Sept 25, 2018 by Joe Hoft Another Internet sleuth released a series of tweets that are damning to the letter provided by Senator Feinstein from Dr. Ford who accused Judge Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct nearly 40 years ago.The Internet is the place where individuals with different backgrounds and skill sets are able to combine their efforts to address the many lies in the MSM today. This happens all the time and the MSM hates it when their lies are uncovered or questioned. Yesterday Dr. Dannielle (Dossy) Blumenthal released a series of tweets that dissect and refute the letter provided by Senator Feinstein from the accuser of Judge Kavanaugh. Dr. Ford’s letter is full of flaws which lead one to realize something just doesn’t add up! Dr. ‘Dossy’ Blumenthal states that she believes Ford’s letter is written by a third party – 1) I believe the letter from Dr. Ford was written by a third party.#ConfirmKavanaughNowpic.twitter.com/qbJPviP75p — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dossy lists her credibility reviewing letters to Congress – 17) My professional opinion is based on 2.5 years of being responsible for constituent letters from Congress. Meaning, I have scanned, read, reviewed, routed and responded to hundreds of them. — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dossy also has a Ph.D with a focus on creative writing – 19) I have a Ph.D. in sociology and a bachelor’s degree in interdisciplinary studies with a focus on creative writing. — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dossy overall believes that an educated person did not write Dr. Ford’s letter – 21) First of all, as has already been pointed out, Dr. Ford’s letter does not read like a very educated person wrote it. https://t.co/WN8kGCUMtk — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dossy provides a copy of the letter – 22) Here is the letter.https://t.co/errMnJaoHF pic.twitter.com/mTN8iVUmQV — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dossy notes that the first clue is “high school” is capitalized when it shouldn’t be – 23) The first clue is that she capitalized “high school.” In this sentence, it doesn’t need to be capitalized. pic.twitter.com/VeDewwB4SV — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dossy says people use their best English when writing Congress yet Dr. Ford’s letter is sloppy – 24) It has been my experience at work that private citizens generally use their best English writing skills in communicating to Congress. Dr. Ford has a Stanford pedigree, is a PhD, and is heavily published. The letter is sloppy. — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 The font size of the first line of the second paragraph is in a different font – would a professor send such a sloppy letter to Congress? 25) The second clue is the first line of the second paragraph. As others have pointed out, the font size is not consistent; is this a sloppy printout she is sending on a letter of historic importance? pic.twitter.com/yyQUiBm6Mg — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dr. Ford wrote “in the early 1980’s” – wrong grammar – should be “1980s” – 26) Also noteworthy is that she says “in the early 1980’s.” The grammar here is wrong – you would write “1980s” without the apostrophe. pic.twitter.com/WbJTVnlUZd — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Emotional constituents would not be so vague – 27) Further, in the letters I have reviewed, emotional constituents are usually hyper-specific about their complaints — never vague. Logically, that is why they are writing to Congress: to remedy a wrong that is clear to them, but not others. So “early 1980’s” is not normal. pic.twitter.com/sOYc4sPf2G — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 It’s odd that Judge Kavanaugh’s name is not in the first line – why? – 28) Here’s another odd thing. Why didn’t she put Kavanaugh’s name in the first line, eg “I am writing to express my concerns about Judge Brett Kavanaugh.” pic.twitter.com/wQbQFrfJun — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Why did Dr. Ford say she hasn’t “knowingly” seen Kavanaugh since? Was she drunk? 29) Why did the writer of the letter go to such pains to say: “I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since…” What does “knowingly” refer to? Was she drunk at other parties and can’t remember him? pic.twitter.com/olQ5FxRPwg — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dr. Ford says “they” locked the door – which one – both? 30) “They” locked the door. Who is “they?” Which one? Both together? pic.twitter.com/HtZJWe56FH — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dr. Ford writes a “very drunken” – poor English again – should be “very drunk” – 31) “a very drunken Judge said mixed words to Kavanaugh” — this is the writing of either an illiterate or someone for whom English is a second language. —“Very drunken”? She means “very drunk.” —“Mixed words?” She means “said contradictory things.” pic.twitter.com/t73djlNI7r — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 The letter does not mirror being from someone who is a Dr. – 32) This is not to offend people who don’t have good English skills or who are struggling to learn. Rather it is to point out that the letter does not reflect someone of Dr. Ford’s professional rank. — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 The awkward English has poor grammar interspersed with flowery