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

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

PART FIVE

SUBPART A

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

“I can forgive a foe, but not a mistress and a friend; treason is there in its most horrid shape, where trust is greatest!” ~aphorism by John Dryden, English Poet, Literary Critic, and Dramatist, 1631 to 1700

In our multi-series treatise on treason, it is possible that some readers may view these articles as discrete vignettes or snapshots on the topic of treason. That would be wrong. It is our intention readers see each article as connected to the one before it; each article progressing sequentially to produce a unified whole.

Treason is operating at the highest levels of the Federal Government. That is our main contention, our central thesis, our salient focus. And, we are talking here of Treason as actionable crime, not mere political rhetoric, dramatic theater, inflammatory invective, hyperbolic epithet, or coarse name-calling. There is too much of that already in the media. It gets us nowhere.

The crime of treason committed by High-Level Government Officials, of the Harris-Biden Administration should not be handled obliquely or alluded to delicately. It must be dealt with head-on.

The Administration’s blatant, unprecedented attack on the rights of free speech and free association, the right to be free from unwarranted intrusion, the right to be free from unlawful detainment, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, are signs of a concerted effort on of Government to assail civil liberties.

This wide-ranging, calculated, and deliberate assault by the Federal Government on fundamental rights and liberties signals the unlawful takeover of that Government that belongs to the American people, and not to those who serve in Government.

This callous, caustic, sinister assault on the elemental, immutable, illimitable rights and liberties of the people attests to an aggressive attack on the sovereignty of the American people. It announces a clear intent to undercut the very sovereignty and authority of the American people over the Government. The Destructors and Obstructors know that with the eradication of the authority of the American people over their Government, a Constitutional Republic cannot long stand. And, in that vacuum that arises, tyrants are there to fill it. Totalitarianism is born.

The harm this Government has done to the Country, the Constitution, and the people isn’t difficult to ascertain.

Consider—

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

The Administration’s blatant, unconstitutional open border policies, along with its unabashed attacks on, and emasculation of, Customs and Border Protection Officers, Border Patrol Agents, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents are all signs of loss of the integrity of our Nation-State. See article in New York Post and article in the website think civics. 

The effect of massive migration here and across Europe is deliberately designed to destabilize all of western civilization.

The Administration has released over a half-million illegal aliens into our Country, in accordance with its blatantly illegal open border policy, and intends to release tens of thousands more into the interior of the Country.

The Administration knows its actions are brazenly and flagrantly in violation of Federal Statutes, and in violation of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution; and in violation of Article 2, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.

So that his Administration doesn’t admit to a violation of federal statutes and the U.S. Constitution, Biden’s handlers instruct Biden and his Cabinet officers, and other high Government officials, to overtly lie to the American public.

Since Biden’s Director of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas, cannot overly admit to deliberate, obvious violations of federal Statute pertaining to immigration and the U.S. Constitution, and so, lies overtly and cavalierly to the public. He says the borders are not open and that aliens are not free to cross over to this Country and that if they do, they will not be allowed to stay.  See, e.g., article in United News-Post.

These blatant lies to the public demonstrate the Administration’s open contempt for the American people. See article on Culture dispersion and immersion is the goal, from a publication funded by or associated with the University of California, Berkeley.  See also, Center for Immigration Studies Report. And how many of them have the COVID? See the article posted on reason.com. 

The UN’s articulated goal of moving tens of millions of people to the U.S. and EU is designed to destroy national borders and to de-stabilize western nation-states, thereby rupturing both the physical, geographical integrity of western nation-states as well as the social, cultural, political, and economic integrity of those nation-states. See the article in “Defend Europa” about the UN Migration pact.

This UN Migration pact is nothing less than a brazen attempt to expunge the idea of the traditional nation-state and acts as a blueprint for a 3rd world invasion of Western countries. In short, the pact seeks to normalize mass migration and to establish migration as a global human right. After it’s enacted migrants from all over the world will be able to go where they want, when they please, and for whatever reason.”

Through the deliberate rupture of the old nation-state governmental paradigm, a new transnational, multicultural, multi-ethnic borderless, world would emerge, but benefitting whom, exactly? To control billions of people across the entire world, a strong dictatorial regime would need to be imposed on billions of people. And, with the aid of mass surveillance that modern technology provides, the overseers of the new international order can accomplish that.

The EU is already living under tacit Dictatorship disguised as Liberal Democracy. And yet Countries like Poland and Hungary, that recall the domination of the Soviet Union, know better. So, the overseers in Brussels treat them like pariahs for asserting their Sovereignty, lest other member states take notice and act similarly.

The New York Times wrote, recently:

“In a tart statement, the European Commission, the bloc’s executive arm in Brussels, said the Polish ruling ‘raises serious concerns in relation to the primacy of E.U. law’ and vowed to uphold ‘the founding principles of the Union’s legal order, namely that: E.U. law has primacy over national law, including constitutional provisions.’”

But, does EU law control the law of its member nations? The website Full Fact says it does. See also an article from the BBC. See also report in Euronews.  Doesn’t this raise a question as to the original, secretive intent behind those who constructed the EU? And, one must wonder of the UN’s complicity in all this; a concerted plan to dismantle nation-states and to rupture the sovereignty and independence that one had defined them.

The Constitution of the EU, unlike that of the U.S., has undergone several iterations. The draft treaty of 2003,  following upon the Treaty of Lisbon of 2001, recites, in its Preface,

“The Convention was asked to draw up proposals on three subjects: how to bring citizens closer to the European design and European Institutions; how to organize politics and the European political area in an enlarged Union; and how to develop the Union into a stabilizing factor and a model in the new world order.”

Consider the implications of this.

See the EU Parliament’s Resolution of 2005.  

This concept of EU sovereignty over Nation-State sovereignty is the topic of much discussion. And, through it all, there is a common disquieting theme, of the systematic erosion of National Sovereignty to a transnational State. See, e.g., world101 Report, and article by aalep.

In the U.S. we are seeing something similar occurring, as the Federal Government asserts its dominance over the States. This is a direct and unconstitutional assault on and violation of federalism—the sharing of sovereignty between the Federal Government and the States.

In contemptuously ignoring and decimating the Bill of Rights, along with the doctrine of federalism, the Federal Government has taken arms against the authority of the American people, in whom ultimate sovereignty over all government rests, as the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights mandates and makes abundantly clear. The Government is “We The People.”

Government’s actions against, we the people, is no less than the deliberate debasement and betrayal of the sanctity and inviolability of the U.S. Constitution and of the sanctity and inviolability of the personal autonomy and of the inherent and absolute sovereignty of the American people over Government. The government’s actions signify treachery beyond all precedent.

These perpetrators of this treachery to Country, Constitution, and people have constructed and implemented a comprehensive, elaborate plan to usurp the sovereign authority of the American people over Government just as the Government of the EU in Brussels has betrayed its member countries.

The usurpation of authority by the EU Government over its member countries is occurring simultaneously with the usurpation of authority by the Federal Government over the States and the people. Can this be a mere coincidence? Is this not all concomitant of a concerted plan to eventually bring the U.S. into the orbit of the EU, along with the Commonwealth Nations? And, isn’t the grand scheme being concocted through the UN, masking the move toward a one-world government through international pacts, treaties, and initiatives? Consider the import of the ambitious “Sustainable Development” initiative of the  UN., which apparently subsumes the broader “Global Compact.”

And there is the deceptively named UN “Programme of Action on small arms and its International Tracing Instrument” that is really an oblique assault on the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Biden intends to sign on to this. To do so is treachery of the highest order. See, e.g. article in Small Arms. Implementation of this treaty in the U.S. is unconstitutional because it is in direct conflict with the sovereignty of the American people through their unalienable right to keep and bear arms, even though it isn’t in conflict with the Constitution of the EU.

The complexity and convoluted mess that this EU structure IS, and the machinations of the UN, spill over to the U.S. It all serves to hide an insidious intent: to bind and then absorb first the Countries of the EU into an intricate web that they cannot extricate themselves from, and eventually bind and absorb the Commonwealth Nations and that of the U.S. The UN is actively involved in this project

Americans can’t control events in the EU, but they sure do have the authority to demand accountability from their own Government.

Americans are witnessing a cold, calculated, callous, insidious attack by the Federal Government to wrest control from the States and from the people the citizenry’s control over their own country, much as the EU is slowly entangling its member Countries into a sticky web. There is a word for this. It is called TYRANNY.

The founders of the Republic had good reason to fear TYRANNY. After all, they lived, for a time under it. And it took a war for the American colonists, the first patriots to extricate themselves from the morass of this TYRANNY.

They designed the Country to be a free Constitutional Republic. And they made sure the people, as the sole sovereign ruler of the Nation and of its federal Government they constructed, would forever retain and maintain arms to prevent TYRANNY from ever again enfolding upon and entrapping the people in a spider’s web. Along with the equally important right to DISSENT against Government policy that the people perceive as eroding the Republic, the people will forever be able to remind the Government that it is the people who are sovereign over their Nation and their Government. And that:

THE RIGHT OF FREE SPEECH, NAMELY THE RIGHT TO DISSENT, AND THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS PROVIDES THE PEOPLE WITH THE MEANS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST ENCROACHING TYRANNY.

And we are moving ever closer to tyranny. One must ask,

DOES THE TREACHERY OF GOVERNMENT AND BETRAYAL OF THE OATH TO THE NATION, CONSTITUTION, AND PEOPLE AMOUNT TO ACTIONABLE TREASON?

