Joe Biden’s Weather Report

Unfortunately for The Narrative, 

folks aren't buying what they're selling

by Roger Kimball for American Greatness

It was only recently that I have come to understand what a deep bench of comic talent the Democrats command.

Consider Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-NY).

Is there a more accomplished straight man in the business?

A week ago, Devon Archer, bosom buddy and former biz partner of First Son Hunter Biden, testified in a closed-door session before the House Oversight Committee. The subject? Allegations of wholesale bribery, corruption, and influence peddling on the part of the Bidens.

Hunter is said to be the peddler (with Archer in the role of Tonto), dear old dad the product peddled. The details, now available in the transcript that Rep. James Comer, Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, released last week are eyeopening to say the least.

We now know, for example, that Joe Biden was summoned to the telephone at least 20 times to chat with Hunter’s business partners in Ukraine, China, Romania, and elsewhere. What were they talking about?

According to Rep. Goldman, it was just chit chat.

“How’s it going, Dad?”

“Pretty well, son? How’s the weather there?”

You could almost see Goldman holding his breath as he said that. Would the rubes buy it?

Yes, it was the party line. CNN established that by reporting that what Hunter was selling was only the “illusion” of influence. Unfortunately for The Narrative, folks aren’t buying what they’re selling. The normally understated Jonathan Turley, an independent-minded Democratic commentator, said that Archer’s testimony revealed “the apex of corruption.”

“What we now know,” he said, “is that the President has been lying.”

Remember: Joe said over and over again that he never discussed business with Hunter. It was like a scene out of Gilbert & Sullivan’s “HMS Pinafore.”

“Did you discuss business with your son Hunter?” “Never,” quoth Joe. “What never?” “Well, hardly ever.”

Or, to quote Devon Archer: “That’s categorically false. He was aware of Hunter’s business. He met with Hunter’s business partners.”

Oops.

According to Turley, Hunter had connected his father, then Vice-President of the United States, with some of “the most corrupt people” in Europe. Millions of dollars were on the line. Many of those millions were funneled into the Biden coffers, a process that was obfuscated by an elaborate network of shell companies.

In Turley’s view, this is “shaping up to be one of the greatest corruption scandals in the history of Washington, and that is saying a lot.”

Indeed it is. And note how the administration has responded. Damaging news is released on the Bidens. The next day, another indictment for Donald Trump. Really. The timing is remarkable. On March 17, Hunter admits the laptop is his. On March 18, news breaks about Trump being indicted. On June 8, a leaked FBI document alleges that Hunter and Biden each received a $5 million bribe. On June 9, Trump is indicted. On July 26, Hunter’s plea deal collapses. On July 27, Trump is indicted. On June 31, Devon Archer testifies before the Congressional Oversight Committee. On August 1, Trump is indicted. Coincidence?

I remember Auric Goldfinger’s warning. “Once is a happenstance, Mr. Bond. Twice is a coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”

Dan Bongino nutshelled the state of play. “The democrats are correct,” he wrote.

“Outside of the bank records, the suspicious activity reports, the wire transfers, the private bank transactions, the LLCs, the texts, the emails, the WhatsApp messages, the photos of Joe with Hunter’s business partners, the voicemails to his son, the two business partners saying Joe is the ‘brand,’ the ‘big guy,’ and ‘the chairman,’ the two whistleblowers testimony, the recorded phone calls between Biden and Poroshenko, the video of Joe Biden bragging about firing the Ukrainian prosecutor, and Hunter’s statements that he’s giving his dad half his income, there is NO evidence of Joe Biden being involved.”

Ha, Ha.

But let’s go back to the gambit that Hunter was only selling “the illusion” of influence not any real-life, corrupt, quid-pro-quo bribery. Turley put paid to that as well. The fact that Hunter could pick up the phone and get his father, the Vice-President of the United States, on the line: that was the influence. This is a point that emerged over and over again in Tucker Carlson’s two interviews with Devon Archer a few days after his testimony before the House.

Mollie Hemingway quotes the conservative broadcaster Larry O’Connor on this point. “Understand this,” O’Connor noted.  “Hunter getting Joe on speakerphone WAS THE DELIVERABLE.”

Indeed.

“It literally doesn’t matter what was discussed. Showing that he could get the Vice President of the United States on the phone was all Hunter had to show his clients to seal the deal.”

It is worth stressing this. “He was selling ACCESS not policy. Getting The Big Guy to pick up the phone demonstrated his ability to deliver that access. Case closed. Impeach.”

Maybe Joe Biden did discuss the weather in his many calls with Hunter and his cronies. The report, whether they knew it then or not, is stormy, with a distinct chance of impeachment.

X22, And we Know, and more- August 7

 

Hacks and Henchmen: ‘Disinformation’ Means You’re Over the Target

Honest people do not desperately try to shut others up, wringing their hands about what’s being said or posted

by Teresa R. Manning for American Greatness

Louisiana federal Judge Terry A. Doughty shocked Americans with his July 4th restraining order against Biden’s digital team which was supposed to be fighting “disinformation” but was in reality just banning views online it didn’t like.

Doughty’s opinion is a jaw dropping expose of how White House staff bullied Facebook, Twitter and other platforms to remove content about election fraud, COVID concerns and other matters of public interest in blatant violation of the First Amendment.  Governmental actors cannot demand that others do what they cannot under the Constitution, just as you can’t have proxies break the law for you. Yet that’s exactly what Biden officials did and that’s exactly what Judge Doughty stopped.

Curiously, Doughty’s order was stayed by the Fifth Circuit pending appeal. The case has been fast-tracked, however, given its serious nature, and an appellate decision is expected this fall.

Regardless of the outcome, White House staff either don’t know they are governed by the First Amendment (unlikely) or don’t care (likely). Their conduct also shows that COVID was almost certainly a fraud as were the measures imposed in its name, which were not only unwarranted but also anti-health and anti-medicine.

The opinion’s first 20 pages are most revealing. The Administration was sued by Missouri and Nebraska as well as doctors who signed the Great Barrington Declaration, a Statement by medical professionals opposing COVID masks, lockdowns and vaccine mandates. All claimants said their voices were silenced by the Administration and on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter when they tried to inform the public of alternative views about viruses and vaccines and alternative approaches to health. In criticizing masks and vaccine mandates, they highlighted that the vaccines had been rushed and were therefore experimental;  and masks not only could not keep out tiny viruses but also blocked fresh air, a known tonic.  Masks also harmed children’s development, especially their speech.

Within days of Biden taking office, however, high-level White House officials such as “Director of Digital Strategy” Robert Flaherty flagged tweets for removal when they had this kind of content. For example, Flaherty targeted tweets by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., now a Democrat presidential candidate but mostly known for his work exposing corrupt pharmaceutical companies, including vaccine manufacturers who have immunity from lawsuits even if their products seriously or fatally injure someone.  “Get moving on the process of having [the Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. account] removed ASAP,” Flaherty ordered. He likewise micromanaged Facebook, at one point accusing it of “political violence” when it did not censor vaccine skeptics quickly enough: “We’re gravely concerned that your service is one of the top drivers of vaccine hesitancy – period. …. we want to know that you’re not playing a shell game with us …”

Worse, Flaherty threatened to have the Justice Department sue the platforms if they did not immediately obey – a gross abuse of our court system.

Sadly but unsurprisingly, the platforms were not only quick to appease but also servile when faced with this obnoxious pressure. In emails labeled “Misinformation themes,” Facebook responded, “Obviously we have work to do to gain your trust.”

No staff lawyer at Facebook suspected this pressure was unlawful?

Or did platforms acquiesce in a good-cop, bad-cop routine, with the White House and social media actually on the same team, working in concert – colluding – to deprive Americans of information?