language – 33) The awkward English and poor grammar is interspersed with flowery language. “The two scrapped with each other,” for example. “I was able to take this opportune moment.” pic.twitter.com/N8OIUHWFIP — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dr. Ford calls psychotherapy as medical treatment – why? – 34) Why does she refer to psychotherapy as “medical treatment?” pic.twitter.com/Ha4tpy8Gy7 — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 The letter is not from someone who has been published in journals – no way – 35) This person has been published in countless peer-reviewed journals. Doesn’t add up. — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 The letter refers to the same bathroom twice making it sound like two different bathrooms – 36) Another example: The letter writer refers to the same bathroom twice, but the second mention makes it sound like it is a totally different bathroom. pic.twitter.com/Uqva0uwjls — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Why does Dr. Ford use her maiden name in the letter? 37) If she is married and published under her married name why is she using her maiden name? pic.twitter.com/FVOQqrqRyt — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Why does Dr. Ford not refer to herself as Dr.? 38) Why doesn’t she refer to herself as “Dr.?” Where is her return address? Where is Feinstein’s address? Eshoo’s? pic.twitter.com/3fwyYctT1c — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Confidential is in the letter 3 times – when did Dr. Ford agree to release her name? – 39) The word “confidential” appears three times, once in bold. Where did Ford agree to have her name released again? pic.twitter.com/gfDgEPUu6J — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Dr. Ford shifts tense in the same sentence – not professional – 40) Shift in tense here: “It is upsetting” (present tense) but “I felt” (past tense). Again not PhD level writing or even basic business writing. pic.twitter.com/6t2V2nVU8f — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Was there a privacy release from Dr. Ford? If so, when? – 41) Where is the Privacy Release Form that would allow Feinstein to inquire on Ford’s behalf? — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 The whole letter just does not add up – no way – 45) This whole story just doesn’t add up. Starting with that very fake-sounding letter. — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 Finally— Dossy states that it is ironic that the same people that contaminate our culture promoting sex to children scream outrage when conservatives are accused of sexual misdeeds – 13) I find it ironic that the same people who want to use government money in our schools to teach children to have sex — the same people who plant articles in Teen Vogue about sodomy — are the ones who scream “RAAAAPPPEE” because Brett Kavanaugh was part of heterosexual life. — Dannielle Blumenthal PhD (@DrDannielle) September 24, 2018 It looks like the Internet again uncovered another Left wing lie! Let’s hope Republican Senators point this out in the upcoming hearing! https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/09/multiple-discrepancies-discovered-in-senator-feinsteins-christine-ford-letter-looks-like-a-fraud/ -------- She's lying Sept 25, 2018 By Apolo Villalobos Kavanaugh's accuser is lying. Her story has so many holes that it looks like Swiss cheese. Her ever increasing demands, made through her feminist attorney – a dead ringer for Skeletor – and her whiny excuses for not attending (she says she's afraid of flying – a psychologist who has never received therapy for this very easily treatable phobia?) are simply a transparent tactic to delay, if not derail, the confirmation until the blue wave of the elections paralyzes all future nominations. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure this out. Needless to say, Da Sisters are behind her in full shrieking mode. The shrieking feminists insist that she should be automatically believed, she should not be "bullied" (i.e., questioned or doubted). "The poor rape victim" meme has totally saturated society, to the point that it is considered to be the height of boorishness to question the veracity of an accusation of rape. In this day and age, accusation is simply enough to derail careers, especially since the leftist media are complicit. The accuser must not be doubted. After all, women are incapable of lying. Or manipulation. Here are a number of instances where a so-called rape victim lied through her teeth, whatever her motivation might have been:
Occasionally, such false accusations blow up in the faces of both the accusers and the accompanying propagandist media. We saw this in the infamous Rolling Stone hoax and the equally infamous Duke lacrosse team case. (The prosecutor and the police in the latter deliberately – yes, deliberately – falsified facts. See the excellent documentary Fantastic Lies.) This is to leave out the accusations by ex-wives that the husbands whom they are divorcing molested their children. Actually, cases like those above are commonplace; they just do not get the publicity they deserve, simply because they go against the politically correct dogma that all men are rapists and that we live in a rape culture. Their numbers are far from few, running easily into the hundreds. And not only are fraudulent accusations rampant, but what is worse – much, much worse – are the hundreds of wrongful convictions, based on hoaxes. And no one takes up their cause. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/shes_lying.html -------- Related www.lifezette.com/2018/09/dershowitz-escalates-war-of-words-with-porn-star-defender-avenatti/ https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/25/michael-avenatti-locks-twitter-public-profile-after-admitting-kavanaugh-accuser-might-not-come-forward/ https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/09/25/dianne-feinstein-i-have-no-way-of-knowing-if-ford-will-testify-thursday/ http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/25/senate-judiciary-committee-reschedules-vote-on-brett-kavanaugh-for-friday-morning.html
0 Comments
September 24, 2018 By Right Wing News
As the most reliable and balanced news aggregation service in the world, RWN offers the following information published by CDP: https://youtu.be/dO9cIlTS8zw A new report presents credible evidence that one of the women who accused Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh of inappropriate behavior at an alleged party in 1983 has a chilling connection to liberal billionaire George Soros. According to the Shad Olson Show, Deborah Ramirez — who recently claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her college party almost four decades ago — was listed in 2003 as a “Senior Fellow” for the Open Society Initiative, a program founded and operated by Soros. On the website archive, a press release shows that a woman named “Deborah Ramirez” is listed as a “Soros Justice Senior Fellow.” Above a screenshot of the press release from the website archive, which shows Ramirez’s name listed on the Open Society Initiative website Reports that Ramirez appears to have been a senior fellow in a Soros-controlled initiative — which would signal that she’s a liberal who likely is against President Donald Trump, who nominated Kavanaugh — comes within days of her divulging to a liberal outlet that she all-of-a-sudden remembers a party she attended over 35 years ago. Especially given that Soros paid protesters were caught protesting Kavanaugh. On Sunday, the New Yorker published an exclusive piece covering an interview with Ramirez, who claims Kavanaugh exposed himself to her in 1983 during a party while they attended Yale University. In the piece, which is already falling apart, the outlet notes that Ramirez admits having “significant gaps in her memories” regarding the alleged college party and that she could not remember specific information or the alleged person. However, after six days of consulting with a Democratic lawyer, Ramirez now believes Kavanaugh was the supposed man who exposed himself to her at the party. The New Yorker also reports that Ramirez’s best friend said she has “never heard of” the allegations against Kavanaugh. Ramirez claimed that she “became inebriated” and “was on the floor, foggy and slurring her words” during the party in question. “Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening. Her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident.” All of the witnesses Ramirez said were present have denied seeing or being aware of what she alleges Kavanaugh did at the party. Buried deep in the article, the New Yorker admits that it “has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.” So, Ramirez hadn’t told anyone — including her best friend, who was at her wedding, along with an invited Kavanaugh — about the allegations from 1983, but happened to remember exactly what happened after meeting with a Democratic lawyer for nearly a week. Totally normal, right? Her allegations came a few weeks after Christine Blasey Ford claimed Kavanaugh groped her nearly 40 years ago while they were in college. Ford’s allegations are so shoddy that Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, admitted last week that she “can’t say everything’s truthful.” Read More https://arlinreport.com/2018/09/25/the-george-soros-connection-to-the-kavanaugh-accusers-fake-accusers/ https://rwnofficial.com/second-kavanaugh-accusers-huge-secret-just-leaked-and-blows-scandal-wide-open/ ----- Trending: Kavanaugh Accuser’s Husband Breaks His Silence, Exposes The Sick Issue His Wife Has Sept 25, 2018 by Jonathan Turley
With the addition of a second woman alleging sexual misconduct of Brett Kavanaugh, it is still not clear what factual disputes will have to be addressed before a final confirmation vote occurs in the Senate. Putting aside questions over late timing of the allegations, there is agreement that the Senate will have to consider both the allegations of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and the new allegations of Deborah Ramirez. What is far more troubling is the continued disagreement on the standard that Senators should use in considering the allegations. While objecting that their Republican colleagues are not prepared to give the women an “impartial hearing,” various Democratic senators have declared (before any testimony is heard) that they believe Dr. Ford – and thus do not believe Judge Kavanaugh. That is troubling enough, but Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., HI) has introduced a far more troubling element in suggesting that she may decide the factual question on the basis of Kavanaugh’s jurisprudential views. Hirono has previously declared that she believes Ford even before hearing either in testimony before the Committee. She also told all