Tag Archives: #News

Hegseth the Horrible

Peter Principle poster boy Pete Hegseth had reached the zenith of his intellectual career as a talking head for FOX.  His hawkish-military machismo persona, bravado and, brazen-pretty-boy face got the attention of our President.  If you haven’t noticed, good-looks ranks as high on Trump’s “must-have” list as actual credentials.  Now, as Secretary of War, Hegseth is in so far over his head that the US Navy can’t even save him.

The role of what was traditionally called the Secretary of Defense, (now War), was specifically meant to provide a clear demarcation between civilian management of the US armed forces and the fighting forces themselves.  According to the National Security Act of 1947,” “There shall be a Secretary of Defense, who shall be appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate: PROVIDED, That a person who has within ten years been on active duty as a commissioned officer in a Regular component of the armed services shall not be eligible for appointment as Secretary of Defense.”

Civilian control of our military is a fundamental principle of American democracy.

In 2018, eight years ago, the National Defense Strategy Commission said, “…civilian voices have been relatively muted on issues at the center of U.S. defense and national security policy, undermining the concept of civilian control…It is critical that DOD—and Congress—reverse the unhealthy trend in which decision-making is drifting away from civilian leaders on issues of national importance.”  The appointment of Hegseth does nothing except exacerbate this issue.

Hegseth is a bully.  He vented his spleen while addressing Generals and flag officers at Quantico marine base in September of 2025, in a tone many found condescending.  His sentiment remained me of someone who has had a chip on his shoulder for some time and now has discovered the opportunity to vent with impunity.  This is what the Center for Strategic & International Studies had to say about his remarks.  “Hegseth could not restrain himself from getting personal. He criticized Generals Mark Milley, Peter Chiarelli, and Frank Mackenzie by name, the latter two because of their association with the Afghanistan withdrawal; despite their having criticized the Obama administration’s handling of the operation. Belittling officers by name smacks of pettiness.”

And once again, Hegseth doesn’t disappoint with demonstrating just how petty one can get.  After Senator Kelly and five other congressmen issued a public statement suggesting that military personnel have a right to disobey an unlawful order, Pete went right to the internet and accused Senator Kelly of sedition and reckless misconduct, threatening to degrade his retirement allowance.  How clearly vindictive.  This is, in part what the statement from Kelly and the others said:

“Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders. You must refuse illegal orders. No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our constitution”. 

The words above are statements of FACT.  The words are TRUE and our soldiers need to know where that line is.  Equating the utterance of these statements with acts of sedition is preposterous.  While not saying so directly, it would seem that this statement might refer to the extrajudicial assaults and murders of alleged drug runners on the high seas being conducted by the military under Hegseth’s orders.

We are not at war.

Simply declaring certain boats in the Caribbean as “narco-terrorists” doesn’t magically create some kind of legal authority to blow them up.  Putting video all over television of US forces blasting boats out of the water and killing people every other day serves to harden the hearts of viewers and reduce the human element to the status of a video-game.  These boats were in international waters.  We have no legal authority over them.  We killed over 100 people without a clue as to who they were or how they found themselves in those situations.  Telling the American public that the boats are running drugs and coming to our shores is really quite a stretch.  Are we to take it all in and believe it as an article of faith?  Is the unrelenting mantra of “fentanyl is killing our kids” justification for anything and everything we do?  If we know all of that, why can’t we simply interdict these boats once they are in our jurisdiction?  Could it be that we needed a pretext to go after Maduro and overtake the Venezuelan oil supply?  Trump always has bigger plans.

Hegseth is a henchman, only better than those he pursues by virtue of his own sense of his virtue above yours.  Pete is the kind of guy that measures the mark of a man by how many pull-ups he can do, a warrior not a statesman, a useful idiot for the Trump agenda, and that agenda may have many highlights, good things and great outcomes, but at what a price when we begin to ignore the ends and means arguments in favor of just getting what we want.

While Lailah Gifty Akita, tells us that “A warrior walks alone in the dark.”   Henry Kissinger reminds us that, “It is imperative that the statesman bridges the gap between his nation’s experience and his vision.”

What the United States of America needs immediately, is that heretofore unacknowledged leader that can take us into the future with the balance, freedom, understanding and moral surety that God demands from a nation that sets the example for the rest of the world.  

