Category Archives: Congress

Christine Ford’s letter has varying font styles and sizes

“What am I supposed to do? Go ahead and ruin this guy’s life based on an accusation? I don’t know when it happened, I don’t know where it happened. And everybody named in regard to being there said it didn’t happen. I’m just being honest. Unless there’s something more, no I’m not going to ruin Judge Kavanaugh’s life over this.” –Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

When you type a letter, do you keep switching font styles and font sizes?

While I sometimes italicize or bold, I’ve never switched to a different font style or font size in the course of typing a letter. Who does that?

Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of SCOTUS nominee U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, does!

Recall that on Sept. 12, the day when the Senate Judiciary Committee had been scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the committee whose personal driver of 20 years is a Chinese spy, blocked the vote by forwarding Ford’s “confidential” letter to the Justice Department.

In the letter, dated July 30, 2018, Ford accuses Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting then-Christine Blasey 36 years ago in 1982 (date unknown), at a high school party in some home in Montgomery County, Maryland (address unknown). According to Ford, Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her, and attempted to remove her clothes against her will.

Ford does not remember the address of the house. That is odd since, according to TruthFinder, her father, Ralph G. Blasey, had owned a home in Potomac, Montgomery County, Maryland. In 1982, Christine was 15 years old, a high school student, and would be living at home in Potomac — in the same Montgomery County where the house party was.

Since Ford’s letter became public knowledge, all four alleged eye-witnesses of the alleged sexual assault have denied any knowledge. Two of the alleged witnesses are friends of Ford: Christina King Miranda was a schoolmate; Leland Ingram Keyser, a longtime friend of Ford, denies even having been at the party. Another alleged witness, Patrick J. Smyth, also denies any knowledge of the party.

See “Christine Ford, the woman who accuses Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault 36 years ago” and “Audio evidence of Christine Ford’s political adviser plotting in July against SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh“.

Last Sunday, Sept. 23, Feinstein finally released Ford’s letter to Senate Majority leader and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who released the letter to the public.

Below is the letter (click image to enlarge). I painted the red arrows pointing to a change in font style and/or font size.

Some comments from readers of TruthFeed and Gateway Pundit:

  • “This shit is even more edited than Barry Soetoro’s birth certificate. Look closely. Multiple fonds EVERYWHERE.”
  • “It appears like a fill in the blanks letter. Kavanaugh’s name was added AFTER the original draft”
  • “Might have been created by the Obama BC forger.”
  • “the name Kavanaugh is different too. In one of them the ‘a’ is right up against the ‘K’. In another, the line of the ‘u’ is taller than the others. In another, the letters are uneven. Maybe it’s just the copy but it seems like a computer or typewriter would always be the same spacing, etc. It’s been my experience that those ‘discrepancies’ occur when someone tries to change a document.”
  • “Who sends a sloppy letter like that to a U.S. Senator? And she didn’t even sign it with her full legal name, just her maiden name.” (Note: Christine Ford, 51, is married to Russell Biddel Ford, 56, a senior director at Zosano Pharma(ceuticals), Fremont, CA. Her maiden name is Christine Margaret Blasey.)
  • “She vacationed in mid Atlantic until August 7th. It would be interesting to note if she had airplane phobia back then and drove cross country with her family.” (Note: Politico reported that Ford had refused to testify before the Senate, claiming she didn’t want to fly to Washington because she’s uncomfortable in “confined spaces”.)

Here’s a timeline, according to Christine Blasey Ford:

Some day on 1982 – Sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, 17, at a party with 4 other teenagers in a house (address unknown) somewhere in Montgomery County, MD, on an unknown date in 1982. Cannot remember who threw the party or how she got home. Claimed to have received unspecified “medical treatment regarding the assault” (date and facility unknown). Did not go to the police or told anyone about the alleged assault, not even to her parents or siblings (according to Ford’s “close friend” Kirsten Leimroth in an NPR interview).
1983: Said nothing.
1984: Said nothing.
1985: Said nothing.
1986: Said nothing.
1987: Said nothing.
1988: Said nothing.
1989: Said nothing.
1990: Said nothing.
1991: Said nothing.
1992: Said nothing.
1993: Said nothing.
1994: Said nothing.
1995: Said nothing.
1996: Said nothing.
1997: Said nothing.
1998: Said nothing.
1999: Said nothing.
2000: Said nothing.
2001: Said nothing.
2002: Said nothing.
2003: Said nothing when President George W. Bush, on July 25, nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C Circuit.
2004: Said nothing, as the Senate stalled Kavanaugh’s nomination for nearly 3 years.
2005: Said nothing.
2006: Said nothing when the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended confirmation of Kavanaugh, when the Senate confirmed his nomination, and when he was sworn in by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
2007: Said nothing.
2008: Said nothing.
2009: Said nothing.
2010: Said nothing.
2011: Said nothing.
2012: Talked about the alleged sexual assault in couples’ therapy, but according to the therapist’s notes, did not name Kavanaugh. Ford’s husband, Russell B. Ford, claims that his wife mentioned Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court. (Washington Post)
2013: Described a “rape attempt” when she was in her late teens, in an individual therapy session.
2014: Said nothing.
2015: Said nothing.
2016: Said nothing.
November 8, 2016: Donald Trump was elected US President. Ford becomes an anti-Trump activist.

