By Tim Tapp
​
   There is no shortage of events that occur in academia that raise eyebrows for conservatives. The advent of Free Speech Zones and cry closets have been the topic of many conversations and don't get me started on all of the "activities" that are part of "Sex Week" on a number of campuses across the country. But often, the hardest to wrap your mind around can be the choices that colleges and universities make in hiring.
   Even the casual observer has to admit that there is, at the very least, a left-lean in the administrations of institutions of higher learning. Over time a lot of the course work has changed from straight-edge fact-based to "woke" narrative. It is no longer a surprise to anyone that these organizations hire people who will promote their preferred world view. But sometimes, we still see what looks like "hold my beer" actions.
   Back in September of 2020, a few people dared to question Harvard when they decided to tap Chasten Buttigieg (Pete Buttigieg's husband) as a fellow at Harvard University's Institute of Politics. Chasten is an author and LGBTQ+ advocate with degrees in theater, global studies, and education. The question was asked about his qualifying "political" experience. Still, since the fellow position leads a conversation once a week - not gives a lecture - the issue seems unimportant to the powers that be at Harvard. In mid-October, Texas State University made public their newest political science teacher, Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke. The failed Democratic Presidental candidate who still wants to "come for your AR-15s" is to begin teaching via online class starting in the spring of 2021. Not to be out-done, Georgetown University has hired disgraced former FBI agent Peter Strzok.
   The university lists Strzok as an Adjunct Professor. He will be teaching a course on Counterintelligence and National Security, which explores the theory and practice of counterintelligence as a part of U.S. national security. I suppose from the "Orange Man Bad" perspective, he is a good choice. (At least they are asking him to teach an ethics class.)
   Peter Strzok does have two decades of counterintelligence experience at both an operational and policy level. Georgetown wants this class taught from a practitioner’s perspective, and Strzok certainly checks that box. But shouldn't integrity factor into who is employed to teach young people pursuing a career in law enforcement or national security?
   Peter Strzok engaged in an illicit affair with a married woman, morally questionable but not disqualifying in today's society. He actively used his position in the FBI to affect who would be residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He was too busy work on "an insurance policy" to be bothered with things like Hillary Clinton e-mails discovered on a Carlos Danger, I mean Anthony Weiner laptop. The blatant corruption of acting as a political operative rather than an agent of law and order should be disqualifying. Unless what Georgetown is really hoping to teach is how to weaponize federal agencies against political rivals rather than criminals and terrorists.

​By Tim Tapp
 
   On October 18th, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer was a guest on Meet the Press. Chuck Todd - host and often leftist hack - was told by the would-be despotic ruler of Michigan how all the state economic lockdowns can end and how America can finally move past the horror that has been COVID-19. The long-awaited answer to the devastation brought to America and the rest of the world by the red-death Wuhan bat stew flu??? well electing Joe Biden of course.
   Whitmer told Todd that lockdowns and COVID restrictions could end if Americans would simply elect Joe Biden. She explained to Todd and his audience that Trump does not care about those who have died from COVID. Whitmer tried to convince those who were watching - in an effort to appease those who have been obedient to her tyrannical executive orders - that the real victims of the lockdowns are the "heroes" who are staying closed and staying home indefinitely. The recent target of an alleged abduction also made the charge that Trump - and all of those who wish to get back to living their life - are inciting violence. In short, all the COVID restrictions are because "Orange Man Bad."
   The Queen of Michigan wants you to believe that Trump is to blame for Democrat governors, politicians, and various other operatives keeping their economies locked down. She wants you to ignore that she - along with many other Democrats - has been claiming that masks and distancing can save us all, but that masks are not enough to re-open businesses. She would prefer that you not ask why it is okay to be part of an Antifa or BLM protest but not a Second Amendment or "Open Up the State" rally. Just take her word for it all and blame Trump for all your problems.
   Whitmer, in making her case, went so far as to say, "This is a gravely serious moment for all of us and if you're tired of wearing masks or you wish you were in church this morning or watching college football or wish your kids were in school in person, it is time for change in this country, and that's why we've got to elect Joe Biden." This statement on its face sounds like little more than partisan, political rhetoric. If you were to ignore the obvious facts that it has been Democrats - not Trump - that have tried to keep churches and schools closed, then it might even be a compelling call to action. But you must ignore a lot for it to be effective. (I would like to remind everyone that Biden has committed to a national mandatory mask policy.)
   But what if this is something more than a stump speech supporting your party's candidate in the closing days of a Presidential election? What if, at least for Whitmer, it really is that simple? I would typically point out the flaws of Whitmer's "logic" and move on without playing this "What if" game, but given that we have heard very extortionist-like statements, "give us what we want or your cities will burn," perhaps the question is appropriate to ask.
   Regardless of the rationale in the beginning, have the economic lockdowns that are currently on-going become nothing more than the exercise of political power? Did Governor Whitmer just make a veiled promise to open up if we elect Biden or more of a veiled threat to remain shut-down if we re-elect Trump? Whitmer can only answer for herself and exactly how political the lockdown of Michigan happens to be. She certainly can not speak on behalf of all the other Democrats who maintain their own lockdowns. To me, her statement does sound a lot like an admission of politics rather than public safety. But only Whitmer knows what is going on in her head. Maybe a journalist will ask her.