Last night, 2 video clips were uploaded to Youtube.
One was an audio, that showed Joe Biden pressuring Mr. Poroshenko, Pres. of the Ukraine, to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden.
The other video clip, shows Joe Biden at the Council of Foreign Relations, telling the audience how he got the Ukrainian president to fire that prosecutor, by threatening Poroshenko to withhold the Billion Dollar foreign aid package (Quid Pro Quo)
I wanted to watch them this morning, and they had already been deleted by Youtube.
Amazing.! Youtube is certainly on the ball!!!
Thanks for pointing this out Gunter.
Wayne asked a couple of days ago about internet censorship, something that you have been providing evidence of for some time.
This is actually opening my eyes to more and more of it that I was not aware of. This is partly because I don't go to most of the sites/links that are being censored and partly because I didn't think this would really happen.
It is and its increasing for sure.
The question now is not is this increasing? The question is, do the entities doing it have an agenda or are they protecting us for our own good?
From everything that I can tell, its the agenda that is being used to scrutinize materials that get censored. In many of the cases, they have legit justification and in most of the cases they are doing it because "they" who are human beings with opinions that disagree with the opinion of the censored video.......almost be definition. (if they agreed, they would consider it legit).
Here is another example of this that was just brought to my attention today. You'll like this one Gunter because its from your home country, Germany.
Naomi was the star of the show at last year’s climate conference held in Munich by EIKE, the European Institute for Climate and Energy. She is an internet influencer with her own popular YouTube channel – so popular, in fact, that the totalitarian censors at YouTube have shadow-banned her channel, cutting her potential income from it by nine-tenths."
"Naomi recently received a letter from a functionary at the State Media Authority for North Rhine Westphalia, the region where she lives. The letter informed her peremptorily that, without a hearing, she has been found guilty of the alleged offence of exercising her right of free speech about the climate on YouTube in a manner that the letter described as not being “climate-friendly”.
What was such a value-laden term doing in an official letter from a public authority to its teenage victim?
In a subsequent letter, the Authority demanded a fine of about $400 and costs on top, and instructed Naomi that she must not mention the Heartland Institute in her videos. The insubstantial ground for this attempt at silencing Naomi was that such mentions constituted unlawful product placement under a recently-enacted law of the North-Rhine Westphalia region.
However the letter makes it clear that a video is held to contravene the new law if it does two things at the same time: it advocates any policy position unacceptable to the Gau (such as opposition to Germany’s crippling Energiewende) and, in the same video, to mention a named product or entity associated with that position (such as the Heartland Institute)."
metmike: I am not promoting the anti Greta here, just providing a profound example of how Greta, with her anti science, pro global socialism message disguised as a fake climate crisis, has been set up to speak to the world at the United Nations, the US House, CNN's coronavirus panel, Time magazine person of the year, 2nd place for the Nobel Peace Prize....etc. While a similarly qualified person that actually speaks the truth but contradicts Greta..................is censored.
Recent discussions on this:
Internet censorship
5 responses |
Started by wglassfo - May 17, 2020, 1:08 p.m
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/52297/
Finally a real expert tellng us the truth about Covid19
32 responses |
Started by GunterK - May 13, 2020, 9:20 p.m.
thank you for this info. Yes, I have heard of her.
Germany has it's own MSM.... it's just like here. I believe, it's that way in many countries in Europe. Unfortunately, the majority of the People listens to the MSM, and live in the "reality" the MSM has created for them.
"He who rules the news media, rules the country."
I often read with horror about the immigration situation over there, and what it has done to these countries, their culture, their way of life. However, if you say something against immigration (in Germany), they immediately call you a Nazi
Funny thing... i just read about a family of Somalian immigrants, living in London. They are sending their teenage sons back to Somalia, to be with relatives, because it's safer there for them, than in London!.....Somalia???
Gunter said:
"Last night, 2 video clips were uploaded to Youtube.
