The Envoy

Over the past six months, I have noted the significant increase in apocalyptic "climate change/climate crisis" articles that have appeared throughout the propaganda media (e.g., here, here, and here). Every day, "climate change"  has been accused of everything from hot temperatures in the month of August (generally hyperbole with other likely causes) or the catastrophic fires on the Island of Maui (provably false). This week, hurricane Idalia [1] moving through the Gulf will become all the rage among climate alarmists.

But the real question (as I've noted on other posts) is "why?" Why the sudden uptick in apocalyptic articles? Why the near-hysterical projections of everything from famine to death?

Some believe that the media is doing battlefield prep for an upcoming "climate emergency" declaration by the Biden administration. [2]  Such a declaration would give a cognitively-challenged Biden (well, actually, his anonymous puppet masters hidden deep in the West Wing) the ability to impose authoritarian mandates, lockdowns, and draconian industry regulations without congressional approval. These, much like their insane Covid counterparts, would do great damage to lives and livelihoods—and like their Covid counterparts, would do nothing to solve actual problems.

And yet, it seems those of us who have pushed back have had an impact. Except a relatively small cabal of climate change fanatics, the American public ranks climate change very low among its priorities. Maybe that's why Biden's climate envoy, John Kerry, has been dispatched by the anonymous puppet masters to demonize anyone with legitimate questions about their climate policies.

Ben Bartee reports:

The corporate state is intent, apparently, on ramping up its propaganda against so-called “climate deniers,” presumably to set the rhetorical groundwork for more extreme legal and social action against them in the future. So it dispatched something called its “climate envoy,” John Kerry, to Scotland with that aim.

Here is the most incendiary portion of his comments:

Without facts or economics on their side, they flatly deny what is happening to our planet and what we must do to save it. They incite a movement against what they falsely label ‘climate change fanaticism,’ as they conveniently forget that the dictionary definition of a cult is the dismissal of facts in devotion to a lie.

This is an obvious truism at this point, but, of course, I would be remiss not to point out that these people always do what they accuse their opponents of doing. Freud got it right. From the Hunter Biden laptop hoax to the “safe and effective” COVID vax lie, lying in the service of their various profiteering and social engineering projects is their modus operandi. Climate change is no exception.

The Left almost never engages in substantive debate with its opposition. It almost never tries to answer the questions [3] posed by its opponents; almost never examines the broad array of scientific and historical fact that refutes its claims; almost never provides context for its claims, and, almost never addresses the clear contradictions in its actions (e.g., Kerry's continuous use of private jet aircraft during what he characterizes as a "climate crisis"). The Left always engages in ad hominem attacks and bends an event so it fits the prevailing narrative (e.g., Maui fires were due to climate change), regardless of the true forcing function that precipitated the event.

But all of that is a given. If blue politicians at the federal level can't convince the broader public that we're in a climate crisis, they will do what the did during the Covid hysteria—use the broad array of communication sources that shill for their narrative and let fear, uncertainty, and doubt act as drivers to implement their authoritarian goals.

One thing is certain—climate envoys like Kerry or spokespeople like Bill Gates will continue to fly private, live in 20,000 square foot homes, and have access to the luxuries that the rest of us will no longer be able to afford. While the rest of us will be asked (no ... demanded) to take the hit for "the good of humanity." Yeah ... right.

FOOTNOTES:

[1]  James Freeman comments on this phenomenon when he writes:

Anticipating a possible tsunami of faulty media analysis, University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. writes at The Honest Broker on Substack:

Tropical storm Idalia is projected to make landfall in Florida in a few days. That means hurricane hype will no doubt be dialed up to 11.

“For those who’d like to be able to place that hype into the context of evidence and research,” the professor encourages “everyone, especially journalists,” to check out the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s overview of research on global warming and hurricanes.

The website, maintained by Tom Knutson, senior scientist at NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, states:

There is no strong evidence of century-scale increasing trends in U.S. landfalling hurricanes or major hurricanes... 

We conclude that the historical Atlantic hurricane data at this stage do not provide compelling evidence for a substantial greenhouse warming-induced century-scale increase in: frequency of tropical storms, hurricanes, or major hurricanes, or in the proportion of hurricanes that become major hurricanes. [emphasis mine]

[2]  Andy Kessler writes: [updated 09-04-2023]

Two years ago during Covid lockdowns, I wrote about climate control freaks, facetiously anticipating a future headline: “Bad CO2 Day, Lockdowns Enforced.” A joke that would never happen, right? Well . . .  

Last month President Biden was asked on the Weather Channel if he was ready to declare a national climate emergency and responded, “We’ve already done that.” Asked again if he declared a climate emergency, he said, “Practically speaking, yes.” There is no official emergency, but the president certainly thinks we need one. 

A quick review of their actions over the past few years indicates that Biden's party has normalized insanity—and make no mistake—apocalyptic climate hysteria is INSANITY. Now that insane policy positions are the norm, it's only a matter of time before authoritarian climate-related mandates become pervasive.

[3]  Here are just a few sample questions for Team Apocalypse on climate change:

• No one disputes that climate changes over time. Why do you imply that those who ask questions like the ones that follow, deny climate change?
• What percentage of world wide climate is directly impacted by anthropogenic activity?
• If the USA goes to a carbon neutral society, what impact will that have on world wide carbon levels?
• If the USA goes to a carbon neutral society, what short and mid-term economic impact will that have on the middle class? Follow-up: Where are the millions of green jobs that were already promised for the 2010s?
  
• Why are so many climate change proponents violently against nuclear energy, the only true CO2-free energy source that is provably reliable 24 hours a day?
  
• Why is it that climate projections in the 1970 indicated an upcoming ice age, but in the 21st century, those projections indicate global warming? Follow-up: If the earlier projects were wrong, why should we trust current projections?
• Why is it that climate change models cannot accurately predict worldwide temperatures or ocean levels today when they are fed inputs from 40 years ago? Follow-up: Given that, why should we believe their projects for the next 40 years?
• Assuming that every model is correct (they are not, but let's assume), why is a very slow change projected over 40 to 100 years deemed an "emergency" or "crisis?" Follow-up: Why is the human ability to adapt to very slow change never factored into this discussion?
• Cold kills far more humans worldwide than heat. Why are warmer temperatures considered such a bad thing? 
• Why is it that the strongest celebrity and political proponents of a "climate crisis" do not act in a way that demonstrates they believe a crisis is imminent? For example: private jet travel, mansions, multiple homes.

UPDATE-1:

It's truly fascinating. Climate Change and Covid are two different forms of manufactured hysteria that just keep happening—over and over and over again. For that reason, the two topics are rapidly becoming interchangeable. Alex Berenson writes:

This morning, The New York Times (08-28-2023) announced a “Late-Summer Covid Wave Brings Warning of More To Come.”

Yes, that was THIS MORNING’S headline.

The Covidians are like five-year-olds hanging on to their favorite stuffy. They know they’re too old for Sarsie the unicorn, she’s beaten up and filthy and the thread is hanging out and their friends are making fun of them for her. But they just can’t give her up, not with school coming.

