There is much sound and fury by local politicians and others about Kamla Persad-Bissessar’s anti-Biden stance, but what is noteworthy about this paranoia is that none of the criticism is fact-based as a rebuttal, only pure hysteria.
Her 20-point position is all factual evidence—some of it debatable, of course, but fact-based, nevertheless—which is a critical/rational approach to any issue as much as it is to hers. And in their hysteria, the politicians on the other side, in their typical lack of incisive insight, could only see Persad-Bissessar’s stance as “harming diplomacy and diplomatic relations with the US…undermining that partnership, harming our international reputation and isolating the country” (Trinidad Guardian, January 22), without realising that her stance is likely consistent with the position the Donald Trump administration would take on Joe Biden, thereby strenghtening US/T&T relations for the future.
My take on Biden is in sync with Persad-Bissessar’s 20-pointer in many ways. Looking back, Biden would sit in his basement and win the 2020 election, with his surrogates like Clinton, Obama, Soros and others in the Deep State in full control, succeeding in keeping Trump out of office by means which are still being debated, only to ramp up their efforts in Trump’s second shot at the presidency for 2024, failing in their attempt; and the rest is history.
As for the Biden/Harris administration per se, it went for open borders, evidently to increase the vote for 2024, and engaged in a form of “Bidenomics”, leading to a debt of over 35 trillion and spiralling inflation with huge prices at the pump and in the groceries.
It gave priority to climate change at the expense of drilling for oil—which would have meant cheaper prices and more work—and openly endorsed a “woke policy” and transgenderism, much to the ire of many, especially parents.
All the while Biden concealed his cognitive decline, leading to his unceremonious ouster as the Democratic candidate for the 2024 election. It was much to his ire, of course, for it provoked foreign policy decisions then inimical to American interests—like funding Iran into becoming a Middle East powerhouse (when in Trump’s time in 2016, Iran was in a debt crisis and at its lowest); and pushing NATO and Ukraine’s Zelenskyy to war with Russia—even approving the use of missiles against Russia by Ukraine, bringing us to the brink of nuclear war.
Not to mention, of course, Biden’s lukewarm support of Israel—the most important American ally in the Middle East—in its war against Hamas, urging Israel to work towards a ceasefire when Israel’s agenda was the total elimination of Hamas for its own survival.
And then there is the character side of Biden. He would deny his participation in the Burisma affair involving his son despite evidence to the contrary, and even pardoned the latter despite his conviction by the courts. True, he had the power, but he was the president of the United States, and that calls for a certain ethical responsibility—obviously lacking when despite his assurances to Trump for an easy transition, he engaged in the final ignominy of pardoning his entire family 15 minutes before Trump would take the oath of office.
In the end, his rating would fall under 35%, with the stigma of being the worst president in US history. If such was the American response to Biden, was Kamla’s calling him a “disaster” such a “disaster”, as spewed by many on the other side? I think not! Do you?
Dr Errol Narine Benjamin
This post was originally published on here
