Socially Acceptable

One of the things I could see coming this election season, and that had me very concerned, was the very real possibility of Big Tech getting involved in trying to sway the outcome. I wrote about this during the last Presidential election as well. It’s no real secret that the giants like Facebook, Twitter and Google lean left politically. And they had all been hard-pressed by the left following the outcome of the 2016 election, to step up and stop the spread of “fake news.” This was supposedly in response to “Russian interference” and disinformation spread on social media. In reality, their calls went well beyond that.

The problem was, no one could truly define what constituted fake news. It was such a subjective term that it would be easy to claim it whenever you disputed an article’s conclusion or supporting facts. And while it is important to try to stop the spread of disinformation, it is nearly impossible to do so with any real consistency and accuracy.

Still, it wasn’t hard to see Big Tech caving to the pressure from the left. Or, considering a lot of their own political leanings, happily joining in to help boost candidates they preferred, by blocking information that could harm said candidates.

Mark Zuckerberg made a critical statement on this matter in his testimony to Congress this year.  While he said he did not want Facebook to be “the arbiters of truth,” he practically nullified that statement immediately by explaining why his company acted as precisely that in blocking a story related to COVID-19.

And in this election season, I think it’s plain to see some of Big Tech’s attempted interference. Consider these examples.

Facebook and Twitter have censored or slapped warning labels on posts from the President and his campaign more than 60 times. Want to take a guess how many times they’ve done the same to Joe Biden? That would be zero.

I remember when one of Trump’s tweets raised the concerns many people had about mail-in ballots, and their increasing the possibility of voter fraud. Twitter appended the tweet with a warning that said “Get the facts about mail-in ballots.” The link took you to an article about how “experts” had assured us that mail-in balloting was totally safe. It was an unbelievable step – the equivalent of accusing the president of lying. Because we disagree, and the opinion of our “fact checkers” is contrary to what he says, we’re right, and he’s wrong. And we’re going to make sure you know what we think.

Recent undercover videos showed Facebook employees on camera admitting they delete pro-Trump and pro-republican posts because of their personal animus against them. One estimate from the report claimed that “75-80% of the posts [that were flagged for violations of Community Guidelines] to be targeting republicans and conservatives, you can say it was a bot. But somebody had to design that algorithm.”

Google last week began appending video searches for Joe Biden saying he would ban fracking with a “mostly false” disclaimer. This is quite odd, since both Biden and his running mate, Kamala Harris, have made no bones about wanting to ban the practice (along with phasing out fossil fuels). But their latest public position is that they won’t, so all the previous statements to the contrary are now “mostly false”? How does that work? Or does that mean Google is accusing them of having lied in the past about it?

Last month, Twitter actually censored a tweet from White House Coronavirus Task Force member, Dr. Scott Atlas, because they didn’t agree with his position on the effectiveness of masks. The tech giant saying it violated their policy against misleading information.

And during the early months of the COVID outbreak, many doctors who disagreed with certain policy makers had their videos banned after speaking out and offering to debate the science.

Then there’s this: Facebook banned a post from the Christian satirical site The Babylon Bee, and further stopped them from being able to make money through the platform, because they said it “incites violence.” The post, which poked fun at democrat Senator Mazie Hirono during the Supreme Court confirmation hearings for Amy Coney Barrett, paralleled a Monte Python sketch. Perhaps coincidentally, The Bee had just received quite a bit of publicity after President Trump retweeted one of their articles.

And of course, the big social media platforms made news when they censored the New York Post story on Hunter Biden’s laptop and the emails seeming to implicate Joe Biden in his foreign business dealings. Ironically, it was reported that despite their ban, the content was still the most talked about item on Twitter that week, effectively giving it more press than if they had taken no action.

I could go on with stories like these, but here are a couple of notes that should give us more cause for concern.

I mentioned earlier the political leanings of the tech giants. This is not conjecture. One of the biggest ways you can tell a company’s preference is to look to whom they donated. During 2020, over 90% of political contributions from Twitter and Facebook employees have gone to democrat campaigns. The donations added up to several million dollars, and the top beneficiary of campaign contributions? If you guessed Joe Biden, you would be correct.

Then there’s the news that top social media employees have signed on to work for the Biden transition team, including Facebook executive Jessica Hertz, and Twitter’s Director of Public Policy Carlos Monje. Both were former staffers in the Obama Administration.

While this is all very concerning, it shouldn’t be a real surprise. When we give a handful of people enormous power, human nature begins to take over, and they can feel a lot more important than they should. But we can continue to know the truth, if we’re willing to be diligent in seeking it, and in telling it.

I hope you’ve been inspired by what you’ve read at this blog. If so, I encourage you to make your voice heard. Start writing or speaking out, telling others the truth you’ve found. Help them see what the media and others have hidden from them. But always with gentleness and respect. You can persuade much better by making your speech full of grace and truth. Seems like there was a certain Man who did that rather well. I would love nothing more than for you to spend time with Him each day, and to read His story in the Scriptures.

Blessings, friend. Let’s continue to pursue the truth, and to speak up about it.

Hush Hush

I’ve said before that the media’s bias can be seen not only in what they cover and how they cover it, but in what they choose not to cover. Perhaps nowhere can this be more clearly seen than in the recently uncovered Hunter Biden emails.

The media has steadfastly refused to report the story, even as it has picked up steam in alternative news outlets. And their stated purpose for not doing so, quite frankly, is laughable.

In case you’re unfamiliar with the story, here’s some quick background. Joe Biden’s son Hunter apparently dropped off a laptop at a computer repair shop in Joe’s home state of Delaware more than a year ago, and never returned to pick it up. After repeated attempts to get him to do so, the shop claimed ownership of the device, and made copies of the files. When the shop owner went through the files to see what was there, he discovered emails that seem to implicate the former Vice President in some of Hunter’s business dealings.

This, at minimum, would directly contradict statements Joe Biden has made that he has “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.” But it could also mean that the senior Biden was selling his influence as a well-known politician, through getting his son prominent business deals, of which Biden would receive a healthy cut.

The story was first reported by the New York Post, a paper with the fourth largest readership in the nation, but was immediately blocked from circulating on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook. The major news outlets, outside of Fox, have not covered it.

In his recent 60 Minutes interview, President Trump pointed out that the media are not talking about the story, but interviewer Leslie Stahl argued with him, saying the story of the laptop “can’t be verified.”

Trump: “Of course it can be verified. Excuse me, they found the laptop, Leslie.”
Stahl: “It can’t be verified.”
Trump: “What can’t be verified?”
Stahl: “The laptop!”
Trump: “Why do you say that?”
Stahl: “Because it can’t be verified.”

Now, I’m sure the major news networks are working hard to verify the legitimacy of the laptop and the emails in question, so that they can report…Ok, sorry for the sarcasm there.

But if this is the standard for what makes the news – that only things that “can be verified” are covered – then how do you explain the months-long reporting of the accusations in the never-verified Steele Dossier, concerning alleged Trump-Russia collusion? The media spent months, even years, reporting the rumor and hearsay of that document. Daily articles contained supposed intel from anonymous sources that implicated the president in a plot with one of our nation’s enemies to steal the 2016 election, and to secretly work to benefit Vladimir Putin while in the White House. It would be comical if it were not so serious. Most of those stories had a paragraph at some point that admitted, “none of this can be proven yet, but if true…”

And it all came from a document that was not verified. Eventually, Robert Mueller’s report cleared Trump of any such collusion, and it was eventually discovered that the source document for the investigation (and all the media coverage) – Christopher Steele’s infamous dossier – was in fact opposition research, bought by the Hillary Clinton campaign. (If you think I’m being a little too simplistic, check out my previous writings on the subject here and here.)

And yet, the media had a field day reporting all of this. But now, they can’t report on something that casts suspicion on the democrat nominee, because it “can’t be verified”?

Problem is, the laptop in question is already in the possession of the FBI. It is real, and it has been with the agency since late 2019. At least one person on the one of the email chains has verified their legitimacy, and confirmed that they speak of Joe Biden.

Now, understand that there is much we don’t yet know about all of this. But isn’t that why you look into it, and report the news about it? Do you want to get to the truth of the matter?

NPR went so far as to say they refuse to cover the story because, “We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.”

Distractions? From what? And by whose definition?

Some media outlets are dismissing the story as “Russian disinformation,” despite the Director of National Intelligence debunking that claim. Sound familiar?