men everywhere to “shut up” and just stand with Ford. In her latest interview, Hirono was pressed on whether Kavanaugh has “the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” For most people, the question would be an easy one to answer in the affirmative, Hirono demurred and declined to say that she would afford Kavanaugh this core presumption of the rule of law. She said that she would “put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.” She said that she would consider his “ideological agenda” and her view that “he very much is against women’s reproductive choice.” Hirono’s mixing of factual with ideological considerations further degrades a process that is already deeply undermined by last minute allegations and partisan bickering. It is also curious to see a senator tie credibility on sexual misconduct to one’s view of Roe v. Wade. Bill Clinton, Harvey Weinstein, Matt Lauer, Al Franken and others were all reportedly pro-choice but also labeled as abusers. Such a reference to an accused’s political or ideological views by a judge would be viewed as the basis for a mandatory recusal for bias. It is entirely immaterial how one views constitutional rights in whether they should be believed in denying the admmission of a crime. There was, of course, a time when such a presumption of guilt on the basis for religion or nationality or other characteristics was an accepted (even celebrated) practice. During the Spanish Inquisition, who you were would determine whether you would be believed. It was not just suspected Jews but others like foreigners who faced an effective presumption of guilt. When Pedro Ginesta, an elderly man from France was arrested in 1635 for eating bacon on a day of abstinence, the indictment declared “The said prisoner being of a nation infected with heresy [France], it is presumed” that he is lying and part of “the sect of Luther.” France for its part had the same difficulty with separating politics from law. During the French Revolution, the Law of Suspects was passed in 1793 relieving tribunals of the burden of minimal evidence in ordering arrests and any perceived counter-revolutionary views was enough to be indicted. Jacobins saw law and politics as inextricably linked. Of course, the desire to use legal or legislative means to punish political opponents becomes an insatiable appetite. One year later, the tribunals passed the Law of 22 Prairial, which stripped away remaining protections for the accused and allowed juries to convict on the ambiguous basis of “moral certainty.” Hirono’s description of her approach comes dangerously close to the Jacobin use of “moral certainty” in judging facts. If Kavanaugh’s opposition to Roe can be used to subject him to a higher burden, would Weinstein’s support of Roe afford him a lower burden of proof? It is not enough for Democratic Senators to simply say that they are not judges and therefore entitled to any standard of review no matter how pre-determined or unfair. Members of Congress do not have license to mete out punishments and judgments without due process to citizens. The Framers expressly barred Congress from passing “bills of attainder” – legislation that effectively singles out individuals or groups for special punishment for perceived offenses. Likewise, committees are subject to individual constitutional rights including the right against self-incrimination and other constitutional protections. In other words, there are rules. More importantly, there are principles. When a member swears to uphold the Constitution, they agree to respect our defining values and protections. One of the most central protections is to be allowed a fair hearing. This is particularly the case when someone is accused of a heinous criminal act. Unfortunately, “moral certainty” appears to be the growing standard for members who are rushing to assure voters on both sides that they are respective locks for either Ford or Kavanaugh. Proof then becomes a simple political head count. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has even declared that he expects that, if Kavanaugh is confirmed, a Democratic majority would launch an immediate investigation and possible impeachment against him as an associate justice. Thus, as Ella Wheeler Wilcox said, “no question is ever settled until it is settled right.” Yet, what is “right” increasingly appears like a simple question of math rather than principle in the United States Senate. It is doubtful that Kavanaugh could be impeached absent clear proof of perjury before Congress. Thus, what happens next year may be less important than what happens this week. Senators on both sides must decide if they will act to further their constitutional institution or just their political instincts. https://jonathanturley.org/2018/09/25/hiranos-hedge-kavanaugh-not-entitled-to-presumption-of-innocence-due-to-his-ideological-views/ ------ Kavanaugh denies assault allegations in exclusive interview https://youtu.be/gxEGNt5EwGo ------ Sept 24, 2018 by DC Whispers
MUST READ: Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Letter To Congress: “I Will Not Be Intimidated.” Judge Brett Kavanaugh has long been highly regarded as a jurist of supreme knowledge and principle. Now he’s proving himself a father, husband, and man of supreme courage. Please take a moment to read and share his just-released letter to Congress. Help to inform others of the truth and demand the Senate confirm a right and honorable man to the Supreme Court. What the Democrats and media are attempting to do is destructive politics at its most insidious. America cannot allow them to win. http://dcwhispers.com/must-read-judge-brett-kavanaughs-letter-to-congress-i-will-not-be-intimidated/ ------- President Trump Tells Congressional Republicans To Locate Their Spines And Vote Yes On Judge KavanaughSeptember 24, 2018 by DCWhispers 0306As of this morning, President Donald Trump is shrugging off the overt smear campaign being waged against his latest Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh. “Judge Kavanaugh is an outstanding person, and I am with him all the way,” Trump declared while heading to the United Nations. The message to Congressional Republicans from the President is clear – locate your spines, shrug off the disgusting tactics of Democrats, and vote in support of Judge Kavanaugh. Via Breitbart: Trump commented on the unsubstantiated allegations as Senate Republicans prepare to hear testimony from Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who accused him of sexual assault more than 30 years ago. “He’s a fine man with an unblemished past. These are highly unsubstantiated statements from people represented by lawyers. You should look into the lawyers doing the representations,” Trump said. The president signaled frustration with the delay of the Senate vote and questioned accusations leveled against Kavanaugh. “There’s a chance that this could be one of the single-most unfair, unjust things to happen to a candidate for anything,” Trump said, dismissing “people coming out of the woodwork” with accusations against Kavanaugh after he was nominated to the Supreme Court. “In my opinion, it is totally political,” he added. ——-- Indeed. The very same kind of dirty D.C. politics that Americans are so tired of and a big reason they voted to make Donald Trump their president. http://dcwhispers.com/president-trump-tells-congressional-republicans-to-locate-their-spines-and-vote-yes-on-judge-kavanaugh/ --------------- Mitch McConnell SLAMS Orchestrated Smear Campaign Against Kavanaugh 9/24/18 https://youtu.be/QoplfrVLBJo Mitch McConnell DROPS THE HAMMER On Fake Kavanaugh Accusations And Makes A PROMISE You Will LOVE! https://youtu.be/_uXHYkEp2bg BREAKING: BRETT KAVANAUGH TO BE CONFIRMED BY MITCH MCCONNELL KEEPING SENATE THROUGH OCTOBER https://youtu.be/gdSoUgtKsJo VIDEO Trump Jr. Drops A Rare, BLISTERING, Op-ed – Calls Out Democratic Party For What They Truly Are9/24/2018 Sept 22, 2018 by Doyle Alexander
In an opinion piece published by The Denver Post on Friday, President Donald Trump’s oldest son dove right into his vigorous criticism of the current state of the Democrat Party — and he made the point crystal clear. https://youtu.be/dLl1o9diedI “In their efforts to appeal to the extreme left-wing elements in their base, the Democrats are becoming the party of lawlessness and anarchy,” Donald Trump Jr. wrote in a bold opening statement. Trump Jr. pointed to the demonstrations of protest by Democrats at Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee. “While radical Democrat ‘activists’ attempted to derail the proceedings — over 200 were arrested during the course of the hearing — Senate Democrats put on their own protest from the rostrum, marked by a complete disregard for law, order, and basic decency,” he continued. “While it might shock Americans to see their elected officials behave this way, it’s not surprising from Democrats,” he wrote. “Unfortunately, the unofficial motto of the Democrat Party now appears to be ‘attack and subvert the laws of the land whenever and wherever possible.’” Trump Jr. went on to say that it is this sentiment that has become the basis of the Democratic party platform. On this point, he indicated Democrats’ embrace of open borders and sanctuary cities. “Not only do Democrats consistently support illegal aliens and look for every possible opportunity to give them citizenship (and let them vote in elections), but they also openly enable violent criminal illegal aliens through their support of sanctuary cities. “For years, Democrats have opposed Republican efforts to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions — cities and countries in Democrat control that refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and willingly release illegal alien criminals onto our streets.” He went on to call out some high-profile Democrats — like Sens. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand — who are pushing to get rid of ICE. Trump Jr. cited the Obama presidency as a time when Democrats’ hostility towards law enforcement flourished. Now, that open hostility is reaching politicial opponents, Trump Jr. wrote. “Being pro-illegal immigration and anti-police is bad enough, but the Democrats have also begun to implicitly, and sometimes even explicitly, endorse violence against Republicans in pursuit of their political agenda,” he wrote. The younger Trump said that Democrats don’t just ignore violence from their side, but actually encourage it. He brought up Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California, who has recently spoken of President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence in a “knock off the first, and go after the second” scenario. He also mentioned Rep. Keith Ellison, deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who in January tweeted a picture of himself holding the book “Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,” which Trump Jr. called “the bible for the violent domestic terrorist group that shares the book’s name.” (The fact that a man who apparently admires a book like that is running for attorney general in Minnesota — the chief law enforcement officer in the state — should give even Democrats pause.) Trump Jr. then noted CNN host Chris Cuomo, who defended antifa thugs in August by claiming that, “All punches are not equal morally,” and that “Fighting hate is right and in a clash between hate and those who oppose, those who oppose it are on the side of right.” That might sound good on television, but as Trump Jr. wrote, tolerance for violence tends to create more violence. “The problem with Cuomo’s interpretation, as we’ve seen through numerous college campus protests — and the recent phenomenon of mainstream conservatives like Dennis Prager being censored on social media websites — is that anyone who doesn’t support the radical agenda of the left-wing is slandered as hateful by Democrats and their extreme liberal base,” Trump Jr. wrote. “Therefore, in their minds, it becomes morally justified to punch even the most mild-mannered and moderate conservative in the face.” His father, Trump Jr. wrote, chooses instead to put Americans first by protecting the U.S from criminal illegal aliens, giving law enforcement the support it needs to carry out its duties well, and by enforcing the protection of free speech. “Donald Trump and the Republican Party stand for law, order, and safety. The Democrats stand for lawlessness, disorder, and anarchy,” Trump Jr. concluded. “The choice this November could not be more clear — the people will pick law and order.” Let’s hope that Americans can rally behind this message so that we can start undoing the culture of disorder which has been so visible recently. And that will start with voting in November — and getting other Trump supporters to the polls, too. Via WesternJournal https://en-volve.com/2018/09/22/trump-jr-drops-a-rare-blistering-op-ed-calls-out-democratic-party-for-what-they-truly-are/ Sept 23, 2018 BY BENJAMIN ARIE The last-minute attempt to derail Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as the next Supreme Court justice has just hit a serious snag. Facing damaging but almost completely unsubstantiated claims that he acted improperly with a girl back when he was a teenager, the conservative nominee has dug into his personal archives to defend himself. Up until now, the vague accusations made by Christine Blasey Ford had only resulted in a “he said, she said” stalemate. Liberals insisted that Blasey Ford’s story of a bad encounter at a drunken party be believed, while conservatives have pointed out that the nearly 40-year-old claim is impossible to verify. Finally, Kavanaugh has presented tangible evidence that the accusation doesn’t hold up. On Sunday, The New York Times reported that the judge has found old calendars from the period when the unproven groping allegedly took place — and they appear to support his claim that the incident didn’t happen. TRENDING: Look: Cartoon Perfectly Skewers Both Anti-Kavanaugh Crowd and Abortion Activists “Kavanaugh has calendars from the summer of 1982 that he plans to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee that do not show a party consistent with the description of his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford,” explained The Times. “The calendar pages from June, July and August 1982, which were examined by The New York Times, show that Judge Kavanaugh was out of town much of the summer at the beach or away with his parents,” the newspaper continued. “When he was at home, the calendars list his basketball games, movie outings, football workouts and college interviews. A few parties are mentioned but include names of friends other than those identified by Dr. Blasey.” Here is perhaps the biggest nail in the coffin for Blasey Ford’s already-flimsy story: The calendar contains entries for parties, but none of the names included in those entries match the names Blasey Ford listed. Should the Senate confirm Kavanaugh as the next Supreme Court justice?Yes No Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.That any names were included in his calendar entries for parties shows Kavanaugh was remarkably thorough about recording his social schedule. That fact is yet another point in favor of Kavanaugh and against his accuser. The woman behind the claim has admitted that she can recall almost nothing specific about the incident, including its location, time, or other people involved. The few names brought up by Blasey Ford have refuted her story and indicated that they don’t remember a party with both her and Kavanaugh. “Mr. (Mike) Judge has told the Judiciary Committee that he remembered no such incident and had never seen Judge Kavanaugh behave in such a way,” explained The Times, referring to one alleged witness of the drunken party. “The only other two people identified as being in the house at the time, but not the bedroom, have also said in recent days that they did not recall the incident. Patrick J. Smyth said he did not remember such a party or see any improper conduct by Judge Kavanaugh.” RELATED: Desperate Dem on CNN: Witnesses Denying Ford’s Story Actually Support Her Story “Leland Keyser, a former classmate of Dr. Blasey’s at Holton-Arms, said she did not know Judge Kavanugh or remember being at a party with him,” stated the newspaper. Accusations of this type are of course serious, and conducting due diligence is part of the vetting process for anyone nominated for a powerful position. There comes a point, however, when weak and impossible to prove allegations need to be put to rest. Blasey Ford may genuinely believe that something like the incident she described did happen; she may be telling the truth about a teenage trauma affecting her for decades, too. The problem is that there is zero evidence it was Brett Kavanaugh who did what she claims, and no way short of a time machine to prove her accusations. By all accounts, Kavanaugh has been a responsible and thoughtful family man and legal scholar for the entirety of his adult life — and that record needs to stand far above one person’s increasingly shaky claim. Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly claimed that Judge Kavanaugh’s 1982 calendar does not contain any names identified in Christine Blasey Ford’s claim against Kavanaugh. The calendar does reference Mike Judge, a friend of Kavanaugh and, according to Blasey Ford, a witness to the alleged assault. Judge’s name, however, is not mentioned in reference to any parties, while other names are — none of which have been identified by Blasey Ford. We apologize for the mistake. https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/kavanaugh-1982-calendar-entries/ Sept 22, 2018 by Amber Athey
Katz is representing Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who claims Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her in the 1980s while the two were in high school. https://youtu.be/yS4LBCCeZJk The lawyer has numerous ties to the resistance against Trump, and was caught on camera at a protest in February 2017 after Jeff Sessions was confirmed as the administration’s attorney general. “We are going to fight back,” she told a reporter. “We are going to resist. We will not be silenced.” Katz was identified only as a “protester” by ABC’s “Good Morning America.” The Gargoyle, the alumni magazine for the University of Wisconsin Law School, profiled Katz on August 9, 2018 and found her to be just as committed to fighting the president as she was at the 2017 protest. “The resistance is not going away, says Katz, and she is committed to being part of it,” the Gargoyle wrote. “When I go to a march on behalf of Dreamers, I hear young people making connections between DACA and Islamophobia,” Katz told the magazine. “I hope that energy continues, to retake our democracy that is truly at risk now.” Katz and her colleague Lisa Banks were also prepared to headline a fundraiser for Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin in October until they were asked about the event by CNN. Katz claimed the event was planned long before Dr. Ford came forward against Kavanaugh and referred to an invitation for the fundraiser sent out Thursday morning as an “old invite.” (RELATED: Kavanaugh Accuser’s Lawyers Pull Out Of Democratic Fundraiser) The event was set to be held at the attorneys’ law firm. “The short answer is this: We did a fundraiser for Sen. Baldwin six years ago when we ran for the Senate, we supported her then,” Katz told CNN. “We are not going to be doing a fundraiser now. We’re going to be focused on the issues involving the Kavanaugh confirmation process.” Follow Amber on Twitter https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/21/kavanaugh-lawyer-debra-katz-resist-rally/ -------- Judge Jeanine: I fear for Lady Justice https://youtu.be/cTDOW28JhUU Judge Jeanine: To Dems, you're guilty until proven innocent https://youtu.be/0eZVoB8V1O4 Sept 22, 2018 By Ben Brody and Jennifer Jacobs
The White House is considering a draft executive order for President Donald Trump that would instruct federal antitrust and law enforcement agencies to open probes into the practices of Alphabet Inc.’s Google, Facebook Inc., and other social media companies. Bloomberg News obtained a draft of the order, which a White House official said was in its early stages and hasn’t been run past other government agencies. Separately, Lindsey Walters, deputy White House press secretary, said in an emailed statement that the document isn’t the result of an official White House policy making process. The document instructs U.S. antitrust authorities to “thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws.” It instructs other government agencies to recommend within a month after it’s signed, actions that could potentially “protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias.” Read the Executive Order draft on bias in online platforms The document doesn’t name any companies. If signed, the order would represent a significant escalation of Trump’s aversion to Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies, whom he’s publicly accused of silencing conservative voices and news sources online. A Facebook spokeswoman said the company has no comment on the order. The press offices of Google and Twitter didn’t respond Saturday to emails and telephone calls requesting comment. Trump’s Complaint “Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices,” Trump said on Twitter in August. “Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others.” Social media companies have acknowledged in congressional hearings that their efforts to enforce prohibitions against online harassment have sometimes led to erroneous punishment of political figures on both the left and the right, and that once discovered, those mistakes have been corrected. They say there’s no systematic effort to silence conservative voices. Stiglitz Calls for Tougher Antitrust Stand to Fight Market Power The draft order directs that any actions federal agencies take should be “consistent with other laws” -- an apparent nod to concerns that it could threaten the traditional independence of U.S. law enforcement or conflict with the First Amendment, which protects political views from government regulation. “Because of their critical role in American society, it is essential that American citizens are protected from anticompetitive acts by dominant online platforms,” the order says. It adds that consumer harm -- a key measure in antitrust investigations -- could come “through the exercise of bias.” The order’s preliminary status is reflected in the text of the draft, which includes a note in red that the first section could be expanded “if necessary, to provide more detail on role of platforms and the importance of competition.” The possibility of an executive order emerged as Attorney General Jeff Sessions prepares for a Sept. 25 briefing by state attorneys general who are already investigating the tech firms’ practices. Federal Case The meeting, which will include a representative of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, is intended to help Sessions decide if there’s a federal case to be made against the companies, two people familiar with the matter have said. At least one of the attorneys general participating in the meeting has indicated he seeks to break up the companies. Growing movements on the right and the left argue that companies including Google and Facebook engage in anti-competitive behavior. The companies reject the accusation, arguing they face robust competition and that many of their products are free. Bias has not typically figured in antitrust examinations. In July, for instance, Twitter algorithms limited the visibility of some Republicans in profile searches. Jack Dorsey, the company’s chief executive officer, testified before Congress in September that the limits also affected some Democrats as the site tried to enforce policies against threats, hate, harassment or other forms of abusive speech. The moves were reversed. A Few Misgivings A Pew Research Center survey earlier this year found that 72 percent of Americans, and 85 percent of Republicans, think it’s likely that social media companies intentionally censor political viewpoints that those companies find objectionable. Even on the right, however, there are misgivings about a Trump administration crackdown on the companies. On Friday, libertarian-leaning groups including FreedomWorks and the American Legislative Exchange Council sent a letter to Sessions expressing “fear” that his “inquiry will be to accomplish through intimidation what the First Amendment bars: interference with editorial judgment.” Content on Facebook and Google is delivered to users by computer programs using thousands of signals to rank what may be most relevant to them in that moment. Those programs, which are written by humans, mostly try to serve up what other people have found useful in the past, or what the user seems to like seeing. That means it could be difficult to prove or disprove bias, since most people already have a somewhat personalized experience on the internet. Facebook has said it has no reason to believe its algorithm is biased. But in order to answer to critics, the company hired Jon Kyl, a former Republican senator from Arizona, to run an internal probe. Kyl has returned to the Senate after being appointed to replace John McCain, who died in August, but his team is continuing the work at Facebook. — With assistance by David McLaughlin, Tom Metcalf, and Sarah Frier https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-22/draft-order-for-trump-would-crack-down-on-google-facebook Sept 22, 2018 by sundance An interesting panel discussion on Laura Ingraham’s television show. In this segment Lee Smith (Real Clear Politics Investigations) brilliantly outlines the disparate self-interest of both Rod Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe. I believe Smith has this spot-on. The New York Times and Washington Post are both primary outlets for narratives scripted by the political intelligence community. Against the backdrop of declassification, Team McCabe was advancing an anti-Rosenstein narrative with the NYT. Team Rosenstein was advancing a defense of Rosenstein within the Washington Post; both narratives surrounded the risks within the declassification directive. Watch the Lee Smith part which starts at 04:30: https://youtu.be/pu24PLTcep0 The declassification is a risk to both McCabe and Rosenstein. Both began constructing a pro-active defense. However, McCabe didn’t know Rosenstein was going to carve out a deal with President Trump (leveraging Horowitz) to protect everyone in the DOJ/FBI by reversing the declassification directive. Andrew McCabe views his risk as the largest risk, and essentially is saying, through the network which includes media, that if he goes down he’s taking everyone down. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/09/22/panel-discusses-rosenstein-vs-mccabe-risk-and-self-interest-within-declassification-directive/
|
AuthorChristian Patriot Archives
January 2019
Categories |