In an era where the American electorate yearned for transparency and accountability, the curtain has finally been pulled back, revealing the stark reality of who was truly steering the ship of state during Joe Biden’s presidency. A recent exposé by PJ Media’s Matt Margolis has ignited a firestorm of controversy, shedding light on what many have suspected but few dared to confirm: that Joe Biden was not the de facto leader of our nation.
The report, titled “Now We Know Who Was Running the Country for Joe Biden,” isn’t just another piece of political gossip; it’s a bombshell that could reshape how we view the last administration. According to Margolis, the real power behind the Oval Office wasn’t Biden but a coalition of unelected bureaucrats, advisors, and, shockingly, his own son, Hunter Biden.
From the outset, the Biden administration was branded as a return to normalcy, a beacon of stability after what some described as the tumultuous Trump years. However, as time unfolded, the facade of competence began to crack. Biden’s public appearances often raised more questions than answers about his cognitive abilities, leaving many to wonder who was truly in charge.
Margolis digs into the heart of this mystery, pointing to Hunter Biden as a central figure in this shadow government. Hunter, with his infamous laptop saga and business dealings in Ukraine and China, has been a lightning rod for controversy. But Margolis suggests that his influence extended far beyond mere scandal; he was part of an informal advisory circle that effectively ran the country. This circle, according to the report, included former Obama administration officials, progressive activists, and even some within the intelligence community, all working behind the scenes to shape policy and direct the administration’s actions.
One of the more alarming revelations is the implication that these figures were not just advising but making decisions in Biden’s stead. Margolis references instances where Biden appeared confused or uninformed about significant policy decisions, suggesting that these were moments where the “real” decision-makers were at work.
The article also touches on the role of the media and tech giants in this narrative. Margolis argues that the concerted effort to downplay or dismiss concerns about Biden’s mental acuity was part of a broader strategy to maintain this power structure. The suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 election cycle, as noted by Margolis, was not just about protecting a candidate but preserving the control of this shadow government.
The implications of this revelation are profound. If true, it suggests a significant undermining of democratic principles, where the elected leader is reduced to a figurehead, and the real governance happens in the shadows. This scenario would explain the perceived disconnect between Biden’s public statements and the administration’s actions, the rapid push for certain policies like student loan forgiveness or aggressive climate change initiatives, and the reluctance to tackle issues like border security head-on.
Moreover, this narrative aligns with criticisms from figures like Elon Musk, who, through his Department of Government Efficiency, has been exposing what he describes as rampant waste and corruption within the government. The backlash against Musk’s initiatives, according to Margolis, might not just be about resistance to change but an attempt to protect those who were truly running the show from Biden’s office.
The report has sparked a mix of outrage and vindication among political observers. For those who supported Trump’s claims of a “deep state,” this story is a validation of their fears. For others, it’s a call to reassess the integrity of our electoral process and the transparency of our government operations.
The timing of this revelation, just as Donald Trump returns to the White House, adds another layer of complexity. It not only casts a shadow over Biden’s legacy but also sets the stage for Trump’s administration to push for reforms aimed at dismantling what he’s often called the “Swamp.”
However, we must tread carefully. While Margolis’s piece is compelling, it’s essential to demand evidence and further investigation. The implications of such a claim require not just journalistic scrutiny but also official inquiries. If there’s truth to these allegations, it would necessitate a reevaluation of how we safeguard our democratic processes to ensure that the will of the people translates into the actions of government leaders.
In conclusion, the revelation of who was allegedly running the country during Biden’s term opens up a Pandora’s box of questions about leadership, accountability, and the true mechanics of power in Washington. As we move forward, this story demands not just our attention but our commitment to transparency and the democratic ideals upon which America was founded. The American public deserves to know who wields power in their name, and it’s time for those shadows to come into the light.
