Biden candidacy – USA Gov Policy

A disturbing picture is beginning to emerge about what has essentially become a sham candidacy by the Democrats, and the coverup of that strategy and that candidate both by much of the media and the party’s bureaucrat allies.

While most Americans are exercising caution in the face of the COVID crisis, Joe Biden’s refusal to leave his home to face the American people in the midst of a presidential campaign should raise extensive alarm bells. It is more than just avoiding crowds. His few basement broadcasts raise doubts about his presence of mind.

Even his admirers have taken note. The New York Times has written: “…the former vice president is in a distinctive kind of lockdown, walled off from voters, separated from his top strategists and yet leading in the polls.”

Even within the confines of his isolation and despite the existence of numerous ways to remotely connect with the public through means such as Skype or Zoom, Biden has been bizarrely reclusive, leaving tough interviews to his wife and other spokespersons.

You don’t hear much about this, thanks to the phalanx of increasingly biased and untruthful traditional and internet-based media. Here’s an experiment that reveals how extensive this coverup is. Google the phrase, “Biden refuses to leave home.” These are the entries that come up on that search engine: “Biden absolutely convinced military would escort Trump from the White House (CNN); Military will remove Trump from the White House (Daily Beast). Similar results go on for pages.

Biden’s struggles with mental clarity make it necessary for him to avoid rigorous discussion, and his campaign, despite a stated willingness to debate, is moving to limit or even not participate in any presidential debates. They have already successfully lobbied the Commission on Presidential Debates to not have a debate in September.

viagra pill cost The ED rick increased by 40% in men who smoked more than 20 cigarettes daily. Always keep such pills out of reach of female viagra canada average men. The effects of tadalafil last for as long as 17 to 36 hours after taking the cheap generic viagra tablet. Sex keeps your heart stay healthy Regular sex is great for heart health and blood circulation, both of which are helpful in erectile buy viagra from india function. (Remember, the spongy tissue in the penis soaks up the blood to become erect.

The Biden campaign has prodigiously sought to portray Biden as a traditional Democrat, an experienced hand who served 47 years in Washington. But it struggles to define him, an understandable difficulty given that he has reversed himself repeatedly over the years on key issues, depending on how the political winds of the moment were blowing. This chameleon-like tendency has become even more pronounced recently. Business Insider reports that “Joe Biden is making a habit of reversing stances on key policy areas — even positions he has held for decades — since the launch of his presidential campaign in April.”

While politicians do evolve, the question surrounding Biden is what is he evolving into? Given the extremist nature of the current Democrat Party, the answer is deeply disturbing.

Little is discussed about Biden’s adoption of the radical positions of the most extreme elements of his increasingly hard-left, socialist oriented party. He has been endorsed by, to cite just a few examples, Castro-fan Karen Bass, radical Congressional leaders such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Illhan Omar, and by Communists such as Bob Avakian (chairman of the Communist Revolutionary Party of the USA) and many others.

In foreign affairs, Biden has taken dangerously mistaken positions. He counseled President Obama against taking out Osama Bin Laden. Even as China has caused mass devastation throughout the globe, he has been soft on America’s most dangerous adversary. He has stated “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man…I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what? They’re not competition for us…”

Which brings up the issue of how the media has covered up what may be the most significant act of corruption in U.S. politics: the fortune made by the Biden family from questionable dealings with China while Biden was serving as Vice President.

