Mediaboss Marketing

Time is ticking, and political commentators are starting to wonder about the presidents inaction on cannabis reforman issue with high support among Democrats. And since Democrats are currently in control of the White House and Congress, its on them to push a bill to the finish line.

During a June 3 Overtime segment on YouTube, the Real Time with Bill Maher host read an audience-submitted question to his guest, former Attorney General Eric Holder, about why President Joe Biden hasnt pushed for the federal legalization of pot. After all, decriminalization of cannabis at the federal level was one of President Bidens promises on the election trail.

Maherwho denies alignment with any partysaid that dealing with the issue would be dealing with reality, and it would also bring political benefit. But if Democrats continue to fail to legalize cannabis at the federal level, Maher thinks Republicans will take up the slack.

Republicans are gonna steal the issue. I think eventually, Maher told Holder. I mean, someone like John Boehner works for a marijuana company now. I mean, it could be one of those freedom issues. And, of course, Republicans smoke lots of pot too.

Not enough, Holder said to instant laughter in the audience. They need to mellow out just a little more.

Some Republicans have used cannabis as a freedom issue. Politico reported on leaders who are joining the fold, viewing cannabis through the prism of states rights, personal freedom, job creation and tax revenue.

In a survey, conducted by Pew Research Center from April 5-11, 2021, the majority72%of Democrats said cannabis should be legal for medical and recreational purposes versus 47% of Republicans. Only among conservative Republicans, the majority of people surveyed said they arent in favor of legalizing cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes. While its less popular among Republicans, there are some leaders launching their own bills such as Congresswoman Nancy Mace, with her States Reform Act.

Maher pointed out the recent push for social equity measures transforming the industry slowly, but it is an issue Republicans arent onboard with. Its the social equity provisions that are one of the few dividing points when it comes to cannabis bills. On the other hand, leaders like Senator Cory Booker believe social equity provisions are critical for any cannabis reform bill.

Now I understand the impetus to want to, like, for example, if youre gonna have new businesses that are legal in the marijuana field, yeah, they probably should go to the people who suffered the most during the drug war, Maher said. Republicans, of course, are saying this is a deal-breaker.

Maher acknowledged that leaders are not aligning with certain details on the issue, but didnt exactly provide a full solution.

What do you want, half a loaf? If they said okay, no equity, is it better to have the law passed or changed or is it better to hold out for equity? Maher asked.

Its better to have the law changed, Holder responded. And as I said, deal with the societal reality that we have and, you know, and try to make it as equitable as you possibly can, but I wouldnt want to stop the movement that I think makes sense for the sake of equity.

Maher serves on the advisory board with NORML and is a longtime known advocate for cannabis, and is known for slamming religion and political correctness in general. Maher was in the same room as High Times this past May, when the political talk show host made an appearance at Woody Harrelsons grand opening of The Woods in West Hollywood.

More:
Bill Maher Thinks Republicans Will 'Steal' Pot Legalization - High Times

Most people are familiar with the phrase sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

The incendiary rhetoric that has engulfed our political system has demonstrated that especially violent words can cause hurt, even death, to others.

The most recent example is a California man who showed up last week at the Maryland home of Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Police say he had a gun, bullets, zip ties and duct tape and was intent on assassinating Kavanaugh before calling 911 and claiming he was suicidal. Hes been charged with attempted murder.

Two years ago, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer stood outside the Supreme Court and delivered these fiery words to a crowd of demonstrators opposed to the reversal of Roe v. Wade: I want to tell you, (Justice Neil) Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price. You wont know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.

Schumer later said, I shouldnt have used the words I used. Too late. The damage had been done.

While Republicans cannot claim purity when it comes to radical rhetoric, Democrats seem to use harsh words more often and then deny any responsibility for what comes next from attempted and actual murder, to looting, property damage and violent crime.

While many Democrats (and the two Republicans) on the House January 6 committee blame former president Donald Trump for inciting the Capitol riot, they are curiously unconcerned about the rhetoric of Schumer and others within their own party.

Here are a few examples of incendiary rhetoric by Democrats, compiled by The Federalist.com.

In 2018, Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California said on MSNBC that if Trump fired special counsel Robert Mueller, there would be widespread civil unrest as people would take to the streets.

Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper agreed that if Trump fired Mueller, it would set off a firestorm not only on the Hill but also in the streets.

That same year, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) urged people to answer a call to action to protest at the Capitol. Please, get up in the face of some congresspeople, Booker said at a conference.

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) called for protesters to stay on the street and get more confrontational should a Minnesota jury acquit former police officer Derek Chauvin for killing George Floyd. On another occasion, Waters said about Trump supporters: You get out and create a crowd. You push back on them. You tell them they are not welcomed anymore or anywhere.

In 2018, Hillary Clinton said civility was only an option if the Democrats controlled the legislative branch. You cant be civil with a political party that wants to destroy what you stand for and what you care for.

Former Attorney General Eric Holder quoted Michelle Obama and added his own thought: Michellealways says, When they go low, we go high. No. No. When they go low, we kick them.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that, in politics, when youre in the arena, you have to be ready to take a punch, and you have to be ready to throw a punch for the children.

Sen. John Tester (D-MT) went even lower when he encouraged people to punch Trump in the face.

When rhetoric gets heated, perhaps the best way to be heard is to speak in a tone Scripture attributes to God a still, small voice. As noted by the writer of Proverbs: A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)

Readers may email Cal Thomas attcaeditors@tribpub.com. Look for Cal Thomas latest book Americas Expiration Date: The Fall of Empires and Superpowers and the Future of the United States (HarperCollins/Zondervan).

Read the original post:
Sticks, stones and worse | Cal Thomas - The Morning Journal

OPINION:

Red flag laws seem so justified and necessary especially right after some nutcase shoots up a school. But can we please pause for a breath (Lawmakers eye bipartisan national red flag law in wake of Texas school shooting, Web, May 25)?

RFLs give unlimited power to the government to knock on our doors and, Second Amendment be damned, demand that we turn over our weapons based purely upon charges levied by ignorant citizens, more likely than not people who simply do not like us. There is no judicial process, no chance to defend ourselves against such a charge; its just Give us your gun.

And who is this government we wish to give such power? Why, its the same folks who chose not to prosecute Eric Holder when he was held in contempt of Congress, but who yanked Peter Navarro off a plane in handcuffs and leg irons for the same charge. Its the same group that raided Roger Stones home with an FBI SWAT team, including gun boats, for lying to the FBI, but which has taken no action at all against John Brennan or James Clapper for lying under oath to Congress.

Why should we should trust these people, who have shown total disregard for equal justice under the law and totally politicized federal law enforcement?

BOB SEGAL

Burke, Virginia

See the original post:
Letter to the editor: 'Red flag' laws a bad idea - Washington Times

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Peter Navarro is the picture of a law-abiding American citizen. He's a 72-year-old retired business school professor. He's got a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University. His most recent job was extremely white collar. He served as the White House trade adviser in the last presidential administration, famous for his tough stance on China.

He's never been charged with a crime. He's never trafficked fentanyl, for example, from Mexico. In fact, his hobby is yoga and riding his bicycle. In short, Peter Navarro does not seem like a criminal, much less a danger to this nation. And yet last Friday, federal agents arrested Peter Navarro at Reagan National Airport in Washington. They did not call his lawyer, as is customary in cases like this. They didn't even come to his house, which, as it happens, is just feet from the FBI building, and they could have walked, but they didn't.

Instead, they took down Peter Navarro in public, as you would a fugitive terror mastermind so everyone could see it and learn the lesson they were sending. They handcuffed Peter Navarro. They put him in leg irons, and then they threw him in a cell. He's now facing years in prison. So, what did Peter Navarro do to deserve treatment like this? Well, he resisted a subpoena from the January 6 committee. The January 6 committee is Washington's latest partisan inquisition. It's run by Nancy Pelosi with help from obedient little quislings like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger.

Navarro resisted that subpoena because he had nothing to do with January 6, nothing whatsoever. That's not disputed. Peter Navarro did not break into the Capitol. He didn't encourage anyone else to break into the Capitol. He wasn't even there that day. He had no idea it was going to happen. Again, that's beyond dispute and Nancy Pelosi and Liz Cheney know that.

