You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Tucker Carlson’ tag.

Shortly after Joe Biden’s inauguration, Fox News posted two interesting videos.

The first was one I never thought I would see. In fact, I hadn’t even imagined it.

Laura Ingraham managed to get an interview with Glenn Greenwald, formerly of The Intercept, which he co-founded. Not so long ago, the publication told him to take a hike. They did not like that he opposed ‘their’ editorial line. Greenwald, although hardly a conservative, questioned current leftist narratives.

Glenn Greenwald is not a fan of Donald Trump, but even he can see that Big Media have clearly overstepped their bounds.

Laura Ingraham begins the segment with three minutes of Inauguration Day coverage contrasting 2021’s with 2017’s. Even Greenwald says he could barely stomach it:

He said that the media react in three ways: a) basic whining, b) complaining that the public can see through media lies and c) downright censorship.

Greenwald said that the public’s

lack of trust will continue to worsen, undoubtedly.

Ingraham asked about the militarisation of Washington, DC. Greenwald posited that the media had to create a story that invoked fear — domestic terrorism — because talking about Joe Biden would have been too dull.

Ultimately, he said that the media want the people to be subservient to the elites and that is why they are

spinning these stories.

He also said that the Democrats want to bring in a

new War on Terror bill.

It would deal with what is perceived to be domestic terrorism:

all designed to entrench powers in their hands that we would otherwise agree they should never have.

Too true.

Tucker Carlson also discussed this on his show around the same time:

Glenn Greenwald said that Adam Schiff (D-California) has been trying to bring in a domestic terrorist threat bill since 2019.

Tucker Carlson introduced another Democrat legislator with the same intent in mind. His name is Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Illinois). No one outside of his constituency or state has ever heard of Brad Schneider. Tucker wonders who put Brad Schneider in charge of the First Amendment.

Tucker’s video goes on with video clips of two other legislators who want to restrict the right to free speech and freedom of assembly, because Americans doing so — Americans with conservative values — are ‘harming’ other Americans.

Unbelievable.

Both videos are worth your time: 13 minutes in total.

Please watch and circulate.

Dems and their water carriers in the media do not have the Constitution in mind with these proposed laws.

Tucker, in particular, makes a valid and impassioned defence of the First Amendment. He read history at university, so he’s not a ‘media studies’ kind of journalist.

America has always been the freest country in the world.

May the Great Republic always be so. May these censors and charlatans cease and desist from removing fundamental American rights from the people.

I hope that everyone who could have helped former President Trump to set the election fraud straight is happy.

That includes Mike Pence and the Supreme Court.

Oh, my apologies. They do not care one jot for ordinary Americans. So, everything’s okay.

I didn’t think it was possible for the greatest nation in the world to go down the tubes so quickly.

Yet, that is where America is headed at breakneck speed.

Inauguration Day

YouTube viewers did not care about the inauguration on Wednesday, January 20. In fact, they registered their displeasure (H/T patriots.win, formerly thedonald.win):

Not many attended:

Freshman congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) observed:

By Friday, she filed articles of impeachment against him:

Tucker Carlson studied Biden’s inaugural speech:

On the one hand, he notes, Biden spoke of ‘unity’. On the other hand, he also spoke of a new ‘war’ on domestic extremism, which encompasses white supremacy. Tucker says that on the face of it, that’s great, until one drills down to see what it really means. He spoke of his own show, which started only a few years ago. Six months after it began, Tucker Carlson Tonight was labelled a white supremacist broadcast. Tucker and his young staffers were shocked. Fortunately, the furore died down and it went on to become one of Fox News’s best rated shows. Tucker concludes that it has to do with a belief in God, our Creator, who loves all of us equally, regardless of our race, creed or colour. By contrast, Tucker pointed out that Stalin and Mao Tse-Tung were atheists. People who believed in God were targeted under their regimes. Believers in God could be targets under the Biden administration for believing that we are all created equal.

The Conservative Woman featured Tucker’s video and commented:

IT WAS fitting, as more than one commentator has pointed out, that the only people at the Biden inauguration yesterday were politicians, journalists, rich donors and the Hollywood elite. The spectacle of the Clintons, Bushes and Obamas congratulating the new President spelt out two things:

A return to the swamp.

The President of which is a sick man, as everyone knows but no one is saying.

Except for Tucker Carlson.

Equally worrying in his important monologue is that the US now has a party in power ‘that is demonising half the country’.

After the inauguration, Biden wasted no time in signing a coronavirus mask mandate on federal lands.

Later, he and his family went to the Lincoln Memorial to remember those who have died from coronavirus. Note, no masks and no social distancing:

That night, there were fireworks:

The Bidens held a party:

That day, rioting broke out in some American cities. Those involved were not Trump supporters, but the usual anarchists. To Biden, they were an ‘idea’ during the campaign. Freshman congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) remembers:

In New York City, they attacked the Democratic National Committee office:

Portland demonstrators made it clear they did not like Biden:

The next day

On Thursday, January 21, Biden signed his first executive orders at a press conference. If true, shocking, but it does sound as if Biden is saying he doesn’t know what he’s signing:

More on the EOs below.

This is the sort of hardline questioning one can expect in the new administration:

Hundreds of comments followed the following video — all direct quotes from Biden during his 48-year political career and the campaign. Unfortunately, they are now unavailable as comments have been turned off. I remember when a court forbade former President Trump from blocking people replying to his tweets because he was a public figure. Hmm:

Biden was unimpressed with the AP’s Zeke Miller who asked about something other than Biden’s favourite flavour of ice cream. Biden short circuited the press conference then and there:

Kamala Harris was taken aback. Her:

body language was surprising. She looked almost frightened of Joe. Like a wife who walks on eggshells around her husband. The old bastard won’t relinquish power as easily as they thought.

Earlier, he made his support for Dr Fauci clear. Less clear was Biden’s own position. He still thought he was on the campaign trail:

Fauci’s line hasn’t changed:

This was interesting:

And did Fauci really say the following? I haven’t been able to find an original source, but it sounds plausible:

I TOOK NO PLEASURE IN CONTRADICTING TRUMP WHEN HE WAS IN OFFICE, NOR DO I TAKE PLEASURE CONTRADICTING MY PREVIOUS DECISIONS NOW THAT BIDEN IS IN OFFICE

Unbelievably, Fauci has worked in the same post for 37 years. Good grief:

Speaking of coronavirus, Biden’s press secretary quickly batted away a question from a reporter asking why the Bidens were not wearing masks when they commemorated the COVID dead at the Lincoln Memorial, despite his mask mandate on federal lands.

She didn’t care:

Coronavirus rules do not apply to the Bidens. They apply to YOU.

Also, hydroxychloroquine is suddenly okay. Remember when former President Trump recommended it last year?

Executive orders

Not surprisingly, Biden is quickly undoing former President Trump’s excellent and careful work for the American people:

A conservative British educator and political advisor, Calvin Robinson, agrees. He also criticised Biden’s call for unity, which, he says, will end with more division. You can see his concise talkRADIO interview below:

As Biden pledged during the campaign — whether he remembers it or not — he will be ending fracking and the Keystone XL pipeline:

It is hard to disagree with the next two tweets:

Juanita Broaddrick, who knew Bill Clinton during his time as Arkansas governor, is one of Trump’s biggest fans. She also predicts more bad news from the Biden administration:

It looks as if Biden fancies an international conflict, something happily missing from the Trump years:

Oh, yes, Jack, we are paying attention.

We also noticed:

Tucker Carlson has a superb analysis of those two measures and says flatly that they do not benefit Americans:

Then, there is the Paris Agreement. Trump pulled out of it and Biden has now signed back on.

Freshman congresswoman Lauren Boebert (R-Colorado) tweeted:

She believes that Biden wants to rule rather than work with the House and the Senate:

Wow, this is unbelievable:

Conclusion

I’ll end with this:

For once, words fail me.

Please pray for the people of the United States and the future of the Great Republic, partially restored by President Trump.

Somehow, a majority of the world’s population — and 99% of the media-political class — find it entirely believable that Russians interfered in the 2016 presidential election but equally incredulous that election fraud could have taken place in 2020.

Why that is I do not know.

All I can say is that the vitriol heaped upon President Trump after his huge rally in Washington DC on Wednesday, January 6, 2021 was meant equally for his supporters: Deplorables, Irredeemables, as Hillary Clinton labelled them four and a half years ago.

Last Friday, most of the world rejoiced as the American president was banned permanently from Twitter as well as all the other social media on which he had a presence.

Trump has been universally accused of inciting violence, when his final tweets — which Twitter deleted on Wednesday — urged his base to remain peaceful and to return home.

Twitter said they deleted those so that he would not foment further violence. Okay, sure.

It never occurred to Trump loathers that the invasion of the Capitol building was an infiltration of Trump supporters by what we in Europe would call a ‘bloc’, intended to cause mayhem and destruction. We know they exist, because they disrupt peaceful demonstrations here, most notably those of the ‘yellow jackets’, France’s gilets jaunes.

Instead of offering more of my own opinions on the matter, I am borrowing from other sources.

A comment on one of Guido Fawkes’s articles describes concisely what took place last Wednesday. Hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters gathered in the US capital. Unfortunately, Guido’s comment system has no permalinks, but here is the comment, which begins with a complaint against a conservative pundit, Daniel Hannan (emphases mine):

Very disappointed in Daniel Hannan accusing POTUS Donald Trump of treason in the Telegraph .

Trump was not responsible for the mayhem at the US Capitol building. He called for a peaceful demonstration demanding free and fair elections and told people to go home when things got out of hand.

Utah BLM activist John Sullivan was filmed inside the Capitol building encouraging others and persuading the police to leave their posts. Before entering the building he is heard saying ” Lets burn this ****** down “ He organised an Antifa protest near the US Capitol on Wed 6th January and tweeted about BLM buses in DC. He is known for taking part in riots , making threats of violence and criminal mischief and took part in a riot which resulted in the shooting of a motorist ..

Police arrested him on Friday. He was subsequently released. UPDATE — January 14: Gateway Pundit posted a video of Sullivan — Jayden X — bragging he had disguised himself as a Trump supporter on January 6; he was arrested in Utah on January 14, and Gateway Pundit has a photo of his mug shot, courtesy of Tooele County Sheriff’s Office.

Here is the rest of the comment:

It was inevitable that the Democrats would use their Antifa and BLM people to infiltrate the Trump protest and cause trouble for which the Trump supporters would be blamed. They hated Trump because he stated openly that he intended to expose the corruption within government and ‘ drain the swamp’. Unfortunately the corruption was far deeper than even he realised.

This was one of Trump’s final tweets, which Twitter quickly suppressed:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErFdZKRVEAEUNKS?format=jpg&name=900x900

It is most unfortunate that, despite hundreds of affidavits and video evidence showing election interference and fraud, the president of the United States was unable to get legal ‘standing’ in his own re-election. The Supreme Court had backed away weeks earlier.

On Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence backed away, rewarded later with an elbow bump and a commemorative coin from Nancy Pelosi. Only a handful of Republican legislators objected to the Electoral College vote tally in the disputed states.

Yes, it’s so much easier to appease the Democrats than fight for the truth.

The Democrats enjoy protests, just not truly largely peaceful ones by Trump supporters. The only trouble was at the Capitol.

Last summer’s fiery, but ‘mostly peaceful’, protests resulted in a new plaza in Washington, DC: B L M Plaza.

Last week’s rally resulted in universal condemnation by the world’s main leaders, including Boris Johnson, who called it ‘completely wrong’ (see around the 29-minute mark here).

Our Speaker of the House, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, a Labour MP, sent an empathetic letter to his US counterpart, Nancy Pelosi:

It reads as follows (H/T Guido Fawkes):

Dear Nancy

I just wanted to express my shock at last night’s events in the Capitol, and to offer you my solidarity against such unprovoked violence.

Seeing your office trashed in that way and its occupation by one of the rioters was particularly outrageous. I am just so relieved you were not hurt, although I can only imagine how violated you must feel after having a protester at your desk.

I hope none of your personal effects were damaged, particularly the lovely picture you so proudly showed me of Churchill’s address to the joint session of US Congress in 1941, which was witnessed by your father.

Suffice to say, you are in my thoughts and prayers – and I look forward to welcoming you to the UK later this year.

With warmest wishes

Lindsay
Sir Lindsay Hoyle Speaker of the House of Commons

I hope that everyone will be happy with Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. They did not mind last year’s protests. They want to transform America totally, including renaming military bases.

On January 6, Mark Steyn appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight to discuss the hypocrisy that Democrats display. Kathy Gyngell, editor of Conservative Woman, had a good article on what he had to say, ‘Sensational Mark Steyn: This IS who we are’.

The Capitol building, apparently, is known as the People’s House. I’d always thought that name was reserved for the White House, but what do I know, having been educated in the US so many decades ago?

Steyn said:

Congress has an approval rating that falls somewhere between Isis and child pornographers. Pundits and politicians can wax mawkish about “the people’s house” but you’d be hard-pressed to find one in a thousand citizens who’s ever used those words in a non-contemptuous sense – and most of the other 999 would assume that the phrase referred to some long-term care facility Andrew Cuomo moves the old folks into for his Covid express checkout.

He touched on the hypocrisy when he implied that it’s okay if one group protests but not another:

People are surprised when a tactic that’s proved effective by one group of people, is taken up by another group . . .

People say “this is not who we are”. Have you not turned on the TV since Memorial Day? This is exactly who we are . . .

Nancy Pelosi told us she didn’t care about old statues. Mitch McConnell said he didn’t care about the names of military bases. But suddenly this old building is important now?

Last June, CNN’s Chris Cuomo — New York State governor Andrew Cuomo’s brother — said, when covering the urban protests, ‘Citizens have no duty to check their outrage’.

Tucker Carlson’s editorial on Friday included Chris Cuomo’s soundbite in a review of last summer’s riots, in which innocent people lost their businesses because their premises were set on fire.

