Tag Archives: China

Tucker Carlson plays (alleged) audio recording of Biden China deal

Rob Walker is RW and James Gilliar is JG
H is Hunter Biden, RW is Rob Walker, JG is James Gilliar

Tucker Carlson played more (alleged) audio of parties to the Biden-China deal on Wednesday night. The new audio documents how scared the parties were that their scheme would be discovered. Later on in the post, I’ll show how Hunter himself wanted to avoid suspicion by not registering as a foreign agent. And we’ll also see what law enforcement thinks of the Biden scandals.

First Daily Wire:

Fox News host Tucker Carlson released new purported audio recordings from alleged Biden family business partners fretting about the possibility that the Hunter Biden laptop-email controversy would get into the media and that, if someone verified it, it would blow up “big time.”

“You’re are about to hear Rob Walker and James Gilliar, those are two of the Biden family’s business partners, on a call with Tony Bobulinski,” Carlson said. “They’re discussing how very worried they are that this story, the one we’re talking about now, would emerge into the press, that it would become public. And they wanted to figure out how to handle the fallout from that. This audio is very new.”

Carlson played the following alleged audio files:

Rob Walker: I just think that if somebody comes out now and verifies the story, it blows up big time. That’s all.

James Gilliar: We’ve got this situation now where it’s escalating again because somebody, allegedly one of us three, has qualified the story, and already it’s back on the front pages.

“Also on that call, Tony Bobulinski pleaded with his partners to just tell the truth,” Carlson continued. “Just go ahead and tell the truth. Same thing he said during our interview last night. Instead of lying, Rob Walker and James Gilliar can come out and admit what happened—Hunter Biden was selling access to his father. Everyone knows that; why deny it?”

So, where are we at in verifying all of these documents right now? The U.S. Senate is currently investigating, and the FBI has possession of the Hunter Biden laptop.

The Daily Caller reports:

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has been successful in verifying all materials reviewed so far from Hunter Biden’s ex-business partner Tony Bobulinski, the Daily Caller has learned.

Committee Chairman Sen. Ron Johnson will not call Bobulinski to testify before the November 3 elections, as the committee is working to review all the information provided to the committee by Bobulinski. The information has to be verified, as it is subject to the same false information to Congress laws that verbal or written testimony does. However, a Johnson spokesperson told the Caller that all the material provided by Bobulinski that has been reviewed so far has turned out to be legitimate. The committee has “also” not come across any “signs” or evidence to suggest the content is false, the spokesperson added.

Bobulinski, who said Tuesday he believes “Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised” in an interview with Fox News host Tucker Carlson, has turned over evidence to the FBI alleging he met twice in the past with the former vice president in regards to business with his son Hunter. The Biden family has not yet disputed this information.

I blogged about the first interview of Tony Bobulinski (TB, in the e-mail snapshot above this post) yesterday. If you didn’t see the full show he did with Tucker, the video is linked in my post from yesterday.

The next step in the verification process is for Bobuliniski to come before the Senate Homeland Security Committee to answer questions. Then we will really get to the bottom of things. I’m hoping this happens before election day. I know the mainstream media and Big Technology aren’t going to publicize the evidence, but I intend to.

Anyway, another Senate committee is investigating Hunter Biden for failure to declare his activities with foreigners.

Real Clear Investigations explains:

The Foreign Agents Registration Act requires anyone who is lobbying the government or doing public relations work in the U.S. on behalf of a foreigner to register his or her precise activities — as well as compensation — in a public filing with Justice, which ensures Americans are given notice of any actions by foreigners to influence public opinion, policies or elected officials.

[…]The Senate Finance Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, is actively investigating Hunter Biden’s possible non-compliance with the FARA statute, according to a spokesman.

“Chairman Grassley is continuing to review developments surrounding Hunter Biden’s foreign-influence arrangements to determine whether any potential violation occurred,” Grassley spokesman Taylor Foy said, adding that staff investigators are combing through the trove of emails found on Hunter’s laptop.

Asked if they are preparing to refer the matter to Justice for criminal investigation, Foy said, “We haven’t reached that point at the moment, but we are actively looking at the material with FARA in mind.”

I find it interesting that the Obama administration used FARA to attack Republicans, but it was never used against any Democrats:

“Starting in 2016, the previous administration used FARA and the criminal justice system as tools to attack and eliminate the opposition,” said FBI veteran Michael Biasello. “If Biden gets in, the same elements will be back in charge and make sure those tools won’t be turned on themselves.”

One more reason to vote for Trump-Pence on Tuesday.

 

Whistleblower Tony Bobulinski: Joe Biden knew about Hunter Biden’s China deal

10 held by H for the Big Guy
10 held by H for the Big Guy

The mainstream news media, Big Technology and the so-called “fact checkers” have been interfering with the election by covering up the truth about Hunter Biden’s deals with foreign countries. But on Tuesday night, journalist Tucker Carlson of Fox News, who has the top cable-news show, invited the Biden whistleblower onto his show for an unprecedented ONE HOUR tell-all interview.

You can watch the interview and read the transcript here.

Here’s the story from a variety of sources.

The Federalist:

Tony Bobulinski, a former Naval officer and ex-Biden family business associate who provided documentation and testimony that the Biden family was deeply involved in foreign business dealings with China, said that former Vice President Joe Biden is lying about his knowledge of his son’s business deals.

“This is a company with direct connections to the communist government of China,” said Fox News’ Tucker Carlson during an interview with Bobulinski Tuesday. “So the former vice president has said he had no knowledge whatsoever of his son’s business dealings and was not involved in them at all? But this sounds like direct involvement.”

“That’s a blatant lie when he states that,” Bobulinski said. “It’s a blatant lie.”

[…]Bobulinski confirmed last week in a public statement emailed to The Federalist and other outlets the incriminating claims published by the New York Post. He also corroborated a Senate report published in September on the Biden family’s potentially criminal business activity.

“Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing,” wrote Bobulinski, substantiating that the identity of “the Big Guy’ in a May 17, 2017, email published in the New York Post is a reference to holding 10 percent for Joe Biden.

It was in this email that a Chinese businessman with deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party offered Hunter Biden $3 million a year for “introductions alone.”

Daily Wire noted that China’s knowledge of the history between CEFC and the Biden family could expose Joe to foreign influence, which could greatly impact the security and prosperity of Americans. Joe Biden’s greed provided the Chinese Communists with information that could later be used to pressure him if he became elected president.

“What are the implications of this going forward?” Carlson asked. “If Joe Biden is elected president, which could very well happen, how does this constrain his ability to deal with China?”

[…]“So, I think Joe Biden and the Biden family are compromised,” Bobulinski responded. “Obviously, I’d reference that I held a Q clearance, you’re briefed on compromise and who you’re able to talk with and deal and do business with.”

“And I just don’t see, given the history here and the facts, how Joe can’t be influenced in some manner based on the history that they have here with CEFC and stuff like that,” Bobulinski continued. “So as a citizen and an American taxpayer, I’m very, very concerned.”

When the Biden family became aware that Tony Bobulinski intended to go public on the story, he was pressured to keep quiet.

Daily Wire:

“The Biden family knew that you were going public with this,” Fox News host Tucker Carlson said. “And you spoke to Rob Walker about it – again, the self-described Biden family representative – and Biden family, meaning Joe Biden as well – what was his response when you let him know that you were going public with this?”

“Trying to coach me,” Bobulinksi responded. “Trying to sort of say, hey, we don’t want to do that, we don’t want press trucks out in front of our house. I’m going to have to move; I could lose my job, and all of that – you know, I’m not trying to cause harm to anyone in this situation let alone Rob Walker and his family, James Gilliar and his family.”

“But basically, Rob’s position was, if you go on record with all these facts, you’ll bury all of us,” Bobulinksi continued.

So, now we know for certain.

In the past week, Facebook and Twitter censored stories about Hunter Biden’s business deals, because they want Joe Biden to win the election. They employed “fact checks” from biased left-wing journalists to punish anyone who tried to tell the truth about the story. I was personally punished with multiple page quality violations, which resulted in “reduced distribution”, i.e. – they censored me (and others) to prevent criticism of Joe Biden.

Remember to vote on November 3rd.

Abortion debate: a secular case against legalized abortion

Unborn baby scheming about being only two months old
Unborn baby scheming about being only two months old

Note: this post has a twin! Its companion post on a secular case against gay marriage is here.

Now, you may think that the view that the unborn deserve protection during pregnancy is something that you either take on faith or not. But I want to explain how you can make a case for the right to life of the unborn, just by using reason and evidence.

To defend the pro-life position, I think you need to sustain 3 arguments:

  1. The unborn is a living being with human DNA, and is therefore human.
  2. There is no morally-relevant difference between an unborn baby, and one already born.
  3. None of the justifications given for terminating an unborn baby are morally adequate.

Now, the pro-abortion debater may object to point 1, perhaps by claiming that the unborn baby is either not living, or not human, or not distinct from the mother.

Defending point 1: Well, it is pretty obvious that the unborn child is not inanimate matter. It is definitely living and growing through all 9 months of pregnancy. (Click here for a video that shows what a baby looks like through all 9 months of pregnancy). Since it has human DNA, that makes it a human. And its DNA is different from either its mother or father, so it clearly not just a tissue growth of the father or the mother. More on this point at Christian Cadre, here. An unborn child cannot be the woman’s own body, because then the woman would have four arms, four legs, two heads, four eyes and two different DNA signatures. When you have two different human DNA signatures, you have two different humans.

Secondly, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the unborn that is not yet present or developed while it is still in the womb, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, it does not deserve the protection of the law.

Defending point 2: You need to show that the unborn are not different from the already-born in any meaningful way. The main differences between them are: size, level of development, environment and degree of dependence. Once these characteristics are identified, you can explain that none of these differences provide moral justification for terminating a life. For example, babies inside and outside the womb have the same value, because location does not change a human’s intrinsic value.

Additionally, the pro-abortion debater may try to identify a characteristic of the already-born that is not yet present or developed in the unborn, and then argue that because the unborn does not have that characteristic, that it does not deserve protection, (e.g. – sentience). Most of the these objections that you may encounter are refuted in this essay by Francis Beckwith. Usually these objections fall apart because they assume the thing they are trying to prove, namely, that the unborn deserves less protection than the already born.

Finally, the pro-abortion debater may conceded your points 1 and 2, and admit that the unborn is fully human. But they may then try to provide a moral justification for terminating the life of the unborn, regardless.

Defending point 3: I fully grant that it is sometimes justifiable to terminate an innocent human life, if there is a moral justification. Is there such a justification for abortion? One of the best known attempts to justify abortion is Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “violinist” argument. This argument is summarized by Paul Manata, one of the experts over at Triablogue:

Briefly, this argument goes like this: Say a world-famous violinist developed a fatal kidney ailment and the Society of Music Lovers found that only you had the right blood-type to help. So, they therefore have you kidnapped and then attach you to the violinist’s circulatory system so that your kidneys can be used to extract the poison from his. To unplug yourself from the violinist would be to kill him; therefore, pro-lifers would say a person has to stay attached against her will to the violinist for 9 months. Thompson says that it would be morally virtuous to stay plugged-in. But she asks, “Do you have to?” She appeals to our intuitions and answers, “No.”

Manata then goes on to defeat Thomson’s proposal here, with a short, memorable illustration, which I highly recommend that you check out. More info on how to respond to similar arguments is here.

Here is the best book for beginners on the pro-life view.

For those looking for advanced resources, Francis Beckwith, a professor at Baylor University, published the book Defending Life, with Cambridge University Press, 2007.