SCOTUS Confirmation: Final Word

This is Saturday! Today’s chapter will be brief: we all need at least one day in the week without Washington D.C. drama. And today will be just a podcast. But there are a couple of things of import for you:

  • We will begin the week Monday with a critical chapter into what may be the most important issue of this century: Sexual and Domestic Abuse. In the story, we will discuss the depths of the problems, their sources, but more importantly, we will discuss a way and a plan to eliminate the large majority of these abuses suffered most often by the weakest among us: women and children. 
  • We will NOT weigh-in any further on the Kavanaugh SCOTUS confirmation until the FBI supplemental background investigation is complete and results are released. It is anticipated that will happen by the end of next week.
  • I promised a treat for our listeners and readers just ahead. Details of that will come Sunday, (which is basically another day off for you!) so don’t forget to look-in. You are going to like this, I’m certain!

PLEASE listen to today’s podcast: it is brief, but contains some very applicable and important information about these and other events. And there’s also a surprise included in the podcast!




SCOTUS: Is it Set?

Not yet. But I think it’s close.

In spite of today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in which Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh gave separate testimony regarding Ford’s allegations of sexual assault by Kavanaugh, there really is no “there-there.” Those who were expecting to come away from the hearing with proof of one or the other telling the truth while the other one lied about sexual assault came away disappointed.

I watched all 7.5 hours of the hearing. At times it was gut-wrenching, nauseating, and infuriating. More than anything, the hearing was a bad imitation of a Barnum and Bailey circus. And there were plenty of clowns in the act.

At the center of the hearing was the testimony of the accuser: Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. She testified first, without Judge Kavanaugh in the room. After a lunch break, Judge Kavanaugh testified. No one lit the fuse on the fireworks until Kavanaugh showed up. And the fireworks ensued — with much drama, grandstanding, and fanfare. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina actually stole the show during Kavanaugh’s questioning:

Graham’s outrage came after his Democrat counterparts on the Committee derided Kavanaugh in pretty much every way they possibly could. His testimony above tells the entire story of Graham’s feelings on the hearings.

Christine Blasey Ford: Testimony

Regarding Ford’s testimony, she simply repeated her claim of sexual assault against her by a teenage Brett Kavanaugh from 36 years ago. She repeated (under questioning) the names of those she previously named as witnesses. She repeated her claims about Kavanaugh and his friend Judge being in the room. She repeated several inconsistencies in her story that were already out in public from details leaked to the press apparently by members (or staff) of Democrats on the committee. She spoke quietly, seemed puzzled at questions fairly often, and responded in a voice that has been characterized as “Up-Talk.” (that is a trait used by some who when speaking make the last words of a sentence go up in pitch. Professionals say doing so is an effort to draw sympathy from listeners as well as to sound/seem victimized)

Obviously, there is NO way to verify the veracity of her testimony. Why? In her case, the 4 people she named as witnesses of the Kavanaugh sexual assault alleged to have been committed by Kavanaugh have all in affidavits provided to the Judiciary Committee denied even being at the party, knowing about the party, knowing where the alleged party was held, and in one case, even knowing Brett Kavanaugh. Each of the 4 gave those under threat of felony for lying.

Here are bullet-point items that raised some eyebrows regarding Ford’s testimony and circumstances surrounding her way of coming forward to testify:

  • She wanted anonymity. She contacted her Congresswoman first, then wrote that Congresswoman the letter with details and gave a copy to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA);
  • Even while claiming she wanted anonymity, Ford reached out to the Washington Post to tell her story. She gave her full story to a Post reporter who wrote and published it;
  • Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) as Chair of the Committee, when told Ford hated to fly and therefore did not want to come before the Committee in D.C., offered for the Committee to go to California to meet with her anywhere and anytime. In her testimony, she shared details of numerous trips she has made in her work and for personal purposes in which she flew all over the world. It was revealed AFTER the hearing that she had NOT been in California when Grassley’s offer was made to go to her in California. Ford was actually in Delaware, just a short distance away from Washington D.C. No explanation for her lack of candor was given;
  • Ford was definitive in her description of what happened during the incident: she remembered that she drank just 1 beer at the party, stated emphatically who the 4 others were at the party, what Kavanaugh and Judge allegedly did to her, who all were in the house, how she prevented what she thought was going to be a rape, and even the sounds of the 2 boys going down the stairs after she was able to get into a locked bathroom in avoiding an attack. Yet she did NOT know the location of the house where party and attack occurred, who the house belonged to, who took her to the party, or who took her home. She also has no memory of the date of the party;
  • Details in the Post story differed in part from her accounts of the “event” that her therapist put in her interview notes. Ford had no explanation for the differences other than the therapist’s notes were wrong;
  • The only explanation she had for any of the named witnesses not corroborating her story (and their even refuting her story) was that one of those witnesses — her best friend — has been having serious “medical issues.”

Committee Democrats lobbed nothing but softballs at Ford, each lauding her for coming forward with the sexual abuse charges. None asked her a single tough question. Republicans deferred their questioning to a female rape victim legal expert. (In my estimation, their doing so was a huge mistake) This rape expert is an Arizona attorney who prosecutes sex crime perpetrators and simply took too much time asking her questions that were often benign. (Republicans in questioning Kavanaugh replaced her with the normal process in which Senators asked questions)

Brett Kavanaugh: Testimony

  • If you missed the hearing — especially the testimony of Brett Kavanaugh — I encourage you to search online, find it and listen to it. If you have young children or teenagers, I encourage you to include them. His opening remarks were historical, bombastic, and challenging. He called out Senate Democrat Committee members for orchestrating what he called a lynching and a circus, multiple times charging those Democrats with destroying his credibility, his reputation and that of his family, and doing so in retribution against Donald Trump for beating Hillary Clinton in 2016. He likened it to the 1991 Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Justice Clarence Thomas, in which a surprise last-minute sexual attack was made by Anita Hill in testimony against Thomas.
  • The common thread throughout his testimony was that EVERY Democrat implored Kavanaugh to ask, request, implore, and even demand for President Trump to “make” the FBI investigate Ford’s allegations against him before his confirmation goes to the full Senate for a vote. Each time, Judge Kavanaugh made it clear he is committed to doing anything that the Judicial Committee requests, even if they asked for another FBI hearing. Senator Grassley several times interrupted, making it clear that the Committee has an investigative staff comprised of G.O.P. and Democrat staffers who had already investigated the Ford charges. That did not stop Democrats from badgering Kavanaugh. Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) was the most noxious in her questioning, demeaning Kavanaugh for not demanding another FBI investigation.

At this point, let me address the demands for this second FBI investigation: in Senate confirmation investigations, the FBI exclusively performs those for every nominee. They had investigated Kavanaugh 6 times for previous nominations. None of these allegations surfaced in this most recent investigation or any previous investigation. It was made clear (though Dem Senate members ignore the fact) that the FBI does only background investigations, that the allegations made by Ford and the other women were criminal in nature. The FBI, therefore, has no jurisdiction — Montgomery County, Maryland law enforcement would investigate any allegations of criminal wrongdoing — not the FBI.

It was also made clear that for any agency to launch such an investigation, basics must be provided by any accuser: the nature of the crime, who committed the crime, where the crime was committed, names and details of potential witnesses, and when the alleged attack occurred. MONTGOMERY COUNTY POLICE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE THIS ALLEGATION WITHOUT FORD (OR SOMEONE) PROVIDING THAT INFORMATION.

Ford’s cries and that of every Democrat on the Committee and in Congress for the FBI came even though ALL committee members knew the above information would be required for anyone to begin an investigation. They also knew that there is NO statute of limitations in Maryland for sexual assault. With credible evidence, law enforcement could still prosecute Kavanaugh for Ford’s allegations if probable cause was found.

