So it seems quite clear that the new year kicked off with two terrorist attacks. The destruction of the detonation of a Tesla cyber truck right outside of a Trump hotel in Las Vegas and the truck attack along with an attempt at detonating several IED's in New Orleans. At the same time, a massive pro Palestinian rally was happening in New York, where people were chanting such lovely phrases as globalize the Intifado.
Now, I want.
To talk about something I read on Twitter that Title eight of the US Code US Code Title eight, Section one two two seven in certain places identify certain kinds of aliens who can be deported, And this Twitter account was sort of trying to argue people who support terrorism who are not citizens can be deported in one of these sub sections gives a kind of definition of the sorts of people who could be deported if they're not
citizens and they're in the country. If they're they're in the country perhaps legally, but they are not American citizens. Any alien who quote endorses or espouses terrorist activity, or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization now I've been a little more ambivalent about the Israel Palestine conflict than a lot of other conservatives. Certainly, I think Hamas is completely disgusting and horrible and bad,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I think that their attack in October of last year was completely unjustified, unjustifiable, unprovoked. I think their conduct throughout the war has been completely insane and evil. The fact that they can't give Israel back the hostages they took in all likelihood because most of those hostages, I'm guessing are dead. They have high
civilian casualties, no small part, because that's their strategy. They deliberately put their civilians in harm's way because their whole concept, the whole concept of these sort of radical Islamic thinkers, they don't think of war in Western terms. They don't think of just war and just conduct in war in Western terms. But they know that we do. They know that we make distinctions between civilians and combatants. They don't care about that distinction other than to use the distinction
to their pr advantage. So they're totally fine with civilians dying for the sake of jihad. They make no distinction, and so they'll deliberately place their military assets under hospitals, under schools, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, so that they have high civilian casualties when Israel tries to take out those military targets, and then they will run to the press with a wildly overinflated count of how many civilians have died? Well, I should say how many people
have died. They make no distinction between who is a civilian versus who is a combatant, and the line between civilian and combatant is very flimsy. You know, are you a eighteen year old high school kid or are you an eighteen year old you know who someone puts an AK forty seven in your hands and you're helping people
fire rockets they don't have. You know, they'll engage in all kinds of violations of international law when it comes to, you know, being identifiable as soldiers versus not identifiable as soldiers, et cetera.
So totally, you know, totally get all that.
I've just been leery of the idea that the United States needs to pay for this war. Nonetheless, the United States, I've been leary that the United States needs to pay for this war. I've been leary of the idea that we need to be involved in it at all, that we need to give Israel ten billion dollars, that we need to have any say whatsoever over what's going on here, or that our that we need to have involvement at all.
I've been very frustrated at the idea of America fighting proxy wars all over the world, which is what's happening right now. A proxy wars where someone stands in for you as your proxy, and that's what America's basically done. We've had these votes in Congress on military funding for Ukraine, for Israel, and we treat it as a vote on military funding when that's not what it is. It's a
declaration of proxy war. We are at proxy war with Russia, We are at proxy war with Hamas, and that has real ramifications and consequences to it, you know, very similar. I mean the idea of oh, we couldn't go to war with normal war with Russia, that would inflame tensions, Well,
what's the difference. I feel like there should be way more focused, way more attention, way more scrutiny paid on members of Congress when they're voting for military funding because the negative foreign policy consequences of funding someone in a war can come back to bite you in the rear end. Now I've disliked all that, but again I'm fairly morally clear about the Israel Palestine conflict. I do have questions about is all of Israel's conduct in the course of
the war. Just I read stuff and see stuff from Christian sources in the Middle East who aren't exactly thrilled with Israel's conduct over the course of the war and think some of their conduct is excessive. So again, it's not me saying it's Christians in the Holy Land saying that. Nonetheless, Hamas is a terrorist organization. It is designated by our I believe, by the State Department as a terrorist organization.
Their whole.
Sort of founding documents for when Hamas first came into being, it's premised around the idea of killing all the Jews, Like it's like, find every Jew under every rock and behind every bush and kill them all. That's genuinely what they believe. They're a terrorist organization. They are an Iranian funded proc see, they're a proxy themselves of the Iranians, and they're a terrorist organization, they want to kill people in terroristic ways.
So I guess that's.