DOJ INDICTS FORMER TRUMP ADVISER PETER NAVARRO FOR CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

White House trade adviser Peter Navarro holds his notes after a television interview at the White House, Monday, Oct. 12, 2020, in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)

If you really wanted to figure out what happened on January 6, Peter Navarro would be the last person you would talk to. Instead, you'd be talking to Ray Eppsand various FBI informants. But finding out what happened on January 6 and why is not the point of the exercise. The point of the exercise is preventing Donald Trump from running for president again. So, in the service of that goal, Pelosi and Liz Cheney demanded that Peter Navarro surrender records of his private conversations with his former boss, President Donald Trump, and when he refused to do that, Congress voted to hold him in contempt in a partisan vote and then Merrick Garland's Justice Department filed criminal charges against Peter Navarro.

This is not the way civilized countries operate. Just because you control the White House and both houses of Congress, does not mean you get to throw your political opponents behind bars. That's not what we do in America. That's what they do in Haiti, but that's what we're doing now and Peter Navarro was not the first. Biden's Justice Department also arrested former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for a similar fake crime. Steve Bannon is awaiting trial this summer.

So, this is not something we've seen before. It's a huge step toward the politics of the Third World, but the media whose job you thought of was to push back against power are not. They are, in fact, applauding because it turns out no punishment is too severe for those who disagree with the national news media. Watch them gloat.

FORMER ABC NEWS PRESIDENT HELPING JAN. 6 COMMITTEE WITH PRODUCTION OF PRIMETIME HEARING

MSNBC'S JONATHAN CAPEHART: What happened to Peter Navarro is what should have happened to Peter Navarro. He was indicted and when you're indicted, you're arrested.

CNN'S ERROL LOUIS:What Peter Navarro did was so far out of bounds and so indefensible.

MSNBC PAUL BUTLER: This prosecution is really about punishing Navarro based on his blatant disrespect for the congressional subpoena.

So, they really are your enemies. They're not covering the news. They're plotting ways to hurt you. That's true. "Congressional subpoenas are not optional," they lecture you, "Comply with them or go to jail." That's the message the lawyers on television are sending. So, let's pretend for a moment that that was true, though it's in fact, not true. If there was, in fact, a law like that for that law to be legitimate, it would have to be like all laws applied equally across the board and no less than the attorney general himself has said that again and again and again.

SENATORS CORNYN, MURPHY, SINEMA, TILLIS TO MEET AS GUN REFORM TALKS AND MASS SHOOTINGS CONTINUE

"I came to work here," he said, "because we're committed to the rule of law and to seeking equal justice under the law." That was Merrick Garland in January. "We conduct every investigation guided by the same norms."

Now, those are the norms under which this country has lived for 250 years. It's not justice unless it's applied equally to all adult American citizens, period. Anything less than that is, by definition, not justice, but we're getting much less than that and it's very obvious.

Here's just one example. Ten years ago this month, Congress voted overwhelmingly on a bipartisan vote, by the way, 17 Democrats to hold Eric Holder, then the attorney general, in criminal contempt of Congress. Holder had refused to turn over documents showing how the Obama administration had armed the Mexican drug cartels. Do you remember that? One of the firearms they sent to Mexico under the so-called "Fast and Furious" program was then used to murder a U.S. Border Patrol officer. It was a scandal at the time, in case you don't recall. Watch.

WILLIAM LA JEUNESSE: Border Patrol agent Brian Terry died in December 2010, killed by guns tied to an Obama administration plan that armed Mexicans, a scandal officials tried to hide by wrongly claiming executive privilege. Emails contained in the House Oversight Committee's report show top officials knew the ATF sent guns to Mexico even before Terry's death. Even the Border Patrol, which sent Terry's team into the desert, didn't know about the operation.

MSNBC GUEST: WHITE MEN ARE THE BIGGEST THREAT TO WOMENS LIBERTY AS CITIZENS, RIGHT TO VOTE

So, that was a legitimate scandal that implicated the entire U.S. government, people who actually have power, not the retirees sitting in jail because of what they did on January 6, but people with actual power, and Eric Holder was the very center of it, but Holder refused to comply with a subpoena from the Congress. Did the FBI arrest Eric Holder for that, please? It was never even seriously considered.

