Tag: insurrection

Unanimous Opinion

The Supreme Court’s recent opinion regarding President Donald Trump’s ballot status was correct. And here is why this it the correct outcome of this court case.

First off, the 14th Amendment was born in the aftermath of the War Between the States. Many of it’s clauses were written for the situation of the time and place. The goals could not be accomplished by legislation alone.

The insurrection clause in particular was written as a punishment against the leaders of the Southern States. Banning them from public office. Not because they rose up against the Union. But as revenge by the Northern States who did not want to seat the former Confederate officers in Congress.

Secondly, President Donald Trump has NOT been found guilty of insurrection or participating in an insurrection, or leading an insurrection, or inciting an insurrection against the United States. Thus, he cannot be removed from any ballot or banned from holding office because of an insurrection.

And lastly, the events of January 6th were not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination. The video evidence speaks for itself and to this truth as does the testimony of credible eyewitnesses.

So there you have it. Three valid reasons why the Supreme Court’s opinion on this matter is the correct and just opinion and why it was unanimous.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you heard a loud squee recently, it came from the collective orgasm the Left had after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump could be removed from the 2024 ballot. The reason cited (and gobbled up by every Leftist like a crack whore looking for a fix) was the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment due to what the court found was Trump supporting an insurrection on January 6, 2021.

Even though there’s a lot of debate over whether January 6th constituted an insurrection (short version: it wasn’t), there was no surprise the Left would try this tactic, and it would be a matter of time and/or court shopping to find a bunch of black robed dupes willing to do what Hillary Clinton couldn’t: visit Wisconsin more than once. Oh, and beat Donald Trump.

This gives us a chance to take a closer look at the “insurrection clause” to see what all the hubbub is.

“insurrection clause”

What the Left thinks it means – a provision in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies Donald Trump from running in 2024

What it really means – more proof the Left can’t read the Constitution very well

The 14th Amendment covers a lot of ground, but the part the Left has focused on is Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

And when you consider the Left believes Trump supported the January 6th “insurrection”, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion they did. Too bad that conclusion makes zero sense when the facts are examined.

I’ve discussed the “insurrection” previously, but the TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Reblog) version is January 6th wasn’t an insurrection because it doesn’t fit the legal definition of one. Furthermore, there’s an extreme leap of logic that has to be made to make the argument, namely the “insurrectionists” who were there to support Donald Trump would have needed to be in favor of overthrowing him for it to be an actual insurrection. After all, Trump was still President that day.

But leaps of logic alone aren’t enough to totally mock the Left’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Nah, we also need to mock their inability to read the damn thing from top to bottom. For this, we need to look alllllllll the way down to Article 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The case that originated this clusterfuck of a legal decision is Anderson v. Griswold, which brought up the question of whether Trump could be disqualified from the ballot under Colorado law. Although each state has the power to determine its own election laws, the application of law in this case runs afoul of the very Amendment being used to deny Trump his name on the ballot.

Remember that pesky thing called due process, kids? Yeah, it wasn’t used here. Trump wasn’t a direct party to the lawsuit, but his right to due process was violated in that he was essentially convicted of insurrection without every being charged or convicted of it. The special counsel’s indictment doesn’t even charge him with it! Also, he has yet to be formally charged with it!

So, what did the court do? Determined he was guilty because…fuck if I know.

The reason they gave was a “preponderance of the evidence,” would could mean anything from a hand-written letter on White House stationary signed by Trump saying “I’m going to incite an insurrection today, and it will be the best insurrection ever,” to the court not wanting mean tweets anymore. As of yet, I don’t think we’ve seen the evidence the court referred to, and I’m tempted to say we’re not gonna because that might expose the entire ruling for the farce it most certainly is.

Back to the point about due process. Insurrection is a federal crime, which means only the government can bring the charges. Since that hasn’t happened, the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t have the standing to bring the charges, and without there being an actual charge or conviction, there can be no application of the 14th Amendment. And without there being an actual trial (sorry, Ted Lieu), Trump was denied due process. Not even a fucking stupid statement from Colorado’s Secretary of State declaring Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection will overcome that.

How fucked up is this situation? A former Trump lawyer not known for sucking up to him after being let go says the US Supreme Court could rule 9-0 to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling. And this is a guy who has said Trump was “toast” in his criminal indictments.