Treason by Government, if it exists, means Government operating not on behalf of and in service to its people but actively, avidly, assiduously, and decidedly against them, against their interests, and thwarting any attempt by the people to counter the dire threat to their absolute sovereignty over Government.

____________________________________

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

SUBPART B

Treason is not own’d when ‘tis descried; Successful crimes alone are justified” ~aphorism by John Dryden, English Poet, Literary Critic, and Dramatist, 1631 to 1700

The Administration’s recent weaponization of the DOJ, FBI, and NSD against average American citizens, treating them as domestic terrorists and pariahs is patently illegal, unconstitutional, and unconscionable. It is clear evidence of tyranny of Government over the people. See the Leftist “Daily Beast” making light of the matter, giving cover to the actions of the Attorney General, Merrick Garland. The propagandists attempt to deflect the tyranny of the Government by reflecting that tyranny duplicitously back onto the people, asserting——

“This is about intimidation and bullying, pure and simple. That behavior is aimed at school officials—and especially the members of school boards.” See the article in the daily beast. 

But, is this really about intimidation and bullying of members of school boards? Isn’t it really intimidation and bullying by members of the school boards themselves directed on the parents of those schoolchildren who simply want a say in the education of the children as is their right, even duty, as parents? Consider the remarks of Terry McAuliffe, Virginia Gubernatorial Candidate, as reported in the National Review. McAuliffe, baldly and shamelessly retorts, as reported in the national review, to wit:

“I’m not going to let parents come into schools and actually take books out and make their own decisions,” . . . “I don’t think parents should be telling schools what they should teach.” . . .  “Listen, we have a board of ed working with the local school boards to determine the curriculum for our schools. You don’t want parents coming in every different school jurisdiction saying, ‘This is what should be taught here’ and, ‘This is what should be taught here.’”

But, parents should care about their child’s education. See article in great schools.

And, do you remember an organization called PTA—Parent Teacher Association. It once had importance, but no longer; why is that, do you suppose?

Take a look at Garland’s Memo to the FBI, local law enforcement, and the U.S. Attorneys of each State. Garland is ordering a nationwide strategy session to implement “measures for the benefit of our nation’s 14,000 School Districts” . . . “to ensure our children a proper education in a safe environment. . . .” See Justice Department Memorandum of October 4, 2021.

But, more to the point, it is singularly odd that Garland would use the phrase “our children” in his memo, and yet fail to mention even once in that memo, the word ‘parent.’ It is, after all, the parents of these children whom Garland is targeting. One would think he would at least mention that fact. Yet he says nothing. But, against whom would he be unleashing the dogs of war if not the parents of these children?

But Garland doesn’t do that, and one must ask, “why is that?”  In the final analysis aren’t local school boards answerable to the parents of the children, in whom they entrust to the schools and local boards’ care? Garland must not be naïve to think otherwise. He knows his attack on the parents is patently illegal.

Garland intends to induce fear of Government retaliation against these parents—any that dares to raise a voice in anger to outrageous conduct of the School Boards. That much is obvious.

The school boards don’t work for the Federal Government or for the major school unions. And any concern over the understandable anger of parents elicited by the parents over these School Boards’ actions isn’t a matter for the Federal Government. There are no civil rights violations here, except those committed by the local school boards themselves in promoting racism and sexual promiscuity in the schools. This is a state and local government matter.

The Harris-Biden Administration’s actions are all in “vein” (yes, in ‘vein,’ not ‘vain’)—i.e., all in character. These actions are all part of a grand design to disengage, decouple, and disconnect the American people from their Constitution; their own fundamental, unalienable rights. Understandably pushback has come. The Federal Government must have seen this coming; must have expected it, and they planned to deal with it, knew how they would have to deal with it, and they have—ergo, Garland’s memo to use the full sources of the Federal Government and even mandating local and State governments action against the residents of their own State.

Congressional Democrats know the jig is up. More Americans have caught on to the elaborate plan to eradicate the U.S. Constitution.

And, Government wants to keep this all nebulous. The Government wants to keep the public off balance. And Congress pretends to be upset with this and drafts a detailed letter to the AG, saying so. Even some Republicans sign it.

But, the attempt at bipartisanship on this matter is disquieting. Is something sinister going on here?

Are Republicans in on the charade too? Are both Neo-Marxist Democrats and placid, obsequious Republicans simply Gatekeepers, playing each American off against the other to wrench power from all of us?

Granted, a few Republicans drafted and signed their own letters, even as they also signed on to the Democrats’ letter to the DOJ AG, Merrick Garland. See, e.g., letter to Garland from Senators Cruz, Blackburn, and Lee.

But, the overall effect smacks of an elaborate hoax perpetrated on the American people to keep them guessing as to what Congress and the Administration will do next.

