U.N. membership – USA Gov Policy

The U.N. was born to bring the countries fighting against Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan together, and to promote a better world following the end of World War 2. The thought of inviting Hitler and Tojo’s regimes into the organization would have been, of course, absurd.

That ridiculous idea, however, is in use by today’s U.N. The concepts of human rights and peaceful relations are supposedly the central themes of the organization, but governments such as Iran, North Korea, and Communist China are full-fledged members of it.

Those supporting the Peoples Republic of China’s continued presence will undoubtedly say that other nations have committed objectionable acts, and challenge the notion of expelling Beijing. It is a false argument. There is a significant difference between governments that engage in an act or acts which some may find wrong, and those whose entire philosophy, and actions, directly contradict the U.N.’s founding principles.

World attention has been turned towards the ruling Chinese Communist Party (CCP) due to its unconscionable policy in suppressing vital information about the COVID-19 outbreak. A government with the slightest modicum of decency would not have acted as the Beijing regime did, and apparently still is doing. Nor was COVID the only time Beijing acted irresponsibly in response to a disease outbreak.

China’s influence within the United Nations was significantly responsible for the extent of COVID’s planetary spread. The World Health Organization, which should have alerted global governments of the COVID danger, failed to do so because its Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus gained his position largely through Chinese support and influence.

But China’s horrible COVID-19 crime, which has caused worldwide devastation, is not, by far, that nations’ only offense which makes it unfit for membership.

The U.S. State Department reports that up to two million people have been sent by the Beijing Regime to concentration camps to suppress their religious, cultural or political beliefs. The repression extends beyond minority groups and political dissidents. Every Chinese citizen is subjected to harsh, Orwellian restrictions even in the most private and intimate portions of their lives. The CCP mandated married couples to restrict their reproductive rights to only one child, a move which has backfired in an extraordinary manner as the nation now faces a massive shortage of young women, since families believed it was in their interest to have sons instead of daughters.

Beijing’s mandarins have established a nightmarish paradigm in which every aspect of a citizens’ life is weighed on how it complies with the CCP’s policies.

Interesting training material The online Adult Driver Ed course, but it’s the most order generic viagra always in stock common reason. Doctors say that this method is most effective in early stage cialis prescriptions downtownsault.org prostate cancer which has not metastasized yet. This is the injection of medications such as Papaverine, downtownsault.org levitra on line Regitine, or Prostaglandin E-1 into the penis before intercourse. It controls pfizer viagra pharmacy bad cholesterol levels and protects against heart disease.

Religion is deeply and continuously suppressed.

Helen Raleigh, an immigrant from China, has written in The Federalist that “China managed to conclude yet another year of unconstitutional and brutal persecution against religious believers. China Aid publishes a report on the ‘Chinese Government’s Persecution of Christians and Churches in Mainland China’ annually…In 2018 alone, more than 10,000 Protestant churches in China were forced to shut down.”

Like Nazi Germany and Imperialist Japan, China has been an international aggressor. Consider its actions towards Tibet, a peaceful nation that it invaded utterly without provocation in 1949. 1.2 million Tibetans were killed, over one in six of the total population. 6,000 monasteries have been destroyed. Thousands have been jailed.

Chinese naval forces have terrorized regional nations. Earlier this century, an international Court entered a judgement against Beijing’s aggression against the Philippines, a verdict which the outlaw nation wholly ignored.

Aggression against comparatively weak nations is not Beijing’s only threat to world peace. Its rate of spending on armaments has increased at a pace faster than that of either the United States or the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. Beijing is not a signatory to any nuclear arms limitations accord.

There is no logical or moral reason to continue China’s membership in the United Nations. It’s time the Beijing regime was expelled.

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 […]