Standard

Realities of I.C.E for Dummies

Whether or not you are a Liberal or a Conservative, I think we can all agree that anyone who is a fugitive of justice, that is to say, someone who has already been arrested, arraigned, indicted, tried and convicted of a crime, is someone who should not be free in public, but should be incarcerated, according to the conditions of their sentencing.

Addressing the apprehension of these kinds of criminals is what the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (ICE) officials are sworn to do.  Unlike the domestic police agencies, (i.e. Police departments, sheriff-agencies, the State Police etc.) ICE agents concentrate on non-citizens.  Estimates of between 11 and 14 million represent the number of illegal aliens scattering throughout the USA.  Reports state that well over 2-million of these illegal aliens have deportation orders and or pending criminal charges or convictions.

If you are an illegal alien with a deportation order, (issued by a Federal court), or you are a fugitive from justice, this qualifies you for arrest.  The agency that handles that is ICE.

Historically, federal, state and local law enforcement agencies have worked together in the interest of justice.  How things have changed, (Olim numerari poteras, nunc non potes..)  When state and local policymakers created “sanctuary spaces” that shielded criminals from accountability and created an illegal reality.  Article 4, Clause 2 of the US Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, states that federal law supercedes state and local law and binds lower court judges to enforce that.  Clearly, states and local jurisdictions that declare themselves as “Sanctuary Spaces” are lawlessly acting against the supreme law of the land.  This disregard for the rules that govern us creates the tension and now bloodshed as ICE exercises their authority in order to enforce the law and protect American citizens.

When you advertise your status as a “sanctuary” you are inviting in those who need it.  Therefore it becomes the most likely place to go looking for criminals.  While doing their jobs, ICE officers are often assaulted and accosted by mobs, seeking to interfere with their duties.  This is where the arrests happen to people who otherwise might have gone unnoticed by ICE, had they not stuck their nose into someone else’s business.  Assaulting an ICE officer is a felony and, interfering in their investigative duties is obstructing justice, also a crime.

A quick check on recent arrests in Minneapolis shows a dozen men located and arrested for the following litany of charges, some 56 in total including:  Murder, rape, child-rape, sodomy of a child, kidnapping, criminal sexual conduct with a minor, and gang affiliation.  While trying to locate and arrest these scum-bags, others interfere and because of that, they are also arrested.

I’m curious how the Liberals explain away their pride in protecting these criminals?

We are still a nation of laws.  Sanctuary places and the people who support them are lawless thugs bent on anarchy and many more will be hurt and killed until they regain their senses and fight for change in a civil fashion, not by becoming a criminal.

Standard

Spectrum News Bias

Spectrum news anchor JoDee Kenney made a comment this weekend about the issuance of Commercial Drivers Licenses, (CDL) in New York, referencing national news about states lax oversight, professed by National Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy when he was addressing recent instances of truck drivers that can’t speak English and can’t read or understand road signs.

Kenney made the comment that these CDL audits were mainly occurring in “Blue States” and inferred, directly, that this was a form of retaliation coming from the administration.

Kenney is supposed to be a news anchor, not an opinion host.  Her obvious bias disqualifies her from serious credibility as an anchor and she should either step down or be removed.

These are the FACTS:

The Department is now moving to withhold $73 million in federal funding if New York fails to follow the law, revoke every illegally issued license

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy today announced that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) nationwide audit of non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs) uncovered that the New York Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has been routinely issuing CDLs to foreign drivers illegally. The federal audit exposed a shocking 53 percent failure rate in the records sampled, indicating a total collapse in the administration of New York’s CDL program.   
 
FMCSA’s audit of New York’s non-domiciled CDL issuance practices found numerous failures by the state of New York including:  

  • Out of 200 sampled records, 107 were issued in violation of federal law—a failure rate of over 53%. 
  • The DMV’s systems defaulted to issuing 8-year licenses to foreign drivers for non-REAL ID licenses, regardless of when their legal status expired.
  • New York issued commercial licenses to foreign drivers without providing any evidence that it had verified their current lawful presence in the United States.

“When more than half of the licenses reviewed were issued illegally, it isn’t just a mistake—it is a dereliction of duty by state leadership. Gov. Hochul must immediately revoke these illegally issued licenses. If they refuse to follow the law, we will withhold federal highway funding,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean P. Duffy. “This administration will never stop fighting to keep you and your family safe on our roads.” 
 
