53percenter's Blog

For the past several weeks, Democrats and their liberal media allies have publicly excoriated Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over a number of uncorroborated allegations and unverifiable rumors of criminal wrongdoing, essentially convicting and sentencing him to political death in the court of public opinion.

Obviously intent on derailing Kavanaugh’s nomination by creating a massive public outcry and rendering him toxic to moderate Republicans, Democrats had no problems whatsoever in publicly discussing every sordid detail of the allegations and smears hurled at the previously spotless nominee.

Yet in spite of the blatant attempts to assassinate his character and destroy him politically, Kavanaugh managed to clear the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday, with the condition that the FBI open a limited investigation into the several allegations lodged against him.

All indications thus far from that investigation suggest that nothing new will be found to stop Kavanaugh from being confirmed, and now Democrats suddenly want to ensure that any new information discovered about Kavanaugh is kept secret so only members of the Senate and select staffers will be permitted to see what the FBI produces after concluding the probe.

.@SenFeinstein indicates that the FBI report on Kavanaugh should NOT be made public: “It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified this ought to be held very close and not.”

“I think the investigation ought to be closely held,” she reiterated.

— Elizabeth Landers (@ElizLanders) October 2, 2018

TRENDING: GOP Officials Lay Devastating Haymaker on Flake Over Kavanaugh Debacle

CNN reporter Elizabeth Landers noted as much in a tweet quoting committee Ranking Member Dianne Feinstein. Landers tweeted, “(Feinstein) indicates that the FBI report on Kavanaugh should NOT be made public: ‘It would seem to me that if people are going to be identified this ought to be held very close and not. I think the investigation ought to be closely held,’ (Feinstein) reiterated.

Funny, Feinstein didn’t seem all that concerned about keeping people’s identities “closely held” when the letter sent to her from Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford was leaked to the media, nor did she exhibit any such concern when she publicly spoke about some of the other individuals named by Ford, or the other accusers who have popped out of the woodwork in Ford’s wake.

A CNN report noted that Feinstein has demanded the FBI inform her of everyone the agency is talking to as part of its probe into the Kavanaugh allegations, and said, “And of course, it would be given to us on a classified basis but at least we would know.”

Asked how the American public will have any confidence in the ultimate conclusions reached by the Senate following such a secret report from the FBI, Feinstein replied, “Well, let’s see … I can’t say because I don’t know what the investigation will say.”

Nor is Feinstein alone, as an update to that same CNN article reported that the California senator was joined in her call for the results of the FBI probe to remain secret by Democrat Delaware Sen. Chris Coons.

“I think that the work product of the FBI should be kept confidential to the Senate, but all senators should be able to review it,” Coons told reporters.

“That’s typically what’s the case in any background investigation, the FBI delivers investigatory work — facts, not conclusions — and then senators review those files. But those are committee confidential files typically,” he added.

Also “typical” would be for the Senate Judiciary Committee to quietly investigate allegations against a nominee by itself, without dumping all of the disgusting details into public view via a coordinated media campaign. But there isn’t much in Washington D.C. these days that is “typical” anymore.

Further updates to that CNN article indicated that the dispute over whether the FBI probe into the Kavanaugh allegations had crossed the aisle to the Republican side as well, as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham called for the final report to be made public in its entirety while Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said the report would be handled in the usual manner, distributed to senators so only they and select staff members can read it.

RELATED: Trump Tells Reporters What No Other President Dared: You’re Part of the Democratic Party

Democrats like Feinstein and Coons had no problem making all of the details of the allegations against Kavanaugh public when they thought doing so would succeed in derailing his nomination, but now that it looks like Kavanaugh will survive the smears and be confirmed to the Supreme Court, they want to keep any exonerating information secret from the public.

If that doesn’t add to the damning evidence suggesting this whole charade was intended solely to scuttle Kavanaugh’s nomination, rather than get to the truth of the allegations against him, then seemingly nothing else will.

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

Women never lie and are never mistaken.

Via News3LV:

LAS VEGAS (KSNV) — Four dentists from California, including three brothers, who faced rape charges for the alleged assault of a woman at the Wynn Las Vegas had all charges dismissed in court Monday.

Charged were Ali Badkoobehi and brothers Poria Edalat, Saman Edalat and Sina Edalat. The charges included sex assault, conspiracy to commit sex assault and first-degree kidnapping for the late July incident.

Prosecutors dropped all charges during a very brief hearing today before Las Vegas Justice Court Judge Eric Goodman.

Keep reading…

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: