Tuesday Morning Breakfast For The Brain

Thank God Monday’s over but it’s still only Tuesday…

Like Father Like Son

By Ben Garrison

Creepy Uncle Joe is well known for his fondling, cuddling, and hair sniffing.

We’ve seen countless videos of him standing behind women and doing such things, but he gets away with it because he’s a Democrat with high status. More outrageously, we’ve also seen him shamelessly pawing little girls. He touches them, rearranges their hair, and tries to smooch on them. The old pedophile gets away with that too, because he’s Joe Biden.

When his eldest son, Beau, died of brain cancer, he made sure his other son, Hunter, was set up. He arranged a cushy job for him as a public affairs officer in the Naval Reserve. Hunter avoided extensive training or qualifications because a special program of direct conversion from civilian-to-officer was used. At 43, he also over the program’s age limit, but got in anyway with a waiver because his dad is Joe Biden. He soon got caught using cocaine and was discharged. He also divorced his first wife to hook up with Beau’s widow. Hunter’s divorce was messy and his ex revealed he had been spending very large sums of money on strip joints and drugs. The media mostly ignored this because his dad is Joe Biden.

Joe went to Ukraine as vice president and started cutting deals. His son Hunter was installed as a board chairman of one of Ukraine’s largest natural gas companies, called Burisma Holdings. Suddenly Hunter made $3.1 million on the deal even though he had no Ukraine or gas experience. However, he did have a powerful father named Joe Biden.

Joe and son also traveled to China and met with President Xi. Another deal was struck. The Chinese government through one of its banks gave Hunter $1.5 billion dollars for a real estate deal.

Could it be likely that Hunter would have gotten this far in life without the help of dear old dad and such nepotism? I think not. Do the Bidens fear an investigation from our justice department? I think not.

Biden pretends he’s good ol’ Uncle Joe—’lunch bucket’ Joe who is out for the little guy and the working class. It’s all an act. Joe may not be the richest man in Congress, but his son certainly is on his way to making sure the Bidens prosper, thanks to the payoff-to-play deals. Biden’s son was in contact with the same corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs that got Manafort a jail term. Why didn’t Mueller investigate Hunter?

Oh, I almost forgot. His dad is Joe Biden.

Check out all of Ben’s great cartoons and commentary HERE.

Joe Biden’s 2020 Ukrainian nightmare: A closed probe is revived

By John Solomon

Two years after leaving office, Joe Biden couldn’t resist the temptation last year to brag to an audience of foreign policy specialists about the time as vice president that he strong-armed Ukraine into firing its top prosecutor.

In his own words, with video cameras rolling, Biden described how he threatened Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees, sending the former Soviet republic toward insolvency, if it didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden recalled telling Poroshenko.

“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event, insisting that President Obama was in on the threat.

Interviews with a half-dozen senior Ukrainian officials confirm Biden’s account, though they claim the pressure was applied over several months in late 2015 and early 2016, not just six hours of one dramatic day. Whatever the case, Poroshenko and Ukraine’s parliament obliged by ending Shokin’s tenure as prosecutor. Shokin was facing steep criticism in Ukraine, and among some U.S. officials, for not bringing enough corruption prosecutions when he was fired.

But Ukrainian officials tell me there was one crucial piece of information that Biden must have known but didn’t mention to his audience: The prosecutor he got fired was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into the natural gas firm Burisma Holdings that employed Biden’s younger son, Hunter, as a board member.

Read the entire article HERE.

Mark Zuckerberg’s Plan For The Internet Would Be A Disaster For Free Expression

Via The Federalist

In a recent op-ed, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg implored the state to get more involved in governing the internet. “Every day, we make decisions about what speech is harmful, what constitutes political advertising, and how to prevent sophisticated cyberattacks,” he began. “These are important for keeping our community safe. But if we were starting from scratch, we wouldn’t ask companies to make these judgments alone.”

Zuckerberg’s case for government-instituted speech codes is a cynical attempt to deflect criticism aimed at his company. But it’s also propelled by two corrosive political myths.

