Menu
Paynal © 2008
The Desperation of the Biden Campaign by Paul Craig Roberts!
(2024-07-08 at 22:35:19 )
The Desperation of the Biden Campaign by 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 Bidens reelection in order to prevent Trump from becoming a dictator.
These appeals deserve a critical look, especially Kamalas. 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 United States Constitution. Why have we not 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 Donald 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 should Donald Trump not 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 by Paul Craig Roberts!
Prior to the 1930s "New Deal" regulatory agencies, Congress controlled the law. A statute meant 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 Courts decision takes law out of the hands of the federal branch and places it again where it belongs in the courts reading of the legislatures intent.
The liberal incompetents that Democrats have placed on the Court refused to defend the Supreme Courts 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 United States will live in a worst dystopia than those imagined by writers of dystopia novels.
Paul Craig Roberts columns may be reprinted, disseminated, and translated on the condition that a link is provided to the articles on "Paul Craig Roberts" and that the following disclaimer is included:
~
Permission to reprint Dr. Roberts columns does not imply that Dr. Roberts endorses the websites or media organizations that republish his columns or that he approves of the content of the websites, media outlets or books that republish his columns.