The Ultimate Travesty

Republicans pretty much nationwide have blasted Senate Democrats for several weeks over Democrat handling of this confirmation process. Why? It became obvious early on that Democrats care not for Kavanaugh’s experience, judicial expertise, or any other of his qualifications for the job of Supreme Court Justice. Obviously their desire is to delay any Kavanaugh confirmation hearing by painting him with as vile and salacious allegations as possible to totally discredit him, keep him or any other Conservative from becoming SCOTUS Justice. Senate Democrats have NO regard for the truth, the standard of the presumption of innocence, the cost to the nation of disallowing who is probably the most qualified person in the U.S. to hold that position, while simultaneously destroying his life and that of his family.

Senate Democrats purpose: keep a conservative majority from controlling the Supreme Court. Their goal: protect Roe v. Wade in doing so.

Their war to accomplish that goal was made obvious with the revelation of specific actions by the Ranking Member: Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). She received the letter from Ford July 30, 2018, detailing Ford’s allegations against Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Senate rules require any member receiving such information to do two things: forward the allegations to the FBI immediately to be included in their nomination investigation and to simultaneously share the information with fellow members of the committee. Feinstein knew both were required of her, yet she did neither.

Why? She said she did so because of the request by Ford for anonymity. But Feinstein knew that her forwarding the letter to fellow committee members and the FBI would  NOT violate her promise to Ford for anonymity. Actually, doing so would have protected her identity. Instead it was leaked to the press which began the normal press feeding frenzy and the Post story was published.

Feinstein by turning that letter over to the FBI July 30th would have allowed a confidential and thorough investigation of Ford’s allegations by Montgomery County well before the Kavanaugh hearings began. Yet NO question in the 30-hours of Committee hearings was asked of Kavanaugh about the allegation even with the Ford allegations being in the hands of Feinstein. Feinstein herselft did not even ask Kavanaugh about it in her 40-minute private meeting with the nominee!

Feinstein’s motive could only be one and on only: stop Brett Kavanaugh at any cost.


The only Constitutional role in this process of the Senate is “Advice and Consent” in confirmation proceedings. This Senate Judiciary Committee took it upon themselves to orchestrate an unethical if not illegal plan to thwart the Senate’s 200-year-old confirmation process purely for political purposes.

Very few are surprised at their actions, I am sure. Many if not most are disappointed.

Think about this: the United States of America was just about to be robbed of the services of who many are calling THE most qualified Supreme Court Justice nominee of the last century.

Shame on those Democrats! Thank God for the fortitude shown today by Judge Kavanaugh to stand firm in the face of pure partisanship in Senate Democrats’ efforts to stop his confirmation. He had help from his friend Senator Lindsey Graham as shown in the video above.

I may be counting chickens before they hatch, but, “Ladies and Gentlemen, I’d like to be the first to introduce to you the next Justice of the United States Supreme Court: Brett Kavanaugh!”

“So It Is Written…So Let it be Done!”


How Does Socialism Actually Work?

It’s a bit spooky that the “next” generation of Americans are getting so chummy using the word “Socialism.” Many of their heroes are tossing that word around, too. The reason for the far-too-common use of the term is simple: today’s educators have wrapped their classroom agendas in a cloak of Socialism. They talk about it like it has brought Nirvana to the countries who have embraced it, and they use that to demonize Capitalism. Educators don’t discuss the horrors of Socialism in Germany, China, Venezuela, the Czech Republic, Turkey, and nations who long ago disappeared because Socialism there was unsustainable. All they share with our next generation is this: “Socialism is a political environment in which everyone is guaranteed by the government that all their fundamental needs are going to be met — no matter what!”

What’s so spooky about it is that this utopian promise is based on totally false information. These educators are filling the heads and hearts of the next generation of Americans with untruths. And our kids are swallowing that propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

So let’s today compare Socialism with Capitalism — the political and social structure embraced by the U.S. for 240 years — and contrast how these work in various countries in which they are used.


“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

Capitalism has always been the home of true entrepreneurship, encouraging through free market trade the initiative for people to create and develop new technology, free market trade, and continual innovation for improvement and invention. Those who take advantage of the capitalistic environment receive rewards tied directly to their efforts. 

The greatest drawback of Capitalism is corruption that results in individuals and groups from both private and government sectors taking advantage of capitalistic opportunities to garner power and wealth: sometimes illegally and sometimes skirting the law but doing so unethically.

In every capitalistic society, there have always been politicians or other leaders who impose very non-capitalistic restrictions intended to siphon money to politicians or to protect favored friends with various capitalistic concepts — like monopolies — which can only exist if the government allows these to exist. What we do know though is the more economic freedom given to a people, they will not only do better, they will always default to the best and easiest economy: Capitalism.

Capitalism is NOT a form of government. Believing that a “free market” can solve all problems is not really a valid expectation. Since most “problems” are caused by government, it seems it would be wiser to “fix” government than to expect an economic system to get past government incompetence.

In reality, NO country has really allowed capitalism to fully run its course, (meaning “total economic freedom”) where a government is only there to handle dishonesty and disputes — not prevent these, just resolve them with a specific process and only as they occur.


“1.  Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2.  The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.”

Socialism is almost totally a political system, which does claim to magically solve all problems even though a socialist concept is what creates the problems that result in its inevitable failure. The Soviet Union is a good example. The claim for establishing the socialist Soviet Union was to solve the disparity between rich and poor and assure that everyone will have at least a minimum good life. The reality is, Socialism Soviet-style resulted in making everyone extremely poor and destitute, including people who were not poor before it was instituted.

There have been attempts at pure Socialist governments throughout history. Socialist founders of these governments really did believe these governments could solve all problems. None have worked.  And the “pure” Socialists countries have all either died or ARE dying.

Feudalism was a combination of legal and military customs in medieval Europe that flourished between the 9th and 15th centuries. Broadly defined, it was a way of structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labor. Socialism is basically Feudalism by another name. Both develop, maintain, and are controlled by a ruling class who directs everything. The only real difference is that feudal lords claimed that their right to authoritarian rule was divine, whereas the socialists claim that their right to authoritarian rule originated with their commitment to helping the poor along with other altruistic claims or beliefs.

Whatever the justification, the results are the same: elite authoritarians in charge of everything. This type of rule has been around for centuries, and so far all of them have failed.

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

  1. The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
  2. The fifth would pay $1.
  3. The sixth would pay $3.
  4. The seventh would pay $7.
  5. The eighth would pay $12.
  6. The ninth would pay $18.
  7. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. The first four men were unaffected: they would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his “fair share?”
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:

  1. The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
  2. The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
  3. The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
  4. The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
  5. The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
  6. The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings:

  1. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!”
  2. “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!”
  3. “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
  4. “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important: they didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia


And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system AND Socialism works. The people who pay the highest taxes today or do the most effort and provide the greatest amount of work in Socialism don’t get any extra benefit from what they bring “to the table.” Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, take from them the extra they put into the system, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier!


I’m Sad Today

Today’s story “I’m Sad Today” is presented only in audio. For those of you who regularly read our story, I apologize. I am so emotional about the travesties that play out daily in Washington D.C., I felt you should all be able to not only read my thoughts on these subjects, but I wanted all to hear them.

We don’t do this often here. And it will seldom happen in the future. But as we get closer to choosing whether or not Brett Kavanaugh will become the next member of the U.S. Supreme Court, we all need to take what we discuss daily at, hear the emotion along with the factual information disseminated in our Podcast, and align it somehow with your already developed thoughts.

More than ever I encourage you to share your thoughts AND this Podcast with your friends and associates. I must confess that I rail against Leftists and the “new” way of governing with which they slap Americans in the face daily.

It is imperative that everyone knows the truth of these allegations levied against the nominee. But it is just as imperative that everyone knows the purpose and process that are aligned behind the curtains of governing by Leftists.

Thank you for understanding and your tolerance!



How to Catch Wild Pigs

There was a chemistry professor in a large college that had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab, the professor noticed one young man — an exchange student — who kept rubbing his back and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist regime. In the midst of his story, he looked at the professor and asked a strange question: “Do you know how to catch wild pigs?”

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said that it was no joke. “You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free food.” He continued, “When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming to eat corn. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again.”

The story began to intrigue the professor. The young student continued his story: “You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, which are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat that free corn again. You then slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.”

