Friday, May 23, 2025

The Left’s Racism on Full Display


In an interesting news week, the most instructive story was the reaction of the Left when we gave refuge to 56 South Africans under threat because of their race.

The images of American-flag waving families, clearly relieved and thankful to be in America, was too much for the Democrat-media complex, who continue to vomit their bile all over the airwaves and social media. On Sunday, Margaret "I don’t care" Brennan quibbled with Marco Rubio over the characterization that it’s a genocide. One wonders what it would take to cause the scales to fall from her eyes.

Apparently, these poor families were supposed to stay in South Africa so they could be brutally murdered or have their land taken for no other reason than their skin color. Welcome to the Left’s sole idea of justice.

One brilliant CNN analyst said they should return to Germany if they don’t like South Africa’s version of freedom and justice. No matter that the refugees descended from people who have been in South Africa longer than we’ve been a country and aren’t from Germany in the first place.

Despite the attempted media obfuscations, these families were under severe threat. It’s enlightening to read the media’s defense of it. One BBC article admitted that white farmers are being attacked and killed, but that’s okay because South Africa has one of the world’s highest murder rates, so they are just joining in the general carnage fun. And how silly of them to fear a law that was passed that allows the government to seize their land without compensation.

It’s something of a fetish on the Left to pretend that words don’t mean what they say. If I asked toddlers what that phrase “kill the Boer,” gleefully chanted by members of the South African ruling class and a healthy percentage of the population, means, they would likely tell me that somebody plans to end the life of something called a Boer. If they were particularly gifted young tykes, they might think that it was a wild pig since surely, they couldn’t be saying something so awful about people. A leftist twists it into a symbolic call for freedom and justice.

For those who think that the radicalism is confined to the margins of society, consider that this is openly sung by Julius Malema, the leader of the Economic Freedom Fighters and one of the most prominent politicians in South Africa. When he led the chant, thousands of Black South Africans pointed their fingers in the air like guns so that nobody missed their “fiery but mostly peaceful” intentions.

It’s a bit more overt than the winking and nodding that Democrats do in America when their more excitable members take to threatening and attacking perceived political opponents, starting fires and slashing cars.

To quote Malema, “We’re cutting the throat of whiteness. We will kill white women, children, and their pets.” Sounds a little genocidey, no?

Ashley Allison, a senior staffer for the Obama Administration, on CNN was pining for the U.S. to have a racial reconciliation in the mold of South Africa here in the United States.

She illustrates the main lesson from this. The difference between the worldview of Malema and the American Left is one of degrees. Malema is just further down the line to where leftist policies inevitably lead, and if Allison is any indication, not all that much further down that line.

One would think that American leftists would be a little more discreet, but their contempt and hatred is too much a core part of who they are at this point to hide.

This is the final destination of the Left’s race-based tribalism inherent in DEI and similar schemes; civilization crumbling into barbarity.

We were well on our way. Wherever the cultural elites hold sway, active discrimination is the soup du jour, with whites being blocked from attending top universities or being hired in certain industries. It never stops there. Eventually, the discrimination moves to the stage where legal rights are stripped away as part of a two-tier justice system (think January 6 defendants). It’s a small step from there to property confiscation, metastasizing, finally, in the desire to “kill the Boer” somewhere down the line.

In other words, create a hated group based on something as superficial as skin color. Stir up resentment and hatred. Deny the hated race opportunity in the interest of equity. Seize their property. Kill them. Defend the perpetrators. Call it “racial reconciliation.” The Left is already fully onboard the “deny them opportunity” stage and has been for quite some time. The screeching for reparations is an attempt to move it along more aggressively into the property “distribution” stage.

The U.S. is a historical anomaly. Thanks to the presence of sin in all of us, history generally revolves around groups attempting to, at a minimum, dominate one another. That’s the human condition. The beauty of our Constitution, built on the foundation of western values, is that it enabled America to transcend that historical horror show.

That idea, famously articulated by Martin Luther King, Jr., that what matters is a person’s character and not their race ran into the brick wall of postcolonialism, the prevailing academic philosophy that drives much of what passes for higher education in America. It’s the plaything of our cultural elites. It teaches that the favored classes (made up of any group that isn’t white, Christian, or Jewish) can do no wrong and that there is nothing too bad that can be done to the hated classes.

Students are taught to view whites as the core evil in the world that needs to be overcome. The sly appeal to vanity captures a large and foolish white audience who jump on the train to assert their own moral superiority over the fellow countrymen.

