You Cancelled Us and Now We Cancel You

The left birthed cancel culture. They cheered when Aunt Jemimah was erased, when the Redskins were renamed, and when Uncle Ben quietly disappeared. They toppled statues and called it progress.

But they never imagined the blade might swing back.

Stephen Colbert? Fading. Jimmy Kimmel? Flailing. The View? On life support.

There's an old warning: Be careful what you wish for—you might just get it. And they did. They got the culture war they wanted. But they didn't count on the majority waking up.

They thought "woke" was popular. That it was righteous. That it was winning.

Then Bud Light happened. Then Target. Then Cracker Barrel. Then the 2024 election when the Democrats lost everything and Kamala Harris conceded to Donald Trump.

Now the cancellations are coming for them. Not out of spite, but out of clarity. The progressive movement is being rejected—not by fringe voices, but by the silent majority who never bought the message in the first place. 

It was easy to shout when the megaphone was theirs. It was easy to silence dissent when the media played backup. And thus, it was easy to pretend the country had changed.

But it hadn't.

We hadn't.

Our values didn't shift. Our principles didn't vanish. The foundation of this nation—its decency, its grit, its common sense—remained intact. The left just tried to convince us otherwise. Like magicians, they used smoke, mirrors and camera angles to sell the trick.

But we saw through it.

And now the same cancel culture they weaponized is being turned on the false narratives, the curated outrage, and against the phantom majority.

We're setting the record straight.

They stood at podiums, hijacked sporting events, hijacked award shows, and told us what to think. And for a while we listened. Some even nodded along.

Maybe the word DID change, and we just fell a bit behind getting the memo?

But then we talked to each other. We looked around and we realized, "This isn't us. This isn't the whole. This isn't the truth."

So, thank you for the invention. We'll use it now for the common good. Because good always wins. And your mistake was believing evil could prevail.

You tried to cancel everything we hold dear. Now, we're cancelling the lie.

We win.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

©2025 Jim Bauer

Is it a Rift or Just Business: Elon Musk vs. Donald Trump

Boy, how the tides turn in Washington. Once, Elon Musk was the quirky face of liberalism, and of course, Tesla's eco-friendly (kinda sorta) cars won over the tree huggers all caught in the web of the terrifying prospect of a global climate crisis.

Well, he's still quirky. Maybe even still a bit liberal.

But he's clearly leaned right, seeing more promise in a Trump presidency than a Harris one. Where are his allegiances? Well, it might just be that Elon Musk really doesn't have one. And hey, I'm not saying that's all bad. Who wants to be a sheep? Really, he's just being who he has always been. Elon Musk. A man who has always danced to his own tune, unapologetically doing what suits him in the moment, and not always really giving much of a damn what anyone thinks about it.

Really, hasn't controversy and Elon Musk always pretty much gone hand in hand?

His so-called rift with Trump now? Maybe it's just business. Without a doubt, his darling company, Tesla, took a major hit when he aligned with MAGA—dealerships and charging stations got bombed and the cars were attacked.

Look, it's no secret that Tesla buyers are mostly liberals. If Musk wants to sell cars, he has to restore the Tesla brand—and perhaps his own—by softening his conservative ties. Like it or not, if he's chasing profits, he has to appeal to the people buying, and that's not the MAGA crowd.

Musk's tactics? Disconcerting, to say the least—linking Trump to Epstein's list and suggesting he owed his presidency to him. But let's be honest, the Musk we see now is the same Musk we've always had. Same goes for Trump, really. When Elon Musk was launching his Tesla into outer space or Donald Trump was calling Rosie O'Donnell nasty names—what we see is what we get.

So, are we really all that surprised by Musk's moves? The product hasn't changed. Whether it comes to Trump or Elon Musk, they do seem to be genuine articles in that they speak what's on their mind and really aren't all that interested in what some people might think about that.

For whatever it's worth, and however uncomfortable it can sometimes make me, I can actually admire that. Who wants someone who cow toes like a sheep?

That's not to say that Musk's sudden sprint to the MAGA side didn't have an agenda behind it. Maybe it did. Maybe it didn't. We can't necessarily get deep into Musk's brain to figure out exactly what was on his mind.

We just know that Musk now seems to have sort of changed his mind.

But again, it may be more about business than anything. Or maybe he is actually a little bit crazy as I have always suspected. He's certainly always been able to stay in the news and on people's radars. Maybe that works for him. Maybe his antics work for him now going against Trump, even if, at the same time, it might leave more people on both sides more confused than convinced about what he actually thinks or where he actually stands.

Many might be asking, "Who's side are you really on, Mr. Musk?" Maybe the reality is that he's not on anyone's side. He's on his side. And really, when I look back at all the positions Musk has ever taken, that seems apparent that that's the only side he has ever been on.

Again, that's not necessarily a bad thing even if I don't entirely like or agree with what he's saying now.

What he has effectively done to now is to stir the pot really good and get everyone talking. Democrats. Republicans. MAGA people and liberals. 

Either way, whether this rift is a good thing or a bad thing is to be seen. Who knows what the outcome will ultimately be? He'll lose some new friends and regain some old ones, perhaps. He's done it before. I think it's likely he'll do it again.

Like I said, he's quirky. He's Elon Musk. This is what he does. It's what he's always done. Can you really get angry about it? Or do you just accept that this is what it is, take it for what it is, let the cards fall where they may, and go about our days?

In the meantime, watch what Tesla's stock does. What Elon Musk is at the end of the day is a master marketer, and he's a pretty damn smart businessman. Maybe not being able to actually know what side he's actually on is the best strategy he can have. And that might ultimately be what all this is really about.

Or he's subtly sending us a different message. That we aren't all that interested in ideas or truth as much as we're interested in agreeing with each other all the time.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Also, check out some of my other articles and commentary on HubPages or follow me on X at @jimbauer601.

© 2025 Jim Bauer

Student Loan Forgiveness Was a Misguided Initiative Anyway

Whenever the government opts to simply distribute funds, it's bound cause issues, and understandably so, for numerous reasons. It's not their money, after all. It's our money. And how ever it gets spent needs to at the very least, make sense.

The student loan forgiveness program never did.

If you benefited from the program, it's easy to see why you might support it. But at the end of the day, the bottom line is clear: if it's debt, and it's elective debt like college loans, then the responsibility to repay it should fall on the one who incurred it.

While the program was a key initiative touted by the Biden administration, polls consistently showed it was extremely unpopular—not to mention it wasn't actually constitutional.

When the government is already burdened with its own enormous debts, and is literally hemorrhaging money, how can we, as Americans, support what is essentially frivolous spending of our tax dollars? It makes no sense.

We know the why of course, although the left would never admit to it. They called it a "crisis." They were trying to buy votes from a needed sector of society. It's really that simple.

It's dead in the water now, as was recently announced. Well, of course it is. They don't need the votes anymore. Well, that and the Biden administration knows the program won't see the light of day under the Trump administration anyway.

Nor should it. Because again, it made no sense to do it in the first place.

I think there were a good many people who thought about it and wondered, where else could the money be spent if we could assume we actually had it to spend? What other areas may have offered better opportunities to provide relief, not to just one sector of society, but the masses?

Maybe we could have suspended the federal gas tax to help reduce the cost of gas and diesel. Maybe we could have offered an automatic energy credit to help with the burden of higher energy bills, especially during winter months.

Or better yet, perhaps we could have looked to aid our aging public by raising social security benefits, suspending income taxes on those benefits, or if we wanted to forgive debts, maybe we could have forgiven medical debts incurred by seniors.

The point is that while just giving money away alone rarely makes sense, if it was to be given away, at least one could better digest the notion of doing it at all if what it was given away for made at least some sense.

Set aside, if you will, that many people had to be left scratching their heads a bit at the whole idea of student loan forgiveness. I mean, aren't college grads supposed to be the smartest of the smart? They couldn't figure out how to manage and repay the debt? And wasn't the whole sell of the college education to make more money than non-college grads? But they couldn't repay the debt even with the supposed higher wages? And non-college grads would now have to pay college tuition through taxes on lower wages?

Beyond just giving money away, perhaps what would be better to do is to address why college costs as much as it does, and why the promise is not delivering the goods, but rather saddling students with debt they can't repay in the first place.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

From the Springboard on HubPages:

What Are the Drones Doing Over Our Heads?
Despite reassurances, the mystery of the drones over New York and New Jersey has imaginations running wild. Until we have some answers, it's anyone's guess why they are there and what they are up to, leaving growing public concern and speculation.

Celebrities vs. the Real World: The Illusion

At the end of the day, there is one big detail I think is important to note as we now have confirmation that Trump's run for the White House was successful, and quite so. Celebrity's opinions in elections really don't matter.

Granted, if you were to ask them, I think they'd tell you they disagree, but that's because they are largely out of touch with the rest of the country and do not face the same challenges the rest of us do. They have money. They have notoriety. What they don't have is as much influence as they would like to believe.

Sure, some people will listen to them. People who agree with them, of course. But it's not like any message they may try to push is going to change any minds.

"Well, I mean, it's Robert DeNiro. He must be on to something, right?"

The thing about celebrities, which is rather telling when you think about it, is their reaction when they don't get their way. 

They act like children that are denied their day at the park.

Children want all sorts of things, and a lot of the time they are things that are denied by the adults in the room for good reason. Adults have to be the hitch that keeps the trailer attached to the tow vehicle because the trailer is not equipped to drive itself. But what happens when the child is denied something they want so badly, even if it's not good for them?

They throw tantrums.

Isn't that what celebrities largely do? Jimmy Kimmel is on his monologue brought to tears. Sally Field is caught ripping up a Trump sign. And how many of them took to X and other social media declaring they'd leave the country if Kamala lost?

Isn't that sort of like little Johnny packing up his Radio Flyer and pulling it up the block in defiance? "Take that. I'm running away!"

What are they mad about, really, though? Is it that Kamala Harris lost, and Trump won? I mean, that's part of it. Sure. Is it that they didn't get their way? You bet. But more than that, I think, is that no one cared what they thought. In a moment like this their strong feeling of self-importance is literally crushed.

They are big stars, after all, and they must be important because so many millions of people adore them. Even when a child throws a tantrum, it's not necessarily because they didn't get what they wanted. It's because they were powerless to have things go their way.

That's a frustration that's hard to get over.

But it's the message that the reaction sends that I think is the most important to examine. What they wanted weren't rational things that would be good for them.

The reason their message was denied was because the things they wanted did not make any sense. Their message was as irrational as their response is, of course. The adults in the room stepped in and said no, and this hurts them immensely.

This can be seen in the liberal media as well. Their reactions which can only be defined as tantrums. Because just like the celebrities, they are supposed to be the news, and we're supposed to take them at their word and heed every single one they utter.

How could The People have gotten it so wrong? Why did they not listen to us? It simply can't be.

That's the pill that is hard to swallow for them all right now. The reality that their influence is imaginary. Their importance is something that really only resides in their own tight-knit circles of people there only for the ride and the benefits, that the celebrities believe is real.

They are used to the usual, "Yes sir, and certainly sir." 

And certainly, the Democrats thought this celebrity endorsement, as they usually do, would matter as well. After all, they had Taylor Swift and Beyoncé in their corner, and untold many more people on their side, delivering their message. Certainly, it would matter. Certainly, people would listen.

After all, it's Taylor Swift and she's got hundreds of millions of adoring fans.

One other thing I want to point out when it comes to celebrities—how about the conservative ones. Yes, they exist, and actually the list is longer than many might think. When Robert DeNiro was in the streets shouting down Trump supporters and calling them idiot and morons and despicable people, what were the conservative celebrities doing?

Simply supporting their candidate and explaining the reason. They weren't yelling at people and calling them names. They weren't threatening to run off to Canada if Kamala won. And even when Trump lost in 2020, they weren't throwing tantrums.

The bottom line is that it's great to have opinions and be able to share them. It's part of what makes America great is that we can have differences and voice them. But sometimes how we act when we give them, and how we react when the majority disagrees, is rather telling of the quality behind those opinions, and the reason for delivering them.

These celebrities were not interested in winning an election. They were interested in winning on the idea that their opinions mattered and could impact winning an election. When they lost the election, they didn't just lose the race they were fighting to win. They lost a sense of their importance.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also watch The Springboard on YouTube for more great content and commentary.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Going into the interview I had some concerns, even though I have great confidence and faith in Brett Baier to ask the hard questions, that he might go a bit light on Vice President Kamala Harris, or even allow her to close question segments with the final word with no clear rebuttal.

He didn't do that. He challenged her on claims. He presented her former and current positions and gave her the opportunity to explain the contrast. He presented polling outlining voter sentiment on a variety of issues that are not favorable to Kamala Harris on the economy, the border and other issues and point blankly asked her why, if she has a better path forward, the majority of the American people seem to be indicating they disagree with her.

Look, I am going to give Kamala Harris at least some credit for sitting down with Brett Baier. She easily could have said no, and I am sure that she was prepared to be in an interview situation that would be unlike anything that she would ordinarily be accustomed to.

But she didn't pass the smell test. She didn't answer the questions, and I think a lot of her combativeness during the interview was more to stall it, present less time for real questions, and control the interview than to display a sense of command.

What she ultimately did was spend the bulk of the interview taking shots at Donald Trump and dismissing the dismal results of the administration she was part of for the past four years, taking no responsibility, acknowledging no mistakes, yet at the same time trying to distance herself from Joe Biden.

As you would expect, Harris was armed with an arsenal of talking points, and she wanted to get them all out in rapid-fire as best she could.

In the end, I don't think the interview did any good for the Kamala Harris campaign, but at the same time I am not sure if this close to the election, it changes any minds either. But it did present a glaring example of why a Kamala Harris presidency poses more danger to the American people than she wants to claim a Trump administration would be.

Again, we have results to go by. We have Trump's first four years, and we have Biden's last four years, and she is correct to point out that there is a stark contrast between the two choices, only all of the problems that have happened in the last four years were partially under her command.

Over and over again she lobbed accusations against Trump about the dangers he poses, from threats to democracy to weaponizing the military against the American people, yet at the same time completely dismissing the fact that 79% of the American people in polls say that we are headed in the wrong direction as a country.

That's her problem to own and explain, by the way, because Trump wasn't there to steer the country anywhere. And actually, Harris' attempt at an answer to the question why was actually a bit bizarre, if you ask me. "It's Trump's rhetoric for the past decade," she tried to assert. But as Brett pointed out, "You were in the White House. Not Trump."

The bottom line is that we are in the final throes of this election. I think we have all the information we, as voters, need in order to make a final decision. I tend to believe that decision is Trump. But of course, it's hard to tell when the media seems to want to point us in a different direction. 

Like I have said before, I think any popularity or lead Harris has ever had has largely been driven by media spin much more than voter sentiment. Will the race be close? Who knows? It shouldn't be. But again, who knows?

All in all, I am going to give Brett Baier a thumbs up for a hard hitting, on point interview that I think touched on key issues and questions that gave us a better picture of the real Kamala Harris, unfettered by the usual media drooling over her or the left that we are used to.

We got to hear the right questions asked, and the American people got to see her unable to answer them with any conceivable substance. The left wing media will of course say Brett attacked Kamala Harris or was rude to her. But I'll just say that's because he didn't ask her what her favorite color is or what she plans to serve on her table at Thanksgiving.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL OF THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into a Deer In Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan

One of the most frustrating things about Kamala Harris' repeated assertions during the Brett Baier interview, was this notion she was trying very hard to convey that Donald Trump is not putting the interests of the America people first in his campaign. 

What? Where have you been?

Trump has talked about the devastating blow to American families that inflation has caused. He has talked about the border. He has talked about the economy. And he has talked about the need to reduce high prices at the gas pump.

"Donald Trump has no plans," she kept saying.

Only the reality is that Trump has had plans all along, including many of which he had already implemented during his first four years. Policies and plans that were mostly effective and worked, by the way, no matter how badly Harris wants to convince the American people they didn't.

Brett asked her specifically regarding the economy, "Why do you think most people say they trust Donald Trump more than you when it comes to the economy?" And once again she skirted the question, instead bashing Trump as well as citing Nobel laureates and the Wall Street Journal as sources to say, "They trust our plan."

Which is essentially, the same plan the Biden administration was wanting to pursue—Harris is really just an extension of that even if she somehow wants to try to separate herself from it, while at the same time telling The View she wouldn't change anything the Biden administration did during their four years in office.

Again, am I the only one completely confused here?

I go back to what I have said before. Who was in office these past four years? Was it Donald Trump? Or was it Joe Biden and Kamala Harris? She acknowledges we have all these challenges and problems that need to be fixed. But it wasn't Trump who was in the White House when they happened and now, she's the one with the better ideas to get us out of it?

Brett asked her another very poignant question about her saying over and over again that her presidency would turn the page. "You've been vice president for the past four years. What are you turning the page from?"

Where I find her "answer" is remarkable is how she framed it, basically trying to suggest we are needing to get away from divisiveness, pointing fingers and passing blame, and trying to take people down instead of lifting them up.

Wait a minute. Would that be like accusing a political opponent of crimes? Of insurrections? Of trying to jail him? Of having wall to wall endless negative coverage comparing Donald Trump to Marxists and fascists and Adolph Hitler himself? 

She says Donald Trump's rhetoric instills fear in people's minds. So, what does saying that he will become a dictator, wanting to use federal law enforcement agencies to jail dissenters, take down democracy or whatever other evil plans he supposedly has—all of which are patently untrue, by the way—do to not instill fear in people's minds?

She is basically saying that we need to turn the page ahead against all the things her administration has been front and center of for the past four years, orchestrating all along.

At the end of the day, the fact is, Harris has nothing new to offer the American people and she's trying as hard as she can to erase the last four years and somehow pin all of America's woes on Trump. There's no other way of putting it. 

The question is, who's really buying it?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Two: Brett Baier Puts Kamala Harris Into Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Brett Baier Puts Kamala Into a Deer in Headlights Mode with Immigration Question

If you ever wanted to know what a deer in headlights looks like, it was Vice President Kamala Harris as she was squarely trapped by a question brilliantly framed, that she thought she nailed the answer to.

"There's a lot of people that look back at what you said in 2019 when you first ran for president," Brett began. He reminded her that she supported allowing immigrants who were in the country illegally to apply for driver's licenses, that she supported free tuition for illegals at universities, as well as offering illegals free healthcare.

"Listen," Kamala Harris said, almost seeming irritated by the question by her body language. "That was five years ago."

She went on to convey her regard for the law and asserted she didn't advocate for these things while she was vice president. But of course, we all must remember, she was the vice president. Biden would have had to sign off on these things, and I contend even for him, these ideas would have been considered far too radical to take seriously.

Because of course, they are radical, and I think most Americans, including many Democrats, would be opposed to them.

She basically tried to throw out the notion that she would ever go back to her former position. But it was Brett's follow up question that was the gotcha moment. "If that's the case, you chose a running mate, Tim Walz, Governor of Minnesota, who signed those very things into state law. So, do you support that?"

Her pause was nearly 3-seconds long, which may not seem like a very long time. But clearly, she was taken aback by the question and immediately the wheels were spinning in her head. One could have pictured a sudden appearance of Will Robinson's robot in "Lost in Space" entering the frame warning, "Danger! Danger!"

The problem with her ultimate answer is the same as is the problem she has with most of her answers. She didn't answer it. She said her and Tim Walz are committed to following federal law. Yet clearly, Tim Walz had different interests as governor. So, which is it? She changed her position on the position and now Tim Walz has too?

How much more confused can the American people be made trying to figure out what Harris is actually for or against? Why didn't she condemn Walz' law or have further comment on it? Will she now, if elected, go to the courts to ask to challenge Walz' law on the grounds that it violates federal law? And will Walz, who enacted it, now side with her in the challenge?

Does this make sense to anyone?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

READ ALL THE TAKES ON THE BRETT BAIER INTERVIEW WITH KAMALA HARRIS

Take One: Brett Baier and Kamala Harris on the Border
Take Three: Brett Baier Continues to Lock Kamala Harris Up on the Economy and Her Campaign Slogan
Take Four: The Brett Baier and Kamala Harris Interview: My Final Take

Kamala Harris and the Illusion of Change

Looking at the Kamala Harris campaign, I can't help but recall the early 90's Jack in the Box E. Coli outbreak, which tragically killed four children and infected 732 people across four states. This comparison isn't meant to disparage Jack in the Box or dredge up old events that they likely prefer to remain in the past.

