Our Joe Biden Has Some Family Political Problems….Will Our Socialist American Fascistic Press Attack Him First?

Why isn’t the Senate investigating Joe Biden’s son Hunter over China, Ukraine dealings?

by Monica Showalter  at  American Thinker:

.

Is selling out U.S. national security OK so long as Democrats are doing it?

What a disturbing picture is emerging from the research of Peter Schweizer, who has a new one out about Democratic presidential frontrunner Joe Biden’s son Hunter and his business dealings with China.

In a New York Post op-ed, Schweizer writes:

In 2013, then-Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden flew aboard Air Force Two to China. Less than two weeks later, Hunter Biden’s firm inked a $1 billion private equity deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China. The deal was later expanded to $1.5 billion. In short, the Chinese government funded a business that it co-owned along with the son of a sitting vice president.

If it sounds shocking that a vice president would shape US-China policy as his son — who has scant experience in private equity — clinched a coveted billion-dollar deal with an arm of the Chinese government, that’s because it is.

The details get worse and worse and worse, the further you read — the Chinese, for instance, kept news of the deal away from the English-language portion of its website.  The agreements signed came just ahead of then–vice president Joe Biden’s trips to China.  The deals themselves were to buy into companies that were stealing U.S. secrets.  The secrets they were after involved U.S. nuclear submarines.  And Biden Junior didn’t know jack about nuclear things, Chinese things, or venture capital; he was there just for being the vice president’s son.

And both Joe and young Hunts insist nothing untoward was going on; the Chinese just chose to partner with Hunter based on his amazing business acumen, nothing more.

Schweizer writes that it’s actually a pattern of activity — Biden Junior did the same thing in Ukraine, and the ties between Hunter and Joe as the foreign cash rolled in for Hunter were even more obvious:

Consider the facts. On April 16, 2014, White House records show that Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s business partner in the Rosemont Seneca deals, made a private visit to the White House for a meeting with Vice President Biden. Five days later, on April 21, Joe Biden landed in Kiev for a series of high-level meetings with Ukrainian officials. The vice president was bringing with him highly welcomed terms of a United States Agency for International Development program to assist the Ukrainian natural-gas industry and promises of more US financial assistance and loans. Soon the United States and the International Monetary Fund would be pumping more than $1 billion into the Ukrainian economy.

The next day, there was a public announcement that Archer had been asked to join the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian natural-gas company. Three weeks after that, on May 13, it was announced that Hunter Biden would join, too. Neither Biden nor Archer had any background or experience in the energy sector.

…and…

The choice of Hunter Biden to handle transparency and corporate governance for Burisma is curious, because Biden had little if any experience in Ukrainian law, or professional legal counsel, period. But that didn’t stop Burisma from paying the younger Biden what The New York Times has reported was as much as $50,000 a month while the company was under investigation by officials in both Ukraine and abroad.

Joe Biden’s trip to Kiev in March 2016, and his threats to withhold $1 billion in foreign aid if Ukrainian officials didn’t dismiss the country’s top prosecutor, Victor Shokin, take on added meaning when you consider that Shokin’s office had been leading an investigation into Burisma’s owner.

This guy sounds like a one-man health hazard to U.S. national security, and greedy as heck.  These are the kinds of deals Chavista elites engage in over in Venezuela.

And here they are, going on with their deals as if the U.S. were a third-world country, with Joe Biden’s son cutting his China and Ukraine deals for buku bucks without any apparent rationale other than family ties.

Meanwhile, people such as George Papadopoulos get thrown into prison for process crimes, and little guys such Navy sailor Kristian Saucier get thrown into prison for taking careless photos.  And people such as Don Trump, Jr. get put through the wringer for apparent entrapment operations linked to Fusion GPS and the people who brought us the Steele dossier, not actual spies from an enemy side.

Schweizer thinks that if Congress is going to go around investigating Trump in the pious interest of preventing collusion with foreign actors, then it needs to put its money where its mouth is and get the Senate to start investigating.

But Democrats aren’t saying a thing about Biden or his deals — not even the Democrat rivals fighting to knock Joe from his frontrunner status and win their party’s presidential nomination themselves.

Not only do these Democrats not care about Joe’s kid’s big money deals, they don’t care about the assymetry of justice going on against less powerful people. Worst of all, they couldn’t care less about the threats to national security that arise out of this Democrat cupidity. They are after all, the party of the man from Hot Springs, Bill Clinton, who sold out U.S. interests to the Chinese in acts the U.S. is still paying for as China builds up its deepwater navy. They are also the party that defended his wife’s illegal private server, brimming with classified communications, stored in some guy’s bathroom. That of course was to prevent anyone from discovering, via Freedom of Information Act inquiries, that their Clinton Foundation was offering a pay-to-play operation to gamy foreign players such as the uranium-hungry Russians, with Hillary Clinton then the Secretary of State.

This is corruption, fourth world corruption, and it’s what’s on offer if a Democrat takes power. Is every Democrat this putridly corrupt? Why aren’t they saying anything, if for nothing else to put old Joe out to pasture and reduce the Democrat field for themselves?  The times calls for people to do after these seedy dealings to show a difference. In the Senate, as Schweizer argues, and certainly beyond. Thus far, Democrats don’t seem to think there’s a problem, which makes you wonder what they’re planning for themselves.

 

Is selling out U.S. national security OK so long as Democrats are doing it?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/05/why_isnt_the_senate_investigating_joe_bidens_son_hunter_over_china_ukraine_dealings.html

Time for Thought

Long time friend and one time teaching colleague at a civilized Minneapolis Public High School fifty years ago when and  where accumulating knowledge and being American,  civil, honest,  and Godfearing were primary goals, he teaching English, and I,  Russian and Social Studies, sent me the following accumulation of words:

“So Democrats want to see the tax returns of a billionaire that became a politician?

Wouldn’t a smart person want to see the tax returns of politicians who became millionaires in office?”

You may be surprised to know our American “Democrats” weren’t fascist savages in those days!!  The human disorder, FEMINISM, where feelings dictate Truth,  had not yet arrived.   Our America of whatever color still had MOTHERS and FATHERS then.

Thank you, Mark Waldeland!…ghr

Today’s Fascistic Leftist Media Rules the Waves!

Journalism is Dead—Long Live the Media!

by Victor Davis Hanson  at American Greatness:

.

There still exists a physical media in the sense of airing current events. But it is not journalism as we once understood the disinterested reporting of the news. Journalism is now dead. The media lives on.

Reporters today believe that their coverage serves higher agendas of social justice, identity politics, “equality,” and diversity. To the degree a news account is expanded or ignored, praised or blasted, depends on its supposed utility to the effort to fundamentally transform the country into something unlike its founding.

At the recent third president-less White House Correspondents’ Dinner, passive-aggressive journalists whined that they were victims, standing on the barricades against the all-powerful, all-evil—and all absent—Donald Trump. If the attempt was to return professionalism to the evening and eschew the pathological celebrity obsessions of the past, the result was only more confirmation of the self-referential and narcissistic culture of the Washington press corps.

Why should we believe reporters suddenly worried about ethics, free inquiry, and speech?

No journalist who pontificates now about the supposedly First Amendment-violating Trump ever mentions that Barack Obama had Fox News’s James Rosen (and his relatives) monitored, that he surveilled the communications records of Associated Press reporters, or that he spoke with the press far less often than did Trump, and often fixated on Fox News.

Journalists themselves had no problem with colleagues colluding with the Clinton campaign as evidenced in the Wikileaks Podesta trove. There was never much introspection about why the elite press and media corps—loudly progressive and feminist—was decimated by #MeToo Movement allegations of long-standing sexual harassment and assault.

Were there serious worries voiced over journalistic ethics when CNN’s Donna Brazile leaked primary debate questions to the 2016 Clinton campaign? Did journalists speak out when journalist Candy Crowley abandoned her moderator role and turned into an Obama partisan in the 2012 second presidential debate? Were reporters at all worried when the Shorenstein Center cited 90 percent negative media coverage of the Trump campaign and presidency? Did they object much when Twitter and Facebook exiled conservative voices that they found inconvenient?

Are journalists concerned when campuses shout down visiting lecturers or pass speech codes to restrict free expression? Was the strange Obama-era state surveillance of fellow journalist Sharyl Attkisson of any importance to the journalistic brotherhood? Did they fret that the Obama-era FBI likely inserted informants into a political campaign, or deliberately deceived a FISA court to spy on an American citizen?

Have journalists signed any of their accustomed collective outrage letters over the New York Times’ Nazi-like anti-Semitic cartoons, and its pathetic sort of, sort of not initial apologies?

Concerning the three great psychodramas of the last two years—the Kavanaugh hearings, the Covington kids fiasco, and the Jussie Smollett fantasy—the media for too long trafficked in the lies of the discredited and predicated their coverage on ideology: feminists, Native Americans, and African-Americans as noble victims; their white male oppressors not so much, regardless of the actual facts of the case.

During the Duke lacrosse team mess, the University of Virginia fraternity hoax, and the George Zimmerman-Trayvon Martin drama the public first began to sense the old implicit media bias had become something new—an outright distortion of evidence to serve a higher cause. We are now at the point that the news consumer has little expectation that journalists will report the facts, but assumes that they will massage, distort, and misrepresent narratives for purposes of supposed social utility.

The media does not just mislead in what it reports; it also chooses not to report news it finds antithetical to its social justice mission. Voters never learned about what Barack Obama actually had said at a dinner honoring Rashid Khalidi because journalists suppressed his speech, in the same fashion the public never knew that then-Senator Obama had posed for a photo-op with Louis Farrakhan, a picture also never released until after Obama had left office. In a new condemnatory account of media misbehavior, Unfreedom of the Press, Mark Levin inter alia devotes a discussion to what we might call the “un-news,” the long history of deliberate suppression of important stories that do not advance the media’s ideological objectives that transcend simply reporting the facts of important daily events.

We might call their modus operandi “critical journalistic theory” that postulates there are few disinterested facts, only interpretations constructed by white male elites. So, to get at a different “truth,” journalists must deconstruct the story by changing or omitting bothersome facts to transmit the “true” essence of an event.

Recently, the media was faced with an existential decision over whether to own up to its peddling myths about Russian collusion or to double down on them. So they perpetuated the farce by bragging on their own contributions to it, and by extension sought to ensure their tarnished reputations by further tarnishing them.

There was never any evidence to support the collusion hoax. Despite denials, the yarn arose mostly from Hillary Clinton’s (illegal) hiring of British subject Christopher Steele (albeit through the intermediaries of the DNC, Perkins-Coie, and Fusion GPS) to smear her election opponent. After all, presidential candidates are not supposed to hire foreign nationals to work with other foreign nationals to conduct espionage to undermine an opponent’s campaign—and then illegally hide the nature of such a “campaign expense” through three firewalls.

After her defeat, “collusion” morphed into a progressive and media generated mechanism at first to account for the inexplicable Clinton defeat, then to abort the unpalatable Trump transition and presidency, and finally as a desperate preemptive effort to thwart investigation of high crimes of Obama-era officials. And the collusion myth caused the nation a great deal of harm until even the onetime progressive heartthrob Robert Mueller’s “dream team” found no evidence for it whatsoever.

In response, did the media in introspective fashion, reexamine why they had peddled collusion through leaks, groupthink, and self-righteous sermons about their own wounded fawn egos? Hardly. No sooner had Mueller found no collusion and no case for prosecuting “obstruction” of such a non-crime than the media first declared itself correct and righteous for peddling the Russian conspiracy theory, and, second, moved immediately to “tax returns,” in essence learning nothing and forgetting nothing.