This is why DEI is not a harmless diversion. If left unchecked, it would destroy America. It has already succeeded in Balkanizing this country to a point where unity seems like an impossible dream and where an irredeemable racist can go on CNN and suggest America needs to follow South Africa’s lead.

Unlike the bigger story of the week that someone other than Joe Biden was running America, which was obvious to anyone paying an iota of attention, this story revealed a lot of hidden truths. While not exactly a secret, most groups claiming to champion refugees could care less about real refugees who are under attack due to immutable characteristics such as race or their religion. It’s always about political power and ideology.

The Episcopal Church led the parade in revealing how far the postcolonial rot had destroyed any sense of morality and justice. The church’s leadership would rather end resettlement efforts than actually help refugees with the wrong skin color. They’ve turned a blind eye to the daily genocidal atrocities against Christians across the globe even as it daily unfolds in Nigeria and numerous countries across Africa and Asia, so this was just another step in their journey to complete moral confusion and degeneracy.

For what it’s worth, this story is far from over both there and here. There are more than 4.5 million white South Africans, meaning a lot of families there face a bleak future. Many will certainly be killed because of something as arbitrary as skin color before the scope of the problem is acknowledged. As for here, expect Democrats to double down on their Balkanizing agenda the moment they return to power.



Is there any truth to this?

 


 Is there any truth to this?

Was Obama behind the decisions being made at the Biden White House?

Well, the answer is most likely yes…

President Donald Trump appointed Ed Martin to the following posts, Director of the Justice Department's new Weaponization Working Group, Associate Deputy Attorney General and U.S. Pardon Attorney.

In these roles, Martin is tasked with leading investigations into what the administration describes as the "weaponization" of government agencies, particularly regarding alleged political targeting during the Biden administration. As Pardon Attorney, he will oversee federal clemency applications and advise the president on pardons.

Ed Martin had a whistleblower come forward who was in the Biden White House. That person has identified the following three "gatekeepers" to President Biden. They are Ron Klain, Biden's White House chief of staff from 2021 to 2023 who then returned last year amid Biden's debate preparation; former senior Biden adviser Anita Dunn; and Barack Obama's former personal attorney Robert Bauer.

Of note, Anita Dunn and Robert Bauer are married.

When AI was queried about these “gatekeepers relationship to Barak Obama, this was the summary response:

  • “Ron Klain’s relationship with Barack Obama was that of a senior adviser and trusted operative within the Obama administration. Klain served as Chief of Staff to Vice President Joe Biden from 2009 to 2011, making him a key figure in the White House and a close collaborator with both Biden and Obama during Obama’s presidency.

  • Robert Bauer’s relationship with Obama was that of a trusted legal strategist, personal attorney, and White House Counsel, with ongoing influence as a close adviser and appointee on major commissions throughout and after Obama’s presidency

  • Anita Dunn's relationship with Barack Obama is that of “a trusted adviser, strategist, and confidante, with a record of close collaboration and mutual respect that continued well beyond her formal White House role (per CHAT-GPT3).”

So, in fact, these relationships indicate that Obama played a key role in running the Biden presidency, as his ongoing and close relationships with the people fingered by Ed Martin were the gatekeepers to Biden. These are the key figures who were most likely responsible for the autopen signatures that Biden clearly was unable to understand.

Ed Martin also suggests that the whistle blower believes that there was money involved in the choosing of who was to be pardoned. However, the question arises - did these gatekeepers actually make the decisions for Biden or were there also Biden Family members involved?

I am sure that Ed Martin will now turn to finding the email and memos on this subject.

Things are about to get interesting!

Source: Malone News





X22, And we Know, and more- May 23

 



Are Some Racist Slurs OK? ~ VDH


One reason why the public turned on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) was its insistence that roughly 70 percent of the country was stereotyped as victimizers by virtue of their skin color.

In contrast, the other "diverse" 30% were de facto considered the victimized.

In such absurd binaries, the left returned to the old "one-drop" rule of the antebellum South, suggesting that anyone with any nonwhite ancestry was a minority victim.

And once that Marxist-inspired dichotomy was institutionalized, a corollary was established that the self-declared racially oppressed cannot themselves be racist oppressors.

But human nature is universal and transcends race.

One lamentable characteristic of our species is that we are all prone to excess and crudity if not deterred, especially once civilizational restraint is lost.

We are now witnessing examples of what follows when anti-white stereotyping and racism are given a pass -- as long as the purveyors can claim their victimhood entitles them to bias.

Recently, WNBA basketball stars Angel Reese and Caitlin Clark got into one of their now-characteristic on-court rivalries. But this time around, Reese mocked Clark as a "White gyal (sic) running from the fade."

Reese assumes that her status as a Black star grants her immunity from backlash -- a privilege unlikely to be extended if the roles were reversed.

Or is her crassness a simple reflection that 60 years after the Civil Rights movement, it is deemed cool or deservedly acceptable to use the word "white" derogatorily?

After all, loose-cannon Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-TX, in one of her accustomed racialist rants, recently went after her party's big Democratic donors, who raised a record amount of money for Kamala Harris's short-lived campaign.

Crockett played the race card when claiming that Democratic insiders were already backing the next party nominee as the "safest white boy."

Her racist irritation is puzzling. After all, two out of the last four Democratic presidential nominees have been African-Americans.

Yet it is certainly easy to see why Crockett, who endlessly spouts off about race in congressional sessions, used the pejorative "white boy." She knows that there are no repercussions given her race and, to a lesser extent, her gender and left-wing ideology.

Recently, a past 2018 slur resurfaced from another House Democrat, Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-MN. She had falsely claimed, "I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths in this country."

Omar's stereotyped smear was not only racist but also factually incorrect.

The FBI's 2018 data on perpetrators of murder, when the race of the offender was known, reveals that 54.9% of the nation's murderers that year were African-American, who constitute about 13% of the population.

And when the race of the murderer in rare interracial killings was known, blacks were more than twice as likely to murder whites as whites were to kill blacks.

During recent controversies over leaks at the Pentagon, former UN Ambassador Susan Rice, during the Obama administration, injected race by smearing Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. She leveled a trifecta race/gender/sexual orientation slur -- all irrelevant to the issue at hand: "Well, if you're a white male Christian cisgender macho MAGA man, you can be as dumb as a rock and be deemed qualified to serve as Secretary of Defense."

Rice still chafes that as a sometimes-official Obama administration spokeswoman, she serially and deliberately misled the country about the fatal 2012 terrorist attacks on the American consulate in Benghazi.

In all these cases, there was no fallout from racial categorization and demonization. Again, we apparently accept the pernicious idea that those identifying as an oppressed group cannot themselves voice illiberal stereotypes.

But while our political elites and celebrities seem fixated on using racial putdowns for career advantage and personal notoriety, the people increasingly ignore their entrenched and off-putting racism.

For example, in a recent Rasmussen poll surveying public attitudes toward Trump's first 100 days in office, 62% of Hispanics voiced approval (higher than the 49% of whites). And 39% of blacks agreed.

One result of the 2024 campaign was that while Democrats seemed fixated on racial stereotypes, the public had moved on.

Voters increasingly see class considerations transcending race. That fact may explain why exasperated and flailing Democrats and leftists desperately seek to resurrect racial polarization instead of finding a popular middle-class agenda.

Historically, tribalism erodes a multiracial democracy.

It did when white leaders in the past expressed racist attitudes toward blacks. And it will again if black elites simply flip the paradigm and do the same.



'Globalize the Intifada' and the Evils of Left-Wing Political Violence


Actions, we know, have consequences. And a committed Marxist's cold-blooded murder of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, D.C. Wednesday night was the natural and inevitable consequence of a conscientious, years-long campaign to dehumanize Jews and otherize all supporters of the world's only Jewish state.

Seriously, what did you think was going to happen?

Some of President Donald Trump's more colorful all-caps and exclamation mark-filled social media posts evince an impending jackboot, we're sometimes told. Hold aside, for now, columnist Salena Zito's apt 2016 quip about taking Trump seriously but not literally. Words either have meaning or they don't. And many left-wing Americans have, for a long time now, argued that they have tremendous meaning. How often, as the concept of the "microaggression" and its campus "safe space" corollary took off last decade, were we told that "words are violence"? (I'll answer: a lot!)

So are we really not supposed to take seriously the clear calls for Jewish genocide that have erupted on American campuses and throughout American streets since the Hamas pogrom of Oct. 7, 2023? Are we really supposed to believe that chants such as "globalize the intifada," "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," and "there is only one solution, intifada revolution" are vague and open to competing interpretations -- devoid of any discernible meaning?

