Connecting the dots, anyone?:
The news that Texas Governor Rick Perry was indicted Friday for conducting a lawful act has Republican strategists and others steaming about a pattern of abuse by Democrats: When they can't beat Republicans at the polls, they try to indict them in criminal court.
The Perry indictment focuses on his threat to veto funding for the Travis County (Austin) district attorney's public integrity unit after D.A. Rosemary Lehmberg was arrested for driving under the influence....
Pundits of the left and right see little chance of conviction, but Republicans note a disturbing trend by Democrats in misusing the criminal justice system for political purposes.
In 2010, it was District Attorney Lehmberg who pushed a Travis County grand jury to indict [former] Texas-22 Congressman and Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay on money laundering charges relating to state races in 2010 that helped Republicans gain control of the legislature.
Last year, a Texas appellate court overturned the DeLay conviction, saying it was "legally insufficient."....
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is in a similar position over his Bridge-gate scandal.
A state legislative panel, run by Democrats, and the U.S. Attorney's Office, headed by a Democrat appointed by Obama, are running separate investigations into whether Christie had any personal involvement when members of his staff purposely shut down lanes on the George Washington Bridge last fall, reportedly for political payback.
Christie has yet to be linked personally to the scandal and denies any involvement.
Another Republican governor with possible White House aspirations, Wisconsin's Scott Walker, already has survived a recall election over his stand to limit collective bargaining by state employees.
More recently, Walker has faced a probe by Democratic Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm over allegations the governor coordinated with conservative fundraisers to illegally violate state election laws.
Walker has called the allegations "nothing more than a partisan investigation," noting that two judges, one in federal and one in state court, have ruled he did nothing wrong....
Filmmaker and author Dinesh D'Souza was forced to plead guilty in May to illegally funneling approximately $20,000 through third parties to help a friend running for U.S. Senate in New York.
His plea agreement calls on him not to challenge a prison sentence of 10 to 16 months.
D'Souza has been a frequent critic of Obama, releasing two documentary films on him. The most recent, "2016," was in theaters this summer.
Criminal experts have said that considering the small amount of money involved, the federal government would typically not even investigate the matter.
Sorry for the big run-on quote, but there's an overall point to be made about this phenomenon. Okay, several.
Democrat criminalization of partisan policy differences is nothing new. It began after the first big hole got punched in the heretofore impregnable wall of unchallengeable left-wing rule with the election of their worst nightmare, Ronald Reagan, to the presidency. The first to feel abusive Donk wrath was the Gipper's first Secretary of Labor, Raymond Donovan, on trumped up corruption charges having to do with accepting gifts from contributors or some such. It was during Donovan's trial that the term "sleaze factor" was first coined. He was eventually acquitted and cleared of all charges, but because the wheels of justice turn slowly while the 24-hour news cycle is a quantum slipstream drive, it barely mattered. Donovan didn't go to jail, but his ability to earn a living was devastated, and he was finished in politics. Or, as he plaintively put it on the courthouse steps after his not guilty verdict was rendered, "Where do I go to get my reputation back?"
The Dems didn't fear Raymond Donovan; rather, they used him to try and erode President Reagan's popularity. To no avail, as it turned out, since that sort of nickel & diming was woefully insufficient to such a herculean task.
That's where Iran-Contra came in.
It was the perfect setup: in 1982 and 1983 Democrats attach an unconstitutional amendment to an unrelated appropriations bill (the Boland Amendment), forbidding the President from aiding the anti-communist Contra rebels in Nicaragua. A few years later, President Reagan makes the serious error in judgment of attempting to ransom the American hostages Hezbollah was holding in Lebanon, the funds for which came from clandestinely selling weapons to the Iranian mullahgarchy, both then and today an enemy of America. However, unbeknownst to him, the excess funds were diverted equally as furtively to the Contras in contravention of the aforementioned Boland Amendment.
Should the Reagan Administration have challenged the Boland Amendment directly? Absolutely. Was negotiating with jihadists a grievous mistake? Absolutely. Was funneling aid to our allies in Nicaragua "contra" to a heretofore obscure but blatant violation of the Separation of Powers, which allocates conduct of foreign policy to the Executive, a "scandal"? Absolutely not. If congressional Democrats wanted to slap back at the Reagan White House, they did control the House and could have used the power of the purse to express its displeasure. And they did hold interminable public hearings on the matter.
But they had a 1986 midterm election to win, and this was the cudgel they used to do so. The GOP lost nine Senate seats, many by razor-thin margins. The final two years of Ronald Reagan's presidency were effectively gutted. But that wasn't the "big fish," as it were, as Dems rode Iran-Contra right into the 1988 presidential campaign in order to take back the White House as well, an effort which fell maddeningly short. So they kept on flogging that same dead equine via more and more hearings and a runaway independent counsel (Lawrence Walsh) who, as all members of that species do, couldn't find anything but didn't let that get in the way of "MSUing" his way through the Bush41 term until the same tiresome dynamic, in the form of the outrageous indictment of former Reagan Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger - which was quietly withdrawn two weeks after the 1992 election that finally put the White House back in Democrat hands.
Fast-forward to Bush43. Looking for any conceivable way to demolish President Bush43's post-9/11 popularity, Democrats finally came up with what became known as "Plamegate," the supposed "outing" of the identity of a "covert" CIA operative - the aforementioned Valerie Plame - in violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act as retaliation for her husband, Joe Wilson's, burying of a report that indicated that Saddam Hussein had, indeed, been attempting to procure weapons-grade uranium for a planned nuclear arsenal. It was the kickoff of the anti-Iraq War "insurgency" that ultimately put Barack Hussein Obama in the White House. Except, of course, that Mrs. Wilson - oh, my apologies, "Ms. Plame" - wasn't covert at the time her identity was revealed, and it was revealed by then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage for the purpose of setting up the White House, in a deft bit of RINO-Donk collaboration. Who, by the way, was never investigated or even criticized by the Left for his actions. Meanwhile, media hysterics compensated for the absence of hysterical congressional hearings, and another out-of-control independent counsel was foolishly appointed who couldn't find anything but MSU'd until he collected a semi-noteworthy scalp - "Scooter" Libby, "Darth Cheney's" chief of staff - on charges of not being able to verbatim remember the details of conservations that took place several years before. Or, as it's known inside the Beltway, "perjury".
The same dynamic was at work against Governor Christie - right after his crushing re-election to self-evidently abort his presidential ambitions in the proverbial crib - as well as Governor Walker, where the attempt has twice backfired, adding to his momentum toward re-election this November and a likely White House run beyond that, and now Governor Perry, whose courageous leadership in fighting Barack Obama's quasi-treasonous border erasure gambit has revived his political "star," as it were, and looks to be backfiring just as spectacularly as the assault on the Wisconsin governor.
The persecutions of Tom DeLay and Dinesh D'Souza, by contrast, are not motivated by electoral shortcuts, but sheer retribution. DeLay's 2010 prosecution was quite obviously motivated by the failure of the Dems' first crack at him - of which he was also exonerated - to "teach him a lesson" about staying out of Texas politics, and the Democrats' way. And, you know, the first prosecution having failed to put him behind bars. Whereas D'Souza isn't a politician at all, but simply an American citizen who had the blasphemous gall to make, market, and distribute a movie that actually vetted Barack Hussein Obama in advance of the 2012 campaign as he never was in 2008.
For these iniquities, DeLay and D'Souza had to be destroyed. And D'Souza effectively will be, as his coerced plea bargain disgracefully makes clear.
The saving grace of the moment is that Dems in Wisconsin and Texas have so egregiously overreached that it's triggering a wide backlash. Perhaps, if there is a 2016 election, that will blunt the American Left's relentless jihad against conservatives and the GOP by once again unifying the federal government until not just Republican, but perhaps even Tea Party-ish, control. Certainly the Obamunists' worst nightmare.
But remember this: that jihad will never end. Indeed, the advent of a Walker or Perry Administration will simply be the next chapter.
No comments:
Post a Comment