How to End Illegal Immigration

Illegal immigration is a huge problem for the United States. By the millions, immigrants cross the border in opposition to the will of the citizens as expressed in immigration law and take up residence in this country illegally, without invitation, permission or consent from our sovereign nation. Many live in the shadows, in fear of being identified as an illegal and deported. Some of these illegals come to the U.S. to work, earn a meager income and send most of it home to support their families south of our border. A good portion of this uninvited crowd are criminals involved in human trafficking, illegal drugs and gang violence.

Many that come to the U.S. will work for low wages; businesses that hire illegals and other businesses that learn that illegals will work for less, lower their pay scales for all their workers. More and more illegals are applying for and obtaining social services in the form of financial support, housing, food stamps, welfare, SSI benefits, Medicaid, education benefits, etc. By a misinterpretation of the Constitution, when an illegal immigrant couple has children born in the U.S., at birth the newborns are erroneously declared U.S. citizens (Anchor Babies). Citizens can have family members immigrate legally to join them in the U.S. (Chain Migration). Foreigners desiring a visa to enter the U.S. can do so by winning a lottery just for immigrants (Immigration by Lottery).

In the past, giving Amnesty to those illegals living in the country was seen as a way to end illegal immigration—by simply designating illegal immigrants as legal immigrants. Rather than discourage illegal immigration, Amnesty made it so much worse; suddenly there were thousands more crossing the border illegally thinking they might, just by living illegally in the U.S., also be granted Amnesty.

More recently, there has been a loud call from the American people for a substantial wall to be built along our southern border that might greatly limit illegal immigration and enable Homeland Security and ICE to deal with a more manageable number of illegals. Many claim a wall would not even slow down illegal border crossings and that ultimately it would be a waste of money. 

We have long been very soft on illegal immigrants apprehended by law enforcement, failing to deport almost all of these, even the criminals. Many that are deported often end up back in the U.S. Perhaps we should deport all apprehended to some country in Africa that would agree to take them and see how many bounce back then. Would that be enough of a deterrent?

If an immigrant claims asylum, they are given a court date to plead their cases for asylum months into the future and are then set free in the U.S. (Catch & Release); few ever return for their court date. This cannot be allowed to continue. Our policy for dealing with those seeking asylum should be altered such that no applications for asylum are taken at the border, they’re only taken at United States embassies in foreign countries.

The wall, by itself, could not possibly halt all illegal immigration as long as there are strong incentives for coming to the United States; most people admit that constant searching for tunnels, monitoring air travel, checking for human trafficking in large rigs masquerading as commercial trucking, and many other measures will be necessary in addition to the wall. What we have failed to consider as a nation, is this critical question: “Why are people putting themselves in life or death situations, selling all their possessions to buy the aid of criminals in crossing over to the United States, braving the treacherous deserts to get here?” 

The answer to that question must be known and understood before illegal immigration can be dealt with effectively. If we can determine what incentives exist that drive illegal immigration, by removing those incentives, illegal immigration will cease to meet the illegals’ expectations, and unsatisfied illegals will return home of their own accord. As it is unhealthy to separate families, departing illegals will be vigorously encouraged to take their whole family with them back home. 

Many of the incentives for illegals to come here are commonly known; some are discussed above. I have made a list of steps to be taken for the removal of incentives for coming here. I believe this is the only way to stop illegal immigration without using armed military force.

Remove Incentives and They Won’t Come -

– There is No Other Non-Violent Way to Stop Illegal Immigration

1.      No More Insecure Border – Build the Wall, Harden the Target.

2.      No Amnesty (or even talk of amnesty which encourages more to come illegally).

3.      No More Catch & Release; No More Applicants for Asylum at the Border, No More Slacking on Current Immigration Law Enforcement.

4.      No Jobs for Illegals; Strict E-Verify, stiff punishment for those that hire illegals and swift deportation for illegals.

5.      No More U.S. Taxpayer Dollars Going (directly or indirectly) to or for Illegals: No Healthcare, No Welfare, No Food Stamps, No Worker’s Comp, No Social Security Benefits, No Education Benefits, No Paid Family Leave.

6.      No More Drivers’ Licenses or ID Cards for Illegals; And No Illegal Immigrant Votes.

7.      No More Anchor Babies.

8.      No More Lottery or Chain Migration.

9.      No Official Language but English. No More Pressing the Number “1” for English.

10.   No Separating the Families of Illegal Immigrants – All Go Home Together.

11.   No Sanctuary Cities, States or Sanctuary Anything.

Utah Prop 4 is a Disaster!

The problem with Prop 4 is that it creates more bureaucracy, there is no need to change the way redistricting is currently done, the changes proposed by Prop 4 do nothing to improve redistricting and under Prop 4 terms each redistricting would cost several millions of dollars and take several years to resolve as the State of Utah would be forced into suing itself to block the legislature from doing its job. Each redistricting would eventually be decided by the courts.

Prop 4 would have a commission established that will recommend a redistricting plan to the legislature that can either accept or reject the commission’s plan. If the legislature rejects the commission’s plan, it must develop its own plan and vote to pass it. Whatever plan the legislature decides on, if someone doesn't believe the legislature's plan meets the requirements specified by Prop 4, Prop 4 authorizes lawsuits to block implementation of the legislature’s plans.

First, we must decide if the current law regarding redistricting is sufficient as it stands or if there is a critical flaw in current redistricting processes that needs to be fixed. Currently, a redistricting plan is more or less developed by the majority party in the legislature (this has typically been the Republicans in the State House and Senate). The plan is presented to the entire legislature and voted upon. If Republicans develop the plan and then most of them vote for the plan, the Republicans essentially control redistricting.