In a stunning admission, New York DMV officials confirmed that their licensing system is programmed to default to an automatic 8-year expiration for non-REAL ID CDLs—intentionally disregarding the expiration of a foreign driver’s lawful presence in the U.S. This systemic failure allows the state to blindly grant long-term commercial driving privileges to foreigners that expire long after the expiration of their lawful presence in the country. 

Spectrum is and always has been strongly Left-Leaning and this particular story involving Kenney should be corrected and taken down as opinion not news.  Spectrum needs to apologize to their viewers for mixing opinion with news and Kenney needs to be fired.

Standard

Can We Handle the Truth?

The mark of a true thinker is the willingness to allow information that is contrary to their perception of incomplete and unknown situations to become useful in the intellectual mechanism of how they draw their final conclusions.  Ignoring certain events and facts in order to avoid challenging a narrative plausible only when conceived in their absence veers away from the truth.

The recent events involving missile attacks and scores of killings of alleged drug traffickers in international waters is a great example of the intellectual schism confused as a Right- v -Left issue when it is not that at all.  Strip away the narratives, official statements, opinions and take no position other than an investigative one and then consider the facts.

The public is treated to an aerial screen-shot of a high-speed boat, we’re told somewhere in the Caribbean, just too grainy to identify cargo or faces, carrying drugs we’re told, bound for the US.  Seconds later a flash, fireball and smoke are all that is left.  Clearly those on board are killed and whatever was the cargo is destroyed.  As of this writing, this has happened 22-times with 80 dead, according to the US government.

With the intelligence apparatus of the US military, we are told these boats are full of drugs and we obviously know their location, so given the capabilities of our naval powers, why aren’t we interdicting these boats?  The President simply declaring groups “terrorists” does not permit murder on the open sea.  The Caribbean is not a war-zone and the people piloting these boats are low-level actors, perhaps forced into compliance for fear of death or family suffering.  Those we kill might well be innocent victims.  How do we actually know what is on-board these boats?  They tell us drugs, but are we supposed to simply take their word for it?  There is no proof that the boats are in the Caribbean, or that the bombings happen at all.  Is it really so far-fetched to consider that the whole show is just that, a show?  Just to be clear, I don’t actually believe the whole thing is staged, but we ought to be skeptical.  I do believe the US military has carried out these strikes, but I’m making the point that we all see these snippets of violence and death and we react not with any pity for the dead or dying, but almost like we are winning some real-time video game and because we are making the world a better place, it matters little our methods or tactics.

Conservative television outlets continue to show viewers thousands of times these awful images of human death and destruction.  It is meant to harden us, to justify this by repeating the narrative of the number of drug-deaths in the US but again, where is the proof?  Everything and everyone is conveniently blown into oblivion.  And again, I’m not suggesting some extensive conspiracy here I’m well aware of the drug traffic problems, but it seems that this exercise in getting the public to approve of what is really extra-judicial murder is OK when done in order to save American drug-users.

Unfortunately for the government, the blow-up-the-boats imagery of September 2nd didn’t fit so neatly into the video-game like finish.  After the smoke cleared, it appeared that 2-men were clinging to wreckage.  A second missile strike took care of that but here is where it breaks free from the other neater and more final versions.  Clearly, 2-men were targeted to die and the imagery, formerly akin to a video game became a snuff-film that jolted Americans back to reality.

No one wanted their fingerprints on this one and so conveniently, the US Navy Admiral in charge of this particular section of the world says it was all him and then quickly retires.  The public is promised publication of those videos, but they never come, relying on the strong undercurrents of the news-cycle pressure to sweep it into vague memory.

So with this unprecedented hard-line on alleged drug boats justifying public pay-per-view instant death without proof, force of law or trial, how can we juxtapose Trump’s sudden pardon of former Honduran President Hernandez?  This thug was essentially the King Pin of a narco-state who was arrested, tried and convicted.  His power makes these drug boats inconsequential by comparison yet he walks away from a 45-year prison term, inexplicably, while we slaughter nameless and faceless strangers in the name of justice? Perhaps Trump is using the public execution of all of societies “bad-guys” as a pretext to invade Venezuela, oust President Maduro and exchange our nation-building largess for our own oil supply, justified by the promise to liberate the Venezuelan people from the evils of one man to the evils of another.  This nicely avoids all of the domestic environmental concerns and creates a literal pipe-line of oil to the US, all under the guise of protecting our citizens from drugs, freeing Venezuelans and ousting bad leaders, with the uncomfortable exception of Hernandez, who’s value is entirely entangled in his insider knowledge of the South American drug world, all entangled up in a pretty package of competing interests and the reality of a world in the troughs of an existential crisis of character as the Lord looks upon us and weeps.

