Advertisement

Must-Read Article

February 4, 2022

Matt Taibbi, the red-pilled former Rolling Stone writer, has a must-read article on Substack about the way Facebook and the “fact-checking” site it often relies on, Lead Stories, use the phrase “missing context” to disparage and discourage the sharing of stories that are “true, but inconvenient.”

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-british-medical-journal-story

The story it centers on was an accurate account of a whistleblower’s accusations about a company that was involved in the trials of the Pfizer COVID vaccine. The author of that story, a meticulous former Congressional researcher, said Lead Stories and Facebook didn’t do a fact-check, they just didn’t like the story and were “checking narrative, not fact.”

What’s frightening about this is that it’s not only being used as an excuse to censor information under the guise of it being “misinformation,” but the current White House occupants not only approve but are encouraging more of it:

https://www.westernjournal.com/biden-administration-calls-clamping-joe-rogan-can-done/

The Founders in their wisdom understood that the free exchange of ideas and information was the best way to ensure that good ideas prevail. Anyone espousing bad ideas could be exposed by people freely destroying their arguments. When governments (or in this case, politicized speech platforms doing the bidding of their CEOs or the White House) block that free speech, it doesn’t go away. It just goes underground, where there’s less chance of it being exposed.

“Misinformation” has become a pseudonym for “things we don’t like people talking about,” just as “dangerous misinformation” now means, “things people shouldn't be allowed to talk about." But that all depends on who’s defining “dangerous misinformation.”

Every day, I see the same media outlets who want Joe Rogan silenced giving air time to racial dividers, anti-police campaigners and America-hating socialists, all of whom are spewing what I consider extremely dangerous misinformation, and I can point to the tragic consequences of their policies to prove it. But providing a platform to those spewers of dangerous garbage is MSNBC’s business model.

If these alleged “fact-checkers” have a legitimate reason for disputing a story, then let’s hear it. But first, let’s hear the original story. And let’s all remember that we have a God-given right to free speech and freedom of the press, and the President has no right whatsoever to interfere in that. If Biden faces impeachment over facilitating the breaking of immigration laws thousands of times over, then please throw into the charges that he also unconstitutionally abused his power by leaning on private companies to censor Americans’ right to free speech.

Thin Blue Line

February 3, 2022

Tuesday, police officers gathered from far and wide in New York City for the second time in a week, this time to honor Wilbert Mora, the partner of Detective Jason Rivera. Both cops were killed in an ambush by a gunman in Harlem when they answered a domestic disturbance call.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-yorkers-pay-respects-fallen-nypd-officers

Their deaths have been part of a disturbing pattern of rising attacks on police officers across the nation, as leftist DA’s have allowed criminals to take over their cities. Let us all hope and pray that the tragic loss of these officers will galvanize residents to demand action to support police and to recall these “prosecutors” and never allow them within a hundred miles of a seat of power again.

In a very related story, if you like the record-breaking crime waves and murder rates currently destroying American cities due to far-left, criminal-coddling DA’s elected with millions of dollars in PAC funding from socialist billionaire and aspiring Bond villain George Soros, then you’ll be thrilled to hear that Soros just donated another $120,000 to the cause of electing “prosecutors” who are emptying the jails and getting innocent people killed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/george-soros-120k-pac-prosecutor-races

Moral: Do NOT think that elections for offices like district attorney, or primary elections in one-party areas, are just unimportant local elections that you can safely skip and let other people decide. These days, you need to vote in those local and primary elections as if your life depended on it, because it literally might.

Over the past couple of weeks, a story has been developing about a ‘rift” between Special Counsel John Durham and Inspector General Michael Horowitz concerning some evidence that Durham had not received from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Just how important is this evidence, and why is Durham only now finding out about it? What does it mean to the Special Counsel investigation? Thanks to some outstanding reporting, this story is starting to gel, but some questions are unanswered.

The Epoch Times has a detailed new piece by Jeff Carlson and Hans Mahncke; it’s “premium,” so we’ve boiled it down and tried to make a complicated legal morass –- which can certainly happen with two investigations going on at the same time –- a little clearer.

