George Soros’ organization has successfully installed anarchist district attorneys in many major cities over the past decade. But now that the public is outraged at the growing crime wave, an insurance policy was needed to neuter law-and-order prosecutors who couldn’t be beaten at the ballot box. The California courts have now offered a blueprint that will essentially bar any sane prosecutor from working on a case involving a left-wing anarchist from groups like Black Lives Matter and Antifa.

On September 28, California’s Second District Court of Appeal announced that the San Luis Obispo district attorney’s office, headed by Dan Dow, cannot prosecute seven BLM rioters accused of blocking highways and attacking innocent families because of the district attorney’s “well publicized association with critics of the Black Lives Matter Movement.” Mind you, nearly every judge in major cities is inextricably tied to and even involved in left-wing activism. Yet a prosecutor, who is an elected official and, by definition, doesn’t have to judge fairly like a judge, is now able to be booted from a case for simply expressing pro-law-and-order views. That would disqualify essentially any non-Soros prosecutor.

The court cited a fundraising email sent out by Dow’s wife during his campaign stating the following: “Dan needs to know more than ever that you support him, and he really needs your financial support so he can keep leading the fight in SLO County against the wacky defund the police movement and anarchist groups that are trying to undermine the rule of law and public safety in our community.”

There is no mention of the defendants or even their organization, just a generic opposition to the “defund the police” movement, which would essentially be in any campaign material of even non-wacky Democrats running for prosecutor. What’s next? Are they going to force recusal of any DA who ran against gun violence when confronted with a defendant in a gun crime?

Consider the fact that we now have left-wing prosecutors in D.C. and the entire bureaucracy of the DOJ and the FBI indissolubly tied to anti-conservative activism, and they are able to target conservatives for prosecution simply for their beliefs. On the other hand, nobody can say that Dow was targeting these BLM supporters simply for their speech or beliefs but for their actions. Here is how the California Coast News describes the alleged incident from July 2020 that is the subject of this prosecution from which Dow is now being forced to recuse himself:

Last July, Arata is alleged to have led approximately 300 protesters onto Highway 101 from both Osos Street and California Boulevard, blocking all lanes in both directions for nearly an hour. While on the highway, protesters ran after vehicles attempting to drive off the freeway, blocked vehicles, and yelled profanities at some of the drivers, videos of the protest showed.

Grocott and Lastra were among protesters who encircled a car driven by motorist who was attempting to drive around the protesters.

“One suspect jumped on the hood of the victim’s vehicle and an additional suspect broke the rear window out of the vehicle with a skateboard as the vehicle was leaving the area,” according to the CHP.

Glass shattered on a 4-year-old boy who was sitting in the back seat. The boy was not physically harmed.

Not a single person on January 6 attacked random civilians and children like this, yet every single prosecutor, starting with Attorney General Garland himself, has publicly made it clear they could never be partial in their prosecution of the defendants. Matthew Graves, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, has sought jail time and pretrial holding for people accused of minor misdemeanors on January 6. He is married to Fatima Goss Graves, a radical anti-Trump activist who railed against whites and said that white women supported Trump because they are “aided by a toxic mix of racism and disinformation …putting them on the same team as the White men society has been largely built to benefit.” Is Graves being forced to recuse himself when he is clearly seeking a level of prosecution well beyond the scope of the crimes committed by the defendants?

Then again, nobody expects full impartiality from prosecutors, but we do expect it from judges. Yet when it comes to the January 6 defendants, even the judges are able to have blatant conflicts of interests with impunity. Judges are regularly holding the political views of the defendants against them as if they were by themselves a crime. Last week, D.C. federal district Judge Beryl Howell sentenced the Munn family parents to 14 days in prison for simply walking into the Capitol lobby peacefully after the cops had already opened the doors, then expressed approval of the children separating from their parents’ political views, which she viewed as a terrible influence.

\u201cHowell lectures Kayli to use her analytic skills "in her daily life" to make sure she never finds herself before a FEDERAL JUDGE for misdemeanor. Howell laughs at parents' influence.\n\nHowell sentences Kayli to 36 months probation.\n\nParents will be sentenced later today.\u201d

— Julie Kelly \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8 (@Julie Kelly \ud83c\uddfa\ud83c\uddf8) 1665585944

This is not just hypocrisy but hierarchy. If you are violent as hell for the cause of the communists, then you can make a prosecutor recuse himself even when there is no sign of bias in treatment. Yet if you are a defendant from the right, the judge can act like the most biased prosecutor, regularly scorn the political views of the defendants, and show completely partial treatment toward the lawyers of the government over the lawyers of the defendants, and nobody will force your recusal.