Holder asserted executive privilege, the right to have conversations with the executive, the president that are private. He cited the long-standing policy of respecting executive privilege and he got away with it. So, a week ago, Peter Navarro made this exact point. He sued the Justice Department, pushing back against the subpoena, four days before he was arrested and in that suit, Navarro cited policy written by the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel. That policy reads this way, "Since the 1970s, this office has consistently advised that the president and his immediate advisers are absolutely immune from testimonial compulsion by congressional committee on matters related to their official duties."

In other words, if somebody asserts executive privilege, at the very least, Congress doesn't get to arrest them. Before anyone is arrested, they have to go to a judge to rule on whether or not executive privilege is valid in this case and that's exactly what happened in Eric Holder's case. And by the way, the federal judge rejected Eric Holder's executive privilege claim and still, he was not arrested. Why? You know why ecause he's a leading Democrat. But in Peter Navarro's case, Merrick Garland's DOJ did not even bother to ask a judge. They just arrested Peter Navarro at National Airport.

US CAPITOL POLICE OFFICER INDICTED ON FEDERAL CHARGES, ACCUSED OF UNAUTHORIZED HIGH-SPEED CHASE

So, what we're seeing here isn't really about Peter Navarro or Steve Bannon. What we're seeing is a massive escalation in the use by the Democratic Party of our justice system for partisan revenge. That's exactly what that was. Peter Navarro wouldn't shut up, so they threw him in handcuffs and in fact, at the same moment Peter Navarro was thrown in jail for asserting executive privilege, a Clinton lawyer called Michael Sussman was acquitted by a jury seated by an Obama-appointed judge. Three of the jurors in that case gave money to Hillary Clinton's campaign and not surprisingly, those same jurors declined to punish Michael Sussmann for lying to the FBI to advance the Russia collusion myth that helped Hillary Clinton's campaign. Following all of this?

How did those jurors get on the jury? How did they stay there?

Now, the FBI pretended to be outraged by the fact that Michael Sussman had lied to them, but then we learned actually the FBI was working with Michael Sussman and his law firm, Perkins Coie. Perkins Coie had an FBI workspace in its offices in Washington for a decade and Michael Sussman was so close to the FBI, he had a key card to FBI headquarters.

We know this from a recently released text exchange. We're quoting. "Do you have a badge or do you need help getting into the building?" the FBI's general counsel, James Baker asked Sussmann.

We're quoting now, "I have a badge," Sussmann replied. Sussmann had a badge to the FBI building? How do we get one of those? Oh, we're not leading Democratic lawyers, so we can't have them. Michael Sussmann knew he'd never be punished. Take three steps back. What's going on here? In a fantastic piece at The Federalist, Ben Weingarten explained how we should understand these two prosecutions, "They send an unmistakable message: We can get you any time, anywhere, on any grounds we choose. You can't touch even a single one of ours."

REPORTER'S NOTEBOOK: WILL PUSH FOR GUN CONTROL BE DIFFERENT THIS TIME?

That's it right there. This is a partisan play by a political party that has somehow completely taken over our largest law enforcement agency and ... Michael Sussman is not even the biggest example of this. Andrew McCabe, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok all of them lied to the feds as well. That's a crime. None of them were ever hauled off in leg irons. In fact, they're now at CNN, MSNBC and Georgetown, respectively. They were rewarded with better jobs for what they did... they always are.

Jim Clapper and John Brennan committed perjury on television before Congress. There's no dispute about that. What do they do? Oh, they're on TV now, too. Hunter Biden lied on a federal gun form. That's a felony. How was he punished? Oh, a mild probing on CBS that he just shrugged off as if it were nothing. Watch.

ANTHONY MASON: Why did you have a gun?

HUNTER BIDEN: Well, I did. Again, you know, the period in my life that was difficult. It was, but, you know, I, I don't know.

MASON: According to the reporting, at one point, the Secret Service went looking for the record of sale. Do you know anything about that?

HUNTER: Nothing. No.

MASON: But you know about the Secret Service being involved.

HUNTER: No, I had no idea. I don't know whether the Secret Service were or why they would be or I don't think that that's true.

IMMIGRATION REFORM COULD PREVENT FOOD PRICES FROM HARMING CONSUMERS

Hunter Biden, left, arrives in the Crypt of the US Capitol for President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration ceremony on Wednesday, Jan. 20, 2021 in Washington. (Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool Photo via AP)

"I don't know why the Secret Service are involved." Really? You had no idea because they were with you. They helped you. You committed a gun felony. It's all out there, but Hunter Biden is the president's son and more importantly, he's a faithful party loyalist. So, you know as well as he does, he doesn't have a thing to worry about. In fact, he can flaunt his crimes. RadarOnline.com just got pictures of Hunter Biden casually waving his illegal firearm around as he cavorted with a prostitute several years ago.