I guess one of the things that a new Trump administration should ask about and maybe get some questions about, is how many of the student protesters who were in the who were on college campuses in the United States last spring, especially, who were setting up camps and engaged in protests, and not just any kinds of protests, by the way, some on some college campuses, really nasty protests where they were threatening and intimidating Jewish students, where Jewish
students felt like they couldn't even walk around on certain parts of their own campus, where Jewish students were basically being advised to stay away, really nasty stuff.
That those Jewish students.
Could have really solid grounds for civil rights lawsuits against their own colleges for not stopping this kind of this kind of thing. I mean that there's plenty of civil rights law around this that would allow these Jewish students, I think, to take their universities to the cleaners. Now, let's talk about these individual protesters on these college campuses as well as the protests that are happening in New York, and I would say, if there are non citizens at
these events who are explicitly supporting Hamad. Yes, that could be a deportable person. Now, the problem is you run up against the First Amendment or the I guess maybe more so, the problem is you're running up against precisely what are these protesters protesting. Are they protesting one in explicit favor of Hamas. Are they protesting two against what they perceive to be excesses in Israel's war on Hamas?
Three?
Are they protesting against the project of Zionism, i e. The establishment of the Jewish state of a Jewish state of Israel, which was effect in nineteen forty eight, and which was accomplished through the expulsion of a certain number of Transjordainians, Palestinians, Muslims, Arab Muslim people of some sort from their homes their residences in that region in nineteen forty eight. What exactly are they protesting for? I think
that would be the difficult thing. I think there's some conservatives who just sort of think, you know, just a snap of the fingers and a waggle of your nose and you can deport thousands and thousands of people. And I think it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to accomplish, because again, I think for any one of these people who were engaged in these somewhat revolting protests that we saw on college campuses last year, whether it was people.
You know, marching in the streets of New.
York City, if you can show that someone is if you can show for any non citizen involved in it, that what they were doing was supporting Hamas or supporting Hamas's terrorist conduct, if you could show that, then yeah, maybe they're deportable. But I think that's going to be very, very hard to prove because and of course there's going to be just an army of ACLU type lawyers coming to the defense of these people if Trump tries to
initiate proceedings against them. But if you've got someone who's I don't know, holding a Hamas flag, chanting Hamas slogans, whatever, maybe that's something different. I think there has for a long time been gross unsavory connections between the Islamic Brotherhood
and care. The Council on American Islamic Relations American Islamic Relations has sort of inserted itself within the panoply of sort of left wing, left wing nonprofity kind of causes, and it's had different kinds of ties with unsavory characters in the Middle East. One of the founders of CARE, Nihad Awad, who founded the organization in nineteen ninety four
with Omar Ahmad and Rafik Jabet. Nihad Awad had been the public relations director for the Islamic Association for Palestine, which the FBI described as quote a front organization for Hamas that engages in propaganda for Islamic militants. He's also he also had been the head of CARE, the founding member of the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. So I think they're I guess I'm not sure that the odds of being able to deport a bunch of people for supporting Hamas.
And I think the sad thing to remember is that this guy who drove this truck into this big crowd of people in New Orleans, the guy they well, they didn't catch him. I guess they killed him. This guy was an American citizen and an Army veteran. And it makes you wonder, you know, the guy's been described as sort of trouble gone through de he was becoming more and more disillusioned somehow isis was something that was attractive to him and came to sort of inspire him and
seems like inspired him to do this particular act. So I guess I'm we're not sure at this point. I mean, we know it's terrorism. I'm not going to be like the FBI head in New Orleans is like, oh, it's unclear if this is a terrorist attack. Well, it's clearly terroristic. Well what are you talking about. You're not planting bombs around, you know, the French Quarter and driving a truck into
a big crowd of people without it being terroristic. I guess the question is is this connected to organized networks of State Department designated terrorist organizations, international terrorist organizations? That's the question. It's obviously a terrorist act. The question is is this guy more or less working alone? Was there any coordination between this guy in New Orleans versus and the guy in Las Vegas who blew up a Tesla cyber truck right outside of Trump Hotel? Was there any coordination?
There was there any coordination with international terrorist groups? That's the kind of stuff we're not one hundred percent sure of.
I guess, I.