For starters, there’s no such a thing as “harmful speech.” There might be speech that offends us. There might be speech we disagree with. There’s also speech that’s inarguably ugly, dishonest, pornographic or despicable. “We” allow these unpleasant words to go largely unregulated because we value the broader liberty of being able to offer opinions without government censors dictating which thoughts are acceptable.

So if Zuckerberg wants to rid his platform of this “hate speech,” no one is stopping him. Facebook allegedly employs a number of new mechanisms to achieve this very task. Good luck.

But Zuckerberg also claims that “we,” as society, now have a special responsibility to facilitate his efforts to keep people “safe” from reprehensible rhetoric. We have no such obligation. Facebook already offers users the ability to block or ignore accounts they find distasteful. If they don’t like how Facebook is governing speech, they can quit.

Read the entire article HERE.

Social Justice Is at Odds with American Ideas of Justice

Via American Greatness

The Left has a particular interest in what it misleadingly calls “social justice.” This demands that historical injustices committed against members of particular victim groups require not only government assistance, but also the differential application of criminal justice. This is the root of the Left’s recent talk of “mass incarceration.” The racially different outcomes in criminal sentencing are deemed a massive injustice without regard to differences in the per capita rate of crimes. According to this way of thinking, the fairness of the procedures that were involved in any particular person’s incarceration may be ignored; the mere fact of inequality of outcome by itself cries out for justice in the eyes of the Left.

Leftist social justice is diametrically opposed to the Anglo-American tradition of individualized justice. It demands, like Marx, that class factors take center stage. Indeed, Marx himself dismissed the individualized justice of the West as a tool for the bourgeois class to oppress the proletariat in his infamous Manifesto. He did not grant that there was any truth or reality to any particular philosophical system, including the West’s classical liberalism. Rather, he dismissed all of these claims to justice as the expression of an ideology crafted by the dominant group to seduce the oppressed.

While Marx used the term “class justice,” as he was focused chiefly on the conflicts between economic classes, the Left’s more recent innovation is the inclusion of “intersectionality” to the mix. This classifies ethnic minorities, women, gays, and other groups as categories oppressed by whites, heterosexuals and the like, and thus also in need of ideological social justice.

Read the entire article HERE.

Was There Approved FISA Surveillance on General Michael Flynn?…

By Sundance

The official account of how the intelligence community gained the transcript of incoming National Security Adviser Michael Flynn talking to Ambassador Sergey Kisliyak on December 29th, 2016, surrounds “incidental collection” as a result of contact with an agent of a foreign power.  Meaning the Flynn call was picked up as the U.S. intelligence apparatus was conducting surveillance on Russian Ambassador Kisliyak.

If this version of events is accurate, it falls under FISA-702 collection: the lawful monitoring of a foreign agent who has contact with a U.S. person.  In order to review the identity of the U.S. person, a process called ‘unmasking’, a 702 submission must be made.  That submission, the unmasking, leaves a paper/electronic trail.

In a 2017 congressional hearing, Senator Lindsey Graham asks Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates and former DNI James Clapper about this process. [Watch first 3 minutes]

In the two years that have followed this testimony, despite the simplicity of the the process to discover the answer, we can identify no action taken (nor reports of action taken) that would deliver the answer as to: who unmasked General Michael Flynn?

My suspicion is there never was an ‘unmasking request’.

My suspicion is there was never an unmasking request because the collection was not incidental….

Because the intercept was not incidental.

The lack of incidental collection is why FISA-702 doesn’t apply; and why there’s no paper trail.

Now, I could be entirely wrong on this…. However, my hunch is the intercept was not ‘incidental‘ because the intercept was the result of direct monitoring and surveillance being conducted on Michael Flynn.

Read the entire article HERE.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Here is a brief great synopsis of Big Tech that goes a good way towards explaining censorship at Google etc. according to talk radio legend Michael Savage.

Starts at 24:00 or so and runs for the next three mins..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kdX86Kbrd0

 

Be sure to subscribe to Def-Con News to get Breakfast For The Brain in your morning mailbox.