In one of my Current News! blurbs, I promised an expose on a ‘Amiable’ Amy Klobuchar (or is she?). Here, I fulfill my promise and also raise some more important issues.
BUT MARXISM! WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
I talked, in some earlier writings, about the Resistance. Namely, that “they have made a phenomenal decision about ethical issues. And it is that ALL forms of ethical behavior are no longer relevant to their version of pursuing The Greater Good.” And I promised you that “… through these articles, I will show you why I take the stance that I do.”
But why a reference about Marxism? Simple: it is not Marxist economics that I am referring to but to their stated moral credo: “whatsoever advances the cause of Marxism is moral and whatsoever inhibits the cause of Marxism is immoral”. In other words, Marxism also has a general philosophy that THE CAUSE is all – and that, therefore, THE ALL is still justified – and without any limits. (Like the Resistance also believes).
And this is not an exaggeration – I refer you to just one (of many similar type statements) made by Pelosi. “… If people who don’t share our views wind up as collateral then so be it.” On top of everything else wrong with it, isn’t this also the ultimate dismissiveness of others? That is, I might be an honorable man, but if I do not happen to share her views, then I am acceptable as collateral. Click below if you don’t believe me that she really said that.
So, what I am ultimately talking about, regarding Karl Marx, is not his economic system. There are few people that still believe in that. It is his ethical philosophy that an enormous amount of people (who have real power) have, in fact, come to believe in.
And now, to demonstrate this, we come to the specific example of this article: do you believe that it is morally acceptable to do frame-ups – for rape – to stop someone from opposing Roe vs. Wade? This is precisely what was done during the Judge Brett Cavanaugh hearings. Klobuchar, along with all the Democratic Senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, did precisely that – and I will accept the full burden of proof that it will take to demonstrate that:
1) Were the things being said by his accuser false?
2) Did they know that what she was saying was false?
3) And did they still orchestrate rape charges against him anyway – just because of their concern that Cavanaugh might oppose Roe v. wade?
Questions 1) and 2) above should have had obvious answers – and from the beginning. Picture a scenario like this: The witness claims complete ignorance of multiple matters: that she had the right to be heard in camera (privately), that they would come to her (rather than her to them) if she preferred it that way, etc. All of these matters were brought to the attention of her lawyers (who acknowledged being made aware of these matters.) And who, by law, were required to bring them to her attention (under possible penalty of disbarment.) Yet she stated, under oath, that she had no knowledge of any of these matters.
Conversely, her lawyers made multiple representations to the Committee, ostensibly on her behalf and in consultation with her, regarding multiple matters. All of which she then repudiated before the Committee once she was brought there and put under oath. One example is their representation that she was afraid of flying and, thus, she could not come to them. She then acknowledged having no such fears when questioned under oath.
Or were the lawyers, seated on either side of her, even her attorneys who should have been speaking for her in the first place? This has also come under legitimate question. The attorneys, on her either side, were directly asked who her attorneys were – with the right to do her legal representation. Their answer had not just one, but three, bizarre aspects to it.
1) It was not an immediate answer! If you are her proper attorneys, how much thought (and length of time) does it take for you to simply say so?
2) A long time elapsed, other things went on and – eventually – they responded with a non-answer. They said “We are not being paid for our services and expect no repayment.” So? Do I get to show up for your capital murder trial and dismiss your legal representatives because “I am not being paid and expect no repayment?”
3) Where’s the paperwork? Have you ever hired an attorney – minus the paperwork that shows that they represent you? To this day, no one has still been shown any of the appropriate paperwork.
So, just going this far, how can you have a panel of attorneys (the Senate Democrats on the Committee) not being painfully aware of an ensuing melt down? And, to anticipate a question, there is no mudslinging going on here by some partisan, Mark W. Christamasomebody type. You have the witness contradicting her own attorneys (if they were even, in fact, her attorneys). And you have the attorneys contradicting their own client (if, that is, she was even their client in the first place).
So, onto the third item that needs proof – to maintain that Klobuchar and Co. did a deliberate frame-up. Did they still move forward anyway to deliberately orchestrate an inappropriate proceeding? Well, according to their own words, yes.
