THE WAY I SEE IT by Don Polson Red Bluff Daily News 5/03/2023
If they didn’t have double standards…
The saying goes, “If they didn’t have double standards, they’d have no standards at all.” Approach most issues and controversies knowing that Democrats will apply the principle outlined in a book from one of my college classes, “Situational Ethics: The New Morality.”
Updated, it would be “Situational standards, or winning through hypocrisy: disregard principles; ends justify means.” Let’s see how it’s applied.
A perfect example is the fake controversy (or outrage du jour), over conservative Supreme Court Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Roberts supposed “ethics scandals.” You’re likely aware so I’ll not waste space. Democrats don’t want the standard they apply to conservative justices, being applied to current and past liberal justices.
In “Here are the times liberal justices had political entanglements that were largely ignored by Democrats,” Katelynn Richardson (Dailycaller.com) writes: “Between 2004 and 2018, justices collectively disclosed taking 1,306 trips paid for by others, including 219 taken by liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, some of which were paid for by a wealthy Democratic donor family, according to Open Secrets.
“As Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) noted during the Tuesday Judiciary Committee hearing, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also donated a signed copy of her decision in the United States v. Virginia case— which ruled the Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admissions policy unconstitutional—to an auction that the (liberal plaintiff) organization hosted to raise money.”
“Where was the outrage from the Left then? The current campaign is about intimidating the Court’s originalist majority, not ethics,” Judicial Crisis Network President Carrie Severino told the Daily Caller News Foundation. The liberal justices’ dealings suggest nothing corrupt or ethically dubious. Democrats labor in vein to impugn conservative justice’s actions, trips or relationships.
However, Justice Sotomayor took $3.6 million from Penguin Random House publishing while the company had business before the court; Sotomayor declined to recuse herself. Ethical situations involving Thomas, Gorsuch or Roberts don’t come close to that.
We have 1) the fact that Democrats raise phony ethics issues over conservative justices while ignoring serious issues for the liberals; 2) the verbal threats Sen. Schumer made at Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh over the Dobbs abortion decision; 3) the unleashing of pro-abortion mobs to demonstrate in Justices’ neighborhoods, in front of their homes, in violation of state and federal law;
4) Threats to cut security funding from the Supreme Court and “pack the court” with liberal justices; and 5) the attempted assassination of Kavanaugh’s family by a pro-abortion fanatic;
Setting all that aside, Democrats are exemplars of principled advocacy. Leftist intimidation of the paragon of our judicial system fits right into the double standard described above. Look up “A full-blown Color Revolution-style attack on the US Supreme Court…is now in its early stages,” by William A. Jacobson. Also, “Senate Dems can’t follow the ethics rules they demand others follow,” by Spencer Brown.
A glaring example of “rules for thee, but not for me” is the about-face on the “insurrection” narrative over Jan. 6, 2021—justified prosecutions over damages and assaults accompanied by the wrongful persecution of nonviolent protesters wandering in the Capitol.
Witness pro-abortion fanatical mobs—and hysterical proponents of sex-change, cross-dressing, male/female impersonation, and the abominable sexualization and mutilation of minor children—pour into legislatures in Kentucky, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Texas. They’ve assaulted uniformed officers and legislators, violated the laws governing conduct for visitors and spectators, and intentionally intimidated, and interfered with, the conduct of business—all with the approval of Democrats and leftist advocates.
Sounds “insurrection-ary” to me. See “Sen. Chris Murphy applauds disruptors of gov’t proceedings formerly known as ‘insurrectionists’” by Doug P. at Twitchy.com. “Transgenders” = 0.6% of people (YouGov). “A whopping 70% think ‘transing’ kids is bad, while 60% don’t agree with ‘transing’ teens. Moreover, a majority of those surveyed” disagree with school kids hearing transgender propaganda in schools. (Washington Post-KFF). Do Democrats accept those super majority opinions? Or only polling that supports your agenda?
Democrats’ standard under Trump was to believe, act on, and become deranged over anonymously-sourced “evidence” (later all proven to be lies) of Russian “collusion” to steal the 2016 election—and innocuous phone calls to Ukraine’s leader, and Georgia’s governor—leading to two impeachments for nothing. Millions of Biden voters believed the lies and voted accordingly.
Likewise, polling proved that the “51 intelligence experts” that described Hunter’s laptop—containing voluminous evidence of Biden’s corruption—as “Russian disinformation,” swung the election from Trump. Emails prove they colluded to “give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on this issue.” Mike Morell, with Anthony Blinken, orchestrated the dirtiest trick in American political, electoral history; it helped steal the election.
“Per Miranda Devine, the House Oversight Committee has subpoenaed FBI Director Christopher Wray for an FBI FD-1023 form that, according to a whistleblower, documents a bribe paid to Joe Biden, as vice president, by a representative of a foreign power” (J. Hinderaker, Powerlineblog.com). Democrats’ standard on this anonymous whistleblower: We only believe it when we like the narrative for politically expedient purposes—i.e., getting rid of enemies.