Unrest grows in US-occupied Syria after Kurdish proxy hikes fuel prices by 300 percent
The Cradle | September 19, 2023
Syrians living under the de-facto rule of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES) in Hasakah governorate have launched mass demonstrations and a general strike to oppose a fuel price hike of over 300 percent for public transport and industrial vehicles.
The unprecedented protests have grown in scope after Kurdish authorities announced that reversing the decision is “almost impossible,” citing the country’s deteriorating economic situation. While fuel prices for vehicles were hiked from 525 to 2,050 Syrian pounds, the fuel price for heating, agriculture, and electric generators remains the same.
Protesters have been blocking roads and shutting down businesses for several days in the towns of Qamishli, Rumailan, and Mabada, accusing the US-backed authorities of plundering Syria’s wealth for their own benefit. Demonstrations have also been called in the regions of Raqqa, Manbij, and Ain al-Arab, which could lead to significant economic repercussions in all areas under the control of the AANES and its official military force – the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
“The people went out to express their rejection of the policies of AANES, which aim to impoverish the people and push them to migrate,” a demonstrator in Qamishli told Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar.
“There was a consensus to provide and improve the quality of diesel in exchange for increasing its prices,” the head of the AANES fuel management authority, Abeer Khaled, recently told reporters, adding that “it is difficult to retract or modify the decision to increase [considering that] raising prices will contribute to reducing fuel smuggling operations outside areas under the control of AANES.
In 2021, AANES reversed a similar decision to hike fuel prices after intense clashes between locals and the SDF left several dead.
The territory occupied by the SDF and the US army in Syria’s northeast houses the country’s largest oil and gas fields, as well as vast wheat fields.
Washington’s forces regularly smuggle these resources via convoys to their bases in the Iraqi Kurdistan Region (IKR), where the oil and gas are sold to fund the operations of US proxy militias and de facto authorities.
The protests in Hasakah come as armed operations continue in neighboring Deir Ezzor governorate by Syrian Arab tribes who have been staging a rebellion against Kurdish forces. While heavy clashes have subsided for the most part, the region is still seeing sporadic attacks targeting the SDF.
Biden’s ‘age’ is now becoming an issue
Leave it to The Washington Post to come up with a ridiculous euphemism designed to conceal the real story
BY BILL RICE, JR. | SEPTEMBER 19, 2023
The spin-producing talents of our nation’s most prominent mainstream media “journalists” leave me dumbfounded.
The Washington Post would be at the top of the list of “news” organizations that excel in covering up real news and, when its editors feel they have to run an embarrassing story, concocting outlandish euphemisms to conceal the real story.
The Post just published a big story stating that President Biden’s “age” is making many political leaders wonder if he should not run for re-election.
This long story never once mentioned the words “dementia” or “cognitive decline,” proving once again that the press knows which giant elephants it can’t mention in a news article – especially if this elephant is a Democrat donkey.
A few excerpts from the article should give readers a greater appreciation of the talents of the Post’s wordsmiths.
Here’s the lede paragraph:
“A growing number of polls are showing voters concerned about President Biden’s age and energy … Prominent commentators have ruminated on whether he should drop out of the presidential race.”
“… Parts of the Democratic Party (now) fret about whether the man who helped oust Donald Trump from the White House may not have the vitality, at 80, to successfully prevent a return …”
“Supporters and critics alike suggested that Biden’s prospects may hinge on whether he can find a way to overcome a persistent and growing feeling in the electorate that his advanced age is his defining characteristic.”
Deep into the story, we get one sentence where Post editors come as close as they as they can to broaching the real truth:
“When asked what word came to mind when they thought of Biden, more than a quarter of (poll) respondents mentioned age, with another 15 percent using words like “slow” or “confused.”
Readers could also read between the lines with this passage:
“Biden’s gait can be stiff, and his physical and verbal stumbles have at times given his critics material. “
My comment: Biden’s verbal stumbles don’t happen only “at times;” they happen every single day, every time he opens his mouth and tries to read the teleprompter remarks written for him by aides.
While The Post frames this story with the question of whether Biden will step down because of his “age,” increasing numbers of Americans now understand the real story is the growing realization that our national “watchdog” press corp is completely captured.
An army of pack-thinking journalist clones are basically acknowledging their most important job is the daily effort to protect the person who was selected to implement their favorite country-destroying causes.
Clear-thinking adults now know the press corps will always eschew important journalism if said stories embarrass them or might lessen the likelihood key items from their agenda are brought to fruition.
The Washington Post has hundreds of journalists, including a platoon of journalists who cover only the White House and the president. Each of these journalists and editors have multiple sources in the White House and probably shoot the bull with these White House aides over drinks after work.
For four years, they’ve known Biden has textbook dementia, which was obvious three years ago, but has gotten worse every week since.
If they wanted to, these alleged journalists could have “broken” the “Biden has dementia” story years ago, including anecdotes that would make even the most loyal Democrat proclaim, “Good God.”
I’m a freelance journalist in Troy, Alabama and I know from common sense that 50 White House staffers must be working 24-7 to produce the cue cards, teleprompter speeches and recruiting Easter Bunny interns, all of whom are working feverishly to get the leader of the free world through another day without the Mother of All “gaffes” playing out for the world to see.
None of this would matter if this was our retired grandfather battling this affliction, but this happens to be a man who can start World War III and signs “emergency orders” that affect hundreds of millions of citizens.
Needless to say, if Donald Trump had been experiencing the same cognitive decline while he was president, this alarming mental condition would have – correctly – been exposed in one week.
If it was exposed, this would mean all those Biden “critics” referenced in the Post article … had been right all along. It would mean that everyone would know that America’s news-gathering journalists actually exist to conceal important news.
And more people are starting to reach this conclusion as well: If 98 percent of the most-important journalists in the world are concealing obvious truths about the president’s dementia, what else have they been concealing or refusing to investigate?
The answer: Everything important.
The Washington Post could also detonate all the Covid lies and cover-ups … in about two weeks – if its editors wanted to do this and were given permission to do so from their controllers.
They could have easily broken the Hunter Biden/Joe Biden influence peddling scandals … years ago.
The real story is the public is never going to get any real stories from this batch of sycophants and professional propaganda writers.
If some rogue journalists stunned us and decided to practice important investigative journalism, their editors and publishers wouldn’t let them because this would prove this news organization spiked important stories for years.
People might say, “Wow. This expose is great … but why did it take you three years to figure this out or authorize these investigations?”
The fear of publishers is the public would belatedly learn the most important lesson – that all those wacko and dangerous critics were … right all along.
Not only were all the experts wrong – not only were all the key narratives fiction – plenty of journalists must have suspected this; they simply knew they weren’t allowed to prove this.
As we can see from this article, there’s now no denying President Biden has major mental issues (even though the story never mentions “mental issues.”) It’s a coin toss whether “Joe Biden” can make it through the primaries, much less four years of a second term.
Even with mail-in ballots and rigged elections, the Powers That Be are no doubt wondering if Biden’s dementia will cost the Democrats four more years in the White House.
From Climate Change initiatives to central bank digital currency to the WHO treaty to future mRNA vaccines (and to cover-up past crimes against humanity), it’s imperative their guy remain in the White House.
Gavin Newsom, an awful governor of a state that’s coming apart at the seams, seems to be the betting favorite as the best politico Democrats can find to fill in for their current leading man … who will exit stage left not because of dementia … but because of “age.”
Apparently, this is the only story they’ve got and they’re going to stick to it.
For the last four years, disinformation has become a buzz word of our times. Biden himself (reading from his teleprompter) said this, and so has everyone who works for the federal government.
The Washington Post says it too. But most of the world doesn’t understand the key way the most important disinformation is spread. What we have is Disinformation by Omission. Don’t talk about all those giant pachyderms in the room. Don’t tell your readers our Emperor has no Brain.
When “don’t investigate this” might no longer work, society’s elite communicators simply spun another narrative – The poor man is simply getting up there in age and is beginning to lose some of his previous “vitality.”
They even spin the poll questions. This particular story was picked up by msm.com, which included one of its requisite reader polls at the end of the article:
“How concerned are you about the age of President Biden?”
I don’t answer narrative-manipulating poll questions and I’m not really concerned about Biden’s “age.” For that matter, I’m no longer worked up about his dementia, which I detected four years ago. Plus, I’ve known for years that “Joe Biden” isn’t making the big decisions.
The question that should have been asked is this:
How concerned are you that our nation’s leading “news” organizations are completely captured?
My answer: Pretty damn concerned.
YouTube Is Wiping Safety Content on COVID-19 Vaccines
Study Finds Platform is Cleansing Side Effect Information and Promoting Unbridled Use of Experimental Products
By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH | Courageous Discourse | September 19, 2023
YouTube is the most utilized video platform in the world. Many of my patients ask “doctor, why don’t we hear about vaccine side effects?” People feel blind-sided when they develop myocarditis, stroke, blood clots, or other common vaccine side effects but can can find no information on them with standard Google searches landing on YouTube.
Ng and colleagues performed a rigorous analysis of YouTube COVID-19 vaccine content and found that the platform is having effective content moderation. This means when you do a search, they are wiping vaccine safety information off the platform as “anti-vaccine” and replacing it with either irrelevant health information or pro-vaccine content.

