Bernie Sanders part one and two

  Sen. Bernie Sanders said on Sunday he thinks it’s “unbelievable” that President Trump “attacks American cities” when asked about Trump’s tweet calling Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings’ Baltimore district a “disgusting, rat and rodent infested mess.”

However, Sanders sounded a different tune in 2015 when he likened Cummings’ West Baltimore district to a “Third World country.”

Anyone who took the walk that we took around this neighborhood would not think you’re in a wealthy nation. You would think that you were in a Third World country,” Sanders said during a tour of the city in the aftermath of riots over the April 2015 death of Freddie Gray, an African-American man who died after falling into a coma while in police custody.

Sanders’ 2015 “Third World” comments are not his only  statements criticizing the living conditions in Baltimore.

In 2016, the politician sounded off about Baltimore’s “poorest boroughs,” saying that residents have “lifespans shorter than people living under dictatorship in North Korea.”

________________________

Firenze  Sage   JAJ48@aol.com    The question is do these politicos remember what they once said or do they just not care.

Or do they think we are too bloody stupid to look up the past statements.

A horse race: Will Joe Biden fade & Michelle Obama replace him? Possible.

A horse race:  Will Joe Biden fade & Michelle Obama replace him?

Will Michelle Obama replace Biden as top Presidential hopeful? Michelle Obama may  appeal to many ‘middle of the road’  Democrats who find current  contenders too ‘progressive’ for their taste.

Joe Biden  cannot match Michelle Obama in important ways.

 

woman of color premiere?  Michelle Obama …

Michelle Obama is a premiere ‘woman of color’.  Michelle Obama is immensely popular. Michelle Obama can carry on her husband’s problematic    “legacy”.

Competitors?  Harvard’s first woman of color,  Elizabeth Warren,  cannot compete with Michelle  Obama when they are compared in terms of  their skin color and early background.  Elizabeth Warren’s story about her percentage of Indian blood does not hold up.

California’s ‘woman of color’ attorney Kamala  Harris comes across  as strident compared with former first lady Michelle Obama.  Though Michelle Obama often appeared angry she also had her garden and tried to improve food options for students per her views.

The Democrat ‘ pack of contenders’ are so similar with respect to ‘open borders’, ‘green agenda’ and free medical care for all who can get into the country.  There will be push back.  Michelle Obama may be the one ‘woman of color’ who  most  appeals.  Can Miclelle Obama replace contender Joe Biden?  Possible.

written by Cameron Jackson   JAJ48@aol.com

Fake Indian fakes us again? Elizabeth Warren, Harvard’s first woman of color …

Elizabeth Warren, one of several women running for President in 2020,  faked having Cherokee Indian blood.  Later,   as an affirmative action applicant Elizabeth  was  employed by east coast colleges. Elizabeth Warren was Harvard’s first woman of color.  

Now Warren seeks to spin  the story whether women got a ‘fair deal’ in compensation from Dow Chemical.  Warren was paid heaps of money  by Dow Chemical to keep compensation to women as low as possible.

Is Warren faking us again?

When Dow Corning faced thousands of lawsuits in the 1990s from women saying they had become sick from the company’s silicone gel breast implants, its parent firm, Dow Chemical, turned to one of the country’s leading experts in corporate bankruptcies: Professor Elizabeth Warren.

Warren, now a Democratic presidential candidate, has never publicly discussed her role in the case. Her campaign said that she was “a consultant to ensure adequate compensation for women who claimed injury” from the implants and that a $2.3 billion fund for the women was started “thanks in part to Elizabeth’s efforts.”

But participants on both sides of the matter say that description mis-characterizes Warren’s work, in which she advised a company intent on limiting payments to the women.

“She was on the wrong side of the table,” said Sybil Goldrich, who co-founded a support group for women with implants and battled the companies for years. Goldrich said Dow Corning and its parent “used every trick in the book” to limit the size of payouts to women. The companies, she added, “were not easy to deal with at all.” ….

A person familiar with Warren’s role who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe litigation strategy said the future senator was part of a Dow defense team that had containing the company’s liability as a goal….

Shortly after The Post contacted Warren’s campaign for comment on this story, a lawyer from Warren’s campaign called Gold­rich, the advocate for breast implant victims, to ask her to make a positive statement about the settlement.

“They asked, ‘Could I make a comment about whether the deal was fair? Would I say it was a fair deal? Was it fair?’ ” said Goldrich, recalling her conversation. “I wouldn’t say that.”

_______________________

Firenze Sage   JAJ48@aol.com    I can hear it now after denying she worked for  Dow.”But I fought for woman from inside Dow” says Elizabeth  Warren.  What was her salary??

[Court records indicate that Elizabeth Warren was paid  $675. an hour while she was a professor at Harvard University earning about $185  K a year.]

Tip of the day: Don’t tip, you racist

  Tip of the day: Don’t tip! Why?

Read Jabborwocky  by Carroll as to why.

Word of caution to everyone who feels that they are doing some good in the world by being generous tippers: according to Politico, tipping has a “racist history”:

You might not think of tipping as a legacy of slavery, but it has a far more racialized history than most Americans realize. Tipping originated in feudal Europe and was imported back to the United States by American travelers eager to seem sophisticated. The practice spread throughout the country after the Civil War as U.S. employers, largely in the hospitality sector, looked for ways to avoid paying formerly enslaved workers.

The Rev. Dr. Barber II’s article is one long, desperate pitch for a horrible idea: raising the mandatory minimum wage to $15 an hour. The Rev. Dr. Barber II’s justification for doing so is that it will “end a pernicious legacy of slavery.”

Because of the allegedly “racialized history” of gratuities, the Rev. Dr. Barber II takes umbrage with the entire notion of having to hustle for a buck:

Tipping further entrenched a unique and often racialized class structure in service jobs, in which workers must please both customer and employer to earn anything at all.

Somebody should tell the good Rev. Dr. about all of the people who aren’t in the service industry and work on commission alone. I sold real estate to pay for college back in the day and my guaranteed minimum wage was $0.

_____________

Firenze Sage    jaj48@ao.com     Racism” has no more meaning than Lewis Carroll’s Jabberwocky.

Jabberwocky

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
      The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
      The frumious Bandersnatch!”
He took his vorpal sword in hand;
      Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
      And stood awhile in thought.
And, as in uffish thought he stood,
      The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
      And burbled as it came!
One, two! One, two! And through and through
      The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
      He went galumphing back.
“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
      Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
      He chortled in his joy.
’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
      Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
      And the mome raths outgrabe.

Betsy Ross — a shoe in for heroine? What say, Kaepernick?

Symbols of  American freedom matter.  Don’t sell shoes  with a Betsy Ross flag?   Why? Because African-American  Kaepernick   finds  the Ross  flag symbol offensive and associated with slavery.  Get real.

Does Kaepernick know anything about Betsy Ross?  Anything about  early American history?

Betsy Ross is a woman  to admire not  spurn.

Let’s  compare  2019 ex- football player Colin  Kaepernick  with  1776 seamstress Betsy Ross:

Personal commitments to family?  Kaepernick has a girl friend [Nessa Diag] since 2015. He’s not married and no children.  Betsy Ross was soon widowed  after marrying at age 21  outside her Quaker faith which caused her to be  ‘read out of the  Quaker church’ for doing so.    She  later married  again and had children.

  • Professional skills?   Colin  Kaepernick  was a second string quarter back who turned down a  contract with the San Francico  49ers.  He is a rich,  civil rights agitator.
  • Betsy Ross  was child number 8 of 17 children. Betsy   attended a Quaker school 8 hours a day to learn sewing, reading and writing. She became a skilled seamstress.  Fairly soon after marriage to John Ross at age 21,  Betsy’s husband  died  while he was guarding  ammunition.
  • A few months  after her husband’s death, Betsy met with the Committee of Three which included George Washington. This meeting  lead to  Betsy Ross’  sewing of  the first American flag.

Slavery? Betsy Ross was an abolitionist.    

written by Cameron Jackson   jaj48@aol.com

How to improve public meetings? Require officials state ahead how they plan to vote

Require elected officials state in writing — 24 hours ahead of time — how they plan to vote

The  way current  Council meetings are currently conducted is an abomination .

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.

At present we have stone faces unresponsive to public input.

Require officials state how they plan to vote 24 hours ahead.

written by James Jackson    jaj48@a0l.com

FAX Sen. Heidi Heitkamp YES on Kavanaugh! Her mail boxes full!

 

FAX Sen. Heidi Heitkamp YES on Kavanaugh

Fax Sen. Heidi Heitkamp re YES  Kavanaugh!   Vote on Saturday Oct 6, 2018.  See FAX numbers for North Dakota below:  FAX does get to her. Her email boxes are full.  So — FAX !!

701 258 1254  Bismark

701 232 6449  Fargo

701 225 3287  Dickinson

701 746 1990 Grand Forks

701 838 8196  Monot

202 234 7776 Washington D.C.

 

Dr. Ford not “Psychologist”, flies when testifies cannot fly & remodeled home before 2012 My! My!

 

Dr. Ford flies around the world for fun and work

Dr. Ford is not a CA  Psychologist as she claims. She has a Ph.D. in Psychology.  There’s the difference of  several thousand hours  of supervised training and  various exams one takes in California in order  to become  a Psychologist. She recently scrubbed literature describing herself as a Psychologist.  My! My!

Dr. Ford claims she could not fly to Washington D.C.  She actually flies world wide for vacation, see family on the east coast and work related. She has traveled to Costa Rica, Hawaii and other places for water sports.  She visits her parents yearly. This summer Dr. Ford spent one month on the east coast and attended the funeral of her grandmother the day of or before she took a lie detector test.  Mmmmm. Attend a family funeral and them take a exam that measures ones’s emotional state?

written by Cameron Jackson    jaj48@aol.com

Victims of Democrats delay & destroy tactics — Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh? Yes!

Victims  of Democrat tactics?
Are both Dr. Ford  and Judge Kavanaugh victims of Democrat tactics  to delay and destroy?

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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    jaj48@aol.com

 

 

 

G for Guilty for Kavanaugh believes Sen. Gillibrand “given what we know” from Dr. Ford

 

Senator Gillibrand believes Kavanaugh Guilty based on next to nothing

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.

Write henninger@wsj.com.

Appeared in the September 20, 2018, print edition.

_____

Aptos Psychologist opines:

Sen. Gillibrand’s brand?  G for Guilty believes  the Senator/ presidential aspirant in Kavanaugh v Dr. Ford based on “what we know” which is next to nothing

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?