90 Miles From Tyranny

Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Kavanaugh Accuser's Connection to George Soros Exposed

Christine Blasey Ford's paper trail leads to billionaire globalist Democrat donor

As suspicions mount regarding the validity of Judge Kavanaugh's accuser Christine Blasey Ford's claims, a closer inspection reveals that billionaire globalist George Soros' sticky fingerprints are all over the accusations.

The timing of the allegations surfacing around Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings for the Supreme Court is already raising more than a few eyebrows.Couple that with the fact that Sen. Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA), who sat in the claims for weeks, has refused a request for a follow-up with Ford, from Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, then it's looking increasingly like a desperate political ploy. Now, it has emerged that Ford - a leftist activist and DNC donor - also has ties to George Soros.

The allegations have disrupted Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings for the Supreme Court According to the Washington Times, the first hint of a Soros connection was revealed in a report from June in the Daily Caller that found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties to the liberal financier” Soros.

What are those ties? The group, Demand Justice, established in 2018, gets its money from the Sixteen Thirty Fund — and the Sixteen Thirty Fund received roughly $2.2 million from the Open Society Policy Center, one of Soros’ outlets, between the years of 2012 and 2016.And Demand Justice’s entire mission is to advance a progressive agenda through the courts. DJ’s executive director, Brian Fallon, said to The New York Times.

But that’s not all.

Debra Katz, the attorney representing Kavanaugh’s accuser — Christine Blasey Ford — is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight, an organization that has been directly funded by Soros’ Open Society Foundation.Katz is also a hefty Democratic donor, giving thousands of dollars over the years to Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and other leftist candidates, as Front Page Mag reported. Combine that with...

A 2012 New Yorker piece naming Kavanaugh as a potential Romney pick for the Supremes may provide the genesis for Christine Ford’s questionable accusation.

By now you’ve all heard that Christine Blasey Ford is the woman accusing Kavanaugh of attacking her 35 years ago, a claim he strenuously and absolutely denies. Her story is a bizarre pastiche of precise details and huge memory holes. It’s also got a big lie planted right in the middle, which is Ford’s claim that she always meant to be private and only went public now because she couldn’t hide anymore.

That’s bull crap. The moment Ford sent a letter to a Democrat pol, she knew with absolute certainty that this would be a big deal, that her name would emerge, and that she’d become the Democrats’ new darling.

But this post is going to focus on one of the more weird things about Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh, which is the fact her therapist’s notes date from 2012:

Ford said she told no one of the incident in any detail until 2012, when she was in couples therapy with her husband. The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.” The notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room. (Emphasis mine.)

Put aside for now the fact that the notes don’t jive with the accusations Ford is making. Focus, instead, on that date: 2012.

It’s a weird date. Keep in mind that Ford, aside from being a Bernie supporting academic, is a psychologist. Part of getting a degree in psychology is going through analysis. One would think that, even if, as a shy 15-year-old, Ford was too afraid to go public with her charge against Kavanaugh, when she went through psychoanalysis on her way to her degree, she would have spoken about this alleged assault, especially because she says it traumatized her for years. But she didn’t. Instead, suddenly, in 2012, she’s bathed in flop sweat from an incident decades before.

So what happened in 2012? Coincidentally (or not), 2012 was another election year.

In 2012, Romney ran against Obama. Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well. He actually had a shot of winning.

For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court. With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:

The left was preparing for a possible Romney win. They assessed that Kavanaugh would be his Supreme Court pick and this accusation was ready to go. Then Obama won so the story died. Now its reemerged. Read last few lines of this 2012 article
— Stonewall Jackson (@1776Stonewall) September 16, 2018

I’ll save you a click to The New Yorker website. The article, which The New Yorker published in 2012, is a Jeffrey Toobin analysis about Bret Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court. According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the Court, might overturn Obamacare:

In other words, according to Kavanaugh, even if the Supreme Court upholds the law this spring, a President Santorum, say, could refuse to enforce aca because he “deems” the law unconstitutional. That, to put the matter plainly, is not how it works. Courts, not Presidents, “deem” laws unconstitutional, or uphold them. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, and that observation, and that case, have served as bedrocks of American constitutional law ever since. Kavanaugh, in his decision, wasn’t interpreting the Constitution; he was pandering to the base.

In the nineteen-nineties, during Kavanaugh’s first brush with prominence, it was said that some conservatives suffered from Clinton derangement syndrome—an obsessive belief that the President and the First Lady had committed every misdeed that was attributed to them. (Hillary Clinton was involved in Vince Foster’s death; Bill Clinton had trafficked narcotics through Mena, Arkansas; and so on.) Kavanaugh’s bizarre opinion confirms that a contemporary analogue to the Clinton malady has taken hold: health-care derangement syndrome.

There’s more blah-blah from Toobin, a man who can never be trusted to be honest about the law. Don’t bother reading it. Just pay attention to that last paragraph:

If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2012, Romney might have won the election. In 2012, Toobin stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare. And in 2012, Ford, a psychotherapist who undoubtedly had years of prior therapy herself, suddenly can’t stop talking about her hitherto undisclosed claim that Kavanaugh was a bad boy almost 30 years before.

So here’s the question: What do you think the odds are that, when Romney seemed within striking distance of the White House, and Kavanaugh seemed like a potential Supreme Court nominee, Ford came up with a story about Kavanaugh trying to rape her? Knowing Democrat fanaticism as we do, it’s easy to imagine that, in 2012, while Ford couldn’t go back in time to 1983 to make contemporaneous claims she could still try to lend an air of verisimilitude to her otherwise unconvincing narrative by concocting a tale for a therapist, thereby creating a “just in case” record.