Americans are led to believe that:

“Sure, the U.S. Government may seem to be warring against your own best interests, but don’t worry, Government is safeguarding, protecting and preserving your Country, your Constitution, and your well-being against all enemies, both foreign and domestic” in full accord with the stated purpose of the Constitution. And, what is the stated purpose of the Constitution? Take a look:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

But is the sentiment reflected in the Preamble still hold true by those IN the Government?

Reflect for a moment on the sheer number of, the scope of, and nature of all those seeming misadventures, misunderstandings, misconceptions,  misapprehensions, and mistakes that have plagued this Nation since the puppet-masters installed their frail, fragile, imbecilic puppet, Joe Biden, in the highest Office of the Land in January 2021.

And, contemplate how these five Stooges—Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi, Charles (“Chuck”) Schumer, and, oh yes, Mitch McConnell, too—dangle limply, lifelessly, from their strings in the Grand Deluxe Puppet Theater that our Nation has become, waiting obediently, expectantly for their next set of orders from on High, to spring to action. And so many Americans clap in appreciation as these rag dolls tap dance across the puppet stage, keeping the public amused so it fails to notice the firestorm raging all around the Nation’s puppet theater—until it is too late to react.

But some Americans do notice the firestorm. And, against these Americans, who fail to be mesmerized by the puppet show, who fail to be taken in by the illusionists’ tricks, the Administration is clamping down, and clamping down hard.

The marriage of “Big Business” with “Big Government” is the hallmark of Fascism, be it on the far left of the political spectrum, or on the far right. It is all part and parcel of the broad political, social, and economic ideology of Collectivism—an ideology anathema to that of Individualism. For it is upon the tenets, precepts, and principles of Individualism, not Collectivism, that our free Constitutional Republic exists, in accordance with the sovereignty of “we the people” over the Government, as maintained principally through the unalienable rights to be heard and to bear arms.

America’s “Progressives,” i.e., America’s Neo-Marxists, co-opt “we the people” and then twist the idea of “we the people” “all around the mulberry bush,” for their own advantage to fool the unwary. Their notion of “we the people” is as “we a majoritarian mob” dancing to the tune of tyrants, doing their bidding. Did we not see this through the crimes of assault, arson, and intimidation by members of anarchist group ANTIFA and by the Neo-Marxist group, BLACK LIVES MATTER?  

These so-called Progressives, a euphemism for Marxists which, at the moment isn’t a popular word, don’t represent “we the people.” But the dead giveaway is seen through their use of the phrase, ‘imperialism.’

The word, ‘imperialism’ is used by Marxists and others who adhere to the tenets of Collectivism. They use ‘imperialism’ invariably to refer to Capitalists and Capitalism. See, e.g., essay in the Marxist, by a chap named Paul Costello.

Americans, are rightfully outraged by the disgusting actions of the Harris-Biden Administration aren’t fooled by any of this.

Not without reason do they dissent, and vociferously, against the Administration’s absurd policies and initiatives, attacking both speech and gun possession and ownership, with a vengeance. As for the latter, much of the Administration’s policy goals are presented matter-of-factly, albeit cloaked under the guise of protecting the public from the purported scourge of the “Gun Violence Epidemic.”

The Administration’s answer to the scourge of gun violence, as the Administration sees it, is, as it has always been: disarming the citizen and treating all those, who happen to wish to exercise their right to keep and bear arms, as pariahs.

To effectuate the eventual disarming of all Americans, the Administration is treating gun ownership as a sickness, as an abomination.

Psychiatric news, for one, emphasizes that the simple act of owning a gun is considered a risk factor that should be a target for behavior modification.

The disinformation campaign of treating gun ownership as psychosis, or as a trigger for those who suffer from psychoses or neuroses that they are more likely to harm themselves or others, has been in operation for quite a while, much of it done just below the level of conscious awareness. And many in the medical community have jumped on board. But, what is really the point of this from the Government’s perspective: is it really to protect tens of millions of average, trustworthy, responsible, rational people from themselves lest, at some indefinite point in time, they happen to go off the deep end, or, rather, is it to remove a potential threat to Government that the mere existence of an armed citizenry poses? 

But, as for the latter, wasn’t it always the purpose of an armed citizenry to protect itself from tyranny? If a Government adheres to its Constitutional duties and accepts the fact that the people are the sovereign authority over Government, then what is there for Government to fear from the people, as there is nothing Government has taken from the people. But, if Government has ambitions to amass power that belongs to the people, to dictate how a person should live his life, and to oppress that person, then Government has reason to fear an armed citizenry as was the intent of the founders of a free Republic. And, the citizen, for his part, as reason enough to be wary of such a Government that would take from the people that ultimate authority that belongs only to the people, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that Government has no ownership over.