Lately, a tiny few progressive journalists have tried to warn their colleagues that the collusion farce and other frauds have all but ruined what was left of the reputation of American journalism. The leftist anti-Trump Nation has just published Aaron Maté’s exhaustive account of the falsities, smears, and sheer ridiculousness of the media obsession with collusion.

Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi, another progressive anti-Trumper, had earlier done the same. And a few journalists, despite being deeply embedded within the Democratic-media nexus, have voiced warnings on other fronts.

CNN’s Jake Tapper finally had to remind his television audience that, contra the Joe Biden rollout campaign video and the progressive gospel, Donald Trump did not excuse white nationalists and Klansmen during the 2017 Charlottesville violence.

Recent polls of likely voters, of all Americans, and even of the Washington press corps itself, show an overwhelming consensus the media is both biased in general and in particular against the Trump presidency.

“Fake news” is not just a Trump talking point or obsession. It is a factual account of what journalism has become—so often an arm of the progressive movement and an incestuous and inbred group of New York and Washington coastal elite mediocrities, or what former Obama official Ben Rhodes cynically wrote off as an “echo chamber” of greenhorn know-nothings.

CNN’s White House correspondent Jim Acosta can delude himself into thinking the media got it right on collusion fantasies, but his own act as a disruptive and shallow performance artist has discredited him as a serious journalist.  His own network has all but ruined its reputation and lost much of its former audience by reporting outright falsities, and employing entertainment and news hosts in a wide variety of shows who descended into gross buffoonery—from Kathy Griffin’s decapitation video to Anderson Cooper’s on-air Trump defecation metaphor to Reza Aslan’s “piece of s—t” commentary to the late Anthony Bourdain’s quip about poisoning Trump.

Do we still remember the CNN news team in December 2014 doing an on-air “hands-up” charade in honor of the Ferguson shooting victim Michael Brown? Note that even Eric Holder’s Justice Department found that Michael Brown never so attempted to surrender to police. CNN never apologized for its news team trafficking in false news that only inflamed passions at a time of increased national tensions.

CNN reporters like Gloria Borger, Chris Cuomo, Eric Lichtblau, Manu Raju, Brian Rokus, Jake Tapper, Jeff Zeleny, and teams such as Jim Sciutto, Carl Bernstein, and Marshall Cohen as well as Thomas Frank, and Lex Harris all have peddled false rumors and gossip passed off as fact.

CNN “analyst” James Clapper, himself an admitted liar who has deliberately misled Congress while under oath, for months claimed that Trump was a virtual Putin asset. He never recanted. Finally, he and others have ended up attacking the idea that members of the Obama intelligence team “spied” on the Trump campaign, in effect defending himself on air by ridiculing charges against people like himself.  None of these journalists wondered why they seemed to have repeated the same errors in the same fashion with the same denials of culpability.

What destroyed the present generation of journalism was not just that they live in coastal corridors of progressive groupthink. It was not just because they almost all graduated from liberal journalism programs that still regurgitate ossified Watergate psychodramas of investigative reporters as comic book heroes. Nor is the cause of their decline even their own hair-trigger and social media snark or the pushback from Donald J. Trump.

Instead, over the last 20 years, marquee journalists saw themselves as wannabe celebrities who were to make news, not to report it, to massage stories in such a fashion to serve their social justice agendas, and to virtue signal their superior morality, as many revolved in and out of government.

What have they become instead? People with enormous self-regard, but with little experience with the public whom they were supposed to serve.

They espouse opinions on nearly everything while knowing almost nothing. They believe Washington and New York are the centers of the universe, while the universe is making both more irrelevant. As their ethics dissipated, their vocabularies shrank. Their poor communication skills grew ever poorer, and they displayed little knowledge of the history and culture of the people they reported on. Most could give an in-depth lecture on Botox, but are ignorant about the U.S. Constitution or basic facts of American history.

The people finally are tiring of their bias, their incompetence and their arrogance—and are finally beginning to ignore most of what they say and write.

 

https://amgreatness.com/2019/05/12/the-media-wounded/