Censoring conservatives – USA Gov Policy

In a media environment largely dominated by progressives, the airing of other views is a true necessity for the maintenance of the First Amendment. It is expected that those views would produce disagreement from the predominantly leftist media majority; that’s the nature of public debate.

What is truly worrisome and devastating to constitutional liberties and public safety itself, however, is the impulse by several not just to disagree with non-Democrat views, but to attempt to censor them out of existence altogether. This is a nationwide trend that began on college campuses, expanded to social media sites, and now has metastasized to the general public square.

Unfortunately, even key elected officials have signed on to this revolt against the Bill of Rights. Several years ago, Senator Charles Schumer called for the weakening of free speech rights, alleging that paid political speech is not covered by the First Amendment. He stated that “The First Amendment is sacred, but it is not absolute.” Frighteningly, the Senate Minority Leader received the support of the Democrat delegation. Happily, that was not enough to secure passage of the measure.

On college campuses, students and professors not kowtowing to left-wing orthodoxy are ostracized, attacked, and banned. Social media giants censor out voices they disagree with, and cut deals with overseas Communist regimes. The mayor of one city discourages his police from protecting the property of a federal agency leftists dislike, a growing tendency in Progressive-run metropolises. Hollywood moguls harass entertainers who contradict leftist positions. Major news media outlets ignore facts that don’t fit in with their left-wing views.

In addition to the academic, political, and financial acts against those disagreeing with the left, violence has been employed. Antifa actually uses the classic tactics of fascists and totalitarians to physically assault any that dare disagree with it. It serves as the shock troops of the anti-free speech movement. While serving as vice-chair of the Democrat National Committee, Keith Ellison signaled support for Antifa.

These Gestapo-like tactics are being supported and encouraged by some Democratic leaders. Rep. Maxine Waters of California has urged supporters to assault Trump Cabinet members at gas stations and anywhere else they’re seen. “If you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd and you push back on them and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” she said.

There are cases where some simple lifestyle changes and a bit of old fashioned discipline can win back decades. viagra line Like all the medicine that are of the opinion that there is only one cause of impotence, leading to the euphemism “brewer’s droop”; Shakespeare made light of this phenomenon in Macbeth. buy viagra professional Affordability: Helping Relationships tadalafil buy india, the much publicized anti ED medicine is very much a thing to be kept under wraps among the general public. So, you have to get sample cialis stimulated and then this male impotence treatment will help you in being there for your partner till she feels satisfied.

A key tactic of those opposing the presence of contrary views and the practice of free speech rights is to make broad and untrue statements about those with more centrist or conservative views, then not allow the offended to respond.

Recently, the legal abuses by the Obama Administration have been noted in this column and other forums. The use of the IRS to harass the Tea Party, and the use of the Justice Department to attack those disagreeing with the former president on climate issues are two salient examples. These are not allegations, they are facts. Indeed, the IRS was forced to publicly apologize for its actions. Nevertheless, those courageous civil libertarians pointing out these violations are publicly denounced for detailing the lawbreaking by Democrat partisans. Even worse, they are frequently ignored and not given the chance to address the public.

The dominance of mass media by the left has acted as a shield for the misdeeds of those it favors. It was recently pointed out that the Obama Administration tilted towards Iran, the world’s leading sponsor of terror. That reality is downplayed by the biased media. A former Obama official, John Kerry, has met with Iranian officials since leaving office. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Yet mentioning those facts brings down a torrent of objections from leftist who seek to rewrite history for their own benefit, a tactic common to totalitarian regimes.

Dissent and disagreement in a free nation are healthy. The growing leftist and progressive tendency to censor and employ violence against those it disagrees with are worrisome signs that that health is deteriorating.

Illustration: Pixabay

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 […]