Guaranteed pardon for all family members is the right thing to do
Hardcore left-wing activists in the U.S. keep on attacking Donald Trump and his family. Their behavior is so similar to what we remember from the communist totalitarianism. Someone's view, in this case Trump's, is sometimes politically inconvenient for the self-appointed determinants of the atmosphere in the whole society. So the left-wing octopus doesn't attack just Trump himself but also his children. During communism, this was happening to many Czechoslovak parents. Many of them found the legal and material well-being of their kids more important than their political values so they surrendered to the communist pressure.
At any rate, leftists have totalitarianism deeply rooted in their DNA and hardwired into their brains. In their perspective, the ends always justify the means. So they're doing the same to Donald Trump and his family. A week ago, they tried to ignite a hysteria about the meeting of Donald Trump Jr and a female Russian lawyer. Trump Jr was simply doing opposition research. The last regime in a Western nation where the very meeting with a member of an ethnic group was criminalized was Nazi Germany: already in the mid 1930s, Germans were harassed already for a friendly talk with a Jew. Do the leftists – who otherwise claim to defend the equality of ethnic groups – want to be exactly the same as their German predecessors?
Yesterday, a new candidate topic for an anti-Trump hysteria was revealed by some left-wing activist rags. Trump wants to pardon himself and/or his team and family. What a sin!
In reality, the presidential pardon was introduced exactly in order to soften the legal system against excessively bloodthirsty courts or juries that may sometimes start a personal vendetta against someone. I find it obvious that Trump's children shouldn't really be paying a big price – such as a constantly poisoned life – for their being kids of the U.S. president. And that's why this is an ideal example of a case where the pardon is adequate.
Donald Trump is a father in a family and he should clearly defend that family. He should at least declare that he will use the pardon to stop any prosecution that seems to be a personal vendetta targeting his family – and some of his collaborators – just because they are his family – or collaborators. When a few million bitter and biased left-wing activists suffer a heart attack as a result, then it is exactly what should happen.
So I am surely supporting the pardon for all Trump's relatives because it seems spectacularly obvious that there doesn't exist a glimpse of evidence that they have violated the U.S. laws in any tangible way and all the pressure against Trump's relatives is driven by the fanaticism and dishonesty of Trump's left-wing foes.
Can he pardon himself? I don't think so. Why? Because he can only pardon someone who was convicted. And the U.S. president just can't be convicted. This rule is just another wise addition to the U.S. constitutional system that was added by the founding fathers exactly to protect the constitutional institutions against a takeover by a clique of malicious dishonest organized bastards such as the contemporary left-wing activists. The founding fathers foresaw the possibility that a truly evil clique like that could materialize and they carefully thought about the mechanisms that would prevent such progressives from crippling the political system in the U.S.
The U.S. president can't be prosecuted for any acts while he is in office. He can only be impeached – and he can only be impeached for treason, corruption, and some crimes of the same caliber. There doesn't exist any known evidence that Trump was anywhere close to these acts so this talk about impeachment is just plain stupid, especially when the GOP majority in the House doesn't seem to consider joining this "project". But even if the House voted to impeach Trump, like it impeached Bill Clinton, it wouldn't mean that Trump is removed. To achieve that goal, two-thirds of the Senate would have to support the removal. Recall that Bill Clinton was acquitted of all charges by the Senate. Most likely, Trump would be acquitted, too.
This rule means that the U.S. president would have to do something really wrong, something specific that is basically obviously and seriously illegal in the eyes of Senators from both parties. I think that the crackpots who talk about the impeachment know that nothing like that has taken place so the Senate wouldn't approve the removal. They are just trying to introduce mistakes and dirt to the American political system and partially delegitimize the president. That's the maximum they can do – they are dreaming about ways to harm America at least a little bit.
Because I follow Brian Greene on Twitter, I was exposed to a strange tweet yesterday:
The combination of Orwell and Gödel may look cool but it is incredibly stupid, too. This combination of Orwell and Gödel is analogous to the crackpots who say that Heisenberg's and Gödel's insights are basically the same. People who say similar things don't understand either. They are extremely superficial and so is Brian Greene. By Gödel, he really means just "something that refers to itself" (like the president who pardons himself). And by Orwell, he means "any manifestation of the top politician's power that is disputed by somebody".
In particular, the tweet makes it clear that Greene doesn't understand that it is only possible to pardon someone who was charged with a crime. Because the president can't be charged – we don't count the impeachment here because a pardon is obviously not something related to the impeachment – he can't be pardoned, either. So this whole talk about self-referring objects is simply wrong in this context. There can't be anything borderline paradoxical here that would be derived from self-references.
