreement with the European Union in November 2013. The protesters’ demands included constitutional reform, a stronger role for parliament, the formation of a government of national unity, an end to corruption, early presidential elections and an end to violence.” The Rothschild disinformation machine says that the Euromaidan was a popular protest that had nothing to do with foreign interference. But the CIA would hardly advertise its dirty work. But its MO is all over this and it isn't the first time. See article on CIA involvement in instigating protests in Chile and in Iran, infra.Unlike the afore-referenced article, there is a well-researched and well-reasoned essay by Martin Armstrong on Ukrainian history, from the early 21st Century to the present, on his website Armstrong Economics, that also makes light of CIA involvement in the Euromaidan. Armstrong stresses the corruption endemic in Ukraine that is its own clear evidence of little need for the CIA to topple Yanukovych, as there was reason enough for the people to be sufficiently enraged by the Yanukovych regime to get rid of him, but the Nuland conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt doesn't negate the inference of CIA involvement, as western Neoliberal Globalist expansionism throughout the EU and in much of the rest of the world, together with a lengthy history of U.S. State Department/CIA/Rothschild involvement in empire-building around the world, is well established and not to be denied. The U.S. State Department/CIA/Rothschild wanted Yanukovych gone, and, with it, Kremlin influence, and the Neoliberal Globalists would do whatever was required to help that along.  And, one must wonder how Zelensky, who, as Armstrong says, is a comedian and actor with no prior political experience happened to become prime minister isn't adequately explained. And, it turns out that Zelensky is as ruthless and as corrupt as any of his predecessors. Quite some comedian that Zelensky!Armstrong writes, “After Viktor Yanukovych was removed from power in early 2014 during the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution, the chairman of parliament Oleksandr Turchynov was appointed to the role of acting president. The Ukrainian people were very upset for they believed that there would be no real change. You MUST draw a line between what the people did and what the West did afterward. These people who attribute everything to an all-powerful CIA plot have NO personal knowledge of anything and spew out their opinion as if it were fact. The whole “Fuck the EU!” comment by Victoria Nuland phoning with Geoffrey Pyatt was reported on February 7th, 2014 and it only illustrates that there were efforts to gain control of the situation in Ukraine, but it does not demonstrate that the CIA organized the revolution from the start. Yanukovych fled Ukraine on February 22, 2014, just about 3 months from the beginning of the protests.Yanukovych was an oligarch and his police were shaking down businesses and forcing them to pay his two sons. He was running Ukraine the same way oligarchs ran Russia. You obey their commands or you die. If you had a business that was really doing well, Yanukovych and his sons would confiscate it. That is what caused the people to rise up, it was nothing the CIA managed to do. I had personal friends on the barricades. I was deeply concerned for their safety and was in regular contact offering my advice.I can tell you that the West installed the leaders thereafter and the people were told if they dared to revolt against them, they would lose all support from both the EU and the USA. The puppet president, Oleksandr Turchynov served as the acting president from February 23 until June 7, 2014, and was the only person in Ukrainian history to serve in the role. During his tenure, Turchynov was addressed as “acting president” by other Ukrainian politicians and the media.This was followed by a questionable 2014 election which took place on May 25th, with businessman Petro Poroshenko claiming to have won just over 54% percent of the vote. Yulia Tymoshenko was the runner-up with around 13%. Poroshenko was sworn in as president on June 7th, 2014. Poroshenko was a Ukrainian billionaire businessman known as the ‘Chocolate King’. However, our direct sources at the time in the East made it plain that they were unable to vote as the polling stations were destroyed by the pro-Russian terrorists/tourists. Those who would have voted in the East may have voted for Poroshenko because the general feeling was they needed a President who would have a majority vote with no run-offs to prevent civil war.Nonetheless, Poroshenko was also a seasoned politician. He has served as the Minister of Foreign Affairs from 2009 to 2010, and as the Minister of Trade and Economic Development in 2012. From 2007 until 2012, he headed the Council of Ukraine’s National Bank. He is pro-West for economic freedom. The fact that he was a billionaire who has created businesses rather than inherited them or filled his pockets like Viktor Yanukovych, was good for he was seen as someone who would not rob the treasury and b beyond potential bribes. Yanukovych was not poor, but he was not a businessman in reality. Still, Ukraine’s east remained caught in a torrent of violence that was maturing into a civil war that we are really seeing today. This was a major challenge that tested Poroshenko who had promised to navigate between Russia and the West. But the fighting continued as the separatist rebellion in the Donets Basin continued. Poro­shenko said at the time:“The first steps of our entire team at the beginning of the presidency will concentrate on ending the war, ending the chaos, ending the disorder and bringing peace to Ukrainian soil, to a united, single Ukraine,” at a victory rally Sunday. “Our decisive actions will bring this result fairly quickly.”Poroshenko has also said he wants to lead Ukraine to closer ties with the European Union. During his speeches, Poroshenko on numerous occasions has called the war in East Ukraine a “Patriotic War”, yet did not initiate implementation of martial law. Nevertheless, the violence that prevented many citizens in eastern Ukraine from voting, demonstrates the old anti-democratic attitude there. It is their way or no way – sheer dictatorship. Separatists in the region had vowed to disrupt the vote, and they largely succeeded in shutting that down knowing they would lose. If the vote would have been for leaving Ukraine at the time, then they would have made sure the people voted. But that was not the case.Putin said a day before Ukraine voted that Russia would “cooperate with the authorities that will come to power as a result of the election,” but he added that he continued to consider Yanukovich the legitimate president of the country. Eventually, on June 18, 2015, Yanukovych was officially deprived of the title of President of Ukraine retroactively.Poroshenko set up an offshore company in the British Virgin Islands to shelter his taxes from the sale of his company. Leaked documents from the Panama Papers from 2016 revealed that Poroshenko registered the company, Prime Asset Partners Ltd, on August 21st, 2014. He denied any wrongdoing and his legal firm, Avellum, overseeing the sale of Roshen, Poroshenko’s confectionery company, said that “any allegations of tax evasion are groundless”. The anti-corruption group Transparency International believes that the “creation of businesses while serving as president is a direct violation of the constitution”. His name was cited in the list of politicians named in “Paradise Papers” allegations.This allegation of tax evasion arose during the 2019 election which took place on March 31st, with a run-off on April 21st. As a result of this election, Volodymyr Zelensky, a former actor and comedian with no prior political experience became the sixth President of Ukraine with 73% of the popular vote in the run-off against the incumbent Petro Poroshenko.Within months of the election, on December 20th, 2019, Ukrainian law enforcement raided both Poroshenko’s party headquarters and gym on the orders of President Zelensky who has turned out to be ruthless and a questionable head of state. The raid was intended to eliminate any possible influence of Poroshenko going forward. It was used to launch criminal investigations focused of alleged theft of servers with classified information and tax evasion which is now always called money laundering. Zelensky outright accused Poroshenko of state treason, aiding terrorist organizations, and financing terrorism due to allegedly organizing the purchase of coal from separatist-controlled areas of Ukraine together with pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk. Poroshenko denied the allegations, calling them “fabricated, politically motivated, and black PR directed against [Zelensky’s] political opponents”.One thing that no serious historian would quibble about is the nature of the Ukrainian Government. It is corrupt to its core, and if the Country is to be described as a democracy as the Press in this Country constantly informs Americans, then there is nothing about democracy to recommend it. Ukraine is a textbook example of the failings of any notion of direct democracy as a form of Government that Democrats incessantly wax poetic about. It is mob rule. And, if the U.S. is to take its cue from Ukraine, this Country will become much like it. That is reason enough for Americans to usher the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Democrats out of Congress and contain the beast of the Administrative Deep State with all appreciable speed.The Neoliberal Globalist Rothschild elites have used the Ukrainian/Russian debacle to entangle the United States more fully into the spider web of the EU/UN conglomerate, and are also using the crisis in Ukraine to deflect from the serious problems at home on every critical policy issue. There is nothing for the American public to be content about it in the Biden/Pelosi agenda. And embroiling the U.S. in the affairs of Europe will do nothing to extricate our Country from our own problems and will only draw us into a serious catastrophic reckoning with Russia that will draw us and the world one step closer to a nuclear catastrophe. By inserting its military into Ukraine did Putin fall into a Rothschild trap, binding the U.S. more closely with the EU and bringing Ukraine inevitably into the fold of the EU? The Rothschilds pushed Putin against a wall. And innocent Ukrainian people are paying the price. And, more Europeans, as well as Americans, may well pay the price for the Neoliberal Globalists' grandiose ambition to control the entire seemingly free world: the quest to bring to fruition an extensive world-wide neo-feudal empire going under the peculiarly innocuous name of the Open Society. If the Rothschilds deliberately pushed Putin's back to the wall on Ukraine, he didn't have much of a choice as to how to extricate Russia other than to move against it, as failure to do so would have seen that nation eventually becoming an EU and or NATO member anyway, and Russia would be facing nuclear-tipped missiles looking down its throat. This could all have been avoided if the CIA/U.S. State Department hadn't instigated or, have, at the very least a hand in the Euromaidan protest in 2013. But, Americans have seen this all before. It is the Modus Operandi of the Rothschild-backed CIA/U.S. State Department policy arm of global conquest and it does nothing to promote world stability but, rather, for the benefit of short-term financial gain and all for the hope of long-term geopolitical gang, global instability is the ultimate result. Look to history. See, e.g., article in the Mosaddegh Foundation.

