Tag: news

• Remember Brett Kavanaugh

  December 7, 2024

  “Remember the Alamo” was the battle cry of the visionary rebel forces in the battle for Texas independence. It was inspired by the acts of valor of a group of rebels holed up in the Alamo, a former mission converted into a fort, in February 1836 during their drive for independence from Mexico. Facing an assault by Mexican troops led by the legendary General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, a former president of Mexico, intent on putting down the rebellion, this small rebel force of less than 200 men refused General Santa Anna’s order to surrender. Despite overwhelmingly unfavorable odds in manpower and equipment, they vowed to fight on. To victory or death. Against all odds, these besieged American and Tejano rebels held off the much larger Mexican army for thirteen days. The battle ended when the Mexican army stormed the Alamo, and killed the rebels on March 6, 1836. Their inspiring last stand encouraged other revolutionaries to fight on, and, using the memory of the Alamo to fuel their ire, rebel forces led by General Sam Houston defeated General Santa Anna’s army a month later at the Battle of San Jacinto. This victory secured independence from Mexico and the creation of the Republic of Texas. The republic was annexed by the United States and admitted to the union as the 28^th state in 1845. 179 years on, this former republic has become one of the most significant states in the United States of America. 

  Today, at this critical hour in our nation’s political history, American patriots face similarly insurmountable odds in their nascent revolution to restore limited government as enshrined in our Constitution by the Founding Fathers and as rediscovered by the American people in the 1980s through the outstanding leadership of the great American president, Ronald Reagan. The opposing forces today, unlike the Mexican army of 1836, do not use muskets and cannons. Their weapons, insidious and much harder to detect, are lies and innuendos, the stuff of an odious character foreign to Americans but which has pervaded America for over a century. Their specialty: grotesque character assassination to smear and embarrass their victim, to cause loss of public support and compel the victim to quit or, if that fails, compel the person who nominated the victim to withdraw the nomination. 

  They have co-opted the press for this and other repugnant and wicked purposes. Through the co-opted press, they publish stories after stories containing anonymous allegations, fabrications, lies, half-truths, and innuendoes to tar the victim, hurt his morale, and weaken the resolve of his supporters. Next, they publish stories based on off-the-record interviews they claim to have had with senators, particularly from the nominee’s parties, who they claim told them that they will not support the nomination. Their aim is to convince the nominee that his nomination will fail in the Senate and that he should save himself such embarrassment by quitting before the vote. A secondary aim is to convince senators who support the nominee to withdraw their support in view of the nominee’s alleged lack of support among the senators’ peers. The pressure such an onslaught brings upon the victim, the nominating president, the voting senators is much more than most nominees can bear. It is usually sufficient to convince the nominee to withdraw. These dark forces, always proclaiming freedom of the press, have no conscience. They have demonstrated that they will stop at nothing to gain and maintain power; they will destroy anyone they perceive as a threat to their power, as we have seen with former and future President Donald J. Trump in the last eight years and with North Carolina Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson during his campaign for governor in 2024.

  One of the most disgusting recent examples of their treachery involves the man whose miraculous survival, against all odds, inspires our battle cry today: “Remember Brett Kavanaugh.” His takedown through one of those orchestrated character assassinations is among the most grotesque and vile acts we have seen in recent memory. That he survived it, and has gone on to serve honorably on the Supreme Court, is a testament to his own fortitude, his faith in our Lord Savior, and the fortitude of President Donald J. Trump, the man who nominated him to the court and stood by him in his darkest hour.

  On July 9, 2018 Brett Michael Kavanaugh was nominated by President Trump to replace the retiring justice Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court. Convinced that President Trump was making good on his campaign promise that if any seats became open on the Supreme Court during his presidency, he would appoint conservative, limited government, jurists to fill them, the dark forces set about to sink Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination. Although, Mr. Kennedy had been nominated to the court by the father of modern American conservatism, President Reagan, his jurisprudence on the court did not always align with the limited government principles of President Reagan. So much so that the dark forces came to see him as an ally. Mr. Kavanaugh, on the other hand, had been appointed to his then-current job on the court of appeals by President George W. Bush, a conservative Texan who fancied himself the heir of Ronald Reagan. Mr. Kavanaugh was suspected to be solidly conservative, a textualist in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, two of the most conservative giants to have ever served on the Supreme Court. The dark forces believed Mr. Kavanaugh would upset the balance on the court and threaten their power. Everything had to be done, in their view, to destroy him. If their grotesque character assassination failed to convince Mr. Kavanaugh to withdraw or compel President Trump to pull the nomination, the dark forces would mount a pressure campaign on the Senate to intimidate all Democrats and enough Republicans to vote against the nomination to sink it.

  Mr. Kavanaugh’s qualification were impeccable, particularly in view of the standard by which the qualification of Supreme Court nominees are judged today. He attended Yale for both his undergraduate and law degrees; he clerked at the Supreme Court for the justice he was nominated to succeed, and he had held coveted positions in the federal government, at both the Department of Justice and the White House. His family life was the model to which many Americans aspire; he was married to his first and only wife, and they had two daughters. By all accounts, he was a doting father who spent time with his daughters. He coached both daughters’ basketball teams and was involved in the community. Moreover, many of the law clerks he had hired throughout his judgeship on the court of appeals were women and they reportedly admired him. 

  By what means could such a man be disqualified? It became evident early on that Mr. Kavanaugh could not be defeated on the merits. The dark forces, enemies of liberty, resorted to that old, odious, foreign, dark art of character assassination at which they are best. Salacious rumors began to circulate that an anonymous woman had sent a letter to a Democrat member of the Judiciary Committee, which was considering the nomination, claiming that Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted her at a party thirty-six years earlier when they were both teenagers. When Mr. Kavanaugh was confronted with this grotesque allegation, he vehemently denied it and  demanded a public hearing and an investigation by the FBI or another law enforcement agency.

  But, these rumors are most lethal when the victim does not have an opportunity to defend himself. That requires spreading them on or near a weekend to allow them to catch fire over the weekend while the co-opted press has few, if any, good stories to on which to report. So it was for Mr. Kavanaugh the weekend of September 7. For days afterward, a picture of a woman in a wet suit  and sunglasses was flaunted in the news as Mr. Kavanaugh’s accuser. Her name was not released, and she could not be readily identified. No one could question her or her story. The stain of her disgusting allegation was allowed to settle on Mr. Kavanaugh. As intended, the rumors caught like wild fire and, soon, Mr. Kavanaugh’s nomination was in peril. Through the co-opted press, the dark forces turned up the heat on Mr. Kavanaugh, mounting a pressure campaign on Republican senators to convince them that the nomination was not sustainable. Two Republican Senators that the dark forces believed they could win over with the least difficulty, Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, were among the first targets.  

  Republican senators, apparently untrained in this dark art, began to waiver in their support for Mr. Kavanaugh. Mr. Kavanaugh refused to yield. The dark forces upped the ante; several more women came forward with similar stories, claiming Mr. Kavanaugh had assaulted them at parties. The stories were as incredulous and repugnant as they were farcical. At least one of those accusers, when questioned by the Committee, admitted she had fabricated her allegations to “get attention.” She was in fact a left-wing activist much older than Mr. Kavanaugh; she conceded she did not know Mr. Kavanaugh.^[1] None of it mattered, the putrid stench of the allegations remained.  

  The Judiciary Committee held public hearings to consider the nomination and decide whether there was enough votes to move it forward to the full Senate. If a majority of the committee does not vote to advance the nomination, it is dead. If the nomination advances to the full Senate but does not receive a majority of the Senators voting, it is dead. As expected at the hearing, Mr. Kavanaugh demonstrated his competence. Like Justice Neil Gorsuch at his own hearing the year before, Mr. Kavanaugh answered some questions in detail but was otherwise vague on the hot button issues that tended to trip nominees. He was unflappable. 