You know, I guess I'm waiting to see that. But I don't know that the United States is going to have the ability to deport basically all of these people who are in the country who support who.
Maybe they do support Humas, but.
It's going to be really hard to be able to convict someone to vindicate that in a court proceeding when these people are it, when the United States may try to deport these people.
When we return.
Just a quick thought on Hamas. That is next on the John Roardy Show. Just a thought on hamas As. There was this big rally in New York yesterday for Palestine. One of the things that has annoyed me about the kind of Biden Establishment Democrat reaction to the Israel Palestine war is the repetition of this mantra, we need to pursue the two state solution. We need to pursue the two state solution. Pursue the two state solution. The two state solution, the two state solution the only way forward.
It's like this, It's like this comforting mantra that Biden has to cling to. It's the only thing he can say when he when he talks about the topic. Uh, there needs to be a peaceful two state solution.
Two state solution going forward.
And I think it's because Bill Clinton got so freaking close to actually accomplishing a two state solution when he was president, until Yasir Arafat scuttled the whole thing. He gave the Palestinians everything they wanted. Here's your place, you get this, you get that, you get but but but bah, here you go, you get your own state. You get Israel. Get out of this the everything you want, Yes, Sir Arafat.
And at the last minute, Yes, Airfat pulled the rug out from under Clinton and said, Nah, don't want to and then the Palestinians proceeded to initiate a bunch of terrorist attacks against Israel. And I think it it is the one thing, the one thing thing that I think Bill Clinton wishes he could have. It's probably the greatest regret of Clinton's presidency, you know, was not being able to get that accomplished. I mean, to this day, that's the one thing about Jimmy Carter that people talk oh
the Camp David Accords. And although there's actually some evidence now that Carter's role in the Camp David Accords was far less, far less important, that actually was anwar Sadat and the Prime Minister of Israel Bagan, I guess his name was them sort of getting together themselves, whereas Carter was like trying to get the Soviet Union in on the peace steel and like all these other players, and
it was it was sort of a silly thing. Anyway, Jimmy Carter to this day can talk about, oh see, I broke her peace between Israel and Egypt, and that's like the one thing Carter's got on his legacy. Clinton really wanted it and he never got it. Here's the problem with continuing to say to state solution. It made some sense in the Arafat era because Arafat wasn't Hamas Yasir. Arafat was actually more moderate in spite of the fact that he was, you know, a terrorist, et cetera. Arafat
was part of a different political party from Hamas. There was Hamas and then there was Fatah. He was the head of Fatah, and Fatah was more secular, less religious extremists than Hamas. Now he kind of wound up being the kingpin among the Palestinians and was able to sort of utilize the total Islamic loon crazies for his own ends. But Arafat, I mean in the Arafat era. With him in charge, maybe you could have attained a two state solution.
Maybe someone like him, who isn't inspired by total fundamentalist Sharia lunacy, he maybe could have broke her to two state solution. You're not getting a two state solution from Hamas. Their whole reason for existence, like in their founding documents, is it's to.
Kill every single Jew.
That's what they when they say from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, they mean no more state of Israel. The whole state of Israel is contained. For those who are deficient in geography, let me remind you what the river and what the sea is.
The river is the Jordan River. The sea is the Mediterranean Sea.
All of the modern, the modern day nation state of Israel is entirely contained in between the river and the sea. So if you've got someone saying from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, what they mean is no more state of Israel.
They don't want a two state solution. And that's the thing.
It will be refreshing for a new state department to come into existence that at least whatever deficiencies. It may happen. It may have many deficiencies, God knows. At the very least one deficiency they won't have is this continual reliance on the crutch of a two state solution. You can't have a two state solution if one of the parties doesn't want the other party to exist. The guys in the hamask, guys in Gaza don't want Israel to exist.
Seemingly large centers of the Palestinians who supported what Hamas did on October sent seventh, not just in Gaza but also in the West Bank, they.
Don't really want Israel to exist either.
So I guess, I ask, why do we keep repeating this, Oh, you need the two state solution, as if, as if Israel's had fault Israel who is offered a two state solution and had it rejected by Yaser, Era, Fat, et cetera. All right, when we return, I want to talk about having a senile, feeble president in the midst of terrorist attacks.
Next on the John Girardi Show.
A lot of the commentary around President Biden's aging was insufficient.
