The visuals of President Donald Trump surviving the assassination attempt shocked the world. But after relief that President Trump was safe, there was perplexity caused by videos of what seemed like female agents struggling to function despite the urgency of the situation.

In one video, these agents were seen attempting to surround President Trump. Since these agents are almost half the height of President Trump, they were of little use in shielding him.

Another video depicts these agents struggling with their firearms, adjusting their dark glasses, and looking like bystanders pretending to be part of a parade. It was almost like scenes from The Naked Gun parody films.

At a time when the members of the Secret Service needed to be in their swiftest and most alert form, there was confusion, incompetence, and cluelessness. It almost appeared like muddling agents were impeding the competent agents leading President Trump to safety and into his SUV.

However, it could have been much worse. These blundering agents could have been assigned as the primary team surrounding President Trump's podium. 

If you think this is an improbable supposition, listen to the utterances of Biden-appointed director of the United States Secret Service, Kimberly Cheatle. Last year, during an interview, Cheatle revealed that one of her goals was to “attract diverse candidates” and increase the number of women in the Secret Service. Currently, 24 percent of agents are female; Cheatle wants to raise that figure to 30 percent by 2030. 

But instead of being sacked or reprimanded after this fiasco, Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, in keeping with the Biden administration's tradition of rewarding ineptness, proclaimed he has full confidence in his subordinate Cheatle. 

This leaves President Trump with no option but to hire private security.

Dark clouds of DEI initiatives are hovering over the nation's foremost federal law enforcement agency. So, let's look at DEI, its core aims, and why it is impossible to implement and is certain to fail.

The stated goal behind DEI is to give opportunities to all those who belong to demographic groups that have been marginalized in the past. Few would object to this idea. To see the underdog rise against all odds and triumph is inspiring. The problem is how it is implemented.

Usually, the HR department and all the virtue-signaling wings at any workplace begin recruiting 'DEI' candidates by lowering the qualifications limits. 

But when is this DEI initiative considered a success? "It's a work in progress" is what you will hear from DEI proponents.

There is no definitive answer regarding the appropriate percentage for any given group for DEI to succeed. Ten percent of the workforce dedicated to a discriminated group won't remedy the wrongs of the past. How about increasing it to around 25 percent, much like what is happening in the Secret Service? I.e., one-fourth of the workforce. But is one-fourth hardly enough to address centuries of discrimination?

What about other discriminated-against groups?

Consider having the entire workforce evenly distributed among all discriminated groups. Soon, one group will claim to be a bigger victim than the other and demand a bigger quota. Soon, a debate commences about the ranking of discriminated-against groups.

There will be those who belong to more than one discriminated-against group. Do they get first preference?

What if two candidates are from the same discriminated-against group and one open position? Who gets the job? It cannot be based on merit because DEI stands against merit.

Another question is how one qualifies for any group. For race, will the deciding factor be DNA or/and physical appearance? 

We now have situations where DEI is the sole focus while quality, proficiency, efficiency, innovation, etc., become secondary.

When the first poster of Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer showing all cast members was released, the first aspect a film critic noted was that they were straight and white. He was reminded that it is based on historical events. But he prescribed 'color-blind casting' to resolve this 'bigotry'. The officially 'color-blind' casting is a practice of casting roles without regard to the actor's ethnicity or race. However, the implementation is casting non-Caucasian actors for Caucasian characters.  

Another unfortunate consequence of this DEI obsession is that victimhood ranks higher than achievement. We are witnessing people descend into the pits of victimhood rather than ascend the peaks of achievement. They'd rather invent stories of victimhood than accomplishments. Even the 'elites' are resorting to this.

"Quiet, you bigot, you're a status quo-ist. You despise progress,” is how a DEI advocate will scoff at you when challenged with the above questions.

But a bit of probing often reveals the hypocrisy of DEI advocates.

Would Kimberly Cheatle allow DEI agents to protect her family in a conflict zone?

If a DEI advocate is to undergo surgery, will he opt for the DEI recruit or one with a stellar record of success?

If a DEI advocate wants to build a house, which structural engineer will he choose - the DEI recruit or one with a strong record of success?

We know the answer.

It must be remembered that the attributes of DEI recruitment are race, nationality, sexual orientation, religion, etc. 

When recruited, these groups are usually placed in the front row for every event and included in every photo for the organization's website home page. 

However, the most important kind of diversity, i.e., the diversity of perspectives or ideologies, is forbidden in these initiatives. DEI hires may belong to different races, nationalities, sexualities, and religions, but they will mostly be staunch liberals who despise anyone who thinks differently.

This DEI initiative is merely a ploy to fortify the liberal echo chamber and purge out all the dissenters. This is how liberal tenets hijack organizations.

Calling it a DEI initiative is being euphemistic. This is systemic discrimination.  

One can hardly imagine the despondency felt by a candidate who fails to qualify merely for being born in the ‘wrong demographic group'. 

So what happens when these DEI recruits become a majority and end up in positions of power?

Collapsing bridges, failed operations, misdiagnosed patients, defective devices, crashing planes, falling standards in education, degradation of the armed and intelligence forces, entertainment seeming like moral lectures, a vice president who becomes the nation's foremost word salad chef – and a nearly successful assassination attempt against the leading presidential candidate.

With these catastrophic failures becoming a norm, a nation that once stood for greatness soon becomes a laughingstock.

But most importantly, it creates generations of despondent individuals which is a surefire way to destroy a nation.

In the end, no matter what you do: increase quotas, create new positions, add more initiatives, or have months to celebrate victim groups, the past remains unchanged.

Discrimination of the past cannot be resolved by adding discrimination in the present. 

Image: Public Domain