“The 1953 Iranian coup d'état (known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup) saw the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953 and the installation of a military government. This coup was orchestrated by the intelligence agencies of the United Kingdom and the United States under the name TPAJAX Project. The result of this event was that under the direct orders of Mohammad-Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, the administration of the country got out of the hands of the parliament to find itself under the supervision of an illegitimate government.  The establishment of this power was under major support of its foreign allies until its overthrow in 1979.

In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh, who led the oil commission of the parliament. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) under license, and was only a source of little revenue for the country. Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s as a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism. Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically. Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the previous U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.” See also article on the website History.

American propaganda messaging and film played up the regime of the Shah of Iran as an example of modern industrialization in a third-world Country. It was nothing of the sort. Underneath the veneer of democracy and modern industrialization the Country was a brutal torture chamber. And, the result was something much worse than a regime under the Socialist, Mosaddegh, whose great crime, was a cooperative relationship with the Soviet Union. Soon the U.S. and Europe, tired of their puppet, instigated or simply allowed matters in Iran to get out of hand. And, worse than either the Shah or Mosaddegh before him, Iran fell into a ruthless theocracy under the Ayatollah Khomeini. See article in the New American. And the U.S. is suffering the consequences from that, for over forty years now.Also in the 1950s, the CIA engineered a coup in Chile that brought the brutal dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet to power.And some sources say that the CIA was also instrumental in placing Iraq's Saddam Hussein into power:“US intelligence helped Saddam's Ba`ath Party seize power for the first time in 1963. Evidence suggests that Saddam was on the CIA payroll as early as 1959, when he participated in a failed assassination attempt against Iraqi strongman Abd al-Karim Qassem. In the 1980s, the US and Britain backed Saddam in the war against Iran, giving Iraq arms, money, satellite intelligence, and even chemical & bio-weapon precursors. As many as 90 US military advisors supported Iraqi forces and helped pick targets for Iraqi air and missile attacks.” See also GPF archive:“The last time Donald Rumsfeld saw Saddam Hussein, he gave him a cordial handshake. The date was almost 20 years ago, Dec. 20, 1983; an official Iraqi television crew recorded the historic moment.The once and future Defense secretary, at the time a private citizen, had been sent by President Ronald Reagan to Baghdad as a special envoy. Saddam Hussein, armed with a pistol on his hip, seemed ‘vigorous and confident,’ according to a now declassified State Department cable obtained by NEWSWEEK. Rumsfeld ‘conveyed the President's greetings and expressed his pleasure at being in Baghdad,’ wrote the notetaker. Then the two men got down to business, talking about the need to improve relations between their two countries.Like most foreign-policy insiders, Rumsfeld was aware that Saddam was a murderous thug who supported terrorists and was trying to build a nuclear weapon. (The Israelis had already bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor at Osirak.) But at the time, America's big worry was Iran, not Iraq. The Reagan administration feared that the Iranian revolutionaries who had overthrown the shah (and taken hostage American diplomats for 444 days in 1979-81) would overrun the Middle East and its vital oilfields. On the-theory that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the Reaganites were seeking to support Iraq in a long and bloody war against Iran. The meeting between Rumsfeld and Saddam was consequential: for the next five years, until Iran finally capitulated, the United States backed Saddam's armies with military intelligence, economic aid and covert supplies of munitions.FORMER ALLIESRumsfeld is not the first American diplomat to wish for the demise of a former ally. After all, before the cold war, the Soviet Union was America's partner against Hitler in World War II. In the real world, as the saying goes, nations have no permanent friends, just permanent interests. Nonetheless, Rumsfeld's long-ago interlude with Saddam is a reminder that today's friend can be tomorrow's mortal threat. As President George W. Bush and his war cabinet ponder Saddam's successor's regime, they would do well to contemplate how and why the last three presidents allowed the Butcher of Baghdad to stay in power so long.The history of America's relations with Saddam is one of the sorrier tales in American foreign policy. Time and again, America turned a blind eye to Saddam's predations, saw him as the lesser evil or flinched at the chance to unseat him. No single policymaker or administration deserves blame for creating, or at least tolerating, a monster; many of their decisions seemed reasonable at the time. Even so, there are moments in this clumsy dance with the Devil that make one cringe. It is hard to believe that, during most of the 1980s, America knowingly permitted the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission to import bacterial cultures that might be used to build biological weapons. But it happened.America's past stumbles, while embarrassing, are not an argument for inaction in the future. Saddam probably is the ‘grave and gathering danger’ described by President Bush in his speech to the United Nations last week. It may also be true that ‘whoever replaces Saddam is not going to be worse,’ as a senior administration official put it to NEWSWEEK. But the story of how America helped create a Frankenstein monster it now wishes to strangle is sobering. It illustrates the power of wishful thinking, as well as the iron law of unintended consequences.”The history of CIA/State Department machinations in the affairs of other Countries is long, disheartening, ignoble, and, ultimately, disastrous for our Nation's long-term security. The very notion of ‘regime change’ as foreign policy is presumptuous and arrogant, and, regardless of how the Press spins it, any relationship to the desire to promote this, thing, ‘democracy,’ is a damnable lie. The CIA/State Department toadies of the House of Rothschild wish to maintain control of Ukraine, but the reason for it has nothing to do with promoting democracy which doesn't exist in Ukraine anyway. The goal is to extend the reach of the Rothschilds' control over the remains of western nation-states. A ruthless dictator is far easier to control than that of a civil libertarian leader whose goal is less his own glorification, and more the motivation of the denizens of his Country to succeed in a myriad of fields. A neo-feudal empire cannot long survive where the average citizen is empowered to control his own destiny and seeks to ensure that nothing his Government does will interfere with control over his own selfhood. The larger a feudal empire grows, the more rigid and uniform in structure it must be. The Neoliberal Globalists view billions of commoners as random bits of energy that have to be brought under a strict, regimented system lest the entire system become unwieldy and collapse as people seek to make their own way in the world to maximize their personal potential. That was the basis for the success of the United States for centuries and that is precisely what the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalists don't want. The Biden Administration's policies are all directed to dumbing down the population for the purpose of maximizing control over the populace.And, what do such policies do for the American people? Nothing beneficial for them. But, don’t we have a say in our own destiny? President Trump wanted to keep our Nation neutral, thereby strengthening it against a takeover by either the House of Rothschild or China. That singular policy objective has gone by the board under the Biden Administration, whose policies, not surprisingly, mirror the objectives of the United Nations and the EU, and do not benefit the American citizenry.Both the Rothschild Dynasty and CCP China had their own reasons to shunt Trump and the American people who supported him aside, and that is exactly what has happened. A strong, independent, sovereign United States has no place in a Collectivist Dystopian world.Those Americans who thought Trump dangerous to the security of the Country have ironically opened themselves up, and the rest of us along with them, to true danger, immeasurable grief, and horror, at the hands of the toadies of both Xi Jinping and the Rothschilds who are both vying for control over the U.S. _________________________________WHERE IS THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD HEADED UNDER THE “PUNCH AND JUDY SHOW” THAT THE LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD—THE UNITED STATES—HAS METAMORPHOSED INTO?Controlling information access, curbing dissent, curtailment of privacy, destroying the right to own personal property, reducing the commonalty to a state of abject poverty through Federal Reserve monetary policy and U.S. Department of Treasury fiscal policy machinations, insinuation into the commonalty’s health and financial records, and confiscation of the commonalty’s firearms—these are the vehicles through which the House of Rothschild its minions intend to bring to fruition their grandiose supra-transnational, multicultural, neo-feudal empire spanning the globe: a new world order qua “Open Society.”A massive global Triumvirate is taking shape, an arrangement among three powerful blocs:

