Principle or Partisanship?

One has to wonder whether the ever-present outrage of the Left against Trump and his supporters is a result of some underlying principles that they hold dear or simply pure outrage that he and not they are in power.  Let me suggest that the outrage is far more likely partisan – a reflection of their real anger at having lost an election and with that loss their power as well.  By cloaking their outrage in the guise of standing for universal principles and humane values, they perhaps hope to hide the ugly partisanship that they are practicing.

Here are just a few of many examples of actions or policies that the Left claims to find abhorrent today, but which they previously accepted and often advocated.

Refugees and Immigrants

I suspect that everyone is aware that President Obama separated families and sent illegal immigrants home.  Somehow that only became cause for alarm or impeachment when Trump became president.

But, there are other examples in this area.  In 1975 many Democrats including then Senator Biden and then Governor Brown of California argued for a ban on Vietnamese refugees.  Governor Brown sounded the alarm about the huge toll that the refugees would take on his state as he worked to keep them from entering the country.  Yes, this is the same Gov. Brown who now welcomes immigrants, both legal and illegal, to his state and many of the same people who now assert that enforcement of immigration laws by President Trump is inhumane.

So, apparently when President Trump enforces our immigration laws with an even hand, he is guilty of treason, of being like Hitler, of destroying America; but, when the Left enforces those laws or works to keep legitimate refugees out of the country it is perfectly fine.

Security Clearances

President Trump revoked the security clearance of Brennan who no longer works for the government in any capacity, has no need for a security clearance, and was using (and perhaps misusing) his clearance for personal gain.  Those who are again finding this somehow treasonous or an impeachable offense have apparently forgotten that President Obama also revoked security clearances.         
       In 2013 James Clapper (who is now outraged by the revocation of Brennan’s clearance) was concerned about “threats to national security resulting from the increasing number of people with eligibility for access to classified national security information.”  The Obama administration then began a review in order to scrub and remove a number of security clearances.

So, apparently national security and possible misuse of security clearances is something that a president can be concerned about unless that president is President Trump.

Sex, Hush Money, and Underage Victims

It is alleged that Trump, before becoming president, paid former consenting sex partners to keep silent about their affairs.  Again, we hear this is treasonous or calls for impeachment.  Where was the outrage when, until recently, the Congress had a fund out of which they paid to silence individuals claiming sexual abuse or harassment by their members?

When there were unproven allegations that Republican candidate Roy Moore had improper behavior with minors decades ago, this was cause for the Left to raise the alarm not only against Moore but against anyone who argued he should have a fair day in court and considered innocent until proven guilty.   But wait – these are the same people who for decades have defended Roman Polanski who pled guilty to having unlawful sex with a 13 year old child.  And where is the outrage this week against the MeToo spokeswoman who it has now been revealed had sex with a minor.  These allegations which can be backed up with actual evidence or guilty pleas are apparently not as heinous as the allegations against Moore which lack such solid evidence.  Could it be that there are different standards for Republicans and Democrats?  Could it be that the outrage against Moore was simply an effective way to campaign against him?

We have a similar situation in the way that the accusations against Bill Clinton were treated and the sudden “woke-ness” when the allegations are against a Republican.  Sure sounds like partisanship to me.

Russia

This is a big one, but I will only cite enough to make my point here.  First, there is just the simple outrage when Trump meets with any foreign leader, but especially when he met and suggests future meetings with the head of Russia.   Yet, where was the outrage when Obama met with Putin and other leaders.  It was not labeled as un-American or treasonous as Trump’s meetings are.  And, while the Left daily asserts some sort of collusion between Trump and Russia in their  hunt to find evidence for those assertions, they seem to have forgotten that in 2012 Obama was caught on a hot microphone telling Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have more flexibility to negotiate with Putin after the election.

