Russian bombrs – USA Gov Policy

With 2014 now solidly in the rearview mirror, it’s clear that several key issues were not adequately covered by the major media. To name just three:

DISCRIMINATION

News sources reported extensively on matters involving alleged discrimination in cases involving race. Yet one of the most significant discrimination stories continues to be underreported.

Unfair treatment of older workers has become increasingly prevalent. An early 2014 AARP analysis found that the percentage of those ages 45—74 working full time has dropped 11 points since their 2002 survey. The percentage working part time has increased 5%, and the percent looking for work has increased 7%. This may at least partially coincide with a report by the Center for Immigration Studies revealing all new jobs created in the past several years have gone to immigrants.

GLOBAL WARMING

While many key leaders, including the President, continue to advocate costly and economically burdensome measures to deal with global warming, the reality is, that particular problem has not been a factor for about 18 years.
Other useful signs are viagra sildenafil 100mg cheilosis and koilonychia. The cost turned out to viagra without prescription be to be a dampening factor on what was an eagerly awaited release. When physical stimulation causes local release of NO, inhibition of PDE5 by cialis price increased levels of cGMP in the corpus cavernosum bringing about smooth muscle unwinding and irritation of blood stream to the penis, which at last causes erection. There are commercial systems available for Platelet Rich Plasma(PRP) which includes Cydomedix, Emcyte Pure PRP, Angel system and Harvest system .Sometimes it is combined buy levitra wholesale with A-cell ,although the benefit is speculative.
Scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger, according to the Cato Institute, have found that “…observations show that the rise in the global average surface temperature has been little different (in the case of the University of East Anglia record, no different) from zero for the past 18 years or so. So instead of accelerating, global warming is actually decelerating, or, (nearly) stopped.

Despite the observations of Michaels, Knappenberger and others, expensive “solutions” to a problem that doesn’t actually exist to any harmful degree continue to be debated.

DEFENSE

Nothing should capture headlines more than Russian nuclear arms capable bombers flying along American coastlines, or nuclear subs stealthily patrolling near our shores. Both of these incidents have been occurring, but the readers and viewers of most major media sites didn’t hear very much about it. Similarly, the news that President Obama withdrew all American tanks from Europe early in 2014 (Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine later prompted 150 to be returned) and the lack of any available US aircraft carrier for East Asia patrol in the first half of 2015 have also received scant notice.

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 […]