• The Rothschild Dynasty’s “Free World”/“Open Society,” consolidating power and control over the remains of the EU, the Commonwealth Nations, and the Countries of North and South America
• CCP China, controlling Asia, the Indo-Pacific Region; 
• Russia, controlling its great landmass and the Baltic Region of Europe, extending its own empire and hoping to create a firm buffer against the weight of the Rothschild Dynasty’s Euro/Atlantic global empire. See article in Carnegieendowment.org

Africa, the Middle East region, and the Arctic and Antarctic regions, along with “Space Supremacy,” are up for grabs.Can the commonalty of Canada and the United States retain sovereignty and independence as the Rothschild western neo-feudal Global empire and CCP China clash for dominance over North America? Our best chance to do so would have been with Trump. That is not possible with the present Administration, whose goes are antithetical to an ascendant, strong, United States.The common people of Canada have no control over the greater world, as fought over by the Rothschilds, CCP China, and Russia. But, if the concept of sovereign independent nation-state is to survive the coming cataclysm as both CCP China and the Rothschilds fight for domination over North America, it is incumbent on the common peoples of both Countries that they first recognize the vise-grip around them. They have caught on to the grand scheme—saying “enough already.”The Canadian people realize that Justin Trudeau is merely a “pretty-boy,” effeminate sop; a figurehead, controlled by and buffeted by both the House of Rothschild and CCP China. Neither of those two powers have any interest in securing the welfare of Canadians. The common people of Canada are simply viewed as expendable dross to the Rothschields and to China.And Americans are presently stuck with Joe Biden: a vacuous husk, barely functioning, barely able to communicate intelligibly the script handed to him, but serving as a convenient focal point for the Country as the Rothschild Dynasty consolidates control over all the apparatuses of the Federal Government and attempts to exert complete control over the States in defiance of the doctrine of federalism.But, the citizenry of the U.S. and the Canadian subjects of the Crown in Canada have one strength that the Hoi Polloi throughout the rest of the world don’t have. They are armed. And both the Trudeau Government and the Biden Administration intend to disarm their Country’s citizenry, as they must although this is easier said than done. Yet, the fact remains: the Rothschild neo-feudal empire/“Open Society” cannot come to fruition until all sovereign nation-states collapse. And that cannot happen either to Canada or to the United States as long as the common people are armed.Both we, the common people, and the Neoliberal Globalist ruling elite know that the world is at a crossroads; an inflection point.The Globalist elites must suppress armed resistance. This is no easy task.  Canadians and Americans alike are becoming justifiably increasingly anxious and restless at the clear loss of their fundamental liberties.Clearly, the Globalist overlords want and need to exert dominance over the two major Nations of North America as they have gained dominance over most nations of the EU. But it is much more difficult. Canada, a British Commonwealth Nation, while tied to the English Monarchy is not tied to the EU. And the Government of the U.S. is tied neither to the English Monarchy nor is it tied to Brussels.The impact of the American Revolution of 1776 cannot be convincingly denied, nor ever overturned through overt means, i.e., through a Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Counterrevolution.Rebellion against tyranny—the predicate basis for the American Revolution is firmly rooted in the soul of most Americans and cannot be easily removed; nor can the American Revolution be overturned easily through covert means. And, while the Bill of Rights of Canada says nothing of a right of the people to keep and bear arms, it is arms they do in fact bear and will not easily surrender them, even in the absence of a well-defined natural law tradition of a right of self-defense against tyranny through force of arms.The U.S. is different. We have such a tradition. The Globalist puppetmasters know this full well and they have, through time, constructed, developed, and implemented elaborate, comprehensive, and intensive social engineering programs to destabilize American society and to disassemble societal institutions grounded in the right of the people to bear arms against tyranny. And the American people have seen that tyranny is in evidence through the erosion of fundamental freedoms and liberties.Through the implementation of intensive and expansive psychological conditioning programs designed to rewire the psyche of the American citizenry, Americans are being methodically conditioned to repudiate their history, heritage, culture, and Christian ethos. Much attention has been directed to and considerable energy expended in attempting to undermine the public’s veneration for their fundamental freedoms and to undercut their undying belief in the value of liberty and eradicate the very notion that the armed citizenry could in fact defeat a determined Government in battle. Americans did succeed once before against a formidable and ruthless power and, if the people retain their will, they can do so again.To weaken the American people's resolve and to undermine their faith in the sanctity and inviolability of Self upon which the will to resist tyranny proceeds, is a time-consuming, and costly enterprise.Even with advances in psychological and neurological conditioning and even with the means to target hundreds of millions of people through the vehicle of the “smartphone” and internet, the forces that crush entire countries and people alike may still fail to destroy the will of Americans. For, once the concepts of freedom and liberty take hold in the psyche of the individual and in one’s ancestral memory, they are difficult things, indeed, to dislodge._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved. 

MARTIAL LAW IN CANADA; CAN IT HAPPEN IN THE UNITED STATES?

THE GLOBALISTS’ PUPPET JUSTIN TRUDEAU DECLARED MARTIAL LAW IN CANADA; CAN IT HAPPEN HERE IN THE U.S.?

PART ONE

Americans should not only be concerned with but greatly alarmed by Trudeau’s declaration of martial law in Canada. His actions over there have repercussions here, a Nation that resides next door.A declaration of martial law could happen here, but the presence of tens of millions of armed citizens operates as an extraordinarily powerful deterrent against the imposition of it if the Government’s inducement for it were grounded on the notion the armed citizenry itself posed an imminent threat to it.Yet, given the nature of events at home in the U.S. this past year, under a feckless, corrupt, inept, idiotic Administration and an equally feckless corrupt Democrat-Party controlled Congress, the Government could attempt it. If the Biden Administration is that stupid, a bloodbath would ensue—no doubt about that. But it will be the Government’s call. The Government will have to be the instigator of violence against the American people.Americans will not suffer tyranny. That much is clear. The question is how far will this Government go in testing the citizenry's patience? At what point would the Government feel brazen enough to take the risk by pushing the American people against a wall?There are forces both here and abroad that would love to see the Biden Administration call for martial law, as the Trudeau Government did, notwithstanding here, as there,  lack of sound reason—or even flimsy pretext—to do so. Americans have certainly witnessed in the last few years a clear and callous constriction of their fundamental rights and liberties. But the Federal Government hasn’t dared to strangle a person’s life by freezing his or her bank account—at least not yet. And, a truck strike, such as the one in Canada, is not likely to result in anything of the sort occurring here in the U.S. for the very reason that tens of millions of Americans possess firearms. The Canadian citizenry does not. Americans would not tolerate a massive attack on their ability to provide for themselves and their families as a means to subjugate them.Any attempt to destroy one’s life—and that includes an attempt to destroy one’s ability to make a living and having access to their monetary funds—is likely to be met with an equally harsh response by the American people. This is an application of Newton’s Third Law of Motion applied to society. Still, Americans must take notice of what just transpired in Canada. And an analysis of that is in order for there is an elaborate and unpleasant mosaic taking shape in the world—one that impacts all western nation-states.Recent events in Canada mark a major step forward in a massive, albeit secretive global enterprise that transects and transcends the needs, desires, and wishes of the commonalty of all western first-world countries. The goals of that global enterprise are incompatible with the needs, desires, and wishes of the common people of those countries.Canada’s Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, declared martial law in Canada a few days ago, on February 15, 2022. He delivered the declaration of martial law coolly, caustically, perfunctorily, in monotone as if reading a script prepared for him by others, which it undoubtedly was.This declaration of martial law could have been avoided if Trudeau had deigned to meet with spokespeople for the truckers, allowing them the courtesy of airing their justifiable grievances to which, as citizens, they were certainly entitled. That would have obviated the need for an irresponsible, horrific response to their strike—a peaceful act of civil disobedience. But, then, the declaration of martial law wasn't something to be avoided. It was precisely what Trudeau wanted—or rather, and more to the point, it was what those pulling Trudeau’s strings wanted. It was what the Neoliberal Globalist ruling elite wanted—the imposition of totalitarianism on Canada. And the Truckers' strike gave the Neoliberal Globalists the pretext they needed and wanted.Yet, truth to tell, totalitarianism already existed in Canada. The Canadian people didn't know that a week ago. Now they do. The declaration of martial law—i.e., invocation of Canada's Emergencies Act—simply made the fact of totalitarian rule in Canada transparent. The declaration of martial law was little more than a formality.And, the cruel assault of the RCMP and Ottawa’s police on both Canadian truckers and their supporters, that followed, only made the brutality of Totalitarianism, visited on the truckers and on their supporters, more emphatic.The obscene actions of the RCMP and Ottawa’s police simply punctuated the contentious, contemptuous attitude of the ruling Global “elite” toward the Canadian commonalty: a cold, calculated indifference toward the plight of the average Canadian citizen that manifested clearly, definitively as sheer loathing. The Government obviously gave the RCMP and Ottawa police carte blanche in its dealings with the truckers and its supporters. The message heard was loud and clear: “Do whatever you want out there!” And, giving in to the beast within them, they did just that. See, e.g., the story in Daily Mail, and article in Toronto Sun.Easy enough it surely was for Trudeau to declare martial law, sans Court order or Parliamentary consent. There was no hint of reluctance exhibited on his part.Still, the rationale for it from a legal sense, let alone ethical sense, is problematic and the implications of it for both Canada and other western nation-states, including, and especially ours, as Canada’s closest neighbor, is deeply troubling.This is no small matter. It marks an unprecedented step backward—to outright barbarism—and it is a dire omen for Americans.But, to think of Canada as a “democracy” that, through a set of unfortunate circumstances turned toward totalitarianism is false. Of course, the term ‘democracy,’—overused and bandied about ad nauseum as it is today, as, for example, among “Progressives” here in our own Country—has little, if anything, to recommend it either here or in Canada. And it is of little note in any event.Despite a hitherto close rapport with Canada, the fact remains that, in its governance, Canada isn’t like the United States, and never was.As a British Commonwealth Country, Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy. It is also described as a Parliamentary Democracy. On its public website, one learns that——“The Prime Minister heads the federal government based in Ottawa. [And at the moment that person is Justin Trudeau].