Ng YMM, Hoffmann Pham K, Luengo-Oroz M Exploring YouTube’s Recommendation System in the Context of COVID-19 Vaccines: Computational and Comparative Analysis of Video Trajectories J Med Internet Res 2023;25:e49061 doi: 10.2196/49061PMID: 37713243
The authors declare this a “success” of content moderation. Others would say this is censorship of valuable health information replaced with propaganda promoting novel, experimental unsafe, ineffective, genetic vaccines. What YouTube is doing is very scary, the authors self-expressed virtuosity is even more alarming.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
President, McCullough Foundation
Biden Regime Awards Over $4 Million In Grants To Programs That Target “Misinformation”
Millions of taxpayer dollars being spent on programs that target speech
By Tom Parker | Reclaim The Net | September 19, 2023
Since the start of September, the Biden administration’s National Science Foundation (NSF) and State Department have awarded grants totaling more than $4 million to programs, studies, and other initiatives that target “misinformation” — a term that the Biden admin has used to demand censorship of content that challenges the federal government’s Covid narrative.
The NSF has awarded the following nine grants since September 1:
- A $330,000 grant to a postdoctoral fellowship that will “develop educational materials to help identify misinformation in media.” The associated program began on September 1, 2023.
- A $1.5 million grant to Arizona State University as part of a biological sciences program. The grant will help build “new risk management strategies” and its description claims that the “rapid dissemination of information on the internet is contributing to the spread of misinformation about hazards, risks, and how to manage them.” The associated program began on September 1, 2023.
- A $529,609 grant to Florida International University to conduct a study on “detection and containment of influence campaigns” that “distribute and amplify misinformation and hate speech with significant societal impact.” The associated program is due to start on October 1, 2023.
- Two grants totaling $730,017 to the Research Foundation for the State University of New York and Trustees of Boston University for a collaborative research program that will develop a platform to “help identify and mitigate information manipulation (misinformation and dis-information).” The associated programs are due to start on October 1, 2023.
- Two grants totaling $547,555 to the University of Florida and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte as part of a collaborative research program involving the Poynter Institute — an organization that certifies Facebook’s “fact-checkers” through its International Fact-Checking Network and receives funding from Big Tech. The grant descriptions claims that “combating misinformation in the digital age has been a challenging subject with significant social implications” and describe misinformation as “a serious threat.” The associated programs are due to start on October 1, 2023.
- Two grants totaling $600,000 to the University of Rochester and Trustees of Indiana University for a collaborative research program that aims to increase the efficiency of an AI technique that can be applied to various areas, including “identifying misinformation on social media.” The associated programs are due to start on October 1, 2023.
The State Department has awarded the following five grants since September 1:
- An $18,000 grant to the Albanian-based non-governmental organization (NGO) the Institute for Democracy, Media, and Culture to ensure a “whole-of-society response to cyber incidents and misinformation.” The associated program began on September 1, 2023.
- A $14,500 grant to Paraguay’s American Cultural Center that will be used to implement workshops that “seek to combat misinformation and promote responsible digital citizenship.” The associated program began on September 1, 2023.
- A $15,000 grant to the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences at Udayana University to “raise digital literacy among selected amcors communities, journalists, and social media influencers to combat misinformation, pre-2024 general election.” The associated program is due to start on October 1, 2023.
- A $50,000 grant to New York University to complete the implementation of a speaker series that supports “countering misinformation.” The associated program is due to start on October 1, 2023.
- A $50,000 grant to the non-profit Digital Rights Nepal “to create a sustainable network of youth to promote digital rights, safer internet use and a collective resilience towards misinformation and disinformation.” The associated program is due to start on October 2, 2023.
These awards were granted as the Biden admin faces a major lawsuit for pressuring Big Tech to censor content that it deems to be misinformation.
An appeals court recently stated that the Biden regime violated the First Amendment when pushing social media platforms to censor and in an Independence Day ruling on this case, a judge described the Biden admin’s actions as “Orwellian.” The Supreme Court is now considering whether to hear the case.
While some of the grants focus have been awarded to non-American organizations, whose misinformation targeting efforts don’t fall under the scope of the First Amendment, these types of programs can result in the speech of Americans being targeted.
For example, Biden’s State Department has previously funded foreign think tanks that created “disinformation” blacklists. These blacklists were used to target American conservative media outlets.
Both of the agencies that awarded these grants have been involved in prior censorship controversies.
In addition to funding groups that created disinformation blacklists, Biden’s State Department has flagged thousands of accounts to Twitter, now known as X, for censorship.
Meanwhile, the NSF has been accused of funding programs that develop tech that targets vaccine dissent and has funded research on correcting “false beliefs” online.
Biden repeats ‘unforgivable’ remark about Putin
RT | September 19, 2023
US President Joe Biden has described Russian President Vladimir Putin as a “dictator,” claiming that his main political opponent, former President Donald Trump, would “bow down to” him if elected in 2024. The Democrat also touted himself as a defender of US democracy.
Speaking to supporters during a fundraiser at the Lunt-Fontanne Theater in New York City on Monday, Biden said, “I will not side with dictators like Putin. Maybe Trump and his MAGA friends can bow down, but I won’t.”