You have Democratic Party operatives standing out in the Senate hallways – looking at the people who were there screaming into everyone’s ears and spitting in people’s faces. It is not just that they did no condemnation of what they saw. Instead, they would talk out loud (no attempt to even masquerade their antics) about how they were responsible for the circus atmosphere.
There was talk about how they set up these people with their wardrobes and signs. They even made up front announcements that “We can’t allow this (the Cavanaugh confirmation) to happen. We are going to use ‘street’ rules.” And on we could go. And we will go on a little longer – with a down-to-the-details approach. So far, we have just looked at the more general, backstory aspects of the matter.
GETTING INTO SPECIFICS
The witness against Cavanaugh was a Christine Blaise Ford – who accused him of rape. That is, after she was kept under wraps for many months by Democratic party operatives. And many people, including myself, believe it was because they knew she was a weak item.
For those who want to do their own research, get a hold of a Mollie Hemingway. She is the author of an excellent book, “Justice on Trial: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Future of the Supreme Court.“ She also feels certain (as I do) that the Democrats knew that their witness was weak and unreliable.
But there is much more than just the suspicious way that the Democrat party operatives were acting. There are some clear specifics available about why her recollections were weak and unreliable. And many stronger reasons to believe that Klobuchar/The Senate Democrats were fully aware of it.
1) THERE ARE OFTEN DEEP FLAWS WITH EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY – ESPECIALLY WHEN WITNESSES HAVE RECALL PROBLEMS.
Also, this is well known to all people in the law enforcement community. (For those who want to research this assertion, and my upcoming ones, see the work of an Elizabeth Loftus.) Next, the Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have literally hundreds of years of law enforcement between them.
So, we will begin with a “What are the odds?” question. What do you feel the odds are that a group of Democratic Senators (with a couple of hundred years of combined legal experience between them) would be abysmally ignorance of these issues? That they would have no notion of perpetrating a miscarriage of the process – by pointing such a witness at someone for political reasons?
2) DR. FORD’S CASE IS A TEXTBOOK, SEVERE RED FLAG FOR A FALSE MEMORY RECOLLECTION
The number one red flag for a false recollection is when someone just remembers, somehow, being some place or doing a certain activity. But then has no recollection about anything that precedes it or comes after it. (This is referred to, in a shorthand way as “no before and after”.) There is even an easy layman’s explanation for why you should agree with the experts about this.
Follow: if your memory is about a real event then it would have to be both preceded and followed by other actual real events. But if your memory is about a false event then such preceding and following actual real events cannot even exist. That is why, when someone has a false memory recollection, it is virtually always accompanied by a totally flat lined recollection of before and after. It is simply because no before and after actually exists in such an event.
It is also why trauma can produce clouded and erratic recollections but nothing like this. What causes trauma, and how people react to it, is a totally randomized affair. Thus, it does not occur in a ‘neat-lined’ fashion. That is, with a specificity of a one set of events – that is then neatly suspended in midair with nothing surrounding it. This only occurs in false recollections and for the very logical reasons just discussed.
3) WHAT IS CALLED “CONTAMINATED RECOLLECTIONS” IS ALSO VERY PROBLEMATIC IN EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. AND EVEN WHEN YOU HAVE PROFESSIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS INVOLVED – AND THEY ARE OPERATING IN GOOD FAITH.
Any qualified expert will totally confirm this. Especially the part about this being problematical even in the best of circumstances. And, clearly, Ms. Ford’s recollections were not handled in the best of circumstances. What instead happened is that she was kept in the care of partisan operatives, and on a surreptitious basis, for several weeks.
THUS, I HAVE AN INITIAL SUMMATION:
I am 100% percent certain of the following items:
1) Ford’s recollections on Cavanaugh are a false memory recollection
2) Ford’s recollections also had a lot of other quirky aspects. She claims to know things (or people) that she could not possibly know. On these items, they may not be her recollections but are ‘recollections’ that have been provided to her by others. This is a contaminated memory recollection.
3) The Democrats on the panel, with their significant experience in the legal profession, were perfectly aware of the type of pitfalls that could occur from using such a witness. But they still did so anyway – even despite their full knowledge of the possible problems involved.