This post isn’t meant to get to the bottom of a big news story. Rather it’s meant to demonstrate the media’s agenda in what they will and won’t cover. You would think the media would be eager to cover such a big story that has the potential to affect the election. And they likely would…if it affected the right candidate.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Election 2020

As we come to the end of the campaign, and prepare to vote, I want to offer an angle to our decision you may have not looked at before.

Something I heard a lot after the first presidential debate was, “This is the best we could do?  These two?” It made me chuckle, and nod in agreement. As I said 4 years ago, our candidates tend to be a reflection of who we are. We may want better options, but we also have a responsibility. And while we cry out for better candidates, we need to become a better people.

It’s true that in every election, you’re talking about two imperfect people, with imperfect ideas. In essence, every election is about the lesser of two evils. And you want to make sure you’re supporting a candidate who closely represents your values, and who will be good for the nation as a whole.

But I also think there’s more to consider. Perhaps this year more than ever, our choice is not as much about two people as it is about two very different governing philosophies, two very different directions the country will take. Directions that are continuing to widen.

While the presidential candidates’ personalities and leadership styles are important to consider, much more important are the stances their party takes on the critical issues of our time. Because their stances will be reflected in the laws they make.

In this election, you could not have two more contrasting viewpoints, two more divergent governing philosophies. While neither party is perfect, one appeals more to center-right America. The other is tracking hard left, farther and quicker than you may realize.

I remember having conversations with friends when Barack Obama was first running for president. I could see from his background and education, his record as a legislator, and his words on the campaign trail that he was heavily influenced by Marxist ideology. But, as you can imagine, to suggest that the democrat candidate for president would be a socialist was not well received.

But fast forward to 2020, and the front-runner for most of the campaign was Senator Bernie Sanders, who is an open socialist. Truth be told, I thought Bernie would win the nomination, and if not for some backroom dealing and negotiating, probably would have. The democrats came very, very close to nominating an up-front and unashamed socialist to be president. Of the United States.

This is no longer a fringe ideology – you can make a strong case that socialism is now the predominate ideology within the democrat party. Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris actually has a consistent voting record to the left of Sanders. And with the majority of voters believing that if elected, Joe Biden would not serve out an entire term in the White House due to declining mental abilities, that would mean Harris would become president within the next 4 years.

It seems to me that we’ve not really paid much attention to what socialism is. For years, the term was practically used as a curse word for people you disagree with. But socialism is a very real worldview, and it is nothing like what those who romanticize it would have you believe.

I can spend pages laying out what socialism says and what it actually delivers (the history books are littered with examples of what it does to people and countries), but I’ll sum it up by saying this: Socialism gives way too much power to the government, and without fail, makes its citizens poorer. I don’t have to tell you that this isn’t something we want here.  

And from studying what they are promising, if the democrats win, they will waste no time in moving us toward this system. They’re not keeping it a secret. You can read it in their party platform, or listen to their elected leaders talk about what they desire to do.

In stark contrast to this is the governing philosophy of the republican party. Personal freedom and responsibility are at the center. It’s one that seeks to keep the government from becoming too powerful, and focuses on keeping obstacles out people’s way to making a living and pursuing happiness.

It’s an ideology that upholds the sanctity of human life, and stands strongly for religious freedom, not religious freedom so long as you believe what the government says is proper.

Its judicial philosophy is not that the courts should make law, but rather they should interpret law by the Constitution. And economically, it believes you should be free to keep more of the fruit of your labor, so that you can invest it as you see fit.

I’ve said it before, but I really think most people, across the political spectrum, want a lot of the same things. At the end of the day, I think we have more in common with those on the opposite side of the political aisle than we care to admit. If we can see clearly the directions our leaders want to take us, I think we can make a good decision. That has always been where the rub comes in.

As someone who studies politics probably more than I should, I’ve been able to see what the left has been desiring to do, and noted they are not always vocal about it. The reason? If people knew what they really wanted to do, they may not want to go along with it. Central to their efforts here is the media. They have simply and unashamedly taken sides. If only they would report objectively and truthfully. That’s a topic for another day.

But in the last four years, the democrats are becoming more vocal about their desires, and hiding less. Consider just a few examples of things they now openly embrace, but used to get mad at conservatives for charging.

