Tag Archives: #Trump

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

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

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

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

I’m Conservative, but…..

Conservatives are criticizing liberals for voting to prevent the deporting of Tren De Aragua gang members as well as the Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil.  This is why those criticisms are misguided at least and disingenuous perhaps.

It is the methods employed in making these deportations happen that are objectionable. The conservatives now in power are conflating the awfulness of this notorious gang and the anti-American sentiment of Khalil with the righteousness of deporting them.

Resurrecting and applying a seldom used statute from the 1790’s and conveniently missing, (or ignoring) a federal judges order points us in a dangerous procedural direction.  By doing so, we forfeit whatever claim we may have had in historically taking the high-road and respecting the rule of law.

The legality of these actions needs to be considered separately from the visceral reaction one may have for the individuals involved.  Adherence to the law shouldn’t be applied on a sliding-scale of questionable interpretation based on the collective approval or disapproval of those being adjudicated.

We will be and should be judged as a society, by the way in which we treat those we abhor the most.  Equal justice and application of the law should be independent of our sentiments, opinions and feelings about those ensnared in our legal system.

No one wants Tren De Aragua gang members roaming around our country and most American’s wince at foreign nationals with a big mouth deriding our nation.  None of that justifies bending the law or pretending we just missed that judges order just so we can get what we want.

We can’t stand against the things that insult our values by holding our nose and doing just that in order to obtain an outcome we cannot achieve any other way.

I’m a strong conservative however, the rule of law is sacrosanct and using subterfuge as justification exposes a position and willingness to undertake that which is anything but conservative.   

Standard

Hope & Change 3.0

In 2008 I wrote that Barack Obama was America’s first affirmative action president, just black enough to be black enough and just not black enough to be a pill Americans could swallow without choking.  And just to prove in wasn’t a one-off, Americans did it twice.

For those with a good memory, you’ll recall that in 2007, then Senator Biden described then Presidential candidate Obama this way …” “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Classic identity politics as defined by the guy who would later become Obama’s biggest tool.

Obama was the perfect man for the job of beginning the dismantling of America and George Soros backed him for that reason among many others, with the key being his total lack of patriotism and his lack of belief in American Exceptionalism.  If you remember, Obama, soon after being elected President for the first time, went on an apology tour around the world for America’s past.  This is what the Heritage Foundation had to say about it in 2009.  “A common theme that runs through President Obama’s statements is the idea the United States must atone for its past policies, whether it is America’s application of the war against Islamist terrorism or its overall foreign policy. At the core of this message is the concept that the U.S. is a flawed nation that must seek redemption by apologizing for its past “sins.” 

At a rally in Milwaukee in 2008, Obama’s wife Michelle said, “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country — and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change.”  In other words, she was never patriotic and only happy with “her” country once her husband was president.

When 8-years weren’t enough to hobble America, Obama needed a useful idiot to run Obama 2.0 and who better than Joe Biden.  Malleable, agreeable, feckless, lacking principles and easily led, only at the highest levels of American government can you hide a pervert in plain site, conflate fool and sage and ignore senility until it transforms itself, like a butterfly from a cocoon, into a selfless act of courage in quitting, our hero exits stage left, no right, no left…

And so in the side door slinks former unsuccessful presidential candidate from the 2020 campaign, Kamala Harris, having burnished her credentials on her knees as a 29-year-old courtesy of Willie Brown, then a 60-year-old political power broker who paved her path to the District Attorney’s office in San Francisco in the 90’s.  Then San Francisco mayor, Brown hooked her up into California’s high society, plugging her into the money pipe line which financed her eventual successful campaign for California states Attorney General.

But Willie’s thing don’t swing that big outside of California and Harris demonstrated for us the embodiment of the Peter Principle, (pun intended) when she became the first presidential wanna-be to bow out of the 2020 race a year before it happened, the weakest of 13 candidates yet somehow sneaking that camels toe into the tent and attaching herself to Uncle Joe, even after calling him a racist during the debates.  Politics and bedfellows you know.

Fast-forward to now and figure that Obama has got his mileage out of Joe, poor guy staggering towards the finish line but too baffled by his own bravado to know how incapable he really is, forcing Obama to threaten Joe with the 25th Amendment, (after trying everything else.)  And now we have Harris in the enviable spot of heir apparent, sliding into a virtual incumbency without a single vote being cast.

All hail the new barren queen!  Obama 3.0  (Wonder if she has a cat?)

And so here we go with the hocus-pocus again, the same treatment that got Joe

“Re-imagined” now gets a make-over for Harris as black, even though she has no

African descendancy but never the less, by simply saying so, she gets to play the race and gender cards.  It is surprising to me that actual Black people aren’t offended by her appropriation of their race.  Oh, and as an added bonus, if you dare have the temerity to question or tamper in any way with the gender and or race issues, you are immediately dismissed as racist and or sexist, completely marginalized and with that, conveniently disposing of any substantive questions that have legitimacy but tread on the sacred turf of the Woke-Folk at your own peril.  Her campaigns over-reliance on this little trick will back-fire because her record is a very hard one to defend, so we’ll see if someone can break through.

But just like our worry all along should not have been about Biden, it shouldn’t be about Harris either.  You see, both are the same place-holders as the useful idiots for the puppet-master himself Barack Hussein Obama and company.  Neither Biden nor Harris do or say anything that isn’t approved by the High Table, take your pick on who that may be, but it sure isn’t the characters we see in front of us today.

Think about it for just a minute.  If the ascendancy to the presidency was merit and morals based, would the cast of performers paraded in front of us actually be the likes of these people?  When you stop and think about it, haven’t we all thought that we know people in our own orbits that are more capable, smarter and more trustworthy than the characters we see in some of these high offices?  Clearly, we aren’t seeing the best and the brightest but you can bet that there is a power, a cabal, a plan being orchestrated by someone who needs plausible deniability and anonymity in order to carry it out and those being touted to us as leaders are anything but, they are simply tools and they depend upon us to be their fools.

Standard

Dear Mr. President:

Regarding the first debate, and moving forward, I have a suggestion that will combine doing the right thing with immediately improving your chances of being re-elected.

Mr. Biden brought up memories of his deceased son Beau, a decorated US war veteran that tragically died of brain cancer.  It was admittedly a confusing moment because you were actually focusing on his other son, Hunter.  Nevertheless, when Beau was mentioned, Mr. Biden was visibly shaken, as any father would be.

This is my suggestion to you sir.  Immediately after the next debate starts, tell the moderator that you need to make a quick statement directly to Mr. Biden and then face him and say the following:

Joe, our last meeting got a little out of hand, but there was a moment I want to revisit.  You mentioned your son Beau and I want to acknowledge him as the decorated and courageous US war veteran that he was and is.  You and your family have seen more than your share of grief and for that you have my compassionate sympathy.  I certainly meant no disrespect to your son for whom you and our country are understandably very proud.

Mr. President, I believe that if you do this it will be seen as strong positive gesture that requires a degree of humility and dignity that from which, quite frankly, the debate process moving forward would undoubtedly benefit.

Thank-you Mr. President for your leadership.  You have my full support.  Best of luck in the coming debates, best of luck in the upcoming election, and may God Almighty bless you and our great United States of America.  Godspeed.

Kind regards,

Standard