The truth is, it was one of the worst incidents of its kind at the time, and Jack in the Box nearly went under for good. Their name was tarnished, and no one would dare eat there. So, what did they do? They tried to rebrand themselves as Monterrey Jack's instead.

The problem is, it's essentially still Jack in the Box with nothing more than a new sign and name. The leadership, business practices, food sources, quality standards, and sanitary standards all remain unchanged.

Which brings me back to Kamala Harris. They've done nothing more than slap a new label on the same product. It's the same Kamala Harris as always, just with a different facade.

There was a time when you could be fairly confident that a rebrand wouldn't fool anyone. People would catch on quickly. "Hey, wait a minute, this is just a Sourdough Jack with a new name. What's going on?" But the difference is that the times we are living through now are probably the most politically divided as we have ever seen.

In times like these, logic and critical thinking go right out the window, and they have.

Yet, I can't shake the feeling that times might not be so different after all. Perhaps it's just hope, wishful thinking, or even naivety. But I want to believe that as a people, we haven't entirely lost our grip on reality. Can it be that now, when it seems like we've lost all sense, it's really still there? Lurking in the shadows. Just waiting for the right moment to emerge and bring back our faith in the system and what's right in the world.

When you look at the polls, there are so many things that point to this presidential race being a very close one. Based on what we know, it shouldn't be. Not if the elements that make up commonsense were working properly.

Moreover, the media should be falling all over itself over what the Harris campaign is trying to pull off. After all, they own the archives. All they have to do is rewind the tapes, and not all that far back, to see we're being lied to and badly.

The rebranding shouldn't work. Not only based on what they are trying to sell us as the new and improved Kamala Harris. But based on the last four years that Kamala Harris was part of. She went along with all of the policies Biden put into place, and when those policies failed, she went out and defended them.

The economy is humming along. The border is secure. Inflation's not so bad (hey folks, dontcha love this thing we call Bidenomics?)...

How could it ever be possible that the past four years could be in such stark contrast to the four years prior, that we could be lied to about the president's health, and that Kamala Harris could go on the view and tell the hosts she would not change a single Biden policy decision, and still be elected president?

If Kamala Harris pulls this off, take note Jack in the Box. If you ever need a comeback, she's your gal.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Check out my new YouTube channel as well, appropriately titled The Springboard, where I discuss a variety of topics there as I do here.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

It's Like it Never Really Happened

It's not necessarily that what Kamala Harris is saying is wrong. The economy sucks, inflation sucks, the border sucks, we're lacking opportunities, and it's harder than ever for the American people to succeed and achieve the American dream. America is in bad shape, and we need someone in the White House who can recognize the problems, offer the right solutions, and turn it all back around.

I am so glad, Mrs. Harris, that you have finally awakened to the reality that we've got some serious problems here. Where have you been all these past four years?

Oh, wait. Weren't you in the White House? 

Wherein, not only was she party to all of the no-good policies and bad decisions that got us here, but she also defended them all along, right out there standing alongside Joe Biden telling us what our eyes and wallets knew damn well was a lie was wrong.

"Everything's running superbly. This is Bidenomics, folks. Isn't it wonderful?"

She's saying the right words. What she is saying is true. Things are bad and we need to take a different course. But the amazing thing to me is that, at the core of her campaign, it's as though Biden never happened. He's been wiped out of memory completely. Joe Biden, who? The way you hear Kamala Harris talk about it, Trump was the guy in the White House all along, these past four years, Harris is the newcomer on the block, and it's Trump's fault that all of what went wrong in America happened.

The remarkable thing is that I think the Democrats believe it, and so does the media. It's remarkable to me how quickly Joe Biden has been erased from the political landscape. Do we even feel like he's president anymore? Has anyone in the media even mentioned his name?

If they have, it's been in passing. "Oh yeah, he's still president."

The thing that scares me is that, even if in my heart I don't want to believe it's as tight at race as the media portrays it, maybe it is. Trump suffers from a lot of hate out there, and when all that hate is clouding judgements about what Biden did and what Trump will fix doesn't matter.

Even if, in their hearts, anyone who wants to cast a vote for Harris, they know it's all a lie. That it's all a big game of smoke and mirrors. The magician has pulled the rabbit out of the hat, and everyone is convinced that the rabbit wasn't there all along.

They'll still vote for her and hand over the keys to the Oval Office.

The second part of the problem is that while Trump has the right ideas and even the proven track record, the reality is that he's not a great orator, and so his message gets trapped in the mud. In a moment in time such as this, what we need is a Reagan-like delivery. 

On spot. Front and center. Straightforward. Here's the problem, here's who caused it, and here's why these are the people responsible for it.

The hope is that the American voter has become accustomed to Trump's style enough that they understand that he means more than what he says and will do more than what he doesn't say. The hope is that memories have not failed, and that voter's don't fall for the rouse.

Harris isn't the solution. She's the problem.

With all that's happened in the past four years, this should be the markings of a landslide victory for Trump, but here we are looking at polls suggesting Trump may actually lose the election. I do think the voters are smarter than all of this, and I have trust in my cynicism of what the media is trying to sell us.

Can you really erase Biden's four years and pass the blame onto the guy that wasn't there through it all? I guess we will find out in November.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Is it Gross Incompetence with the Secret Service or Something Else?

I get it. Conspiracy theories can be a dime a dozen, and don't people get a little bit tired of hearing them? Don't things just sometimes happen and it's no one's fault but the people doing them? Most of the time that's probably true, and most of the time conspiracy theories are just that.

Theories.

But they become conspiracy theories sometimes for good reason. It's like a puzzle. The more pieces you put together, the more it begins to form a whole picture.

We now have two assassination attempts on former President Donald Trump's life. Two of them that are 65 days apart. And in both cases, the shooters were mere yards away. One could even say the shooters were in obvious places.

On a rooftop within clear sight of the former president. And one hole away on a golf course.

But I stressed the word "two" for very good reason, because it seems rather uncanny that this would happen. How many times have there been multiple attempts on a former or sitting president? On top of that, you have to consider that in the entire history of our country there have only been 17 assassination attempts made against presidents or presidential candidates, and only five were successful.

It just makes you wonder. What in the hell is going on here? We already know that the Secret Service was grossly incompetent to protect the former president in Butler, PA. The director resigned shortly after being hammered by Congress, with unanimous calls for her resignation from both sides.

But how much transparency was offered to the American people about that? Not much. And why withhold certain information? For days, and even weeks, the Congress interviewed people from the FBI, the Secret Service, and other agencies involved with Trump's protection detail.

They were saying some things. But it wasn't what they were saying that was at issue. It was what they weren't saying. What were they hiding? Were they hiding things? Were they hiding these things to protect themselves? Or was it because of something else?

Before, most people were wondering why an obvious rooftop was not covered at his rally where the former president received a graze wound from a flying round from an assassin's gun. Now we have to ask, "Where was President Trump's detail on the golf course?"

Wouldn't they have several things going on here to ensure a wide swath of coverage to protect not only the former president, but one who's life was already put on the line? Perhaps drones in the sky. Secret Service agents at hole 5 and hole 7? Or maybe they'd just secure the whole damn golf course? Or did they? 

So, how did the shooter get past their radars? Especially in a setting where the Secret Service would have presumably had far more control over the locale than at a rally attended by tens of thousands of rally goers.

How did this happen?

Look, I have no experience in law enforcement, and certainly about protection details. But I have to seriously question if what we are witnessing here is gross incompetence or it's that the Secret Service is in on these attempts somehow.

Granted, unlike the Butler shooting, the shooter is in custody, and so we may be able to know much more about his motivations and what led up to this attempt. I am certain there will be more hearings held, and maybe that too can offer some insight.

Maybe it's just that we have a lot of crazy people running around. It could be as simple as that. It's TDS that has reached an extreme level so extreme that it has now turned haters into cold-blooded killers.

Either way and whatever the answers happen to be, I just can't help but think to myself that something stinks to high Heaven here, and sooner rather than later we need to figure this out and get things back under control.

How many historical events do we need to create when it comes to Donald Trump? Most impeached. First to be indicted. First to be convicted. And now, two assassination attempts?

Enough is enough.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

The Debate is Critical for Both Candidates

So, folks. We have a debate. For emphasis, you need to say that like the Arby's, "We have the meats," guy. The scheduled debate, which will air on ABC, will be held on September 10th between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris, and I have to say, it will either be a defining moment for one or the other or an end to the honeymoon period Harris has enjoyed since Biden announced he would be stepping out of the race, making Harris the presumptive nominee for the Democrat party.

What will be interesting first and foremost, for me, will be how well Kamala Harris, unscripted and without a teleprompter, can command her words. She is, of course, well known for her many word salads, and from what we have seen in previous debates, she typically does not perform well in that setting.

In the Democrat primary debates leading up to the 2020 presidential election she never even made it to Iowa before being forced to drop out of the race.

The key thing for me is that Trump needs to maintain a sharp focus on the issues, especially the ones he is winning on, according to all polls. Those would be inflation, the economy, and the border. Regardless of how Kamala Harris tries to sell the success of so-called, "Bidenomics," the American people already know that it didn't work.

Trump needs to dial in on that and make it clear that it didn't work, and why. 

As for Kamala Harris, the hurdles for her are many fold considering that among former vice presidents, her favorability ratings were literally in the tank, and she trailed far behind even Joe Biden's. She's not a likeable person. If she cackles one time too many, it's going to make her appear as she has appeared in the past.

Out of touch and a little bit unhinged, and not to mention, not a serious person.

The thing is that this is "a moment" for Kamala Harris to try to erase any preconceived ideas about her, which she has largely been able to duck a bit from since the announcement of Biden stepping down. She's made no major media appearances and held no interviews. So, aside from some very well scripted rally venues, this will be the first time following Biden's departure that the American people will get to see, what presumably would be an attempt to showcase, a newly refined Kamala Harris, complete with some policies she is trying to distance herself from.

Including her own policy stances, by the way, which by even the most conservative measure are so far left, a walk to the center would take years.

She's going to try to deliver two direct messages, "I am not Donald Trump, but I am also not Joe Biden."

The first one is an easy one, of course. But what about the second one? For the past going on four years, Harris told the American people Biden was doing a remarkable job and touted success after success of the Biden administration, even joining in on the big stretch lie that Joe Biden is a president who accomplished more than any other president in past history.

The problem is, if she distances herself too far from Biden's policies, it is a de facto admission of sorts that it was all a big lie. Granted, she might get a small pass considering she was, of course, the vice president. But she still went along with the program, and she still owns the policies of the man she served under.

This inflation, this economy, and this border are all hers. Not only does she need to explain to the American people what her plans are to fix these issues, she needs to explain why they are issues after four years of her time in office.

If ABC asks the right questions, maybe we get to hear what she has to say about that. But it's the media, and if there's one thing you can bet, they probably won't ask the right questions. 

Either way, both candidates have a major opportunity to make an appeal for their cause, and both candidates, admittedly, have some issues in that regard. This debate, I think, has far more importance than the previous one held between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The outcome of it, I think, determines the election, and because of that, both candidates have to be at the highest level of their game ever in their political careers.

Everything is at stake on September 10th for their future prospects. Literally, everything. Especially considering, I believe this may be one of the most watched debates ever in the history of American debates.

All eyes will be on. Neither one can lose sight of that. Especially Trump.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer 

Trump Brilliantly Plays the Media

When you think about it, how Trump plays the press time and time again is actually quite brilliant. I mean, think about it. How much press does Trump actually enjoy? Tons. And the funny part is, the media thinks the mostly negative press is seen as negative by the people who see the news coverage.

Granted. Some do. But I think the vast majority of people see through the news that's presented. In other words, you can't take the presentation all that serious.

Whatever you want to call it. MAGA humor. A Trumpism. Even a gaffe. Every time Trump has a rally or does a speech, he throws in specific things that he is fully aware the media will immediately bite at and run off with.

"I don't care about you. I just want your vote," Trump says with a smile, followed by a chuckle. He's not really saying that. He knows that will be the soundbite, though. He knows that's what will get played over and over again while a circle of pundits and commentators poke at it and try to dissect it, omit the context, and make it seem like Trump was making an off-color statement.

Most viewers see the joke, and then what's left is them scratching their heads at the media coverage. "Am I supposed to take this as serious news? That Trump actually said he didn't care about his voters? That doesn't make sense. Why would he say that?"

The thing is Trump words these things in ways that don't make sense quite on purpose. It's masterful, really. Because even out of context and cleverly clipped, the comment is so out there that no one can take it seriously.

It makes the media look like fools. And it makes viewers angry that they are being taken as fools. It also makes it obvious that the media can't be taken seriously.

That last part might be the most important part. Because that's the part that makes the viewer go off on his own to see what Trump actually said. But more importantly, what he meant. And once they do that, that's when the gig is up. 

Some people can't fathom how Trump continues to get bigger and stronger despite every effort to knock him down. The thing is, he gets more visibility because of the media's portrayals. People want to know more and then they go and listen to the full context of what was covered, or even the full speech—often times mesmerized and wildeyedlely (is that even a word?) waiting for some juicy tidbit to confirm Trump's just a crazed idiot who is power hungry.

What they find is a sensible guy saying mostly sensible things, who loves his country and sees America as a good place filled with good people who deserve strong leadership working hard for their interests.

As hard as the media is trying to make enemies for Trump, they are pointing them right into his corner to actually hear his words and his message—and of course they like the message because it's a good one. 