By now, everyone in the chemistry class was listening intently. “Suddenly, the wild pigs realize they have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught, sooooo, they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to the free corn that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity because in captivity they have free corn.”

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening in America. The government keeps pushing Americans toward Communism/Socialism, and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs, such as supplemental income, tax credits for unearned income, tax exemptions, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare entitlements, free medicine, drugs, etc. All these freebies keep coming while Americans continually lose more and more freedoms. But because those freedoms are taken from us only gradually, their loss is seldom even noticed.

One should always remember two truths:

  1. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and you can never hire someone to provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself;
  2. If you see that all of this wonderful government “help” is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America, you might want to share this with others who are important to you.

God help us all when the gate slams shut!

“The problems we face today are there because the people who work for a living are now outnumbered by those that vote for a living.”

The “Real” Illegal Immigrant U.S. Population

Reports from immigration experts and population studies have for years pegged the number of illegal immigrants in the U.S. somewhere between 10 and 13 million. No one has ever really identified the sources used to validate those numbers. Americans have been forced to simply take them at face value — until the last few years.

Illegal immigration has become if not THE #1 topic of discussion in political debates, at least 1 of the top 3 most discussed political hot-button items — and justifiably so. By any legitimate calculations, the economic strain on the U.S. government (and therefore American taxpayers) is astronomical.  The toll on the American infrastructure and government resources drawn upon by these 10-12 million illegals is at least significant if not astronomical. Illegal immigrants — who in large part are known to be (in comparison with legal Americans) poorer, less educated — are more dependent on government direct and indirect financial support than legal immigrants and Americans.

Yes, there are reports published by immigration pundits who make claims of vast economic value of these immigrants who take blue-collar jobs shunned by Americans. That is true, at least in part. It IS factual that illegals in large slip into the U.S. primarily for employment. And because of their minimal job skills and education are forced into these industries for manual labor jobs.

Immigration pundits claim — and rightfully so — many American employers relish the ability to draw workers from this pool of illegals, but not because of the unavailability of legals to fill those jobs. Some employers use illegals to take advantage of their availability to work, their willingness to work for much lower wages with fewer or without any normal employee benefits. In those circumstances, illegal employees are not enrolled in federal and state employment programs, which enables employers to reduce their operating costs: unemployment insurance, matching employer payroll tax, Social Security and Medicare employer payments, paid leave, employee health insurance programs, etc.) which rewards employers, but at the expense of these immigrant workers.

Many illegal immigration advocates also take advantage of these unknowns in creating and marketing their illegal immigration policies. In doing so, they appeal to the emotions of good Americans, demeaning all those who cry for stronger border security, a wall at the U.S. southern border, and a strict adherence to illegal immigration law enforcement. The lack of verifiable illegal immigration data acts as fuel for their arguments. How? Without the truth of illegal immigrant numbers and its true costs to Americans, many have for decades maintained that illegals in America do far more good for our country than bad.

But that narrative is changing — and it is startling.

How Many Illegals Are There in the U.S.: the REAL Number?

The population of illegal migrants is roughly 22 million, or twice the establishment estimate of 11 million, say three professors from Yale University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

The shocking estimate will force establishment politicians and pro-migration advocates to recalculate the estimated impact of the huge illegal population on wages and salaries, on crime rates, welfare consumption, rental and real-estate prices, productivity rates, and the distribution of job-creating investment funds to coastal vs. heartland states. The higher illegal population estimate helps explain why Americans’ wages and salaries have risen so little amid apparently record-low unemployment rates, and it also undercuts companies’ loud demands for yet more immigration of foreign workers, consumers, and renters.

The population estimate also raises the political and economic stakes of any amnesty legislation. In 2014, public opposition blocked the bipartisan, establishment, media-boosted Gang of Eight Bill, which claimed to offer an amnesty to just 11 million migrants. Currently, advocates for a ‘Dream Act’ amnesty claim it will provide green cards to roughly 3 million sons and daughters of illegal immigrants.

The new estimate also bolsters President Donald Trump’s demand that reluctant GOP and hostile Democratic legislators fund a border wall.

“Our purpose is to provide better information,” said Jonathan Feinstein, an economics professor at Yale. In a video statement, he defended the estimate from likely critics, saying it is an expert analysis, not a political project.

“This report from Yale is not oriented towards politics or policy. I want to be very clear. This paper is about coming up with a better estimate of an important number, and we are really trying to keep away from making any statements about how that could or should be used. It is just a report to help the debate be organized around some better information, which in my opinion is a good thing to do. I think the debate should always be centered around the best information we can develop.”

The academics expected their techniques to show the population is smaller than the consensus estimate of 11.3 million. “Our original idea was just to do a sanity check on the existing number,” said Edward Kaplan, operations research professor at Yale. “Instead of a number which was smaller, we got a number that was 50 percent higher. That caused us to scratch our heads.”

Operations research is a skill that extracts accurate estimates from scraps of data. It began in World War II when academics were enlisted to help track Nazi U-boats and weapons-production. For example, the academics used scraps of information to conclude that the Nazis produced 270 Panther tanks in February 1944. After the war, captured factory data showed the production of 276 Panthers in that month.

“We have a conservative estimate that the number is at least 16.7 million,” said Edward Kaplan, an operations research professor at Yale. The study used “over 1 million scenarios accounting for all of the variability in the various parameters that we need for this model [and] on average, we’re estimating something like 22 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.”

The study says:

The figure [below] also shows our conservative estimate of 16.7 million in Red, and the most widely accepted estimate heretofore of 11.3 million in Blue on the far left. We note that this last estimate is for 2015, but should be comparable since both the estimates based on the survey approach and our modeling approach indicate that the number of undocumented immigrants has remained relatively constant in recent years. Finally, the mean estimate of 22.1 million is shown in black in the center of the distribution.

The new estimate uses new sources of data, such as the fingerprints of migrants caught at the Mexican border, said Mohammad Fazel‐Zarandi, a senior lecturer at the MIT Sloan School of Management. In contrast, the current estimate of 11.3 million is based on the Census Bureau’s annual American Community Survey. “It’s been the only method used for the last three decades,” says Fazel‐Zarandi.

“The illegal population is higher than expected because more migrants crowded into the United States during the cheap-labor policies of Presidents’ George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush,” the researchers said. “The inflow leveled off in 2008 once the economy crashed when millions of new migrants and poor Americans were unable to pay their rising mortgage costs.”

The existing population of illegals tends to decline as many die of natural causes, or return home, or get “Adjustment of Status” to become legal residents. But the population is being kept level because new migrants — especially foreigners who overstay their visas or who migrate from Central America — offset the natural decline.

The Yale study goes up to 2016, and so does not offer 2017 and 2018 numbers. Many new migrants are overstaying their visas and sneaking across the borders, but President Donald Trump has tightened border defenses against overstays and border-crossers.

The Yale study complements the Census Bureau’s new estimate of the nation’s population and workforce. The bureau concluded the nation has been enlarged by 44.5 million legal or illegal immigrants, plus 17 million children of legal immigrants. Together, the new estimates conclude that the nation’s has a record-breaking foreign-born population of 55 million migrants. That number is roughly 16.9 percent of the population, or roughly one person six living in the United States.


There certainly is no absolute answer to the question “What should the United States do regarding illegal immigration and those who break immigration laws in doing so?” The issue has become a hotly debated political one. And it has been one of the top “hot potato” political issues for decades.

Here’s the only solution that in my mind makes sense: remove the issue from the political forum, and call it what it really is: an American economic issue.

No, I’m not in doing so turning a cold shoulder to the many woes of foreigners who fight hard to escape often unbearable circumstances in their own countries, fleeing to the Shangri-La of America. In making that statement, I recognize that economic issues drive the machine that runs the United States of America.

Think about that: if the U.S. and its people do not prosper, its people cannot pay taxes. If Americans cannot pay sufficient taxes, the U.S. government has insufficient funds to operate. Those operations include a system that for decades has facilitated the LEGAL immigration into the U.S. of 1 million aliens each year. How does that compare? Here’s one immigration number you can rely on: 1 million immigrants allowed legal status in the U.S. each year equals MORE than the combined number of legal immigrants allowed into every other country on Earth each year COMBINED!