YOU’RE STILL NOT SURE ABOUT MY WRITE-UP? HOW ABOUT SEEING IT WITH YOUR OWN TWO EYES?
In case you need to see something like this with your own two eyes: I can refer you to a real-life event that was documented in a major motion picture. It is out of production, but I believe it is called “Forgotten Sins” starring a Daniel Shea. It is the real-life story of a well-respected deputy in the Olympia, WA area.
On television you can watch a Dr. Eschoo, a professional neurologist who is still alive, observe a “no before and after” recollection. His precise statement is that that is the number one red flag for this specific type of a phenomenon: the false memory recollection. This is the precise retelling of an actual event that you can watch for yourself on a television screen. This is not just a Mark W. Republican type only talking politically. If you can get a copy of the movie, you can watch everything happen this way in a real-life case, with a real-life neurologist and doing it in a clinical diagnosis – in a non-political environment.
Dr. Ford also had some unmistakable mixes of both real life and fantasy situations. She has a Mark Judge interacting with her (and her with him) while she is being accosted by Cavanaugh. Then she has him jumping up and down on the bed a couple of times (and for no discernable reason) until this makes it possible for her to escape.
This is also like the real-life movie: the real-life doctor in the movie also makes a precise statement about mixes of fact and fantasy – and there being red flags for a false memory recollection. In short, you have another precise retelling, of an actual event, that you can watch for yourself on a television screen. Therefore, if you are not convinced by my write-up, then you can observe it with your own two eyes.
A final tell-tale factor: this phenomenon often happens when therapy is involved in attempts to recover memories. She did, at some time, go into therapy. And then, at some time, became a victim of a false memory recovery. This does not prove, per se, that the one thing relates to the other, but it is the most likely source.
To quote a study: “When memories are “recovered” after long periods of amnesia, particularly when extraordinary means were used to secure the recovery of memory, it is now widely (but not universally) accepted that the memories are quite likely to be false, i.e. of incidents that had not occurred. It is thus recognized by professional organizations that a risk of implanting false memories is associated with some similar types of therapy.” (From a study by Brandon S, Boakes J, Glaser D, Green R (1998)).
A quick recap of other studies also shows that these types of recollections can have some blending of real events comingled with the non-real. It is true that Mark Judge, a P.J. Smythe and others were associates of the nominee. And it is true that her friend Leland (obviously) was an associate of hers. But it is also true according to Leland (as well as many others) that the two groups of people (Leland and Ford vs. Cavanaugh and associates) never met to socialize. Yet her allegation involves her and Leland, at a social event, with Cavanaugh and associates – that Leland (and all others with knowledge of the matter) maintain could never have happened.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE OTHERS YOU ARE ACCUSING?
As to my claim about the people that used (and manipulated) her: it is not a mere presumption to take my they-must-have-known stance. This is easy to determine: for all law enforcement bodies in today’s world DO know about all the potential problems with eyewitnesses. Even going back 100 years there have been some routine precautions, i.e.,
1) the need for more than just one witness. Also, that the witnesses need to be independent witnesses
2) keeping certain items secret so that you don’t get false confessions
3) keeping people’s faces out of the media (and keeping witnesses separate) so that an identification is not influenced by things that they may see and hear, etc. This is just the standard stuff dating back for many, many years.
But in today’s world there are legitimately done scientific studies (en masse) that relate to every possible aspect of eyewitness testimony. All of which are done in some type of a conjunction with law enforcement agencies. Klobuchar and Co. do know about all these issues (and without question) because they were a part of the law enforcement community – ALL of whom know about these types of matters. Feigning ignorance on something like this would be like claiming to be ignorant of a Miranda warning – while still being a long time member of the law enforcement world.
One last tidbit matter about (non) Amiable Amy before we get back to the main points about her. She has 3 NDAs (Non-Disclosure Agreements) filed by her in the court system. She is not just a well-known batterer of her staff; she has had to settle (at least) 3 lawsuits – and thus the NDAs. This was done so that her image would not suffer along with her pocketbook. She is just not the Amiable Amy type she presents herself as – she is very much the opposite.