That doesn't even pass the laugh test. Or perhaps more accurately, if morbidly, it doesn't even pass the murder test.

When peacefully demonstrating pro-Israel Jewish American Paul Kessler was killed by a pro-Palestinian thug in Thousand Oaks, California, on Nov. 5, 2023, that is what "intifada revolution" looks like in practice. When Israeli woman Tzeela Gez was murdered by jihadists while en route to the hospital to deliver her baby earlier this month, that was what "from the river to the sea" looks like in practice. And when two beautiful young Israeli embassy staffers were executed while leaving an event this week at Washington's Capital Jewish Museum, that is what "globalize the intifada" looks like in practice.

Really, what did you think was going to happen?

Indeed, it is the easily foreseeable nature of Wednesday night's slayings that is perhaps the most tragic part of it all. The suspect in the deaths of Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim left behind a handy manifesto laying out a clear political motivation. This was not a random drive-by shooting. Hardly. This was a deliberate act -- an act of domestic terrorism. And the charged assassin, Elias Rodriguez, has a long history of involvement in far-left activist causes. And while he clearly sought to murder Jews, the fact that both victims -- a couple set to be betrothed just next week in Jerusalem -- were apparently Christian only underscores the "globalize" part of "globalize the intifada."

Zito had it right back in 2016: Trump's social media posts shoulf be taken seriously, not literally. But when it comes to the murderous, genocidal clamoring for Jewish and Israeli blood that has become increasingly ubiquitous ever since the Jews themselves suffered their single bloodiest day since the Third Reich, such antisemitic and anti-Israel words must be taken both seriously and literally.

A previous generation of lawmakers once urged Americans to fight the terrorists "over there" so that they can't harm us "here." How quaint! The discomfiting reality in the year 2025 is this: The radicals, both homegrown and foreign-born alike, are already here. There are monsters in our midst.

And those monsters are not limited to jihadists. Domestic terrorists these days come from all backgrounds. Because the murder of two Israeli diplomats from a committed Marxist is yet another reminder (not that we needed it): Politically motivated violence in the contemporary United States is not an equivalent problem on both the left and the right.

In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins attempted to shoot up the socially conservative Family Research Council because he heard it was "anti-gay." In 2017, James Hodgkinson shot up the Republican congressional baseball team a few weeks after posting on Facebook that Trump is a "traitor" and threat to "our democracy." In 2022, Nicholas Roske flew cross-country to try to assassinate Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and thus prevent Roe v. Wade from being overturned. Earlier this year, anti-Elon Musk activists burned and looted Teslas -- and assaulted Tesla drivers -- because of Musk's Trump administration work with the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency. And who can forget Luigi Mangione, the left-anarchist who murdered UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson in cold blood last December due to his hatred of the "greedy" American health care system.

Both "sides" are not equally culpable here. They just aren't. Israel supporters in America aren't out there gunning down people waving the Palestine Liberation Organization flag. Nor are capitalists out there gunning down socialists.

There is a real darkness out there in certain -- increasingly widespread -- pockets of the American activist Left. Sure, parts of the Right are also lost at the moment -- but this is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Regardless, the violence must end. And we must stop treating open calls for murder or genocide as morally acceptable "speech." Let's pull ourselves back from the brink before more blood is shed.



Supreme Court: Children of Illegal Aliens or Tourists are not U.S. Citizens


On the very day Donald Trump became president again, he signed an executive order prospectively eliminating birthright citizenship for children born to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.

Immediately, lawsuits were filed in a half-dozen jurisdictions across the country challenging this order.

The groups bringing these suits claim the order disrupts long-standing legal norms governing citizenship. Yet, in fact, Trump’s contention — that birthright citizenship is not possessed by children of illegal aliens under the “correct interpretation of the law” — is exactly right.

Birthright citizenship is conventionally understood to apply to any child born in the United States, regardless of the immigration status of that child’s parents. This view is based on the common law principle of jus soli (“right of soil”), which is said to be incorporated in the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This understanding of the Citizenship Clause, however, despite its prevalence in academia and political commentary, is based on a mistaken and incomplete reading of controlling Supreme Court precedent.

In fact, birthright citizenship, as provided for in the Citizenship Clause, as that clause has been authoritatively construed by the Supreme Court, is possessed only by children born in the United States to at least one parent who is lawfully residing in the United States.

Ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War with the aim of remedying the injustices of the Dred Scott decision, the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to “all persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This latter phrase has been wrongly equated with “subject to the laws thereof,” and thus to entail that all persons born in the United States are U.S. citizens, with only a few narrow exceptions, such as children born to diplomats.

Yet the Supreme Court has construed the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” more narrowly, most notably in seminal cases that have been taught — well or ill — in law schools ever since.

In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, decided when American Indians were increasingly integrating into mainstream American society, presented the constitutional issue of whether Indians who had been born within the allegiance of a tribe were “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States at birth, and thus born American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Court ruled that they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, on the ground that “jurisdiction” in the Citizenship Clause meant complete jurisdiction, which implied “direct and immediate allegiance” to the United States. The parents of children born in the allegiance of a tribe had only indirect and intermediate allegiance to the United States, through their tribe. (Today, by a subsequent act of Congress, Indians born on reservations are U.S. citizens at birth.)

Twelve years later, in Wong Kim Ark v. United States, the citizenship status of an American-born man of Chinese descent was the issue.

Wong Kim Ark had been born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals, and had been denied entry to the United States after returning from a visit to China as an adultAt the time, Chinese nationals were precluded by treaty from naturalizing as U.S. citizens. Nevertheless, after recounting the history of the common-law jus soli doctrine, and its influence on our Constitution, the Court held that, because the petitioner had been born to parents lawfully residing in the United States, he had been born within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States, and therefore at birth was “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. He was thus born a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment.

That the petitioner’s parents had resided here with the permission of the United States was central to the Court’s holding. Chinese nationals who remain “subjects of the Emperor of China…are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here,” the decision reads, “and are ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the same sense as all other aliens [lawfully] residing in the United States” (emphasis added). The Court explained that to “reside,” in this usage, means to live in a place with the intent to remain there, but not necessarily indefinitely. It is a broader category than “domiciled,” and could apply to long-term visa holders, as well as to lawful permanent residents.

The Court’s interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment thus limits its application to children of aliens residing in the country with permission. This requirement implies that children born to foreign nationals living in the country without permission are not subject to its jurisdiction, and that mere tourists, since they are only visiting and do not reside here, also are not so subject. This crucial qualification of common law birthright citizenship by the requirements of both residence and permission therefore excludes from citizenship at birth children both of tourists and of those residing in this country without permission — that is, illegal aliens.

To disregard these requirements would involve interpreting the Court to mean that illegal aliens are within the “allegiance and protection” of the United States.

But the Court specifically stated otherwise, holding that Chinese nationals who were not permitted to reside in the United States were not within its allegiance and protection. The Court could hardly have held otherwise. The phrase “allegiance and protection” describes the reciprocal obligations of citizens and the state that are foundational to a nation. Since illegal aliens are at all times subject to apprehension and deportation, they can hardly be regarded as within the “protection” of the United States.

In further evidence that Wong Kim Ark held that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States for citizenship purposes, the Court cited to its own earlier ruling in another immigration case, from 1893, Fong Yue Ting v. United States. There, the Court addressed the legal status of non-resident or unlawfully-present aliens: while they are subject to our laws, they remain outside the government’s “complete jurisdiction.” Had the Court held in Wong Kim Ark that all children born in the United States and subject to its laws — such as illegal aliens—were citizens, it would have run afoul of the combined holdings of Elk — that jurisdiction for citizenship purposes means complete jurisdiction — and of Fong Yue Ting — that illegal aliens and non-resident aliens are outside the complete jurisdiction of the United States. The residence and permission requirements of Wong Kim Ark are therefore necessary to harmonize that case with those prior cases.

Wong Kim Ark’s inclusion of residence and permission requirements marks the Court’s departure from the English common law understanding of birthright citizenship in favor of one more compatible with American constitutional principles.

Indeed, leading constitutional scholars at the time noted that the American approach required residence while the British did not.

The doctrine of jus soli as articulated by common law scholars such as Coke and Blackstone is a product of feudalism: a subject owes a duty of perpetual loyalty to the Crown under the protection of which he is born.

In stark contrast, the American Revolution severed the colonies’ duty to the king in favor of a compact operating by consent of the governed rather than by perpetual, unchosen duty. The purpose of the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment was not to reinstate the common law version of birthright citizenship; rather, it was to extend the principles of the Declaration of Independence to freed slaves and to nonwhite immigrants such as Chinese-Americans.