The dissolution of the armed citizenry of America, through which the sovereignty over Government is enforced, IS THE POINT of Biden’s 6-point policy plan. The sixth and last point of Biden’s plan requires the appointment of David Chipman, as Director of the ATF.

That last policy objective of the Administration’s 6-POINT PLAN to subvert the right of the people to keep and bear arms didn’t pan out. That was an unexpected and unfortunate setback for the Administration.

The Harris-Biden Administration was puzzled and more than just a trifle upset, considering the ease by which the Administration was able to place so many other Neo-Marxist Internationalists in high Government posts in and across the Administration.

But, the failure to secure David Chipman as Director of the ATF is no small matter for the Administration. Had Chipman been confirmed by the Senate, the Administration would have had its “Tool” in place for banning all semiautomatic firearms through the mechanism of a simple Rule Change to the definition of “machine gun.” That was the plan, and during his Senate confirmation hearing, after dogged questioning by Senate Republicans, Chipman finally admitted it even though he pointedly said that the banning of semiautomatic firearms is the role of Congress. But, the intention all along was to accomplish this quietly, surreptitiously, through the Administrative Rules process.

Recall how Trump banned “Bump Stocks” through the Administrative Process, bypassing Congress—altogether unconscionable and patently illegal—it was done anyway.

Subsequent to a challenge in the U.S. Supreme Court, that kept the bump stock ban in place having decided not to rule on the merits of the case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in The Sixth Circuit ruled against the Bump Stock ban in Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Garland, 992 F.3d 446 (Sixth Cir. 2021). ruled against the bump stock ban.

This was cause for rejoicing. See, e.g., articles on sites, “Reason” “the federalist.” But the elation was short-lived.

In an en banc hearing of the entire complement of Sixth Circuit judges, the decision of the three-judge panel was vacated. See Gun Owners of Am., Inc. v. Garland 2 F. 4th 576, 2021 U.S. App. (6th  Cir. 2021), 2021 WL 2621112. A U.S. District Court of the Seventh Circuit also found the ruling of the ATF under the Administrative Procedures Act to be lawful in Doe v. Trump, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185138. That decision is now on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The appeal was filed, September 29, 2021.

In the next several weeks and months pay close attention to Administration attempts to undermine the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms unlawfully through executive orders and Administrative Rules. The Harris-Biden Administration and the Schumer/Pelosi Controlled Congress has shown its propensity to violate the Constitution with abandon in the areas of immigration, elections, censoring of speech, COVID mask and shot mandates, to name just a few.

Should the public not also expect this Government to go after firearms ownership and possession in violation of the Bill of Rights with the same abandon and zeal?

______________________________________________

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

SUBPART C

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

I must own, I know not what Treason is, if sapping and betraying the liberties of a people be not treason, in the eternal and original Nature of Things.” ~ John Trenchard (1662-1723) & Thomas Gordon, English Journalists and political theorists of the late 17th and early 18th Centuries, the two writing together under the nom de guerre, “Cato.” The passage comes from  “Reflections upon Libelling,” June 10, 1721. Ref: Cato’s Letters; or Essays on liberty, pg 249 (1737).  Citation obtained from the website, “the liberty tree” 

Back in 2003, before the Heller decision of 2008 and the subsequent McDonald decision of 2010, a legal scholar considered whether the protections underlying the First Amendment against censorship can also be applied to the Second Amendment.

The author of a Law Review article, from whom we borrow words of the title of our article from the title of his, wrote, in part:

“The First and Second Amendments differ in both their construction and in the nature of the rights that they secure; it seems that the text of the Second supports a more expansive reading than that given to the First. Despite (or perhaps because of) these differences, legal scholars and philosophers have recently started to wonder what justifies giving the Second Amendment a narrow construction at the same time one gives an expansive interpretation to the First? . . .  [The] text cannot help, since both amendments are equally susceptible to either narrow or broad constructions. Reliance on precedent also cannot solve the problem since the narrow interpretation of the Second Amendment is not so settled by a series of Supreme Court decisions that it could not be revisited. 

One plausible approach is to apply analogous First Amendment standards to Second Amendment issues. This approach would clearly be neither perfect nor universally applicable, but there are some broad principles that would serve as valuable tools in this developing area of the law.

To justify the application of First Amendment standards to the (very different) Second Amendment, one must begin by noting the fact that the First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and free press, as well as the Establishment Clause, incorporated via the Fourteenth Amendment, are constructed as a restraint on federal and state governments.
The Second Amendment, by contrast, is a ‘right of the people,’ one that secures a specific and individual liberty. This difference in construction is significant because, as the Second Circuit has noted ‘the Establishment Clause, unlike the Fourth Amendment, contains no limiting language. Indeed, the basic structure of the Establishment Clause, which imposes a restriction on Congress, differs markedly from that of the Fourth Amendment, which confers a right on the people.’” ~ from the Law Review Note, “Treating the Pen and the Sword as Constitutional Equals: How and Why the Supreme Court Should Apply Its First Amendment Expertise to the Great Second Amendment Debate,” 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 2287 (April 2003), by David G. Browne.

The author of the above-mentioned law review article could not know, in 2003, that the U.S. Supreme Court would, in fact revisit the import and purport of the Second Amendment, a few short years later. And the Court majority did rule, clearly and categorically, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, unconnected with one’s service in a militia.

But let us be clear about this: The salient holding in Heller and McDonald didn’t expand the notion of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Rather, it simply acknowledged what was always there in the language of the Second Amendment—that the Right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not an amorphous collective right. It is a right of the people to be enjoyed irrespective of one’s service in a militia. This is a critical point.

We, therefore, disagree with the author’s contention that the text of one fundamental Right can ever be construed to be more or less expansive than any other fundamental Right.

It is incongruous to give wide latitude to one Fundamental Right and less latitude to another. To conclude otherwise means the framers of the Bill of Rights intended to place limitations on the exercise of Fundamental Rights. They didn’t.

The idea that some scholars, commentators, and politicians have that they did intend to place limitations on the exercise of Fundamental Rights is both erroneous and ludicrous.  

Yet, it is an error many scholars, commentators, and politicians do make, and they make that error often. And frightful, dire repercussions follow from that error. Politicians piggyback off the error. They continually restrict and constrict exercise of Americans’ fundamental rights, with the aim, eventually, of eliminating all of them, as presently codified in the Bill of Rights, to be repackaged as Government sees fit; but this time merely as a set of rules, not Rights, to be changed or cast aside, as the Government from time-t0-time wishes, attempting to win over the populace. And some come to believe that Rights aren’t such things Americans inherently possess, but, rather, are prizes to be won from or privileges of a sort to be bestowed upon them by Government, through proper obeisance to Government.

Therein does Tyranny of Government over the citizenry reside, winding, and wending its way in and through the Nation, insinuating itself on everyone and everything.

But, was the Bill of Rights ever supposed to be thus. Surely, there is nothing in the characterization of the text of any of the Rights, set forth in the Bill of Rights, to suggest constraints and limitations to be attached to one or the other or to all of them. Surely, there is nothing to suggest that these God-Given Rights were never to be perceived but merely beneficent privileges created by the Government itself to be awarded to some and withheld from others, subject merely to the whims, vagaries, and inclinations of arrogant overseers of Government.

Thus, we must agree with the author of the 2003 article that it makes no sense to treat the Second Amendment as the poor cousin to the First and we agree that it is incongruous to give wide latitude to one Fundamental Right and less to another. But, at one and the same time, we must take exception with the writer’s belief or supposition that the text of any one or more of the elemental Rights codified in the Bill of Rights bespeak, or were meant to bespeak, any limitation by the American people in their exercise of them.

Tyranny of Government proceeds from its failure to heed to the dictates of the Bill of Rights as a set of fundamental rights emanating from the will of the Divine Creator.

TENETS OF THE NATION’S FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The United States, conceived as a free Constitutional Republic, is on a collision course with tyranny and in the most literal sense precisely because of the degradation of the Bill of Rights and because of the arrogance of those in power who have forgotten that they rule at the pleasure of the people.

The author of the afore-cited law review article, hoping for a revitalization of the Second Amendment, in line with the First Amendment, could not have foreseen the irony playing out in the Country today, with the denigration and degradation of both.

Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear, in the Heller case in 2008, that the right codified in the Second Amendment is an individual right and that the holding in Heller applies to the States as made clear in the McDonald case of 2010. But, State and local governments routinely, blatantly, and unconscionably ignore the rulings of Heller and McDonald. Will the upcoming Second Amendment Corlett case strengthen Heller and McDonald? That is the hope of those Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights but it remains to be seen. Ultimately, Corlett may not make a damn bit of difference.

Concomitant with the erosion of the Second Amendment, in spite of Heller and McDonald, the fundamental Right of Free Speech of the First Amendment is also being eroded.

If the sanctity of the First was to help buttress the sanctity of the Second, both may ultimately be discarded. There is a sad irony in this.  

The expansive First Amendment has been radically constricted by the power of a seditious Press and a sympathetic technology sector that exerts massive control over information content and information flow.

An Administration that won’t tolerate dissenting speech, most certainly won’t long abide an armed citizenry either.

If “the pen” can be muzzled, then, so too, can “the sword” be broken. This is the hallmark of an Authoritarian or full-bore Totalitarian Nation-Regime. Dissent is deemed intolerable and an armed citizenry, insufferable.