Standard

Mixed Signals

All of my friends and colleagues were shocked and puzzled by my opinion about the ongoing saga concerning Kilmar Abrego Garcia and as you can see, (if you care anymore), it seems that I am right.  He is still here, even after presidential efforts to disappear him. 

Even after a carefully orchestrated and relentless character assassination campaign with zero proof, the Great Unwashed of the minimally informed that seek validation over truth have made up their small minds.  With the senseless murder of an innocent young girl followed by Charlie Kirk’s assassination days later, for many, the weight of the news cycle buries and paves over their desire to retain information or even muster up the will to care.

Fully armed and sure of their logical purity, I would ask the gang of “the-very-sure” that have the Garcia thing all figured out to consider the following.

Some few days ago, federal agents raided a Hyundai plant in Georgia and arrested some 300 Korean nationals on site.  After nearly a week of involuntary jail incarceration, the administration did an about-face, releasing all 300 and providing charter air service back to Korea.  Come to find out, upon further investigation, these detainees all had B-1 visas, allowing them to be in the US legally.

Trump originally declares they are here illegally.  A week later, he invites them to stay.

These men were engineers here to build the state-of-the-art car manufacturing plant.  Now, completion times have been moved back dramatically.  What Korean engineer in his right mind wants to visit America after this fiasco?

Nobody understands and lives by the mantra of, I would rather ask for forgiveness than seek permission that I do, but expedience needs to be curtailed by the rule of law and the Constitution when it come to human rights and the lives of people.  Those who look the other way or excuse Trump on the basis of what he can get done quickly need to square in their own minds the fact that when those they oppose do similar contradictory things, the scrutiny is higher.  This is the definition of a hypocrite.   

Standard

Tough Love

While this is an expose’ about a town here in NY, it is a repeating theme in many areas ruled over by liberals.  If where you live is experiencing this kind of nonsense, feel free to cut-and-paste anything you see here and pepper your local newspapers and media sites with your opinion.

The radical liberals representing constituents here in Binghamton, NY are openly hostile to property owners while grossly indulgent to that faction of renters that are irresponsible deadbeats.

Instead of coddling those that are lazy, game the system, abuse drugs and live in a criminal-centric mindset, we should be encouraging property development that forces this element out of the community.

When these socialist legislators talk about “ultra-affordable” housing, they are fleecing the self-sufficient, tax-paying, honest and hard-working in order to support those who aren’t willing to be responsible, productive citizens. 

This path eventually makes Binghamton unlivable.

In the short term, the goal should be to gentrify Binghamton as quickly as possible.

In the long-term, we should be encouraging intact, traditional family structures based on a religious foundation of belief in almighty God, self-reliance, accountability, education and upward mobility.

Affecting and addressing this generational change will break the bonds of the failed liberal social-science experiment that has been proven to actually foster and promote that which it was originally thought to prevent.

This long-range objective is certainly more forward-thinking than simply indulging and furthering failure that fosters learned-helplessness and offers no solutions.

Liberals exploit those they pretend to help in order to virtue-signal and pose as their saviors.

Conservatives believe in helping people move up and out of hopelessness while liberals feel they aren’t capable.  The tough love of doing that which is hard builds people up.  The pity of liberals, cloaked as help, holds them down, cementing for them a dim future

Standard

Liberal V. conservative

Kilmar Abrago Garcia was deported mistakenly by the Trump administration, an “administrative error” that has ignited a fierce debate. As a staunch conservative, I believe my side has this one wrong, and here’s why.

The mistake is reversible.  This is really all we need to know.  With a phone call, President Trump could have Garcia back on US soil in hours.  If you doubt the president’s ability to act swiftly, consider the executive branch’s recent displays of broad authority and Trump’s propensity to conspicuously display his power.