If this wasn’t bad enough, there’s even some debate over whether the “insurrection clause” would even apply to the Presidency. Given how loosely the law has been interpreted to disqualify Trump, I’m sure the Left would be willing to stretch the logic so much Reed Richards would need a chiropractor. In my non-legalese reading of it, I can see where it could be, but it’s not nearly as much of a slam-dunk as the Left thinks it is. There’s just enough wiggle room for Trump to argue it doesn’t apply (even though the arguments I’ve put forward above about the lack of due process would be stronger, but I’m not advising him).

Then, there’s Section 5:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What the Colorado Supreme Court did completely ignores this part of the Amendment used to remove Trump in the first place. Congress didn’t disqualify Trump via legislation (and, to the Leftists reading this, this is not an endorsement of such action being taken). It was done by a majority of judges who are clearly incapable of ruling within the confines of the law. Leftists may be okay with it, but wait until it gets turned around on them.

If this decision is upheld by the USSC, it sets precedent, which can be used to disqualify politicians from both sides based solely on a politically-convenient interpretation of “insurrection” and a process where a favorable court decision is more certain than if you asked Hunter Biden if he wants crack for Christmas. Let’s take our good friends from the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest from that bastion of progressive living, Seattle. What the group did and advocated could be considered an insurrection (personally, I don’t, but for the purposes of this sketch let’s say I do). Using the Left’s argument here, no one who participated in CHOP would be eligible to run for public office.

And neither would any of the politicians who supported CHOP.

Then, all it would take would be a Republican with more balls than sense to find a court in Texas that would rule so and before you can say jurisprudence, a good chunk of Democrats would be out of a job. And it would be thanks to the Left’s “Orange Man Bad” rhetoric.

Okay, I’ll admit this sounds too good to be true because, well, Leftists have more double standards than they have genders (this just in…still 2), but it would be detrimental to the country as a whole. It would be weaponizing the legal system to get what an ideologically-driven segment wants. Or, as the Left calls it, Tuesday.

Regardless, the “insurrection clause” being used in Anderson v. Griswold shows a level of desperation on the Left because they know Puddin’ Head Joe is slightly more popular than an anal cavity search done by Willie “Giant Hands” McStuffins, and his accomplishments on issues that really matter to the people are sparse at best. He can’t run on the economy (but he can run from it), foreign policy, or any of the kitchen table issues that Joe Six Pack and his family worry about on the daily. But at least he can run on being the first Administration to hire incompetent and dishonest trans people, amirite????

To try to curtail a possible Trump 2024 victory, the Left counted on the courts to eliminate him from the running before the caucuses and primaries could begin. If the High Court (as opposed to the court in Colorado who appeared to be high when they rendered this dumbfuck decision) rules according to the law, there should be no doubt it will get overturned. If they rule according to political ideology, it will get overturned most likely, but it will have the stink of partisanship all over it and the Left will redouble their efforts to expand the court.

And, yes, my irony meter overloaded after typing that.

In the end, it should be noted there’s a reason the “insurrection clause” is rarely used and/or prosecuted: because there’s a fine line between legitimate protest and insurrection. Redressing grievances with the government is protected by the First Amendment. Acting out in a way that threatens the very fabric of our government isn’t. To conflate the two for the purposes of electoral victory is dishonest, detrimental, and a dick move.

If you read this before Christmas, I wish you the happiest of holiday seasons.

And if you read this after Christmas, I wish you the happiest of post-holiday sales.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week was a big one for our friends at Fox News. Sure, the Left loves to talk about the Dominion defamation lawsuit against the network, but the Fox hate was cranked up to 12 (because 11 just won’t do) because of Tucker Carlson showing previously unreleased security footage from January 6th. You know, that insurrection that simultaneously could have destroyed the nation and was run by dumb Trump supporters?

Well, since both Leftists and, well, other Leftists are losing their collectivist shit over the footage, I figured it was time to take a look at the little cable network that could…bitch slap CNN and MSNBC into oblivion.

Fox News

What the Left thinks it means – a radical right wing network that lies to the country, thus becoming a national security threat

What it really means – a right-leaning network that represents everything the Left fears/hates

Fox News Channel began in 1996 from humble beginnings. Well, as humble as can be while being funded by a wealthy Australian. Anyway, Fox News was established as an alternative to the media, who lean so far left they walk at a 5 degree angle perpendicular to the ground, and it proved to be very successful. No longer did we have Leftist talking heads telling us what and how to think about the events of the day. Now, we had “fair and balanced” news.

Kinda.

