Monday, January 2, 2023

DEALING WITH HIGH TECH BILLIONAIRES WHO ELECTED THE MOST CORRUPT PRESIDENT IN HISTORY - GOP Rep. Good: ‘Swamp Cartel’ Leader McCarthy Speaker Bid Will Be Blocked

THERE'S REALLY LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN

McCARTHY AND JOE BIDEN. BOTH ARE ADVOATES FOR A

FOREIGN INVASION OF 'CHEAP' LABOR ILLEGALS!



GOP Rep. Good: ‘Swamp Cartel’ Leader McCarthy Speaker Bid Will Be Blocked

1:14

Representative Bob Good (R-VA) said Monday on FNC’s “Fox & Friends” that “swamp cartel” leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) will not be Speaker of the House.

Good said, “I won’t be voting for Kevin McCarthy tomorrow. He is part of the problem. He is not part of the solution.”

He continued, “There is nothing that indicates to me that he is going to change his pattern since he has been in leadership, where he is part of the swamp cartel. He is the reason on the Republican side why we passed massive omnibus spending bills that just got rammed down our throats by Republicans in the Senate. He was part of that in leadership. Since he has been in leadership for the past eight years, there is nothing about Kevin McCarthy that indicates he will bring the change that’s needed to Washington or that’s needed to the Congress, or he will bring the fight against Biden, Schumer’s agenda and represent the interest of the voters who sent us to Washington to bring us real change.”

He added, “What we will do is we will block Kevin.”

Good concluded, “We will put forth a true challenge candidate on the second ballot.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN


Chump Change: Google to Pay $29.5 Million Settlement in Lawsuits over Location Tracking

Sundar Pichai CEO of Google ( Carsten Koall /Getty)
Carsten Koall /Getty
3:11

Tech giant Google has reportedly agreed to pay $29.5 million to settle separate lawsuits with Washington DC and Indiana over the company’s location tracking practices.

The Hill reports that Google has reached a settlement with Washington DC and Indiana, agreeing to pay a total of $29.5 million to resolve separate lawsuits regarding its location tracking practices. As part of the settlements, the tech giant has pledged not to mislead users about the collection and use of their location data in location history and web and app activity.

Sabo mocks Google CEO Sundar Pichai

Sabo mocks Google CEO Sundar Pichai (unsavoryagents.com)

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has announced that the state has reached a settlement with Google for $20 million to resolve a lawsuit over allegations of deceptive location-tracking practices. In a statement, Rokita said that the settlement reflects the state’s commitment to protecting consumers and holding companies accountable for their actions.

“This settlement is another manifestation of our steadfast commitment to protect Hoosiers from Big Tech’s intrusive schemes,” Rokita said. “We will continue holding these companies accountable for their improper manipulation of consumers.”

Multiple states filed lawsuits against Google after an Associated Press investigation in 2018 shed light on the extent of the company’s location-tracking practices. Despite efforts by a coalition of state attorneys general to reach a settlement with Google, negotiations ultimately failed, leading Indiana to file its own lawsuit.

In November, Google agreed to pay a settlement of nearly $392 million to 40 states to resolve the case brought by the coalition. Indiana’s recent settlement with Google for $20 million is separate from this earlier resolution.

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita accused Google of using location data collected from Indiana consumers to build detailed user profiles and target ads, while also misleading users about its practices since at least 2014. Despite the allegations, the settlement reached between Indiana and Google states that the agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing on the part of the company.

D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine has announced that his office has reached a settlement with Google for $9.5 million over allegations that the company used “dark patterns” to manipulate customers and gain access to their location data. Racine said that Google made it difficult for users to prevent their location from being tracked, leading his office to file a lawsuit against the company.

Under the terms of the settlement, Google will be required to clearly disclose to its customers how their location data is collected, stored, and used, and will also implement measures such as issuing a pop-up notification to users with location history enabled and maintaining a webpage outlining the company’s location tracking practices and policies.

Read more at the Hill here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan


Report: Google Home Speakers Allowed Hackers to Spy on Users

Google boss Sundar Pichai is masked up ( Drew Angerer /Getty)
Drew Angerer /Getty
2:27

According to a recent report, a bug in Google Home smart speakers allowed for the installation of a backdoor account that could be used to control the device and access its microphone feed. In short, hackers could take over Google’s devices to spy on users by listening in on their conversations.

Bleeping Computer reports that a vulnerability in Google Home smart speakers allowed the creation of a backdoor account that could be used to remotely control the device and access its microphone feed, potentially turning it into a spying tool.

AFP

(© GETTY/AFP/File SPENCER PLATT)

The flaw was discovered by researcher Matt Kunze, who received a $107,500 reward for responsibly reporting it to Google in the previous year. Kunze published technical details and an attack scenario illustrating the exploit late last week.

During his experimentation with a Google Home Mini speaker, Kunze discovered that new accounts created using the Google Home app could remotely send commands to the device through the cloud API. In order to capture the encrypted HTTPS traffic and potentially obtain the user authorization token, the researcher used a Nmap scan to locate the port for the local HTTP API of Google Home and set up a proxy.

Kunze found that adding a new user to the target device involves two steps: obtaining the device name, certificate, and “cloud ID” from its local API. This information makes it possible to send a link request to the Google server. To add an unauthorized user to a target Google Home device, Kunze implemented the linking process in a Python script that automated the extraction of local device data and reproduced the linking request.

The researcher released three proof-of-concept scripts on GitHub that demonstrate the actions involved in the hack. However, these scripts should not be effective on Google Home devices running the latest firmware version. The proofs-of-concept go beyond simply adding an unauthorized user and also enable spying through the microphone, making arbitrary HTTP requests on the victim’s network, and reading/writing arbitrary files on the device.

Read more at Bleeping Computer here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship. Follow him on Twitter @LucasNolan


Fmr. Apple in China Employee: Due to ‘Deep Partnership’ with CCP, Companies Like Apple Have ‘To Do What They Want’

During a portion of an interview with NPR aired on Monday’s broadcast of “Morning Edition,” Doug Guthrie, a former employee of Apple in China who also advised company executives on Chinese politics, stated that due to the “deep partnership” between corporations like Apple and the Chinese government, Apple ends up having to do what the Chinese government wants.

During a clip that was played in a segment on Apple denying the Chinese people tools like the AirDrop feature that they use to get around the censorship tools of the Chinese Communist Party, Guthrie said, “There’s a deep partnership between companies like Apple and the Chinese government, and you’ve got to do what they want.”

NPR International Desk Correspondent John Ruwitch then stated, “The company has moved some assembly to places like India and Vietnam, but Guthrie calls that hand-waving about diversifying, relocating supply chains will take years. And he says that means Apple is beholden to China. And now, it has to contend with pressure from Chinese citizens who aren’t happy about that.”

Ruwitch also introduced Guthrie’s comments by stating that “He says Apple’s supply chains in China are the key to its profitability.”



Republicans Urged to Investigate China’s IP Theft, Big Tech Ties

Tech billionaire Peter Thiel resigns from board of Facebook parent
UPI
4:49

Policy experts and tech leaders including conservative venture capitalist Peter Thiel are urging the incoming GOP House to investigate China’s exploitation of the U.S. intellectual property system, as well as ties between Big Tech companies and the communist country.

In a recent speech at the Reagan Library, Thiel called on the incoming GOP House Majority to get tougher on China, stating “There’s sort of no simply neutral way to work with China in any way.”

The Associated Press

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Calif., departs after speak during a Congressional Gold Medal ceremony honoring law enforcement officers who defended the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda in Washington, Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2022. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

In particular, he called out the role of Big Tech in China:

“with . . . some of the Dynamics in the tech industry where you have . . . Apple computer has this strange dependency on  Chinese labor to build the iPhones . . .would violate every labor law standard in the U.S and so the biggest company in the US that makes up something like six and a half seven percent of the S&P 500 is somehow incredibly deeply entangled on an economic level with China.”

Thiel also noted that our “data gets shared in all sorts of different ways” with China, citing concerns about TikTok’s ties to the CCP. Thiel famously called Google’s relationship with China “seemingly treasonous” at the 2019 National Conservatism Conference

While Thiel has largely been an anti-establishment, the bulk of the majority of the GOP Leadership shares this view rhetorically. Prior to the election McCarthy’s blueprint called to “End Dependence on China” and “Confront Big Tech.”  Candeub was encouraged with McCarthy’s claim that “China is the No. 1 country when it comes to intellectual property theft.” Indeed, China has exploited the U.S.’s IP system, stealing an estimated $600 billion in intellectual property each year.

Many leading conservative anti-Big Tech scholars have argued that cracking down on Big Tech and China requires a tough approach on intellectual property.

Adam Candeub, a law professor at Michigan State who headed the National Telecommunications and Information Agency during the Trump Administration, said a strong IP framework was necessary to combat both China and Big Tech.

“Both Silicon Valley Democrats have both traditionally supported weaker patent protections, however, it’s not as visible of an issue as antitrust or Section 230.” He cautioned that “given the overwhelming anti-Big Tech sentiment amongst the Republican base, undermining IP could be the one favor that establishment Republicans could deliver to companies like Google and Apple.”

Candeub points to “bipartisan” attempts to undo Patent reforms made by the Trump administration by giving more power to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

“PTAB was a product of Big Tech lobbying, and has remained Silicon Valley’s preferred tool to evade responsibility for patent infringement.”

Adam Mossoff, a law professor at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law and a visiting intellectual property fellow at the Heritage Foundation agreed, telling Breitbart News that Big Tech companies have spend “hundreds of millions of dollars” in lobbying money supporting PTAB.

“The PTAB has canceled tens of thousands of patent claims through willy-nilly decisions many Americans have come to expect from many of the alphabet-soup regulatory agencies,” said Mossoff, author of a recent paper for the Heritage Foundation explaining how the administrative state has choked off innovation.

“Given the weakened U.S. patent system in which it’s become almost impossible to license or enforce a patent, Big Tech engages in a well-known practice of predatory infringement—stealing inventions because it’s now cheaper than rightfully paying to use other people’s property,” said Mossoff.

Mossoff said that the weakened state of U.S. intellectual property makes China’s job easier.

“Through its explicit domestic industrial policies, China is stealing technologies from U.S. innovators and providing stable and reliable patent protections to its own innovators,” said Mossoff.

“China seeks to dominate next-generation technologies in AI, the Internet of Things, and mobile telecommunications, such 6G. Weakened patent rights in the U.S make it easier to steal U.S. technologies, such as patents on 5G.”

Mossoff urged the House GOP to “reestablish the reliable and effective patent rights that have been a key driver of the U.S. innovation economy from the Founding Era to today,” and to “call the FTC to account for its continued attacks on American innovators in both the biomedical and high-tech sectors, holding hearings and subpoenaing records of its decision-making processes.”

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. He is the author of #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election.


7 Biggest Biden Family Business Revelations of 2022

President Joe Biden and his son Hunter depart after attending Mass at Holy Trinity Catholic Church, Sunday, Jan. 24, 2021, in the Georgetown neighborhood of Washington. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)
AP Photo/Patrick Semansky
8:29

Seven key developments in the Biden family business scandal have come to light in 2022. The scandal, suppressed by the intelligence agencies and establishment media dating back to 2020, became one of the major storylines of the year.

Recent polling shows 71 percent of Americans believe accurate reporting of Hunter Biden’s “Laptop from Hell” could have altered the 2020 presidential election. The political impact of the scandal has drawn GOP House leadership to launch nine investigations into Hunter and President Joe Biden. Sixty-two percent of voters approved of the congressional probes.

Since 2018, the DOJ has reportedly been investigating Hunter for alleged tax and gun violations. Hunter has yet to be charged with wrongdoing.

1) U.S. Banks Flagged Over 150 Suspicious Financial Transactions from Biden Family

In April, U.S. banks flagged over 150 suspicious financial transactions from Hunter and James Biden, according to CBS News. The wire transfers included “large” amounts of money tripped for further review by American banks.

Wire transfers have been the tool of choice for money launderers. To mitigate the risks to the financial institutions, suspicious wire transfers over $10,000 are flagged for review. Wire transactions involving more than $10,000 are also to be reported to the Internal Revenue Service.

“The focus is on day one are those bank violations and those bank records,” Rep. James Comer (R-KY) told Breitbart News. “We are pretty confident in what we’re going to find in those. We have two bank violations. We have some bank statements in hand, and we believe that suspicious activity reports, which are bank violations when the bank notifies the federal government that we’re pretty confident that our client has committed a crime, Hunter Biden and Jim Biden have at least 150 of those. And I’ve said this before, and I come from a strong banking background, I don’t think there’s anyone in the history of the United States that’s had that many suspicious activity reports.”

2) Joe Biden Met with Hunter’s Business Partner at White House

News broke in April that Hunter’s closest business partner Eric Schwerin made at least 19 visits to the White House and other official locations from 2009 to 2015, according to visitor logs from the White House. Schwerin also reportedly met with then-Vice President Joe Biden in the White House.

The meetings contradict Joe Biden’s statement that he has not been involved in the Biden family business schemes. In fact, a total of seven times Joe Biden and his team have deflected or denied involvement in the family business. “I’ve never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Joe Biden said.

3) Voicemail Proves Joe Biden Spoke to Hunter About Family Business 

In June, news broke Joe Biden left Hunter a voicemail in 2018 about a Chinese energy deal, directly contradicting Joe Biden’s statement in 2019 that he and his son had not spoken about the family’s corrupt business schemes.

“Hey pal, it’s Dad. It’s 8:15 on Wednesday night. If you get a chance just give me a call. Nothing urgent. I just wanted to talk to you,” Joe Biden said in a voicemail reported by the Daily Mail.

“I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. I think you’re clear. And anyway if you get a chance give me a call, I love you,” he concluded.

4) Deputy DNI Warned Hunter’s Laptop Was Not ‘Russian Disinfo’; CNN’s Natasha Bertrand Wrote Now Discredited Story Anyway 

In December, Cliff Sims, former deputy director of National Intelligence (DNI) stated he warned CNN reporter Natasha Bertrand that Hunter’s laptop was not Russian disinformation before she wrote the infamous and discredited Politico story which utilized “dozens of former intel officials” to purvey a false and misleading narrative about the origins of Hunter’s laptop. Breitbart News reported:

Bertrand, a reporter for Politico at the time, approached then-deputy DNI Sims on October 19, 2020, regarding an article she was writing about 50 former information officials claiming Hunter’s laptop was Russian disinformation. Breitbart News’s Emma-Jo Morris had a few days earlier broken the “Laptop from Hell” story, which big tech censored, in the New York Post.

