Saturday, October 24, 2020

NPR Part of the Anti-Trump Deep State

Recently the New York Post reported: Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm. Media reaction was swift to suppress this story. Even NPR responded that the story was not "worth their time". A somewhat arrogant and closed minded attitude by a supposed news organization. NPR slammed for dismissing coverage of Hunter Biden laptop scandal as a 'waste of time'

Now a Mr. Bobulinsk has come forward with facts, emails, and dates that may implicate Biden, the Democratic candidate for President, as being corrupt. One would think that a news organization would be interested in investigating these allegations. After all do you really want a corrupt person as President?

NPR's dismissal of this story is actually quite troubling. Back in September 2019 they were all in for investigating the unsubstantiated allegations of Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh. Reporters Dig Into Justice Kavanaugh's Past, Allegations Of Misconduct Against Him

Ms. Ford in her unsubstantiated allegations was vague concerning details, such as time and place. Furthermore, the alleged incident, if it did occur, was around 35 years ago.  Conversely, today, through Mr. Bubulinsk as one source, concrete current detailed information implying that Biden is corrupt is being released. Given the implications, every media outlet should be digging deep into the story. Incomprehensibly, according to NPR, we are to somehow believe that this story is not "worth investigating"?!?!?!

Friday, October 23, 2020

Another Confirmation that the Presidential Debates Were Blatantly Anti-Trump

I watched the Presidential debate last night between Trump and Biden. The debates are supposed to inform the viewer of what the candidates stand for so that the viewer can make an informed decision on who they will vote for. 

So even though, I watched the debate, it turns out that I missed a lot. Sometimes it takes a bit of time before partisan points surface that demonstrate that last night's debate once again proved to be another blatant anti-Trump forum. 

 On Tucker Carlson Tonight, Tucker played a video clip where the moderator (Kristen Welker) pointed out that Trump had made a derogatory comment concerning Dr. Fauci and asked Trump to explain. Fair enough. 

It turns out that both Biden and Harris had also made derogatory remarks concerning Dr. Fauci in the past that I was unaware of. Tucker showed these illustrative video clips. How come the moderator never pointed out to Biden his derogatory remarks concerning Dr. Fauci and asked him to explain? 

The video clips Tucker showed, since they spanned several months, had Dr. Fauci making inconsistent statements: like wear a mask, don't wear a mask. I don't have a problem with those types of inconsistent statements since how we approach the virus changes over time as we learn more. What I do have a problem with, is that Biden has insincerely claimed to strictly follow "the science" and used that "hammer" to vilify Trump, by saying that Trump has not been following "the science" and is therefore unfit to be re-elected. Seems that it is Biden, by misusing facts who is unfit to be elected.

Thursday, October 15, 2020

Hunter Biden Alleged Corruption Publicly Revealed - Disclosure Suppressed

Yesterday, the news broke concerning Hunter Biden's alleged corruption.  'Use your influence': Hunter Biden report undercuts father, upends campaignNew York Post Article: Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm.

Of further interest:

Quite amazing how quickly social media outlets immediately suppressed this story so that the public would not be aware of this alleged corruption.

Just five days ago, I speculated that there may be some unknown reason for why the Presidential debate was cancelled for tonight. It is possible that the Biden campaign, to a degree, was aware of this story brewing. Of course, direct concrete facts of why the debate was cancelled will not be publicly available.

As has already been noted by Fox News, it will be interesting to observe if Biden, at tonight's town hall meeting, will actually be asked to comment on this breaking story.

Saturday, October 10, 2020

Tossing Neutrality Aside, the Commission on Presidential Debates Comes to the Aid of Biden

On the morning following the vice-Presidential debate, the Commission on Presidential Debates (unilaterally without any apparent participant consultation), changed the debate rules.  Trump immediately rejected those revised rules. In response, the The Commission on Presidential Debates abruptly cancelled the debate.  Commission cancels Oct. 15 presidential debate. Extremely perplexing. After all, the purpose of these debates is to give the candidates the opportunity for them to disclose to the electorate what polices they plan to implement if elected. Cancelling the debate is counter to the Commission's mandate.

I have no insider knowledge concerning this, but it is easy to speculate that this was done to secretly "protect" the Biden/Harris campaign. 

  • The so-called debate "moderators", in this election cycle as in past election cycles, have proven to be anti-Republican, in this case anti-Trump. This year, it has been exposed the Commission itself is made-up of Never Trumpers even if they are supposedly Republicans. So the Commission itself is now partisan (pro-Biden) 
  • Biden has evaded answering policy questions. One notable example, his repeated refusals to answer questions concerning the US Supreme Court.  At some point even the anti-Trump media may begin to ask this question and other potentially embarrassing questions. Squelching the debate may keep Biden's agenda "under wraps".
  • Trump was an embarrassment at the first debate. An obvious conjecture supporting having a second debate by the Biden camp is that Trump would fail again. But given the abrupt cancellation of this debate, can one actually speculate that Trump did not fail? I have not looked into this issue, but I've seen a smattering of headlines made by biased Trump surrogates that Trump won, however implausible. Did Democratic internal polling actually disclose that that Biden did worse than perceived?
  • The Pence/Harris vice-Presidential debate went very badly for the Democrats. Considering the virtually immediate "knee jerk" reaction by the Commission to changing the rules and then with equal rapidity cancelling the debate, one can hypothesize that an unknown someone saw something negative in a crystal ball and screamed: STOP!!.
  • Trump, in response to the Commission's rule change, to a virtual format, offered to hold the debate outdoors. Whether this option, or other options that considered health issues were evaluated by the Commission is unknown. The point appears to remain that this debate was quickly cancelled, apparently to protect Biden.

Thursday, October 8, 2020

Corrupt Moderators and the Media Blatantly Supporting the Democratic Party

 Last night, the vice-Presidential debate occurred. It quickly became obvious (as it did with Chris Wallace being the moderator of the Presidential debate) that the moderator, Susan Page, was a Democratic sympathizer.  She asked, if you can even call it "asking", adversarial questions of Mike Pence, the Republican vice-Presidential candidate. In asking these (fake) questions, Ms. Page was asking Pence questions which he and Trump had previously answered. It is as if Ms. Page appeared to be reading from an assumed Democratic playbook were each moderator and media must continuously ask these questions over and over again, despite the fact that they were previously answered numerous times. Seem to be a case of repeating the same lie over and over again so that the electorate will eventually accept the premise that Republicans are bad.

  1. That Trump won't accept a Biden win and will attempt to remain in office.
  2. That Trump won't condemn the false claims by Democrats that he supports White supremacy.
  3. Charlottesville.

On point #1, Pence did a very effective response to Ms. Page where he highlighted how the Democrats abused the power of the state to spy on the Trump campaign in 2016, the Russia collusion hoax, the Mueller report, and the attempted coup of Trump through the impeachment process. It has been the Democrats who have refused to accept the results of the 2016 election.  The Democrats are now trying to disrupt the 2020 election process. Hillary Clinton even said that if Trump wins, that Biden should never concede.

Katie Pavlich, of Fox News, concerning the debate moderators, noted that one needs to also examine the controversial questions that the moderators are avoiding to ask. She noted that the moderators are not asking questions related to public controversies that would make Democrats "uncomfortable". Examples, gun control, illegal immigration, health care for illegal immigrants, eliminate Electoral College, abortion, defunding the police, and Hunter Biden. The electorate deserves answers from the Democrats to these questions so that they can make informed decisions. 

As an interesting aside on Democratic illogic, the Democrats contend that the approval of Amy Coney Barrett to the US Supreme Court be delayed to after the Presidential election to give Americans a voice in selecting the President who will make the nomination. Absurdly, the Democrats refuse to release the names of potential Supreme Court nominees or to address the issue of court packing thereby depriving Americans of the ability to know what they are voting for.

Since originally posting the video above, the following story appeared: Biden says voters don't deserve to know his stance on packing Supreme Court. Surprising that Biden would actually double down on this obfuscation and say that the electorate does "not deserve to know".

Should there be a third debate, it will be interesting to observe whether the three topics posted above don't somehow magically re-appear as fake adversarial "questions".  Will the moderators ask Biden any of the "uncomfortable" questions?  The electorate deserves to know.  It is the Democrats who are the threat to democracy.