WHEREAS certain postings require this and that backgrounder and related explanatory material and supportive evidence, the fact is that volumes of the aforementioned already exist; that which document the multitude of measures deployed by social media/big tech overlords to stifle any, and all, opposing voices to their far-left, DemocRAT Mafia-aligned marching orders.
TO WIT, consider the following email thread (received today) as an EMERGENCY NOTICE , gifted from one patriot to countless others. Incontestably, it is meant to serve as a full-on clarion call, that is, when even military officers (on their DoD approved internal channel) are silenced! Censored.
INEXORABLY, it is a mega warning on the eve of the most consequential election in U.S. history. But please bear these observations uppermost in mind: the very fact that the self-appointed ‘Masters of the Universe‘ are still at it – even after the most recent Congressional ‘dressing down’, and juxtaposed against their hyper-muscle approach exerted throughout President Trump’s tenure – well, imagine what they will do if, heaven forfend, Biden-Harris/Harris-Biden claim victory! Shiver the west’s timbers…..
ONTO the ominous, highly telling email thread……
|Operations Officer xxxxxxx|
Interview with former Hunter Biden business partner Tony Bobulinski about his alleged dealings with Hunter and Joe Biden. Bobulinski explained how Biden would personally benefit from a stake in a Chinese business deal. ]
Biden met with then-Guatemalan President Otto Pérez Molina, who did not want to renew CICIG’s charter. The Obama administration had promised a $1 billion aid package to Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador), but Biden made the aid and upcoming trade agreements contingent upon renewing CICIG’s contract. First cajoling then threatening, Biden finally announced, “The CICIG is staying, period.” Biden used this same tactic in Ukraine, where he bragged about threatening to withhold loan guarantees until the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor investigating Hunter Biden. Biden also sought Pérez’s help in extending CICIG’s rule to El Salvador and Honduras.
4. Is there a media cover-up?
Repeatedly over the past several months, I’ve brought to attention false claims that were published by The Intercept in articles that were designed to protect Biden and malign Trump. Some have been corrected or quietly deleted, while others were just left standing.
The Intercept is now reduced to blindly citing the evidence-free accusations about foreign adversaries from John Brennan and James Clapper — and, worse, distorting what they said to make it even more favorable to Biden than these agents of disinformation were willing to do — is both deeply sad and embarrassing to me as one of the people on whose name, credibility and reputations the Intercept has been built and around which it continues to encourage readers to donate money to it.
Telling me that I can’t publish a pre-election article about Joe Biden that expresses views that have been ratified by some of the nation’s most accomplished journalists is even more grave. I want to note clearly that this is the first time in fifteen years of my writing about politics that I’ve been censored — i.e., told by others that I can’t publish what I believe or think — and it’s happening less than a week before a presidential election, and this censorship is being imposed by editors who eagerly want the candidate I’m writing about critically to win the election. I’m just stating facts that are indisputably true.. It could be that your intense eagerness for Biden to win — shared by every other TI editor in New York — colors your editorial judgment (just as it’s possible that my view that the Democratic Party is corrupt may be coloring mine. The latest and perhaps most egregious example is an opinion column I wrote this week which, five days before the presidential election, is critical of Joe Biden, the candidate who happens to be vigorously supported by all of the Intercept editors in New York who are imposing the censorship and refusing to publish the article unless I agree to remove all of the sections critical of the candidate they want to win.Worse, The Intercept editors in New York are demanding I not only accept their censorship of my article at The Intercept, but also refrain from publishing it with any other journalistic outlet, and are using thinly disguised lawyer-crafted threats to coerce me not to do so (proclaiming it would it would be “detrimental” to The Intercept if I published it elsewhere).