Double standards and the weak case against president Trump

There's a double standard - Hunter Biden (Ukraine, China), Joe Biden (see Hunter Biden), Hillary Clinton(Bleachbit-gate, the Steele dossier), and countless other people on the left commit crimes in their pursuit of wealth and power. They do not get prosecuted. President Trump plays by the rules and they make up high crimes and misdemeanors with which to charge him. As Glenn Beck recently pointed out, the reasons behind the nefariousness and virulent attempts to disable president Trump are no longer about Donald Trump, they are about the symbol that he has become; a symbol of resistance to a self-serving beaurocracy or deep-state that exists to serve insiders only at the expense of everyone else.

But a made up case is weak.  So say many in the case against president Trump:

While the case may be weak, it doesn't stop them.  And that brings up three possible scenarios:

1. Trump Derangement Syndrome has blinded them to rational thought
2. It's about weakening him prior to the 2024 election, not convicting him
3. They have a case

As a conservative we gravitate towards scenario #1.  These people have been doggedly relentless in their pursuit of a ill-perceived evil.  Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. But Trump supporters depending on that being the case is potential echo-chamber thinking.  And while currently their TDS is causing them problems, rather than president Trump, that may not remain the case up until 2024.

Trump Derangement Syndrome is the best case scenario for conservatives because it could easily explode in Democrats' faces.  But relying on that is a mistake. Even if this blows up in their face, it won't stop them from continuing to pursue this man.  And eventually something could stick, or at least be enough to galvanize the anti-Trump vote for the 2024 general election.  I don't see that but we still have to be prepared for the possibility and make moves to counter it.

Weakening president Trump (scenario #2) ,even if they know they have a bad case, may be the real motivation for Democrats.  If his approval surges among Republican voters just enough to win him the Republican nomination but also hurts him enough among Democrats and independent voters, he's a politically wounded adversary and easier to beat. Some people may just have had enough of the circus that surrounded Trump from 2016 to 2020, even if most of it was not of his doing. Fatigue may be the goal here. We can't count on Democrats continually shooting themselves in the foot and discount the possibility that it might work. We underestimate our political opponents at our own peril.

Finally the last scenario (#3), they may have a case.  While the case itself may be ridiculously weak, that's not the only consideration. We have a politically motivated DA in a far left-leaning state, with a far-left leaning voter base from which to select jurors.  They could win.  While it probably would lose on an appeal, eventually, it still could be enough to derail president Trump's chances forever.  He's not getting any younger.

I was listening to Breitbart News Radio this morning and the host was arguing that we should forget about going after Hunter Biden because it's not the best use of our efforts.  I disagree. Wholeheartedly.  He also said he didn't want to live in a country where that's the norm.  I understand that. But until Democrats feel the sting of it themselves, they are not going to change their tactics.  And if they don't we have a one-sided mechanism that only goes after conservatives.  You can't stop this until Democrats agree to a ceasefire.  Why would they do so when only the other side is taking damage?

Mainstream media fail (again)

This is not being shared (by me) as a black/white issue, just to help point out that there's a double standard in the media.  Paul Joseph Watson talking about the Brooklyn subway attacks.

Forget Jussie Smollett, where is the outrage over Hayden Williams?

A violent attack on a conservative Hayden Williams at the U.C. Berkeley campus based it appears, to be on purely political hatred.  The immediate outrage that accompanied the seems Jussie Smollett fake attack by the mainstream media seems to be lacking in this case.  Clearly there's a double standard at play.

Window Wednesday - Double standards

Your visual look into today's political landscape. The media is in meltdown over president Trump's nomination of Ronny Jackson to head the VA because of his terrible past of harassing women, being drunk and trying to hand out drug prescriptions - while working in the Obama White House.  Oh, and apparently everybody knew about it but nobody said anything.

This guy (on the right) is the new Public Enemy #1, because Trump.

Double standards on the right? I'm okay with it.

Al Franken has to go. Senator Cornyn as well.  Matt Lauer?  Good riddance. Roy Moore, may not be as pure as the wind driven snow, but SO WHAT?  I personally have stopped caring and I'm going full Alinsky on the left. 

Let's get one thing straight, sexual harassment is a bad thing. No one in their right mind will dispute that. But the left has for decades deliberately applied double standards (Alinsky-style) to conservatives and the right has been suckered by it no matter which side of the aisle the issue occurred. Now that the left is awakening to their own duplicitous evilness, we're supposed to stand up alongside them and arm in arm agree with everything they want to do now?

How well has that worked in the past for conservatives? Instead of arranging a circular firing squad we should stand back and let them implode and apply double standards ourselves. 

Dinesh D'Souza explains my thinking more eloquently.  Not that I couldn't do it myself given time to prepare it.

Ben Shaprio, brilliant as he is, fell prey to the old Democrat trick that has had a great track record for them in the past. Dinesh D'Souza isn't falling prey to the double standard. And he might have some solid ground behind him.

To sum up - push back, hard.  And when they don't push back on the left when arguing among themselves, push forward, harder.

Obama hurricanes hurt economy, Trump hurricanes help it?

Despite the fact that unemployment is at the lowest it has been in nearly two decades, beating levels not seen in either the Bush or Obama presidencies, the media and the left refuse to acknowledge that optimism surrounding the Trump presidency and the changes being made are having a positive impact. 

...the unemployment rate ticked down to 4.1%, its lowest level since December 2000. The jobless rate, which changed little over the course of 2016, has dropped from 4.8% to 4.1% since the start of this year, a sign the labor market is heating up.

How do we know that the inaccurate assignment of blame or credit is the case? It's because the same people who blamed economic downturns during the Obama administration on hurricanes, are now blaming the success of the economy...on hurricanes. Perhaps some comparative examples would help illustrate it.

This is what the New York Times had to share during Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

And here's an excerpt from the Washington Post on the impact of the latest hurricanes: it's what's helping the economy boom, not president Trump.

The U.S. economy added 261,000 jobs in October, meeting expectations that the country had rebounded from damage wrought by Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, and the jobless rate ticked down to 4.1 percent — the lowest level since 2000.

Imagine how well the economy would be doing today if it didn't have to face those hurricanes. The contrast in the coverage is striking. When Obama was president the media portrayed it as a problem he had to overcome. For president Trump, suddenly hurricanes represent a tailwind for the president's economy.

Just, wow.

Too good to check Clooney double standard

Alert: Ad hominem attack photo

Liberals like George Clooney are perfectly willing (even eager) to call president Trump a racist for wanting a border wall.  But when someone climbs over his wall, it's war.

“Over the last week photographers from Voici magazine scaled our fence, climbed our tree and illegally took pictures of our infants inside our home," George Clooney said in a statement. "Make no mistake the photographers, the agency and the magazine will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. The safety of our children demands it."

George: Listen. To. What. You. Are. Saying.

Now, do you see the double standard?

Susan Olsen and freedom of opinion

The lesson here: everyone is entitled to their opinion, they are just not entitled to voice it if it isn't politically correct. Or perhaps the true lesson - you should not live your life on Facebook.

Susan Olsen a.k.a. Cindy Brady of The Brady Bunch put a rant on her Facebook page, and it looks like it cost her the radio talk show job she was in.

The 55-year-old Donald Trump supporter, who served as a co-host on LA Talk Radio's show Two Chicks Talkin' Politics, reportedly wrote a now-deleted homophobic Facebook rant directed towards openly gay actor Leon Acord-Whiting.

The rant contained vulgarities directed at gay actor Leon Acord-Whiting. To be clear, it was not professional. But to also be clear it was:

(1) her opinion (the first amendment still exists, doesn't it?)

(2) outside of work in a Facebook setting (although arguably, related to her work)

(3) not directed at an entire community but rather an individual, using slurs based on his personal community identification.

But to be clear also, the actor acted not in kind but with slurs that cut across an entire half of the country, who supported Donald Trump - in other words his actions were bigoted across a group, hers were directed at an individual, using bigoted language.

The fued [sic] seems to have stemmed from Leon's own Facebook status, where he slams Susan for heated language about Hillary Clinton and the Koran, calling her a "Trump fanatic" and equating her statements to "idiotic lies."

Leon goes on to say that he will no longer appear on L.A. Radio until Susan is off the air, adding her opinions are "dangerous" and "unprofessional."

Because her opinions differed from his her opinions are dangerous and unprofessional. He ranted about it on Facebook instead of discussing it. She responded on Facebook. This is not conducive to a civil society. That's where Facebook fails utterly in helping society. It has become a platform for people to hurl insults from a distance. In addition it invites consequences for people unable to police themselves: your opinion is your own, if you share it in your personal space, you invite consequences in your professional life. That's not a failing of Facebook, it's a failing of people to understand the consequences of their actions.

I'm not suggesting Olsen be allowed to keep her job - the radio station (or network?) is of course allowed to exercise their judgement in determining whether an individual is beneficial or detrimental to their brand. And Olsen should have chosen her words more carefully. But that doesn't allow political correctness off the hook. If her opinion is discounted simply because it does not conform to societal norms then there is no freedom in society.

Furthermore, Leon Acord-Whiting has faced no such consequences concerning his vitriol about Trump supporters and opinions. Such a double standard will only serve to further alienate half the country who felt that their opinions were disregarded and elected Trump in the first place.

That fact seems to escape liberals who remain smugly steadfast in their belief that they are right about everything. As people find themselves on the 'wrong' side of any issue they will be forced to conform or be relegated to being racist/homophobic/anti-fill-in-the-blank/bitter clingers. More and more people will end up on the other side of the divide as their opinions become outcast. What is correct and allowable will grow ever smaller and more insular, and the trend towards Republican victories across America, will continue. Alternately, but far less likely given the American spirit, the country will conform to each new norm and there will be no real freedom of opinion, let alone expression.

Racist L.A. Clippers Owner, Democrat

No time to post today but I want to help point out that the media is all too willing to jump all over Cliven Bundy as a racist because he seems like a Tea Party type.  But as soon as a racist comment comes out a high profile rich guy, MBA team owner, who happens to be a Democrat, you have to go to a conservative website like National Review to get the subtext that racism is not a political problem, it's a personal problem.

Via NRO:

L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling, whom commentators have tried to tie to the Republican party after his alleged racist statements, is in fact a Democrat, according to campaign-contribution records.

Sterling is in hot water after TMZ released recordings purporting to be a weird psychosexual rant he directed at girlfriend V. Stiviano, accusing her of publicly associating with black people. The highly offensive comments have drawn condemnation from across the National Basketball Association as well as from many other sources; and inevitably, attempts have been made to link him to the Republican party. These appear to be based on campaign contribution records for a different Sterling, who lives in the state of Texas. Clippers owner Donald Sterling lives in Beverly Hills, has a long history of bigoted behavior in his Los Angeles business dealings, and according to a 2011 RealGM report, was a very occasional Democratic donor in the 1990s...

At the American Power blog, Donald Douglas has an extended discussion of Sterling’s donations to liberal causes and the left-leaning commentators who have lauded him in the past. At the time TMZ released its recording, Sterling was scheduled to receive a lifetime achievement award from the NAACP.

Unfortunately, a Democrat who is a racist goes against the meme that Democrats are the enlightened ones and conservative Republicans are mouth-breathing Neanderthals. Racists can exist in any political stripe. Just as those who oppose gay marriage may have a political issue but they aren't saying vile stuff like Alec Baldwin did. At least the left called Baldwin out on his slurs. But after showing up with the right people at the right event, Baldwin's image will be as right as rain. The same can't be said for anyone on the right. 

Double standards.

No R-S-P-E-C-T? Deflect.

A lot has been made in conservative media and blogs about the president not being able to spell out the title of the Aretha Franklin song "Respect".  It's fair to say that the reaction has been overblown - clearly it was just a flub.  It's also fair to say that there's a double standard in the media when it comes to giving the president a pass on it versus say Dan Quayle having done the same thing decades ago and because he was a Republican, having it turn into a federal crime.

But what is truly insidious about how presidential defenders try to use the opportunity to lash out and denigrate conservatives.  Maureen Dowd is typical in her defense of Obama.  In a recent NYT column, she intertwines the spelling error with the Ukraine situation and then starts bashing conservatives as a den of vipers, starting with the asinine assertion that foreign policy has suddenly become non-partisan, by quoting the president of the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. With a title like that, his comments have to be full of gravitas, don't they?

“What are you going to do, send the 101st Airborne into Crimea?” says Terry McCarthy, the president of the Los Angeles World Affairs Council. “The way Republicans are dumping on the president, saying anything short of Armageddon shows that he’s weak, is silly. It’s kind of shocking that foreign policy, which used to be nonpartisan, now becomes partisan so quickly.”

Excuse me?  Did she forget all of the "Bush lied,  people died." stuff?  The warmonger denouncements were reserved for only Bush, when Democrats voted to support war in Iraq too.  That was totally non-partisan?  Please Maureen spare us the phony indignation.

But she doesn't and uses that as a jumping off point to deflect the discussion of Obama's flaws (be they spelling-related or foreign policy related) by denigrating his political opposition.

More calculating conservatives pounced. Trying to rehabilitate himself, Marco Rubio told a CPAC audience here that America must “stand up to the spread of totalitarianism.”

Sarah Palin, who seems ever more viperish, deployed her Yoda syntax with Sean Hannity: “People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates.”

To Dowd, Rubio is merely calculating rather expressing a legitimate concern, and Palin is "viperish". That is clearly assigning motive those individuals. Ridicule your political opposition - Alinsky would be proud, but now that people know who Alinsky is, it won't work quite so well.