California Sen. Kamala Harris has announced that she is withdrawing from the race for the Democratic presidential nomination. Harris has had to call it quits after failing to capitalize on early enthusiasm for her campaign and watching her poll numbers collapse.

“In good faith, I can’t tell you, my supporters and volunteers, that I have a path forward if I don’t believe I do,” Harris wrote in an email to supporters. “So, to you my supporters, it is with deep regret — but also with deep gratitude — that I am suspending my campaign today.”

An aide said Harris informed staff Tuesday she is ending her White House bid.

Harris entered the race in January as a top contender and had a breakout moment in the first debate thanks to a memorable clash with then-frontrunner Joe Biden over his record on desegregation busing.

But she’s struggled to break out in subsequent debates and has seen her poll numbers plunge in recent months. In November, Harris dramatically cut her staff in New Hampshire, the state that holds the first primary in the race for the White House, to focus on Iowa.

The Harris campaign was also hemorrhaging money, spending more than what was coming in, amid tough media coverage about the campaign’s struggles.

She is the first “big name” candidates to drop out of the crowded 2020 primary field, two months before the lead-off Iowa caucuses. Her exit follows the withdrawal of former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke, another Democrat who entered the race to great fanfare, but later struggled.

Campaigning in Iowa on Tuesday, Former VP Joe Biden said of Harris, “I have mixed emotions about it because she is really a solid, solid person. And loaded with talent.”

Many believe that Harris’ decision was made not only because she was no longer a viable candidate for POTUS, but any future political career for her would be in jeopardy, if she remained in the race, and lost big – which seemed likely — in the California primary, her home state.

Governments are always doing something in the dark shadows far away from discerning and prying eyes.  Sometimes it is necessary and for the bigger cause.  The government is supposed to be in place to serve the people.  Often times secrets are necessary to keep one’s hand unexposed.  This too, however, can get out of hand.

The CIA and the military started a covert program used to assassinate VC sympathizers during the time of the Vietnam war called The Phoenix Project.  This counter-insurgency doctrine has been put into full play by CIA and US Military Intelligence after the negative public reaction American citizens vehemently expressed against the US involvement in the Vietnam war. They looked at the public reaction to the war as an open betrayal and wanted it not to happen again.

Under this new program called the Phoenix Project, a new form of weapon was being developed called microwave weapons.  These weapons were being developed as a new form of crowd control but far more effective and nefarious than the typical tear gas.  These state of the art neutralizing microwave weapons kill slowly and silently and also can be used to cause emotional changes and emotional distress to a large group of people or can be directed at one individual.  These microwaves are transmitted over low-frequency signals and can be done sight unseen.  The terms slow kill, silent kill, and soft kill were used to identify microwave frequency attacks on groups or individuals.

The Phoenix Program is similar to the CIA’s MK Ultra program which is a secret crash program used to control the human mind. The MK in MK Ultra is the abbreviation for the german words for mind control.  The techniques used in this program came from direct knowledge of how POWs were treated during capture and also from first-hand knowledge of events that took place in Nazi concentration camps.  By the end of the Korean War, 70% of the POWs signed confessions, 15% cooperated fully, and 5% refused to do either.  One can only assume what happened to the remaining 10%.

Brainwashing and propaganda were chief tools used to condition the minds of prisoners.  These techniques were used to cause emotional exhaustion.  The captives were made to feel isolated and alone in order to be broken.  The Joint Chief of Staff ordered and speared headed the operation to bring 34 Nazi scientists that were utilized in such brainwashing experiments in Germany.  These scientists were brought into the country under the top-secret program called Project Paperclip.  Nine-thousand Nazi scientist evaded prosecution in Germany for their committed atrocities and was smuggled into the US to help defeat the USSR or Soviet Russian.  These men were skilled in the art of breaking the human mind.

Joseph Mengele was a chief Nazi scientist who did experiments on adults and children in Germany.  Some of his favorite devices used in his testing was a drug called mescaline, electroshock therapy, starvation, rape, hypnosis, torcher, sensory deprivation, and trauma bonding.

In 1973, General Michael Aquino became the executive officer for the 306th Psychological Operations Battalion.  He wrote about how enemy populations can be subdued with the use of low-frequency psychological weapons.  The new low-frequency weapons can be used to evoke emotions of fear or to slowly cook someone at the molecular level.  These weapons can be used to control a crowd without a shot being fired.  The microwaves can be transmitted over radio, television, and communications frequencies (like a cell phone, ipad or any smart device).

