I suggest that each member of the council be required under penalty of forfeiture of to submit 24 hours in advance of any meeting a statement in writing which sets forth the member’s views on issues to be voted upon and contentious issues which are not to be voted upon.
The views are not binding but are for the purpose of alerting the assembled crowd to the position of the particular council member which would allow a member of the audience to focus his question on the issue at hand. And, furthermore, it would require the councilmember to answer a specific question with respect to his view and why he holds it.
Look at other events from 2012. Consider Ford’s political activism from ’12 onward. Reportedly, Ford strongly opposes Trump and his policies.
Christine Ford’s 2012 therapy notes are crucial evidence.
Reportedly, no names are listed in Blasey Ford’s 2012 therapy notes. Reportedly, her therapist writes that 4 boys were involved. Ford testified that she viewed the therapy notes “online” in her therapist office.
Next — find out precise date presidential candidate Mitt Romney in 2012 first stated he might nominate Judge Kavanaugh to Supreme Court.
Then, inquire of Ford her view of President Trump and his policies on border.
About the alleged summer 2072 event Ford testifies:
Ask Christina Blasey Ford and her parents how — since she did not drive — she got to their country club summer ’72 – ’74. Whoever drove Blasey Ford the 20+ minutes from home to their country club is a likely person who drove her other places.
Exactly how many and who was at the alleged party has changed a number of times per Dr. Ford.
Victims? Are both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh victims of Democratic strategies to delay and destroy ? Yes!
In her actions, was Dr. Ford complicit with the Democrats delay and destroy tactics? Possibly. See below why.
Both witnesses 9/27/18 are compelling. Which testimony has more credibility?
Largely it appears that Dr. Ford was used by the Democrats for their purpose to destroy Kavanaugh any way possible.
Democrats sought to destroy Kavanaugh’s public and private life based largely on a page from his high school yearbook which concerned remarks about drinking. Committee Democrats repeated called for another FBI investigation. Six FBI investigations have been done of Kavanaugh. The Committee has investigated all allegations brought to them and they are the determiner of fact. Not the FBI which makes no recommendations or conclusions
What we know now from the hearing about a) the leak of Dr. Ford’s Letter; and b) the delay and obstruct tactics by Democrats including Ford’s attorneys; c) inconsistencies in Dr. Ford’s statements. d) what the public now knows
leak of Dr. Ford’s letter: Ford testifies that she sought complete confidentiality & expected it. Dr. Ford first contacted her Rep. Ossho and later spoke with Feinstein by phone. Dr. Ford requested confidentiality of her letter. Under oath, she states that she never released confidentiality.
If we believe her, then Dr. Ford’s letter was leaked to the press. By whom? Only four sources had Dr. Ford’s letter which detailed alleged sexual abuse by Judge Kavanaugh: Dr. Ford & her attorney and CA Anna Ossho and CA Senator Diane Feinstein.
Either representative, their staff or someone they gave it to leaked Dr. Ford’s letter to the press. Best guess for leak: Ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Diane Feinstein.
Why probably Feinstein? Because of Feinstein’s misleading actions of delay and cover up of information during the Committee’s hearing. She sat on information and asked no questions.
Feinstein denies leaking the letter. However, her actions show a strategy of deny and obstruct. She sat on the letter for 45 days and asked no questions of Kavanaugh concerning abuse during the judiciary hearing which went on for days.
There is substantial support that there was a coordinated effort by Democrats in conjunction with Dr. Ford’s attorneys to use delay tactics to put off the vote until after the mid-term elections, and keep the seat open until the 2020 elections.
Abuse by Democrats of Dr. Ford: Dr. Ford testifies that she only went public via an interview with the Washington Post after reporters appeared at her house peering in her window talking to her dogs and showing up posing as a student in class. Thus, she went public due to the leak of her letter by the Democrats. This is how the Democrats abused Dr. Ford.
Curiously, asked under oath whether she contacted President Trump she testified that she did not know how to contact the President. That’s odd because this is a woman with four degrees including a Ph.D. Dr. Ford uses a computer for work and can readily Google the President’s contact information .
Feinstein had the letter alleging sexual assault for 45 days yet asked no questions of Kavanaugh during the entire Judiciary Hearing. Feinstein stalled and delayed.
Delay and obstruct tactics of Democrats CA Sen. Diane Feinstein & Democrats
Over 150 nominations by the Trump administration have been delayed by the Democrats. So delay and obstruct is the pattern the Democrats use.
Dr. Ford testified that she did know know/ understand that the Judicial Committee would come to her in CA or anywhere. Did Dr. Ford really not know or did she Dr. Ford prevaricate saying that she did not understand what the committee’s offer meant? Perhaps her lawyers did not inform Dr. Ford.
Take Away: Both witnesses make powerful, compelling statements.
Dr. Ford ‘s three fact witnesses deny her story and do not corroborate any facts she alleges. One key witness, Leland, is the only other female teenager at the small party and a longtime friend of Dr. Ford. She two denies it via her lawyers and sent an email.
Concerning her basic Who, What, When, Where facts — No new information came out when Dr. Ford testified under oath.
Judge Kavanaugh: Under oath, he walked through using his 1982 calendar stating how he was out of town and what his activities d were during the summer of 1982. He has contemporaneous evidence that supports his position. His evidence is strong and consistent. In contrast, Dr. Ford’s evidence is not corroborated and her story is denied by all three key witnesses.
Inconsistency / not believable testimony by Ford
Flying: Dr. Ford said her fear of flying prevented her from readily going to Washington D.C. She testified that she travels widely by plane for vacation and work. This summer she spent a month back east, attended her grandmother’s funeral. She vacations in various parts of the world (Costa Rica, visits each year to her parents, Hawaii)
Alcohol: Only 1 beer drunk by Ford and others at the party except Judge and Kavanaugh. How did Ford know? Was she counting the beers? Could someone downstairs have consume a beer during the alleged ab use going on upstairs in the bedroom? Teenagers typically don’t count the beers which others drink.
Date of event: Ford first said it was the mid-80s, then early 80s and then summer of ’82. She testified that her recollection of when she got her driving permit made the date more fixed. Question: how did Ford on a daily basis in the summer of ’82 get to her Country Club by car which was 20 minutes away from her home? More than likely, someone drove her. Was that someone who also drove her to the party and home? She testifies she did not drive in ’82.
Contact with abusers: Encounter with Judge at Safeway six weeks later: Most people avoid persons and situations that have caused them high anxiety. Ford went up to Judge in Safeway and said ‘Hi.” Dr. Ford testified that she had numerous periphery contacts both before and after the event with Kavanaugh. Nothing sexual or of note happened. One would think she would avoid all contact afterwards.
What to conclude:
The Democrats violated Dr. Ford’s privacy and confidentiality by leaking her letter to the press.
Dr. Ford clearly did not tell the truth about not being able to fly to Washington D.C. She actually flies everywhere for vacation and work purposes.
Perhaps Dr. Ford’s attorneys did not inform Dr. Ford that the Senate Judiciary Committee would go anywhere including CA. She testifies that — had she understood — she would have welcomed them. Perhaps she simply went with the flow and agreed to “delay and destroy” tactics.
Dr. Ford comes across as vulnerable, and much younger than her age of fifty-one. Her speech patterns are those of a much younger person. Tentative.
She testified that she did not know how to contact President Trump. Wow!
She testifies that she did not make any attempts to contact any member of Congress except two Democrats. Why only two Democrats? She testified that she did not know what “exculpatory” means. She testifies that did not know who pays for her lie detector test, She testified she was unsure whether the lie detector test was both audo and visual. Anyone looking around the conference room or asking basic questions would know.
Further, she testifies that she does not know “best practices” for interviewing victims of abuse. That is not believable.
Dr. Ford is a published research psychologist having published in the area of abuse, When asked under oath,, Dr. Ford did not know “best practices” for how to interview victims of sexual abuse. Best practices include a forensic interview using verified interview techniques. Such an interview was possible had the Judiciary Committee flown to CA or Dr. Ford consented.
Yes, both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are victims. Yes, the Democrats “search and destroy” tactics towards Kavanaugh are far worse than the McCarthy era of the 1950’s. Yes, Kavanaugh’ has credibility.
Dr. Ford does not have corroboration from any of her three key witness. All three deny her story. Unlike Kavanaugh (who has detailed calendars) she has no contemporary evidence. Her presentation is believable — that she experienced sexual abuse by someone. But by whom? When? Where?
What to do? Vote! Contact your representatives! Talk to Democrats about these terribly harmful tactics. Stop the abuse by Democrats in our public arena.
written by Aptos Psychologist Cameron Jackson email@example.com
G for Guilty for Kavanaugh believes Sen. Gillibrand.
An editorial comments this week on Ford v. Kavanaugh in the Wall Street Journal 9/20/18. The following quotes from the WSJ editorial:
“Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another 2020 presidential aspirant, said, “I believe it is disqualifying, given what we know.” In other words, what Gillebrand believes is based on next to nothing. Written in the Wall Street Journal 9/22/18.
“It is still true: What begins as tragedy can end as farce. So it is with the case of Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of assaulting her when she was 15 and he was 17.
“As of the most recent available moment in this episode, Ms. Ford’s lawyer said her client would not appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee until there is a “full investigation by law-enforcement officials.” Like the Mueller excavations, that could run to the horizon, unable to find anything but unwilling to stop until it finds something.
“Let us posit that the one thing not at issue here is the truth. As a matter of law and fact, Ms. Ford’s accusation can be neither proved nor disproved. This is as obvious now as it must have been when Dianne Feinstein and the other Democrats came into possession of this incident.
“Surely someone pointed out that based on what was disclosed, this accusation could not be substantiated. To which the Democrats responded: So what? Its political value is that it cannot be disproved. They saw that six weeks before a crucial midterm election, the unresolvable case of Christine Blasey Ford would sit like a stalled hurricane over the entire Republican Party, drowning its candidates in a force they could not stop.
“In #MeToo, which began in the predations of Harvey Weinstein, Democrats and progressives finally have found a weapon against which there seems to be no defense. It can be used to exterminate political enemies. If one unprovable accusation doesn’t suffice, why not produce a second, or third? It’s a limitless standard.
“The Democrats’ broader strategy is: Delay the vote past the election; win the Senate by convincing suburban women that Republicans are implacably hostile to them; seize power; and—the point of it all—take down the Trump government.
“This is the “resistance.” This is what Democrats have become. Resistance is a word and strategy normally found in a revolutionary context, which is precisely the argument made by the left to justify its actions against this presidency since the evening of Nov. 8, 2016. Anything goes. Whatever it takes. Brett Kavanaugh is not much more than a casualty of war.
“Rather than try to argue or win public issues on substance, the Democrats have become a party that seems to think it can win with muscle alone. Environmentalism emerged in the 1970s as a worthwhile idea that attracted the interest and support of both parties. From Al Gore onward, it became a bludgeon to beat up the other party. Now sexual abuse, an issue originating in utmost seriousness, has been quickly captured and fashioned into a political weapon by the Democratic left.
“Politics as trench warfare has relieved the Democrats of the burden of thought. Extending the Pelosi Rule—we have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it—we now have the Gillibrand Standard.
“Commenting this week on Ford v. Kavanaugh, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, another 2020 presidential aspirant, said, “I believe it is disqualifying, given what we know.” In other words, what she believes is based on next to nothing.
“Put on defense by these accusations, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley unsurprisingly agreed to a hearing in which Ms. Ford would tell her story and Judge Kavanaugh would speak. Then the senators would vote.