Is it fair and reasonable that the Republicans control redistricting as they do most governmental processes in Utah? Yes—because the people elect representatives to represent them in the state government. If the majority of Utahns are Republicans, it is reasonable that the legislature might have a similar political mix. This same relationship can be seen between the party of the majority of the people and the majority in the legislature in other states like California and New York where the Democrats control just about everything.

In any of the states that have a dominant political party, anyone may try to persuade others to switch parties. Barring mass numbers switching parties, the status quo is likely to remain as it is. The point is, the system is working as designed to represent the people; there is no need to alter how we redistrict. There are two major strikes against Prop 4, 1) that there is no need to change how Utah redistricts, and 2) That Prop 4 while costing a fortune, does nothing to improve the redistricting process—it only adds to the craziness and polarization of politics today.

The Redistricting Commission members are to be appointed this way: The Governor appoints one member, the Republican Leadership in the Legislature appoints three members and the Democrat Leaders in the Legislature appoint three members. There’s absolutely no way such a commission could be referred to as “independent”. So instead of having a partisan legislature coming up with a plan for gerrymandering district boundaries, we have a partisan commission making a plan, turning it over to the legislature and then having the partisan legislature accept the commission’s plan or develop their own plan and pass that plan in session. The cost of adding this commission to the process in order to give the legislature a second biased recommendation is estimated at over $1 million.

Then the craziness really gets underway. While Prop 4 does not specify exactly who will do the following, it says that “someone” will establish qualifications for the commission members and establish requirements for redistricting plans. That same “someone” will authorize lawsuits to block the legislature’s plan if anyone feels it is not consistent with the established redistricting requirements. I think it’s fair to say that there’s never been a redistricting plan in the history of the earth when there hasn’t been at least one person that was not completely happy with the plan.

So, practically speaking, Prop 4 is designed to throw all redistricting plans to the courts (which have their own, separate biases) for them to decide in lieu of the legislature what they think is a fair and reasonable way for districts to be divided up. In terms of the Utah Constitution, redistricting is a prerogative of the legislature; changing this to one of the court’s responsibilities would require a constitutional amendment. According to Prop 4, every redistricting would be tied up in the courts for years with the State of Utah suing the State of Utah over this. During the course of the lawsuits and appeals, voting and other critical, district-related activities would be suspended. Prop 4 could possibly shut down Utah government.

Overall, I would say Prop 4 is a complete disaster! In my opinion, the only good that could possibly come from Prop 4 would be to lower the unemployment rate for Utah lawyers. As Prop 4 is not needed in the first place, and as Prop 4 does nothing to change redistricting for the better, all at an additional cost to taxpayers of several million dollars, my recommendation is to: VOTE NO on PROP 4.

Just Another Brick in the Wall

Many of us have called for an end to Common Core (CC) from even before it had been implemented. Now that CC is well-established and the Utah State education system has backed it 100%, calls for the repeal of CC are met with resistance in the form of genuine concern about discarding a system that is fully integrated and running smoothly—with what would CC be replaced?

I believe that we should never abandon an entire organized system of education with everything in place, standards, curriculum, courses to replace it with something developed in haste by who knows who, and what particular agenda would be guiding the development of standards and curriculum?  Also, was the replacement put together by parents, teachers and community leaders who are legitimate stakeholders in the education of their children or was it developed by education theorists and philosophers that have never taught anybody anything—with little input from the stakeholders, local people who are deeply invested in our children’s outcomes. It would be a major mistake for anyone having an excellent program in hand, to discard something of great value for a slick sales pitch and a handful of beans.

Unfortunately, this exact scenario played out by means of government coercion when Common Core (untried and untested hogwash theories with intent to indoctrinate/brainwash our children, turn them against their families’ values and culture and teach them to rely on the government for values, morality and how to think) was foisted on Utah by Governor Herbert who was blinded by all the federal dollars he was promised for Utah education.

Over the last several decades, states have increasingly relied on federal dollars to fund state programs, such as education and Medicaid. To our detriment, states receiving federal funding were instructed exactly how they should be educating children by the feds. Increasing regulatory burden and federal “guidelines” that accompany federal funds to states for education have led to a complete federal takeover of the states’ programs that gave us Common Core. Under CC, the federal government now runs our education in the United States, and the education bill to the states from the feds increases markedly every year.

Similarly, with the increasing entanglement of the federal government with state Medicaid programs (medical care is provided by the state for those who can’t afford to buy health insurance), the feds have insisted that Medicaid be expanded to cover many families who could afford and had bought their own health insurance. Where Medicaid expansion has occurred, many families that had purchased their own health insurance, but were now eligible for free Medicaid, closed out their policies and signed up for Medicaid. The original purpose of Medicaid, to help those without the means, was lost in Medicaid Expansion; the new purpose: to make the people more dependent on government and to make big government even bigger at taxpayer expense. Vote NO on Prop 3, Medicaid Expansion.

The federal government has been spending money it doesn’t have by borrowing what it needs to make up the difference between the revenue collected and the total they’ve spent each year. That difference, the borrowed money, is called “the deficit”. Our deficit now is somewhere around 23 trillion dollars. Currently, we’re paying the interest only each year on the borrowed money. At some point we’re going to have to pay on the principal and interest; it’s likely that our generation, the one that spent the borrowed money, will stick our children, our grand-children and likely also our great-grand-children with paying off our debt.

This is not the legacy most of us had hoped to leave for our posterity. If we had any integrity, we would cut government spending, stop borrowing and spending money we don’t have and pay back that which is owed as rapidly as possible. To accomplish this, we need to stop the current bleeding that goes on every year where the feds pony-up millions of dollars for the states to keep Common Core watered and fed. 

