elites – USA Gov Policy

The paradigm has shifted in western politics, and not for the better.

Since the end of the Second World War, most nations in what has been known as “the Free World” had no tolerance for the use of physical force or overt bias against individuals because of their religious beliefs. While disputes were often harsh and bitter, it was the general opinion that accepting the results of elections was an unquestioned good practice.

However, in 2016, both in the United States and the United Kingdom, the results of free and fair elections have been challenged by elites who are bitter about losing and are doing everything possible to ignore the will of the voters. In America, that means delegitimizing the Trump Administration. There have been violent demonstrations, and acts of violence against those identifying as supporters of the President. In Great Britain, where some Tory politicians have joined with their left-wing rivals in a grand alliance of the elites, it involves trying to ignore the demands of the British people to leave the European Union.

Two key factors have dramatically altered the dynamic towards democracy that occurred after the Second World War. It has been credibly argued that they are directly related.

Despite the potential for greater democratization of political discussion resulting from widespread use of the internet, the command of that vast medium by those with leftist perspectives and their continual exclusion of those that disagree with them represents the most visible rise of the elites, a counter-revolution of sorts against what had been the increase in influence of the common man or woman.

Throughout history, the possession of power by elites, whether in the guise of emperors, monarchs, aristocrats or dictators has been the norm, not the exception.

That changed in the New World with the rise of the United States. The French Revolution did not yield a similar result, but gradually, some European nations achieved a lesser but still salutary level of freedom.

The tide turned against personal liberty with the rise of Communism in Russia, Fascism in Italy, Nazism in Germany, and imperialism in Japan. Allied victory in World War II allowed all of the Axis Powers but Russia (the USSR was originally allied with Hitler but switched sides when Germany attacked it) to again tread the path of democratization.

Well, you might be thinking that there is no hope for a cure? Or maybe you’re more willing to deal with this condition? Men suffering from erectile purchase viagra from canada dysfunction (ED), while the incidence rate in the United States is quite high. Consult your healthcare provider if you suffer from any unwanted here mastercard cialis online side effects after dosage. continue reading for more info sildenafil soft If you’re like many of my patients, you’re living a busy life, juggling work, children, maybe even grandchildren, taking care of the underlying cause and leading a healthy lifestyle. A good example of viagra no prescription cheap deeprootsmag.org this is Jennifer Lopez.

The tide is, worryingly, turning again. The New Left, intolerant of dissent, guided by those who feel morally superior and possessing sufficient power to heavily influence key institutions such as the media, education and other essential levers, have, in essence, initiated a counterrevolution against democracy.

There are two wings to the New Left.

The ideologues, some of whom are young and with an insufficient comprehension of the evils of centralized control, express their beliefs through strident, inaccurate and often thoroughly illogical statements, often accompanied by violence or the threat thereof. Many have picked up their inclinations as a result of a politically biased, left-leaning education, propped up by the entertainment industry (which is now partially financed by Chinese investors.)

Ignorance plays a key role in their political orientation. Listen to a press conference with their standard-bearers, such as newly elected Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. One can argue about her political philosophy, but her staggering lack of logical thinking and her blithe disregard of facts is beyond question.

Ignorance is apparently no barrier to the progress of the careers of the New Left. Consider “Beto” O’Rourke, widely touted as a potential Democratic Party candidate for president in 2020. CNN says of the young Congressman:

“There’s zero question as to who the buzziest candidate — or potential candidate — in the 2020 Democratic presidential race is. It’s Beto O’Rourke. And it’s not close.” However, CNN goes on to note: “But for all the excitement … there’s still a whole lot that people don’t know about him. And more importantly, a lot that O’Rourke doesn’t know. That fuzzy knowledge was on awkward display in a lengthy…interview in El Paso…The answer to every policy question can’t simply be, “Man, I don’t know. We are going to have to talk to everyday Americans and then roll our sleeves up and get something done for the country.”

The second wing is a historically more familiar group. Where once control was wielded by those with ties to royalty, the “nobility” of the 21^st century gains its strength from dominant positions in key areas or through the sheer power of their purse. Despite their acquisition of their wealth through capitalism, they seek to institutionalize control through the centralization of authority, a hallmark of socialism, with themselves at the helm, either publicly or behind the scene.

The rise of socialism, just another excuse for centralized control, will prove disastrous, economically and in terms of human rights, if successful. Recognizing that reality is the first step in preventing it from occurring.