The United States, conceived as and constructed as a free Constitutional Republic, with a free and sovereign citizenry, is rapidly degenerating into the founders’ worst nightmare.

In the next segment of our series, PART SIX, in our continuing series on treason, we dive deeply into this notion of ‘Tyranny of Government.’

We ask, and resolve to answer—

If the vast apparatus of the Federal Government devolves into Tyranny, does that not support a finding that high-level officials and officers within it can be charged with and tried for “treason” and suffer the consequences if convicted of it? And, if so, cannot and ought not the American people dismantle a Government that has been irreparably damaged by their treacherous, traitorous servants? And might not the people try once again to reconstruct a Government in the form it was originally designed and meant to be, one surely serving their interests, and truly answerable to them?

__________________________________________________

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

SUBPART D

If the present Administration won’t tolerate dissent, it is equally clear that dissent in the Second Amendment won’t be tolerated either, as we pointed out in our previous article. The exercise of one’s Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms can also be considered a form of and therefore equated with speech. Thus if “the pen” can be muzzled, then “the sword,”  as we said, in Subpart C, supra, can be broken, which is to say, “the gun” can be confiscated. That is how intolerance of Dissent is handled in a totalitarian Country as this one is rapidly becoming. In its drive to subjugate the American people, the Harris-Biden Administration understands the necessity of eradicating the armed citizenry. The Administration is doing this incrementally. The Administration’s extraordinarily expansive, vicious, and virulent attack on dissenting speech is to be properly perceived as an oblique attack on the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms, as well.

Now when it comes to dissent, as speech, the Harris-Biden Administration won’t tolerate it, notwithstanding that the right of free speech, i.e., the right to dissent against Government policy that the public disagrees with, is protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., article in “daily truth report,” and in thought crime radio.

Finding overt evidence of the Government clampdown on speech is easy to come by. Consider Google’s search algorithms.

Do a search on Google Chrome and you will find page after page after page of search results concerning the clampdown on dissent in many Autocratic Countries like China, Russia, Myanmar, Belarus, Turkey, and Tunisia and on, and on, and on, but nary a word about clampdown of dissent in the United States.

But, then, the U.S. is still a free Constitutional Republic, isn’t it? Of course it is! And, woe to any American who dares say, “no,” that we  “once lived in a free Republic, but no longer.”

Government, through the information technology monopolies, is actively, avidly, rabidly censoring speech. Unfettered exercise of Free Speech and of the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms are the most crucial rights, without which a free Constitutional Republic cannot survive, and tyranny arises.

Recall Google’s fatuous motto “Don’t Be Evil.” Is that still Google’s motto? It once was, but no longer. That was many moons ago. Today, as pointed out by the website Gizmodo,

“Google’s unofficial motto has long been the simple phrase ‘don’t be evil.’ But that’s over, according to the code of conduct that Google distributes to its employees. The phrase was removed sometime in late April or early May, archives hosted by the Wayback Machine show.”

Gizmodo goes on to say, “When Google was reorganized under a new parent company, Alphabet, in 2015, Alphabet assumed a slightly adjusted version of the motto, ‘do the right thing.’ ”

However, Google retained its original ‘don’t be evil’  language until the past several weeks.” But the “past several weeks,” was back in 2018 when that story broke.

Just a slight change in Google’s motto? One must wonder: what ‘does the new motto, “Do the right thing” mean? It means do the right thing for itself, consistent with the goals of the Administration and of the Neo-Marxist-led Congress. A documentary that came out in the same year that Google did away with its “don’t be evil” motto, explains.

See “The Creepy Line,” a documentary that “. . . reveals the stunning degree to which society is manipulated by Google and Facebook and how they do it.”

But “Big Tech” isn’t working alone.

The Harris-Biden Administration and the Pelosi-Schumer-controlled Congress are in bed with Big Tech. See article in Deep State Journal, for one.  But, wasn’t there a whistleblower that came out to warn Congress of the danger of Facebook, Frances Haugen? It seems there is more to this story than the legacy Press would like you to know. See, e.g.,  article in the Conservative Tree House, the daily wire,  and scheerpost. 

With massive censorship of speech, and with so many people being “canceled” for voicing their opinion and with Government and the Technology monopolies refusing to permit vigorous debate—the hallmark of a democratic society—tyranny is a heartbeat away from rearing its ugly head, and thence, “treason.”

The Administration attempts always, with the assistance of the legacy Press and Big Tech to keep one step ahead of the public, to keep Americans off-guard, off-kilter through constant vague, inconsistent, messaging, and ludicrous denials, like the Secretary of DHS, Alejandro Mayorkas baldly, absurdly proclaiming to the public, that the Nation’s borders aren’t open. See, e.g., article in the NY Post. In other words, “don’t believe your lying eyes.” And, it doesn’t end there:

Consider—

The impact of the Nation’s retreat from Afghanistan, leaving billions of dollars of sophisticated weaponry in the hands of our enemy, an enemy we have been at war with for almost 20 years. Are Americans expected to treat this as a mere accident? And, the Administration doesn’t even claim there was an accident. Everything worked out fine—more than fine, really.