The pictures show Hunter Biden's finger on the trigger of the gun, as well as crack cocaine and drug paraphernalia. Hmm, a weapon of war in the hands of a drug addict. Is theJustice Department bothered by this? No, of course not.

You know what bothers the Justice Department quite a bit? Defying the Democratic Party. Do that and your house gets raided by a SWAT team that tips off CNN before it happens. Roger Stone discovered that the hard way.

JON BERMAN: Exclusive footage you're looking at right now from CNN as the FBI arrives at Roger Stone's residence in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, taking him into custody. They arrived before dawn there, before 6 a.m. or just after 6 a.m a dozen officers we're told.

FBI AGENT: FBI, open the door.

So that's the actual norm. If you were Tony Podesta and you work for the Democratic Party, you're totally fine. Nothing you do is going to get you in trouble, and you know it. If you're Roger Stone, you've done nothing wrong at all, but you've given the finger to the Democratic Party, they show up at your house with guns. That's the norm the attorney general is upholding. Serve the Democratic Party, and you'll be rewarded even if you're a felon.

At almost exactly the moment the DOJ was putting Peter Navarro in shackles, the DOJ was also dropping the most serious charges against the two left-wing lawyers who tried to incinerate cops, burn them to death in their patrol cars during the BLM riots.

TIM RYAN PUSHES TAX CUT TO HELP MIDDLE CLASS WEATHER INFLATION, BUT HE'S A 'LONE SOLDIER' AMONG HOUSE DEMS

Now, this pair had faced 30 years in jail on terrorism charges, but that was too tough for the Biden DOJ. They'll be out in a couple, max. Why? Because they've got the right politics. And Liz Cheney is not giving you a lecture about. People who try to burn police officers to death are a threat to our democracy. No, they're fine. We're just going to ignore them. It never happened. This happens all the time.

In California, at the height of the BLM riots, a career felon called Tony Walker executed a 19-year-old Berkeley student called Seth Smith, walked up for no reason, never seen him before in his life and executed him, fired a gun into the back of his head. Why did he do this? Because of his skin color. It was a racially motivated attack. "F that White MF-er," Walker said. No one denies that. He said that, but here's the interesting thing, a guy is just executed on the street because he's got the wrong skin color.

Sounds like a hate crime, right? No. Merrick Garland's DOJ did not pursue hate crime charges. In fact, a month ago, prosecutors called an unbelievable deal with Walker. They sentenced him on a single charge of (brace yourself) voluntary manslaughter.

"F that White MF-er," he said as he executed a college student. It sounds like voluntary manslaughter.

This is a dangerous trend and not just because people are dying. Nothing destroys the legitimacy of our institutions more than politicized law enforcement. You can't have that. Justice must be blind. If there is a single institution we have to preserve for the sake of our children and grandchildren, it's our justice system and the law enforcement agencies that serve it. They can't be corrupt. If they're corrupt, it's going to be pretty hard to live here.

LAWMAKERS CLASH OVER CONSTITUTION, GUN RIGHTS IN HEATED HOUSE HEARING

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), vice-chair of the select committee investigating the January 6 attack on the Capitol, speaks during a business meeting on Capitol Hill on Capitol Hill on December 13, 2021 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Liz Cheney and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the lunatics on the January 6 committee have done far more damage to this democracy than the rioters ever did, far more. And now they're trying to make it worse. Axios is reporting that some members of the committee "want big changes on voting rights and even to abolish the Electoral College."

Abolishing the Electoral College? And if you're against that, of course, you're undermining democracy.

BOB COSTA: Was it a conspiracy?

CHENEY: I think certainly. I mean, look, if you look at the court filings.

BOB COSTA: You do believe that it was a conspiracy?

CHENEY: Ido. It is extremely broad. It's extremely well-organized. It's really chilling.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Oh, it's really chilling? What's really chilling is when the committee gets to arrest people, not because they violated meaningful laws or pose a threat to the United States, but because their politics are unacceptable, because they have given the finger to people like Liz Cheney. Is Liz Cheney okay with that? The upholder of democracy?