The incumbent president claimed that “Donald Trump and his MAGA Republicans are determined to destroy American democracy,” whereas he would always “protect and fight” for it.
This recent comment made by the US head of state about President Putin is not the first instance of him referring to another foreign leader as a dictator.
Last March, Biden told attendees of the annual Friends of Ireland Luncheon that the US and its allies were standing together against a “murderous dictator, a pure thug who is waging an immoral war against the people of Ukraine.” A day prior, the US president said he considered Putin a “war criminal.”
Commenting on Biden’s remarks at the time, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told TASS news agency that Moscow deemed “unacceptable and unforgivable such rhetoric from a head of state whose bombs have killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world.” He noted that the US leader had resorted to “personal insults,” a level that President Putin, a “thoughtful and wise leader,” would never stoop to.
Last month, several US media outlets also quoted President Biden as alleging that China is run by “bad folks.” In June, he described Chinese President Xi Jinping as a “dictator,” which Beijing characterized as a “political provocation.”
Emails Show Decade of Hunter Biden Spinning Journalists on Foreign Business Deals
The Hunter Biden laptop archive shows years of careful efforts to manipulate media outlets, a rare window into the DC spin cycle.
BY LEE FANG | SEPTEMBER 19, 2023
Speaker Kevin McCarthy, announcing that the House of Representatives will pursue an impeachment inquiry, suggested that the probe will hinge in part on deceiving the American public about Hunter Biden’s foreign business ventures.
“President Biden did lie to the American people about his own knowledge of his family’s foreign business deals,” McCarthy said at a press conference. GOP lawmakers, he added, have “uncovered credible allegations into President Biden’s conduct.”
Such an investigation will likely force an examination of the public narrative regarding Hunter Biden’s consulting deals that go back at least a decade. During President Obama’s second term, then-Vice President Joe Biden was the administration’s point man on the nation’s policy toward Ukraine, a perch he used to urge the country to adopt sweeping ethics reforms to resist “the cancer of corruption” and enact sweeping ethics reforms.
At the time, some American journalists began to question whether the vice president’s stern message was undermined by his son Hunter Biden’s employment at the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, which was owned by a notorious local oligarch.
Emails on Hunter’s laptop reveal that the inquiries sparked an internal debate within his team of consultants and public relations agents. Ultimately, they devised a series of responses about Hunter’s work with Burisma that were, at best, misleading and, at worst, outright falsehoods.
The Biden team has constructed a careful image of Hunter Biden’s business ventures, sometimes employing a sophisticated myth-making operation aided by allies in the media who rarely challenged or investigated their false claims. The laptop emails show that the team closely monitored critical reporting and pushed to shape coverage with reporters from the New York Times, Time magazine, Wall Street Journal, and the Associated Press.
Their spin informed much of the ensuing coverage in the mainstream press, defusing the issue, even as President Trump and other Republicans insisted that Ukraine was a hotbed of Biden family corruption. Although he had no background in the energy field and little experience in corporate governance, Hunter Biden, who had a law degree, was appointed to the board of Burisma in May 2014.
It was revealed later that he was paid about $1 million per year – as was his business partner Devon Archer. In a press release announcing his appointment, Hunter Biden is quoted as saying, “I believe that my assistance in consulting the Company on matters of transparency, corporate governance and responsibility, international expansion and other priorities will contribute to the economy and benefit the people of Ukraine.”
That same month, journalist Michael Scherer reached out with questions about the arrangement.
Several consultants employed by Burisma, including Ryan Toohey of FTI Consulting and Heather King, a partner at the law firm Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, where Hunter worked as counsel, strategized over how to respond to Scherer, a reporter then with Time magazine who has since joined the Washington Post.
For the Scherer inquiry, laptop emails show, Hunter’s business associates settled on a strategy to deflect the most direct questions and obfuscate the true intent of Burisma’s attempts to sway U.S. government officials.
One of Hunter’s associates noted that they planned to respond to Scherer’s attempts to reach David Leiter, a former aide to then-Secretary of State John Kerry, hired to work for Burisma. The plan was to use an assistant to make Leiter “unavailable to comment, as opposed to some sort of statement that made it seem like we were unwilling or refusing to engage with the reporter.” Leiter, the emails show, was in fact available, but the public relations team wanted to keep him out of reach.
Scherer wanted to know why Burisma was on a hiring spree of well-connected American lobbyists, including Leiter and others. In response, Toohey planned to tell Scherer that the hired guns were simply working on issues related to energy independence, economic growth, as well as “transparency and good governance.”
In response to other questions posed by Scherer, Toohey prepared a statement claiming that Hunter Biden will “not be engaged with the U.S. government” on anything related to Burisma.
The response belied a detailed lobbying agenda spelled out in other emails.
Burisma had made clear that the company had hired Leiter, Hunter Biden, and other political operatives as part of a focused plan to obtain Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky a U.S. visa as well as to persuade American officials to intervene with Ukrainian government officials to drop an investigation of his business interests.
