Regular readers and Twitter/X followers of mine would know that I have been beating the drum of Joe Biden’s potential mental incompetence for over five years. For instance, I wrote an entire post discussing strong evidence that Biden had a serious mental impairment, based on evidence that was present in 2020:
#Bidementia: We Had Strong Evidence that Biden Was Unfit For the Presidency … in 2020https://t.co/fGxOEEhq9Z https://t.co/fGxOEEhq9Z
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) July 8, 2024
And one part of my journey on this issue is to make a prediction that turned out to be 100% wrong.
My guess Joe Biden will shatter Harrison’s record for shortest Presidency. They’ll 25th Amendment him very soon
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) January 19, 2021
To put that in context, I was writing that two days before Joe Biden was inaugurated, and President William Henry Harrison was only president for thirty-two days. Basically, it is generally agreed that Harrison probably caught pneumonia when giving his inaugural address and it eventually killed him. So, if you are a history geek like me, you would recognize that I was predicting the Biden Presidency would last, at best, about a month.
Indeed, I can’t find the post right now, but I fully own that I thought he might literally be sworn in, and then immediately removed under the 25th Amendment. So, yes, I am starting this off admitting that I got something about as wrong as I can get. Even if Biden was removed right this minute, I’d still be off by about four years.
And when you get a prediction wrong, you should re-examine your assumptions. I keep telling the climate change cultists that they need to do that: Every time they predict a particular environmental disaster and it doesn’t happen, they should at least ask themselves why they got it wrong. (SPOILER: They never do.) So, I should be consistent and ask why my prediction was wrong.
Recommended
And there are a lot of reasons why I got that wrong, but I think the biggest mistake is that I thought like this: We need a competent president. Most basically, we need someone to answer that proverbial 3 a.m. phone call.
I mean, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, but that’s a good question to ask: Who do you want at the White House when a call comes in at 3 a.m.?
But there is a deeper problem I touched on the other day, when talking about Hunter Biden’s pardon. I asked whether it was possible to nullify that pardon on the basis of Joe Biden’s potential incompetence:
what if Joe Biden was no longer competent, mentally, to issue such a pardon, either in general or just at the specific moment he signed it? The 25th Amendment sets up one method of dealing with incompetent presidents but the law might organically develop another.
For instance, imagine this outlandish scenario. Imagine someone slipped an unusually potent dose of LSD into the president’s drink and while under the influence, the president issued all kinds of crazy new regulations. When the president was him or herself again, surely the President can say that the regulations were not properly issued because he was not competent to do so, right? So why can’t someone say that at some point in the presidency, Biden became unable to issue pardons? Thus the Trump administration could investigate the pardon on that basis: To see if Biden was competent to issue it. And if he wasn’t, perhaps it could be rescinded.
But what I am saying about pardons applies to literally everything a president does. I mean, there are two ways presidents act: Either they do something directly (like a veto or pardon) or they delegate power to others. If Joe Biden was not competent, all the things he did directly are called into question. And while that doesn’t call into question the actions of the people Biden delegated his power to—such as the Secretary of Transportation—what if he wasn’t competent when he appointed Pete Buttigieg?
What I am getting at is that if you don’t have a president who is competent—and clearly so—then it can spell complete chaos in our system. People can challenge every single action from the executive branch on this basis, from executive orders even to judicial appointments. What happens if it is proven that Joe Biden was not competent when he appointed Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court? Does that mean the appointment is null and void? Do we have to effectively nullify the decisions when her vote made a difference? It could lead to complete chaos if a president was found to be incompetent.
And all of that put together led me to think that no one could be so unpatriotic to allow a manifestly incompetent man to serve as president and risk that chaos.
And that was the mistake I made which led to my very deeply wrong predictions. Or as I put it, sarcastically:
If you look back in my Twitter timeline you will see that I predicted that Joe Biden would serve less time as president than William Henry Harrison
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) October 4, 2024
But the mistake in my logic was that I never thought the people around him would be so unpatriotic as to allow a decrepit, senile,…
The cut off text reads:
But the mistake in my logic was that I never thought the people around him would be so unpatriotic as to allow a decrepit, senile, constitutionally disabled old man remain in the oval office
I deeply apologize for my overestimation of their patriotism
Except for their lack of patriotism lol
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) October 4, 2024
So, I am convinced that a cabal of frankly unpatriotic men and women know that Biden is not fully there all of the time, but decided to keep this charade going. Recent coverage, such as the Wall Street Journal article we covered yesterday, cements my conviction on this point. This group knew we needed a president who was competent 100% of the time, but they weren’t willing to do what it took to replace him. Even when he was exposed as incompetent during the debate, they only replaced him as a candidate—they didn’t replace him as president. And why? So those people surrounding him could enact their agenda without getting the meaningful consent of the President. They could effectively be president in fact. And with literally a month to go on Biden’s term, they have pretty much gotten away with it.
Unless, of course, we embrace the chaos.
And having thought about it, that is what I think should happen. We should embrace the chaos.
One of the first things that Trump the once and future president should do when he is sworn in again, is he should order an investigation into Joe Biden’s mental competency throughout his presidency and, if the facts support it, declare null and void every action Biden allegedly took when he was incapacitated. Obviously, you can’t take back something like bombing an enemy target in a foreign country, but everything that can be nullified should be. That means executive orders, appointments and so on.
Because a fraud has been perpetuated on the American people. They were told they had a president, when much of the time they didn’t. And the people who carried out this fraud did this presumably because they wanted the power and the specific executive actions they were able to obtain.
Like let’s take the Hunter Biden pardon. Was Joe Biden competent to give Hunter a pardon? We don’t know for sure—the reporting indicates that Joe Biden had good days and bad days, so for all we know, Joe Biden was having one of those good days and everything is on the up and up.
But the darker possibility is that Joe Biden was having a bad day. Maybe he was confused, he didn’t fully understand what was happening and maybe Hunter Biden took advantage of that weakness. I am not saying it happened—I have no information about what went on in the run up to the pardon being issued. But there is some indication that Joe Biden’s mental functions might have been impaired. As I pointed out in my post, the pardon itself, on its face, literally applied to future crimes—which is not within the constitutional power of the president. And if you read the opinion of Judge Scarsi in Hunter Biden’s tax case, you see that Biden got several facts wrong, the judge writing that:
For example, the President asserts that Mr. Biden ‘was treated differently’ from others ‘who were late paying their taxes because of serious addictions,’ implying that Mr. Biden was among those individuals who untimely paid taxes due to addiction. But he is not. In his pretrial filings, Mr. Biden represented that he ‘was severely addicted to alcohol and drugs’ ‘through May 2019.’ … Upon pleading guilty to the charges in this case, Mr. Biden admitted that he engaged in tax evasion after this period of addiction by wrongfully deducting as business expenses items he knew were personal expenses, including luxury clothing, escort services, and his daughter’s law school tuition. … And Mr. Biden admitted that he ‘had sufficient funds available to him to pay some or all of his outstanding taxes when they were due,’ but that he did not make payments toward his tax liabilities even ‘well after he had regained his sobriety,’ instead electing to ‘spen[d] large sums to maintain his lifestyle’ in 2020. …
According to the President, ‘[n]o reasonable person who looks at the facts of [Mr. Biden’s] cases can reach any other conclusion than [Mr. Biden] was singled out only because he is [the President’s] son.’ But two federal judges expressly rejected Mr. Biden’s arguments that the Government prosecuted Mr. Biden because of his familial relation to the President. And the President’s own Attorney General and Department of Justice personnel oversaw the investigation leading to the charges. In the President’s estimation, this legion of federal civil servants, the undersigned included, are unreasonable people.
The second assertion is the most troubling. Joe Biden was asserting that his own Department of Justice was being unfair to his son. That made absolutely no sense. Even if you could argue that Hunter Biden was getting unfair attention from Republicans because of who his father was, they weren’t in charge of the cases: Joe Biden was, through people he had delegated authority to. Furthermore, if he felt his own department of justice was wrong in those cases, the solution would be to order his appointees to go easier on Hunter, not to offer him a pardon—including one for nearly a decade of misconduct that Joe Biden might not even be aware of. Was it possible that Biden didn’t even understand that his son was convicted by his own administration? I will note that in my post documenting Biden's mental problems in 2020, that sometimes Biden seemed to believe Barack Obama was still president. Was it possible that he was that confused when he issued the pardon? Yes, yes, whenever a politician is saying something that isn’t true, it is always reasonable to suspect he or she is just plain lying. But these assertions are so disconnected from reality, you have to wonder if the person who signed it was correctly perceiving reality.
Obviously, that doesn’t prove that Joe Biden was incompetent when he signed Hunter Biden’s pardon, though there’s enough here to justify an investigation. But let’s say hypothetically he was definitely incompetent when he issued the pardon and let’s say further that Hunter Biden took advantage of that incompetence to manipulate his father into signing something he normally would not have (let’s not forget that Joe Biden promised he wouldn’t pardon his son). Then if that pardon is rendered a nullity, then not only would that allow us to do justice in the specific case of Hunter Biden, but it would discourage other ‘Hunter Biden’s’ in the future from doing the same thing.
All of this is a hypothetical, but the point of this hypothetical is to illustrate a point that can be applied to any action Biden might have taken when incompetent, if that is what the facts show. It is important to render null and void every action Biden took while incompetent to discourage this kind of bad behavior in the future. Someday we will probably have another president whose competence can genuinely be called into question—it becomes almost mathematically inevitable if America survives just 200 years into the future. What lesson should the history of the Biden years tell the future? That if you can just cover it up, you can get away with it? Or that when it is discovered, all of those gains made at the expense of an incompetent president would be lost?
Seriously, imagine the scenario. Imagine it is 2033 and a woman named Hamala Karris is sworn in as president and her staff knows that she is pretty much a fall down drunk. Naturally, any resemblance between this fictional person and any real person or vice president is purely coincidental. But imagine if President Karris is just known by her staff to regularly be several times over the legal alcohol limit to drive, indeed so drunk that at times she doesn’t even know where she is and what she is doing.
In that hypothetical scenario, what do you want them to say?
Do you want them to say: ‘Hey, let’s get her to sign this pardon and this veto. Who cares if she is too drunk to know what planet she is on? We got away with this sort of thing under Biden.’
Or would you rather they said: ‘We can’t let her try to do anything until she is sobered up or else someone else might come in and render it null and void. And if she can’t start being sober on a regular basis, we have to get her out of office. Remember the chaos after the Biden administration, when a ton of his actions were annulled? We can't have that happening again.’
And so the incoming Trump administration should carry out that investigation and push this nullification theory if the facts support it. But I am not even sure that this is the only way this issue might arise. Certainly, private litigants can challenge various actions on the same theory—Joe Biden might not have been competent to take those actions.
And for the same reason, the courts should allow this chaos to occur. There are many ways the courts could claim that such executive actions cannot be questioned, but I think the courts should not take such an approach. Yes, it could lead to a lot of chaos but here’s the thing: Sometimes order is even worse.
Because what the American people are starting to understand is that the person they elected in 2020 was not really in charge much of the time. Instead, unelected people were effectively president, at least at moments. And what do you call it when the people in charge of your life didn’t even stand for election when they are supposed to have? You call that tyranny. And to embrace order in this situation is to allow that tyranny to go unanswered.
So, I say embrace the chaos. Call every action Biden took into question. Nullify just about the entirety of the last four years if the evidence supports it. But don’t let these people get away with it.
---------------------
As an aside, I thought I would share with you an urban legend associated with President Harrison and his very short presidency, called Tecumseh’s Curse. The claim is that Tecumseh or some like-minded Native American so hated Harrison (because Harrison got famous for massacring Native Americans) that he or she cursed America so whoever was elected every twenty years, starting with Harrison, would die in office:
The Curse of Tippecanoe (also known as Tecumseh's Curse or the 20-Year Curse) is an urban legend associated with the deaths of sitting presidents who were elected in a year that ends in 0 & is divisible by 20. Wm. Henry Harrison's death was the first associated with this curse pic.twitter.com/8s8TCom71G
— History That Doesn’t Suck (@HTDSpod) March 5, 2023
Do the math and you will see that it 100% works… for 120 years. The first, according to the theory was Harrison, and the legend is he got it worse than most so he died very quickly. So that is the president elected in 1840.
And then who was elected in 1860? Lincoln. If you don’t know what happened to him, get a refund from every educational institution you ever attended.
In 1880, it was Garfield. The President, not the cat. And he was assassinated, too.
In 1900, it was McKinley, also assassinated.
In 1920, it was Harding. He died of a heart attack.
Then in 1940, that was FDR. He more or less died of old age.
Then in 1960, it was JFK. Again, you should know what happened to him.
And then in 1980, it was Reagan. Despite his old age, Reagan survived through the end of his presidency. But fans of the urban legend point out that he was still shot, and it was pretty touch and go for a while. So, the theory is that the curse was weakening.
The next one was Bush (Jr.). He is still alive but I will note that there was reportedly an incident where he choked on a pretzel bad enough to faint. Fans of the urban legend say that it was still the curse, in a greatly diminished state.
Now, part of me scoffs. It’s just mumbo jumbo that takes advantage of a coincidence. It's like telling a spooky story around the campfire.
But then I know Joe Biden is next and…
You ever hear of Tecumseh’s curse, @PolitiBunny? https://t.co/pyMfDVXgAZ
— (((Aaron Walker))) (@AaronWorthing) December 20, 2024
Oh, no…
RELATED: Vox Tries to Explain Why We Praise Daniel Penny and Condemn Luigi Mangione … and Faceplants
Ana Navarro-Cárdenas Gets Wrecked on Bad Pardon History (And Let’s Talk about Hunter’s Pardon)
Eleventh Circuit Judge Absolutely Embarrasses CNN on Misinformation and We Are Here for It
WATCH: Jews Under Attack in Amsterdam While the Legacy Media is Silent
WATCH: CBS News’ 60 Minutes DECEPTIVELY EDITS Kamala's Word Salad Response on Israel