"I don't need your vote. I have enough already," Trump says, and once again the media pounces. "This guy's crazy. Did you hear what he said?"

Yeah. We did. We knew he was joking. We know you can't be serious when you tell us he was serious. 

Trump gains support not only through what he does. He gains it because the media almost forces people to take a closer look at the man and the campaign. And they can't clip what the viewer sees on their own, out of their own interest. They also cannot shape opinions because when the viewer gets the whole story, it will be the only basis for what they ultimately decide.

The funniest part of the joke, though, is when the media and the left take the joke seriously. It is, perhaps, the greatest punchline of all, and Trump is getting the last laugh.

Like the things I write about or the way I write about them? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. Want some free crypto? Check out FreeBitcoin for a fun way to get some.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

You Won't Win an Election by Insulting the Voter's Intelligence

I have to ask, "How is insulting voter's intelligence a winning campaign strategy?" Because that seems to be entire strategy of the Democrat party and the media. Well, sham trials and a weaponized justice system notwithstanding, of course.

Now they are running with the latest Trump comment. Trump says he doesn't care about his voters in scorching heat rally.

Give me a break. Really? Look, there is video on this. Trump did say that. But one look at the video and anyone with even half a brain immediately makes out that he was speaking tongue in cheek. Not only was it a joke. He was clearly mocking the media.

As he was speaking to the crowd the wind blew and he praised the breeze. He said, in an after all sort of way, "I don't want anyone going anywhere. I don't care about you. I just want your vote." Which is as direct a jab against the media narrative that he is a narcissist dictator in the making as one can make.

He smiled and chuckled. The crowd laughed. The crowd got the joke. There is no, "Oh, there he goes again, gotcha," moment. But of course the media thinks it is. Biden thinks it is too, as I am sure his comment will make it into a Biden campaign ad somewhere.

A deep and ominous voice will boom on the screen, "Would you vote for a convicted felon who doesn't care about you?"

It's coming. Just wait for it.

Like almost everything the left is doing, I think this backfires on them just as bad as everything else they've tried has. And I think what they (the Democrats) are doing is simply wearing the voters out. People are getting tired of all of this Trump bashing and hatred. Because the reality is that the country is on fire, and no one is bringing water. They're just trying to point out the arsonist.

And by the way, we all know the real arsonist is the accuser.

It's just dumb. It's dumb to suggest Trump did anything but tell a joke and mock the media. He even said, "The press is going to take that and say I said a horrible thing." Because that's what they always do. The left and media think we're stupid. They think we will fall for anything they tell us.

Granted. Some might. Some will. Because there are die-hard haters out there so deep in their TDS they walk around like zombies. Instead of chanting, "Brains," as they wander aimlessly about, they chant, "Trump."

Trump did say he didn't care about his voters. But even if that's what he said, that's not what he said, and the context is everything. The smile and the chuckle is everything. It's the defining moment. It was when the joke was made clear as a bell.

I don't think the voters are stupid. Not the majority anyway. So, I say, let them run with this nonsense. Let them keep shooting themselves in the foot. Let them keep taking eggs to the face from their own inside throwers.

It's only going to more solidly seal Trump's win in November.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Suggesting Trump Will Seek a Third Term is Stupidity

I swear, sometimes the left can be so stupid. Yes, I said it. even though it does break my rules just a little bit. I try very hard to avoid name calling since I usually believe it kills the argument. But sometimes the left just does things, or especially says things, that are just stupid, and you can't do anything else but call it out for what it is. 

This is particularly true when it comes to things Trump says that the left just hangs on and spins this way, that way, and the other.

Do they really believe what they say Trump is saying half the time is true? It seems they do. Or they are trying very hard to convince people that Trump is saying things he's actually not saying at all. 

When he said, "I will be a dictator on day one," it spun their heads around and the next thing you know it was all the left could talk about. For them it was confirmation.

"He's Hitler! Here's the proof!"

The thing is, we all know what he said. We all know what he meant. And we all know the context of what he said. He was not saying he wanted to be dictator at all. It was tongue and cheek. It was not meant to be a proclamation. And it wasn't one.

So, what's the latest? The 3-term president comment. I don't even think the left is really paying attention. He said, "I might even be considered a three-term president." He did not say he was intending on changing the rules even though he did reference Franklin Delanor Roosevelt who died in office during his fourth term before changes were made limiting presidents to two terms.

Granted, and I have said this many times, sometimes Trump does say things that can be easily misinterpreted or read wrong. But at the same time, one simply has to understand Trump and how he talks to get through to what he is actually saying.

He believes he won the election in 2020. Whether or not you believe that doesn't matter. But he believes it. And he knows that many Americans, especially many of his supporters, also happen to believe it. 

During the entire time he has been out of office he has done presidential things. He's met with world leaders. He's headed his party. He's endorsed candidates and campaigned for them. He's kept talking to the American people. He's gone to places where disasters have occurred affecting Americans.

In the eyes of some he's the legitimate president. Some people across the oceans believe it too. And that's the context one need to add to what he said about the three terms.

If Trump was president in 2016, and he was the acting president in 2020, and then is reelected in 2024, that would be his presumed third term holding office. Again, perhaps his wording makes it difficult to grasp that. But that's essentially what he is referring to.

"I might be considered a three-term president."

In other words, historians one day might make the assertion that even if the published result was that Biden won the 2020 election, in the eyes of many Americans, Trump never really left office. He just governed from somewhere other than the White House. If he wins in 2024, it's sort of a confirmation that Americans were really on his side all along even if the face at the podium bearing the Presidential Seal belonged to Joe Biden.

It is patently stupid to suggest that Trump is saying he will seek a third term in 2028. For one thing, Trump has always been a champion of the Constitution, and constantly talks about the government as The People's Government. He never says, when referring to the White House as his house, but rather our house.

He's not a dictator. He has no interest in the power. He simply wants to do what's right for the American people and continue the work he started in 2016 that went on pause in 2020.

Granted, it may just be another tactic rather than stupidity. But it sure should make anyone being sold this line feel like at least their own intelligence is being challenged. The left has no record. I've said that a million times. They know it. So, all they can do lacking a record is try to scare the American people into voting against Trump.

If they can paint him as an evil man wanting to be a ruler as opposed to being a president, they will pull out all the stops to do it. In the meantime, it gets really frustrating even though I happen to think that most Americans aren't dumb enough to fall for any of it—and their displaying of their stupidity on the left actually helps Donald Trump.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them. You can also check out my YouTube channel, The Springboard.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

2020 Was All About Covid, Fool

Nearly every time the mail in ballots in the 2020 election are brought up as a matter of suspicion and concern that there may have been some nefarious goings on there, the left jumps up and waves their arms. "Hey! Over here! You do realize there was a pandemic, right?"

Covid. The infamous Covid. It's always there as an argument.

The left tried to make the same argument to explain the Biden rallies which no one attended. "Of course, there was no one there, you fool. No one wanted to die, unlike the idiots on your side."