  The Committee next turned to the questions about Mr. Kavanaugh’s character. The last day of public hearings was reserved for questioning Mr. Kavanaugh and Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor whose name had now been released by the press as Mr. Kavanaugh’s initial accuser. At the hearing, for the first time since the accusations surfaced, the nation got a glimpse of Dr. Ford. She looked nothing like the picture of the woman in the wet suit that the co-opted press had flaunted in the preceding days. Much of her story defied logic. Why did she fail to tell anyone or come forward in the preceding thirty-six years? She conveniently claimed she had told her husband. Good luck getting to the truth there. Mr. Kavanaugh had worked in prominent positions at the White House and the Department of Justice and had undergone thorough background investigations and sat through public hearings in connection with his nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit whence a number of Supreme Court justices hailed. It was an open secret that he could move up to the Supreme Court from there. Why had she not come forward then? No explanation was given. 

  Worse still, Dr. Ford conveniently could not recall at whose house the alleged party was held, the general location of the house, or how she got there. She produced the name of four people that she claimed attended the party, one of them a friend of hers. All four people said they do not recall any such party. More embarrassingly, one of them, Dr. Ford’s friend, testified under oath that she had been pressured to corroborate Dr. Ford’s story (by whom she did not say) but that, in fact, she did not attend any such party and she does not know Mr. Kavanaugh. Under normal circumstances, that would end the matter. But these are not normal circumstances. Not with the co-opted press in America the reporters and news figures of which immediately following Dr. Ford’s incredible testimony labeled Dr. Ford “credible.” And not with the dark forces who are committed to do anything for power, no matter how dirty or immoral. 

  With his nomination severely weakened and in danger of failing, Mr. Kavanaugh reportedly was urged by President Trump to fight for his nomination, demonstrate to the Senate that he was not going to quit, and convince the American people that he did not do that for which he stood accused. He knew he had to make a last stand to defend his good name. Later in the afternoon when his turn at last came, he came out fighting. Tarred, embarrassed and, at times, tearful, he denounced the sham that had become the nomination process and admonished the Democrat senators for participating in the dark art. He pushed back against those who had attempted to sully his good name and force his withdrawal. His irreverent opening remarks and testimony earned him the public support of Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina who chastised his Democrat colleagues.^[2] Mr. Kavanaugh began his opening remarks as follows:  

  “Less than two weeks ago, Dr. Ford publicly accused me of committing wrongdoing at an event more than 36 years ago when we were both in high school. I denied the allegation immediately, categorically and unequivocally. All four people allegedly at the event, including Dr. Ford’s longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, have said they recall no such event. Her longtime friend, Ms. Keyser, said under penalty of felony that she does not know me and does not believe she ever saw me at a party ever. Here’s the quote from Ms. Keyser’s attorney’s letter. “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with or without Dr. Ford.” Think about that fact. 

  The day after the allegation appeared, I told this committee that I wanted a hearing as soon as possible to clear my name. I demanded a hearing for the very next day. Unfortunately, it took the committee 10 days to get to this hearing. In those 10 long days, as was predictable and as I predicted, my family and my name have been totally and permanently destroyed by vicious and false additional accusations. The 10-day delay has been harmful to me and my family, to the Supreme Court and to the country. When this allegation first arose, I welcomed any kind of investigation. Senate, F.B.I. or otherwise. The committee now has conducted a thorough investigation, and I’ve cooperated fully.

  I know that any kind of investigation, Senate, F.B.I., Montgomery County police, whatever will clear me. Listen to the people I know. Listen to the people that have known me my whole life. Listen to the people that I’ve grown up with and worked with and played with and coached with and dated and taught and gone to games with and had beers with. And listen to the witnesses who allegedly were at this event 36 years ago. Listen to Ms. Keyser. She does not know me. I was not at the party described by Dr. Ford. This confirmation process has become a national disgrace. The Constitution gives the Senate an important role in the confirmation process. But you have replaced “advice and consent” with “search and destroy.”

  Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything to block my confirmation. Shortly after I was nominated, the Democratic Senate leader said he would “oppose me with everything he’s got.” A Democratic senator on this committee publicly referred to me as evil. Evil. Think about that word. And said that those that supported me were “complicit and evil.” Another Democratic senator on this committee said, “Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare.” A former head of the Democratic National Committee said, “Judge Kavanaugh will threaten the lives of millions of Americans for decades to come.”

  I understand the passions of the moment. But I would say to those senators: Your words have meaning. Millions of Americans listened carefully to you. Given comments like those, is it any surprise that people have been willing to do anything to make any physical threat against my family? To send any violent email to my wife, to make any kind of allegation against me, and against my friends, to blow me up and take me down.

  You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwinds. The behavior of several of the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a few weeks ago was an embarrassment. But at least it was just a good old-fashioned attempt at Borking. Those efforts didn’t work. 

  When I did at least O.K. enough at the hearings that it looks like I might actually get confirmed, a new tactic was needed. Some of you were lying in wait and had it ready. This first allegation was held in secret for weeks by a Democratic member of this committee and by staff. It would be needed only if you couldn’t take me out on the merits. When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly deployed over Dr. Ford’s wishes.

  And then, and then, as no doubt was expected, if not planned, came a long series of false last-minute smears designed to scare me and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred. Crazy stuff. Gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island. All nonsense. Reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media. This has destroyed my family and my good name. A good name built up through decades of very hard work and public service at the highest levels of the American government.

  This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit, fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups.

  This is a circus. The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades. This grotesque and coordinated character assassination will dissuade confident and good people of all political persuasions from serving our country. And as we all know in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around.”^[3]

  Mr. Kavanaugh’s opening statement is too lengthy to reprint here, but his description of events is sufficient to allow all to see how the dark art of sinking a nomination or candidacy for public office works in practice. Even if our memory of these events six years ago fails, one only has to look at the work of these dark forces against Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson in 2024 and against President Trump today and over the last eight years to see how disgusting, insidious, and wicked they are. The Consul Regent has discussed the smear campaign against Mr. Robinson at length in his treatise, The Lynching of Lieutenant Governor Mark Robinson.^[4] But it is worth reviewing the smear campaign against President Trump which began during his first run for President in 2016 and continues today. 

  In 2016, seeing Mr. Trump’s campaign for President of the United States as a threat to their power, the dark forces set out to delegitimize and destroy him. Initially, they had laughed at his candidacy, believing that Americans would not take him seriously. But, after he won the Republican nomination for president, the dark forces went into serious attack mode. First, they smeared him as a womanizer, a serial cheater. Stories from the 1980s and 1990s about his extramarital affairs were retold repeatedly to cast doubt on his character and honesty. When Mr. Trump nonetheless continued to rise in the polls, the enemies of liberty strengthened their assault. They labeled him a racist; they published countless stories through the co-opted press detailing how his father, Fred Trump, discriminated against black people by refusing to rent to them as he built his real estate empire in Queens (New York). The alleged sins of the father, false or not, were being hung squarely around the neck of the son.

  None of this eroded Mr. Trump’s support with voters. Harsher measures had to be conceived, in the estimation of the dark forces. They searched through their archives and beseeched their allies to search through theirs in hope of discovering anything they could use to sink Mr. Trump’s candidacy.  

  As experienced predators, they lie in wait. On October 7, 2016, one month before the presidential election, a time they deemed ideally suited for maximum damage, they released what became known as the Access Hollywood tapes, a video recording of Mr. Trump and a television host having a lewd conversation about women eleven years earlier.^[5] As is typical of this dark art, the damaging information is released on or near a weekend, often on a Friday afternoon when the main news reporters and media personalities are getting away for the weekend. The weekend release deprives the victim of the ability to defend himself. The weekend news desks, with few newsworthy stories to feature work themselves into a frenzy, feeding on the damaging information. By the time the Sunday morning news programs are broadcasted, the candidacy of the victim becomes untenable. So it was for Mr. Trump the weekend of October 7, 2016.  

  Reactions to the Access Hollywood Tapes were swift. Prominent Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, denounced Mr. Trump’s comments; some called on him to withdraw from the presidential race. Discussions were had in Republican circles about how to move forward with the presidential election without Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump was on the ropes. 