Biden’s handlers instructed the idiot to assert the Afghanistan withdrawal was an “extraordinary success.” If Biden had any “gray matter” left in his skull, one would think he would have objected to reciting such a line. Biden’s handlers must think the public is as blockheaded as Biden, himself.

No, the Afghanistan withdrawal wasn’t a success, extraordinary, good, adequate, satisfactory, or even passable. It was an unmitigated disaster and the repercussions from this disaster are so awful, so horrific, that one cannot pass this off as simply ineptitude or mistake. One must infer the actions of the Government to be by design.

Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, had done much to stabilize the Middle East. Yet now, once again the region is destabilized. Worse, the disruption of the Middle East under the present Administration is even than under Obama’s. The present Administration has endangered the security of the Nation and that of the world. Indeed it compounds the threat a thousandfold by airlifting tens of thousands of unvetted Afghans into the Country, to be secreted silently and secretly throughout the interior of our Nation. See, e.g., articles in red voice media, the Washington Examiner, and in town hall.  Also see the YouTube video with Michael Franzese, “Our Government Is Screwing Us.”

Do you recall the old slogan, “if we don’t fight them over there, we will fight them over here?” Back in 2006, the leftist Daily Kos made light of this. A website called the new Federalist, playing off the name of the well-known and ostensibly Conservative website, “The Federalist,” apparently with no association with the federalist shrugs off the danger to the stability of nation-states.

These Sixth Century sheepherders are unassimilable, as are hundreds of thousands of other ignorant, poverty-stricken populations, many of them carrying the Chinese Communist Coronavirus, often referred to simply as COVID; or they may be, and probably are carrying other abominable, highly communicable, and dangerous infectious diseases.

These illegal aliens are all given carte blanche entry into our Nation. These alien populations have a culture, heritage, and ethos antithetical, and our culture, heritage, and ethos are altogether incomprehensible to them to our own. Many have a religion that does not cohere with Christianity and does not recognize the legitimacy of other religions, especially Christianity. And these are the sorry creatures upon which the Neo-Marxist Internationalists and the billionaire Neo-liberal Globalists intend to fracture our society, bringing it to complete ruin.

These populations completely dependent on subsistence from the taxpaying citizenry have little to no formal education and will require substantial taxpayer outlay to assist them with their health care, housing, and a host of other welfare needs. These populations have little to no formal education and will require substantial taxpayer outlay to assist them with health care, housing, and a host of other welfare needs.

The drain on Americans and on the economy will be substantial, immense, catastrophic. And, Americans are obtaining just a glimmer of what lies in store for them, why it is that the Administration and the Neo-Marxist Democrat Party-controlled Congress are Hell-bent on passing a multi-trillion-dollar so-called Human Infrastructure spending plan. This does nothing to help Americans. This plan is designed to destroy the Country and oppress the citizenry, using the citizenry’s tax dollars to pay for the upkeep of tens of millions of illegal alien freeloaders, the new dependent American, happy and content to live under oppression for a few trinkets and a few welfare checks a month upon which to subsist. And the American citizenry will be taxed into penury itself, and become itself dependent on the largess of Government to survive.

And, once the will of the American citizenry has been broken, and the Nation’s institutions destroyed, and the history and heritage and Christian ethos but a distant memory if memory remains at all, the new international world order will rise as the Devil-Spawn from the skeletal remains of this Nation of all the others that once comprised western civilization.

A once-proud, healthy, wealthy, secure, powerful, independent sovereign Nation and a free and sovereign American people will live under constant surveillance and oppression, sans liberty, happiness, and hope for their future.

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

But the American people must first recognize and acknowledge that deliberate policy decisions of the Federal Government do constitute actionable treason if the people are to hold onto their Republic as the Founding Fathers intended and as the Constitution mandates. Their Republic is rapidly slipping from their grasp.

As mentioned in our opening, we said the Federal Government has committed actionable treason against the American people. That is our thesis. Many scholars say this is impossible. They contend that, as a matter of law, Government cannot commit treason against its people even if Government intentionally operates to the detriment of the people.

If Big Tech and Big Government routinely and brazenly censor speech, censorship of guns, i.e., confiscation of firearms, cannot be far behind.

In the next few articles, we deal squarely with whether Government can, theoretically, as a matter of logic and law, commit treason against its people where Government deliberately takes action against the interests of the people.

Is this the stuff of treason by the Government against its own people? We shall see. We now peer at the concept of TYRANNY.

______________________________________

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