Carlson made it clear that he opposes all violent protests but pointed out that last year’s protests were viewed as acceptable yet this year’s — with minor damage and only in the Capitol building — were not. Again, I am sure the Trump supporters were infiltrated.

You’ll see Mark Steyn after Tucker shares his thoughts. Worth watching, as it’s only around six minutes long:

Something to think about.

I’ll have more on this later in the week.

President Trump was correct when he said a few weeks ago that the 2020 election would be:

the election of a lifetime.

It has proven to be just that, with reports of voter fraud on an epic scale as the media called the election for the Biden-Harris ticket.

Meanwhile, Twitter users are barely allowed to question the number of votes. Some users get a fact check with their tweet. Some election tweets cannot be retweeted:

On Monday, November 9, Tucker Carlson said that censorship is not part of a fair and open ‘democracy’ by consent (first video). He also ran through some of what happened in various states as votes were being tabulated (second video):

Even though some world leaders and politicians are congratulating Joe Biden on becoming ‘president-elect’ — as declared by the media — the vote count in some states had not yet been decided or declared:

Developments on November 10 — one week after the election — included the following:

Where did declaring for Biden begin on election night, Tuesday, November 3? With Fox News declaring Arizona for Biden.

What happened last week was voter fraud on an epic scale.

I have more links than I can include below, but here are two more reports from poll watchers in Michigan preceded by a tweet from Wayne Allyn Root on what he heard:

Rudy Giuliani said that Republican poll watchers were being corralled in several states — put in a part of the room too far away to watch what was happening with ballots:

Militaryvotescount.com has several links about the scale of the fraud (see halfway down the page). A few follow:

– In Pennsylvania, 26,000 mail in ballots should have been rejected for irregularities in signatures, the absence of signatures or incorrect ballot completion.

– Also in Pennsylvania — Delaware County — a poll worker fills out ballot papers for an hour.

Investment Watch‘s extensive list of voter fraud from around the United States.

By the way, this is important:

Then there is the question of the voting machines and their software:

ES&S replied to NBC News at the time:

In a letter to NBC News, ES&S said it takes “great care” with its foreign supply chain, including conducting risk assessments and making on-site visits to suppliers to make sure that components “are trusted, tested and free of malware.”

Fraction magic could only do so much. When it had done all it could, that’s when human intervention came in:

US intelligence agencies have a system they use overseas to change election results. It is called Hammer & Scorecard. Gen Michael Flynn’s attorney Sidney Powell alleges that the same system was deployed on the American people last week. She tells Lou Dobbs that it would have been run at a very high level — so, not by poll workers — and said, ‘This is Coup 5.0, Lou’. She added that the Justice Department still wasn’t listening. This was from several days ago:

The Democrats want to change America fundamentally. Here’s Senator Chuck Schumer from New York on Saturday, November 7:

Returning to fraud, the video from the night of Sunday, November 8 with human rights lawyer Leigh Dundas is also worthwhile:

Finally, on Monday, November 9, Attorney General William Barr took notice and authorised the Department of Justice to begin investigating:

Breitbart has a copy of Barr’s memo and a report (emphases mine):

The memo was addressed and signed from Barr to U.S. Attorneys, the assistant attorneys general for the DOJ’s criminal division, civil rights division, the national security division, and the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Christopher Wray …

Barr’s memo comes after 39 House Republicans pressed Barr in a letter on Friday to allow available DOJ resources to look into allegations of voting irregularities across the country in several key battleground states. The Trump campaign has filed a number of lawsuits in some of those states.

Barr said in his memo that, although the states have the primary responsibility to conduct and supervise elections, the DOJ has “an obligation to ensure that federal elections are conducted in such a way that the American people can have full confidence in their electoral process and their government.”

He added that while “most allegations” of purported election misconduct are of such a scale that they would not impact the outcome of an election that their investigation can be deferred, “that is not always the case”

He said inquiries and reviews may be conducted if there are clear and apparently-credible allegations of irregularities that, if true, could potentially impact the outcome of a federal election in an individual state.

“While U.S. Attorneys maintain their inherent authority to conduct inquiries and investigations as they deem appropriate, it will likely be prudent to commence any election-related matters as a preliminary inquiry, so as to assess whether available evidence warrants further investigative steps,” he said …

He noted that his authorization of investigations should not be taken as an indication that the DOJ has concluded that voting irregularities have impacted the outcome of the election, but to ensure trust in the voting process.

Interestingly, the Justice Department official who oversees investigations of voter fraud, Richard Pilger, resigned hours later:

Ed Timperlake, a retired Marine, former congressional staffer and author on politics in DC, wrote an article for American Thinker, ‘The tide is already turning for President Trump’, which concludes:

As interviews are conducted in the field and hard evidence accumulated with federal prosecutors building cases and the need for a “Rocket Docket” directly to the Supreme Court, I suspect the conspiracy will crumble as the minions and mid-level political miscreants scurry for legal safe haven. It is simple: As the DHS team chases illegal computer voting “trons,” many of those in criminal legal trouble may see an opportunity to get out of jail free by singing to the feds.

Essentially, “the computer ate my homework” defense, with the press calling it a “computer glitch,” will collapse, and then significant votes may swing back to the correct column.

Sadly, if it takes walking a few conspirators to identify and correct many machine-directed mis-votes, so be it.

President Trump will eventually win. Just look at this early headline at a very local level in the key battleground state of Michigan.

Soon many “computer errors,” I suspect, will be corrected.

However, those election-thief conspirators that took the analog route by corrupting hard-copy ballots, by either throwing away Trump votes and/or adding illegal Biden votes, well, they can become cooperating witnesses. Or else too bad for them because I hope they enjoy their stay at a “Club Fed” and living with a lifelong felony conviction in the thereafter.

This is what needs to happen:

Some states are joining in pursuing fraudulent voting:

President Trump remains confident:

For those able to attend, there will be a MAGA march in Washington, DC on Saturday, November 14:

Those interested can register here.

Please continue to pray for President Trump, his family, those who work for him, his legal team and his millions of voters.

On October 24, 2020, Joe Biden said two interesting things about the most recent US presidential elections:

Please play the video, which is only 24 seconds long.

First, he thanked everyone for putting together:

the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.

Secondly, he began by referring to his and Obama’s two elections:

and you guys did it for our — President Obama’s — administration before this …

Biden’s whole statement is as follows (emphases mine):

Secondly, we’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for our — President Obama’s — administration before this, we have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.

I thought back to the 2008 election. John McCain was in a good position to stave off the Democrats, then, a week before the election he told a lady at one of his rallies:

Don’t worry, Senator Obama will make a very good president.

I saw that on ITV’s morning news between 5:30 and 6:00 and about spat out my coffee.

So, when he lost, I thought that he threw the election.

In 2012, things were much different. A lot of Americans were leaning towards Mitt Romney. The queues on Election Day that year began early. I watched coverage live on an American network and everything looked brilliant for Romney until around 6 a.m. GMT. Suddenly, the votes flipped in seconds. Obama had clearly won.

I wrote about it at the time, including a number of links to related commentary and news stories:

Final words on the US election — vote flipping and debunking the media

Two short excerpts from that long post follow:

I have read in several places that Obama had no acceptance speech planned. Romney had no concession speech. This opens up the possibility that people behind the scenes had a vote flipping operation put into place. Of course, one name always pops up in the picture, although there are no doubt more who would like to see the United States reduced to serfdom by a bunch of feral neo-Bolsheviks …

To clarify my hypothesis of vote flipping, only a few people in the background could know about it. Otherwise, the secret risked exposure. I do not believe that Obama knew, because he appeared as surprised as Mitt Romney did. This action was done independently of Obama and most of his water carriers, even though they had hoped for this result. I believe that what people saw on the ground with voter irregularity and intimidation was but a small part of the hypothetical vote flipping …

Here we are today, eight years later.

Suddenly, Joe Biden, a man who stayed home most of the time during the campaign, is on track to win the presidency. Most of his rallies attracted a handful of people. The most I ever saw were fewer than a hundred attendees. By contrast, President Trump’s rallies attracted tens of thousands most of the time, depending on local regulations.

By law, poll watchers from both parties — Republican and Democrat — must be present when votes are being counted. Unfortunately, in some cases, Republican watchers have been told to watch from a long distance away or have been denied entry to places where votes are being tabulated. Senator Josh Hawley explains:

President Trump has filed lawsuits in the states where votes are still being counted or the results are in dispute:

Trump is right. Look at the list of states below. So far, all except Georgia have more votes than registered voters:

Trump’s campaign needs additional funds to help fight this apparent fraud:

I am glad to see Senator Lindsey Graham is helping:

Below are snapshots of what has been happening on the ground.

Arizona

Arizona’s results show Biden has won. Hmm.

Arizona voting instructions specify that Sharpie pens should not be used because they can bleed through the ballot paper, thereby rendering that vote invalid. The instructions can be seen in the Gateway Pundit article below.

Gateway Pundit reported on a Steven Crowder discussion whereby some Arizona voters were given Sharpie pens by voting officials, who insisted they use them to mark their ballots (emphasis in the original). The video is ready to play at the designated point:

As the corrupt county officials across Arizona scramble to downplay Sharpiegate, with the help of a complicit media running cover, it appears as though they are being outsmarted by their own ballot instructions. Their own voters’ guides specify “Do NOT use a sharpie type pen as it will bleed through.”

Steven Crowder brought this to light on his live stream yesterday, around the 3 hour, 20 minute, 7 second mark:

Election observers are not being allowed in to do their job:

Trump supporters are not meekly retreating to the background. Arizona is one of the states holding peaceful protests about the vote results:

Here’s the full video:

Michigan

Michigan raised the dead so that they could vote:

Last night, Trump supporters held a peaceful protest in Detroit near the convention centre where the votes were being counted:

Nevada

This is why Trump was suspicious of the US Postal Service. If true, this is really something:

Nevada’s Republican Party chapter noticed an irregularity involving votes by people who had earlier moved out of the state. They have notified US Attorney General Bill Barr:

Pennsylvania

On November 5, Tucker Carlson interviewed a poll worker who was not allowed back in a polling centre to oversee the count on the second day of vote counting. The video begins with Corey Lewandowski (Trump’s first campaign manager from 2016) in Philadelphia. Brian McCafferty is the poll watcher who has video evidence he has submitted to Fox News of what was going on inside the convention centre. He says, ‘You know something’s wrong’:

That day, two days after the election, Philadelphia was allegedly still collecting ballots.

Gateway Pundit picked up on a Trump campaign official’s tweet (emphases in the original):

President Donald Trump’s director of election day operations has posted a video of a suburban Philadelphia post office continuing to collect ballots long after election day.

Trump’s 2020 EDO Director Mike Roman posted the shocking video on Thursday evening, tweeting “a post office in suburban Philly is STILL COLLECTING BALLOTS!”

The same thing is allegedly happening across the state in the city of Erie. James O’Keefe, founder of Project Veritas, posted the story yesterday:

This is interesting:

Hmm:

Trump’s press conference

On Thursday, November 5, major television networks cut Trump’s press conference short — and I am sorry to see Michael DeLauzon’s Twitter account suspended once again:

Here is the president’s press conference in full:

In closing, Twitter has been quick off the mark to announce that, as of January 20, 2021, it will not hesitate to censor Trump’s tweets. They figure he will be out of office.

Gateway Pundit reports:

Twitter has confirmed that President Donald Trump will no longer receive “special protections” beginning on January 20th at 12:01 p.m. if he does not win the election.

The platform has already been censoring the president and his supporters for years, but is now promising even more censorship if he does not fall in line …

Since the polls closed on election night, Twitter has censored eight tweets from the president for “violating the company’s rules.”

I’m shaking my head in frustration. However, I pray that this fraud will finally be brought to light and that someone or something will put an end to it.

Joe Biden has made some interesting statements over the decades.

Just think: he could become the next leader of the free world …

This is my final post on Biden before the election.

A review follows of Joe’s ‘finest moments’ (not).

Before getting to those, however, here is the latest update from Tucker Carlson on the missing documents he spoke of two days ago. This is from Thursday, October 29:

Part of what he said might — or might not — tie in with an article from NBC News:

NBC’s article says, in part:

The document, a 64-page composition that was later disseminated by close associates of President Donald Trump, appears to be the work of a fake “intelligence firm” called Typhoon Investigations, according to researchers and public documents.

The author of the document, a self-identified Swiss security analyst named Martin Aspen, is a fabricated identity, according to analysis by disinformation researchers, who also concluded that Aspen’s profile picture was created with an artificial intelligence face generator.

I haven’t seen anyone cite that report. I’d not heard of it until seeing their tweet.

In any event, President Trump’s campaign communications director tweeted:

Now on to a summary of what Tucker Carlson said in the video above.

Tucker said his show would make public only things that concerned Hunter and Joe, not Hunter alone. He said that they receive information every day about the Bidens that they vet. Most of that information cannot be used on the show.

Tucker said that he and Hunter lived near each other for a time in DC. They knew each other. He said he knew Hunter had problems, so, for that reason, he wasn’t going to make him the target of his reports.

He also had an update on the lost documents. UPS, the courier company in question, sent him the thumb drive that they were on. Tucker’s staff had sent him a thumb drive, not actual documents. Two people saw the thumb drive sealed in the envelope addressed to Tucker. Somehow — and UPS now declare the matter closed — the envelope was opened in NYC, where it was sent, and it seems that an hourly employee opened the envelope and removed the thumb drive.

UPS said that it must have happened in the room where all the packages are processed. They said that the room has no security cameras.

Whoever did it put the drive anonymously on the supervisor’s desk. UPS then returned it to Tucker, with their apologies.

Jesse Watters on media’s cover-up of Biden’s dealings

On Friday, October 30, Jesse Watters hit back over Big Media’s charges that Biden’s dubious dealings are fake news:

Here’s a transcript (H/T to GA/FL) of what he said, speaking first to Juan Williams. ‘Tony’ refers to Tony Bobulinski, one of Hunter Biden’s business associates and retired US Navy officer (emphases mine below, unless stated otherwise):

Jesse Watters: “This claim that the Wall Street Journal debunked this story has been debunked, Juan, first of all.

