I had planned to take the week off, but there's too much going on to sort through it all, and make it concise enough for a short, few-hundred word article. But then I read a news story this morning that prompted me to scribe this brief piece. I also hope to receive the same pass from the media on my writing “craftsmanship,” word-smithing, as awarded regularly to many on the Left—Kamala in particular. But my facts are correct. What is this word-salad leading to, you might ask? Let me explain quickly.

I began this morning by listening to American Family Radio, as I always do. It's the best news and information network I know of. Having my strong coffee, black, and while listening to Dr. James Dobson, I scanned several articles of interest online. I came across one that woke me up. I had to start typing. Here it is.

This article was written in response to recent allegations of plagiarism on Kamala’s part in writing her book ”Smart on Crime: A Career Prosecutor's Plan to Make Us Safer," which she co-authored with Joan O'C Hamilton in 2009. We were initially told by the “paper of record,” the New York Times, that there was nothing to see here. (An aside note: For those of us who follow President Trump closely, you will catch my “paper of record” comment. During a recent Trump town hall, this is how the NY Times reporter introduced himself before asking a condescending question.) Yes, we have always been told that it is “the paper of record.” In years past, I knew, oh, so many who relished perusing its pages over coffee Sunday mornings. A Liberal substitution for attending church, I assume. But ask Mark Levine just how well the Times has covered (or didn’t cover) many events throughout history. You may be surprised, you may decide to follow this stuff more closely…Anyway, back to the topic at hand: Kamala and plagiarism.

So, in this article, Jonathan Bailey (no relation to the Bedford Falls Baileys in “It’s a Wonderful Life”) made an admission to being wrong, actually. He admitted that Kamala’s plagiarism was actually more serious than he had originally printed in the “paper of record” a while back, in time for the campaign. But he quickly added that while these new facts “indicate that there are problems with the work, the pattern points to sloppy writing habits….” He continued that they are surely “not a malicious intent to defraud.” Oh, I feel so relieved. Did he just give her a pass? And please explain why these new facts were not observed initially. He was evidently satisfied to print the initial story (in advance of the upcoming election), based on a partial review of the information he skimmed, and did not actually look into it closely. He did not peruse the evidence. It took someone else to bring it up.

Let me see here…President Trump is convicted of 34 felonies for a non-disclosure agreement (the Left calls “hush money,” perfectly legal. I’m sure Kamala has signed and paid for many throughout her career, too). Joe Biden was called a nice old man regarding inquiries on his illegally obtained and stored classified documents scattered about, while the Secret Service, DOJ, FBI, and whoever all fondled Melania’s underwear in search of the same type of documents? “Nuclear codes” we were told. “Lions, tigers, and bears, oh, my!" These charges were ultimately dropped after much effort.

Who can forget Hillary’s 2016 “No charges would be brought” “pass” awarded by FBI Director James Comey? Caught most of us by surprise, that’s for sure. “No reasonable prosecutor…” would charge her. Huh? 32,000 emails, wiped servers, crushed cell phones? Another "Democrat Pass?” Maybe so.

"Russia, Russia, Russia.” The faked dossier. Almost daily abuses of the law. “Law-fare,” it’s called. Impeachment attempt after impeachment attempt. Weaponization of the American legal system. Did you watch the Fox sit-down with Bret Baire and Kamala Wednesday evening? If not, please do. A must see. I’m sure the media will give her a pass on that too. Maybe they can explain just who President Trump is referring to when he says we are being attacked from the inside.

Remember how ABC fact-checked The Don over crime rates. He said they were up, and they “fact-checked” him. (Remember, there was to be no fact-checking?) “No,” they said, "actually, they were down 2.6%." Well, just the other day, the DOJ quietly snuck out the updated figures. No public headlines for sure. Crime up nearly 5% (4.5% to be exact). Don’t see any breaking news about that. Shouldn’t the ABC debate hosts call President Trump on live TV and take that back just as publicly, and then replay it for a few days? Call, complain, tell them to. Ask for David Muir and Linsey Davis. Good luck! Words, oh, so important. Ask yourself, does Israel truly want the “right to defend itself” or to win and end this war once and for all? I think the latter.

So many examples, but I want to keep this brief. Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky, John Edwards and his videographer, Hunter. (Hey, that’s a name that keeps on giving, isn’t it.) How about so many other examples? However, I want to stay under 1,000 words so you can look up more examples yourselves. The media is directing a narrative, a fake narrative, the fake news. The Left will not easily give up power. If the National Guard is not designed for exactly this, then what are they here for? Passing out blankets to those here illegally, changing diapers?

Now we are told we need to check Donald Trump’s cholesterol? Huh? But Biden is sharp as a tack? Check the facts folks. And, finally, isn’t JD great? What a great debate but, even better yet, the recent Town Hall from Eau Claire, Wisconsin. He was so good at redirecting ill-intended accusations disguised as questions. We are so blessed not to have Pence in that slot any longer, truly blessed.

Is this just the ends justifying the means? I think so. It all makes me sick. I leave it up to you.