• They wish for the government to be in total command of healthcare for everyone, and would prefer to eliminate all private insurance plans.

• They want to phase out fossil fuels completely, banning techniques like fracking that have helped make us energy independent.

• They want abortion with no restrictions, from conception until the moment of birth, and support taxpayer funding of the practice.

• They want to raise taxes. Despite what is claimed about only targeting the rich, if the Trump tax cuts are reversed, everyone’s taxes will go up.

• Many have actually called for defunding or abolishing the police.

And this is to say nothing of things like packing the Supreme Court, abolishing the Electoral College, and passing a socialist’s dream legislation called the “Green New Deal.”

The bottom line is that the democrat party wishes to dramatically increase the power of the government. And they want no challenge to their power. And that will be the case whether Joe Biden, Kamala Harris or anyone else is at the head of the ticket.

For all his faults, President Trump has demonstrated he is willing to adhere to conservative principles in governing. Should he win, our country will continue down that path. Should Joe Biden prevail, we will turn toward the path of socialism. And I believe it will be a very rapid change.

Think about this as you head to the polls, and look not only at the candidates, but beyond, to the ideologies they and their party will implement. Consider the consequences for the country of their governing direction. And don’t assume that there’s plenty of time to undo a mistake. As a friend recently told me rather ominously, “You only get to vote for socialism once.”

What The Media Isn’t Reporting (Part 2)

I was going to write a different post, but the news of this week has made me change direction. There is some very troubling news out there, but more troubling is that the mainstream news media has refused to cover it, keeping many Americans in the dark. Since they didn’t cover them, here are three stories you may have missed.

News Item #1
Joe Biden possibly met with his son’s business partners from Ukraine

The New York Post released a story claiming that it had documented evidence that Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, had arranged a meeting between representatives from his Ukrainian company and his then-VP father.  This would directly contradict statements Joe Biden has made that he never talked with Hunter about businesses his son was involved in.

It would also raise some rather large red flags. Hunter Biden was given an enormous salary for what appears to be a “no show” job at Burisma, one for which he certainly had insufficient experience to land. Meanwhile, his father handled much of official US policy with Ukraine.

It gets further troubling when you consider that Joe Biden actually bragged publicly about getting a Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating his son’s company fired, by threatening to withhold US aid to the country. If Biden was unaware that his son even worked for said company, that’s one thing. But if there is evidence he not only knew, but had been introduced to company envoys in person, that’s another. At the very least, it would prove that he openly lied to the American people.

This ties into story number two.

News Item #2
Big Tech censors the aforementioned story

I’ve been concerned for some time that big tech companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google have way too much power to control what we see. If they don’t like a particular story, or if it has the potential to damage politicians they support, they have the ability to make it disappear. Such was what the social media giants did with the New York Post story on Hunter Biden.

Almost immediately, Facebook moved to block links to the story, announcing they would need approval from third party “fact check partners” before letting it be posted on their platform.

The decision was announced by Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone, who is a former press secretary for democrat Senator Barbara Boxer, as well as former press secretary for the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee.  I’m sure it was a completely professional and bias-free move, however.

Likewise, Twitter blocked users from sharing the story, and suspended accounts of people who tried to do so, including that of White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany and President Trump’s official campaign.

While the tech giants blocked the Post’s story, they took no such action against those distributing The Atlantic story that President Trump had supposedly called fallen soldiers “losers” and “suckers.” The claim was debunked by nearly two dozen witnesses, and The Atlantic’s sources never came forward to testify in public. The story’s author further admitted that a key part of the story could be false. Yet, Facebook and Twitter never restricted distribution of the story.

These decisions contradict past statements from the companies that they do not wish to be the “arbiters of truth.”

As a headline at the satirical site The Babylon Bee put rather presciently, “Big Tech Fights Election Interference By Interfering In Election.”

News Item #3
One-time Presidential Debate Moderator suspended from his TV Network

C-SPAN’s Steve Scully was tapped to be the moderator of the 2^nd presidential debate between President Trump and former Vice President Biden, until the debate was cancelled. In the days leading up to the cancellation, conservatives were questioning the objectivity Scully would bring, by pointing out that he had actually interned for Joe Biden in the 1990s, and later worked for Senator Ted Kennedy. He had further posted a picture at a 2016 Biden campaign event with the then-VP, and had posted an article to his social media accounts during the election season with the headline “No, Not Trump, Not Ever.”