  The dark forces thought themselves victorious. They did not realize the extent of Mr. Trump’s resilience or his media handling skills. He did what few candidates in his position could do; he used the weekend press’s appetite for scoops, exclusive stories, to his advantage: he went into damage control and took charge of the narrative during the weekend and did not allow the story to catch fire over the weekend as normally occurs. On Saturday, October 8, before the Sunday news programs could put the final nail in his coffin, he released a video apologizing for his comments, which he termed “locker room banter,” and contrasted them to actual allegations of sexual misconduct by several women against the Democrat nominee’s husband, former President Bill Clinton. He astutely reasoned that no reasonable person would think mere words more harmful than actual, potentially-criminal, deeds. With this move, Mr. Trump had taken the wind out of the sail of the dark forces. A month later, he was elected the 45^th President of the United States, shocking the media establishment and the world.

  But, as aforesaid, the dark forces are loath to admit defeat. Borrowing a page from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan who had organized the “Million Men’s March on Washington” in 1995, they organized and publicized through the co-opted press their own march on Washington, which they called “Women’s March on Washington.” They scheduled it for January 21, 2017, less than a day after President Trump’s inauguration. No other president had been similarly treated before they had a chance to govern. The stated purpose of the march was to protest Mr. Trump’s policy positions which they said they saw as misogynistic and a threat to women’s rights. Never mind that Mr. Trump was not yet in office at the time the march was organized, and he had not issued any formal policy positions. But, one must not let facts get in the way of these narratives. With their near total control of the media, the dark forces created one scandal after another for President Trump’s Administration, engulfing his presidency with chaos and investigation. Within months, he was alleged to have colluded with Russia to win the presidency, a false and dastardly allegation advanced to delegitimize him. The origin of the story, which gave rise to wiretapping of officials and aides close to President Trump and a full-blown FBI and special counsel investigation, was the campaign of the woman President Trump had defeated in the 2016 presidential election. As we later learned, the whole Russia collusion story was fabricated. But tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money was spent investigating it. 

  Even after they succeeded in denying him a second consecutive term and kicking him out of office in 2020, they continually demanded that he be investigated and prosecuted. Mr. Trump’s persecution has been discussed at length by the Consul Regent in his treatise, Democrats’ Resistance to the Will of the American People.^[6] We must never forget how badly the dark forces have assassinated his character and the fortitude he has demonstrated to overcome these dark forces and, last month, win a second term as President of the United States.  

  Remember Brett Kavanaugh. The Consul Regent has been thinking of this battle cry lately as we see this foreign dark art in practice again today by the enemies of liberty seeking to sink the nomination of President Trump’s nominees for his cabinet. Everyday the co-opted press publishes stories after stories attacking the qualification of the candidates and their character. Rumors are circulated about one perceived character flaw after another in each of these candidates. It seems that Republicans have forgotten that these nominees are not being attacked because of themselves but because they have been chosen by President Trump. The dark forces do not admit defeat; they could not sink President Trump’s campaign despite labeling him a racist, a misogynist, a demagogue, a threat to democracy, a strongman, unhinged, unfit to serve, unfit to set foot in the White House. It is clear that the dark forces, simply, are continuing the fight against Mr. Trump by other means; in other words, through his cabinet picks. To defeat his nominees is to defeat him. Republican senators must understand that and support the nominees publicly to demonstrate their own support for President Trump. Any Republican senator who threatens to vote against or who votes against a President Trump nominee effectively is on the side of the dark forces and against President Trump. 

  These enemies of liberty will continue to practice their dark art as long as they get positive results. It is up to each and every Republican senator to deny them any positive result. Disappointingly, they have already succeeded in forcing former Congressman Matt Gaetz to quit after the President had announced his intent to nominate him for Attorney General of the United States. As the Consul Regent foresaw, the dark forces will not stop at one nominee. No sooner than they had forced Mr. Gaetz’s withdrawal, they turned their fire on Pete Hegseth, President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, circulating one salacious rumor after another in an attempt to force him to withdraw. Suddenly, as if on cue, the co-opted press has published stories of an anonymous former female colleague of Mr. Hegseth who alleges that Mr. Hegseth groped her buttocks while they were out drinking. The co-opted press tells us that the accuser does not want to be named for fear of retribution. What honest and fair-minded person believes it is fair to assassinate someone’s character anonymously with lies, half-truths, and innuendos? As can be seen in all such smear campaigns, the stories multiply, almost entirely with anonymous sources and sources who want to “get attention.” Their aim, as it was for President Trump, for Mr. Kavanaugh, and for Lieutenant Governor Robinson, is to drown the nomination in scandal to force the nominee or candidate to quit. 

  The enemies of liberty, in coordination with the co-opted press, have similarly focused on Kash Patel, President Trump’s nominee for FBI Director. They have also attacked Robert Kennedy Jr., former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, and, to a degree, Pam Bondi, President Trump’s nominee for Attorney General following Mr. Gaetz’s withdrawal. The list of smear targets goes on and on. Let us hope that Mr. Hegseth, Mr. Patel, Ms. Gabbard, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Bondi, and all of the smeared nominees remember Brett Kavanaugh. Let us hope that, like Justice Kavanaugh, they fight like hell to save their respective nomination and give Mr. Trump the administration he promised the American people during his presidential campaign and which the American people voted for him to have.  

  Mr. Hegseth, Mr. Patel, Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Gabbard, and all of the other nominees being maligned by the dark forces and the co-opted press must draw from the spirit of President Trump, pump their fist in the air, as Mr. Trump did after an assassin’s bullet nearly took his life in a field in Butler Pennsylvania, and shout: “Never surrender! Never give up!”

  Correspondingly, President Trump must come out and forcefully deny those news stories citing anonymous sources close to him which claim that he is preparing to name a new nominee if a certain nominee should quit. Such stories were circulated with damaging effects when Matt Gaetz was the nominee for Attorney General and they are being circulated again today in connection with Mr. Hegseth’s nomination. If President Trump does not forcefully denounce such stories, he is helping his enemies destroy his presidency and his agenda before they even begin. The President’s show of support for Mr. Hegseth in his interview with NBC News today is a great start. 

  Republican senators also must denounce those stories in the press attributed to them anonymously which claim that such and such nominee does not have their support. Let us hope that all Republican senators recognize that they have won a majority in the Senate because the American people saw it fit to give President Trump a congressional majority to advance his mandate. Armed with that recognition, let us hope that Republican senators stand firm with President Trump and ALL of his nominees and deny the dark forces the results they seek. There can be no daylight between the Republican-led Senate and President Trump. The forces of liberty cannot afford to give an inch. 

  Remember Brett Kavanaugh! 

  -The Consul Regent

  ---

  ^[1] https://www.yahoo.com/news/kavanaugh-accuser-admits-she-fabricated-184414094.html

  ^[2] In all of his years of public service, Senator Graham’s defense of Mr. Kavanaugh was his finest hour. He was responsible for shutting down the spectacle that was Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing. 

  ^[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/26/us/politics/read-brett-kavanaughs-complete-opening-statement.html

  ^[4] : https://theconsulregent.org/2024/09/22/the-lynching-of-lieutenant-governor-mark-robinson/

  ^[5] The dark forces even have a name for the timing of such an ambush, an “October surprise.” So named because such releases cause loss of support so close to the election that the candidate, the victim of such an ambush, does not have time to recover and consequently lose the election.

  ^[6] https://theconsulregent.org/2024/11/28/democrats-resistance-to-the-will-of-the-american-people/

  December 7, 2024

  2024 Presidential Election, Advise, appoint, Attorney General, Biden, character, character assassination, collusion, confirmation, consent, corruption, Democracy, Democrat, dirty, DOJ, Donald J Trump, Donald Trump, donald-trump, Election, FBI, Gaetz, game, Harris, Hegseth, investigate, justice, Justice Department, Kamala, Kash Patel, Kavanaugh, Lieutenant Governor, news, nomination, Nominee, politics, President, prosecute, Remember Brett Kavanaugh, Remember Kavanaugh, Republican, reputation, Robinson, Russia, Secretary of Defense, Senate, supreme-court, The Consul Regent, Trump

  ---

• Democrats’ Resistance to the Will of the American People

  November 28, 2024

  It is Thanksgiving Day, that time-honored holiday on the American calendar where our people crisscross the country to spend time with family and friends and give thanks for their many blessings. Chief among those blessings for which we are thankful is that our Lord and Savior thought it truly right and just to bestow on us that blessed land which we call home. That gratitude, however, is a sentiment we carry every day. For this year specifically, among the blessings for which we are thankful is the wisdom which our Lord gave to our people to enable us in one fell swoop three weeks ago to (1) reject the divisions that many in our country had attempted to sow among us and (2) restore sanity to American politics.