In a May 2014 email, Vadim Pozharskyi, a close adviser to Zlochevsky, explained to Hunter that he needed his “advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message/signal, etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions,” a reference to an ongoing investigation of Zlochevsky by Ukrainian prosecutors.
That month, Pozharskyi again wrote to Hunter, spelling out the “working plan for both FTI and David,” reiterating that he wanted the lobbyists to intervene against the “politically motivated proceedings initiated against us in Ukraine” and to overcome the “US entry ban” for the Burisma owner.
“The immediate plan is to reach out to the Energy and Ukraine desks, respectively, at State Dept,” wrote Heather King, the attorney working closely with Hunter Biden at the time. “That will include outreach to Carlos Pascual, he is the top US energy diplomat,” she added.
Scherer printed the denials, but to his credit, reported on the odd circumstances surrounding Biden’s hiring, at a time when Joe Biden was the Obama administration’s point person for Ukraine, with a special focus on energy policy in the region.
In many cases, Hunter Biden’s associates cast him as simply an auditor with a special focus on renewable energy sourced from geothermal vents. That was the strategy in response to an inquiry from Stephen Braun, a reporter for the Associated Press. “Mr. Biden will not lobby on behalf of Burisma. His role is to advise the company’s legal and compliance unit, including guidance on corporate governance standards.”
Behind the scenes, Hunter Biden’s team knew otherwise. In emails conferring over how to deal with Braun’s questions, Pozharskyi reiterated the plan to provide Braun with “minimum information.”
Like many other articles from this time, the AP story focused on the conflict of interest issues, noting the denials around any lobbying with a degree of skepticism:
A former Washington lobbyist, the vice president’s son is effectively exempt from most rules that would require him to describe publicly the legal work he does on behalf of Burisma.
Hunter Biden will not lobby for the company, said Lawrence Pacheco, an official with FTI Consulting, a Washington government affairs company recently hired by Burisma.
Pacheco did not say whether Biden might oversee or advise on any future Burisma lobbying strategy in the U.S. Pacheco said the company “does not take positions on political matters.”
Braun could not be reached for comment. Scherer declined an opportunity to comment on the Hunter Biden emails. Biden, Toohey, and King did not respond to a request for comment.
However, the emails clearly indicate that substantial resources were allocated to managing both Burisma and Hunter’s personal image. Pozharskyi pointed out that Burisma had retained American consultants to reach out to “the most reputable European and American journalists/newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs,” while assistance was required to handle Wikipedia, Facebook, LinkedIn, and other online platforms. Burisma, wrote Pozharskyi, sought a “detailed algorithm on how the Company should act in case of bad publicity.” The effort included scrubbing negative details from Hunter Biden’s Wikipedia, while bolstering the online credentials of Burisma, emails show.
A highly focused effort to monitor and shape news media coverage helped maintain the public profile. Even with relatively low visibility, independent media were closely watched. Hunter and his team monitored Vice News as well as the gadfly website ZeroHedge. In response to critical reporting from Vice, one colleague noted approvingly that the article was not being “reposted or republished” in Ukrainian media.
In July 2014, Toohey circulated an investigative piece I wrote for Salon about Hunter Biden’s hiring at Burisma, which noted that the vice president’s son had been retained amid a string of nepotistic hires likely aimed at influencing natural gas and energy policy.
In the article, I noted that Joe Biden had traveled to Ukraine to “announce a $50 million aid package that included technical support for increasing the country’s natural gas production – an investment that could bolster profits at Burisma Holdings, where his son is a director.” What was not known at the time, however, was that Hunter Biden was already working with a team of public affairs consultants to channel U.S. government technical assistance to his client.
The laptop emails show that even this relatively brief mention of Hunter Biden and a potential conflict of interest with his father raised concerns.
“All, please see below a piece that mentions Hunter’s appointment as part of a broader trend, mostly within the context of relatives of eleceds [sic] engaged to lobby for the energy industry,” wrote Toohey, attaching a copy of the text of my piece. But, he added, “This was a freelanced piece picked up in a number of web-based outlets including Salon, but nothing with significant reach.”
Pozharskyi replied that he had seen the piece earlier and “wanted to have a discussion in this regard.”
In some cases, the team celebrated media coverage that elevated its desired narrative. Politico reported Hunter’s hiring at Burisma and simply printed quotes from the company’s official statements:
“The company’s strategy is aimed at the strongest concentration of professional staff and the introduction of best corporate practices, and we’re delighted that Mr. Biden is joining us to help us achieve these goals,” Alan Apter, Burisma Holdings’ chairman of the board of directors, said in a statement, which was reported by The Moscow Times on Tuesday.
Biden, joining the board, will be in charge of the legal unit, the company said. He will also provide support for Burisma Holdings “among international organizations.”
Biden said the company will help strengthen Ukraine’s economy.