Obviously, over the course of the last four years.
Everyone on the left effectively covered it up. Everyone in the media who obviously could have known about it, didn't pursue the story, didn't report down it because they didn't want to.
They all knew.
Biden has the best shot of beating Donald Trump in twenty twenty four, so let's just shut up about his And it was also this undercurrent of Kamala Harris would get her ass kicked by Donald Trump, which did in fact happen, and so everyone's like, all right, we'll just
not talk about Biden being obviously senile. And so they didn't talk about Biden being obviously senile for four years, and then finally in the June twenty twenty four debate, it became so painfully obvious that they had to do something. And I at the time was sort of baffled how this wasn't a bigger narrative, even from people on the right.
How is Biden not abel not able either physically or mentally, which was what all these Democrats conceded, He's either not physically mentally whatever able to run for president, but he is physically mentally whatever able to be president. Undoubtedly, being president is or ought to be a harder job than running for president, and it's a far more important, critical job. You're the commander in chief of the Armed Forces. You are in charge of the entire executive branch of government.
You're overseeing law enforcement and enforcement of criminal laws and civil laws and environmental regulation than this and that, about one hundred billion, overseeing how a multi trillion dollar budget is spent every year. You're the singular hinge on which the whole system swings of executive authority. All executive officials are exercising your delegated authority. They need to do so in accordance with what you decide. He's the essential man.
Whoever is president is the essential man. How can we allow someone who's not physically or mentally ready to go be in that seat? And I've heard people say, you know, it's such a it's this horrible thing that the media and Vice President Harris did that left the United States at risk.
I don't think there's enough screaming right now.
It didn't leave us at risk in the past tense.
It it's not like it left us at risk.
It is currently leaving us at risk for another eighteen days. That's the plan is for us to have an executive ahead of the Armed Forces Commander in chief of the Armed Forces, who may very well be in the throes of dementia. Right. Jim Garrity has a good little piece in National Review talking about this, where he writes he
had this too. Around mid afternoon yesterday, when it became clear that the country had suffered two simultaneous terrorist attacks, people started to notice that the only response from President Joe Biden had been a two paragraph release statement that
he was being quote continually briefed. Finally, in the early evening hours, our squinty, mumbling president read off a teleprompter for four minutes, and after pledging we will keep you fully contemporaneously informed, immediately just turned around and walked away without answering a single question, which is a classic Biden move. We'll keep you informed, say a shuffle shuffle, shuffle shuffle. We are still at risk. We are at imminent risk. Here it just drives me insane. Jeff Blaar writes for
National Review. Had this was anyone reassured by that speech? Did it alleviate anyone's unease that the sitting president of the United States is a half functional, quasi vegetative person At this point, I'm also here to ask why we as Americans have become so cavalier about the fact that tolerating a president who is permanently mentally incapacitated invites crises like these nineteen days now today, eighteen days yet remain until the animate shell of Joe Biden formally departs from
the presidency. Pray for peace and hold your breath until then. Perfectly well stated, I just don't understand. I don't understand how they got away with it. I don't understand how conservatives didn't yell and scream about this more than anything else starting in June. You should have had the Speaker of the House, the Senate. You should have had Donald Trump the speaker House Senate minority leader every single day saying, Kamala, if Joe Biden is not physically fit mentally fit to
run for president, he shouldn't be president. Kamala Harris needs to invoke the twenty fifth Amendment and remove Kamala Harris and the president's cabinet need to invoke the twenty fifth Amendment and remove him from office. So the twenty fifth Amendment it allows for the president to be declared unable
to serve in the office. It says in section four whenever the Vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments, which means that the head cabinet officials, the secretaries of you know, State Defense, the Attorney General, et cetera, transmit to the President pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. They're written declaration that the president is unable
to discharge the powers and duties of his office. The vice president shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office's acting president.
And that's the This is.
Going to be the massive state you know, Biden's incapacity in doddering, old manness will be part of his legacy for the rest of history.
I think.