Illustration: Pixabay

The assertion of individual rights doesn’t have a particularly lengthy record in a history mainly filled with monarchs, dictators, oligarchs, and other elites. The age of gilded kings, queens, emperors and empresses isn’t as dead as it seems; only the names and excuses to stay in power keep changing. Russia lost its czar, but gained Communist Party rulers who held even greater control. Similar non-substantive changes have occurred in many locales.

Indeed, in Russia, the transition happened again. When the Communist regime collapsed, essentially the same group rather quickly reclaimed power. Putin, an old KGB hand, has, after only an unfortunately brief period, restored the same absolute power to his leadership that czars and commissars once held.

For centuries, Europe’s intermarried royal families controlled the lives of the continent’s residents. That began to diminish as nationalism, often maligned but in reality a necessary step in European democratization, took hold. But as socialism gained acceptance, the concept of an elite class of intellectuals and politicians took hold.

The European Union deepened that trend. When the citizens of the United Kingdom voted to leave the E.U., the continental elites, who, in their own way, are as interconnected as the old monarchial families, were shocked. In Britain itself, there was significant discussion among them about whether a re-vote or other scheme to overturn the ballot could be successful.

In the United States, the election of Donald Trump has caused similar conversations among power brokers and political party chiefs. Whatever one’s thoughts of the new President, he is certainly outside of the typical leadership groups. In the aftermath of his upset win, the traditional governing interests have reacted with near hysteria. Even before he took the oath of office, the mainstream left-wing opinion makers in academia, the media, Hollywood, and progressive activists called for his impeachment.

Of course, there were a whole host of issues that compelled voters in the U.K. to reject the E.U. and Americans to reject the “establishment” candidacy of Hillary Clinton. But the extraordinary similarity is that, in both cases, the traditional power brokers were successfully challenged.

Writing for the BBC, Mark Mardell discusses the twin jolts of Brexit and Trump : “It is perhaps ironic that our two countries, with a reputation for stable political systems, have delivered political revolutions of such importance. Or perhaps it’s not. Perhaps their stability and strength is they can cope with popular revolts, without pitchforks or getting blood all over our sans culottes.”
Now knowing this simple fact is what makes cheap soft cialis your spam so valuable. Diabetics often suffer from erectile dysfunction cialis on line or ED. These relaxed muscles do better in cheap pill viagra time of erection. When stress accumulates, our http://amerikabulteni.com/2017/05/09/trumpin-fbi-baskanini-gorevinden-almasi-ne-anlama-geliyor/ viagra 100mg no prescription body begins to break down and illnesses such as having erectile dysfunction and other disease can occur.
As the leading supporters of individual freedom, British and American citizens have rejected surrendering their personal freedoms.

Tibor Machan, writing in the Daily Bell notes: “We are asked to believe that some people are inherently different from the rest of us. We are told that the select group − the leaders of socialist/egalitarian governments via their schemes of distribution and equalization − is immune from the errors of the rest of us. That the likes of Ralph Nader, Chuck Schumer, Joe Biden, et al., are really inherently better and wiser folk than are we all is what the citizenry is supposed to accept!”

Marilyn MacGruder Barnewall puts it this way in News With Views: “Communism, socialism, tribalism, and oligarchies all have one thing in common: Someone else is responsible for your life. From paying for your education, determining what kind of information will be contained in that education/indoctrination, to your career choices, the fuel your car will use (or whether you will be allowed to have a car…) all…are decisions about you to be made by others.”

Britain and America have been bulwarks in the lonely struggle to insure individual rights. Attempts to overturn that achievement have been recently thwarted by the surprising victories of Brexit and Donald Trump. The particular merits of Brexit and Trump aren’t the point. The battle lines in both instances clearly pitted elites eager to assert greater control against individuals, who rebelled at the attempt.

Writing in the British current affairs journal Spiked Brendon O’Neill states: “…what a great starting point we have. If we can ditch something as huge as the EU, what else can we do to the end of enlivening the democratic sphere? This is what is so exciting about this referendum result. Ignore all the politicos and observers saying ‘Britain is broken. We no longer recognise this country’ (now they know how the people who voted against the EU have felt for years). For this huge jolt in global politics, this brilliant people’s quake, this vote against the political and media and business classes, provides us with an opportunity to rethink public life. It opens up the political landscape. It allows us to wonder, and discuss, how that landscape might be reshaped…”

During the eight years of the Obama Administration, Americans experienced a sharp deterioration in the fortunes of the middle class at home, and in the national security of their nation abroad. Race relations took a turn for the worse. Average citizens expressed their displeasure in the establishment elites by voting for Trump.

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 […]