Month: October 2018

In comments that laid bare the hidden agenda behind global warming alarmism, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, let slip during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the U.N.’s real purpose in pushing climate hysteria is to end capitalism throughout the world:

This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.

The economic model to which she referred is free-market capitalism.  A year earlier, Figueres revealed what capitalism must be replaced with when she complained that America’s two-party constitutional system is hampering the U.N.’s climate objectives.  She went on to cite China’s communist system as the kind of government America must have if the U.N. is to impose its environmental will on the world’s most free and prosperous capitalist nation.  In other words, for the U.N. to have its way, America must somehow be transformed into a communist nation.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Figueres is not alone.  Another senior U.N. official had comments of his own about the true agenda behind “climate change.”  If you’re among those who still believe climate alarmists when they say all they’re trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor.

In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC’s Working Group III, made this shocking admission:

One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  [What we’re doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate.  We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.  

In the same interview, Edenhofer added this:

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment.  The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

Edenhofer, one of the U.N.’s top climate officials, effectively admitted that the organization’s public position on global warming is a ruse, and another senior U.N. official, Figueres, said in an official capacity that the United States must be converted to communism for the world to be saved from global warming.

Let all of that sink in for a moment.

Powerful progressives in this country believe it’s not right that billions of people in the world sleep on the ground in mud huts while Americans sleep on soft mattresses in air-conditioned comfort.  The progressive elites who feel that way –  nearly all of whom are found in the Democratic Party, and 100% of whom live opulent, carbon-based lifestyles – also believe that far more of America’s wealth must therefore be forcibly “shared” (read: redistributed) with poor nations.  Global wealth redistribution is the foremost tenet of communism, and those who advocate it are, by definition, communists, whether they openly admit it or not.

The stunning pronouncements by Figueres and Edenhofer are all the evidence a rational mind needs to conclude that climate alarmism is being used as a Trojan horse to justify the massive new carbon taxes clamored for by powerful progressives like Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, none of whom has ever denounced the anti-American, pro-communist sentiments of two of the U.N.’s most senior climate officials.

The words of one of those officials reveal that such taxes would be used not to save the planet, but to fund the most massive redistribution of wealth in human history, literally trillions of dollars extracted under false pretenses from hardworking U.S. taxpayers and given to the corrupt governments of every undeveloped nation on Earth, all in the guise of “climate aid.”

Democrats in high places are attempting the largest heist in human history, an international collusion to exfiltrate unprecedented sums of money from the world’s largest capitalist nation.  Why?  To implement, on a global scale, the mandate set forth in The Communist Manifesto: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Outraged that President Trump dealt their plan to redistribute America’s wealth a major setback when he withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, Democratic Party luminaries would have you believe they’re nothing more than environmentally concerned citizens who would never even dream of supporting an effort to upend their country’s capitalist system.  Trump knows that’s a big lie.  And now, so do you.

No intelligent person can fail to recognize that the modern Democratic Party is using “climate change” as a ruse to fundamentally transform the United States of America into a socialist-cum-communist nation.  But because the human ego is loath to admit when it’s been duped, many patriotic liberals will continue allowing themselves to be led like sheep into the closing noose of the hammer and sickle.  By the time they realize what happened, it will be too late.

John Eidson is a 1968 electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech; a lifelong conservative; and the father of two law-abiding, self-reliant sons.

In comments that laid bare the hidden agenda behind global warming alarmism, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, let slip during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the U.N.’s real purpose in pushing climate hysteria is to end capitalism throughout the world:

This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.

The economic model to which she referred is free-market capitalism.  A year earlier, Figueres revealed what capitalism must be replaced with when she complained that America’s two-party constitutional system is hampering the U.N.’s climate objectives.  She went on to cite China’s communist system as the kind of government America must have if the U.N. is to impose its environmental will on the world’s most free and prosperous capitalist nation.  In other words, for the U.N. to have its way, America must somehow be transformed into a communist nation.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Figueres is not alone.  Another senior U.N. official had comments of his own about the true agenda behind “climate change.”  If you’re among those who still believe climate alarmists when they say all they’re trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor.

In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC’s Working Group III, made this shocking admission:

One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy.  [What we’re doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate.  We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world’s wealth.  

In the same interview, Edenhofer added this:

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment.  The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

Edenhofer, one of the U.N.’s top climate officials, effectively admitted that the organization’s public position on global warming is a ruse, and another senior U.N. official, Figueres, said in an official capacity that the United States must be converted to communism for the world to be saved from global warming.

Let all of that sink in for a moment.

Powerful progressives in this country believe it’s not right that billions of people in the world sleep on the ground in mud huts while Americans sleep on soft mattresses in air-conditioned comfort.  The progressive elites who feel that way –  nearly all of whom are found in the Democratic Party, and 100% of whom live opulent, carbon-based lifestyles – also believe that far more of America’s wealth must therefore be forcibly “shared” (read: redistributed) with poor nations.  Global wealth redistribution is the foremost tenet of communism, and those who advocate it are, by definition, communists, whether they openly admit it or not.

The stunning pronouncements by Figueres and Edenhofer are all the evidence a rational mind needs to conclude that climate alarmism is being used as a Trojan horse to justify the massive new carbon taxes clamored for by powerful progressives like Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, none of whom has ever denounced the anti-American, pro-communist sentiments of two of the U.N.’s most senior climate officials.

The words of one of those officials reveal that such taxes would be used not to save the planet, but to fund the most massive redistribution of wealth in human history, literally trillions of dollars extracted under false pretenses from hardworking U.S. taxpayers and given to the corrupt governments of every undeveloped nation on Earth, all in the guise of “climate aid.”

Democrats in high places are attempting the largest heist in human history, an international collusion to exfiltrate unprecedented sums of money from the world’s largest capitalist nation.  Why?  To implement, on a global scale, the mandate set forth in The Communist Manifesto: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

Outraged that President Trump dealt their plan to redistribute America’s wealth a major setback when he withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, Democratic Party luminaries would have you believe they’re nothing more than environmentally concerned citizens who would never even dream of supporting an effort to upend their country’s capitalist system.  Trump knows that’s a big lie.  And now, so do you.

No intelligent person can fail to recognize that the modern Democratic Party is using “climate change” as a ruse to fundamentally transform the United States of America into a socialist-cum-communist nation.  But because the human ego is loath to admit when it’s been duped, many patriotic liberals will continue allowing themselves to be led like sheep into the closing noose of the hammer and sickle.  By the time they realize what happened, it will be too late.

John Eidson is a 1968 electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech; a lifelong conservative; and the father of two law-abiding, self-reliant sons.

The great solon Richard Blumenthal, hero of An Loc, Ia Drang, Khe Sanh, Hue, and Tet, has explained to us that “Who lies in one instance, lies in all.”

Blumenthal was referring to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who hasn’t lied about anything, as far as anyone has been able to tell.

But we can turn it around to focus on the party that Sen. Blumenthal was speaking out for. In how many instances has Christine Blasey Ford lied?

Fear of Flying:

Fear of flying is a commonplace among many travelers (so much so that Brian Eno in the 1970s recorded several hours of soothing music expressly designed to ease such fears). But in Blasey Ford’s case, it was presented as a terror so overwhelming, so uncontrollable, as to prevent her from traveling by air under any circumstances. No – Professordoktor Ford, we were led to believe, would need to drive from Palo Alto to Washington to testify before the Senate Judicial Committee.

This claim fell apart in short order after it was revealed that Ford had lived for a year in Honolulu, a city effectively unreachable except by air, had vacationed in Tahiti and other areas of the Pacific, and regularly flew from California to the east coast to visit family. In light of all this, the “driving” claim became a running social media joke, with bogus reports of which was the last town she had driven through.

The claim collapsed completely when it was revealed that she had flown out to D.C. to testify before the committee, evidently without aid of hypnotism, sedatives, oxygen tanks in case of hyperventilation, or a trained service animal. No one at the hearing bothered to question her about this discrepancy. They should have.

The claim of a connection between Blasey Ford’s aviation phobia and Judge Kavanaugh is something of a mystery. Did he fly in to the infamous party in a Marine Corps Harrier VTOL jet? Or was he making jet plane noises as he was molesting young Christine? These questions, along with a multitude of others, remain open.

Christine is a Psychologist:

Blasey Ford allowed the public and the committee to believe that she was a psychologist in the full meaning of the term. She specifically told the committee that she was a “research psychologist”. She also made the claim on her university web site page, and in several other cases. The legacy media (for instance, the Washington Post and the Atlantic) dropped the “research’ part and repeatedly asserted that she was a licensed psychologist, with no request for a correction from the Blasey Ford camp.

In fact, she is no such thing. While she has done the course work, and was awarded a doctorate in the field, she still lacks certification. To qualify as a “psychologist” in the state of California (and every other state in the union), an individual must serve a one-year residency and pass several rigorous examinations. Blasey Ford has not done so. She is, ipso facto, not a psychologist.

Furthermore, she knows this. Her faculty page, which originally stated that she was a “research psychologist” has been scrubbed, and no longer makes that claim.

Christine’s front door:

Now we must deal with the comedy of the door. The door is a critical element in the Blasey Ford saga, acting as it did to disperse the fog of forgetfulness and enable her to confront the full truth of her ordeal in 1982… or maybe 1983. Simply put, her insistence in 2012 on a second front door led to friction in her marriage, which brought the Blasey Fords before a marriage counselor, at which point the professordoktor either did or did not first tell the tale of her suffering at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh.

“In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.”

(As is true of just about everything else in this story, the reasoning behind the second door remains a mystery. Evidently, its purpose was to allow Blasey Ford a means of escape if Kavanaugh landed his Harrier in front of her home and attempted to once again lay hands on her. The fact that a back or side door would serve this purpose much better has never, to my knowledge, entered the discussion.)

Well, Christine got her door. But she didn’t get in 2012, and no marriage counselor was involved. It happens that the permit for remodeling her home – including adding the door — was obtained in 2008. If Palo Alto is like other municipalities, the permit would be good for six months, with an option for a six-month extension. So the door must have been added at that time. And in fact, photographic evidence exists showing the new door in place in 2011, a year before Blasey Ford claims that it nearly destroyed her marriage.

Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that the house in question was rented out by Blasey Ford to “Google interns” and that no one in her family lived there. In addition, somebody was running a business there (a “couples therapy” clinic, ironically enough – the “Couples Research Center.” There’s that word “research” again.), and that the door was added as an entrance to the business, rather than as a Kavanaugh-evasion device.

While these claims might appear minor in isolation, together they form a pattern recognizable and undeniable. There will no doubt be others coming, but three is all we need, according to the wisdom of Auric Goldfinger: “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”

A lot of print and commentary, both online and otherwise, has argued that Blasey Ford is credible, convincing, and sympathetic. Even her opponents hold that “something must have happened” to explain her behavior.  But to believe this, we have to toss all standards of truth out the window. We have to postulate that a lie is not a lie, a liar is not a liar. We have to slip into a pure postmodern, nothing-is-certain, all-truth-is-relative mode. Without that, Blasey Ford is approximately as convincing as Julie Swetnick.

She is not a sympathetic figure. She is not a confused, traumatized victim attempting to grapple with the fragmented memories of a past incident. The record clearly reveals that this to be nonsense. She is a malicious liar who has put herself at the service of malignant political clique for the purpose of undercutting the stated will and intentions of the people of this country.

It is a simple fact that Kavanaugh’s accusers on the committee are proven liars – Feinstein in withholding the letter in the first place (not to mention denying how it became public), Booker concerning his good friend T-Bone, along with his “Spartacus moment”, Blumenthal concerning his heroism in Vietnam. The stunning irony here is that Judge Kavanaugh is demonstrably more honest than any of his accusers.

This is the central truth of the Kavanaugh case. It must be hammered relentlessly, to the point where it can no longer be evaded. It must be repeated every time we’re told that “women don’t lie”. Every time someone flaunts a t-shirt reading “I Believe Her”. Every time we hear another obtuse blurt from Pelosi or Hirono. I must be repeated until it becomes the default, the meme that crowds everything else out: that the truth is not in Christine Blasey Ford, and that she is condemned by her own words.

Case closed.

The great solon Richard Blumenthal, hero of An Loc, Ia Drang, Khe Sanh, Hue, and Tet, has explained to us that “Who lies in one instance, lies in all.”

Blumenthal was referring to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, who hasn’t lied about anything, as far as anyone has been able to tell.

But we can turn it around to focus on the party that Sen. Blumenthal was speaking out for. In how many instances has Christine Blasey Ford lied?

Fear of Flying:

Fear of flying is a commonplace among many travelers (so much so that Brian Eno in the 1970s recorded several hours of soothing music expressly designed to ease such fears). But in Blasey Ford’s case, it was presented as a terror so overwhelming, so uncontrollable, as to prevent her from traveling by air under any circumstances. No – Professordoktor Ford, we were led to believe, would need to drive from Palo Alto to Washington to testify before the Senate Judicial Committee.

This claim fell apart in short order after it was revealed that Ford had lived for a year in Honolulu, a city effectively unreachable except by air, had vacationed in Tahiti and other areas of the Pacific, and regularly flew from California to the east coast to visit family. In light of all this, the “driving” claim became a running social media joke, with bogus reports of which was the last town she had driven through.

The claim collapsed completely when it was revealed that she had flown out to D.C. to testify before the committee, evidently without aid of hypnotism, sedatives, oxygen tanks in case of hyperventilation, or a trained service animal. No one at the hearing bothered to question her about this discrepancy. They should have.

The claim of a connection between Blasey Ford’s aviation phobia and Judge Kavanaugh is something of a mystery. Did he fly in to the infamous party in a Marine Corps Harrier VTOL jet? Or was he making jet plane noises as he was molesting young Christine? These questions, along with a multitude of others, remain open.

Christine is a Psychologist:

Blasey Ford allowed the public and the committee to believe that she was a psychologist in the full meaning of the term. She specifically told the committee that she was a “research psychologist”. She also made the claim on her university web site page, and in several other cases. The legacy media (for instance, the Washington Post and the Atlantic) dropped the “research’ part and repeatedly asserted that she was a licensed psychologist, with no request for a correction from the Blasey Ford camp.

In fact, she is no such thing. While she has done the course work, and was awarded a doctorate in the field, she still lacks certification. To qualify as a “psychologist” in the state of California (and every other state in the union), an individual must serve a one-year residency and pass several rigorous examinations. Blasey Ford has not done so. She is, ipso facto, not a psychologist.

Furthermore, she knows this. Her faculty page, which originally stated that she was a “research psychologist” has been scrubbed, and no longer makes that claim.

Christine’s front door:

Now we must deal with the comedy of the door. The door is a critical element in the Blasey Ford saga, acting as it did to disperse the fog of forgetfulness and enable her to confront the full truth of her ordeal in 1982… or maybe 1983. Simply put, her insistence in 2012 on a second front door led to friction in her marriage, which brought the Blasey Fords before a marriage counselor, at which point the professordoktor either did or did not first tell the tale of her suffering at the hands of Judge Kavanaugh.

“In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.”

(As is true of just about everything else in this story, the reasoning behind the second door remains a mystery. Evidently, its purpose was to allow Blasey Ford a means of escape if Kavanaugh landed his Harrier in front of her home and attempted to once again lay hands on her. The fact that a back or side door would serve this purpose much better has never, to my knowledge, entered the discussion.)

Well, Christine got her door. But she didn’t get in 2012, and no marriage counselor was involved. It happens that the permit for remodeling her home – including adding the door — was obtained in 2008. If Palo Alto is like other municipalities, the permit would be good for six months, with an option for a six-month extension. So the door must have been added at that time. And in fact, photographic evidence exists showing the new door in place in 2011, a year before Blasey Ford claims that it nearly destroyed her marriage.

Furthermore, there is evidence suggesting that the house in question was rented out by Blasey Ford to “Google interns” and that no one in her family lived there. In addition, somebody was running a business there (a “couples therapy” clinic, ironically enough – the “Couples Research Center.” There’s that word “research” again.), and that the door was added as an entrance to the business, rather than as a Kavanaugh-evasion device.

While these claims might appear minor in isolation, together they form a pattern recognizable and undeniable. There will no doubt be others coming, but three is all we need, according to the wisdom of Auric Goldfinger: “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”

A lot of print and commentary, both online and otherwise, has argued that Blasey Ford is credible, convincing, and sympathetic. Even her opponents hold that “something must have happened” to explain her behavior.  But to believe this, we have to toss all standards of truth out the window. We have to postulate that a lie is not a lie, a liar is not a liar. We have to slip into a pure postmodern, nothing-is-certain, all-truth-is-relative mode. Without that, Blasey Ford is approximately as convincing as Julie Swetnick.

She is not a sympathetic figure. She is not a confused, traumatized victim attempting to grapple with the fragmented memories of a past incident. The record clearly reveals that this to be nonsense. She is a malicious liar who has put herself at the service of malignant political clique for the purpose of undercutting the stated will and intentions of the people of this country.

It is a simple fact that Kavanaugh’s accusers on the committee are proven liars – Feinstein in withholding the letter in the first place (not to mention denying how it became public), Booker concerning his good friend T-Bone, along with his “Spartacus moment”, Blumenthal concerning his heroism in Vietnam. The stunning irony here is that Judge Kavanaugh is demonstrably more honest than any of his accusers.

This is the central truth of the Kavanaugh case. It must be hammered relentlessly, to the point where it can no longer be evaded. It must be repeated every time we’re told that “women don’t lie”. Every time someone flaunts a t-shirt reading “I Believe Her”. Every time we hear another obtuse blurt from Pelosi or Hirono. I must be repeated until it becomes the default, the meme that crowds everything else out: that the truth is not in Christine Blasey Ford, and that she is condemned by her own words.

Case closed.

Now that the high school days of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are the most important issue facing Americans (according to the media, anyway) it is certainly odd that evidence of student norms at Blasey Ford’s own alma mater is being “disappeared” from the web.  First, the yearbook of Holton-Arms high school the all-girls private academy she attended was scrubbed from the web on September 17, 2018.

But that effort to withhold from the public pictures like this

was foiled by a website – one I had never before heard of – called “The Cult of the 1^st Amendment,” which archived the whole thing, making it available for study.

Now, most curiously. The Cult of the 1^st Amendment has disappeared from its host, Blogspot, which happens to be owned by Google.  It has been “removed”:

https://ift.tt/2yavbzA

Fortunately, another website, The Washington Standard, also archived the pictures – for now. Tim Brown writes:

I received an email today asking that I make sure to preserve the information that was obtained and written about at the now removed Google blogspot site, Cult of the 1st Amendment, which quickly grabbed up several pictures of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s yearbook and provided at least three articles on various aspects of the yearbook and campus life.  In following through with that, I have preserved both the articles and the pictures on TheWashingtonStandard.com.

The three articles are titled:

·       WHY CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS WERE SCRUBBED: FACULTY APPROVED RACISM, BINGE DRINKING & PROMISCUITY

·       DR. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S RACIST HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS

·       CHRISTINE FORD’S YEARBOOK: DANGEROUS HALLUCINATORY OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE BY CHRISTINE BLASEY CAUSED POTENTIALLY FATAL CRASH IN HIGH SCHOOL

This is very important that the truth of these articles remain in the public square due to the libelous and slanderous accusations that have been leveled at Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings.

I have no knowledge of why The Cult of the 1st Amendment was removed, but I do know that Google has amply demonstrated that its employees harbor an animus toward conservatives. The latest evidence, via Breitbart:

A senior software engineer at Google with responsibility for a key feature of Google’s search engine labeled Tennessee Senate candidate Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) a “violent thug” and a “terrorist,” who Google shouldn’t “negotiate” with, according to internal emails obtained by Breitbart News. The employee also defended the censorship of her campaign ads on social media.

The comments took place in an internal email discussion that began on June 19 this year. The topic of discussion was Rep. Blackburn’s Fox News op-ed of the same month, which urged Silicon Valley companies to address bias against conservatives on their platforms. Blackburn, who has herself been the target of social media censorship, has been a vocal critic of tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter during her time in Congress.

The op-ed was not well received within the corridors of Silicon Valley power. One Google employee, a site reliability engineer, called Blackburn’s piece “hilarious” and said Republicans are becoming “tribalists focused on stirring up outrage to maintain power.”

If you are not alarmed by the power Google, a company dominated by far leftists, you are not paying attention. I don’t know the specifics of the removal of the Cult of the 1^st, but Google has forfeited the benefit of the doubt. Google shoudhire Jack Nicholson to beits corporate spokesman:

 

Now that the high school days of Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford are the most important issue facing Americans (according to the media, anyway) it is certainly odd that evidence of student norms at Blasey Ford’s own alma mater is being “disappeared” from the web.  First, the yearbook of Holton-Arms high school the all-girls private academy she attended was scrubbed from the web on September 17, 2018.

But that effort to withhold from the public pictures like this

was foiled by a website – one I had never before heard of – called “The Cult of the 1^st Amendment,” which archived the whole thing, making it available for study.

Now, most curiously. The Cult of the 1^st Amendment has disappeared from its host, Blogspot, which happens to be owned by Google.  It has been “removed”:

https://ift.tt/2yavbzA

Fortunately, another website, The Washington Standard, also archived the pictures – for now. Tim Brown writes:

I received an email today asking that I make sure to preserve the information that was obtained and written about at the now removed Google blogspot site, Cult of the 1st Amendment, which quickly grabbed up several pictures of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford’s yearbook and provided at least three articles on various aspects of the yearbook and campus life.  In following through with that, I have preserved both the articles and the pictures on TheWashingtonStandard.com.

The three articles are titled:

·       WHY CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS WERE SCRUBBED: FACULTY APPROVED RACISM, BINGE DRINKING & PROMISCUITY

·       DR. CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S RACIST HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOKS

·       CHRISTINE FORD’S YEARBOOK: DANGEROUS HALLUCINATORY OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE BY CHRISTINE BLASEY CAUSED POTENTIALLY FATAL CRASH IN HIGH SCHOOL

This is very important that the truth of these articles remain in the public square due to the libelous and slanderous accusations that have been leveled at Supreme Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearings.

I have no knowledge of why The Cult of the 1st Amendment was removed, but I do know that Google has amply demonstrated that its employees harbor an animus toward conservatives. The latest evidence, via Breitbart:

A senior software engineer at Google with responsibility for a key feature of Google’s search engine labeled Tennessee Senate candidate Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) a “violent thug” and a “terrorist,” who Google shouldn’t “negotiate” with, according to internal emails obtained by Breitbart News. The employee also defended the censorship of her campaign ads on social media.

The comments took place in an internal email discussion that began on June 19 this year. The topic of discussion was Rep. Blackburn’s Fox News op-ed of the same month, which urged Silicon Valley companies to address bias against conservatives on their platforms. Blackburn, who has herself been the target of social media censorship, has been a vocal critic of tech giants like Google, Facebook, and Twitter during her time in Congress.

The op-ed was not well received within the corridors of Silicon Valley power. One Google employee, a site reliability engineer, called Blackburn’s piece “hilarious” and said Republicans are becoming “tribalists focused on stirring up outrage to maintain power.”

If you are not alarmed by the power Google, a company dominated by far leftists, you are not paying attention. I don’t know the specifics of the removal of the Cult of the 1^st, but Google has forfeited the benefit of the doubt. Google shoudhire Jack Nicholson to beits corporate spokesman:

 

For liberals, facts are painful.

The sex crimes prosecutor brought on by the Senate Judiciary Committee to assist with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings not only said that she wouldn’t have pressed charges against Kavanaugh in the case, she found the evidence presented by his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, was decidedly weaker even than a “he said, she said” situation.

In a memo released late Sunday, Rachel Mitchell questioned Ford’s version of events, including the shifting timeline of when the attack occurred, Ford’s inability to remember how she got home, the ambiguity of her willingness to remain anonymous, and the failure of other witnesses to back up her story.

“In a legal context, here is my bottom line: A ‘he said, she said’ case is incredibly difficult to prove,” the Arizona prosecutor said at the beginning of the memo, which can be viewed here.  The document was addressed to “All Republican Senators.”

“But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses in the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.”

TRENDING: Democratic Senator’s Mid-Hearing Email Blast Reveals Sickening Motive for Fight Against Kavanaugh

WOW! Sex Crimes Prosecutor Rachel Mitchell COMPLETELY EXONERATES Brett Kavanaugh after reviewing allegations pic.twitter.com/3TxmSzH6sF

— Jacob Wohl (@JacobAWohl) October 1, 2018

Among the major problems Mitchell had was the fact that Ford couldn’t give “a consistent account of when the alleged assault happened.” In her conversations with The Washington Post, for instance, she said it was the “mid 1980s,” which shifted to the “early ’80s” in a letter to California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Therapy notes seemed to indicate she said it happened in her “late teens,” while Ford’s eventual account had her at age 15.

While Ford eventually narrowed it down to the summer of 1982, Mitchell remained unconvinced.

“While it is common for victims to be uncertain about dates, Dr. Ford failed to explain how she was suddenly able to narrow the time frame to a particular season and particular year,” Mitchell wrote.

Mitchell also referred back to notes taken by Ford’s therapist in 2012, which didn’t seem to identify Kavanaugh by name. The first time her husband recalled hearing a name was in 2012, Mitchell wrote, when Kavanaugh was “widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.”

Mitchell also took aim at Ford’s memories of the party where she claimed the alleged sexual assault happened.

“She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity,” Mitchell wrote. “Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.”

“She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.”

While Ford was able to describe details of the night — including “hiding in the bathroom, locking the door, and subsequently exiting the house,” the drive back is more elusive.

RELATED: New York Times Deletes Tweet, Apologizes After Posting Insensitive Message on Kavanaugh Hearing

Ford “has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver,” Mitchell wrote.

“Given that all of this took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.”

The memo also notes the inconsistencies in Ford’s accounts of who was at the party and her discussions with The Washington Post, and the fact that Ford “refused to provide any of her therapy notes to the Committee.” (italics in the original)

Mitchell didn’t examine Kavanaugh’s testimony in the memo. However, this kind of analysis, one assumes, is why the Ford team didn’t want a sex crimes prosecutor present at the hearing. This was something that the left was crowing about the moment this hit the news wires, as evinced by the reaction of BuzzFeed’s legal editor, Chris Geidner:

Be very clear: This is a political document, nothing more. It is not a legal document from a prosecutor. Mitchell wasn’t allowed to continue questioning Kavanaugh, has not been allowed to chase down any leads, and, in any event, this isn’t a criminal trial. https://t.co/0czI3sESwN

— Chris Geidner (@chrisgeidner) October 1, 2018

Yes, and that actually doesn’t refute any of the points made in the memo. However credible — or at least sympathetic — Ford may have seemed as an individual to the layman, there are still significant issues with her account of what happened (and how that account has shifted).

That’s what a prosecutor is supposed to do — provide a dispassionate version of things. Mitchell wasn’t there to take sides. What she did was point out the multifarious inconsistencies in the testimony of Christine Blasey Ford.

In a situation where it’s horribly impolitic to state the facts, that’s an invaluable service.

We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.