Who pointed out how cognitively challenged Biden was?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Jamie” writes:

Before the [June 2024 debate between Trump and Biden], no Democrat in public life – and damn few Republicans – EVER expressed the thought that maybe Biden wasn’t in charge – at least, none that I ever heard of; every single one went along with what anyone with eyes and ears could tell was a lie.

I agree about Democrats, and I’ll add that they also spent a lot of time and effort saying Joe was just fine and sharp as a tack and that any suggestion to the contrary was a terrible insult and a baldfaced lie. So-called reporters in the MSM said much the same, another example of their left/liberal bias and willingness to lie. At this point, those coverups should be talked about far more than they are – including the fact that the MSM is still pretending to have been shocked and surprised by Biden’s performance during that June debate.

But those things are not why I’m writing this post. This post is the result of my curiosity about Jamie’s contention that few Republicans were pointing out the problem with Biden’s mental capacities, which after all is the source of the suspicion that he wasn’t the one really in charge. But then when I looked it up I saw that many Republicans had tried to make it an issue – and were told to go pound sand.

To take just one example, Trump was certainly doing it during the 2020 campaign, as was Republican House member Greg Murphy (the article is from June of 2021 but that was an update; it was written during the 2020 presidential campaign):

Greg Murphy, who represents much of Eastern North Carolina in the U.S. House, has said repeatedly in the last few weeks that Biden, the 77-year-old former vice president, has dementia. …

Murphy is a medical doctor — a urologist. But experts at the UNC Department of Neurology said diagnosing dementia requires a comprehensive evaluation, including in-person tests. Still, Murphy has posted versions of the claim at least four times on Twitter, saying Biden “obviously is fighting the ravages of dementia.” …

Murphy said Biden is not “physically up or mentally up for the job.” He cited Biden’s speech patterns and said “I don’t think one has to be a rocket scientist” to see it.

Nor did you have to be a doctor; it was, as Murphy said, obvious. And although yes, a workup is required for a full diagnosis, if the obvious signs are there any layperson can see it.

Back then when I wrote about Biden’s mental decline I usually used the term “cognitively challenged,” rather than something like “senile.” I felt even during the 2020 campaign that Joe was in significant mental decline, but in the early years of his presidency it seemed to me as though he nevertheless retained at least some sort of control over his decision-making process (although much later I think his Obama-friendly aides took over more and more). For example, I thought (and still think) that the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan had Biden’s fingerprints all over it. The problem there was probably too much control by a cognitively-compromised Biden rather than too little.

CNN’s Chris Cillizza was an egregious and yet typical example of the way the press handled the Biden mental status story as well as how it reacted to the statements of Republicans pointing out that there was a problem. See this Cillizza piece from August of 2021:

During the course of the 2020 campaign, Donald Trump repeatedly tried to make Joe Biden’s mental state a major issue.

“Biden is shot,” Trump said in an interview with Fox News Channel last fall. “I’m telling you he’s shot. There’s something going on.” …

Republicans continue to keep questions about Biden’s mental health front and center.

Earlier this week, Florida Sen. Rick Scott (R) suggested that Biden’s handling of the collapse of the Afghan government was grounds to consider removing him under the 25th Amendment. …

Then, on Thursday, Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty (R), in an interview with conservative talk radio host Hugh Hewitt, openly speculated about Biden’s mental capacity. …

This is the sort of gross, lowest-common-denominator politics that drive people away from public life. If Republicans have some sort of proof that Biden is declining, they should bring it forward. If they don’t, they should stop doing what they’re doing. Immediately.

This is a reporter? “Proof” wasn’t necessary; there was evidence on a near-daily basis. Were Cillizza and his colleagues willfully blind and in denial? Were they lying through their teeth? Was it some combination of both? Cillizza has helped us out at least a little bit by a recent (12/2024) and pathetically inadequate effort to explain:

“As a reporter, I have a confession to make,” Cillizza said in the video clip on Thursday.

“I should have pushed harder earlier for more information about Joe Biden’s mental and physical well-being and any signs of decline.”