July 6, 2018: Notified her “local government representative to ask them how to proceed with sharing” her information of having been sexually assaulted 36 years ago.
July 9, 2018: President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
July 30, 2018: Christine Blasey Ford wrote confidential letter, with changing font styles and font sizes, accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault 36 years ago.

H/t FOTM readers EddieBG & Big Lug

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

The Wall is being built, bit by bit

AFP reports that on Saturday, Sept. 22, 2018, construction began in Texas of part of President Trump’s border wall to curb illegal border-crossings into America, which he correctly identifies to be a security threat.

Aaron Hull, US Customs and Border Protection’s Chief Patrol Agent in the El Paso sector, said in a statement that the new section along the boundary between El Paso, Texas, and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, will replace the wholly-inadequate fencing along four miles of the 2,000-mile border with Mexico. “This new wall will be far more durable and far more effective in deterring would-be illegal entrants,” he said.

The existing fencing will be replaced by an 18-foot steel post barrier which allows Border Patrol agents to see through to the other side.

The $22-million project is to be completed in about seven months.

The wall-construction in Texas follows the construction of a 20-mile stretch of replacement wall in Santa Teresa, New Mexico, which began in April.

Congress has so far approved only $1.6 billion of the $25 billion Trump had sought for the wall. As part of the $1.3 trillion omnibus spending bill passed last March, Congress earmarked only $1.6 billion for border security, a paltry $38 million of which is allowed to be used for “border barrier planning and design.”

The anonymous AFP reporter snidely writes that President Trump “initially demanded that Mexico pay for the barrier, which added to tensions between the two neighbors,” and claims — without citing any evidence — that “Many of the migrants trying to reach the United States are fleeing gang violence and poverty in Central America.”

Meanwhile, Breitbart reports that in a recent interview published Sept. 7, President Trump revealed he is mulling plans to use the military to build the wall.

He told the Daily Mail he has “two options” when it comes to building the border wall: “We have military, we have homeland security.” Of the two, Trump said he prefers Congress approve the $25 billion in spending that he’s seeking for the wall and have Department of Homeland Security (DHS) undertake the project, but that failing that, he’s “very seriously” looking at the military option.

“The possibility of diverting Pentagon funding and assets to build a border wall is a card the president is holding but has never directly acknowledged before. In August, two Defense Department officials told DailyMail that the Army Corps of Engineers could take on the task: “They build levees that hold back massive walls of water. They can build one to hold back drugs and human traffickers.”

See also:

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Audio evidence of Christine Ford’s political adviser plotting in July against SCOTUS nominee Kavanaugh

Ricki L. Seidman, 63, is a longtime Democrat Party cadre and a former Clinton administration official (Assistant to the President; Deputy Communications Director). She also actively worked against the Supreme Court nominations of  Robert Bork (1987) and Clarence Thomas (1990), and prepped Anita Hill before she testified before the Senate, claiming she had been sexually harassed by Thomas. Seidman was instrumental in getting the Anita Hill story made into a HBO television series.

On June 27, 2018, Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy announced his resignation, effective July 31, 2018.

On July 9, 2018, President Trump nominated U.S. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, 53, to the Supreme Court.

From September 4 to 7, 2018, the Senate conducted hearings on Kavanaugh’s nomination.

On September 12, 2018, the day that the Senate Judiciary Committee was scheduled to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the committee whose personal driver of 20 years is a Chinese spy, blocked the vote by forwarding to the Justice Department an anonymously-written letter, dated July 30, which accuses Kavanaugh of “sexual misconduct” with an unnamed woman when they were both high school students 36 years ago.

Four days later on Sept. 16, the author of the letter went public and identified herself as Christine Blasey Ford, 51, a research psychologist at Palo Alto University in northern California.

See “Christine Ford, the woman who accuses Judge Kavanaugh of sexual assault 36 years ago”.

On Sept. 20, 2018, The Hill reported that Christine Ford had hired Ricki Seidman to be her political adviser to help her navigate a potential hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Seidman confirmed her role in an interview with Politico.

Now, an audio has surfaced of political operative Ricki Seidman plotting a strategy to defeat Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination. The audio was recorded sometime in July 2018.

The audio begins with a female voice asking Seidman “what are the best tools that Progressives have to challenge” the Kavanaugh nomination.

Seidman responded by acknowledging that given the Republican majority in the Senate, it is not “extremely likely” that the Democrats can defeat Kavanaugh’s nomination (beg. 0:34 mark):

“So, I will say at the outset that while I think that looking at the numbers in the Senate it’s not extremely likely that the nominee [Kavanaugh] can be defeated, I would absolutely withhold judgment as the process goes on, and I think that I would not reach any conclusion about the outcome in advance.”

