Tuesday, December 04, 2018

The Terrible Truth About Lincoln and the Confederate War


By Michael Hutcheson
Originally published in Snap Out of It America
President Lincoln has been all but deified in America, with a god-like giant statue at a Parthenon-like memorial in Washington. Generations of school children have been indoctrinated with the story that “Honest Abe” Lincoln is a national hero who saved the Union and fought a noble war to end slavery, and that the “evil” Southern states seceded from the Union to protect slavery. This is the Yankee myth of history, written and promulgated by Northerners, and it is a complete falsity. It was produced and entrenched in the culture in large part to gloss over the terrible war crimes committed by Union soldiers in the War Between the States, as well as Lincoln’s violations of the law, his shredding of the Constitution, and other reprehensible acts. It has been very effective in keeping the average American ignorant of the real causes of the war, and the real nature, character and record of Lincoln. Let us look at some unpleasant facts. 

In his first inaugural address, Lincoln stated clearly that (1) he had no legal authority to interfere with slavery where it existed, (2) that he had no inclination or intention to do so even if he had the legal authority, (3) that he would enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, returning runaway slaves escaping to the North to their masters in the South, and (4) that he fully supported the Thirteenth Amendment then being debated in Congress which would protect slavery in perpetuity and was irrevocable. He later famously stated, “Do not paint me with the Abolitionist brush.” 

Although there was some opposition to slavery in the country, the government was willing to concede everything the South wanted regarding slavery to keep it in the Union. Given all these facts, the idea that the South seceded to protect slavery is as absurd as the idea that Lincoln fought the war to end slavery. Lincoln himself said in a famous letter after the war began that his sole purpose was to save the Union, and not to either save or end slavery; that if he could save the Union without freeing a single slave, he would. Nothing could be clearer. 

For decades before the war, the South, through harsh tariffs, had been supplying about 85% of the country’s revenue, nearly all of which was being spent in the North to boost its economy, build manufacturing, infrastructure, railroads, canals, etc. With the passage of the 47% Morrill Tariff the final nail was in the coffin. The South did not secede to protect slavery, although certainly they wished to protect it; they seceded over a dispute about unfair taxation, an oppressive Federal government, and the right to separate from that oppression and be governed “by consent”, exactly the same issues over which the Founding Fathers fought the Revolutionary War. When a member of Lincoln’s cabinet suggested he let the South go in peace, Lincoln famously replied, “Let the South go? Where, then, would we get our revenue!” He then launched a brutal, empirical war to keep the free and sovereign states, by force of arms, in the Union they had created and voluntarily joined, and then voluntarily left. This began his reign of terror. 

Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he 
  1. Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution.
  2. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution.
  3. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial---which he did.
  4. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive.
  5. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution.
  6. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
  7. Commandeered and closed over 300 newspapers in the North, because of editorials against his war policy and his illegal military invasion of the South. This clearly violated the First Amendment freedom of speech and press clauses.
  8. Sent in Army forces to destroy the printing presses and other machinery at those newspapers, in violation of the Constitution.
  9. Arrested the publishers, editors and owners of those newspapers, and imprisoned them without charge and without trial for the remainder of the war, all in direct violation of both the Constitution and the Supreme Court order aforementioned.
  10. Arrested and imprisoned, without charge or trial, another 15,000-20,000 U.S. citizens who dared to speak out against the war, his policies, or were suspected of anti-war feelings. (Relative to the population at the time, this would be equivalent to President G.W. Bush arresting and imprisoning roughly 150,000-200,000 Americans without trial for “disagreeing” with the Iraq war; can you imagine?)
  11. Sent the Army to arrest the entire legislature of Maryland to keep them from meeting legally, because they were debating a bill of secession; they were all imprisoned without charge or trial, in direct violation of the Constitution.
  12. Unilaterally created the state of West Virginia in direct violation of the Constitution.
  13. Sent 350,000 Northern men to their deaths to kill 350,000 Southern men in order to force the free and sovereign states of the South to remain in the Union they, the people, legally voted to peacefully withdraw from, all in order to continue the South’s revenue flow into the North.
These are just a few of the most egregious things Lincoln did during his despotic presidency. He set himself up as a tyrannical dictator with powers never before utilized or even imagined by any previous administration. During this four years of terrible war he was one of the greatest despots the world has ever known, his tyranny focused against his own countrymen, both North and South. He was called a despot and tyrant by many newspapers and citizens both North and South, until he had imprisoned nearly all those who dared to simply speak out against his unconstitutional usurpations of power. Those who disagreed with him were branded as “traitors”, just as were the brave and honorable men in the states which had legally seceded from the Union over just such issues as these criminal abuses of power by the Federal government. 

Four months after Fort Sumter, when Lincoln finally called Congress back into session, no one dared oppose anything he wanted or speak out against him for fear of imprisonment, so completely had he entrenched his unilateral power and silenced his other many critics. The Union army, under Generals Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and President Lincoln, committed active genocide against Southern civilians---this is difficult for some to believe, but it is explicit in their writings and dispatches at the time and indisputable in their actions. Tens of thousands of Southern men, women and children---civilians---white and black, slave and free alike---were shot, hanged, raped, imprisoned without trial, their homes, lands and possessions stolen, pillaged and burned, in one of the most horrific and brutal genocides ever inflicted upon a people anywhere; but the Yankee myth of history is silent in these well-documented matters. For an excellent expose of these war crimes and their terrible extent, see War Crimes Against Southern Civilians by Walter Brian Cisco (Pelican Publishing Co. 2007, ISBN 9871589804661). 

Only after the Union had suffered two years of crushing defeats in battle did Lincoln resolve to “emancipate” the slaves, and only as a war measure, a military tactic, not for moral or humanitarian purposes. He admitted this, remarking, “We must change tactics or lose the game.” He was hoping, as his original draft of the document shows, that a slave uprising would occur, making it harder for Southerners to continue the war. His only interest in freeing the slaves was in forcing the South to remain in the Union. His Emancipation Proclamation was denounced by Northerners, Southerners and Europeans alike for its absurdity and hypocrisy; for, it only “freed” the slaves in the seceded states---where he could not reach them---and kept slavery intact in the North and the border states---where he could have freed them at once. 

The Gettysburg Address, the most famous speech in American history, is an absurd piece of war rhetoric and a poetry of lies. We were not “engaged in a great Civil War, to see whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, can long endure.” The South was engaged in a War of Independence from a tyrannical North, and after having legally seceded, wished only “to be let alone.” The North was engaged in a war of empire, to keep the South involuntarily under its yoke. Government “of the people, by the people and for the people” would not have “perished from the earth” had the North lost the war; on the contrary, it perished in the United States when the North won the war; for, freely representative government, by consent of the governed, is exactly what the South was fighting for and exactly what Lincoln’s military victory destroyed. 

The checks and balances of powers, the separation of powers, the constitutional constraints so carefully and deliberately put into place by the Founding Fathers, had all been destroyed in Lincoln’s first months. The Republic which the Founders gave us had been completely destroyed and a new nation-state was set up; one in which the free and sovereign States would afterward be only vassals and tributaries, slaves to an all-powerful, oppressive Federal government. This new nation-state is completely different in both nature and consequence to the original American Republic. One only has to look around today to see the end results and legacy of Lincoln’s war, his destruction of freedom, and his institution of despotic, centralized governmental power and tyranny. 

In retrospect, it is a tragedy that John Wilkes Booth did not act four years earlier. Slavery would have ended naturally, as it has everywhere else (except in African and Arab states); the American Republic, liberty, and 700,000 lives would have been saved, and untold thousands of those young men would have lived to contribute their ingenuity, inventions, creativity and talents to the political, economic, literary, scientific and social legacy of our people. And the greatest despotic tyrant in American history would never have gained the foothold of power or been able to establish the oppressive and omnipotent Federal government we all suffer under today.

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Social Media vs Blogging

I think blogging is in decline.  Using social media like Twitter or Gab or FaceBook or MeWe is more satisfying because it is more current than blog posts, and you get much faster feedback.  I spend a lot more time on social media for this reason.  

Monday, November 05, 2018

Weird Beliefs: Ghosts, Monsters and Extraterrestrials. What is Your Belief Factor? A Self Test.

Weird Beliefs:  Where Do You Fit In?

Life After Death
I am not generally one to believe in anything paranormal, with some exceptions.  I believe that near death experiences are evidence of life after death -- evidence, I said, not proof.  I tend towards belief. In a factor of 0-100, my belief factor would be 60%.