One was an audio, that showed Joe Biden pressuring Mr. Poroshenko, Pres. of the Ukraine, to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
What I bolded above is false. I'm going to provide several unbiased and factual sources showing that Trump was lying about this. Not only was he not investigating Hunter or Burisma, but he was pressured to be fired because he wasn't doing his job of investigating corruption there or at other companies:
1. From Factcheck.org:
"Trump Twists Facts on Biden and Ukraine"
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/
"Shokin served as prosecutor general under Viktor Yanukovych, the former president of Ukraine who fled to Russia after he was removed from power in 2014 and was later found guilty of treason. Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed 'to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,' according to testimonyJohn E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
'By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,' Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.”
"Michael McFaul, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia under President Barack Obama, on Sept. 20 tweeted that the 'Obama administration policy (not just ‘Biden policy’) to push for this Ukrainian general prosecutor to go' was “a shared view in many capitals, multilateral lending institutions, and pro-democratic Ukrainian civil society.”
Factcheck.org bias rating: "least biased" "very high factual reporting"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/factcheck/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. From Snopes:
"The Story Behind Biden’s Son, Ukraine and Trump’s Claims"
https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/09/23/the-story-behind-bidens-son-ukraine-and-trumps-claims/
"Biden was representing the official position of the U.S. government, a position that was also supported by other Western governments and many in Ukraine, who accused Shokin of being soft on corruption."
--------------------------------
3. Also, from Snopes:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/c-span-video-joe-biden-ukraine/
"However, Shokin was not fired for investigating Burisma, but for his failure to pursue corruption investigations — including investigations connected to Burisma. And Biden wasn’t alone in the effort to push Shokin out, but rather was spearheading the Obama administration’s policy, which represented a consensus among diplomats, officials from various European countries, and the International Monetary Fund that Shokin was an impediment to rooting out corruption in his country, according to Bloomberg:"
Snopes bias: "least biased" "high factual reporting"
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/snopes/
--------------------------------------------------
4. From PolitiFact:
"Donald Trump ad misleads about Joe Biden, Ukraine and the prosecutor"
"• Biden did want Shokin fired, but western leaders had widely criticized the prosecutor general as corrupt and ineffective. Biden was leading a widespread consensus in asking for removal.
• A former Ukrainian official said the investigation into Burisma was dormant under Shokin."
PolitiFact bias: "least biased" "high factual reporting"
I found it...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=S3Ibbq_LG-4&feature=emb_logo
Please correct me if I am wrong.... it sounds to me, Joe Biden is bragging about the Quid Pro Quo he did in the Ukraine
Thanks Gunter and especially Larry who we need here to help me to keep it from being an echo chamber of the right.
On Biden's corruption in the Ukraine. Of course it was corruption, regardless of what Snopes says.
"The Obama White House said at the time that there was no conflict because the younger Biden was a private citizen. And there’s been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden."
metmike: Snopes (and others) completely and intentionally ignore the facts below:
The VP was supposed to be fighting corruption but instead, participated in the corruption by using his power to get his troubled son a high paying job with the most corrupt company in the Ukraine...........despite the fact that Hunter had zero experience in natural gas or in the country of Ukraine............clearly no qualifications other than having a dad that was VP of the US.
The Joe lied about it, saying that he never talked to Hunter about it, except for one time when he said "I hope you know what you are doing"
But pictures popped up after that statement showing Joe, Hunter and a Burisma dude playing golf. Are we to believe they just talked about the weather for 18 rounds as well as before and after the game?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By metmike - Dec. 9, 2019, 12:45 p.m
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44049/
When you tell blatant lies that we know are lies...........the truth must contain facts that you don't want people to know.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/01/joe-and-hunter-biden-golfed-with-ukraine-gas-executive-in-2014/
By Mark Moore
October 1, 2019 | 1:52pm|
Joe Biden (second from right) and his son Hunter (right) golfing in the Hamptons with Devon Archer
"A photo has surfaced that shows former Vice President Joe Biden posing with his son Hunter and Devon Archer, who served with Hunter on the board of Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma Holdings, during a 2014 golf outing in the Hamptons.
Joe Biden, now a leading Democratic presidential candidate, told Fox News last month that he had never talked with his son about his foreign business interests.