The feds should also cease to provide the states with funding for Medicaid Expansion. And Governor Herbert should cease to beg for federal funding for every program he wants to run. The only way to reduce the deficit without killing the economy (counter-productive; as earnings and incomes shrink, so does revenue) is to dramatically reduce spending, all the pork and money to the states must stop. All dependency on federal dollars must be discouraged.

Most of the federal money promised the states for adopting Common Core never found its way to Utah and the increased expense of doing CC (including that of paying third-party NGOs who developed the proprietary CC system and remain intimately involved in computer testing and data-mining our children) has placed an additional burden on Utah taxpayers. Despite taxpayers having funded a number of tax increases to cover the additional costs of CC, additional revenue is being sought now in the name of educating our children. 

However, if the tax increase is approved, little of the revenue will actually go to the schools and virtually none of it will go toward teacher’s salaries. Instead, the majority of the revenue will be diverted to other purposes, such as mass transit. Don’t waste your money on government, hoping it will get to the children; it never does. Give it directly to your children! Vote NO on the Nonbinding Opinion Question #1. Say No to increasing the gas tax to create a bigger government slush fund.

Utah’s K-12 educational system had been a top-rated system that many dedicated educators, local government officials and workers, parents and volunteers had worked diligently on, putting together and refining the details over many years. Utah’s standards, curriculum and coursework designs served as a model system that a number of other states borrowed to pattern their systems after ours. The Utah education system could be restored to us within hours of discarding Common Core.

Common Core had not been vetted by any of the major stakeholders involved in the education of our children, like parents, teachers and local communities that stand in the best interests of the children. Utah’s system was summarily discarded and Bill Gates’ space age digitized protocols were put in motion. Bill’s grand experiment is using our children as his own personal guinea pigs. Our children are treated under Common Core as objects to be acted upon with cold indifference by the power and control elite who have supported Common Core from the start. These supporters include many leaders of industry who are interested in assuring an adequate workforce will exist in the near future to sustain their companies.

Common Core was developed and implemented primarily to mass-produce efficient little robototron workers fated by design to have their implanted silicon chips cease functioning immediately after the warranty expires. Children that are the victims of this Common Core travesty remain of necessity in the workforce until they’re completely worn down and ground into dust (or perhaps sausage) on the assembly lines of tomorrow.

Common Core must be jettisoned immediately, not just because our children are no longer being educated (everything is being “dumbed down” to the lowest common denominator), but because they’re being harmed by the soulless and heartless methods and the progressive content and agenda of the state. It’s so much more important to the state to create generation after generation of compliant and submissive mechanical subjects that will easily bend to the state’s authoritarian will. It’s of much greater interest to the state to “train” today’s children to be tomorrow’s workforce than it is for the state to be involved in providing anyone a genuine “classical education.”

Any deviation from the state prescribed highways of vocational training onto the twisted pathways of a classical education is likely to elicit such distasteful occurrences as school children having original, independent thoughts, thinking innovatively, outside the box, or being able to critically think about and assess the merits of (for example) what they’re being taught (or not taught) in school.

As far as education, the state’s Common Core is much more interested in regimenting political correctness (based not on equal opportunity, but on equal outcomes). Since the state values collective mediocrity and abhors individual excellence, absolute “educational equality” must be enforced—after all, it wouldn’t be fair, in terms of “educational justice,” to have little Jimmie be very bright and get all “A”s on his report card while his less gifted classmate Sally takes home a report card with all “C”s.

I thought Common Core would be dismantled soon after Obama had completed his second term. President Trump has spoken of scuttling Common Core, but as far as I can tell, little has been done in this regard. The Constitution provides certain limited and specific powers and responsibilities to be the domain of the federal government. Other than those powers listed for the feds, all other powers and responsibilities are the prerogatives of the states and the people. 

The federal powers have never legitimately included education or healthcare. The fact that the feds are indeed running national education and healthcare programs informs us that the federal government has overreached for years its Constitutional limits. These illicit powers the federal government has usurped from the states and the people must be stripped from the feds and placed in the hands of local authorities.

It is getting harder each day to stand by, waiting what seems like forever for CC to be put down. Maybe we need to light a fire under our Governor and Legislature, start impeachment procedures against our state officials, or perhaps start an initiative to go on the next ballot to dump CC. What more can we do to make CC disappear?

Lies & Pecadillos: What’s Wrong With the Christine Blasey Ford Story – Part Two 

 The Democrats and the mainstream media called Dr. Christine Blasey Ford "courageous" for providing to the Senate Committee what appeared to be her emotion-laden testimony that Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nomination to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by the retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy, had sexually assaulted her 36 years prior while they were both in high school. Many who observed Dr. Ford’s testimony felt that she was believable as far as having experienced something bad in her life.

However, there is no consensus as to whether Judge Kavanaugh was the one involved in this incident. Ford’s testimony, aside from its multiple inconsistencies and a complete lack of any evidence or corroboration, displayed alarming physical signs suggesting that her intentions were to deceive. Her performance at the hearing was calculated, pre-planned and practiced in an attempt to evoke sympathy and belief in her unsubstantiated story.

One minute Ford was hunched over, making herself small and speaking in a whiny, cracking and shaky voice as if she was emotionally distraught, and the next moment she was smiling coyly and responding in a “little girl” voice with an upturn in the final word of a sentence, like asking a question. All of this was contrived to make her seem like a small child, insecure, vulnerable and innocent. When Ford discussed the incident in question, along with the phony, cracking voice, she put on a facial expression of emotional pain; her whole demeanor was one of emotional distress and crying. However, throughout the hearing, not a single tear was shed! This suggests that the display of emotion was not genuine.