Monsters
I don't believe in Big Foot or the Lake Ness Momster, since there is no physical evidence of their existence.  There is that one film purporting to show an apelike creature walking in the woods, but that might be someone in a gorilla suit.  There is no other corroborating evidence, like bodies, skeletons, fur samples, etc to close the deal.  My belief factor in 0-100 would be 0%.

How about ghosts?  There is very little evidence of their existence.  There was and is a lot of fraud to try and convince us our dead loved ones want to communicate beyond the grave.  This is the area most prone to scams and frauds.  I'd love to believe in ghosts and will keep an open mind about it, but as of right now, I am far from convinced.  My belief factor would be 20% out of 100.

Aliens From Outer Space.  My belief factor in extraterrestrials has grown substantially over the years because of the phenomenon of alien abductions  This is where people are allegedly abducted by aliens, taken aboard a space craft, and subjected to medical tests, skin, urine, sperm and other tests, by short, bald creatures with big eyes.

When I was a child, in the early 1950s, there was a rash of "flying saucer" sightings all over the world, and a lot of fear and speculation was generated.   In about 1953, I was in the 3rd grade and could read fairly well.  My parents bought a newspaper that had an illustration of a flying saucer on the cover, with the headline, "Space Men Are Afraid of Us Too."  Wow, thought I.  "It's in the newspapers, so it must be true.  They would never print falsehoods."  (I may have been a Democrat at the time, I don't remember.)  Nevertheless, I found it very hard to believe.  I fought with the concept in my head.  I was left with a huge question mark stamped on my brain.

Fast forward to 1961.  Now I was in high school when the Betty and Barny Hill story broke in the news.  A married couple on the east coast remembered an alien abduction after being hypnotically regressed to remember suppressed memories.  Both had nightmares and were aware of "missing time," a part of their auto trip that they could not remember.  They went to a psychiatrist and he hypnotically regressed them to remember what they had been made to forget.  What they related was astounding and is documented in their book, "The Interrupted Journey."  I read it twice.  I was intrigued, but not sold.

Later, in 1976, I heard about the Travis Walton case, one of a team of loggers in Arizona who spotted a UFO hovering above a forest clearing.  Walton got out of the logger's truck and ran towards the brightly lit object, which then shot a beam of electricity into his chest, knocking him  out.  The other loggers fled in panic.  Later they returned to try and find Walton, but he was nowhere to be found.  He reappeared five days later with tales of aliens and other weird stuff, and wrote a book about it called "Fire In The Sky."  I read it twice too.  I was intrigued, but still not sold, but my belief level rose a few percentage points.  I concluded that alien abductions might be real.

About a year ago I heard about the Allagash Abductions, where four men in Maine went on a fishing trip in the backwoods and claimed they were abducted by a strange craft, then subjected to medical experiments by the usual bald and big-eyed aliens after being placed on metal tables.  The men noticed missing time and years later, in 1989, underwent hypnotic regression separately, and all remembered the same strange sequence of events.

In 2016, one of the men, Chuck Rak became estranged from the other three men and retracted the story he told under hypnosis, saying the whole thing had been a hoax to make money.  I looked into this guy and he has low credibility, has anger issues, and some say he seems to have mental problems.  The other three men stand by the story, stating that they are convinced by the results of their hypnotic regressions and lie detector tests that the abduction event did happen.

I believe the three men and disbelieve Rak.  No appreciable money was ever made by the four by telling the story.  Further, videos of the leader of the group on YouTube reveal a sober, serious man who shows no sign of fakery or scam. 

The final abduction tale that I find compelling is one that happened in Mississippi in 1973.  It is called the Pascagoula Incident, and involves two fishermen who claim they were abducted for a short time and scanned by an alien with a weird device resembling a human eyeball.  I just read the book by one of them, Clive Parker, called The Pascagouls Incident.  They did not experience any missing time, but still underwent hypnotic regression and lie detector tests.

Any one story of alien abduction would prove nothing and could be easily dismissed.  There are, however, thousands of them, and many are strikingly similar.  The abductees are transported to an alien vehicle, placed on a table and medically examined with samples of skin and fluids taken.  The aliens are in most cases "the Grays," the short, bald humanoids with large black eyes that sometimes seem to wrap partially around their heads.  Travis Walton said they resembled human fetuses.

The general impression is that the aliens are studying us, for some unknown purpose.  My belief percentage for the existence of extraterrestrials is now about 85%.

Sunday, October 28, 2018

TWITTER MUST GO. All conservatives should abandon this platform ASAP.

Twitter denied my appeal (see prior post below for background).
We’re writing to let you know that your account features will remain locked or 
limited for the allotted time due to violations of the Twitter Rules, specifically 
our hateful conduct policy.

We do not allow people to promote violence against or directly attack or threaten 
other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, 
gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease.

Please note that continued abusive behavior may lead to the suspension of your 
account. To avoid having your account suspended, please only post content 
that abides by the Twitter Rules: https://twitter.com/rules#hateful-conduct.

You can learn more about our policy against hateful conduct 
here: https://help.twitter.com/rules-and-policies/hateful-conduct-policy.

Thanks,
Twitter

My response:  

Stogie Chomper stogiechomper@gmail.com

10:34 AM (27 minutes ago)
to support@twitter.comme
Twitter is governed by a far left ideology that prohibits legitimate criticism of radical ideologies or 
beliefs.  I stand by my truthful comments that Muslims subscribe to a violent, barbaric and intolerant 
ideology.  So it appears you are the ones defending hateful content:  an ideology that murders 
people daily for joining another religion, or commits genital mutilation, or honor killings, or for being
Jewish or gay, or becoming too westernized.   This is not to mention the massive rapes by Muslim 
migrants in Europe, where any woman not wearing  veil is considered fair game.  You do not 
promote tolerance by running interference for intolerance, and all too often you on the left rationalize 
and support the worst regimes and ideologies in human history.

I will not delete my post, and will give up my Twitter account.  However. I will post this on my blog 
and will work tirelessly to convince conservatives to vacate your platform for one more committed 
to the values of Western Civilization.

Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, October 25, 2018

SCREW TWITTER! I quit.

The total fools at Twitter have suspended my account for seven days for my sarcastic criticism of Islam.  They will not restore my account until I delete my offending tweet and wait seven days.  I have instead opted to leave Twitter for good.  This despicable leftist gate-keeper of information should be abandoned by every conservative and then move their account to Gab, a similar and competing platform.

Here are the details of my break with these Communist fools:


My offending tweet:
@Hatewatch It’s hard to understand why anyone could be so angered by Islam. Just because Muslims regularly behead nonbelievers, commit shooting mass murder, rape women and girls, do female genital mutilation, and set off bombs in public places, is no reason to resent them. Diversity yay!

We've temporarily limited some of your account features
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/915438763735621639/ut6HzYFA_normal.jpg
Saber Point
@Stogie2
What happened?
We have determined that this account violated the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for:
1.    Violating our rules against hateful conduct.

You may not promote violence against, threaten, or harass other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease.

As a result, we’ve temporarily limited some of your account features. While in this state, you can still browse Twitter, but you’re limited to only sending Direct Messages to your followers –– no Tweets, Retweets, follows, or likes. Learn more. Your account will be restored to full functionality in: 7 days and 0 hours.

My response to Twitter:
You have suspended my account for criticizing Islam.  This is not, nor should it be, a violation of Twitter rules.  Everything I said was the objective and verifiable truth.  Truth should not be suppressed simply because some hate the truth.  The vile Southern Poverty Law Center is a far-left group who regularly slanders anyone who criticizes extremist groups.  They have very little credibility anymore.  I imagine that they are the ones who complained about my post.  Islam is a very violent religion and backward culture whose adherents have committed great acts of violence in the name of their religion:  911, London, Madrid, Mumbai, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Fort Hood, Boston Marathon, San Bernardino, Orlando Pulse, among others.  Islam cannot be separated from its violent nature and Muslims must be held responsible for their barbaric culture, one that requires women to dress in body bags, be beaten by their husbands, be subjected to female genital mutilation so they cannot enjoy sex; honor killings of daughters who are too westernized; and the murder of non-believers, particularly Jews.  I have read 18 books on the history, teachings and practices of Islam (including the Koran) and its so-called prophet, and I know of what I speak.   ISLAM IS VIOLENT, MURDEROUS AND EVIL.  Islamic violence is not merely an aberration of an otherwise peaceful religion -- it is an intrinsic part thereof. The extremists at the Southern Poverty Law Center are incapable of understanding legitimate criticism from mindless bigotry.  I WILL NOT DELETE MY POST, and I am at this point perfectly willing to give up my Twitter account.  If you choose to side with evil, you will have to do it without my acquiescence.

Wednesday, October 03, 2018

Some Free Advice for MICHAEL SAVAGE

Michael Savage
Michael Savage is a conservative talk radio pundit.  I have listened to him on and off for 20 + years.  Sometimes he is interesting and sometimes not.  Sometimes he supports the conservative movement and sometimes he attacks it.  He doesn't seem to prepare for his broadcasts, appears to just wing it.  His broadcasts therefore often seem to be a stream of consciousness, with Michael saying whatever pops into his head.

Savage is very jealous of conservative talk show hosts who are more successful than he, mainly Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.  This morning he was complaining about something that Rush said that was a repeat of something Savage said several years ago.  Therefore Rush was copying or plagiarizing him.  As if Rush even listens to Savage's show, let alone memorizes it for later plagiarizing.  "Rush said THE this morning.  I said THE years ago!  Rush copies me!"  (Note:  Savage doesn't name the other pundits he criticizes, but does give obvious clues as to who he means.)

Michael Savage is a political schizophrenic.  One day last week he lambasted Judge Brett Kavanaugh as a spoiled rich fratboy and said he didn't care if Kav was confirmed or not.  Today he is doing a good job of defending Kavanaugh.

He began today's show by saying that the judicial confirmation process has "liars on both sides."  He didn't explain.  He mentioned that he is not a Republican, has never been one, and doesn't even like Republicans.

MY ADVICE TO MICHAEL SAVAGE:

1.  Pick a side.  You can't be both left and right at the same time.  You can't please everyone, and it is foolish to try.  When you do this I generally turn off your broadcast.

2.  Prepare for your broadcasts.  Your streams of consciousness are often boring.  Know what you want to talk about before you go on the air.  What do you want us to learn from you on any specific day?

3.  Stop knocking other conservatives.  Knocking other pundits doesn't make you better; it makes you look like you have an inferiority complex.

YOUR GOOD POINTS:

1.  Your passion for worthwhile causes.

2.  Your down-to-earth lectures & rants.  You talk like a common man off the street, and I like that.

Tuesday, September 25, 2018

The False "Recovered Memory" of Dr Christine Blasey Ford

Christine Blasey Ford is tentatively set to testify before the Senate Judicial Committee this coming Thursday, regarding her accusations against Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh.  However, many are now predicting that she will not testify.  I agree.

Ford's dubious and ambiguous accusations are the result of "recovered memory" at the hands of a psychologist.  Recovered memory was used a couple of decades back to falsely convict fathers and child care personnel of sexual assaults and rapes of their accusers.  It has since been learned that "recovered memory" is largely a farce.  The psychology patient's "recovered memories" are often the product of suggestion and imagination, not actual events.  Here is what the British Psychological Society says about it:
In 1995 the recovered memory debate was near its most vociferous height. Hundreds of people were recovering memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), sometimes in therapies where it was believed that repressed or dissociated memories had to be recovered in order for the person to ‘heal’. Many of the people who recovered these memories confronted the person whom they remembered abusing them, and some cases ended up in the criminal courts with successful prosecutions. However, there were those who questioned whether all such memories should be accepted as accurate reflections of real events (e.g. Loftus, 1993). It was argued that some, perhaps even most, of such recovered memories might in fact be false memories produced, at least in part, by the therapists themselves. In response to such concerns, bodies such as the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association issued guidance to their members regarding the potential dangers of unintentionally implanting false memories in patients.
 So we have another great reason to disbelieve Ford: Her "memory" is highly dubious at best.

Monday, September 24, 2018

Sexual Accusations Against Kavanaugh Debunked

Brett Kavanaugh, nominee for justice of the Supreme Court, is under an energetic attack by the Democratic Party.  The Dems have relied on their go-to strategy, which is to accuse the Republican target of sexual aggression against women, and the more embarrassing the accusation, the better.

There have been two accusations against Kavanaugh that have served to delay a vote on his confirmation to the court.  These accusations have been thoroughly vetted and analyzed on Twitter, and both are weak and dubious.  Here's why:

I.  Christine Blasey Ford, a leftwing activist and professor of psychology, claimed that Kavanaugh accosted her at a party in 1982, when he was 17 and she was 15.  She said he pushed her onto a bed, groped her, and tried to remove her clothing.  Ford could not provide any authenticating details to her tale, like the month, the location, how she got to the party and how she got home after it was over.  There is a good reason why a liar would omit any such details:  they could be used against her, to refute her story.  Indeed, Kavanaugh demonstrated this by coming up with his 1982 social calendars, none of which document any party as described by Ford.

Ford's story has fallen apart this week, as four people that she listed as witnesses, denied that such a party happened, that they saw Kavanaugh there, or that they subsequently heard about the alleged attack through the grapevine.  Ford claims that she told no one about the attack, not her parents, not the police, not school officials, not any of her friends.  She only "remembered" the incident after going to a psychiatrist in 2012 where she learned that she had repressed the traumatic event.  Kavanaugh's name was not mentioned nor recorded in the psychiatrist's notes.

Ford has refused to testify under oath that this attack actually occurred, and her attorneys have tried to impose absurd conditions on any such testimony.  This appears to be because she is afraid of a perjury charge, a consciousness of her own falsity in the charges.  She has tentatively agreed to testify this coming Thursday, but only if the conditions of her testimony are negotiated in her favor.  My take:  she will not testify and will withdraw at the last moment.




Summary:  Why Ford is not believable:

1.  All four people identified by Ford as witnesses have denied any knowledge of the alleged event;
2.  Witnesses have described Kavanaugh as a very ethical person, and that such behavior would have been totally out of character for him.
3.  Ford has provided no authenticating details that would corroborate her tale.
4.  Ford is a far-left, pro-abortion activist whose political activities reveal an anti-Trump bias.
5.  Ford has an animus against the Kavanaugh family because Kavanaugh's mother was the judge in the bankruptcy of Ford's parents, where the parents lost their house.
6.  Ford has resisted or refused all opportunity to testify and be interviewed by the Justice Committee, an apparent consciousness of her own potential perjury.

II.  Deborah Ramirez, Yale Student With Kavanaugh
After Christine Ford's accusation fell apart, the Democrats came up with a new woman willing to make apocryphal allegations against Kavanaugh.  A woman named Deborah Ramirez came forward to announce that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a Yale party in Kav's freshman year.  However, she admitted that she was very drunk and not sure that the culprit was actually Kavanaugh and it might have been someone else.  However, after six days of coaching from her attorneys, she was able to clarify her "memory" (imagination?) and Voila!  It was indeed Kavanaugh.

Ramirez reached out to her former Yale pals and classmates to corroborate her accusations.  Howefver, they did not corroborate her, they refuted her.  It didn't happen.  No one witnessed such an event, nor did they hear anything about it afterwards.  Her Yale pals even stated that if it had happened, they surely would have heard about it, and further, such behavior would be totally inconsistent with everything they knew about Kavanaugh.  Some of them wrote the statement below, posted on Twitter, and it does not corroborate Ramirez at all.





























Ramirez's story was turned down by the New York Times, and the Washington Post, because they saw the story as too weak and uncorroborated to publish.  The Times interviewed several of Ramirez's Yale friends and were unable to find any willing to confirm Ramirez's claim.  Only the execrable New Yorker ran with the story.  As David Horowitz noted on Twitter, the New York Times has low standards, but the New Yorker has none at all.

Summary:  Why Ramirez is not believable:

1.  Ramirez has no corroborating testimony of witnesses; in fact, potential witnesses deny the incident even happened.
2.  Former Yale students have described Kavanaugh as a very ethical person, and that such behavior would have been totally out of character for him.
3.  Ramirez admits she was stinking drunk at the party, has gaps in her memory from it, and could be mistaken about the incident.  (Her "I was drunk" story also serves to protect her from a perjury charge.  If anything she said is disproved, it is not because she lied, it is because she "misremembered.")
4.  Major liberal newspapers refused to run the story due to a lack of corroborating witnesses or other evidence.

Overall Conclusions:  Liberal activists who have made accusations against Kavanaugh are lying and are not to be believed.

Friday, September 21, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford, Far Left Activist and Slander Merchant

Here's a photo of Kavanaugh's slander artist, Christine Blasey Ford, somewhat modified by Photoshop: