No One Is Above the Law…Except Us

After Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago had the FBI visit and look for alleged classified documents in his possession, the Left had a field day. Between jokes at the former President’s expense, memes recounting times when Trump made statements that now applied to him, and hoping this would finally be the thing that landed Trump in prison, Leftists were full of more hope than a Barack Obama rally.

There was also a common theme among the talking heads in the media and politics: no one is above the law. Although I’m happy to see Leftists embracing law and order for a change, let’s just say I’m not convinced they’re genuine and/or consistent in that sentiment.

Leftists being hypocrites? Heaven forbid!

Now, what I’m about to go over will likely get dismissed as “whataboutism” and there’s certainly an element of that in play. Having said that, these examples are necessary to lay out the groundwork for my argument.

For as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as I can get, we need to go back to May 2002 when former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger took classified documents out of the National Archive in his pants. (And I wish I were kidding about that last part.) After calling it an “honest mistake,” he eventually plead guilty in 2005. His punishment? Two years of probation, surrendering his law license, a loss of his security clearance for 3 years, and a promise to cooperate with investigators.

No FBI raids on his home. No wall-to-wall media coverage detailing every sorted detail of his crimes on a 25/8 continuous loop (because 24/7 isn’t enough, or because Common Core math took over telling time). Just an acknowledgement of the sentence, a hand-wave of the severity of the crime, and glowing obituaries upon the event of his passing.

Granted, Donald Trump hasn’t gone to the Great Mar-a-Lago in the Sky yet, but there is a decided difference in how the Berger and Trump document situations are being handled. Aside from a handful of balanced analyses from pundits like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, the rule has been to assume Trump is guilty and deserves the treatment he’s gotten. Some even point to the Berger situation as precedent in the court of public opinion as a means to condemn Trump.

But there’s a bit more at play here outside of the “whataboutism.” Leftists believe in their superiority (just ask them), and try to shape the world to affirm it. When someone on the Left violates the law or acts inappropriately, it’s circle the wagons time! Only after it’s a done deal will Leftists acknowledge the actual crime, and usually as a means to dismiss it as old news.

That is if Leftists admit there was wrong-doing in the first place. Anyone remember Lois Lerner? If not, she was one of the people behind the IRS targeting political groups with connections to the TEA Party. After blaming the scandal on “low level employees,” the Department of Justice closed their investigation without Lerner being charged. Oh, sure, the DOJ report references mismanagement at all levels, but they allegedly didn’t find any laws being broken.

Unfortunately for them, there were. Lerner admitted to singling out applications for tax exempt status with the words “TEA Party” or “Patriot,” but argued those actions weren’t politically motivated. Yeah, and I’m the first Lutheran Pope. Where the legal violations come into play is when she turned over tax documents from the aforementioned groups to the DOJ.

Yeah. That’s illegal, not to mention unconstitutional. Remember, kids, Leftists say Roe v. Wade was based on a Constitutional right to privacy (that really isn’t in the Constitution, but play along with me here for a minute). That means the IRS violated the right to privacy of TEA Party groups. Oops.

But did the Leftists cheering the raid on Mar-a-Lago say much of anything about Lerner’s criminal and Constitutional missteps? Nope. They went along with the “low level employees” line, which was bullshit from the word go.

With Berger, Lerner, and any number of other Leftists (I’m looking at you, Eric Swalwell), no crime is too grave to excuse, or in most cases ignore, because they’re on the right side. And by “right side” I mean Left side. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Hunter Biden, and the whole Hee Haw Gang on the Left are a handful of examples of people who get to be above the law by virtue of being Leftists and having media Leftists (a redundancy, I know) cover for them by not covering them committing crimes.

Republicans, conservatives, and anyone else who falls outside the Leftist hivemind don’t get that treatment. If anything, they’re more heavily scrutinized to find every micron of dirt they can find to make the target of scorn look even more like Al Capone, only less honest. Speaking personally, I’m afraid opposition research will find I had an overdue library book in elementary school, which would certainly derail any hopes I had of becoming President. Or even County Supervisor of Creating Busy Work for Government Employees So They Don’t Actually Try to Do Real Work.