It’s hard to overcome personal biases in the media, but Fox News at least tried to do it for a long time, and they still do. But try to convince a Leftist raised on Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann of that. They’ll continue to say Fox News isn’t really news because of all the lies they tell.

Seriously? Have you fucknuckles looked in the mirror lately?

Where the Left gets things twisted is a common blind spot for people: separating news from opinion. To the Left, the two are inseparable as they believe their opinions are facts. Granted, the Right does this as well, but in their defense people on the Right can be persuaded with facts most of the time. Their ego isn’t tied to being correct. The Left’s is.

But actual reporting has little to do with ego. The journalism of even the past 50 years has gone from hitting the pavement to hitting up a Leftist politician on Twitter to get a quote for a story that’s pretty much plug-and-play. Just add a quote or two, make Republicans look bad, and you’re done.

Fox News’ actual reporting isn’t anything like that from what I’ve seen. For one, they get blocked by Twitter Leftists. But more importantly the reporters on staff do amazing work. Even former Fox News contributors like Catherine Herridge found work after leaving it because of her reputation as a strong, driven reporter. And if you look at the body of her work, you’ll find a common theme: report the facts without emotional attachments. She’s like a female Data.

This blurring of lines between news and opinion actually makes the rest of the media look bad, mainly because they assume Fox News does what they do, only with more of a conservative bent. Of course, Leftists think…excuse me…AHAAAHAAAAAHAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAHAAAAAA!

So, where was I? Oh, yes, Leftist media.

Being anything to the right of the Socialist Socialite makes you incredible to Leftists, and not in a good way. Once you get branded as a conservative, Leftists no longer consider you to be human, let alone credible. Just ask Matt Taibbi, a reporter that used to work for Leftist rag Rolling Stone and is now reporter-non-grata for his role in the Twitter Files.

Yet, this is lazy thinking. Dismissing a source solely because of political leanings is silly. You need to take the time and really look at the body of work before you determine how badly they suck. Then, you can dismiss them.

In the case of Fox News, I can’t completely dismiss them for having no credibility. Their news side is consistently running circles around the competition by being good at their jobs. It’s the commentary side that ultimately hurts the network. Sure, they have solid contributors like Brit Hume, Greg Gutfeld, Tammy Bruce, and Tulsi Gabbard, people whose opinions aren’t hidden and even-handed.

Then, there’s the hard pro-Trump side like Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, neither of one I can stand because they just find ways to say the same things over and over again night after night. If I wanted to hear Trump talking points, I would go right to the source, not filtered through people whose opinions I care less about than the insane homeless man I see on my way to work. Although the homeless guy did give me some great stock tips…

Regardless, Fox News is doing something right because they continue to dominate the cable news ratings. Granted, ratings doesn’t always mean quality. I’m looking right at you “Friends.” You owe me 3 years of my life back watching Ross and Rachel. And no number of times singing “Smelly Cat” will make up for it.

Yet, Fox News has enough crossover appeal that it gets people on the Left and the Right to watch. This link is from 2019, so the numbers may have changed, but the fact Fox News continues to dominate month after month, year after year, makes it harder to dismiss the network as niche. Even with the Dominion lawsuit looming over them, it just doesn’t matter.

And that’s what pisses off Leftists the most. No matter what they do, no matter how many boycotts or hashtags they come up with, Fox News keeps chugging along, making CNN and MSNBC fight for the scraps. Or scrap for the scraps, if you prefer (and I do).

Of course, the Left can’t let that happen, so they’re doing what they can to attack Fox News. Hence, the accusations they’re a threat to national security and lie all the time. And hence the reason they have to lie about what Fox News is.

A lot of the “Fox News is a national security threat” bullshit arose in the aftermath of January 6th, a dark day in our history where…let me check my notes…a bunch of people attended a rally in Washington, DC, to protest an election they felt was stolen and some asshats decided to be destructive dicks. Apparently, protesting the results of a contested election is a national security threat to the Left.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries? Please pick up the white courtesy phone. You may be a national security threat.

Where Fox News comes into the picture is related to the Dominion lawsuit in that the network is alleged to have lied to its viewers about the 2020 Presidential election being stolen, which prompted the January 6th “insurrection,” which as we’ve been told is worse than 9/11, Pearl Harbor, and another “Scary Movie” sequel…combined.

