NIG***

I didn’t finish it, but you saw and heard it.  Literary suicide by keyboard, but for three letters.  A symbolic stick of dynamite discharging a plethora of problems, dilemmas, social questions while poking at pop culture.  No other word has such irrational influence.  A declaration with no sense, but a thousand meanings.  Dictionary.com calls it, “…the most offensive word in English.”

A force that has the power to end a white career and start a black one.  Kryptonite in the classroom, “street-cred” in the clubs.  Six letters that can destroy a white comedian while popularizing and venerating the black one.  A remark so dangerous that it was renamed, “THE N WORD”, just so it could be discussed without actually saying or hearing it.  A reverberation so sinister that apparently ears can no longer tolerate its very sound.  Two syllables forming an expression so despised that the NAACP declared it dead, held a funeral and buried it, (apparently while still alive.)

A term of endearment in the “hood”, sufficient reason to murder somewhere else.  Hate speech if I say it, a reason to laugh from Chris Rock.  Instantly and permanently ruining the comic Michael Richards while qualifying Samuel Jackson for an Oscar nomination in Pulp Fiction.

In his 1996 groundbreaking live HBO comedy show, “Bring the Pain”, Chris Rock’s Niggas Vs. Black People routine, starts off the 12-minute rant like this:  “There’s like a civil war going on with black people and there’s two sides; there’s black people and there’s niggas and niggas have got to go.”  He goes on to say, “I love black people, but I hate niggas.” 

Rap “artist”  Bobnlarry’s hit, “Nigga,Nigga,Niggga”, has well over 8-million downloads and says, “Nigga”, 98-times in one-minute and eighteen seconds.

Could any white performer succeed doing Rock’s routine or Bobnlarry’s rap piece?

“Nigga” as opposed to “Nigger” is alive and well because its slurred deviation indicates to the black insiders the absence of malice, a term of endearment.  The hard R of nigger:  White hate speech.  The soft “A” of Nigga, the secret signal of acceptance, peace, “keeping it real”…, yea, “real dumb” according to Rock.

Without that word as a sacrosanct sunspot, would intolerance or racism end?  Without a focal point for the, “I’m empowered by my outrage” reaction this word engenders, might there be less opportunity to blame others and wouldn’t that necessitate a hard look inward?

The content of ones character rests not in our syntax, but in our souls and that word affords for many a convenient divergence from any real self-examination, a justification for being outrageous, an open “dare” to whites to repeat it.  Holding that one card over the heads of all white people, as if it magically induces some kind of super-power?  Nigga; please.

Standard

Remember

Since our nations founding, well over 1-million service members have given their lives in defense of our country.  Unless someone close in your family was one of these patriots, the term “service members” tends to dehumanize the actual toll.  And the further we get from those days of greatest human hecatomb, the more abstract the memory becomes.  Sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, living, breathing people that through their sacrifice, left behind sorrow, grief, despair, and a lifetime of loss to those scores of the living left to mourn their passing.  The great burden of mourning blocks the light of life from the millions that survive, suffer and remember.

Today, we make that painful effort to force ourselves to invite that old hurt, that sorrow, back into our minds in order to honor their sacrifice and to harden our resolve in remembrance so that we not forget why they died.

They died in their own moment of horror so that we might live.  While not all were called to war, all are called to duty.  That sacred obligation to preserve and protect that which they have died for.  The land of the FREE, and the home of the BRAVE isn’t a clever turn-of-the-phrase ending to a song, it is a clarion call for those of us left behind to do our sacred parts.

While we celebrate today through a veil of tears, let us remember that freedom, liberty and the manifest destiny of mankind rests in all of our hands collectively.  No matter our differences, we share our freedom, important enough to warrant wholesale death.  Let this not be forgotten or forsaken.

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

From Fright to Faith

Our first brush with fear comes at birth, thrust from the serene safety of the womb into a world of bright lights and jarring noise. For many, that fear lingers, shaping a life of caution.  Learning how to manage our fears is the key to a happier and more enjoyable life.  Once we learn how fear is used to manipulate us, it becomes less powerful.

Fear is used in ways you probably don’t recognize.  If you don’t use our product(s); you won’t be able to sleep/lose weight/be alert/have more energy/better sex/digestion or regular bowel movements.  If you don’t support our cause; puppies/refugees/babies/the homeless and the elderly will die.  In politics, if you don’t support our party, you will be over-taxed/unpatriotic/financially ruined and hated by everyone.

External fears, like those peddled by advertisers or politicians, thrive on our compliance. Learning to question their claims—‘Do I really need this product to be happy?’ negates their power.  Many fear facing tomorrow, their state of health, their financial condition, their relationships, their careers, their futures.  Many more fear anything new; change, making new friends, losing old friends, their neighbors, traffic.  Fear slows us down, undermines our decision-making and causes indecision.  Fear can make us sick, (“I’m sick over this…”)  Fear, at the least, undermine our life’s pleasures and in some extreme cases can even end it.