Photo: Official portrait of Joe Biden

Quick Analysis

Judge Merchan continues to deny justice to Donald Trump

In August of 2024, we discussed the US Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States. We described the three tiered system enunciated by Chief Justice Roberts to determine whether or not the actions taken by the President of the United States are entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution or not. The first tier are acts within the President’s constitutionally mandated authority which are subject to “absolute immunity.” The next are acts that may have “presumptive immunity,” and are subject to examination with evidence that rebuts the presumption of immunity. The third are acts which are unofficial, and which enjoy no immunity. In September, we also discussed the effect this decision should have on the New York County criminal case currently pending against President-elect Trump before Judge Juan Merchan. We cited to a CNN report, which described the evidence used against Donald Trump at the trial of that matter: “Trump’s lawyers pointed to testimony at trial – including from White House officials Hope Hicks and Madeleine Westerhout – they argued should not have come before the jury…'[a]ll of Hicks’s testimony concerning events in 2018, when she was serving as the White House Communications Director, concerned official acts based on [Presidential] authority for which President Trump is entitled to absolute immunity,’ Trump’s attorneys argued. ‘[the Supreme Court’s ruling] specifically forbids prosecutors from offering ‘testimony’ from a President’s ‘advisers’ for the purpose of ‘probing the official act.’” Sure enough, as Chief Justice Roberts stated in the Presidential Immunity decision, “[a]llowing prosecutors to ask or suggest that the jury probe official acts for which the President is immune would thus raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office. The prosaic tools on which the Government would have courts rely are an inadequate safeguard against the peculiar constitutional concerns implicated in the prosecution of a former President.” At the time, we stated that “Judge Merchan allowed testimony regarding Donald Trump’s official acts as President, acts which enjoy absolute immunity and which cannot be used against him, or even be entered into evidence in a criminal trial, a situation which could have been avoided had Judge Merchan delayed the trial until he’d received the guidance of the US Supreme Court.” Nonetheless, we predicted that Judge Merchan “will find a way to justify his actions once again, and let stand the unlawful conviction of former President Donald Trump.” You know how much we hate to say we were right…but…we were right. “This Court…finds that the evidence related to the [President-elect’s] claims relate entirely to unofficial conduct and thus, receive no immunity protections,” Judge Merchan wrote in his December 16, 2024 decision. “Further, even if this Court were to deem all of the contested evidence…as official conduct falling within the outer perimeter of Defendant’s Presidential authority, it would still find that the People’s use of these acts as evidence of the decidedly personal acts of falsifying business records poses no danger of intrusion on the authority and function of the Executive Branch, a conclusion amply supported by non-motive-related evidence.” In so ruling, the Court denied Donald Trump’s motion to dismiss his New York County conviction. Let us examine these findings, in light of the evidence admitted at the President-elect’s trial, and then compare that evidence to the acts granted absolute immunity by the US Supreme Court. In his decision, Judge Merchan discusses the testimony of Hope Hicks, who served as the Communications Director for the Trump White House. “Defendant argues that in her roles at the White House, any communications between Ms. Hicks and Defendant must receive absolute immunity…as Defendant’s ability to speak freely to Ms. Hicks was a core function of the Executive. According to Defendant, because Ms. Hicks wielded executive power on his behalf, authority that exists pursuant to Article II of the Constitution, any communications [President Trump] had with [Hicks] are subject to absolute immunity,” the Court wrote. Judge Merchan also noted that “[t]he People argue that the communications Defendant had with Ms. Hicks…constitute unofficial acts not entitled to any level of immunity.” In his inevitable agreement with the arguments presented by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s office, Judge Merchan wrote “Defendant’s argument that any communication he had with Ms. Hicks is subject to absolute immunity by virtue of the position she held in the White House is mistaken…the President himself may speak in his unofficial capacity as a candidate or party leader, and certainly he can do so in his private capacity as well. Any argument that private conduct transforms into official conduct by communicating about the same to an individual with a particular title is without merit.” Thus, it is Judge Merchan’s position that the conversations Donald Trump had with his Communications Director are not entitled to immunity, even though those discussions were held at the White House, while Donald Trump was serving as President of the United States, merely because those discussions were not related to official Executive Branch activities. Sounds possibly reasonable – until you examine the Presidential Immunity decision more closely. In September, we wrote that “the statement made by Chief Justice Roberts in his majority opinion in the Presidential Immunity case [is significant]; ‘Presidents cannot be indicted based on conduct for which they are immune from prosecution…[t]estimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial.’” This statement by Chief Justice Roberts points to a blanket immunity for ANY discussions had between the President and his advisors, regardless of the nature of those communications. Further, we noted that the Supreme Court issued the following warning: “[t]he government…contends that a jury could ‘consider’ evidence concerning the President’s official acts ‘for limited and specified purposes,’ and that such evidence would ‘be admissible.’” In rejecting that argument, Chief Justice Roberts states “[t]hat proposal threatens to eviscerate the immunity we have recognized. It would permit a prosecutor to do indirectly what he cannot do directly – invite the jury to examine acts for which a President is immune from prosecution […]