For those of you not paying attention during the Obama Administration, it may come as a surprise just how politicized the government itself has become. I’m not talking about the elected folks, by the very nature of their jobs it’s a given that they will be politicized, I mean the bureaucracy itself. The un-elected masses that make the government work, appointees and employees alike.
Appointees are of course going to be political, but they are in a separate class from Congressmen and Presidents and members of a President’s cabinet. All of those guys have a chance to be ousted every 2-4 years. Appointees though? Forget it! Unless they are fired (which is very hard because the Supreme Court ruled that government jobs were actually private property, belonging to the people that hold them1), die, quit, or maybe for some reach a mandatory retirement age, we’re stuck with them long after the voters have determined that they hate the Administration that put them there. This contrasts with government employees, who are basically like appointees except they advance through skill or nepotism rather than the whims of the President and Congress.
Judicial Use Of Force
What happens when all of these people become entrenched in our system? Well, let’s focus on the Judicial Branch to see (there is a 33% chance that you have no idea what I’m talking about when I say “Judicial Branch”, based on a recent Annenburg Public Policy Center poll, so stop here and look it up or just keep nodding as though you understand). Remember earlier this year all of that hubbub over President Trump’s travel ban? Amidst legal challenges, the Supreme Court declared it Constitutional. However, the judges challenging it were all leftwing appointees. The law states clearly that Trump had the authority to do what he did, SCOTUS upheld that in a 7-2 vote, yet these judges were out there saying what Trump did was illegal.
Already you can see that the law is up for grabs because of judges that are political appointees unless you have enough money and time to take it to the Supreme Court (yes it works for both sides of the aisle, but after the Obamacare rulings11,11A it seems liberals
keep winning, and liberals are a bit looser with the rules anyway10, plus there’s a lot more of them9), but now let’s cross over into the Executive Branch and see how law enforcement itself is affected. I could cite the soft takeover, as seen in Baltimore. Ever since the Freddy Gray case, police have been noticeably reticent to do their jobs, and so the murder rate shot through the roof5,5A. This is part of the so-called Ferguson Effect5A, where police are hesitant to do their jobs around minorities because of zealous prosecutors and a judgmental public, fueled by negative media coverage of the police giving their local actions national attention. I call it a ‘soft takeover’ because it matches the Left’s doctrine of giving privileged status to select minority groups, in this case by pressuring police to stop enforcing the law around them. Don’t believe me? Explain why white people need to shut up12. Explain sanctuary cities, which are blatantly in violation of the law, and how it’s always characterized as benefiting the Latino community and used for gaining Latino votes.
But that’s the more subtle takeover, let’s get to the big headliner today: the FBI. The one group that’s supposed to be above reproach. Local police might be bigoted or incompetent, as AG Eric Holder thought when he ordered the investigation of the Ferguson Police Department, but certainly not the FBI. If you’ll recall, the Left was arguing that nationalizing the police was the best way to deal with bias8. So what would that nationalized police force look like?
The First Thing We Do, Let’s Bias All The Lawyers
It would look like Special Counsel Mueller’s investigative team, of course. Politifact6, often biased to the Left, tells us that Of the 9 prosecutors on Mueller’s team who have donated to campaigns, there’s a 15-1 ratio in favor of Democrats as to whom the donations went. Of course, Politifact isn’t a very good source, they counted 15 prosecutors when at that point there would’ve been 16 to consider7. A steadfast Democrat donor who defended Obama’s immigration action in 2014 was brought onboard. Plus, several other folks on it had ties to the Clintons too, though Politifact is quite nebulous as to how the spread looks or if those involved with the Clintons had not donated, thus bringing the bias figure from 10 to possibly 12, out of 16.
Agents Of Change
It’s more than just the lawyers though! We also have FBI Agent Peter Strzok, who has come to symbolize the bias on the team as of late. Mueller kicked him out, though I agree with Rep. Jim Jordan2 in wondering why, since so many others on the team were clearly biased too. But Strzok is a special case. In 2016, he edited then-FBI Director Comey’s exoneration statement about Hillary Clinton- specifically, he changed the wording from “Grossly negligent” (which the law says is a crime) to “extremely careless”2. Quite a change indeed, basically going from admitting that Clinton behaved illegally to saying she did the equivalent of crossing the street without looking both ways first. Strzok’s bias was in favor of Hillary, in case it wasn’t obvious. He set up the FBI’s interview with Hillary Clinton so that other people involved in the alleged crime were in the room with her, an unprecedented arrangement2 which obviously shows Strzok favored her.
Now we come to his text messages, sent using an allegedly untraceable FBI phone or some such (according to the texts themselves13). Strzok mentions in them a meeting where an “insurance policy” was discussed, in case Trump won13. He also mentioned that “we”, at least meaning himself and someone else at the FBI, could not take the risk of Trump getting elected3. And shortly thereafter, in the same month, the FBI starts its investigation into Trump-Russia collusion3. What a coincidence! Strzok, by the way, at the time was deputy head of counterintelligence at the FBI2.
With Liberty And Justice For… The Left
Even under Trump, it’s clear that the Left still can do plenty of damage- biased court decisions, biased legal teams, biased FBI agents in powerful positions. The Left would love nothing more than to make opposition to it illegal. We see this incubating on college campuses right now, and those snowflakes will be the avalanche that sweeps away our government in the future. But it’s not just them, this bit of typing called to mind Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issuing a terror threat assessment that declared rightwing extremists can include returning military veterans, pro-life, and anti-illegal immigration people4. Meaning like half the country at least are potential rightwing extremist terrorists and should be watched. That was in 2009; we had 7 more years of Obama bringing in people that think like that. Mueller’s team and Peter Strzok, in particular, aren’t even the tip of the iceberg, they’re the carbon molecule that came to rest on top of it!
- http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2002/07/what_are_civil_service_protections.html 1A. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1978/12/24/when-a-job-becomes-property-its-hard-to-fire-a-civil-servant/d503e8c9-cdfd-4d2f-a594-c2e1912bac1a/?utm_term=.9c188944eba6
- https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/ 4A. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dhs-domestic-terror-warning-angers-gop/
- https://www.reuters.com/article/us-baltimore-police-hiring-insight/baltimore-saw-steep-fall-in-police-numbers-as-murder-rate-soared-idUSKCN0ZN0BF 5A. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/01/11/ferguson-effect-study-72-us-cops-reluctant-make-stops/96446504/
- https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/06/25/john-roberts-supreme-court-obamacare-editorials-debates/29301349/ 11A. https://cei.org/blog/supreme-court-rewrites-obamacare-again