Biden and His Media Enablers Rewrite History, Portray Him as ‘Healer’ that Will Renew America’s Soul

Joe Biden and his media enablers are branding him as an empathic person that will “heal” the country and renew the soul of America. Except that his record contradicts this portrayal and reveals one thing: a career bureaucrat whose policies led to mass incarceration and countless deaths.

In making his case for the Crime Bill, Biden brazenly said, “We hang people for everything but jaywalking.” (The Bill provided the death penalty for more than 50 offenses, which he touted as evidence of his “tough on crime” approach.)

Biden also recounts the time someone referred to him as an “iconoclast” for his embrace of the “law and order” mantra; in fact, he scoffs at the concept of justice, saying “Whatever that means … .” He then brashly says, “Throw the SOBs in jail,” which draws ire from conservatives and liberals alike.

The Democratic mantra was law and order – with justice … whatever that meant. And I’d say, lock the SOBs up.

– Joe Biden

The 1994 Crime Bill, authored by Joe Biden, resulted not only in mass incarceration but also in a surge of for-profit private prisons. Not to mention that it included a mandatory five-year prison sentence for possession of only five grams of crack cocaine. This, along with other provisions in the bill, disproportionately affected blacks and hispanics, causing divide among families, as well as hampering the educational pursuits of juveniles and others.

Biden did more than just vote for the Iraq War; he orchestrated the Iraq war. As chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in 1998, Biden told weapons inspectors that he’s going to need them in uniform, on the ground, “taking the son of a — taking Saddam down.” He told them that removing Saddam is the only option, given that his weapons program could not be rooted out and destroyed.

During the exchange, Biden made flippant remarks to the U.N. weapons inspector, dismissing his request for additional help to carry out inspections.

“I respectfully suggest that I have a responsibility ‘slightly’ above your paygrade,” Biden said. He then added that the President and Secretary of State are the only ones qualified to make that decision.

“That’s why they make the big bucks; that’s why they get the limos, and you don’t.” Biden said. He also referred to the weapons inspector, Scott Ritter, as “Scotty Boy”; he did this while imitating the President and Secretary of State conversing about whether to continue inspections.

The catharsis candidate? You decide.

Harris Protected Predatory Catholic Priests to Get the Support of the Catholic Church

Kamala Harris Claims She’s Been a Staunch Advocate for Sexual Abuse Victims, Especially Children. As San Francisco’s District Attorney, However, She Refused to File Charges Against a Single Catholic Priest. This, Despite the Pervasive Problem of Pedophilia and Child Sex Abuse Among Catholic Church Clergy.

Harris’ Predecessor, Terence Hallinan, Had Zealously Pursued These Cases, Opening Numerous Investigations Into Predatory Catholic Priests.

Once Harris Became D.A., She Not Only Halted Investigations Into Clergy Members But Also Refused to Release Any Existing Investigative Files on Clerical Sex Abuse to Survivors, Reporters, and Activists.

Biden Voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Bill That Enriched Banks

Joe Biden was one of only three Democratic Senators to vote for the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act. The financial industry, including credit card giants like MBNA, needed the support of Democratic Senators to pass the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act, which made it difficult for consumers to file for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and easier for credit card companies to collect on debt.

The outcome? Record profits for the credit card companies at the expense of consumers.

MBNA was Biden’s largest donor, contributing nearly $200,000 during his time in the Senate. Biden’s close relationship with MBNA executives, along with his son’s role as a “consultant” at the firm, likely influenced his decision to vote in favor of the Bill. Coincidentally, his son was working as a “consultant” for MBNA between 2001 and 2005; this, at a time when MBNA and other big credit card firms and banks were lobbying for the 2005 Bankruptcy Reform Act.

Snopes’ Toxic Culture and Liberal Bias

The Story Behind the Fact Checker

Snopes can best be described this way: A fact-checking site whose founder and executive is knee deep in lies and scandal, and a former managing editor whose liberal bias is palpably evident.

Do you know how this arbiter of truth got started? In 1994, by founder David Mikkelson and his ex-wife Barbara Mikkelson out of the basement of their home in California. That’s not to say it can’t be legitimate because it was founded out of their basement, but there’s more to this tawdry tale. Hold on tight. It got a jumpstart as the first fact-checking site, focusing on urban legends or “old-wives tales,” before turning its focus to fake news and other misinformation.

Snopes has been riddled with scandal after the recent relocation of its “corporate headquarters” a few years ago to Mikkelson’s bedroom office in Tacoma, WA. To clarify, Snopes isn’t the name of the company; it’s only the name of the site. Bardav, Inc. (which Mikkelson also owns) is the parent company that owns and runs the so-called debunking site.

Mikkelson Sued for Using Corporate Funds to Wine and Dine Ex-Porn Star Wife

Mikkelson had hired Proper Media to manage a significant portion of the site, including web content and advertising accounts for Snopes. Mikkelson’s ex-wife, Barbara Mikkelson, had 50 percent ownership and sold her stake to the directors of Proper Media before divorcing Mikkelson in 2016. Shortly thereafter, Proper Media accused Mikkelson of having blocked their access to Snopes, thus making it impossible for them to manage the site as agreed on. Proper Media, in turn, withheld all advertising revenue and wouldn’t surrender the domain name, suing Bardav (Mikkelson) for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, and corporate waste.

David Mikkelson with wife and former escort, Elyssa Young.

Was Mikkelson fit to run the company? This is the basis for the suit alleging corporate waste, since after the divorce Mikkelson was allegedly embezzling company funds to pay for his divorce, and lavish trips with his new bride—Snopes employee Elyssa Young. According to multiple sources, Mikkelson’s new wife, Elyssa Young (aka “Erin O’Bryn”), is a former escort and porn actress; she also ran for Congress in Hawaii, in 2004, as a libertarian on a “dump Bush” platform. (But I’m sure this has no bearing––not even a smidgeon––on her ability to provide Mikkelson assistance when it comes to “fact-checking.”)

Elyssa Young tweets a selfie of herself wearing a Snopes tanktop while Mikkelson is being interviewed.

Here’s her Facebook page: The page has photos posted of her and Mikkelson on there. Also, she looks exactly like “Elyssa Young”; thus, Erin O’Bryn must be an alias and stage name.

Because this is still being litigated, we’ll soon learn if Mickelson did embezzle company funds to pay for legal fees and lavish trips with his former escort and adult film star wife, Elyssa Young. It’s noteworthy that Proper Media learned about the supposed embezzlement of nearly $100,000 from Mikkelson’s ex-wife, Barbara Mikkelson, in court documents related to their divorce; in other words, this isn’t a baseless allegation.

In fact, his ex-wife wrote in court filings that he “raided the … corporate bank account for his personal use and attorney fees,” and that he [David Mikkelson] “expended money on himself and the prostitutes he hired.” (Talk about a damning statement.) In sum, Mikkelson is facing contentious legal battles stemming from alleged financial misappropriation of company funds.

If the guy at the top is misappropriating funds, how can he be trusted to fact-check the news?

Former Managing Editor a Liberal Hack

The former managing editor of Snopes, Brooke Binkowski, is a liberal hack disguised as an apolitical journalist seeking the truth. In fact, she was the editor of Snopes for nearly three years––up until 2018—when she finally got fired. (I guess Mikkelson thought she was blowing their cover as the “definitive fact-checking site.”)

While editor, her tweets reveal that she’s pro-life, pro-LGBTQ rights, anti-Second Amendment, and may have a sex/porn obsession herself. Here are a few of those tweets:

This was tweeted in March 2016, while she was still editor of Snopes. Is the penis mightier than the sword? According to her, yes. It’s an unprofessional tweet from a so-called “journalist” and “managing editor” of one of the biggest fact-checking sites. Maybe that’s the Snopes culture? She’s also tweeted other messages, where she doesn’t hesitate to use other crude terms, either literally or figuratively. There’s also a picture of her with 64-year old porn star, Ron Jeremy, who’s been accused of groping multiple women. (So much for respecting women.)

Her favorite reporter, Igor Volsky, is the author of “Guns Down”—a book about how to defeat the NRA. In fact, he’s so fervently anti-gun, that he regularly tweets about the fatalities caused by mass shootings and gun violence; he also believes in banning assault weapons, bump stocks, and large magazines, at the least. Igor is also anti-Trump and has endorsed the notion that Trump colluded with Russia, and has suggested that Trump is the perfect asset for Putin to attack America. He’s not just a reporter; he’s an ideologue who happens to be Binkowski’s favorite reporter.

The owner is likely an embezzler, and the executive assistant is a former adult film star and escort who ran as a libertarian and goes by an alias. Then there’s the former managing editor, whose favorite reporter is a guy on a relentless crusade to curtail gun rights and who believes that Trump is “Russia’s best asset.” Further, the former managing editor of Snopes (for three years) is pro-choice, taking jabs at preachers on Tweeter and even blaming the election of Trump for emboldening “white nationalists.” Binkowski believes that his election has emboldened anti-abortion whites to rear their “white nationalists” heads.

In the words of David Mikkelson: 

“The Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post. Your crazy cousin’s blog. It all looks the same. A picture with a headline and subject. Before, they were relegated to a soapbox on street corners or drafting a newsletter. Now anybody can throw up a website.”

And sir, your website is no exception.

Will Trump Be Impeached?

Let me tell you a secret. It’s a secret because the only way you find out about it is if you follow Trump on Twitter. (That’s how slanted and unfair the media portrays his Presidency and accomplishments.)

As much as the MSM bashes DJT, legislators in both chambers know he has strong grassroots appeal, and a strong approval rating (almost 90 percent) among Republicans. This isn’t meant to be partisan; these are just facts. Further, the unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been in decades, and we aren’t at war. That’s a good combo.

Here’s what impeachment means: to charge [a public official] with a crime or misdemeanor.

Logically, the next question is this: How do you impeach a president?

Members of Congress in the House vote to impeach, or otherwise bring charges of criminal misconduct against the President. All that’s needed is a majority of members of Congress to bring charges.

Next, you need two-thirds of the Senate, a “supermajority,” to convict the president and thus have him removed.

The odds of the Democrats in Congress bringing articles of Impeachment against Trump is about as likely as you winning a scratch off for any amount over $20,000 tomorrow. It’s not going to happen.

Let me explain.

As I mentioned, he has incredible approval ratings among Republicans, the economy is doing great, and we aren’t at war. Besides, there is no way that the Republican-controlled Senate would convict.

The Democrats know right now that he’s done nothing criminal, so they’re trying to compel him to release his tax returns to find something. Of course, there’s no way you can compel the president to release his returns. Thus, Democrats can bring charges, but it’ll be futile, and political suicide. The Senate won’t convict, and there is no evidence that Trump has done anything criminal. The Russia thing turned out to be a “nothing burger,” as predicted by even CNN. (Yes … it was Van Jones.)

Trying to compel someone to be removed just shows desperation, and fits the narrative that this is a witchhunt.