Second of all, I don’t think you have read the Wall Street Journal, because if you read the article, they did not debunk it, they actually helped to substantiate what they saw.

[…] question for the next week, let’s see if they can do this […]

‘Scuse me Juan, let me just give Peter (Doocy?) some advice, Ask the Vice President (Biden), ‘Hey, Mr. Vice President, Have you ever met Tony?” Let’s see if he can answer that question, ’cause that would settle a lot of things.

You bring up credibility, alright, let’s bring it up. Who do you believe? Do you believe the Naval Officer, who held the highest security clearance, that commanded a nuclear submarine, that has emails and documentation and voice recordings, that went to the FBI under penalty of perjury, and said his story…..or do you believe the political family with a history of plagiarism and shady deal-making, who’s hidden and ran for the hills since this probe, and three of their business partners are in prison.

The deal is very simple – they cooked it up in 2015 while Joe was VP. The Chinese Communists sent 10 Million Dollars to the Biden family. 5 Million of it was an interest free loan, the other 5 Million went to the holding company where Jim Biden held back 10 (%) for the ‘Big Guy.’

So then, Tony meets with the VP twice on this. And then when Tony wants to put in good corporate governance, Joe Biden says ‘no’ – they cut Tony out of the deal and then they smear him as an..a Russian agent when he goes to the FBI.

Then the best part of the story is this – the Communist Chinese guy, who they were doing the deal with? He was under the FBI surveillance because he was a spy.

And then when he got popped by the SDNY for bribery, Hunter Biden represents him for a million dollar fee. And now he’s serving 3 years in jail.

So the Biden family was doing business with Chinese Communist spies who were under FBI surveillance. Boom! – How’s that for a Boom?”

Biden as Obama’s VP

Obama’s birth certificate — and his father’s identity — were scorching hot topics during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Although the annual Gridiron Dinner is supposed to be full of barbed humour, Biden did himself few favours with this joke. WND reported on the 2009 event:

“You know, I never realized just how much power Dick Cheney had until my first day on the job. I walked into my office, and you know how the outgoing president always leaves the incoming president a note in his desk?” he asked rhetorically. “I opened my drawer and Dick Cheney had left me Barack Obama’s birth certificate.”

Lame Cherry, a blogger often read by ex-Democrats during the first Obama-Biden campaign in 2008, stated that Biden knows a lot about Obama. This entry is from February 15, 2010:

… Biden knows very well that Obama is a usurper …

Even then, suspicions brewed about Biden’s health in general compared with Bush Junior’s VP Dick Cheney:

So Obama and Jarrett send out Joe Biden, who has been having this huge knife stuck in his back from the Clinton people who have been busy floating rumors the brain dysfunctioning Biden is about to be dumped from the ticket and Hillary put on as Vice President, to save Barack Obama from another Dick Cheney half time event …

If you did not notice this, Dick Cheney is looking younger, stronger, healthier and more manly than Joe Biden. Joe Biden looks drained of body fluids, like he is hooked up at the geezer home on an IV and never has seen sunlight in 13 years.

Cheney is thriving in this rough and tumble and Obama gets white hair, his staff is fleeing him and Biden looks like he was trying out caskets that morning

Then Biden gets so rattled on NBC that he says Iraq was not worth the cost, which says that Obama and Biden think that genocide should not be stopped on Muslims. Biden’s saying Iraq was not worth the cost means that all of the dead and wounded Americans wasted their sacrifice as their heroic duty was too high of a price to pay for American security.

Essentially:

Joe Biden just said the world would be a better place with Saddam Hussein in it.

Apropos of Dick Cheney, this is what Biden said of him in 2015 (The Daily Caller has more) — note ‘legal parameters’ of being vice president:

Last year, on the campaign trail, he said:

2016 presidential campaign

In 2015, Joe Biden was viewed as a ‘centrist’. This is from an ex-Hillary supporting blog from 2008, HillaryIs44 (long since renamed The Trumpet, in honour of Donald Trump). Emphasis in the original in the quote below:

Bottom line: Hillary’s late, week before the debate move, won’t help her with the Bernie Sanders’ kooks, hurts her with the Biden “centrist” crowd, and the timing aids Barack Obama’s eventually knife in the back treachery against her ...

In May 2016, then-candidate Donald Trump announced doubts about Hillary Clinton at one of his rallies. This Daily Mail report is from May 26 that year:

The Democratic National Committee is considering a plan to re-insert Vice President Joe Biden into the presidential race, Donald Trump said Wednesday in California, a stunning claim on a day when front-runner Hillary Clinton faced new questions about her classified email scandal.

‘I hear they’re gonna actually slip Joe Biden in and he’s going to take Bernie’s place,’ Trump told a rally audience of thousands in Anaheim, California, referring to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.

‘I hear they want to slip him in,’ he repeated. ‘Cause I will say, the system is rigged against Bernie, 100 per cent.’

In the end, Bernie Sanders fared quiet well, thanks to the Democrats. Shortly after dropping out of the race, he and his wife bought another house. A number of his followers ended up voting for Donald Trump, the anti-Establishment nominee.

On August 15, Biden campaigned for Hillary, saying that Donald Trump was not ‘qualified’ to hold the nuclear codes:

On September 22 that year, an Obama White House staffer leaked details of Michelle Obama’s and Joe Biden’s schedules. The Daily Mail carried the story:

The hack also revealed a Power Point detailing the recent trip of Vice President Joe Biden to the Intercontinental Hotel in Cleveland on June 26 of this year.

The detailed report includes how many stairs Biden will be walking up as he arrives at the hotel loading dock and makes his way up to the second floor of the facility …

And even a Hillary Clinton event held in May of this year in Houston is detailed, from who will be meeting the Democratic hopeful to, once again, the number of steps she will walk up and down.

In October 2016, Biden lamely campaigned for Hillary, the Democrat nominee. InfoWars carried one of his quotes from a Hillary rally — I use the term advisedly — in Bristol, Pennsylvania around October 7:

I know some of you, and some of the people you are trying to convince are not crazy about Hillary. I know that. Okay.

I think she has gotten an unfair deal. But the truth of the matter is there is a lot of people — but folks don’t, don’t wake up on November 9 and find out we lost Pennsylvania by 2,000 votes and say, ‘If I only… If I had only taken my neighbor. If I only gone. If I only. If I only.’

And there has been a lot of elections. Remember Al Gore?

In December, Biden delivered Hillary’s post mortem. He told CNN’s Jake Tapper that her campaign had no respect for the working man and woman, many of whom were worrying about where their next paycheck would come from. This is a really good three-minute interview. As we now know, the working man and woman were the basis of Donald Trump’s victory and, we hope, of his re-election this year.

The Trump Years — gearing up for 2020

In September 2017, Newsweek reported that Obama’s ‘inner circle’ was split as to whether Biden should be the 2020 Democrat nominee:

His camp’s loyalties could be split however if Joe Biden decides to run, with many of Obama’s trusted confidantes close to the former vice president, who is said to be considering his options for 2020.

Biden is one of a number of high-profile politicians reportedly mulling a 2020 bid, with 2016 hopeful Bernie Sanders and Senator Elizabeth Warren’s names coming up alongside buzz about Senator Kamala Harris, from California, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, from New York.

In October 2018, he campaigned unsuccessfully against Republican Congressman Andy Barr, who has been serving Kentucky’s 6th District since 2013:

One week later, he managed a small rally for a Democrat candidate in Nevada:

That gave rise to jokes about Biden not being able to fill a phone box:

The Democrats gained the House of Representatives in 2018. When it came time to vote for the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi won, followed by the Republican minority leader Kevin McCarthy. Joe Biden, among several others, managed only one vote:

Border control

In 2014, Biden, as vice president, defended border facilities:

In 2018, with Trump in the White House, Biden railed about illegal migrant children coming in over the southern border of the United States.

On June 28, Vox reported:

Former Vice President Joe Biden released a strongly worded statement on Wednesday afternoon calling the Trump administration’s practice of separating young children from their parents “unconscionable” and “abhorrent.”

“A policy that separates young children from their parents isn’t a ‘deterrent.’ It’s unconscionable,” Biden, who is currently topping the polls as a 2020 presidential candidate, wrote in the statement. “A policy that traumatizes children isn’t a bargaining chip. It’s abhorrent. And a President and an administration that continues this policy isn’t protecting our border and our people. It threatens to make us a pariah in the world.”

And yet, and yet:

The Obama administration also faced harsh criticism for its actions at the time. Obama was sometimes referred to as the “deporter in chief” by immigrant rights groups, which criticized his administration’s removal of more than 2.5 million people with immigration orders between 2009 and 2015. Large numbers of migrants were also detained while waiting for deportation proceedings under his administration.

Trump made the policy clearer, having been made aware of human trafficking with fake parents and offspring. He wants to stop the trafficking.

Last year, on the campaign trail, Biden either made a mistake or the truth came out:

Biden proud to see Europeans and their descendents disappear

On the topic of migration, Biden was happy to see European populations recede. These clips are from 2016. But he also said that ‘in 2017’, Americans of European stock would be ‘an absolute minority in America — fewer than 50% then and on … that’s not a bad thing … it’s a source of our strength’:

The next video has much of the content of the preceding one but includes Biden saying, ‘We have the affirmative task of creating a New World Order’:

He definitely wants to increase immigration well beyond the current annual limit of 1.2m people. I heard one of his 2020 speeches wherein he said that the first thing he would do would be to regularise the status of 11m illegal immigrants in the United States.

Here is another plan of his:

His views on America were equally shocking

On February 16, the Washington Examiner reported:

Speaking on German soil 75 years after the U.S. and its allies prepared for D-Day, Joe Biden described America as “an embarrassment” and its trade policies “self-defeating.”

He does not care about Americans:

In fact, he insults them:

I don’t say this as a defence, but that was to hide his frustration that he was not doing well in the New Hampshire primary:

One month later, he insulted an auto worker in Detroit who dared to ask a question about the Second Amendment:

First Amendment can be abolished

In 1974, two years into his long tenure as a US Senator, he gave the following warning about the First Amendment.

Breitbart has the story:

The current 2020 Democrat frontrunner made the comments to Washingtonian magazine while being interviewed for a profile published in June 1974. Biden, then only 31-years-old, came to regret the interview, as his penchant for gaffes and insensitive remarks—traits defining later portions of his career—heavily colored the piece. At the time, however, Biden appeared eager to discuss his life as the nation’s youngest senator.

“I am proud to be a politician,” Biden told then-Washingtonian writer Kitty Kelley, who authored the profile. “There is no other walk of life which can do more good for mankind than politics. It influences everything that happens to the American people.”

Biden proceeded, according to Kelley, to lean “over his desk to shake his finger at me” while explaining elected officials like himself had the power to “take away” constitutionally protected rights if they saw fit.

“And, whether you like it or not, young lady,” he said. “Us cruddy politicians can take away that First Amendment of yours if we want to.”

Gaffe about women

In 1973, one year before he gave the aforementioned interview to Kitty Kelley, he gave a speech, having just been elected to the Senate. Breitbart has a news clipping with the story:

To illustrate how Nixon tried to handicap Democrats ahead of the 1972 presidential election, Biden tried a football analogy. While explaining, he said women present in the audience would not understand football and that he was led to believe their attendance wasn’t welcome.

“The only analogy that I can really think of, is a football analogy,” he said. “And I apologize to you women in the audience for not being able to think of a more appropriate analogy, but they told me they didn’t want you here anyway.”

“I didn’t expect any women to be here,” Biden added.

Outright lies

Why would someone lie so egregiously?

Physical violence in politics

Last year, Biden made another outrageous statement about physical violence against senators and in a revolution.

Given this year’s riots, one wonders if activists got the idea partly from this:

Biden on crime

Hmm. If Biden says politicians can get rid of the First Amendment, imagine what he would be like on crime.

This video from 1992 will give an indication:

Years later, he admitted he was wrong about drug sentencing:

That crime bill did irreparable harm to black Americans, who were disproportionately locked up for years for minor offences.

President Trump put an end to it:

Biden on healthcare

Be afraid, be very afraid. Biden’s channelling one of Obama’s biggest untruths about healthcare:

Good grief — words fail me:

Race relations

The most interesting — and worrying — aspect of Joe Biden’s political career, however, concerns race relations.

Biden says ‘what is good for the Negro’ — 1973

Breitbart reported that the quotes came from a 2019 investigative book into Democrats:

The racially insensitive comments from Biden, a white man from Delaware who was at the time newly elected to the U.S. Senate, resurfaced, thanks to a new book from leftist journalist Ryan Grim of the Intercept. The book, We’ve Got People: From Jesse Jackson to AOC, the End of Big Money and the Rise of a Movement, has already landed a few other major blows, including on former President Barack Obama, regarding his “don’t ask, don’t tell” repeal legacy, but this revelation about Biden’s torrid history with race–as told from the left–is particularly damning for the current Democrat 2020 presidential primary front runner …

“Joe Biden, elected to the Senate in 1972, was a leading voice in the attempt to win back white working-class voters by showing them how tough Democrats could be against affirmative [action], school integration, and other priorities of the civil rights movement,” Grim writes …

“In 1973, during a speech at the City Club in Cleveland, Biden told an audience that the Nixon-era resurgence of Republicans in the South was a good thing,” Grim writes:

“I think the two-party system,” he said, “although my Democratic colleagues won’t like my saying this, is good for the South and good for the Negro, good for the black in the South. Other than the fact that [southern Senators] still call me boy, I think they’ve changed their mind a little bit.”

School busing in the 1970s

In the 1970s, some of the northern states decided to implement a policy whereby minority students were bused into white majority schools miles away. In exchange, white students were bused in to minority schools.

It was a difficult — and deeply contentious — conundrum, with equally valid pros and cons on either side of the debate.

