Staff Reports
The brain trust over in the Democratic camp seems to have concluded that age is just a number. However, when that number is 81, one has to wonder just how many he should be allowed to carry on as President. Some commentators might suggest that if Biden’s mind is sharp enough to continue being president for another six months, then there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with keeping him at the helm. Yet, an unsettling number of people seem to miss the glaring contradiction: if he’s not fit for a full term, can he justifiably run the show until January?
The Biden administration’s handling of critical issues certainly raises eyebrows, and humorously enough, those who dare to murmur the possibility of competence can appear a bit punch-drunk. Supporting a President who isn’t deemed suitable for a full four years yet clings to their current position proves that logic sits somewhere in the backseat of a rusty old school bus driven by the Democratic Party. The notion that one can be “competent enough” for a six-month gig while being “too incompetent” for a full term offers quite the conundrum, best left for political philosophers—or perhaps anyone with a pulse.
President Biden has agreed to stand down, and no longer seek reelection. Here's his letter, in which he says he plans to speak to the nation later this week: pic.twitter.com/gI6CLX1qab
— The Shallow State (@OurShallowState) July 21, 2024
In more relevant news, there’s Trump, who keeps hitting the nail squarely on the head regarding American values. His observations about Kamala Harris seem to echo a collective concern among many who believe she embodies a radical fringe more than a commander in chief. Comparing her abortion views to Trump’s only solidifies him as the sensible choice for many conservative voters. While the RNC might have diluted their stance on abortion, it’s like a half-hearted swim—still a plunge into a sea of contradictions that pale in comparison to the Democrats’ lunacy.
As the political circus continues, the spotlight has recently illuminated the chaotic scenes from the recent protests linked to the tumultuous Israel-Hamas situation. The shocking reality of extremists running wild in D.C., vandalizing monuments, and breaching landmarks has raised alarms among average citizens. When a group of anti-Semitic protesters can swarm the Watergate Hotel to disturb peace and release, of all things, maggots, it speaks volumes about how far the political discourse has devolved. Meanwhile, compassionate Democrat leadership remains suspiciously silent, proving only that their priorities may not be in solidarity with America’s traditional allies.
The Democratic Party’s refusal to take a strong stance against what many view as hateful rhetoric and actions raises eyebrows not just among conservatives, but among any patriotic American. It prompts a simple question: What will future history books say? Will they reflect a country divided by these extremist ideologies, or will it portray a collective fight against the radicalism that emerges when the left turns a deaf ear?
As Americans gear up for the next election cycle, the choice has never been clearer: support a candidate who loves America and Israel, or gamble on a party that honors chaos and terror. It’s a crossroads that could define the nation’s course—and it’s about time everyone agrees that the future depends on shedding any lingering attachments to ideologies that lead away from the principles this country was built upon.
