If You Truly Believed You Were Saving the Nation, Why Would You Deny Doing It?

As a retired law enforcement officer upon whom it was impressed to never engage in even the appearance of impropriety, the emerging daily evidence of high-level sedition, perhaps a federal coup by subversion, offends me.

The evolving story of what appears to be massive election corruption by the top officials of America’s most powerful law enforcement and intelligence-gathering agencies is frightening. To think if the Democrat candidate had won the election, these misdeeds would never have seen daylight; a terrifying thought.

It brings up some fundamental ethical questions: The most basic of which is What were these officials thinking when they made their decisions? Comey, Clapper, and Brennan; Clinton, Lynch, and McCabe; Strzok, Page, and way too many others to list here. Did they really believe they were working to “save our country”? If so, why don’t they proudly admit it? Because that’s not what they were doing. Rather, they were working to save their political status quo.

What happens when you are so invested in your political ideology you sincerely believe you are “saving” your country even if it means breaking the law? You’ve taken steps to help one presidential candidate avoid prosecution so she could win the office. Simultaneously, you conspire to prevent another presidential candidate from winning the presidency. Then, after he shocks you by winning the election, you conspire to remove him from the office.

How do you do it? Aside from the clandestine intrigue, and with the help of a friendly media, you attempt to set up politically and tear down personally the president, a man you despise. No allegation no matter how vile, salacious, or fraudulent is out of bounds. You exclude from your toxic attacks no associate, friend, or family member. You have a psycho-political affliction, which no free republic can tolerate and survive.

One frequent leftist tactic is to compare Donald Trump to Adolph Hitler. While it’s difficult to make the comparison with the historical Hitler, knowing the genocide and other crimes against humanity he perpetrated, the left attempts to feign rationality by suggesting their comparison is to the pre-war, pre-Holocaust German chancellor.

How dangerous is this revisionist historical extrapolation and conflation to fabricate false comparisons? Very, but they want you to sympathize and empathize with their warped view. After all, they tried to take down this modern day “Hitler” for you, right? For example, if you were an adult in 1932 Germany, would you have committed crimes to keep Hitler from winning the election and taking office?

Knowing what we know now, most of us would say yes. However, we have the luxury of hindsight and history. We have all the evidence we need of Hitler’s evil reign of terror. We don’t have to extrapolate Hitler’s evildoing based on our own political biases. He was the ultimate bad dude.

But this shows you why leftists like to conflate President Trump with Hitler and extrapolate the president’s behaviors and proclivities are somehow similar to the Nazi dictator. No lucid person believes this. But we’re not talking about lucid people.

As far as I know, President Trump hasn’t murdered one person, never mind eleven million people. But when the left compares the president to the pre-Holocaust Hitler, before the madman’s mass murders, they feel they are on solid ground. They try to convince us that President Trump is a Hitler-in-waiting. Incredibly, some people believe them—because they want to.

For instance, when President Trump says “some” illegal Mexican immigrants are drug dealers, rapists, and murders, leftists pluck his words from the context and conflate he described “all” Mexicans as such.

When Trump calls corrupt third-world countries sh*tholes, the left accuses him of using this epithet against all of the country’s people. And when the president refers to MS-13 gang members as the “monsters” that they are, the left accuses him of being Hitlerian by “dehumanizing” a group of people.

Remember Nancy Pelosi’s defense of this brutal gang, referring to their members’ “spark of divinity.” Ask the 14-year-old Maryland girl about her killers’ spark of divinity. Oh, right, you can’t. She’s dead. MS-13 gang members, protected by Democrat politicians in their sanctuary county, slaughtered the poor little girl. They beat her with a baseball bat and hacked her up with a machete. When they were done, they dumped her mangled body in a nearby stream.

People who would protect and defend such brutal killers would obviously have no problem doing anything necessary to eliminate their opposition. And that’s what we’re seeing as federal investigators and investigative journalists reveal their sedition.

So, we have to ask ourselves: What do we do to guard against Americans in high political and administrative positions attempting such a coup, again? Well, perhaps we don’t elect a president who places in powerful positions former communists or people sympathetic to communism.

President Obama has a history of hiring former (perhaps, current) communists. Van Jones, John Brennan, and now James Comey—all have communist connections in their pasts. Perhaps Jones’ hiring would have stuck had Obama appointed him “Green Czar” later in his tenure.

So, first thing, don’t elect presidents who will put communists at the heads of both the CIA and FBI. You’d think that one would be easy. And shouldn’t we insist on a culture of intellectual honesty in government agencies? I know I’m setting the bar a bit high.

While many presidential administrations in our history have pushed the proverbial envelope with corruption, Nixon being the most notable, he pales when compared to the Obama administration’s apparent serial weaponization of federal agencies against political enemies as a matter of policy— IRS, NSA, ATF, FBI, CIA, DOJ…

Yes, these orchestrations by President Obama, the man who audaciously claimed: “We have not had a major scandal in my administration.”

Federal officials need to think critically about their feelings toward political issues and candidates. When comparing Trump to Hitler, calling the president a racist white nationalist, his opponents will state examples but omit important information. For example, as I mentioned above, I stop listening to any hacks as soon as they repeat lies such as, Trump called Mexican immigrants rapists, murderers, and thieves.

They leave out facts that change the entire tenor of the comment—not to mention, the truth of it. President Trump was talking about illegal immigrants and his actual words were, “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending the best. They’re not sending you, they’re sending people that have lots of problems and they’re bringing those problems. They’re bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime. They’re rapists and some, I assume, are good people, but I speak to border guards and they’re telling us what we’re getting.”

Remember, the president mentions speaking with “border guards.” Border Patrol agents don’t care about people entering the country legally. So, it’s obvious President Trump was talking about illegal immigrants. And then only some illegal immigrants are rapists and others he “assume[s] are good people.” His opponents want you to believe he means all Mexican immigrants—all Mexicans—all immigrants.

The evolving story is of an executive branch run by a Democrat administration that endeavored, first, to use the power of government agencies to shield their own presidential candidate from justice. Second, to prevent the opposing party’s candidate from being elected. And then third, to undo that election once their opponent won.

At what point do you stop and ask yourself if you truly believe a candidate is dangerous to your country? Not by extrapolating what you want to believe about a candidate, but by being true to your commitment to “saving” your country from a real tyrant?

These high-level officials are now turning on each other, and not a single one of them has accepted responsibility for their role in the scheme. This shows their motivation was political and not the acts of patriotic Americans concerned for their country. They were the acts of selfish Americans concerned for their own political permanency.

The opinions expressed here by contributors are their own and are not the view of OpsLens which seeks to provide a platform for experience-driven commentary on today's trending headlines in the U.S. and around the world. Have a different opinion or something more to add on this topic? Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own experience-driven commentary.
Steve Pomper

Steve Pomper is an OpsLens contributor, a retired Seattle police officer, and the author of four non-fiction books, including De-Policing America: A Street Cop’s View of the Anti-Police State. You can read a review of this new book in Front Page Magazine and listen to an interview with Steve on the Joe Pags Show. Steve was a field-training officer, on the East Precinct Community Police Team, and served his entire career on the streets. He has a BA in English Language and Literature. He enjoys spending time with his kids and grand-kids. He loves to ride his Harley, hike, and cycle with his wife, Jody, a retired firefighter. You can find out more about Steve and send him comments and questions at www.stevepomper.com.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Watch The Drew Berquist Show

Everywhere, at home or on the go.