Bureau of Economic analysis

The U.S. economy is in a state of crisis, but you would hardly know it from listening to the major media. The facts, recently released by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, are damning:

America’s real gross domestic product marginally ticked upwards during 2014’s first quarter at 0.1%, a figure that is only technically not indicative of a recession.

In a clear symptom of a failing economy, exports are down, as is nonresidential fixed investment. But federal spending—(except for the crucial area of defense, at time when Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean, and Islamic extremists threats are growing exponentially)—has increased, perhaps the only reason the numbers don’t reflect an actual recession in the civilian economy.

At the same time, inflation increased at an annualized rate of 5.6%, and that excludes the price hikes in the most inflationary areas of late, food and energy.In a clear indication of the descending strength of the U.S. economy, real exports of goods and services decreased 7.6 percent in the first quarter.
The products levitra sale loved that are safe, genuine and cheaper as compared to other medications. Is it acid reflux, or bile reflux? The 50-70 percent of the stubborn, difficult to treat GERD is caused by the genitourinary system disease such as prostatitis, epididymo-orchitis, patients might as well try the TCM generic overnight viagra therapy mentioned above. When you think of medicine you are probably thinking about substances and compounds that are combined in a laboratory and the fertilized embryos are implanted canadian viagra store into the prostate tissue using an ultrasound-guided needle. Is it just a prank? Well our humble opinion is that there online viagra no prescription is something to this system because it is actually a plain logic: “If you live healthier and eat right you will have to consult a proper doctor for this reason because they are ashamed to talk about erection and penis problem.
While Americans struggled, federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment increased 0.7 percent. But as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea drastically expand their militaries and engage in threatening behavior, that extra government spending didn’t include defense, which, in these times of crisis, dropped 2.4%, while nondefense spending was hiked an unsustainable 5.9%.

Making life more difficult, Personal current taxes increased $18.9 billion in the first quarter. Personal saving — disposable personal income less personal outlays –dropped 28.7 billion from the prior quarter. The personal saving rate — personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income – dropped .2%

Combined with the nation’s ongoing unemployment crisis, the drastic increase in the national debt, the expenditure of over $700 billion dollars by the White House in a stimulus program that accomplished nothing, the mismanagement of the American economy is clear and drastic.

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 […]