Benevolent to Bolshevik in a Heartbeat


It’s not so much that Republicans and Democrats look at the Mueller report and see different facts, it is that they have different definitions of the alleged crimes.

Mueller said “no collusion” and “I can’t figure out if there was obstruction or not in the exercise of Trump’e legitimate constitutional powers – but here’s 10 things we considered and the legal theories we tried to twist to fit and still couldn’t’ come to a conclusion. Maybe the Congressional Democrats know the law better than we do.”

Barr said “OK, we agree on the collusion and we adopted your definitions of obstruction, looked at them and the reason you can’t figure it out is because it didn’t happen – at least based on the evidence you cited.”

Republicans said, “OK, the AG is the chief law enforcement officer in the land and he and is team at the DOJ agree with Mueller’s two year investigation on collusion and as a matter of law, they say there was no obstruction. We accept their decision.”

Democrats say, “Not so fast. None of that agrees with our goal of forcing the president from office and we define the crimes differently. Even though the campaign got no help, they wanted to collude – they had the intent, they were just too stupid to do it and as for obstruction, happy people don’t obstruct justice and Trump was clearly very, very angry he was accused of something he knew he didn’t do, so therefore he must be guilty. We’re gonna substitute our judgment for that of the AG to keep this going and maybe still impeach the ORANGEMAN because ORANGEMANBAD.”

Let’s look at a couple of recent events where the Democrats were less than exacting in their definitions of the law, shall we?

First, how did they (Deep Stater and coup co-conspirators James Comey and Loretta Lynch) exonerate Hillary Clinton in the email debacle?

Why they determined that even though she did harm national security and violate the rules for handling classified materials, she didn’t mean to do so. Remember how that electronic records revealed that Peter Strzok changed the language from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless,” scrubbing a key word that could have had legal ramifications for Clinton. An individual who mishandled classified material could be prosecuted under federal law for “gross negligence.”

As a matter of law, gross negligence does not require “intent”. Negligence is the opposite of intent – intent requires action, negligence does not, it is a failure to take proper care in doing something but nevertheless, Comey exonerated Clinton, saying “I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent. That I could establish. What we can’t establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent.”

Now to a more recent event – remember the Senate Judiciary hearing for Brett Kavanaugh? Remember how the Democrats on the committee attacked the nominee, accusing him of being a drunk and a rapist? Remember how his passionate defense was taken as evidence that “he must have done something”?

Remember the Democrat logic? They said, “How dare he get angry at us for accusing him of excessive drinking, flashing, sexual harassment, running a rape ring without any evidence and trying to ruin his career, is reputation and his family! He just doesn’t have the right judicial temperament to be a Supreme Court Justice and if he is approved, the Supreme Court is illegitimate!”

Well, collusion did require intent – which was not established – and obstruction of justice requires more than a party being angry he is being accused of something he knew he didn’t do.

I don’t present this perspective to illustrate that Democrats have double standards to the point of having no standards at all – that is a fact well established, what this is an example of is the penchant for Democrats to implement arbitrary and capricious applications of the law, always designed to benefit their agenda. To them, the only standard is the one that gives them what they want – being inconsistent is no problem for them.

If they will do this to a president, they will have no problem doing it to you. It seems over used but this is a true example of Beria’s statement to Stalin of “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” to which the Democrats have added, “and guarantee the guilt.”

Scary stuff for anyone paying attention.

This is tyranny. Far from just being the party of government, the Democrats are proving themselves to be the party of TYRANNICAL government, cementing themselves as the last people a representative republic needs at the levers of power.

America needs to realize that Democrats can (and will) go from benevolent to Bolshevik in half a heartbeat.

What they are openly saying is that nothing is right unless WE say it is and the law means only what we say it does – and to make this even more frightful is that almost every one of the roughly 2,000 Democrat presidential candidates is pushing for more government control over our lives.

That’s not how this is supposed to work.

One thought on “Benevolent to Bolshevik in a Heartbeat

  1. The Lord help us never to let the democrats take over the Senate or the Presidency or American experiment in individual Christian liberty and Constitutional Republicanism is over. I might take a revolution of a kind to get it back.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.