As it is currently applied, birthright citizenship not only returns us to a feudal past, but also undermines the ability of the people of the United States to set forth standards by which children born to foreign nationals may become citizens. It incentivizes “birth tourism” and mass illegal immigration, both of which treat the United States as a provider of material benefits rather than a political community towards which one owes allegiance and duties. Unlike illegal aliens and temporary guests, lawful permanent residents are incentivized to invest in their political community, and to adopt the customs and civic responsibilities of that community. Their children’s subsequent inheritance of those responsibilities further facilitates assimilation and social cohesion.

The rule of Wong Kim Ark v. United States reflects the compact approach to self-government inherent in the founding principles of this country while serving the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying the rule as it was intended to be understood would remedy the above-mentioned policy deficiencies of an over-expansive view of birthright citizenship without the need to amend the Constitution, and efficiently resolve the flurry of lawsuits against President Trump’s executive order.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Congress Must Use Every Tool At Its Disposal To Uncover Biden DementiaGate Cover-Up


A constitutional law expert says Trump should do what Biden did: waive executive privilege to release Biden White House records.



Now that Jake Tapper and crew have had their epiphany about the meat puppet that periodically occupied the White House for the previous four years, it’s long past time congress find out who knew what and when about President Joe Biden’s addled mind. 

The Republican-led House Oversight and Accountability Committee is preparing to hold hearings into what is shaping up to be the worst cover-up in U.S. presidential history. 

Word this week that Biden has been diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer only underscores the necessity of multiple congressional investigations into who was actually running the White House as the president faded away before our eyes. While questions remain more than four and a half years later about who exactly elected Joe Biden president, one thing is certain: his stand-ins had no constitutional right to run the show. 

“I want to know if he was actually the president of the United States. I want to know what actions are invalid. And then, of course, there are the constitutional questions that come into play,” Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., told me this week on The Federalist Radio Hour. “How do we address those things, if we can at all? And how do we make sure this never happens again?” 

‘Lights Were On But Nobody Was Home’

Despite the gaslighting from Tapper and his fellow corporate media hacks insisting that they were tricked about Biden’s cognitive decline, Ogles said the former president’s profound senility was evident early on. The congressman noted a disturbing exchange he had with Biden moments before his last State of the Union Address.

Ogles was wearing a white button with Laken Riley’s name on it. The button was the same one that Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene wore as she demanded Biden say the slain young woman’s name.  As Biden walked down the aisle of the House chamber, he stopped to perfunctorily greet the Republican. As the two men were shaking hands, Ogles touched the button on his lapel and told Biden, “I want you to look at my button. It’s for Laken Riley. She was killed by an illegal and I need you to do something about it.” The 22-year-old nursing student was found dead on the campus of the University of Georgia in Athens. Her murderer, an illegal immigrant, is now serving a life sentence for his heinous crimes. The Tren de Aragua-linked man ended up in Georgia thanks to a free flight from the Biden administration. 

Ogles said he paused, and Biden looked back at him with a blank stare. 

“He doesn’t say anything for a moment or two then he kind of raises his hand and shudders and he says, ‘Oh, I like your button.’ He couldn’t process the idea the button has the name of a dead girl on it. He could only process the first part of that statement,” the lawmaker said. 

“Very quickly his handlers realized he and I were having a very serious conversation and they whisked him away from me,” Ogles recalled. “It was in that moment, and I’m not trying to be disrespectful, I could see in his eyes [that] the lights were on but nobody was home.” 

‘Treason of the Highest Level’

President Donald Trump, Biden’s predecessor and successor and the man the left has billed as a “dictator,” has long considered Biden as an empty vessel of leftist string pullers. In a post on Truth Social, Trump blasted the cover-up, particularly the use of a dementia-ridden commander-in-chief to allow millions of illegal immigrants to invade the United States “TREASON of the Highest Level!!”

“Joe Biden was not for Open Borders, he never talked about Open Borders, where criminals of all kinds, shapes, and sizes, can flow into our Country at will. It wasn’t his idea to Open the Border, and almost destroy our Country, and cost us Hundreds of Billions of Dollars to get criminals out of our Country, and go through the process we are going through now,” Trump wrote. “It was the people that knew he was cognitively impaired, and that took over the Autopen. They stole the Presidency of the United States, and put us in Great Danger.”

Trump and his fellow Republicans have raised questions about the frequent use of the autopen to sign executive directives of which a senile Biden may have had little to no comprehension. 