Let’s Fix It

The illegal immigration system in the U.S. will be fixed ONLY using the following process:

  1. Stop ALL illegal immigration…PERIOD!
  2. Close the southern U.S. border
  3. Immediately revise the legal immigration process internally AND the process for aliens to quickly enter the U.S. LEGAL immigration system from within their OWN country
  4. Congress: get off your rears and create and pass legitimate legal immigration laws that address these and other immigration policies that will be best FIRST for Americans!

Let’s be blunt: the United States does not “owe” immigration status to anyone on Earth. As the most powerful and most blessed country on the planet, Americans certainly “should” pay-it-forward by blessing others with assistance and economic and social opportunities as we can. In large part, we already do that for millions around the world.

Americans are simply tired of the political immigration merry-go-round; Americans are tired of party politics and party agendas that use immigrants, American minorities and less fortunate people as pawns in stupid political wars. Americans are better than that!

President Trump — though you may not like him personally, his policies, or his choice of messaging — as a businessman has a career in which he successfully developed a basic understanding of problem-solving. The problem-solving process should always be based on reason, consideration of all facts inherent to the problem and its possible solutions, then choosing a course of action, drawing on any and all resources necessary for a chosen solution, implementing the solution, and managing it to a successful conclusion.

The President has given the American people and Congress a template that includes pieces to a solution for this illegal immigration problem. It’s time for Congress to put aside the petty political partisanship, stop worrying about any political costs of the implementation of this or any other proposed solution, and implement the chosen solution. Any chosen problem solution (like illegal immigration) should be used for one reason and one reason only: IT’S THE BEST SOLUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

American voters: it’s YOUR job to make sure your Congressional representatives in the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate are on board in their support for a specific plan to fix illegal immigration problems. And if they are not on board and simply want to maintain the existing immigration circus or put another such ridiculous plan in place, MAKE CHANGES IN WHO REPRESENTS YOU!

See: that wasn’t so hard. Sometimes the right solution to an issue is the simplest one.

In this case, it’s simply “Get R’ Done!”



“You Can’t Handle the Truth!”

It seems odd that a long list of politicians and other high profile individuals have announced their belief of the allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Why does it seem odd? The answer to that lies in another question: what does it take for one to learn the truth of an allegation — ANY allegation?

That second question is precisely why the founders of the U.S. demanded a justice system that was built on the fundamental principle they never had the benefit of in their European homeland: “Innocent until proven guilty.” That principle has been the linchpin of American justice for almost 250 years. But its existence and the founders’ reasoning for demanding it as a building block for our country is lost on many today who number themselves among the “political elites” in American government. Here’s what a number of U.S. Senators had to say:

  • New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D) Gillibrand offered words of support to Ford during a Tuesday interview with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, telling him simply: “I believe Kavanaugh’s accuser.”
  • California Senator Kamala Harris (D) “I believe her,” Harris told CBS in a Tuesday interview. It’s a serious matter. And she has the courage to come forward. She has nothing to gain. What does she have to gain?”
  • California Senator Dianne Feinstein (D )”During every step of this process, I’ve found every single piece of information from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford eminently credible, sincere and believable.”
  • Hawaii Senator Mazie Hirono (D) “Not only do these women need to be heard, but they also need to be believed,” Hirono said.
  • Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren (D) “Christine Blasey Ford is brave, deserves to be heard, and treated with respect as she raises new questions about Brett Kavanaugh.”
  • Senate Judiciary Committee member Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) said there needs to be an FBI investigation before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on the accusations against Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and declared, “I believe the survivor, Dr. Ford.”
  • South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) said he’d gladly listen to her story. “I don’t know when she took the polygraph,” Graham later said, referring to a lie detector test Ford’s lawyer says was administered to her by an FBI agent. “I don’t know who paid for it. I don’t know when she hired the lawyer. But if you didn’t want to go public why are you buying a polygraph and why are you hiring a lawyer?” he added. “All those things will come out.”

There are dozens of others in Congress who have come out in full support of Dr. Ford’s allegation, even before reading the letter in which the allegations were made or facing her in a Q&A before the Senate Judiciary Committee! How is it possible for anyone to determine guilt or innocence of a person when there is NO evidence, (either direct or circumstantial) there is NO testimony from the accuser or the accused, and there are no corroborating witnesses? Before we go into further details, it is noteworthy that not one Democrat in Congress has publicly stated disbelief in Ford’s story. And not one Democrat in Congress has publicly stated support for Kavanaugh’s nomination to SCOTUS before Ford’s allegations or since.

Do you think there may be possible politicization going on?

How Best to Determine if Someone is Telling the Truth

I thought it best to bring a small bit of objectivity and knowledge into this political debacle. There ARE experts among us who professionally conduct such investigations every day. Certainly hearing from one of those experts could shed some light on the probable upcoming testimony of Dr. Ford.

J.J. Newberry was a trained federal agent, skilled in the art of deception detection. So when a witness to a shooting sat in front of him and tried to tell him that when she heard gunshots she didn’t look, she just ran — he knew she was lying. How did Newberry reach this conclusion? The answer is by recognizing telltale signs that a person isn’t being honest, like inconsistencies in a story, behavior that’s different from a person’s norm, or too much detail in an explanation. While using these signs to catch a liar takes extensive training and practice, it’s no longer only for authorities like Newberry. Now, the average person can become adept at identifying dishonesty, and it’s not as hard as you might think. Experts tell WebMD the top 10 ways to let the truth be known.
Tip No. 1: Inconsistencies

“When you want to know if someone is lying, look for inconsistencies in what they are saying,” says Newberry, who was a federal agent for 30 years and a police officer for five. When the woman he was questioning said she ran and hid after hearing gunshots — without looking — Newberry saw the inconsistency immediately. “There was something that just didn’t fit,” says Newberry. “She heard gunshots but she didn’t look? I knew that was inconsistent with how a person would respond to a situation like that.” So when she wasn’t paying attention, he banged on the table. She looked right at him. “When a person hears a noise, it’s a natural reaction to look toward it,” Newberry tells WebMD. “I knew she heard those gunshots, looked in the direction from which they came, saw the shooter, and then ran.”

Sure enough, he was right. “Her story was just illogical,” says Newberry. “And that’s what you should look for when you’re talking to someone who isn’t being truthful. Are there inconsistencies that just don’t fit?”

Tip No. 2: Ask the Unexpected

“About 4% of people are accomplished liars and they can do it well,” says Newberry. “But because there are no Pinocchio responses to a lie, you have to catch them in it.”

Sir Walter Scott put it best: “Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!” But how can you catch a person in his own web of lies?

“Watch them carefully,” says Newberry. “And then when they don’t expect it, ask them one question that they are not prepared to answer to trip them up.”

Tip No. 3: Gauge Against a Baseline

“One of the most important indicators of dishonesty is changes in behavior,” says Maureen O’Sullivan, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the University of San Francisco. “You want to pay attention to someone who is generally anxious, but now looks calm. Or, someone who is generally calm but now looks anxious.” The trick, explains O’Sullivan, is to gauge their behavior against a baseline. Is a person’s behavior falling away from how they would normally act? If it is, that could mean that something is up.

Tip No. 4: Look for Insincere Emotions

“Most people can’t fake smile,” says O’Sullivan. “The timing will be wrong, it will be held too long, or it will be blended with other things. Maybe it will be a combination of an angry face with a smile; you can tell because their lips are smaller and less full than with a sincere smile.”

These fake emotions are a good indicator that something has gone afoul.

Tip No. 5: Pay Attention to Gut Reactions

“People say, ‘Oh, it was a gut reaction or women’s intuition,’ but what I think they are picking up on are the deviations of true emotions,” O’Sullivan tells WebMD. While an average person might not know what it is he’s seeing when he thinks someone isn’t being honest and attribute his suspicion to instinct, a scientist would be able to pinpoint it exactly — which leads us to tip no. 6.