• the Queen or King of Canada is the head of state
• the Prime Minister is the head of government

The Governor General represents the Queen in Canada. The Sovereign appoints the Governor General on the Prime Minister’s advice. The appointment is usually for five years.”One thing Canada definitely isn’t is a “Republic.” The United States is a true Republic.Specifically, “The United States, under its Constitution, is a federal, representative, democratic republic, an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States.” See govinfo pdf. Unlike Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—there is no foreign head of state in the United States, whether of “royal blood” or not. Americans threw the yoke of tyranny off once and forever in the American Revolution of 1776.Unlike the Commonwealth Nations, our Constitution established three co-equal branches with carefully limited and demarcated powers and authority. This was calculated to keep the Nation’s Federal Government from descending into tyranny. This hasn’t worked out so well. But, then, the Framers of the Constitution wouldn’t be altogether surprised by this. They were not so naïve as to believe that carefully delineated and demarcated powers among three co-equal Branches would of itself prevent unscrupulous types from consolidating powers in two Branches of the Government and eventually in all three, and, upon accomplishing that, attempt to usurp from the American people the sovereignty over Government that belongs solely to them.Only the Bill of Rights would keep Government truly in check, and among those sacred, natural, illimitable, immutable, unalienable rights, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the final arbiter of the power and authority of the American people over Government. If tyranny were to reign supreme over the American people it would only do so by clashing with the armed citizenry and vanquishing the citizenry in armed conflict.Application of martial law against a citizenry constitutes the erasure of the exalted values of civil liberties and a tacit declaration of war on one’s own citizenry. Western Countries talk glowingly of  “liberal democracy” as if such a thing were a godsend, even though it isn’t. It is merely a political trope of the ruling “elite” suggesting to the commonalty the existence of a beneficent, benevolent system of governance that hides a sinister aim—complete subjugation of the populations of all western nation-states.Just how illusive “democracy” was in Canada was made depressingly clear through the ease by which Canada’s civil liberties were summarily erased.And, what was the rationale and motivation for Trudeau’s invocation of Canada’s “Emergencies Act?”The Conservative Institute says this:“Canada’s embattled tyrant Justin Trudeau declared martial law Monday in a desperate bid to crush the truckers who have been protesting his COVID mandates for more than two weeks.Effectively labeling the protesters terrorists, Trudeau announced he would invoke a never-before-used law, the Emergencies Act, that would give him the power to ban public assembly and freeze the bank accounts of anyone helping the demonstrators.The Emergencies Act can only be invoked in a dire emergency” that ‘seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians.’ It has never been used in Canada’s history.By invoking it Monday, Trudeau was essentially declaring peaceful demonstrators who have blockaded the capital of Ottawa to demand an end to COVID restrictions an unprecedented threat to Canada’s security. He laid out a series of extreme measures to deal with the ‘threat.’Trudeau warned that protesters who fail to obey his orders could lose their vehicle insurance and have their personal bank accounts frozen without a court order. Tow truck drivers could also be coerced to cooperate in breaking up the demonstrations. The authoritarian measures, Trudeau said, are ‘necessary and responsible,‘ and would be ‘time-limited.’” See also the article in NY Post.Trudeau’s invocation of martial law in Canada does not, in his very utterance of it, speak of the need for it, but begs the question,“ ‘Can it truly be said the security of Canada is threatened by largely non-violent protests? Certainly, our sovereignty and territorial integrity are not at risk.’” See article in the New York Post, citing, “Leah West, an assistant professor at Carleton University in Ottawa,” who pointed out that “‘The federal government [of Canada] must consult with provinces and Cabinet must believe the protests rise to the level of a national emergency.’”And, there’s the rub. The territorial integrity of Canada was never at risk. Trudeau apparently never did this. He never consulted with the Parliament and with the Canadian Provinces, as he is required to do. In fact, Parliament would not have granted authority in any case. See article in Lifesitenews. Many critical questions are raised that have gone unanswered. “Conservative Party interim Leader Candice Bergen. . . suggested that Prime Minister’s antics were unneeded & making the situation worse, [asserting, on January 16, 2022] in the Canadian Parliament, ‘Yesterday, I noted that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would have to get approval from the Canadian Parliament to enact the odious ‘Emergencies Act.’ Given the fact he heads a minority government and that many Canadian citizens support the goals of the Freedom Convoy protest, Members of Parliament may not be too keen to grant it.It appears I was right. Less than 24-hours after declaring wide-ranging powers, including terror finance laws to defund the trucker, Trudeau came to parliament to persuade them to support his move.’” “Trudeau responded with blather, completely dodging Bergen’s pointed queries. Bergen even noted that there were significant developments that negated the need to invoke the Act:

• The Coutts border between the US and Alberta has been cleared.
• The Ambassador Bridge is fully
• Ontario is ending its vaccine mandate.

When Trudeau explained he was implementing the “Emergencies Act” for the safety of Canadians, he was booed loudly.  When he said he was demonstrating exemplary leadership, there were laughter and jeers.  The Speaker of Parliament had to step in to quiet the uproar several times.Interim Conservative Party leader Bergen made one exceptional point: What if what Trudeau is doing makes things worse?Indeed, the situation appears to be poised to be far more problematic as the truckers remain defiant.” See article on the website, legal insurrection.Indeed, the situation is problematic! Martial law shall exist in Canada indefinitely. The Neo-liberal Globalist masters have tightened the noose around Canada, just as they have done so in Australia, New Zealand, and as they are doing so in the EU. Only the U.S. remains obstinately, indefatigably resistant and defiant to despotic rule. Shall it remain so?_____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

AMERICA'S BILL OF RIGHTS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF COLLAPSE

ROTHSCHILD GAME PLAN TO OVERTURN THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION: FIRST CONTROL SPEECH, THEN CONTROL GUNS