By way of reminder, the free flow of information is always critical to sound decision-making whether that decision is what house to buy, what toothpaste to use – or what medical course to follow.

Has no one noticed the sudden prevalence of the terms “misinformation” and “disinformation” as rationalizations to ban content? Ten years ago these words were limited to spy novels or CIA operatives. Now they’re everywhere – even as reasonable people know that more information is always better than less and that citizens have always had to distinguish between what’s reliable and what’s not. It’s called due diligence. And it works fine.

Needless to say, this is not the Biden approach.  Flaherty actually flaunted his power over platforms in classic, control-freak fashion, telling YouTube that his concern “was shared at the highest – and I mean the highest – levels of the White House.”

Similar tactics were used to remove posts that questioned election security. Biden officials actually accused platforms of contributing to riots and violence. When Facebook failed to censor Tucker Carlson, for example, White House Advisor Andrew Slavitt emailed, “[The last time we did this dance [about a failure to censor], it ended in insurrection.”

Understandably, reactions to this case have included both disbelief and disgust. But a few points should not get lost.

First and most basic – honest people do not behave this way.

Honest people do not desperately try to shut others up, wringing their hands about what’s being said or posted. Only shady characters do that, especially when they have something to hide and they know their story is falling apart.  The collapsing story here is the security – and therefore legitimacy – of current elections as well as the entire COVID narrative. What’s more, when you’re told you can’t question something, you know you’re over the target and getting to the root of a problem.

Second, real medicine does not behave this way. Real medical care is not top-down, heavy handed, one-size fits all diktats where newborns and octogenarians are treated the same.

In fact, real medicine is extremely individualized and varies greatly, depending on a patient’s age, weight, genetics, environment and particular medical history.

Real medicine never pressures.

Indeed, what we saw with COVID – no talk of proper rest or proper nutrition and no tolerance for different approaches for different people but instead, exclusive if not maniacal focus on an experimental injection as a panacea – was the opposite of medicine and the opposite of public health.

And Flaherty & Co. aren’t medical professionals or public health officials but political hacks – if not henchmen.

“Misinformation” and “disinformation” are now code for doing government dirty work – withholding valuable information and banning legitimate medical opinions in violation of the First Amendment and to serve the interests of Big Pharma – or worse.

In short, “disinformation” means you’re over the target.

Police-State Tactics Are Costing America The Global Moral High Ground

Shawn Fleetwood reporting for The Federalist

The Justice Department’s most recent indictment of former President Donald Trump has generated widespread outcry about the grievous nature of the sitting president’s administration targeting his political rival. The agency’s ongoing legal jihad against Trump means that federal officials have not only interfered in the past two presidential elections, but that they’re actively interfering in the next one as well.

Egregious as it all may be, these are just some of the many instances of the U.S. government’s war on Americans’ civil liberties. In recent years, federal officials have been busted for colluding with Big Tech platforms to censor free speech, targeting pro-lifers, parents, and Catholics, and using Covid-19 as an excuse to orchestrate the greatest state-sponsored assault on American freedoms in the modern era, just to name a few.

The sad irony found in all of this is that leading U.S. officials regularly criticize other countries for engaging in many of these same or similar behaviors. Last year, for instance, the U.S. was quick to condemn the imprisonment of Alexei Navalny, a Russian opposition leader and outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin who was convicted of “fraud” charges by government officials and was barred in 2017 from running in the nation’s elections. Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken released a statement in March 2021 criticizing the Chinese government for interfering in Hong Kong’s elections to benefit pro-China candidates.

None of this is to suggest the levels of persecution being committed by these countries and the U.S. against their respective peoples are equivalent. Rather, it’s to highlight the risk to America’s international reputation if our nation continues its embrace of these police-state tactics.

After all, what sane country is going to take U.S. concerns about “human rights violations” seriously if our government is treating its citizens like those of banana republics? Any American criticisms of what the Chinese or Russian governments are doing to their people would fall on deaf ears.