So, brilliant one as you are, tell me; out of the potentially hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters who attended his rallies are dead and gone now? Not only were they Trump supporters attending rallies during one of the deadliest pandemics of our time, they were probably also unvaccinated and doomed to death from that too.

Of course, some people may have gotten Covid. Maybe even some people died. But if the rallies were the supposed "cause of death," I am sure that would be front page news and every bit of the 24-hour news cycle.

Rachel Maddow would have been tossing up images of lines of coffins heading for their final resting spots screaming, "Count the bodies in the wake of Trump's rallies! The stupidity! The abomination!"

It didn't happen. And furthermore, for all the efforts of the left and the media Covid wasn't even that big a deal. Okay sure. It wasn't good. People did die. I'll never discount that. But when you compare Covid to the Spanish flu, it wasn't even close.

The Spanish flu killed 10% of the entire world population. Covid took only 0.08% of it. How does it even compare?

It doesn't.

So, essentially the mail in ballots were just common sense because no one wanted to get Covid and die. Duh, right? Only it isn't the duh moment the left really wants it to be. By their measure of the threat and danger going to the polls in person might have posed, Trump probably would have lost the 2020 election simply because all of his supporters were dead from attending his rallies.

Only he got 11 million more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016. So, I guess that argument is kind of out, isn't it? Let's say just 10% of the 76 million people that voted for him attended his rallies at some point during the pandemic. That would be potentially 7.6 million people at risk.

The entire world death toll was only 7.046 million out of a world population of nearly 8 billion people.

Regarding Covid as well, the left and the media likes to banter on about how bad Trump bungled it. I mean, we all know now that during the entire time of the pandemic the WHO and the CDC kept changing their minds and got a million and one things wrong about it.

Tell that to a Democrat and they readily say, "It was a new thing. How could they know?" Except, Trump was supposed to have all the answers, right?

And tell me, what did Biden do better? Covid deaths doubled during Biden's watch. How come the left didn't jump on him for doubling the death count? Even when he was mandating the vaccines? That didn't work, by the way.

Oh, I suppose so long as it wasn't Trump making the bad decisions it was okay. God only knows how much worse things might have been if it wasn't Joe Biden screwing it up.

The thing about the 2020 election is that so many things simply didn't add up. Not the vote counts. Not the mail in ballots. Not the fact that the majority of the mail in ballots were votes for Biden. Not that Trump was winning before the mail in ballots were counted. Not that Biden got the most votes ever in the history of American elections.

Nothing to see here, folks, Biden won. Get over it.

And then of course, when you question anything the left likes to point to judges and prosecutors and this guy or that guy who all tell us, "The election was fair. Just deal with it, accept it, and move on." 

As I have said many times before, this is like asking the foxes how the hens are doing. "The hens are fine," say the foxes. There may be nothing left in the coop but feathers and bones, and perhaps a few sly foxes went into the coop and learned how to cluck, but it doesn't mean we can be assured the hens are actually fine if no one bothers to go inside and check.

We have been lied to about Covid. We have been lied to about the election. We have been lied to about the insurrection. And all that's being offered to answer the questions is to go and rely on what the liars tell us?

Who's the fool?

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Call Me What You Want, In the End I Am Simply an American

The Democrats have called us every name in the books. Well, they've made a few things up too. Like MAGA extremists. And one recent one they seem to like to lob is to call us faketriots. But we've been called deplorables, racists, Bible thumpers, homophobes, misogynists and bigots.

We've even been called a cult.

The reality is that the only reason they call us these names is because they don't really have any position they can state articulately. Moreover, their side has no real victory to argue against our side's points.

It's simply nothing more than a tactic to try to insult us and shut us down—and stop the conversation, of course. It's what they think is their drop the mic moment. If any commonsense statement is made, you just call them a name, wave your arm and walk away.

If I have said it once I have said it a million times. You can't fill a three hour talk radio show with just talking points, and that's why liberal radio has never worked. Liberal ideology only ever fits on a bumper sticker.

Liberals like to tell you what something should be. They are never able to fully articulate why. Or how we do it. On top of that, they rarely are willing to think about any of the many variables that might be important to consider if we do what they want.

Take the idea of a minimum wage increase. The reality is that both sides want to see people making more money. However, our side thinks that it should be a natural process while the other side thinks it should be a forced process.

The left doesn't consider small businesses who may be severely impacted by higher labor costs, or even whether or not the smaller businesses can even afford it. They don't consider the impact on the costs of things or whether or not it could wash out any pay increases. They don't consider there may be pushes for more automation, or that service may be compromised as businesses are less able to fully staff their operations.

They just tell us, "You don't care about the poor." Drop the mic.

The reason we stand with Trump is quite simply answered. We were better off under Trump than we were under Obama, and we were certainly much better off under Trump than under Biden. 

We want to see law and order. We want secure borders. We want better opportunities for American workers. We want cheaper gas and independence from the oil cartels. We want unity. We want to be proud to be Americans and fly our flags with honor. We want to support our police, military and veterans. We want to be a country free of threats from foreign enemies.

And we want our government to act in our interests. Trump does that. Trump did that. Mean tweets and other antics aside. That I think we can all agree, distracted from what was good. It gave the media too much extra to focus on. But what Trump also gave us is someone who mostly is like us. He doesn't act like nor talk like a politician. He says what's on his mind, good or bad, and one thing I have always said about that is that that's the greatest transparency you could possibly have.

Biden has sat there for three plus years telling us the economy was doing great, that he created all these jobs, that inflation would be transitory, that the border is secure and any number of other outright lies he's told.

You can't tell us things that our eyes can't see and expect us to believe it.

All the name calling aside, what it shows is something else. Desperation. Because again, there is no valid argument. It's all they have to give. They can't tell you why we're supposed to see what they see. That Biden's policies have worked.

We are simply racist if we are against illegal immigration. We're misogynists if we are against abortion. We are homophobes and bigots if we believe there are only two genders. Yet at the same time we are science deniers if we don't believe in man-made climate change. We are bootlickers if we support the police—and racist there too, of course.

What is MAGA really? If that's the group you want to lump us into. What are we?

We are country loving Constitutionalists who want to restore and honor the core foundations of our founding fathers who created this great country. As Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana put it once, we have created such a successful country that everyone wants to come here, and even those who hate it don't want to leave.

At the end of the day, we don't really care what names we're called. It doesn't matter because we know our side is right—at least it is now. There's only one name anyone will be able to call us come the November election.

Winners.

Because no matter how hard the left has tried to break down the resolve of the American people and real patriots, the American people are stronger than those who wish to destroy the nation that's been built, and it's our country, and we want it back.

No matter what you decide to call me, the only name that applies to me is American. I signed up to fight for my country once, and even if I no longer wear the uniform today, I never once gave up my commitment to fight for Her to my dying breath.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Are They Conspiracies or Simply Truth Being Hidden for Power?

