“Journalism”

There is much bodice-ripping and manufactured angst among what passes for journalism and journalists as the still in progress election counting has exposed their “expertise” as just so much holier-than-thou lecturing of us unwashed and that “expertise” shown to be wholly non-existent.

Here, for example, is self-styled news journalism “critic,” Howard Kurtz discussing his fellows’ bad misses regarding this election and journalists’ claimed voter concerns in this election. Notice that: a journalist commenting on journalists. A truly objective bit of commentary. Sure.

Why were the media so utterly convinced that President Trump would be trounced in the election?

They never were convinced—they were making it up from the jump.

Why were all the expectations for a substantial Joe Biden victory, to the point that many news outlets were running lists of his possible Cabinet members…?

They never had such expectations—they were making it up from the jump.

They were convinced that Trump’s handling of the pandemic, with 230,000 Americans having died from the virus, would sink him.

No, they weren’t. They were making both of those up from the start.

Kurtz is operating from the false premise that the press is honest. He’s not that naive, but he is operating in his own bubble. When has he talked to or read anything written by anyone other than a journalist?

When has Kurtz gone into the wilds of flyover country and talked to folks in Dinky Town, IA, Cornfield, KS, Smalltown, MT, Ranchland, TX, Wheatsilo, OK, or the middle of our southeastern States—the little towns, not the cities?

A Response

Recall that Twitter had censored a tweet by Customs and Border Patrol’s Mark Morgan, Senior Official Performing the Duties of Commissioner (i.e., Acting Commissioner), both deleting his tweet and suspending his—CBP official—Twitter account.

Here is the offending tweet, as quoted in a letter to Jack Dorsey, Twitter CEO, by Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolfe:

CBP & US Army Corps of Engineers continue to build new wall every day. Every mile helps us stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators, and drugs from entering our country. It’s a fact, walls work.

Here is Dorsey’s response, through his censors:

You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

The disconnect between Dorsey’s response and Morgan’s tweet is so obvious and blatant that Dorsey can only be committing rank censorship and his response considered deliberately dishonest.

Dorsey ultimately backed down under public pressure and restored Morgan’s access to his account. Notwithstanding, Wolfe wrote his letter to Dorsey, and he didn’t pull many punches. Here is that letter; note, too, the footnote:

October 30, 2020
Mr. Jack Dorsey
Chief Executive Officer
Twitter
1555 Market Street, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94103
Dear Mr. Dorsey:
I write to you about Twitter’s recent censorship of Mark Morgan, the Senior Official Performing the Duties of Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Not only was Twitter’s act of censorship unjustified—the tweet is supported by data—it is disturbing.  As the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other Federal agencies continue to rely on Twitter to share important information with the US public, your censorship poses a threat to our security.
Hours after you concluded testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on October 28, 2020, Twitter suspended Mr. Morgan for tweeting: “CBP & US Army Corps of Engineers continue to build new wall every day. Every mile helps us stop gang members, murderers, sexual predators, and drugs from entering our country. It’s a fact, walls work.” Twitter’s moderators, apparently triggered by the tweet, emailed Mr. Morgan to say, “You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.” The Acting Commissioner’s tweet did none of these things.  Read it. Watch the video.
The fact that the tweet was removed and the account locked is startling.  It is hard to understand how anyone believed Mr. Morgan’s tweet promoted violence, threats or harassment.  Especially considering that the facts about the border wall system support the tweet.
Whether you know it or not, CBP guards the front line of the American homeland.  CBP repels and arrests thousands of violent criminal gang members each year. CBP rescues young girls who are forced into cross-border sex trafficking.  CBP intercepts dangerous drugs and contraband, including enough of the opioid fentanyl to kill every man, woman, and child in the United States several times over.  CBP fulfills the United States’ most obvious and essential law enforcement and national security responsibility to the people of our country.  Your company may choose to be ignorant of these facts, but it is no less censorship when you choose to suppress them.
There was no reason to remove Mr. Morgan’s tweet from your platform, other than ideological disagreement with the speaker.  Such censorship is disturbing.  Twitter’s conduct censoring US government officials also endangers the national security.  It is dangerous and damaging when any publisher arbitrarily and unfoundedly decides, as it did here, that the facts and policies of a particular Presidential Administration constitute “violence”—in order to censor them. And in the case of Twitter, this can cut off an essential mode of communication between US Government officials and the public. In doing so, Twitter is sabotaging public discourse regarding important national and homeland security issues.
Further, it is clear that Twitter’s gross censorship was intentional, not accidental.  Twitter notified CBP that it had censored Mr. Morgan’s message and locked his account.  In response, CBP communicated with Twitter’s office of government affairs, and also appealed Twitter’s censorship decision.  But Twitter denied the appeal.  And Twitter’s office of government affairs ignored CBP’s communications.  Only after CBP reached out to Twitter’s office of government affairs a second time and went public with this censorship, then finally Twitter admitted its bad judgment and unlocked the account.1
I call on you to commit to never again censoring content on your platform and obstructing Americans’ unalienable right to communicate with each other and with their government and its officials, including the thousands of law enforcement officers at the DHS who work vigilantly and diligently to protect your safety every day.
Sincerely,

Chad F. Wolf

Acting Secretary

[Footnote] 1: Adding insult to injury—and insult to Americans’ intelligence—Twitter then spread disinformation by misrepresenting Twitter’s intentional censorship. Specifically, “[a] Twitter spokesperson confirmed that Morgan had been locked out of his account but said ‘the decision was reversed following an appeal by the account owner and further evaluation from our team.'”  Caitlin Oprysko, Trump’s Border Chief Slams Twitter for Locking His Account After Border Wall Tweet, POLITICO (Oct. 29, 2020, 03:05 PM), https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/29/mark-morgan-twitter-border-wall-tweet-433617. It makes the false impression that Twitter’s appeal process remedied a mistake, but in fact Twitter’s appeal process failed. Twitter actually denied CBP’s appeal. Twitter only reversed itself after controversy and embarrassment escalated.

This sort of thing, by Sundar Pinchai and John Hennessey at Alphabet and Mark Zuckerberg at Facebook as well as by Dorsey, will continue, though—this response regarding Morgan’s tweet will simply be a one-off used by those three to claim purity—unless and until these social media platforms are brought under control and their censorship ended. That will take pressure from us citizens on them and on the folks we elect to represent us and our positions in government to rein them in.

The letter also can be read here.

Fruits of Defunding

…of police departments. Shootings and homicides are up sharply with less law enforcement possible under reduced budgets and associated police resignations and retirements.

The New York Police Department reported 137 shootings from October 1 to October 31, compared to the 62 reported during the same period last year, newly released statistics show.
…
There have been 387 murders so far this year, compared to the 282 reported in the first 10 months of 2019….

And Chicago:

There have been 655 murders this year through October 31, while the city had 431 during the same period in 2019—a 51% increase. …
At least 3,465 people were shot in Chicago through October 31 this year, a 56% increase from 2019….

Los Angeles:

“As of this morning, here today in the city, we’ve had 261 homicides,” LAPD Captain Ahmad Zarekani said Wednesday. “That is a 25% increase from last year at this point.”

But it’s a good idea, says the Left, to defund police departments.

Sure.

Free Speech

During last week’s Senate Commerce Committee hearings on Facebook’s, Alphabet’s, and Twitter’s seeming censorship of speech of which those entities’ MFWICS—Mark Zuckerberg, Sundar Pichai, and Jack Dorsey—disapprove, Senator Ed Markey (D, MA) said this:

The issue is not that these companies before us today are taking too many posts down. The issue is that they are leaving too many dangerous posts up.

This, from the Senator who also said this about the confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett:

Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.

This is the assault on freedom of speech—on our Constitution—we can expect from a Progressive-Democrat-controlled Congress and White House.

Some Biden-Related Concerns

…as outlined in Just the News.

There are at least three instances where there is now public evidence that Joe Biden met with foreigners his son was courting for business.
The first occurred in 2011 when Obama White House entry logs show several Chinese businessmen involved with Hunter Biden checked in to meet the vice president.
The second occurred in 2013, when Hunter Biden rode aboard Air Force II with his father and then introduced the vice president in Beijing to a Chinese businessman that was helping him start an investment fund.
The third, alleged in an email purportedly recovered from Hunter Biden’s old laptop, indicates Hunter Biden arranged for an official from Burisma to meet his father in April 2015. …the Biden campaign now acknowledges the encounter may have happened though insists it was fleeting.

These predate the People’s Republic of China National Intelligence Law, enacted in June 2017, that requires all PRC companies to answer PRC intelligence community requests for information. Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden still has not repudiated, or even terminated, these ties. That they may appear to have died on the vine on their own, may be just that: appearance.

Biden needs to positively repudiate these connections.

And this:

At least two pieces of evidence have emerged in the last two weeks that suggest Hunter Biden believed his father was getting a cut of his business. The first, which remains uncorroborated by Just the News, is an email found on the purported Hunter Biden laptop in which the vice president’s son suggests he shared half of his income with his father.
The second piece of evidence, now authenticated by Just the News, is a proposal in May 2017 for a joint venture between a Chinese energy firm and a Hunter Biden-tied company called Sinohawk Holdings that stated that 10% of the venture’s equity was being reserved for the “big guy.” Sinohawk’s CEO Tony Bobulinski has confirmed the reference to the “big guy” is Joe Biden, and that the then-former vice president was supposed to be a silent investor in the venture.

The “purported Hunter Biden laptop” itself has been confirmed to be his; although its provenance once it left the repair shop’s hands remains unclear. The joint venture proposal was made just before the PRC’s intelligence law was enacted. It seems unlikely that the Bidens would not have known the law was imminent, but it seems likely the PRC’s energy firm—CEFC—would have known, especially given the connections between Ye Jianming, CEFC’s Chairman and controlling shareholder (through his Shanghai Energy Fund Investment Ltd company) and the Communist Party of China.

Biden has yet to positively repudiate any of this, also.

There’s more at the link.