I think it has to be part of Kamala Harris's legacy as vice president that she let this continue. She and the other members of the president's cabinet if they realized he can't do it, that he is not up for the job. And clearly they came to that realization, or at least major Democrats came to this realization. Maybe it was just Nancy Pelosi coming to this realization that Biden is too old, too dodding to run for president. If he's not capable of running for president, then clearly
he's not capable of being president. Being president's much harder. The twenty fifth Amendment was there, and I never understood. I never thought that it ever made sense that they could remove Biden from office without that They sorry that they could remove him from the campaign without also removing him from office. It just never made sense. If he's too feeble minded to have a debate with Donald Trump, then by god, how the hell is he going to
handle a terrorist attack? How the hell is he going to handle I don't know, a Russian strike on an American military base, an Iranian strike on an American military base in the Middle East, a North Korean nuclear attack, god forbid, China invading Taiwan, Russia invading Ukraine. We saw, you know that that happened. How is he going to
be able to handle it? Clearly he can't. I mean, and now we've got all these news reports, all these journals are dumping out their notebooks of all these things that they collected over the course of four years.
There was this huge story, I think it was two weeks ago in.
The Wall Street Journal about oh yeah, Biden had to delay meetings all the time because he just was having a bad day and blah blah blah blah blah. Oh, President Biden has good days and bad days. Well, if he has good days and bad days, he can't be president. Sorry, No, unacceptable, And there's been more acceptance on the right of saying like, this is the most shameful scandal of the whole Biden presidency.
Was a multi level scandal.
It's a media scandal, it's a Biden himself scandal, it's a Biden's family scandal. It's a Vice President Harris scandal, it's a Biden cabinet scandal. It's everybody who should have known or who should have rang the alarm bell and didn't. People are more willing to admit that this was a horrible scannal and people are just kind of like, ah, Trump will be president in eighteen days. I don't think eighteen days is a long time. A lot of bad
stuff could happen in eighteen days. I guess I've just never understood why Trump, why immediately, starting in June, why Republicans didn't just immediately say Biden needs to step down now for the sake of for the good of the country. We cannot have a senile person as the commander in chief. And I think the only reason why Harris didn't initiate the twenty fifth Amendment was because some deal was hatched. I want to talk about what that deal likely was.
That's next done the John Girardi Show. Why didn't Kamala Harris in invoke the twenty fifth Amendment? Why didn't she get the ball rolling to invoke the twenty fifth Amendment to remove Joe Biden from office in June of twenty twenty four, when the mask came off and everyone in America saw that the president wasn't really fit for his job,
the Democrats somehow pulled off without any further question. And I really think Republicans should have hammered this a lot more between Trump, If not Trump, then Mike Johnson as Speaker of the House and someone who's, you know, within the presidential chain of succession. There should have been more hammering on the idea of if President Biden can't run for president, if he's not physically, mentally whatever ready to run for president, he can't be the president and he
needs to step down. And if he doesn't step down, the vice president and the cabinet need to remove him via the twenty fifth Amendment process.
So why didn't that happen. Why didn't Harris do that. I think there was some deal struck.
Biden only agreed to step down, I think under certain conditions or with certain threats slash bribes that were made to him via in the person of Nancy Pelosi as the representative of the donors. I think Pelosi basically said to him, listen, you're gonna step down. If you don't step down, none of the donors are gonna give a red cent to your presidential library. We're all going to absolutely trash you. You're gonna lose by thirty points. It's gonna be bad. If you just step down, we'll fund
your presidential library. We'll do this, will be nice to you. Blah blah blah, blah blah blah blah. And he said, well, I'm not stepping down from presidency. I'll step out of the race, but you try to twenty fifth Amendment me, I'm gonna drag all of you down with me. I
bet something like that happened. Maybe it wasn't explicitly said, but it was understood because Biden could have I mean Biden could have wrecked the whole Heck, you could argue Biden did wreck the whole thing for Harris with the whole garbage common the only garbage is all of Donald Trump's supporters.
Then Trump rides in the garbage truck, and then he wins Pennsylvania by you know, three points.
I mean, I don't I suspect the only reason the twenty fifth Amendment wasn't invoked against Biden was because some kind of political deal was hatched where the good of the country, the national security of the country, the ability of the commander in chief of the armed forces to be able to respond in a quick, clear headed manner, and not to have the commander in chief of the Armed forces be an old man in the throes of dementia. None of that was considered. And that's maybe the chief
scandal of the whole Biden era. That'll do it, John Gerardi Show, See you next time on Power Talk