Some have suggested that the signs of deception displayed during Ford’s testimony might have been influenced by the fact that she was testifying before a Senate Committee and the TV cameras. But if you’ll remember, much of her career has been spent as a consultant, testifying before Boards and Committees. More recently Ford has been a Professor of Psychology at Palo Alto University, and ultra-Left school that specializes in empowering women and girls to become confidant, dynamic and powerful in carrying out action to further the Left’s agenda, where Ford teaches large classes of students. While Ford’s performance in the hearing was designed to convince observers otherwise, she is completely comfortable and always in control when she’s in her element, in a conference room or classroom and the center of attention.

Excuses were given why Ford was unable to travel to Washington to testify before the Senate, such as fear of flying, claustrophobia, and fear of testifying before the Committee were all delay tactics. The only thing that Ford fears is the lie being discovered. When I think about Ford trembling with fear of going before the Committee, I’m reminded of the Disney classic where Brer’ Rabbit pleads with his captors, “Please don’t throw me in that briar patch!”

I don't know how much money, fame, and celebrity Ford has been promised and also whether she is hoping to “make a difference” for other women who have made such accusations (collective justice). But something has induced her to put Kavanaugh in the center of this smear campaign, along with the coaxing of her entire support team of the worst of Democrat Hacks, Lawyers and Senators determined to block any Trump nominee to the Supreme Court and undermine the constitutional process of advise and consent.

As Senator Ted Cruz said recently commenting on the hearing, the Democrats are blocking the Kavanaugh appointment so the Supreme Court doesn’t have a conservative majority, so the Democrats can take over the House and Senate, so they can impeach President Trump and proceed to reverse the outcome of the presidential election of 2016.

The Democrats are not just destroying an innocent man and his family, they are not just destroying their own credibility, they are destroying the institutions fundamental to the survival of our constitutional government and to the rule of law under that constitution. The Constitution provides the process for electing a President, a process in place for over 200 years, one that leads to the peaceful transition of presidential power to the new President.

In our Democratic Republic, many voters support candidates that don’t win an election and are disappointed that their choices for President or other offices lost. Part of what has made this form of government work in the United States is that the losing side will suck it up and commit to working harder over the next 4 years in an attempt to win the next presidential or other election. Likewise, the Constitution provides an orderly and dignified process for the duly elected President to nominate a new Justice and for the Senate to determine how to advise the President on this and to consider carefully whether to consent to the appointment.

When Donald Trump was elected President, the Democrats started having an interminable mega-tantrum (as the immature and poor losers they are) and flew into a rage, spewing hatred and venom. There was and continues to be much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, pulling their hair out by the roots and constantly kicking the family dog. They manufactured false “evidence” of Trump Campaign collusion with the Russians who were said to have dirt on Hillary Clinton that the Trump Campaign might have used to gain an advantage with the voters—in fact, none of this occurred. The Russians did not reveal any dirt on Hillary and the Trump Campaign refused to spread any disinformation about Hillary, including any information alleged to have originated with the Russians or with anyone else for that matter.

Shortly prior to the completion of President Obama’s second term in office and to the 2016 Presidential Election, a time when the people had recently elected a Republican majority to the Senate, the people let the Senate know that they wanted to rollback most of Obama’s efforts to bring about “a fundamental transformation” of the United States that was necessary to accomplish Obama’s ultimate goal, to “Make America Worse Again (MAWA).” You’ve undoubtedly seen the characteristic blue baseball caps with the MAWA insignia, perhaps many, many times over the recent 8 years Obama was President.

Subsequently, in November of 2016, Donald Trump was elected President and Hillary Clinton was not, confirming the fact that the American people wanted a real change of direction for the country which included the appointment of conservative justices to the Supreme Court (Trump had campaigned heavily on the promise to appoint such conservative justices if elected and the opportunity arose). As the totally bogus accusations and subsequent Mueller investigation of alleged Trump collusion with Russia to interfere with our elections, goes on forever “To infinity and beyond,” one of the few things we’ve learned from this is there was never any collusion, at least as far as the Trump Campaign was concerned.

On the other hand, we have Hillary and the DNC paying millions of dollars for disgraced and seedy ex-spy Christopher Steele (through Fusion-GPS) to collect unsubstantiated dirt on Trump from the Russians. Hillary and the DNC colluded with the Russians through the Steele Dossier, and then colluded with the FBI and DOJ to use the Steele Dossier to facilitate the Mueller investigation and to obtain a FISA court writ allowing warrantless search and seizure of Americans on American soil, Americans who were in any way connected with the Trump campaign or later, the Trump Whitehouse.

When Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away unexpectedly a matter of weeks prior to the 2016 Presidential Election, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland as his pick for the next Supreme Court Justice. The Democrats were thrilled with the prospect of getting another leftist-leaning activist Justice on the Court to uphold such precedents as Roe v. Wade and to continually reimagine the Constitution in light of the prevailing leftist winds of the moment.

When Obamacare was passed by a Democrat majority in both the House and Senate along with a Democrat President but without a single Republican vote, Obama reminded disgruntled Republicans that “Elections have consequences.” The Republican majority in the Senate returned Obama’s words back to him as they declined to consider Obama’s nominee, Garland, for advise and consent. It was felt that the country had turned away from the Democrats’ policies, and now favored the Republican approach. With Obama’s “Lame-Duck” status, the changed mood of the country and a new Senate majority, the Senate elected not to consider Garland but to await the outcome of the Presidential Election to let whoever it was that won make that nomination. It is totally the prerogative of the Senate to consider or to decline to consider any nominee.

I’m sorry for the Democrats missing out on a chance to take the Court further away from the Constitution, but that’s the way it goes down according to the Constitution. In fact, all Supreme Court Justices, members of Congress, the President and many others in the government are required to swear an oath to uphold, support and protect the Constitution as the Highest Law of the Land. The Constitution does not provide for any Justices to be placed on the Court who will not live by that oath. Indeed, if we were truly following the Constitution today, there would be 9 conservative Justices seated on the Court (“conservative” means those who want to conserve, preserve, restore, and maintain the Constitution as the Highest Law of the Land).

Further, despite the Democrats’ feigned complete support for women, there is no sacrifice of women that the Democrats are not fully prepared to make in advancing their cause. Senator Feinstein had received Dr. Ford’s letter more than six weeks prior to the Kavanaugh Confirmation hearings. In that letter, Ford was clear about her wishes that the contents of the letter be released to the Senate Judicial Committee so they could halt Kavanaugh’s being named to SCOTUS.

At the same time, Ford was adamant that her name remain strictly confidential. Feinstein should have honored Ford’s request and immediately released the contents of Ford’s letter to the Senate Committee so that privately the parties could have been interviewed, the allegations investigated by the FBI, and any evidence or corroboration determined, all without revealing the accuser’s name, as she had requested. If Ford were, in fact, a victim of some untoward act or attack in the past, the refusal to grant her wishes of distributing the letter content but keeping her name confidential could have easily caused further emotional and mental distress.

The entire process could have been completed well before the official hearings with plenty of time to debate and commit further study to the issue as needed. But Feinstein’s office leaked the letter along with Ford’s name (Feinstein’s staff would not have forwarded the letter to any media outlet without at least Feinstein’s tacit agreement) to the media well after the Kavanaugh Confirmation hearings had been completed. In an eleventh hour effort to block Kavanaugh’s appointment, Ford’s confidentiality was sacrificed, without her consent, for the “good” of the Democrat Party.

There is widespread hatred among Democrats for President Trump, based on the mistaken belief, fostered and amplified by the lies of opportunistic Democrats and the Fake News Media, that Trump had conspired with Russia to fix the 2016 presidential election. Having never accepted Hillary Clinton’s defeat by Donald Trump, to this day Democrats have the fantasy that they can reverse the election outcome, place Hillary as President and allow her to trample the Constitution in the creation of an authoritarian socialist state.

Points of interest on the Democrats’ way to subverting the Constitution and destroying the country include preventing Trump from appointing constitutionalists to the Supreme Court or impeaching any such Justices once they’re confirmed to the Court, taking back majority rule of the House and the Senate, impeaching Trump and reversing the 2016 election. The Democrats have sworn to do whatever it takes to win this war, whether it means that they assassinate the character of a good man and an outstanding judge, destroy the process for the Senate providing advise and consent on the President’s nominations, throw any number of women under the bus, or stage a coup that sets up a Marxist government it is of little consequence if the Democrat agenda is advanced.

In the case of Judge Kavanaugh, the Democrats committed to seeking out women who would agree, for a price, to falsely make sexual misconduct claims against Kavanaugh in order to remove him from the possibility of joining the Court. They have descended into the depths of criminal wrong-doing in suborning perjury of these women who have sworn false testimony against Kavanaugh to undermine due processes of our government in violation of the Constitution, all for their own vile and selfish purposes.

To win for themselves power and control over the people, the Democrats, Dr. Ford and her rabid supporters are also destroying what is left of credibility for any future "Me-Too" victims, now that, as a nation, we’ve explored at least in part the devastation of false accusations. We can no longer make the mistake of giving unmerited, full credence to any woman making a Me-Too allegation. In the Democrat alternative universe, no sacrifice of others (including traditional Democrat constituencies like minorities and women) is too great in the service of the Democrat Party. Is it a coincidence that Communists and Democrats share the same philosophy: “The End Justifies the Means?” If necessary, the Democrats will proceed over anyone's dead body to carry out their agenda.

After the Senate Committee had evaluated the evidence and the affidavits of potential witnesses, the Democrats predictably complained that the allegations had not been fully investigated by professionals and demanded a one week further delay of the Senate vote on Kavanaugh for the FBI to complete their work and tie up loose ends of the investigation. To be certain nothing had been overlooked and that the Republicans did not appear to be obstructing a thorough confirmation process, an additional week was granted for the extended FBI investigation.  

Once this investigation was completed and the FBI report was read by the entire Senate, no new information was available and no allegation was accompanied by any substantiating evidence or corroboration. The Democrats were livid that, in their opinion, the scope of the FBI investigation had been too restrictive and they demanded more time for the investigation. Republicans felt strongly that if the Democrats needed more time for what they considered a proper investigation, they should use some of the 60 wasted days during which Feinstein had willfully hidden Ford’s letter from the Committee before it was leaked to the media.

Senator McConnell set up voting for the whole Senate on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh, the Senate voted in favor of confirming Kavanaugh and he was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice. Justice Kavanaugh will take his seat on the Supreme Court the week of 10-15-2018.

The Democrats, driven by their anger and rage at having their champion, the elite Hillary Clinton, beaten for the presidency by a rank amateur (and a man!) have forsaken their humanity and have been consumed by their hatred. Many Democrats are dedicated to taking back the House and the Senate so they can impeach President Trump. They also wish to impeach Justice Kavanaugh. Ultimately, the Democrat goal is to reverse the 2016 Presidential Election and appoint Hillary our new President.

 What this means is that the Democrats have stepped over the line one too many times. This time we are talking about Democrats in the House, Senate, Administration or other government office violating their oath of office, attempting to sabotage a presidential nomination by lying and completely making everything up out of thin air. By doing this, they are subverting the Constitution and seeking to destroy all that is good about our country. 

Attacking the processes of the government, under the Constitution is to attack the Constitution and other foundations of our government. If these criminals are not hunted down, captured, charged with their crimes, prosecuted and punished appropriately in measure with the criminal act, the next time they feel they must disrupt a proceeding, they will be ten times worse and apply intimidation, threats, and violence to get their way.

