Ben Rhodes – USA Gov Policy

The tweets by former Obama advisor Ben Rhodes musing on the death of Trump and GOP leaders, and similar extreme comments by others raise an important issue: Are the bonds which unite Americans weakening due to the strident attacks on the outcome of the presidential election?

It’s increasingly worrisome that much of the political chattering classes have become obsessed—there is no better word—with their hatred for both Trump and his supporters, those whom the Democrat presidential candidate in 2016 described as “deplorables.”

Their anger differs from the usual political disagreements that have characterized politics in the past. It is not a rejection of policy or actions—such as that which marked centrist and conservative dissent against Obama’s agenda. It is, instead, a cultural hatred of those that don’t subscribe to progressive orthodoxy. In its extremity, it is a rejection of the identity of those whom one disagrees with as fellow citizens of a free republic, merely because of differing views. The trend was crystalized when Hillary Clinton, when asked who she thought of as “the enemy,” responded, not Russia or China, or poverty or discrimination, but “Republicans.”

Labelling countrymen as “enemies” or “deplorables” opens the door to the justification of harsh repressive measures. This trend was becoming apparent during the Obama Administration, when the IRS was used to attack the Tea Party, and when Attorney General Loretta Lynch seriously considered criminally prosecuting those who merely disagreed with the President’s view on climate change.

In the past, even significant transfers of power from one ideology to the other were peaceful. Liberal Jimmy Carter’s replacement with conservative Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush to Barack Obama being salient examples. Of course, there were disagreements and harshness, but nothing approaching what occurred after the 2016 election. The well-coordinated and financed violence that occurred in city streets, the calls to impeach Trump before he was even inaugurated, the commencement of a politically motivated investigation on the most specious and unsubstantiated grounds, and the creation of a false sense of crisis by a partisan media are unprecedented.

The images of Trump’s severed head made popular by comedian Kathy Griffen, and the shoot-up of a Republican sports outing by a left wing fanatic have carved out unwelcome and dire territory in the American political experience.
The experts recommend to the ED patients ask this question. cialis tabs 20mg For a consultation or more information you can levitra professional online reach Dr. It had not been their own problems as their partners also experienced tastelessness in their life. cialis 5 mg cute-n-tiny.com This disease in scientific terms viagra generico uk is known as sildenafil citrate medicine.
The problem extends far beyond vapid Hollywood starlets and hyper-partisan politicos. The actions of oft-overturned Ninth Circuit judges seeking to seize the statutory powers of the presidency, the attempts by career federal bureaucrats to ignore the directives of elected officials, and perhaps most distressingly the very serious discussion of a California secession movement all point to a potential break in intra-national relations not seen since the assault on Fort Sumter.

In many ways, the intensified declarations by a number of city and state governments that they are “sanctuary cities” is similar to the nullification argument of southern states before the outbreak of the Civil War.

The 1832 South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification was issued in response to a federal tariff. The state government simply decided it had the right to ignore federal legislation, in an area of law the Constitution clearly provided to Washington. USHistory.org notes: “As far as South Carolina was concerned, there was no tariff. A line had been drawn. Jackson rightly regarded this … challenge as so serious that he asked Congress to enact legislation permitting him to use federal troops to enforce federal laws…If nullification had been successful, could secession have been far behind?”

The nation was able to pull back from the brink of confrontation in 1832. It did not escape a cataclysm in 1861.

When some states, cities and courts decide to ignore the Constitution, when many political partisans declare that “Trump is not my President,” and when biased media outlets vigorously push a fevered and inaccurate picture of a nation in turmoil, it would appear that America is in danger of moving closer to an ideological 1861 moment.

The Obama Administration is nearing the conclusion of its final term, and the rationale behind its foreign policy choices remains a mystery.

There is little doubt that it has (apparently) blundered its way into some of the worst international relations mistakes any White House has ever made, including the failed “Reset” with Russia, the inability to deal with (or, for a time, even recognize) the rise of extremism in the Middle East, the alienation of key allies, and its diplomatic passivity in the face of Chinese aggression. Throughout all of its global missteps, there has been one constant: its refusal to explain its goals or even its core beliefs.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in its actions towards Iran.

The latest example is another startling departure from common sense. Despite the Tehran government’s continuous provocations and hostile acts, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is encouraging European enterprises to do business with Iran. It remains unclear why a U.S. official would engage in any activities for the benefit of another government, particularly one with a record of hostility towards America.

In remarks to the press before attending an anti-corruption summit in London reported by the Wall Street Journal, Kerry bizarrely stated that European business executives shouldn’t use the excuse of poor U.S.-Iranian relations as a reason not to do business with Iran. There has been no explanation why an American Secretary of State should have any involvement in business relations between private concerns and a foreign government, let alone one with a pronounced animosity towards the U.S.

The comments come at roughly the same time that remarks by White House deputy national security adviser for strategic communications Ben Rhodes have created a firestorm of controversy. Rhodes indicates that the Administration essentially misled the American people about the Iran nuclear agreement.

A New York Times description of how the Iran deal was “sold” to the American public by Rhodes notes: “The way in which most Americans have heard the story of the Iran deal presented — that the Obama administration began seriously engaging with Iranian officials in 2013 in order to take advantage of a new political reality in Iran, which came about because of elections that brought moderates to power in that country — was largely manufactured for the purpose for selling the deal. Even where the particulars of that story are true, the implications that readers and viewers are encouraged to take away from those particulars are often misleading or false.”
Both of the medicine contains in stock cialis sale sildenafil citrate and work the same way to relieve the condition of a sufferer. Women around the buying levitra online Full Article world say that getting pregnant is made easier with this pregnancy system. The cialis generico uk inhibitor (PDE-5) quickly combines with blood and organ can have a physical appearance of rigidity. It cleanses blood off its toxins so that the blood reaching the destined organs is purufied. levitra consultation
The White House lied—there is no gentler way of stating this—about a “moderate” faction in the Tehran regime. It lied about the fact that President Obama had a long-standing desire to conclude a deal that would lift the economic sanctions on Iran.

Even news outlets normally favorable towards the White House have criticized the Administration’s Iran deception. The NY Daily News, a very pro-Administration outlet, editorialized: “Iranian propaganda went as the mullahs hoped for relief from economic sanctions via a nuclear deal with the U.S. and Western powers. Why would anyone believe such obvious nonsense? One reason — in fact the key reason — is that Obama joined Iran in knowingly peddling the same false propaganda to America”

The White House has also glossed over the fact that the inspection regime was going to be inadequate, and that Iran would be free to develop nuclear weapons in about a decade. Since the deal was completed, Iran’s supposedly forbidden testing of extended range missiles has proceeded unchallenged.

According to The Hill, House oversight chairman Jason Chaffetz is threatening to subpoena Rhodes.

Despite the lessening of economic sanctions and the refusal by the White House to respond to Iranian missile test violations, Tehran continues to expand its aggressive actions. According to Israel National News Iran is threatening U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

The Iran deception is just a part of the Obama Administration’s foreign policy puzzle. Is this White House extremely unlucky, or just wholly unskilled in international matters? Is the President blinded by the hard-left ideology that has nurtured his career? Most worrisomely, particularly in light of the Iran deception, it is now appropriate to ask whether these results, In Russia, Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere are actually the results Mr. Obama hoped for, a product of a worldview so alien from that favored and expected by the vast majority of Americans that the President dare not reveal his true goals.