According to Cillizza, Republicans would “regularly ping me” during his tenure at CNN to quiz him as to why he didn’t address obvious signs of the 82-year-old president’s deterioration.

Cillizza recalled how he would “brush them off” because he had not seen “evidence” that Biden was faltering — despite numerous verbal gaffes, physical stumbles and instances when the president appeared to lose his train of thought while speaking in public.

You should have pushed harder? No, you should have opened your eyes and unstopped your ears. But I can guarantee you would have done so had the subject under scrutiny been Donald Trump (or any Republican).

Cillizza did say one interesting thing:

The former CNN pundit, who read excerpts from the Journal report in his video, said he accepted the White House’s position that Biden was fine and that he was deterred from pursuing the matter due to the guilt he felt about “age-shaming” the president.

“The White House and the people around Joe Biden were absolutely adamant that suggesting anything — asking the question about whether he was in some physical, mental or both decline, was offensive,” Cillizza said on Thursday.

“‘How could you? It’s age-shaming.’ And I think that impacted me at some level,” he admitted.

Again, it wouldn’t have been a deterrent at all had the subject had an “R” next to his name. However, Biden’s aides also knew how to shame a friendly reporter by implying that delving into Biden’s decline would be insufficiently woke.

Cillizza said that “while I did ask the question from time to time … I didn’t really push on it, if I’m being honest.”

If you’re being honest …

Here’s another of the efforts by Republicans to call attention to the issue, from May of 2023:

Yesterday, Congressman Ronny Jackson (TX-13) led his colleagues in sending a letter to President Joe Biden and Physician to the President, calling on the President to take a cognitive test immediately, or renounce his bid for re-election in 2024. Jackson’s letter comes after the President’s recent announcement to seek re-election in 2024 despite the obvious showing of cognitive decline over the past two and a half years.

Jackson said: “The American people deserve to have absolute confidence in their President and trust that he or she can perform his or her duties. Meanwhile, Joe Biden’s mental health is sharply deteriorating while the whole world watches. This is not a political issue, even Democrats are losing faith in the man they put in the White House. Americans WANT a mentally fit leader and reassurance that the man they elected is a cognitively sound Commander in Chief. I administered a cognitive test to President Donald J. Trump, and it’s time that President Biden is held to the same standard. The American people deserve answers. If Biden can’t step up to the plate and take a cognitive test, then he shouldn’t run for President again.”

If Democrats had listened in May of 2023 and dumped Biden, they might even have won in 2024.

Jackson had sent similar letters calling for Biden to take a cognitive test back in June of 2021, February of 2022, and July of 2022. The one in May of 2023 was joined by the following:

GOP Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik (NY-21), Chief Deputy Whip Guy Reschenthaler (PA-14), RSC Chairman Kevin Hern (OK-01), GOP Conference Vice Chairman Mike Johnson (LA-04), and Representatives Jason Smith (MO-08), Jim Banks (IN-03), John Carter (TX-31), Andy Harris (MD-01), Mark Green (TN-07), Greg Murphy (NC-03), Brian Babin (TX-36), Jeff Van Drew (NJ-02), Buddy Carter (GA-01), Diana Harshbarger (TN-01), Joe Wilson (SC-02), Byron Donalds (FL-19), Andy Biggs (AZ-05), Roger Williams (TX-25), Jeff Duncan (SC-03), Ralph Norman (SC-05), Randy Weber (TX-14), Pat Fallon (TX-04), Bill Posey (FL-08), Rick Allen (GA-12), Russell Fry (SC-07), Warren Davidson (OH-08), Claudia Tenney (NY-24), Troy Nehls (TX-22), Tracey Mann (KS-01), Beth Van Duyne (TX-24), Tim Walberg (MI-05), Aaron Bean (FL-04), Eli Crane (AZ-02), Nathaniel Moran (TX-01), David Rouzer (NC-07), Lauren Boebert (CO-03), Tony Gonzales (TX-23), William Timmons (SC-04), Alex Mooney (WV-02), August Pfluger (TX-11), Max Miller (OH-07), Jim Baird (IN-04), Keith Self (TX-03), Mark Alford (MO-04), Mary Miller (IL-15), Marjorie Taylor Greene (GA-14), Tim Burchett (TN-02), Victoria Spartz (IN-05), Dan Crenshaw (TX-02), Harriet Hageman (WY-At Large), Cory Mills (FL-07), Matt Rosendale (MT-02), Monica De La Cruz (TX-15), Tom Tiffany (WI-07), Scott Fitzgerald (WI-05), Andrew Clyde (GA-09), Michael Cloud (TX-27), Clay Higgins (LA-03), and Bob Good (VA-05).