Dozens of comments appeared beneath Greene's tweet. The main conclusion you can make is that virtually all of his followers are just brain-dead. We learn that the wave-particle duality is "old and busted". We learn that America is full of laws that prevent family members from meeting foreigners – wow, not even North Koreans are constrained in this way. We also learn that the name of the Hillary Clinton who may have violated the law by accepting Saudi and Qatari donations was Donald Trump. Not a bad name for a woman.
In general, many of these left-wing activists haven't managed to notice that the era in which the U.S. left-wingers could do everything and the U.S. right-wingers could do nothing has ended in November 2016. Most of these nasty people are ludicrously inconsequential. When Ivanka Trump and her kids were harassed by a pair of "married" f*ggots on an airplane, despite the fact that she has fought for a more convenient life of homosexuals so often and so much, she just survived the unpleasant experience. After all, the two f*ggots were removed from the airplane – sadly, it wasn't done in the middle of the flight. They must have hated that she was beautiful and her family worked – those things contradicted everything that the pair stands for. But a half-Czech woman has enough strength and courage to withstand things like that – compassion is surely the main emotion that Ivanka Trump felt towards these perverse sc*mbags.
But there are more influential people who are doing similar things at many levels. Most of this frantic, hateful behavior is just over the edge and I think that Trump should realize that he is the U.S. president and has the power to protect the victims against this dishonest and aggressive left-wing activist scum. In the case of his family, it's really his moral duty as the junior male of the family. Many of his relatives couldn't really freely choose whether they want to be exposed to this treatment which is why it's fair to protect them against it.
In the case of collaborators, one must be careful. Someone could have hypothetically violated the law and it would be wrong to promise a bianco cheque for everybody. But it's still true that some people are targets of witch hunts just because they are close to Donald Trump. The U.S. president does have tools to defend them and he shouldn't be afraid of using them. Such steps will surely be followed by hysteria and demagogy in the left-wing rags. But that's not so important – these rags are hysterical and demagogic all the time, anyway.
Hardcore left-wing activists in the U.S. keep on attacking Donald Trump and his family. Their behavior is so similar to what we remember from the communist totalitarianism. Someone's view, in this case Trump's, is sometimes politically inconvenient for the self-appointed determinants of the atmosphere in the whole society. So the left-wing octopus doesn't attack just Trump himself but also his children. During communism, this was happening to many Czechoslovak parents. Many of them found the legal and material well-being of their kids more important than their political values so they surrendered to the communist pressure.
At any rate, leftists have totalitarianism deeply rooted in their DNA and hardwired into their brains. In their perspective, the ends always justify the means. So they're doing the same to Donald Trump and his family. A week ago, they tried to ignite a hysteria about the meeting of Donald Trump Jr and a female Russian lawyer. Trump Jr was simply doing opposition research. The last regime in a Western nation where the very meeting with a member of an ethnic group was criminalized was Nazi Germany: already in the mid 1930s, Germans were harassed already for a friendly talk with a Jew. Do the leftists – who otherwise claim to defend the equality of ethnic groups – want to be exactly the same as their German predecessors?
Yesterday, a new candidate topic for an anti-Trump hysteria was revealed by some left-wing activist rags. Trump wants to pardon himself and/or his team and family. What a sin!
In reality, the presidential pardon was introduced exactly in order to soften the legal system against excessively bloodthirsty courts or juries that may sometimes start a personal vendetta against someone. I find it obvious that Trump's children shouldn't really be paying a big price – such as a constantly poisoned life – for their being kids of the U.S. president. And that's why this is an ideal example of a case where the pardon is adequate.
Donald Trump is a father in a family and he should clearly defend that family. He should at least declare that he will use the pardon to stop any prosecution that seems to be a personal vendetta targeting his family – and some of his collaborators – just because they are his family – or collaborators. When a few million bitter and biased left-wing activists suffer a heart attack as a result, then it is exactly what should happen.
So I am surely supporting the pardon for all Trump's relatives because it seems spectacularly obvious that there doesn't exist a glimpse of evidence that they have violated the U.S. laws in any tangible way and all the pressure against Trump's relatives is driven by the fanaticism and dishonesty of Trump's left-wing foes.