In the 1980’s, Michael Aquino was accused to be part of a satanic military child molestation ring.  He had close ties with Antoine LaVey who was the head of the Church of Satan.  Michael was himself the founder of the Church of Set.  This too was a satanic church in itself.  The military and government choose to infiltrate such closed groups like the Mormons and The Church of Satan because since they are not open to the public the people are more easily indoctrinated.  They then use these groups to push forward an agenda.

We all want freedom.  But who defines what real freedom is and to what extent should governments go to maintain sovereignty and independence. But, at what cost?

The sins of the father.  How far is too far?  Do the ends justify the means.

In my many decades of advising political candidates – and other public figures – how to manage their public images, I have always placed some importance on “looks.”  How you message and what you believe are very important, the appearance of a candidate can either reinforce or distract from a good public image.

Senator John McCain did himself no good by campaigning in tan pants and polo shirts.  He looked more like an Arizona retiree than the senior senator from that state.  On the other hand, President Obama, with his dark suits and sincere ties looked more like a President than McCain.  That was quite an accomplishment since every previous President was an old white guy –like McCain.  He just did not look presidential.

While I like Congressman Jim Jordan’s politics, I wish he would buy a suit – and wear it.  Yes, there are times that shedding the jacket can connect with voters – that is when it is an exception, like passing out cupcakes in a food line or flipping those pork chops at the Iowa State Fair.  But not all the time.  Not press conferences.  Not at hearings.

I am sure it is not accident with Jordan.  He thinks he is relating to the common man.  To me, he looks like a pocket-protector wearing manager of a used car dealership.  And even the average car salesman would have enough sense to put on a suit to appear on the hallowed floor of the United States House of Representatives.

Those with longer memories may recall how President Jimmy Carter would carry his suit bag as he disembarked from Air Force One.  There was even a joke going around that someone made Carter strain by actually putting clothes in the bag.

So, what about our current presidential candidates – starting out with our current President?

President Trump wears presidential clothes – and he looks good in them considering that he is a big fellow.  But of course, the most obvious attention-grabber is the hair.  It has detracted from his presidential persona.  Over the years, it has toned down a bit.  As President, Trump does not need an odd hair do to attract attention.

Of course, Trump cannot give it up now because it has been part of his signature look for sooooo long—and if he did, Congressman Adam Schiff would see it as an impeachable offense.

There are several candidates who are well suited for the Presidency – and I only mean that in the fashionista sense.  Certainly, Joe Biden.  He has carried that look for a lifetime.  His only appearance problem is his age – and fixing that would require a few more hair transplants and some television makeup.

Newbie candidate Michael Bloomberg is a clone of Biden fashion wise.  It is hard to imagine that he would ever take off his suitcoat in public – even to flip chops in Iowa.  Maybe that is why he is not going there.  He is about as old as Biden and shows it.

Millionaire Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is also an old man, but he is going for a much different look than Biden or Bloomberg.  He dresses down and makes sure his hair is properly messed.  Most times he looks like he had the window open as he was driving down the highway.  Rather than a President of the United States, Sanders comes off looking more like a poli-sci professor at New York University.  There are times, however, his hair appears more coiffed — combed forward in little flat curls along the edge that make him look more like a senator in ancient Rome.

There is another guy who wants to portray an image apart from what he is.  Billionaire Tom Steyer is mostly seen in jeans and plaid shirts in folksy commercials – kind of a western rancher type.  He ends all his banal attacks on Trump with a self-satisfied smug smile – a lot like that kid in school who always had the teacher-pleasing answer.

Mayor Pete Buttigieg has the problem that he looks even younger than he is.  We still associate experience and wisdom with age – up to a point, of course.  Buttigieg looks like he should be running for College homecoming king.  (don’t go there.)  While he does go coatless a bit too often, there is not much he could wear that would make him look older.  He might have overcome the problem if he had become prematurely grey.

I know there are more male candidates, but they are so far down the polling list that it really does not matter what they wear.  No one is noticing.

So, what about the women?

With one exception, I give them all a perfect grade in the school of political fashion.  While their politics are liberal, the attire of Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar and Tulsi Gabbard is presidential conservative.  While Harris and Klobuchar are matronly stylish – and I mean that as a compliment – Gabbard’s get-ups are a tad sexier.  She wears it well.

Now I know that will be viewed as a sexist comment by the political correctness crowd, but I do not find anything sexy about the men’s choice in attire.  Maybe some yoga pants would do the trick. (God, I hope I can get that image out of my mind.)

While these women switch from dresses, business suits and pants suit, they avoid the image-killing pants suits worn by former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.  But then, the former First Lady was never a clothes horse.

Of course, the exception in the current field of lady candidates is Elizabeth Warren.  Though she is among the multi-millionaire candidates, it is obvious she selects attire to project her “I’m just a humble schoolteacher from Oklahoma” image.  It is a wonder where she has found so many of those long frumpy sweaters.  Even Goodwill could not meet Warren’s demand.  Every time I see Warren, I cannot help but think of the bag lady character played by comedian Ruth Buzzi.

I did not forget Marianne Williamson, the love candidate,  it is just that she is so forgettable.  Whatever she wears, she looks like one of those women peddling aromas on the shopping channels.  Maybe she does.

I did not look at these styles as a fashion expert — obviously.  I cannot tell an Armani suit from an Army flak jacket.  I just look at the candidates in terms of the public image they project – or try to project – with a bit of humor that is so lacking in our current political discourse.  And you can bet that there will be folks out there who will not appreciate the humor.  You can identify them because they are wearing t-shirts emblazoned with political obscenities.

So, there ‘tis.

During his presidential campaign – and ever since his inauguration – President Trump has constantly called on the other members of NATO to increase their financial contribution.  At the time Trump took office, only three of the 29 NATO nations were meeting their agreed-to funding of two percent of Gross Domestic Product.  As with the UN, the United States was the only nation carrying a disproportionate percentage of the alliance budget.

In typical fashion, Trump was pretty rough on our NATO allies.  He treated them like the deadbeats they were.

That got our pin-stripped pants folks in the international relations community all a twitter – so to speak.  They accused Trump of violating diplomatic norms – bullying our friends.  They accused Trump of trying to destroy NATO as a gift to Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The complainers broke down into two camps – those who simply hate Trump and those know-it-alls in the diplomatic community who had been calling on the other members of NATO to increase their contribution – but did nothing about it.  Consequently, it never happened.  Doing nothing, after all, is the diplomatic norm in their world.

So, what is the situation today?

Weeeeell, the number of nations meeting their commitment has increased from three to eight – and most of the other nations have increased their contributions.  In a recent press conference, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reported an increase in NATO income of $130 billion since 2016 (the year Trump became President) – and said that there still needs to be more improvement in member nations meeting their quotas.

Stoltenberg said that increases in member contributions were necessary because of more dangerous international conditions, terrorism, and new military technologies.  But … he said that such increases should NOT be because Trump called for them.  They had nothing to do with the guy who had been bullying and threatening them, according to the Secretary General.

Now let’s get this picture straight.  For decades, the American diplomatic establishment has been trying to get our NATO allies in meeting their financial obligations without any success – even as international conditions became more dangerous, terrorism resulted in a Caliphate off the shore of Europe and military technologies improved immensely.  NATO could keep pace with those past events thanks to the misguided generosity of one nation – America.

Democrats and their media allies have been quick to take up the narrative set forth by Stoltenberg.  If you start with the argument that nothing Trump does will have good results, it is easy to assume his pressures on NATO had nothing to do with the improvements in funding.  But that is preposterous.

In an odd analysis, former General Mark Hertling – a consistent Trump critic – derisively said that the NATO leaders only playing up to Trump so that he would not grouse so much about the funding shortfalls – another example of who Trump Derangement Syndrome addles the left-wing brain.  Of course, there were placating Trump.  That is called a victory – something Hertling should understand.

The only thing that changed in terms of NATO funding between now and then has been the election of Trump and the public shaming (bullying, if you prefer) he bestowed on our allies.  And as far as that nonsense about helping Putin, Trump actually strengthened NATO, added to the membership rolls and sent military aide to Ukraine – a nation eager to join NATO and avoid being Putin’s next conquest.

Though lost in the fog of impeachment – intentionally, to be sure – the increased funding of NATO is a “yuge” victory for Trump, the United States, and the free world.  Mark up one more for The Lipper.

So, there ‘tis.