But to the specific issue here (about being a former DA who does frame ups). We have discussed Cavanaugh at length and can now go to other cases where she has acted this way. For the Cavanaugh matter may not be the only case where she has acted this way. She is now being dogged by a blast from the past that seems to have a lot of corrupt elements to it.
You have someone (Klobuchar in this case) trying to make a name for themselves as they are pursuing political ambitions. You then have someone to stick with the tab for it. An indigent defendant – who did not have the resources to fight back. His name is Myon Burrell for those who want to check it out.
There was her politically motivated prosecution of a Kirby Puckett. In short, the Cavanaugh matter is not the only ride on her rodeo for controversial cases. And ones that have been proven to be politically motivated.
But there is even a more telling recent development here. To pivot with the times, she now claims to have worked with the Innocence Project. This is the one attempt of hers, to do political maneuvering, that can come back to bite her posterior the hardest.
If she is being truthful, we now have her decades of being a DA PLUS being connected to the Innocence Project – and she was still caught clueless on a textbook case of an invalid witness? And that even came gift wrapped – in multiple red flags – about her condition as a victim of a false memory recovery? Pardon my bluntness but no DAMN way. She’s a liar.
And so were the others. Several of the other Democrat Senators (on the Senate Judiciary Committee) have the same story as Klobuchar. Further, there is ample proof of their coordination on other matters connected to the Cavanaugh circus. This proof comes from a type of arrogance where people feel that there will be no ultimate accountability. I mentioned this earlier: their discussions with friendly journalists about all their maneuverings.
NOW WE CAN GET TO SOME LESSONS FROM ALL OF THIS
So … we need get to the ultimate issues involved here. I never take a particular person or incident and then leave it hanging there. I always try to tie these sorts of things into some broader issues. And there are many issues to be dealt with here.
First, I will speak to a particular audience before going to the more general one. I speak, for now, to people who still want to stay wedded to PC assumptions. It is like there is a liberalish type of a Check List.
I refer to the notion – still held by all too many people – about how the person talking to them now is the white dude in the room with the (R) behind his name. And is therefore, automatically, suspect. While, say, frame up artists like Klobuchar keep getting passes because they are on the ‘good’ side of a liberalish Check List. As a close follower of politics, I see this type of reasoning being used all the time – and I will give you several examples.
A) Example One: PC Mayors
Example One is back here, in the Seattle area. Here you have the most pronounced case there is of the ‘good’ ones being totally on top – if, that is, you buy into the Leftish Do-gooder Check List.
Our current Mayor, a Jennifer Durkin, was the one who first got the Seattle Police department on the hook (for, presumably, being a bad police department). She did this when she worked as a Federal District Attorney. Then, in an almost irony, she came to Seattle and got elected to be the Mayor – to run the program she got levied against the Seattle PD in her former federal role. So how could she not be the perfect person for the job if you are still a believer in the PC crowd?
And her fit on the Schlockishly Leftist Check List is impeccable. Female, Democrat, practices a lesbian lifestyle, fanatically believes in all the PC positions (Abort Away at any time and for any reason, ‘alternative’ lifestyles etc.) But even she still has her numerous exceptions to the rules.
What I mean is that there is still no impartial justice from her either. Time does not permit me to go into the details. But there is still at least one instance (that we know of) where one white police officer is getting a free ride that is not deserved. While there is another case of exactly the opposite (an instance where the Officer was right and ought not to have been fired).
But he is still being relentlessly put down no matter how many times he has proven his case to be reinstated. And, lest one say that I am doing the White Cop vs. the Black Suspect, it happens to be exactly the opposite. The one officer who is being kept put down was an instance that involved an African American police officer vs. a white perpetrator.
B) Example Two: A Fellow Running Mate of Amy Klobuchar
Then there is a Kamala Harris. Ran for President lately (along with Klobuchar) so you may know something about her. How does she do on the Leftist Check List? Just great, thank you very much. She is Black, Female, Democrat and PCish all the way on the ‘correct’ points of view: Abort Away, ‘alternative’ lifestyles etc.