  On that fateful day, November 5, American voters delivered, in unmistakable terms, a verdict in the presidential and congressional elections that was reverberating in scope and swift in speed, giving the Republican party governing majorities in both houses of Congress and returning embattled former President Donald J. Trump, a Republican, to the White House as the 47^th President of the United States. Mr. Trump’s margin of victory is reported to be the largest since 1928, nearly one hundred years ago. Yet Democrats continually couch it as the work of uneducated Americans. If it were true that such a large majority of Americans is uneducated, we would need to ponder how our country became the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world in such a short time following its founding.

  If the crushing numbers alone do not convey the magnitude of the Democrats’ defeat, a quick glance at the political map crystalizes it. Nearly all of the counties and districts on the map were red (the color of the Republican party), with small pockets of blue here and there, largely in major cities along the northeastern and western coasts. Mr. Trump won votes even from areas that are historically hostile to Republican presidential candidates; he increased his numbers in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Delaware; he did so also in New York and California – hotbeds of Democrat fanaticism. He gained among Hispanics, Blacks, and women, groups upon which his opponent, Vice-President Kamala Harris, counted to elevate her to the White House due supposedly to shared identities.

  Those who follow the Consul Regent are not surprised, having been well aware that the Consul Regent had predicted the outcome of the presidential election as soon as President Joe Biden was shoved aside by the Democratic Party in search of candidate with better odds to win the presidency. But the presidential election really had been lost as soon as the Biden Administration began, as voters realized that the country was being led by a woke mob short on real life experience and full of ideas that arguably sound good in theory but which do not work in real life. Implemented when Mr. Biden came to power, these theoretical policies combined to create the highest level of inflation this century, substantially raising the cost of living for Americans when we could least afford it, costing us our jobs, our livelihood, evaporating our savings, and most unforgivingly creating an atmosphere where crimes predominated thereby depriving Americans of the peace and prosperity which our forebears presaged for us. Democrats may have correctly pointed out the racial unfairness in our judicial system, but the policy fix they prescribed was as dumb as it was crazy. Instead of focusing on the integrity and ethics of the prosecutors, lawyers, and judges, or providing training to such prosecutors, lawyers, and judges to help them recognize and detect unconscious biases, they announced publicly they would not arrest or prosecute for certain crimes. The result: criminals became emboldened and normal people walking our streets were routinely assaulted, sometimes for no apparent reason. Store owners had their stores robbed in plain sight with no recourse. The increasing brazenness of the thefts resulted in store shelves becoming empty, depriving Americans of the ability to buy the things they needed to survive or to maintain their way of life. One can only imagine the frustration engendered when a sick person or their loved ones set off from their home to buy over the counter medicine for one illness or another and they arrive at the pharmacy to find that the shelves are empty or that these items have been locked away in cabinets. In the latter case, the only way to get the sought after medicine is to get help from an employee of which due to corporate greed there are often few.  

  The anxiety brought on by the increased inflation in our economy further crushed the spirit of our people. Yet, when Americans mentioned the hardship they were facing or observed how bad the economy was, Democrats and the media responded that these Americans did not know what they were saying, they used numbers, graphs, and tables to attempt to demonstrate to the suffering American that the economy was great. It did not occur to them that numbers and graph often do not tell the whole story. In the face of a group’ or an individual’s suffering, it does not matter that their wealthy neighbors have five houses and ten cars, each.

  Worse still, Democrats prioritized identity politics over the suffering of Americans, focusing on Transgender rights, women’s rights, and abortion seemingly above all other issues. But their policies on those issues too were insane. In any developed society, women and men are partners. In American society, Democrats pit women against men, convincing them that men are enemies. Is it a surprise that American society is breaking down? They seem to want to eliminate sex or make sex interchangeable, for boys and girls to decide on a whim that they want to be the opposite sex. That’s a recipe for a non-functioning society, one that will cease to exist. It has never been acceptable and it will never be acceptable in our culture for boys to participate in girls’ sports or for boys to use girls’ bathrooms or vice versa. Democrats’ repeated attempts to shame Americans into accepting that was beyond off-putting, as was their attempt to change our vocabulary with their confusing pronouns. Their advocacy for surgery to convert young children, boys and girls, into the opposite sex or is beyond the pale. No sane, responsible person would allow their child to undergo surgery or change their bodies contrary to its natural state. Children already have so much to deal with, to learn about themselves, and the world around them. To allow them to make such a permanent, debilitating change while they are still growing and finding themselves is criminal.

  As Democrats focused on these non-issues, we, Americans, were having to make hard choices when we went out to shop for groceries. The prices of milk, eggs, meat increased substantially. Everything cost more than they had under the previous administration. Those with families across the country could no longer afford to travel or visit, sometimes impacting familial relationships, those we, as humans, need the most. In far too many cases, people could no longer afford to buy their first home or pay their rent without difficulty. Here again, the Democrats policy prescriptions were as dumb as they were insane. Take for example, the policy they advanced in the early days of the Biden Administration that prohibited or restricted landlords from evicting tenants who did not pay their rent. Who did such policy benefit? Imagine for example, you bought a house with two rental units, and you need the income from those two rental units to enable you to pay your mortgage, taxes, and insurance. Suppose further that your renters do not pay their rents and because of the no eviction policy, you are unable to come up with the money to pay your mortgage. It does not take a genius to see that the home will likely go into foreclosure and the owner will lose it. And if that happens, there will be one fewer American family who own a home, exacerbating rather than improving the problem

  However, these policy failures were avoidable.  On the economic front, for example, a very intelligent and exceedingly rare common sense Democrat, former Harvard University President and Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, attempted to help President Biden avoid the unforced errors, advising the President that his policy prescriptions, particularly the one which proposed sending more money to people during the Covid Pandemic and extending unemployment benefits would overheat the economy and bring about the inflationary pressures we are now experiencing. But Biden, as typical of Democrats, was stubborn and overly reliant on so-called experts. He is reported to have told Mr. Summers he had eleven Nobel winners who advised him that Mr. Summers’s forecast was wrong. As we now know, Mr. Summers forecast was not wrong. So much for the foresight of Mr. Biden’s experts. These so-called experts, which the media and the Democrats rely on and increasingly cite to advance their propositions, are almost always wrong. Take, for example, the shutdown mandates they favored and shoved down the throat of the American people. They refused to listen and were overtly hostile to any contradicting voices. Many of those dissenting voices posited that locking down children, isolating them from their peers for any length of time, would damage their psyche and stunt their development. The so-called experts and the Democrats refused to allow these ideas to be aired, going so far as convincing social media companies to classify them as disinformation and filter and remove such them from the public discussion.

  Yet, those dissenting ideas we now know were the correct ones. There has hardly been a year since the end of the lockdown (which the American people forced) where one report or other is not released that illustrates the negative impact of the lockdown on children and young people. The so-called experts and scientists were, once again, wrong.  Americans who were duped by the media and their Democrat friends into believing these so-called experts increasingly became incensed and stopped listening to the traditional media. That loss of credibility – people seeing the traditional media as Democrat operatives and hacks – is one of the reason that the traditional media’s truckloads of fear-mongering and negative attacks on Mr. Trump ahead of the election fell on deaf ears. It was clear that many voters probably think that Mr. Trump is crass; they might even think he is immoral. But, they had and continue to have a visceral reaction to the conduct of the traditional media and the Democrats and rejected those political bodies’ often-repeated claims that Mr. Trump is a rapist, a racist, a criminal, and a threat to democracy as nothing more than propaganda.