Recall that Horowitz’s report was critical of the FBI but ultimately determined –- to the dismay of many, including me –- that the FBI had actually opened “Crossfire Hurricane” in good faith, with adequate “predication” (justification). Keep in mind that the OIG report was internal, dealing only with employees of the Justice (“Justice”) Department, while Durham’s has broad subpoena power and can bring criminal charges.

In a court filing dated January 25, Durham said Horowitz had failed to turn over to his office a couple of cellphones used by FBI General Counsel James Baker. This evidence was needed in connection with two investigations: the prosecution of Clinton attorney Michael Sussmann and the criminal leak investigation of Baker himself.

According to Durham’s updated filing on January 28, Horowitz’s office then told Durham that “the cellphones likely were discussed” in a conference call that took place almost four years ago, on February 12, 2018. But Durham said he doesn’t recall this discussion. He knew nothing about Horowitz’s possession of Baker’s cellphone until he was briefed by a separate FBI investigative team just a few weeks ago, on January 6.

It doesn’t seem likely the phones were discussed during that conference call, because Horowitz didn’t even get them until February 15, three days after the call, and there’s no record he informed Durham about receiving them. And Horowitz doesn’t remember for sure if he mentioned them, even though Durham was investigating Baker at the time for making “unauthorized disclosures to the media," meaning criminally leaking. One would assume those phones would be pretty important.

https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/2019-01-15-JDJ-MM-to-Durham-re-briefing.pdf?platform=hootsuite

It sure looks as though Durham didn’t know about the existence of those phones until Jan. 5, because on that day, he was seeking Baker’s “call log data” from the FBI’s Inspection Division. If he’d known about the phones, would he have needed the logs?

But there’s more of even greater interest in Durham’s January 25 filing. Amazingly, Horowitz also failed to disclose that he and his general counsel had met personally with Sussmann (!) regarding a “cyber matter” in March 2017. He also failed to disclose the identity of a Hillary-connected individual who provided the data to Sussmann that led to that meeting. And this is a big deal --- a huge part of Durham’s case against Sussmann.

Worse, Durham didn’t find this out from Horowitz, but from other sources, including Sussmann’s attorneys, who are entitled to discovery and apparently told him in their discovery meeting on January 20, “Hey, wait a minute, there’s nothing here about our client’s meeting with the OIG.” That material was missing even though Durham’s office had formally requested the OIG provide “all documents, records and information” in their possession regarding Sussmann.

The OIG did turn over some “relevant transcripts of interviews” about Crossfire Hurricane and, on December 17, 2021, a forensic report on the “cyber matter” that Sussmann had reported to the OIG. The “cyber matter” was that one of Sussmann’s clients (apparently “Tech Executive – 1” Rodney Jaffe) “had observed that a specific OIG employee’s computer was ‘seen publicly’ in ‘Internet traffic’ and was connected to a VPN (Virtual Private Network) in a foreign country.”

Horowitz told the Special Counsel that this was all he had. Durham provided it to Sussmann’s defense team on December 23, 2021.

Recall that Rodney Jaffe was coordinating with agents of the Clinton campaign to create the outlandish and quickly discredited story about Trump Tower communicating with Alfa Bank, to make it seem as if Trump had been signaling to the Kremlin. Jaffe was working with computer researchers at Georgia Tech to access private information, after which Georgia Tech got a $17 million Pentagon contract to research cybersecurity.

So, big question: who is this mysterious OIG employee? Why was Sussmann briefing Horowitz on this person’s activities? We want to know why Sussmann, who was a private attorney and not with the DOJ, would have been meeting with Horowitz, an internal affairs investigator, in early 2017. This was just a few weeks after pushing derogatory (and false) information about Trump to the CIA. It was also just a couple of months after Horowitz announced he was looking into the FBI’s handling of Crossfire Hurricane.

Regarding those phones of Baker’s, Durham asked the OIG on January 10 to conduct an “additional forensic examination.” On January 26, the day after Durham’s legal filing on the withheld evidence, the OIG finally responded with the forensic reports. But then, in his filing of January 28, Durham disclosed that Horowitz’s office had still MORE phones relating to the criminal leak investigation of Baker. Durham seems to have just found out about these in the past few days.