Pozharskyi circulated a link to the Politico article to Hunter and his associates, noting the “positive coverage.”
Hunter’s membership on the Burisma board received renewed attention in late 2015, as then-Vice President Biden was set to visit Ukraine where he planned to address the parliament on the need to adopt new reforms against a culture of corruption in the country. James Risen of the Times, among others, renewed inquiries directed toward Hunter and his associates about the rationale behind his appointment to the company, Burisma, and why the company appeared to be buying access to high levels of government.
In one email found on Hunter’s laptop, Risen asked, “What lobbying activities is the company engaged in the US?” among other questions to Hunter Biden. In response, a Burisma spokesperson straightforwardly claimed that “no one is lobbying on their behalf.”
The company’s lobbying efforts were not covered in the story ultimately published by the New York Times, which featured Risen’s piece on Dec. 8, 2015. The article included a statement from the Hunter Biden team, crafted by the strategy firm FTI Consulting, asserting that the company’s focus was on “corporate governance and transparency.”
Risen’s article did not address whether Hunter’s business career demonstrated such expertise or his lack of experience in the energy field. Although Risen identified Hunter as “a former Washington lobbyist,” he accepted the denial that no lobbying was involved.
In reality, just a month prior to the email exchange with the Times, Burisma, following Hunter Biden’s advice, had hired Blue Star Strategies, a Democratic lobbying firm, to influence the Obama administration. A copy of the agreement, belatedly filed with the Justice Department, reveals that the firm, which aided in lobbying State Department officials on Ukrainian energy policy, received a monthly retainer of $30,000.
Blue Star Strategies was even copied on the emails with the Hunter Biden team on its response plan to Risen.
Risen also allowed a Burisma spokesman to decline to state Hunter’s compensation while claiming it was “not out of the ordinary” for such board positions. It was later disclosed that he was paid about $1 million per year, which is far higher than the typical compensation. As a point of comparison, median annual compensation of board members at Fortune 500 companies is around $110,000.
Risen, now with The Intercept, did not respond to a request for comment.
Political operatives of all ideological backgrounds frequently manipulate public perception – often employing specialized “crisis communication” firms to suppress negative coverage and shape desired narratives. What is remarkable about the Hunter Biden episode is how successful it was, and how uncritically most media organizations treated this unorthodox relationship between a president’s son and a controversial foreign corporation.
In response to the Wall Street Journal, Toohey worked closely with Blue Star Strategies’ Sally Painter and Karen Tramontano to craft a message defusing questions around a conflicting message between Hunter and his father. They settled on a strategy of presenting the Ukrainian gig as perfectly “aligned” with an anti-corruption agenda, laptop emails show. The lobbyists suggested that they release a statement to the Journal claiming that Hunter’s work for the Ukrainian energy giant, to supposedly strengthen corporate governance, are “also goals the United States.”
The Journal printed the statement, attributing it to a spokesperson.
Such coverage – which suggested Hunter Biden had engaged in questionable but ultimately harmless behavior that did not involve, much less implicate, his father – set the narrative for most coverage in mainstream outlets. When President Trump told Ukraine’s president in 2018 that “there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son” and asked him to look into Joe Biden’s demand that the prosecutor looking into Burisma be fired, Democrats moved to impeach him.
The Biden spin continued even after the New York Post published the first articles based on material from Hunter’s laptop in October 2020. The Washington Post’s fact checker, Glenn Kessler, sought to discredit the New York Post’s reporting that Hunter Biden had arranged a dinner meeting between his Ukrainian associates at Burisma and his father when he served as vice president. At the time, the Biden presidential campaign claimed that it “reviewed Joe Biden’s official schedules from the time, and no meeting, as alleged by the New York Post, ever took place.” Kessler reiterated this denial as though it were an established fact.
It turned out to be false. The July testimony by former Hunter Biden associate Devon Archer confirmed that Hunter Biden had arranged a secret dinner with his Ukrainian business partner and his father, as the New York Post had originally reported. The ongoing saga over the Washington Post’s role in covering up the Biden revelations was detailed last month by RealClearInvestigation’s Paul Sperry.
Last month, Kessler “updated” his article to acknowledge this.
Also last month, Washington Post columnist Philip Bump, who has dismissed any hint of scandal regarding Biden business dealings, appeared on Live at the Table, a podcast hosted by Noam Dworman, the owner of New York City’s Comedy Cellar. The show went viral as Dworman challenged Bump’s claims that there was “no evidence” of wrongdoing by Joe Biden.
In a heated exchange, Bump conceded that Hunter Biden’s text messages that claim, “unlike pop, I won’t make you give me half your salary,” was one form of “evidence.” Moments later, Bump ended the interview and walked off the set.
The interaction provided a rare moment of visible accountability for the establishment press, which has largely followed the Biden spin for an entire decade on this issue.