In fact, Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials have already taken to distorting U.S. internal matters to try and gain the moral high ground during diplomatic exchanges with the United States. Shortly after Joe Biden took office, for example, the CCP and U.S. officials led by Blinken met in Alaska to discuss a myriad of issues, including human rights.

In response to Blinken raising concerns about China’s ongoing persecution of Uyghurs, the CCP delegation fired back by accusing the U.S. of committing atrocities against its own people, specifically referencing Democrats’ embrace of Black Lives Matter activism in the wake of George Floyd’s death and the subsequent “summer of love” riots.

“The fact is that there are many problems within the United States regarding human rights, which is admitted by the U.S. itself as well,” the CCP’s head of foreign affairs Yang Jiechi said. “The challenges facing the United States in human rights are deep-seated.”

How are Blinken and company supposed to respond to that when the Biden administration has espoused the exact same sentiments? Any denial of these accusations or a full-throated defense of the U.S. would expose them as the race-baiting frauds they are.

And equally pressing: What’s to stop these same CCP officials from invoking any one of the many actual abuses the U.S. government has committed in recent years to distract from or even justify their government’s use of similar tactics against Chinese civilians? What’s to stop officials from any despotic government from doing so, for that matter?

While Americans slowly realize how increasingly authoritarian our government has become, that reality certainly hasn’t slipped by the world’s most despotic nations. Continued failure to uphold the principles that made it the world’s shining city on a hill will destroy not only the very foundations of the American republic, but our credibility throughout the world.

Watch: Giddy Rich Woman Uses Big Brother Palm-Print to Buy Groceries

Jim Thompson reporting for RedState 

China already has a social-credit system. Step out of line, and you can’t get on a bus, buy a ticket to a movie or buy bread. China does it using recognition software. Fingerprints for sure, but your face is an identifier for “good” and for “bad.” Step of line, and you get slapped back in place, begging big commie to allow you to make amends.

Please, sir, may I have some more [porridge]?

In Canada, if you had the nerve to object to the authoritarian son of Castro demanding that you take a vaccine that isn’t really a vaccine, social distance at six feet because some high school student thought it would work, and wear a useless mask because Saint Fauci said so, your bank accounts were seized. Your life – ruined.

Please, sir, may I have some more?

In Australia, COVID opened the door for authoritarian nanny state rule. It was, of course, expected in China. Communists are in charge, and if the CCP wants something or desires tight controls, restricted access, or limited cash, it has the power of a communist state to do what it wants. But Australia? The land down under used to be known for a rebel image. Then COVID struck and lingered, and Australia became a lockdown state. Now it’s part of the “New World Order.” Australia exercised authoritarian powers preventing and restricting movement and restricting the use of cash. Why restrict cash? Because cash is fungible. It can be exchanged for goods and then exchanged, again, for something else of value. Australia doesn’t like that. Australia likes electronic markers. Australia wants to know what you are buying, where you are buying, and when. Cash use in Australia has dropped from around 70 percent in 2007 to about 15 percent in 2020.

It will drop further as Australian banks take away the ability of customers to spend their own money. Westpac is now restricting cash withdrawals in a day to about $667 US dollars. Westpac will also restrict how much you can spend of your own money. If you have $100,000 in your bank, you can only spend $5,343 in a day. Next, banks will be asking what you’re spending it on, and you’ll need permission to buy something you want but don’t need. Low ESG score? Sorry, you can’t have your money.

Are we creeping slowly toward a Chinese-like social credit system with the International Monetary Fund’s Kristalina Georgieva telling Americans what they can and cannot buy? What we can and cannot possess? Maybe. The more comfortable we get with electronic identifiers, the closer we step toward banks collaborating with the government or winking at a suggestion to restrict the use of cash or any type of wealth; to set limits on the use of our own money. Perhaps soon, all banks will require customers to use their body parts as identifiers. Chip cards are so last century.