There are two distinct forms of fear; the external kinds delivered from others and the internal source, entirely of our own making.  Standing up to the school-yard bully addresses the former, controlling our own mind the latter.

Napoleon Hill said, “Fears are nothing more than a state of mind.”

That said, it is key to know and understand the difference between real, legitimate fear and everything else.  Fearing the dangerous and life-threatening prevents us from death or injury.  This is an appropriate fear, processed in our brains amygdale region which triggers the fight-or-flight response.

Every other form of fear is ours to manage, whether wisely or not.  Learning how to do this means the difference between a happy life and something quite less than that.

A turning-point experience in managing my fears came to me in the form of buying my first motorcycle as a 15-year-old.  The used bike I bought came from the coolest kid in high school.  He had the nicest car, the most radical bike, and the cutest girlfriend in our school.  Everyone loved this guy and I wanted to be more like him.  While I loved motorcycles, I had no clue how to ride one.

 When “Mike” was delivering the bike, he started it up and said, “Here you go, take it for a spin.”  I made some excuse, telling him I trusted him.  Truth was, I feared that Mike would know I was a fraud.  Once he left, I wheeled that bike into the darkened garage and got out the owners manual to see how it worked.  I taught myself how to ride that bike by trial and error.  I faced my fears and I conquered that bike.  Learning about that motorcycle taught me that fear, at its core, often boils down to simple choices—act or retreat, embrace or avoid.

Facing that fear led me to a lifetime of motorcycling.  Mingling the sensation of speed, the in-your-face rush of air, the smells and sights all coincide to push the fear and the danger back into its place as you trade off the uncertainty for the sheer joy of the experience.  I learned that I could be cool too.  The fear was worth the ride.

Fear does not stop death, it stops life.

Fear, in all forms require choices—act or freeze, trust or doubt. This clarity can light the way forward.  For example, you are either healthy or you are sick.  If you’re healthy, you have nothing to worry about.  If you’re sick, consider two things; you’re either getting better or you’re getting worse.  If you’re getting better, you have nothing to worry about.  If you’re getting worse, consider two things; you’re either going to live, or you’re going to die.  If you’re going to live, you’ve got nothing to worry about.  If you’re going to die, consider two things; are you going to heaven or are you going to hell?  If you’re going to heaven, you’ve got nothing to worry about.  If you’re going to hell, well is something worth worrying about and maybe the best example of the importance of how we might best prepare ourselves for the future because we all must face our own death.

Simplifying fear into choices helps us act, but enduring peace often comes from a deeper source—whether philosophy, spirituality, or personal conviction.  While not all fears reduce to simple choices—chronic illness or systemic challenges can feel overwhelming—the principle remains: focusing on what we can control shrinks fear’s shadow.

For centuries, wisdom traditions have offered tools to tame fear, from philosophy to faith. In my own journey, I’ve found solace in the Bible’s guidance.  The word ‘fear’ appears roughly 500 times in the Bible, reflecting its dual role as anxiety and reverence.

It is interesting how fear is used as a contronym, both for the traditional meaning indicating anxiety and terror, as well as the non-traditional meaning when it come to God, meaning holding him in awe and reverence, (“fear of the Lord”)  Using it this way, Proverbs says, “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”  Overwhelmingly, the Bible tells us, “Do not be afraid.”  And as our faith deepens, we can depend upon and take comfort in passages like, “”There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear.”

With faith in God, fear fades when we anchor ourselves in something greater.  Quite simply, fear thrives in the absence of faith. … Belief is the antidote to fear.

What’s your earliest memory of fear? And how does it still shape you today?

Putting our fears into perspective can make them easier to understand and manage.  Going back to our life-and-death story, in those final earthy moments before our demise, I believe our thoughts might be consumed with wondering, did we do enough, are we prepared to face our death, do we move closer to death with faith or with fear?

Faith conquers fear.

Recalling a time of good health, when worries faded, offers perspective for today.  Because we are enjoying our good health and we are alive right in this moment, doesn’t the thought of all this clarify for us the fact that this time, right now, is the time of our lives?  Can not this perspective relieve us all of our fears, if just for a moment in reflection?  Isn’t it true that right now, any of us are free to do whatever we want, if not for whatever fears we allow to persuade us no?

Yesterday provides experience and tomorrow is only a hope.  Today is the only certainty. 

In this moment, our fears are an illusion. As Plato said, ‘We can easily forgive a child afraid of the dark; the real tragedy is when we fear the light.’ Embrace your trust in God, and step boldly into the life awaiting you, today.

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 Bigots at Binghamton University

During the fall semester of 2024, my friend Andy and I hosted a once-weekly public
affairs radio show on the campus station, WHRW. We were fired for being outspoken
white, older, conservative men.