If you wonder why investigations take so ridiculously long, this one episode should give you some idea. But what a strange turn of events for defense attorneys to be providing the prosecutor with information that surprised him.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/durham-filing-rebuts-inspector-general-horowitzs-claims-on-missing-cellphones-hints-at-growing-rift_

In case you missed Aaron Mate’s very detailed analysis of Durham vs. Horowitz from January 20 and have some time to catch up, here’s the link. The editors at RealClear Investigations sum it up this way: “As he exposes the role of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in false allegations about Trump-Russia collusion, Special Counsel John Durham is sharply challenging FBI apologists who claim dubious vindication from an inspector general’s finding that the Bureau’s probe was launched in good faith, Aaron Mate reports...”

https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2022/01/20/the_tension_over_truth_and_consequences_gripping_the_fbis_trump-russia_reckoning_812321.html

Here’s another helpful refresher on Durham’s investigation from a few months ago. You might recognize the byline…

https://stream.org/special-counsel-update-durhams-investigation-is-expansive/

Hunter Biden in the News

February 3, 2022

Does anyone remember the first Trump impeachment, the one over his phone call to the President of Ukraine? That was the one where we found out that Democrats think that a Republican President asking a foreign leader if he’s investigating corruption involving a former Democrat Vice President’s son is an impeachable offense, but that former Vice President being involved in said corruption isn’t in any way a disqualification for being President.

https://justthenews.com/accountability/russia-and-ukraine-scandals/classified-state-department-email-declared-hunter-biden

Well, a stunning new piece of evidence has surfaced, five years late. John Solomon at JustTheNews.com has obtained an email written on November 22, 2016, by George Kent, a former US Embassy official in Ukraine. Classified “Confidential,” it’s been kept from public view until now.

The email to Kent’s superiors in the State Department said that someone in Washington “needed to engage VP Biden quietly and say that his son Hunter's presence on the Burisma board undercut the anti-corruption message the VP and we were advancing in Ukraine." Solomon writes:

“Kent's email described an intense pressure campaign by advocates for Burisma — including a former U.S. ambassador — to rehabilitate the Ukrainian company's corrupt reputation and to get Ukraine prosecutors to drop their criminal investigations of the company.

Kent even relayed to higher-ups that he had confirmed with Ukrainian prosecutors that Burisma officials had paid a $7 million ‘bribe’ to make one of the cases against the company disappear. The bribe was allegedly paid at a time when Hunter Biden was serving on the Burisma board, a job that landed his firm more than $3 million from the Ukrainian energy company.”

In short, Kent was aware of the shadiness of Hunter Biden’s dealings in Ukraine and how they were undermining efforts to fight corruption, the exact thing Trump was legitimately inquiring about. Yet somehow, even though Kent was one of the Democrats’ star impeachment witnesses, this email and the things he said in it never came up. How curious!

Congressional Republicans and some legal experts were outraged at this revelation. Trump was hit with a ridiculous impeachment charge and wasn’t allowed to have counsel at the depositions, and now we find that there was exculpatory evidence that was hidden from the President and the public.

All I can say is that I hope, and expect, that Joe Biden’s impeachment trial will be much fairer than this.

BLM Week of Action

February 3, 2022

This week, schools across the country are launching a “BLM Week of Action.” According to a “starter kit” on BLM’s website, this includes indoctrinating children as young as five with lots of radical left brainwashing. That includes four BLM “demands,” including “counselors, not cops” (because removing cops has made our big cities SO much safer for children, especially children in minority neighborhoods) and 13 BLM “guiding principles,” which include “black villages” and “globalism” (translation: racial segregation and communism.) Also, the "disruption of Western nuclear family dynamics." I imagine that means preventing parents from having any say over what their children are “taught.”

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schools-across-america-blm-week-action-nuclear-family

Judging from BLM’s actions, I assumed their guiding principles were more along the lines of shaking down white liberal corporate leaders for huge amounts of money which they spend on mansions instead of sharing it with the black communities that have been devastated by the riots and crime waves they encouraged.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/blm-transferred-millions-canadian-charity-buy-mansion-formerly-owned-communist-party

I love the quote in that story about one of BLM’s founders who resigned after spending millions on fancy homes, that she was criticized “for her perceived opulence while claiming to be a Marxist.” But that’s why the only people who love communist governments are the people who run them: that’s where all the money is.

I’m baffled as to why BLM should even have so much influence in schools, considering that Americans’ approval of the group, which soared after the George Floyd killing, soon began plummeting, as this story from last August reminds us.

https://www.westernjournal.com/blm-approval-craters-just-2-dropped-whopping-92-since-2020-peak/

Isn’t it bizarre that when parents protest racist, leftist Critical Race Theory being taught in schools, they’re told they’re crazy, there’s no CRT in schools. And then when schools openly push that divisive, racist propaganda, we’re told we’re domestic terrorists if we want it removed.

I know your kids have already missed a lot of school due to the pandemic, but if their school is observing “BLM Action Week,” it might not be a bad idea to homeschool them for just one more week, and spend that time finding a better school.

Ben Ray Lujan

February 3, 2022

New Mexico Democrat Senator Ben Ray Lujan, 49, suffered a stroke and had to undergo surgery to ease swelling in his brain. He’s “resting comfortably” in the hospital, and his office issued a statement saying he’s expected to make a full recovery, but there’s no word on how long he will be out. Our prayers are with him and his family.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/ben-ray-luj-n-49-152851965.html

Of course, in Washington, no human tragedy or problem is so serious that someone won’t view it through the lens of political advantage.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/592391-lujan-stroke-jolts-50-50-senate

Chuck Schumer had scheduled a marathon of votes on Biden nominees this week, and now he's frantically rushing to delay them. If Lujan can’t come to work for a while, there goes Schumer’s ability to force the leftist agenda onto Americans with a 50-50 tie vote plus Kamala Harris. If Lujan is out for too long, then a new Supreme Court Justice might have to wait until after the election and be vetted by the new Senate who will actually represent what the American people want as expressed in the 2022 elections.

It’s cynical but that’s how they think in DC. But if they're thinking Sen. Lujan’s health crisis will affect their hopes of resurrecting the “Build Back Better” spending bill, it makes no difference. Joe Manchin already made it clear this week that the version of that bill that passed the House is “dead.”

In what could be a sign that the RBC rights movement (the Reality-Based Community) is finally starting to gain some traction, USA Swimming released its “Athlete Inclusion, Competitive Equality and Eligibility Policy,” and it actually contains a tiny concession to biological reality.

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/lia-thomas-future-usa-swimming-new-policy-penn-teammates-support

There are still vast clouds of gaseous, CYA verbiage about “gender identity and expression,” but to cut to the chase, eligibility to compete will now include two areas of criteria: evidence that the prior physical development of the athlete as a male doesn’t provide an unfair advantage over female competitors, and evidence that the athlete’s testosterone levels have been sufficiently suppressed for at least 36 months before applying.

This was all prompted by UPenn swimmer “Lia” Thomas, who competed as a male for three years before switching to female, where “she” routinely passes female competitors like a speed boat and is mowing down female records by absurd margins. Take a look at the photo in that story, and you’ll see why.

I’m sure this change will come under furious assault by trans activists, but it's really just a welcome baby step toward returning recognition of the most basic biological facts and doesn’t go nearly far enough. For instance, current testosterone levels are only a small part of the advantage males have in sports because boys are exposed to so much testosterone from the womb onward. The changes during puberty give them even more muscle mass, greater upper body strength and other physical advantages that no testosterone suppressant can reverse.

Trans activists prove this by their own arguments. They go to court for the right to administer puberty-blocking drugs on grounds that if someone wants to “transition” to the other sex, it’s harder after puberty because of the irreversible physical changes. But when trans females want to compete in sports against biological females, suddenly, those physical changes during puberty don’t exist anymore.

This story says that Thomas’ teammates “released a joint statement backing their fellow competitor.” Yes, I’m sure they felt they had to because of the Twitter mob/cancel culture/trans activist pressure. But I’ll bet that in private spaces where it's only the girls – if such spaces still exist anymore – they’re high-fiving over this.