We're back in San Diego after about 18 hours of travel from St. Thomas yesterday. Whew!
Now with the luxury of my big desktop, I'd like to pose two questions.
What Was Inappropriate?
The Biden administration said transgender activist Rose Montoya will not be invited back to the White House following her decision to go topless during the Pride Month event on the South Lawn.
Asked about Montoya's behavior, a White House spokesperson told Newsweek in a statement it was "inappropriate and disrespectful for any event at the White House."
Here's the dude's reply.
The Trans TikToker who went topless at The White House is now claiming to be a victim:
— Oli London (@OliLondonTV) June 13, 2023
“Conservatives are trying to use the video of me topless at the White House to try to call the community groomers.
Why is my chest now deemed inappropriate or illegal when I show it off?” pic.twitter.com/EbOAVkjb2K
I'm with the creepy, silicone-enhanced dude on this one. "Why is my chest now deemed inappropriate or illegal when I show it off?" is a perfectly legitimate question. On what basis did the sexual-degeneracy-supporting Biden Administration ban Rose? I'd like to see that derived from first principles.
I would have no problem with such a derivation, but my chain of logic would have deemed the entire Pride event and Pride Month itself inappropriate.
I wouldn't be surprised if next year, topless perverts at the White House won't be a big deal. That's the way it goes when you remove the Judeo-Christian foundations from your morality. You can't make a coherent argument against anything sexual without them. Ben Shapiro and Bishop Robert Barron lay it out quite clearly here.
National Security > Trump?
Where do you want to be in 10 years? Would you trade, for example, the lives of 10,000 US Army infantrymen for Donald Trump's acquittal in the classified documents case?
Say Trump skates on this one. At that point, both Hillary and Trump would have invalidated the entire legal structure defending classified documents. No one on either side at any level could point to the loss of classified information to our enemies and demand punishment for the perpetrators. The loss of such information could lead to battlefield catastrophes.
If a couple of US Army battalions got mauled because the enemy knew where they were and what they were doing, would you sigh and say, "Well, at least President Trump didn't go to jail?"
More people are coming out and saying that Trump is toast. John Yoo, whose reputation is vouched for by people I respect, had this to say.
John Yoo: If it was anyone else other that a former President, I would be telling the defendant to go get a good plea bargain while you can. Usually, people who are prosecuted for this kind of crime, taking classified information, have a lot less evidence in the indictment. I mean, you’ve got pictures of the documents themselves in unsecured facilities. You’ve got apparently tape recordings of the defendant talking about how he’s got the documents and how he knows they’re still classified. This is the most damaging of evidence in a way because you don’t need to rely on witnesses’ valuable memory, you don’t have to worry about the witness changing stories on the stand. You’ve got physical photographic proof or recorded proof of Trump himself talking about how he shouldn’t have these documents, how he knows that they’re classified, and he’s violating the law.
Good riddance.
No comments:
Post a Comment