PART ONE

THE “OPEN SOCIETY”: CODE FOR TOTAL CONTROL OF MANKIND

Words are traps for the unwary. In the hands of the adept proselytizer, they can kill a person just as assuredly as a bullet through the brain, a knife through the heart, or a potassium cyanide capsule in the stomach. But words are more facile than guns, knives, or potassium cyanide. For words target the mind. They target the thoughts of men. In the hands of the skilled practitioner, words can sway the emotions, or stir the intellect. They can educate or indoctrinate. They can confuse or elucidate. They can inspire a person to act in a beneficial direction or can propel a person to rabid violence. They can motivate or demotivate. They can instill confidence and self-assurance or infuse timidity, passivity, and anxiety. They can generate pride of self and Country; or they can engender self-loathing and repudiation of the nobility of Self and Country.  Malicious, malevolent forces that crush nations know this, of course. In the age of the smartphone, these forces can reach billions of people in nanoseconds, and they have done so; and continue to do so: incessantly, noxiously, ramping up their messaging, and clamping down on dissent. Americans, especially, need to be cognizant of this, as the Nation is rapidly approaching an inflection point: The United States either survives as a true Free Constitutional Republic that the founders of our Republic gave us, or falls into ruin, never again to rise in prominence; never again to exist as a small bright beacon of hope and freedom in a broad, dark, dank strife-ridden world. The Country is at a dichotomous point in its history. The American people can, through a stout heart and a firm grip on their firearms, rekindle a zest in freedom and liberty—the rallying cry against the forces of tyranny. Or they can return to a state of internment, succumbing to defeatism fear, and doubt, constantly projected by the Neo-Marxist and Neoliberal Globalist instigators and agitators of the Rothschild dynasty. Since the earliest days of the Republic, the Rothschild internationalist banking dynasty expected to obtain and maintain complete control over the North American continent, and that included control over the English colonies in America, as their end-goal was and is world domination. That was always in their sight. The colonists didn’t much care to be a part of the Rothschilds’ game plan. They had other plans: freedom from tyranny and their Declaration of Independence from Tyranny made that singular aim crystal clear to those whose objective was and is the destruction of the Republic and the emergence of a one-world government, grounded on the tenets of Collectivism.Rothschilds’ first attempt at subjugating the American colonies was transparent and overt: the American Revolutionary War.Through its command of King George’s immense military, the banking dynasty sought to bring quickly to heel what it perceived as a mere ragtag band of malcontented colonists. That didn’t go so well. The Rothschild dynasty and their stooge, George III, lost control of the colonies.The physical loss of the colonies was painful enough for the Rothschild dynasty and for its principal toadies, King George III and the English Parliament. But more painful to the Rothschilds and for their stooges was the personal affront to their egos. So, from the nascent days of the American Republic, the Rothschild dynasty plotted, schemed, and machinated to bring the United States to its knees. And, in the ensuing years, they decided on a different tack to destroy the Country. They conjured up, and through the passing years and decades, they refined an entirely new plan to retake the Country. As overt use of the British military to defeat America’s patriots failed, the Rothschilds devised a covert plan. This one would take a goodly amount of time, money, and organizational ability, all of which they had and now their descendants have in marked abundance. They implemented a plan to destroy the Nation from within. The Rothschilds took under their wing a new and massive collection of underlings, situating them throughout the Federal and State Governments. They showered these sociopaths and rank opportunists with money and the trappings of power and let them loose on the Nation. The Rothschilds found it far easier to consolidate their power over and eventually did take control over, great swathes of western Europe. This included control of a few Baltic States as well, resulting in the creation of a new political, social, economic, and juridical structure: the European Union. But even as they controlled the Commonwealth Nations and even as they gained control over the EU, the prize jewel for them was and is the United States. The demoralization and debasement of the American people and the dismantling of the Republic remained, always, their first and primary focus.And, as the U.S. in time grew increasingly more powerful economically, militarily, geopolitically, and technologically, the Rothschild’s appetite for unfettered control over “the colonies” grew exponentially as well.They intend to remake and control all of western civilization, carving out their share of a world empire be controlled by them and Communist China. The Rothschilds' share of the spoils would include the remains of all western nation-states. And, since the turn of the 21^st Century, both they and their minions have instituted a particularly vicious and virulent, all-encompassing campaign to destroy the sovereignty and independence of these nation-states. But they don’t talk of a “new world order.” No! The catchword for world domination is cloaked in a seemingly innocuous phrase: “the Open Society.”The Rothschilds appointed their darling child, George Soros, to oversee this Herculean task to fuse western nation-states into a new world order, referred to euphemistically as the “Open Society,” to hide its sinister plot for world domination. Dig deep and you find the name George Soros plastered all over this Open Society effort. The Open Society isn’t the path to the liberation of mankind but to its total subjugation. It is a blueprint for the systematic subjugation of billions of people, worldwide, under the guise of liberation. It is a bold, elaborate, insidious plan for domination of all people and all countries. It is no less than a plot to install worldwide tyranny on the mass of humanity. And, it is coming faster than many Americans would like to think, even as they do feel it in their bones.The Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution has no place in the opprobrious Rothschild/Soros Open Society. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution has no place in a colossal world empire that seeks to control the lives of billions of people; must control such large masses of people if it is not to fall of its own ponderous weight. Such an enterprise requires unity of thought and expression of all people. There is no place in such a world for individual expression; no place for privacy. And there certainly is no place in such a world for armed citizens who prefer to control their own destiny, free from Government interference; free from militarized police harassment; free from the all-seeing eye of a colossal intelligence apparatus. And, the inklings of the positioning and emplacement of this mammoth beast overlaid on our free Constitutional Republic and on all western countries are all around us._________________________________

JUST HOW IMPORTANT ARE AMERICA’S FREEDOM TO DISSENT AND FREEDOM TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS? THEY ARE EVERYTHING TO OUR NATION’S SURVIVAL AS A FREE REPUBLIC!

PART TWO

With the advent of advances in information technology, the destructive forces of tyranny have gained proficiency in blanketing the national and international political and social landscapes of western nation-states, especially our own, with massive disinformation, misinformation, malinformation, mass censorship, and information blackout campaigns in a blatant attempt to control all thought and action, with the intent of weakening the resolve of free people to resist tyranny.Fissures have opened up in the EU. Hungary and Poland, in particular, have fought against the Rothschild EU. And, of late America’s closest neighbor to the North, Canada, has begun to rebel against tyranny. The Rothschild Government and legacy Press toadies both here and in Canada don’t like what they see. And as western nations have used the pretext of the CCP Coronavirus to clamp down on basic freedoms in both Countries and in western countries around the world, it is also becoming patently clear that these countries are working in concert. More to the point, it is clear that the Rothschild Biden and Trudeau stooges have been working in concert to destroy basic freedoms of the commonalty in both Countries. But the U.S. does have something that Canada and no other nation on Earth has—a true Bill of Rights. No tyranny can long persist where the commonalty bear firearms, as firearms are the only potent defense against predatory animal, predatory man, or predatory government. Both Nations have a Bill of Rights, but there is no mention explicit or implicit of a right of the people of Canada to keep and bear arms. And, even, as to the rights delineated, those rights do not exist as a thing beyond the power of Parliament to modify, abridge, or abrogate. This is clear in paragraph 2 (“Construction of Laws”) of Canada’s Bill of Rights “Part 1”):“Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared, . . . .”  This means that the Parliament of Canada is the source of all laws of which “Rights” are in Canada are one such set of laws. Since all rights, in Canada, are construed as man-made laws of Parliament, those rights may be abrogated, abridged or infringed if “expressly declared by an Act of Parliament” to effectuate the intent to do so. And, even then, it hardly matters whether an express intent of Parliament to destroy a right exists or not. The Head stooge of Parliament, Justin Trudeau, doesn’t answer to the people or, for that matter, even to the ostensible representatives of the people in Parliament. He answers to his superiors.See, e.g., articles in LifeSite, Redvoice Media, and Breitbart.  Of course, here in the United States, the Great Stooge in Chief, Joe Biden, and the other Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist Rothschild Government shills and toadies don’t adhere to the dictates Congressional Statute, much less do they feel need to abide by the dictates of the Constitution—especially the Bill of Rights of the Constitution. They have systematically squashed the Freedom of Speech, and the attendant to Right of Free Speech, Freedom of Association. Both are in immediate peril.Exercise of the inalienable right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures no longer exists as it has been de facto repealed. See, e.g., report in Republic world and Fox News report.But, while the U.S. Government stooges routinely and perfunctorily ignore or dismiss fundamental rights and liberties, as well as Congressional Statutes, these stooges are hesitant to confiscate Americans’ firearms in bulk. They don’t dare do so, and that enrages the Government. In the interim Anti-American State and local Governments have taken up the slack to enact or attempt to enact a flurry of anti-Second Amendment stopgap measures to constrain and restrain the right of the people to keep and bear arms.And the Federal Government mulls over the use of Executive Orders, Congressional legislation, and promulgation of ATF Rules in defiance of both the Second Amendment guarantee and U.S. Supreme Court Heller and McDonald precedents.The Government is deliberately shaking a hornets’ nest.______________________________________

IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROVOKING AMERICA’S ARMED CITIZENRY INTO OPEN CONFRONTATION?