I used to trust my government, and it was often that I sided with the government stating things like, "The government sometimes keeps secrets that are secrets for the good of the people and to protect our national security and other interests."

But recently there have simply been too many things that have caused me to be on the side of questioning everything. The bottom line is, "Who can we trust, and why should we trust them?"

Our government has never been by, for and of the government. It has always been by, for and of the People. But it seems like the government has turned that around to favor only their interests, and to function outside of the interests of the We the People.

To what end, is of course the question?

Not that certain government agencies haven't always been up to sometimes nefarious things. The FBI, for example, under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover, at a time when there was thought to be massive and clandestine infiltration of communists, gathered all sorts of information on certain Americans—mostly celebrities and public figures. But how do we know it never went farther than that? How do we know that this didn't just become the foundation for what is now the types of information that is gathered?

Not just on public figures. But on every single American? I honestly think not only is the FBI still doing it, along with other of our federal law enforcement arms like the CIA and NSA, but they have amped up the game and joined forces with other unscrupulous people either through coercion or cooperation, or even both.

How much information might Jack Dorsey, the former founder and CEO of Twitter, have offered to certain government agencies? Or how about Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook? Even Jeff Bezos can't be left out or even the late Steve Jobs with the introduction of smart devices and things like Alexa. 

Essentially the government could know everything about you. Including your opinions and political leanings.

It creates a very scary and dangerous world, if you ask me, and it seems so obvious some of these things are happening, and few people seem to be worried about it. It worries me to think about it because it's not where I came from regarding my thoughts and perspective.

Again, I trusted the government and felt that what it did was in the interest of us. We the People.

But the Justice Department isn't really working properly. We can see that with the fervor and tenacity by which they are going after former president Donald Trump. The FBI can be questioned in a great deal of their actions, motivations and intent.

Spying on political campaigns. Perhaps having some involvement in the coordination of January 6th. The persecution of all sorts of conservatives who questioned the election or had any association or involvement with Trump. It's either jail or we'll bankrupt you, take your pick.

The covid pandemic has brought numerous things to light as well. All of the information that was disseminated was kept centralized—trust the CDC and only the CDC. And just like election deniers, anyone who questioned where covid came from or how to deal with it were quickly shut down.

Did social media companies decide to simply go with the CDC and label any question that did not follow the CDC's directives as misinformation? Or was it an "or else" proposition forced by the government to comply and tell the story "as the government wanted it to be told?"

Even more regarding covid, how come we later learned it never came from a bat, but from a lab in Wuhan, and that it was funded by the U.S. government? What was their intent? Was there intent?

Was covid simply a last-ditch effort to get rid of a sitting president they felt never should have been sent to the White House? Was it an effort to test control over the population? 

As I have said many times previously about these things, including whether or not the 2020 election was above board or not, we will likely never have the whole story. We're never going to find the real answers. We may get bits and pieces, but the whole story will probably forever remain a secret.

But not to protect the people. To protect the government and their interests. Not ours.

Cynicism is something badly amiss in this country. Maybe more people are starting to get it? That we need to question our government more than ever? That we need a media that is not engaged in politics, and not supporting one side or the other, but engaged in getting to the truth.

When you think about it, beyond the powers of government, the founders of this great nation allowed the absolute, untouchable freedom of the press so as for it to serve as the eyes and ears to oversee all of the other branches of our government, and hold them accountable, and serve the public by telling the real story.

The Freedom of the Press in the First Amendment was perhaps the biggest and most powerful check and balance we could ever have been afforded.

And now we can't trust the media either.

It pains me to have to be branded a conspiracy theorist these days the more I find myself questioning things. But at the same time, I do wonder if the label "conspiracy theorist" is just another way to silence the questions and make rational thought sound crazier than it actually is?

Anyone can laugh it all off and call someone like me observing things from a rather cynical perspective just a tin-hat nutjob. That's their right, of course. At the same time, it is not something I feel or express because I want to bring down my government or shut down my country. These are simply questions I want answers to so as to preserve and protect the integrity and beauty of what our founding fathers created.

When government becomes more powerful and bigger than the people it serves, it can never remain one that is by, for and of the People. And it's not who sits in the White House who threatens our nation the most. It's the deep-rooted bureaucracies who truly control everything. 

If we, the People, allow them to.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page or on X to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

Hey Catturd, the Running Mate Does Actually Matter This Time

Catturd, a social media influencer who has made quite a name for himself over the past 5 years sharing his conservative viewpoints on X, formerly known as Twitter, was recently in studio with Tucker Carlson on his Tucker Carlson Encounter show and was of the opinion, when asked who he thought Trump should pick as his running mate, that the Vice President doesn't really matter all that much.

Most of the time I find myself in agreement with much of what he says. And I mostly agree with him regarding his statement with Tucker Carlson as well. Except for one thing.

Trump can't run again in 2028.

He mentioned he likes Vivek Ramaswamy. Certainly, he's been saying many things people want to hear, and challenging the status quo in similar ways to Trump. But can he win in 2028? Would he be the one to carry on Trump's agenda and capture the hearts and minds of staunch Trump supporters?

Because that's, I think, what we (or rather, Trump) needs to strongly consider regarding who he ultimately picks as his running mate. Who can carry the torch at the end of Trump's final term? And win!

If it were Trump's first turn at bat, maybe it wouldn't matter as much. Much can be said about Pence as his first pick being questionable whether or not he wouldn't have been just another George H.W. Bush after Reagan. 

Ultimately, Pence, I think it is safe to say, didn't matter. Besides, he was a polar opposite of Trump anyway. Had the election gone the way we wanted it to in 2020, Trump would have had his second term, much of the agenda would have been in place and working, and things in place would have been harder to undo.

What the country needs more than anything, and very clearly is a major turnaround, and it needs to be one that can stick. And that means we need to have not only a strong four years ahead with a Trump administration, we need someone who sits in the office of the Vice President who can carry that turnaround into another eight years after Trump's final day in the White House.

Unfortunately, I think this rules out many current known members of the Republican party, especially even the ones who ran against him in the primaries.

In order for Trump's legacy to succeed him, whoever is set to take his reigns in 2028 needs to be someone who aligns well with Trump's plan and vision, and who has the tenacity and strength in which that all gets carried out, who can gain the appreciation and respect and support of Trump supporters in a way that those voters can have confidence that the successor will be the right man (or woman) for the job.

Maybe Ron DeSantis is that guy? Who knows? I have to say I was not very impressed with his campaign even if I continue to think he's been a fantastic governor.

Catturd has it mostly right. At least in theory. Vice Presidents don't usually matter. But this is a different set of circumstances in that this is not a consecutive term for Trump if he is elected back into office. This is the only four years we are going to get. And Trump needs to pick someone we can have confidence in to carry us through a strong 12-year run of leadership that hopefully permanently reverses the attempt of progressive politics to change America into an unrecognizable place that we may never be able to escape from.

The running mate matters more than ever right now.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.