I won’t dispute Fox News had a hand in the “stolen election” narrative. What I do dispute is that they knowingly lied. I didn’t vote for Trump or Puddin’ Head Joe, so I don’t really have a dog in the hunt, but I can’t completely dismiss the idea there was some funky shit going down at the polls. Polling places running out of ballots, allegations of renewed counting after most of the vote counters had left, and other irregularities became the coin of the Trump realm. I can’t say every accusation of election irregularities could be substantiated with facts, but there were enough to make me question whether the results we got on Election Day 2020 were real or Memorex. And, me being the curious boy I am, I want to get to the bottom of it.

And apparently Fox News did, too. When the rest of the media dismissed the possibility of election fraud out of hand (while saying the 2016 election was fundamentally flawed because of Russia, Russia, Russia), Fox News became the contrarian and started to look at what happened with a critical eye.

You know, like reporters are supposed to do?

But is this questioning a threat to national security? In a word. In two words, fuck no. In three words, fuckity fuck no. In four words…well, let’s just say there’s a lot more variations of “fuck” used.

The First Amendment says Congress cannot pass laws prohibiting the redress of grievances against the government. If a rally about possible election fraud isn’t a redress of grievances, I don’t know what is. At the very least, the January 6 protestors had a Constitutional right to do what they did. Once they breached the rules of decorum to commit criminal acts, that protection goes the way of Kamala Harris’ Presidential hopes in 2024.

On top of that, the concept of January 6th being a “riot” or an “insurrection” is being undone by the security footage being shown. Most of the people at the rally stayed outside, and those who gained access to the Capitol mostly…took a tour, some with the help of the Capitol Police on duty that day.

But wait a minute! Wouldn’t that prove the Left’s narrative about January 6th is full of shit? Why, yes…yes it would! But they can’t just say “The real reason we lied about January 6th is because we got scared by a bunch of non-violent Americans who disagree with us” because it would go over as well as giving David Duke an NAACP Image Award.

And not to put too fine a point on this, but who was President on January 6, 2021? That would be Donald Trump, not Puddin’ Head Joe. There was no transfer of power, no transition (except maybe for some members of the Biden Administration), and no attempt to overthrow the government. For January 6th to be an actual insurrection, the protestors/”rioters” would have to be seeking to overthrow…the man they supported for President in 2020. Fox News broadcasting security footage doesn’t make the lack of logic behind the “insurrection” go away, nor is it nearly as horrible as the Left wants to make it out to be. The only real threat with releasing the security footage isn’t to national security, but to the security of the Leftist narrative.

Now, for the lying. Not on my part, but to the allegations Fox News misinforms its viewers. Let’s just say any major media outlet that pushed even one-tenth of the stories about Russiagate being real should take all the seats. Much of what passes for reporting these days revolves around lying, whether it be omitting context, fabricating stories to advance a narrative, or spinning events to make one side look better than the other. In fact, most of the “reporters” today should get an additional pay for being the DNC’s steno pool.

Fox News is no different, except for the DNC steno pool bit. They do exactly what the rest of the media do, only for the Right instead of the Left. That’s not meant as an excuse, but rather an observation built over 35 years of studying the media both formally and informally. It’s hypocritical for the Left to hold Fox News to a higher standard than they hold themselves, but it’s par for the Alinsky course. Not that you’d ever get an actual admission of dishonesty from the Left, mind you. They’re still clinging to the “very fine people on both sides” lie as though it were a security blanket.

So, is Fox News as bad as its critics say it is? Yes, and no. They are a product of the current media environment and are guilty of at least some of the sins attributed to it. Overall, they’re no better or worse than any other media outlet, and much of the criticism levied against it is the result of partisan hyperbole. Having said that, Fox News has a lot of room to improve. Don’t fall back on reciting RNC/Donald Trump talking points and go back to reporting that lives up to the “fair and balanced” standard.

Oh, and fire Geraldo Rivera. He’s as useful as tits on Michael Moore.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you were wondering what holiday follows New Year’s this year, it’s not MLK Day; it’s 1/6 Day.

Over the past year, Leftists have made so much hay over what happened a year ago they can keep John Kerry fed for the winter. While most Americans have put 1/6 in the past, the Left made it a focal point for a good chunk of their rhetoric since it happened, whether it be calling the protesters “domestic terrorists” or lamenting how close we came to “the end of democracy.”

Eat up, Mr. Kerry. And while you’re eating, let me give you something to read.

