If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Joseph DeMaio, ©2020

Pexels, Pixabay, License

(Oct. 15, 2020) — The New York Post (“NYP”) has disclosed what it claims are several emails extracted from a laptop computer purportedly belonging to Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden.  The emails are claimed to establish a direct tie between Ukrainian executives at the Burisma Holdings energy company and Joe (“I’m-Joe-Biden-and-I’m-running-for-the-Senate”] Biden.  If true, this would confirm that any and all prior denials by Joe Biden that he “knew nothing” about Hunter Biden’s relationship with the company – which placed him as a board director of the company at compensation estimated to be more than $50,000/mo. – were…, let us be polite here…, lies.

More recently, the NYP discloses that one of the emails details that operatives of the Second Usurper in Chief (“SUC”), Barack Hussein Obama, allowed the participation by a Democrat public relations firm working for Burisma Holdings – Blue Star Strategies – to take part in a conference call about a planned visit to Ukraine by then-Vice President Joe Biden.  Again, if true, this would further undermine Joe Biden’s claims that he had no idea what his ne’re-do-well – but filthy rich…, emphasis on “filthy” – son, Hunter, was doing with Burisma.

Immediately following the NYP articles, seemingly on cue, the vermin of the mainstream media and the Internet sprang into action.  Facebook and Twitter began censoring and blocking postings of the NYP article on the Biden trove of emails in an effort to shield and protect both Hunter and Joe Biden from the revelations.  White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany was “permanently barred” from Twitter for posting a link to the NYP article and refusing to delete it.

In addition, if one tries to access the NYP story from the Twitter website, one gets the message: “Warning: this link may be unsafe.”  This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to frighten users into abandoning any continuing effort to visit the NYP website and to intimidate them into avoiding learning or reading about the emails.

Yikes!  Your computer could catch the Wuhan virus, or even worse, display the truth.  Thus far, the Twitter warning still concludes with the option: “Ignore this warning and continue,” the last word being a “live” link to the NYP site.  The only thing missing is a skull and crossbones emoji. Let us see how long that option remains available at Twitter.

Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda (and censorship) in Hitler’s Nazi Germany, would have been super-proud of Facebook and Twitter for their adherence to the principles of censoring information and facts deemed contrary to acceptable dogma and the shielding of “protected” persons.   On the other hand, Facebook and Twitter are beginning to get some well-deserved blowback.

Not to be outdone, the Washington (“Tyranny Thrives in Darkness”) Post published an article entitled “Hunter Biden’s alleged laptop: an explainer.”  Note the use of the term “alleged” to set the stage for the suspicion that the device may not have even belonged to Hunter Biden.

But the gold medal/Nobel Prize for the most hypocritical argument advanced in the WaPo “explainer” comes under the heading “How do we know the email is authentic?”  The author of the WaPo “explainer,” Glenn Kessler, then furnishes his own answer: “We do not. The New York Post published PDF printouts of several emails allegedly taken from the laptop, but for the “smoking-gun” email, it shows only a photo made the day before the story was posted….”  The article further casts doubt by stating that the WaPo “has not been able to independently verify or authenticate these emails, as requests to make the laptop hard drive available for inspection have not been granted.”

Seriously?  Really?

If the WaPo thought back in 2011 that an original, certified long-form Hawaiian birth certificate produced by the SUC for forensic examination was unnecessary and that a PDF image of the SUC’s purported “birth certificate” posted to the Internet was good enough to silence the “birthers” and “confirm” the SUC’s constitutional bona fides as a “natural born Citizen” under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, where, pray tell, does it get off questioning the authenticity of the email extracted from the “alleged” Hunter Biden laptop?  Huh?

Oh…, wait…, that’s right: tyranny thrives in darkness.  And Democrats are a protected species.  I forgot…, my bad.  That which was once a legitimate, essential component of this constitutional republic – the Fourth Estate – has now metastasized into a sinister creature which would be unrecognizable to the Founders.  On the other hand, it would likely be embraced as a useful tool by Goebbels…, like a reptile on a leash.

Vote very carefully in the general election… very…, very carefully.


Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

    1. Response from Joseph DeMaio:

      “Schuyler Colfax obfuscates the issue with respect to the State of Hawaii, purportedly, verifying the birth certificate of Mr. Obama. The issue posed is whether Mr. Obama will supply a hard, certified copy of what he claims to be his original longform Hawaiian birth certificate for independent forensic examination. Thus far, he has refused to do that and the ‘I felt the raised seal’ comment by Obama sychophants Is no substitute for an independent forensic report.”

      1. No obfuscation. The provenance of the emails is unknown, so it is unsurprising the media would report as such.

        In contrast, Hawaii has verified Obama’s birth there.

        No president or presidental candidate has ever released a hard copy birth certificate for verification by independent forensic examiners.

        1. Response from Joseph DeMaio:

          “Schuyler Colfax and Joanna Brady should (a) research the “Best Evidence Rule;” (b) read § 212 of de Vattel’s The Law of Nations (London Ed. 1760); and (c) explain where John Jay got the term “natural born Citizen” other than from the de Vattel treatise and as used in his July 25, 1787 letter to George Washington.”

        2. The “best evidence rule” is a courtroom rule of evidence; it is not binding outside of a courtroom. Regardless, no president or presidental candidate has ever supplied such “best evidence” of their places of birth.

          John Jay did not explain where he got the term “natural born Citizen” that appears in his 1787 letter. Vattel, however, died in 1767 and never wrote the words “natural born Citizen” — that term does not appear in the 1760 translation of Vattel’s work.

        1. “No matter what you do, no matter what you say, it won’t make any difference.” — Dr. Fukino

          Well, allow me to suggest that it might have made a difference had Dr. Fukino, or another HDOH official with the authority to do so, allowed a licensed professional forensic document examiner to compare what Dr. Fukino said was Obama’s authentic birth certificate to one/more exemplars. But neither Dr. Fukino, or any other HDOH official, ever did that. All it would have taken was authorization from Obama or a Judge.

          Also, if I recall correctly, there has been some discussion here and elsewhere about Hawaii law at the time of Obama’s birth allowing people to obtain a Hawaii birth certificate for someone who wasn’t born in Hawaii. If that’s the case then it’s possible that the birth certificate Dr. Fukino saw was just such a birth certificate.

          Then, of course, there’s this video of Obama himself saying (5:48 – 5:58) he comes from Kenya which, to my knowledge, Obama has never taken issue with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L36sGc4Id2I