Sims told Bertrand before the publication of the Politico story that the “Laptop from Hell” was not Russian disinformation, citing then-Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe. Despite Sims’ warning, Bertrand wrote the story anyway and gave the Democrats the headline they wanted, Sims stated.

5) White House Debating How to Combat Probes into Hunter

According to a Washington Post report in December, disagreement exists among those surrounding the Biden family about how to combat Republican investigations into the family business.

A disagreement exists between Hunter’s attorney, Kevin Morris, and the White House about how the Biden family should combat the investigations into the family business. Morris wants Hunter to remain in the public eye by attending public events, such as the recent White House state dinner and public art exhibits. The Post reported those who agree with Morris’s strategy also believe Hunter should play a public role in Joe Biden’s potential reelection campaign.

The White House appears to have opposed pushing Hunter further into the public eye, despite Hunter’s noted public appearances, including at Joe Biden’s vacation destinations.

6) Hunter’s Drug Abuse Reportedly Delaying Charges in Tax, Gun-Related Probe

The Justice Department reportedly delayed its “final decision” on whether Hunter will be charged for alleged tax and gun-related violations because people familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal in October that Hunter’s drug abuse could be a scapegoat the defense could successfully use to defend the president’s son against potential charges.

According to media reports, charges were expected to be brought by the end of summer 2020, but Joe Biden’s Justice Department is reportedly wrestling with Hunter’s drug addiction.

7) Legal Experts Estimate Hunter Biden’s Legal Defense Costs $100K a Month

Hunter has stated he is not wealthy. According to Hunter’s ex-wife, Hunter was nearly penniless while Joe Biden was vice president, living paycheck to paycheck after out-of-control spending. From 2018-2019, Joe Biden even committed to wiring Hunter $100,000.

Where Hunter is finding the money to pay his legal bills is unknown, but it appears that Hunter has maintained multiple income streams. Breitbart News reported in December:

According to attorneys with knowledge of industry compensation standards, Hunter could be paying more than $100,000 per month ($1.2 million per year) for his legal defense team. Lawyers at such a level would cost $1,000 per hour, a D.C. attorney who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution and reprisal told Breitbart News. Prepping for a single hearing could range from 6 to 40 hours, another attorney said.

In 2018 and 2020, Breitbart Senior Contributor and Government Accountability Institute President Peter Schweizer published Secret Empires and Profiles in Corruption. Each book hit #1 on the New York Times bestseller list and exposed how Hunter Biden and Joe Biden flew aboard Air Force Two in 2013 to China before Hunter’s firm inked a $1.5 billion deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China less than two weeks after the trip. Schweizer’s work also uncovered the Biden family’s other vast and lucrative foreign deals and cronyism.

Breitbart Political Editor Emma-Jo Morris’s investigative work at the New York Post on the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” also captured international headlines when she, along with Miranda Devine, revealed that Joe Biden was intimately involved in Hunter’s businesses, appearing to even have a 10 percent stake in a company the scion formed with officials at the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party.

Follow Wendell Husebø on Twitter @WendellHusebø. He is the author of Politics of Slave Morality.


Report: Silicon Valley ‘Riddled’ with Spooks from FBI and CIA

Mark Zuckerberg (Drew Angerer /Getty)
Drew Angerer /Getty
2:27


Silicon Valley giants including Facebook and Twitter are full of former members of the U.S. intelligence community, according to reports from Mint Press and the Daily Mail. These employees are often found in the “trust and safety” or “misinformation” departments of tech companies — the sections tasked with platform censorship.

The former spooks identified by reporters include the following:

  • Aaron Berman: formerly a senior analytic manager for the CIA who spent 17 years preparing and editing the U.S. president’s daily intelligence briefing, now a senior policy manager for “misinformation” at Meta.
  • Bryan Weisbard: formerly a CIA intelligence officer, now a director of “trust, safety, security and data privacy” at Meta. His LinkedIn previously described his work at the CIA as identifying “online social media information propaganda and covert influence campaigns.”
  • Emily Vacher: formerly a FBI special supervisory agent, now director of trust and safety at Facebook.
  • Daniel Aragnovich: formerly Director for intelligence at the National Security Council, now head of “global threat disruption” at Facebook.
  • Matthew Williams: formerly an intelligence program manager at the FBI, now “senior director of public trust, revenue policy, counsel systems and analytics” at Twitter.
  • Jacqueline Lopour: 10-year CIA veteran who was a “go-to writer” for presidential briefings, now a senior intelligence collection and trust and safety manager at Google.
  • Nick Rossman: former FBI and CIA analyst who is now a senior manager of trust and safety at Google.
  • Jeff Lazarus: former economic and political analyst at the CIA, who went on to work for Google’s trust and safety department and then Meta’s “strategic response” unit.

More examples can be found in the reports by Mint Press News and the Daily Mail

The reports came shortly after recent installments of the Twitter Files, which shed light on the deep links between the FBI and American foreign policy apparatus and Twitter.

Allum Bokhari is the senior technology correspondent at Breitbart News. He is the author of #DELETED: Big Tech’s Battle to Erase the Trump Movement and Steal The Election.


Joe Biden has made it abundantly clear that he is unprincipled, untrustworthy, and unscrupulous. His faux presidency will be remembered as one of the darkest periods of American history. We can only hope that the damage he leaves behind him will not be completely irreversible. ROBERT SPENCER

 THE BIDEN KLEPTOCRACY

IN OPERATION FOR OVER A HALF CENTURY!

American people deserve to know what China was up to with Joe Biden, especially when Beijing had already shelled out millions of dollars to Biden family members — including millions in set-asides for “the big guy.” What else is on that infamous Hunter Biden laptop? The conflicted Biden Justice Department cannot be trusted to engage in any meaningful oversight on this issue. We need a special counsel now.   

                                     TOM FITTON - JUDICIAL WATCH

 

Breitbart Political Editor Emma-Jo Morris’s investigative work at the New York Post on the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” also captured international headlines when she, along with Miranda Devine, revealed that Joe Biden was intimately involved in Hunter’s businesses, appearing to even have a 10 percent stake in a company the scion formed with officials at the highest levels of the Chinese Communist Party.


HOW MANY OF THESE CULPRITS ARE GAMER LAWYERS?

“Protect and enrich.” This is a perfect encapsulation of the Clinton Foundation (TWO GAMER LAWYERS)  and the Obama (TWO GAMER LAWYERS) book and television deals. Then there is the Biden family (THREE GAMER LAWYERS) corruption, followed closely behind by similar abuses of power and office by the Warren (GAMER LAWYER) and Sanders families, as Peter Schweizer described in his recent book “Profiles in Corruption.” These names just scratch the surface of government corruption (ADD GAMER LAWYER KAMALA HARRIS AND HER LAWYER HUSBAND AND THE BANKSTERS’ RENT BOY, LAWYER CHUCK SCHUMER).    BRIAN C JOONDEPH

TwitterFiles Shows How the FBI Hacked the Constitution

“We’re shooting guns. We’re kicking down doors. I’m learning about the constitution. This is awesome.'”

41

Elvis Ming Chan, the FBI Assistant Special Agent in Charge at the center of the TwitterFiles scandal, had started out as an engineer at NEC: a Japanese computer company. The son of Chinese immigrants who was raised in Seattle, near the hub of Big Tech, Chan describes a tech industry where going into national security was always a backdoor option.