1/6

What the Left thinks it means – an on-going threat to our country, proof at how radical the right wing has gotten

What it really means – a date that lives in infamy only because the Left keeps resuscitating it

In the grand scheme of things, 1/6 was one of those times when some of our fellow Americans acted like a drunk uncle airing dirty laundry during a family reunion (or spilling all the iced tea, if you want to maintain the reunion imagery, or spilling all the Twisted Tea, if you want to maintain the drunk uncle imagery). These knuckleheads broke some laws and deserve punishment, no question.

Then, the Left overplayed their hand. Surprising, right? They started trying to dox anyone they could find related to the 1/6 incident, even if the people they found were literally obeying the law. On top of that, the lawful and the lawless were lumped together and called domestic terrorists. Since then, the Left has stoked fears of another 1/6 happening because…well, they haven’t really figured out the reason, but they’re sure it’s real!

If you thought “Russia Russia Russia” was overplayed, you aren’t ready for “1/6 was an act of domestic terrorism” 12-inch club remix.

Here’s the funny thing (one of several related to the topic, I assure you). What most of the 1/6 protesters did is…drumroll please…protected speech. The First Amendment covers a lot of ground, but one of the parts involves protest, i.e. redressing grievances with the government. You can disagree with the reasoning behind the rally/march/Congressional invasion, at the heart of it was an attempt to get government to answer a question about the 2020 Election. Thus, it was a legitimate form of speech, an argument the Left used throughout 2019 and 2020 to cover the riots…I mean protests related to Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, and other popular Leftist causes. However, once the line between speech and illegal activity gets crossed, the First Amendment no longer applies.

Apparently the Left hasn’t gotten the memo, but now they have, they’re applying it to the 1/6 protesters. Granted, they’re applying it wrong, but hey. Meh for effort, I guess.

While this is going on within the Beltway, most of the rest of America has moved on, which is not what the Left wants. They need us to be afraid (oh, and snitch on anyone they tell us is a threat because you don’t want QAnon people in your neighborhood, right), so they need to keep the fear cranked up to eleven because, well, it’s one higher. This, in turn, has created the steady stream of misinformation combined with an unhealthy amount of paranoia. You know, like the media do with COVID? Given how they treat the unvaccinated like a leper at a buffet, they don’t even have to change the template that much. Yay, recycling! And because of this, the Left calls themselves real patriots, but I seem to see they’re wearing kilts when they do.

This is a reference to the “No True Scotsman” logical fallacy in case you didn’t know. Basically, the No True Scotsman fallacy tries to create division by stating nobody who believes X would act or think in a certain manner. The idea is to make the undesirable person and/or idea, well, undesirable. What it does, however, is create a false standard that the “undesirable” will never be able to attain because he/she will never meet the accuser’s criteria. Kobiashi Maru, anyone?

Through this intellectual and literal dishonesty, the Left has created what they consider to be the perfect trap to snatch up people who understand what happened on 1/6 and reject the Left’s reality on the matter. But just like James T. Kirk in the aforementioned Kobiashi Maru reference, there is always a way to avoid the trap. With Kirk, it was cheating. With people like us, it’s rejecting the Left’s entire argument on its face, which is really easy to do.

I’m going to repeat what I said on the topic about a year ago, so I apologize ahead of time, but there is a major point that really needs to be reiterated to put the Left on their heels. First off, calling 1/6 an insurrection is like calling Al Gore a climate expert; the Venn Diagram shows no link between the two. The purpose of an insurrection is to overthrow the existing government, and who was President on 1/6? Donald Trump. If there was an insurrection on 1/6 and the perpetrators were Trump supporters, logic dictates the insurrectionists would be trying to overthrow the man who allegedly inspired them to try to overthrow him. Either Trump is an idiot (which would make Hillary Clinton look even worse than she already does), or the Leftist narrative is wrong at best, dishonest at worst.

Let’s just say I’m betting the house on the latter.

The more lenience you can give to the Left is the protesters tried to disrupt the duties of the Electoral College in certifying Joe Biden’s election to the Presidency. At best, the worst of the disrupters caused a slight delay in the process, and the results were certified the way the Left wanted them to be. Property damage, trespassing, vandalism? All crimes that should be prosecuted, and given how quickly it’s going, we might be celebrating a 25th anniversary of 1/6 before we get done with the legal proceedings.

And justice still won’t be done.

I’m no Trump sycophant, but I have a few questions about 1/6 that the Left don’t want answered. Which, of course, means they’re questions that should be answered, if for no other reason than to get the full picture. The events of 1/6 weren’t completely lawful, but they weren’t the 9/11-times-a-gazillion the Left wants us to believe they were. Fortunately, most people have moved on, which leaves Leftists bereft of an actual reason to continue paying attention to 1/6.