PART THREE

As long as the majority of Americans cherish their God-given right to keep and bear firearms and as long as they make clear their intention to hold onto their firearms, regardless of Government strongarm tactics to disarm them, the forces that seek to dismantle a free Constitutional Republic must exercise caution and circumspection before commencing wholesale confiscation of the citizenry’s firearms. So, at the moment, they must resort to a war of words to ensnare the mind, and they are good at it. The puppet-masters propagandists are actively, avidly at work to change the public’s perception of firearms. They are attempting to instill fear and abhorrence of firearms in the psyche of the public, and are encouraging millions of Americans to turn on those Americans who intend to hold fast to their firearms. And the Government’s stooges, with the assistance of a sympathetic Press, have instilled an abhorrence of firearms in the mind of many average Americans. As many Americans don't see a purpose to having firearms and/or have a deep-seated personal distaste of them, the Government's psychological-conditioning program had no discernible effect on them other than to reinforce their internal stance against firearms and firearms possession. Still, tens of millions of Americans do possess firearms, and they see a need for them if only a personal need; a need attendant to self-defense and/or hunting and/or target shooting as a sport, unrelated to a check on the tyranny of Government, the salient need for an armed citizenry.The Government's propagandists hope to gradually wean most of these Americans off their desire to possess any firearms, as many of these Americans buy into the imbecilic notion that Americans don't need certain kinds of weapons, i.e., “weapons of war,” “assault weapons,” and component parts of such weapons for such purposes as hunting, target shooting, or self-defense. No mention is made at all of the need for adequate firearms to check, thwart, and repel tyranny and of the simple, basis right of Americans to keep and bear firearms, notwithstanding Government's objection to them.The fundamental right of the people to keep and bear arms—be those weapons shotguns, rifles, single-shot pistols, revolvers, semiautomatic firearms, select-fire weapons, submachine guns, and so forth—is not limited to what a government deigns to permit the American citizen to own and possess if any at all. The naiveté of those Americans who think otherwise, along with those Americans who have an inborn deep-seated repugnance of guns or otherwise simply see no need in having them, are attitudes that can very well result in the death of all of us as a free people as most Americans do realize the imminent danger of tyranny that is pressing down on our free Republic.And what, then, is to be made of us—tens of millions of Americans who remain—who recognize the imminent danger of tyranny and its inherent threat to the sovereignty of the American people over Government? Such Americans have resisted psychological conditioning and are immune to the dissembling of the puppet-masters propagandists.The Destroyers of freedom and liberty may feel confident enough to use strong-arm tactics against us. And there are still, a goodly number of us, tens of millions of Americans—who adamantly refuse to submit to Government tyranny. There are, playing out in the United States, two incompatible visions of the world. One might need seriously to consider: what happens when an irresistible force meets an equally immovable object. A bloodbath is likely to result. An irresistible force and an immovable object are both omnipotent. One cannot exist in the same universe as the other. The philosophical conjecture has real-world consequences. A free Constitutional Republic and a sovereign people either continue to exist or they cease to exist: The Rothschild/Soros Open Society new world order destroys this Nation and completely supplants the nation-state paradigm and subjugates the mass of mankind or the American people prevail, and the sanctity and inviolability of the human Soul vanquishes the ruthless forces that dare to crush man into submission. It is one or the other. They are polar opposites. They cannot co-exist in the same reality.If Americans prevail in the coming conflict, the Rothschild/Soros Reality will dissipate. Having secreted itself, unbidden, into the world of the Divine Creator, to wreak its havoc, it will ooze back into the nether, hell-universe from which it arose, and this Nation will at long last be done with it.And, so, matters, as they stand, are rapidly coalescing to a breaking point.It is no accident that one thoroughly contemptible member of Congress, Senator Adam Kinzinger, should recently exclaim that ‘civil war’ may be on the horizon. On the left-leaning website, Real Clear Politics, there is this: “Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) said we cannot trivialize the possibility of a civil war in an appearance on ‘The View’ on Thursday. Kinzinger said a modern-day civil war would include assassinations and armed groups moving against other armed groups.‘If you think somehow that this is going away or that you can downplay this, you can’t,’ Kinzinger said. ‘And I've got to tell you, in five or ten years history is going to judge this quite accurately by 99% of Americans that know the truth. I would not want to be on the side of lies and conspiracy right now. And that’s what we're fighting for is to make sure that our kids get the truth, unvarnished, in the history books that they learn from.’ Kinzinger speaks about his fear of a possible civil war based on the belief that the election was stolen by former President Donald Trump and his supporters.‘I think we have to recognize that possibility,’ Kinzinger said. ‘In the past, I’ve said, ‘Oh, we don’t want to talk about it because, you know, I don't want to make it likely.' Well, let’s look at where we are. A civil war isn't what it was in the 19th century. It's not state against state, blue against gray. It's going to be armed groups against armed groups, targeted assassination, violence.’‘That's what a 21st and 20th century civil war is,’ Kinzinger continued. ‘I don’t think we have to say, you know, we’re identifying now by our race, by our ethnic group, we're separating ourselves and we live in different realities. I don't think it’s too far of a bridge to think that’s a possibility, and I think we have to warn and talk about it so that we can recognize that and fight hard against it, and put our country over our parties because our survival actually matters.’”And, another weblog, with the quirky name, “Boing Boing,” says this: “Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill) warned CNN's Wolf Blitzer yesterday that whitewashing the insurrection is ‘extremely dangerous.’ So dangerous, in fact, that ‘if there was a word even more intense than 'dangerous' I would use that,’ he said.Of course the GOP's strategy of downplaying the attack on the Capitol has snowballed to avalanche proportion, with Trump now promising to pardon the insurrectionists if he becomes president again.Kinzinger told Blitzer that a year ago, he never would have said there was a chance of civil war. But now? ‘It is not a far thought, Wolf, that someday, some militia shows up somewhere to do something, and then some counter-militia shows up, and truly at that point that is how you end up in a civil war.’‘Am I hearing you right, Congressman? You fear, potentially, there could be a civil war here in the United States?’‘I do. . . . We would be naive to think it's not possible here…’ Kinzinger said. ‘Our basic survival is at stake, the basic survival of this democracy.’”See also the article in the British Guardian, and the article in Breitbart. Likely nothing comes out of Kinzinger’s mouth that the Rothschild clan’s puppet masters hadn’t conceived of and precipitated, and filtered down to its minions.With the 2022 November midterms rapidly approaching, and with Pelosi’s ability to milk the January 6 star chamber committee hearing is beginning to weary the public, even as the puppet Kinzinger attempts to jump-start the public’s attention on it, a new pretext to clamp down on the threat posed by tens of millions of armed citizens is needed. If all those “militias” don’t oblige the Destroyers of our Nation to take up arms against the Government on their own initiative, and if the puppet-masters cannot push Americans to commence armed conflict against Government tyranny—well that tyrannical Government may feel it necessary to manufacture a little “civil war” on its own to nudge conflict out into the open and thereby rationalize the confiscation of firearms en masse.  Don’t put it past them to do so! Given all that we have seen to date from this Government, anything is possible. But it must be on their heads, not ours if that should happen. Don’t be egged on by their words but by their actions. The forces that crush are desperate. They need to drive the public to desperation as well, but they need an ostensibly plausible excuse to let loose the police and military on the public.A free Constitutional Republic and a free, sovereign American people cannot falter and fall as long as the citizenry remains armed. But a major program to confiscate firearms in bulk cannot commence without a major pretext to disarm the citizenry. Kinzinger is one flunky who is attempting to infect the citizenry’s psyche with two viral memes: ‘civil war’ and ‘militias.’ Does the Tyrannical Federal Government want this? Perhaps. Does it feel confident it can succeed in it? Only if the majority of the citizenry is behind the Government on this.__________________________

