Skip to main content

There is No Difference Between Willful Dishonesty and Willful Ignorance

In the 2020 Democrat primary, Julian Castro attempted to distinguish himself from the crowded field by highlighting concerns that Joe Biden was hampered by his age. His strategy culminated in an exchange during the third debate accusing Biden of forgetting what he had said two minutes prior. It was a powerful debate moment that essentially ended Castro's campaign for being too mean. 

The irony is that his strategy reflected the concerns of other Democrats. During his presidency, Biden's diminishing capacity has been continuously on display, even with Biden avoiding challenging press conferences. He repeatedly has seemed to forget that his son died of cancer and not in combat in Afghanistan. He has made numerous verbal gaffes dating back to that primary, including reading stage direction from his teleprompter. This is all to say that there should have been no surprise with how disastrous his debate performance against Trump was in their rematch. Yet, many pundits and democrat operatives reacted to the debate with such shock it seemed as if they were seeing Biden for the first time. Their reactions say far more about them and their judgement than it does Biden's predictably deteriorated state at the debate.

In the 2020 primary, once it was clear that Biden would be the nominee after the consolidation of all other candidates, we were told that Biden's mental lapses were the result of a stutter he has had since childhood but failed to exhibit over almost 50 years in Washington. A special counsel assigned to investigate Biden's mishandling of classified documents found that Biden was liable but recommended against prosecution. He felt that Biden's cognitive state rendered him a poor defendant who would garner sympathy as a feeble old man. In the interviews he seemed confused on a number of topics, including his son's death. Throughout his administration we have been repeatedly assured that our eyes have been lying to us because Biden is very sharp and better than ever. Biden's advisors went so far as to create a new term to explain the obvious lies our eyes were telling us--cheapfake.

In the weeks prior to the debate with Trump, Biden attended several international events which produced  video that brought Biden's cognitive state sharply into question. In the celebrations for D Day in Normandy, Biden seemed to be attempting to sit on a chair not there before being escorted off stage by Jill Biden. At the G20 in Brazil, in one video Biden is seen wandering away from the other heads of state before being gently pulled back by the Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni. In another, Biden greets the Pope in a way that so concerns others that several begin to shout, "No," before being quieted. When asked about these events, White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean Pierre, dealt with those questions by calling the videos cheapfakes, intimating that they had been deceptively edited to make Biden appear feeble. The New York Times aided Jean Pierre by agreeing that the videos were "deceptively edited" and lacking context. Following the G20, reports surfaced that other heads of state expressed distress over Biden's deterioration. Their reasons were clear to anyone who relied on what they saw instead of the dismissive spin of the White House.

The extreme shock over Biden's state and performance is somewhat surprising. The reaction to Biden's debate performance is best summed up by Van Jones in his remarks immediately following the debate. His summation of the debate seems more like a eulogy than political commentary.

Far more surprising than the shock over Biden's performance is how quickly and cohesively Democrats have decided that Biden is too compromised to remain the nominee. Suddenly, the videos that the New York Times found to be cheapfakes became accurate representations of Biden. The turn is best epitomized by Joe Scarborough. In March he told us that he knew Biden well and this was the best version of Biden. Following the debate he felt that the Democrats could not get rid of Biden as the nominee fast enough. He never mentioned his prior remarks.

The party plan to replace Biden seems to be hampered by multiple issues. Vice President Kamala Harris is even more likely to lose to Trump than Biden. If Biden nor Harris is the nominee, they will need to return hundreds of millions in donations. These are secondary concerns to the issue most prohibitive to replacing Biden, his unwillingness to step down. After supporting Biden, then wanting to replace Biden, party operatives seem split between accepting the state of events and wild machinations to force Biden to step down. Their only concern is their party winning. It is not about Biden, it's about the people who support him who have repeatedly deflected on Biden's cognitive issues and the lengths they will go to for their team to win. They don't care who represents them, they will abandon Biden if it helps to win, This matters far more than just a contest between two candidates.

Our Constitution imbues the executive with a great deal of power, which has only been further concentrated over the years. We elect an individual and the Democrats want to elevate a figurehead as proxy for an unelected cabal. Considering Biden's current state, we are already ruled by a cabal. It is easily argued that the president in such a diminished state has helped to fuel the growing number of global conflicts under Biden's administration. It is impossible to know how dangerous our current circumstances are because we don't know who is making decisions behind the scenes. 

Who decided to reject negotiation for a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia that would have ended the war two years ago? Who decided to give Ukraine permission to perform offensive strikes into Russia with munitions supplied by the US? Who decided to give Iran billions to essentially fund their terror campaign in the Middle East? Who decided to hinge our support of Israel on them conducting their war based on Biden's political needs? Who decided to open the southern border and fly deported migrants back into the country? Who decided to gut Title IX by including males under its provisions? Who decided to reject Robert F. Kennedy Jr's request for secret service protection despite his father being assassinated during his presidential campaign?

The Democrats protected Biden from a primary challenge from Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Marianne Williams, and Dean Phillips, which would have made his cognitive state obvious a year ago. Now the people who want to save democracy, because Trump is such a threat to it, will either replace Biden with a candidate receiving no votes or scrutiny, or keep him as puppet to an unelected and unnamed cabal. Either Biden's supporters and the media have been actively lying, and should not be trusted to be honest again, or they are not lying, and their judgement should forever be disregarded.

The Democrats have become the party of the wealthy and the very poor who have material dependency on the state. The support of the latter for Biden is understandable. It is based on kitchen table interests. The support of the former can best be viewed as a luxury belief. They care more about defeating Trump than they do the negative consequences of all it would take to stop Trump. They cannot imagine that they will be touched by those consequences. It is arguable that Biden has attempted to buy votes through school loan forgiveness and flooding the country with illegal migrants taking succor from the state that not even citizens receive. There are those who say that this is a conspiracy, because migrants cannot vote. However, migrants receiving a driver's license are automatically registered to vote. Changes to state election law in 2020 allowed mail in ballots to be sent without request. Migrants with a weak grasp of English and US law may be easily confused. Many have voted, placing their immigration status in jeopardy. Republicans are attempting to pass a bill that would make explicitly clear to migrants that they cannot vote. The Democrats have so far rejected the legislation.

Other attempts to stop Trump have included removing him from the ballot, charging him with novel interpretations of the law and convicting him in a politically motivated trial that won't withstand judicial review. Democrats have been saved from the unintended consequences of their choices by the Supreme Court who ruled that his removal from the ballot was unconstitutional and that presidents have absolute immunity for their constitutional duties. Without that, it was almost guaranteed that Obama would have been prosecuted for the extra-judicial slaying of US citizens. The Supreme Court recognized that without immunity, the country would descend into a constant back and forth of prosecuting presidents by the other party upon leaving office. Just anecdotally, in order to stop Trump, they would happily sacrifice Obama, and downstream, the functioning of the country. When they say they are saving democracy they mean just for themselves. They have already made it obvious that they will save it by killing it to prevent it working in favor of Trump. They hate him more than they love their nation or democracy.


Popular posts from this blog

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that


Meet the F--kers F--kers-9-7.wmv Iraq war delayed katrina relief effort, inquiry finds TIMELINES pt. 2 -the president's timeline -gov. blanco declares a state of emergency Friday, August 26, 2005 -gov. blanco asks the president to decl a re a federal state of emergency Saturday morning, August 27 , 2005 -the president declares a state of emergency Saturday, August 27, 2005

Wokeness: The Ugly Changeling Baby and the End of Shared Reality

I have once again found it difficult to write because I'm just saying the same thing in different ways about the moral idealism in the social justice discourse. For months, I've been reflecting on this moment and the future implications. It's seems increasingly likely that we are reaching towards a point in which there's no shared objective knowledge Instead, we'll just have popular consensus and disinformation, depending on your ideological commitments.  I want to lay this out so that it doesn't just seem like a bunch of completely disconnected impressions, but the logical conclusion of tying those impressions together. I think some of it may already be clear to anyone who sees the obvious parallels between the riot in the Capitol and Russiagate, understanding that only the latter had actual power behind it. But I want to make it clear for those who don't. In August 2020, American Greatness published a piece from journalist Oliver Bateman called " The