We texted Liz Cheney on Friday and said, "Are you okay? They just arrested a 72-year-old man who did nothing wrong. Doesn't that cross some kind of line? Are you going to stand up and say something about it?" She didn't respond.

The January 6 committee has just hired a former producer of Good Morning America called James Goldston. He'll be overseeing the committee's primetime hearings on Thursday night. So, the show trial now has a productionand of course, we'll be covering that in great detail on Thursday. By arresting Peter Navarro, they're hoping to shut up one of the most vocal critics before it begins.

Tucker Carlson currently serves as the host of FOX News Channels (FNC) Tucker Carlson Tonight (weekdays 8PM/ET). He joined the network in 2009 as a contributor.

See original here:
Tucker Carlson: Peter Navarro's arrest is a huge step toward the politics of the third world - Fox News

OPINION:

It is not quite clear why former Trump adviser Peter Navarro was arrested and jailed after being indicted for contempt of Congress. The arrest made at Reagan National Airport is all the more unusual because no one even thought about doing so to then-Attorney General Eric Holder, who was indicted for precisely the same crime 10 years ago.

For that matter, why have dozens of rioters (protesters?) from Jan. 6 remained in pretrial custody for the last 17 months?

Why have Molotov cocktail-throwing lawyers and killers involved in violent riots during the summer of 2020 been given extremely lenient plea deals in New York and California?

Why has no one at the FBI or other federal law enforcement been held accountable for their role in the societally destructive, libelous and wholly fabricated idea that former President Donald Trump and his campaign had, in some magical way, colluded with Russia?

Why is Hunter Biden, having obtained a firearm after lying on a federal application (a felony), still walking around a free man?

Why is the Jan. 6 committee asking questions from people like Mr. Navarro, who had nothing to do with Jan. 6? Why have they not called FBI informants in the crowd to testify? Why has the committee not asked about why the Capitols doors were open, or why the rioters were unarmed.

The answer in each and every instance is the unequal and unfair application of justice brought about by the politicization of federal law enforcement. That politicization, left unchecked, will eventually destroy the republic.

The Jan. 6 committee whose members talk a lot about the threats to democracy is, itself a legitimate risk to the republic. By issuing subpoenas to those with no material connection to the events of Jan. 6 (like Mr. Navarro), and to sitting members of Congress, the committee has nakedly politicized what should have been, at most, a modest examination into a law enforcement failure.

Conservatives are, by their very nature, institutionalists; they believe in the legitimacy of institutions. But the time has come to reassess those sentiments.

Federal law enforcement has become a threat to the Republic. There is no surer sign of the erosion of democratic norms than the politicization of the administration of justice.

We need a thorough and unflinching examination of the unwarranted, unwise and illegal acts executed by those who we have entrusted with guns and badges.

The pattern of lawbreaking and indifference to political, social, legal and governmental norms among the bureaucracies of the CIA, the FBI and the Department of Justice has become so obvious and so egregious that Congress must make a granular examination of the activities of those charged with safeguarding the United States and her citizens.

This effort should be led by a serious senator or House member; this is not a moment for the TikTok or Twitter members. This is a matter of the gravest urgency and will require an equally sober, deliberate and nonpartisan assessment of the depth of the crisis and the changes that need to be made.

Despite all the nonsense on both sides about insurrection (still, no one charged with that), elections being stolen, votes being suppressed and democracy dying in the darkness, the real and immediate risk to the republic is that some of those with guns and badges have become its enemies.

At a certain point, facts become inescapable. We know that some in the FBI and the DOJ wanted to select the president in 2016 and 2020 and fabricated evidence to do so. We know that law enforcement surveilled presidential campaign staff in 2016. We know that Homeland Security surveilled reporters and others. We know that some of those in the intelligence community and federal law enforcement have lied before Congress and elsewhere. We are watching the unequal application of the law in real-time.

Almost 2,000 years ago, the Roman poet Juvenal wrote: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? who watches the watchmen themselves? The only right answer and the one we face now is that we must watch the watchmen and be fearless and resolute in examining their conduct.

See more here:
EDITORIAL: Federal law enforcement the real threat to our republic - Washington Times