The Arctic Frost Scandal Shows That the Democrats Are Projecting Their Desires Onto Republicans

Operation “Arctic Frost” was the Biden-Harris Justice Department’s spying campaign against Republicans predicated on the non-crime of objecting to the results of a presidential election. My colleagues at RedState have previously reported on the Arctic Frost scandal.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) announced Wednesday that "197 subpoenas were issued by Jack Smith, which extended to more than 400 Republican organizations, including Turning Point USA and the Republican Attorneys General Association" as part of the operation, targeting 92 Republican individuals or organizations, including eight senators and one congressman.

Also, the Biden-Harris administration allowed for "unprecedented access" to then-former President Donald Trump through his government-issued phone. Further, conservative or non-left-wing media were surveilled, including Fox News, Newsmax, Fox Business, and Sinclair.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has described Arctic Frost as "worse than Watergate." U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg, who is also busy trying to set up his alternate presidency using powers not normally assigned to judges, has also been shown to be involved.

Basically, Arctic Frost appeared to be a mass attempt by the Biden-Harris administration to spy on Republicans and conservative players, including a former president who was the leader of the Republican Party, to fish for information and potential illegalities.

It should also be remembered that in 2016, the Obama-Biden administration also spied on the Republican presidential campaign of Donald Trump.

All of this Democrat spying reminds me of an earlier presidential spying “scandal.”

Post 2004, BDS – “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” for those too young to remember – was running wild on the left. Democrats were screaming obscenities about "Bushitler," calling him a dumb cowboy, who wanted a religious society full of oppressed women, and who was willing to sacrifice American blood for oil. A fake documentary about President Bush’s assassination was even produced to some acclaim.

Anyway, on December 16, 2005, the New York Times exposed the Bush administration’s Warrantless Wiretapping Program, and the “NSA Spying Scandal” began. Some of you may remember it.

The tragic event of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack persuaded President George W. Bush to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to engage in a warrantless wiretapping program aimed at monitoring international phone conversations between persons residing in the United States and persons believed to be affiliated with terrorist organizations. A firestorm of controversy emerged with heated debate about the legality of the NSA program. Legal scholars’ opinions about the legality of the program widely varied, with some suggesting that the program was a glaring violation of the law while others argued that the President was within the law and that his actions were necessary to protect the security of the nation.

Essentially, the Bush administration exploited a loophole in the FISA law to target persons in the U.S. who were dialing outside the country to talk to persons who were suspected of being affiliated with radical Islamic terror groups in nations like Pakistan and Afghanistan.

At the time, the Washington, D.C. Democrats erupted in great fury and riotous indignation over this spy program. Many of those people are still with us today:

Then-Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) decried the spying: “The liberties and rights that define us as Americans and the system of checks and balances that serve to preserve them should not be sacrificed to threats of terrorism or to the expanding power of the Government. In the days immediately following those attacks, I said, and I continue to believe, that the terrorists win if they frighten us into sacrificing our freedoms and what defines us as Americans… If we abandon our democracy to battle them, they win.”
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said of the Bush administration’s decision to surveil, “(T)hey have sort of an attitude 'we can do whatever we want;' that's not (how) the Constitution is structured.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA-11) said the program "raises serious questions as to what the activities were and whether the activities were lawful."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) refused to rule out censure or impeachment of President Bush and gravely cautioned, "(W)e need to take this seriously, more seriously than some other matters that might come before the committee because our privacy as American citizens is at stake.”
Then-Congressman Ed Markey (MA-07) claimed, "(W)e have reached a privacy crisis.”
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) said he was “stunned” by the Bush administration’s actions and rationale.

Apparently, the Democrat standard to be gleaned from all of these scandals is that the federal government spying on a phone call overseas to a suspicious and possibly terror-supporting non-citizen is far more constitutionally and legally suspect than the federal government spying inside the U.S. on citizens who are also political rivals of the current government.

This is quite a standard, isn’t it?

Also, we can see that a political strategy sometimes used by the Democrats is projection. Per Psychology Today, “Projection is the process of displacing one’s feelings onto a different person, animal, or object. The term is most commonly used to describe defensive projection—attributing one’s own unacceptable urges to another.”

Here, the Democrats, in the 2000s, were projecting their own desire to spy on Republicans onto the Republicans who were in power at the time.

Which brings me to an especially problematic concern – do the Democrats want to institute a Nazi dictatorship in 2029?

Don’t blame me; I am just asking questions.

Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Senate Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.

Please help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.