This is a report from the New York Post authored by Emily Crane and Miranda Devine. You might remember Miranda – she is the author of the famous book “Laptop From Hell”, which is about Hunter Biden’s laptop. We’ll talk about the laptop below, but first let’s see the new news from the New York Post report.

Excerpt:

A real estate company with ties to first son Hunter Biden received more than $100 million from a Russian billionaire for property investments across the US that date back a decade, sources have told The Post.

The hefty cash injections into Rosemont Realty came from Elena Baturina — one of Russia’s wealthiest women, the widow of the former mayor of Moscow, and a close ally of Moscow tyrant Vladimir Putin, the sources said.

In one portfolio deal, Baturina paid at least $40 million to Rosemont to invest in office buildings across the country, according to a source with knowledge of the transactions.

That money went toward the 2012 purchase of seven office buildings in Texas, Colorado, Alabama, New Mexico and Oklahoma, according to deal-related emails obtained by DailyMail.com.

The investment purportedly came from Inteco Management AG — the Swiss company owned by Baturina.

This isn’t the first time President Biden’s 52-year-old son has been linked to Baturina, whose late husband Yuri Luzhkov was mayor of Russia’s capital for more than 18 years before being dismissed by then-President Dmitry Medvedev in 2010.

Since we are heading for an election again, it might be a good idea to refresh the voters about Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Back in March of 2022, the far-left New York Times published a story about Hunter Biden’s laptop. The story corrected the lies that were spread by Big Tech, the mainstream news media, and the current administration, about Hunter Biden’s laptop. It turns out that Facebook and Twitter spread disinformation before the election, because they wanted the Democrat party to win.

Let’s start with Glenn Greenwald, a progressive who has done excellent reporting about this story from the beginning.

He writes:

One of the most successful disinformation campaigns in modern American electoral history occurred in the weeks prior to the 2020 presidential election. On October 14, 2020 — less than three weeks before Americans were set to vote — the nation’s oldest newspaper, The New York Post, began publishing a series of reports about the business dealings of the Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in countries in which Biden, as Vice President, wielded considerable influence (including Ukraine and China) and would again if elected president.

The backlash against this reporting was immediate and intense, leading to suppression of the story by U.S. corporate media outlets and censorship of the story by leading Silicon Valley monopolies. The disinformation campaign against this reporting was led by the CIA’s all-but-official spokesperson Natasha Bertrand (then of Politico, now with CNN), whose article on October 19 appeared under this headline: “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

These “former intel officials” did not actually say that the “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo.” Indeed, they stressed in their letter the opposite: namely, that they had no evidence to suggest the emails were falsified or that Russia had anything to do them, but, instead, they had merely intuited this “suspicion” based on their experience…

[…][A]s I noted last September, “virtually every media outlet — CNN, NBC News, PBS, Huffington Post, The Intercept, and too many others to count — began completely ignoring the substance of the reporting and instead spread the lie over and over that these documents were the by-product of Russian disinformation.” The Huffington Post even published a must-be-seen-to-be-believed campaign ad for Joe Biden, masquerading as “reporting,” that spread this lie that the emails were “Russian disinformation.”

Mainstream News Media

Here is an example of how one mainstream news media outlet helped Joe Biden to win the 2020 election:

Big Tech Social Media

Facebook and Twitter did their part to help their Democrat allies.

Here is what a Facebook spokesman said about the story:

You’ll note in his bio that he is a Democrat, and has worked for Democrats. That didn’t disqualify him from working for Facebook – they are allies of the Democrat party. They regularly censor anything critical of the Democrat party, especially before important elections.

Greenwald notes:

Twitter locked The New York Post’s Twitter account for close to two weeks due to its refusal to obey Twitter’s orders to delete any reference to its reporting. The social media site also blocked any and all references to the reporting by all users; Twitter users were barred even from linking to the story in private chats with one another. Facebook, through its spokesman, the life-long DNC operative Andy Stone, announced that they would algorithmically suppress discussion of the reporting to ensure it did not spread, pending a “fact check[] by Facebook’s third-party fact checking partners” which, needless to say, never came — precisely because the archive was indisputably authentic.

Here is what Twitter users saw when they tried to share the story on Twitter:

A link to the NEW YORK POST is “spammy or unsafe”. And you can bet they punished people who shared the story with shadow banning. Twitter is a vile proponent of censorship.

Biden spokeswoman Jen Psaki lied

And of course the Biden administration has no comment on their previous attempts to dismiss the laptop as “Russian disinformation”.

This is what the Biden spokeswoman said:

The New York Post notes:

White House press secretary Jen Psaki didn’t even bother trying to defend her past claim that The Post’s reporting on Hunter Biden’s laptop was “Russian disinformation” after the New York Times belatedly verified emails from the cache.

Psaki was pressed Thursday at her regular briefing about her own misleading remarks and those of then-candidate Joe Biden.

Psaki deflected without answering for Biden’s misinformation, which helped fuel Big Tech censorship of The Post’s reporting in the days prior to the 2020 election.

Surprise! She didn’t like being held accountable for her actions.

I blogged about the laptop on October 23, 2020. As poor as that post might have been, it was more accurate than all of the Democrat propagandists in Big Tech social media corporations and the mainstream news media outlets combined.

I don’t watch TV at all, so I don’t know what people are hearing from television about the important issues of this election. For me, there are 3 main issues. One, inflation, which is caused by Biden’s energy and spending policies. Two, Biden using the FBI as a weapon to punish his political enemies. Three, Democrats attacking parents who disagree with forced transing of their kids.

Here is the article in Daily Wire:

A Virginia Democrat lawmaker says she will introduce legislation to have parents criminally prosecuted if they do not “affirm” their child as transgender. Teachers and social workers would report parents to Child Protective Services under the bill envisioned by state Delegate Elizabeth Guzman (D-Fauquier).

[…]A similar bill was quietly introduced in 2020 by Guzman and four other Democrats immediately after they took control of the legislature in the 2019 elections. It redefined the term “abused or neglected child” to include one whose parent “inflicts, threatens to create or inflict, or allows to be created or inflicted upon such child a physical or mental injury on the basis of the child’s gender identity or sexual orientation.”

The sole Senate sponsor of the 2020 bill was Joe Morrissey, who served prison time for contributing to the delinquency of a minor after sleeping with his teenage secretary. He accepted a plea deal after initially being indicted on possession of child pornography and other charges.

I notice that Democrats at all levels of government are condemning parents who dissent from forced transing or mutilation of their children. They call such parents “domestic terrorists”, because Democrats know better than parents what is best for children. In fact, if you disagree with Democrats on these issues, they say that you will probably drive your children to suicide. So, it might be worth looking at a study about that.

Here is the study.

Summary:

Lowering legal barriers to make it easier for minors to undergo cross-sex medical interventions without parental consent does not reduce suicide rates—in fact, it likely leads to higher rates of suicide among young people in states that adopt these changes. States should instead adopt parental bills of rights that affirm the fact that parents have primary responsibility for their children’s education and health, and that require school officials and health professionals to receive permission from parents before administering health services, including medication and “gender-affirming” counseling, to children under 18. States should also tighten the criteria for receiving cross-sex treatments, including raising the minimum eligibility age.

Key points:

• U.S. policymakers are seeking to make it easier for minors to access puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones based on the claim that doing so reduces suicide risk.

• Studies finding that “gender-affirming” interventions prevent suicide fail to show a causal relationship and have been poorly executed.

• A superior research design shows that easing access to puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones by minors without parental consent increases suicide rates.

And this is the interesting part:

In the past several years, the suicide rate among those ages 12 to 23 has become significantly higher in states that have a provision that allows minors to receive routine health care without parental consent than in states without such a provision. Before 2010, these two groups of states did not differ in their youth suicide rates. Starting in 2010, when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones became widely available, elevated suicide rates in states where minors can more easily access those medical interventions became observable.

Rather than being protective against suicide, this pattern indicates that easier access by minors to cross-sex medical interventions without parental consent is associated with higher risk of suicide. The Heritage model plotted the difference in a three-year rolling average of suicide rates between states with minor access provisions and states with no such provision. Chart 2 plots the trend in this difference for those ages 12 to 23 who could have been affected by the policy when cross-sex medical interventions became available. For comparison, Chart 2 also shows the trend in this difference for a group ages 28 to 39, who could not have been affected by these policies, since the people in this group would have been at least 18 when puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones became available.

Without making any adjustments, suicide rates among those ages 12 to 23 (blue line) begin to spike in states that have provisions that allow minors to access health care without parental consent relative to states that have no such provision around 2016, after cross-sex medical interventions became more common. By 2020, there are about 3.5 more suicides per 100,000 people ages 12 to 23 in states with easier access than in states without an access provision. There is no similar spike in suicide rates among those ages 28 to 39 (grey line) at that time.

If you hadn’t read about this study, it would probably be a good idea to read about it, and share it around with other parents. Because right now, teachers, Democrat legislators, and everyone in the Democrat party are going after your kids on the grounds that you are a threat to your own children. It helps to have the data when you’re arguing this issue.

Here is the latest news on the political candidate supported by #evangelicalsForBiden, reported in Life News:

Joe Biden will make legalizing abortion on demand his top priority if Democrats win control of Congress in November, a Democrat leader said Tuesday.

The first bill that Biden will advance will be one that “codifies Roe,” the official told CNN. The president plans to make the promise in a speech Tuesday to the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C., as the midterm election approaches, according to the report.

“The first bill he will send to the next Congress will be to codify Roe — and he will sign it around the 50th anniversary of the Roe decision,” the Democratic official said.

[…]Nicknamed the Abortion Without Limits Up to Birth Act, the legislation would force states to legalize the killing of unborn babies in abortions for basically any reason through all nine months of pregnancy.

The bill, which Democrats named the Women’s Health Protection Act, also would end bans on sex-selection abortions and taxpayer-funded abortions as well as laws that protect women and girls, including parental consent for minors. It also would jeopardize legal protections for doctors and nurses who refuse to abort unborn babies.

Here is an argument for the pro-life position:

1. Deliberately targeting innocent human beings for destruction should be illegal.
2. Unborn humans are innocent human beings.
3. Therefore, deliberately targeting unborn humans for destruction should be illegal.

Premise 1 is uncontroversial.

The evidence for premise 2 comes from science. One scientist has collected the conclusions from embryology textbooks. Dr. Maureen Condic, an associate professor at the University of Utah specializes in neurobiology. She obtained her Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley. She has served on the National Science Board, and is a widely published scientist whose works have appeared in a variety of peer-reviewed journals.

Here is just one of the quotations she pulls out of the textbooks in her list:

“Human development begins at fertilization, when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

– “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology”, 10th edition.

That’s why we are pro-life. We have an argument. We have the science. We don’t override reason and evidence because some people feel sad about taking responsibility for their own actions.

Evangelicals for Biden do not accept that argument. Evangelicals for Biden accept this argument:

1. If I want to be liked by non-Christian Democrats, then I must accept abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy, and destroy the conscience rights of Christian medical workers.
2. I want to be liked by non-Christian Democrats.
3. I must accept abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy, and destroy the conscience rights of Christian medical workers.

It’s very important for rank-and-file Christians who accept the Bible’s prohibition on murder to understand that many of these charismatic Christian leaders cannot be trusted when it comes to politics and policy.

People like David French, Russell Moore, Richard Mouw, Tim Keller, John Piper, etc. did everything they could to prevent a Republican from winning the presidency in 2020. They had no part in the reversal of Roe v. Wade. That happened because of Trump’s 3 pro-life Supreme Court nominees.

When it comes to abortion, you can’t listen to the words of Big Eva elites. You have to look at their actions. And their actions support candidates like Joe Biden, who want abortion on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy, reversing all state-level restrictions and eliminating all conscience rights of pro-life health care workers.

There were two choices for president in 2020. One who had nominated 3 pro-life Supreme Court justices, and one who vowed to support abortion through all 9 months of pregnancy. Evangelicals for Biden supported Biden. Their position on abortion is Biden’s position on abortion. That’s what they really believe about abortion.

Christian voters should not listen to these weak, stupid compromised men at election time.