  On the political front, the Democrats’ playbook was to investigate and prosecute Mr. Trump in the belief that those indictments alone, and certainly the convictions they knew they could secure in unfriendly Democrat jurisdictions before handpicked unfair and immoral judges, would turn voters away from Mr. Trump thereby preventing him from running for President again. As those calls for prosecution of Mr. Trump became a cri du jour in the Democratic party, obscure low level, local Democrats with ambition quickly determined that the quickest way to raise their national profile and increase their importance to Democratic party bosses was to bring a case against Mr. Trump, to damage his election chances. It did not matter to them that using the justice system as such against a former President of the Unites States might offend the American people’s notion of fairness and justice.  Manhattan (New York City) District Attorney Alvin Bragg was the first out of the gate with an indictment, charging Mr. Trump with a crime so stupid in its formulation and so empty in substance that only a judge in New York would allow the case to move forward. The statute of limitation of the underlying alleged offense had run (expired). Under the law, that alleged offense could not be charged. To bring the expired New York alleged offense back to life, the District Attorney performed legal and mental gymnastics, alleging a federal offense against the former President which he had no power to charge and which the federal government (the only level of government with power to bring charges for that offense) had thoroughly investigated the allegations and had declined to press charges. Such naked political abuse of power was offensive to Americans. But Democrats somehow could not see that.

  Democrat talking heads and the media they control lauded Alvin Bragg but were doubtful his charges would stick. Enter, stage left, United States Attorney General Merrick Garland. Under pressure from Democrats to bring federal charges, he appointed a Special Counsel to give his overtly political act a veneer of political independence. It was not surprising that the Special Counsel, a certain Jack Smith, who curiously was neither an officer of the United States nor a federal government employee, quickly indicted Mr. Trump in two separate cases. The political nature of the federal cases could not be clearer. No sooner than Jack Smith had filed his first charges against Mr. Trump in Florida because under then-existing precedent, a federal defendant had to be charged in the venue where the alleged crime occurred, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in an unrelated case which certain commentators believed stood for the proposition that some of those charges against Mr. Trump could have been brought in Washington, D.C., a Democrat-friendly venue more favorable for convicting Mr. Trump because of its large Black population and Democrat-leaning jurors. Smith immediately went to work on a search for other alleged crimes with which to charge Mr. Trump in Washington. To no one’s surprise, he quickly found them, and he indicted Mr. Trump again, this time in Washington.

  The case was assigned to a federal judge, a certain Tanya Chutkan, who was chomping at the bit to get a piece of Mr. Trump and make a name for herself. Her bias against Mr. Trump and the high chance that any conviction of the former President would be overturned on appeal to the United States Supreme Court did not seem to matter to Chutkan. By the time that happens, she probably reasoned, the presidential election would have been over and Mr. Trump would have been deprived of the opportunity to run for President.

  Other cases, both civil and criminal followed. The despicable attorney general of New York, Letitia James, brought an obscene civil case against Mr. Trump and his business. The Fulton County District Attorney, Fani Willis, tried her luck at a criminal indictment and went out of her way to embarrass the former President by making him take a criminal mugshot. If it was not already clear that the United States needs to reform its legal system and the judiciary, look no further than the two civil federal district court cases entitled E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump, where Mr. Trump was found liable for sexually abusing a woman by a jury in 2023 with no evidence except hearsay (the lady produced two witnesses to which she claimed to have told her story after it happened), a photograph of the alleged victim with Mr. Trump in a public place (celebrities take pictures with thousands of fans they do not know and will probably never remember), and the Access Hollywood tapes where Mr. Trump made vulgar, locker-room comments about women.  How any of this proved that Mr. Trump assaulted or even knew this woman is beyond comprehension. No eyewitness or forensic evidence placed Mr. Trump at the alleged crime scene, alleged to be the dressing room of an expensive department store. No store clerk or customer witnessed the alleged event or heard a peep. The accuser does not even remember the year of the alleged event with any specificity. In other words, the case was flimsy. How such a case got passed a preliminary motion to dismiss is dumbfounding. So much for the intelligence of our judges. But, lucky for Mr. Trump, American voters had been watching. Democrats somehow could not see that.

  It was astounding to them in view of the overwhelming support Ms. Harris had among them and the excitement they had at her prospects that a person would dare proclaim that Ms. Harris would lose the election, and crazier still that such a person would predict that she would lose badly, as the Consul Regent predicted. But, the presidential election had been lost in the first months of Mr. Biden’s presidency as aforesaid; no replacement was going to change that. Add to that built-in disadvantage the ill-feeling that Mr. Biden developed toward his party for unceremoniously driving him out of the presidential contest despite his overwhelming victory in the Democratic primary elections, and you have the recipe for a landslide victory for Mr. Trump.  Mr. Biden’s immediate endorsement of Ms. Harris as his replacement following his forced withdrawal, his proverbial middle finger to Democratic party bosses and kingmakers, solidified the Trump landslide.

  Judging by their reactions and the commentaries in the media, Democrats have not learned much, if anything, from their crushing defeat, expressing the belief, as they have, that they lost because the American people are sexist (they don’t want a woman president), racist (they don’t want a Black woman president), too stupid to understand the issues (electing the first Black Woman president), or so uneducated they could not understand that Harris’s policies would be good for them (defund the police; no arrest or prosecution of criminals; keep our natural resources underground while our adversaries get rich off of theirs in the vacuum).

  Chief among those party bosses to whom Mr. Biden’s middle finger was directed is Nancy Pelosi, the backstabbing former Speaker of the House of Representatives and orchestrator of Mr. Biden’s political demise, who proudly took credit for the coup against Mr. Biden crowing she did it because she likes to win. Perhaps some degree of awareness might have revealed to her and her party that lack of loyalty is also a turn-off for Americans.

  It does not occur to Democrats that their often dumb ideas combined with their condescension are major turn-offs or that they lost the election because the American people lost faith in them and the media that they control. It does not occur to them that Americans were appalled at their recklessness and un-American persecution of a former President of the United States. If Democrats fail to learn these lessons, they will lose again in the next congressional elections in two years’ time and again in the next Presidential election in four years’ time. That may not be good for the country ultimately because like in every other marketplace, competition will bring the best out of political parties. 

  -The Consul Regent

  November 28, 2024

  donald-trump, joe-biden, news, politics, Trump

  ---

• Behold the Dispossession of Americans of their Constitutional Rights

  Posted: 2024.10.12

  On the windows of the famous building at 102 Petty France in the City of Westminster, just behind St. James’s Park, in the heart of London, are inscribed these words:

  That excessive Baile ought not
  to be required nor excessive Fines
  imposed nor cruel and unusuall
  Punishments inflicted.
  

  That Jurors ought to be duely
  Impannelled and returned.
  

  That all Grants and Promises of
  Fines and Forfeiture of particular
  Persons before Conviction are
  illegall and void.

                              Bill of Rights, 1688

  When, on a gloomy Saturday, I read these powerful words, I could not help but succumb to the natural response of a freedom-loving American. An incandescent light inside my head guided me unexpectedly to a happy place. I was excited; I smiled; I took pictures of many of the written pronouncements on display on the windows of the building. In my estimation, it is without question that the enshrinement of such categorically inviolate human rights reserved onto themselves by the citizens of England helped create the environment which propelled that small island nation forward to become, at her height, the largest empire known to man since the Roman Empire.

  I reflected on those words as I walked through St. James’s Park in the middle of what appeared to be a race of some sort to raise awareness for a cause or other, with crowds of people – young and old, men and women, family and strangers alike, many of them wearing pink – joined together as contestants and making their way toward the finish line at The Queen Victoria Memorial, in front of Buckingham Palace. As is often the case in such moments of reflection, my mind inevitably turned to my own country. I contemplated the difference between the words that I had just digested at Petty France and the treatment of the criminally accused in America. It occurred to me that my country is blessed to have descended from the citizens of that great empire and borrowed from her many of the basic concepts of human rights which so particularly moved me on this day. This particular feature of the English Bill of Rights that guarantees the right to non-excessive bail was captured in the eighth of the first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States which became the Bill of Rights. The American text is nearly identical to its English counterpart; it provides:

  Excessive bail shall not be required,
  nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel
  and unusual punishments inflicted.