Tip No. 6: Watch for Microexpressions

When Joe Schmo has a gut feeling, Paul Ekman, a renowned expert in lie detection, sees microexpressions. “A microexpression is a very brief expression, usually about a 25th of a second, that is always a concealed emotion,” says Ekman, Ph.D., professor emeritus of psychology at the University of California Medical School in San Francisco. So when a person is acting happy, but in actuality is really upset about something, for instance, his true emotion will be revealed in a subconscious flash of anger on his face. Whether the concealed emotion is fear, anger, happiness, or jealousy, that feeling will appear on the face in the blink of an eye. The trick is to see it.

“Almost everyone — 99% of those we’ve tested in about 10,000 people — won’t see them,” says Ekman. “But it can be taught.” In fact, in less than an hour, the average person can learn to see microexpressions.

Tip No. 7: Look for Contradictions

“The general rule is anything that a person does with their voice or their gesture that doesn’t fit the words they are saying can indicate a lie,” says Ekman. “For example, this is going to sound amazing, but it is true. Sometimes when people are lying and saying, ‘Yes, she’s the one that took the money,’ they will without knowing it make a slight head shake ‘no.’ That’s a gesture and it completely contradicts what they’re saying in words.”

These contradictions, explains Ekman, can be between the voice and the words, the gesture and the voice, the gesture and the words, or the face and the words. “It’s some aspect of demeanor that is contradicting another aspect,” Ekman tells WebMD.

Tip No. 8: A Sense of Unease

“When someone isn’t making eye contact and that’s against how they normally act, it can mean they’re not being honest,” says Jenn Berman, Ph.D., a psychologist in private practice. “They look away, they’re sweating, they look uneasy … anything that isn’t normal and indicates anxiety.”

Tip No. 9: Too Much Detail

“When you say to someone, ‘Oh, where were you?’ and they say, ‘I went to the store and I needed to get eggs and milk and sugar and I almost hit a dog so I had to go slow,’ and on and on, they’re giving you too much detail,” says Berman. Too much detail could mean they’ve put a lot of thought into how they’re going to get out of a situation and they’ve crafted a complicated lie as a solution.

Tip No. 10: Don’t Ignore the Truth

“It’s more important to recognize when someone is telling the truth than telling a lie because people can look like they’re lying but be telling truth,” says Newberry. While it sounds confusing, finding the truth buried under a lie can sometimes help find the answer to an important question: Why is a person lying?

These 10 truth tips, experts agree, all help detect deception. What they don’t do is tell you why a person is lying and what the lie means. “Microexpressions don’t tell you the reason,” says Ekman. “They just tell you what the concealed emotion is and that there is an emotion being concealed.” When you think someone is lying, you have to either know the person well enough to understand why he or she might lie, or be a people expert.

“You can see a microexpression, but you have to have more social-emotional intelligence on people to use it accurately,” says O’Sullivan. “You have to be a good judge of people to understand what it means.”


Even if one agrees with the steps given above to discern truth, one thing with Dr. Ford is missing: no one has had even a conversation with her, yet alone a face-to-face meeting. Hopefully, that will happen soon. But even if terms of her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee are agreed to and she does testify, it is doubtful any tangible evidence is even available to either confirm or deny her 35-year-old allegation of sexual assault against Brett Kavanaugh. What it will come down to will be conclusions drawn by those in the room about her testimony and that of the nominee — now known as “the accused.”

Here’s a summary question: how can any American feel any finding of the truth can result from her testimony? Those Senators listed above and dozens of other Democrats in the House and Senate have already made their commitments of belief of her story. It is impossible for anyone to determine that now. And even after Dr. Ford’s sworn testimony and that of Judge Kavanaugh, a decision will still be subjective for anyone and everyone.

Sadly, even if this concluded today, there will always be a cloud of suspicion hanging over the head of Brett Kavanaugh. He obviously was given NO presumption of innocence by any of those who blindly support his accuser.

Is Dr. Ford telling the truth? Only two people knows that answer: Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh. And without the ability to “read” their brains, no other human will ever know for sure.

As the clock ticks and the calendar pages turn, it has become more and more obvious to me that our political process is structured totally by political partisanship — especially among those on the Left. “Innocent until proven guilty” is actually thrown out the window when it comes to sexual allegations against Republicans. Universally though, Democrats accused of sexual assault or domestic abuse are immediately considered by their peers to be innocent or immediately forgiven and restored.

Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) is the latest Democrat who has been accused of brutal abuse by his former girlfriend. Her accusation includes video, audio, and sworn testimony of others. Yet Ellison remains in Congress with no DNC investigation. And he is the Vice-Chair of the Democrat Party.

Former President Clinton was accused of all types of sexual assault and harassment as well as rape by multiple women. Democrats stood idly by in support of the Democrat President. He was impeached — but not for committing sex crimes. He famously committed perjury in sworn testimony in a civil trial. Remember this: “I did NOT have sexual relations with that woman.” “That” woman was White House intern Monica Lewinsky. And he HAD sexual relations with that woman. Clinton survived his impeachment trial in the Senate and was rewarded for his sexual crimes against these women by being elected to his second term as President.

It all comes down to this one thing: they don’t want the truth. They simply want Democrat power in government wrestled from the grasp of the Republicans — and they’ll do or say anything to get it. They do not care if they must lie, cheat, or steal to get it. Any price they must pay is all right. “The end justifies the means.” And they daily show that’s their goal and their methodology.

Will any Democrat change their opinion of Brett Kavanaugh serving on the Supreme Court? That is doubtful.

It’s hard for Americans to reconcile any elected representative in Congress would even consider making such a critical decision based on anything but Truth.

How can they predetermine their vote on the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, many making their announcement to vote “no” on his confirmation before he appeared before Congress or met one-on-one with Senators?

The answer to that question came from Jack Nicholson in the movie “A Few Good Men.” (Click to see/hear his answer)


They cannot handle the Truth, so they refuse to even consider it.




It’s Mob Rule

American Democracy has devolved into Mob Rule. Life in the United States has dramatically morphed into something akin to life in a third-world country. There are those in leadership that have literally tossed out reliance on the U.S. Constitution as the roadmap to governing. Their choice? Mob Rule.

Gone is the Bill of Rights; gone is the Rule of Law; gone is “Liberty and Justice for All.” All of these tenets of the United States of America have been replaced with a new process of governing: rule by a political few who make the rules as they go, force their rules on the American people, and shake their fists in the faces of all of us who still believe that America is a nation of laws.

America is a country ruled by political elitism determined ONLY by the politically elite.

Who are the Purveyors of this Elitism?

Oddly enough, this group is comprised primarily of formerly genuine public servants who have been swept into what many conservatives now call the Swamp or the Deep State. The flow of governing from these places is driven by an overpowering quest for power. It is unclear if there is an individual or a small group who “run the show,” but if its leadership is held by more than one person, that group is small in number, but vast in power.

I won’t speculate on who those may be. But what is evident in a greater way today is the duplicity of government being implemented and enforced by this Mob that has set one set of standards for its adherents and another for everyone else.

No where else is that duplicity more evident than in the rules, the enforcement (or lack of enforcement) of those rules by the Mob, and how determination of the classes of Americans are set. There really are only two classes. And one is comprised of liberals, progressives, or Democrats — the other of conservatives or Republicans.

Center political stage illustrating how this elitism works are the several current examples of male sexual attacks or allegations of sexual misconduct. Let’s start here:

That is the former girlfriend of Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison who besides being a Congressman is vice-chair of the Democrat Party. There are police reports and eyewitness testimony of Ellison’s physical, mental, and emotional abuse of her. The Mob has done nothing to punish the Congressman. In fact, he made a decision to not run for re-election to Congress. Instead he just won a primary in his quest to be elected as Minnesota’s next Attorney General and is the darling of the Democrat Party.

Then there’s Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ):

I know that this newspaper column written by Booker may be hard to read. It was published in 1992. In it, the Senator details a New Years Eve interlude he had with a young woman in which he confesses to have groped her despite her rebuffs.

