In mid-October 2020, the New York Post, one of the longest-running, largest circulation newspapers in the country, published a story about our new president’s son, Hunter Biden. The story contained information that had been obtained from a laptop that once belonged to Hunter. The information included volumes of documents, emails, and saved copies of text messages regarding Hunter’s business dealings in a number of foreign countries, as well as less-than-flattering personal images and videos.
The story was largely ignored or dismissed by every other news outlet in the country, except Fox News. It was censored entirely by Twitter and severely restricted by Facebook—essentially hidden from the American public. Why?
If anyone bothered to inquire, the reasons given seemed to change by the minute. “The story is false,” became, “The material was ‘hacked’,” became “This matter has already been covered, and Hunter didn’t do anything illegal.” Whatever the reason, it didn’t seem to matter to anyone.
The important thing was, by being ignored or hidden by the media, the message being communicated to the public—that is, the voting citizens of America—was that this story was of no value or importance, deserving no scrutiny whatsoever.
But was that true? What if this story was important? What if it was so important, it might even have the power to sway the opinions of the American people enough to change the outcome of an election?
Heart of the Story
Contrary to past statements by Joe Biden regarding Hunter’s foreign business dealings, some of the emails and text messages on the laptop suggested that not only did Joe have knowledge of Hunter’s activity, but he was directly involved to some degree. If this was true it meant the Democrat candidate for president had been and was continuing to lie about the matter.
Direct involvement by Joe Biden could create the potential for foreign influence or coercion by foreign actors, should Biden win the presidency in the 2020 election. And it would have been illegal if he was, in fact, actively involved while serving as Vice President in the Obama Administration.
When a slim number of legitimate journalists did muster the courage to poke their noses out from behind their “Covid and truth-filtering masks” to ask then-candidate Joe Biden about the story, he bristled and scolded them for asking, parroting the narratives being sold to Americans by the mainstream media. The question that had been and was again being asked of Joe Biden was, “Did you know of, and if so, what did you know, about your son’s business dealings in Ukraine and elsewhere?” Repeatedly, Joseph Biden’s answer was that he was not involved in, and was unaware of, the details of Hunter’s business activity.
Upon publication of the Post article, the few questions that reporters did ask Biden or his handlers were all met with flat-out denials, coupled with the narrative that the story was fake—a “hit piece” or conspiracy theory—likely concocted by Trump with help from Vladimir Putin.
Then, an inconvenient truth emerged that changed the dynamics of the story in an important way. Many of the emails and texts on the laptop included conversations Hunter Biden had with one of his business partners, Tony Bobulinski.
Upon learning of Joe Biden’s flippant characterizations of the story and hearing him repeatedly deny knowledge of or involvement in Hunter’s business affairs, Bobulinski, was incensed.
In a very public way, Joe Biden was not only calling Tony Bobulinski a liar, he stayed silent when California Congressman Adam Schiff said the story was just Kremlin-created disinformation. Then, by choosing to ignore, bury, or censor the story, a corrupt media happily advanced that narrative—that Bobulinski was merely part of a Russian “disinformation campaign.” Even so-called “intelligence experts” weighed in on this, adding to the Kremlin connection lie.
Up until the time it became apparent that Joe Biden was willing to lie about the matter and by so doing, disparage Bobulinski’s reputation and honor, Bobulinski had no desire to expose what he knew about the “Biden Backroom Business Cabal.” But he had no choice. He had to set the record straight, clear his family name, and, feeling a patriotic duty, Bobulinski announced that he would hold a news conference. He assumed the media would want to hear his first-hand account about the Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, China, and elsewhere.
So, on October 22, 2020, Bobulinski appeared before a small gathering of reporters—none from any of the major networks, however—to tell what he knew about Joe Biden’s involvement with Hunter’s businesses. He had direct, first-hand knowledge about everything claimed in the Post story and said it was all true, and in an hour-long interview with Tucker Carlson of Fox News conducted a week later, he said Joe Biden was lying about the matter.
Some of what Bobulinski revealed in the interview were saved conversations that included an exchange between Tony Bobulinski and Hunter, where Tony was instructed to never refer to Hunter’s father by name. Subsequently, Joe Biden was referred to in numerous texts and emails as “the Big Guy,” and specifically by Hunter Biden as “My Chairman.” Part of Hunter’s conversations regarding one particular deal with a company operated by the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) specifically mentions that “Ten percent be put aside for the ‘Big Guy’.”