Chew on that, Mr. Kerry.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are a lot of things I could say about the recent storming of the Capitol Building, but not a lot of them are flattering. Even so, my criticisms would be a mixture of legitimate concern and more than a little mockery as Donald Trump supporters tried LARPing as Antifa for a few hours. But, I’m not sure I would go as far as the Left has in how they’ve presented the protest-turned-plundering and selfie expedition. Instead, the Left has made the entire affair into a breach of our country’s laws.

Yep, our Leftists friends found a new word in their 365 Reasons To Complain Calendar: insurrection. As you might expect, there are differing opinions on whether what happened at the Capitol rises to that level, but the Left has pretty much decided it did. And if you disagree with them, you’re obviously supporting insurrection against the country and, thus, are just as guilty. If the Left is correct on this, prison overcrowding is going to get a lot worse.

Are they right? Let’s find out!

insurrection

What the Left thinks it means – trying to overthrow a government through violent and destructive means, mainly by Trump supporters

What it really means – anything that the Left sees as threatening to their power base

I did a little digging online to make sure I had a workable definition of the word, and merriam-webster.com came through for me. Their definition of insurrection is as follows:

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Keep this in mind for later because it’s going to be relevant. Unlike the rest of my writing.

Insurrection is a violation of federal law, so it’s a pretty serious charge and shouldn’t be thrown around lightly unless you have reason to do it. And, no, merely being a Trump supporter isn’t a good enough reason. Still, this might be considered a semantic argument rather than anything based on the law. It won’t satisfy the Left, but here is the legal definition as found on legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:

A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence

Oooh. Might be in a little trouble there, folks.

Well, to paraphrase a former President, it all depends on what your definition of rebellion is. At the heart of both of the definitions posted above is the concept of rebelling against the government. And it’s in how the Left views the government where things get stickier than an explosion at a cotton candy convention.

The Left believes government is the be-all and end-all of everything, from paying for pet projects involving the mating habits of the rare Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth to promoting values that advance the Left’s agenda. If you disagree with that notion, even if it’s because there is no such thing as an Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth, the Left sees that as a threat to the government as a whole and, by extension, themselves.

Except, of course, unless it’s people on their side of the political spectrum, like Black Lives Matter and Antifa. When they take over a federal building, cause destruction, and advocate overthrowing the entire government, it’s cheeky and fun, not evil and seditious like when the MAGA crowd does it! It’s totes cool! And, unfortunately for them, it’s also the very definition of insurrection, albeit taken to a much larger extreme.

Where Trump supporters might have some wiggle room is the actual purpose of the protests at the Capitol Building. To them, Donald Trump is the government (among other things). Everyone else is either an ally or part of the “Deep State.” In order for the legal definition of insurrection to be met, it would have to be against the government, and since the protests were in support of Donald Trump, they could argue (please check local listings for likelihood this will work) they were protesting the Deep State and their actions are consistent with that. Granted, this is a bit of a stretch, but it can’t be dismissed out of hand.

Along the same lines (and with equal stretching) is the argument the protestors weren’t trying to overthrow the government, but rather a specific function of the government. In this case, it’s the certification of the Electoral College vote. Although there is likely to be at least one pocket of protestors who might be stupid enough to admit they were trying to overthrow the government, most of the people there weren’t.

Wait a minute…I’ve heard that same argument before…something about Antifa/BLM…but I’m sure the people who advanced that argument with them are right there defen…nevermind.

The Left and the Right are guilty of guilt by association here, so their current positions are as valid as a homemade PowerBall ticket. From where I sit, there are very few Trump supporters who can and should be charged with insurrection, but there are also very few BLM and Antifa members who can and should also be charged along with the Trump supporters. The issue is ideological blinders prevent both the Left and the Right from being honest about who should get charged. As you might have guessed by now, I have no problem charging the guilty, even if/when I agree with them. That’s because the law isn’t supposed to be ideologically tinted. Lady Justice has a blindfold on because that’s how justice is meted, or at least should be. If we hold our allies to one standard and our opponents to another, that’s not justice; that’s favoritism.

I’m not going to hold my breath for the Left to catch up on this, but I will continue to hold the only standard that needs to be held in this case: if you do the crime, you do the time.

Oh, and keep your eye on the sparrow.