Yet the White House is still hoping it can still instruct journalists on how to cover the story. Shortly after McCarthy’s impeachment inquiry announcement, President Biden’s White House staff circulated a memo, instructing media outlets on how to cover the news. In bold type, the memo claimed that the entire Hunter Biden conflict of interest scandal had been “refuted” and “debunked” – language that was adopted in media reports about the inquiry in Vox, NBC News and CNN.
Hawaii Governor is Hit With First Amendment Lawsuit After Media Reporting On Wildfires is Suppressed
By Cindy Harper | Reclaim The Net | September 18, 2023
A legal challenge has been launched this week by the O’Keefe Media Group (OMG) against Josh Green, the Democratic Governor of Hawaii, as well as the County of Maui. Triggering the lawsuit were restrictions which prohibited OMG from capturing images or footage on public lands as they sought to investigate the aftermath of devastating wildfires that have ravaged the area.
The suit alleges that these restrictions, demanded under the governor’s statewide emergency decree, went far enough to threaten the arrest of James O’Keefe, founder of OMG, should he persist with his recording activities and reporting on the wildfires and their origin.
We obtained a copy of the lawsuit for you here.
In a concealed camera footage captured during their investigative excursion, officers of law enforcement relayed this mandate to the journalists.
In a bold statement captured in the video, O’Keefe disclosed his motivation for filing the lawsuit as an effort to “… invalidate the criminalization of protected First Amendment activity and to also strip Maui County of any ability to criminally charge anyone who exercises their First Amendment rights.”
This legal action seeks to block attempts from the governor to criminalize the fundamental rights of free speech and press freedom protected by both the US and Hawaii constitution.
OMG’s legal pursuit, lodged in the United States District Court of Hawaii, also encompasses the case of John Doe, another plaintiff. During the investigative visit to the wildfire-struck Lahaina on September 1, 2023, somehow John Doe found himself facing criminal charges for his journalistic activities in the stricken region by Maui County through its Sheriff’s Department (MCSD), despite his legally recognized First Amendment rights.
In the suit, it has been noted that Doe was notified by the MCSD that his journalistic work was not criminalized by a law but through “Emergency Proclamations” issued by Governor Green in response to the Maui wildfires. As a result of this pronouncement, OMG sought clarification on this seemingly perplexing overreach on the rights of Doe and all Hawaiian citizens who demand answers to their growing concerns about the handling of the response to the wildfire and its implications on their lives on the island.
The MCSD then cited HRS § 127A-29(a), which concerns emergency period transgressions, misdemeanors and petty crimes in reference to violations committed by the plaintiff. The lawsuit brought forward by OMG argues that Governor Green lacks the authority to issue his own rules.
In essence, OMG’s lawsuit alleges that the enforcement of the governor’s order, which seemingly curtails constitutional privileges and liberties, violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
The experts from OMG allege that the photography ban is not about restricting one form of expression, but a larger undermining of press freedom and the loss of the ability to keep our ruling class in check.
“The First Amendment is a built in ‘check’ on the Government because citizens can openly report government wrongdoing,” the complaint reads. “The freedom of the press acts as a bright beacon of light. It is an essential mechanism through which Americans can hold the government directly accountable. Democracy dies in the darkness.”
Republicans Move To Prevent Bodies Like a Disinformation Governance Board From Ever Being Created
By Dan Frieth | Reclaim The Net | September 18, 2023
Legislation that seeks to tie the hands of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from setting up another Disinformation Governance Board is being launched by House Republicans. Brought about by Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Ronny Jackson, and August Pfluger, this move is viewed as the Party’s effort to block limitations on what it deems to be free speech by federal agencies.
The DHS had originally set up a Disinformation Governance Board with a view to counteract, as it claimed, misinformation, malformation and disinformation. Yet, the initiative was met with criticism from conservative groups, leading to the body’s disbandment in 2022. Concerns centered around allegations of stifled free speech and political bias, rather than a focus on national security issues.
Representative Pfluger, who is part of the Homeland Security Committee along with Greene, expressed his skepticism about the previous governance board to The Washington Examiner.
According to him, it was less about maintaining factual discourse and more about controlling public discourse. He described the administration’s attempt to oversee American’s speech as discouraging, adding that the DHS’ energy should rather be directed to improving national security.
“Partisan government officials running a ‘disinformation board’ sounds ridiculous to most people, but yet the Biden administration tried to control the speech of American citizens… DHS should be focused on securing the border and preventing terrorist attacks, not fact-checking social media and censoring Americans.”
Republicans are progressively striking back against attempts by the current administration to regulate alleged disinformation. They are backing funding bills that effectively cut the government’s opportunities to bankroll these programs. This resistance to censorship extends beyond domestic boundaries, with the GOP-led House Foreign Affairs Committee considering refusing authorization to the Global Engagement Center, a State Department-associated body.