The argument will be: “Look, credit cards can be cloned and hacked, but your eyeballs can’t be cloned, and your fingerprints can’t be duplicated. It’s all for the best. Trust us. We are doing this for you, the customer. We aren’t tracking what you buy; we just want to make life…easy.”

I saw this video this morning, and a chill ran down my back. This rich woman is carrying a $6,000 Chanel bag and shopping at overpriced Whole Foods. She is giddy about paying for her tofu, kale, and gluten-free pasta, using just her palm print.

Nothing creepy about using your body parts to buy food, Chanel. In a few years, Chanel will be giddy again. It might be chemically induced. It might be just her natural personality willing to give up freedom for “convenience,” but at some point, Alexa will dryly announce:

“Hi, Chanel. It’s time to reorder your soma pills. Just put your eyeball up to the scanner, Chanel, and smile, Chanel.”

Chanel might feel rebellious – she might ask Alexa a question.

Chanel: But I don’t want soma, Alexa. Can you order a bottle of red wine instead?”

Alexa: I’m sorry, Chanel, I’m afraid I can’t do that…”

We Are Beyond Seeing the Strings, We Are Looking at the Puppeteers’ Hands Now

posted by Sundance at Conservative Treehouse 

Just a short follow-up for those who are following along.  Those who control the strings on the corporate puppets have gone beyond showing the visible strings; we the audience are now easily able to see their hands.

In the latest Politico article, citing the potential debate between Governor Gavin Newsom and Governor Ron DeSantis, you will note the following:

[SOURCE]

Yes, the commonality for the venue is Georgia.

It was always going to be thus, because this nonsense is following a script.  Perhaps now you see why I wrote this entire article about how Georgia plays a key role in the 2024 election {GO DEEP}, and subsequently predicted the venue for the insufferable pantomime would be… wait for it, Georgia {SEE HERE}.

Politico, again playing the role of usher for the audience as they prepare the stage, then does a follow-up article, snarking at DeSantis:

[…] The two sides’ proposed rules detail a number of similarities. They both agree on Hannity being the lone moderator, a 90-minute run time, equally divided speaking time and two minutes of closing statements.  Between the two governors’ proposals, Nov. 8 is the only date in common, while Georgia is the only location in common. (link) 

Quite frankly, all of this pretending is starting to become rather tiresome.

The entire right side of the conservative political punditry are pretending they have no idea what is happening in the 2024 election, as if they are still pretending Ron DeSantis was on a “book tour.”   Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, National Review, Ben Shapiro, Dave Ruben, The Blaze, The Daily Wire, TownHall, The Washington Free Beacon, Clay Travis, Western Journal, Newsmax, Buck Sexton, Legal Insurrection, the entire network of right-side alternative media, all of them, acting as ushers toward a grand pretending performance that is built around bulls**t.

When the internet shadow-banning system is triggered later this year, all of the above will remain visible and supported by the regime.  Remember that; these outlets/voices are deemed not a threat to ‘national security.’ Only the non-pretending outlets, platforms and voices are going to be targeted.  More on that later.

Those who control the illusion of choice have to proceed with the planning as if the objective to remove candidate Donald Trump will succeed.

That sets up Joe Biden to announce withdrawal due to medical issues.

The state they will choose for this Newsom -v- DeSantis debate venue is easy, Georgia.

Nothing is a coincidence.

Throughout our analysis of the preferred ’24 outcome, by those in the background who ultimately seek to control elections through the activity of front men, those artfully skilled at presenting the illusion of choice, it has always looked like the RNC/DNC preferred presentation was a Ron DeSantis -v- Gavin Newsom (win/win) contest.

The landscape of the ’24 election would then be reduced to “social issues” as distinctions between the two faces of the contest, while the economics of things – the substantive part – carries a far lesser contrast. An almost identical replay to the attempted 2016 construct of Hillary -v- Jeb.

In 2016, the RNC/DNC corporations wanted a Hillary v Jeb matchup. That was the outcome of both corporate intents, and all processes were deployed to create that outcome.

For 2024, it became obvious last year the corporations wanted a Newsom v DeSantis contest.  In that matchup the people who control the financial mechanisms can maintain their status quo.  The billionaire funders for DeSantis, RGA/RNC would be quite okay with a Newsom outcome.

We told you this was going to be very ugly, and it is unfolding exactly as we would expect.

It will get worse, much worse.

The key to defeating these Machiavellian constructs is to pour sunlight upon them.

Latest ‘Facebook Files’ Confirm Biden Admin Censors Think You’re Too Stupid To Govern Yourself

The White House put immense pressure on the Big Tech company to limit what Americans were exposed to online.

Jordan Boyd reporting for The Federalist

President Joe Biden’s White House demanded an increase of censorship from Facebook in 2021, new emails reveal — confirming once again that the administration believes Americans are stupid.

In part three of what he deemed the “Facebook Files,” Republican Rep. Jim Jordan released more communications obtained from Facebook detailing the immense pressure the Big Tech company received from the executive branch to limit what Americans saw online.

Emails show Courtney Rowe, then-White House director of strategic communications and engagement for Covid-19 response, praising Facebook in April 2021 for offering the White House suppression data “broken down by region and demographics.” One sentence later, she petitioned the Big Tech company to answer “how do we work with you all to push back on it[?]” because she believed that “if someone in rural Arkansas sees something on FB, it’s the truth.”

Jordan said Rowe “mocked Real America’s ability to determine what’s true and what isn’t” because the Biden administration “didn’t think you were smart enough to decide for yourself.”

In April 2021, Biden’s then-Director of Digital Strategy Rob Flaherty also sent Facebook several suppression demands to censor right-wing commentators and publications. According to Flaherty, outlets like the Daily Wire are “polarizing” and not “authoritative news source[s].”

“You wouldn’t have a mechanism to check the material impact?” Flaherty questioned.

On behalf of the White House, Flaherty even asked Facebook to reduce visibility for the New York Post, which debuted reporting about Hunter Biden’s “laptop from hell” and Biden family corruption six months earlier.

“I’m curious – NY Post churning out articles every day… What is supposed to happen to that from Policy perspective. Does that article get a reduction, labels?” Flaherty asked the censors.

Flaherty eventually concluded that his preference for controlling online speech was to convince Facebook to “kick people off” of the social media platform.

“We’re keen on what platforms are doing to reduce the spread of bad information, that platforms are not funneling people towards bad content,” Flaherty wrote. “That’s our primary concern.”

The censors at the Silicon Valley giant explained that they couldn’t “remove” every user or post deemed problematic by the White House but eventually agreed to demote certain posts even when the posts did not explicitly violate Facebook’s terms and conditions.

Facebook claimed that posts complaining about the “government overreach” of the Biden administration’s Covid jab mandates were reduced because they fed a “vaccine negative environment.”

“The company ADMITTED to the White House that it reduced content of certain posts – even if the posts didn’t violate the company’s terms and contained TRUE information,” Jordan explained.

Weaponizing the censorship industrial complex against Americans isn’t the only time Biden and his Democrat cronies have revealed their belief that Americans are stupid and can’t think for themselves.

As early as 1988, Biden was telling voters to their faces that they were not credentialed enough to criticize him.

“I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect,” then-Sen. Biden infamously proclaimed to a voter who asked him to explain his lies about his academic track record.

The ruling regime’s contempt for Americans was made even more abundantly clear during the pandemic. While Democrats demonstrated their disdain for their voters with hypocritical visits to hair salons and fancy restaurants during the height of lockdowns, Biden tried to force Covid shots on hardworking Americans who he apparently thought were not educated well enough to thoughtfully reject the jab.