Why…it’s almost as if the Left’s version of law and order only goes one way!

Which, of course, to them it does. Since they are superior to us plebs, they write their own rules and excuse their own mistakes. But that’s not really justice; it’s rigging the system to one’s own benefit. Leftists will argue (without irony) this has been going on for quite some time and only through their efforts will everyone get a fair shake in the legal system. Yet, their efforts to give everyone a fair shake only reinforce the existing power structure where some people are treated better than others.

That’s called a self-own, kids.

Regardless of how you feel about Donald Trump, he was absolutely right about ideology trumping (see what I did there) justice. As more details come about about the Mar-a-Lago raid, I think we’ll see the former President proven right yet again.

And without having to lie to the FISA court, no less!

The Taiwan Conundrum

While a lot of conservative commentators are focusing on domestic issues, there’s a foreign policy matter that deserves much more attention than it’s been getting. And would you believe we have Nancy Pelosi to thank for it?

I’m referring to the situation with Taiwan, mainly because Paul Pelosi’s drinking and driving isn’t an international incident…yet. When the Speaker of the House visited Taiwan recently (for reasons that escape me, unless she was setting up some primo deals that would earn her more money…I think I just figured it out!), it added Everclear to an already tense situation between Taiwan and China. See, China believes Taiwan is still a part of China and Taiwan disagrees, preferring to be independent from China. And given how China is a repressive totalitarian state whose leader looks like Winnie the Pooh, I can see why.

Where America comes into the picture is we are stuck between the two opposing sides of this conflict by our own actions stemming from a long time ago, or ancient history in TikTok terms.

We set the Wayback Machine to 1949, when Chinese communists defeated Chinese nationalists and took over mainland China. Since the nationalists weren’t too keen on reading Mao’s Little Red Book, they fled the country and set up shop in what is now Taiwan. Back in the days of the Cold War, America would vocally support Taiwan’s right to independence and try to get China to lay off, wouldya?

Then two Bushes and the Commander in Briefs happened.

The first Bush in question is George H. W. Bush, who was President during a time when Chinese students were protesting for government reform and freedom, culminating in a stand-off in Tienanmen Square. And by “stand-off,” I mean one student literally stood in front of a tank line, creating one of the most iconic moments of the 20th Century, if not of all time. Bush, to his credit, called for China to address its human rights violations (good thing China didn’t respond by saying “You first, dickweeds.”) and promised harsh sanctions if the Chinese government didn’t change its ways.

Annnnnnnd then Bush promptly backed down faster than an Internet tough guy whose bluff gets called. No human rights violations address, no sanctions, not even the ultimate of geopolitical smackdowns, a tersely-worded memo from the UN giving China 1248 more chances to shape up before another memo gets sent. The horror!

And if that assfucking wasn’t bad enough, Bill Clinton not only overlooked China’s human rights violations, but gave them Most Favored Nation status without China having to fix anything! For those of you playing along at home, Most Favored Nation status is basically the US saying they want to do a lot of business with a country because we think it would be in both countries’ best interests. Good thing that turned out so well or we’d be totally fucked right now…oh, wait.

And to complete this shit sandwich, George W. Bush decided it would be a good idea to sell a significant portion of our national debt to China in exchange for…well, nothing really. Now, I’m no Paul Krugman (which is actually a boon in this case since it means I know a thing or two about economics), but I believe that would give China significant leverage over us. Whether they would use it to fuck us over is a matter of some debate, but the fact we have this Sword of Damocles hanging over our heads in the first place isn’t a good thing. Even if China is buying our stuff.

Yeah, about that. Turns out China is on the good end of a trade deficit with us. The figures from just this year show we are importing far more goods from China than they are importing from us. And it’s a trend that’s been going on for quite a while. In fact, we have to go all the way back to 1985 to find an annual trade deficit where the two sides are even remotely close. And the last time we posted a positive trade deficit with China? April 1986.

In the interest of fairness, we haven’t exactly been wowing Taiwan with our goods, either. Even so, when you compare the deficits with China to the deficits with Taiwan, it’s clear we’ve been more willing to work with the dictators than the people we allege to support.

Then, there’s the whole One China policy. To put it simply, China believes it is the only legitimate government for China and Taiwan, and the rest of the world…agrees. In spite of our chest-thumping about supporting freedom worldwide (see the established squawking points re: Ukraine), America fucking sucks when it comes to walking the walk. We can’t even have political figures say whether Taiwan is a country without there being controversy.

Hey, Taiwan. Ask Israel for advice on how to deal with America’s fickle foreign policy. They might be able to give you some pointers and a discount on industrial drum-sized containers of KY Jelly.

It’s this kind of duplicitous dumbfuckery that makes it hard for anyone else around the world to take us seriously. Granted, Joe Biden already gave us the fast track on that long before he was President, but this is well beyond even Biden’s ability to fuck things up. This was a team effort.

Although it’s easy for me to sit behind a keyboard and bitch about the matters at hand, I understand the predicament America put itself in through bad economic planning, worse political gamesmanship, and an apathetic public wanting more faster and cheaper than we’re willing to wait to be produced ourselves. With China having both an impressive potential economic market and a pretty sizable bargaining chip, we have a built-in incentive not to piss them off under any circumstances. This puts Taiwan in a rough spot. Not only is one of the world’s largest military machines breathing down its neck like Joe Biden at an elementary school photo op, but the largest and most technically advanced military on the planet can’t be bothered to show up because we need cheap electronics.

With friends like us, who needs enemas? Or enemies, for that matter.

While Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan made for interesting news, it exposed a fundamental weakness in our foreign policy with Taiwan and China and reiterated an oft-repeated doubt among other countries when it pertains to the way we claim to support freedom, but only when it suits our interests. If there is a silver lining to Pelosi’s visit, it’s the fact even she couldn’t fuck up our foreign policy any worse than it already is.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To put it mildly, this past week has been what the military would call a “target-rich environment” for somewhat humorous weirdos like me. On the Left, there has been a move to create four more Supreme Court seats and do away with the Electoral College. On the right, Project Veritas exposed CNN, which promptly got James O’Keefe kicked off Twitter.

Now, which would be more entertaining, a dry discussion about the Supreme Court or the Electoral College, or poking fun at a cable news network whose fortunes are as bright as a Socialist Socialite policy position?

Let’s just say I’m siding with schadenfreude.

CNN

What the Left thinks it means – a reputable news organization that occasionally ventures into “Fox News Lite” territory

What it really means – a news network who keeps finding a way to tarnish its reputation

Back in the day, CNN was the only name in cable news because, well, there weren’t any other real cable news networks out there. And it was unique in that it showed a global perspective on news, which was a big risk because of the way American media are set up to cover international events. Think coups and earthquakes, kids.

Where CNN really came into its own was during the first Gulf War. With reporters live on the scene giving regular updates and being one of the few (if not the only) television news crews there, CNN became a household name around the world. Once the Gulf War ended, CNN could have either rested on its laurels and coasted or continued to cover stories as balanced and as in-depth as possible.

Given the fact we’re in the process of mocking it, I’m guessing you can figure out what path CNN took.

What happened that caused CNN’s fall from grace (no relation to Nancy)? That’s hard to say because there have been a number of incidents in the 30 years since the first Gulf War that could have been the catalyst, but for me, it was the campaign and subsequent election of Bill Clinton. For better or most definitely worse, Clinton was our first “rock star” President, and CNN acted like a pack of teenage groupies hoping to catch his attention.

To me, the minute any news outlet picks a side in an ideological battle, it ceases to be an example of good journalism and becomes an example of good propaganda poorly masquerading as journalism. As other news networks popped up or became more prominent as they carried water for the Commander in Briefs, talent had viable options to exercise, and some of them did. As that happened, CNN picked up other talent, but the replacements didn’t fill the talent void. And in the case of Brian Stetler, became a talent void in and of himself. Pro Tip: if you have someone with as inconsistent a track record as Stelter, don’t let him host a show called “Reliable Sources.”

Aside from Stetler, CNN doesn’t have as much star power as it once did, and even less actual journalism is being done. Maybe it’s me, but when you call yourself a news network, it kinda implies you know what news is. Judging from the Project Veritas video, though, even the staff wouldn’t recognize news from a hole in the ground. And don’t get me started on whether they know their asses from the aforementioned hole.

Although the video didn’t expose anything new (assuming CNN swung Left was so obvious Stevie Wonder could see it), it does damage their brand at a time when they need to regain some of their viewership. Although the landscape is looking like the Hatfields and McCoys, but more cordial, there is room for a straight news organization that gives different perspectives.

Which the Left hates.

The Left relies on being able to control the narrative, so any time one of their usual outlets decides to…horror of horrors…show more than the Left’s version of events, the Left accuses that outlet of betraying them. Just look at how they go after Jake Tapper when he tries to reason with the Left. Granted, it’s getting more rare than how Dracula likes his hamburgers, but it happens.

Right now, CNN is finding itself the odd network out. On the right, there is Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN, and on the left, there is…pretty much everybody else. No matter how Left CNN leans, it will be outdone by someone else. To put it another way, CNN is now the New Coke of cable news: some love it, but most prefer the Coke that actually tastes like Coke. MSNBC will do what CNN does or used to do with a greater Leftist slant, so CNN becomes an afterthought. Personally, if it weren’t for the Left’s hatred of Project Veritas, I’m not sure Leftists would care how bad CNN looks right now.

Yet, I’m reminded of a saying: “Where there is chaos, there is opportunity.” If CNN wants to be relevant again, they need to resist the urge to become MSNBC without Rachel Maddow. They also need to resist the urge to swing to the right, especially considering the Right doesn’t trust CNN as far as Pee Wee Herman could throw Mount Everest. So, I see the best way to stand out and move forward is to look towards the past. Wipe the slate clean and go back to straight news, complete with an announcement of the change so people know what’s going on. Sure, it will piss off the Left, but the way I look at it, you’ll get more viewers than if you continue on your current path.

Of course, that will go over with Jeff Zucker like David Duke at a BLM rally, so it probably won’t be done anytime soon. Even so, what do you have to lose, Jeff? A bunch of whiny crybabies who think they respect science while simultaneously believing there are more than two genders? At some point, you have to cut your losses, buddy.

And when it comes to Leftists, you’re dealing with a lot of losers!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every so often, a phrase comes along that encompasses a political issue while simultaneously meaning little or nothing at all. This week, the phrase is “peaceful transfer of power.” It seems the Left has been floating an idea that if President Donald Trump doesn’t win the Presidential election this year he won’t leave office like he’s supposed to. Where they got that idea, I don’t know, but the President didn’t do himself any favors by giving a non-committal answer to the question when it was presented to him by a hack…I mean Playboy‘s correspondent in the White House Press Corps.

On second thought, I’m going to stick with hack.

The concept of a peaceful transfer of power isn’t a new one, but since it’s 2020, it might as well be the latest source of outrage within the Left. And a Leftist Lexicon entry to boot!

peaceful transfer of power

What the Left thinks it means – a President leaving the White House with dignity and respect for the outcome of an election

What it really means – the outgoing President acting like an adult instead of a whiny bitch

The concept of a peaceful transition of power has been tradition from George Washington on up to modern times. Then, Leftists had to go and upturn the Presidential apple cart in 2000 after George W. Bush beat Al Gore by actually winning the Electoral College vote. Instead of going the route of a graceful loser, they decided it would be a good idea to wreck a few things in the White House before W had a chance to fill out a change of address card. Granted, it was only $15,000 of damage, but it’s not the only thing that was damaged.

After George W. Bush left office, there were no allegations of damage to the White House or sabotage or even a cross word between the outgoing and incoming Administration. And this after W was accused of being Hitler. Hmmm…maybe it’s not just trash the Left believes in recycling. Nah, it’s still trash.

Before Barack Obama left office, members of the FBI (which falls under the Executive Branch in the hierarchy) started to take action against then-candidate Trump in an attempt to undercut his campaign. One debunked dossier, a few million taxpayer dollars spent on a Special Prosecutor, a farce of an impeachment trial, and a billion talking points later, the Left still hasn’t accepted the results of the 2016 election and are hell-bent on making it impossible for there to be a peaceful transfer of power.

Now, some Leftists are going to imply since there was no violence, there was a peaceful transfer of power. Coming from the side that says both silence and a lack of using the correct pronouns is violence, they should take a few seats. Like, say, all of them at Soldier Field. The point is there wasn’t a peaceful transfer of power because there was and still is active resistance to the transfer. From Lisa Page and Peter Strzok playing hide the salami while looking for an “insurance policy” that you can’t get from an agent to James Comey having a weird sense that destroying evidence necessary in an FBI investigation wasn’t that big of a deal to Sally Yates actively defying an Executive Order because she didn’t agree with it, there is no doubt in my mind the transferal of power from Obama to Trump was as peaceful as ANTIFA, and twice as mature.

Right now, there are threats of riots and violence if Trump wins. Somehow, I get the feeling there will be riots and violence even if he doesn’t win. Call it a hunch based on what ANTIFA/BLM/white Leftists LARPing as revolutionaries have said, but it’s clear there isn’t going to be peace in the midst of a transfer of power should Joe Biden stays awake enough to win the November election. This begs the question of whether the Left actually wants a peaceful transfer of power or if it’s just a convenient partisan excuse to create a self-fulfilling prophecy they have been in control of since 2016.

Guess which one I’m going with.

And, for once, with good reason. The Left believes the ends justify the means and they have a number of people at their disposal to get their hands dirty with the means so the leadership can keep theirs clean. That’s why the Left has been floating the idea of escalating violence leading up to Election Day; to drive up fear of voting for President Trump, which turns into support for Joe Biden or at least a suppression of the vote for Trump. (See, when the Left does it, voter suppression is okay.) Now, consider the Left’s tendency to expect the opposition knuckle-under their demands, even when the Left’s demands are as nonsensical as a spy thriller written by your average TikTok user. They don’t want their ideological enemies to agree to their terms. They want to rub the opposition’s noses in it. (See President Obama’s “I won” comment to Congressional Republicans for evidence.)

Good thing nothing bad ever happens when one side seeks to utterly embarrass the other side after a victory. Nothing like a world war or anything…

The Left clearly doesn’t want there to be a peaceful transfer of power because it plays into the seeds they’ve been sowing since 2016. But they will demand the Trump Administration play by the rules the Left has been pissing on for 20 years when they lose the Presidency. Just like when they oppose seating a Supreme Court Justice now after expecting it in 2016, it’s all about the end result.

Which is why we should take their outrage over President Trump not committing to a peaceful transfer of power with a Great Salt Lake. But it’s also important not to give the Left any ammunition (figuratively, not literally) by reacting to their violence, vitriol, and general jackassery. Consider the notion the Left needs people like us to look, sound, or be violent to “prove” them right about us, and unfortunately there are more than enough people out there who are more than happy to oblige.

However, that doesn’t mean we should be silent when we see the Left saying one thing and doing another. Call them out when you can and if you feel safe doing so, but don’t let the threat of what may come affect your judgment. The Left will not accept a peaceful transfer of power because it’s no longer in their nature. If they win, they will be sore winners, and if they lose, they will be violent losers. Vote for who you want and be mature about it, and the Left will have no hold over you.