What a wonderful metaphor. Same is true for Climate Change. It's like 3-year olds' "blankie." Something that's dragged around the house by a small children, changing shape as it frays along the edges, but still something that makes them feel really, really good. At the same time, really, really frightened when they're not sure that blankie will protect them from the monster they think is under the bed. Switching to a Biden whisper:  the monster isn't real.

UPDATE-2 (09-02-2023):

Team Apocalypse and their elected representatives in the Democratic party are often so hypocritical things become silly. Here's an irresistible meme that conflates deep-blue NYC's new regulations on mom & pop pizza places and John Kerry's private jet. Enjoy:

Here's a thought for the Biden administration. Since we're in a "climate crisis" and must act quickly to stop "global boiling,"why not issue an executive order that bans all government travel by private jet. After all, we've got to save the planet, don't we?

UPDATE-2 (09-02-2023):

And then, of course, there are the "climate crisis" predictions that come hot and heavy but are proven wrong 98% percent of the time. Team Apocalypse knows that scary predictions, regardless of how ridiculous and/or incorrect, frighten enough impressionable people to make them a clear winner.

Here's CNN (a charter member of Team Apocalypse) in 2018 and again in 2022:

I'm pretty sure that at least 20 of the 245 people who still watch the idiots on CNN threw away their scuba gear back in 2018 ... and now regret it. Then again, I suspect that of those 20 people, 19 are celebrating the second headline as evidence of John Kerry's massive success in saving the planet—and in only 4 years!

Do Not Ask!

As I've noted in many other posts over the past few years, Donald Tump is at least partly to blame for allowing the authoritarian Covid mask mandates proposed by federal agencies. He didn't more forcefully resist the lock down suggestions in which "15-days to stop the spread" morphed quickly into months, and in some situations, years. 

On the other hand, it's now Trump who is keeping the trained hamsters in the propaganda media focused on covering his indictments, rather than ginning up public hysteria over the latest Covid variant. Even so, when they have a free moment, the media is working to revitalize Team Apocalypse, and as a consequence, there are whispers from catastrophists about re-instituting mask mandates.* Even more concerning, some institutions have already begun.

The editors of the I&I Editorial Board comment:

The summer surge of COVID-19 has some wondering aloud if we should return to mask mandates. For now, the official line, despite the media effort to rekindle coronavirus hysteria, is that it’s unlikely. But we heard that before, in 2020, right before public health officials dropped their mask tyranny on us. If they do it again, we have an obligation to say no.

Are we calling for civil disobedience? Are we suggesting that Americans resist orders that are not laws but are instead decrees issued by despots? Absolutely, and without reservation.

Masks are dehumanizing. When we cover our faces, we no longer look like people. We look like monsters, freaks from bad science fiction movies. Half-blank faces stare back at us as our ability to communicate is skewed. A masked society is a hideous society.

When we wear masks because we are told to, we subjugate ourselves, surrender our agency to others. We symbolically kneel before abusive authorities that should have no authority over us. Are we free people or are we subordinates to politicians and an administrative structure that has accrued illegitimate power?

Masks project fear. Who wants to live in a world that is frightened, driven by panic, hiding behind a facade of protection? It was demoralizing to see the extremes that people went to to cover their faces during the pandemic. (Some of those in the video referenced here were clearly using caricatures to spoof the mandates, but we don’t need those again, either.)

Masks are vehicles for virtue signaling. Many wear them as demonstrations of their moral superiority – they care so much. Government officials find a perverse pleasure in decreeing mask mandates – because they care so much. Masked busybodies have accosted, sometimes violently, the unmasked, who simply want to exercise their liberty.

For all the fighting, some of it literal, as we just noted, over masking, there’s no evidence that mask mandates work.

Relying on masks to stop the spread of a virus is a lot like relying on a baseball cap to stop mosquitos from biting as the sun goes down. The former has been demonstrated not to work and the later is silly, just like mandates for masks are silly.

The best comment on masks I've seen in while comes from "Ron" who channels Dr. Zuess when he rhymes:

I will not wear it on my face.
I will not wear it anyplace.
I will not wear it to get in.
I will not wear it on my chin.
I will not wear it on my ear.
I will not wear it out of fear.
I will not wear your stupid mask.
I will not wear it.
DO NOT ASK!

And neither will I. 

FOOTNOTE:

*  The entertainment industry was a charter member of Team Apocalypse and was at the forefront of implementing draconian and long-lasting mask mandates. Sharyl Attkisson reports on recent developments: 

Hollywood studio Lionsgate is returning to mask mandates for many of its employees amid rising Covid-19 cases reported in Los Angeles.

In an internal email obtained by Deadline, response manager for Lionsgate/Starz Sommer McElroy said that employees at its flagship office in Santa Monica will be required to wear a medical grade face covering, such as a surgical mask a or a KN95 or N95 mask.

Employees must wear the mask unless they are alone in an office with the door closed, actively eating, actively drinking at their work area, or if they are the only individual present in a large open workspace, according to the emailed memo.

Studio employees must also perform a daily self-screening prior to coming to the office. If the employee is showing symptoms of Covid-19, they are required to stay home and notify McElroy. They must also stay home if they have traveled internationally in the last 10 days.

It's worth noting that the Covid strain that Lionsgate is so, so worried about is the weakest of the bunch. It's also worth noting that Covid represents statistically almost no threat to the 20 to 40 year old age bracket—the dominant age group employed by Lionsgate.

I would hope this is just one hysterical executive at one deep-blue company, but you never know. Team Apocaylpse normalized insanity during 2020 and 2021, and it pops up again and again like a malignant and noxious weed.

Echos in the Distance

The left wing majority of the Democratic Party began its current political viciousness with the upset of their female icon, Hillary Clinton, and the election of Donald Trump. As they saw their grip on executive power disappear after 2016 election, they called upon their covert operatives within the DoJ, the FBI and the three letter intelligence agencies to destroy the object of their hatred, aided by their trained hamsters in the propaganda media. Hillary's people created the Russian collusion hoax, subcontracting its execution over to the DoJ, the FBI, and others within the deep state. The propaganda media ran with it, creating lies that are still believed by many Democrats to this day.

But the real viciousness began as the Dems realized they were losing their grip on SCOTUS. Their repugnant behavior during the Bret Kavanaugh hearings, where they tried (and failed) to destroy a good man's reputation and life with preposterous accusations. Their behavior indicated just how craven they could be. I commented on it at the time (e.g., here, here, and here).

And yesterday, in what can only be characterized as yet another vicious (maybe "craven" is a better adjective) move, Fulton County DA Fani Wallace (an elected Democrat in a Democratic stronghold) demanded that an ex-President of the United States be made to stand for a mug shot and post bail for a legally laughable RICO indictment that smacks more of political retribution than observance of the "rule of law." 

I'm sure that many Dems cheered as the object of their hatred was humiliated, but I also suspect that at least a few felt uneasy. Those few recognize that with each line that is crossed, with each time the political viciousness is ratcheted upward, with each attempt to destroy a political opponent, the phrase "retribution" echos in the distance.

And for those morons who crow on CNN or MSNBC, or write in the NYT and WaPo, or compose long pseudo-intellectual articles lauding the "rule of law" being applied to "threats to democracy" in the Nation or The Atlantic, a word of caution might be in order. 

Now that lines have been crossed. Now that precedent has been obliterated. Now that ex-presidents are paraded into a jail and forced to post bail. Now that mug shots are gleefully published across the land, the echos of the old aphorism—Revenge is a dish best served cold—can be heard ever so faintly moving across a future political landscape. 

And when retribution happens—and it will—the same morons who celebrate political viciousness today will scream bloody murder and argue that their opponents are to be condemned for their acts of retribution. They'll forget that they are the ones who crossed the lines and obliterated past precedent, establishing a new viciousness that is anything but just. 

And although the retribution that is sure to come will be very bad for our country, at some level many of us will experience schadenfraude as the past perpetrators of the new viciousness get to experience it first hand.

Imagine

Imagine these things:

• a large family whose patriarch is a well-known political figure who was Senator and then Vice President, 
• family members set up 20 off-shore shell companies that don't have any obvious business purpose,
  
• a large number of family members have received high dollar payments from the shell companies,
• one family member, the son of the patriarch, has received multi-million dollar "jobs" from foreign companies, yet has no demonstrated skill set to offer in doing those jobs,
• the son's business has also received multi-million dollar payments from foreign nationals, but has provided no obvious or recorded services that are commensurate with those payments, 
• the patriarch publicly admitted that while VP he pressured a foreign company to fire an anti-corruption prosecutor who was investigating one of his son's foreign benefactors, this against the advice of the DoJ at that time,
  
• hard evidence indicates that the son traveled with his father (on government aircraft) to locales that later paid the son large sums for ... well ... for seemingly very little,
• hard evidence also indicates that the father participated in many "business" phone calls with the very foreigners who send large sums of money to the son, 
• hard evidence indicates that the patriarch met with the son's often shady foreign clients for dinner at swank Washington, DC restaurants,
  
• credible witnesses and a congressional investigation produced emails that implied that the patriarch would receive 10% of all funds paid to the son and his business partners,
• evidence indicates that while in public office, the patriarch used at least one and possibly three secret email accounts with aliases to hide his identity,
• a variety of government agencies and the DoJ have worked overtime to protect the patriarch, to silence discussion of the things noted in this list, and to make his son's problems go away, 
• those same DoJ partisans are scrambling to protect the patriarch when the wayward son's lawyers threaten to make the patriarch testify for the defense if criminal charges are brought against the son,
• lawyers for the son are constructing legal roadblocks in an attempt to preclude access to offshore bank transactions that undoubtedly show money transfers from shell companies to members of the family and likely would indicate a money trail leading to the patriarch,
  
• the patriarch reported a net worth under one million dollars before he left office as VP, but then reported a net worth of $16 million in the following year with no obvious source for such a rapid growth in wealth,
• the patriarch has lied repeatedly about his knowledge and participation in the family business.
  

Here's the thing ... you don't have to imagine any of this—these revelations are happening right now, and the Biden family is at the center of it.

 

Do you think there might be something suspicious and potentially criminal going on with the patriarch and his family? Do you think that legitimate journalists at supposedly prestigious media sources might have some interest in investigating the patriarch and his family more thoroughly? Do you think the DoJ is handling this as they would for just any other crime family? Do you think that the patriarch's political party would smell the stench of corruption (at a minimum) and work covertly to ease the patriarch out of office?

Yet, here we have Joe Biden—the patriarch—defended by his political party and protected by a complicit media. It's not as if Biden has done a good job in his current role. He has not. It's not as if Biden is a problem solver, a clear thinker, and a charismatic leader. He is not. And yet, his party (at least at the moment) intends to run the man for a second term as president. Amazing!

UPDATE:

John Kass comments on patriarch Joe Biden's penchant for lying and the media's penchant for defending him when he does so.

Left wing corporate media covered for Biden Inc. They fronted Joe’s lie that Hunter Biden’s laptop from hell was Russian disinformation, though it was not. The media helped him ride that one through the election. What we know now is that Biden Inc. picked up reported tens of millions of dollars in bribes from China, Ukraine, etc.

Joe Biden lied about Hunter. We all know it now. Even the fools of CNN and MSNBC must admit it.

He lied that the laptop was Russian disinformation. He lied when insisting he knew nothing about Hunter’s business deals. He lied when it was finally revealed that Hunter had put him on the phone with sleazy clients at least 20 times, according to witness testimony before Congress.

The Democrats protected him and threatened to imprison those who oppose them politically.

Even his trained hamsters in the propaganda media have developed small teeth, now pointing out at least a few of Joe's lies. It looks like the Democrat powers that be have become worried. Joe's abysmal poll numbers, his obvious dementia, and his administration's abject incompetence are all red flags. It may be that quietly the word has gone out—it's time for Joe to go. One can only hope.

The Tyrany of the Minority

In a recent interview, Vivek Ramaswamy, one of the most thoughtful and qualified candidates for the GOP presidential nomination, used the phrase, "the tyranny of the minority," as a description of our current era. I'll get to that in a moment, but first, a brief comment on Ramaswamy.

Unlike those candidates with political backgrounds in both parties, Vivek comes from the private sector, has already accomplished much in his young life, and speaks his mind without regard for focus groups or polling. That's unusually refreshing, even if you don't agree with every view he expresses. 

Compare Vivek to the Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, who is continually isolated from questioning, and due to serious and growing cognitive disability, cannot string three coherent sentences together without a teleprompter. Or compare Vivek to a 'waiting-in-the-wings' backup like Gov. Gavin Newsom, a smarmy politician who says all the right things to galvanize his base , but has accomplished little to make CA a better place to live.

Sadly, Ramaswamy has little chance to win the presidential nomination, and that's a real shame, but his insight into the current state of our country and what we have to do to correct our trajectory is worth considering. But back to the "tyranny of the minority."

Since our era is characterized by both the tyranny of the minority and the rise of A.I., I decided to see what ChatGPT has to say on the subject. Here's an unedited response from the generative, pre-trained transformer:

The tyranny of the minority refers to a situation in which a small group of individuals exert a disproportionate amount of influence or control over a larger population. This concept can be observed in both social and political contexts, where a minority holds significant power, often at the expense of the majority's interests or preferences.

In modern political discourse, the tyranny of the minority manifests itself in various ways. One example is the use of filibustering or obstructionist tactics by a minority party or group to block or delay legislative action. By leveraging their power in this manner, they can impede the majority's agenda, resulting in political gridlock and stalling necessary reforms.

Another manifestation of the tyranny of the minority is the influence of special interest groups. These groups, representing a narrow set of interests, often exert significant control over policymakers through their financial resources or lobbying activities. Consequently, policies and legislation may be biased in favor of these minority interests, neglecting the broader concerns and needs of the majority.

Furthermore, social media platforms have provided a platform for vocal minority groups to amplify their voices and sway public opinion. Through online mobilization, these individuals can exert pressure on decision-makers, demanding policy changes that align with their beliefs, sometimes disproportionately overshadowing the will of the majority.

The tyranny of the minority violates the principles of democratic governance that aim to ensure the representation and protection of the majority. It undermines the idea that policy decisions should be guided by the collective will and best interests of the majority population. Instead, it grants undue influence to smaller groups that may not reflect the broader diversity of perspectives and needs within society.