Jesus Inherited Mortality from 

His Mother & Immortality from His Father

One of my friends on Facebook, John Hajicek, a self-named “Mormon Historian” and Curator, had posted the other day about the scriptural accounts of prophecies of the Messiah being a descendant of King David. He explained how Jesus’ genealogy could be traced through his step-father, Joseph, back to David.

I posted in reply how I had learned as a boy that Joseph and Mary were cousins and that both were descended from David. John wrote back with a number of scriptural references, mostly from the New Testament, where it suggests Mary was a Levite by birth (not descended from David) and that when she married Joseph, both she and her son, Jesus, were counted as being of Joseph’s lineage.

I was intrigued by this and wanted to learn more about the genealogy of Jesus Christ. It didn’t make sense to me that the prophets would say the Messiah will be a descendant of David, he will be born in Bethlehem (the City of David), and will sit on David’s throne, and then he has to be adopted into Joseph’s line to claim David as his ancestor! I looked up the scriptures John recommended and then branched out to investigate further. I was surprised by what I read.

There were so many different theories from notable Bible Scholars (from ancient and modern times), each with his own take on the subject, that I was reminded of the confusion, disruption and mishaps I’ve always speculated must have occurred on the construction site of the Tower of Babel.

Theories were variously based on taking into account Jewish tradition and customs, levirate marriages, names being changed over the centuries, two reports in the New Testament on Christ’s genealogy with some significant differences between them, differing translations from Aramaic to Greek and Latin where word meaning can change only slightly and dramatically alter the course of history, and then how some experts feel both the Matthew and Luke accounts of the genealogy of Jesus (through Joseph or Mary) were fabrications to make Jesus' profile a better fit for being the Messiah!

Just a word about levirate marriages which I found interesting. If a man (A) marries a woman (B) and they don’t have any children, and man (A) dies without posterity, his brother (C) is expected to marry the widow (B). The firstborn male (D) of that union (C&B) becomes the legal son of the first husband (A) so he will have posterity. Subsequent children of the second brother (C) are considered his legal children. But when it comes to writing down the genealogy of these families, sometimes they’ll report that the first brother (A) was the father of son (D), sometimes they’ll report the second brother (C) as the father of son (D) and other times they’ll name both husbands of woman (B) as the father of son (D). Then, later on, when son (D) gets married and has sons, they might show up in the lineage of husband (A) or of husband (C) or both. How would you like to be researching families where you had several consecutive generations of levirate marriages?

Of course, the connection between King David and the Messiah is of tremendous significance to the Jewish people (the Chosen & Covenant People) as we are talking about one of the greatest Jewish kings, about the words and deeds of Jewish prophets, about the history of the Jews, and about the most precious of prophesies and promises made between Jehovah and the Jews. This is also of great importance to Christians and other students of the Bible as studying the prophets and witnessing the fulfillment of prophecy helps us learn more of Christ, helps us follow him and helps us work towards becoming more like him.

While I don’t want to minimize the link to King David, I believe that of much greater importance and impact to all of God’s children (all of mankind) is the fact that Jesus is a direct descendant, the Only Begotten, and the literal Son of God. Before the earth’s creation, God the Father promised to send a Savior. That Savior, a perfect and pure vessel, would take upon himself the sins of the world, voluntarily give up his own life and then take it up again to bring about the atonement and the resurrection. Mortal man could not accomplish this task, having no power over death. An immortal likewise could not accomplish this, having no power to lay down his life.

Only one has walked the earth having the innate ability and power to be that Savior, and that is Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ, a being who inherited mortality from his mother and immortality from his father, could give up his life and then take it up again fulfilling his role in providing the Atonement and opening the gates of Resurrection for all mankind.

John Hajicek In the Bible, Jesus Christ was a carpenter’s son (Matthew 13:55) or the son of Joseph (Matthew 1: 23, 45); and his genealogy was consequently recorded as the lineal son of David (Matthew 1: 1, 1:20, 12:23, 21:9, 22:42, Luke 3: 23, 31), the seed of David according to the flesh (John 7:42, Romans 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:8), and the root and offspring of David (Revelation 5:5, 22:16); and therefore of the tribe of Judah (Hebrews 7:14); whilst his mother Mary was evidently of the tribe of Levi, since her uncle was a Levite priest (Luke 1: 5, 8, 36, 55). Thus, he alone fulfilled prophecies concerning the Messiah inheriting the throne of David (1 Kings 2:45, Isaiah 9:7, Jeremiah 17:25).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus

Lies & Pecadillos - What's Wrong With the Christine Blasey Ford Story, Part One

1) Ford stated she was not motivated by politics but only wanted to do her civic duty by telling her story. When she said defiantly “I’m nobody’s partisan political pawn,” it seemed she was bragging that doing this was solely her idea. Ford denies being paid to do this, but she seems to be getting richer by the minute. At least three GoFundMe accounts have been set up in her name with a balance of nearly $1M which Ford plans to use to cover her expenses.

Ford’s Democrat Activist Attorneys are working pro bono and are apparently paying for her airfare, hotel, and other expenses, raising the question of exactly what expenses were to be covered with her GoFundMe fortune. Ford’s attorneys work for the George Soros-funded “Project On Government Oversight (POGO).” GoFundMe accounts are easily adapted to money laundering; a wealthy benefactor who wants to pay someone for services rendered but doesn’t want it known can make a million $1.00 donations using bogus names. Would you be surprised to learn that most of Ford’s $1M could be traced back to Soros?