The knottiest problems depended on who was supporting what side of the debate.

Those favouring more integration did not want the disadvantage of children enduring one-hour-plus bus rides.

Those opposed to forced busing did not want segregationists’ endorsements. Nor did they want the long bus rides.

The most important objection, though, was that it could have been federally mandated, which was what Joe Biden — rightly, in my opinion — opposed.

It was a highly contentious time in modern American history when both sides wanted an equitable outcome, the objective being to level up and do away with social and educational inequalities.

The subject resurfaced in one of the 2019 Democrat candidate debates. On June 28, 2019, CNN reported a conflict between Biden and Kamala Harris, also running for the Dem nomination, now his running mate:

… he rarely discusses one of the earliest — and most controversial — issues he championed in the Senate: his fight against busing to desegregate schools. His record on the issue was at the center of the most dramatic moment of the Democratic presidential debate on Thursday, when Sen. Kamala Harris confronted him about his position, and how it impacted a little girl in California.

“That little girl was me,” Harris said. “So I will tell you that on this subject, it cannot be an intellectual debate among Democrats. We have to take it seriously. We have to act swiftly.”

When pushed by Harris on whether he was wrong to oppose busing, Biden shot back, “I did not oppose busing in America. What I opposed is busing ordered by the Department of Education, that’s what I opposed.”

Biden opposed busing more than four decades ago as a battle raged across the country — and in Congress — over sending white students to majority-black schools and black students to majority-white schools often far away from their own neighborhoods. Biden forcefully opposed the government’s role in trying to integrate schools, saying he favored desegregation, but believed busing did not achieve equal opportunity.

In a series of never-before-published letters from Biden, which were reviewed by CNN, the strength of his opposition to busing comes into sharper focus, particularly how he followed the lead of — and sought support from — some of the Senate’s most fervent segregationists.

“My bill strikes at the heart of the injustice of court-ordered busing. It prohibits the federal courts from disrupting our educational system in the name of the constitution where there is no evidence that the governmental officials intended to discriminate,” Biden wrote to fellow senators on March 25, 1977. “I believe there is a growing sentiment in the Congress to curb unnecessary busing.”

Biden, who at the time was 34 and serving his first term in the Senate, repeatedly asked for — and received — the support of Sen. James Eastland, a Mississippi Democrat and chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a leading symbol of Southern resistance to desegregation. Eastland frequently spoke of blacks as “an inferior race.”

“Dear Mr. Chairman,” Biden wrote on June 30, 1977. “I want you to know that I very much appreciate your help during this week’s committee meeting in attempting to bring my anti-busing legislation to a vote.”

I thought that busing had been abolished decades ago, but apparently not, at least in Delaware:

Paying reparations

Despite what Biden says today, this is what he had to say about paying reparations in 1975:

Lying about participating in civil rights marches

In 1987, in an unsuccessful bid for the presidential nomination, Biden claimed to have participated in civil rights marches.

In 2019, Breitbart reported on a New York Times story uncovering the untruth:

The New York Times‘ Matt Flegenheimer, in a Monday report, resurfaced the 1987 lie by Biden before an audience in New Hampshire, where he was campaigning for the Democrat nomination for president for the first time in his long political career.

“When I marched in the civil rights movement, I did not march with a 12-point program,” Biden said in New Hampshire in February 1987, according to the Times. “I marched with tens of thousands of others to change attitudes. And we changed attitudes”

And when Biden made that false claim that he had marched in the Civil Rights Movement when in fact he had not done any such marching, his aides cringed, per the Times’ Flegenheimer.

“More than once, advisers had gently reminded Mr. Biden of the problem with this formulation: He had not actually marched during the civil rights movement,” Flegenheimer wrote. “And more than once, Mr. Biden assured them he understood — and kept telling the story anyway.”

A few months later, in September 1987, Flegenheimer writes that Biden’s lies and “recklessness as a candidate” had finally “caught up with him.”

He was accused of plagiarizing in campaign speeches,” Flegenheimer wrote. “He had inflated his academic record. Reporters began calling out his exaggerated youth activism.”

On Capitol Hill, Flegenheimer writes, Biden called a “stop-the-bleeding news conference” at which he “vowed that day to fight on.”

“I’ve done some dumb things,” Biden said at that presser. “And I’ll do dumb things again.”

Despite his vow to fight through the mess and keep campaigning for the Democrat nomination for president, Flegenheimer writes, Biden “quit the race within a week.”

Praising segregationist senators

In 1988, he praised the segregationist US Senator John Stennis of Mississippi:

In 1997, he gave a speech lauding Strom Thurmond:

More recent quotes — equally terrible

One wonders if the Democrats were reluctant for Joe to run based on the following comments he made about Indians, Obama and blacks between 2006 and 2012, while having a go at President Trump in 2018:

This one is from 2019:

President Trump rightly called him out on the remark:

Biden says segregationists easier to work with

In case anyone thinks all the above is old news, on June 19, 2019, Biden defended segregationist senators in a campaign speech and said they were easier to work with. Wow.

CNN had the story. I’ve inserted an explanatory note:

Former Vice President Joe Biden pointed Tuesday evening to two segregationist senators as examples of colleagues he could work with during an era where “at least there was some civility” in the Senate …

During a fundraising event in New York, the Democratic presidential candidate recounted being a member of the Senate in the 1970s with southern Democrats who opposed civil rights and desegregation. He specifically named Mississippi Sen. James Eastland [see section on school busing above] and Georgia Sen. Herman Talmadge, who Biden called “one of the meanest guys I ever knew.”

“I was in a caucus with James O. Eastland. He never called me ‘boy,’ he always called me ‘son,’ ” Biden told donors.

“Well guess what? At least there was some civility. We got things done,” Biden said. “We didn’t agree on much of anything. We got things done. We got it finished.”

“But today, you look at the other side and you’re the enemy. Not the opposition, the enemy. We don’t talk to each other anymore,” he said.

Biden’s remarks drew sharp rebukes on Wednesday morning from his rivals for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Regardless of Biden’s talk about ‘the other side’, those men were also Democrats:

Sen. Cory Booker, one of his rivals, demanded an apology for Biden’s praise of segregationists:

Campaign aides gave up:

Tells black man he ‘isn’t black’

Earlier this year, black Americans rightly took issue when Biden insulted a black voter. No doubt the man is now a Trump supporter.

Here are a few reactions:

Biden did not apologise:

Plagiarised climate change plan

Just as Biden plagiarised his speeches in 1987 (see above), he also plagiarised his 2020 climate change plan:

Trump on Biden

Here’s President Trump on Joe Biden:

Closing thought

How can anyone vote for a candidate who says this?

Or this?

Or this?

It is hard to understand why someone who had a political career spanning four decades — from the Senate to the White House — could not have effected the change of which he speaks on the campaign trail. He had his chance and did nothing. Why would he change the habits of a lifetime should he be elected?

This is the truth of the matter — should Joe win, he will not be leading the country:

Let’s hope that Joe Biden has many pleasant days ahead in Delaware — away from politics.

———————————————————————————————–

N.B.: Lectionary readings will appear tomorrow. Forbidden Bible Verses will appear on Tuesday.

My final post on Joe Biden pre-election is taking longer than expected.

I plan to post it tomorrow, all being well.

The post below involves the left-wing media and recent Biden news stories.

————————————————-

Glenn Greenwald is an excellent investigative journalist.

Last week, he resigned from The Intercept, a media outlet he co-founded in 2014.

Both Greenwald and another investigative journalist, Matt Taibbi, who is a contributing editor for Rolling Stone, explain why.

Tucker Carlson interviewed Greenwald on Thursday, October 29, 2020:

Greenwald told Tucker that The Intercept was founded to avoid the usual journalistic censorship that occurs in mainstream media.

Yet, his editors told him that they could not publish an article of his about Joe and Hunter Biden’s business dealings because they doubted the veracity of the information.

Greenwald noted that, over the past few years, there has been a close alliance among US intelligence agencies, the Democrats, the media and Silicon Valley.

He pointed out that intelligence agencies were supposed to lie to foreign enemies, not the American people. Yet, they have been seen time and time again twisting the truth to Americans.

I’ll have more on Greenwald’s censored article below.

Matt Taibbi wrote a fascinating article explaining the circumstances behind Greenwald’s resignation, excerpted below, emphases mine — except where noted otherwise:

He begins with this:

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Glenn Greenwald quit his job this morning. In a bizarre, ironic, and disturbing commentary on trends in modern media, the celebrated reporter was forced to resign after writing a story criticizing both the Biden campaign and intelligence community — only to have it spiked by the editors of The Intercept, the news outlet he co-founded six years ago with the aim of preventing pretty much this exact situation.

“The irony,” Greenwald says, “is that a media outlet I co-founded, and which was built on my name and my accomplishments, with the purpose of guaranteeing editorial independence, is now censoring me in the most egregious way — about the leading presidential candidate, a week before the election.”

It was clear from the beginning that his editor was in the tank for the Democrats and for Joe Biden:

In a nutshell, the fatal sequence of events went as follows:

Greenwald, after commenting pointedly about the reaction by press and Democratic Party officials to the New York Post story, reached out to Intercept editor Betsy Reed to float the idea of writing on the subject.

The first hint of trouble came when Reed suggested that yes, it might be a story, if proven correct, but “even if it did represent something untoward about Biden,” that would “represent a tiny fraction of the sleaze and lies Trump and his cronies are oozing in every day.”

When Greenwald retorted that deciding not to report on one politician’s scandals because those of another politician are deemed worse is a “corrupt calculus” for reporters, Reed expressed concern. Based on this, on his comments on Twitter, and other factors, she worried that “we are headed for a conflict over the editing of this piece.”

Greenwald insisted he wasn’t planning an overwhelming amount of coverage but wanted to do a single article, reviewing the available facts and perhaps asking the Biden campaign to comment on the veracity of the Post story. Reed agreed that he should write a draft, then they could “see where we are.”

‘See where we are’ does not bode well coming from an editor:

An aside: when reporters and editors interact, they speak between the lines. If an editor only ever suggests or assigns stories from a certain angle, you’re being told they don’t particularly want the other angle. If your editor has lots of hypothetical concerns at the start, he or she probably won’t be upset if you choose a different topic. Finally, when an editor lays out “suggestions” about things that might “help” a piece “be even stronger,” it’s a signal both parties understand about what elements have to be put in before the editor will send the thing through.

Reed assigned Greenwald an editor for his article — and more:

Peter Maass would edit, but Reed also noted that there was a lot of “in-house knowledge” they could all “tap into.”

By “in-house knowledge,” she meant the work of Robert Mackey and Jim Risen, two Intercept reporters with whom Greenwald clashed in the past. Risen had already loudly denounced the Post story not only as conspiracy theory, but foreign disinformation. Essentially, Reed was telling Greenwald his piece would be quasi-edited by people with whom he’d had major public disagreements about Russia-related issues going back years

“The only reason people are getting interested in and ready to scrutinize what I write is because everyone is afraid of being accused of having published something harmful to Biden,” Greenwald told them. “That’s the reality.”

Taibbi posted a screenshot of an exchange between Reed and Greenwald with that quote.

US intelligence agencies and the media have deemed what has been uncovered to date with regard to the Bidens is Russian disinformation and is unverifiable.

Peter Maass and Greenwald locked horns:

Maass suggested Greenwald cut the piece and stick to a narrower essay about whether or not the press was directly asking Biden enough questions. Another irony: Greenwald was trying to criticize the rush to describe the Post story as disinformation, and Maass was essentially asking that he address the “disinformation issue,” even though the material’s veracity had not been denied, and the editors themselves didn’t seem to believe the laptop material was fake. Reed at one point wrote to Greenwald, “I agree with you that [the emails] appear to be mostly or entirely genuine, though authentication has been difficult in part because of the Biden camp’s refusal to address questions about authenticity.”

Greenwald, by then furious, noted that neither Maass nor Reed had identified a factual inaccuracy in the article, but rather disagreed with its conclusions and his assessments of the facts — his “positions,” rather than his information.

Greenwald resigned. The Intercept reacted negatively:

The Intercept quickly put out an icy statement describing him as a “grown person throwing a tantrum,” adding that Greenwald was laboring under the assumption that “anyone who presumes to edit him is a censor.”

They piled more blame on him:

“It is Glenn who has strayed from his original journalistic roots, not the Intercept.” Mourning the reporter he “used to be,” the Intercept editors defined the value that Glenn supposedly lost sight of as “an investigative mission… that involved a collaborative process.” In other words, absolute editorial freedom — but by group consent.

They also made him out to be a Trump apologist, which he is not:

They then pulled out the go-to rhetorical device of media hall monitors in the Trump era, accusing him of being a secret Trump partisan, trying to “recycle… the Trump campaign’s… dubious claims, and launder them as journalism.”

I don’t think he supports either Trump or Biden, even though he leans left-of-centre. His main focus is truthful, investigative journalism.

Taibbi tells us how The Intercept was founded:

On February 10th, 2014, Greenwald, documentarian Laura Poitras, and fellow reporter Jeremy Scahill announced the creation of an aggressive new investigative outlet, backed by the deep pockets of eBay founder and billionaire Pierre Omidyar.

It was big news in the media world. Greenwald and Poitras had been working on one of the great scoops in recent times, helping former NSA contractor and whistleblower Edward Snowden come forward about a secret, illegal mass surveillance program conducted by the U.S. government. After bringing the story to light, Snowden was forced into exile, and Greenwald in particular became the subject of denunciations by colleagues and politicians alike, with some prominent officials openly calling for his prosecution and jailing.

The Intercept was designed specifically to be a place where journalists would be protected from such intimidation and editorial interference.

At that time, The Intercept‘s editorial policy was as follows (emphasis in the original):

The editorial independence of our journalists will be guaranteed… Our journalists will be not only permitted, but encouraged, to pursue stories without regard to whom they might alienate.

Taibbi explains:

Greenwald co-founded the Intercept with this exact scenario in mind, building a structure where “little private talks” with bosses would never happen, and there couldn’t be high-profile dismissals for ideological reasons.

What he didn’t guess at was that even in an atmosphere where managerial interference is near zero, a collective of independent journalists can themselves become censors and enforcers of official orthodoxies. In some cases, free journalists will become more aggressive propagandists and suppressors of speech than the officials from whom they supposedly need to be protected. This Lord of the Flies effect is what happened with The Intercept.

Taibbi documents how Russia, which Obama viewed as insignificant, suddenly became America’s greatest enemy again in 2016:

After 2016, however, these officials presented themselves as norms-defending heroes protecting America against the twin “existential” threats of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. Russia, just a few years ago described by Rachel Maddow as a harmless “gnat on the butt of an elephant,” was now reinvented as an all-powerful foe mounting an influence campaign of unprecedented reach, with everyone from Trump to the Green Party to blogs like Truthdig and Naked Capitalism, to congresswoman and war veteran Tulsi Gabbard, to Bernie Sanders, all potentially doing the bidding of a Cold War foe bent on “sowing discord” on our shores.

This propagandistic effort revolved around making the Democratic Party into a collective hero:

A key part of this propaganda campaign was the continual insistence that any criticism of the Democratic Party was, in essence, aid and comfort to our Red Enemy. Would-be progressive journalists horrified by Donald Trump accepted this logic with enthusiasm. Over the course of four years they abandoned their traditional mistrust of the security state to transform themselves into a squad of little Pavik Morozovs, anxious to stamp out traitors to the cause and keep the news business clean of “Russian” misinformation that might help Donald Trump get re-elected.

Bizarre, yet, as we know, it’s true.

Greenwald noted that the Democrats became friendly with their arch-enemies among the neo-cons, people they had previously despised. Officials from the intelligence services were also invited to participate in television interviews:

As press enthusiasm for the Trump-Russia story widened, progressives began to invite old enemies back into the fold. People like “Axis of Evil” speechwriter David Frum and Weekly Standard editor and key Iraq War proponent Bill Kristol became regular guests on CNN and MSNBC, while ex-spooks like Brennan, Clapper, Hayden, and a long list of others were given TV contributor deals, now serving as the press instead of facing criticism from it.

“The prevailing power center is Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the Democratic Party,” Greenwald says. “In the Trump era, they managed to convince everyone to view anyone who opposes Trump as allies.”

Greenwald received a lot of nasty pushback for pointing that out. His aforementioned editor Betsy Reed helped to contribute:

When the New Yorker wrote an astonishingly vicious profile of Greenwald, describing his refusal to accept theories of Russian subversion as a pathology inspired by a difficult childhood and confusion over his sexuality, his nominal boss and co-worker, Reed, was happy to chime in about things Greenwald does that are “not helpful to the left.”

Taibbi cites several more examples, all of which must have been hurtful to Greenwald personally as well as professionally.

Taibbi ends with this:

When the likes of Brennan, Clapper, and Hayden wrote a joint letter decrying the recent Post story as a seeming Russian mischief, they were very careful in what they said. They used the term “information operation” instead of “misinformation,” and prominently included the line, “We do not have evidence of Russian involvement.”

However, in the recent Intercept story quoting that letter, describing the Post story has having “the classic earmarks of Russian misinformation,” the line about not having evidence was left out.

“The CIA letter was more honest than The Intercept,” is how Greenwald puts it.

A few years ago, reporters had the intelligence community on the defensive. Now, reporters are ratting each other out on their behalf, with the aim of creating an absolute political monoculture. Having pushed out one of journalism’s most accomplished members, they’ve nearly succeeded.

Glenn Greenwald has a page on Substack, as does Taibbi.

On Thursday, October 29, he published ‘My Resignation From The Intercept’, excerpted below.

Greenwald said that The Intercept would not allow him to publish his Biden article via any publication:

The censored article, based on recently revealed emails and witness testimony, raised critical questions about Biden’s conduct. Not content to simply prevent publication of this article at the media outlet I co-founded, these Intercept editors also demanded that I refrain from exercising a separate contractual right to publish this article with any other publication

So censorship of my article, rather than engagement with it, was the path these Biden-supporting editors chose.

The censored article will be published on this page shortly (it is now published here, and the emails with Intercept editors showing the censorship are here). My letter of intent to resign, which I sent this morning to First Look Media’s President Michael Bloom, is published below.

As of now, I will be publishing my journalism here on Substack, where numerous other journalists, including my good friend, the great intrepid reporter Matt Taibbi, have come in order to practice journalism free of the increasingly repressive climate that is engulfing national mainstream media outlets across the country.

He said that leaving The Intercept was not a decision he took lightly:

Like anyone with young children, a family and numerous obligations, I do this with some trepidation, but also with the conviction that there is no other choice. I could not sleep at night knowing that I allowed any institution to censor what I want to say and believe — least of all a media outlet I co-founded with the explicit goal of ensuring this never happens to other journalists, let alone to me, let alone because I have written an article critical of a powerful Democratic politician vehemently supported by the editors in the imminent national election.

Years ago, he moved from practising law to becoming a journalist:

From the time I began writing about politics in 2005, journalistic freedom and editorial independence have been sacrosanct to me. Fifteen years ago, I created a blog on the free Blogspot software when I was still working as a lawyer: not with any hopes or plans of starting a new career as a journalist, but just as a citizen concerned about what I was seeing with the War on Terror and civil liberties, and wanting to express what I believed needed to be heard. It was a labor of love, based in an ethos of cause and conviction, dependent upon a guarantee of complete editorial freedom.

It thrived because the readership I built knew that, even when they disagreed with particular views I was expressing, I was a free and independent voice, unwedded to any faction, controlled by nobody, endeavoring to be as honest as possible about what I was seeing, and always curious about the wisdom of seeing things differently. The title I chose for that blog, “Unclaimed Territory,” reflected that spirit of liberation from captivity to any fixed political or intellectual dogma or institutional constraints.

When Salon offered me a job as a columnist in 2007, and then again when the Guardian did the same in 2012, I accepted their offers on the condition that I would have the right, except in narrowly defined situations (such as articles that could create legal liability for the news outlet), to publish my articles and columns directly to the internet without censorship, advanced editorial interference, or any other intervention permitted or approval needed. Both outlets revamped their publication system to accommodate this condition, and over the many years I worked with them, they always honored those commitments.

When I left the Guardian at the height of the Snowden reporting in 2013 in order to create a new media outlet, I did not do so, needless to say, in order to impose upon myself more constraints and restrictions on my journalistic independence. The exact opposite was true: the intended core innovation of The Intercept, above all else, was to create a new media outlets where all talented, responsible journalists would enjoy the same right of editorial freedom I had always insisted upon for myself.

He has much more on his time at The Intercept and the stories he and his fellow journalists broke.

These are his plans for the immediate future:

I hope to exploit the freedom this new platform offers not only to continue to publish the independent and hard-hitting investigative journalism and candid analysis and opinion writing that my readers have come to expect, but also to develop a podcast, and continue the YouTube program, “System Update,” I launched earlier this year in partnership with The Intercept.

To do that, to make this viable, I will need your support: people who are able to subscribe and sign up for the newsletter attached to this platform will enable my work to thrive and still be heard, perhaps even more so than before. I began my journalism career by depending on my readers’ willingness to support independent journalism which they believe is necessary to sustain. It is somewhat daunting at this point in my life, but also very exciting, to return to that model where one answers only to the public a journalist should be serving.

His article on Joe Biden is ‘Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored by The Intercept’. ‘The Real Scandal: U.S. Media Uses Falsehoods to Defend Joe Biden from Hunter’s Emails’ follows an introductory paragraph on his resignation.

Excerpts follow. I won’t go in to all the Biden material, as I posted enough times on it over the past several days.

It is interesting to look at the media’s reaction and the Biden campaign’s reaction in light of that:

Publication by the New York Post two weeks ago of emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop, relating to Vice President Joe Biden’s work in Ukraine, and subsequent articles from other outlets concerning the Biden family’s pursuit of business opportunities in China, provoked extraordinary efforts by a de facto union of media outlets, Silicon Valley giants and the intelligence community to suppress these stories.

One outcome is that the Biden campaign concluded, rationally, that there is no need for the front-running presidential candidate to address even the most basic and relevant questions raised by these materials. Rather than condemn Biden for ignoring these questions — the natural instinct of a healthy press when it comes to a presidential election — journalists have instead led the way in concocting excuses to justify his silence.

He discusses what information has been made public and by whom, including journalists and pundits, then states:

All of these new materials, the authenticity of which has never been disputed by Hunter Biden or the Biden campaign, raise important questions about whether the former Vice President and current front-running presidential candidate was aware of efforts by his son to peddle influence with the Vice President for profit, and also whether the Vice President ever took actions in his official capacity with the intention, at least in part, of benefitting his son’s business associates. But in the two weeks since the Post published its initial story, a union of the nation’s most powerful entities, including its news media, have taken extraordinary steps to obscure and bury these questions rather than try to provide answers to them.

He details the censorship by Facebook and Twitter:

After that initial censorship burst from Silicon Valley, whose workforce and oligarchs have donated almost entirely to the Biden campaign, it was the nation’s media outlets and former CIA and other intelligence officials who took the lead in constructing reasons why the story should be dismissed, or at least treated with scorn. As usual for the Trump era, the theme that took center stage to accomplish this goal was an unsubstantiated claim about the Kremlin responsibility for the story.

Numerous news outlets, including the Intercept, quickly cited a public letter signed by former CIA officials and other agents of the security state claiming that the documents have the “classic trademarks” of a “Russian disinformation” plot. But, as media outlets and even intelligence agencies are now slowly admitting, no evidence has ever been presented to corroborate this assertion.

As is customary for Greenwald, he details various Big Media articles and broadcasts about the story.

The media’s denunciation of this story made it easier for Team Biden to maintain silence:

The Biden campaign clearly believes it has no need to answer any of these questions by virtue of a panoply of media excuses offered on its behalf that collapse upon the most minimal scrutiny

He goes into much more detail. Anyone who wonders about the veracity of the material on Joe and Hunter Biden should definitely read his article.

Essentially:

The publicly known facts, augmented by the recent emails, texts and on-the-record accounts, suggest serious sleaze by Joe Biden’s son Hunter in trying to peddle his influence with the Vice President for profit. But they also raise real questions about whether Joe Biden knew about and even himself engaged in a form of legalized corruption. Specifically, … newly revealed information suggest Biden was using his power to benefit his son’s business Ukrainian associates, and allowing his name to be traded on while Vice President for his son and brother to pursue business opportunities in China. These are questions which a minimally healthy press would want answered, not buried — regardless of how many similar or worse scandals the Trump family has.

He concludes that the media’s ignoring this story is as bad, if not worse, than the allegations against the Bidens:

But the real scandal that has been proven is not the former Vice President’s misconduct but that of his supporters and allies in the U.S. media. As Taibbi’s headline put it: “With the Hunter Biden Exposé, Suppression is a Bigger Scandal Than the Actual Story.”

He then goes into various media narratives and top stories from the 2016 presidential campaign before concluding:

The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.

A media outlet that renounces its core function — pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people — is one that deserves to lose the public’s faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored.

As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: “The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear.” Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: “The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it’s true.”

Glenn Greenwald is far from alone:

Other journalists are coming forward with their stories and experiences. I look forward to covering those in due course.

Before I get to Joe Biden’s behaviour around the opposite sex, I have an update on Tony Bobulinski’s interview with Tucker Carlson.

I featured half of it in yesterday’s post, but here is the full interview:

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway tweeted a summary of it. I’ll begin with her commentary where I left off:

On last night’s show, Tucker said that he asked one of his staff members to send some Hunter Biden-related documents to him in Los Angeles, where he has been filming. The staff member, based in New York, sent them through a well-known, reputable courier service. Unfortunately, an empty package reached Carlson. (I hope they have a copy in New York.)

When notified of the empty envelope, the courier company investigated every step of the way but came up empty-handed.

En route, the package was opened and contents removed. The company interviewed every possible person who could have handled it. They also searched a van and plane, but nothing showed up. The company is not only deeply apologetic, but also deeply disturbed that this could have happened:

I agree. Someone is watching.

Here’s Tucker’s full show from Wednesday, October 28. I’m not sure how long it will be up, so watch it while you can. The last five minutes are about how to pronounce Kamala, as in Harris. Some say KAM-a-la, others say KAHM-a-la. The vice presidential candidate herself pronounces it halfway between the two.

Now on to the main topic.

Gropin’ Joe

During his vice presidency, Joe Biden swore in US Senators. Watch Biden caress Senator Christopher Coons’s daughter Maggie:

That video went viral:

Maybe he’s just a tactile person? It looks as if Hillary wants him to get off. Outside of Maggie Coons, the rest are likely to be married women. Even if they weren’t, it looks highly inappropriate — and weird:

The woman on the left in the photo collage above is a reporter, Amie Parnes:

Four years ago, the lefty media buzzed with anti-Trump groping stories, but the real groper was Biden. A Daily Mail article from October 18, 2016, has more on Biden, including photos.

The article features a photo of Stephanie Carter, the wife of the then-defense secretary Ash Carter. She and Biden were standing behind the podium as Ash Carter was speaking! Biden had his hands firmly on her shoulders and looked as if he were kissing her hair. (Also see The Daily Caller‘s take.)

Carter was not bothered:

‘Oh, I laughed. I laughed. I laughed,’ Carter said after the fact. He told the ‘Today’ show, ‘They know each other extremely well, and we’re great friends with the Bidens.’

Returning to Maggie Coons above, the article says:

Biden placed his hands on the shoulder of Coons’ daughter and whispered in Maggie Coons’ ear during the ceremony, attracting enough chatter in DC that Senator Coons got asked about it during an appearance on Fox News Sunday.