From the left-wing Guardian in June of 2023:

These attacks kept up during Biden’s presidency and last year a group of 54 Republican lawmakers wrote an open letter to “express concern” with the president’s “current cognitive state” and demand that Biden take a mental fitness test. The letter cited the Alzheimer’s Association’s signs of mental decline before listing a series of Biden gaffes and polling on his mental state. (Biden has a well-documented stutter which creates frequent verbal gaffes and repetitions, making it fairly easy to find videos of him stumbling over his words.)

That letter signed by 54 Republicans would have been in 2022. The Guardian mounts the tired old stutter defense. Now, Biden has discussed having had a stutter in his youth, and I see no reason to doubt that. But I have yet to see a video display of a stutter from earlier in his career – nor do his verbal “gaffes” as president resemble a stutter.

While I was doing a search for evidence of a stutter from politician Joe Biden in his earlier days, I came cross the following video which I decided to post, not because it demonstrates a stuttering Joe (it doesn’t), but because it shows his earlier demeanor and personality which you are welcome to compare to his later years. It’s an especially sad contrast and doesn’t even really seem like the same person:

Moving along, in October of 2023 Speaker Johnson weighed in:

“Do you see in Joe Biden a cognitive decline, and if so, is that a danger to the country?” Fox News host Sean Hannity asked the newly installed House speaker.

“I do. I think most of us do,” Johnson said. “This is not a personal slight to him. It has to do with age and acumen, and everyone’s different. Everyone ages differently.”

Every single reporter, every single news outlet, and every single Democrat who denied Biden’s decline and mocked and/or discounted and/or insulted those who pointed out that decline, should be made to explain it. They have removed any last lingering doubt (not that I had any doubt even prior to this) about their extreme partisanship and willingness to cover up anything that reflects poorly on the left.

Day of remembrance for Holocaust victims

The New Neo Posted on by

Israel remembers:

Israel came to a standstill on Thursday morning as a two-minute siren sounded nationwide at 10 a.m., marking Holocaust Remembrance Day (Yom Hashoah). …

“We bow our heads in memory of the victims,” Netanyahu said during the ceremony. “Their legacy obligates us to defend our existence and ensure never again means never again.”

The words have taken on even more meaning since 10/7/2023.

I’ve written many many previous posts on the subject of the Holocaust, but for now I’ll direct you to this one as well as this one.

The gates of Vienna 2.0

The New Neo Posted on by

What could not be accomplished by armed conquest can be achieved by other means. And so we have this:

According to newly released data from the City Council of Vienna for the 2024–2025 academic year, Muslim students now represent 41.2% of the population across primary, secondary, and vocational schools—making them the largest single religious group. By comparison, just 34.5% of students identify as Christian (including 17.5% Catholic and 14.5% Orthodox), while 23% report no religious affiliation.

[In the previous academic year, 39.4% of students were Muslim.]

This significant demographic shift should serve as a wake-up call for Austrians. If current trends continue, the nation may face a profound cultural transformation, with serious implications for its identity and future.

I would say they already face it, as does much of western Europe. And the differential birth rate indicates the disparity will grow more extreme.

More:

Bettina Emmerling, Vienna’s City Councillor for Education and a member of NEOS (the New Austria and Liberal Forum, a liberal political party), offered what many may view as a tone-deaf response to these growing challenges.

She acknowledged that “no one in Vienna should live their life according to the fundamentalist interpretation of religious texts that are hostile to women, minorities, the state, or democracy.”