“One of my buddies who I worked with at the company I was at, his game plan was always to join The Bureau,” Chan revealed in an interview. “And he got in and he’s calling me from the FBI academy in Quantico, which you were able to visit with me. Maybe we’ll talk about that later. But he said, ‘Elvis,’ he’s calling me on the phone, he’s like, ‘you would love this. We’re shooting guns. We’re kicking down doors. I’m learning about the constitution. This is awesome.’”

Chan was able to influence Twitter so well because he had come out of the tech industry.

The FBI offered tech industry dorks the opportunity to shoot guns and kick down doors, to wield visceral power rather than just virtual power. While the tech industry influenced far more lives, the Bureau could offer something more tangible. It’s why so many of the recent FBI raids on political opponents have featured large teams of heavily armed men. Behind the body armor are ‘mall cops’ with Ivy League degrees who enjoy shooting guns and kicking down doors even though there’s no threat that they’re dealing with that requires them to be doing either one.

Looking to get a hold on the internet, the FBI recruited from the tech industry. And looking to get a hold on security, the industry recruited from the FBI with at least a dozen senior Twitter personnel coming out of the bureau. The revolving door blurred the lines between the government and the tech industry. It’s still unclear what Twitter was doing on its own initiative or at the behest of the FBI. And it’s unclear where the allegiance of FBI people like Chan really lay.

In 2017, the FBI set up a Foreign Influence Task Force in response to Hillary Clinton’s Russiagate hoax. The legal premise of FITF, charged with combating, in the words of FBI Director Wray, efforts by foreign governments to “sway U.S. voters’ preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people’s confidence in our democratic processes” was dubious from the start.

Enemy propaganda had always existed. The legal basis for using the FBI, which is charged with domestic operations, as the lead was bound to mean targeting Americans rather than foreign enemies. The FBI had no meaningful legal authority to do anything about foreign propaganda except to do what Chan was doing, which was to form relationships with Big Tech companies and guide them to do the things that the Bureau could not legally undertake to do itself.

The Clinton influence operation that led to Russiagate had always been based on such revolving doors between industries, ex-intel personnel working for former reporters who could bridge the gaps between the media, the FBI and political campaigns using their relationships.

TwitterFiles has cast a harsh light on the fourth leg of the chair.

Russiagate had two phases. While in its first phase it was meant to win an election, in its second phase it was meant to subjugate the internet to government and media oversight. Having failed to achieve Plan A, the coordinated scandals and investigations between the media and the DOJ, Plan B set out to build new relationships between the DOJ, media and Big Tech.

These relationships were based on the big lie of what was initially a crisis of “foreign influence” that eventually became a “crisis of democracy”. Big Tech put media fact checkers in charge of flagging material to censor out front while the FBI flagged material behind the scenes. Much as in Russiagate, the media were the public face of a campaign while the DOJ kept its role secret.

The Hunter Biden laptop scandal tested the model with the FBI providing the guidance that Big Tech would follow to censor the story. Claims of foreign influence had become a pretext for a direct attack on freedom of the press as a major paper was censored using false FITF claims.

Big Tech had been prepped for four years to “redo” the 2016 election correctly. Democrats had blamed Hillary’s stolen emails and the FBI’s response to it for their election defeat. In 2020, the FBI and Big Tech had been prepped to properly play their role when Hunter’s laptop emerged. And that was done by wiring the FBI and Big Tech together into a single political operation.

Personnel is policy. Putting Big Tech people inside the FBI would transform its worldview from law enforcement to content moderation. And moving FBI people into Big Tech would lead platforms to see everything as a threat. The hybrid entity was a paranoid content moderating monster that wielded the untrammeled power of Big Tech and the authority of the feds.

“My mission is, ‘Protect the American people and uphold the constitution,’ Chan claimed. That’s noble, but what he was doing at FITF was hacking the constitution using a back door oligarchy.

The Constitution depends on boundaries between branches of the government, between elected officials and law enforcement, between government and industry, between the media and the government, and between the publishing platforms that enable speech and the government. When these boundaries collapse, the constitution becomes meaningless, and the Bill of Rights a series of technicalities that can be violated with impunity by an oligarchy that subdivides its powers by compartmentalizing them between private and public sectors.

When the DOJ, Big Tech, the media, administrations, companies, engineers, agents, and executives all work together toward the same political goals, the constitution is a dead letter.

And then there are doors to be kicked in and guns to be shot, people to be censored and stories to be suppressed for the emerging ruling class that pretends its coordinated actions are mere synchronicity when they are actually a conspiracy against the constitution.

Avatar photo

Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

The Most Dangerous President in American History

A new book highlights the ways Biden is putting us at risk.

Prior to Joe Biden’s ascension to the White House in early 2021, it would have been difficult for many American patriots to believe that a worse president than Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama could sit in the Oval Office. Then Biden wasted no time proving those patriots wrong. From Day One he has been such an unmitigated disaster for the country that only 19% of Americans said in a poll last Sunday that they want Biden to run again in 2024. A July poll revealed that only 13% of Americans believe the country is on the right track. Apparently few believe that Biden is building back better, much less making America great again.

His incompetence (or conversely, his competence in carrying out a destructive agenda) has done more than just bring the country to the brink of a failed state after only half a term, though; it also has endangered Americans in many ways, and its legacy will continue to do so for generations. Indeed, bestselling author Nick Adams, in his new book from Post Hill Press, labels Joe Biden The Most Dangerous President in History.

Adams, 38, Australian-born but a naturalized American citizen and proud of it, is the author of several bestselling books such as Retaking America, Green Card Warrior, and Trump and Churchill: Defenders of Civilization. He is a tireless public speaker and social media influencer, as well as a frequent commentator in the news media such as at Fox News. In addition to having been appointed by President Trump as a scholar to the Smithsonian, Adams also runs a nationwide nonprofit called FLAG, the Foundation for Liberty and Greatness, whose mission is to educate Americans about the values and principles that make our country exceptional.

His new book, The Most Dangerous President in History, lays out some of the principal ways in which our Divider-in-Chief Biden is running the ship of state aground. In chapters on shutting down the economy instead of the coronavirus; on flooding our southern border with migrants and flooding cities across the U.S. with Afghan refugees; on demonizing concerned parents at school board meetings as domestic terror threats; on undermining our military; and on demonstrating weak leadership regarding China and Ukraine, Adams makes the case that Biden is creating crises that threaten our national security and put American lives at risk.

On Biden’s border policy, for example: the Left likes to paint anyone concerned about the open floodgates of our southern border as racist and anti-immigration. In fact, conservatives simply think it’s sensible to have a system in place for the vetting of people who want to come here, and to have reasonable restrictions or guidelines about the flow of people we let in. There isn’t another country in the world that doesn’t do that. But Biden’s party isn’t satisfied with anything less than an unlimited number of potential Democrat voters streaming across the border – and drug cartels, human traffickers, and terrorists along with them.

As Adams points out in his book, instead of policing our borders, the Department of Homeland Security is instead obsessed with a domestic terror threat that the Biden administration is greatly concerned about: parents expressing their outrage at school boards over the Critical Race Theory indoctrination and gender ideology sexualization of their children. The branding of these rightly-concerned citizens as violent terrorist threats is one of the most disgusting smears the Left has ever used against its political opponents.

But potentially the most serious threat Biden and his administration present is in its subversion of our military – through diversity/equity/inclusion wokeness, the mandating of COVID vaccines to weed out potential dissidents, and the leadership’s focus on climate change and “whiteness” as our greatest existential enemies. Adams addresses this in a chapter that details, among other things, the debacle of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, and Gen. Mark Milley’s treasonous warning to China during the Trump years.

