More Biden pardons may be coming. Don't be afraid to ask for one.

 Many progressive Democrats recoiled in horror when President Biden pardoned his son Hunter for every crime he might have committed going back to 2014. Old Joe took a lot of heat from the legacy media for breaking his promise not to let Hunter off the hook for his various high jinks, but Whoopie Goldberg of  The View stood by him--which is what's important.

In fact, the Hunter-pardon caper went so well that Biden staffers are thinking about getting the President to issue preemptive pardons to other Biden cronies to protect them from President Trump's vengeance. Biden's people floated the names of three people who might need pardons for the things they did to thwart Trump's agenda: Liz Cheney. Anthony Fauci, and Senator-elect Adam Schiff.

I have two problems with this notion.  First, pardoning someone for misdeeds because they might be vigorously prosecuted reminds me of the proverbial man who killed his parents and then begged the court for mercy because he's an orphan. 

Second, I don't think Biden has the power to pardon people for theoretical crimes for which they haven't been charged or convicted. It is true, for example, that Liz Cheney is an asshole, but that's not a federal crime for which she can be prosecuted.

I don't think Biden will issue preemptive pardons to political figures who haven't been charged with a crime. Doing so would only embarrass the people who receive such pardons, and accepting a blanket pardon would be an implicit admission of criminal wrongdoing.

On the other hand, I believe President Biden will seriously consider pardoning family members who have been credibly accused of profiting from a money laundering and influence-peddling scheme while Joe was serving as Vice President. If proven, these accusations could lead to serious jail time.

However, pardoning the Biden clan for unspecified hypothetical crimes would be risky. Millions of people would wonder why Doctor Jill and Joe's brother James need a pardon, which might prompt honest district attorneys to investigate.

Trump and Kamala Are Afflicted by Severe Communication Disorders

Our nation's presidential election is only a few days away, and Americans have concluded that both presidential candidates are afflicted with severe communication disorders. I'm not talking about foot-in-mouth disease. I'm talking about a profound inability to speak clearly.

Kamala Harris can't elucidate a clear, declarative sentence. She can't do it. Thus, she relies on teleprompters to give the deceptive impression that she knows what the hell she's talking about.

Her communication disorder is compounded by her compulsive urge to cackle when a reporter asks her a difficult question.

Trump speaks too long at public gatherings, tells bombastic tall tales, and gratuitously insults his political enemies if he thinks he can get a laugh.

Let's discuss Kamala first. She's actually bilingual.

Her mother tongue is woke-speak, a language that emerged from academia, where thousands of professors spend their lives conversing in an intentionally meaningless dialect. She also speaks standard English at a primitive level. She can make a bartender understand that she wants a glass of chardonnay, but she can't discuss foreign policy without lapsing into woke-speech.

Trump's disorder involves a disturbing tendency to express himself so poorly that the left-wing press can maliciously interpret his speech as racist, fascist, or even Hitlerian.

For instance, Trump intended for his astonishingly inappropriate criticism of Liz Cheney to make the reasonable observation that militaristic public leaders promote war because they themselves are not in harm's way. Unfortunately, he expressed himself in such a way that his adversaries claimed he was calling for Cheney's assassination.

Here's my take on the two candidates' linguistic disorders. Kamala speaks the way she does because she's unintelligent and has bullshitted her way through life, speaking gibberish (word salads). 

Trump's inability to speak succinctly, civilly, and prudently confounds me. I can't understand why he doesn't choose his words in such a way so as not to invite his enemies to take cheap shots at him.

If Kamala loses the election, I predict she will become president of Harvard University, where everybody converses in woke-speech and no one feels obligated to do useful work.

If Trump loses, he'll have to go into exile if the Supreme Court doesn't shut down the lawfare litigation against him. Ivy League attorneys, like Javert, the fanatical police inspector in Les Miserables, will not rest until they put Mr. Trump in prison. 

This malicious prosecution can only end in two ways. Trump will go to jail, or the lawyers who persecute him will be disbarred for abusing the law.

Me no speakee English

A House Divided: Unless We Become Kinder and More Tolerant, America Will Collapse

 Years ago, I read The Coming Fury, Bruce Catton's classic study of the United States on the brink of civil war. In the months preceding the shelling of Fort Sumter, Catton explained, extremists in both the North and The South wanted a war. 

And war they got. When it was over, 600,00 men were dead, and thousands of veterans spent the rest of their lives without their arms or legs.

America was a house divided in 1860, and America is a house divided today. Last night's Republican primary in Wyoming illustrates my point. Liz Cheney, the Republican congresswoman who voted to impeach Donald Trump, was swept out of office by a landslide.

Curiously, Cheney carried two regions of the state: Teton County, where wealthy Democrats reside around Jackson Hole, and the region around the state capitol of Cheyenne--where most  of Wyoming's liberal-leaning government bureaucrats dwell.

As predicted, Democrats "crossed over" in Wyoming's Republican primary--not to support Liz Cheny but to register their contempt for Republicans and Donald Trump, the Republican's tarnished standard bearer.

We similar signs of division everywhere. Dana Milbank, the Washington Post's chief loon, wrote a column a few weeks ago expressing the desire for Texas and Oklahoma to leave the Union. 

In Texas, Governor Greg Abbott is busing illegal migrants to New York City and Washington DC. Both towns are self-proclaimed sanctuary cities, but the mayor of DC wants to call out the National Guard to help control the people the District of Columbia claims to welcome.

In California, the state's government forbids travel by California employees to more than 20 states. Why? The reasons are varied, but they include disapproval of states that don't want youngsters with testicles to compete in girls' athletic contests.

Do you want another example? A poll of likely Texas voters found that a strong majority  want to leave the United States! That will make the Washington Post  and the liberal elites happy, but do they really want the nation's leading exporter, energy producer, and cattle raiser to head out on its own? I would think not.

Today the United States is very much like it was just before the guns began to play in 1861.  We need to step back and reflect a bit. Does it make sense for our political leaders to sow disharmony and denigrate the people who live in states where traditional values still prevail?

I do not think it does.