Photoshop: Michael Avenatti In His Law Office

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.

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.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA DIES. Obama to Nominate A Radical To Replace Him?

Justice Scalia, the best (and most conservative) justice on the Supreme Court, died today.  Scalia was true to the Constitution and understood the intended role of the Supreme Court. The flaky liberals on the Court do not -- they render decisions based on their leftist ideology rather than the Constitution.  They "legislate from the bench," a reliable force for the left in overturning Constitutional laws the Democrats dislike, and installing unconstitutional laws in the form of legal decisions that replace a vote of the people.  The leftists on the Court have turned the Court into the exact opposite of what it was intended to be.  Instead of preserving the Constitution, the Court now undermines it at every turn.

Scalia was one of the last, and best, bulwarks against the Constitution-shredding kooks on the Court.  Now that he has died, Obama has stated his plan to nominate a replacement.  You can be sure that replacement will be another radical.  

A radical replacement can be stopped, however, if the Senate Republicans refuse to seat such a nominee, deferring the replacement until Obama is out of office.  Whether they will, however, remains to be seen.  

Something Must Be Done About the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court was set up at the founding to determine constitutional questions regarding new laws and government acts.  Over the past 239 years, the Court has gone from interpreting the constitutionality of laws to making new laws by fiat.  The Nine in Black now operate like the Oracles of Old, declaring what is and isn't legal without any regard to the Constitution whatsoever.   They just make stuff up.

That's what they did when they approved Obamacare.  That's what they did when they removed the right of the states to determine the rules for abortion and marriage.  The Supreme Court is now beneath contempt.  It is a radical, runaway train wreck.

Per Drudge, polls now show a growing number of Americans believe that their states should simply ignore the unlawful edicts handed down by federal courts.  I agree.  It is time for the individual states to wrest power back from federal overreach.  They should flatly refuse to go along.

Finally, it is time to change the rules for Supreme Court justices.  They should have to live under the same laws that they enact over others.  They should not be appointed for life, but for limited terms.  It should be made clear that their legal interpretations are advisory only, to be rejected by any state that finds those interpretations to be clearly wrong or outrageous.

Supremes Ruling on Gay Marriage: Justice Scalia's Dissent

Justice Scalia, writing for the minority in the Gay Marriage issue before the Supreme Court, skewered the majority justices for their frivolous, anti-constitutional decision.  Powerline has some salient quotes from that dissent, such as:

Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court. The opinion in these cases is the furthest extension in fact— and the furthest extension one can even imagine—of the Court’s claimed power to create “liberties” that the Constitution and its Amendments neglect to mention. This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.

Scalia discusses the superficiality of the decision thus:

If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined an opinion for the Court that began: “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity,” I would hide my head in a bag. The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.

Scalia's right.  Thanks to progressivism, leftism, and political correctness, we have lost our ability to govern ourselves.  Thanks to the increasinlgy superficiality of our culture, we have lost the ability to care.

Read Powerline's extracts of the dissent here.

Ready to Secede? #secession

The U.S.  Supreme Court has become a cruel joke.  They just saved Obamacare again, and enforced gay marriage on all 50 states by edict, in a 5-4 vote.  States can no longer decide for themselves whether or not to enact gay marriage or stay with the traditional view of marriage.  Now they have been ordered to accept it.

Once again, we see the power of the states slipping away, replaced by an arm of the federal government.  It is clear that the Republic is lost, the Constitution a relic -- perhaps fit only for a museum, right next to the Confederate flag.

Personally, I don't see any other option:  It is time for states to begin secession from the United States of America, and to form new unions or confederations as they see fit.

How Does the Supreme Court Differ From the Ku Klux Klan?

From the emailed newsletter "Snippets"

The Sickening Reality of the Obamacare Decision

I really wasn't surprised by the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.  I generally expect the worst while hoping for the best.  When I turned on the radio Thursday morning on the way to work, and learned of Justice John Roberts' utterly asinine position, it was mere confirmation of what I already knew:  America is over.  America was over when Americans elected Barack Obama to be President of the United States.

Now that we can finally acknowledge the death of America, perhaps we can move on to finding a way to resurrect her, or, if not all of her, perhaps part of her, through an association or even secession of like-minded states (like Arizona and Texas).  I know it sounds bizarre, like something out of a cheap novel, but it's way past time to realize that the federal government (including and especially the Supreme Court) is the enemy of freedom -- at least in its present form.

It's time to realize that our Constitution and Bill of Rights are dead letters.  The statists will enforce them when convenient, or when they can twist their original meaning and purpose to somehow increase federal power over the individual.  They will not enforce them merely to protect the individual from an overweening federal government.

One of the immediate acts that can be taken is nullification.  Nullification is when individual states refuse to implement or obey federal laws that violate the Constitution.  This is not "rebellion against law," because unconstitutional enactments are not law.  Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Kentucky Resolutions that “whensoever the [federal] government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force…”

Let the peaceful revolution begin.

Related post:  The Republic of the United States of America is Dead

Supreme Court Upholds Second Amendment Gun Rights 5 - 4

The Washington Post has the story, complete with propagandistic headline:  "Justices Extend Gun Owner Rights Nationwide."  No, the Supremes didn't "extend" gun rights, they merely upheld the rights in existence for over 200 years, the same rights under attack by the left for some time.

Barack Obama, the egregious little communist, has wanted to disarm the populace for years.  Now that a historical mistake has placed this anti-American radical in the Oval Office, he had a chance to get his way.  He has been defeated, for the moment anyway.

The vote was 5 to 4, a very close vote.  This once again shows how important it is to keep radicals off the court.  Radicals do not serve as justices in order to protect and preserve the Constitution, they serve to pervert it or dismantle it in service to their ideology.

When the Supremes are sufficiently corrupted by Obama appointees and they vote to end our historic right to keep and bear arms, then it will be time to "lock and load."  If they want the guns, let them come and get them.

Barack Obama Whines Over SCOTUS Decision on Campaign Finance

Perfect proof that the Supreme Court made the right decision in overturning restrictive campaign finance laws:  the liberals are screaming like castrated hyenas.  Obama stated:

"With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. ... We are going to talk with bipartisan congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision." 

What Obama fails to note is that the Court ruled that political speech cannot be curtailed just because the speaker is a corporation or a union.  Some corporations, like Google and MSNBC, are both rich and very liberal.  They are likely to indulge in political speech in favor of Democrats, as are unions.

The fact that a speaker is "rich and powerful" is not an excuse for suspending the 1st Amendment.

Supreme Court Overturns Campaign Spending Limits; Obama Howls

The Supreme Court has overturned federal limitations on corporate and union campaign spending.  These limitations have been in place for decades.  The court has essentially cleared the playing field for anyone who wants to exercise politically free speech regarding campaigns.   Corporations and unions were previously prohibited from paying for ads that specifically targeted or supported named candidates.  The Court's ruling does away with that prohibition.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy concluded, "We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers."

Since the ruling adds freedom to the political process, it appears to me that the Supremes got one right for a change.  The Obama administration complained that the Court's decision would "make vast sums of corporate money available for overt electioneering."

The ruling does not change the current prohibitions on direct contributions to candidates, but does enable corporations and unions to pay for political ads and other kinds of campaigning.

Via ABC News

Sonia Sotomayor Ready to Begin Shredding the Constitution Today

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is a moonbat liberal stereotype on steroids. Today she will undoubtedly be confirmed as a justice of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court was designed to be a key player in our Constitutional system of checks and balances. If Congress passed laws abrogating individual rights, the Supreme Court would strike down such laws. No more.

Today the Supreme Court is an ideological free-for-all; ideological judges like Sotomayor are appointed, not because of their knowledge or their love for the Constitution, but because of their willingness to help Congress subvert it. In Sotomayor's case, she has indicated that her judicial decisions will be, in part, based on her ethnic identity, her personal racial biases, and her "empathy" for one party over the other.

The final guardians of liberty have been compromised, perhaps fatally for the Republic.

Obama Nominates Anti-Constitution Radical for High Court

We knew this would happen when Obama won.  Now he has appointed a radical anti-constitutionalist to the Supreme court in Sonia Sotomayor.  

Sotomayor created waves when she stated that a Latina woman would probably give better judicial opinions than a white male.  However, her track record would suggest otherwise:  her opinions have been overturned five times out of six by the high court.  Even liberal judges have admonished her for the frivolous nature of her decisions, stating that they have no bearing on the Constitutional issues at bar.

Yes, she was originally appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush; that doesn't change anything.  The Bushes are not conservatives and made many decisions in office that we conservatives disagree with.   

Sotomayor's judicial philosophy is that a judge should make policy, that is, to legislate from the bench.  She believes that her empathy for the racial or gender makeup of the parties should have a bearing on her decision.  However, "empathy" has no place in deciding questions of law.   Lady Justice is shown blindfolded, to remain unbiased by the racial, gender or other particulars of the parties involved.  Sotomayor intends to remove that blindfold and review cases through the pink lens of leftwing dogma.

Once again we see how Democrats care more about the gender and ethnicity of a candidate than about his or her qualifications for the job.  One thing that Sotomayor does bring to the bench is a willingness to corrupt and pervert the Constitution in order to write Leftist ideology into law without the necessity of a vote.

Supreme Court's Pro-Terrorist Decision

[Excerpt from the Associated Press has been removed.]

The Supreme Court has voted that Islamist prisoners of war should have access to American courts where they can challenge their status.

Liberals and Democrats can always be counted on to do the opposite of what is fair, reasonable and good for Americans. Whether it is refusing to increase oil production in light of soaring prices, or giving rights to terrorist enemy combatants so they can kill more Americans, the Democrat compass will always point 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

It's as if they are programmed to self-destruct and take the rest of the country with them.