Can he pardon himself? I don't think so. Why? Because he can only pardon someone who was convicted. And the U.S. president just can't be convicted. This rule is just another wise addition to the U.S. constitutional system that was added by the founding fathers exactly to protect the constitutional institutions against a takeover by a clique of malicious dishonest organized bastards such as the contemporary left-wing activists. The founding fathers foresaw the possibility that a truly evil clique like that could materialize and they carefully thought about the mechanisms that would prevent such progressives from crippling the political system in the U.S.
The U.S. president can't be prosecuted for any acts while he is in office. He can only be impeached – and he can only be impeached for treason, corruption, and some crimes of the same caliber. There doesn't exist any known evidence that Trump was anywhere close to these acts so this talk about impeachment is just plain stupid, especially when the GOP majority in the House doesn't seem to consider joining this "project". But even if the House voted to impeach Trump, like it impeached Bill Clinton, it wouldn't mean that Trump is removed. To achieve that goal, two-thirds of the Senate would have to support the removal. Recall that Bill Clinton was acquitted of all charges by the Senate. Most likely, Trump would be acquitted, too.
This rule means that the U.S. president would have to do something really wrong, something specific that is basically obviously and seriously illegal in the eyes of Senators from both parties. I think that the crackpots who talk about the impeachment know that nothing like that has taken place so the Senate wouldn't approve the removal. They are just trying to introduce mistakes and dirt to the American political system and partially delegitimize the president. That's the maximum they can do – they are dreaming about ways to harm America at least a little bit.
Because I follow Brian Greene on Twitter, I was exposed to a strange tweet yesterday:
Orwell meets Gödel: Chatter this morning that the constitution might permit presidents to pardon themselves.
— Brian Greene (@bgreene) July 21, 2017
The combination of Orwell and Gödel may look cool but it is incredibly stupid, too. This combination of Orwell and Gödel is analogous to the crackpots who say that Heisenberg's and Gödel's insights are basically the same. People who say similar things don't understand either. They are extremely superficial and so is Brian Greene. By Gödel, he really means just "something that refers to itself" (like the president who pardons himself). And by Orwell, he means "any manifestation of the top politician's power that is disputed by somebody".
In particular, the tweet makes it clear that Greene doesn't understand that it is only possible to pardon someone who was charged with a crime. Because the president can't be charged – we don't count the impeachment here because a pardon is obviously not something related to the impeachment – he can't be pardoned, either. So this whole talk about self-referring objects is simply wrong in this context. There can't be anything borderline paradoxical here that would be derived from self-references.
Dozens of comments appeared beneath Greene's tweet. The main conclusion you can make is that virtually all of his followers are just brain-dead. We learn that the wave-particle duality is "old and busted". We learn that America is full of laws that prevent family members from meeting foreigners – wow, not even North Koreans are constrained in this way. We also learn that the name of the Hillary Clinton who may have violated the law by accepting Saudi and Qatari donations was Donald Trump. Not a bad name for a woman.
In general, many of these left-wing activists haven't managed to notice that the era in which the U.S. left-wingers could do everything and the U.S. right-wingers could do nothing has ended in November 2016. Most of these nasty people are ludicrously inconsequential. When Ivanka Trump and her kids were harassed by a pair of "married" f*ggots on an airplane, despite the fact that she has fought for a more convenient life of homosexuals so often and so much, she just survived the unpleasant experience. After all, the two f*ggots were removed from the airplane – sadly, it wasn't done in the middle of the flight. They must have hated that she was beautiful and her family worked – those things contradicted everything that the pair stands for. But a half-Czech woman has enough strength and courage to withstand things like that – compassion is surely the main emotion that Ivanka Trump felt towards these perverse sc*mbags.
But there are more influential people who are doing similar things at many levels. Most of this frantic, hateful behavior is just over the edge and I think that Trump should realize that he is the U.S. president and has the power to protect the victims against this dishonest and aggressive left-wing activist scum. In the case of his family, it's really his moral duty as the junior male of the family. Many of his relatives couldn't really freely choose whether they want to be exposed to this treatment which is why it's fair to protect them against it.
In the case of collaborators, one must be careful. Someone could have hypothetically violated the law and it would be wrong to promise a bianco cheque for everybody. But it's still true that some people are targets of witch hunts just because they are close to Donald Trump. The U.S. president does have tools to defend them and he shouldn't be afraid of using them. Such steps will surely be followed by hysteria and demagogy in the left-wing rags. But that's not so important – these rags are hysterical and demagogic all the time, anyway.
Donald Trump has a duty: to defend his family
![Donald Trump has a duty: to defend his family]()
Reviewed by DAL
on
July 21, 2017
Rating:
No comments: