Is the Natural Law still relevant in these United States?

Both are obvious violations of the Natural Law, upon which these United States were founded.

New York – -( Politicians should articulate sound and rational policy positions for the Nation, and those policy positions should be consistent with the import and purport of the U.S. Constitution, to preserve and strengthen it, not undermine it. Is that really so unreasonable?

Surely, politicians cannot and ought not expect the polity to endorse slipshod, simplistic policy prescriptions, especially those prescriptions that are inconsistent with, and antithetical to, the original meaning of the Constitution and which are inconsistent with, and which therefore negatively impinge on or infringe fundamental rights and liberties, as codified in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution.

Yet, time and time again we see many Democrats, especially those on the Radical Left of the political spectrum, articulating and supporting policy that, even on a cursory analysis, is inapt and inane, even insane.

From guns to abortion, to immigration, Democrats have gone off the rails.

Yet, many Americans seem to think that Democrats’ policy stances and prescriptions make perfectly good sense and that these policy positions and policy prescriptions bespeak, rather than, belie, the best interests of the Nation and its people. But do they? Do they really?

Take one example: guns. To listen to Democrats go on about the need for more and more gun restrictions, one might be led to think that the reasoning behind Democrats’ desire to impose more and more burdensome, even asinine, gun restrictions on law-abiding, responsible, rational Americans is predicated, as they will always remind you, on a desire to promote public safety. Left-wing extremist Democrats suggest they place a premium on human life and therefore hold the moral high ground, implying, then, that political and social Conservatives do not. But is that true? Are Democrats—especially extremists on the Left who yell loudest for restrictive gun measures—the paragons of virtue they claim to be? If you think so, then ask yourself this:

How can a politician claim to value human life by denying an individual the most effective means available to defend his or her life and that of innocent others, namely with a firearm, and, yet, encourage the whole-sale taking of life—the most innocent and helpless of human life, through late-term or at-birth abortion.

Can these two policy stances—civilian gun confiscation measures and late-term, at will, even at birth abortion stances be reconciled? Americans have a right to expect—in fact, should demand—an answer to this question before jumping on the Radical Left bandwagon. The mainstream media, though, demonstrates no interest in resolving this question. Indeed, the mainstream media doesn’t even bother to ask the question. But, this should come as no surprise to anyone since the mainstream media is no longer the guardian of a free Republic and defender of the Constitution, but, rather, walks in lockstep with extremists in Government—those who desire to undermine our Constitutional Republic, and disassemble our sacred rights and liberties. Rather than taking the would-be destroyers of our Nation to task, we see a seditious Press commending them for it, actively, avidly promoting the Radical Left agenda to the detriment of our Nation and of our people.

But, beyond the wild, fantastic idiocy of the Radical Left’s policy stances, as articulated to the polity—the Radical Left’s policy positions, especially those pertaining to guns and abortion—aren’t even coherent or consistent with each other.

Consider the nonsensical remarks of two representatives of the Radical Left:

U.S. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), a contender for her Party’s nomination in the upcoming U.S. Presidential election in 2020, and Andrew Cuomo, third term Governor of New York. Both politicians espouse extreme views on firearms’ ownership and possession, on the one hand, and abortion, on the other. Each of them, at once, denies the right of the people to keep and bear arms as fundamental, natural, unalienable, and immutable, notwithstanding codification of that primordial right in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. And, at one and the same time, each argues for a woman’s right to late-term, at-will abortion [not to be confused with current accepted practices]; and each dares to raise abortion to the status of a fundamental right, even though nothing in the Constitution expressly or tacitly supports such a bizarre and outrageous notion.

We will look at the gun policy and abortion policy prescriptions of both Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo, in-depth. We will demonstrate that, while these Left-wing Radical Democrats treat abortion and guns as distinct, incommensurable issues, they really aren’t. Gun policy, if it is to pass Constitutional muster, must always be consistent with the language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and the language of the Second Amendment is to be understood as a codification of the natural, unalienable right of the people to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment, as with the other nine Amendments, is an affirmation of the value of human life, not its denial.

The Second Amendment does not entail, explicitly or implicitly, the idea of death, but of life: the life of the Nation by discouraging tyranny; and the life of the individual, by deterring threats to that innocent individual. Abortion entails, by definition, death: and death of the most innocent human being of all: an unborn child. There is no way around that conclusion. Any discussion of abortion as a policy choice and any talk of a restriction on the exercise of one’s fundamental, unalienable right to keep and bear arms, as a policy choice, must start with the same standard.

One must ask: does that policy choice promote life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; or does that policy choice operate to impede if not altogether preclude life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

The central theme of the Bill of Rights, perceived as an inseparable whole, speaks undeniably to the sanctity and inviolability of the individual. Senator Harris and Governor Cuomo attempt to undercut the Second Amendment by refusing to accept it for what it is: an unconditional, fundamental, unalienable, natural, and immutable right, a right bestowed on man by a loving, omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent Creator; and, as such, a right, as with the other Nine Amendments, that cannot be dismissed, modified, abrogated or ignored. In their refusal to accept the plain import and purport of the Bill Rights of the U.S. Constitution, Harris and Cuomo at once deny the sanctity and inviolability of the American citizen. Their denial, a casual and callous dismissal of the Second Amendment, operates, by implication, as a casual and callous denial of the Bill of Rights as an integrated whole.

Their denial amounts to blasphemy pure and simple.