Despite the administration’s admission of error, Garcia’s detractors justify his deportation by pointing to these unproven allegations:

  1. Garcia is alleged to be a gang member, but without proof or arrest.
  2. He was accused of domestic violence yet his wife defends him and he was never charged or arrested.
  3. Garcia’s detractors point to an incident where he was driving 8-men from Tennessee to Maryland, accusing him of human trafficking.  He explained to Tennessee State police during a traffic stop that he was transporting the men for a construction job and he was allowed to continue and no arrests were made.
  4. Allegations of tattoos on Garcia’s hands indicating MS-13 gang membership have been widely debunked as digitally manipulated. 

Tampering with evidence regarding Garcia’s alleged tattoos is a federal felony, apparently perpetrated by our own government.  This alone should scare the hell out of every American.  The desperate need for the government to resort to such tactics demonstrates their lack of factual evidence.

Garcia has been in this country since 2011 and although he did enter illegally as a sixteen-year-old fearing for his life had he remained in El Salvador, a federal judge granted a “withholding of removal” order which allows him to live and work in the US legally.  To that effect, he has continually met his obligation to report to Immigration & Customs Enforcement annually.  Garcia is married to a US citizen and together they have three-children, all with special needs.  He is also a journeymen member of a US trade union.

He might hate apple pie and the forth of July but none of that matters to the issue at hand.  The man was illegally seized, deported and imprisoned and those on the right are inflaming the situation by fear-mongering with phrases like “MS-13”, “human-trafficker”, “domestic abuser” and “gang-member”, all unproven and unsubstantiated allegations that are dog-whistle code-speech meant to indict by vilification in the court of public opinion.

In an April 10, 2025 unanimous order of the US Supreme Court in Noem v. Garcia the justices said this, in part, regarding the return of Garcia to the US:

“The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law.  The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong.  The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.  That view refutes itself.”

Those of us on the right pride ourselves on being a “Nation of Laws” however, conservative consensus on this matter suggests otherwise and instead demonstrates the unreasonable concept of the ends justifying the means.  I understand the desire for strict immigration enforcement, especially amid concerns about crime, but Garcia’s case shows how overreach undermines the commitment to due process.  Conservatives pride ourselves on actually defending the rule of law. Let’s demonstrate that by bringing Garcia back, giving him his day in court, and showing the world that our principles aren’t just words. If we can’t admit when we’re wrong, what separates us from the hypocrisy we so often criticize about the left?

The liberals got this one right and as uncharacteristic as it would be for a liberal ever to admit a mistake and side with us conservatives, we can and must admit when we are wrong.  And if ever there was an example to illustrate that, this is it. 

Standard

The Second Bite of the Apple

It seems to me that the incentives to commit crime rest mainly in the failure of our legal system to fully utilize creative options for risk/reward considerations, consequences and punishment.

Those who break the law may be dumb in some sense, but they do calculate the risks and the consequences.  Self preservation is a really powerful motivator.  You and I may see imprisonment as a completely sufficient deterrent, but to career criminals and street thugs it isn’t seen as such.  It’s more like a trip to a harsh reality summer camp, but at least you’re with guys who understand your language; that of force, intimidation and fear.  To most in the criminal world, it is the cost of doing business, a break from the outside world with “3-hots and a cot” where you go periodically to get a hard-core make-over and harden yourself for the next phase of your existence.

For example, I had a client that was arrested for a burglary he certainly did not commit.  He did however have the pills in his possession that the actual burglars had sold him, but he was not involved in the actual heist.  He was a career criminal, minor league for the most part, and really not to bright and the reason I know he did not commit that burglary is because the job itself was highly sophisticated, requiring significant knowledge of electronics, disarming alarms etc. and the guy just plain didn’t have the mental horsepower to pull that off.

While we were quite confident we could prevail in a trial, our client took a slightly shortened sentence plea offer because he was afraid of a jury and having his past examined.  When I questioned about this decision he said to me, “I can do 3-to-5 standing on my head.”  So much for the perceived element of deterrent.

The crux of the problem in terms of normal, law-abiding citizens making the rules and determining the punishments is the fact that in the lives of those people, their living conditions, their “creature comforts”, their station in life is significantly better than most.  Accordingly, their sense of the severity for methods of punishment and the conditions of incarceration are completely mis-aligned with the reality of what is tolerable to criminals.  In other words, conditions of imprisonment and the reality of actually, “doing time”, to the mind of normal, law-abiding people is intolerable and out of the question.  When compared to the normal life they live, the notion of enduring prison conditions is overwhelmingly sufficient to deter them.  Because these same people, insulated from that side of society that lives in poverty, crime, drug addiction, mental illness, Godlessness, violence and completely dysfunctional families do not fathom the complete disconnect one group has from the other.