The book concludes with a chapter about Biden being compromised on China and Ukraine, a national security threat that our complicit media don’t want to talk about, much less investigate. And then of course, there’s Joe’s embarrassment of a son, Hunter. The Biden family has no compunctions about selling America out to our enemies or dragging us into a nuclear war with Russia.

Adams notes that Biden is dangerous not only not only on his own, but also because of the people with whom he has surrounded himself in his administration, such as the Secretary of Transportation diversity hire Pete Buttigieg, the epically incompetent Vice President Kamala Harris, and Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who infamously declared before Congress that she couldn’t define the word “woman” because she isn’t a biologist. There doesn’t seem to be a single appointee in the administration that is there because of actual merit and qualifications.

The Most Dangerous President in History, like Nick Adams himself, is a bracing shot of patriotic common sense. If the book has a failing, it is that it does not include more of the ways in which the grouchy old radical Biden and his administration are putting this country at serious risk (admittedly, doing so would have made the book too unwieldy to lift for anyone but bodybuilders).

But to add one more reason to the mix – one Adams couldn’t have included because it arose just after the publication of his book – consider the recent, treasonous prisoner exchange of the billionaire Russian arms dealer Viktor “Merchant of Death” Bout for women’s basketball star Brittney Griner, who was serving a nine-year sentence in Moscow for drug possession. Besides the fact that the Biden administration left retired U.S. Marine Paul Whelan, unjustly-imprisoned in Russian custody since 2018, this shocking capitulation to Russian demands demonstrated to both our allies and our enemies that America under Biden is pathetically weak, and it exposes Americans to an increased threat of being kidnapped by foreign powers again.

Only the most ideologically deluded Democrat sincerely believes that Joe Biden is anything but a catastrophic failure, both domestically and abroad, as the Leader of the Free World. Nick Adams’ new book demonstrates this abundantly well, but also points the way optimistically forward to the presidential election of 2024 – if we are as committed to taking our country back as the Left is to fundamentally transforming it.

Avatar photo

Mark Tapson

Mark Tapson is the Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, focusing on popular culture. He is also the host of an original podcast on Frontpage, “The Right Take With Mark Tapson.”


The Illegal Nonprofit Set Up to Defend Biden

The slimiest Clinton pal coordinates with Hunter Biden to reelect Joe Biden.

13

 Biden

The slimiest Clinton pal coordinates with Hunter Biden to reelect Joe Biden.

[Order David Horowitz’s and John Perazzo’s new booklet: “Internal Radical Service: Abuse Of Taxpayer Dollars To Advance Leftwing Causes Illegally And Unconstitutionally”: CLICK HERE.]

With Jeffrey Epstein dead, David Brock may be the slimiest of the Clinton friends still left standing. Brock started out in conservative politics writing hit pieces about Hillary.

Then he became the craziest Clinton defender around.

Brock claimed that the New York Times was a “megaphone for conservative propaganda”. “As it concerns Clinton coverage, the Times will have a special place in hell,” he ranted.

It’s easy to dismiss Brock as a nutjob. There were reports that he feared right-wing snipers were coming after him. But there’s also little doubt that America Bridge and Media Matters, the organizations he created, remains quite influential, that Democrats continue to listen to him and that leftist donors have put quite a lot of money at the disposal of his various schemes.

The Clintons are history, but Brock has a new group meant to do for Biden what he did for Hillary. It’s a venture that, like a number of other Brock projects, exists in defiance of tax laws.

Allegedly coordinating with Hunter Biden’s lawyer and backed by a $10 million budget, Brock’s new venture, Facts First USA, is out to attack Republicans and protect Joe Biden’s reelection by taking on subjects, like Hunter, that “may be too personal or delicate for the White House to be responding or to even be seen as directing a response.”

After meeting with Hunter, Brock has bragged that “absent a vigorous operation, like the one we’re putting out, I think it makes it difficult for President Biden to be re-elected.”

In October, Brock sent out a promotional memo announcing “Facts First USA: A SWAT Team to Counter Republican Congressional Investigation”. The extended memo, apparently uploaded by a New York Times reporter, left little doubt as to what Brock intended to use Facts First for.

“The presidential election in 2024 will be close and simply relying on the hope that facts will triumph over conspiracy is not sufficient. Instead, a robust external force – a SWAT team with additional capacity – must also be in place to ensure that the media and public do not accept the false narrative that flows from congressional investigations. An external operation will also allow President Biden to stay focused on his own preferred messaging during 2023 and 2024 and on his reelection campaign. We call this effort Facts First USA,” the memo states.

External operations for presidential campaigns are nothing new, but Facts First USA is raising money through ActBlue Civics while being registered as a 501(c)(4). The tax code is quite clear and even the most liberal IRS positions still stipulate that a 501(c)(4) nonprofit cannot “engage in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to candidates for public office” if that is its primary purpose.

Unlike a union or the NRA, Facts First’s primary purpose is defending Biden.

An NBC News report on Facts First claimed that White House “back-channel communications led it to believe the effort is welcome.” Brock has said that his group, “intends to work with the White House where appropriate but will make our own judgments.”

There’s no ambiguity about the fact that Facts First has been set up to defend the Biden administration as part of 2024 presidential campaign activity. Facts First is not only in violation of the statute, which requires a social welfare angle for a 501(c)(4), but is even in violation of the primary purpose test that the IRS uses. A 501(c)(4) is not a PAC.

Brock practically reinvented independent rapid response operations and breaking the rules. Before the 2016 election, he created Correct the Record, a rapid response PAC whose coordination with the Clinton campaign was deemed to be extremely controversial.

The Brock memo promoting Facts First even describes “Correct the Record, which I founded and directed within American Bridge Super PAC (which I also founded) before spinning off as a standalone hybrid Super PAC that under the law was able to coordinate with the Clinton campaign, serves as a model of the work that must be done”.

Facts First looks a whole lot like Correct the Record except that it operates as a nonprofit. Clearly Brock believed that he couldn’t run Correct the Record under the American Bridge umbrella and created a separate organization that was not a 501(c)(4). With Facts First, Brock has decided to test whether he can reinvent Correct the Record for Biden as a 501(c)(4).

Furthermore, Facts First was a front used on behalf of Biden by Priorities USA Action: a leftist PAC where Brock had formerly been a board member. During the 2020 campaign, Priorities spent $5 million on digital ads attacking Republicans using, among other tags, Facts First.. It could appear as if Brock has repurposed a pro-Biden hybrid PAC campaign into a pro-Biden 501(c)(4) campaign attacking Republicans.

Brock and his backers are betting that the IRS won’t do anything. The number of leftist nonprofits that function as campaign operations has increased astronomically. And while the IRS has targeted conservatives, it has allowed leftist campaign operations, like those of Stacey Abrams, to operate as nonprofits.

That’s a phenomenon that is one of the subjects of Internal Radical Service by David Horowitz and John Perazzo, documenting how the IRS has enabled the rise of an empire of nonprofits funding partisan elections. It’s also why the David Horowitz Freedom Center will be filing a complaint with the IRS challenging the nonprofit status of what is clearly a campaign arm.

Brock has built a career on creating radical groups that abused nonprofit status and shattered the walls between political campaigns and social welfare groups. Creating a rapid response organization in coordination with the president’s son in order to ensure his reelection and  maintaining backchannel communications with the White House doesn’t just strain even the most generous interpretations of the tax codes, it goes far beyond their farthest boundaries.