If this supposition is true, Ford positioned herself so that, during a potential future Romney administration, she could torpedo a Kavanaugh nomination. As it turned out, her plan took a few more years to...

We often talk about the “good guy with a gun” as being the way to stop a whole lot of crimes in their tracks. Meanwhile, anti-gunners pretend the good guy with a gun is a myth and little more. Of course, we know that’s untrue and have plenty of examples otherwise.

However, we now have one more. This time, the good guy with a gun also put an end to a #MeToo moment.

A 14-year-old was arrested after Clay County deputies said he threatened a Fleming Island Walmart customer with a knife and demanded she have sex with him.

According to the Clay County Sheriff’s Office, a man who was nearby stepped in with his gun to help. Deputies said he had a concealed-carry license and did the right thing.

According to the incident report, the assault happened Tuesday around 6 p.m. at the Walmart on County Road 220. In a Facebook post, the women explained she thought the teen wanted to help her with groceries, but as he approached he told her, “I want you to have sex with me. I’ve got a knife in my pocket.”

When she saw a man walking by the aisle, she yelled for help, the Sheriff’s Office said. News4Jax spoke with that man, who wished to remain anonymous.

You never know when something bad is going to go down. As I’ve said before, we good guys don’t have the initiative. The bad guys always get that because they pick the time and the place of the crime.

All we can do is respond.

Luckily, though, in this case, the woman called for help, and the assistance came in the form of an armed citizen. That...

Google plans to update its U.S. and Europe-based street view cars with pollution recording devices — but will also reportedly replace factual pollution data on its new censored search engine for China with statistics provided by the Chinese government.

The Washington Times reports that Google will soon be outfitting its Google Street View cars with pollution recording devices in Europe and the United States to monitor fluctuations in air quality. This is not Google’s first step into environmental studies, the company’s Earth Outreach division has been monitoring air quality since 2014 but the majority of the information has stayed in-house, something which may soon be changing.

Google has now partnered with California-based company Aclima, which builds Internet-connected air-quality sensors, and with the Environmental Defense Fund. Google will soon begin making their study data available to researchers linked to both groups.

Google Earth Outreach program manager Karin Tuxen-Bettman told TechCrunch: “These measurements can provide cities with new neighborhood-level insights to help cities accelerate efforts in their transition to smarter, healthier cities.”

However, despite Google’s apparent dedication to climate activism in the U.S. and Europe, it would seem that in China, its commitment to the cause may not be so strong. In a report on Google’s new China-based censored search product, called Dragonfly, the Intercept reported that the search engine will only return pollution results provided by the Chinese state.

The Intercept states:

Sources familiar with Dragonfly said the search platform also appeared to have been tailored to replace weather and air pollution data with information provided directly by an unnamed source in Beijing. The Chinese government has a record of manipulating details about pollution in the country’s cities. One Google source said the company had built a system, integrated as part of Dragonfly, that was “essentially hardcoded to force their [Chinese-provided] data.” The source raised concerns that the Dragonfly search system would be providing false pollution data that downplayed the amount of toxins in the air.

So while it seems Google is willing to fight for climate issues in the U.S., in the Chinese market — where their reporting of air quality levels could affect them financially — the tech firm suddenly becomes very compliant with the Chinese state’s...

The Washington Post and New York Times each completely botched a hit piece on the Trump administration in recent weeks, as a result of shirking basic journalism standards.

Chuck Todd’s accusation that conservative outlets are to blame for the public’s growing lack of trust in the media was still in a steaming pile on the ground when two of America’s biggest papers had to scramble their way to corrections this week.

Both The New York Times and Washington Post had to perform reconstructive surgery on stories critical of the Trump administration. The botched reports indicate a different cause for the public’s lack of trust in the media: a years-long trend of exaggeration, innuendo and flat out false reporting on Trump.

The Washington Post reported in late August that the Trump administration is cracking down on passports at the border, in contradiction to official government statements and other publicly available facts. That story is still unraveling. And last week, The New York Times falsely framed Nikki Haley as responsible for an expensive curtain purchase that was in fact made by the Obama administration. Both outlets overhauled the stories and issued lengthy corrections.

In both cases, journalists shirked reporting standards as basic as reaching out to key players in the story, or putting the facts in their proper context. They exemplify the trend of bad reporting that has come to mark the established outlets waging open war on Trump, and is no doubt fueling distrust in the media — perhaps to a greater extent than the established press would like to admit.

Let’s go through these two reports one by one.

The Washington Post is standing by its August 29 report that the Trump administration is cracking down on potentially fraudulent passports, although it is marked by a stunning number of reporting failures, detailed most thoroughly by The Huffington Post on Monday. Reporters and editors on the story got facts wrong, misled readers, left out key data contradicting the premise of the article, and failed to reach out to the family of a deceased man accused of fraud in the story.

The initial story claimed the Trump administration is taking unprecedented action against thousands of Hispanic people living near the southern border suspected of having obtained false U.S. birth certificates. It was based largely on anecdotal evidence from immigration lawyers working in the area who said they are seeing a surge in the number of passports under scrutiny.

Within hours of its publication, a Slate reporter pointed out the practice of denying passports to people issued birth certificates from midwives suspected of fraud began under the George W. Bush administration, and continued through the Barack Obama administration. The story was corrected Aug. 31 to reflect this error. The story also asserted the Trump administration is newly targeting people delivered by a Texas doctor suspected of fraud, but HuffPo reports that practice also predates this administration.

After the State Department released numbers contradicting the story’s premise a few days after publication, editors added a new claim — that the Trump administration was...