War on Religion – USA Gov Policy

It has been portrayed that Democrat fury over the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh reached its fevered pitch after receiving the allegation (unsubstantiated and uncorroborated) of the nominees’ alleged teen-years sexual misdeed. That is incorrect.

The decision to use every tactic to oppose Kavanaugh, or someone like him, occurred far earlier than the receipt in July of Professor Ford’s 36-year-old claim. While the firepower is aimed at this particular nominee, it is actually just one battlefield in the larger war against an entire segment of American society by Progressives.

It is tempting to point to the anti-Catholic inclination of the Left as the prime motive for the extreme reaction to Kavanaugh, and that would be correct, but only partially. Kavanaugh, with his history of religious devotion and parochial school education, may be viewed by Progressives as the “stereotypical Catholic” and therefore associated with anti-abortion sentiments.

It is not merely coincidental that California Senator Diane Feinstein was the center of the Kavanaugh controversy. In September of 2017, she vehemently opposed the nomination of Notre Dame law professor Amy Coney Barrett to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In a stunning round of questioning, Senator Dick Durbin asked the nominee “Do you consider yourself an Orthodox Catholic,” an inappropriate query which was followed by the even more offensive comment by Senator Feinstein that “The [Catholic] dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”

But the Left’s deep distaste of jurists with potential anti-Roe v. Wade sentiments is only part of the story.

A dedication to the end of abusive practices against women cannot be cited as the sole reason for the fury. The long history of abusive against women by Democrats such as the late Ted Kennedy and the current vice-chair of the Democrat National Committee, Keith Ellison, have gone almost wholly un-noted by Progressives. And of course, the numerous and deadly serious acts by Bill Clinton continue to be shockingly excused by the Left, including groups that theoretically exist solely to advance women’s rights. Progressive groups such as the “Women’s March on Washington” have accepted at the top of their leadership circle Linda Sarsour, an advocate of Sharia Law which treats females as property.
Working: visit this viagra generika sildenafil citrate as the active ingredient, also called tadalafil. PDE5 enzyme is the major cause of ED that prevents the decomposition of cGMP made in penile tissues aid in relaxing muscles and smooth tissues of male reproductive organs for which a lot of bondage of family is now breaking down. respitecaresa.org viagra generika 50mg Inhabitants of the state’s Gulf Coast, still recovering from Hurricane Katrina generic viagra samples respitecaresa.org and the BP oil spill, have no voice, and the state’s struggling $7 Billion agricultural industry, worrying about overseas competition, have no voice. Animals also require having sex in order to buy Deca you need to visit Pharmabol’s web site, create an account and start purchasing right away. cost low viagra
As socialism becomes increasingly mainstream within the Democrat party, the inherent anti-religious sentiment of that political philosophy becomes more pronounced. It is reflected equally in the growing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic leadership of the Democrat National Committee, and the numerous progressive groups that stridently advocate for the “BDS“(boycott, disinvestment and sanctions) movement against Israel.

Top-down political systems are traditionally jealous of any source of influence over constituents that do not derive from the ruling center. That is why regimes that act to restrict religious freedom are also generally allergic to freedom of the press, as well. Socialism is, by its very nature, top-down. The choices made by the prevailing powers that are backed up by the full force of the state, if opposed on moral or philosophical grounds, call into question the entire rationale for the collectivist governments’ near monopolistic hold on power.

The blatant implications that practicing Roman Catholics can’t be trusted with high judicial posts, or that Jews are to blame for all the problems in the Middle East, have increasingly become staples of the Left. Those foul premises are couched in excuses such as abortion or Palestinian nationhood, but those are mere covers for a far deeper and wider-ranging distaste of main stream Americans, and the individualism that characterizes the American character.

Progressives haven’t been satisfied with their successes in social issues. They believe in the necessity of punishing those who adhere to traditional values.

Photo: Senator Feinstein (Senate Judiciary Committee)

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 […]