Following Axios’ release of the damning audio from Biden’s 2023 interview with special counsel Robert Hur, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., chairman of the House Oversight Committee said the mechanical signature device appears to have gotten quite a workout over Biden’s tenure in the Oval Office.

“Clearly, from that interview, which was many, many months prior to the heavy use of the autopen, Joe Biden wasn’t capable of making decisions. He wasn’t coherent,” Comer said last week in an interview on Fox News’ Sean Hannity.

The concern has been percolating for some time, but exploded in the waning days of Biden’s term when the administration delivered a record number of commutations and pardons — some 1,500 in a single day. The scandal inspired Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Ga., to introduce the Signature Integrity for Granting National (SIGN) Pardons Act, requiring presidents to physically sign presidential pardons. 

‘Unprecedented Precedent’

Comer subpoenaed three White House gatekeepers in the last session of Congress, and requested a transcribed interview with Biden physician Dr. Kevin O’Connor. The chairman said the White House obstructed his committee’s investigation and refused to make aides available for interviews and depositions. 

Comer called the cover-up “one of the greatest scandals of our generation.” 

“The American people deserve to know who was actually calling the shots in the Biden White House, because it wasn’t Joe Biden. His mental decline was obvious to anyone paying attention,” Comer said in a press release announcing the committee’s continued investigation into Biden’s mental decline. “But instead of being honest, the Biden Administration, Democrats in Congress, and the legacy media lied and covered it up. They gaslit the American people while propping up a man who was unfit to lead.”

Constitutional law expert Hans von Spakovsky said Congress will continue to hit a stone wall with Biden’s physician, his aides, and his Cabinet members unless Trump does what his predecessor did in a sweeping lawfare campaign to neutralize the left’s top political enemy. Von Spakovsky said White House conversations would be privileged unless executive privilege is waived. 

“What’s interesting about that is the unprecedented precedent the Biden administration set. When they attempted prosecutions of Trump they said they were waiving the executive privilege of communications that Trump had as president, no one considered that was possible to do to a prior president,” von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow in The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said in an interview Wednesday. 

“If Biden’s aides are subpoenaed and called into testify, what could happen to them could be exactly what happened to Trump’s aides when Biden waived executive privilege then,” he said, adding that he believes Trump would “take great delight” in assisting the investigative committees in getting answers. 

‘Where the Hell Was Everybody?’

Ever an Algonquin Roundtable of political wits, the hostesses of The View this week sounded stunned about admissions from accomplice media outlets that Biden wasn’t all there when he was supposed to be leading the nation. Whoopi Goldberg couldn’t think of “anything” Biden did as president that could be considered “bad” or a reflection of his dwindling cognition. 

“If you’re telling me that hundreds of people knew that he was not able to do his job, where the hell was everybody?” shouted Goldberg, whose cognitive abilities have been questioned for years. They were lying, Whoopi. And you were either in on the lie to fit your Trump-hating, liberal predilections or you are just that breathtakingly stupid. 

Americans know what Whoopi apparently doesn’t: The cover-up is a serious scandal. 

A Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey published Wednesday found 72 percent of likely U.S. voters believe “it’s a serious scandal that White House staffers were aware of Biden’s declining mental condition but worked to conceal his condition from the public and members of Congress.” That includes 48 percent who consider the scandal “Very Serious.”

“Just 23% don’t think the cover-up of Biden’s condition is a serious scandal,” the pollster reported. 

‘It Gets Back to Accountability’ 

While von Spakovsky isn’t optimistic that anyone will be held accountable, he said the cover-up was so “irresponsible” that those involved should be barred from ever holding public office again. 

The list of how things went terribly thanks to the political puppet masters is long and troubling. Ogles who serves on the House Committee on Homeland Security, said Biden’s foreign policy disasters must be viewed through the lens of an absent commander-in-chief. And it all happened right before Whoopi’s and the world’s eyes. 

Who could forget the images of Biden wandering off at the G-7 Summit (accomplice media told us such video was “deceptively cropped”) and having to be corralled by Italy’s prime minister?

“It’s no wonder that under Joe Biden you saw Iran and their proxies attack Israel. It’s not wonder Russia was emboldened to attack Ukraine,” Ogles said. “And then you look at South and Central America, where otherwise pro-U.S. countries have now shifted toward China in part because they saw us as weak, part of it because of the DEI nonsense that we were pushing in religious countries in Central and South America.” 

“But again it gets back to accountability.Who knew what and when?” the congressman added.