What does the word “weaponize” mean?  If it is being said that a person or entity is being tried before a court for breaking a law, does that mean that the said law is being weaponized against them?  Does this make it wrong?  If so, does that mean we cannot have any laws?  I say no because laws are weapons against people or entities doing something that will hurt the public.  It’s why they exist.

So, all this rhetoric being used while attaching the word ‘weaponize’ to it, mainly against President Biden but also against President Elect Trump, is just that, talk.  Take, for instance, the quote by Tom Hebert, National Review, Dec. 13, 2024.  “As with other areas of the law, the Biden-Harris administration routinely weaponized antitrust enforcement to pick economic winners and losers.”  You can also find this quote online at www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/weaponize.

But isn’t this what we must do if a corporation is violating antitrust law?  And if they are violating laws, doesn’t that give them an advantage over others in the same field of pursuit?  There still must be a trial to determine what has happened.  If they have violated laws, does this mean they will automatically be losers in the field of pursuit?  I sure don’t think so, do you?

I talked with many people who voted for Trump last November and said they did it because they were afraid of Biden and Harris.  That they were doing harm against this country.  Yet they had little to note when explaining this harm.  Information to substantiate the following bills signed by President Biden can be found at www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/biden-laws-passed-priorities-to-get-done-executive-orders/index.html.

Do they mean that the infrastructure work being done due to the “Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act” is harmful.  That replacing roads and bridges is a bad thing?  But every mile of road, every bridge, every building, every runway, everything planned in this package benefits the people and corporations in these United States.  Is that the harm being done?

Was the “American Rescue Plan” a harmful thing?  Is providing stimulus payments, adding a boost to jobless benefits, and the expansion of the child tax credit the wrong thing to do?  And this wasn’t done just on an impulse, but instead to help us all through the COVID-19 crises.  Should we not help everyone in this country as we try to better our odds and dig ourselves out of a 100-year pandemic?

How about the ‘Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act’ banning imports from China’s Xinjiang region?  This law bans imports unless an importer can prove the goods were not made with forced labor in the region of the country accused of human rights violations over its treatment of Muslim-majority Uyghurs.  But maybe we should not worry about our money going to areas in the world where human rights violations occur?  After all, they are not American citizens, right?

The three bills mentioned above were passed during President Biden’s first year in office.  There are many more good solid bills that helped US citizens during the pandemic and beyond.  Just type in your browser “laws passed in the Biden presidency”.  If not these bills and others, then what makes you afraid of the current presidency?

Lastly, and most importantly, I am writing this on Jan. 5, 2025, and we have a count of electoral votes coming tomorrow.  Will everything be done according to our Constitution?  If everything goes smooth and President Elect Trump is declared the 47^th President of the United States, then no.  You may ask, though, how could this be?  The people did elect him in our November election.  Why would he not be chosen?

It all has to do with the words “according to our Unites States Constitution”.  Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to that document states as follows:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Currently, each Representative and each Senator has taken their oath to the Constitution.  Those attending the electoral count can object to the count by citing Section 3 of the 14^th Amendment.  If enough object, the two Houses of Congress will meet separately to determine if the objection(s) stand or not.  If they stand, then anything can happen.

Essentially, if there is an objection due to Section 3, it means that President Elect Trump could not run for the office because of the occurrences on Jan. 6, 2021.  Some will point out that the words “engaged” and “given aid or comfort” cannot be applied to President Trump’s actions.

When looking at the word “engaged”, what would you call the rally itself?  What would you call President Trump wanting to allow the crowd at his rally to bear arms?  What would you call the comment by the President that he would be with them on the march to Congress?

As for the words “given aid or comfort”, again you must look at the rally itself and the ability for the crowd to gather.  The arms also come to play in determining the intent of these words.  Marching with them, if he had the chance, would be considered comfort, wouldn’t it?  Finally, as people began to ask him to do something about the insurrection taking place, wouldn’t that be considered “giving aid or comfort” if he failed to do so?

We’ll find out where our Constitution stands on Jan. 7, 2025.