Not a bad description, actually. In this era, the tyranny of the minority is indeed exemplified by "the influence of special interest groups ... representing a narrow set of interests, [who] often exert significant control over policymakers through their financial resources or lobbying activities." Because they are able to make the most noise, many of these special interest groups work in concert with a propaganda media to influence everything from the meaning of specific words, to the structure of language, to the veracity of scientific findings, to what we should and shouldn't eat, to which historical figures should effectively be erased from public consciousness, to how we enforce the law, to what is culturally acceptable behavior, to what speech is allowed and what speech is censored. 

There are, of course, minority groups on both sides of the political spectrum (think: anti-abortion fanatics on the right or climate change catastrophists on the left) that want their world view to be imposed on the rest of us. But only activist groups on one the side of the political spectrum get the support of major propaganda media outlets (e.g., the NYT, WaPo, LAT, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC ... ). In addition, it seems that only activists on the left gain support among agencies within the deep state and get help spreading their message widely within most social media and many "enlightened" corporations and agencies. This allows them to achieve "communication range," i.e., their message spreads widely and gains a sense of validity that is not supported by its actual content or by any objective consideration of the facts.

In many cases, the tyranny espoused by one activist group comes into direct conflict with the tyranny espoused by another, leading to comical and often irrational results. During the height of Covid hysteria in 2020 (and yes, the tyranny of a minority comprised of the medical establishment, deep state agencies, pliable politicians, and a complicit mainstream and social media imposed unscientific policies that lead to broader societal hysteria), one activist group condemned a large gathering of bikers in Sturgis, SD suggesting it was a "super-spreader" event. Another activist minority argued that the BLM protests and riots during the same time-period would not become super-spreader events. All you could do was shake your head and smile.

It is true that our country was founded as a constitutional republic because the founders recognized the danger of "a tyranny of the majority." At that time in history and for two centuries thereafter, the minority did not have a megaphone, and as a consequence, the majority could and sometimes did streamroll the minority. But today, the minority has a megaphone that is out of all proportion to their positions and their moral claims, giving them disproportional influence that is not in the interest of a civil society or our country as a whole.

UPDATE:

People are beginning to notice the tyranny discussed in this post. 

In an open letter published in the San Francisco Chronicle, John ChaChas, a local business leader writes:

San Francisco now suffers from a “tyranny of the minority” —behavior and actions of the few that jeopardize the livelihood of the many. The ramifications of COVID policies advising people to abandon their offices are only beginning to be understood. Equally devastating have been a litany of destructive San Francisco strategies, including allowing the homeless to occupy our sidewalks, to openly distribute and use illegal drugs, to harass the public and to defile the city’s streets. Such abject disregard for civilized conduct makes San Francisco unlivable for its residents, unsafe for our employees, and unwelcoming to visitors from around the world. 

The blue governance model that gives far too much weight to minority positions espoused by relatively small activist groups is effectively destroying what was once one of the most beautiful cities on the planet. This has to be stopped.

https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1692282708397863374?s=20https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1692282708397863374?s=20

The Line

Fulton County (GA) District Attorney, Fani Wallace, is the new "it girl" among Trump haters nationwide. Willis, who BTW is a Democratic partisan, has indicted Donald Trump using the RICO statute. Normally reserved for murderous MS-13 gang members or Mafia bosses, Wallace has decided that it's appropriate to indict a former POTUS because he's a loud mouth and a sore loser. Of course, if that criteria were applied in the past, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton and GA's own Stacy Abrams) would have starring roles in a remake of Orange is the New Black.

Wallace's indictment is the last of four criminal actions against Trump in less than six months. Funny how quickly the justice system can work its magic when the right political target appears. Each of these indictments would make Lavrentiy Beria, a ruthless police official serving in Joseph Stalin's Russia, smile knowingly. Beria once said, "Show me the man, and I'll give you the crime." As Americans, I was thought we were better than that. Apparently not.

During this travesty, Wallace's many dreamy-eyed supporters will sanctimoniously intone "no man is above the law" and/or "equal justice under the law" as they proceed to make a mockery of the law. They act like vicious, petulant children who have no understanding of the long term consequences that their strategy will precipitate and no care about the damage it will do to the country.

In a recent Tweet, Justin Amash, comments on this (talking about Indictment #3):

Like Amash, I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but the manner in which the DoJ and local DAs have brought politically motivated indictments crosses a line that should not be crossed.

As Amash states, over our history, presidents have: 

• made consequential errors in judgement, 
• established policies that did little good and real harm, 
• knowingly and repeatedly lied, nominated people who were incompetent or corrupt,
• countenanced unethical acts to retain their political power, 
• embraced plausible deniability as criminal acts were conducted so that they would maintain their power and control, 
• paid hush money or granted other favors to bury unacceptable behavior, 
• even sold their influence to the highest bidder. 

Yet, until now and in all of these instances, we did NOT indict them—we voted them out of office, or in the extreme, as president we impeach them and convict via a vote in the Senate. Let history be their judge.

Now, the rules have changed. The vicious, petulant children argue that this change is situational, that Donald Trump is such a baaad man that it's okay to indict, convict, and imprison him in this instance. But a line has been crossed. What goes around will come around—even if the petulant children are too ignorant of human nature and history to recognize it.

UPDATE-1:

In actuality, "the line" was crossed when a partisan NY DA (who ran for election on getting the ex-president) indicted Trump for a hush money payoff in April. Had adults within the Democratic party pumped the brakes and counseled party members to consider what they were doing, things may have gone back to some semblance of normal. But that didn't happen and the line has subsequently been crossed three more times, each indictment more vicious than its predecessor. The following tweet excerpt from @martyrmade may seem a bit melodramatic, but I think it may be sadly accurate:

... what we're seeing is the most naked use of power in the political process since the Civil War.

... There really is no coming back from this. Regimes don't resort to these tactics "just this once," because once you cross that line you can't risk handing over power to someone who might hold you responsible for it. We're in a transition phase to a totally different country right now, and what comes out the other end is hard to predict.

I believe that there are good people in the Democratic Party who are uncomfortable with all of this. But even those people have convinced themselves that it's "just this once" because Donald Trump is akin to Hitler in their fevered imagination. 

Re-read @martyrmade's second paragraph. It won't be "just this once" for the reason he asserts.

Nothing good will come out of this, no matter what happens to Donald Trump.

UPDATE-2:

Reviews of Fani Wallace's legal work are coming in fast and furiously. Needless to say, some law professors, members of a leftist community that hate Donald Trump with a venom, think that the DA's indictment rivals the Magna Carta for legal brilliance and historical relevance. But we've seen legal experts and more than a few professor's face plant on a variety of legal and scientific issues over the past six years. 

It's far better to trust the opinion of a man who has the courage to swim against conventional (and often dead wrong) opinion and more importantly, has been correct in his critiques and opinions while the "experts" have not. That man is Alex Berenson. He writes:

The bizarre legal martyrdom of Donald Trump entered a new phase Monday night.

The new indictment of Trump - and 18 other defendants - in Fulton County, Georgia overreaches absurdly both on legal theory and the facts it offers to back the charges.

It tries to criminalize speech, including public statements. It pretends a random array of events, many of which did not even involve Georgia, make a criminal conspiracy. Among the “overt acts” it includes is a text message from Trump’s chief of staff asking for the phone numbers of two Pennsylvania legislators.