This is the Senator Cory Booker — or “Spartacus” — who famously invited censorship by the Senate for his releasing confidential documents regarding the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Booker (and every other Democrat Senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee), before interviews with the nominee or any hearings by the Committee where even held, declared he would not vote for Kavanaugh’s confirmation .

Further Booker excoriated Kavanaugh when recent allegations of an identical interlude as Booker detailed in that column were made against Kavanaugh for an alleged incident witnessed by no one 35 years ago.

Why should Booker be given a pass for something he admitted and then declare Kavanaugh unfit to serve based solely on an allegation that has NO evidence in support of it? Answer: Mob Rule.

New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

On MSNBC, Gillibrand illustrates Mob Rule when she was asked should Kavanaugh’s accuser appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee: (click to listen)

Gillibrand illustrates best just how this new Mob Rule really works: two sets of rules — two sets of standards. There’s one for Democrats in D.C. and another for Republicans. Republicans are damned based solely on allegations while Democrats are given free passes for the same things Republicans are accused of but that Democrats either admit or overwhelming evidence confirms their guilt!

Remember Bill Clinton, Paula Jones, Juanita Broderick, and Monica Lewinsky? Overwhelming evidence of his sexual improprieties and even allegations of rape were totally overlooked by Dems. But let’s get back to today and the current Mob Rule ruling regarding allegations against Brett Kavanaugh.

What’s craziest about Gillibrand’s statement regarding the accuser’s invitation to testify is that Kavanaugh has undergone extensive FBI background investigations multiple times. Even though as of this writing it appears Ford and her attorney may have backed away from the FBI investigation demand, understand THE FBI INVESTIGATION ALREADY HAPPENED! For Senate nominees in every case, the FBI does this:

  • Examines every bit of public and private historical information available about the nominee. That includes financial records, driving records, criminal records, any previous and current civil actions, social media records, and employment records;
  • Interviews immediate and extended family members, current and former fellow employees, current and former employers;
  • Conducts an exhaustive investigation of educational history, including academics, social and civil involvement in attended schools, interviews with former classmates, teachers, and professors when possible;
  • Conducts door-to-door interviews with current and former neighbors as far back as possible;
  • Conducts investigations of newspaper reports about or including the nominee in all localities in which he/she lived;
  • Meets with any church or other religious organizations in which the nominee attended or participated in/with.

With this extensive and exhaustive investigation process undertaken by the FBI 6 previous times, and with Brett Kavanaugh’s extensive role within the federal government, one must ask, “How could any such alleged sexual misconduct on the part of the nominee NOT be mentioned by someone during the FBI investigations? Knowing the nominee was the subject of such important federal appointments, wouldn’t somebody in his life who participated in these investigations feel obligated to share his conduct with the FBI if such conduct existed?


We are immersed in a Swamp in which the Mob is finally showing how it operates. It did not just happen. It has summarily evolved over years, quietly working behind the scenes. The Swamp creatures have stealthily stretched their tentacles into every part of American government and have slowly, quietly, but steadily squeezed the life from Lady Liberty, replacing that life with the stench of Mob Rule.

So what is about to happen?

  1. Conservatives in the Senate will either stand up for the Rule of Law, reject what the Mob is demanding, and send the confirmation of Kavanaugh to the floor of the Senate for a vote, or
  2. Conservatives will cave to the Mob who all are hoping for the return of control of both the House and Senate to Democrats in the midterm elections. If that happens, there will be NO Kavanaugh confirmation and certainly a liberal judge will be confirmed to the Court as soon as the Mob can force that to happen.
  3. With a Democrat controlled Congress, we will see almost immediately impeachment proceedings initiated to roll-back the results of the 2016 election to remove Trump from office.
  4. The Mob will cancel the tax cuts put in place by Trump, and will further raise taxes on the wealthiest of Americans to previously unseen levels, doing so as punishment of conservatives.
  5. There will be NO immigration reform, and real border control will disappear. Massive numbers of illegals will be granted full amnesty with American citizenship, and the U.S. will have only virtual borders that are not enforced.

Our only hope is for those folks in D.C. that wear the white hats to either develop (or draw from hidden) intestinal fortitude to stand in the gap for democracy and the American Rule of Law, and summarily reject the Mob and Mob Rule. Hopefully the investigators in the Justice Department together with Utah’s federal prosecutor will quickly conclude their work and bring more indictments, arrests, and prosecutions of those members of the Mob who have violated innumerable federal laws over the last decade or so. There are so many of those it would take hours to name in this story. But believe this: there are thousands who have already been identified and have federal warrants issued against them that are currently sealed.

This is a developing situation that is changing almost momentarily. But know this: there are a number of Americans that have for a longtime been watching those perpetrators, and a plan has been developed and implemented to correct this push toward Mob Rule.

Let’s pray it is in time.




The “Other” Kavanaugh Woman

Christine Blasey Ford has come forward to accuse Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct that dates to the 1980s when both of them were in high school. Because the Supreme Court nomination is so politicized, some people are wondering about Christine Ford’s politics. Is Christine Ford a Democrat or Republican? What are her politics?

Ford graduated with an undergrad degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and went on to receive her Master’s in psychology from Pepperdine University and a Master’s degree in education from Stanford University. She also has a Ph.D. in educational psychology from the University of Southern California. She teaches graduate students in clinical psychology, specializing in statistical models for research projects. She’s also a visiting professor at Pepperdine University, a professor at Stanford School of Medicine, and a research psychologist for Stanford’s Department of Psychiatry.

Ford married her husband, Russell Ford, in 2002. He is a senior director at Zosano Pharma, and also received a Master’s degree and Ph.D. from Stanford. The couple has two sons.

Years after the alleged sexual assault she stated was perpetrated by Kavanaugh, she began to show signs of symptoms and “had increasing anxiety.” Before meeting her husband, she also struggled with relationships with men: “I think it derailed me substantially for four or five years. I was very ill-equipped to forge those kinds of relationships,” she said.

Her Professional Career and Politics

Ford is a registered Democrat, according to The Washington Post. In addition, The Mercury News reported that a friend of Ford’s says Ford attended a women’s march protesting Donald Trump.

Ford works as a professor at Palo Alto University and teaches in consortium with Stanford University. She has written or helped write more than 50 journals, book chapters, and other articles. One study focused on trauma as a result of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A 2017 article in the San Jose Mercury News says that she was planning to attend a science march wearing a knitted brain hat that was supposed to resemble the pink vagina hats that many have used to protest Donald Trump and advocate for women’s rights.

Ford has made contributions in the past to various Democrat candidates and causes. The federal campaign donation website lists these donations for Christine Blasey, which is how Ford is known professionally. Among them: In 2017 she made 3 donations each for less than $30, 2 in 2014 for $35 and $3.50: one earmarked for the Democratic National Committee, one designated for Bernie Sanders.

Ford’s attorney — Debra Katz —  says Ford would testify in a public hearing. The Senate Judiciary Committee has set a hearing in which to hear Ford for Monday, September 24, but as of this writing has not received confirmation from Ford or her attorney about appearing at that hearing. On September 16th, after the Washington Post published an article with Ford’s first public description of the alleged incident, Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, questioned how Democrat members handled a confidential letter from Katz detailing her side of the story but also said he would gather more information.

Just for a point of political perspective, Debra Katz is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight, an organization that has been directly funded by Geroge 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.

The accuser initially did not want to talk publicly about the allegations because she viewed Kavanaugh’s nomination as extremely “politicized” and because she feared doing so would put herself and her family at risk, Katz said. To that end, since the Post article published, Ford has received “hostile threats” and “recrimination.”

Her intent in sending the confidential letter to members of California’s congressional delegation, including Judiciary ranking Democrat Dianne Feinstein, was to provide information about Kavanaugh’s character. Feinstein did not ask the nominee about the letter or its allegations during her 50 minutes of allotted time to question him during a confirmation hearing earlier this month. But after the existence of the letter surfaced in media reports, then subsequent articles detailed the charges, “that decision was taken from her,” Katz told CNN.

Christine Ford came forward on September 16, 2018, to The Washington Post and revealed that she was the anonymous woman who has accused Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in high school – accusations that Kavanaugh has strenuously denied. Ford, 51, says she instantly thought Kavanaugh might “inadvertently kill” her during a party in the early 1980s after he and a friend corralled her in a bedroom and the Supreme Court nominee pinned her to a bed and groped her over a one-piece bathing suit. Kavanaugh denies the allegation. She says another high school friend of Kavanaugh’s named Mark Judge was in the room. Judge, a D.C.-based writer, previously told The Weekly Standard – before Christine Blasey Ford was named – that the account was false.

Ford’s Facebook page and LinkedIn page appear to have been deleted, although it’s not clear when.

Ford’s Actions in Revelation

In her letter which was read to The Post, Ford described the incident and said she expected her story to be kept confidential. She signed the letter as Christine Blasey, the name she uses professionally.

Though Ford had contacted The Post, she declined to speak on the record for weeks as she grappled with concerns about what going public would mean for her and her family — and what she said was her duty as a citizen to tell the story.

In 2012 while in couples therapy, she reportedly discussed a sexual incident that occurred when she was in high school. She released those notes to the Washington Post. The Post story said Ms. Ford told her therapist about the alleged incident during couples therapy with her husband in 2012. The therapist’s notes do not mention Judge Kavanaugh by name but say 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.” There are some discrepancies in the therapist’s notes and the interview with The Post, which Ms. Ford blamed on the therapist.

Ms. Ford told The Post that she said nothing at the time, not even apparently to her girlfriends because she didn’t want her parents to know she had been at an underage drinking party.

Conservative Ben Shapiro after examining the therapy notes and hearing Ford’s explanation of the incident detailed the differences:

“Ford showed her therapist’s notes to The Washington Post. Those notes conflict with her account. The notes don’t include names, instead stating that the alleged perpetrators were ‘from an elitist boys’ school,’ and had since become ‘highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.’ The notes also state that four boys were involved, not two; she says her therapist got it wrong, and that there were four boys at the party but only two boys involved. Another therapy session the following year includes the charge that Ford underwent a ‘rape attempt’ in ‘her late teens,’ but she was allegedly 15 – not late teens – when this incident occurred. Her husband, who was present for the first therapy session, said Kavanaugh’s name was raised, but the Post account doesn’t say that Kavanaugh was called the alleged perpetrator.”

Kavanaugh Confirmation Hoopla

“Sixty-five senators met individually with Judge Kavanaugh during a nearly two-month period before the hearing began, yet Feinstein didn’t share this with her colleagues ahead of many of those discussions. It raises a lot of questions about Democrats’ tactics and motives to bring this to the rest of the committee’s attention only now rather than during these many steps along the way,” Judiciary Committee Republicans said. That apparently won’t be enough for Senator Feinstein.

“There’s a lot of information we don’t know, and the FBI should have the time it needs to investigate this new material. Staff calls aren’t the appropriate way to handle this,” she told Bloomberg News.

Even though the Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a meeting in which to hear from both Ford and Kavanaugh, Ford has not accepted an invitation to appear. (In our summary below, we analyze that fact and what specifics are playing into this event and its expected outcome)

“Men will be Men”

What is all this really about? Is it about wrongdoing of men who sexually assault women? Or is it about a conservative Supreme Court Justice nominee and Democrats fighting to defeat his confirmation as they did of Supreme Court Clarence Thomas in 1991?

November 20, 2017, we published a narrative titled “Men Will Be Men.”  It detailed exactly what we face today with not just the accusations against Judge Kavanaugh, but the environment that fosters these sexual abuse problems and the problems they initiate.

In it, we stated this: “It appears that in Washington D.C. a culture of sexual harassment has been thriving in the highly charged atmosphere in which some of the most powerful people in the World live and work. We now have learned that for some time, the House of Representatives has maintained a ‘Sexual Harassment Slush Fund’ comprised of taxpayer dollars. It is used specifically to payoff interns, pages, and some junior staff members who have been sexually abused or harassed by their bosses and/or other House members and senior staffers. We do not yet have any of the details of the fund, dollar amounts, who has used it, or how it has been specifically used, but media calls for those details are ringing out. Do not be surprised for a Freedom of Information Act court order to obtain the House release of that information during the holidays. Obviously, members of Congress probably are not going to take the lead on stopping the longstanding practices involving sexual impropriety and abuses among their ranks.

Here’s the 900-pound gorilla in this room: Lady Liberty. Problem is, the #1 thing that makes America the greatest nation in human history is the fact that the government does not impose its thoughts, ideas, rights, and wrongs on U.S. citizens. Our “Bible” is the Constitution. While the landmark separation of how the government treats its citizens in right and wrong disputes — at least in criminal cases — is ‘innocent until proven guilty.” We each have the “presumption of innocence.’ No, that legally does not apply to civil matters. But its reality reaches far into Americans’ discernment of rights and wrongs.

The dilemma is this: how can an absolute answer be found in most of these cases when evidence that can prove or disprove sexual harassment and abuse allegations that have been buried sometimes for decades? Should we in the cases of these most often hidden transgressions decide based on a default position of guilt or should the accused be ‘innocent until proven guilty? And who would make that determination? Lady Liberty — long the symbol of American fairness in such determinations — wears a blindfold while holding a scale. When if ever is it right for someone — anyone — to with a finger change the balance between guilt and innocence?”


There are two travesties being committed in this “circus” as we labeled it in yesterday’s story. One is that this is an attack on the due process of the determination of guilt and innocence in the U.S. No, these allegations are probably not regarding criminal activity. If not criminal, they would certainly be civil in nature. But in either case, those charged with wrongdoing in the United States have always had the commitment from the American people to be “innocent until proven guilty.” Once again, in the world of American politics, Leftists are endeavoring to take away that right and determine guilt by allegations, no facts, and no evidence.

Do you know what is really going on here? Chuck Schumer, Dianne Feinstein, and other Senate Democrats have joined forces with their House counterparts Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters to do anything and everything they can to not just prevent Brett Kavanaugh from becoming the next Supreme Court Justice. They are doing everything they can to change the outcome of the 2016 presidential election!

We have seen it again and again. Democrats were devastated by the election results. Every Democrat — from DNC leadership to rank and file Dems — just knew the White House would be home to Hillary and Bill for another 8 years. And they do not lay that loss at the feet of the American voters who are the ones who thwarted their dreams of another near-decade of “liberal euphoria.” They lay that loss at the feet of members of the Republican Party and House and Senate leadership.

What we are witnessing is the all-out move of the Left to summarily and steadily undo the constitutional method of choosing those who govern in the United States. Don’t think for a moment Hillary’s comments about Trump supporters coming from her “basket of deplorables” as her solo opinion of conservative Americans. We see again and again Leftists thumbing their noses at the concept of a representative republic, the electoral college, the free market system, capitalism, AND liberty and justice for all.

Leftists are today more than ever committed to Socialism in America even though it has never succeeded in any country on Earth!

I’ll finish this with this example of what I state in the above paragraphs:

Debra Katz — Ford’s attorney who is known as a leading legal advocate for those women who allege sexual attacks from others — made it clear on Tuesday that her client has NO obligation to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee or any other group. Why? In her words (paraphrased): “My client has no responsibility to prove that what she is saying is true. It is incumbent on Brett Kavanaugh and Republicans to prove that she is NOT telling the truth!”

Imagine for a moment what that world would look like: there would never be any need for anyone to run for political office. Why? No matter how committed or qualified a candidate would be IF the political elite were in charge of who might be unqualified based simply on alleged wrongdoing, those elitists would decide who governs in the U.S.

Our forefathers traveled half-way around the world to escape such a system. European countries were each run in that same manner. A “ruling class” unilaterally determined what was right and what was wrong, who was “eligible” to be in their class and who was not. It was a reprehensible life for most. America gave those early settlers a chance at a new life: one that offered justice for all and equal opportunity.