However, sorry to burst your bubble but she has always had a very pronounced (and infuriating) practice that she did as a DA – and then as an Attorney General. It was to keep people incarcerated on a technicality. Appellate work (and many other aspects of our legal system) have their own byzantine processes for how things are supposed to be done.
We hear about the proverbial scheister lawyer that gets guilty people off on technicalities. Less known is that it can also go the other way too. One of Kamala’s continuing practices was to keep innocent people incarcerated because of procedural errors that were done in their appeals process.
C) Example Three: Judgmental Judges
A final case study here: a Miles Meeks – the celebrity who wound up doing 1 ½ years for an illegal U-turn. He is an African American performer who made some mistakes in his life. And, at the time he did this illegal U-turn, he was on probation.
What people don’t realize is how arbitrary the law can be – if it is used by people who might want it to work that way. In this case, you have people on probation that are (normally) laxly monitored – and laxly punished even when they do get caught fowling up. Normally, the probation process is handled so laxly that it is now considered, by many, to simply be a form of early release. However, in a strictly theoretical situation, any offense can get you reincarcerated – even a very minor one. (Something that many, including myself, were not aware of).
So, what, exactly, happened to Mr. Meeks? It started out as a bureaucratic glitchiness type of a thing. He got brought in on a traffic related item, the system got accessed and – at first glance – it looked like there might be more to the issue. However, it also looked like everything was still going to be just fine anyway.
For he had ran into an able defender – and a non-Kool aid drinker DA. There are some of these around. They will do a necessary second glance in case the first glance might be mistaken – as it was in Meeks’ case. Thus, his day in court should have been quick and painless. You have his White Dude attorney and the White Dude DA both agreeing that it was a system glitch – and that it should never even have gone this far. But ….
He still got hammered anyway!!! And …. Guess what? It was by a Check List Favorite. She was a judge who was a She (Female), Black, a Democrat (an associate of the legendary Ed Rendell – a Democrat fixture in the Philadelphia area). And, while I have not actually checked into this aspect of her, I presume she passed at least most of the PC checklist on Abort Away and the other PC issues. But it was she who body slammed him – and where I learned this all from was out of the Trump supporting conservative Laura Ingraham.
So, what does the part of the public – that I am talking to now – need to learn from this? I say this from love, from being a Christian etc. etc. But the first thing that you need to do is: 1) STOP BEING SO TOTALLY BRAIN DEAD ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND 2) STOP BUYING INTO TO ALL OF THIS IDIOTIC GARBAGE WITH ALL OF THE ‘CHECK LISTS’!!! Judgmentalism comes in all forms – and all forms are dead wrong. People must always be judged as individuals – not according to a Check List. I will use a Scriptural reference here.
At the time of St. Peter and the original apostles, the Jewish people had begun to feel that they had the corner on the whole God business. It took some divine leading to get the early Apostles to break out of this way of thinking. Eventually, Peter was finally led into what was, at that time, a radical concept. I refer you to Act 10:34,35:
34 Then Peter began to speak: “I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism 35 but accepts from every nation the one who fears him and does what is right.”
In other words, none of us has the corner on being among the righteous. By analogy, it is not just a matter of people from all nations – but also people who may come to the table from all different points of view. There are always people, from every political party and ideological persuasion, that are trying to take certain issues very seriously. And the concern here, about our legal and political systems, is a clear case in point.
Someone I have mentioned earlier, a Professor Dershowitz, is a liberal Democrat and considers himself to be agnostic on questions of religion. While I, admittedly and without apology, am the White Dude in the room with a right of center point of view – and am an evangelical believer. But, so what? When it comes to questions about the subverting of our legal and political systems, we (Dershowitz and I) are one and the same person.
Thus, it is people with political ambitions that are the least to be trusted – and, again, regardless of political ideology. There should be no surprise in what can be seen here. We see people from being a Mayor of Seattle to a judge in the Philadelphia area, to female Democrat Senators running for President – to all have political ambitions. And to all be suspect on some of the critical problems of today. If this concept does not come easy to you, then you need to rethink your entire way of looking at politics.
THE FINAL TAKE AWAY – BEFORE WE REACH THE FINAL END OF OUR DEMOCRACY???
But what about the more general concern here – as this affects all of us? Regardless of ideology, or where you think someone may stand on some Good Guy Check List – what happens when it rises to the Brett Cavanaugh level? Once someone has signed off on framing someone for rape – just over political differences? Then what is still even left of our political and legal processes?
And consider, again, what you have once a frameup for rape (or, say, murder) is now an acceptable tactic of quote “street rules”. Or whatever it is you might want to call them. Isn’t the only way to one-up it from here is, pretty much, to DO a rape or a murder to advance a political agenda?
And, just as far as the logic of the matter goes, once you have signed onto THE CAUSE is all and therefore THE ALL is still justified – then what obstacle is there to taking that next step? Chuck Schumer made a threat of physical intimidation against a pair of Supreme Court justices that he mentioned by name.
The local leader of the Black Lives Matter movement (for Senate Leader Mitch McConnell’s county in Kentucky) went out to his house and remarked “Why hasn’t anyone stabbed the m’er f’er through the heart?” And where are people like Amy at when all of this is going on? In addition to her own crimes, (non) Amiable Amy doesn’t seem to look particularly alarmed at these types of things going even further.
And the hypocrisy of it all (again!). Did you know it is unlawful to make physical threats against elected officials? And do you know who has exercised this option the most often – of charging people who have made threatening statements against her?
It is our own beloved Maxie Waters!!! That’s correct; she has specifically directed people to engage in physical harassment and intimidation against people working for the Trump administration. But, if you do unto her what she specifically directs others to do to you, she will have you arrested!!!
But I will finish this out by just staying focused on un-Amiable Amy. To give you some reference material (if you have not already read it) go to the Current News! Page and look up my 3/09/20 posting called “My Latest Conspiracy Theory”. It states my concern why we may yet hear more from both Mayor Pete and Amy before the 2020 election.
In other writings, I have already stated why Mayor Pete is not an appropriate candidate for higher office. This article lays out why Klobuchar is also a very inappropriate candidate for higher office. Be so advised as far as the current election cycle goes. But what about our future elections?
For Klobuchar is the ultimate hypocrite on democratic values. She supported the removal of a democratically elected President through a legal proceeding – that was an utter farce. She supports holding up lawful actions, done by a democratically elected President, through endless judge shopping and court challenges. She supported criminalizing Brett Cavanaugh’s hearing rather than letting it work out through the normal democratic processes.
And then look at her entire reason for doing that. It is about the battle on whether judges – or ballot boxes – should be the main determiner of what type of a country we should live in. She supports judges that block ballot boxes from deciding issues. While there was a chance that Cavanaugh might start re-allowing ballot boxes to resume deciding issues (rather than judges).
In short, the only person’s democratic rights she is in favor of are her own – and everyone else’s democratic rights can go straight to Hell. Thus, a blunt warning is called for: it is not possible to have two antithetical realities living side by side – and on an indefinite basis.
Klobuchar, along with most others in the liberal establishment, believes in antidemocratic values. Ballot boxes, a two-way practice of the First Amendment, the proper legal and political processes – in the world of Klobuchar – all take second place to whatever THE CAUSE is in today’s world. While the correct values (set of priorities) for a democracy should be this:
1) Ballot Boxes
2) A two-way (for real) 1st Amendment where all sides of an issue get intelligently discussed. And only as a Priority Number 3 do you get to
3) Whatever side wins it after the 2 items above.
But Klobuchar believes in exactly the opposite – THE CAUSE must always come out on top and no matter what it takes to make it happen. This is the critical issue of our era. For myself: first and foremost, I am a supporter of ballot boxes. Secondly, I am a supporter of a for real 1st Amendment where intelligent discussions, from both sides of an issue, get heard. And, only thirdly, am I a supporter of an opinion that I may happen to believe in. In that order.
But we cannot continue to have a political process where we democratically elect leaders like Klobuchar – who then practice antidemocratic values. Because of the two irreconcilable values involved, sooner or later, we must either get rid of the type of elected leaders that will then act undemocratically. Or, these types of leaders will, eventually, get rid of the democracy (in any meaningful fashion). Choose you this day whom you will serve.