‘I have to ask, ’cause a lot of people have been speculating about it, does she think the vice president is creepy?’ host Chris Wallace asked point-blank.

‘No, Chris,’ Coons responded. ‘She doesn’t think the vice president is creepy.’

Senator Coons also vouched for what Biden said at the time. ”I could hear him. He was leaning forward and whispering some encouragement to her about how when he was sworn in his own daughter Ashley was 13 and she felt awkward and uncomfortable.’

Biden feels at liberty to touch women, regardless of age. There is another photo of him caressing an older lady’s chin with this accompanying caption:

Biden has also been known to flash his charm on mature women during swearing in ceremonies, including chatting up Sen. John Barrasso’s mom.

The article carried this short video compilation of Biden’s ‘greatest hits’, as it were. Hillary features in this too, in another scene at an airport. She’s patting his arm rather insistently — as in ‘get off’ — while smiling:

Here’s the Hillary sequence all on its own:

Here is the full swearing in of Sen. Kelly Ayotte. This one has audio. He asks Kelly Ayotte’s daughter how old she is. After the swearing in, he can’t keep his hands off her. I don’t particularly agree with the title of this video — others do — but Biden shouldn’t be touching children like that:

In 2018, Biden campaigned for Sen. Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin and the gubernatorial candidate Tony Evers. He said Tony had met his future wife when both of them were in kindergarten:

The Daily Caller has the story (emphases mine):

“By the way, running for governor is a team sport! No way out,” Biden said. “He met Kathy in kindergarten. In kindergarten. She was too young to resist. She should’ve known better but she did it anyway.”

Biden did not explain what he meant by the joke, instead planting a kiss on Kathy’s forehead. The audience laughed and smiled along with Biden’s joke.

Here is a strange photo, dating from Joe’s earlier days as US Senator for Delaware:

Obama

He and Obama had a somewhat unusual friendship.

On June 28, 2016, People reported that Obama made a friendship bracelet for his vice president:

That stuff’s hard,” Obama concluded in the video for BuzzFeed, which has partnered with a nonprofit, nonpartisan app called TurboVote to help make the voter registration process smooth sailing. “But you know what isn’t? Registering to vote. I hope you all understand that you have the power to shape our country’s course. Don’t take that for granted.”

“Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got a meeting with my vice president,” Obama added, proudly holding up a friendship bracelet with the name “Joe” on it.

Biden returned the favour on Obama’s birthday that year:

This next tweet is just a bit of fun:

Republicans react differently

Not everyone has been as understanding of Joe Biden’s behaviour as establishment Democrats are.

In the next video, then-Sen. Jeff Sessions bats Biden’s hand away from his granddaughter. Before that, however, Biden rests his hand on a teen’s waist and is tempted to reach further:

Secret Service agents’ stories

In 2014, veteran journalist Ronald Kessler wrote a book about Secret Service agents’ experiences, The First Family Detail.

On August 1 that year, a few days before its release, US News & World Report received an advance copy. Regarding Joe Biden, their article says:

Agents say that, whether at the vice president’s residence or at his home in Delaware, Biden has a habit of swimming in his pool nude,” Kessler writes in the book – due for release Aug. 5.

Female Secret Service agents find that offensive,” he writes.

Biden likes to be revered as everyday Joe,” an unnamed agent told Kessler. “But the reality is no agents want to go on his detail because Biden makes agents’ lives so tough.”

In addition to the alleged skinny-dipping, agents are reportedly irritated by frequent last-minute trips to Delaware.

A Biden spokeswoman would not address the claims on the record. A spokesperson for the Secret Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Atlantic‘s Conor Friedersdorf thought that criticising skinny dipping was out of date:

… let me tell you that virtually no one in the Washington, D.C., political press is scandalized by skinny dipping. But every time it emerges that someone in public life has swam naked, there is widespread, disingenuous playacting on the question. You’d suddenly think that Maude Flanders was managing the newsroom. While I have no idea if the reporting in the new book on the Secret Service is credible, outlets treating it as credible enough to report have been distracted by skinny-dipping from what is indisputably more important news.

He forgets that the press corps weren’t there; female Secret Service agents were the ones guarding him. They had every right to be offended.

In 2017, Gateway Pundit reported that Secret Service agents were relieved that Biden was no longer vice president because his behaviour towards women was so raunchy.

A former Secret Service agent described it as ‘Weinstein-level stuff’, it was so bad (emphases in the original, those in purple mine):

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, the agent asserted that,  “We had to cancel the VP Christmas get together at the Vice President’s house because Biden would grope all of our wives and girlfriend’s asses.” The annual party was for agents and Navy personnel who were tasked with protecting the Biden family.

“He would mess with every single woman or teen. It was horrible,” the agent said.

According to the source, a Secret Service agent once got suspended for a week in 2009 for shoving Biden after he cupped his girlfriend’s breast while the couple was taking a photo with him. The situation got so heated, the source told Cassandra Fairbanks, that others had to step in to prevent the agent from hitting the then-Vice President.

Additionally, the agent claims that Biden would walk around the VP residence naked at night. “I mean, stark naked… Weinstein level stuff,” he added.

He said that the men on duty would frequently stand in front of female agents and Navy women that were present “like a damn guardian.” On some occasions, they would make up reasons to get the women away from where he was.

The agent said he was specifically concerned about women in the Navy.

“They weren’t allowed to disobey him at all, but we’d take them away under pretend auspices,” the agent stated.

The official Vice Presidential residence is the Queen Anne style house at One Observatory Circle in Washington, DC, which is located on the northeast grounds of the U.S. Naval Observatory. The property is maintained and cared for by the service branch.

As for skinny dipping at his home in Delaware:

Our source confirmed this sentiment, adding that “it was especially an issue at his Delaware house that he would go to every weekend.”

“He would only get naked when Jill was absent,” he added.

Biden has also long been criticized for his contact with women and girls in photos and videos, and was even referred to as “Creepy Uncle Joe Biden” by the Washington Post.

The agent said that this type of thing did not go on when Republicans were in charge:

The agent also worked under the Bush administration, and added that Vice President Dick Cheney “never grabbed any butts or breasts.”

Lucy Flores, 2014 Democrat candidate

In 2019, Lucy Flores, recounted her encounter with Biden while she was running for lieutenant governor of Nevada in 2014. She wrote a first-person article for The Cut: ‘An Awkward Kiss Changed How I Saw Joe Biden’. (Breitbart‘s John Nolte wrote about this story shortly after her article appeared.)

Excerpts follow (emphases mine):

when my campaign heard from Vice-President Joe Biden’s office that he was looking to help me and other Democrats in the state, I was grateful and flattered. His team offered to bring him to a campaign rally in an effort to help boost voter turnout. We set the date for November 1, just three days before election day

I found my way to the holding room for the speakers, where everyone was chatting, taking photos, and getting ready to speak to the hundreds of voters in the audience. Just before the speeches, we were ushered to the side of the stage where we were lined up by order of introduction. As I was taking deep breaths and preparing myself to make my case to the crowd, I felt two hands on my shoulders. I froze. “Why is the vice-president of the United States touching me?”

I felt him get closer to me from behind. He leaned further in and inhaled my hair. I was mortified. I thought to myself, “I didn’t wash my hair today and the vice-president of the United States is smelling it. And also, what in the actual fuck? Why is the vice-president of the United States smelling my hair?He proceeded to plant a big slow kiss on the back of my head. My brain couldn’t process what was happening. I was embarrassed. I was shocked. I was confused. There is a Spanish saying, “tragame tierra,” it means, “earth, swallow me whole.” I couldn’t move and I couldn’t say anything. I wanted nothing more than to get Biden away from me. My name was called and I was never happier to get on stage in front of an audience

Biden was the second-most powerful man in the country and, arguably, one of the most powerful men in the world. He was there to promote me as the right person for the lieutenant governor job. Instead, he made me feel uneasy, gross, and confused. The vice-president of the United States of America had just touched me in an intimate way reserved for close friends, family, or romantic partners — and I felt powerless to do anything about it.

She then wrote about some of the material I have posted above, which has been making the rounds for the past four years, and more:

Time passed and pictures started to surface of Vice-President Biden getting uncomfortably close with women and young girls. Biden nuzzling the neck of the Defense secretary’s wife; Biden kissing a senator’s wife on the lips; Biden whispering in women’s ears; Biden snuggling female constituents. I saw obvious discomfort in the women’s faces, and Biden, I’m sure, never thought twice about how it made them feel. I knew I couldn’t say anything publicly about what those pictures surfaced for me; my anger and my resentment grew.

Had I never seen those pictures, I may have been able to give Biden the benefit of the doubt. Had there not been multiple articles written over the years about the exact same thing — calling his creepy behavior an “open secret” — perhaps it would feel less offensive. And yet despite the steady stream of pictures and the occasional article, Biden retained his title of America’s Favorite Uncle. On occasion that title was downgraded to America’s Creepy Uncle but that in and of itself implied a certain level of acceptance. After all, how many families just tolerate or keep their young children away from the creepy uncle without ever acknowledging that there should be zero tolerance for a man who persistently invades others’ personal space and makes people feel uneasy and gross? In this case, it shows a lack of empathy for the women and young girls whose space he is invading, and ignores the power imbalance that exists between Biden and the women he chooses to get cozy with.

A male friend told Flores not to say anything about her encounter:

When I spoke to a male friend who is also a political operative in Biden’s orbit — the first man who had heard the story outside of my staff and close friends years ago — he did what no one else had and made me question myself and wonder if I was doing the right thing. He reminded me that Biden has significant resources and argued points that made me question my memory, even though I’ve replayed that scene in my mind a thousand times. He reminded me that my credibility would be attacked and that I should be prepared for the type of “back and forth” that could occur. (When reached by New York Magazine, a representative for Vice-President Joe Biden declined to comment.)

I’m not suggesting that Biden broke any laws, but the transgressions that society deems minor (or doesn’t even see as transgressions) often feel considerable to the person on the receiving end. That imbalance of power and attention is the whole point — and the whole problem.

In the end, Lucy Flores did speak up and out:

Trump’s winning campaign manager Kellyanne Conway tweeted:

No one can dispute this:

Nancy Pelosi doesn’t take Joe’s groping seriously.

You can find more photos and GIFs of Joe Biden in action here.

Democratic primary campaign videos

He was still at it on the campaign trail before winning the nomination this year.

These are incidents from 2019:

Gateway Pundit wrote about another:

Their article says, in part:

No video has been posted yet, but it fits a pattern seen on numerous videos of Biden making sexual comments to pre-teen and adolescent girls about staying away from boys, or keeping boys away or not dating until they are thirty. That is in addition to the numerous videotaped incidents of Biden groping young girls.

Here’s one where he held onto a woman’s hands:

Poor woman:

This is the last set of videos from 2019. The one with the kids is from Wilmington, Delaware:

He told them the story of Cornpop:

This video from Texas is where he can’t remember ‘God’:

Hillary Clinton told People magazine that year that we have to ‘get over it’. Joe’s gropes are no biggie.

Lucy Flores nailed it: Joe Biden he thinks he’s so powerful that he can get away with anything. And does.

Recently, I ran two posts on the Biden family: Hunter’s laptop and alleged corruption.

Let’s look at their past and present dealings.

The present

By way of update on the laptop story, whistleblower Tony Bobulinski, President Trump’s special guest at last Thursday’s debate, appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight on Tuesday, October 27.

The Daily Mail has an article about the interview, referenced below.

Below are two clips from Carlson’s interview.

In the first, Bobulinski, a US Navy veteran, explains how he met Joe and Jim Biden. The clip also includes a shot of an email which details what percentage of financial cut individual Biden’s hoped to receive from their venture with China:

Background and excerpts of the video transcript from the Daily Mail follow, emphases mine:

Bobulinski has since early October been pushing the story of his time in business with Hunter, 50, and his claims that Joe was involved in the attempts to make deals with their Chinese partners. 

Bobulinski and Hunter formed a company in 2017, specializing in infrastructure investment. No deals appear to have been completed, and the firm folded in 2018

Joe had left the White House and was a private citizen at the time … 

Bobulinski is listed as one of the recipients of a May 13, 2017, email detailing their business deal, and he claims that ‘the big guy’ mentioned is a reference to Joe, whom he claims Hunter regularly asked for business advice. 

Joe has always insisted he was not involved in Hunter’s numerous business ventures. 

His team and Hunter’s lawyers have not responded to DailyMail.com’s request for comment …

Bobulinski, in Tuesday night’s interview, told in additional detail how he had allegedly met Joe in Los Angeles.

I first met with Hunter Biden and Jim Biden, and just had a light discussion where they briefed me that my dad’s on the way, and we won’t go into too much detail on the business front, but we will spend time talking at a high level about you, your background, the Biden family and then he’s got to get some rest because he is speaking at the conference in the morning,’ Bobulinski said.

Joe was coming to Los Angeles to speak at the Milken Conference and discuss his ‘moonshot’ efforts to find a cure for cancer. 

Asked by Carlson why Joe would meet him, Bobulinski emphasized that Hunter and Jim wanted him to meet Joe – it was not Bobulinski wanting to meet the former vice president. 

They were sort of wining and dining me and presenting the strength of the Biden family to get me more engaged and taking on the CEO role and develop it both in the United States and around the world in partnership,’ he told Carlson. 

‘And as you can imagine, I’ve been asked by a hundred people over the past month why would you be meeting with Joe Biden, and sort of turn the question around to people that ask me, why that 10:38 on the night of May 2nd would Joe Biden take time out of his schedule to sit down with me in a dark bar at the Beverly Hilton‘s position – behind a column so people couldn’t see us – to have a discussion about his family and my family?‘ 

In Bobulinski’s telling, when Joe arrived with his security detail, Bobulinski ‘stood up out of respect to shake his hand.’

He continued:  ‘And Hunter introduced me as: “this is Tony, the individual I told you about that’s helping us with the business we are working on in the Chinese.”‘ 

The group sat down …

The conversation focussed on family and personal interests, e.g. family deaths because of cancer. Business was not on the agenda.

Bobulinski met again with Joe Biden the following day, albeit briefly, after his conference speech.

The second clip is about his meeting with Joe’s brother Jim. The quote refers to a business associate who asked Bobulinski not to make the Chinese deal and the Bidens’ involvement public:

Here’s what happened when Bobulinski met Jim Biden after seeing Joe at the conference:

After Bobiulinski said goodbye to Joe on May 3, he went to meet Jim at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he said.

Jim Biden, seven years younger than Joe, spent two hours discussing the family’s story, and their careers. 

Bobulinski told Carlson: ‘I know Joe decided not to run in 2016, but what if he ran in the future – aren’t they taking political risk or headline risk?

And I remember looking at Jim Biden and saying: “how are you guys getting away with this? Aren’t you concerned?” 

And he looked at me and he laughed a little bit and said: “plausible deniability”.

He said it directly to me at the cabana at the Peninsula Hotel, after an hour and a half or two-hour meeting, with me asking out of concern how are you guys doing this, aren’t you concerned you will put your future presidential campaign at risk, the Chinese, the stuff you guys have been doing already in 2015 and 2016 around the world.

‘And I can almost picture his face where he sort of chuckles and says plausible deniability.’

Jim has not responded to DailyMail.com’s request for comment.

The past

Back in 1988, Biden was one of the Democrat candidates running for the presidential nomination. His bid was unsuccessful — former Massachusetts governor Mike Dukakis got the nomination that year — however, Biden’s Midwest field director was a Chicago political operative, Joseph Cari.

Twenty years later, Cari was tipped to have a major role to play in Biden’s presidential run that year, but trouble befell him. On August 25, 2008, American Thinker reported:

He got indicted for participating in the kickback scheme involving contributions to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. This is the same scheme that involved Obama friend Tony Rezko. In fact, Cari was a key witness at Rezko’s trial.

Tony Rezko and Obama did a little property deal on the land where his Chicago home is. The CBS Chicago affiliate’s link is now gone, but America’s Watchtower (nothing to do with Jehovah’s Witnesses) has a few paragraphs from it:

Obama bought a house and lot. Rezko’s wife bought an undeveloped property next door. The two parcels had once been a single tract of land.

Obama paid $1.65 million for the house and lot while Rezko paid $625,000 for the undeveloped lot. Six months later, Rezko sold a strip of his property to Obama, who wanted to increase the size of his side yard. Obama paid Rezko $104,500, which he says was the market rate.

While Obama has said that the transaction was handled ethically, he has conceded the perception of favor-trading it created was a “boneheaded” mistake.

America’s Watchtower article is dated June 4, 2008, and leads with this:

Rezko was later convicted on 16 money laundering charges.

But I digress.

Back to Biden.

Somehow, Joe Biden was able to amass enough money to open an eponymous institute at the University of Delaware in 2017. Amazing. Those do not come cheaply. My post yesterday cited Town & Country‘s breakdown of Biden’s income around that time, so that explains it.

He also opened an institute in his name at the University of Pennsylvania in 2018: the Penn Biden Center. Wow.

On March 15, 2018, Breitbart gave a sneak-peek into Peter Schweizer’s book Secret Empires, which also featured in my post yesterday.

Breitbart reported:

The private equity firm of former Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden inked a billion-dollar deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China just 10 days after the father and son flew to China in 2013.

The Biden bombshell is one of many revealed in a new investigative book Secret Empires: How the American Political Class Hides Corruption and Enriches Family and Friends by Government Accountability Institute President and Breitbart News Senior Editor-at-Large Peter Schweizer. Schweizer’s last book, Clinton Cash, sparked an FBI investigation into the Clinton Foundation …

In December of 2013, Vice President Biden and his son Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Ten days after the trip, a subsidiary of the Bank of China named Bohai Capital signed an exclusive deal with Hunter Biden’s firm to form a $1 billion joint-investment fund called Bohai Harvest RST. The deal was later increased to $1.5 billion.

Joe Biden has yet to comment on how the firm of a sitting vice president’s son was permitted to bag a billion-dollar deal with the Communist Chinese government—nor whether they had any knowledge or involvement in the deal.

Hmm.

Steve Hilton has more on the China deal in the next video, thought to have involved John Kerry’s son-in-law and heir to the foods fortune, Chris Heinz. Most of this, however, involves Joe and Hunter Biden. It appears that some of the content comes from Peter Schweizer’s Secret Empires:

Another thread follows from elsewhere, alleging that Hunter Biden and Chris Heinz’s business partner Aviation Industry Of China (AVIC), a Chinese state-owned aerospace & defense conglomerate, hacked US military intelligence. (Start five tweets in and keep reading.)

There was more:

In May 2018, Biden, then a private citizen, went to visit the late US Senator John McCain, who was in his final months of life:

The Daily Caller recapped an article about the visit that originally appeared in the New York Times:

According to the Times: “The Republican senator encouraged the former Democratic vice president to ‘not walk away’ from politics, as Mr. Biden put it before refusing to discuss a possible 2020 presidential run.”

Biden was one of those giving a eulogy at McCain’s funeral in August that year. He was also one of the pallbearers — along with Warren Beatty. This is quite the list:

(During the Democrat presidential primaries in 2019, McCain’s widow Cindy and daughter Meghan, it was rumoured that they would lend their support to Biden rather than to Trump, who had said that McCain was ‘not a war hero’.)

Around that time, President Trump revoked former CIA director John Brennan’s security clearance. Biden was not happy. Brennan had had two positions in the Obama administration — Homeland Security Advisor then CIA director — spanning Obama’s eight years in the White House:

It is believed that many knew about the — pardon the pun — trumped up charges against the American president who took office in 2017, including Biden and Brennan:

In September 2018, it was revealed that Trump’s former 2016 campaign manager Paul Manafort had done some lobbying for Ukraine in 2013. A member of his team had met with Obama and Biden. Politico reported:

Paul Manafort’s pro-Ukraine campaign reached the top of the White House, with one of the members of his lobbying effort meeting President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden in 2013, according to new court documents released Friday.

A member of the so-called Hapsburg Group, which comprised former European politicians Manafort convened as part of his lobbying effort in support of Ukraine’s then-President Viktor Yanukovych, came with a foreign prime minister on May 16, 2013, to meet with Obama and Biden, “as well as senior United States officials in the executive and legislative branches,” according to the court documents …

Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chief, pleaded guilty Friday to two criminal charges from special counsel Robert Mueller to head off a potentially dramatic trial over allegations he violated laws on foreign lobbying. The court documents released Friday say Manafort failed to register as a foreign lobbyist, as required under U.S. law, or disclose a host of meetings, including the one involving Obama and Biden.

After that, in 2014, Joe and Hunter Biden’s involvement in Ukraine began. I won’t be posting all of the following tweets in the thread below, so be sure to read all of them:

Peter Schweizer researched Burisma and the Bidens for his book, Secret Empires:

Peter Schweizer could not uncover how much money Biden made for his work with Burisma. Ukrainian disclosure laws do not require that Biden’s reveal his compensation. (Schweizer’s book is worth the money just for his section on the Bidens alone.)

The thread continues.

Two months later, in April 2019, the Epoch Times (paywall) reported that Ukraine’s chief prosecutor was reopening a corruption probe into Burisma, which could adversely affect Joe Biden’s run for president. It is unclear what the current status is.

However, in September that year, President Trump, who faced impeachment charges at that time, tweeted:

And:

Well, this is enough for one day.

All being well, more to come tomorrow.

There were so many insights on coronavirus last week that I couldn’t fit them all in.

On Friday, I summarised Michael P Senger’s article about China’s role in the coronavirus crisis.

More information follows:

Rather sagely, a lady replied:

As did another:

The day before, there was the confession from a Facebook whistleblower about online political persuasion:

The article, dated September 14, features quotes from former Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang.

The article states (emphases mine):

The 6,600-word memo, written by former Facebook data scientist Sophie Zhang, is filled with concrete examples of heads of government and political parties in Azerbaijan and Honduras using fake accounts or misrepresenting themselves to sway public opinion. In countries including India, Ukraine, Spain, Brazil, Bolivia, and Ecuador, she found evidence of coordinated campaigns of varying sizes to boost or hinder political candidates or outcomes, though she did not always conclude who was behind them.

“In the three years I’ve spent at Facebook, I’ve found multiple blatant attempts by foreign national governments to abuse our platform on vast scales to mislead their own citizenry, and caused international news on multiple occasions,” wrote Zhang, who declined to talk to BuzzFeed News. Her LinkedIn profile said she “worked as the data scientist for the Facebook Site Integrity fake engagement team” and dealt with “bots influencing elections and the like.”

She added:

I have personally made decisions that affected national presidents without oversight, and taken action to enforce against so many prominent politicians globally that I’ve lost count.

The BuzzFeed article continues:

The memo is a damning account of Facebook’s failures. It’s the story of Facebook abdicating responsibility for malign activities on its platform that could affect the political fate of nations outside the United States or Western Europe. It’s also the story of a junior employee wielding extraordinary moderation powers that affected millions of people without any real institutional support, and the personal torment that followed.

“I know that I have blood on my hands by now,” Zhang wrote.

According to the article, Facebook allegedly delayed taking action on the following:

  • It took Facebook’s leaders nine months to act on a coordinated campaign “that used thousands of inauthentic assets to boost President Juan Orlando Hernandez of Honduras on a massive scale to mislead the Honduran people.” Two weeks after Facebook took action against the perpetrators in July, they returned, leading to a game of “whack-a-mole” between Zhang and the operatives behind the fake accounts, which are still active.
  • In Azerbaijan, Zhang discovered the ruling political party “utilized thousands of inauthentic assets… to harass the opposition en masse.” Facebook began looking into the issue a year after Zhang reported it. The investigation is ongoing.
  • Zhang and her colleagues removed “10.5 million fake reactions and fans from high-profile politicians in Brazil and the US in the 2018 elections.”
  • In February 2019, a NATO researcher informed Facebook that “he’d obtained Russian inauthentic activity on a high-profile U.S. political figure that we didn’t catch.” Zhang removed the activity, “dousing the immediate fire,” she wrote.
  • In Ukraine, Zhang “found inauthentic scripted activity” supporting both former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, a pro–European Union politician and former presidential candidate, as well as Volodymyr Groysman, a former prime minister and ally of former president Petro Poroshenko. “Volodymyr Zelensky and his faction was the only major group not affected,” Zhang said of the current Ukrainian president.
  • Zhang discovered inauthentic activity — a Facebook term for engagement from bot accounts and coordinated manual accounts— in Bolivia and Ecuador but chose “not to prioritize it,” due to her workload. The amount of power she had as a mid-level employee to make decisions about a country’s political outcomes took a toll on her health.
  • After becoming aware of coordinated manipulation on the Spanish Health Ministry’s Facebook page during the COVID-19 pandemic, Zhang helped find and remove 672,000 fake accounts “acting on similar targets globally” including in the US.
  • In India, she worked to remove “a politically-sophisticated network of more than a thousand actors working to influence” the local elections taking place in Delhi in February. Facebook never publicly disclosed this network or that it had taken it down.

The BuzzFeed article reports that Facebook’s spokesperson Liz Bourgeois said:

It’s highly involved work that these teams do as their full-time remit. Working against coordinated inauthentic behavior is our priority, but we’re also addressing the problems of spam and fake engagement. We investigate each issue carefully, including those that Ms. Zhang raises, before we take action or go out and make claims publicly as a company.

BuzzFeed says that it did not reproduce Ms Zhang’s full text because it contains personal information.

The article added:

In her post, Zhang said she did not want it to go public for fear of disrupting Facebook’s efforts to prevent problems around the upcoming 2020 US presidential election, and due to concerns about her own safety. BuzzFeed News is publishing parts of her memo that are clearly in the public interest.

“I consider myself to have been put in an impossible spot – caught between my loyalties to the company and my loyalties to the world as a whole,” she said. “The last thing I want to do is distract from our efforts for the upcoming U.S. elections, yet I know this post will likely do so internally.”

Zhang said she turned down a $64,000 severance package from the company to avoid signing a nondisparagement agreement. Doing so allowed her to speak out internally, and she used that freedom to reckon with the power that she had to police political speech.

“There was so much violating behavior worldwide that it was left to my personal assessment of which cases to further investigate, to file tasks, and escalate for prioritization afterwards,” she wrote.

That power contrasted with what she said seemed to be a lack of desire from senior leadership to protect democratic processes in smaller countries. Facebook, Zhang said, prioritized regions including the US and Western Europe, and often only acted when she repeatedly pressed the issue publicly in comments on Workplace, the company’s internal, employee-only message board.

“With no oversight whatsoever, I was left in a situation where I was trusted with immense influence in my spare time,” she wrote. “A manager on Strategic Response mused to myself that most of the world outside the West was effectively the Wild West with myself as the part-time dictator – he meant the statement as a compliment, but it illustrated the immense pressures upon me.”

A former Facebook engineer who knew her told BuzzFeed News that Zhang was skilled at discovering fake account networks on the platform.

The second half of the article is also worth reading — and circulating.

Michael P Senger, the author of the article I cited on Friday, tweeted coronavirus-related news about Pennsylvania’s continued lockdown:

Note that China was mentioned.

The title of Stacy Rudin’s article for the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) is ‘Federal Court Holds “Stay at Home” Orders and Mandatory Business Closures Unconstitutional’.

Excerpts follow, emphases mine:

For six months, Americans in 43 states have lived under unprecedented executive orders restricting freedoms as basic as whether they can work, leave their homes, and expose their faces in public. These mandates are not duly enacted laws — they are orders issued by one of the three branches of government. They constitute a system of one-person rulesomething none of us expected could ever happen in the United Statesand no one, apart from the 43 newfound state dictators, is sure when it will expire.