It began when I announced that we had secured a live, on-air interview with University of
Pennsylvania named chair law professor Amy Wax. Professor Wax had just been
stripped of her chaired position and been suspended for one-year at half pay and publicly
reprimanded. Her story was international-level news in academia and the fact that we
had landed her as a guest was phenomenal, or so we thought.


Students run the radio station. Two young girls, the general manager and the public
affairs manager, began demanding of us transcripts of what we would say in our
interview, even though station guidelines clearly tout an open format and minimal
interference. Following demand after demand, which we fulfilled, the girls ultimately
shut down the interview 10-minutes before air, citing “harm to the listeners.”
We filed an official FCC complaint for discrimination and the suppression of speech,
which is currently pending.


On our following show, we had arranged for former University of Pennsylvania trustee
and law school overseer Paul Levy to call in. Because we were ambushed over the Wax
interview, we kept this scheduled call-in to ourselves. Levy resigned from his leadership
position at Penn over the treatment Wax had received and we had a far-ranging very
interesting interview about what had happened. It was the kind of original and interesting
reporting a public affairs show was supposed to produce.


Immediately after that show, the remainder of our shows were abruptly cancelled.
Fast forward to the winter 2025 and spring 2025 semesters. We made no effort to renew
our shows. We aren’t students, we had no other business on campus and we had no
intention of returning to WHRW.


In spite of that reality, the girls began pushing us to avail ourselves to a disciplinary
hearing. When we reminded them that we were gone, didn’t want to return, and have no
relationship with the station or the university, they nevertheless persisted.


Understanding that this “hearing” was going to go on, with or without us, we decided to
present a statement in lieu of appearance, outlined just how unfair and wrong-headed this
whole fiasco was. Quite predictably, we were found guilty of all charges and only
because there is no death-penalty provision in the WHRW Star-Chamber Manual, we live
to fight on.

In the text of the damning documents, we were reminded of our appeal process and
provided a link if we so chose to make that appeal, which we did, surmising that we
might find justice when finally outside of the incestuous radio station hive.


Quite promptly after making the appeal, the Chief Justice of the Judicial Board rejected
our efforts, noting that because we were not students, we had no official standing within
their fiefdom, however, if we could secure the assistance of a student to act on our behalf,
our appeal would live on!


God-Bless the college Republican organization that agreed to push our claim forward.
But just as promptly as the first denial, the second one followed, this time suggesting that
the board had no jurisdiction because this was a management issue. In other words, kick
the can down the road and make sure all feathers stay unruffled, a judicial board
unwilling and maybe unknowing on how to adjudicate, afraid to act.


This is the kind of product our public campuses are producing; autocratic, authoritarian
bullies, not seeking truth and understanding through discussion and debate, but
demanding compliance, enforcing group-think, and rejecting opposing views as they
close their minds to any outside interference. These kids aren’t learning how to think,
they’re validating what to think, without challenge and devoid of a thorough debate that
tends to clarify the issues and expose both the truth and the lie. But for these kids, there
is no point in having the discussion when your mind is already made up and you can
move forward with the knowledge that in their short 20-some years on the planet, they’ve
managed to figure it out, they broke the code, there are no more debates, just their truths
that need to be injected into everyone else, for their own good of course.


Best of luck with that strategy.

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

I’m Conservative but… Part II

If you’re still in doubt or even have overt disagreement with me concerning my sentiments about how our government “deported” the Tren De Aragua gang-members, ask yourself this:

  • When was the last time the US “farmed out” the detention of prisoners to a 3rd world country?
  • When was the last time we showcased the demeaning and head-shaving of prisoners on national TV?
  • How can defense lawyers gain access to their clients to prepare for trail?  How can trials even be held?  Are we flying them back one-by-one to stand trial here in the US?  If not, under what legal theory are we holding them in a foreign country and how will they be tried?
  • Why didn’t we simply deport them back to their countries of origin?

And regarding Khalil, the Columbia University student, why did we transport him to Louisiana?  He committed his acts in New York.  I can tell you why.  It was an act of retaliation and punishment in order to inconvenience his legal council, and also to separate him from his 8-month pregnant wife in New York.

Really?  Is this who we have become, just because we now have some power?  Wonder no more how someone gets “radicalized.”

Anyone who knows me knows there is no bigger patriot, but I have to be honest and say I’m ashamed of my country right now.  We have lectured and shamed others about the supposed sanctity of the, “rule of law” and now when we should be demonstrating to the world how a “nation of laws” actually functions, we betray our own legitimacy.

Since first being politically aware, this is the first time I have seen emotion and feelings overcome the reason and logic of my conservative brethren.  I guess the days of deriding liberals for yielding to their emotions are gone when we have done just that.

Standard