“Consider the spectacle: Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, the embodiment of a modern rule of law, is being decided in the Senate by the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, such as surviving immersion in fire or ice. Trial by ordeal was outlawed by the Lateran Council in 1215.
Or worse, the standards of the mob in the Roman Colosseum, turning thumbs up or down on the combatants. Though unlike the Senate Democrats, the Roman mob at least had an open mind.
Incidentally, the standard trope that Donald Trump has degraded our politics? We don’t need to hear that anymore. Or about the moral certitudes of the religious right.
“Is there a sadder figure in the modern Democratic Party than Sen. Dianne Feinstein? Elected to the Senate in 1992, Mrs. Feinstein has produced a creditable career. Her above-it-all reputation was never quite deserved, but she has at least performed with dignity.
“Now, seeking re-election at 85, she is getting heat from the progressive-dominated Democratic Party in California, the world capital of identity-only politics. By withholding from the committee the accusatory Ford letter that came into her possession nearly two months ago, Sen. Feinstein ensured the nomination’s descent into such a hapless, cynical moment. This will be the most remembered event in Sen. Feinstein’s career.
“The Kavanaugh nomination, “given what we know,” has come down to an undiscoverable accusation. The defeat of a Supreme Court nominee on this basis would be a victory for a level of conscious political nullification not seen in the U.S. for a long time. Republicans in the Senate shouldn’t allow it, and voters in November should not affirm it.
Is this Gillibrand’s brand? G for Guilty. Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh supposedly guilty based on something that Dr. Ford says occurred 36 years ago (she has not yet testified under oath) and New York Senator / Presidential aspirant Gillibrand believes it?
How about lots of cheap housing, free health care/ free specialist MD referrals for illegal alien immigrants, & expanded free mental health? Those are COPA’s 2018 goals for Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito Counties in California.
So what methods really work to effect “social justice” according to COPA?
Just show up when told to — says McManus of COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. The power politics of sheer body count with government officials effects COPA specified change according to Mr. McManus.
Here’s what COPA Tim McManus says:
Aptos Psychologist: COPA is not my cup of tea. What was the original tea party that lead to the American revolution all about? Not about “body count” muscling local government officials to achieve socialist progressive goals. About COPA — be wary. Give a fishing pole not free fish.
Now’s the time for Republicans to schedule votes. Even though Majority Leader Mitch McConnell may not have 60 Senate candidates the Republicans can use Democrat “no” positions to huge effect in their races.
Now — two months from mid-term elections — is the time for you to speak out in support of I.C.E. and to de-fund “sanctuary cities”.
For church members & the public, COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. is not a good bang for the buck based on info from Charity Navigator.
Look at the numbers:
COPA expenses: Seventy-nine percent or roughly 4 out of 5 dollars pays for Personnel ($288 K) and General/ Administrative ($18.8 K). Only 21% [$80,400 / $387,233] goes for Program Costs. Wow!
$288 K pays for three full-time COPA organizers in the 2018-19 Budget. Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. is another name for COPA in the Santa Cruz and Monterey CA area.
COPA/ Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. is housed at a Lutheran church in Watsonville, CA and pays about $19 K for General and Administrative costs.
How to evaluate the numbers:
Program Expenses: The majority of charities listed by Charity Navigator – seven out of ten non profits – spend at least 75% of their expenses directly on their Programs. That means the organization should spend no more than 25% of their total expenses on administrative overhead and fundraising costs.
COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. reverses the percentages recommended by Charity Navigator with expenses for Program accounting for only 21% and Personnel/ Administrative expenses accounting for 79%. Wow. That’s a reversal!
Check for evidence of commitment to accountability and transparency:
Website: The best charities are transparent and accountable to the public. You should be able to see evidence of this in the information they provide on their web site. Can you readily find information about the charity’s staff and Board of Directors? Did the charity publish its financial information such as its most recently filed Form 990 or audit?
Transparency: Low. One must search to find connections to COPA’s founding organization — the Industrial Area Foundation (IAF) of Chicago, Illinois COPA is a long standing affiliate of IAF. And there’s no mention of community activist Saul Alinsky who wrote the guiding principles for progressive socialists i.e., Rules for Radicals. One might think it interesting to churches that Alinsky dedicated his book to Lucifer.
Open Borders is one goal of COPA / IAF / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc.
Churches connected with COPA in Santa Cruz and Monterey CA fund open border immigration policies. Exactly how much dues each church affiliate pays COPA is not readily available.
COPA recently held a conference on immigration “reform” in Monterey, CA (4/9/2018). No specifics as to number of attendees is provided on their website.
The Catholic church in CA is a long time supporter of open borders. Five of the seven churches in Santa Cruz County & neighboring two counties which act as as the governing board of COPA are Catholic.
Other supporters of COPA include several Episcopal churches, i.e., St. John’s in Aptos, Calvary in Santa Cruz and St. Mary’s by the Sea in Pacific Grove.
Aptos Psychologist: COPA goes to church leaders and gets their “buy in” and them uses that buy in to contact parishioners and teach Alinsky progressive socialist goals.
What is COPA? On November 2, 2009 Freedom Advocates wrote, “COPA targets congregations and unsuspecting parishioners…”
What COPA currently says: It’s Mission is “to develop the leadership skills of ordinary people …. to engage effectively in public life …with power to negotiate with public and private sector leaders … to change the economic, social, political and cultural pressures on their families …
COPA has 22 member institutions in Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Benito Counties — including “many religious groups” they say.
Per COPA’s website (4/2018) Pete Scudder of Scudder Roofing said about obtaining workers, “there is no system. There is no line. No way anyone come here legally unless they have a lot of money….Scudder Roofing construction company hires 90% Hispanics. Scudder Roofing seeks to sponsor ‘citizen applications for workers’.
Back to general discussion of COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc.
It’s vital to look at how charities are rated for financial health and transparency. Neither COPA aka Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc is rated by Charity Navigator. That’s because their financials are too small for Charity Navigator.
What if all the legs of the founding organization — IAF — were examined by Charity Navigator? What if COPA was transparent about its socialist progressive agenda? Would parishioners and the public support COPA / Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc?
It’s best to view COPA and Central Coast Interfaith Sponsors Inc. for what they are — community organizing entities which seek progressive socialist goals.
Per D Souza both Barrack Obama and Hilary Clinton — both students of Alinsky — implemented Saul Alinsky’s political tactics.
Remember Obama’s promises that “you can keep your doctors…” and that “insurance premiums costs were going down …” Then Obama took over health care and 1/6th of private economy. Check out D. Souza on YouTube.
Among other accomplishments, she is a former San Francisco District Attorney who — according to the San Francisco Examiner — knew of evidence tampering before the public or police chief knew of it.
The San Francisco District Attorney’s Office found itself under fire in early 2010 when it came to light that Deborah Madden, a drug lab technician for the city police, confessed to removing cocaine from evidence samples. Her admission resulted in the police lab’s testing unit closing and pending drug cases being dismissed. The police department also had to investigate cases already prosecuted due to Madden’s admission of evidence tampering.
During the scandal, it was asserted that the District Attorney’s Office knew of Madden’s evidence tampering. However, it remains unclear what information the district attorney knew about Madden and when Harris learned of the tech’s improprieties. The San Francisco Examiner has alleged that the District Attorney’s Office knew of the situation months before the public was told of the controversy and before the police chief himself learned of the news.
Kamala Harris is age 53 and grew up in Oakland, CA. Her mother, a M.D. took her daughter to Muslim temples to worship. Growing up, Harris visited India various times. Her father is Black and was, not sure when, employed as a professor at Stanford. Harris after graduating from Howard University and then Hastings College of Law was employed as a Deputy D.A. in Oakland. She then moved on.