What are the Real Goals of the Anti-Trump Protests? Part 2

The New York Analysis continues its review of the anti-Trump protest movement.

The anti-Trump protests, hyped by many in the media and supported by the financiers of progressive causes, are aimed not just at an individual, but at the Constitutional process of free elections.

The Daily Signal reported that: “Disrupt J20 organizers, [posted] this definition of what it means to take ‘direct action:’ ‘Direct Action is when you take collective action to make social change without giving power over to an authority or middle person. We don’t ask permission or put our faith in electoral politics, [emphasis added] instead, we use our bodies to stop the smooth operation of the system we oppose. Examples of direct action include the ongoing resistance at Standing Rock against the Dakota Access Pipeline, the street and highway blockades of Black Lives Matter, or the occupations of public squares during Occupy Wall Street.’ Anarchist-affiliated media sites such as Crimethinc.com…suggest the potential for violence.”

CNN reported that six police officers were injured, 217 protestors were arrested, and a limousine was set afire in Washington on Inauguration Day. Centrist Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) condemned the violence, in an interview with The Hill.

If these activities occurred spontaneously, some leeway might be given to the lack of coherence or logic in the course of their actions and statements. But the reality is this movement is well-funded and well-planned. Breitbart reports that “The Women’s March on Washington, a celebrity-endorsed event [was] backed by a who’s who of far-left organizations, including scores of groups financed by billionaire George Soros.”

The Washington Times reported “Republican strategist Michael McKenna said protesting the peaceful transition of power is ‘really an unhelpful thing’ for Democrats looking to establish the moral high ground and turn public opinion against Mr. Trump. ‘It’s pathological,’ said Mr. McKenna, who at one point advised the Trump transition. ‘Democrats need to realize that one-party rule doesn’t serve anyone’s purposes. Competition is what makes this whole thing work, and Democrats need to start being a competitive party again.’ ”

The extraordinary tenor and violence of left wing protests across the United States, both those aimed directly at President Trump and at others who vocally disagree with “progressive” viewpoints, have crossed a line. It is no longer political dissent. It is now an effort to overturn the results of a legal election and the protections of the First Amendment by means of harassment, false news reporting, and violence.

While there have been election results in the past that have resulted in dramatic changes in philosophy in the White House, (the switch from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan, and from George W. Bush to Barack Obama are among the most recent; historically, the election of Andrew Jackson should be noted) only the election of Abraham Lincoln resulted in anything resembling the current climate.

Unlike prior periods of discord, these current events are not centered around a singular disputed issue or policy but rather concern the most inherent aspects of Constitutional government.

The once-sacrosanct and widely held beliefs in freedom of speech and the acceptance of election results are being challenged as never before in U.S. history.

Consider:

The tone for the current climate was set when numerous Democrat elected official boycotted the inauguration ceremony, and continued when Democrat members of the Senate Finance Committee boycotted votes on the nomination of President Trump’s candidate to lead the departments of the Treasury and Health and Human Services.
Mayors of several large cities have openly planned to defy lawful federal immigration laws.
Fox News reports that two Democrat lawmakers have sought to limit Trump’s authority as commander-in-chief.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, an Obama appointee, directed her legal staff to not perform their duty to defend a lawful presidential order in court.
The Washington Examiner reports that a Secret Service agent refuses to protect the President because she disagrees with his policies—ending a long-standing tradition of impartiality.
Violating a long standing tradition of judicial impartiality, IJR reports, a judge wore a radical feminist symbol—the so-called “pussy hat”—while presiding at court.

This is the positive or yang polarity energies (electro) of the cosmos meeting the online viagra store http://davidfraymusic.com/events/liszt-academy-grand-hall-budapest/ negative or yin (magnetic) to create a circuit. So, if a man buying viagra on line is getting difficulty achieving erection, it may be due to this dysfunction. Systemic Inflammation acquisition de viagra http://davidfraymusic.com/fray-a-triumph-performing-bach-boulez-schoenberg-and-brahms-in-chicago/ In COPD Sets Up Depression And Anxiety Depression and anxiety are common in COPD, which occur in 20-50% of COPD patients. While taking this generic levitra from canada medicine, follow the instructions strictly to make it able penetrating during the act.
Some of the actions of the protesters have been extraordinary in their tenor:

Yahoo news reports that “Radio stations in South Carolina and several other states say their signals were hacked and interrupted by an anti-Donald Trump rap song that contained obscene language.
McClatchy reports the BuzzFeed news servicehas published unverified smears, (as have other news outlets) in an effort to discredit and de-legitimize the legally elected Administration.
Twitter, reports Fox News, has committed $1.6 million to oppose the President’s travel ban.
As reported by Fox News, comedian Sarah Silverman has called for a military coup against President Donald Trump.

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Quick Analysis

Judge Juan Merchan Must Recuse Himself from Hearing the Case of Donald Trump

Judge Juan Merchan Must Recuse Himself from Hearing the Case of Donald Trump By John H. Wilson In April and May of 2023, we discussed several of the weaknesses of the criminal case brought against former President Donald Trump. In particular, we described the legal insufficiency of the indictment, which does not “asserts facts supporting every element of the offense charged and the defendant`s…commission thereof with sufficient precision to clearly apprise the defendant…of the conduct which is the subject of the accusation.” We also noted that the majority of the charges brought against Trump are most likely time-barred by New York’s Statute of Limitations. https://www.usagovpolicy.com/is-trumps-indictment-beyond-the-statute-of-limitations/ In both articles, we also noted that the Judge assigned to hear the case against the former President, Juan Merchan, had previously donated small sums to several anti-Trump organizations, and was unlikely to dismiss the charges on either of these grounds. According to the New York Post, Merchan “donated $35 to Democratic causes in 2020, including $15 to President Biden’s campaign and $10 to a group dedicated to ‘resisting … Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.’ Federal Election Commission records show Merchan made three small-dollar donations within the span of two days in July 2020 through ActBlue, the Democratic Party’s preferred online fundraising platform. The veteran judge contributed $15 earmarked for the ‘Biden for President’ campaign on July 26, 2020, and then the following day made $10 contributions to the Progressive Turnout Project and Stop Republicans” . Given the small amounts involved, no one seriously argued that Judge Merchan should be removed from the case after having made these contributions, even though “FEC records show that Merchan listed his occupation as ‘judge’ on the donation form, and his employer as the New York State Office of Court Administration.” This is, however, an issue of some seriousness. Under Rule 100.5(A)(1) of the Rules of the Chief Administrative Judge for the State of New York, “[n]either a sitting judge nor a candidate for public election to judicial office shall directly or indirectly engage in any political activity except (i) as otherwise authorized by this section or by law, (ii) to vote and to identify himself or herself as a member of a political party, and (iii) on behalf of measures to improve the law, the legal system or the administration of justice. Prohibited political activity shall include…(h) soliciting funds for, paying an assessment to, or making a contribution to a political organization or candidate. (Emphasis added.) This means that despite the modest sums donated by Judge Merchan, he is prohibited from making ANY contribution, in ANY amount, to the Biden campaign, or any other political organization. It’s not as if Judge Merchan wouldn’t be aware of these rules. According to CNN, “Merchan launched his legal career in 1994…as an assistant district attorney in the trial division in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office…[i]n 2006, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg…appointed Merchan to Family Court in the Bronx, and Democratic Gov. David Paterson appointed him to the New York State Court of Claims in 2009, the same year he began serving as an acting New York Supreme Court judge.” With more than 23 years of experience as a judge, Juan Merchan would certainly know he is prohibited from making contributions in any amount to political campaigns and organizations. But he did it anyway. Further, under Rule 100.3(E)(1) “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Making campaign contributions to the current President, and then hearing the case of that President’s opponent in this year’s election would certainly qualify as a reasonable question regarding Merchan’s impartiality. But this is only one basis under which Judge Merchan’s removal from the Trump case is both appropriate and necessary. There is more substantial basis for this matter to be taken away from Judge Merchan. Rule 100.3(E)(1) continues as follows; “[a] judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where… (d) the judge knows that the judge or the judge’s spouse, or a person known by the judge to be within the sixth degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person…(iii) has an interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.” According to the website Living DNA, a First Degree of Relationship is a Parent to a Child, while a Sixth Degree is a second cousin. In between are Grandparents and grandchildren, great-grandparents and great-grandchildren, Aunts, Uncles, Nieces, Nephews and First Cousins. It stands to reason, then, that if Judge Merchan had a cousin, or a nephew, or a grandchild who was known to the Judge, and that person had “an interest that could be substantially affected” by a proceeding over which Judge Merchan was presiding, he would have to legally and ethically recuse himself from the handling of that matter. But what if that person is of the first degree of relationship, that is, a child of the Judge? Meet Loren Merchan, who is, according to the New York Post, “president of Authentic Campaigns, a Chicago-based progressive political consulting firm whose top clients include Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), who was the lead prosecutor in Trump’s first impeachment trial, and the Senate Majority PAC, a major party fundraiser…Schiff’s campaign for US Senate scored an eye-popping $20 million in aid since he began soliciting donations off the presumptive GOP presidential front-runner’s unprecedented 34-count indictment last April, according to Federal Election Commission records…The Senate Majority political action committee, which supports Democratic Senate campaigns, pocketed $73.6 million since it also began firing off fundraising emails following the ex-president’s indictment…The super PAC has done more than $15 million in business with Authentic since 2019, including email fundraising and branding assistance, while Schiff’s Senate campaign paid Authentic more than $10 million for digital advertising and other consulting services the past year, records show.” Let us understand what the New York Post has revealed here. Loren Merchan is the president of an organization that has been paid ten million dollars by the Senate Majority PAC, which has earned the money to pay Loren’s company by fundraising that is, at least, […]

Our Latest Television Program

Weak Foreign Policy’s Dangers

Cameron Hamilton, a former Navy SEAL and Republican Congressional Candidate for Virginia’s 7th district, describes how the Biden administration’s weak leadership has promoted instability and conflict around the world. Another fascination conversation follows as author Jason Morgan describes the perilous situation in the Indo-Pacific. If your missed the program on your local TV station, watch it at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sIo2JVHjF6_hPQzr6CVrMegRF_7YxSnp/view?ts=66295e0a