Today, after six months of this, a Pennsylvania Federal Court in Butler County v. Wolf reviewed the indefinite “emergency” restrictions imposed by the executive branch of Pennsylvania government, declaring limitations on gathering size, “stay-at-home orders,” and mandatory business closures unconstitutional. Refusing to accept the alleged need for a “new normal,” the Court stated that an “independent judiciary [is needed] to serve as a check on the exercise of emergency government power.”

About time. The Judicial Branch is coming to save us.

The article is worth circulating. It goes into American history, beginning with the Constitution in the 18th century and citing President Lincoln in the 19th.

The Pennslyvania Federal Court stated:

There is no question that our founders abhorred the concept of one-person rule. They decried government by fiat. Absent a robust system of checks and balances, the guarantees of liberty set forth in the Constitution are just ink on parchment.

Furthermore:

In times of crisis, even a vigilant public may let down its guard over its constitutional liberties only to find that liberties, once relinquished, are hard to recoup and that restrictions — while expedient in the face of an emergency situation — may persist long after immediate danger has passed.

The AIER article went on to say:

We cannot allow our freedom to become “ink on parchment.” Many of our governors seek to do just that — they won’t even designate an endpoint to their “emergency” powers. When does the “emergency” end? This should be easy to say — X number of deaths per million, X number of deaths over X number of weeks — yet they will not say it. They want us to live under the constant threat of house arrest and livelihood deprivation, even though all we ever agreed to was a two-week effort to “flatten the curve.” We never agreed to an indefinite or permanent “new normal,” or to do whatever our wise governor dreams up and declares necessary to “eliminate infections.”

The article thanked Judge Stickman, speaking for the Pennsylvania Federal Court:

Thank you, Judge Stickman, for recognizing our predicament, and for taking the first step towards restoring our freedom today by reminding those with authoritarian leanings that “governors cannot be given carte blanche to disregard the Constitution for as long as the medical problem persists.” The response to an emergency cannot undermine our system of constitutional liberties, or the system of checks and balances protecting those liberties. Liberty before “governor-guaranteed safety” — this is the American way, famously stated by Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Pennsylvania’s Governor Wolf appeared to back down (italics in the original):

Incredibly, Governor Wolf responded that his stay-at-home orders are “not actually orders at all, but merely recommendations,” and that they are constitutional because they do not “shock the conscience.”

Yet, the article’s author says:

I’m willing to bet that Pennsylvania citizens would beg to differ.

The Court’s decision stated that large populations were never quarantined (some local populations, e.g. St Louis, were during the Spanish Flu).

Not only that, the judges traced the origin of the virus to China:

In analyzing the constitutionality of “lockdowns,” the Court first traced the origin of the concept to its source — Wuhan, China — and recognized that population-wide lockdowns are “unprecedented in American law.” Even during the Spanish Flu, the deadliest pandemic in history by far, “nothing remotely approximating lockdowns were imposed.” Although the United States has faced many epidemics and pandemics, “there have never previously been lockdowns of entire populations — much less for lengthy and indefinite periods of time.” Quarantines are legally recognized, but refer to the isolation of sick people and those known to have been directly exposed to sick people. They are statutorily limited to the duration of the incubation period of the disease — a period which Governor Wolf’s “lockdown” plainly exceeded.

Not only have lockdowns never been imposed in American history, but they are not even mentioned in recent pandemic management guidance offered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). In its 2017 guidelines for managing pandemics, the CDC recommends numerous protective measures such as hand washing, limited-duration school closures, and cancellations of mass gatherings, but nothing “even approximating the imposition of statewide (or even community-wide) stay at home orders or the closure of all [‘non-essential’] businesses.” Even for pandemics of “Very High Severity,” the CDC recommends only voluntary isolation of sick persons and their household members. “This is a far, far cry from a statewide lockdown such as the one imposed by [Governor Wolf’s] stay-at-home order.”

The article goes on to discuss small and medium business issues, which are of primary importance today. The court decided, in their own words (emphasis here in the original):

The Constitution cannot accept the concept of a ‘new normal’ where the basic liberties of the people can be subordinated to open-ended emergency mitigation measures. Rather, the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. Actions taken by Defendants crossed those lines. It is the duty of the Court to declare those actions unconstitutional.

In related news Daniel Levitt, who works for tech firms in Silicon Valley, tweeted:

Ah, but increased testing is taking care of that issue. Hmm.

A podcast host from Ohio found that the WHO never stated that quarantine stopped influenza. Coronavirus is not influenza, yet it seems to share some of the same characteristics. Even more interesting is that, with the presence of COVID-19, influenza — the big worry of the cold weather season — seems to have disappeared south of the Equator.

Interesting:

It’s all a bit of a mystery, but Kyle Lamb goes on to answer questions:

Does Kyle Lamb know more than our respective chief scientific officers? Perhaps. Perhaps not. In any event, he has gone further by probing the subject, which is more than our chief scientific officers have done.

Meanwhile, in the UK, an NHS GP pleads with Prime Minister Boris Johnson to change course on lockdowns. Here’s yet another newspaper article mentioning a time period of a fortnight (yawn).

I pity the remaining vulnerable, especially the elderly. Click the image to see the article in full:

I could not agree more.

Message to the NHS: get on with it! You’ve had since May.

Since the summer, England’s Nightingale Hospitals have been stood down for lack of use:

What will happen? A repeat of March and April?

My head is spinning at the prospect.

Once again, private care will turn out to be no better:

Good grief.

Then there is the matter of testing.

This thread is about the North East of England. The author is Professor of Industrial Economics Nottingham University Business School and states clearly that he is expressing his own views:

Sunderland is in the latest coronavirus hotspot area.

Understandably, residents are anxious to get PCR tests.

Yet, the queue was two miles long at the local testing centre:

The queues are for people who have booked a test:

It’s the same in London, as per Tom Copley, the Deputy Mayor of London for Housing. Again, you need a code (obtained online) in order to get a test:

After all these months, this is unbelievable, especially from a notionally Conservative government.

As Tim Worstall said on September 17:

You’ve had 6 months to get testing sorted out. It’s possible to do basic tests – basic note – for £1 a piece with reagent dosed paper hankies.

Also:

seriously, why do we give, or have taken from us, 35% of everything to a structure that can’t even manage this?

I could not agree more.

In closing, Dr Li-Meng Yan, a physician and virologist who also holds a PhD, is a Chinese whistleblower who worked at a WHO lab in Hong Kong. She is now out of the country in a secret location but has given at least two interviews in the past week.

The first was on Friday, September 11, on ITV’s Loose Women, a lunchtime chat show in Britain:

She explained that she had access to a lot of secret information about COVID-19 and could no longer keep quiet, even if it meant losing her social credit score, which she did. She said she had been warned at the outset ‘not to cross the line’ because ‘she could be disappeared’. She said that the Chinese government deleted everything about her that had appeared online. One wonders if her bank account was also frozen. It happens.

She told the show’s panel that the virus was engineered in a lab and that it is not a natural virus.

She said that the Chinese government has downplayed her role in Hong Kong and is discrediting her.

The panel asked her why China would do such a thing and she replied that she had no insight into the government’s ‘evil thinking’, then added that whatever they did ‘worked’: meaning — although she left this unstated — illness, death, panic, lockdown and economic damage.

I am glad that Loose Women interviewed her, because the show gets good ratings. Consequently, a lot of women in Britain will have found out more about the Chi-vi, as I call it.

On Tuesday, September 15, she appeared on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, to present the same details:

Tucker wasn’t quite sure what to think. He acknowledged he does not have the scientific background to probe further.

A tip of the hat to my cyberfriend Wolf for the next part of this story.

Dr Yan, along with three other researchers, published a scientific paper on Monday, September 14: ‘Unusual Features of the SARS-Cov-2 Genome Suggesting Sophisticated Laboratory Modification Rather Than Natural Evolution and Delineation of Its Probable Synthetic Route’.

This is the introduction (emphases mine):

Yan, Li-Meng; Kang, Shu; Guan, Jie; Hu, Shanchang

The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has led to over 910,000 deaths worldwide and unprecedented decimation of the global economy. Despite its tremendous impact, the origin of SARS-CoV-2 has remained mysterious and controversial. The natural origin theory, although widely accepted, lacks substantial support. The alternative theory that the virus may have come from a research laboratory is, however, strictly censored on peer-reviewed scientific journals. Nonetheless, SARS-CoV-2 shows biological characteristics that are inconsistent with a naturally occurring, zoonotic virus. In this report, we describe the genomic, structural, medical, and literature evidence, which, when considered together, strongly contradicts the natural origin theory. The evidence shows that SARS-CoV-2 should be a laboratory product created by using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 as a template and/or backbone. Building upon the evidence, we further postulate a synthetic route for SARS-CoV-2, demonstrating that the laboratory-creation of this coronavirus is convenient and can be accomplished in approximately six months. Our work emphasizes the need for an independent investigation into the relevant research laboratories. It also argues for a critical look into certain recently published data, which, albeit problematic, was used to support and claim a natural origin of SARS-CoV-2. From a public health perspective, these actions are necessary as knowledge of the origin of SARS-CoV-2 and of how the virus entered the human population are of pivotal importance in the fundamental control of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as in preventing similar, future pandemics.

ZeroHedge posted excerpts from the paper, which is way above my pay grade. The article ends with a reminder from ZeroHedge that they were suspended from Twitter months ago for alleging the same theory:

As a reminder, Zero Hedge was banned from Twitter on Jan 31 for making just this allegation, following a hit-piece written by an alleged pedophile (who was later fired for plagiarism) and countless so-called “scientists” screaming that our take was fake news and nothing but propaganda. Five months later Twitter admitted it had made a mistake, stating “we made an error in our enforcement action in this case.”

Speaking of Twitter, on September 15, ZeroHedge also reported that Dr Yan’s Twitter account was quickly suspended, days after she created it this month (emphases in the original):

On Sunday afternoon we asked how long before the twitter account of the “rogue” Chinese virologist, Dr. Li-Meng Yan, who yesterday “shocked” the world of establishment scientists and other China sycophants, by publishing a “smoking gun” scientific paper demonstrating that the Covid-19 virus was manmade, is “silenced.”

We now have the answer: less than two days. A cursory check of Dr Yan’s twitter page reveals that the account has been suspended as of this moment …

If Yan was wrong, why not just let other scientists respond in the open to the all too valid arguments presented in Dr. Yan’s paper? Isn’t that what “science” is all about? Why just shut her up?

Because if we have already crossed the tipping point when anyone who proposes an “inconvenient” explanation for an established “truth” has to be immediately censored, then there is little that can be done to salvage the disintegration of a society that once held freedom of speech as paramount …

We hope Twitter will provide a very reasonable and sensible explanation for this unprecedented censorship.

Indeed.

Back now to the contents of the paper that Dr Yan co-authored.

US Army Colonel Lawrence Sellin (Ret.) explained it in layman’s terms for the Gateway Pundit: ‘Dr. Lawrence Sellin: The Unequivocal Evidence Chinese Scientist Dr. Li-Meng Yan Provides Proof COVID-19 was Created by China’s Military’.

Dr Sellin gives us the overview, which is still scientific (emphases in the original):

China has claimed that a bat coronavirus named RaTG13 is the closest relative to the COVID-19 virus, but RaTG13 is not actually a virus because no biological samples exist. It is only a genomic sequence of a virus for which there are now serious questions about its accuracy.

Dr. Yan suggests that RaTG13 may have been used to divert the world’s attention away from the true source of the COVID-19 pandemic.

She claims that the COVID-19 virus originated in laboratories overseen by China’s People’s Liberation Army, using bat coronaviruses ZC45 and/or ZXC21 collected from Zhoushan, China and used as the viral “backbone” for genetic engineering.

Those bat coronaviruses were originally isolated and characterized between July 2015 and February 2017 under the supervision of the Third Military Medical University (Chongqing, China) and the Research Institute for Medicine of Nanjing Command (Nanjing, China).

The article goes on to explain how the receptor binding motif (RBM), which defines the coronavirus’ ability to bind to the specific human angiotensin converting enzyme-2 receptor (ACE2) underwent genetic manipulation.

That critical segment of the COVID-19 virus is bounded by two “restriction sites” not found in any related bat coronaviruses, which allow researchers to easily splice, that is, cut and paste components of other viruses into the viral backbone.

The presence of those restriction sites is a known marker for genetic manipulation.

Furthermore, the COVID-19 virus contains a furin polybasic cleavage site with an amino acid sequence of proline-arginine-arginine-alanine or PRRA that facilitates membrane fusion between the virus and the human cell and widely known for its ability to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility.

Such a sequence is not found in any other related bat coronavirus and, so far, there is no natural evolutionary pathway identified that could explain the appearance of that PRRA segment.

In contrast, techniques for the artificial insertion of such a furin polybasic cleavage site by genetic engineering have been used for over ten years.

Dr. Yan and her colleagues note that the two arginine amino acids in that PRRA segment are coded by the nucleotide sequence CGG-CGG, which rarely appears in tandem and strongly suggests that this furin cleavage site is the result of genetic engineering.

In addition, the presence of a “FauI” restriction site at the furin polybasic cleavage site is also an indication of genetic manipulation.

Goodness me. We have these scientific allegations and all the UK government is thinking of is a second lockdown.

It is sad that we will not be reading or hearing about this paper in the media. Once again, please circulate the links with family and friends. Thank you.

© Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 2009-2021. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? If you wish to borrow, 1) please use the link from the post, 2) give credit to Churchmouse and Churchmouse Campanologist, 3) copy only selected paragraphs from the post — not all of it.
PLAGIARISERS will be named and shamed.
First case: June 2-3, 2011 — resolved

Creative Commons License
Churchmouse Campanologist by Churchmouse is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://churchmousec.wordpress.com/.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,524 other followers

Archive

Calendar of posts

June 2021
S M T W T F S
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  

http://martinscriblerus.com/

Bloglisting.net - The internets fastest growing blog directory
Powered by WebRing.
This site is a member of WebRing.
To browse visit Here.

Blog Stats

  • 1,651,339 hits