Quick Analysis

New York Injustice, Part 2

As is well known, for a jury to find a defendant guilty of a crime, that jury must be convinced that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. According to the New York State Jury Instructions, “[a] reasonable doubt is an honest doubt of the defendant’s guilt for which a reason exists based upon the nature and quality of the evidence. It is an actual doubt, not an imaginary doubt. It is a doubt that a reasonable person, acting in a matter of this importance, would be likely to entertain because of the evidence that was presented or because of the lack of convincing evidence.” The fact that the Medical Examiner came to her conclusion without benefit of the toxicology report, and the fact that those drugs contributed to Neely’s death, would be enough to create a reasonable doubt that Penny had acted recklessly. The testimony from the DA’s own witnesses, attesting to their fear of Neely, would also serve to establish the justification defense. Nevertheless, the jury deadlocked during deliberations on the top count, Manslaughter. They could not agree on whether or not Penny had acted in a reckless fashion in restraining Neely. It was then that something strange and unprecedented happened. As described by The New York Post, after the jury had sent out their second note reporting that they could not agree on the first count, “[t]he judge suggested that he might consider ordering a mistrial in the whole case rather than order one on just the top charge as jurors considered weighing the second. Wiley said he would have done this so as not to lead to a ‘compromise verdict, which New York state courts try to avoid’… Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran could then be seen pacing around the courtroom on her cell phone and talking to District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office staff in the front row of the gallery. The veteran homicide prosecutor left the room, but returned minutes later alongside Steven Wu, the chief of the DA’s office’s appeals bureau. Wu then argued to the judge that axing the manslaughter charge would eliminate the threat of a compromised split verdict.” Despite a strenuous objection from the defense, Judge Wiley agreed to dismiss the top count. “‘I’ll take a chance and grant the people’s application,’ Wiley said, instructing the jury to return Monday and deliberate the charge of criminally negligent homicide.” Take a chance? With a man facing years of imprisonment? The defense argued that dismissing the top count at this stage of the trial “presented a violation of state laws and could encourage a precedent where prosecutors overcharge from the start, knowing they can downgrade charges later on the fly if their case doesn’t stand up. ‘[There is a] risk here of a coercive verdict or a compromised verdict…New York is clear that compromised verdicts are discouraged,’ Penny’s lawyers told the judge. ‘It would force them into what we would submit would be manufactured, as to the lesser count of criminal negligence.'” In other words, Penny’s lawyers believed that dismissing the Manslaughter charge just because the jury couldn’t agree on that charge, would signal to the jury that they should convict on the Criminal Negligence charge. What Judge Wiley seems to have forgotten is that dismissal of the top count was unnecessary. Under New York Criminal Procedure Law Section 310.70, “[i]f the possibility of ultimate agreement with respect to the other submitted offenses…is so small…the court would be authorized to discharge the jury…the court must terminate the deliberation and order the jury to render a partial verdict with respect to those offenses and defendants upon which or with respect to whom it has reached a verdict.” This means that the Judge could have ordered the jury to bypass the Manslaughter charge, go ahead and deliberate on the Criminal Negligence charge, and if they could agree on that charge, either come back to the Manslaughter charge, or report their verdict on the Criminal Negligence charge. Did Judge Wiley want to see a conviction so badly that he forgot this fundamental rule of trial? Was he on the side of the prosecution , and decided to tip the scales in their favor? Or did he just not care, and want the trial over with one way or another? In any of these scenarios, Judge Wiley created an appellate issue for Daniel Penny that would have certainly led to the reversal of any conviction. If the Court meant to signal to the jury that they should convict on the Criminal Negligence charge, that hint backfired. When the jury returned to their deliberations, Penny was quickly acquitted of the remaining charge. To “take a chance” and follow the advice of Alvin Bragg’s office, rather than research the law applicable to the situation points to a disturbing trend in the New York Courts. We have witnessed the unfair and frankly illegal trial conducted by Judge Juan Merchan in New York County Supreme Court. https://www.usagovpolicy.com/did-trump-receive-a-fair-trial/ Now we have witnessed a possibly inadvertent, but just as unfair, attempt to place a thumb on the scales of justice against a criminal defendant in a politically charged case. At this stage, it is fair to ask if the judges who sit in New York County Supreme Court are fair and impartial, or if they are there to enforce the will of Alvin Bragg and his brand of racial and progressive injustice. Judge John Wilson’s (ret.) served on the bench in NYC Photo: Pixabay