The Democratic Party’s Dangerous Lies

It’s time for the Democratic Party to stop lying. It’s not just about their presidential candidate. It’s a seriously bad habit that its leaders have fallen into in the 21st century.

Millions of Americans who normally restrict their news information gathering to Democrat-friendly media such as MSNBC, the Washington Post, and the New York Times were utterly shocked at the obvious incapacity of Joe Biden. For a considerable period of time, these outlets cooperated with party leadership in hiding the now undeniable diminished capacity of the President.

For quite some time, party leaders have assured voters that Joe Biden was capable of governing. He proved during the recent presidential debate that the assertion was nonsense. It’s another example of the Party’s habitual inability to tell the truth, both in elections and in governing.

Throughout Biden’s term, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas assured the nation that the U.S. southern border was secured. In April, he told Congress that “the border is as secure as it can be” The claim is ludicrous. As noted by the Washington Post, “Illegal border crossings soared in the months after Biden took office and immediately rolled back many Trump-era restrictions…The Biden administration has released more than 2.3 million border crossers into the United States since 2021. The gap between the number of migrants taken into CBP custody versus the number of people who are sent back or deported has widened each of the last three years…On Biden’s first day in office his administration ordered a pause on most arrests and deportations from the interior of the United States.”

Biden openly and repeatedly lies about inflation, alleging that it was 9% when he took office. Clear, authoritative and widely agreed upon statistics reveal that the actual rate was 1.4%. The claim is neither a misinterpretation or an exaggeration. it’s an absolute falsehood.

Democrats have used completely false claims about voter ID, inciting racial antagonism, as a means to gain support from minority voters. The reality is, voter id does not “suppress,” “limit,” or “discourage” any voters. A National Bureau of Economic Research study, among others, found that “the laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation. A similar Heritage examination revealed that “Among a variety of minority groups and political affiliations, no significant change in turnout occurred after voter ID laws went into effect. It should be noted, though, that Hispanic voter turnout actually increased in states with ID requirements, when compared to states without them. Clearly, the decrease erroneously claimed by critics has not happened.”

Contrary to the commonly heralded assumption that voter ID laws mobilize political backlash, this research shows the laws have no significant impact on four different measurements of political mobilization: campaign contact, frequency of campaign signs, volunteering for campaigns, and levels of campaign contributions. These activities appear to occur at nearly identical rates in states with and without voter ID laws.

Among the most serious hoaxes was the allegation that Donald Trump “colluded” with Russians. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Ca.) repeatedly stated that “there was “ample evidence of collusion in plain sight.” An intensive, 306 page Special Counsel report concluded in 2013 that “based on the evidence gathered in the multiple exhaustive and costly federal investigations of these matters, including the instant investigation, neither U.S. law enforcement nor the Intelligence Community appears to have possessed any actual evidence of collusion in their holdings at the commencement of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.”

Politicians and political parties on both sides of the aisle have, with unfortunate frequency, engaged in statements which mislead, exaggerate, or obscure the truth. However, the seriousness and extent of the Democratic Party’s actions in the 21st century are in a league all their own. They have substantially and needlessly divided the nation, exacerbated racial tensions, and left in charge a Commander-in-Chief clearly incapable of governing or protecting the nation.

Picture: 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 […]