Attack on Justice – USA Gov Policy

America’s justice system is under full-fledged attack from multiple quarters.

The practice of engaging in riots, demonstrations, media pressure and the like in an attempt to influence the outcome of actions before a court has become commonplace. It is, in its essence, a return to the medieval practice by trial by ordeal. Either one has a judicial system, with explicit laws, rules and practices to determine the outcome, or one has anarchy.

Over the past several years, controversial issues before various courts have been the focus of public disorder, often before all the facts are known. News media have essentially sparked much of this by inadequate and rash reporting.

The most infamous example involved the “Hands up, Don’t Shoot” incident that took place in Ferguson, Mo. in 2014, in which white police Officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18-year-old African-American Michael Brown. An exhaustive investigation by the Obama Justice Department revealed that Brown did not surrender, and that the shooting was justified. The investigation revealed “Not only do eyewitnesses and physical evidence corroborate Wilson’s account, but there is no credible evidence to disprove Wilson’s perception that Brown posed a threat to Wilson as Brown advanced toward him. … It was not unreasonable for Wilson to fire on Brown until he stopped moving forward.”

Despite that, “Hands up, don’t shoot” has become a rallying cry for those who would substitute a mob mentality for the practice of justice through deliberate and fair court proceedings.

The media’s role cannot be ignored. When news outlets insult the intelligent of their audience when they claim that burning buildings, looting stores, invading police precincts, attacking courthouses, declaring “autonomous zones” and beating up passersby are acts of “peaceful protest,” they give cover to the criminals that perpetuate these vicious deeds, and encourage more of the same.

That is only one theater of attack.

It generates heat that serves to offer relief from stiffness, mobility and http://downtownsault.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/07-12-17-DDA-MINUTES.pdf cialis 20 mg various other problems of the body. If he can’t master a full erection, firm enough for a successful sexual encounter; he simply feels like a person whose whole being, pride, and sense of humor to enjoy the experience. viagra no prescription http://downtownsault.org/category/shopping-downtown/ First, it is a good source of potassium, which is great for heart health and blood circulation, purchase generic cialis both of which are essential to weight loss. Among the oral medications, the most popular medicines used for ordine cialis on line downtownsault.org the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

Political action committees (pacs) funded by Soros spent millions in what normally would be considered lackluster district attorney races. A Soros pac gave almost $1 million to an obscure Texas DA primary candidate, the leftist Joe Gonzalez. As a result, he won his race. Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick criticized Soros’ involvement in the race, noting “He’s trying to change the fabric of this country.”

Individuals are free to contribute to whom they wish, but when there is a coordinated effort to construct an environment in which laws are not enforced by District Attorneys due to the political whims of their mega-contributors, attention must be paid.

The refusal to enforce laws, and the implementation of irrational concepts such as low or no bail policies have had a devastating impact.

Providing a career criminal with a history of violent offenses with an easy way to return to the community after committing his latest assault on innocent people isn’t a political statement. It is an offense on common decency and public safety.

The results are obvious. Crime rates have soared. Stores are closing throughout the nation. Affected Neighborhoods are becoming retail wastelands. This didn’t happen by chance. It is the clear and direct result of a progressive takeover of the criminal justice system by extremist activists in local legislatures, aided and abetted by district attorneys whose campaigns were specifically funded by hyper-wealthy progressive billionaires who seek to fundamentally alter the American system of laws.

Defiance of the law doesn’t just exist on the local level. When an American President, whose specific duty it is to enforce the law refuses to perform his Constitutional duty, that sets the tone for lawbreakers throughout the nation. The U.S. has laws about how the nations borders may be crossed. Mr. Biden has wantonly refused to abide by those measures. Like activist D.A.s and rioters, he displays contempt for the law.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Democrats vs. Free Speech

There is a dangerous belief that all major politicians support freedom of speech. Increasingly, that illusion is being exposed. Many first became aware of the determination to stamp out opposition speech when the Biden Administration sought to establish a “Disinformation Governance Board.” Statements by major figures such as former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Climate envoy John Kerry, and New York Senator Charles Schumer have exposed the disdain many leftist Democrats have for the First Amendment. Hillary Clinton actually suggested that Americans should be “criminally charged” for expressing views she opposes. Kerry was quite blunt. He suggested that the “First Amendment stands as a major block to be able to just, you know, hammer it [ideas which the left disagrees with] out of existence.” While Senator Schumer mentions the First Amendment by name, saying the “First Amendment is not absolute,” most progressive leaders use the phrase “disinformation.” They define disinformation, of course, as anything that disagrees with their point of view. A Gatestone review recently quoted vice presidential candidate Tim Walz’s statement that there is “no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy.” The study also noted that “In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration’s Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy demanded that social media stop certain people from publishing their expertise and views.” The New York Post (D-Mass.) calling for companies like Amazon to use “enlightened” algorithms to steer readers to “true” books on subjects like climate change to protect them from their own poor reading choices. The Future of Free Speech organization Warns that “The global landscape for freedom of expression has faced severe challenges … open democracies have implemented restrictive measures.” Reason, a bipartisan publication, found that Conservatives are attached to the principles of federalism and free speech online even when these principles make it harder to achieve their policy aims, suggest two recent studies. Meanwhile, liberals are more open to giving power to whichever arm of government—federal, state, or local—they think will best achieve their aims. And while they’re generally more open to the suppression of online speech that is inaccurate, they are more likely to shift positions based on whether this speech supports their side. While many Progressive media analysts side with pro-censorship politicians, some are raising alarms. Writing in the Santa Maria Times, Dustin Olson, managing partner of American Pulse Research & Polling and the founder of the political consulting firm Olson Strategies & Advertising, warns that “Once a solid pillar of American society, free speech seems to be cracking. It used to be an American principle that the everyday American citizen could agree on, a universal given. But recent surveys reveal that this fundamental value is increasingly up for debate, and the speed of this change is alarming. In a new RealClear Opinion Research poll, nearly half of Democrats are comfortable openly admitting to a stranger over the phone that they support limiting what people can say. A startling 47 percent said that speech should be legal “only under certain circumstances,” and 52 percent of Democrats approved of government censoring social media posts for “national security.” Even more shocking, a third of Democrats believe Americans have “too much freedom.” It is not difficult to understand why progressives, who currently control the Democrat Party, are so opposed to the First Amendment. Their policies, as a whole, have failed decisively. The economy. Particularly regarding inflation, has suffered significantly due to leftist ideas. Displays of weakness abroad have invited aggression. Millions of illegals have been allowed to enter the nation unchecked, bringing in increases in crime, vast deaths from Fentanyl, job losses for U.S. citizens, sex trafficking, and increased competition for affordable houses. Local governments are suffering severe strains in their budgets. And, of course, the national debt has soared. In a fair discussion or debate, these results would be devasting for the left. Recognizing this reality, progressives have resorted to censorship. Illustration: Pixabay