I’ve been listening to a podcast from Daily Signal about media bias, and how censoring the news helped Biden to win in 2020. For example, the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story by the corporate news media swayed enough votes to deny Trump the presidency. People like to base their decisions on evidence, but what happens when evidence is suppressed by the secular left?

Well, I found a very shocking example of the secular left suppressing evidence that disagrees with their worldview. This story was reported in the far-left New York Times, of all places.

The New York Post reported on it:

A prominent doctor and trans rights advocate admitted she deliberately withheld publication of a $10 million taxpayer-funded study on the effect of puberty blockers on American children — after finding no evidence that they improve patients’ mental health.

Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy told the New York Times that she believes the study would be “weaponized” by critics of transgender care for kids, and that the research could one day be used in court to argue “we shouldn’t use blockers.”

Critics — including one of Olson-Kennedy’s fellow researchers on the study — said the decision flies in the face of research standards and deprives the public of “really important” science in a field where Americans remain firmly divided.

For the National Institutes of Health-funded study, researchers chose 95 kids — who had an average age of 11 — and gave them puberty-blocking drugs starting in 2015. The treatments are meant to delay the onset of bodily changes like the development of breasts or the deepening of the voice.

After following up with the youths for two years, the treatments did not improve the state of their mental health…

I thought this was interesting, about the evidence-withholder lady:

Olson-Kennedy, the outlet points out, is one of the country’s leading advocates for providing gender-affirming care to adolescents, and regularly provides expert testimony in legal challenges to state bans on such procedures, which have taken root in more than 20 states.

When asked by the Times why the results have not been made public after nine years, she said, “I do not want our work to be weaponized,” adding, “It has to be exactly on point, clear and concise. And that takes time.”

She then flat-out admitted she was afraid the lack of mental health improvements borne out by the study could one day be used in court to argue “we shouldn’t use blockers.”

Secular leftists are always telling me how driven by “evidence” they are. Maybe that’s because the only evidence they allow is evidence that confirms what they already want to believe! I bet they feel very superior to the people who disagree with them, though. They will just say “well, we are guided by evidence, and our opponents just believe whatever they see on social media”. Uh huh.

Now, I know what the pro-trans people will say to this. They will say that “all the problems that result from a child trying to transform from his/her birth sex into the opposite sex with chemicals and surgeries are all caused by social disapproval”. They really believe that IF ONLY people would celebrate the delusions of children, then everything would work out perfectly.

I thought it might be a good idea, in preparation for any last minute “surprises” from the secular left, to remember a major example of election interference from the 2020 election. Who really interferes with elections? Is it even happening? Why can’t we post about election interference on social media without getting “de-boosted” or banned outright? Let’s take a look at it.

Here is the best example of election interference from the 2020 election, reported in the New York Post:

They are the supposed nonpartisan group of top spies looking out for the best interest of the nation.

But the 51 former “intelligence” officials who cast doubt on The Post’s Hunter Biden laptop stories in a public letter really were just desperate to get Joe Biden elected president. And more than a year later, even after their Deep State sabotage has been shown again and again to be a lie, they refuse to own up to how they undermined an election.

The officials, including CNN pundit and professional fabricator James Clapper — a man who was nearly charged for perjury for lying to Congress — signed a letter saying that the laptop “has the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”

What proof did they have? By their own admission, none. “We do not know if the emails . . . are genuine or not,” the letter said. They’re just “suspicious.” Why? Because they hurt Biden’s campaign, that’s evidence enough.

Keep in mind this was written Oct. 19, 2020, five days after The Post published its first story. Neither Joe Biden nor Hunter Biden had denied the story, they simply deflected questions. Didn’t these security experts think that if this was disinformation, the Biden campaign would have yelled to the heavens that the story was false?

[…]Politico picked up the letter and ran the false headline “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.” That headline is still online today, even though the letter clearly says they don’t know if it’s Russian disinformation.

That headline was tweeted out by legions of Democrats, including current White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki, as proof that it was all a con. That tweet also is still up despite being proven false.

[…]Only after the election was safely over did Hunter tacitly admit the laptop was his. Last year, a Politico reporter confirmed that the laptop’s materials were real. And now, the coup de grace: The Times said it’s “authenticated” material from the laptop.

The author of that article contacted the 51 “intelligence experts” to comment on how they were wrong about the laptop, and most of them didn’t reply. Some insisted that they were right even after being proved wrong. What do you think would be a good punishment for their actions? Personally, I would try each of them for treason, and sentence them appropriately.

That first article is from 2022, but there’s more from this New York Post article from 2024:

Four years later, none of the 51 have retracted the statement or apologized.

Some have doubled down on their lie, even though they know that the FBI had possession of the laptop in December 2019, had determined that it belonged to Hunter, that it had not been tampered with in any way and was fit for use as evidence in court.

Four months ago, that silver MacBook Pro was brought by prosecutors into a Delaware court, displayed to the jury that convicted Hunter of felony gun charges, and confirmed by an FBI forensic expert to be Hunter’s laptop.

It was also cited as evidence by prosecutors in his felony tax indictment in California, to which he pleaded guilty last month.

Just to be clear, there is no doubt about the evidence. The evidence shows that the laptop was genuine, and that means that the 51 experts, their allies in the corporate news media, and their allies in Big Tech, all colluded to spread misinformation that interfered with a federal election, handing the victory to the Democrat candidate.

And just to get the names and ranks out there, so everyone knows how to think about the CIA as a federal department:

Among the Dirty 51 were five former CIA directors or acting directors, including John Brennan, Leon Panetta and Michael Hayden, as well as former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Brennan and Clapper, who were also knee-deep in the Russia collusion hoax against Donald Trump, were appointed by Mayorkas to his inaugural Homeland Security intelligence group before it was disbanded after public outcry and litigation.

Finally, it’s important to remember that Big Tech companies like Facebook, also interfered in the election to help the Democrat party.

The New York Post explains:

The FBI warned major US tech companies ahead of The Post’s first reports on Hunter Biden’s laptop in October 2020 that Russian agents were preparing a strikingly similar document dump — and once the scoop materialized, Facebook executives discussed calibrating censorship decisions to please what they assumed would be an incoming Biden-Harris administration, a congressional investigation found.

The new details — contained in an interim report by the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the weaponization of government — are emerging as former President Donald Trump leads in polls ahead of the Nov. 5 election and as his allies urge a house-cleaning at the FBI and possible new regulations or antitrust actions to punish and restrain platforms like Facebook.

“FBI tipped us all off last week that this Burisma story was likely to emerge,” an unidentified Microsoft employee wrote on Oct. 14, 2020, the day The Post published the first in a series of bombshell stories on the Biden family’s foreign dealings, according to the congressional report.

Internal Facebook communications, including a chat log, show that employees quickly discounted The Post’s reporting because it was the “[e]xact content expected for hack and leak.”

“Right on schedule,” another Facebook employee concurred.

“Obviously, our calls on this could colour [sic] the way an incoming Biden administration views us more than almost anything else…,” Facebook’s then-vice president of global affairs Nick Clegg wrote on the same day to vice president of global public policy Joel Kaplan.

I wrote before about how Google uses their products and services to also interfere in elections to help the Democrat party. So, if you see a Trump administration taking power and arresting “intelligence experts” and “journalists” and “tech executives” in January 2025, don’t be alarmed. It’s just justice.

Everyone remembers that Ron DeSantis is my candidate in 2024, but for the rest of you in “battleground” states, you have to vote against Kamala Harris! And now we are going to get 20 good reasons why you should, from the King of systematic theology, Dr. Wayne Grudem. What is his superpower? His superpower is knowing all of the Bible teachings that apply to any policy.

Here’s the article from Townhall.com, (H/T Dr. Owen Anderson)

It starts by explaining the difference between the Republican view of government, and the Democrat view of government.

Republican views of government:

Most Republicans favor limited government control of our lives, lower taxes, greater individual freedom, and greater personal responsibility for one’s actions. Republicans also believe that the best deterrent for crime is the punishment of criminals.

On foreign policy, Republicans generally believe that superior American military power is the best deterrent against war.

Republicans also believe that the best economic system is one that allows everyone to keep most of what they have honestly and legally earned, one that effectively cares for the poor, and one that does not seek to bring about more equality of income among people.

Democratic views of government:

Most Democrats favor greater government control of our lives, higher taxes (especially for higher income brackets), less individual freedom, and less personal responsibility for one’s actions. Democrats also believe that the best deterrent against crime is education.

On foreign policy, Democrats generally believe that diplomacy and foreign aid are the best deterrent against war.

Democrats also believe that an ideal economic system leads to greater equality between the rich and the poor. With respect to levels of taxation, the rich should pay their “fair share” (an amount that is never specified but always assumed to be more than what they currently pay).

Then he has a list of 20 reasons to vote for Republicans, which he has broken into categories:

Economics:

1. To stifle inflation
2. To preserve lower tax rates and promote greater national prosperity and economic freedom
3. To protect free-market capitalism and prevent creeping socialism
4. To preserve our ability to choose our own doctors and healthcare plans

Foreign policy:

1. To secure the border
2. To help Israel win its war
3. To obtain a lasting peace in the Middle East
4. To make our military once again the strongest on earth

Crime and law forcement:

1. To make our cities safe again
2. To appoint 3,000 conservative Republicans to powerful federal offices instead of 3000 liberal Democrats
3. To appoint hundreds of additional judges who interpret and apply the laws but do not create new laws
4. To stop powerful government agencies from interfering in American politics

Other reasons:

1. To give unborn children some degree of legal protection
2. To protect religious freedom
3. To protect freedom of speech
4. To keep men from competing in women’s sports.
5. To respond to climate change/global warming with realistic solutions
6. To begin to pay down our national debt
7. To see a rebirth of patriotism
8. To stop Kamala Harris from becoming president

We can’t look at all of these, but I will choose one that caught my eye. I chose #1, because I have been really feeling bad about wanting to retire early to focus on ministry, but now after four years of Democrat rule, my monthly expenses are up 50%, so now I have to work for a few more years in order to be able to replace enough of my income with interest and dividend income. I will be fine when I hit 60 because then I can use my retirement funds. But during the years of 50-60, I have to have enough money to live from my non-retirement savings. And with this inflation, it’s barely enough.

He writes:

Inflation happens when governments print or borrow too much money and inject it into the economy, as I explained in more detail in an earlier article. For example, if I have ten apples to sell and you have $10 to spend on apples, I will charge you $1 per apple. But if you have $20 to spend on apples, I will charge you $2 per apple. You spend more money, but you don’t get any more apples. That has happened to the cost of groceries, gas, and everything else.

Inflation hit our economy under Biden’s administration because our government injected far too much money into our economy while the amount of things for sale stayed about the same. It was all Democrats and no Republicans who did this.

Joe Biden became president on January 20, 2021, and Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate to pass whatever tax or spending legislation they wanted (because the budget reconciliation process is not subject to the filibuster, it only requires 51 votes in the Senate). Just six weeks after Biden took office, on March 6, 2021, the Senate passed the American Rescue Plan Act by a vote of 50-49 with all Democrats voting for it and all Republicans voting against it (one was absent). It passed the House on March 10 with a vote of 220-211, with all Republicans and one Democrat voting against it. President Biden signed it into law on the next day, March 11.

Republicans warned that this would cause harmful inflation because the bill authorized a whopping $1.9 trillion in additional government spending. (By way of comparison, the entire federal budget for the previous year was $6.55 trillion.)

But that was not the end of the Democrats’ spending. In 2022, they passed the Inflation Reduction Act by 220-207 in the House (all Democrats for it, all Republicans against it) and by 51-50 in the Senate (all Democrats for it, all Republicans against it, and Vice President Kamala Harris cast the tie-breaking vote). President Biden signed it on August 16, 2022.

The bill would more accurately be described as the Inflation Multiplying and Green Energy Act because a large portion of the $891 billion was designated for climate change and green energy projects. Together, these two bills added an astounding $2.8 trillion in government spending. By way of comparison, $2.8 trillion is equal to 11% of the total economic output of the entire nation for 2022 (GDP for 2022 was $25.4 trillion).

Why did Democrats authorize such gigantic additional spending? Probably because they thought that when they gave free money to millions of people, many of those people would vote for Democrats.

On top of all that spending, President Biden issued two executive orders that drove up gas prices. One executive order restricted future oil and natural gas extraction, which immediately drove up energy prices, and the other shut down the Keystone XL Pipeline project, which would have safely brought much more US and Canadian oil to our best refineries. These executive orders were inflationary because the price of energy affects the price of everything else.

The result was predictable. According to Forbes magazine, the Consumer Price Index rose by 19% during the first 3 ½ years of Biden’s presidency. But it only rose by 6% during President Trump’s entire four years. (Trump’s average increase was just under 2% per year, and 2% is the Federal Reserve’s target amount.)

For example, think of a family that brought a certain basket of groceries for $100 on the day Biden became president. To buy that same basket of groceries today would cost $119, so they would need to find the additional $19 somewhere – in savings if they have any savings, or perhaps put it on a credit card. In terms of our apples example above, they will be paying more dollars but will just get the same number of apples. We could even say that inflation has “stolen” $19 from that family because that is how much extra money they need to buy the same amount of goods. And if a husband and wife together earned $80,000 last year, they would need to earn an extra 19% (or $15,200) just to stay even with their purchasing power compared to Biden’s first day in office, because that is the amount that inflation has “stolen” from their earnings this year.

I would also note that, in words of wisdom written over 3000 years ago, the Bible has something very clear to say about stealing: “You shall not steal” (Exodus 20:15). This is commandment 8 of the Ten Commandments, and it serves as the moral foundation for all protection of any individual’s property.

After looking at the voting and spending patterns of the past eight years, I conclude that Republicans are much more likely than Democrats to keep inflation under control.

If you see anything in that list that is important to you, you will get a similarly clear and concise explanation about how the parties differ on that issue in the rest of the article. Read it, and share it!