Social Media Censorship, Justice ACB, and General Observations of the Week

Image by Thomas Ulrich from Pixabay

Topic #1: Both Twitter and Facebook engaged in outrageous censorship of users sharing a New York Post story. The story examined emails to/from Hunter Biden regarding Joe Biden’s meeting with Ukrainian officials and the potential relationship to Hunter’s windfalls from the energy company Burisma.

Thoughts and Observations:

  • This week we saw confirmation hearings for the next Supreme Court Justice; we were provided with proof that Joe Biden is corrupt; and we continued to plow headfirst towards Election Day which is only 17 days away.  But not only is this the top story of the week, it’s one of the top stories of the year.
  • All indications are that the story on Hunter Biden is true. While the Biden campaign has said the former VP did nothing wrong, they have also said that it is possible that such a meeting took place, and they have not claimed that the emails are fakes.
  • There is no reasonable justification for the actions of Twitter and Face Book.
    • Twitter claimed a newfound policy prohibiting “content obtained without authorization” and “hacked” material from being published, which is laughable.
      • No one, including the Biden campaign, has claimed that the information was hacked, considering Hunter Biden simply left his laptop with the IT company in question and apparently forgot about it (behavior which is common among drug addicts such as Hunter Biden).
      • Two weeks ago the biggest story on Twitter was President Trump’s tax returns, and there was no “authorization” of that information, and in fact virtually no news accounts are ever authorized by the subjects of those stories.  That’s not how news works.
    • Facebook’s rationale was that the story was potentially false, even though there was no evidence to suggest that was the case.
      • For three years, Face Book was filled with propaganda regarding the Russia Hoax, and it was all false. For three years! And now they’re concerned about truth?
      • Shouldn’t their “fact checkers” have proven it false, or at least have had some shred of evidence suggesting that was the case, before they censored it? Now FB is proactively censoring information because it might be false?
  • The Senate has already announced plans to call in the leaders of both companies, and perhaps others. I’m opposed to government intervention or regulation of such companies, generally speaking, but this is unacceptable. Maybe it is time to break up Big Tech.
  • If there was any doubt previously that these companies are leftist by nature and little more than mouthpieces of the Democrat Party, doubt no more. Conservatives need to start considering alternative outlets for their social media activities. It’s sad that we’re getting to the point of having to use conservative and liberal versions of virtually every product-type and in every industry, but this type of activity cannot be tolerated.

Topic #2: The actual story that generated the censorship from social media: the New York Post story exposing emails to/from Hunter Biden regarding Joe Biden’s meeting with Ukrainian officials and the potential relationship to Hunter’s windfalls from the energy company Burisma.

Thoughts and Observations:

  • Contrary to various claims that this story provided evidence of a “smoking gun” showing Joe Biden is guilty of a crime – that is not the case. It shows that Hunter Biden used his father’s name to get rich. It shows corruption. But it does not show anything that would hold up against Sleepy Joe in criminal court… yet.
  • Once again, the media’s lack of curiosity regarding the story is stunning. If this was a story about a Republican representative or senator who was running for office, it would be the top story on every channel and in every newspaper. But this is about a presidential candidate running for the most powerful office in the world who happens to be a Democrat, and the mainstream media is largely ignoring it. Remarkable.
  • The actions of Facebook and Twitter may have actually helped propel the story forward, ironically. There seems to be more attention being paid to it since the stories about the two social media giants came to light.
  • This should be the number one topic for the Trump Campaign moving forward. It should be Trump’s main line of attack in the next debate, if there is one, and it should be the top subject of television and radio ads from the campaign. Just because it’s not provable that Good Ol’ Joe didn’t commit a crime doesn’t mean he’s not obviously corrupt, and Trump needs to hammer that fact.

Topic #3: Senate Judiciary Committee hearings were conducted this week to consider the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to become the next Justice on the Supreme Court.  

Thoughts and Observations:

  • Amy Coney Barrett is going to be confirmed, I have no doubt. She handled herself incredibly well during the hearings. She’s a role model for young women, she’s a perfect candidate for the seat, and she’s absolutely brilliant. Bravo ACB.
  • Similar to Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearings, ACB fielded questions from senators without the use of any notes. Impressive.
  • There were multiple instances of Democrat senators behaving stupidly, but there were two in particular that stand out:
    • Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) asked ACB if she had every sexually assaulted anyone. For those of you in Hawaii, be advised, you elected someone who asked a devout Catholic mother of seven, if she was a rapist. How proud you must be.
    • Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) inquired about ACB’s opinion on “super precedent,” to which ACB totally took Klobuchar to school. Klobuchar is normally one of the more polished Democrats, but her stuttering and stammering in response to ACB’s reply exposed her as being totally intellectually inferior to Barrett. Not good, Senator.      
  • When Ruth Bader Ginsburg was being confirmed in 1993, she established what has become known as “The Ginsburg Rule,” which prohibits prospective justices from commenting or speculating on how they might rule in a hypothetical, future case. It was a rule that has been highly touted and supported by Democrats ever since, but during these hearings they were clearly frustrated and are now opponents to the rule, apparently… that is, until the next Democrat is nominated to SCOTUS.

Topic #4: Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was interviewed on CNN by Wolf Blitzer, and she had a meltdown when pressed on the issue of a pandemic-related stimulus package.

 Thoughts and Observations:

  • Pelosi accused Blitzer of being an “apologist” of the Republican Party. Wow. If ever there was such a person in the mainstream media, it wasn’t Wolf Blitzer, and he/she certainly was not on CNN.
  • Pelosi’s reaction actually shows an unintended consequence of the mainstream media’s leftism. With such seldom scrutiny by the press, and with such overwhelmingly glowing coverage from virtually all directions, when a Democrat such as Pelosi is indeed posed with a slightly difficult question, they are ill prepared to handle it.
  • Watch closely for other media outlets asking her following questions, but don’t hold your breath while you wait. You heard it here first: it will be a long time before any journalist presses Pelosi on this issue, or any other. She pushed back, and the mainstream media now has their marching orders.

Topic #5: During the ACB confirmation hearings, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) scolded Barrett for using the term “sexual preference” when referring to homosexuality, and moments later Merriam-Webster Dictionary changed their definition to include the word “offensive” in its description.

Thoughts and Observations:

  • This is the next, logical step for wokeness and political correctness; accomplices such as Merriam-Webster kowtowing and offering cover to even the most absurd ideas. Control the language, and you control the culture.
  • This should be unnerving for all of us. There is a meme going around social media stating, “Orwell’s 1984 was not a How-To Manual,” but that is exactly what seems to be happening. Scary, scary stuff.
  • Apparently, Hirono’s point was that homosexuality is not a choice, it’s part of one’s genetic make-up. But a question that begs to be asked is this: what’s wrong with homosexuality if it is a preference, Senator? Aren’t you the ones that advocate such things? Does that make it a problem? For crying out loud, leftists, make up your minds, will you? You’re giving the rest of us a headache.

PF Whalen

Published by PF Whalen

American. Christian. Blogger.