“I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” Biden said, before pivoting to President Trump. “I know Trump deserves to be investigated. He is violating every basic norm of a president. You should be asking him why is he on the phone with a foreign leader, trying to intimidate a foreign leader. You should be looking at Trump.”
metmike: We looked at Trump and then we looked at Trump again, then again. After that, we looked more at Trump, then we investigated and looked even more at Trump. Couldn't find any legit crimes though.
But we gave Joe Biden a free pass for what clearly is blatant nepotism and are accepting his crazy lies as evidence that he did nothing wrong(despite the facts)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism
Nepotism is the granting of jobs to one's relatives or friends in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, religion and other activities. Nepotism is the act of using one's power to secure better jobs or unfair advantages for a family member when they may not have the right skill, experience or motivation compared to others.
One of the strangest things related to what Joe did, was how Wikipedia CHANGED THEIR DEFINITION of Nepotism at the end of last year after Joe Biden was accused of it. Their old definition that I used below numerous times last year clearly idendentifies what Joe did as blatant nepotism..........but their revised/new definition does not make the same connection.
Judge for yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism
Old definition from Wikipedia:
Nepotism is the granting of jobs to one's relatives or friends in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, religion and other activities. Nepotism is the act of using one's power to secure better jobs or unfair advantages for a family member when they may not have the right skill, experience or motivation compared to others.
Revised definition(after Joe Biden was accused of it) :
Nepotism is based on favoritism granted to relatives in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, religion and other activities. The term originated with the assignment of nephews to important positions by Catholic popes and bishops.
Was this definition revised intentionally to make it harder to connect nepotism with the Bidens? Whether intentional or not, that is clearly the affect.
Mike,
Please don’t change the issue I was discussing. You’re straying from what I was addressing, which is that Gunter referred to a false claim in a You Tube video and outright lie by Trump that Shokin was fired because he was investigating Burisma. He was not investigating Burisma and was hardly investigating anything in the Ukraine. In other words, he wasn’t doing his job. The Obama Administration and many western leaders wanted Shokin ousted for this reason. This wasn’t something Biden was pushing for on his own.
Gunter referred to “Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating Hunter Biden.”
Nope. He wasn’t investigating Hunter Biden. Not even close. Fake news. I provided write ups from 3 respected organizations that all back this up.
Regardless of whether another fact checker rates Snopes bias: "least biased" "high factual reporting"
Those are just words from another fact checker. Snopes, for instance is probably exactly right for the vast, vast majority of the stuff they cover. However, when it comes to politics and things like climate change(which is politics, not science) their bias is blatant/extreme.
I will gladly provide additional examples, but this one was the most recent:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By metmike - May 17, 2020, 3:30 p.m.
"I was researching Al Gore's horribly wrong predictions, starting shortly after 2007, that all the Arctic sea ice would be melted by the Summer of 2014.
Such a dumb prediction that never came anywhere close and 100.000% FALSE in every way shape or form. In fact, there is just as much ice now as there was almost a decade ago.
So I figured Snopes, the almighty, universal fact checker would rate this one as False as you can get........but Snopes is very liberal/far left biased, so THEY decided to rate it only partly False.
The absurd justification was that Gore was just using other peoples predictions not his.......as if everything else he forecast was not the same thing and insanely, that he only meant the Summer ice would be melted and he didn't mean in the Winter(when temperatures stay below 0 for months) that the ice would be melted.
If they can't give Mr. climate crisis a solid, emphatic FALSE on something like this......then what really is false?
It's whatever lines up with their politics and THEY are the almighty fact checkers, like these other sources are that decide what videos to take off.
So maybe Snopes is correct 98% of the time? You can get bet that the 2% they get wrong will be related to their blatantly biased politics, like they did when blowing the rating on Gore's well documented FALSE prediction."
Interesting previous discussion on this here:
Did Al Gore Predict Earth’s Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014?
18 responses |
Started by metmike - March 4, 2019, 3:13 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/25264/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So my discovery of their blatant misrepresentation of Gore's prediction came about because I already knew about his predictions. I knew when he made the statements, what he said, where he said it, why he said it and what he meant.
I read an article at WUWT, a very right biased site about Gore's bad predictions. This one on the ice all melting in the Summer by 2014 and the threat to polar bears (that have increased) were right up there for worst.
I decided to check Snopes, not to find out any details(I have more facts than Snopes does on this) but to verify that even they would have to call Gore out on such a horrible bust on his prediction of all the ice melting by the 2014 melt season.
Wow! They actually rated him only being half wrong. Their ludicrous justification for not holding him accountable would be like a meteorologist that they liked, coming out with a foreast for a drought in the Midwest last Summer. After no drought, Snopes states"it was dry for almost an entire week in July and the drought predictor never said how long the drought would last"
Of course Gore was really wrong by every reasonable objective standard but the fact checker at Snopes gave us the blatantly political biased rating.
The same type of bias as them not seeing anything wrong with Joe Biden taking part in the corruption in the Ukraine.
Trumps wanting an investigation in the Ukraine was 100% motivated for political reasons. He didn't care at all about the past corruption in the Ukraine......not 1 iota.
If it had been a republican that committed the corruption, he would have cared less.
It was because Biden committed the corruption and Biden would be the guy he's likely to face in 2020.
That doesn't mean that Biden didn't take part in the corruption, just that like the investigations of Trump the past 3 years have targeted him for political reasons...........he was using the same playbook and targeting his opponent.
Mike,
I'll restate what you still haven't been able to prove wrong: Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma. Being that you don't take Snopes' word for it, I presented two other respected sources for lack of bias as well as factually based reporting, FactCheck.org and PolitiFact. In addition, Mediabiasfactcheck.com, which rated them highly, is also highly respected as being unbiased based on them having a pretty even balance of ratings of right and left wing.
Shokin wasn't doing his job of cracking down on corruption. That's why he was fired. And it wasn't Biden on his own trying to get him fired. He was spearheading Obama Administration policy to get him replaced since Shokin wasn't doing his job, and many European/western leaders agreed with this Obama policy. You have still yet to be able to refute any of this.
It is either an error, a lie, or fake news (depending on whether ignorance is at play) for anyone to say that Biden had Shokin fired because he was investigating Burisma.
Please don't go off on tangents.
Sorry about going on a tangent Larry. I do that a great deal. I was relating what I do know about the topic.
With regards specifically to the firing of this guy, I’m not sure what to think. Biden brags about flexing his power to have it done in order for us to release the money but it May have been justified for legit reasons and others Wanted the same thing, which i think is what you are saying.
This is exactly what makes it a shame that he had to go and abuse his power as VP and participate in the corruption by getting Hunter the job at burisma.
If Hunter was never there........we have no reason to bat an eyelash over his bragging about getting the prosecutor fired.
However, we know with certainty that hunter was there because of him and so did everyone else at the time. At the very least, it causes the appearance of a potential conflict and makes it impossible for him to be objective.
Anytime that you go to the extreme of being a part of getting your unqualified son a high paying job with a corrupt company because of your immense power, you are clearly not able to make objective decisions in wielding that power in the future as it relates to that company that your son is at.
Did he abuse that with the firing.
IF hunter is not there, then, no.
With Hunter there?
The circumstantial evidence can make a case for yes......especially when he already did a known corrupt thing by getting Hunter the job but it’s his own fault for practicing nepotism that causes the suspicions.
Larry,
And I’m not trying to prove you wrong. I don’t even have an opinion on the firing incident other than Biden’s corruption with hunter at burisma previous to the firing, take away his objectivity and make him look bad. If this were a court case or other situation, he would have been asked to recuse himself for exactly this reason. I recognize that others wanted him fired too. This is why you recuse yourself to an impartial judge. People don’t have a reason to question your impartiality.
Of course joe had a huge reason to be impartial. Did he overcome that and pretend that Hunter was not working at burisma when managing affairs like this?
At that time, nobody but insiders knew about Hunter, so he didn’t have to worry about being scrutinized for any decision, as evidenced by his bragging about getting the guy fired....which he surely regrets now that the world knows about hunter.
I would guess that this guy might have been fired anyway, even if Biden was not there. But let non corrupt people with no skin in the game be responsible for making that decision