The Big Lie – USA Gov Policy

Some Political strategists like to believe that if you say anything long enough and loud enough, it will eventually be taken for the truth, no matter how bizarre or ridiculous.

America faces that challenge today. On a daily basis, we are told, by Leftist elected officials, academicians, and many in the media, that America is a fascist, racist state, governed by and for a wealthy cabal. They fail to offer anything resembling proof of their claim. There are no laws discriminating against individuals based on race, color or creed. U.S. corporations, over the years, have paid among the highest taxes of any developed nation. The Left knows that, so it attempts to warp interpretations of otherwise innocent events to fit their narrative.

Dishonest examples are frequently used as “proof” of their claim. If a microscopically small number of individual illicitly abuse their positions, those foul acts are touted as examples of the whole system. Their logic is that as long as one individual is bad, the whole nation is corrupted. Sheer nonsense.

America has been targeted by terrorists, so the President, in an attempt to keep out potential attackers, sought to limit entry from nations that harbored such individuals. For that common sense act, an entire public-relations industry was manufactured aimed at painting Trump as anti-Moslem. Imagine if, in World War 2, anyone seriously advocated unfettered immigration from Germany or Japan!

100,000 illegal immigrants monthly storm the southern border, some bearing disease, links to criminal gangs, and almost all without the wherewithal to fend for themselves, costing taxpayers over $134 billion each year, and straining education, law enforcement, and public health facilities. Attempts to stop that dramatic inflow are somehow described as racist or xenophobic. I spent 20 years in state and local government, all of that time with offices in Harlem and the South Bronx. I know first hand the unmet needs of our own However, there are also many buy sildenafil who have mild ED problems resort to natural remedies. Colon cancer is a More Info on line levitra fatal disease, which can occur due to any problem in this intricate mechanism of erection. Before 2010, the share declined year after year, which slightly cialis tadalafil tablets rebounded in 2011. Now, herbal treatment is advanced enough and this particular drug has maintained a good image in cialis 5mg discount the market. citizens.

The concept of annually bringing in one million more impoverished individuals each month is a direct slap in the face of America’s own poor citizens. And frankly, if additional resources were available, the moral thing to do would be to use them for the nation’s own citizenry, with a special emphasis on impoverished veterans, and seniors who cannot afford necessities on their social security income. The United States is $21 trillion in debt, with more added each year. It cannot afford to be the welfare agency for the entire planet. And if it sought to do so, it would have the effect of propping up the corrupt and incompetent regimes that cause their own people to flee their home nations in the first place.

Progressives intentionally obfuscate the reality that their bedrock supporters in universities have annually increased the price of tuition higher than the cost of living for decades, and claim that it is necessary to address that avaricious practice by having the taxpayers pay for everyone’s college.

They claim that nationalized health care must be established, because it is a basic necessity. Food, clothing, and shelter are also necessities, far more so than the four years students spend enduring propaganda. Should all of those be provided by the government as well? The left will say, yes, it should. That is why that adhere to collectivist economic beliefs, the same beliefs that have failed so miserably and created so much poverty throughout the globe since Marx first penned his awful thesis.

Perhaps the biggest lie of all is the way the Left portrays itself as “the resistance.” What are they resisting? The protections of the Bill of Rights? The enjoyment of the most prosperous nation in human history? A governing system not based on race, color or creed but on shared beliefs in personal freedom?

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 […]