  Upon further reflection, my mind turned to a famous criminal case unfolding in federal court in the Southern District of New York where Sean Combs (popularly known as Puff Daddy or P-Diddy), a record executive, record producer and rapper has been arrested and charged with a slew of alleged crimes that are on the surface alarming but in substance thin. Mr. Combs sought bail but has been denied repeatedly by several judges of that court despite his offer to surrender his passport and post bond worth tens of millions of dollars. According to news reports, the first judicial officer to deny Mr. Combs bail was U.S. Magistrate Judge Robyn Tarnofsky. This magistrate sided with the prosecutors’ speculative argument that Mr. Combs posed a risk if he were to be released for home confinement. U.S. District Judge Andrew Carter was the next. He denied another request for bail despite an offer by Mr. Combs of a bond package that included $50 million bond, house arrest, GPS monitoring and strict limitations on visitors. Inexplicably, Judge Carter ruled that Mr. Combs would need to await trial in jail at the Metropolitan Detention Center, in what many people consider extremely difficult and inhumane housing conditions. This is a notorious prison full of hardcore criminals who may jump at any opportunity to do harm to Mr. Combs, even to take his life. These hardcore criminals can be described as “hyper aggressive individuals with deep-seated criminal impulses who suffer from basic emotional faults,” according to a report describing hard core criminals. Days later, Judge Arun Subramanian similarly denied another bail request by Mr. Combs.

  We must take a moment to consider how cruel and callous these judicial actions and the prosecutors’ conduct are. Mr. Combs has not been accused of murdering anyone; he has not been shown to have a propensity to commit murder. He has not been shown to threaten to kill or harm witnesses. The prosecution would have the public believe that a person as accomplished as Mr. Combs, who pulled himself up from poverty by his bootstraps and became a billionaire, somehow deserves to have his life put in jeopardy by living with hardcore criminals well before he is convicted of any crime by a jury of his peers.

  Despite the hyperbolic and repetitive sex trafficking charges announced against him, there does not appear to be sufficient objective facts to which reasonable people can point as evidence that Mr. Combs committed a federal crime warranting the over-the-top and destructive raids which the Department of Homeland Security conducted at two of his homes six months before his arrest. The only damning piece of evidence against Mr. Combs so far appears to be a video, allegedly leaked to the Cable News Network (CNN) by the prosecutors, showing Mr. Combs repeatedly kicking his then-girlfriend as she laid on the ground in a hotel hallway. But, the video or the events depicted in it are not relevant to the charges against him, although prosecutors will seek to use it at trial to prejudice the jury against him. It is difficult to watch the video without having negative reactions toward Mr. Combs. It is damning evidence of a character flaw. And, it may be evidence of a crime in California, the situs of the apparent assault. But, it is not evidence of any crime in New York or under federal law. Moreover, it is likely that the statute of limitations has run on that purported state crime, which begs the question: Why is the federal government spending so much resources to go after a man who is a job creator and who poses no real or immediate threat to his community?

  The alleged sex trafficking allegations are flimsy at best. It is well-documented in the media and has been known for decades that Mr. Combs has hosted wild parties, and it has been widely discussed that people attending these parties probably took drugs and engaged in sex, some of them with more than one partner. These were well-attended parties, often by the most famous of celebrities and public figures, and reportedly among the most sought after invitations. The Feds now tell us that these parties were known as “Freak Offs”. Some of the scenarios described to have occurred at those parties – consenting adults engaging in conduct that may be lewd and distasteful – are probably not unlike what happens on many weekend nights at fraternity houses on college and university campuses across the country. If those parties are worthy of the federal government’s attention, the federal government is going to need to build many more prisons than our deficit-spending budget can afford.

  Prosecutors, especially when they have a weak case, have an affinity for pre-trial detention. It is a tactic used to inflict emotional and psychological distress upon the accused, to weaken his resolve and force him to accept a plea. They often masquerade this desire to break the accused by claiming he may run from justice or may try to intimidate witnesses if he is released on bail. Rarely is this ever true save perhaps in organized crime cases involving the mafia and others like them. It does not take a rocket scientist to see these tactics at play in Mr. Combs’s case. If Mr. Combs was going to flee from justice, he would have done so in the many months between the time he learned he was under investigation and the time of his arrest.^[1] But, he did not flee, despite having access to a private plane and ample financial resources. On the contrary, one recent news report from a few months ago showed Mr. Combs at an airport with his private plane. If indeed he traveled abroad but returned home, it would demonstrate a desire on his part to face the charges he assuredly knew were coming. Similarly, he would have intimidated witnesses during all of these months of the investigation if he was inclined to do so. We have seen nothing from the prosecutors evidencing he has done that. Then, what is then, the real purpose of the pre-trial detention? How one federal magistrate and two federal district court judges come to believe under the circumstances that Mr. Combs is a flight risk or poses a danger to the community is beyond comprehension.^[2]

  It is easy to understand the desire which compels prosecutors to engage in such shameful conduct. They want to win. Apparently, at all cost. What is infinitely more difficult to understand is the poor sense that judges today demonstrate in handling such cases. Why do judges, who should be the leading sentries in the protection and safeguard of the Constitution and the rights of the accused, act as if they are an extension of the prosecutors’ office? Why did they rubber stamp the prosecution’s motions in this instance? Even in some countries in which the judicial system does not emanate from England, there is a presumption that bail will be granted. Admittedly, it does not help that the Supreme Court of the United States muddied the waters on this issue, diluting an absolute Constitutional right to give the government the power to deny bail to certain criminal defendants.^[3] In doing so, the Supreme Court deferred to the judgment of lower court judges many of whom, unfortunately, as the Combs case and others have shown, have not demonstrated possession of the level of wisdom or sophistication necessary to handle so solemn a duty. The Supreme Court attempted to place safeguards to ensure that the lower courts would not go overboard in denying bail as such, including for example, the right to appeal the denial of bail, but these safeguards have not prevented Mr. Combs from being subjected to inhumane conditions of detention for more than twenty-six days since his arrest on September 16. If he does not receive appellate relief before his trial, he will remain in that filth of a prison with his life in the balance through the end of his trial, currently set for four weeks beginning May 5, 2025.^[4] That means, if he survives assassination or debilitating assaults, Mr. Combs may end up spending more than nine months in prison before a determination of guilt by a jury of his peers.

  The American people should be outraged at that. Such ill treatment of a fellow American by our government, in our name, before conviction, in violation of the Constitution should not be countenanced. To remain silent is tacit approval of the injustice perpetrated by the prosecutors and judges. If every American fails to stand up against injustice and unfairness even when it is being done to those who we do not like or those who do not live up to our ideals, injustice and unfairness proliferate and there will be no one to stand up for us, to be there for us when it is our turn to be persecuted.

  It does not matter how powerful you are when they come for you. Witness, for example, the trial and tribulations to which former and future President Donald J. Trump was subjected by the same forces – simply because he has refused to play their games and has been vocal about changing our federal government to save our country. Witness the conduct of the New York Supreme Court judge that presided over the alleged fraud case against Mr. Trump, his two adult sons, and their company. The trial was an absolute freak show.^[5] This supposed judge did not bother to hide his enjoyment of being in the limelight, of having power, however fleeting, over a former President of the United States. He felt smug at his newfound fifteen minutes of fame. He shamelessly played to the traditional media’s hatred of Mr. Trump by siding with the prosecution on every motion, on every point of law, and in every ruling in a case that never should have seen the light of day.^[6] Never before had a government in the United States brought a fraud case in a private transaction involving sophisticated private parties, where all of the parties obtained the benefit of their bargain, and no one lost money or complained.^[7]

  On the contrary, all of the parties made money on the deals over which Mr. Trump and his families were accused of fraud. The Attorney General of New York should have been sanctioned for bringing so farcical a case, wasting the court’s resources and the taxpayer’s money. Instead, the judge rewarded her by giving her every benefit of the doubt even when it seemed clear that the law could not be stretched as much as she tried to stretch it in a naked attempt to destroy President Trump and weaken him politically. Fortunately for our country, these usurpers got to see the unbending devotion to fixing our country that the rest of America saw on that fateful day in July 2024 in a field in Butler, Pennsylvania, where an assassin’s bullet came within millimeters of taking the President’s life and yet stood up with blood on his face, during a moment of uncertainty, pumped his fist, and reminded us patriots to never surrender, never give up. 