The political marriage of Hunter Biden and David Brock, two deeply troubled men who have plumbed new depths, is all too fitting. The organization born out of that marriage is not.

Facts First USA is another example of how the IRS has become the corrupt enabler for the Left.

Avatar photo

Daniel Greenfield

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.


Jim Jordan: Special Counsel Jack Smith Tried to Find Ways to Target Conservatives During Obama-IRS Scandal

Prosecutor Jack Smith waits for the start of the court session of Kadri Veseli's initial appearance at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers court in The Hague, Netherlands, Nov. 10, 2020. Smith, the prosecutor named as special counsel to oversee investigations related to former President Donald Trump, has a long career confronting …
Robin van Lonkhuijsen/Pool Photo via AP
3:57

House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-OH) said on Sunday that Special Counsel Jack Smith tried to find ways to target conservative organizations during the Obama era-IRS scandal.

Jordan said on Fox Business on Sunday that he and Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-CA) 2014 report looking into the IRS’s targeting of conservative tax-exempt organizations has potentially troubling context for the Special Counsel investigation into former President Donald Trump.

The interview follows Attorney General Merrick Garland appointing Jack Smith to serve as special counsel to investigate alleged wrongdoing by former President Donald Trump after the FBI raided Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) speaks during a news conference following a weekly House Republican caucus conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 19, 2022 in Washington, DC. Ahead of U.S. President Joe Biden’s one year anniversary as president, members of the House Republican leadership and the GOP Doctors Caucus outlined what they see as the shortfalls of the administration, including their actions to combat COVID-19, the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the state of the economy. (Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) speaks at the U.S. Capitol Building on January 19, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

He asked rhetorically, “Guess who was the lead person at the Justice Department looking for ways to target and prosecute the very people looking into who Lois Lerner went after? Jack Smith, the guy Merrick Garland just named as special counsel to go after President Trump.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland and Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco arrive to deliver remarks at the U.S. Justice Department on November 18, 2022 in Washington, DC. Garland announced he will appoint a special counsel to oversee the Justice Department’s investigation into former President Donald Trump and his handling of classified documents and actions before the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol Building. Garland’s pick to oversee the special counsel is Jack Smith, an international criminal court prosecutor. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Indeed, in September 2010 — Smith, the then-chief of the Justice Department’s public integrity section, criminal division — emailed his senior leadership regarding a New York Times article regarding conservative organizations:

Check out [the] article on front page of ny times [sic] regarding misuse of non-profits for indirectly funding campaigns. This seems egregious to me – could we ever charge a [18 U.S.C. §] 371 conspiracy to violate laws of the USA for misuse of such non profits to get around existing campaign finance laws + limits? I know 501s are legal but if they are knowingly using them beyond what they are allowed to use them for (and we could prove that factually)? IRS Commissioner sarah ingram [sic] oversees these groups. Let’s discuss tomorrow but maybe we should try to set up a meeting this week. [Emphasis added]

The House Republican report noted that Smith then proceeded to convene meetings on a “possible 501/campaign finance investigation”:

Smith convened meetings on a “possible 501/campaign finance investigation.”801 At Smith’s direction, Pilger arranged a meeting with Lerner and the IRS to discuss the “evolving legal landscape” of campaign-finance law after the Citizens United decision.802 Pilger intended to engage with Lerner about being “more vigilant to the opportunities from more crime in the . . . 501(c)(4) area.”803 He also sought to better understand the “practicalities” of criminally enforcing non-profit political speech, such as whether the IRS could review donor lists of 501(c)(4) organizations for potential violations of campaign-finance law.804 Similarly, the IRS sought to “walk [the Justice Department] through the basic civil rules within [the IRS’s] jurisdiction and find out what if anything else they are looking for. . . . These are not tax people so [Lerner] may also take [IRS employee] Joe Urban to do clear perimeters about tax info should they want to do any 6103 fishing (as opposed to public record 6104 info).

During an October 2010 meeting, the Public Integrity section’s attorneys, of which Smith was the chief of the section, “expressed concern that certain 501(c) organizations [conservative organizations] are actually political committees ‘posing’ as if they are not subject to FEC law,” and thus could be subject to “criminal liability.”

Trump said last week that he would not take partake in the special counsel investigation.

Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.


Our President, The Pathological Liar

A shameful characteristic throughout his whole 52-year political career.

3

The sad reality is that the President of the United States, Joe Biden, is a pathological liar. This is not a new personality trait for our Commander-in-Chief, but a characteristic that has been apparent throughout his 52-year political career.

Biden has been telling lies, including massive untruths, for decades. It is a major reason he had to exit the 1988 presidential campaign. He lied about his law school grades and plagiarized speeches from United Kingdom Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock.

Regularly, Biden lies about his childhood, his family, his academic career, and his record as a politician.

Does anyone really believe that, as a young lifeguard, he faced off with a “bad dude” named “Corn Pop” who had a “bunch of bad boys” armed with “straight razors?” Biden claimed he used a six-foot chain to force the gang to leave.

Biden pretends he was a tough guy and has boasted that in high school, he would have taken Donald Trump “behind the gym and beat the hell out of him.”

He likes to embellish his career as a college football player and lied about being on the University of Delaware team that beat the Ohio Bearcats. He said he quit the team to date the woman who would become his first wife, but, instead, he was forced to leave due to bad grades.

This week, Biden told a series of lies that are impossible to reconcile. At a town hall meeting with U.S. veterans in Delaware, Biden told a story of awarding a Purple Heart to his uncle, Frank Biden. He said that his uncle had served heroically in the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, and had earned the Purple Heart, but never received it.

He declared he “got” his uncle the Purple Heart after he was elected Vice President in 2008. Biden said he awarded it to his uncle in front of family members. According to Biden, his uncle did not want the award because “the others died, I lived, I don’t want it.”

Of course, as usual, Biden’s story is untrue. His uncle, Frank Biden, died in 1999, nine years before he was elected Vice President.  In addition, as noted by the New York Post, “Frank Biden’s tombstone does not identify him as a Purple Heart honoree, nor does his obituary. A partial registry of known Purple Heart recipients also doesn’t note anyone by that name receiving the award.”

In the same speech, Biden insulted the people of Ireland and the country’s descendants living in America by stating “I may be Irish, but I’m not stupid.” So, he thinks the Irish are “stupid?” Isn’t that an example of hate speech?

Thereafter, he tried to show his connections to Italians by asserting “I married Dominic Giacoppa’s daughter. So, you know, I got a little Italian in me now, you know.” Yet, his wife’s father was Donald Jacobs from New Jersey. It was her great-grandfather, Domenic Giacoppo, who immigrated to America from Italy.

In the same speech, Biden lied about the number of times he had visited Iraq and Afghanistan. He said he had been to those combat areas “38, 39 times.” Sadly, this is another lie he has told in the past. His campaign had to admit that he had visited those areas only 21 times.

Biden also lied when he said that he had visited Iraq and Afghanistan “twice as President.” As reported by The Daily Mail, he last visited Iraq in 2016 and Afghanistan in 2011, well before he assumed the presidency in 2021.

The President has often lied about the tragic death of his son, Beau Biden. He died of brain cancer in the United States, but President Biden said he died in “Iraq.”