THERE IS NO FREEDOM AND LIBERTY WHERE A COUNTRY’S CITIZENRY IS DISARMED

PART FOUR

It is not by accident that the expressions, ‘Freedom’ and ‘Liberty are coming under fire. After all, Government, whether modeled as an outright dictatorship or as a benign, seemingly benevolent democratic construct, is a constant threat to the sanctity and inviolability of the human Soul. The Founders of our Federal Government knew this, and their meticulous construction of a Government that would function within a free Constitutional Republic, with all the safeguards employed in the Articles of the U.S. Constitution, though absolutely necessary to prevent tyranny, would not of itself be sufficient guard against tyranny.Where there is Government, even Representative Government, such as ours, there tyranny always lingers in the shadows. The Nation’s Bill of Rights alone prevents incursion of tyranny. And the Antifederalists demanded an express delineation of fundamental, immutable, unlimited God-given Rights, beyond the power of Government to modify, abrogate, deny or ignore.These fundamental, natural rights would serve alone as a shield, the ultimate safeguard against inevitable Government encroachment on freedom and liberty. For, the founders knew full well that, even a Government such as ours, with limited, carefully demarcated powers would eventually subvert the will of the people. And we are seeing that occurring and with rapidity now.Evidence of encroaching tyranny on our people is everywhere, and it is glaring.Information disseminated is deceptive. Dissent is heavily controlled or censored. Privacy is nonexistent. Petitions are denied out-of-hand. Average American citizens face unlawful detention. They have been systematically brutalized and ostracized for their political, social, and even religious beliefs. Government has infiltrated Americans’ associations and harassed its members, even attempting to seduce them into committing crimes so that they Government can shut them down.Government no longer even bothers to hide wide-range violations and abuses of fundamental rights and liberties. But a final lockdown on freedom and liberty eludes them. Government cannot so easily confiscate physical objects without escaping the notice of their deed. A citizen’s firearms cannot so easily be taken from him. But Government will try; is trying all the time to do just that—at the moment, through incremental efforts.And this Government, our Government is tiring of utilizing half-measures. The Government wants to seize the massive stockpile of citizenry’s firearms. This is no secret. The toadies have made the aim OF Government clear. But, the paramount question is——Can the U.S. Government really succeed in disarming the American populace?Can the U.S. Government as easily disarm the American populace as the Governments of the two Commonwealth Nations, New Zealand and Australia have been able to disarm their populations? This is not likely, since the two Commonwealth Countries, along with every other Country on Earth, apart from our own, do not recognize the God-given right of the people to keep and bear arms as a potent check on tyranny. The United States is the one holdout Nation.At some point the would-be Destroyers of our Country will try to disarm Americans, as try they must if the Rothschild/Soros “Open Society”  agenda is to succeed. Once push comes to shove, Americans are going to have to take a stand—all Americans, and we are rapidly moving to that fateful point. “Freedom” and “Liberty”  are not mere abstractions, even as tyrannical western Governments, including the Government of the European Union in Brussels, and those of the Commonwealth Nations, and, sadly, the present Government here at home in the U.S., now claim they are but that and nothing more. See the article on the Canadian CBC Radio website: “Freedom is a malleable term — one that's open to interpretation.”Perhaps it would seem so to tyrants that would have little if any use for it. But, had the Founders of our Republic thought “Freedom,” and its sacred kin, “Liberty,” so malleable as to be nothing more than phantasms, mere will-o'-the-wisps, they would hardly have risked their lives and well-being to attain them. Nor can “Freedom” and “Liberty” be perceived as so insubstantial that a towering edifice—the United States, a free Constitutional Republic, the envy of the world—would have existed and persisted for well over two hundred years. As John Adams, a Founding Father, and Second President of the United States said, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever.” _______________________________

FREE EXERCISE OF AMERICANS’ FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ARE DISSIPATING RAPIDLY: SPEECH, FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, PRIVACY, FAIR AND EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW . . . WILL LOSS OF PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ONE’S FIREARMS BE NEXT?

PART FIVE

Americans have never been so close to losing “Freedom” and “Liberty” as they are at this very moment in time. And once lost, our “Freedom” and “Liberty” will, indeed, be lost forever. The forces that crush nations and people will see to it. As western “democracies” model themselves on the Collectivist example of Communist China, Americans should stop and think, and ask themselves: Is this what I really want? Am I so fearful of what my own Government has become that I will not take a stand against it when the time comes for action? Are those fundamental, sacred, unalienable, immutable, eternal, God-given Rights that the framers of a free Republic codified in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution, so unimportant to me, so ephemeral, so “malleable,” I am willing to do without them; that I am willing to forsake them, lest I incur the wrath of Government—the wrath of a powerful, and hungry, and jealous Tyrant if I refuse to surrender them; to revoke them once and forevermore? This Government, this Federal Government, my Government, that has turned its back on me, that has taken my right to dissent, my right to associate with like-kind, my right to worship the one true God, my right to petition Government, and even my right to keep private to me my own cherished, secret thoughts from unreasonable search seizure—how much more will this Government, my Government demand of me? And I know the answer to that question before I even ask it. For, as long as I bear a firearm, I pose, in that very act, a visible threat to this Government, my Government. And so I know that, before long, this Government, my Government, will demand of me one final token, one more freedom to relinquish. It is a little thing really, as the Government tells me—a token of loyalty toward it, demonstrating my obeisance to it, that I may obtain absolution from it. I must surrender my firearms to this Government, my Government. And, if I refuse to do so, what then? This token requested of me is, I know, less a request than a demand—an order made to me. Either I capitulate to this creature that was created to serve me or I must face the consequences for my temerity. It is either this or that. The one or the other. There is no other way for me; no other choice to be given me. There is no way to split the difference. There is to be no negotiation in the matter, no time to mull over the matter. And there is to be no truce. The Government has made it all very clear to me: unconditional surrender. And, failure to comply is to risk indefinite detention, or, if recalcitrant, then to dare clash with the tyrant's mighty force. But, then, as to the latter, it has happened before. The Founders of our Republic took up the challenge, threw down the gauntlet and routed a mighty power that had strutted its invincibility.I will soon have to make my choice, as my forefathers once, long ago, had to make theirs. Surrender or fight. There are no half-measures here. To submit willingly to tyranny, or to do so grudgingly and half-heartedly, or to do so openly angrily—raging all the while—is, at the end of the day, all one and the same. Submission, however one does submit, is still to humble oneself before a Tyrant. At the end of the day, it is still submission. It is still self-deprecation. It is still prostration before a monstrous evil. And this Tyrannical Government cares not how I shall humble myself, how it is that I submit before it; only that I do so, and that I do so—completely,  irrevocably.It is singularly odd to contemplate, two hundred and forty years later, that we Americans have, in the first quarter of a new century, come full circle from that day, long ago, on July 2, 1776, when the Delegates to the Continental Congress met to sign the Declaration of Independence——— “By signing the Declaration of Independence, the delegates were putting their lives on the line. If they were to lose the war for independence, then the British government would execute them in a very painful and nasty way. Thus, although we do not know if Benjamin Franklin actually said, ‘we must all hang together, or . . .  we shall all hang separately,’ it is likely that that idea was in the minds of the delegates that day in July.”And now, despite the blatant lies of a seditious Press to the contrary, it is plain for all to see if they will but only look, that our own Government has dared to turn its back on its own people. It has turned its back on those very people to whom it was created for no other purpose than to serve. America's Founding Fathers would no doubt see some caustic irony in this and much more than a little concern, wondering whether their own courage, sacrifice, and perseverance—and that of tens of millions of other valiant American Patriots, who, in the intervening years, fought and died to preserve and strengthen an independent and sovereign Nation, a free Constitutional Republic, and a free and sovereign people—had all been in vain. This page in our Nation's wondrous history has yet to be written. How recorders of history do set this chapter down depends entirely on you and me: a chapter describing a free people that stood courageously, as one, against tyranny, or a chapter reduced to a footnote, little more than an afterthought, quickly jotted down, and just as quickly, forgotten. A small annotation that speaks of the humiliation of a once-great Nation and of a once-great people—of a once-great, and free, and sovereign people who did not take a stand against a Tyrant, but chose, instead, to grovel before it. And if they fail to stand against this Tyrant, they will then no further choices will be made by them, but only by the Tyrant, for them. If Americans fail to stand up against tyranny, they will be compelled to reap the consequences for their cowardice; consequences that affect not only themselves but their offspring, all those generations of Americans to come; for future generations will subsist as mere subservient vessels of tyranny in the gangrenous remains of what was once thought to be an imperishable Nation. These lost generations shall never taste of nor know of freedom and liberty, nor will they even recall the name, ‘American Citizen.’ We, Americans, have ample warning of the fate that awaits us if we choose wrong. A dire outcome can be avoided, today. Tomorrow will be too late. The choice to be made is yours and mine while it can be made, but only in this, the present moment. Be mindful that our Country is being taken from us. Be mindful of that. The noose over our Country and over our citizenry, and over our essential freedoms is tightening, slowly but inexorably. Be prepared to resist Tyranny.“Today may change tomorrow but once today is gone, tomorrow can only look back in sorrow that the warning was ignored.”*______________________________________*Portion of the closing narration from episode 141 of the original Twilight Zone Anthology, “Spur of the Moment.”_____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.