2) Ford admitted that at age 15 she decided she wanted to go to a party where there would be older boys, underage drinking, and other teenage activities that commonly occurred at such parties, all without adult supervision. She knew her parents would not approve of or allow her to go to such a party, so Ford went to the party without her parent's knowledge or permission. She knew her parents would be angry with her if they found out. What motivated her to go to that particular party? What was Ford looking for in going to this particular party?

3) Ford doesn't remember even the year when the incident occurred. After considering a number of possible years, she claimed the incident occurred in the mid-1980s. However, by 1985, Ford would have been 18 years old and would have had a driver’s license. She testified that after the assault happened, she walked downstairs and out of the party house, leaving her best friend, Leland, the only girl in the house, alone with the boys Ford claimed had just attempted to rape her. She also says she can’t remember how she got to the party or how she got home, and no one has come forward to say they had given her a ride to or from the party. But if this indeed happened in 1985, she would have had her driver’s license and would likely have driven herself to and from the party, solving at least this mystery.

By 1985, Brett Kavanaugh could not have been the one that assaulted her as he had graduated from high school in 1983, was no longer involved in the high school social scene and was attending college at Yale. When Ford began working with the lawyers Feinstein had referred her to, the Democrat Operatives that worked for the Soros-funded POGO group, they explained the timeline discrepancies in her story and convinced her to rethink the year she would allege the incident was to have occurred. Thereafter, the year of the alleged incident was 1982.

The prosecutor from Arizona asked Ford in the special hearing, “How did you come to settle on 1982 after being so long uncertain as to the year of the incident?” Ford’s answer was measured and evasive, she leaned into the mic and said in her little girl voice with the last word being a turned up inflection (as if asking a question) “I can’t say the exact…date?” then she leaned back away from the mic signaling that’s all she’s going to say about that.

4) Ford doesn't remember the exact location of the party house but says it was at least 8 miles from her home. Depending on which version of the headcount you believe, there were at least four boys and two girls at the party. Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, and PJ Smyth were three of the boys present. Ford said a fourth boy was present, but she can’t remember his name. The two girls present were Ford and her friend Leland Keyser. Of those at the party, it is likely that one lived in that house. Since the others named present lived elsewhere, the boy with no name must have lived in the party house. It’s possible this boy, if indeed he existed, might have been identified through yearbooks or school pictures, the party house location might have been determined and the boy interviewed if the Ford Team thought he could corroborate her story. Apparently, they did not.

5) Ford testified that she and her husband saw a marriage counselor in 2012 because of an ongoing argument during the renovation of the couple’s home. Ford insisted on and eventually got the second front door she needed as an escape route. At one of their 2012 sessions with the counselor, Ford claims she suddenly remembered the incident where she says she was sexually assaulted, a memory that had supposedly been repressed and forgotten for over 30 years. She related her story to her husband and her therapist at that time; it wasn’t until a later date that Ford would name her attacker as Kavanaugh.

Another version of her story has her telling her husband about the attack before they were married. The therapist’s notes from that session were referred to by Ford in preparing her testimony and she showed the notes to the Washington Post reporter who wrote her story for the paper. But Ford has refused to turn her therapist’s notes over to the Senate Committee, without offering an explanation. It may be that her story is not confirmed in the therapist’s notes, or that the notes may indicate Ford mentioned another boy’s name as the attacker. Another discrepancy was this: A Palo Alto City building permit was issued for the Ford home and a second front door was installed in 2008 to serve as a separate entrance for a rental apartment being constructed during the home’s renovation.

6) Ford says she’s 100% certain that Kavanaugh was her attacker. However, Ford did not name her attacker to anyone until sometime after the alleged 2012 counseling session with her husband and her therapist when she recovered her repressed memory of the events in question that are alleged to have happened some 36 years ago. It is a fact that the more time that passes after an occurrence such as this, the less chance exists of finding any evidence of the event. Likewise, it’s a fact that as the decades pass from an event the chance that memory of the event will remain intact becomes less and less likely. Repressed memories that are “recovered” are especially difficult, being at high risk of distortion and inaccuracy.

Because of these immutable facts, very few cases that come to light many years after the event, as in this case, justify consideration, can be believed or can be acted upon. None of this is news to anyone today. Still, many suppose that in light of significant emotional impact despite the absence of real evidence or corroboration, a 36-year-old incident should be given equal weight and consideration with a 3-year-old case. Just like elections, facts have consequences that can’t be ignored. The odds of a 36-year-old accusation that lacks any evidence or corroboration successfully winning a battle with the accused are virtually zero.

7) Following her escape from the assault she heard Kavanaugh and Judge loudly going downstairs, laughing and banging the walls. She stated that once the two boys were downstairs they were talking with the others, about Ford. She could not tell what they were saying. Asked if she couldn’t understand what they were saying or if she could not actually hear talking, she said she couldn’t hear them. Then how did she determine that once the two boys were downstairs the group was talking about her? She replied, “I just assumed, it was a social gathering, people would be talking.” What?

8) All of the witnesses Ford named have provided statements saying they have no knowledge or recollection of a party such as that Ford described or of any sexual assault. In contrast, many friends and associates of Judge Kavanaugh wrote the Senate Committee vouching for the excellent character and good behavior of Kavanaugh.

9) Feinstein was deceptive and violated the rules of the judiciary committee by keeping the letter secret from the chairman and other committee members for at least 60 days. She declined to question Kavanaugh about the accusations in the letter when she met with him before the confirmation hearings. Feinstein held Ford’s letter through the Kavanaugh Confirmation Hearings until it came time for the Senate to vote on the nominee.

Ford had written Feinstein to prevent someone who had allegedly sexually assaulted a 15-year-old Ford from being seated on the Supreme Court by exposing the 17-year-old Kavanaugh’s misdeed. While Ford had requested that Feinstein keep her name confidential, the primary purpose of the letter was to get the letter out to the public and to the Senate Committee to prevent Kavanaugh from attaining higher office. It is interesting that, in preparation for sending her letter to Senator Diane Feinstein, Ford deleted her Facebook and Twitter social media accounts so there would be no paper trail to reveal the real Dr. Ford.

10) No one in Feinstein’s office would dare do anything like releasing a confidential letter without at least tacit authorization from Feinstein. When this was leaked to the media, both the content of the letter and Ford’s name were made public. Committee members questioned as to why Feinstein failed to bring the letter to the Committee’s attention long before the formal hearings, and why it was leaked to the media. She turned very pale and became flustered, she stuttered a few times and looking down, she admitted she could not be certain it wasn’t someone in her office that leaked the letter.

Under further questioning by the Committee, Feinstein claimed she held onto the letter to protect Ford’s confidentiality; but in fact, Ford wanted the letter released to the public, and at the same time she wanted her name held confidentially. Feinstein abused Ford’s trust by not releasing the letter earlier to the Senate Committee and then by the release of Ford’s name to the media without her consent. Senator Feinstein manipulated Ford and the situation such that maximum damage (and ongoing delays) was done to the Kavanaugh confirmation process.

Feinstein’s sacrifice of Ford’s confidentiality was well worth it to the Democrats for the chaos it created. The breach of confidentiality caused a great deal of distress for Ford as there were reporters constantly hounding her, she received death threats, her family required security guards and had to leave their home and move from place to place to stay ahead of intruders. Feinstein also put Ford at risk in terms of having her come forward and testify under oath about her story. If this was a contrived and false testament, Ford could end up in prison.

11) Ford said she was never told by Feinstein or her lawyers that the Senators on the judiciary committee would come to her in California to take her statement or that all could have been done in private. Ford, her lawyer, and Feinstein apparently decided, since Ford’s name and story were already in the public domain, that her statement should also be given publicly. Ford’s handlers are also guilty of abusing this woman by not giving her the option of keeping things private. To pursue the Democrats’ desired ends of scuttling Kavanaugh’s confirmation, any means necessary, including injuring Ford and placing her at significant risk, was fully justified.

12) Ford stated the reason she did not want to come and provide a statement earlier was because of her fear of flying. However, she has taken many trips where she traveled by air to Hawaii, Tahiti, etc. She also flew to Delaware where she had been in hiding since the letter was leaked and she and her family were getting unwanted attention.

If flying was a problem, why did she not just drive from Delaware where she was staying to Washington to meet with the Committee? I’m certain Ford’s lawyers are familiar with the current Democrat playbook and that they would have advised her to “delay, delay then delay again.” She said she did not know who was paying for the airfare from California and her hotel and other expenses.

13) Even though she said she wanted to remain anonymous, she took on her pro bono lawyer team from the Soros-funded subversive organization “Project On Government Oversight (POGO).” Her legal team advised her to take a polygraph test, and it was accomplished the first week of August, less than two weeks after she sent her letter to Feinstein. The polygraph test consisted of two questions, neither of which had anything to do with Brett Kavanaugh.

For those who give credence to polygraph studies (which are not reliable enough to be used in a court of law in the U.S.), given that we don’t know which questions were asked, the most we can deduce from the information provided is that when she was asked two questions without mentioning or including Brett Kavanaugh, Ford’s responses (whatever they were, again not provided) seemed to be truthful. Since no questions included Kavanaugh, we have no hint from the Polygraph that says anything about the truthfulness of her story where it involves Kavanaugh. You can say Ford “Passed” a Polygraph test, but for all practical purposes, her Polygraph tells us nothing.

Ford testified about her experience with this Polygraph test. She said, “They wrapped this thing around me (indicating her torso) and it seemed to be squeezing me so I couldn’t breathe. It went on forever and I was crying the whole time.” But this can’t possibly describe the Polygraph test that was administered to Ford: her test was short and she was not even asked anything about Kavanaugh. Ford is totally familiar and comfortable with Polygraph tests; what she’s describing here is not her experience, but the experience of another person, one who had phobias and underwent a Polygraph test that Ford witnessed. When asked if Ford’s Polygraph test was audio or video recorded, she stumbled a little, then said, “They had a computer there, so I, I, suppose…(mumble).” More deception (see #14 below).

14) Questioning by the Arizona prosecutor explored Ford’s experience with Polygraphs. Ford was asked if she knew about Polygraph testing, counter efforts, how things worked and whether anyone had given her tips about taking a Polygraph. She was also asked whether or not Ford had ever tutored anyone else in how to take a Polygraph or ever given tips on taking one or how to counter such a test. To all these Ford coyly answered, “No, never.”

Recently, a letter arrived at the Senate Committee from a man who had been in a relationship with Ford during the 1990s. He explained that he had witnessed Ford go over a Polygraph test in detail, including tips and counter-measures with a close friend who would be taking one in order to work at a government job. Contrary to her testimony, she apparently knows a lot about and is very familiar with Polygraph testing. Why should Ford lie about her knowledge and experience with Polygraphs?


Unlike the weak and vulnerable victim character Ford portrayed for the Senate Committee and the public, Ford is, in fact, a strong, accomplished and learned person with a wide range of talents and abilities who is currently playing the role of a sexual assault victim in order to sink President Trump’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice for the Democrats. When Ford declares, “I’m nobody’s political pawn,” I believe her.

What is crystal clear is this: Ford is undoubtedly a long-time Democrat Activist and True Believer who was pressured by multiple Democrat Party Operatives into falsely claiming that Brett Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her. Ford’s confidentiality was sacrificed and her trust was betrayed by her fellow conspirators. She was also placed at significant risk of being prosecuted for her false testimony and her family has been threatened and intimidated because of the exposure.