It was revealed that this body had funneled $100,000 towards the British-based Global Disinformation Index which allegedly stealthily blacklisted conservative channels. Moreover, this isn’t the GOP’s debut attempt to disable the DHS from governing a disinformation board.
Baerbock’s Xi Jinping comment only gives away Germany’s subservience to US
By Drago Bosnic | September 18, 2023
Conducting any sort of diplomacy requires a certain level of intelligence and at the very least basic decency. However, top diplomats of the political West must’ve missed the classes on either of those, probably busy listening to people like Josep Borrell and his rants about the “garden” and the “jungle”. This is particularly embarrassing when dealing with millennia-old civilizations, such as China and India, countries with magnificent cultural heritage, both of which have recently been characterized as societies with “low intellectual potential”. As we all know now, during an interview with local media, high-ranking Kiev regime official Mikhail Podoliak arrogantly stated that China and India are supposedly “incapable of thinking about long-term strategies” because of this “low intellectual potential”.
We can imagine what sort of “intellectual potential” is present in a person who thinks that countries such as China and India are “incapable of devising long-term strategies” when both have quite literally existed for thousands of years, continually, we should stress. If Beijing and Delhi don’t have such strategies, the question is – who does? And yet, it seems that Podoliak is hardly the only Western politician (or Western-aligned, in this case) with such “highly intellectual” opinions. Namely, the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock also decided to demonstrate similar “high intellectual capacity” during a recent interview with Fox News. On September 15, she directly called Chinese President Xi Jinping a “dictator”. Worse yet, she did so while giving a statement about the Ukrainian crisis, a matter that isn’t directly related to China.
“We will support Ukraine as long as it takes,” Baerbock stated during the interview, adding: “If Putin were to win this war, what sign would that be for other dictators in the world, like Xi, like the Chinese president? Therefore, Ukraine has to win this war.”
Once again, she demonstrated how to conduct diplomacy if one really wants to get on the bad side of not one, but two global superpowers, both of which are of essential importance to Germany itself. It seems Berlin learned nothing from the disastrous decoupling with Moscow, a move that has effectively destroyed German industrial might. Russian commodities such as oil and natural gas, the vital importance of which cannot possibly be overstated, have never been less accessible to Germany, and yet, Berlin continues its hostile policies towards Moscow. Still, this is obviously not enough, so it’s now also showing enmity towards Beijing. It should be noted that, according to the German Federal Statistical Office, trade exchange with China amounts to almost €300 billion.
This makes Beijing its largest trading partner and for the eighth year in a row, at that. German exports to China are immensely important for saving what’s left of its industry. Such enmity towards Beijing may very well destroy it completely. This also comes on the heels of what can only be described as a crawling trade war between China and the European Union, as the troubled bloc has announced it would “launch an investigation into Chinese electric vehicle subsidies“. And to say nothing of the mindless decision Brussels made earlier this year when it announced that EU navies will “support Taiwan”, although Europe itself is faced with a massive surge in illegal immigration, a problem which the aforementioned EU navies can’t deal with in the Mediterranean, their own primary zone of responsibility.
China has already expressed indignation over the label, deeming it “absurd” and an “open political provocation”. Mao Ning, the spokesperson of Beijing’s Foreign Ministry, said that Baerbock’s remarks “infringed on China’s political dignity”. As of this writing, no concrete moves have been announced in response to Germany’s rhetoric, but it’s virtually guaranteed that Beijing will not tolerate such insolence. It’s also not the first time that Baerbock has engaged in Sinophobia. Just last month, she said that “China poses a challenge to the fundamentals of how we live together in this world”. Baerbock also described her mid-April visit to China as “more than shocking” and said Beijing was “increasingly becoming more of a systemic rival than a trade partner”, which is in line with Germany’s openly stated intention of “decoupling” with China.
Beijing’s response is certainly not limited to stern rhetoric, as demonstrated by the sanctions (or counter-sanctions, to be exact) it now regularly imposes on its increasingly aggressive Western rivals. Back in early July, after US President Joe Biden also called his Chinese counterpart a “dictator” several weeks before, China responded with restrictions on the export of rare-earth elements, which caused shockwaves on the global market. Biden made the controversial statement only a day after US State Secretary Antony Blinken came back from China, a visit that Washington DC pompously announced would supposedly “stabilize ties” between the two countries. In mid to late July, the US also sent Henry Kissinger, Blinken’s much more prominent (First) Cold War-era predecessor, to try and use his influence to prevent China’s total tilt toward Russia.
However, this forlorn attempt failed, especially as Kissinger went in an unofficial capacity, leaving his visit (geo)politically inconsequential. Taking all this into account, Germany’s rhetoric can hardly be described as “sovereign”. Berlin has zero reasons to get into any sort of confrontation with China, but it still does so. However, this is certainly in the interest of the US, as Washington DC is desperate to portray Beijing as supposedly “isolated”. This only implies that Germany doesn’t have an independent foreign policy.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.