Biden likes to identify with his audience and will create falsehoods to establish a connection. For example, during a trip to Puerto Rico, he said he was raised in Delaware as a member of the “Puerto Rican community.” Of course, the Puerto Rican community in Delaware during Biden’s upbringing was infinitesimal.

Biden has lied about being “appointed” to the Naval Academy and working as a truck driver. He also created a false history as a demonstrator against injustice. He fabricated an arrest in this country as a civil rights protester and in South Africa as an activist for Nelson Mandela.

In September, Biden told Jewish leaders that he visited the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh after a 2018 antisemitic terrorist attack that killed 11 people. However, he never visited the synagogue and only made a 2019 phone call to the rabbi.

While addressing hurricane victims in Florida, Biden lied about the impact of a lightning strike on his home in Delaware 15 years ago. According to Biden, because of the strike “everything was ruined” and “we almost lost a couple firefighters.”

At the time of the event, the Associated Press reported that impact was minimal, “no one was injured,” and the strike only caused a “small fire that was contained to the kitchen.” The news report indicated that the fire was controlled within 20 minutes.

In the view of conservative commentator Deroy Murdoch, Biden is either a “pathological liar” or “even worse, maybe he really believes that these non-events actually took place. If so, then he is living a life of total fantasy.”

Unfortunately, Biden’s lies are becoming more frequent and more alarming. The United States has a President that cannot differentiate between fiction and reality.

It is a crisis considering the power of the presidency and the array of problems facing our nation, including an invasion at our southern border, a weak economy and an ongoing war in Ukraine that is causing some military experts to worry about the prospect of nuclear war.

It is too dangerous for the United States to be saddled with such a president. If he does not resign, Republicans must begin impeachment proceedings when they take control of the U.S. House of Representatives in January.


Biden is, and has always been, a pathological liar of the worst kind, the kind who lies to boost his own ego no matter how easy it is to prove his dishonesty. MONICA SHOWALTER


We Knew Joe Biden Was a Big Liar

But this is ridiculous.

Politicians frequently lie, but Old Joe Biden’s career record is clear: He makes Josef Goebbels look honest. Biden is such a massive liar that it’s unclear whether or not he has ever told the truth in an entire lifetime of grift and corruption. On Friday afternoon, however, Biden outdid himself, appearing at the Delaware Veteran’s Summit and telling so many outrageous lies about his career and his family that if he were a conservative, establishment media “fact checkers” would have died of exhaustion. It’s lucky for them that whenever Old Joe speaks, they take the day off.

Biden claimed that when he was elected vice president in 2008, his father contacted him and asked him to finagle a Purple Heart for his brother, Biden’s uncle Frank. Biden said, “You know, I — my dad, when I got elected Vice President, he said, ‘Joey, Uncle Frank fought in the Battle of the Bulge.’ He was not feeling very well now — not because of the Battle of the Bulge. But he said, ‘And he won the Purple Heart. And he never received it. He never — he never got it. Do you think you could help him get it? We’ll surprise him.’”

The incoming vice president was, of course, happy to get his uncle the recognition he deserved, however belatedly: “So we got him the Purple Heart. He had won it in the Battle of the Bulge. And I remember he came over to the house, and I came out, and he said, ‘Present it to him, okay?’ We had the family there.” Get your handkerchief ready. Biden continued, “I said, ‘Uncle Frank, you won this. And I want to…’ He said, ‘I don’t want the damn thing.’” The crowd laughed, and Biden plowed on: “No, I’m serious. He said, ‘I don’t want it.’ I said, ‘What’s the matter, Uncle Frank? You earned it.’ He said, ‘Yeah, but the others died. The others died. I lived. I don’t want it.’” Biden then attempted to bring his story into the present and initially missed by fifty years: “Just like a generation — this generation in Vietnam — excuse me, in — in Iraq.”

Anyway, what a noble soul was Uncle Frank Biden, eh? There’s just one problem: Frank Biden died in 1999, and Biden’s father, Joe Biden Sr., died in 2002. Yet the putative president claims that this incident took place in 2008, and it hinges upon Vice President Joe, as the national second banana, being able to pull strings to get his uncle the Purple Heart. Maybe this happened years earlier than Biden said it did, and he was pulling strings as a senator rather than as vice president, or maybe it never happened at all.

The latter seems more likely. According to the New York Post, a registry of recipients of the Purple Heart doesn’t include the name Frank Biden, and when Frank died, his obituary contained no mention of his having won this honor. Also, the story is suspiciously similar to one Biden was fond of telling in 2019. He was in Afghanistan as vice president, Biden claimed, to honor a Navy captain who had “rappelled down a 60-foot ravine under fire and retrieved the body of an American comrade, carrying him on his back.” Biden said that when he tried to pin a Silver Star on the captain, “he said, ‘Sir, I don’t want the damn thing! Do not pin it on me, Sir! Please, Sir. Do not do that! He died. He died.” Biden concluded, “This is the God’s truth. My word as a Biden.”

But it wasn’t, of course. Even the Washington Post, ordinarily a tenacious purveyor of Leftist propaganda, stated, “Except almost every detail in the story appears to be incorrect. Based on interviews with more than a dozen U.S. troops, their commanders and Biden campaign officials, it appears as though the former vice president has jumbled elements of at least three actual events into one story of bravery, compassion and regret that never happened.”

The Frank Biden story wasn’t Old Joe’s only lie on Friday. He also claimed, “And, you know, I think that there’s a — I’ve been in and out — not as a, obviously, combatant — but in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq and these areas 38, 39 times as — not as President, only twice as President, but from the time I was a senator, but particularly when I was Vice President.” This was a slight rollback of his claim during his State of the Union address: “I’ve been in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan over 40 times.” In 2019, he said, I’ve been in and out of Afghanistan and Iraq over 30 times.” According to the Washington Post, “his campaign later clarified that the correct number is 21.” Also, he has never visited Afghanistan or Iraq as president.

Joe Biden has made it abundantly clear that he is unprincipled, untrustworthy, and unscrupulous. His faux presidency will be remembered as one of the darkest periods of American history. We can only hope that the damage he leaves behind him will not be completely irreversible.

Avatar photo

Robert Spencer

Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. He is author of 26 books including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)The Truth About Muhammad and The History of Jihad. His latest books are The Critical Qur'an and Who Lost Afghanistan?. Follow him on Twitter here, and like him on Facebook here.


Congress Can Make Special Prosecutors Actually Responsible For Justice

28 Code of Federal Regulations § 600.1 Grounds for appointing a Special Counsel.

The Attorney General, or in cases in which the Attorney General is recused, the Acting Attorney General, will appoint a Special Counsel when he or she determines that criminal investigation of a person or matter is warranted and -

(a) That investigation or prosecution of that person or matter by a United States Attorney’s Office or litigating Division of the Department of Justice would present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances; and

(b) That under the circumstances, it would be in the public interest to appoint an outside Special Counsel to assume responsibility for the matter. (Emphasis added)

I thought it was a good idea for you to see the actual law under which Special Counsels are appointed. The reason for such a counsel is, surprisingly, very simple and very logical: If the ordinary attorneys in the Department of Justice may be seen as partisan or if there’s a special public interest in a case, then the Attorney General is allowed to appoint a special attorney to take over the investigation and prosecution. Also important is the basic fact that the AG already had the authority to do this at any time without the statute simply by creating a compartmentalized investigatory group. The law doesn’t create any new powers!

Recently we’ve seen John Durham pursue small players in the RussiaGate conspiracy, without notable success. Moving back a couple of years, the Mueller investigation, even though it was strung out by Clintonistas, ended up without any prosecution of Trump because no damning evidence could be found. And now we have two key special prosecutors.

Image: Merrick Garland. YouTube screen grab.

The first is Jack Smith, the special counsel whom Democrat Attorney General Sauron Garland appointed to oversee the investigation of Mar-a-Lago raid materials and Trump’s January 6 conduct. Republicans clearly see Smith in a bad light. Trump’s attorney, Alina Habba, described him as a “partisan” and “not a good actor” who will politicize the inquiry.

The other special counsel is the one that Darth Garland has steadfastly refused to consider for the Hunter Biden inquiry. It is hard to imagine a case with higher public interest and more obvious conflicts of interest than that. But it remains on hold somewhere in the bowels of a nondescript building with government drones periodically shuffling paper.

And Darth Garland is not alone. AG Bilious Barr declined to appoint one when the laptop story appeared in the New York Post. It was a no-brainer. Hunter’s father was the President’s opponent in the election. The appearance of bias from holding this investigation inside the FBI was far more than a mirage. That light was an oncoming train. Failure to appoint a special counsel was functionally an act of rebellion against the President.

Both cases point out a key flaw in the Special Counsel statute. Such a counsel is appointed at the AG’s sole discretion. When AG Eric Holder was referred for prosecution for Contempt of Congress, he ignored the referral. No surprise. He’d have to prosecute himself.

More tellingly, Holder didn’t appoint a Special Counsel because he didn’t think it was important. Not only was he allowed to appoint Special Counsels, but he was also allowed to not appoint a Counsel. This means that Congressional referrals for prosecution are reserved for witnesses who decline to participate in the Demoncrats illegitimate kangaroo courts.

Such a clearly biased system cries out for correction. And while we cannot drain the swamp in one fell swoop, a simple adjustment might make things a bit better. At the moment, it won’t affect the Hunter Biden non-investigation but, at least for Congress, it’s a step in the right direction.

Imagine if the next Congressional prosecution referral came with some attachments. That is, whether the House or Senate makes the referral, the House then suspends all other business while nominating a Special Counsel to deal with that referral. The nomination then gets passed over to the Senate for confirmation. The Senate then sets all other business aside until the SC is confirmed and becomes a compartmentalized part of the DOJ.

OMG! We’re unleashing lawyers against anyone Congress dislikes! Sort of. Actually, the “nomination and confirmation” process is likely to select a prosecutor who is not part of the establishment. He/she might find that the referral is defective by not even properly specifying a criminal act. At that point, a brief public report would be issued, the case would be closed, and everyone goes home to dinner. But let’s suppose that Congress actually alleges a criminal offense.

In that case, the SC would do what any good prosecutor does: Investigate! He and his team would review evidence. He might convene a grand jury. And there are two basic possible outcomes. If there’s a real case, prosecution would likely proceed. If not, the SC must create a report to Congress, a summary of which would necessarily be made public. The full report would come back to the referring body, and those legislators would decide its disposition.

One would argue that this might implicate the Separation of Powers in the Constitution, but I don’t think that’s likely. First, the Supreme Court’s decision in Morrison v. Olson (1988) appears to say that it would be okay. Second, as an executive branch officer, the SC would ultimately come under the president’s ultimate executive power. Thus, the SC could be fired, just like any other US Attorney. But that would create its own problems…for the President.

Firing a congressionally installed SC would be considered a grave political act, and the fallout would likely be severe. Congress would probably exact revenge on a President who did it. It’s likely that’s why Trump didn’t do it. Congress might defund pet projects. Or it might even impeach. But those are the proper political responses to a political act. Congress’s original actions are proper responses to likely criminal acts, and no AG would treat them lightly. A bit of accountability is likely to follow.

Sure would be nice.

Ted Noel MD is a retired Anesthesiologist/Intensivist who podcasts and posts on social media as DoctorTed and @vidzette. His DoctorTed podcasts are available on many podcast channels. 


Google has been defining the word ‘Jew’ primarily as a demeaning pejorative

The word “Zeitgeist,” per the definition that Google automatically provides at the top of the page when you search for the word, means “the defining spirit or mood of a particular period of history as shown by the ideas and beliefs of the time.” If I had to define one aspect of the zeitgeist on the left, I would say, with great regret, that it’s antisemitism. Suddenly, that problem is everywhere, including Google definitions. Until about midday today, when one typed the word “Jew” into the Google search box, the definition that was automatically returned and that occupied pride of place at the top of the page was a vicious and ancient pejorative.

Fox News has the story:

A search for the word “Jew” on Google Wednesday temporarily had the engine telling users that the word is an offensive verb.

The top definition that appeared in search results — up until around 1 p.m. ET, described the word Jew as to “bargain with someone in a miserly or petty way,” with the origin being “in reference to old stereotypes associating Jewish people with trading and moneylending.”

Farther down was the noun definition for Jew, which Google describes as “a member of the people and cultural community whose traditional religion is Judaism and who trace their origins through the Hebrew people of Israel to Abraham.”

The screen grab lends power to that narrative:

After approximately 1 p.m., Google updated the definition so that it now opens with the noun defined in classic and objective terms:

So, how did this happen? Fox News explains that, according to Google’s support website, third-party experts provide the definitions. Fair enough. In the case of both “Jew” and “zeitgeist,” the definitions used are identified as coming from “Oxford Languages.”

On the same site, Google also explains that “Our partners label these terms as vulgar, derogatory, or otherwise offensive to provide proper context about them.”

Wait a minute! I don’t see anything in the first image, above, warning people that the definition that appeared is “vulgar, derogatory, or otherwise offensive….” It’s just presented as a garden-variety verb.

It gets worse. Google adds, “We only display an offensive definition by default when it’s the main meaning of the term.” So, until someone caught Google in the act, Google had as its “main meaning” for the word “Jew” a pejorative verb that is one of the classic antisemitic canards.

When I prepared this essay, although Google had fixed the definition, it apparently had not yet responded to Fox News’s request for comment. For now, we don’t know what happened, and I’m willing to bet that Google’s eventual explanation won’t tell us much. As for me, I see this as yet another oozing sore revealing yet another leftist preoccupation—and Google is an unabashedly leftist company.

You see, it turns out that this isn’t Google’s first rodeo when it comes to redefining words to suit the leftist zeitgeist. This past August, Google redefined the word “fetus” to exclude the word “baby”:

While Google quickly backed off its antisemitic algorithm, it’s noteworthy that it hasn’t changed the definition of the word “fetus.” I can make a guess as to the reason for the different approaches.

On the left, antisemitism is the zeitgeist, for it’s an ideology that, rather than hovering around the fringes, has moved to the heart of the Democrat party. Nevertheless, it’s still a belief that dares not speak its name. When it shows up a bit too obviously, leftists tamp it down immediately lest it alienates those of my co-religionists who stubbornly cling to a party that is increasingly open about its antisemitic attitudes. Babies, however, don’t vote, especially aborted babies, so there’s no impetus to walk back a telling definition.

At a technological level, Google is an extraordinary company that makes quite amazing products and services. At an ideological level, it’s a worrisome behemoth that has way too much power and frighteningly totalitarian instincts, instincts that, throughout the 20th century, marched hand in hand with antisemitism and population control through abortion.

Image by Andrea Widburg using a public domain Google logo image.

No comments: