Repercussions

People behind the Biden regime knew their defense would include decisions not to prosecute because the damage of righting the constitutional ship would be considered too terrible to contemplate.

This line of thought isn’t likely win me many friends, but even ideas that challenge our sense of right and wrong deserve consideration. There’s always a bigger picture, one that includes unintended consequences—even from well-meaning thoughts and actions.

Let me explain what’s been brewing in my mind since November 5th of last year, a day that brought immense relief to my weary soul. Based on my own observations and reasoning, I’m convinced Joe Biden was not truly an American president, especially during the final two years of his term. I can’t say with absolute certainty that he was unfit from the moment he took the oath until he finally stepped down, but I know I’m not alone in doubting his capacity.

I believe others were steering the ship—guiding his hand (or pressing the Autopen’s green button) as legislation, executive orders, and directives were signed. There’s ample circumstantial evidence of a cabal operating behind the scenes, reminiscent of the old Soviet Central Committee. This group, likely including former Obama administration officials—and possibly Obama himself—shaped and directed government policy. I suspect they planned this for months before the 2020 election, realizing their field of candidates lacked a winner. They settled on a living mannequin: a man whose ambition, pliability, and inflated self-image made him an ideal figurehead for a faltering party. They paired him with a vice president so weak and unpopular she’d never threaten the cabal’s control or Biden’s position.

In short, it was an anti-constitutional disaster. With no recall mechanism in the Constitution, a cabinet chosen for loyalty rather than competence (and thus unlikely to invoke the 25th Amendment), and the slow grind of constitutional processes, this setup could be exploited for four years. It enabled extraconstitutional and outright unconstitutional actions, pushing legality to its breaking point.

If my suspicions could be proven beyond doubt, here’s the question: Would addressing these constitutional crimes spark a crisis worse than letting them fade into history? I’m a justice absolutist—I want investigations, charges, trials, and jail time. But Newton’s Third Law applies: every action triggers an equal and opposite reaction. The fallout could take years or decades to fully reveal itself. I despise being forced into this dilemma, where one party so distorts (or ignores) the Constitution that addressing it risks opening doors to future abuse.

For instance, imagine Kash Patel identifies the cabal behind Biden, and Pam Bondi prosecutes them successfully. What’s to stop morally unmoored Democrats from inventing crimes to target Republicans when they regain power? We’ve already seen this with January 6 defendants and President Trump. The perpetrators might have banked on this: that righting the constitutional ship would be deemed too destabilizing to pursue.

For example, true-believer Democrats would never accept Obama’s guilt, even if his crimes aired live on MSNBC as they occurred or the cabal meetings were shown on CNN. So, I think the best path is to dismantle this version of the Democratic Party—lay out the evidence transparently across media, let the public judge, and consign the Democrats to perpetual fringe status. Perhaps a Watergate-style congressional investigation could work, though people rarely pay attention to such things anymore—they can’t be bothered.

Still, if we’re ever going to act, the time is now.