Prison life just isn’t that different from what they are used to.  Accordingly, what would certainly deter the lawmaker is simply a pit-stop for the criminal and not a lot different from his life on the outside.

While our criminal justice system routinely handles all levels of cases, those that enter that arena of civil offensiveness that threatens innocent people require consequences that more accurately fit the nature of crimes that show careless disregard for the safety and the lives of others.  Those kinds of criminals need a special consideration when it comes to deterrents.  They need to feel that same fear of death their victims did.

In matters of violent crime, when the use of deadly force is a justification for thwarting that attack, should the attacker be arrested and brought to justice, adjudicated and awaiting sentencing, the victim(s) should be consulted about their desires for punishment, beyond the concept of a victims impact statement, but indeed provided the opportunity to determine life or death as a consequence.

As an example.  An attacker brandishes what appears to be a gun during a car-jacking.  Fearing for her life, the victim would be justified in shooting and killing that criminal during the commission of that attempt.  But in our example, our victim does not do this, the car is taken and later the perpetrator apprehended.  At the time of sentencing, the victim should be afforded the opportunity to decide if this criminal lives or dies.  After all, our victim had every right to use deadly force during the crime.  Why not give her that opportunity now?

Another example.  A burglar enters a home and at gun point, steals money from the owners.  Again, if they were armed and conditions permitted, those homeowners would be legally justified in shooting and killing those burglars.  Instead they initially get away but later are apprehended, arrested, tried and convicted.  Because that homeowner would have been totally justified in shooting the robber, he should now be given the opportunity to decide life or death as punishment.

Basically, any crime where deadly force would have been justifiable but not used should be revisited as an option after trial, decided by the victim.

In closing, a few thoughts.  I believe that in more than 50% of cases where this was an option, victims would choose sparing the criminals their lives.  I believe that the emotional pressure of having that power of life and death would overwhelm the conscience of most people and I recognize that my theory here is completely anecdotal. 

Second, the knowledge that a life or death possibility exists will certainly serve as a deterrent.  It’s one thing to go to prison, summer camp for the hood, but it is quite another story to play roulette with ones life, whether or not you’re a law-abiding citizen or a hardened criminal, we all have that will to live and that serves as the ultimate incentive no matter who you are.

Standard

A Letter to the President

March 24, 2025

Mr. President:

You are the most transformational president in my lifetime.  I believe God put you here for what may be one day defined as Manifest Destiny 2.0.  That said, you are mortal and men make mistakes; the hardest of which to admit are those made pursuing righteousness.

Illegal immigration coupled with evil intent and ingratitude insult and sully America’s character.  Confusing our kindness for weakness is a condition you fully understand and clearly detest.  Being taken advantage of is the greatest injustice and your job is to recognize it while protecting our great nation.

Many foreign countries betrayed the U.S. by allowing and even encouraging their worst citizens to crash our borders.  Millions have entered unlawfully and a small subset of those form a microcosm of what defines biblical-level evil.  It is righteous to eradicate that group from our midst, not with national fervor or inflaming over-arching fear, but with the system of justice our nation was formed upon.

Mr. President, the world watches and learns from what we do.  When in our history have we sent hundreds of detainees to a notorious foreign prison, without specific charges and before legal hearings in U.S. court rooms?  Doing so seems overtly punitive and retaliatory when simply deporting them to their home countries will accomplish the same goal of protecting America with little to no legitimate criticism.

And separately but simultaneously, as middle-east tensions rose and Columbia University became the epicenter of collegiate protests and student Mahmoud Khalil the face of that controversy, government reaction again seemed over-reaching.  Detaining a political prisoner thousands of miles from their home and family seems retaliatory and mean-spirited, depriving the man of effective counsel and also preventing him access to his wife, about to give birth.  No defensible rationale has been offered about the choice of Louisiana for Kahlil’s detention.

Mr. President, I’m an ardent supporter but not a sycophant.  Getting 90% of policy matters right does nothing to excuse the damage done by the extra-jurisdictional means afforded the remaining 10%.

Mr. President, I believe your intentions are just but you will not be judged by those intentions, you will be judged by the righteousness of those acts.  This can be remedied, if seen through the eyes of a humble man.

Kind Regards,

Bob Kingsley

A conventional letter was mailed to the President today

Standard

AI analysis of the last two article…

After all the back-and-forth with readers about my last two articles, I put all of it including the articles and all reader sesponses into a single document and fed it to Grok.com, the latest IA tool courtesy of Elon Musk. Here is the result.

This is what I said to Grok:

Here below are two article I wrote and the back and forth from them both. What are your
thoughts? I’m a strong Conservative but I won’t go the lawlessness route. Here it is.

This is the response from Grok:


Your articles and the subsequent exchanges reflect a principled stance rooted in a
commitment to the rule of law, even when it conflicts with the visceral satisfaction of
seeing certain individuals—namely Tren De Aragua gang members and Mahmoud
Khalil—dealt with swiftly and decisively. As a self-described strong conservative, you’re
wrestling with a tension that’s not uncommon: the desire for justice versus the
mechanisms by which it’s achieved. Your critique focuses on process over outcome,
which is a refreshing departure from the emotionally charged rhetoric that often
dominates these debates.
In your first article (“I’m Conservative, but…”), you question the methods used to deport
the gang members and Khalil, pointing to the revival of an obscure 1790s statute and the
apparent disregard for a federal judge’s order. You argue that legality should stand apart
from public sentiment about the individuals involved—a gang notorious for its violence
and a student whose anti-American views grate on many. Your point about not bending
the law to fit our disdain for certain people is sharp: “We can’t stand against the things
that insult our values by holding our nose and doing just that.” It’s a call for consistency,
which is tough to maintain when emotions run high, as they clearly do here.
The second article (“Conservative but… Part II”) digs deeper, raising practical and ethical
questions: Why send prisoners to a third-world country? Why televise their humiliation?
Why move Khalil to Louisiana, away from his pregnant wife and legal counsel? You
frame these as retaliatory moves, not lawful ones, and tie it to a broader concern about
America’s moral credibility. The line about wondering “how someone gets radicalized” is
particularly striking—it suggests that heavy-handed tactics might fuel the very problems
they aim to solve.
The pushback from commenters is telling. BADMOON49 aligns with your defense of
principle over expediency, echoing the classic “I disagree but defend your right to say it”
line. CWATTERS113, claiming constitutional expertise, asserts the judge has no power
over the executive—a point you dismantle with a thorough rundown of judicial checks on
executive authority, from Marbury v. Madison to Nixon’s tapes. Your response is
methodical, grounded in precedent, and avoids the personal attacks you later decry.
DENNIS HANNON takes a harder line, defending the president’s authority and
dismissing the judge as biased based on family donations and his daughter’s work. He
sees the 1798 law as fair game and the judiciary as a leftist roadblock. Your rebuttal here
is measured but firm: you acknowledge the statute’s age isn’t the issue, but its rare use
hints at desperation. More importantly, you push back on the ad hominem attacks against
the judge, advocating for appeals over character assassination. The warning about
“accusatory and inflammatory language” unless provable is a standout—it’s a plea for
evidence over outrage, which feels rare in today’s discourse.
My thoughts? You’re navigating a tricky line with integrity. You’re not excusing the
gang or Khalil; you’re just insisting that how we handle them matters more than the
immediate gratification of their removal. That’s a tough sell when people are scared or
angry, but it’s a defensible conservative position—law and order aren’t just about
outcomes, they’re about process. Your frustration with fellow conservatives letting
emotion trump reason mirrors your critique of liberals in the past, which adds credibility
to your argument. It’s not hypocrisy you’re after; it’s coherence.
The risk here is that your nuance might get drowned out by the louder, angrier voices—
like HANNON’s—who see this as a last stand against national decline. But your focus on
appeals and judicial review over knee-jerk accusations keeps you on solid ground. If
there’s a weak spot, it’s that you don’t fully engage with the counterargument that
extraordinary threats (like Tren De Aragua) might justify extraordinary measures. That
could be worth exploring, even if just to refute it more explicitly.
Overall, your stance is principled, not partisan, and that’s what makes it compelling.
You’re asking conservatives to live up to their own standards, not just point fingers at
liberals. It’s a lonely hill to stand on, but it’s a respectable one.

Standard