The Desperation of the Biden Campaign
The Desperation of the Biden Campaign
Paul Craig Roberts
With mega-donors withholding Democrat campaign funds until Biden steps aside, the Biden fundraisers are appealing to me for funds! Appeals continuously arrive in my email from movie stars, Jill Biden, and Kamala Harris telling me how necessary it is for me to contribute to Biden’s reelection in order to prevent Trump from becoming a dictator.
These appeals deserve a critical look, especially Kamala’s. The appeals say Trump has to be defeated because otherwise he is going to do to Democrats what Democrats have and are doing to Trump.
Kamala says “he will weaponize the Department of Justice against his political enemies.” This is what the Democrats have done to Trump for the past eight years. Someone should tell Kamala that what goes around comes around. How come it is OK to weaponize law against Trump but not against Democrats?
Of course, it is not OK to weaponize law against anyone under the legal system governed by the US Constitution. Why haven’t we heard anything from law schools, bar associations, presstitutes, Democrats and even Republicans about weaponizing law against Trump, indeed against anyone?
Kamala goes on to tell us that Trump “hand-picked three justices for the Supreme Court” who “gave Trump immunity for his crimes.”
Trump and the Supreme Court did no such thing. The Supreme Court simply ruled what has always been the rule that a president has immunity for official acts. No immunity was given to Trump the person. Immunity was upheld for the office of the president.
This has always been the case. Otherwise a president cannot perform the duties of his office if he can be stopped at every decision by a law suite. It was Democrat attorney general Merrick Garland who broke the rule. For Garland getting rid of Trump is what was important, not protecting the ability of the president to carry out his functions.
Kamala goes on to make the Democrats’ case against Trump:
Trump robbed “women of their freedom to make decisions about what happens to their own bodies.” Kamala means Trump prevented them from practicing infanticide. Only legislatures and courts, not a president, have this authority. Moreover, women give up the right to “control their own bodies” when they participate in the sex act without birth control.
Trump “would not disavow what happened on January 6.” But he has. He disavowed the frame-ups, show trials, and imprisonments of the American patriots who attended a political rally. The Democrats have redefined a Constitutionally protected protest as an “insurrection.”
Trump “refused to commit to accepting the election results this November.” Why shouldn’t Trump accept them as even the Democrats and their mega-donors expect Trump to win if Biden is the Democrat candidate?
We have to ask ourselves how a person as disingenuous as Kamala became Vice President of the United States.
The Supreme Court Gives Back to Congress the Power It Gave to Executive Branch Lawmaking Many Years Ago
The Supreme Court Gives Back to Congress the Power It Gave to Executive Branch Lawmaking Many Years Ago
Paul Craig Roberts.
Prior to the 1930s “New Deal” regulatory agencies, Congress controlled the law. A statute mean what Congress said. Thereafter, a statute meant whatever the regulatory agency said it meant. For example, I have explained in my columns many times and in my book, The New Color Line, that the EEOC used the 1964 Civil Rights Act which explicitly prohibited racial quotas to impose racial quotas. From the 1930s forward a “law” passed by Congress was nothing but an authorization for a regulatory authority to define the law by how it wrote the regulations governing its meaning and enforcement.
Having watched the power of Congress reduced to nothing, its own in question, and the enormous power now concentrated in the executive branch, the Supreme Court has made an effort to restore a balance of power between the three branches of government. This is an important development. Possibly it will save us from tyranny.
In overturning the Chevron ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that judges must interpret the statutory intent of Congress in passing a statute and not simply defer to regulatory agencies’ interpretations of the statute.
The independence of executive branch regulatory agencies had gone so far that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was making in-house, that is within the agency, decisions on civil penalties. The Supreme Court ruled that penalties require jury trials, and that the SEC is not prosecutor, judge, and jury.
Justice Gorsuch said that the Supreme Court’s decision takes law out of the hands of the federal branch and places it again where it belongs in the courts’ reading of the legislature’s intent.
The liberal incompetents that Democrats have placed on the Court refused to defend the Supreme Court’s assertion of its authority over law.
There is no question that if the Democrats succeed in their coup against America and the Constitution, those who live in the US will live in a worst dystopia than those imagined by writers of dystopia novels.
No comments:
Post a Comment