Yes, that’s the entire “act.” No, I’m not making this up. I wish I were.

The indictment is a stunning abuse of prosecutorial discretion, made worse because federal prosecutors brought an indictment covering similar ground two weeks ago.

Yet if the indictment is a joke, its stakes could not be higher. It risks throwing the 2024 election into chaos and inciting political and societal disorder even more than Trump’s other indictments.

I can't judge the legal quality of Wallace's work, but you don't have to be a law professor to recognize her "stunning abuse of prosecutorial discretion." Her blatant bias in bringing these RICO charges for a politician's words, no matter how objectionable, is breathtaking, particularly because the words did not result in any change to the election result.

For almost two years, Georgia native Stacy Abrams claimed that her loss (by 50K votes!) in a GA gubernatorial election was a fraud, that recount after recount should be conducted, and that the elected Governor of GA was illegitimate. Where was Fani Wallace then? Where was the RICO indictment? I suppose Fani exercised the prosecutorial discretion she somehow forgot about this time. Pathetic.

UPDATE-3 (08-16-2023):

In a long essay written by John Kass, there's an excerpt that captures the consequences of the lawfare that we're seeing wielded by the Democrats, their many partisan allies in the "justice" system, far too many apparatchiks within the deep state, and especially, their trained hamsters in the propaganda media. Kass writes:

And after the Democrats use the law as their weapon, and criminalize political speech and encouraged by their media cheerleaders, then what? Won’t Republicans demand the same? Of course they will. They’re itching for it now, aren’t they? Grabbing for the tomahawks and war clubs just like our nation’s forefathers did in the French and Indian War.

The way the Bolsheviks devoured the Mensheviks in Russia.

Trump is also pushing for angry confrontation–I’m not saying he wants violent confrontation, just angry–but Democrats and their prosecutors who ignore some violent crimes in big cities are herding the rest with sharp sticks and spears. Pushing Republicans around with sharp sticks might just work in the short term.

People who know me know I love dogs. I’d never hurt a dog. But most dogs will cower if you provide enough pain. Even tough dogs. Sooner or later you’ll run into one dog that obeys instantly and waits. And when you turn your head, that dog is ready for you and you won’t have time to scream.

There are millions of citizens who are being treated as if they are dogs by owners that hate them. Their "owners" tell them they're stupid, or bigoted, or unwilling to change and accept the many new narratives that they are not allowed to question.Their owners warn that they may be imprisoned if they protest too aggressively, or they may be fired from their jobs if they refuse to accept certain authoritarian government health mandates.

The "dogs" have allowed their owners to treat them badly for some time, metaphorically cowering until they've had enough. And then ... the owners just might experience the unexpected. The dogs will no longer cower, will no longer take it, and the end result? One thing is certain ... it won't be pretty. 

UPDATE-4 (08-17-2023):

The undeniable viciousness of each unprecedented and politically-motivated criminal indictment of a past president has become a new normal—celebrated by elites who despise him, elements of the deep state who were threatened by him, and the Democratic party and their trained hamsters in the propaganda media who demonize him. 

As the new normal sets in, as lines are crossed and then crossed again, most thinking people understand this is a tragedy that divides our country, damages trust in our institutions, and threatens any respect for the rule of law. 

But as in all things political, the tragedy ultimately devolves into farce. Enter the satirical conservative website, The Babylon Bee, that writes:

The Biden administration released a forceful statement declaring that their prosecution of political opponents was being performed in a very democratic fashion. "Yes, we jail political opponents just like in a banana republic - but the prosecutors are appointed by elected officials. It's all very democratic," explained the White House. "Our economic, political, military and moral decline has all been overseen by representatives chosen by a cabal of wealthy elites - but elites who also won elections that citizens could participate in. Those are the facts our critics do not want to admit."

President Biden has reportedly brushed off all mention of "banana republic" criticisms. "People keep saying we're a ‘banana republic,'" he said when questioned by the media. "I've never agreed with that. If we are a banana republic, where are the banana trees? Pure malarkey. A taco republic, or maybe a hamburger republic, you could talk me into."

At publishing time, the White House continued to deny allegations that the country has fallen to the level of a banana republic and threatened to jail anyone who claimed otherwise.

Laugh or cry—the events of the past six months are a farce of epic proportions.

Four Lies

A recent annotated memo from the Chairman of the House Oversight Committee provides still more evidence of Biden family corruption with a clear indication that Joe Biden was involved in it directly. Bank records (during the period that Biden was VP under Barack Obama) prove that off-shore shell companies established by the Biden family had a $20 million dollar income stream. The obvious intent of those companies was to act as a conduit for monies raised as part of an influence peddling operation trading on Joe Biden's position and name. Monies from China, Ukraine, Russia, Kazakstan, and Romania flowed into the shell companies. Each of these entities wanted to tap into influence wielded by the "Biden Brand."

After money was transferred into the shell companies, it was then transferred again to members of the Biden family—Biden's son, Hunter, his brother, Jim, his daughter-in-laws and others. In return for these six- and seven-figure transfers, Joe Biden had dinner with representatives from the aforemented countries. We can only guess what favors he granted, what policy decisions were reached to benefit these "donors," and how those favors or policy decisions may have hurt U.S. taxpayers and/or damaged U.S. foreign policy. Oddly, Biden publicly admitted to one act—demanding the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating corruption at Burisma, a multimillion dollar benefactor of his son, Hunter.

As this corruption comes to light, the anonymous left-wing cabal that does Biden's decision making desperately needs to keep him in power (so that they can run the country). Over the past 24 months, they have crafted a series of evolving lies in an attempt to effect a cover-up.

Lie #1. Joe Biden never spoke to his son about his business.  Morphed into:

Lie #2. Joe Biden never met with anyone associated with his son's business and had no knowledge of any dealings with foreign actors. Morphed into:

Lie #3. Joe Biden did speak with Hunter's business partners and the foreign actors who paid big bucks for access, but he only spoke about "pleasantries." Morphed into:

Lie #4. Joe Biden never "received a check" from any person or entity connected with his son’s  business. (Note—that assertion does not preclude receiving money via funds transfer, rent payments, or another method of money laundering.)

Each of these lies implies that allowing your family to participate in an unethical enrichment scheme that involves you, uses your name and position, and suggests that you will use your name and position to do the bidding of those who are  transferring large amounts of money to members of your family, is okay – as long as there is "no check" received by you. 

As more hard facts are discovered and reported in the coming months by the House Oversight Committee, the four lies noted earlier will morph yet again. They will be modified, extended, and massaged in a laughably outrageous attempt to gaslight the public and obfuscate behavior that is patently corrupt. 

Among those on the left, this may be acceptable behavior, as long as their grasp on power is maintained. But I suspect the vast majority of Americans will have problems with it.

UPDATE-1:

Embarrassed by a plea deal for Hunter Biden that was so weak that even the judge rejected it, AG Merrick Garland has been forced to name David Weiss, as "special counsel," to "investigate" Hunter's case further. That would be the same David Weiss who approved the plea deal (to the utter delight of Hunter's lawyers), allowed the statute of limitations to lapse on Hunter's even more serious crimes, limited the investigating by establishing strict guardrails that precluded any investigation of father Joe, and otherwise slow-walked the entire investigation over the past five years.

We've come to a point were the blatant chutzpa of Garland's and Weiss' actions are no longer surprising. It's protect the corrupt Biden Crime Family and Joe Biden at all cost—delay, obfuscate, impede congressional inquiries, co-op an already biased propaganda media, attack first amendment freedoms—whatever it takes.

Already a travesty, this sad (and infuriating) episode is yet another indication that the rule of law is enforced in an arbitrary and partisan manner. To my knowledge, not a single national Democrat has aggressively questioned the ethics or propriety of Joe Biden's proven behavior in this influence peddling and enrichment scheme. Not one.

UPDATE-2:

The Democrats are scrambling to gaslight the imp-lication of the Biden scandal. Inveterate liar Adam Schiff (D-CA) has been replaced by another inveterate liar, Dan Goldman (D-NY) who said this about the rejection of Hunter's plea deal during a CNN (where else?) interview:

... that's why this plea agreement has broken down, because of the threat of Donald Trump's weaponization of the Department of Justice if he were to become president.

Goldman, of course, is not alone in suffering from TDS, but exhibits the Democratic party's passion for psychological projection. During the past six years, the DoJ has been weaponized by Democrat partisans within the DoJ, the FBI, and the intelligence community. Proof? Every aspect of the Russia Collusion Hoax is provably false, perpetrated knowlingly by executives within the FBI and authored by Hillary Clinton's people. The Biden investigation has been slow-walked for the past 5 years by the DoJ, delayed until the Statute of Limitations ran out on some crimes. The Biden laptop story was dishonestly and knowingly labelled as "Russian disinformation" by past intelligence community big wigs. And Goldman is worried about "weaponization" ... by Trump? LMAO.

UPDATE-3 (08-14-2023):

Victor Davis Hansen dissects Biden family as only a trained historian can do (read the whole thing). Here's a pull quote:

The Biden familial mediocrities had nothing to offer shady wealthy foreign interests other than they were not only related to the Vice President of the United States, but also could guarantee that Joe Biden had no scruples whatsoever, and so even while in office he would call or meet his son’s associates to substantiate Hunter’s promises of favorable diplomatic or business treatment from the Obama—or a future Biden—administration. Note Biden seemed to have no worries whether his family’s lobbying of Ukraine, Russia, or China was in conflict with the interests of his own country.

And so deals were cut, millions were rerouted to Biden accounts to avoid scrutiny, and the Biden clan got rich off Joe’s offices and his son’s rank criminality. Joe’s adjusted gross income on his 2016 return of $396,456 soared on his 2017 return to more than $11 million. [emphasis mine] No one knows whether these or any of Biden’s returns showed reported income commensurate with what either he actually received or with his lavish lifestyle, bank accounts, and his multiple expensive homes.

For those Democrats and their trained hamsters in the propaganda media who are trying desperately to tell the rest of us that this scandal is a big nothingburger, one very simple question: How did Joe Biden see his AGI rise from $396K to >$11,000,000 in the year after he left office as VP? He didn't have a major lucrative book deal; he gave speeches, but how many, he didn't have a legitimate business, he may have had some investments that hit home runs ... but a 27x increase in AGI in one year-- puleeze!

Joe Biden is corrupt—full stop. The Democratic party should insist that he not run in 2024 and retire. It is unlikely that he will be indicted, given his party affiliation and the general bias of the DoJ. That's not equal justice, and it's not fair. He'll be allowed to enrich himself and his family at the cost of the taxpayers and the country, and that's not fair. He'll be lauded as an elder statesman and a loving father, and that's not fair. He'll skate, and that's not fair. But no one ever said life is fair.

UPDATE-4 (08-15-2023):

On a tangential matter, Peter Savodnik writes:

Democrats insist President Joe Biden—who would be 82 if he’s sworn in for a second term and 86 if he finishes it—will be their nominee next year. “President Biden remains a healthy, vigorous, 80-year-old male, who is fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency,” the White House physician, Kevin O’Connor, said in February. [Personally, I would do a background check on Dr. O'Conner's credentials, but that's just me :)]

... to the voters of all political stripes who fear the country is mired in its own Leonid Brezhnev moment—with a doddering head of state propped up by loyalists terrified of losing power—you’re (we’re) not crazy. You’re just a normal person and not a fixture of the Democratic establishment whose future earnings capacity depends on your willingness to pretend up is down and hope that America skates through a presidential election and another four-year term without any major hiccups.

Let's assume for just a moment that the GOP base is foolish enough to award Donald Trump with the presidential nomination for 2024. It may be that the Democrat establishment recognizes that whoever they run against Trump—including a corrupt, cognitively disabled Joe Biden—will win the general election despite the disastrous policies, economy, and ineffective governance that have characterized the Democrat administration from 2021 to 2024. Biden will win against Trump because Trump cannot and will not expand his base beyond his faithful. Maybe that's why the Dems' genius strategy is playing out so well.

I just hope that once Trump wins the nomination, assuming he does, the Dems will do a 'bait and switch,' dump Biden, and run someone who can think clearly, speak coherently, and does not have the distinct stench of corruption associated with him and his family.

Hunga-Tonga

Even the Wall Street Journal news section—decidedly more left-leaning than its editorial section—has embraced climate hysteria, telling us:

July was Earth’s hottest month on record, surpassing the global monthly average temperature record set in July 2019, according to data from the Copernicus Climate Change Service, a European Union-funded scientific agency. The heat blanketed parts of North America, Asia and Europe as wildfires blazed in Greece and Canada, hitting economies. Water shortages and high humidity affected parts of the Middle East. Residents in China contended with both extreme flooding and a heat wave as the country set a new national temperature record. All this came on the heels of the world’s hottest June on record.

This message has been the drumbeat of the propaganda media for the entire summer. We're supposed to believe a hot summer is a harbinger of the apocalypse, must like COVID would kill us all unless we hid in our basements, wore masks, locked down businesses, took ineffective injections, closed schools, and otherwise expressed irrational fear as a form of virtue signalling.

Ever heard of Hunga-Tonga, an underwater volcano that erupted in the South Pacific last year? Probably not. It didn't get much coverage from the propaganda media ... because ... connecting a few dots might explain why this summer has been so hot. Hunga Tonga produced 40 trillion gallons (!!) of high altitude water vapor that climate scientists believe may warm the northern hemisphere of our planet for the next few years.

In a pre-publication version of a paper by scientists in Australia, we encounter the following comment:

Volcanic eruptions typically cool the Earth’s surface by releasing aerosols which reflect sunlight. However, a recent eruption released a significant amount of water vapor—a strong greenhouse gas — into the stratosphere with unknown consequences. This study examines the aftermath of the eruption and reveals that surface temperatures across large regions of the world increase by over 1.5 degrees C for several years, although some areas experience cooling close to 1 degree C. Additionally, the research suggests a potential connection between the eruption and sea surface temperatures in the tropical Pacific, which warrants further investigation . . .

They further conclude that this affect could last through 2029!

Hmmm. Climate alarmists try mightily to attach CO2 emissions to any adverse natural event (e,g., drought or hurricanes), and it's no fun for them to blame a volcanic eruption for temperature variability. They'd prefer their authoritarian mandates, condemning SUVs or industrial farming for what the UN calls, "an era of global boiling." 

Then again, as idiotic as that UN statement was, there may be some truth in it. After all, last I checked, volcanos do come to a "boil." 

UPDATE:

My goodness, the parallels with Covid hysteria are mind-boggling. Right on schedule, we get this:

Anything that conflicts with the approved narrative (no matter how wrong the narrative might be) is "disinformation."

Anyone who suggests that it's "disinformation" to ask questions about the effects of climate change or to propose alternative explanations for, say, "historic temperatures" during a given month in a given year is ignorant of how science works. Pathetic.

 

Seeds of Conflict

For a large percentage of my life, I lived relatively close to Yale University, an elite Ivy league school whose graduates (along with graduates from other elite universities) feed senior management positions in government, the judiciary, intelligence agencies, and the mainstream media.

Throughout my career, I've had an opportunity to interact and work with graduates from elite schools. They are, by and large, smart and competent, but no more so than smart and competent people who come from less prestigious backgrounds. 

There's an amusing characteristic that I'd often (but not always) encounter when meeting Ivy leaguers. Within the first 15 minutes of the meeting, that person would begin a random sentence with "When I was at Yale (or Harvard or Princeton) ... " letting you know their pedigree.

If the person was a bit more subtle, he or she might begin a sentence with: "When I was in New Haven (or Cambridge) ..." hoping that you'd ask, "What were you doing in New Haven (or Cambridge)?" thereby giving them an opening to let you know that they had attended an Ivy.

I suppose there's nothing inherently wrong with any of that, but it does provide insight into the self-perception of elite school graduates as one of a cadre of the "best and brightest."

There's only one problem. The "best and brightest" have collectively done a pretty awful job of running their respective organizations in recent years. The federal bureaucracy is grossly inefficient, wasteful, and often corrupt. The State Department controls a foreign policy that has had far, far more failures than successes, The intelligence and federal law enforcement agencies have allowed themselves to be weaponized in a partisan fashion, and the mainstream media is no longer trusted by tens of millions of citizens. 

In a recent oped entitled, "Maybe We're the Bad Guys," David Brooks writes:

Over the last decades we’ve taken over whole professions and locked everybody else out. When I began my journalism career in Chicago in the 1980s, there were still some old crusty working-class guys around the newsroom. Now we’re not only a college-dominated profession, we’re an elite-college-dominated profession. Only 0.8 percent of all college students graduate from the super elite 12 schools (the Ivy League colleges, plus Stanford, M.I.T., Duke and the University of Chicago). A 2018 study found that more than 50 percent of the staff writers at the beloved New York Times and The Wall Street Journal attended one of the 29 most elite universities in the nation.

Members of our class [graduates of elite schools] also segregate ourselves into a few booming metro areas: San Francisco, D.C., Austin and so on. In 2020, Biden won only 500 or so counties, but together they are responsible for 71 percent of the American economy. Trump won over 2,500 counties, responsible for only 29 percent. Once we find our cliques, we don’t get out much. In the book “Social Class in the 21st Century,” sociologist Mike Savage and his co-researchers found that the members of the highly educated class tend to be the most insular, measured by how often we have contact with those who have jobs unlike our own ...

But there’s a larger context here. As the sociologist E. Digby Baltzell wrote decades ago, “History is a graveyard of classes which have preferred caste privileges to leadership.” That is the destiny our class is now flirting with. We can condemn the Trumpian populists all day until the cows come home, but the real question is when will we stop behaving in ways that make Trumpism inevitable ...

Like all elites, we use language and mores as tools to recognize one another and exclude others. Using words like problematic, cisgender, Latinx and intersectional is a sure sign that you’ve got cultural capital coming out of your ears. Meanwhile, members of the less-educated classes have to walk on eggshells, because they never know when we’ve changed the usage rules, so that something that was sayable five years ago now gets you fired.

Brooks is to be commended for an honest assessment of the current class milieu, but there's a bit more to it than that. Lincoln Brown provides a somewhat harsh but nonetheless honest rejoinder to Brooks' comments:

First, allow me to sincerely congratulate you on taking a hard look at you and yours. What you have failed to understand, Mr. Brooks, is that we less-educated members of the proletariat (and by less educated, we’re talking anyone without an Ivy League education) have pretty much been putting up with you all this time. We have swallowed more words than can be found in Merriam-Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. We weren’t walking on eggshells. We were rolling our eyes and gritting our teeth and waiting to see if at some point you came out of your derangement. We were waiting to see if perhaps it might dawn on you that we don’t hate black or brown people. We don’t hate gay people or lesbians. We don’t even hate trans people. ... Those in our ranks who keep guns don’t do so because they plan to shoot up a school or church. They keep them because the people who ostensibly run the country have abandoned every pretense of law and order ... We don’t want to see the world burn, but we can’t afford $5.00 for a gallon of gas and astronomical grocery bills for the rest of our lives ... We wanted to be left alone. But that wasn’t good enough for you.

There is an old joke which I believe is from Jeff Foxworthy, “Nobody likes a redneck around until their car breaks down.” And there is a great deal of truth in that. The American elites have showered disdain and outright hatred on those of us not lucky enough to be numbered among their ranks. And yet, without this despised class, life in America would be impossible. You elites have no idea how to manage livestock or crops. You cannot frame houses, install plumbing, or run electrical wires ... [Those things] all require a great deal of intelligence and an education that cannot be found in the Ivy League. These people who you have hated so much don’t just do the jobs the elites won’t do. They do the jobs the elites can’t do.

There is a certain cognitive dissonance that occurs when one listens to the ideological tsunami that moves through government and the media and then out into the "less educated" masses. In many cases, it's painfully obvious that what the elites preach and what they do in conducting their own lives don't line up. Recently, newly-minted climate activist, Bill Gates, was asked whether his use of a private jet (a mode of transportation that emits more pollutants in one flight that the average "redneck's" pickup emits in an entire year) might not be good for the environment. He suggested that his use of a private jet was beside the point. No ... It. Is. Not. 

To paraphrase a famous quote by Alexander Solzhenitsyn: The elites believe the 'rules' they espouse for us don't apply to them. We know the elites believe the 'rules' they espouse for us don't apply to them. They know we know the elites believe the 'rules' they espouse for us don't apply to them. But they continue to espouse the 'rules' anyway.

And therein lie the seeds of conflict.

 

Too Big

The serial indictments of Donald Trump (certainly newsworthy events), allow the Democrats' trained hamsters in the propaganda media to ignore the growing corruption scandal that began with Hunter Biden and now has gotten dangerously close to the current president. At the same time, it appears that the DoJ wants to protect Joe Biden by cutting an overly generous plea deal with Hunter, enabling Joe Biden to escape scrutiny ( a federal judge quashed that deal). And of course, the Democratic party has circled the wagons, protecting their cognitively disabled leader by establishing a communication plan to obfuscate and gaslight the public. But despite the best efforts of all three of these entities to protect Joe Biden, this broad and deep corruption scandal simply won't go away, .

The Democrats and their media hamsters have worked overtime to create the fantasy that Joe Biden only loved his wayward son, was completely innocent of any wrong doing, and never ever lied about his influence peddling for foreign adversaries. Their problem is clear and convincing evidence that provides an alternative view:

• Emails and texts written by Joe Biden's son, Hunter, indicate that he used his father's government position to make millions for services that are ill-defined but always involved influence in Washington.
• Transcripts of phone calls indicate that Hunter included the presence of Joe Biden as a lever when he threatened foreign business men who didn't pay for promised influence peddling.
• One of those businessmen threatened testified he paid $5 million each to Hunter and Joe via a shell company. 
• A witness indicated the Joe Biden was reinforcing the Biden "brand"—marketed as one that wielding influence in Washington, DC.
  
• Emails, texts and testimony from Hunter Biden's business associates, indicate that Joe Biden was present and/or peripherally involved in some of these discussions. Another witness testified that while he was VP, Joe Biden called in to about 20 of Hunter's "business" calls.
• Other emails imply that Joe Biden (the "big guy") was allocated a cut of the income raised
• The testimony of credible IRS whistleblowers indicates that the FBI and DoJ established significant roadblocks for any investigation that might lead to Joe Biden.
  
• Multiple overseas shell companies controlled by the Bidens did nothing but act as conduits for money from foreign sources that was transferred to various Biden family members who did not work for or provide services to those shell companies.
• The growth in estimated net-worth of various members of the Biden family during Biden time as VP under Barack Obama and now as president. Biden's net worth has ballooned over the past few decades with no apparent source of income that explains its growth.

Yet, despite the stench of major corruption, it's entirely possible that Joe Biden will skate—not because he's cunning in the Clinton mold or smooth and slippery like Barack Obama, but because the scandal might actually be too big! Shane Harris discusses why that just might happen:

Conservatives looking to expose the full extent of the Biden family’s corruption have a problem: the scandal might be too big to break.

Typically, there are three main entities involved in taking down a politician over a corruption scandal. First, there is the media, which broadcasts the details of the scandal, eroding public support. Second, there is law enforcement, which investigates and, if necessary, presses criminal charges. Third, there is the party establishment, which ultimately abandons the politician as a matter of self-preservation, signaling that it’s “game over.”

But what happens when a scandal is so big that the people responsible for breaking it are implicated in it as well?

That is the situation which now faces the mainstream media, the federal intelligence bureaucracy, and the Democrat Party. For years, they have all parroted Biden’s lies and created an echo chamber of denial about wrongdoing by the president and his family. Now, with it all beginning to crumple around them, they’re seeing that the downfall of the president spells the end of their own reputations and careers as well.

And there's the rub. Joe Biden was never the brightest bulb in the pack, but through a combination of timing (he is at the center of the most polarizing political environment in modern American history) and party affiliation (the mainstream media is now blatantly partisan and will not investigate, much less attack, any Democrat regardless of the wrong-doing that is painfully obvious), he may be immune to the investigations and condemnation that would surely follow were he a member of the GOP.

A cliche states that the cover-up is always worse than the crime. Not in this case. The crime— allowing his son to sell influence while enriching himself and his family members—is bad, even by Washington's very loose standards. The lies are outrageous, even in a town known for blatant dishonesty. The weaponization of the FBI and DoJ to cover-up the crime is a true "threat to democracy," as the Democrats love to say. And the media's active participation in the cover-up is a travesty. 

And even with all of that, this may, in fact, be too big for justice to be served.

Genius

With the third indictment of Donald Trump, it's time to reflect on the political parties who are the ringmasters of this circus and the likely outcome as the show goes on. It's reasonable to state that the Democrats have exhibited political genius in their manipulation of the politics of Trump's post presidency, and that the GOP base has exhibited a degree of rank stupidity that is comical (if you're a Dem) and sad (if you care about competent governance of this country).

It is indisputable that the GOP base rightly sees the unprecedented post-presidency impeachment and the three subsequent state and federal indictments of Trump as politically-motivated (puleeze, spare me the sanctimonious wails of "no one is the law"). It is equally clear that with every attempt to negate (or imprison) Donald Trump, his support among the GOP base grows stronger. And ... it is reasonably certain that Trump cannot and will not win the general election if he is the nominee—there is simply too much visceral hatred of the man among independents (Dems are a given), suburban women, and core minorities. 

Andy McCarthy summarizes this reality:

The problem for Trump is he has no upside. He is as known a quantity as has ever sought the presidency. In a normal race, the 46 percent of Republicans who do not favor Trump could be expected to “come home” in droves in the general election if he is the nominee. That is not true of Trump. As the Guardian reports, recent Pew polling indicates that just a hair under a third of Republicans now view him very or mostly unfavorably. The remaining two-thirds view him favorably, but that is down from three-quarters last year. It is reasonable to forecast that at least a quarter of Republicans will not support Trump under any circumstances. That doesn’t mean they will vote for an unpopular Democrat, they just won’t vote (or will vote third-party, write-in, or some similarly futile vehicle for registering discontent).

To have a chance in the general election, Trump has to make up that support. But from where? Polls consistently show that Democratic opposition to Trump is nearly universal. They also consistently show that his unfavorability with the general public hovers around 60 percent. There is no reason to believe this will change. To the contrary, about 54 percent of voters cast their ballots for someone other than Trump in 2016 and 2020, when he was more popular nationwide than he is now. He couldn’t win in 2020 with 46 (he won by a miracle in 2016 with 46). He is not going to win with less than 46, but there’s no reason to think he would ever sniff 46 again.

The genius of a Democrat strategy is that:

1. It is designed to make Trump look the victim of government persecution during the primaries, at least in the eyes of the GOP base. Given that, it is hard to see a way for any other GOP contender to defeat him, regardless of their leadership qualities, intelligence or political ideas. Hence, Trump becomes the nominee.
2. It is designed to make Trump look like a criminal throughout the presidential campaign itself, allowing Dems (and their trained hamsters in the media) to use all news about on-going indictments, legal proceedings, and trials as a battering ram to denigrate Trump in the eyes of the voters he needs to win over—independents, suburban woman, and core minorities.
3. It deflects attention from the many, many problems associated with the Biden presidency including dishonesty, corruption, incompetence, weaponization of federal agencies, profligate and ineffective spending, and obviously, the harsh reality that Joe Biden is a stage one dementia patient who cannot speak without a teleprompter and cannot answer substantive questions coherently.
4. Trump's legal problems will allow a biased media to deflect from any meaningful discussion of real issues—the rightful size of government; inflationary spending; mandated and authoritarian governance; the current trend among Democrats to mute free speech; the use of government to censor opposing views; the dishonesty of government officials and the ineffectiveness of policy positions throughout the Covid debacle. An honest conversation about these issues is exactly what the Democrats do NOT want to have happen.
   

This is political genius, and it will work if the GOP allows itself to be played. It looks like that's going to happen.

In a perfect world, Trump would recognize the trap and withdraw from the race for the good of the country (another four years of a Biden Administration would be nightmarish), allowing a younger GOP nominee to rise to the top. Biden has been so bad that any other of the main GOP contenders would likely win the general election, even with the predictable demonization that the propaganda media would level on the candidate.

But Donald Trump is a bully and a narcissist. He will never withdraw, and as a consequence, Joe Biden, or maybe his last minute replacement, will win, continuing the policies that certainly will NOT make America great.