But the unequivocal “bombshell” revealed in the Carlson interview was that Bobulinski had personally met with Joe Biden for no other reason than to establish Biden’s direct involvement in the business partnership. Hunter wanted to reassure Bobulinski that their business ventures would be successful, precisely because of the credibility and clout of the Biden name, since the ex-vice president was Hunter’s “Chairman,” serving as the figurehead of the enterprise.
So, on May 2, 2017, Hunter Biden introduced Tony Bobulinski to the ex-vice president and his brother, Jim Biden, at the Beverly Hills Hilton Hotel, where Joe Biden was attending the Milken Conference. They had a cordial meeting, where it was clearly established and understood that a new corporate entity would be established—whose partners would include Hunter Biden, Jim Biden (Joe’s brother and advisor), James Gilliar, Rob Walker, Tony Bobulinski (as CEO), and Joe Biden as a kind of “silent partner”—that would operate as part of the Biden family business.
Soon after this meeting, Bobulinski had a private meeting with Joe Biden’s brother and personal advisor, Jim Biden. Realizing that this proposed business arrangement with the man who might well become the next president of the United States could lead not only to considerable scrutiny but also great legal risk, Bobulinski asked Jim Biden a pointed question: “How are you guys getting away with this? Aren’t you concerned?”
Jim Biden’s answer was, “Plausible deniability.”
All of Bobulinski’s claims, and more, were later verified as being legitimate in an investigation conducted in the United States Senate.
So, What Does All This Mean?
Why does any of this matter? Americans have become weary of “October Surprises”—the scandals and character assassinations that always pop up just before a major election. Is this in anyway different? Why should anyone care?
Soon after all this broke, I released a podcast about it, pleading that people pay attention and that everyone should be “scared to death” about the danger in all of this. I spoke with friends and relatives about it, most of them completely unaware of the story—a fact that makes my point to anyone thinking clearly.
And for some, after I made them aware of the story, they essentially replied making the point, “So what; all politicians lie and use their power to enrich themselves.” Sadly, I fear these well-meaning friends and relatives either miss the larger point, or have given up on the importance of truth, fairness, and free and fair elections.
Yet, as bad as the facts are in this case, there looms a greater issue here that threatens our liberty and the very survival of our Republic—an issue that vast numbers of Americans are either unaware of, or don’t care about.
The Greatest Threat to Our Freedom Is Upon Us
If I ask you, “Is censorship a good or bad thing,” what would be your answer? I imagine you would say, “bad.” Then I would ask, “Why is it bad?” Do you know?
Right now, many Americans seem unclear or confused about this. Some Americans apparently believe certain words or expressions are so “wrong,” that if they are not already “illegal,” perhaps they should be. “After all,” they say, “even the word ‘fire’ is wrong, if you yell it out in a crowded theater.”
In fact, using that particular word, in that manner, under those circumstances, is a crime; one worthy of possible imprisonment. But it’s not the word itself that is wrong, it is how it is used—in what context and under what circumstances—that determines whether a crime has been committed.
The same thing applies to speech that incites violence. In both cases, the point is, in America, where the right to speak, write, and otherwise express ourselves freely—a sacred right guaranteed by the First Amendment—circumstances determine when and why words might be “regulated,” and those circumstances are defined within the guidelines of existing law. So even so-called “hate speech” isn’t illegal, nor is using the dreaded “N” word, depending upon the circumstances in which it is used.
Adding to Americans’ confusion about freedom of speech is the fact that outside the realm of criminal law, our freedom of expression is impacted by civil law, politics, and the now-blurred intersections of traditional media, social media and “big tech,” journalism, entertainment, and big business.
For example, take politically motivated speech by entertainers. When Madonna said to a crowd, “Yes, I have thought, an awful lot, about blowing up the White House,” she wasn’t charged with inciteful speech. Neither was Johnny Depp accused of possibly threatening the President when he asked “When was the last time an actor assassinated a president? I want to clarify. I’m not an actor. I lie for a living. However, it’s been a while, and maybe it’s time.”
In both these cases, the actors probably didn’t realize how close they came to having an FBI agent knock on their door. Yet, as I recall, here was no media frenzy over these remarks, which would seem to indicate that “hate speech” is in the ear of the beholder. Because Donald Trump wasn’t popular to many powerful and influential people in the media, entertainment, and big-tech industries—those who essentially control the flow of information—this was no big deal, so it was ignored.
On the other side of the “Trump Spectrum” however, the simple words used in a single sentence, in a friendly, private conversation with the President of Ukraine, nearly caused a duly elected president to be removed from office. “I’d like you to do us a favor though…” was the phrase that a “whistleblower” found so troubling, he filed a report that led to the impeachment of President Trump, largely because the story was repeated and amplified by that same powerful and influential group that chose to ignore Madonna and Depp.
Enter Censorship
The concepts and notions of “hate speech,” “potentially dangerous speech,” “hurtful speech,” and the like, now define and determine what and how Americans think about communication. While we once talked peripherally about being too “PC” (politically correct), in a purely academic way, people now have a legitimate fear that saying the “wrong thing” might cost them dearly. And their fear isn’t without good reason, as people are being punished for saying words or promoting ideas, simply because others don’t agree with those words or ideas.
I realize this is a long article and the point I am trying to make may be unclear, so I will get to the point: America is in grave danger because too many citizens don’t seem to be aware of or aren’t speaking out against censorship and media bias. And some people have either forgotten how or have never learned to think rationally and critically.
The reason I explained the Tony Bobulinski story in such detail is that you may not have even been aware of it. So what was the overall impact of the media blackout of this story? Polls conducted after the election indicated that 45% of democrats were completely unaware of the story, and 9.5% of democrats who voted for Biden said they would not have done so, had they known the about it.
By virtue of this issue alone then, independent of or excluding any claims of voter irregularities, potential fraud, or vote-flipping software, we can accurately state that the 2020 presidential election was not a “free and fair,” expression of democracy. And while you may be happy with the end result this time, by allowing this, we are ceding our judgment to others, giving license to a tyranny of the worst sort.
Permitting unelected, biased individuals to regulate what we can and cannot know must be stopped. What we are seeing come to power in America today is the ideology of oppression that we see in full bloom in Communist China and North Korea, and we must put a stop to it without delay before it is too late.
Sidebar
As of this writing, just one day after the inauguration of Joe Biden, a massive purge is underway. Many tech and media giants are censoring speech and companies are punishing people and groups throughout the United States. Whether you agree with people or not isn’t the point. You are safe now, only so long as you agree with or submit to the point of view of those in power. That’s a frightening place.
For example, consider the past president of the United States. Regardless of how you feel about Trump, Twitter, which as everyone knew, was the president’s most reliable communication tool, first blocked then permanently banned him—while he was still the commander in chief. In so many words, they claimed they had a “duty to prevent further inciteful speech,” so they censored him completely, effectively denying him use of his favored means of communicating with Americans.
Why is it that communication companies like Twitter and Facebook, which are currently protected from lawsuits under Section 230 of the Communications Decency act, which states that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as a publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”
Translated, that means they CANNOT be sued for the content people post on their platforms. So why are they monitoring content and making judgements about what can or cannot be shared? Could it be they are more concerned about shaping thinking and policy than they are about liability?
On the flip side, the New York Post, being a publisher, does not enjoy the same Section 230 protection, so they can be sued for liable. They had every reason to make sure the Bobulinski story was factual and 100% accurate.
Can you grasp the irony here? Twitter and Facebook, who had zero risk in sharing the Bonulinski story, blocked it. Then 95% of traditional media also chose to hide it, even after knowing that it was likely true, since The New York Post had already published it!
Notable censoring and PC corporate and political punishment currently underway includes:
- Donald Trump banned from Twitter
- Donald Trump blocked on Facebook
- Parler site de-platformed by Google
- Parler site dropped by Apple
- Parler site hosting cancelled by Amazon
- Youtube is removing any content claiming “election fraud”
- Youtube may cancel accounts held by any with “election fraud” content
- Facebook is removing accounts of “Walkaway Movement” members
- Twitter banned Lt. General Michael Flynn
- Twitter banned Trump’s attorneys Sydney Powell and Lin Wood
- Some Senators suggest removing Josh Hawley and Ted Cruz from the Senate
- Simon & Schuster cancelled a previously agreed-upon publishing deal to publish “Tyranny of Big Tech” by Senator Josh Hawley (How ironic!)
- The popular “My Pillow” product line is dropped by several major retailers
- Payment processors Stripe, GoFundMe and others drop Trump-related commerce
- Many major corporations drop donations to Republicans who objected to Biden’s electoral certification
This list is growing, day by day. You could be added to it at any time, should your words or ideas place you on the “wrong side” in the future.
America and Americans must always lean toward, and be on the side of, freedom and liberty, and away from control and tyranny.
Which side are you on?
Leave a Reply