The upcoming November 2020 presidential and congressional elections are crucial and truly of momentous importance. They will decide the path this nation will take, and since much of the world follows the US in cultural and political trends, perhaps the world.

Following the Parkland high school mass shooting on Valentine’s Day, gun control has once again been pushed to the forefront of political discussion by gun prohibitionists exploiting each and every tragedy to carry on their not so hidden agenda. This time they have even recruited teenagers, who understandably fear not only deranged madmen carrying out shooting rampages but the endemic violence in their schools.

David Kopel's monumental book, The Morality of Self-Defense and Military Action: The Judeo-Christian Tradition (2017) has not received the attention it deserves for such a well-researched and magnificently written tome. Kopel has succeeded in

• 6 comments
• Read more

This article is a review of Big Agenda: President Trump’s Plan to Save America (2017) by David Horowitz, an instructive and engaging tome that can be read at one sitting. Horowitz begins with a discussion of the dissension in the Republican ranks with Trump's candidacy for the presidency. And he is correct when he writes that many Republicans were erroneously and unproductively fighting as hard to defeat Trump — particularly some even in the cast of the old George H.W. Bush mindset — as they did to defeat the Democrats in previous elections.

The generations who founded America and our republic saw that ensuring the individual rights of free people was necessary to limiting government power and to their own pursuit of happiness. This came to be expressed in our Bill of Rights with its ultimate guarantor, the Second Amendment.

Green Perry's mellifluous language and arguments in his letter almost makes one hope socialism does triumph globally and stops all the evils of capitalism. What a soporific. The top six countries he mentioned, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand and France, first of all, started from a higher base than most of the world — part and parcel of European Western civilization — before they embraced social democracy.

Charleston, SC, is dear to my heart, where in more peaceful and nostalgic times I attended medical school.

In its ongoing effort to examine controversial subjects, Surgical Neurology International (SNI) explores a recent paper on limiting life to the age of 75 by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Miguel Faria, an Associate Editor in Chief of SNI, in his Editorial, "Bioethics and why I hope to live beyond age 75 attaining wisdom!: A rebuttal to Dr.

The powerful French Minister Cardinal Richelieu stated, “If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged.” What Richelieu’s statement means is that the State can prosecute or blackmail and force anyone to do its bidding, once that person is targeted by the State for real, imagined, or fabricated offenses.

In a previous article, “European social democracies and gun control,” I wrote that many Americans are extremely naïve when it comes to trusting the government with their liberties.

In a previous article in GOPUSA about gun control in the European social democracies, I wrote that many Americans are extremely naïve when it comes to trusting the government with their liberties.

After talking with young neurosurgeons and residents around the world, they often ask "How do I know what I read is the truth?" I answered that question in a recent editorial.(1)

A review of Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow (2004)

Over the years, in both commentaries and letters to the editor in my local newspaper, I have noted the naïve expression of many letter writers and liberal pundits, who glossing over the Constitutional protections guaranteed by the 4th and 5th Amendments, opine, “If you don’t have anything to hide, then you don’t have anything to fear!” When the Soviet KGB needed culprits, their motto was “Show me the man and I will show you his crime.” In other words, charges can be brought against anyone, once the State has decided to trample on the rights of any targeted citizen.

A week or so ago we discussed Obama's Mid-term Report Card on foreign policy. It was the opinion of most readers of GOPUSA that the sitting President received a solid "F, " failing grade.

A great many Telegraph posters and avid readers are disappointed and fuming because The Telegraph issued a new directive that henceforth the paper would use Facebook (and not Discus) for online commenting.

Surgical Neurology International publishes a two-part series entitled "America, Guns, and Freedom: A Recapitulation of Liberty" and "Shooting Rampages, Mental Health, and the Sensationalization of Violence."

Open-access journal weighs in on the gun control debate from a neurological perspective

In anticipation of the release of my new book by the same name, I'm republishing this seminal article on the subject.

----------

The role of gun violence and street crime in the United States and the world is currently a subject of great debate among national and international organizations, including the United Nations. Because the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the individual right of American citizens to own private firearms, availability of firearms is greater in the U.S. than the rest of the world, except perhaps in Israel and Switzerland.

Just this week, as I was commenting on Section 1021 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 or National Defense law that was signed by President Barack Obama, the question came up of whether the Supreme Court would rule this offending portion unconstitutional. My response follows:

The study of the nature of reality leads to the Medieval argument (conflict) between Realists and Nominalists. I will defer further discussion on that controversy for now, and instead, deal with more contemporary philosophies.

Pragmatism or Idealism

The Founding Fathers of this great nation designed a Republican form of government. By this, they meant a government under the rule of law and not the capricious rule of man, under a written constitution whose main function is to clearly demarcate the limits of authority of the federal government.

No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or dispossessed, or outlawed, or banished, or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him, nor send upon him, except by the legal judgement of his peers or by the law of the land.
Magna Carta, par. 39

No More Wacos --- What's Wrong With Federal Law Enforcement and How to Fix It

Now that the Republicans with Tea Party assistance have won the House of Representatives by a landslide, we are hearing a lot of cries from the Democrats and their minions in the media about the need for ending "gridlock" and establishing bipartisan consensus!

In the summer of 1787, as the Founders, led by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, concluded the drafting of the momentous Constitution of these United States, a Philadelphia lady at the steps of Independence Hall, asked, "Mr [Ben] Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" He retorted, "a Republic, ma'am if you can keep it."

In Part I of this essay, we discussed the terms Liberty and Equality in accordance with Natural Rights theory and Constitutional governance, and then we summarized the ten planks of Karl Marx's 1948 Communist Manifesto. We showed how our Constitutional Republic has been eroded toward a Social[ist] Democracy by the infiltration of those Marxist planks in our polity.