NYPD OFFICER SHOOTINGS DRAW ATTENTION TO MAYOR ERIC ADAMS’ PLANS TO MAKE NYC SAFE: WHAT WILL HE DO?

Five NYPD officers have been shot in the line of duty, only three weeks into the New Year in Eric Adams’ reign as New York City Mayor.Most recently, on January 21, 2022, a psychopath and recidivist criminal with multiple violent felony arrests in New York and other States, Lashawn McNeil, 47, on probation, shot two police officers in New York City. See New York Post article.Officer Jason Rivera, 22, died in the line of duty, and his partner, Officer Wilbert Mora, 27, is clinging to life. The officers had answered a call involving a domestic situation in Harlem.The wife of the slain officer posted a moving tribute to her husband. The killer also shot and wounded a third officer, who returned fire, hitting McNeil in the head and arm. The killer is in critical condition as of Saturday morning. See report in The New York Times.A helluva guy, isn’t he? Let’s wish him well. Maybe the City should erect a statue to him, just like the statue it erected to George Floyd, in Brooklyn—at the same time the City removed the statue of Teddy Roosevelt.George Floyd was a drug addict and small-time crook—another character worth emulating.Just think: If Floyd had not attempted to pass a counterfeit bill off on a grocery store clerk, he would still be alive. But, then, the Neo-Marxist Democrat Party would’ve had to bide its time, awaiting some other pretext to speed the destabilization of society. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes that point clear, for which her own cohorts slammed her—apparently for being too straightforward and literal. 

AMERICA'S NEO-MARXISTS RETAIN STRANGLEHOLD ON NEW YORK CITY

Neo-Marxists retain a nice, firm stranglehold on the City, even after one of their own—Bill de Blasio—has packed up his bags and departed from Gracie Mansion.The new Mayor, Eric Adams, had once served as an NYPD officer, retiring as a Captain.Unlike de Blasio, Eric Adams isn’t a rabid Communist but he is still subject to manipulation by those elements that helped get him elected and who seek the destruction of the City and the Country.This is clear enough from Adams’ own words, following the recent shooting of those two young police officers.And what did NYPD Captain Adams—now NYC Mayor—say to the City and the Country after the most recent shootings? Just this——“ ‘The police department is doing their job taking thousands of guns off the streets, yet each time you take a gun off, there’s a constant flow of new guns coming here. . . .‘And if we don’t coordinate to go after those gun dealers that are supplying large cities in America such as New York, we are losing the battle, and the federal government must step in and play a role in doing so.‘We need Washington to join us and act now to stop the flow of guns in New York City and cities like New York.’” See NY Post article.Later, Adams told Dana Bash, host on ABC’s Good Morning America:“‘We are able to stop terrorism in this city when state, federal and local law enforcement agencies shared information. . . .‘This is a sea of crime that has been fed by many rivers. . . . We have to dam those rivers.’” See report in NY Daily News.Honestly, is this what the City and the Country want or need to hear from the Mayor? Does the City and Country need to hear seemingly glowing, but vague and bland, or tiresome and nonsensical rhetoric, of Anti-Second Amendment zealots who wish to distract and deflect attention away from themselves and from a failed Criminal Justice System they, themselves, coldly, callously, calculatedly thrust on America?Obviously, the Neo-Marxist/Neoliberal Globalist puppet-masters had scripted Eric Adams’ words for him. And Adams dutifully regurgitated them. The words were contrived; all pretense. His intent was to keep New Yorkers in a perpetual state of passivity, apathy, and mental darkness.If Adams had truly sought to come across as a transformative figure, rather than as a carbon copy of the previous inept, yet smug de Blasio, he might have delivered something to stir the passions; to shake the public from its stupor and naivety. Adams might have said something like the following——

*********

“Criminals take notice: if you kill a ‘Cop,’ you’re going down! I will not tolerate murders and assaults or attempted murders and assaults on Cops on my watch. I am, this day, declaring war on Cop Killers and would-be Cop-killers.For twenty years I served proudly as a New York City Police Officer. My first obligation as Mayor is to the well-being of the people of the City, just as it was when I served as a New York City Police Officer and Captain. An attack on a New York City Police Officers is also an attack on every other good citizen of our community, and I will not tolerate it. Two years ago, after an assassination attempt on a fellow police officer, the Sergeants Benevolent Association wrote to my predecessor:“‘Mayor De Blasio, the members of the NYPD are declaring war on you. . . ! We do not respect you, DO NOT visit us in hospitals. You sold the NYPD to the vile creatures, the 1% who hate cops but vote for you. . . . NYPD cops have been assassinated because of you. . . . This isn’t over, Game on.’” [taken from an article appearing on the website, Right Edition] I am here to tell the Sergeants Benevolent Association that I have burned your words into memory. I am not de Blasio, nor do I choose to be. His days are over. In the next few weeks, I will be implementing my plan for a safe, secure, and thriving New York. That plan will include the following:

• The creation of police intelligence units and quick reaction forces to target organized crime, criminal gangs, and sociopaths that commit violent crimes against police officers and against innocent civilians;

• Encouraging City’s prosecutors to bring criminal charges against all violent offenders and to seek incarceration and, for repeat offenders, lengthy prison sentences;

• Encouraging all Branches of the City Government to swiftly draw up concrete, comprehensive, and robust plans to secure the City from the violence that has plagued it for so many years under the previous Administration;

• The Creation of task forces, mobilizing business and community leaders to assist my Office in developing zero-tolerance policies toward crime, vagrancy, and random violent acts committed by criminals, sociopaths, and psychotics against innocent citizens;

• The Complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division concerning the issuance of firearms and handguns licenses for retired police officers, licensed security guard companies, and civilians.

As a former police officer, I am able to carry a gun. But that doesn’t make me special. I believe all responsible, law-abiding citizens of New York City, no less than I, should be able to carry a handgun for self-defense. That is their fundamental right. That is why I am undertaking a complete overhaul of the New York City Licensing Division.During my campaign for Mayor, I was asked whether, as a former police officer, I would carry a firearm if I became Mayor. I answered, ‘Yes I will, number one. . . . ‘And number two, I won’t have a security detail. If the city is safe, the mayor shouldn’t have a security detail with him. He should be walking the street by himself.’  [from the New York Post]Now that I have been elected Mayor, I stand by those words. Unlike my predecessor, I intend to make our City safe. For far too long this City has had its priorities completely backward. The previous City Administration made its commitments to the wrong people, to the wrong groups, and to the wrong elements of society. This will all change on my watch. I will provide the impetus for a revitalized New York City—A City where people will want to live and feel safe and secure, where people wish to visit rather than avoid, and where businesses can grow and prosper.”

*********

Alas, in his public remarks Mayor Adams didn't say anything to suggest a sea-change from the prior disastrous Administration.During his conversation on ABCs Good Morning America, Mayor Adams did mention he will be rolling out a plan this week to take on the “gun violence.”We can’t know what that plan entails. We would hope whatever it is, it will include our aforesaid recommendations. But we have our doubts.Our concern is that, by Eric Adams’ use of the Neo-Marxists’ buzz-phrase, ‘gun violence,’ and by tying that phrase in with ‘[domestic] terrorism,’ and by constantly exclaiming and reiterating that “the federal government needs to step in and play a role,” Eric Adams is playing directly to the Harris-Biden Administration’s goal of Federal Government intrusion on State’s rights in violation of the Tenth Amendment and on the American peoples’ rights under both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.The ball is now in your court, Mr. Mayor. We pray to God, you do the right thing for the people of New York City.As the Mayor of a major, prominent American City, what you do will set an example for good or ill not only for New York City but for the Country as a whole. You can kowtow to a rogue Federal Government or you can defend the Nation's Bill of Rights. But don't think for one moment you can play both ends against the middle. The public won't fall for it; not anymore._____________________________________Copyright © 2022 Roger J Katz (Towne Criour), Stephen L. D’Andrilli (Publius) All Rights Reserved.