Democracy Dies in the Darkness

2020 December 25
by bc3b

So proclaims the Washington Post. Unfortunately, today’s so-called journalists have a spotlight, which shines a glaring light on things they want the public to see (even if they are unfounded rumors) and turns the spotlight completely off when they want the American public to be kept totally in the dark.

Exhibit #137,592: The New York Times has had a complete blackout of Eric Swalwell having a sexual affair with a beautiful Communist Chinese spy.

The New York Times has continued its reporting blackout on ties between Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) and suspected Chinese Communist regime spy Christine Fang — not reporting on those ties for more than two weeks after they came to light.

On December 8, Axios reported that Swalwell had been one of several American politicians that Fang had developed extensive ties to, as part of a multi-year spying operation in the United States between 2011 and 2015. Fang was even a campaign bundler for Swalwell and placed at least one intern in his congressional offices, according to the report. The FBI was reportedly so concerned about Fang — who had engaged in romantic relationships with at least two midwestern mayors — that they briefed Swalwell about her in 2015, when she suddenly returned to China.

Swalwell’s office even confirmed that Swalwell knew Fang and that he had spoken to the FBI about her.

“Rep. Swalwell, long ago, provided information about this person — whom he met more than eight years ago, and whom he hasn’t seen in nearly six years — to the FBI. To protect information that might be classified, he will not participate in your story,” a statement from his office to Axios said.

Swalwell has refused to answer questions about their relationship, and whether it was romantic. He has suggested the revelation was retaliation for criticizing the Trump administration, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has said she has no concerns about Swalwell.

Last week, the FBI briefed members of Congress about Swalwell’s relationship with Fang, at Republicans’ request. The Federalist reported after that briefing that two sources directly familiar with the counterintelligence investigation of Fang said she and Swalwell had a sexual relationship and that federal officials were so concerned about the romantic relationship between a U.S. congressman and a suspected Chinese spy that they even investigated whether Swalwell had tipped Fang off about the counterintelligence investigation after the FBI briefed him, but found only limited circumstantial evidence of that.

The Axios report was particularly alarming given that Swalwell sits on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), a highly coveted committee assignment. Dozens of major news outlets reported on Swalwell’s ties to Fang.

Read more:

Hat tip: Breitbart

Democrat Eric Swalwell linked to spy suspect Christine Fang | World | The Times

Sometimes major real news stories aren’t even considered news, when they harm the left’s agenda.

23 Responses leave one →
  1. 2020 December 25 10:15 pm

    “Sometimes major real news stories aren’t even considered news, when they harm the left’s agenda.”

    It’s not just sometimes, it’s most of the damn time.

  2. 2020 December 25 11:54 pm
    JimNorCal permalink

  3. 2020 December 25 11:55 pm
    JimNorCal permalink

  4. 2020 December 26 5:21 am
    drdog09 permalink

    May Swalwell get an STD and his pecker fall off.

  5. 2020 December 26 5:30 am
    drdog09 permalink

    And remember these people probably voted in the last two elections — — The older I get the more I seem to realize, voting regs in many states were not to disenfranchise people but to keep elections above the gutter.

  6. 2020 December 26 5:42 am
    drdog09 permalink

    Note to WaPo — Democracy died in the bright lights and was recorded. See 2020 election results.

  7. 2020 December 26 5:46 am
    drdog09 permalink

    “Police said it turned out to be a rock hitting her living room window, My Northwest reported. A neighbor reportedly told police he saw a clean shaven, white male in a black hoodie and jeans leaving the scene.” — — Sounds like AntiFA member to me. Lie down with dogs, fleas are free.

  8. 2020 December 26 7:56 am
    justrand permalink

    As the saying goes:
    “Modern Journalism is about deciding which stories to ignore in order to protect Democrats”

    WaPo will cover such stories, however…they’ll cover them with a pillow until they stop moving.

  9. 2020 December 26 8:07 am
    fight on permalink

    I am a little late but hope you Patriots had a Merry Christmas.

  10. 2020 December 26 8:28 am

    What is all this “democracy” shit ? I prefer a republic anyway, let mobocracy die.

  11. 2020 December 26 8:38 am
    justrand permalink

    Speaking of Democracy dying, the link below is to the U.N.’s “Agenda 21″…specifically to the “Sustainable Development” section. Scrolling through it is EXACTLY like reading through the platform of the Democrat Party. And reading between the lines as well.

    I used to think Agenda 21 was either a joke or a wild conspiracy theory. It’s VERY real, and the “pandemic” is being used as a means of accelerating its implementation. They’ve simply taken the ‘Communist Manifesto’, the founding edicts of the National Socialist Party (NAZI), and Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ and softened the language using phrases like “Sustainable Development”. “Sustainable Development” covers EVERY aspect of human actions INCLUDING reproduction and “societal contribution evaluations”…which is just as sinister as it sounds.

  12. 2020 December 26 10:03 am
    bc3b permalink

    ip #11 –

    It’s a play off a motto the Washington Post adopted about a year ago.

  13. 2020 December 26 3:52 pm
    JimNorCal permalink

    I’m expecting a lot of stories like this in the near future in order to justify removing all the lock downs.

    Lockdowns will turn out to have cost more lives than they saved.
    Oncologist fears ‘tsunami of cancer’ because COVID-19 lockdowns limited screening.

  14. 2020 December 26 5:01 pm
    bc3b permalink

    At first COVID-19 was about getting Trump. Hanoi Jane actually called it a “gift for the left.” Now, it’s about governmental control.

  15. 2020 December 26 5:05 pm
    bc3b permalink

    JimNorCal #14 –

    It’s also caused a spike in drug use and suicides.

  16. 2020 December 26 5:51 pm
    mpt permalink

    The cost the lockdowns have caused to the American way of life has been immeasurable. The level of suspicion we now regard each other has gone off the charts. Just walking my dog around a few blocks in my town and through a community park without a mask has people looking at me like I’m a leper or something. I have to wear a mask at work just to “go along and get along” which fine. I work at a tiny company, and the cost of one of us getting sick with Covid and shutting down the business would be enormous, so I’m willing to go along with basic mitigation measures even if the efficacy is very questionable. However, expecting me to wear a mask outdoors when I’m keeping well clear of other people is ridiculous.

  17. 2020 December 26 5:54 pm
    mpt permalink

    BTW, a belated Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to everyone else at BJG. You guys have no idea how much this site has become my little dose of sanity each day, even if it’s just to peruse the comments. It let’s me know that I’m not alone.

  18. 2020 December 26 6:57 pm
    bc3b permalink

    At Jeffrey Lord writes about “Soviet-Style Media Propaganda in America. He quotes from a WSJ column by David Satter, who spent several decades in Moscow as a columnist for the Financial Times of London and the WSJ, Lord writes:

    Among other things in his WSJ article Satter says this:

    “One of the pillars of the Soviet Union was a controlled press in which all coverage was organized to confirm a mendacious ideology.

    …Soviet practices would have once been unthinkable in the U.S. media. But in August 2016, Jim Rutenberg, media columnist for the New York Times, wrote that if journalists believed that Mr. Trump was a “demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalist tendencies,” it was necessary to “throw out the textbook of American journalism.” The Times started to characterize Mr. Trump’s statements as “lies” in news stories and suppress news that worked to Mr. Trump’s advantage, such as the Hunter Biden story this fall.”

  19. 2020 December 26 9:40 pm
    mpt permalink

    I admit I’m a nerd, so this may not make much sense to non-nerds, but I came across a description of why IBM lost to Microsoft with regards to controlling the PC desktop and with it much of the computer industry. I thought this particularly made sense to why Republicans seem to be perpetually losing to Democrats.

    Substitute Pelosi/Democrats/Republicans for Gates/Microsoft/IBM and the story seems neary the same.

    Why did IBM’s OS/2 project lose to Microsoft, given that IBM had much more resources than Microsoft at that time?

    Great question. I’m the founder of Team OS/2 and IBM’s first OS/2 Evangelist, so I lived through the answer to your question for a decade. There’s just no easy answer – it’s like asking what makes any given startup a success or failure – but I’m happy to share the way I see it.

    IBM’s Personal Software Products (PSP) – the division I worked for – had more employees and was better funded than all of Microsoft in the early ’90s. IBM was the dominant force in that relationship, much to Gates chagrin, but was nonetheless weak-willed in using its power aggressively. I constantly heard “we should take the high road” in discussions about dealing with Microsoft. I value ethics as much as anyone, but IBM’s Business Conduct Guidelines assumed perpetual dominant status in the industry and because they handcuffed executives and employees, they were thus inadequate to deal with foul play on the part of an underdog business partner.

    LESSON ONE. As a company, if you are going to adopt and insist on compliance with strict Business Conduct Guidelines (as IBM and many other company’s did – similar to Google’s ‘don’t be evil’ mantra), be aware of your strategic vulnerability to a company (such as Microsoft) willing to use other company’s scruples as both shield and weapon in their war against you. In the words of a wise man, you need to be “wise as a serpent, and harmless as a dove.” IBM had the harmless down pat – but they were unable to outsmart the serpent.

    In summary, IBM was foolish to continue to play nice with Microsoft and take the high road and treat them as a Business Partner under the Business Conduct Guidelines even after it was clear that Microsoft was out to destroy OS/2 and IBM’s leadership in the PC industry.

    LESSON TWO. 1) Strategic brilliance in exploiting the resources you have to deploy against the resources your competitor has, 2) smart marketing execution, and 3) cunning media relations ALL trump engineering genius. Microsoft had the former. IBM had the latter.

    LESSON THREE. If you want to establish a desktop OS as the standard during the coming of age of the Internet, you had better understand how to get the media on your side. They established perceptions, and perception became reality.

    Microsoft played many in the media like Itzhak Perlman plays a Stradivarius. And the media created many of the myths – inconsistent with reality – that persist to this day and can be seen in many of the answers to this question.

    An entire description of the saga is here:

    However, the key parallems are described above.

    I just thought this was something interesting to ponder.

  20. 2020 December 27 4:52 am
    JimNorCal permalink

    It’s notable that Repubs are pretty comfortable with rough and tumble against … Tea Party, pro Trump base, traditional Americans (work hard, save, play fair, worship God, …) but suddenly become as helpless as Charlie Brown vs Lucy when opposed by Dems.

  21. 2020 December 27 7:23 am
    drdog09 permalink


    You will not be the first to remark that BJG is cheaper than paying a therapist. 🙂

    As one geek to another, in the IBM v M$ situation. I be showing my age, but here goes….

    Essentially IBM HAD TO play patty cake with M$. Everything that the author of your excerpt said is true. Fact IBM went to the trouble of separating the PC division in Boca Raton Fla so as to attempt to detach it from the dominant IBM culture. But back to the HAD TO.

    In the dark recesses of the Mainframe Uber Alles days there were only three players — IBM, Burroughs and UNIVAC (aka Remington Rand). Hitachi came later. The problem was none of them could inter-operate without a great deal of difficulty. TCP/IP was a long way off and Ethernet was still rattling around in Metcalfe’s head. The US needed a primary supplier for computations. The space race was about to pop. IBM was ‘selected’ under a situation of the governments making. See — . The 1956 case literally forced IBM to sell, rather than just lease, their equipment.

    You might say the 1956 decree was the Mother of All Regulatory Capture schemes. The govt and IBM were now in a partnership of sorts. To IBM’s credit it gave them the leverage to become a natural monopoly over time. So long as IBM played nice, the US government would buy nearly a third of all the IBM MFs for the next thirty years, such was the demand for the machines. With that kind of market you don’t just throw away the customer. That sort of market environment also bends a company to develop a certain culture to match it.

    The second decree, circa 1969, the DoJ charged IBM with noncompetitive practices largely of the government’s making. Go figure. Again a deal was worked out. But a key charge leveled at IBM was how they did the bundling of the needed OS software with the hardware purchase. (Sounds like the charge the EU leveled at M$ about IE eh?) Essentially you could not run the hardware without their software and IBM priced it so competitors would not enter that market to compete. Please note the date.

    Well Apple, Tandy and Commodore brought the household PC into being in the mid-70’s. IBM recognized the value of that market and if I recollect right the PC division was formed in 1975/76. The first PCs were designed to serve two markets — mainframes as a terminal and as a standalone device. First release was in 1981. But IBM was still under the two consent decrees. So the easiest way to not getting entangled in yet a third for the new device was buy/partner with a third party unrelated to any IBM influence. That is where M$ comes into the picture.

    OS/2 was a joint development with M$ starting in 1985. Two problems. 1) By this point M$ held a dominant position in the OS PC market. 2) IBM insisted on API changes that meant existing M$ software could not run on the OS without conversion of the source code. Its that ole technology ecology kind of thing that made OS/2 languish. If I, businessman have invested in M$ products for nearly 5 years; why throw that away? Especially with some software products at the time were selling for $1000 a unit?

    Here is your more important question:

    Why wasn’t Gary Kildall the richest man alive by 1990?

    Look up CP/M OS. Its one of the most interesting stories of opportunity lost.

  22. 2020 December 27 9:19 pm
    mpt permalink

    Why wasn’t Gary Kildall the richest man alive by 1990?

    DrDog, thanks for filling in additional details. I’m very familiar with the Gary Kildall and CP/M story of missed opportunities. The second computer I ever owned with an Osborne 1 CP/M system and I still occasionally tinker around with Z80 systems up to this day.

    I was watching a video on the early history of the Intel 4004, 8008, and 8080 MCU’s the other day was surprised to see Gary Kildall’s name also up as the creator of PL/1, one of the first high-level languages for the newly created microcomputers while he was consulting for Intel. A very smart guy.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.