This Kavanaugh confirmation circus is evidence that the Politically Elitists on the Left want to take the United States back to that place in World history.

The question is simply this: will Americans standby idly and let that happen?


The “Kavanaugh Circus Hiccup”

Today was to be a day in which we mused over the extensive qualifications of the incoming Supreme Court Justice. Sadly, we are NOT discussing his over-qualification for the position today. We are NOT discussing how balanced the Court will be with him on the bench with the other 8 justices. Instead, not just us, but the entire country is being forced to take sides in a senseless, unfair, and untimely smear campaign strategically put together as a hail-mary disruptive pass thrown by a senior Democrat Senator to at best delay, at worst derail Kavanaugh’s donning the robes of SCOTUS. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) chose to throw a wrench in the confirmation of Kavanaugh by releasing that she holds a letter from an anonymous source that reveals a sexual travesty perpetrated by Kavanaugh more than 30 years ago while in high school.

There are a plethora of questionable elements to Feinstein’s release of this information along with the alleged victim almost immediately stepping forward out of the “anonymous” shadows to go on-the-record — this in spite of her purported pleas to Feinstein to allow her to remain anonymous and that she did NOT want to step forward.

Questions? Does anyone besides the investigative staff at have any questions? Share some of ours, and maybe as we answer those we may be answering yours’ as well.

Questions about the “Kavanaugh Circus” Hiccup

♦  Every circus has a ringmaster. Who is the ringmaster of the “Kavanaugh Circus Hiccup?”

That’s an easy one to answer: it’s Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY). Although he has played no active role in the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings with the Senate Judiciary Committee, Schumer has not just been quietly waiting to cast his vote against Kavanaugh when his confirmation vote comes to the full Senate. He has been working diligently behind the scenes to derail Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Senator Schumer (D-NY)

Why? Maybe it’s because he went nuts when Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY) as Senate Majority Leader prevented hearings for Obama’s last SCOTUS nominee — Merritt Garland — and he wants to pay Republicans back for their blocking Garland’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Maybe it’s because Democrats in Congress are frantic, trying to find any way possible to short-circuit any appointment of any conservative judge to the Court, certain that whoever gets that 9th seat would be the determiner of the future of Roe v. Wade. Maybe it’s simply because Schumer is mad: mad about not being Senate Majority Leader, not ever considered as a Democrat vice-president running mate, or because he has been unable to railroad several of President Trump’s signature legislative agenda items. Whatever the reason or reasons, Schumer is in the ring, controlling the circus, and had one of his circus clowns throw a new trick into the ring that has everyone breathlessly looking in.

♦  What is the claim of sexual misconduct by Brett Kavanaugh all about?

Senator Feinstein (D-CA) announced Thursday, September 13, 2018, “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 FBI, which is responsible for background research on judicial nominees and other presidential appointments, said in a statement that it had included the information in Kavanaugh’s background file after receiving it from Feinstein on September 12, but would not be investigating the 35-year-old claims. Details of the allegations first came out in The New Yorker in a piece by Ronan Farrow and Jane Mayer, who wrote, in part; “The allegation dates back to the early 1980s, when Kavanaugh was a high school student at Georgetown Preparatory School, in Bethesda, Maryland, and the woman attended a nearby high school.”

“She was able to free herself. Although the alleged incident took place decades ago and the three individuals involved were minors, the woman said that the memory had been a source of ongoing distress for her and that she had sought psychological treatment as a result.”

♦  If Feinstein received the letter in July, why did she not immediately turn it over to the FBI?

That’s the million dollar question. It answers? Let’s look at a few possibilities:

First, Feinstein met privately with Kavanaugh in her Senate offices and took a considerable amount of time questioning the nominee about a myriad of important elements regarding his appointment to the high court. One would think that during such an interview, Feinstein would have broached such a dynamic issue with the nominee. She did not question him about it nor did she even mention.

In Kavanaugh’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Feinstein asked Kavanaugh numerous questions. But she did not mention in her questioning anything about the abhorrent charges made against him.

Feinstein has not explained why she waited so long to refer the letter to the FBI nor why she did not question Kavanaugh about the alleged incident. So what could her reason(s) be for not doing so?

Simple answer: political expediency. The “new” way in Congress for the minority party to influence any and all issues that come before it is to whenever necessary play whatever card it takes to upset whatever the opposing party is endeavoring to accomplish. We see it almost daily since the G.O.P. hold majorities in both Houses. Democrats find all sorts of ways to obstruct normal governing in Congress. This is no different and should have been expected.

♦  Can this stop Judge Kavanaugh from becoming a U.S. Supreme Court Justice?

The allegation alone cannot stop his confirmation. What CAN stop it (and what Democrats are holding out for) is to put doubt in the minds of a handful of Republican Senators sufficient to fall short of the majority necessary for his confirmation. Republicans hold just a slim margin in their majority. There are several Senators who already were unsure about Kavanaugh — primarily based on the fear that he is anti-abortion and might be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if a case came to the High Court to do just that. Those Senators are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine.

Additionally, Democrat hopefuls hope that Kavanaugh will tire of this unforeseen pressure and attack on his integrity and will simply withdraw from consideration for the spot. President Trump could too request that Kavanaugh withdraw.

♦  Has there been any other case similar to this in the Supreme Court confirmation process?

There is a case that is eerily similar to this. In 1991, Clarence Thomas was a Supreme Court nominee. A former associate of his — Anita Hill — came forward and accused Thomas of sexual assault against her. There was no evidence proving or disproving her claim. In very ugly public hearings, Democrats and Republicans alike sparred back and forth regarding the validity of her claim.

There we no women on the Senate Judiciary Committee that was chaired by former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden. The Committee failed to via committee vote endorse a full Senate vote on the nominee. The full Senate voted on Thomas’ confirmation without committee approval. Thomas was confirmed.

It is noteworthy that NO such case has ever been brought forth in a case involving a liberal/Democrat justice nominee. This appears to be still another way for the minority party to throw a curve ball in this process that they find necessary because of lacking control in the confirmation process.

♦  What role is the Media playing in this happening?

That is probably the easiest question to answer: they are all going bonkers!

One can just imagine which networks and newspapers are being objective while giving Americans the facts of the story and which are “in the tank.” It’s the usual lot: FOX News, the Drudge Report, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, the Washington Times, are all simply passing out facts while CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, the New York Times and Washington Post are wall-papering their news reporting 24/7 with not news, but their “perspectives” on all things to do with this. It is so ridiculous, it is almost funny.

Andrea Mitchell of NBC Nightly News gives us an example in this report:


This story is far from over. No doubt even with the obvious delaying tactics being used by Democrats Kavanaugh should still be confirmed. But the process is not going to play out so quickly. Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee want to interview the woman and Kavanaugh in a hearing in which they are both under oath. The committee is scheduled for a vote on moving his nomination to the full Senate this Thursday. That is unlikely at this point. I expect for the Committee to have testimony from her and Kavanaugh both before a vote is taken.

It is important to note that Democrats are the solo artists of turning the presidential appointment — confirmation process into a simple majority. Former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) changed the rules that formerly required a 60-vote majority to a simple majority. Obviously, if that old rule was still in place, confirmation of Kavanaugh would be almost impossible. This latest hiccup brings that possibility back into play.

Who is the woman?

The investigative staff of is preparing a full in-depth report we will bring you in full tomorrow. Make a note: that story will go live internationally at 01:45 AM tomorrow morning. If you have not already, log in your email address at the bottom right of the home page. You will then receive during the night an email link to this and any other new story/podcast on which you can simply click to read or hear every story ever posted at

Your email address is totally confidential: we NEVER give any email addresses to anyone. The only entity you will hear from is us. And we promise to NEVER try to sell you anything and will NEVER even run ads on our site. Everything here that you read or listen to is 100% free to you. Login simply to assure you never miss a story or podcast.

“The lights in the kitchen have been turned on…and the roaches are scrambling for cover!”

There are many things going on in D.C. part of this story and part of “other” stuff there. Stay with us: it’s getting deeper and deeper!