bonginoreport--2020-10-22--Antifa Gearing Up to Cause Chaos Post-Election, Promise to “Shut Down” Capitol

When , in 2008 , then-candidate Barack Obama ’ s career as a community organizer was lampooned at the Republican National Convention , few understood what the words meant .
Most sympathetic voices in the media stressed “ community , ” evoking images of soup kitchens , clinics , and shelters .
Republicans had every reason to look more darkly at what this kind of work meant and , probably due to Obama ’ s race , were inclined to associate the candidate ’ s time “ organizing ” in Chicago with New York racial demagogues and shakedown-artists like Al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the mark , but the full truth was deeper and considerably more sophisticated ; left-wing organizing is a robust intellectual universe .
Thanks largely to talk radio , conservatives soon learned the name Saul Alinsky and began to digest his now-infamous Rules for Radicals .
After several brilliant investigative pieces into Obama ’ s time among left-wing organizing meccas like the Northwest Academy , Stanley Kurtz wrote the valuable Radical-in-Chief .
Unfortunately , for much of the public , the thread frayed shortly after the election that November ; emboldened by Democratic control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ newly elected Obama would use what he ’ d learned from Chicago activism to instigate and win battles on more pressing political issues .
For those eight years , the organizing ecosystem that would eventually erupt into Antifa and Black Lives Matter street violence and direct-action grew in strength , sophistication , and funding .
Obama ’ s own career in Chicago should ’ ve been a kind of clue : the former president served on the boards of Public Allies , the Woods Fund of Chicago , and the Joyce Foundation , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollars to various local left-wing groups—some of which themselves were organizing for street-level direct action .
Antifa , of course , is far more than an “ idea ” —even as ideas , themselves , can be serious threats with which it is necessary to contend .
But it is also far more than just an organization .
Even as it traces its origins to pre-war Germany , one might think of “ Antifa ” as a relatively new product line from a larger industry that has existed for decades .
That industry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and organizing , with its own history , pedagogy , institutions , as well as tens of thousands of career professionals operating in the open , and funded every bit as well as the staid network of establishment conservative think tanks and magazines that tend to cluster along the Acela corridor .
Writing at the American Mind last month , Michael Anton , author of The Stakes : America at the Point of No Return , brought attention to a war game report issued by the Transition Integrity Project , an ad hoc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Integrity Project .
Anton ’ s widely read essay , “ The Coming Coup ?
” was heavily discussed on social media and by conservative talk show hosts including Dan Bongino , Mark Levin , Rush Limbaugh , and Glenn Beck .
What conservatives found so alarming was that the Transition Integrity Project urged Trump ’ s opponents to wage a “ street fight , not a legal one ” in the near-certain event of a contested election .
In other words , forces arrayed against the president ’ s reelection should abandon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of election victory not on the Constitution-mandated quest for the most electoral votes , but upon the street mobilization and direct-action capabilities of Antifa and the Left ’ s other professionally-staffed organizing groups .
As a heavily contested Election Day approaches , it is crucial for both conservative activists and officials in law enforcement to understand that left-wing organizing for direct-action and “ nonviolent ” civil disobedience is being planned by career organizing professionals working within well-funded , interlocking organizations .
Americans watching videos of Black Bloc activists tearing apart Portland , Seattle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results of thousands of training sessions , budgets in the tens of millions , and a carefully mapped radicalization process as extensive as those used by Islamists or any other ideological on-ramp toward extremism .
For tactical reasons , much of the expected actions will take place in heavily Democratic cities—as well as in the nation ’ s capital .
Breitbart ’ s Joel Pollack recently identified a document called “ Stopping the Coup : The 2020 Guide , ” distributed by one such group , Shutdown DC .
As he notes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ guide by The Disruption Project , seeking to use , in its words , “ uprisings , resistance and mass direct action ” in order to prevent President Trump from “ stealing ” the election .
Shut Down DC was founded in 2019 as a coalition of DC-based direct-action groups , initially launched around the climate change agenda , and focused primarily on agitating for the Green New Deal .
The group was sponsored by All Out DC , a local Antifa group with a professed objective of , according to its Twitter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Plantation.
” The group ’ s ambitions are greater than the November election , of course ; its members are not simply Democratic partisans .
The Disruption Project urges its supporters to “ stand up and take action against the unjust systems of racial capitalism , the heteropatriarchy , white supremacy and settler colonialism.
” Its more immediate goals include an effort to While Anton and others have been attacked by the New York Times for warning of a “ coup ” when reporting on scenarios laid out by groups like the Transition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word far more liberally .
Possibly due to polling , many if not most of these organizers have foreclosed the idea of a legitimate Trump victory .
And , thanks to a highly partisan and disciplined media , they have also foreclosed the possibility of voter fraud .
Any legitimate objections or potential lawsuits challenging election law violations or seeking to identify alleged voter fraud will be seen as totalitarian election meddling .
In this understanding , any Trump victory will be treated as a “ coup.
” This is a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ documents and statements from anti-Trump partisans in left-wing organizing and media alike , from more mainstream groups like the Transition Integrity Project to Antifa .
A candidate being declared the projected victor—what was once a completely normal tradition of America ’ s election night drama—has been transmogrified , through intense hatred of the president and indulgence in projection , into an authoritarian scheme justifying extraordinary measures .
It ’ s unsurprising , then , that groups like Shut Down DC plan demonstrations beginning on Election Day .
It proposes an initial occupation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the evening of the election , November 3 .
Shut Down DC plans multiple disruption operations from November 4-7 , aimed at preventing the Trump campaign from declaring an election day victory .
From November 8-11 , the focus shifts to Capitol Hill , as Congress is expected to return for the lame-duck session .
The days and weeks leading up to the election are crucial , too .
In an October 8 update on planning operations , Shut Down DC offered a timeline urging affinity groups to begin scouting targets , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state , and federal law enforcement tasked with responding to upcoming unrest should be particularly aware of individuals conducting surveillance and reconnaissance of likely targets within the next 7-14 days .
The project has been soliciting and recruiting affinity groups seeking to participate .
The online registration form coyly warns participants not to include any “ incriminating ” information about their plans .
As recently as last year , Shut Down DC ’ s directors were Liz Butler and Patrick Young , both veteran professional organizers with decades of experience between them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth ’ s Vice President of Organizing and Strategic Alliances , Butler played a role in Inauguration Day protests against President George W. Bush in 2001 .
She also assisted in organizing IMF protests a year later , leading to over 600 arrests , as protesters targeted multiple locations throughout the city , and threw rocks and smoke bombs at police .
Washington , D.C. was subsequently sued for its aggressive ( though largely effective ) crowd dispersal tactics in a long-running case that was finally settled in 2016 .
Shut Down DC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , markets himself as a professional direct-action organizer for hire , offering “ training , action support , strategic research , and digital campaign support.
” After a stint at the Service Employees International Union ( SEIU ) , America ’ s second-largest labor union , Young is currently employed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters .
On his LinkedIn page , he touts his volunteer experience with the Continental Collective of Rising Tide North America , an environmental direct-action group .
On his website , Young writes about “ Where and How @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He ends the piece by warning , The language is identical to that which appears in Shut Down DC ’ s “ Timeline to a Meltdown , ” highlighting the perceived need to “ take to the streets ” in response to an apparent Trump victory on election night .
It is not clear whether Young or his group envision any scenario in which President Trump is reelected fairly—or whether such a victory would influence his commitment to seeing him removed from office .
Meanwhile , the group boasts of an October 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fithian .
She previously played a role with Disrupt J20 , the effort to interrupt the Trump Inauguration Day ceremony , and became infamous for her roles in the 2008 Republican National Convention , Occupy Wall Street and the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson , Missouri .
The Shut Down DC document cites another document on the effort to influence the post-election situation , entitled , “ Hold The Line : A Guide to Defending Democracy , ” authored by Hardy Merriman , Ankur Asthana , Marium Navid , and Kifah Shah @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Hold the Line , is advertising a series of two-day training seminars conducted on Zoom , over the course of the next two weeks .
“ Hold the Line ” mirrors Shut Down DC in its timeline and scenarios in some ways but differs in style and some substance .
While Shut Down DC is clearly aimed at bringing hardcore anarchist and Antifa affinity groups into the streets , “ Hold the Line ” appears to be aimed at a slightly less radical audience ; unlike the Disruption Project document , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Unlike most other Antifa and Resistance tracts , the document at least pays lip service to the integrity of the voter ’ s choice in the election , conceding the possibility that Trump could win legitimately , and that victory should be accepted .
Yet the authors of “ Hold the Line ” —identifying themselves as , “ researchers , organizers , and activists who ’ ve seen how people-powered movements have protected freedom and democracy around the world ” —propose several future scenarios calling for “ civil resistance , ” including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ declare victory on election night .
The document quotes from the Transition Integrity Project as part of its justification for “ civil resistance.
” Like Shut Down DC and countless other left-wing organizing groups , the authors of “ Hold the Line ” are veteran professionals in what they do .
The document ’ s chapter on “ civil resistance ” was authored by Hardy Merriman , the president and CEO of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict ( ICNC ) .
One might say that helping to train activists to overthrow governments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Founded by Peter Ackerman , an investment banker who Business Insider called “ notoriously secretive , ” ICNC is an international nonprofit that specializes in training activists to overthrow governments—including playing a key role in training activists responsible for ousting U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak in the 2011 Arab Spring revolution in Egypt .
Merriman transferred to ICNC from the Albert Einstein Institute , another activist training operation founded by Ackerman and the “ Machiavelli of non-violence ” Gene Sharp known for his role in theories promoting “ Color Revolutions.
” Meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both employees of M+R Strategic Services , one of a constellation of progressive public relations firms focusing on supporting progressive non-profit organizations .
M+R appears to be providing some level of media support for the “ Hold the Line ” project , given that it held a roundtable promoting the guide .
Like Shutdown DC ’ s Patrick Young , Navid worked at SEIU prior to working with M+R , as a digital organizer .
She got her start in the organizing field as the Communication Coordinator for the Los Angeles chapter of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , Kifah Shah is currently the senior campaign manager for Mpower Change .
Its executive director is notorious Islamist activist and former Women ’ s March leader Linda Sarsour , known for anti-Semitism and calling for a “ jihad ” against President Trump .
The two groups are curious in their similarities and differences .
While the Shutdown DC group appears to be made up of environmental anarchists—and sponsored by a self-described Antifa group—its organizers are seasoned and professionally-trained , and at least one is a union organizer .
“ Hold the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; it draws its organizers from the non-profit advocacy and digital tech worlds .
Because of its focus on nonviolent street action and mobilization , this document appears to be targeting liberals closer to the mainstream .
These two approaches—tailored to two specific types of audiences along the radicalization path—work together in what left-wing organizers have long called , “ diversity of tactics.
” Without using the term , the authors of “ Stopping the Coup : The 2020 Guide ” addressed this point .
Participants in nonviolent efforts must not be made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ others in the coalition .
Rather than a moral or ethical objection to violence , this is a strategy that allows both violent and non-violent approaches to exist on a continuum .
While politicians , law enforcement , and even some conservative commentators may criticize Antifa and other violent direct-action anarchists , all are publicly insisting that Antifa are merely unwanted agitators in the midst of legitimate protests .
But this is wrong .
In any given protest , the “ agitators ” and the “ legitimate protestors ” are , instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exist in a symbiotic relationship , and may even share overt memorandums regarding agreement on tactics .
While Antifa relies upon the mass protest in order to hide among the crowd , the public destruction committed by Antifa draws attention and adds urgency to the political demands of the larger movement .
At their roots , both expressions of what could be called the Antifa industry are staffed with professionals preparing to engage in profoundly illegitimate revolutionary street politics .
Their radicalization long precedes the politics of 2020 ; at the leadership level @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system “ fascist ” for decades before the candidacy of Donald Trump .
They are veterans of countless far-left radical causes , protest events , and political warfare communications efforts .
And they ’ re good at what they do .
Come November 3 , we are likely to see the full force of this industry at work .
The media will show the streets appear to creak with both Antifa agitators and protestors , possibly with claimed numbers in the millions .
It will be said they are normal , patriotic Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Donald Trump .
Conservatives must be prepared to recognize what they are seeing as a form of theater—the product of decades of infrastructure , tens of millions of dollars in funding , and the work of tens of thousands of direct-action tacticians , public relations flaks , and professional organizers .
An elaborate stage show is being choreographed right now to play out on America ’ s streets designed to convince both regular citizens and opinion-makers that a scary authoritarian regime has just seized power and extraordinary measures are justified in removing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

When, in 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama’s career as a community organizer was lampooned at the Republican National Convention, few understood what the words meant. Most sympathetic voices in the media stressed “community,” evoking images of soup kitchens, clinics, and shelters. Republicans had every reason to look more darkly at what this kind of work meant and, probably due to Obama’s race, were inclined to associate the candidate’s time “organizing” in Chicago with New York racial demagogues and shakedown-artists like Al Sharpton.
That description was closer to the mark, but the full truth was deeper and considerably more sophisticated; left-wing organizing is a robust intellectual universe. Thanks largely to talk radio, conservatives soon learned the name Saul Alinsky and began to digest his now-infamous Rules for Radicals.
After several brilliant investigative pieces into Obama’s time among left-wing organizing meccas like the Northwest Academy, Stanley Kurtz wrote the valuable Radical-in-Chief. Unfortunately, for much of the public, the thread frayed shortly after the election that November; emboldened by Democratic control of both houses of Congress, the newly elected Obama would use what he’d learned from Chicago activism to instigate and win battles on more pressing political issues.
For those eight years, the organizing ecosystem that would eventually erupt into Antifa and Black Lives Matter street violence and direct-action grew in strength, sophistication, and funding. Obama’s own career in Chicago should’ve been a kind of clue: the former president served on the boards of Public Allies, the Woods Fund of Chicago, and the Joyce Foundation, which together distributed tens of millions of dollars to various local left-wing groups—some of which themselves were organizing for street-level direct action.
Antifa, of course, is far more than an “idea”—even as ideas, themselves, can be serious threats with which it is necessary to contend. But it is also far more than just an organization. Even as it traces its origins to pre-war Germany, one might think of “Antifa” as a relatively new product line from a larger industry that has existed for decades. That industry is the giant ecosystem of left-wing direct-action and organizing, with its own history, pedagogy, institutions, as well as tens of thousands of career professionals operating in the open, and funded every bit as well as the staid network of establishment conservative think tanks and magazines that tend to cluster along the Acela corridor.
Writing at the American Mind last month, Michael Anton, author of The Stakes: America at the Point of No Return, brought attention to a war game report issued by the Transition Integrity Project, an ad hoc group associated with the George Soros-funded Democracy Integrity Project. Anton’s widely read essay, “The Coming Coup?” was heavily discussed on social media and by conservative talk show hosts including Dan Bongino, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck.
What conservatives found so alarming was that the Transition Integrity Project urged Trump’s opponents to wage a “street fight, not a legal one” in the near-certain event of a contested election. In other words, forces arrayed against the president’s reelection should abandon the American political system—and pin their hopes of election victory not on the Constitution-mandated quest for the most electoral votes, but upon the street mobilization and direct-action capabilities of Antifa and the Left’s other professionally-staffed organizing groups.
As a heavily contested Election Day approaches, it is crucial for both conservative activists and officials in law enforcement to understand that left-wing organizing for direct-action and “nonviolent” civil disobedience is being planned by career organizing professionals working within well-funded, interlocking organizations.
“Uprisings, Resistance, and Mass Direct Action”
Americans watching videos of Black Bloc activists tearing apart Portland, Seattle, or other cities are seeing the results of thousands of training sessions, budgets in the tens of millions, and a carefully mapped radicalization process as extensive as those used by Islamists or any other ideological on-ramp toward extremism.
For tactical reasons, much of the expected actions will take place in heavily Democratic cities—as well as in the nation’s capital. Breitbart’s Joel Pollack recently identified a document called “Stopping the Coup: The 2020 Guide,” distributed by one such group, Shutdown DC. As he notes, it is described as an organizing how-to guide by The Disruption Project, seeking to use, in its words, “uprisings, resistance and mass direct action” in order to prevent President Trump from “stealing” the election.
Shut Down DC was founded in 2019 as a coalition of DC-based direct-action groups, initially launched around the climate change agenda, and focused primarily on agitating for the Green New Deal. The group was sponsored by All Out DC, a local Antifa group with a professed objective of, according to its Twitter profile, “Burn Down the American Plantation.”
The group’s ambitions are greater than the November election, of course; its members are not simply Democratic partisans. The Disruption Project urges its supporters to “stand up and take action against the unjust systems of racial capitalism, the heteropatriarchy, white supremacy and settler colonialism.” Its more immediate goals include an effort to
dismantle the systems that uphold structural racism and win reparations for Black folks, win some sort of repatriation of land to indigenous people, create an open US border and an end to imperialism, and a just transition out of a destructive economy.
While Anton and others have been attacked by the New York Times for warning of a “coup” when reporting on scenarios laid out by groups like the Transition Integrity Project, these left-wing groups use the word far more liberally. Possibly due to polling, many if not most of these organizers have foreclosed the idea of a legitimate Trump victory. And, thanks to a highly partisan and disciplined media, they have also foreclosed the possibility of voter fraud. Any legitimate objections or potential lawsuits challenging election law violations or seeking to identify alleged voter fraud will be seen as totalitarian election meddling.
In this understanding, any Trump victory will be treated as a “coup.” This is a new and radical thread that runs through similar documents and statements from anti-Trump partisans in left-wing organizing and media alike, from more mainstream groups like the Transition Integrity Project to Antifa. A candidate being declared the projected victor—what was once a completely normal tradition of America’s election night drama—has been transmogrified, through intense hatred of the president and indulgence in projection, into an authoritarian scheme justifying extraordinary measures.
It’s unsurprising, then, that groups like Shut Down DC plan demonstrations beginning on Election Day. It proposes an initial occupation of Black Lives Matter Square in Washington on the evening of the election, November 3. Shut Down DC plans multiple disruption operations from November 4-7, aimed at preventing the Trump campaign from declaring an election day victory. From November 8-11, the focus shifts to Capitol Hill, as Congress is expected to return for the lame-duck session.
Timeline to a Meltdown
The days and weeks leading up to the election are crucial, too. In an October 8 update on planning operations, Shut Down DC offered a timeline urging affinity groups to begin scouting targets, and making preparations—beginning this week. Local, state, and federal law enforcement tasked with responding to upcoming unrest should be particularly aware of individuals conducting surveillance and reconnaissance of likely targets within the next 7-14 days. The project has been soliciting and recruiting affinity groups seeking to participate. The online registration form coyly warns participants not to include any “incriminating” information about their plans.
As recently as last year, Shut Down DC’s directors were Liz Butler and Patrick Young, both veteran professional organizers with decades of experience between them. As environmental activist group Friends of the Earth’s Vice President of Organizing and Strategic Alliances, Butler played a role in Inauguration Day protests against President George W. Bush in 2001. She also assisted in organizing IMF protests a year later, leading to over 600 arrests, as protesters targeted multiple locations throughout the city, and threw rocks and smoke bombs at police. Washington, D.C. was subsequently sued for its aggressive (though largely effective) crowd dispersal tactics in a long-running case that was finally settled in 2016.
Shut Down DC’s other director, Patrick Young, markets himself as a professional direct-action organizer for hire, offering “training, action support, strategic research, and digital campaign support.” After a stint at the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), America’s second-largest labor union, Young is currently employed by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. On his LinkedIn page, he touts his volunteer experience with the Continental Collective of Rising Tide North America, an environmental direct-action group.
On his website, Young writes about “Where and How” election chaos will play out. He ends the piece by warning,
those of us who are committed to seeing Donald Trump removed from office should start organizing now to fight back against the Trump administration’s systematic efforts at voter suppression, hit the streets in key states where election outcomes are likely to be contested, and be ready to take bold direct action to bring Washington, DC to a standstill if Trump refuses to concede.
The language is identical to that which appears in Shut Down DC’s “Timeline to a Meltdown,” highlighting the perceived need to “take to the streets” in response to an apparent Trump victory on election night. It is not clear whether Young or his group envision any scenario in which President Trump is reelected fairly—or whether such a victory would influence his commitment to seeing him removed from office.
Meanwhile, the group boasts of an October 20 training session by veteran anarchist organizer Lisa Fithian. She previously played a role with Disrupt J20, the effort to interrupt the Trump Inauguration Day ceremony, and became infamous for her roles in the 2008 Republican National Convention, Occupy Wall Street and the Black Lives Matter protests in Ferguson, Missouri.
The Shut Down DC document cites another document on the effort to influence the post-election situation, entitled, “Hold The Line: A Guide to Defending Democracy,” authored by Hardy Merriman, Ankur Asthana, Marium Navid, and Kifah Shah. The group built around the guide, Hold the Line, is advertising a series of two-day training seminars conducted on Zoom, over the course of the next two weeks.
“Hold the Line” mirrors Shut Down DC in its timeline and scenarios in some ways but differs in style and some substance. While Shut Down DC is clearly aimed at bringing hardcore anarchist and Antifa affinity groups into the streets, “Hold the Line” appears to be aimed at a slightly less radical audience; unlike the Disruption Project document, it urges its readers to avoid property damage. Unlike most other Antifa and Resistance tracts, the document at least pays lip service to the integrity of the voter’s choice in the election, conceding the possibility that Trump could win legitimately, and that victory should be accepted.
Yet the authors of “Hold the Line”—identifying themselves as, “researchers, organizers, and activists who’ve seen how people-powered movements have protected freedom and democracy around the world”—propose several future scenarios calling for “civil resistance,” including in the event that Trump attempts to declare victory on election night. The document quotes from the Transition Integrity Project as part of its justification for “civil resistance.”
Like Shut Down DC and countless other left-wing organizing groups, the authors of “Hold the Line” are veteran professionals in what they do. The document’s chapter on “civil resistance” was authored by Hardy Merriman, the president and CEO of the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC).
Professional Revolutionaries
One might say that helping to train activists to overthrow governments is quite literally Merriman’s profession. Founded by Peter Ackerman, an investment banker who Business Insider called “notoriously secretive,” ICNC is an international nonprofit that specializes in training activists to overthrow governments—including playing a key role in training activists responsible for ousting U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak in the 2011 Arab Spring revolution in Egypt. Merriman transferred to ICNC from the Albert Einstein Institute, another activist training operation founded by Ackerman and the “Machiavelli of non-violence” Gene Sharp known for his role in theories promoting “Color Revolutions.”
Meanwhile, authors Marium Navid and Ankur Asthana are both employees of M+R Strategic Services, one of a constellation of progressive public relations firms focusing on supporting progressive non-profit organizations. M+R appears to be providing some level of media support for the “Hold the Line” project, given that it held a roundtable promoting the guide. Like Shutdown DC’s Patrick Young, Navid worked at SEIU prior to working with M+R, as a digital organizer. She got her start in the organizing field as the Communication Coordinator for the Los Angeles chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations. Finally, Kifah Shah is currently the senior campaign manager for Mpower Change. Its executive director is notorious Islamist activist and former Women’s March leader Linda Sarsour, known for anti-Semitism and calling for a “jihad” against President Trump.
The two groups are curious in their similarities and differences. While the Shutdown DC group appears to be made up of environmental anarchists—and sponsored by a self-described Antifa group—its organizers are seasoned and professionally-trained, and at least one is a union organizer. “Hold the Line” is more academic in appearance; it draws its organizers from the non-profit advocacy and digital tech worlds. Because of its focus on nonviolent street action and mobilization, this document appears to be targeting liberals closer to the mainstream.
These two approaches—tailored to two specific types of audiences along the radicalization path—work together in what left-wing organizers have long called, “diversity of tactics.” Without using the term, the authors of “Stopping the Coup: The 2020 Guide” addressed this point.
It’s important to locate strategic thinking, and offer strategic tools at the grassroots level. If our different organizations, crews, and affinity groups have a shared understanding of the strategy involved we can accommodate different tactics, different groups taking lead on actions at different times, and trust that individual participants and organizers can move with confidence that they are furthering movement goals. This doesn’t mean that every group you try to organize with immediately will be the right fit for the fight. It’s ok to set an agenda and invite participation and allow groups to choose. (Emphasis added.)
An Elaborate Show
Participants in nonviolent efforts must not be made to directly condemn the violent direct-actions of others in the coalition. Rather than a moral or ethical objection to violence, this is a strategy that allows both violent and non-violent approaches to exist on a continuum. While politicians, law enforcement, and even some conservative commentators may criticize Antifa and other violent direct-action anarchists, all are publicly insisting that Antifa are merely unwanted agitators in the midst of legitimate protests.
But this is wrong. In any given protest, the “agitators” and the “legitimate protestors” are, instead, two products of the same industry which exist in a symbiotic relationship, and may even share overt memorandums regarding agreement on tactics. While Antifa relies upon the mass protest in order to hide among the crowd, the public destruction committed by Antifa draws attention and adds urgency to the political demands of the larger movement.
At their roots, both expressions of what could be called the Antifa industry are staffed with professionals preparing to engage in profoundly illegitimate revolutionary street politics. Their radicalization long precedes the politics of 2020; at the leadership level, maybe all have considered the American system “fascist” for decades before the candidacy of Donald Trump. They are veterans of countless far-left radical causes, protest events, and political warfare communications efforts. And they’re good at what they do.
Come November 3, we are likely to see the full force of this industry at work. The media will show the streets appear to creak with both Antifa agitators and protestors, possibly with claimed numbers in the millions. It will be said they are normal, patriotic Americans outraged about the election, furious at Donald Trump. Conservatives must be prepared to recognize what they are seeing as a form of theater—the product of decades of infrastructure, tens of millions of dollars in funding, and the work of tens of thousands of direct-action tacticians, public relations flaks, and professional organizers.
An elaborate stage show is being choreographed right now to play out on America’s streets designed to convince both regular citizens and opinion-makers that a scary authoritarian regime has just seized power and extraordinary measures are justified in removing it. We cannot fall for it.


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--Restaurant Industry Operating with About 2.3M Less Jobs Than at the Start of the Pandemic

Job growth within the restaurant industry slowed `` significantly '' last month just after employment briefly rebounded in the immediate aftermath of the coronavirus-related lockdowns , according to a new report .
Job losses at drinking and eating places exceeded job gains by a wide margin , with 32 states seeing a net decline of jobs between August and September , according to the National Restaurant Association 's ( NRA ) latest findings .
40 % OF RESTAURANTS TO CLOSE WITHIN 6 MONTHS WITHOUT MORE CORONAVIRUS AID According to the NRA , eating and drinking places are considered the `` @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foodservice industry . ''
Prior to the coronavirus outbreak , eating and drinking places employed 12 million out of the total restaurant and foodservice workforce which totaled nearly 16 million .
By comparison , only 18 states and the District of Columbia saw employment levels rise in September .
To put the numbers in perspective , eating and drinking places are now operating with about 2.3 million fewer jobs than during February 's pre-coronavirus peak , the NRA said .
This is further evidence that the pandemic continues to transform the economy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prospect of a permanent job loss that will force some to seek work in new industries or occupations .
The NRA pointed to the cooler weather as a key driver in some staffing reductions up in the northern part of the U.S .
However , the trends were not uniform , the group said .
WHERE ARE ALL OF THE JOBS ?
THESE SECTORS HIRED THE MOST WORKERS IN AUGUST While Massachusetts saw the biggest employment decline in September , with a net loss of 7,900 eating and drinking place jobs , some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ according to the report .
Florida faced a net loss of about 4,600 jobs , while Maine ( -3,800 ) , Virginia ( -3,400 ) and Minnesota ( -3,300 ) also endured `` sizable restaurant job losses '' that same month , the NRA said .
Comparatively , New York , New Jersey and Connecticut saw employment rise in September : The tri-state area added more than 20,000 restaurant jobs combined .
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE Even still , overall restaurant employment in 47 states and the District @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s pre-coronavirus level .
Eating and drinking place jobs within Hawaii were still down nearly 50 % while jobs within Vermont and the District of Columbia were down more than 30 % , according to the report .
Indiana , Idaho and Mississippi were the only states that had more jobs in September compared to February .
The Associated Press contributed to this report .
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

Job growth within the restaurant industry slowed "significantly" last month just after employment briefly rebounded in the immediate aftermath of the coronavirus-related lockdowns, according to a new report.
Job losses at drinking and eating places exceeded job gains by a wide margin, with 32 states seeing a net decline of jobs between August and September, according to the National Restaurant Association's (NRA) latest findings.
40% OF RESTAURANTS TO CLOSE WITHIN 6 MONTHS WITHOUT MORE CORONAVIRUS AID
According to the NRA, eating and drinking places are considered the "primary component of the total restaurant and foodservice industry." Prior to the coronavirus outbreak, eating and drinking places employed 12 million out of the total restaurant and foodservice workforce which totaled nearly 16 million.
By comparison, only 18 states and the District of Columbia saw employment levels rise in September. To put the numbers in perspective, eating and drinking places are now operating with about 2.3 million fewer jobs than during February's pre-coronavirus peak, the NRA said.
This is further evidence that the pandemic continues to transform the economy, forcing millions of Americans to face the prospect of a permanent job loss that will force some to seek work in new industries or occupations.
The NRA pointed to the cooler weather as a key driver in some staffing reductions up in the northern part of the U.S. However, the trends were not uniform, the group said.
WHERE ARE ALL OF THE JOBS? THESE SECTORS HIRED THE MOST WORKERS IN AUGUST
While Massachusetts saw the biggest employment decline in September, with a net loss of 7,900 eating and drinking place jobs, some Southern states also faced sizable losses, according to the report.
Florida faced a net loss of about 4,600 jobs, while Maine (-3,800), Virginia (-3,400) and Minnesota (-3,300) also endured "sizable restaurant job losses" that same month, the NRA said.
Comparatively, New York, New Jersey and Connecticut saw employment rise in September: The tri-state area added more than 20,000 restaurant jobs combined.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
Even still, overall restaurant employment in 47 states and the District of Columbia still remained below February’s pre-coronavirus level. Eating and drinking place jobs within Hawaii were still down nearly 50% while jobs within Vermont and the District of Columbia were down more than 30%, according to the report.
Indiana, Idaho and Mississippi were the only states that had more jobs in September compared to February.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--Hunter Biden Emails on Political Favors From Joe: “If I Ask He Will Do It”

An e-mail obtained by The National Pulse appears to confirm suspicions that Hunter Biden agreed to lobby his father , the Vice President of the United States , after being asked to “ talk to the big guy.
” Not only did Hunter Biden say he would oblige , but he also noted he would be “ killed ” by White House/Vice Presidential staff if he went “ around everyone and straight to [ Joe Biden ] ” – apparently acknowledging the unethical nature of his upcoming action .
“ The big guy ” appears to be a common euphemism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previous e-mails published by The New York Post and confirmed by Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski .
The latest news comes despite Joe Biden repeatedly insisting there is no basis “ whatsoever ” for claims that Hunter Biden profited from his family name .
Left wing news sites like Vox have repeatedly claimed that “ By mutual agreement , Hunter avoided lobbying his father , ” without evidence , and contrary to what the new e-mails reveal .
The e-mail , dated December 14th 2010 , came from a lobbyist and senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which has worked for major pharmaceuticals industry groups , big tobacco corporations , and even major petroleum companies like Royal Dutch Shell .
Chuck Harple – a lobbyist and Senior Partner at the firm – e-mailed Hunter Biden about arranging a meeting with then Vice President Joe Biden , who he referred to as “ the big guy.
” I will tell you that the Building Trades are at the end of their rope with this administration .
They , General President Mark Ayers and Secretary Treasurer Sean McGarvey were told two years @ @ @ @ @ @ @ labor guy.
” Since then , those that haven [ sic ] chosen to circumvent Nate after “ no action ” did hear the wrath of Nate .
Those that stood up to him – the Ibew , NEA , IAFF , etc… .
Basically told nate to go f off – in a nice way.
” “ Personally , I was the Teamsters Political Director and under the Bush Presidency – I was able to call rove , Mehlman , Sara Taylor and Andy Card .
Granted a lot didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were heard.Whereas now , we have our team in – and Sean has sent an official letter asking for a meeting with Vice President Biden over a year ago , and the reasoning for not getting the meeting is absolutely ridiculous .
So what is worse – having our guys in there and no access or having access ( like with Bush ) with terrible results .
Furthermore , the National Building and Construction Trades Secretary Treasurer ( who represents nearly 3.5 million members ) THINKS that vice president Biden doesn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President Mark Ayers.
” In other words , Harple was e-mailing the Vice President ’ s son for political access .
And Hunter promised to oblige .
In a reply to Harple just over two hours later , Hunter Biden allegedly wrote : “ I ’ ll work on it – but is there any issue I should know about before I go around everyone and straight to him – if I ask he will do it – but if I am missing something legit then i will get killed by staff .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ media continues to ignore and pour scorn over the veracity of the Hunter Biden laptop and the e-mails contained within .
The National Pulse has confirmed the nature of the e-mails and the contents of the laptop .
Harple also told Hunter Biden in the original email : “ You should not be worried about getting “ yelled ” at by the Boss or his staff – they should be shitting their pants thinking that – because of miscommunications , the Building Trades think they are being dissed by the Vice President .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ honorable and stuck on protocol .
If it were my union – I would have sandwiched the President , VP or their CoS and made sure they knew .
All that said , what works best – for you and I – is for you to call Sean first .
Say you talked to me and that you want to get all the facts before you talk to the big guy .
This will be good for both of us .
What do you think ?
” The National Pulse will be breaking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hunter Biden ’ s e-mails due to their importance as it pertains to the U.S. public ’ s understanding of what a Biden-run White House would look like .
Follow us on social media for more breaking news , and donate to us to help us break more stories .

Exclusive – Smoking Gun Biden Emails Reveal He Lobbied ‘The Big Guy’ For Political Favors, Claimed: “If I Ask He Will Do It”
An e-mail obtained by The National Pulse appears to confirm suspicions that Hunter Biden agreed to lobby his father, the Vice President of the United States, after being asked to “talk to the big guy.”
Not only did Hunter Biden say he would oblige, but he also noted he would be “killed” by White House/Vice Presidential staff if he went “around everyone and straight to [Joe Biden]” – apparently acknowledging the unethical nature of his upcoming action.
“The big guy” appears to be a common euphemism for Joe Biden, and appears in previous e-mails published by The New York Post and confirmed by Hunter Biden business associate Tony Bobulinski.
The latest news comes despite Joe Biden repeatedly insisting there is no basis “whatsoever” for claims that Hunter Biden profited from his family name.
READ:
Left wing news sites like Vox have repeatedly claimed that “By mutual agreement, Hunter avoided lobbying his father,” without evidence, and contrary to what the new e-mails reveal.
The e-mail, dated December 14th 2010, came from a lobbyist and senior partner at The Mathis Harple Group – which has worked for major pharmaceuticals industry groups, big tobacco corporations, and even major petroleum companies like Royal Dutch Shell.
Chuck Harple – a lobbyist and Senior Partner at the firm – e-mailed Hunter Biden about arranging a meeting with then Vice President Joe Biden, who he referred to as “the big guy.”
The e-mail begins:
“Hunter
I will tell you that the Building Trades are at the end of their rope with this administration. They, General President Mark Ayers and Secretary Treasurer Sean McGarvey were told two years ago that Nate Tamarin was the “labor guy.” Since then, those that haven [sic] chosen to circumvent Nate after “no action” did hear the wrath of Nate. Those that stood up to him – the Ibew, NEA, IAFF, etc…. Basically told nate to go f off – in a nice way.”
He continued:
“Personally, I was the Teamsters Political Director and under the Bush Presidency – I was able to call rove, Mehlman, Sara Taylor and Andy Card. Granted a lot didn’t get done – but at least we were heard.Whereas now, we have our team in – and Sean has sent an official letter asking for a meeting with Vice President Biden over a year ago, and the reasoning for not getting the meeting is absolutely ridiculous. So what is worse – having our guys in there and no access or having access (like with Bush) with terrible results. Furthermore, the National Building and Construction Trades Secretary Treasurer (who represents nearly 3.5 million members) THINKS that vice president Biden doesn’t want to meet with him and his President Mark Ayers.”
In other words, Harple was e-mailing the Vice President’s son for political access. And Hunter promised to oblige.
In a reply to Harple just over two hours later, Hunter Biden allegedly wrote:
“I’ll work on it – but is there any issue I should know about before I go around everyone and straight to him – if I ask he will do it – but if I am missing something legit then i will get killed by staff.
R. Hunter Biden
The bombshell comes as the national news media continues to ignore and pour scorn over the veracity of the Hunter Biden laptop and the e-mails contained within.
The National Pulse has confirmed the nature of the e-mails and the contents of the laptop.
Harple also told Hunter Biden in the original email:
“You should not be worried about getting “yelled” at by the Boss or his staff – they should be shitting their pants thinking that – because of miscommunications, the Building Trades think they are being dissed by the Vice President. Personally, the Bldg Trades are too honorable and stuck on protocol. If it were my union – I would have sandwiched the President, VP or their CoS and made sure they knew.
All that said, what works best – for you and I – is for you to call Sean first. Say you talked to me and that you want to get all the facts before you talk to the big guy. This will be good for both of us.
What do you think?”
The National Pulse will be breaking more stories related to the contents of Hunter Biden’s e-mails due to their importance as it pertains to the U.S. public’s understanding of what a Biden-run White House would look like.
Follow us on social media for more breaking news, and donate to us to help us break more stories.


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--Key Source Tony Bobulinski to Turn Over Documents to FBI

Tony Bobulinski , the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings , which was part of a partnership between the Chinese firm CEFC China Energy and the Biden family , went public with a statement about Hunter Biden ’ s corruption on Thursday morning .
He claimed that then-Vice President Joe Biden had indeed coordinated with his son Hunter in notorious foreign business deals , contrary to Biden ’ s claims .
On Thursday afternoon , Bobulinski announced he would turn over electronic devices and records of business dealings to the FBI .
“ Tony Bobulinski will announce that he will turn his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Hunter and Jim Biden over to the FBI , ” Fox News Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts announced on Twitter .
In a bombshell statement to The New York Post , Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden really is “ the Big Guy ” mentioned in numerous emails detailing Biden corruption .
Thanks to the painstaking work of Peter Schweizer ( and the Democrats ’ impeachment push ) , Hunter Biden ’ s notorious business deals with companies like the notoriously corrupt Ukrainian gas firm Burisma have become public knowledge .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other countries as well , most notably China .
Last week , all hell broke loose when the New York Post article reported on a “ smoking gun ” email showing that Hunter Biden reportedly introduced his father to an executive at the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma a few months before Biden pressured the Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor general who claims he was investigating Burisma .
Big Tech moved to suppress the story before it could be fact-checked .
Twitter briefly suspended the accounts of the Trump campaign , the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ committee .
Facebook , meanwhile , moved to suppress the Post article ’ s reach even while admitting that an independent fact-check had yet to confirm the story ’ s falsity .
Since then , news of Hunter Biden ’ s corruption and his father ’ s involvement has continued to trickle out as various sources confirmed the veracity of the emails .
Detractors have claimed that the emails are Russian disinformation , but there is no evidence to support this assertion .
In this context , Bobulinski came forward to verify key @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the claim that Joe Biden was involved in Hunter Biden ’ s deals .
“ I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family .
I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden .
The reference to ‘ the Big Guy ’ in the much publicized May 13 , 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden , ” Bobulinski wrote in his bombshell statement .
“ Hunter Biden called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ‘ my Chairman , ’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing .
I ’ ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business .
I ’ ve seen firsthand that that ’ s not true , because it wasn ’ t just Hunter ’ s business , they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line , ” Bobulinski insisted .
The former business partner said that when he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese , ” he “ took steps to prevent that from happening.
” Yet Bobulinski claimed that the Bidens had “ gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese , even though they told me they hadn ’ t and wouldn ’ t do that to their partners.
” “ I don ’ t have a political ax to grind ; I just saw behind the Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I saw .
The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China , ” the former business partner wrote .
Bobulinski ’ s electronic devices and records may shed light on serious criminal activity and they will likely enable the FBI to confirm the emails and other forthcoming evidence about Hunter Biden ’ s corruption .
Legacy media outlets have shamelessly attempted to bury the story .
Yet Trump has reportedly asked Bobulinski to be his guest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a move that would draw even more attention to the story .
Editor ’ s Note : Want to support PJ Media so we can continue telling the truth about the Biden-Harris campaign ?
Join PJ Media VIP TODAY and use the promo code LAWANDORDER to get 25 % off your VIP membership .
Tyler O ’ Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay : The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center .
Follow him on Twitter at @ Tyler2ONeil .
Joe Biden ’ s Scandals With Hunter Biden Are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Here ’ s How We Know the Hunter Biden Emails Are Real , and a Serious Threat to Joe Biden BOMBSHELL : Hunter Biden Email Names Kamala Harris , Others as Key Contacts for ‘ Joint Venture ’ With China Energy Co. Now We Know Why Trump Decided to Air the Leslie Stahl Interview Before 60 Minutes

Tony Bobulinski, the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings, which was part of a partnership between the Chinese firm CEFC China Energy and the Biden family, went public with a statement about Hunter Biden’s corruption on Thursday morning. He claimed that then-Vice President Joe Biden had indeed coordinated with his son Hunter in notorious foreign business deals, contrary to Biden’s claims. On Thursday afternoon, Bobulinski announced he would turn over electronic devices and records of business dealings to the FBI.
“Tony Bobulinski will announce that he will turn his electronic devices and records of business dealings with Hunter and Jim Biden over to the FBI,” Fox News Chief White House Correspondent John Roberts announced on Twitter.
BREAKING: Tony Bobulinski will announce that he will turn his electronic devices and records of business dealings with Hunter and Jim Biden over to the FBI — John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) October 22, 2020
In a bombshell statement to The New York Post, Bobulinski confirmed that Joe Biden really is “the Big Guy” mentioned in numerous emails detailing Biden corruption.
Thanks to the painstaking work of Peter Schweizer (and the Democrats’ impeachment push), Hunter Biden’s business deals with companies like the notoriously corrupt Ukrainian gas firm Burisma have become public knowledge. Yet Hunter Biden also made lucrative deals in other countries as well, most notably China.
Last week, all hell broke loose when the New York Post article reported on a “smoking gun” email showing that Hunter Biden reportedly introduced his father to an executive at Burisma a few months before Biden pressured the Ukrainian president to fire the prosecutor general who claims he was investigating Burisma.
Big Tech moved to suppress the story before it could be fact-checked. Twitter briefly suspended the accounts of the Trump campaign, the White House press secretary, and a congressional committee. Facebook, meanwhile, moved to suppress the Post article’s reach even while admitting that an independent fact check had yet to confirm the story’s falsity.
Since then, news of Hunter Biden’s corruption and his father’s involvement has continued to trickle out as various sources confirmed the veracity of the emails. Detractors have claimed that the emails are Russian disinformation, but there is no evidence to support this assertion.
In this context, Bobulinski came forward to verify key claims in the emails, such as the claim that Joe Biden was involved in Hunter Biden’s deals.
“I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to ‘the Big Guy’ in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden,” Bobulinski wrote in his bombshell statement.
“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. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line,” Bobulinski insisted.
The former business partner said that when he “realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese,” he “took steps to prevent that from happening.”
Yet Bobulinski claimed that the Bidens had “gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners.”
“I don’t have a political ax to grind; I just saw behind the Biden curtain and I grew concerned with what I saw. The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China,” the former business partner wrote.
Bobulinski’s electronic devices and records may shed light on serious criminal activity and they will likely enable the FBI to confirm the emails and other forthcoming evidence about Hunter Biden’s corruption.
Legacy media outlets have shamelessly attempted to bury the story. Yet Trump has reportedly asked Bobulinski to be his guest at the presidential debate on Thursday night, a move that would draw even more attention to the story.
Editor’s Note: Want to support PJ Media so we can continue telling the truth about the Biden-Harris campaign? Join PJ Media VIP TODAY and use the promo code LAWANDORDER to get 25% off your VIP membership.
Tyler O’Neil is the author of Making Hate Pay: The Corruption of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Follow him on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--President Trump to Bring Hunter Biden Associate Tony Bobulinski to Debate as Guest

President Donald Trump will have Hunter Biden 's former business associate , Tony Bobulinski , as his special guest at tonight 's presidential debate , John Roberts of Fox News reports .
Bobulinski , who served for 37 years as an Army Intelligence Officer , came forward to confirm that the coded term 'big guy ' from Hunter Biden 's emails with Chinese officials regarding a cash peddling scheme was the term used for Joe Biden .
Bobulinski has said that he was one of those who received an email dated May 13 , 2017 , as reported by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that elucidated `` positions , titles , and associated cash payments . ''
In that email , there was a 10 percent laid out for `` the big guy , '' according to the New York Post .
Tony Bobulinski has implicated both Joe Biden and his brother Jim , alleging that they were involved in Hunter Biden 's business dealings with China .
The `` email is genuine , '' and he confirmed that he was one of those who received it , and that then VP Joe Biden was `` the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to 'the big guy ' in the much publicized May 13 , 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden .
The other 'JB ' referenced in that email is Jim Biden , Joe ’ s brother , '' wrote Bobulinski .
`` 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 .
I 've seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s not true , because it was n't just Hunter 's business , they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line .
`` I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI .
They were looking at this as a political or influence investment .
Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese , I took steps to prevent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me—it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese , even though they told me they hadn ’ t and wouldn ’ t do that to their partners . ''
Joe Biden has said that he 's never spoken to his son about his business dealings .

President Donald Trump will have Hunter Biden's former business associate, Tony Bobulinski, as his special guest at tonight's presidential debate, John Roberts of Fox News reports.
BREAKING: Tony Bobulinski to be @realDonaldTrump special guest at tonight’s debate — John Roberts (@johnrobertsFox) October 22, 2020
Bobulinski, who served for 37 years as an Army Intelligence Officer, came forward to confirm that the coded term 'big guy' from Hunter Biden's emails with Chinese officials regarding a cash peddling scheme was the term used for Joe Biden.
Bobulinski has said that he was one of those who received an email dated May 13, 2017, as reported by the New York Post on Oct. 14, that elucidated "positions, titles, and associated cash payments." In that email, there was a 10 percent laid out for "the big guy," according to the New York Post.
Tony Bobulinski has implicated both Joe Biden and his brother Jim, alleging that they were involved in Hunter Biden's business dealings with China. The "email is genuine," and he confirmed that he was one of those who received it, and that then VP Joe Biden was "the big guy."
"The reference to 'the big guy' in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other 'JB' referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother," wrote Bobulinski.
"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. I've seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I've seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn't just Hunter's business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.
"I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.
"The Johnson Report connected some dots in a way that shocked me—it made me realize the Bidens had gone behind my back and gotten paid millions of dollars by the Chinese, even though they told me they hadn’t and wouldn’t do that to their partners."
Joe Biden has said that he's never spoken to his son about his business dealings.


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--Top Scientific Journal Suppresses Study on Effectiveness of Face Masks

Some of the world 's top scientific journals are being accused of suppressing the results of a study aimed at determining the effectiveness of face masks against the spread of the coronavirus .
`` They all said no , '' said Christian Torp-Pedersen , chief physician at North Zealand Hospital ’ s research department , who was involved in the study .
`` We can not start discussing what they are dissatisfied with because , in that case , we must also explain what the study showed , and we do not want to discuss that until it is published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headline on Thursday reading , “ Does a mask work ?
Top journals refuse to print the Danish answer.
” '' Now one of the researchers involved in the study can state that the finished research result has been rejected by at least three of the world 's leading medical journals , ” the Berlingske article states .
The journals refusing to publish the results reportedly include the Lancet , the New England Journal of Medicine , and the Journal of the American Medical Association .
The Washington Examiner reached out to all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , saying it does not comment on unpublished studies .
Bloomberg News reported in July that Henning Bundgaard , a Danish cardiology professor and main author , was “ finalizing ” the study that would examine the effectiveness of face masks in stopping the spread of the coronavirus outside of hospitals .
“ All these countries recommending face masks haven ’ t made their decisions based on new studies , ” Bundgaard said at the time .
The study ’ s abstract states that it “ will be a two-arm , unblinded , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ include adults ( > 18 years of age ) without prior confirmed COVID-19 or symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 , who spend more than three hours per day outside the home with exposure to other people .
“ Six thousand participants were randomly assigned to use face masks or not for a 30-day period during the pandemic .
The results would be based on the difference in the number of individuals infected with the virus within the two study groups .
`` This is the world 's largest study of its kind and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ factor in the basis for government decisions regarding the use of masks , '' Bundgaard said .
Studies getting rejected by top medical journals is n't entirely out of the ordinary , especially if the data set is deficient .
As Berlingske pointed out , the study was conducted at a time when COVID-19 infections were falling sharply in Denmark .
If there were too few infections in the study , unambiguous conclusions would be difficult or impossible to draw .
As of Oct. 21 , that study has yet to be published @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the study , Thomas Lars Benfield , recently said that the findings would be released “ as soon as a journal is brave enough , ” suggesting that the results would cause controversy .
Benfield has since walked back those comments , saying , `` The quote [ is ] a bit out of context .
The article is being reviewed by a respected journal .
We have decided not to publish data until the article has been accepted . ''
However , Torp-Pedersen agreed with Benfield 's initial comment , saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ go as far as Benfield.
” '' That 's how I want to interpret it , too , ” Torp-Pedersen responded when asked if the rejection by the journals means the results are `` controversial '' to some .
“ Can one interpret a controversial research result in the sense that no significant effect of mask use is demonstrated in your study ?
” Torp-Pedersen was asked .
`` I think that 's a very relevant question you are asking , ” he responded .
Several randomized controlled trials have been carried out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same way as the coronavirus .
In July , the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford published a paper showing that a “ recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population , nor in healthcare workers.
” A randomized control trial conducted in 2015 studying 1,607 Vietnamese healthcare workers cautioned against the use of cloth masks for healthcare workers , stating that “ moisture retention , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may result in increased risk of infection.
” The penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97 % , compared with 44 % with medical masks , according to the study .
A examining healthcare workers and the spread of the SARS virus concluded that personal protective equipment “ may lower exposure to the virus.
” '' It is debatable whether any of these results could be applied to the transmission of SARs-CoV-2 , '' Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan wrote for the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine .
They said that previous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viral circulation was usually variable ; none had been conducted during a pandemic '' and that `` outcomes were defined and reported in several different ways , making comparison difficult . ''
The World Health Organization recommends wearing a mask as `` a key measure to suppress the spread of COVID-19 and save lives . ''
A study published in the Lancet of 172 observational studies across 16 countries found that `` face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection , with stronger associations with N95 or similar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ similar . ''
Heneghan and Jefferson also said they remain skeptical of nonrandomized clinical trials such as the one published in the Lancet , concluding masks reduce virus transmission .
`` We consider it is unwise to infer causation based on regional geographical observations as several proponents of masks have done . ''
Both said the `` deluge '' of new studies about `` the previously little-known coronaviruses '' may be indicative of knowledge but that they add little to our understanding .
They continued : `` Many are clearly 'me too ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name associated with the pandemic .
A good example of this is the number of reviews of the evidence on masks published in the last three months — fifteen to our knowledge .
Yet , the number of published trials on the effects of masks in Covid-19 transmission is — so far — zero . ''
The debate as to whether face masks are effective in combating the spread of the coronavirus , as well as the constitutionality of mandating them , has become a hot-button issue in the United States since state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This week , White House coronavirus response team member Dr. Scott Atlas was shunned by political pundits and censored by Twitter after posting an article from libertarian think tank the American Institute for Economic Research that questioned the effectiveness of masks .
Atlas ’ s colleague on the team , Dr. Anthony Fauci , has been a vocal supporter of face masks .
“ What we need is to get the message across that we are all in this together , ” Fauci said in August .
“ And it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the masks is that if you may be inadvertently walking around not knowing you ’ re infected — to protect others from getting infected .
We have to keep hammering home with that message.
” Residents across the country have sued over the constitutionality of statewide face mask mandates and in some cases emerged victorious , while in other parts of the country , violence has erupted as a result of face mask disagreements .
Wearing a face mask has also become an issue in the 2020 presidential race , with President Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ times , sparking criticism from his opponent , former Vice President Joe Biden .

Some of the world's top scientific journals are being accused of suppressing the results of a study aimed at determining the effectiveness of face masks against the spread of the coronavirus.
"They all said no," said Christian Torp-Pedersen, chief physician at North Zealand Hospital’s research department, who was involved in the study. "We cannot start discussing what they are dissatisfied with because, in that case, we must also explain what the study showed, and we do not want to discuss that until it is published."
Danish newspaper Berlingske ran a headline on Thursday reading, “Does a mask work? Top journals refuse to print the Danish answer.”
"Now one of the researchers involved in the study can state that the finished research result has been rejected by at least three of the world's leading medical journals,” the Berlingske article states.
The journals refusing to publish the results reportedly include the Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, and the Journal of the American Medical Association.
The Washington Examiner reached out to all three journals. Only the Lancet responded, saying it does not comment on unpublished studies.
Bloomberg News reported in July that Henning Bundgaard, a Danish cardiology professor and main author, was “finalizing” the study that would examine the effectiveness of face masks in stopping the spread of the coronavirus outside of hospitals.
“All these countries recommending face masks haven’t made their decisions based on new studies,” Bundgaard said at the time.
The study’s abstract states that it “will be a two-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial” that “will include adults (>18 years of age) without prior confirmed COVID-19 or symptoms suggestive of COVID-19, who spend more than three hours per day outside the home with exposure to other people. “
Six thousand participants were randomly assigned to use face masks or not for a 30-day period during the pandemic. The results would be based on the difference in the number of individuals infected with the virus within the two study groups.
"This is the world's largest study of its kind and is expected to be included as an important factor in the basis for government decisions regarding the use of masks," Bundgaard said.
Studies getting rejected by top medical journals isn't entirely out of the ordinary, especially if the data set is deficient. As Berlingske pointed out, the study was conducted at a time when COVID-19 infections were falling sharply in Denmark. If there were too few infections in the study, unambiguous conclusions would be difficult or impossible to draw.
As of Oct. 21, that study has yet to be published, and one of the researchers on the study, Thomas Lars Benfield, recently said that the findings would be released “as soon as a journal is brave enough,” suggesting that the results would cause controversy.
Benfield has since walked back those comments, saying, "The quote [is] a bit out of context. The article is being reviewed by a respected journal. We have decided not to publish data until the article has been accepted."
However, Torp-Pedersen agreed with Benfield's initial comment, saying that he "might also have dared to go as far as Benfield.”
"That's how I want to interpret it, too,” Torp-Pedersen responded when asked if the rejection by the journals means the results are "controversial" to some.
“Can one interpret a controversial research result in the sense that no significant effect of mask use is demonstrated in your study?” Torp-Pedersen was asked.
"I think that's a very relevant question you are asking,” he responded.
Several randomized controlled trials have been carried out for influenzalike illnesses, which transmit the same way as the coronavirus. In July, the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford published a paper showing that a “recent crop of trials added 9,112 participants to the total randomised denominator of 13,259 and showed that masks alone have no significant effect in interrupting the spread of ILI or influenza in the general population, nor in healthcare workers.”
A randomized control trial conducted in 2015 studying 1,607 Vietnamese healthcare workers cautioned against the use of cloth masks for healthcare workers, stating that “moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection.”
The penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97%, compared with 44% with medical masks, according to the study.
A study conducted in China in 2006 examining healthcare workers and the spread of the SARS virus concluded that personal protective equipment “may lower exposure to the virus.”
"It is debatable whether any of these results could be applied to the transmission of SARs-CoV-2," Tom Jefferson and Carl Heneghan wrote for the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. They said that previous trials "differed" in that "viral circulation was usually variable; none had been conducted during a pandemic" and that "outcomes were defined and reported in several different ways, making comparison difficult."
The World Health Organization recommends wearing a mask as "a key measure to suppress the spread of COVID-19 and save lives." A study published in the Lancet of 172 observational studies across 16 countries found that "face mask use could result in a large reduction in risk of infection, with stronger associations with N95 or similar respirators compared with disposable surgical masks or similar."
Heneghan and Jefferson also said they remain skeptical of nonrandomized clinical trials such as the one published in the Lancet, concluding masks reduce virus transmission. "We consider it is unwise to infer causation based on regional geographical observations as several proponents of masks have done."
Both said the "deluge" of new studies about "the previously little-known coronaviruses" may be indicative of knowledge but that they add little to our understanding.
They continued: "Many are clearly 'me too' efforts where researchers need to have their name associated with the pandemic. A good example of this is the number of reviews of the evidence on masks published in the last three months — fifteen to our knowledge. Yet, the number of published trials on the effects of masks in Covid-19 transmission is — so far — zero."
The debate as to whether face masks are effective in combating the spread of the coronavirus, as well as the constitutionality of mandating them, has become a hot-button issue in the United States since state governments began imposing lockdown orders in March.
This week, White House coronavirus response team member Dr. Scott Atlas was shunned by political pundits and censored by Twitter after posting an article from libertarian think tank the American Institute for Economic Research that questioned the effectiveness of masks.
Atlas’s colleague on the team, Dr. Anthony Fauci, has been a vocal supporter of face masks.
“What we need is to get the message across that we are all in this together,” Fauci said in August. “And it’s important because one of the purposes of the masks is that if you may be inadvertently walking around not knowing you’re infected — to protect others from getting infected. We have to keep hammering home with that message.”
Residents across the country have sued over the constitutionality of statewide face mask mandates and in some cases emerged victorious, while in other parts of the country, violence has erupted as a result of face mask disagreements.
Wearing a face mask has also become an issue in the 2020 presidential race, with President Trump opting not to wear a mask at times, sparking criticism from his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden.


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--New Documents Reveal More of Hunter Biden’s Dealings With Former Moscow Mayor’s Wife

New documents have surfaced revealing that Hunter Biden was involved in dealings with Elena Baturina , wife of a former Moscow mayor who was pushed out of politics for his own corruption .
During the first presidential debate , President Trump claimed that Hunter Biden received millions from the wife of the former mayor of Moscow .
Joe Biden refuted this claim .
A newly discovered court filing dating from January 2020 claims that Hunter Biden aided Baturina in laundering her ill-gotten gains from corrupt , Russian construction contracts , through American financial institutions .
One of Hunter Biden 's @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an affidavit filed in January 2020 that his son was working with Hunter and his colleague Devon Archer , to open bank accounts for Baturina to `` launder money into the US , '' according to the Daily Caller .
Archer was also noted in the minutes of a board meeting to have received large sums of money from Baturina .
Galanis is a white-collar criminal who is currently serving a 10-year prison term for fraud , in which Hunter Biden 's associates were also involved .
This was not his first conviction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Emails that were released on Monday as journalists have been pouring through an excess of recently revealed correspondence and documents , show that Hunter Biden 's associates opened American bank accounts for the Russian Baturina .
A Senate report that was issued in September had flagged Baturina 's accounts over concerns of criminal activity due to wire transfers to `` accounts for Biden '' of millions of dollars .
In the first debate , Trump said `` The mayor of Moscow , his wife , gave your son three and a half-million dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim was fact-checked by multiple outlets , including the Washington Post .
They wrote that Trump was referring to a Senate report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Finance Committee , which read `` Rosemont Seneca Thornton , an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden , received $ 3.5 million in a wire transfer from Elena Baturina , who allegedly received illegal construction contracts from her husband , the former mayor of Moscow . ''
While the Washington Post notes that the report says the funds were part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it does not quote the report on that point , which reads : '' On Feb. 14 , 2014 , Baturina wired $ 3.5 million to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC ( Rosemont Seneca Thornton ) bank account for a 'Consultancy Agreement DD12.02.2014 . '
Rosemont Seneca Thornton is an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden that was incorporated on May 28 , 2013 in Wilmington , Del .
`` According to The Financial Times , Rosemont Seneca Thornton is a consortium that consists of Rosemont Seneca Partners and the Thornton Group , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Biden co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners with Archer and Christopher Heinz .
The Thornton Group 's website states that it has offices in Boston and Beijing , lists Rosemont Seneca Partners among its list of alliances and clients , and includes photographs from multiple events attended by Hunter Biden . ''
The Washington Post said that Hunter Biden 's lawyer said that Biden did not receive $ 3.5 million from Baturina , but according to the Senate report , Rosemont Seneca Thornton , a company co-founded by Biden , did receive the funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact-check of Trumps ' statement , went on to discredit the Senate .
All this to make sure that Hunter Biden , and the Biden family name are cleared .

New documents have surfaced revealing that Hunter Biden was involved in dealings with Elena Baturina, wife of a former Moscow mayor who was pushed out of politics for his own corruption.
During the first presidential debate, President Trump claimed that Hunter Biden received millions from the wife of the former mayor of Moscow. Joe Biden refuted this claim.
A newly discovered court filing dating from January 2020 claims that Hunter Biden aided Baturina in laundering her ill-gotten gains from corrupt, Russian construction contracts, through American financial institutions.
NEW: Hunter Biden business partner scrambled to open bank account for Elena Baturina, the Russian billionaire who wired $3.5 million.
Emails obtained by @MatthewTyrmand https://t.co/73J3waFRHQ — Chuck Ross (@ChuckRossDC) October 22, 2020
One of Hunter Biden's associates, Johan Galanis, claimed in an affidavit filed in January 2020 that his son was working with Hunter and his colleague Devon Archer, to open bank accounts for Baturina to "launder money into the US," according to the Daily Caller. Archer was also noted in the minutes of a board meeting to have received large sums of money from Baturina.
Galanis is a white-collar criminal who is currently serving a 10-year prison term for fraud, in which Hunter Biden's associates were also involved. This was not his first conviction or prison term for fraud schemes.
Emails that were released on Monday as journalists have been pouring through an excess of recently revealed correspondence and documents, show that Hunter Biden's associates opened American bank accounts for the Russian Baturina.
A Senate report that was issued in September had flagged Baturina's accounts over concerns of criminal activity due to wire transfers to "accounts for Biden" of millions of dollars.
In the first debate, Trump said "The mayor of Moscow, his wife, gave your son three and a half-million dollars." Biden refuted that. The claim was fact-checked by multiple outlets, including the Washington Post.
They wrote that Trump was referring to a Senate report from the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and Senate Finance Committee, which read "Rosemont Seneca Thornton, an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden, received $3.5 million in a wire transfer from Elena Baturina, who allegedly received illegal construction contracts from her husband, the former mayor of Moscow."
While the Washington Post notes that the report says the funds were part of a "consultancy agreement," it does not quote the report on that point, which reads:
"On Feb. 14, 2014, Baturina wired $3.5 million to a Rosemont Seneca Thornton LLC (Rosemont Seneca Thornton) bank account for a 'Consultancy Agreement DD12.02.2014.' Rosemont Seneca Thornton is an investment firm co-founded by Hunter Biden that was incorporated on May 28, 2013 in Wilmington, Del.
"According to The Financial Times, Rosemont Seneca Thornton is a consortium that consists of Rosemont Seneca Partners and the Thornton Group, a Massachusetts-based firm. In June 2009, Biden co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners with Archer and Christopher Heinz. The Thornton Group's website states that it has offices in Boston and Beijing, lists Rosemont Seneca Partners among its list of alliances and clients, and includes photographs from multiple events attended by Hunter Biden."
The Washington Post said that Hunter Biden's lawyer said that Biden did not receive $3.5 million from Baturina, but according to the Senate report, Rosemont Seneca Thornton, a company co-founded by Biden, did receive the funds. The Washington Post, in their fact-check of Trumps' statement, went on to discredit the Senate. All this to make sure that Hunter Biden, and the Biden family name are cleared.


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--Borat…Trump Derangement on Parade

Borat…Trump Derangement on Parade

The original “ Borat ” felt like comedy got the facelift we didn ’ t realize it needed .
It ’ s lost little of its sting today .
Now , contrast that to “ Borat Subsequent Moviefilm , ” structured like a soggy retread of Stephen Colbert monologues from 2017 .
Yes , Cohen ’ s motivation this time ‘ round is to attack all things Trump in the most shopworn ways possible .
Comedians have been savaging Trump for four years , leaving behind little that ’ s hilarious or memorable .
Now , the artist behind one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the modern era is here to reheat the same gruel .
Cohen ’ s rapier wit is reduced to a rusted butter knife in the belated , and wildly unnecessary , sequel .
Still , the far-left bromides represent a tiny fraction of the sequel .
The rest is even worse , a montage of “ women are inferior to men ” yuks drawn from Borat ’ s cartoonishly framed homeland , Kazakhstan .
It ’ s the weakest running joke in modern screen history , and the “ Borat ” sequel builds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ film packs a woke empowerment punch as genuine as a politician apologizing for an affair .
The sequel opens strong , though , giving us hope the project wasn ’ t as foolhardy as we feared .
Poor Borat ( Cohen ) spent the last decade-plus in a penal colony for embarrassing his nation with the 2006 film .
He ’ s promised freedom if he goes back to America and offers a precious gift to Vice President Mike Pence , the nation ’ s most fearsome lady killer .
Yuk yuk , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with women due to his strong Christian faith .
Yes , that joke expired three years ago , but it ’ s revived in time to set the sequel in motion .
So off Borat goes , along with his neglected daughter Tutar ( Maria Bakalova ) who daddy treats like an animal , or worse .
She longs to live in a cage all her own , part of Borat ’ s dehumanizing treatment of women .
It ’ s also a way for the production to reference the President putting Mexican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ joke is circa 2018 , and Obama did it first .
Heck , he built those cages .
That doesn ’ t matter to a stale satirist like Cohen , now reduced to a partisan huckster in search of clapter .
Hang on , though .
This is the best part of the movie .
We get a few solid laughs in the early going , most involving hard-R rated antics .
Funny is funny , and Borat ’ s ability to produce shock comedy appears intact .
Phew .
What follows is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staged , others likely staged .
And since Borat is now an internationally recognized character Cohen has to don fresh disguises to fool a new round of victims .
Except the characters created for the film aren ’ t interesting , fresh , funny or memorable .
The film focuses on Borat ’ s attempt to “ gift ” his daughter to Pence , culminating in a violently edited CPAC appearance with little satirical or comic payoff .
The moment wraps at around the 40 minute mark , meaning “ Subsequent Moviefilm still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boy do those remaining minutes drag on .
And on .
The film ’ s laugh meter starts strong , stalls mid-film and then calls it a night long before the end credits .
Yes , some of Borat ’ s signature tics remain , like his Jew hatred .
That ’ s played to death , again , culminating in a laugh-free exchange with a Holocaust survivor .
The story shifts during its second half , focusing on a quest to “ give ” Tutar to Rudy Giuliani .
What emerges is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cohen ’ s shtick in 2020 .
The Giuliani “ gotcha ” moment , reported briefly in the press , is nothing of the sort .
The film also finds Borat , or a character played by Cohen , visiting various Republicans , Christians or pro-life folks in order to embarrass them .
But he can ’ t even pull that off .
He does meet with two yokels who spout wild conspiracy theories about President Obama and Hillary Clinton , but it ’ s soon clear they ’ re either plants or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ice for that burn , Deplorables ?
The original “ Borat ” captured comedy lightning in a bottle , so any sequel seemed like a fool ’ s errand .
“ Borat Subsequent Moviefilm ” is worse , a strained attempt to fuse Trump Derangement Syndrome with an iconic character , proving both have insanely short shelf lives .
HIT or Miss : “ Borat Subsequent Moviefilm ” begins with promise before steering into the strained , partisan affair longtime fans feared .

The original “Borat” felt like comedy got the facelift we didn’t realize it needed.
Sacha Baron Cohen leveraged “Candid Camera” pranks with sly social commentary, delivering a smart bomb blast of laughter.
It’s lost little of its sting today.
Borat HD Quality Movie Trailer
Watch this video on YouTube
Now, contrast that to “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm,” structured like a soggy retread of Stephen Colbert monologues from 2017.
Stormy Daniels!
Republicans are racist!
Trump put Mexican kids in cages!
Yes, Cohen’s motivation this time ‘round is to attack all things Trump in the most shopworn ways possible.
Yawn.
Comedians have been savaging Trump for four years, leaving behind little that’s hilarious or memorable. Now, the artist behind one of the most cutting edge comedies of the modern era is here to reheat the same gruel. Cohen’s rapier wit is reduced to a rusted butter knife in the belated, and wildly unnecessary, sequel.
Still, the far-left bromides represent a tiny fraction of the sequel. The rest is even worse, a montage of “women are inferior to men” yuks drawn from Borat’s cartoonishly framed homeland, Kazakhstan.
It’s the weakest running joke in modern screen history, and the “Borat” sequel builds its entire premise around it.
Worse?
The film packs a woke empowerment punch as genuine as a politician apologizing for an affair.
Borat Subsequent Moviefilm - Official Trailer | Prime Video
Watch this video on YouTube
The sequel opens strong, though, giving us hope the project wasn’t as foolhardy as we feared. Poor Borat (Cohen) spent the last decade-plus in a penal colony for embarrassing his nation with the 2006 film. He’s promised freedom if he goes back to America and offers a precious gift to Vice President Mike Pence, the nation’s most fearsome lady killer.
Yuk yuk, because Pence won’t be alone with women due to his strong Christian faith. Yes, that joke expired three years ago, but it’s revived in time to set the sequel in motion.
So off Borat goes, along with his neglected daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) who daddy treats like an animal, or worse. She longs to live in a cage all her own, part of Borat’s dehumanizing treatment of women. It’s also a way for the production to reference the President putting Mexican children in cages.
Again, the joke is circa 2018, and Obama did it first. Heck, he built those cages. That doesn’t matter to a stale satirist like Cohen, now reduced to a partisan huckster in search of clapter.
RELATED: ‘Borat’ Sexualizes Melania Trump, with Kimmel’s Blessing
Hang on, though. This is the best part of the movie. We get a few solid laughs in the early going, most involving hard-R rated antics.
Funny is funny, and Borat’s ability to produce shock comedy appears intact. Phew.
What follows is a series of sketches, some obviously staged, others likely staged. And since Borat is now an internationally recognized character Cohen has to don fresh disguises to fool a new round of victims.
Except the characters created for the film aren’t interesting, fresh, funny or memorable.
Yeah, that’s a problem.
The film focuses on Borat’s attempt to “gift” his daughter to Pence, culminating in a violently edited CPAC appearance with little satirical or comic payoff. The moment wraps at around the 40 minute mark, meaning “Subsequent Moviefilm still has 50-odd minutes to kill.
And boy do those remaining minutes drag on. And on.
The film’s laugh meter starts strong, stalls mid-film and then calls it a night long before the end credits.
Yes, some of Borat’s signature tics remain, like his Jew hatred. That’s played to death, again, culminating in a laugh-free exchange with a Holocaust survivor.
RELATED: Here’s Everything Wrong with Borat’s Fake News Screed
The story shifts during its second half, focusing on a quest to “give” Tutar to Rudy Giuliani. What emerges is heavily edited and mirth-free, much like Cohen’s shtick in 2020.
The Giuliani “gotcha” moment, reported briefly in the press, is nothing of the sort.
The film also finds Borat, or a character played by Cohen, visiting various Republicans, Christians or pro-life folks in order to embarrass them. But he can’t even pull that off. He does meet with two yokels who spout wild conspiracy theories about President Obama and Hillary Clinton, but it’s soon clear they’re either plants or in on the shtick.
Wants some ice for that burn, Deplorables?
The original “Borat” captured comedy lightning in a bottle, so any sequel seemed like a fool’s errand.
“Borat Subsequent Moviefilm” is worse, a strained attempt to fuse Trump Derangement Syndrome with an iconic character, proving both have insanely short shelf lives.
HIT or Miss: “Borat Subsequent Moviefilm” begins with promise before steering into the strained, partisan affair longtime fans feared.


bonginoreport--2020-10-22--Senate Judiciary Committee Subpoenas Facebook and Twitter

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Thursday for their censorship practices .
All 12 Judiciary Committee Republicans approved the motion to subpoena Twitter and Facebook for their censorship of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden ’ s laptop and other content moderation practices .
The subpoena arises as the committee also advanced Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett out of the committee .
Judiciary Committee Democrats boycotted the meeting .
Sen. Josh Hawley ( R-MO ) , a Judiciary Committee member , said in a statement on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a significant victory for Republicans .
“ Senate Judiciary Committee has just voted subpoenas to @ Facebook and @ Twitter – all Republicans voting yes .
BIG victory that didn ’ t look possible even 24 hrs ago , ” Hawley wrote .
“ 24 hrs ago I was informed the Judiciary Committee would NOT vote on subpoenas and that multiple R ’ s didn ’ t want to vote yes .
Today , unanimous .
I applaud @ LindseyGrahamSC for standing strong.
” Republicans across the spectrum have increasingly called for changing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which tech experts contend grants big tech companies too much leeway to censor without significant legal recourse .
The Senate Commerce Committee Republicans voted in October to subpoena Facebook , Twitter , and Google before the November elections .
Dorsey , Zuckerberg , and Google CEO Sundar Pichai will testify regarding their content moderation and privacy practices .
The big tech CEOs will testify before the Commerce committee on October 28 .
Sen. Kelly Loeffler ( R-GA ) introduced legislation that would remove ambiguity in Section 230 to combat big tech censorship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country that has long cherished the freedom of expression , we can not allow Big Tech to handpick the speech that conservatives and Americans may access and post on the internet , ” the Georgia conservative said .
“ For too long , Big Tech has hidden behind the overly vague Section 230 protections , while engaging in practices that are fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic , ” she said .
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News .
Follow him on Twitter @ SeanMoran3 .

The Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey on Thursday for their censorship practices.
All 12 Judiciary Committee Republicans approved the motion to subpoena Twitter and Facebook for their censorship of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden’s laptop and other content moderation practices.
The subpoena arises as the committee also advanced Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett out of the committee. Judiciary Committee Democrats boycotted the meeting.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), a Judiciary Committee member, said in a statement on Thursday that the “subpoena” was a significant victory for Republicans.
“Senate Judiciary Committee has just voted subpoenas to @Facebook and @Twitter – all Republicans voting yes. BIG victory that didn’t look possible even 24 hrs ago,” Hawley wrote. “24 hrs ago I was informed the Judiciary Committee would NOT vote on subpoenas and that multiple R’s didn’t want to vote yes. Today, unanimous. I applaud @LindseyGrahamSC for standing strong.”
24 hrs ago I was informed the Judiciary Committee would NOT vote on subpoenas and that multiple R’s didn’t want to vote yes. Today, unanimous. I applaud @LindseyGrahamSC for standing strong — Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 22, 2020
Republicans across the spectrum have increasingly called for changing Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which tech experts contend grants big tech companies too much leeway to censor without significant legal recourse.
The Senate Commerce Committee Republicans voted in October to subpoena Facebook, Twitter, and Google before the November elections. Dorsey, Zuckerberg, and Google CEO Sundar Pichai will testify regarding their content moderation and privacy practices. The big tech CEOs will testify before the Commerce committee on October 28.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-GA) introduced legislation that would remove ambiguity in Section 230 to combat big tech censorship on the Internet.
“In a country that has long cherished the freedom of expression, we cannot allow Big Tech to handpick the speech that conservatives and Americans may access and post on the internet,” the Georgia conservative said.
“For too long, Big Tech has hidden behind the overly vague Section 230 protections, while engaging in practices that are fundamentally un-American and anti-democratic,” she said.
Sean Moran is a congressional reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @SeanMoran3.