As President Biden's time in office draws to a close, a critical examination of his administration's final acts reveals a series of controversial decisions. From the release of Guantanamo detainees with alleged ties to al-Qaeda to the ban on offshore drilling and natural-gas-fired water heaters, these actions have sparked heated debate and raised questions about their motivations and potential consequences.

The commutation of federal death row inmates, placing the financial burden of their care on taxpayers, has further fueled criticism. These decisions, coupled with pardons and the awarding of Medals of Freedom, have been interpreted by some as a parting shot at the American public, a manifestation of the administration's frustration at their electoral defeat.

Critics argue that these actions, rather than addressing the concerns of the electorate, seem designed to provoke and further divide the nation. The lack of clarity surrounding the decision-making process, particularly regarding the commutation of sentences, raises concerns about who is truly in charge and driving these policy choices. Is the Biden administration acting on its own accord, or are they influenced by external forces with a different agenda?

This stands in stark contrast to the incoming administration's focus on addressing the needs of the American people. While the incoming president pledges to reciprocate the trust placed in him by voters, the outgoing administration's actions appear driven by resentment and a desire to punish rather than serve. This raises a crucial question: are these final decisions a reflection of the Democratic party's true values, or are they the actions of a disgruntled outgoing administration seeking to inflict lasting damage?