  One of the basic functions of a judge is to serve as a gatekeeper for the integrity of the court, the justice system, to administer justice fairly, under the law, impartially and without bias. That concept, unfortunately, seems quaint today. In those cases we have watched in New York, the judges not only failed to perform this basic function, they extended cases that should have been dismissed beyond even the prosecutor’s wildest imagination with lawless rulings, issued without regard to integrity or the Constitution. This brings me to another inscription on the glass windows of that famous building in London; it reads:

  No free man shall in future
  be arrested or imprisoned or
  disseised of his freehold, liberties
  or free customs, or outlawed or
  exiled or victimized in any other
  way, neither will we attack him
  or send anyone to attack him,
  except by the lawful judgment of
  his peers or by the law of the land.
  

  To no one will we sell, to no one
  Will we refuse or delay right
  or justice.

                             Magna Carta, 1215

  Contrary to the above-posted ideals, Mr. Combs has been arrested and imprisoned, dispossessed of his liberties, victimized and attacked not by the lawful of judgment of his peers or by the law of the land, but by leaks and innuendoes, by an aggressive prosecutor and thoughtless federal judges. If Mr. Combs committed a crime, let him be punished after conviction by a jury of his peers in accordance with the Bill of Rights, not one day before that.

  It is worth remembering that the U.S. Bill of Rights was a cornerstone of the foundation of our nation. Our constitution would not have been approved without guarantees that these rights would be enshrined in the founding document.  Like the foundation of a building, if the Bill of Rights falls, the entire edifice that sits atop, this country, will also fall. We Americans who love this country must ensure that it does not fall. We must prove ourselves worthy of the constitutional republic which our forefathers left us and the basic human rights which they saw fit to reserve onto themselves and onto succeeding generations. Let us dedicate ourselves to being vocal in the fight to preserve these rights and safeguard the republic for ourselves and for  future generations. Let us end the tyranny of the judges and prosecutors. A great people deserves nothing less.

  Wherever Law ends,
  tyranny begins.

                 John Locke, 1689

  -The Consul Regent

  ---

  Footnotes:

  ^[1] Mr. Combs could benefit from adding a more aggressive lawyer to his legal defense team, particularly one with a strong record of beating federal prosecutors. Mr. Rusty Hardin comes to mind despite his advanced age. Mr. Combs should offer Mr. Hardin whatever Mr. Hardin desires to coax him to leave Houston for the enterprise. Ms. Sydney Katherine Powell should be considered as an addition as well. Her recent legal spats had more to do with politics rather than the law. These two could complement rather than replace the existing team. The attendant expenses of two additional lawyers are small in comparison to the consequences of a conviction

  ^[2] This is not a defense of Mr. Combs. The Consul Regent does not know Mr. Combs. Rather, this is a defense of the Constitution of the United States, particularly the Bill of Rights, the protection of which extends to all Americans.

  ^[3]See, for example, United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987). 

  ^[4] As of this writing, a 3-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is considering Mr. Combs’s appeal of the denial of his bail requests.

  ^[5] New York Supreme Court is the trial level court in New York.

  ^[6] No law was broken; the case should have been dismissed at the outset for failure to state a cause of action.

  ^[7] On the contrary, all of the parties made money on the deals over which Mr. Trump and his families were accused of fraud.

  Loading…

  October 12, 2024

  crime, diddy, entertainment, news, sean-combs

  ---

• Joe Biden’s Revenge

  Posted: 2024.09.10

  September 10, 2024

  In politics, as in war, injury at the hand of one’s opponent often happens and is generally expected. Such injury, if not fatal, could transform the wounded into a better contestant inasmuch as a paralyzing unknown – what might happen if one gets hit – has been demystified. But what is not expected and is universally not accepted, as history has shown by a multitude of examples, is for one’s own forces to stab him in the back after he is injured in a campaign to finish him off in order that he might be replaced with someone anticipated to be a stronger contestant. And so it was for President Joe Biden in early July in the aftermath of his disastrous performance in the June 27, 2024 Presidential debate against former President Donald Trump hosted by the Cable News Network (CNN).

  
  In the televised and widely watched debate, Biden confirmed democrats’ worst fears. It was undeniably apparent to voters that Biden is cognitively unfit to serve as President and to be a candidate for another term. During the debate, Mr. Biden often rambled and was at times incoherent, his speech incomprehensible and his memory faulty. At one point, he trailed off for several seconds, seemingly unable to capture or recollect that which he wanted to say. The performance was at once embarrassing and pitiful, reminiscent of a prize fighter long past his prime who nevertheless continually enters the boxing ring for money, fame, or relevance with opponents half his age with much more strength, power, and vigor, and who pummel him into a pulp. However, Mr. Biden’s condition most assuredly was not unknown to his inner circle, elected democrats, financiers, or party bosses.

  
  Reactions were swift. The New York Times and other news publications threw themselves into the political fray, imploring Mr. Biden to withdraw from the race. Democrats at all levels implored Mr. Biden to demonstrate his debate performance was a fluke even while, privately, they questioned whether Mr. Biden could remain his party’s nominee. Mr. Biden tried to hang on, he had his staunchest supporters defend him in public; he held public events and political rallies, and he gave television interviews admitting he is old but still capable. Still, the pressure mounted. Democrat donors came out of the shadows and announced publicly they would stop donating to the campaign so long as Mr. Biden remained the nominee. Even those who claimed to consider Mr. Biden a friend turned on him. Nancy Pelosi, the former Speaker of the lower chamber of Congress (U.S. House of Representatives) and longtime friend of Mr. Biden, is said to have been a member of a group of prominent democrats leading the charge behind the scene to pressure Mr. Biden to quit even though her public statements seemed collegial even if restrained. Former President Barack Obama, under whom Mr. Biden served as vice president for eight years, is reported to have counseled democrats who were intent on seeing Mr. Biden withdraw. The nearly daily announcement by one elected democrat or another imploring Mr. Biden to quit seems coordinated, leading Mr. Biden to use U.S. president Harry Truman’s famous quote during a campaign stop in Nevada, “[i]f you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.”

  Many of the very people pressuring Mr. Biden to quit had hosted or attended relatively recent fundraisers for him, including a very high profile one in Los Angeles with Mr. Obama on June 15, twelve days prior to the debate. It is inconceivable that they did not know about, or suspect, Mr. Biden’s diminished capacity. American motion picture actor George Clooney, who following the debacle penned an op-ed in the New York Times calling on Mr. Biden to withdraw from the race, was among them. He co-hosted the June 15 event, which he termed, “the single largest fund-raiser supporting any Democratic candidate ever.” Yet, here was Mr. Clooney, three weeks later, imploring Mr. Biden to quit. To further discredit Mr. Biden’s team’s cockamamie story that the bad debate performance was due to Mr. Biden having a cold, Mr. Clooney argued in his op-ed that the Joe Biden he saw in the debate is the same Joe Biden he saw during his fundraiser twelve days earlier. If that is true, one must wonder what it says about Mr. Clooney; he did not have the courage, it seems, all these many days after the fundraiser to share with his fellow democrat voters and the public what he knew about Mr. Biden’s reduced capacity.
  

  In his op-ed, Mr. Clooney exhorted party leaders to take measures to convince Mr. Biden to quit the race, and he argued that Mr. Biden’s cognitive decline was “new and upsetting information”. But, in truth, the only “new and upsetting information” presented in this debacle is that “51 million people” watched the debate and saw the emperor had no clothes, potentially damaging Mr. Biden’s reelection chances – and the hope of democrats to recapture the White House. Such lack of courage masquerading as bravery is the stuff of legend in Hollywood, where people go through their entire lives playing pretend.