Imagine a Fox News anchor who had interned for President Trump, and later worked for Senator Mitch McConnel, and who had posted material critical of Joe Biden, being named a presidential debate moderator. How do you think the media would react?

To add further fuel to the fire, Scully reached out to anti-Trump activist Anthony Scaramucci for advice on how to handle the President. Only, for some reason, he did it publicly on his Twitter account. When he was caught doing so, he falsely said his account had been hacked. His network then suspended him indefinitely after he admitted he lied.

The news media was absolutely silent on items 1 & 2, and covered item #3 only in passing.  Let me ask, honestly, if these stories implicated republicans, do you think they would be handled differently?

This is why I constantly say to check things out for yourself. Find sources you can trust. Expand your news intake to see what you may be missing. Do your own homework. Do not let big tech or big media keep you from learning the truth.

Mailing It In

Remember the old days, when you knew by the end of election night who the president was going to be?  Wish we could see those days again?

Me too.  But it likely won’t be this year.

The implementation of mail-in balloting has the potential to throw this year’s race into chaos that will last for weeks, despite what the “experts” assure us.

Remember the aftermath of the 2000 election, and the recount in Florida?  That fiasco went on well into December, before we knew for certain the winner.  And that was only after an intense legal battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court.

Do we really want that again?  And of all years, in 2020?

But that’s a reality we stand to face.  And there’s not a lot we can do about it at this point.  Ballots have already been mailed.  We’re doing this, and we’d better be prepared for the consequences.

So, what’s the big deal?  Well, several things actually.  The biggest is that you’re adding a 3^rd party between your ballot and the polling location.  Instead of walking into the voting booth, and casting your vote in person, you are giving your ballot to someone else, trusting that they will deliver it to the proper place by the proper time.  

But, what if they don’t?  Are you comfortable having your vote not count, because it was

1. Incorrectly filled out?
2. Arrived late?
3. Never delivered?
4. Stolen?

“But, what about voting absentee?  Haven’t we been doing this a long time?”

Yes, we have.  And there are systems and safeguards that we’ve built because we’ve been doing it a long time.  Things that we don’t have the time nor resources to do on such a larger scale.

The biggest difference between voting absentee and voting by mail in this year’s presidential election is this: In most cases, you must specifically request an absentee ballot, and you must prove who you are to vote absentee.  Several states are simply mailing ballots to all state residents.  Number one, how accurate are their records going to be?  Number two, how are they going to be able to prove that all of the ballots cast are actually by the people purported to be casting them?

CBS News conducted a study over the summer by holding a mock election, with mail-in ballots. What they found was that even with a very small sample size, several ballots did not make their destination on time, and some never made it all. As they pointed out, “In a close election, [even] 3% could be pivotal.”

And then there’s what to do about people acting nefariously.  People who would interfere to prevent votes from being delivered, or would fraudulently fill them out to suit their purposes.

Don’t think that would happen?  It already has.  Consider these examples.

The Texas Attorney General recently announced 134 felony voter fraud charges in connection with a ballot harvesting scheme in a 2018 democrat primary.  Said the AG, Ken Paxton, “It is an unfortunate reality that elections can be stolen outright by mail ballot fraud.” 

A New Jersey election this spring was actually thrown out by a judge, after rampant mail-in voter fraud.  4 people were criminally charged in connection.

Already in this year’s presidential election, ballots in swing states have been found tossed out and even in ditches on the side of the road.

And then there was what happened this summer in New York.  Ballots were sent by mail for a state primary election, but too many were returned to be accurately counted in time to certify a winner.  Two months later, only 56% of votes had been counted, and the winner unknown.

Now, can you imagine this happening in a presidential election? What kind of chaos would ensue? How long would it take for the counting, re-counting and all the lawsuits to be litigated?

As I said earlier, we can’t change what’s been done. What we can do is render it irrelevant. If we show up in record numbers at the polls and vote, we can hopefully decide things peaceably, before the system has a chance to break down, and those seeking to do harm have a chance.

So go safely, go in person, and vote. Don’t sit back and mail it in.