Seidman then touts her experience of having worked “on one side or another” of Supreme Court nominations since William Rehnquist, which is hard to believe because the Senate confirmed Rehnquist’s nomination in December 1971 when Seidman was 16-17 years old.

Seidman continues (2:01 mark):

“I think that the way in which ultimately the Kavanaugh nomination needs to be approached is understanding what that standard is and the fact that Kavanaugh doesn’t meet the definition. I worry a little bit about, um, I think in this initial period, my sense is that everyone still scurrying to figure this out, and in terms of the groups that care about the issues, Justice Kennedy’s [resignation] announcement was a surprise and caught most — not everyone — people flat-footed, and the [Trump] administration knows this and that is partly why there’s a rush to nominate someone so quickly. I actually think that Kavanaugh was likely already chosen at the point that Kennedy would resign and that there was a nice show of considering people, for the White House’s political reasons.

But I do think that over the coming days and weeks, there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it’s possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee [Kavanaugh]….”

Then Seidman points out that Kavanaugh’s problem is the absence of women among his endorsers (5:30 mark):

“Of the 34 people who were the endorsers [of Kavanaugh] put out by the White House…none of them were women. Not a single one of them were women. And I don’t think it’s an accident that Kavanaugh spent so much time in his remarks talking about women because that is a clear problem with his record.”

Seidman acknowledges that only two Republicans would likely vote against Kavanaugh — Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski. Seidman calls that “something that we have to get beyond” (7:50 mark).

Sure enough, a “strategy” did emerge “over the coming days and weeks” after Seidman said those words — a “strategy” that targets what Seidman had identified as Kavanaugh’s biggest problem, the lack of women among his endorsers.

And the strategy was to have a woman suddenly come forth, 36 years later,  accusing Judge Kavanaugh of attempted rape.

H/t Gateway Pundit and FOTM reader CSM

See also “Christine Ford’s letter has varying font styles and sizes

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Socialist Hypocrisy: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s $3,505 designer outfit

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 28, called a rising “political star” by the New York Times, won the June 26 Democratic primary in New York’s 14th congressional district, defeating incumbent Congressman Joe Crowley, in what has been called the biggest upset victory in the 2018 midterm-election season.

Ocasio-Cortez is an avowed socialist and member of the Democratic Socialists of America. She advocates hard-Left policies such as gun control, an end to the use of fossil fuels, single-payer (government) healthcare system, universal healthcare (Medicare for All), tuition-free universities, forgiveness of all student debts, amnesty (“path to citizenship”) for illegal aliens, abolition of ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement), and impeachment of President Trump.

On September 7, 2018, Ocasio-Cortez met with some New York construction workers to show her solidarity with the proletariat:

She is so pleased with the outfit she was wearing that she posted this pic of herself to Facebook:

This is how much socialist Ocasio-Cortez’s designer outfit cost, not including her underwear:

According to the webpage “Construction Worker Salary in New York,” the average annual salary of New York construction workers is $43,311, with salaries ranging from $22,498 to $74,251.

Wes Walker of Clash Daily points out that “If you split 43K 12 ways, that number comes out to $3609 a month — total pay” — the average monthly salary of NY construction workers.

In other words, socialist Ocasio-Cortez’s designer outfit costs the equivalent of one month’s salary of the construction workers she visited.

Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars reminds us that:

Back in July it was revealed that despite Ocasio-Cortez claiming to be a rough and ready working class girl from the Bronx, she mostly grew up in wealthy Westchester County.

Numerous mainstream media biographies of Ocasio-Cortez omit the fact that she basically grew up middle class, with her architect father able to send her to Boston University to study economics and international relations.

One wonders how disconnected Ocasio-Cortez is now to ordinary Americans given that she is swanning around in $3,500 outfits while claiming to be a working class hero.

Ocasio-Cortez’s “useful idiot” slavish followers are oblivious to her hypocrisy. Here are some barf-worthy comments they posted to her $3505 designer pant-suit photo:

Evelyn Gonzalez ”Don’t under estimate the power of a women”
Jay Harper I promise you that the Democrats leaders fear her more than Donald Trump and will do anything to stop her! Just wait…
Alex Kainz You continue to inspire me and other progressive Americans on a daily basis, Alexandria! Keep on keeping on!
Ivan Erickson Ii am not in her district, but I am excited for people who are. We all must press ahead to hand over the reins to a new generation of leaders. All the power to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the voters in her district. They will write the history worth writing about.

Ben Valentin Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, I am Active Duty and serving overseas. The work that you and our community keep on the homefront inspires us service members to keep trucking. Palante siempre palante

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Sen. Lindsey Graham’s curious questions to Judge Kavanaugh on military tribunals for U.S. citizens

The Trump White House insider who calls himself Q has repeatedly posted about military tribunals and sealed indictments, now numbering an extraordinary 40,483 as of June 30, 2018.

