Such is the state of modern American political partisanship that people who are, or were, in positions of power and influence say things that are both hilariously out of touch with reality and startlingly dangerous. Take America's national security community, for example, which is a major component of the Deep State – or, if one prefers a less conspiratorial term, the administrative state. Fifty-one Intelligence Community (IC) officials and former officials already beclowned themselves attempting to deny the veracity of Hunter Biden's infamous laptop. Now the bureaucrats are at it again, with 741 former high-ranking national security officials signing off on a statement endorsing Kamala Harris for president.
Obviously, these people – just like anyone else – have the right to support whomever they want to see in the White House for the next four years. The problem is there’s no substance to their argument for why Harris would be a better national security pick than former President Donald Trump. Instead, they merely parroted the exact same anti-Trump rhetoric being used by the left-wing media and political pundits, as well as elected Democrats.
The driving force behind this latest attempt to influence voters against Trump is retired US Navy Rear Admiral Michael Smith. He has been actively campaigning against the Republican presidential nominee for some time. On January 4, speaking to veterans and their families in Milwaukee, WI, he described the 45th president as “an existential threat to everything I swore to defend.” He continued: “literally, democracy is on the ballot." There's that phrase again. It has been used by Kamala Harris on at least one occasion and by several other elected Democrats, as well as by anti-Trumpers who have served in Republican administrations. It is also the exact phrase used in at least one social media post by Ryan Routh, who, on September 15, attempted to shoot Mr. Trump on a golf course.
At the Milwaukee event, Smith also said: "We're not supposed to get involved in politics," referring to former senior military officers. "They tell us, stay out of politics. But the threat that Donald Trump and his ultra-MAGA accomplices presents, it just compels me ... to break with that tradition."
The statement released by Smith and his deep state colleagues reads, in part: “Vice President Harris has all the leadership qualities needed to be a strong commander in chief. She’s prepared. She’s strategic. She understands all sides of an issue. We saw as much during the debate.”
How Smith and his cabal decided that Harris “understands all sides of an issue” by watching her recent debate performance against Trump is a complete mystery. It is entirely accurate to state that Harris failed to provide direct, rational, and factually correct responses to any of the questions she was asked during the televised confrontation with Trump.
The vice president's response to a question about the withdrawal from Afghanistan should have concerned any objective national security official. After praising Joe Biden for pulling American troops out, Harris stated something that is entirely untrue. If she did not consciously lie, then her profound ignorance of America's military posture overseas is nothing short of terrifying, considering that she wants to be the next commander-in-chief.
“As of today,” Harris stated during the debate, “there is not one member of the United States military who is in active duty in a combat zone in any war zone around the world…” That the ABC moderators did not challenge her on this outrageously inaccurate statement was bad enough. That 741 former national security officials are aware of Harris’s claim and still conclude that she would make a great commander-in-chief is truly jaw-dropping.
The reality, as just about every other American knows, is that US military personnel are under fire almost every day in Syria and Iraq. American sailors currently deployed in the Red Sea and Eastern Mediterranean are also under constant threat of attack.
Deep State Desperation to Stop Trump
It is only fair to conclude, then, that within the deep state, anti-Trump sentiment is so intense and all-consuming that these people are willing to support a candidate who publicly demonstrates an astounding level of either ignorance or dishonesty, purely to ensure that Trump does not return to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
The statement in support of Kamala Harris went on: “As we’ve seen for nearly a decade, however, former President Trump has none of those qualities, and he has a scary authoritarian streak.” Yet, if Trump were truly the authoritarian and wannabe dictator his opponents make him out to be, he would have moved quickly, during his first term in the White House, to ensure that he need not even run for re-election. Would-be tyrants do not come to power and then give their people even an opportunity to simply vote them out of office four years later.
If Trump really did have an authoritarian streak, Joe Biden would not be in the White House today. Additionally, a great many Trump critics and political opponents would have been imprisoned – or worse – by the time Trump had been in office for even two years. This is the huge flaw in the “Trump wants to be a dictator” argument. He has been president for four years, and so, if he wanted to be a dictator, he already would be.
If these former federal officials were able to make a compelling fact-based argument for why they believe Kamala Harris would be the best choice for America, they would have more credibility. They have failed to do so precisely because Harris has never displayed either the knowledge, the judgment, or the temperament to indicate that she is the best person for the job. That statement would hold true regardless of who she was running against in the 2024 presidential election. The only conclusion to be drawn, then – and it is a disappointing one indeed, to say the very least – is that hundreds of former and perhaps current deep state bureaucrats favor Harris not because she has proven herself to be a strong and competent leader who will keep America safe, but because, quite simply, she is not Donald Trump.
.jpg%20MAGA&w=1920&q=75)
.jpg%20UK%20Elections&w=1920&q=75)