Not even an eyelash was batted when Obama made that statement.  Directly to the Russian President.  When he was President.  But, when candidate Trump at a campaign rally joked about hoping Russia would find more of his opponent’s emails, the Left sees this as some sort of verifiable proof of collusion.  I call it grasping at straws.

Campaign Finance Violations

Cohen, in his plea deal Tuesday, stated he made payments to keep quiet women who allegedly had consensual sex with Trump long before he was a candidate.  In is questionable at best whether such a payment violates campaign finance laws, but, assuming it does, and, assuming that through some sort of twisted logic that automatically pins the violation on Trump, he would not be the first candidate to violate such laws.

There are indeed allegations against Trump’s opponent Hillary Clinton that sadly seem to be worthy only of being ignored by the Left.  There are allegations that the Hillary Victory Fund was a scheme to bypass campaign finance laws and allow huge donations to the Hillary campaign that were violative of those laws.  The committee committing the alleged violations was authorized by Hillary.  These alleged violations involve millions of dollars directly to her campaign, not payments of a few hundred thousand to alleged former lovers.

Once again, one sees the Left turning a blind eye to alleged violations of law by those of whom they approve while twisting and turning every law possible to attempt to convict their “enemy.”

Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

In 1992 Democrat Sen. Biden, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, stated that if there were a Supreme Court vacancy, then President Bush should not name a nominee or, if he did, no confirmation hearings should be scheduled until after the November presidential election.  This became known as the “Biden rule” and was apparently just fine with Democrats until Republicans enforced it in 2016 when then President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Justice Scalia.  They did not want to wait until November then.  And now, as the Brett Kavanaugh nomination moves forward, the Democrats suddenly once again embrace the Biden rule, though now in the context not of an upcoming presidential election, but a midterm election.  

So, again, do the Democrats really have a position on this, or is it just that if their person is in power we should forget the Biden rule, but if their opposition is in power then we should enforce it, in the hope that the opposition will be defeated and the Left will regain power after the election?

The above are just a few examples of partisan maneuvering couched in the guise of standing up for principles.  It is hypocritical and dishonest.  But, what is really scary is that if principles can blow with the partisan wind, who next will be on the down side?  This is the problem when people become less concerned with law and freedom and true inalienable rights, and more concerned with creating a series of fleeting values that are geared to deny power to some while simply bolstering power for others.

So, next time you hear the Left assert that it is standing up for important principles of humanity or America or freedom, take a hard look at what the real motivation is.  Is it really a stand for principle, or just for partisan power?

Where is the Non-partisan Outrage?

Interestingly, the following facts are barely reported in the main stream media; I have culled them from some less popular news sources as well as from some right leaning news sources.  I do not understand why the following is not being fully reported by sources such as ABC, NBC, CBS.  Nonetheless, here is a summary of recent facts revealing potential bias within the FBI and the Mueller investigation:

            During the campaign an FBI agent Peter Strzok was given wide authority to investigate Hillary’s use of a private server for classified information and then to investigate possible collusion between Trump and the Russians to affect the 2016 election.  In the Hillary investigation he let pass statements by Huma Abedin, and Cheryl Mills that were contradicted by their own emails.   It turns out that Strzok is the one who changed the description of Hillary’s actions from “gross negligence” (a legal term of art with criminal implications) to the less significant “extremely careless.”  Then, days after closing the Clinton email case, Strzok signed the document opening the investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.  The authorization of FISA secret surveillance monitoring of the communications of Trump advisers were based at least in part on the anti-Trump and now discredited dossier that was produced for and underwritten by the Clinton campaign; there is strong evidence that Strzok was aware of the dossier and likely involved in the requests for FISA warrants based on the dossier. An informant has charged Strzok with obstructing a probe into the dossier.  Strzok was also one of two agents who interviewed then National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and received the statement that resulted in the charge of lying.

In August Strzok was removed from the Mueller investigation, but only in the past few days has it come to light that during the investigations he sent numerous anti-Trump texts and that there is other evidence showing his ongoing bias in favor of Clinton and against Trump.   The DOJ is now going through 10,000 texts between Strzok and Lisa Page, with whom Strzok was having an affair and with whom he apparently shared a strong anti-Trump and pro-Hillary sentiment.  Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer, participated in meetings about both the Hillary and the Trump investigations.  

It has also been revealed that Andrew Weissmann, a deputy for Mueller in the Russia probe, wrote an email in which he praised then DOJ official Sally Yates for refusing to enforce a legitimate presidential order with which she and many anti-Trumpers disagreed.  Yet another DOJ lawyer, Bruce Ohr, has been demoted due to contacts with the anti-Trump dossier firm.

Mueller did not inform the congressional oversight committee about the Strzok texts or about his reason for removing Strzok.  The Senate Judiciary Committee had to demand that the FBI turn over documents related to the removal of Strzok, noting that “Strzok, the deputy assistant director in the FBI’s counterterrorism division, was removed both from that position and the Mueller team over the summer, and reassigned to the human resources division, after it was reported that he ‘engaged in communications demonstrating political bias while handling matters in two sensitive, high-profile investigations’”.

The above should disturb each and every American!  Here is seemingly obvious and ongoing bias staring us in the face.  Of course, the Right presents the above information fully, perhaps making it seem even more important than it is or making assumptions of even further bias beyond that for which there is evidence.  Meanwhile, the Left tries to ignore it or put a good spin on it (what a great man Mueller is because he removed Strzok in August). 

Each and every one of us, regardless of our political views, should be saying this sort of activity and bias by the FBI is simply not acceptable.   Are we really willing to overlook such obvious bias when it leads to decisions with which we happen to agree (ending Hillary investigation; continuing search for evidence against Trump costing taxpayers millions).  To me, the fact that there is not universal disgust and outrage about the apparently out of control and biased FBI is what is really troubling.  Have we completely lost our sense of justice and fairness?  And, how can anyone be satisfied with, let alone trust the accuracy of any conclusions reached by these investigations?

Let’s consider the two key pieces.  First, an investigation of Hillary Clinton, the Democrat presidential candidate, by Left-leaning members of the FBI.  The investigation ends with no charges.  Then an investigation by the same Left-leaning members of the FBI against the Republican president whose election horrified the opposition.  That investigation has gone well beyond its charge, yet after a year has still found no evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign with the Russians.  Yet, we encourage the fishing expedition to continue, at great taxpayer expense. 

I certainly don’t feel comfortable accepting the final conclusions of either of these investigations and their many off-shoots.  To me they seem more like something I would expect from a banana republic than the democratic government of one of the greatest nations in the world.  To others these seem like the actions of the feared and nebulous web of the deep state, or evidence of a sitting political party using its resources against the opposition.  Yet others who like the results because they further their own political agendas find nothing wrong here and fully support these questionable investigations.

This is appalling, yet it fully reflects the low to which we have sunk.  It reflects our inability to be objective, to think rather than be driven only by group politics and emotion.  Left approves, Right does not.  What more do you need to know?  How about objectivity and fairness, not to mention justice?  No one seems to consider the danger of allowing if not applauding such an apparently biased investigatory force to continue.  Are we ready to allow our FBI to determine whom to acquit and whom to go after based upon prevailing political views within the agency?  How will you feel when your party is on the losing side?  Allowing these so clearly flawed investigations without question sets a very dangerous precedent for future use of state-sponsored intimidation that is a direct assault on a fair and democratic justice and governmental system.

Everyone, regardless of party or political views or like or dislike of President Trump or his policies should stand together and demand better.  We should all be outraged and demand that the FBI give us the fair and objective service to which we are entitled.  We must understand that even apparent bias weakens our democracy while true objectivity strengthens it.  Instead of taking to our respective partisan sides we should all be standing together in non-partisan anger as we demand the fairness that our democracy promises.