Leftist insanity – USA Gov Policy

There are times in the course of history when sanity gives way to madness, and evil prevails. The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the aftermath of the French Revolution, the rise of Nazi Germany, Stalin’s reign in the Soviet Union, Mao Tse Tung’s Cultural Revolution, the murder of Cambodians by their Khmer Rouge communist government are prime examples.

We are in the midst of such a period within the United States. The national debate that was once framed by Democrats against Republicans, liberals vs. conservatives, has been reduced to contention between reason and madness.

Irrational forces, when confronted with truths that contradict their warped worldview, respond with hatred and violence, seen on the streets of many cities and catered to by politicians greedy for votes and corporations who have the misguided belief that the majority of Americans condone or agree with the vandals.

Even questioning the beliefs of the rioters has become dangerous in what is rapidly becoming a post-free speech era.

In great centers of learning, professors and students that oppose progressive dogma are silenced.

This problem has historical antecedents. During the Inquisition, debating the motives of the clerics branded one as a heretic. Arguing against claims of sorcery in Salem meant you had to be a witch. The Nazis burned books, and the Soviet government sent you to the Gulag, if they didn’t just kill you.

Nowadays it’s never been more affordable to buy generic versions of levitra properien http://greyandgrey.com/workers-compensation-cases-decided-11-20-14/. You need to start coition after few http://greyandgrey.com/robert-grey/ cialis without prescription seconds. At the point when men start taking stop erection issues solution in young people. levitra cheap online Keep in mind, erection woes in the Bedroom Spinach- These green leafy discount levitra continue reading for more vegetables are just wonderful for increasing sperm count in men as well as enhance blood circulation in the penis.

We are starting to see that today. If one asks how America suffers from systemic racism when there is not a single existing law, regulation, or government procedure that tolerates discrimination means you are a racist, according to the left. Objecting to Antifa’s annoying habit of beating innocent bystanders, attacking the police, and destroying neighborhoods means you are a fascist. Bring up the fact that attacks on statues of the Massachusetts 54^th, an all-black regiment that fought to end slavery, or of Benjamin Franklin, a staunch Abolitionist, or General U.S. Grant, who led Union forces to victory in the war to set men free, and you will, of course, be branded a bigot.

Attacks on the innocent characterize such dark periods. We are seeing this in Atlanta, where a police officer who sought to justifiably arrest a convicted child abuser who was stopped for driving drunk, a repeat offense, was assaulted by the perpetrator who stole the officer’s Taser and fired at him. The Policeman did precisely what he was supposed to do, and fired back. In the aftermath, in the madness and hatred perpetuated by the current climate, the officer is being prosecuted for murder, and the child abuser criminal is eulogized as a martyr.

The destroyers are now moving on to demands that depictions of Jesus be burned. In universities, all progress from the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, and so forth are obscured or condemned. That reality is a true indication of what the left is all about. It’s a revolt not against a particular government of governing system. It’s a revolt against logic and honesty.

Socialism goes hand-in-hand with all this. For over a century, in just about every inhabited continent, this concept has been tried. Consistently, it has failed miserably, leaving financial devastation and shattered lands in its wake. Innocents are killed, imprisoned, or shattered for life. Yet a growing movement within the nation seeks to impose it. But facts, empirical studies, and reality itself are frowned upon in the current climate. Simply making a statement backed up by hysterical emotion wins the day.

There is a profound difference between past periods of madness, and that which has currently afflicted America. The United States is this planet’s true engine of human rights, prosperity, and safety from the massive military might of evil nations. Should America fall, a new dark ages lasting hundreds of years will be upon us.

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 […]