Military tribunals in the United States are military courts designed to try members of enemy forces during wartime, operating outside the scope of conventional criminal and civil proceedings. The judges are military officers and fulfill the role of jurors. Military tribunals are not courts martial.

The Military Commissions Act of 2006 limits military tribunal trials to non-citizens only.

On September 5, 2018, during Day 2 of the Senate confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) asked Kavanaugh a series of very interesting questions that seem to make a case for American citizens being subject to military tribunals.

In the event that YouTube is censoring the video, you can watch the exchange on C-SPAN here.

Here’s my transcript of the Graham-Kavanaugh Q & A:

Graham: So when somebody says, post-9/11, that we’d been at war, and it’s called the War on Terrorism, do you generally agree with that concept?

Kavanaugh: I do, senator, because Congress passed the authorization for use of military force, which is still in effect. That was passed, of course, on September 14, 2001, three days later.

Graham: Let’s talk about the law and war. Is there a body of law called the law of armed conflict?

Kavanaugh: There is such a body, senator.

Graham: A body of law that’s called basic criminal law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: Are there differences between those two bodies of law?

Kavanaugh: Yes, senator.

Graham: From an American citizen’s point of view, do your constitutional rights follow you? If you’re in Paris, does the Fourth Amendment protect you as an American from your own government?

Kavanaugh: From your own government, yes.

Graham: So, if you’re in Afghanistan, do your constitutional rights protect you against your own government?

Kavanaugh: If you’re an American in Afghanistan, you have constitutional rights as against the U.S. government.

Graham: Isn’t there also a long settled law that goes back to the Eisentrager case (I can’t remember the name of it)….

Kavanaugh: Johnson v. Eisentrager.

Graham: Right, that American citizens who collaborate with the enemy are considered enemy combatants?

Kavanaugh: They can be, they’re often, sometimes criminally prosecuted, sometimes treated in the military.

Graham: Let’s talk about can be. I think there’s a Supreme Court decision that said that American citizens who collaborated with Nazi saboteurs were tried by the military, is that correct?

Kavanaugh: That is correct.

Graham: I think a couple of them were executed.

Kavanaugh: Yeah.

Graham: So, if anybody doubts there’s a longstanding history in this country that your constitutional rights follow you wherever you go, but you don’t have a constitutional right to turn on your own government and collaborate with the enemy of the nation. You’ll be treated differently. What’s the name of the case, if you can recall, that reaffirmed the concept that you can hold one of our own as an enemy combatant if they were engaged in terrorist activities in Afghanistan. Are you familiar with that case?

Kavanaugh: Yes, Hamdi [v. Rumsfeld].

Graham: So the bottom line is on every American citizen know you have constitutional rights, but you do not have a constitutional right to collaborate with the enemy. There is a body of law well developed long before 9/11 that understood the difference between basic criminal law and the law of armed conflict. Do you understand those difference?

Kavanaugh: I do understand that there are different bodies of law of course, senator.

Q picked up on the significance of Graham’s questions. On the same day as the confirmation hearing, Sept. 5, Q published post #2093, which highlights the distinction Graham made between military law vs. criminal law.

Lindsey Graham has a J.D. from the University of South Carolina. Before he entered politics, he was a U.S. Air Force officer and JAG (judge advocate general).

It is noteworthy that of all the constitutional rights to which American citizens are entitled, Sen. Graham specifically mentioned the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and requires “reasonable” governmental searches and seizures to be conducted only upon issuance of a warrant, judicially sanctioned by probable cause. On December 21, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order blocking the property of persons involved in “serious human rights abuse or corruption”.

See also “Did John McCain really die from brain cancer?

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Democrats resort to secret informants against President Trump & SCOTUS nominee Judge Kavanaugh

A characteristic feature of totalitarian one-party dictatorships is the party’s use of a powerful tool against citizens — informants. The identities of the informants are secret; nor can the information they provide be verified or disputed.

The Soviet Union, East Germany, Maoist China all made use of secret informants against not just political dissidents, but any and every one. After the Berlin Wall separating West from East Germany came down in 1989, bringing to an end the communist East German regime, officers of the regime’s formidable Stasi secret police tried to destroy their files. But the files were saved by ordinary East German citizens who stormed the Stasi offices in Erfurt to protect the documents.

Beginning in 1992, the Stasi documents were made available to the general public who finally could view the hitherto-secret files on themselves. They were shocked to discover that colleagues, friends and family members had been secret informants. In total, the Stasi’s network of informants numbered one in every 90 East German citizens.

In July, the editorial board of America’s supposed premier newspaper The New York Times openly called on Democrats to go to war against President Trump by deploying mafia “Godfather” tactics. Recent events show that using secret informants is one of the tactics.

On Sept. 5, 2018, the despicable New York Times published an op/ed by an anonymous author who claims to be a senior official inside the Trump administration but part of the anti-Trump “Resistance”. The author claims not to be the only one — that “many of the senior officials” in the administration “are working diligently from within to frustrate” the President’s “agenda and his worst inclinations” in order “to preserve our democratic institutions”.

If you haven’t already read the op/ed, you can read it on Information Clearing House instead of on the click-baiting NYT.

Speculations are rife as to the identify of the anonymous author of the op/ed, the most credible and compelling of which is by former Assistant Secretary of the Reagan administration’s Treasury Department Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. A day after the publication of the NYT op/ed, Dr. Roberts posted an article on his blog stating that:

I know who wrote the anonymous “senior Trump official” op-ed in the New York Times. The New York Times wrote it.

The op-ed is an obvious forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it undermines the character of the writer. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position to lend weight to his dissent.

The New York Times’ claim to have vetted the writer also lacks credibility, as the New York Times has consistently printed extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times has consistently misrepresented unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New York Times about anything.

Nine days after the publication of the NYT op/ed, it appears that this latest attempt by Demonrats to bring down President Trump has fizzled. And so Demonrats have deployed the Stasi secret-informant weapon against a new target — Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh’s nomination had been scheduled for a vote yesterday morning in the Senate Judiciary Committee. At the last minute, however, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee whose personal driver of 20 years is a Chinese spy, threw a wrench in the schedule by forwarding an anonymously-written letter to the Justice Department which accuses Judge Kavanaugh of unspecified “sexual misconduct” with an unnamed woman when they were both high school students. Kavanaugh is 53 years old, which means the alleged sexual misconduct took place (if it did) at least 35 years ago.

Bob Fredericks reports for the New York Post, Sept. 13, 2018, that Feinstein  said the information came from a woman who wanted to remain anonymous, and declined to detail the letter’s contents — even to fellow Democrats.

Feinstein would only say this in a statement:

I have received information from an individual concerning the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. That individual strongly requested confidentiality, declined to come forward or press the matter further, and I have honored that decision. I have, however, referred the matter to federal investigative authorities.

The information came in a letter that allegedly was first sent to the office of California Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo, who allegedly passed it along to Feinstein during the summer. It is unclear why Feinstein waited until now to pass the letter to the Justice Department.

The anonymous woman making the claims is being represented by Debra Katz, a lawyer who works with #MeToo “survivors”. Joseph Abboud, a lawyer at Katz’s firm, said the firm declines to comment.

The White House issued a furious response, pointing the finger at Sen. Chuck Schumer in a statement:

Senator Schumer promised to ‘oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have,’ and it appears he is delivering with this 11th hour attempt to delay his confirmation.

Throughout 25 years of public service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has thoroughly and repeatedly vetted Judge Kavanaugh, dating back to 1993, for some of the most highly sensitive roles.

Kavanaugh attended Georgetown Preparatory School, an all-boys’ Jesuit high school in Maryland. It is not known what school the anonymous letter writer attended.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s office said the secret-informant letter would not throw a wrench into the confirmation process:

Sen Grassley is aware of Sen Feinstein’s referral. At this time, he has not seen the letter in question, and is respecting the request for confidentiality. There’s no plan to change the [committee’s] consideration of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination.

UPDATE #1:

Daily Wire just reported that the FBI has declined to investigate Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh over allegations sent to them by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Take that, Feinstein!

Update #2:

A day after Dianne “my driver is a Chinese spy” Feinstein forwarded the anonymously-authored letter to the Justice Dept., 65 women who went to high school with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have written a letter to Dianne Feinstein and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, testifying to Judge Kavanaugh’s character. From their collective letter (Townhall):

We are women who have known Brett Kavanaugh for more than 35 years and knew him while he attended high school between 1979 and 1983. For the entire time we have known Brett Kavanaugh, he has behaved honorably and treated women with respect. We strongly believe it is important to convey this information to the Committee at this time,” the letter states. “Brett attended Georgetown Prep, an all-boys high school in Rockville, Maryland. He was an outstanding student and athlete with a wide circle of friends. Almost all of us attended all girls high schools in the area. We knew Brett well through social events, sports, church, and various other activities. Many of us have remained close friends with him and his family over the years.

Through the more than 35 years we have known him, Brett has stood out for his friendship, character, and integrity. In particular, he has always treated women with decency and respect. That was true when he was in high school, and it has remained true to this day,” the letter continues. “The signers of this letter hold a broad range of political views. Many of us are not lawyers, but we know Brett Kavanaugh as a person. And he has always been a good person.

H/t FOTM reader EddieBG

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

China’s tentacles over America via espionage & funding of D.C. think tanks, university institutes, and retired US military

While the Democrats and MSM continue to obsess and rant about the alleged Trump-Russian collusion, for which not a shred of credible evidence has been unearthed after more than a year of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, America is oblivious to the real foreign threat — China.

For all its market reforms since 1979, the People’s Republic of China remains a single-party state where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a monopoly on political power and government. For that matter, the market reforms have only made China wealthy, especially CCP members and government officials, as well as modernized a retrograde military into one that is flexing its muscles as China exerts irredentist claims over the East and South China Seas.

Did you know that China has more millionaires than Japan and the United Kingdom, combined?

Being a single-party dictatorship, when we say the Chinese government is doing this or that, what we really should say is that the Chinese Communist Party is doing so and so.

Not only is the CCP engaged in unprecedented espionage in the United States — recruiting the personal driver of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and using fake LinkedIn accounts to recruit countless other Americans with access to sensitive government and business secrets — the CCP is also exercising its “soft power” malefic influence over America by creating Confucius Institutes and centers of Chinese language and culture education and research, and funding conferences and symposia in U.S. colleges and universities (see Inside Higher Ed).

Now comes news that the Chinese Communist government is funding left-leaning think tanks in Washington, DC.

Bill Gertz reports for the Washington Free Beacon, August 24, 2018, that according to a congressional commission report on China, the Chinese Communist Party is intensifying covert influence operations in the United States through its Central Committee organ, the United Front Work Department that employs tens of thousands of overt and covert operatives. One means of China’s “influence operation” is funding Washington think tanks.

Note: The report, China’s Overseas United Front Work: Background and Implications for the Unites States, is published by Congress’ US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, August 24, 2018, authored by Alexander Bowe, a policy analyst specializing in security and foreign affairs.

China’s goal in funding think tanks is to change American debates on China and U.S. China policy without Beijing having to use its own voice by having the think tanks adopt positions that support Beijing’s policies. The report says:

The [Chinese Communist Party] has sought to influence academic discourse on China and in certain instances has infringed upon—and potentially criminally violated—rights to freedoms of speech and association that are guaranteed to Americans and those protected by U.S. laws. Despite the CCP’s candid discussion of its United Front strategy, the breadth and depth of this issue remain relatively unknown to U.S. policymakers.

According to the congressional China report, Chinese President Xi Jingpin has elevated the role of the communist influence organs to promote Chinese communism worldwide via “united front” organizations. Xi regards United Front work as a “magic weapon” for use in what he calls the rejuvenation of China. Since becoming Party general secretary in 2012, Xi has added new departments and 40,000 more people to the ranks of the CCP’s United Front Work Department. The report says:

The goal of ‘overseas Chinese work’ [by the CCP’s United Front organizations] is to use ethnic, cultural, economic, or political ties to mobilize sympathetic overseas Chinese communities—ideally of their own accord—to advocate for the interests of the CCP and marginalize its opponents. Chinese intelligence services have been known to coerce overseas Chinese to function as operatives targeting other overseas Chinese in both the United States and other countries, indicating that these agencies actively participate in overseas Chinese work that seeks to hide official connections.

Washington think tanks that have received funding from China and are influential in American policy circles include:

  1. The Johns Hopkins School of Advance International Studies, a major foreign policy education and analysis institute, has received funding from Tung Chee-hwa, a vice chairman of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) — the party group that directs the United Front Work Department and includes a member of the CCP’s highest organ, the Standing Committee of the Politburo Standing Committee. The funding for Johns Hopkins came from Tung’s non-profit group in Hong Kong, the China-U.S. Exchange Foundation (CUSEF), which is a registered Chinese agent, uses the same public relations firm as the Chinese embassy in Washington, DC, and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for China-U.S. relations.
  2. Atlantic Council
  3. Brookings Institution
  4. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
  5. Carter Center
  6. Center for American Progress (CAP): The Center denies receiving money from China. However, it cooperated with, though without financial contribution from, the China-US Exchange Foundation — a registered foreign agent — in producing a joint report in 2014.
  7. EastWest Institute

US-China Economic and Security Review Commission member Larry Wortzel, a former military intelligence officer once posted to China, said the report is important for exposing the activities of the United Front Work Department and the China People’s Political Consultative Conference:

“Most Americans and many members of Congress have no idea of the range of activities undertaken by this Chinese Communist Party web. It is a form of activity by Communist parties that dates back to the days of Lenin. Congress should consider legislation requiring anyone associated with the China People’s Political Consultative Conference, CUSEF, or the United Front Work Department to register as a foreign agent.”

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) said the collusion between groups like the Washington think tanks and the CCP’s United Front Work Department operatives is the Chinese Communist Party using Americans to “unwittingly promote CCP ideology” in a “countering voice” in debates over China. “Beijing seeks to outsource its messaging in part because it believes foreigners are more likely to accept propaganda if it appears to come from non-Chinese sources.”