Nevertheless, Emmerling appears to believe that these deeply rooted issues can be resolved by the addition of a mandatory class to the curriculum. “In light of these developments,” she said, “there is a greater need than ever for a compulsory joint subject, ‘Living in a Democracy,’ for all children starting from primary school. Democracy, values, and ethics education must take place on a common foundation.”

That’s fascinating. It’s the age-old question of how to effect cultural assimilation in a portion of the population that’s newly-arrived and has extremely divergent views from the mainstream population. When I think about cultural assimilation in the US, which has a much longer history of absorbing large numbers of immigrants from other cultures, I wonder whether we ever had the task of assimilating such a sudden influx of such a large population with views so starkly divergent from the mainstream – and in particular, a population many of whose members don’t want to assimilate. I don’t think we ever faced that, in particular the lack of desire to become part of American culture – and in the past we used to force quicker assimilation by not having bilingual education, for example. We have faced the problem more in recent years although on a smaller scale than western Europe for the most part. And we will continue to face it.

NOTE: I notice that, although not planned, the subject matter of this post overlaps slightly with the subject matter of this earlier post from today.

ADDENDUM: And I feel the urge to add this:

Elizabeth Warren tries to explain/deny the coverup of Biden’s cognitive decline, and utterly fails

The New Neo Posted on by

Well worth watching, and it’s only about a minute long. Warren tries mightily but is defeated by the topic. Note her almost involuntary smile at 0:15, and the interviewer’s expression at 0:22:

“The moral equivalence of racism”?

The New Neo Posted on by

Commenter “Rick67” writes:

The exchange between Mrs Whatsit and Mac is interesting.

Mac replied “Religious people are in the position of arguing for the right to practice the moral equivalent of racism and have the public schools cooperate with them.”

Mac’s reply (which I anticipated) begs an important question. Are these objections the “moral equivalent of racism”? I fully understand that Americans of a more progressive persuasion see it that way. I encountered this line of reasoning during my time working at a church which had several members who were several steps to the left of me on political, cultural, and yes religious issues.

I do think we should be cautious about how much we play the “views contrary to mine are the moral equivalent of racism” card. Does it have a limiting principle? What social, cultural, political policies can it not impose on people?

I appreciate the comment above which says this isn’t or *should* not be about religious freedom. Unless “religion” in this context includes any deeply held convictions about how human beings should relate to each sexually and about gender identity (whether how and when boys can turn into girls).

Commenter “Mac” replies:

I should make it clear btw that I’m totally on the side of the parents in this dispute. I’m just pointing out the way their views appear in light of current progressive doctrine, which in the case of gay rights and gay marriage is also the law of the land.

That racism and disapproval of homosexuality are not different in any meaningful way is hard dogma among progressives. Ask yourself how these parents would fare with the courts and for that matter with widespread opinion if they were objecting to depiction of interracial marriage. They may prevail with the Supreme Court as presently constituted, but it wouldn’t take much for that to change, especially as some of the conservative judges are quite willing to go with the progressive view on sexual matters.

There’s little question in my mind that a future Court could rule in a more “progressive” manner. But for the purposes of the discussion I’ll just stick to the legal reasoning I think underpins the parents’ position and makes it quite different from racism.

Religious freedom of parents – and the right to teach a child one’s religion – is protected in the US unless there’s a situation where a child is endangered or taught something criminal. For example, there’s a body of case law forcing parents whose religion forbids blood transfusions to give a child a life-saving transfusion against the parents’ wishes. I think we can safely say there’s no analogy with the situation in the case presently before SCOTUS involving teaching young children in the public school system materials about homosexuality and transgenderism. Also, unlike racist views, these have long been considered bona fide subjects on which people have a religious point of view that considers them sins, and that hasn’t been a fringe view. Progressives are free to think such views are tantamount to racism, but in my experience progressives tend to think that about just about any point of view that doesn’t line up with their own is tantamount to racism.

Nor are these religious parents advocating that their own views against gay marriage be taught in schools, or that their children be taught by the school system to discriminate against people who practice gay marriage. They are asking that their children be allowed to opt out of this sort of pro-gay marriage pro-trans instruction for their own children. The opt-out approach is very commonly protected for a host of issues and their argument is that there is no good reason why this couldn’t be one of them, especially given the religious freedom aspects.

There is another issue that comes to play here that has no analogy to racism, and that is the sexual content of the material. Many parents could object to that as inappropriate for younger children regardless of the parents’ religious beliefs or even the parents’ own support or lack of support for gay marriage itself. But once objections get outside the realm of religious freedom, one runs into difficulty. A local public school system makes a host of decisions about the content of teaching, and it would be too disruptive to allow parents unlimited ability to opt out of anything and everything within it. So it’s a question of where to draw the line. However, the issue of age-appropriateness for sexual content also has no analogy with teaching about racism.

Predictions are that SCOTUS will require that parents be allowed to opt out of gay content in public grade schools on grounds of religious freedom

The New Neo Posted on by

The issues are as follows:

This case concerns the Montgomery County School District, the largest in Maryland, and whether they should be able to prevent parents from opting their kids, as young as 3-4 years old, out of school curriculum describing, among other things, drag queens, gay sex, and other topics including transgenderism. After a group of parents sued, the case made its way to the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia, and the Carolinas. That court said no. No opt-outs. …

Anyway, the “Question Presented” in the case, or, in other words, the exact legal question the Supreme Court has to decide is:

Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?

This isn’t about the teaching of math or science or other subjects in a traditional curriculum. These are young children, and these are matters that until very recently were considered to be a family’s private business and matters on which religions often have had strong moral differences and objections. When I was growing up, and even when my son was growing up, I don’t recall public schools mentioning these topics one way or the other. They were not considered matters for public school instruction, either approving or disapproving, and were not considered suitable matters to discuss with pre-pubescent children.

In the present legal case, the school originally had an opt-out but – get this – so many parents requested it that the school had trouble dealing with that and therefore refused to allow any opt-outs. That’s quite a solution.

Roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

(1) WEF founder Klaus Schwab is being investigated based on allegations in a whistleblower’s letter:

The Wall Street Journal, which first reported the probe, said an anonymous letter sent last week to the WEF’s board raised concerns about its governance and workplace culture, including allegations that the Schwab family mixed their personal affairs with the forum’s resources without proper oversight.

Schwab denies wrongdoing.

(2) Illinois Senator Dick Durbin has announced he won’t be running for re-election in 2026. Durbin – who’s been in the Senate for nearly thirty years and is eighty years old – is one of the most abominable Democrat senators, but I would bet a large amount of money that his replacement will be a Democrat who is as bad or worse. In Illinois, there is virtually no chance of Republican victory.

(3) The government has filed RICO charges against members of the Tren de Aragua gang:

The Justice Department on Monday filed multiple federal charges against 27 members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang. The charges include racketeering, narcotics, sex trafficking, robbery, and firearms offenses. DOJ officials said in a press release that this marks the first time RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges have been filed against the Venezuelan prison gang.

Seems highly appropriate to me.

(4) Here’s the Trump administration’s peace proposal for the Ukraine War. I make no predictions except to say I’m not optimistic about it and I hope I’m wrong on that.

(5) Stocks closed up somewhat today:

US stocks rallied Wednesday after President Trump said he has “no intention” of firing Fed Chair Jerome Powell, easing Wall Street fears over the central bank’s independence. Meanwhile, Trump also softened his tone on tariffs, hinting that eye-popping duty levels on Chinese imports would ultimately be scaled back.

Terrorist attack in Kashmir

The New Neo Posted on by

The report:

At least 26 people were killed and 17 others wounded when unidentified gunmen opened fire on a group of tourists in Indian-controlled Kashmir on Tuesday, the worst assault in years targeting civilians in the restive region, which is claimed by both India and Pakistan.

India describes militancy in Kashmir as Pakistan-backed terrorism. Pakistan denies the allegation, and many Kashmiris consider the militants to be part of a home-grown freedom struggle.

It may seem petty of me, in the face of such carnage, to carp about the words used. But words matter in helping to form perceptions. So when “gunmen” fire on tourists it is by definition terrorism, whatever their goals and whatever their complaints.

India’s reaction:

India on Wednesday closed a border crossing, suspended a water-sharing treaty and downgraded diplomatic ties with rival Pakistan, blaming its neighbor for a militant attack the previous day that killed 26 people in the Indian-held portion of Kashmir.

A terrorist attack.

Attacking tourists almost certainly has the goal of hurting the region economically:

New Delhi has vigorously pushed tourism, and the region has drawn millions of visitors to its Himalayan foothills. Indian officials have claimed that as a sign of normalcy returning, despite the presence of ubiquitous security checkpoints, armored vehicles and patrolling soldiers. Until Tuesday, tourists were not targeted.

Attacking tourists is the modus operandi of Islamist jihadi groups in some mideastern countries – such as, for example, the Luxor attack in Egypt in 1997:

In the mid-morning of 17 November, six gunmen killed 58 foreign nationals and four Egyptians. The assailants were armed with knives and automatic firearms and disguised as members of the security forces. … With the tourists trapped inside the temple, the killing went on systematically for 45 minutes, during which many bodies, especially of women, were mutilated with machetes. The body of an elderly Japanese man was also found mutilated. A leaflet was discovered stuffed into his body that read “no to tourists in Egypt” and was signed “Omar Abdul Rahman’s Squadron of Havoc and Destruction—the Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Group”. …

The tourist industry in Egypt, and particularly in Luxor, was seriously affected by the resultant slump in visitors and remained depressed until sinking even lower with the September 11 attacks in the United States in 2001, the 2005 Sharm El Sheikh bombings, and the 2006 Dahab bombings.

The massacre marked a decisive drop in terrorists’ fortunes in Egypt by turning public opinion overwhelmingly against them

RIP.

Due process for illegal aliens: how far does it go?

The New Neo Posted on by

This is a huge question and I’m not going to be dealing with it in great depth at the moment. I do plan to write more on it in the future, but for now I’ll alert you to an article Jonathan Turley wrote on the subject in 2018 during Trump’s first term.

I suggest you read the whole thing, but here are some excerpts:

Under current procedures, undocumented persons are dealt with under either §1225(b)(1) or §1225(b)(2). Section 1225(b)(1) allows for deportations for those who enter through fraud, misrepresentation, or without valid documentation. Under the first provision, deportation can be ordered by ICE officials “without further hearing or review” under an expedited removal process. §1225(b)(1)(A)(i). If Trump were speaking of that group, he would be correct so long as there is not an asylum claim. There can be a return without a hearing or judge. Only about 15 percent of undocumented persons have hearings and the Obama Administration aggressively pursued expedited deportations without hearings. However, if an alien “indicates either an intention to apply for asylum . . . or a fear of persecution,” the ICE officials must make a threshold determination if the claims is credible, and, if it is credible, “the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum.” §1225(b)(1)(B)(ii).

Other federal law mandate specific protections. Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 it is mandated that “the alien shall have the privilege of being represented, at no expense to the Government,” and “the alien shall have a reasonable opportunity to examine the evidence against the alien, to present evidence on the alien’s own behalf, and to cross-examine the witnesses presented by the Government …” …

There is clearly an ability for the Trump Administration to both shift to a criminal enforcement policy and to expedite deportations. To that end, Congress is moving to add judges and resources to the border. However, the blanket call for deportations without due process would be difficult to square with this prior authority. It is also difficult to square with our values as a nation for those with a legitimate fear for their lives and a history of persecution in their nations of origin.

That’s why, this time, Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act.

The problem is clear. In recent years the left got very clever, and illegal aliens availed themselves of the information the left provided: it became common knowledge that if an illegal alien claimed he or she needed asylum, that claim must be heard and there were so many illegal aliens coming over that effectively it would mean it would take many years for the claim to be heard. In the meantime, there were plenty of benefits to be had here.

The Trump administration is dealing with a situation now that I don’t think these laws ever envisioned. I think the time is ripe for a new approach that is more in line with the reality that enforcing these laws means the US effectively has no borders.