  
  It is inconceivable that Mr. Biden’s condition was unknown to his inner circle, leading democrats, donors or fundraisers. More realistically, they believed 2024 could be a repeat of 2020 where, under the guise of the novel coronavirus (COVID) pandemic, they successfully kept Mr. Biden hidden from public view and from the very few news reporters with the moxie to ask probing questions that might have revealed his condition.

  
  Assuredly, Mr. Biden’s family knew of his diminished capacity as well. Perhaps they were convinced to go along by Mr. Biden’s inner circle who appealed to their ego or their sense of duty, telling them the country needed Mr. Biden to save her from another Trump presidency. They may also have been given assurances that the campaign team would protect Mr. Biden much as they had done in 2020. In retrospect, it seems they vastly underestimated the assist given to them by the COVID pandemic during the 2020 election. With no pandemic restrictions with which to contend, hiding the candidate would not be an option in 2024.

  
  Much has been written about the machination of democrat operatives, elected officials, elder statesmen, and financiers in the orchestrated political murder of Mr. Biden, plunging their knives into his back with such ferocity and violence that they left him with no choice but to conclude that he could not continue in the race with any realistic chance at winning. It has been widely reported that democrat party officials, insiders and leaders wanted an open contest to select Mr. Biden’s successor. Mr. Clooney floated this idea in his op-ed, writing: “We can easily foresee a group of several strong Democrats stepping forward to stand and tell us why they’re best qualified to lead this country…. Let’s hear from Wes Moore and Kamala Harris and Gretchen Whitmer and Gavin Newsom and Andy Beshear and J.B. Pritzker and others. Let’s agree that the candidates not attack one another… Then we could go into the Democratic convention next month and figure it out.”

  
  Less, however, has been written about Mr. Biden’s view of his betrayal and what, if anything, he was prepared to do about it. But, it did not take long for Mr. Biden to showcase his resolve to teach the party leaders and fundraisers a lesson they will never forget, although that lesson is not readily apparent to democrats today. On Sunday, July 21, holed off at his private residence in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, nearly a month after his disastrous debate performance, Mr. Biden posted a letter on social media (X, Facebook, Instagram, and Threads) announcing his withdrawal from the race for president. His deliberation and decision were known only to a small cadre of family members and close advisers. Mr. Biden’s senior staff were told of the decision just one minute before the letter was posted on social media, avoiding leaks, spurning and giving traditional media the proverbial middle finger. This was not the only demonstration of revenge by Mr. Biden. To deny democrats the open contest they desired for the selection of his replacement, Mr. Biden wholeheartedly endorsed his Vice President, Kamala Harris, in whom party leaders and fundraisers had heretofore shown no faith, writing:

  My fellow Democrats, I have decided not to accept the nomination and to focus all my energies on my duties as President for the remainder of my term. My very first decision as the party nominee in 2020 was to pick Kamala Harris as my Vice President. And it’s been the best decision I’ve made. Today I want to offer my full support and endorsement for Kamala to be the nominee of our party this year. Democrats — it’s time to come together and beat Trump. Let’s do this.”

  With this full-throated endorsement of Ms. Harris, Mr. Biden made it all but impossible for democrat power brokers to have the open nominating contest that they wanted. Going against Ms. Harris following the President’s endorsement assuredly would have angered and alienated one of the most important voting blocks in the democrat party – Black voters. It did not take long for all of the contestants for the heretofore expected open nomination contest to fall in line. Governor Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Governor J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Governor Gavin Newsom of California, Governor Wes Moore of Maryland, one by one, issued public statements endorsing Ms. Harris. Some of them on the same day as Mr. Biden’s announcement. Party leaders and elder statesmen followed, albeit reluctantly. Mr. Obama took longer than many to issue a public endorsement. His wife and he issued an endorsement via video five days after Mr. Biden’s announcement. No prominent democrat, it seems, was willing to commit political suicide by failing to embrace Ms. Harris publicly. The nomination was to be Ms. Harris’s. Mr. Biden had taken his revenge against the democrats. It was a stroke of genius, Machiavellian in scope and brilliant in execution. But, Mr. Biden was not yet done.

  He had given democrats the candidate they did not want, the same candidate who flamed out in spectacular fashion the last time she ran for president in 2020.  Her poll numbers were at three percent when she dropped out. So unpopular Ms. Harris has been that as late as September 2023 there were calls for Biden to replace her on the democrats’ ticket in 2024. In fact, The Washington Post’s David Ignatius posited in a piece on September 12, 2023 that Mr. Biden should have resisted picking Ms. Harris as his running mate in 2020 and that neither of them should run for reelection in 2024. This was nearly one year before Mr. Biden’s recent decision to drop out and endorse Ms. Harris.

  Facts are a stubborn thing. Ms. Harris cannot win the 2024 presidential contest. She has too many downsides. As David Ignatius opined, “Harris has many laudable qualities, but the simple fact is that she has failed to gain traction in the country or even within her own party.”  Her defeat in November, ultimately, will be Mr. Biden’s best revenge.   

  Democrats, buoyed by the swiftness of Ms. Harris’s ascendancy and mesmerized by the speed with which party leaders and donors have fallen in line behind her, are giddy. They are in a frenzy over her candidacy and believe, many of them, that her coronation is a foregone conclusion. But, the dynamics of the race have not materially changed. She is still the same candidate she was in 2020 and the same vice president whose term in office has been marred by frequent staff turnovers and chaos. The party’s sudden surge of enthusiasm for Ms. Harris cannot erase the fact that she cannot carry the crucial swing states needed to win the presidency. She is not likeable, she is overly rehearsed and overtly fake, and she has accomplished nothing of substance in her career (unless one counts winning elections to public office as an accomplishment). She has jumped from office to office, elevating her stature with no gain for the people who have elected her. What initiatives has Ms. Harris advanced in the many elected positions she has held? It is not hard to forget that she occupied the office of Attorney General in California. Ditto for her single term as a United States Senator representing the State of California. She spoke of her toughness on crime as a candidate for District Attorney in San Francisco but had no meaningful effect on crime as the District Attorney. As a candidate for President in 2020, she pivoted from her tough on crime persona and took on the mantle of a progressive, the cri du jour in her party. But, voters saw through the emptiness, and she was among the first democrat primary candidates to drop out of the race for president in 2020. 

  The idea that a person with no accomplishment – whether it be a man or a woman, of color or white, straight or gay – has a chance to be elected President of the United States because the party bosses, campaign donors, and traditional media are excited about them seems absurd. But, very smart people believe it to be so. In their view, considering Ms.  Harris’s opponent, it is a near certainty. Perhaps it is because the darling of their party, Mr. Obama, once occupied the White House largely because of an electrifying speech at the 2004 Democratic convention and a prediction as an Illinois state senator that the Iraq War (2003) would go badly for the United States.

  The astute political observer is gobsmacked by the discipline and boldness with which Mr. Biden executed his withdrawal plan. Away from Washington with only the most trusted members of the inner circle present, and no leaks. These characteristics, admittedly unusual for Mr. Biden, are demonstrative of his strong desire to avenge the extreme embarrassment heaped upon him by his own party in the weeks following the June 27 debate. His calculated decision to endorse Ms. Harris in terms that left no room for other presidential contenders or for party bosses to meddle is at once daring and cunning. Cunning because it advanced the nomination of a candidate he knows cannot win the general election. Her loss in November will allow him to walk out of the arena head held high, beaming with pride as the only democrat to have defeated Mr. Trump.

  -The Consul Regent

  Loading…

  Leave a comment Cancel reply

  Δ

  September 10, 2024

  2024 Presidential Election, ABC, America, Biden, CNN, Debate, Decision, Democracy, Democratic, donald-trump, Election, Harris, joe-biden, news, Nominee, politics, President, Revenge, Trump, United States, Withdrawal

  ---