How much longer do we have to act like Democrats are reasonable?

Buried deep down inside a recent New York Times puff piece about First Lady Jill Biden was a remarkably revealing anecdote. Following a nearly two-hour press conference in January, President Joe Biden was speaking to several senior staffers in the White House Treaty Room. In addition to the stumbling and bumbling we’ve grown accustomed to in Biden’s public appearances, he’d made several reckless statements about Russia’s then-imminent invasion of Ukraine that administration officials were scrambling to walk back. He had told reporters, “It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion and we end up having to fight about what to do and not do.”

One of the staffers in the room later told the Times that the first lady appeared and “demanded” to know why no one had intervened to end the press conference earlier. The staffer said she was very upset and wanted to know “who was supposed to end the news conference.”

One might expect that a U.S. president wouldn’t require help from his aides to end a press conference, but then again, America had never elected a leader who showed obvious signs of cognitive decline on the campaign trail and now required micromanagement. The lion’s share of “handling” the President falls on Jill Biden’s shoulders as it should. After all, it’s what she signed up for. She’d prioritized the glory of being first lady over what she knew was in her husband’s best interests.

That said, his staffers all play a role in the cover-up. Evidence of their efforts to hide his waning cognitive capacity is piling up fast. For example, during a White House meeting in June, a camera happened to catch a small notecard in Biden’s hand. An enlargement of the photo showed the card contained a series of instructions for him to follow. The first read, “YOU enter the Roosevelt Room and say hello to participants.” The second said, “YOU take YOUR seat.” And so on.

Another instance occurred during a September visit to the British Embassy in Washington where Biden had gone to sign the condolence book for the late Queen Elizabeth II. Rather than composing his own heartfelt message, he pulled out a type-written notecard, surely prepared by an aide, and copied the contents into the book. One of the most shocking incidents came several weeks later. Speaking at the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition and Health in late September, Biden called out for the late Rep. Jackie Walorski, (R-IN). He said, “Jackie, are you here? Where’s Jackie? …” Pressed for a comment on Biden’s extraordinary lapse, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre insisted that it was only because Walorski had been “top of [the President’s] mind.”

From the moment President Joe Biden launched his campaign in April 2019, it was apparent he lacked the cognitive capacity he’d possessed throughout his long political career. Yes, he was well-known for making colossal gaffes, but he’d always been able to speak to people extemporaneously and fluidly.

In the two years he’d been out of the spotlight, his ability to communicate had diminished noticeably. He had begun to lose his train of thought and to stumble over and even slur his words. It wasn’t his age. We all know 90-year-olds who are as sharp as tacks. That didn’t stop Democrats from propping up a candidate who was clearly unfit for the presidency.

As his condition deteriorates, it’s become impossible to hide. Beyond the sheer humiliation factor are the implications for U.S. national security. In their wildest dreams, the dictators of the world never imagined the U.S. would elect a senile man.

Although Biden’s decline is openly discussed in the conservative media, the liberal media continues to act as if the problem doesn’t exist, and they try to force everyone else to pretend with them.

Even when the Times shocked readers in June with their call for Biden to step down in 2024, they cited his age, but not his condition. Political strategist David Axelrod is quoted in the article: “The presidency is a monstrously taxing job and the stark reality is the president would be closer to 90 than 80 at the end of a second term, and that would be a major issue.”

How much longer do we have to act like Democrats are reasonable? And when will the Democrats admit that the emperor has no clothes?

 

A previous version of this article appeared in The Washington Examiner.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
Parler: https://parler.com/AFNNUSA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA

4 thoughts on “How much longer do we have to act like Democrats are reasonable?”

  1. Great question in the post – why isn’t the GOP shouting dementia and the 25th amendment from the rooftops? Any amount of time we have to continue to put up with the sniffer-in-chief is too long. If I remember correctly, President Trump’s fitness for office seemingly was top of mind for every democrat for four years.

    If (only) the GOP can take control of the house and senate next month and begin impeachment proceedings. First, Joey Robinette goes, then the Kamala. With a new (GOP) Speaker of the House after the midterms, the line of succession is beginning to look more reasonable that it used to (and more reasoned, too).

    Now, if we can just develop a vaccine that induces spine growth and demand that ALL in the GOP caucus get the jab (yes, there are a couple who don’t really need it… but it still wouldn’t hurt) …. who knows, the future just might look a little brighter. I know, it’s hard to imagine any change in DC not looking brighter than today.

    Reply
    • At the risk of excessive pessimism… what path do you see to get to the magic 67 in the Senate? NO D will vote to impeach, not even if Biden ripped his face off to reveal a reasurrected Hitler who was wearing a JRB mask the whole time…

      Reply
      • The senate doesn’t have to get to 67 to do that. At the pace we could be headed in, and I see the possibility of it, is to get to 61 or 62 by 2024. Add that to a Trump win in 2024, or even a DeSantis win, if there is a plug in the dike against cheating, and then start making law that cannot be so easily beaten by the executive action nonsense.
        You have to force the left’s face in the pie to make them understand that we will tolerate this no more. I wouldn’t hold my breath for an impeachment, although I wish to see the entire administration impeached at once. You(the politician) have to use Dale Carnegie and back it up with successes to build a better country, using the constitutional blueprint, which we still have hanging by a thread. What that means is that we need to be fighting our own RINOs as much as the left, to win and positively influence people that we mean say what we mean and we mean what we say.
        And even all of that is mighty lofty and difficult. But by routing out the RINOs, like McConnell, who doesn’t care to build coalitions and is happy in the minority, and the rest, it is a worthy enough goal.
        I share your pessimism about any impeachment. Get them in court after they have been removed by an election. That is workable with many in this administration because they have performed criminal acts. Hillary first, then onto the Biden Cartel.

        Reply
      • While I wish I could, I can’t say as I see a clear path to 67. I do hope that enough dem senators who might want to keep their seats as they stand for re-election over the next two- and four-year intervals would consider removing either Joey or the Kamala (voters do remember some things and not removing the hair sniffer in chief when the GOP started the ball rolling with impeachment would be memorable)…. but to your point, they most likely won’t act with character, only self-interest and be more concerned with keeping their position in the dem party.

        Reply

Leave a Comment