According to the China report, in addition to funding Washington think tanks:

  1. Chinese intelligence officers in diplomatic posts recruit Chinese students and scholars in the U.S. to curtail universities’ discussion of China. The students are targeted through 142 Chinese Students and Scholars Associations (CSSA) that “routinely coordinate with the Chinese government and … have been involved in the suppression of free speech and the harassment, intimidation, and surveillance of Chinese student activists.” Former Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin, who defected to Australia in 2005, said China uses both coercion and incentives to recruit Chinese students as informants.
  2. Confucius Institutes—Chinese government-funded centers that are used for influence and intelligence activities — located on hundreds of American campuses are used to “advance Beijing’s preferred narrative and subvert important academic principles such as institutional autonomy and academic freedom.” The congressional report notes that “Significantly, Confucius Institutes are funded by the CCP Propaganda Department—formally affiliated with the [United Front Work Department] —and are also overseen by personnel based in Chinese embassies and consulates.”
  3. Even more alarming are the Chinese military’s covert influence operations via a front organization called the China Association for International Friendly Contact (CAIFC). One of the works of CAIFC is the Sanya Initiative, a series of “track two” dialogues between retired senior flag officers of the U.S. and Chinese armed forces. The Sanya Initiative is led by retired Adm. William Owens, 78, a former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (appointed by Bill Clinton), who has used the Sanya group to lobby Congress and the Pentagon against annual publication of the China Military Power report.

Note: Track II diplomacy or “backchannel diplomacy” is the practice of “non-governmental, informal and unofficial contacts and activities between private citizens or groups of individuals, sometimes called ‘non-state actors'”.

The report concludes that the threat to the United States from China’s United Front operations is “significant” but “the extent of its organization and influence is still relatively unknown among policymakers.” Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation to require:

  • All organizations that promote the political agendas of foreign governments to register as foreign agents.
  • Universities to disclose certain donations and gifts from foreign sources.

See also Breitbart‘s article on the corrupt connections Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and her husband, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky), have with China: “New York Magazine: Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao Gets Her Own Ethics Scandal“.

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Democrats’ battle plan against Trump if they win the House this November

A documents has surfaced revealing Democrats’ battle plan if they win control of the House of Representatives in the upcoming midterm election this November.

Matthew Boyle reports for Breitbart, Aug. 26, 2018, that the document was revealed by Jonathan Swan of Axios.

The document is a spreadsheet prepared by House GOP officials which meticulously previews the investigations Democrats will likely launch if they flip the House. The document is being  circulated through Republican circles on and off Capitol Hill — including at least one leadership office.

Below is Swan’s bullet point list of Democrats’ battle plan of their investigations if they regain a majority control of the House:

  • President Trump’s tax returns
  • Trump family businesses — and whether they comply with the Constitution’s emoluments clause, including the Chinese trademark grant to the Trump Organization
  • Trump’s dealings with Russia, including the president’s preparation for his meeting with Vladimir Putin
  • The payment to Stephanie Clifford — a.k.a. Stormy Daniels
  • James Comey’s firing
  • Trump’s firing of U.S. attorneys
  • Trump’s proposed transgender ban for the military
  • Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s business dealings
  • White House staff’s personal email use
  • Cabinet secretary travel, office expenses, and other misused perks
  • Discussion of classified information at Mar-a-Lago
  • Jared Kushner’s ethics law compliance
  • Dismissal of members of the EPA board of scientific counselors
  • The travel ban
  • Family separation policy
  • Hurricane response in Puerto Rico
  • Election security and hacking attempts
  • White House security clearances

Meanwhile, a new Pew Research Center study found that although the rank of file of both Democrats and Republicans believe that the upcoming midterm election is important, with three-quarters in both parties saying it “really matters” which party wins control of Congress, Democrat voters are reporting higher levels of political activity – from attending political rallies to donating to campaigns – than GOP voters.

The new national survey by Pew Research Center, conducted July 31-August 12 among 4,581 adults, including 4,000 registered voters, found that:

  • Whereas 14% of voters say they have attended a political rally, protest or campaign event in the past year, 22% of registered voters who favor the Democratic candidate in their House district say they have attended a political event, compared with just 8% of those who support the Republican candidate.
  • 23% of Democratic voters say they have donated to political campaigns, compared with 18% of Republican voters.
  • Democratic voters are also more likely to have contacted an elected official (36% vs. 28%) and volunteered for a campaign (9% vs. 5%).

H/t CSM

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Four senators blocked Senate from passing bill to defund Planned Parenthood

A June 2018 Gallup Poll found that although 60% of Americans support legalized abortion during the first three months of pregnancy, most oppose it in the later stages. Only 28% and 13% still support abortion once a pregnancy reaches, respectively, the second and third trimester. In the third trimester, the unborn baby is often viable outside the womb with medical support.

Put another way, the Gallup Poll found that 40% of Americans — 4 of every 10 — oppose legalized abortion. The population of the United States in 2018 is 327.123 million. That means 130.85 million Americans oppose legalized abortion.

It is bad enough that 4 of every 10 Americans believe abortion is immoral and should not be legalized. We are compelled by our government to give financial support, by way of our taxes, to the killing of unborn human beings.

Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion business in America, kills some 320,000 unborn babies every year, 900 babies every day. Its most recent annual report showed a record income of $1.46 billion — $400 million of which came from taxpayers. As Senator Rand Paul said in his speech on the Senate floor:

“Planned Parenthood received over 400 million dollars of taxpayer money, the government with a wink and a nod tells us that Planned Parenthood doesn’t spend the money on abortions but everybody knows that the taxpayers are really cross-subsidizing Planned Parenthood’s abortion mills.”

LifeNews reports that on Thursday, August 23, 2018, another effort to defund Planned Parenthood — a pro-life amendment sponsored by Sen. Paul that would revoke taxpayer funding for the abortion mill — failed in the U.S. Senate by a narrow 45-48 vote.

Republicans hold a narrow 51-seat majority in the Senate. Were it not for four senators — two Republicans, and two Democrats who had touted themselves as pro-life — the amendment to defund Planned Parenthood would have passed. By their votes against the amendment, these four senators are forcing 130.85 million Americans to subsidize the killing of the unborn with our hard-earned tax dollars:

  1. Susan Collins (R-Maine)
  2. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska)
  3. Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana)
  4. Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia)

After the vote Thursday, Planned Parenthood leader Dawn Laguens personally thanked Collins and Murkowski on Twitter:

“Huge thank you to @SenateDems, @lisamurkowski, & @SenatorCollins for standing up & protecting access to health care.”

Last year, the Senate also fell short of enough votes to defund Planned Parenthood, in part, because of Collins and Murkowski. In a letter to her constituents last summer, Murkowski vowed that she is “committed” to forcing taxpayers to fund the abortion chain. Earlier this week in an interview with Politico, Collins proclaims her fealty to the abortion mill, “I have voted for 21 years now for funding for Planned Parenthood. And yet, they continue to question my commitment. And that is extremely aggravating and unfair.”

Neither Murkowski nor Collins has indicated if they will support U.S. Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Although both pro-abort anti-life senators voted to confirm Justice Neil Gorsuch, they are facing huge pressure from abortion activists to vote against Kavanaugh.

Planned Parenthood has launched a $30 million political spending campaign to “take over Congress” in the November midterms. The only way the abortion business will be defunded completely is if pro-life voters head to the polls this November and provide the pro-life side a few more votes in the Senate to be able to achieve victory.

SIGN THE PETITION! Congress Must De-Fund Planned Parenthood Immediately

H/t Big Lug

~Eowyn

Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!

Please follow and like us:
0
 

Fake conservative George Will urges voting against Republicans in November midterm elections

In just 1½ years as President, Donald Trump already has achieved more than Obama in eight years, including:

  • Economy: Unemployment has fallen to 3.8% in May 2018, which is effective full employment. Worker productivity increased 3% in the third quarter of 2017, far above the 1.2% average of the Obama years. The number of manufacturing jobs in November 2017 was the highest recorded increase in 15 years.

rate of unemployment 2008-2018 BLS


Despite all that, writing in the Washington Post last Friday, June 23, supposedly-conservative and supposedly-pro-life Catholic columnist George Will, 77 — one of the Never-Trump Republicans in the 2016 presidential election — urged Americans to vote against Republicans in this November’s midterm elections, not because Congressional Republicans are still too timid, but because they have acceded to President Trump’s “family separating” border policy.

It must be noted that what the jackals of the Mainstream Media call “separation of families” is actually the Trump administration enacting a measure that flowed from the  Clinton-era Flores vs. Reno Supreme Court decision allowing unaccompanied illegal border-crossing minors be held “in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs.”

Rachel Koning Beals reports for Market Watch that Will calls lame duck House Speaker Paul Ryan and others the “president’s poodles,” and Trump’s “zero tolerance” border policy “the most telegenic example of misrule” and “fresh if redundant evidence for the principle by which” independents and moderate Republicans should vote in the November midterms.
Will even says a GOP majority’s position to fill any upcoming Supreme Court vacancies is too high a price to pay for the Trump administration’s executive and legislative “dysfunction”. He writes:

“the congressional Republican caucuses must be substantially reduced. So substantially that their remnants, reduced to minorities, will be stripped of the Constitution’s Article I powers that they have been too invertebrate to use against the current wielder of Article II powers. They will then have leisure time to wonder why they worked so hard to achieve membership in a legislature whose unexercised muscles have atrophied because of people like them. Not because James Madison’s system has failed but because today’s abject careerists have failed to be worthy of it. Congressional Republicans . . . have no higher ambition than to placate this president.”


Earlier this week, longtime Republican strategist Steve Schmidt also called for a Democratic wave in the midterm elections, blaming Trump for a “coarsening of this country” and calling the president a “useful idiot” for Russia.
So Schmidt actually believes in the Russia-Trump 2016 electoral collusion, despite not a shred of evidence? But this guy gets big bucks as a Republican strategist?
Hmm, I can’t help but wonder what dark secrets are in the closets of George Will and Steve Schmidt which they are so terrified would be exposed by “zero tolerance” Trump….

See also:

H/t Gigi
~Eowyn

Please follow and like us:
0