Author: Papa Giorgio

Three Accusers | No Evidence

Published by Papa Giorgio

Wednesday on the radio, Mark Levin addressed the latest sexual assault allegations raised against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and pointed out a pattern:

  • “No witnesses, no corroboration, no evidence. That’s the pattern.”

CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD

BREAKING! WRONG GUY

Holy moly the news just gets more wild and crazy. Now there’s a man who has come out to say that Dr. Christine Ford has confused an interaction HE had with her, and accidentally blamed Kavanaugh for it!!!!

[….]

WOW ARE YOU SERIOUS?!?!?

That would completely wipe out her credibility, on the evening before she’s set to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Unbelievable. We’ll update as this story develops…

UPDATE: THERE ARE NOW TWO MEN!!!

“Whoa. Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans say they have spoken to two men who think they, not Kavanaugh, had the 1982 encounter that formed the basis for her sexual abuse claim. (These tables are from a timeline the committee majority published 15 minutes ago.)”…

(RIGHT SCOOP)

NO WITNESSES

  • All of Ford’s named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.

(WEEKLY STANDARD; CNN, POWERLINE, NATIONAL REVIEW, WESTERN JOURNAL, WASHINGTON TIMES). 

LIE DETECTOR TEST – Different Story

LIE DETECTOR TEST – Only 2 Questions

  • Ford’s lawyer took her to a polygraph examiner who concluded she was not being ‘deceptive’ with claims about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh
  • Attorney sent the results to Senate Republicans but refuse to show them a therapist’s notes from the sessions where Ford first discussed it
  • The polygraph test consisted of two yes-no questions
  • Ford and Kavanaugh are scheduled to testify in a Senate hearing on Thursday
  • Polygraphs, so-called ‘lie detactor’ tests, are generally inadmissible in court

The California woman who first accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault passed a ‘lie detector’ test in August that consisted of two questions.

Christine Blasey Ford’s attorneys sent Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans a report from a polygraph examiner who interviewed her on August 10.

But they refused on Wednesday to provide the committee with copies of notes from her psychotherapy sessions. Ford has said she first spoke to a therapist in 2012 about her memories of an ordeal.

‘Any request that she expose her private medical records for public inspection represents an unacceptable invasion of privacy,’ attorney Debra Katz wrote.

Katz, however, handed over the polygraph results to buttress her client’s accusation.

The test examiner asked Ford to write down a description of what happened to her at a high school party in the early 1980s, where she claims a drunken teenage Kavanaugh groped her and tried to remove her clothing while pinning her to a bed and covering her mouth.

AFTER INTERVIEWING HER ABOUT HER STATEMENT, THE EXAMINER ASKED HER A PAIR OF YES-OR-NO QUESTIONS ABOUT THE WRITTEN NARRATIVE.

‘IS ANY PART OF YOUR STATEMENT FALSE?’ HE ASKED, FOLLOWED BY: ‘DID YOU MAKE UP ANY PART OF YOUR STATEMENT?’ FORD ANSWERED ‘NO’ TO BOTH QUESTIONS.

The report doesn’t mention questions about any specific parts of her story.

The polygraph examiner wrote that her two responses were ‘not indicative of deception,’ and that the chance she was lying was a tiny fraction of one per cent….

(DAILY MAIL | emphasis added | editor’s note: there were no comparison questions asked in differing ways to create a baseline)

DEBORAH RAMIREZ

NEW YORK TIMES – No Evidence/Witnesses At All

The New York Times reported on Sunday that it was unable to corroborate the claims of a second accuser who says Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh exposed himself to her in college.

Deborah Ramirez alleges that Kavanaugh thrust his penis into her face while she was drunk at a Yale University dormitory party. The New Yorker ran with Ramirez’s allegation on Sunday despite being unable to produce any firsthand witnesses or confirm that Kavanaugh was at the party where the incident was said to have occurred.

The New York Times noted several paragraphs deep in a report that it chose not to report on Ramirez’s allegation because of a lack of corroborating evidence.

“The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge,” the NYT’s Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Nicholas Fandos reported. “Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.”….

(DAILY CALLER)

CLOSEST COLLEGE FRIEND DENIES

…However, a woman who described herself as Ramirez’s best friend at the time told the New Yorker that she never heard about the story: “I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.”

(BREITBART)

RAMIREZ NOT SURE – ONE

The Washington Post and other news outlets had attempted to report out Ramirez’s story in the days before the New Yorker report. She declined to speak with the Post. The New York Times could not corroborate it,

 saying It also said that some potential witnesses hadn’t seemed certain about the alleged perpetrator when Ramirez called them about it recently:

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

(WASHINGTON POST)

RAMIREZ NOT SURE – TWO

…Confronted with a New York Times report indicating Ramirez expressed doubts about Kavanaugh’s guilt to former Yale classmates, Mayer said Ramirez shared those doubts before they published their bombshell report on Sunday.

“To Ronan she said she wasn’t absolutely certain, she needed to make certain before she was going to say anything publicly. She remembered the specifics, the graphic specifics, and she tried to remember for sure who that man was who was in her face,” she told MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough.“With all due respect to the New York Times, which is the best paper in America, just because they couldn’t get the story and speak to her or find the person that we found, who remembered it from back then, doesn’t mean it’s not true.”…

(NATIONAL REVIEW)

SIX DAYS OF INTENSE PRESSURE

The woman at the center of the story, Deborah Ramirez, who is fifty-three, attended Yale with Kavanaugh, where she studied sociology and psychology. Later, she spent years working for an organization that supports victims of domestic violence. The New Yorker contacted Ramirez after learning of her possible involvement in an incident involving Kavanaugh. The allegation was conveyed to Democratic senators by a civil-rights lawyer. For Ramirez, the sudden attention has been unwelcome, and prompted difficult choices. She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

(AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE)

JULIE SWETNICK

NEW YORK TIMES – No Corroboration 

…The New York Times noted that it could not independently corroborate the third Brett Kavanaugh accuser’s allegation that he engaged in “abusive” behavior toward girls at parties in high school.

“None of Ms. Swetnick’s claims could be independently corroborated by The New York Times, and her lawyer, Michael Avenatti, declined to make her available for an interview,” the Times wrote in a story Wednesday….

(DAILY CALLER)

CRAZY PAST – Threats and Taxes

REPORT: Kavanaugh Accuser’s Ex-Boyfriend Filed Restraining Order After They Broke Up

…A Miami-Dade County court docket shows a petition for injunction against Swetnick was filed March 1, 2001, by her former boyfriend, Richard Vinneccy, who told POLITICO Wednesday the two had dated for four years before they broke up.

Thirteen days later, the case was dismissed, not long after an affidavit of non-ability to advance fees was filed.

According to Vinneccy, Swetnick threatened him after they broke up and even after he got married to his current wife and had a child.

“Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time,” Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. “I know a lot about her.”

“She’s not credible at all,” he said. “Not at all.”

Vinneccy, 63, is a registered Democrat, according to Miami-Dade County voting records….

(POLITICO)

OWES MONEY – Lied In The Past

Swetnick also claims to have a security clearance with the IRS despite having recently had a $40,000 judgement against her for unpaid taxes. She settled a $40,303 IRS judgement on March 23 of this year, according to a public records search. Maryland court records show a $62,821 tax lien filed against her on Oct. 2, 2015.

Swetnick has also been involved in civil cases in Maryland and Oregon.

In November 2000, she was sued by Webtrends, a web company in Portland that Swetnick worked for from December 1999 through August 2000. It is not clear how the case was decided or what Swetnick allegedly said to defame the company. Webtrends did not respond to a request for comment.

Swetnick filed a personal injury lawsuit against the Washington, D.C. Metro in September 1994. The outcome of that case is also unclear.

(DAILY CALLER | DAILY MAIL)

NO CONFIRMATION RAMIREZ AT PARTY

This is amazing —two male students who were allegedly at the party, the wife of another male student, and three other Yale classmates all tell Ronan Farrow that there is no way Kavanaugh assaulted Ramirez.

[….]

And here’s the kicker… Ronan Farrow could not confirm Kavanaugh was at the party Ramirez describes.

(GATEWAY PUNDIT)

1991 Democrats vs. Today’s Lot

Published by Papa Giorgio

In 1991, the presumption was with the accused:

Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) declared that Donald Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, does not deserve the presumption of innocence when it comes to sexual assault allegations against him — because she disagrees with his judicial philosophy.

You got that? If you’re one of those dastardly “conservatives”, you don’t get any presumption of innocence! (See more at PJ-MEDIA). BUT WAIT! We aren’t done. Even if all four people named by an accuser say they were not at a party with Kavanaugh, that proves Dr. Ford’s claims.

…No really:

Mormon Glossary (Words Have Meaning)

Published by Papa Giorgio

In any discussion with a Mormon, the following redefinition of biblical/ Christian terms must be kept in mind. Although Mormons themselves may be ignorant of some of the definitions cited below, they represent true Mormon teaching as proven by an evaluation of standard Mormon theo­logical works. (Mainly from John Ankerberg’s and John Weldon’s book, Cult Watch: What You Need To Know About Spiritual Deception)

FIRST, here is a good site where an easy online access to a glossary is found at TRUTH IN LOVE (you may have to sign up [free] to access it), via an adult study at church. Enjoy the below.

  • Christianity: sectarianism; a false and damnable apostate religion.
  • God: “Elohim”; one of innumerable self-progressing bodily deities; for­merly a man, a finite creature. In early Mormon theology, Adam (of the Garden of Eden) was considered by many Mormons as the true earth deity.
  • Jesus Christ: a self-progressing deity (“Jehovah” of the Old Testament) and the first spirit child of “Elohim” and his wife.
  • Holy Ghost: a man with a spiritual body of matter.
  • Trinity: tritheistic; coordinated under general Mormon polytheism; thus the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate deities.
  • The Gospel: Mormon theology.
  • Born-again: water baptism into Mormonism.
  • Immortality: Mormon salvation by grace (limited to the universal resurrec­tion of all men).
  • Atonement: the provision God has supplied for an individual to earn their true salvation “by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel” (Articles of Faith, 3).
  • True salvationleternal life/redemption: Exaltation to Godhood in the highest part of the celestial kingdom based upon individual good works and personal merit; exaltation incorporates ruling a new world and sexual procreation in order to produce spirit children who will eventually be embodied and inhabit that world, each then having the opportunity to be exalted.
  • The Fall: a spiritual step upward; a blessing permitting the production of physical bodies for preexistent spirits to inhabit and thus have the possibility of attaining their own “exaltation” or Godhood.
  • Death: generally a step upward; death represents the possibility of a form of salvation (if not exaltation) for those who have never heard of Mormon­ism.
  • Heaven: three “kingdoms of glory” comprising various spiritual grada­tions.
  • Hell: generally purgatorial; possibly eternal for a very few (primarily apostate Mormons).
  • Virgin birth: the birth of Christ through a physical sex act between God the Father (the Mormon earth god “Elohim”) and Mary (hence, not a virgin birth).
  • Man: a preexistent spirit with the potential to earn Godhood by obedience to Mormon dictates.
  • Creation: the reorganization of eternal matter.
  • The Scriptures: the Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants; The Pearl of Great Price; and the Bible “as far as it is translated correctly” (Articles of Faith, 8).
  • The Bible: an erring and often unreliable inspired record, properly inter­preted only by Mormons and only in light of Mormon theology.

Compared

MORMONISM

CHRISTIANITY

BIBLE

  • Unreliable
  • Incomplete as it is
  • Adds new revelations to God’s Word
  • Unbiblical theological presupposisitions utilized in interpretation

BIBLE

  • Reliable
  • Complete as it is
  • Rejects new revelations
  • Accepted historical, grammatical prin­ciples utilized in interpretation

GOD

  • Tritheism/polytheistic – Many (polytheistic) Evolving (changing) Material (physical/sexual)
  • Physical (evolved man)/Finite
  • Morally questionable/imperfect (requiring salvation)
  • Organizer of eternal matter
  • Sexual polygamist

GOD

  • Trinity/monotheistic – One (monotheistic) Immutable (unchanging) Immaterial (spirit) Nonsexual
  • Spirit
  • Infinite
  • Eternally Holy
  • Creator of matter from nothing
  • Nonsexual/Celibate

JESUS

  • A god
  • Created (by sexual act)
  • Earned salvation (exaltation to Godhood)
  • Not virgin born
  • Polygamist (married)

JESUS

  • Uncreated God
  • Eternal
  • As eternal God neither salvation nor exaltation was required
  • Virgin born
  • Unmarried

SALVATION

  • By works
  • Denies biblical atonement
  • Possible after death

SALVATION

  • By grace
  • Affirms atonement
  • Impossible after death

DEATH

  • “Purgatorial”
  • three celestial king­doms
  • almost universalistic

DEATH

  • Eternal heaven or hell
  • no purga­tory
  • not universalistic

This is a common comparison I have used over the years:

Jesus of Historic Christianity: Jesus is eternal, there never was a time when He did not exist.  He is the creator of the time/space continuum which includes the entire known and unknown universe, all the planets and stars, energy, gravity, natural laws, and the like – all this places him as part of the Trinity.  Because of His all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-presence nature, he is rightly called God Almighty.

Jesus of the Watchtower (Jehovah’s Witnesses): Michael the Archangel is the first creative act of God, after that God creates everything else through Michael the Archangel.  When Michael comes to earth he is known as Jesus Christ, but when back in heaven once again takes his place as Michael the Archangel.

Jesus of LDS (Mormons): Jesus was the first begotten son by Heavenly Father and Mother (one of many mothers, but presumably this one is the most important.  Polygamy is practiced in the Mormon top-tear heaven), Lucifer was also born of a sexual act in heaven, so Jesus and Satan are literally brothers – as we are all brothers and sisters, albeit most likely half-brother or sister.  During the judgment period Elohim, Jesus, and Joseph Smith will judge every Mormon and according to his works.  (I say his, because in Mormon theology women are consecrated to a Mormon man, so her salvation depends on his good works.  If he does not make it, in heaven she may become one of the many wives of a Mormon male that did make the cut, so-to-speak.)  Again, Jesus had to become exalted Himself to also attain the best Heaven so he to can be a god of his own world.  This godhood exaltation goes back to infinity in Mormon theology.  So Heavenly Father was once a man on a planet much like our, and he too had to attain exultation, he had a father, that father had a father, and so on.

You can see some of this “fleshed out” in my routine I typically follw with Mormon Missionaries that come to my door — as outlined somewhat in my chapter on Mormonism:

Read my chapter discussing Mormon Theology titled:

Infinitely Finite – Mormon Materialism (PDF)

 

Alan Dershowitz on Christine Blasey Ford’s Inquisition

Published by Papa Giorgio

Alan Dershowitz discusses the earlier “prerequisites” to testify. Professor Dershowitz calls on the ACLU and other civil libertarians tp publicly reject the idea that the accused goes first — LIKENING it to the Inquisitions. A great commentary by a man who leans Left.

GATEWAY PUNDIT notes (as do I):

…Blasey Ford went public with her allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh last week. THERE ARE NO WITNESSES WHO HAVE CONFIRMED CHRISTINE BLASEY FORD’S ACCUSATIONS!

NOT ONE!

Mark Steyn Talks To Joe Concha About Media Malpractice

Published by Papa Giorgio

INFO UPDATE:

  • All of Ford’s named witnesses of the party, both male and female, have now denied any recollection of attending such a party.

(WEEKLY STANDARD; CNN, POWERLINE, NATIONAL REVIEW, WESTERN JOURNAL, WASHINTON TIMES). 

Mark Steyn filled in for Rush on Friday, and I caught this interview that discusses just how bad the media has gotten in regard to anything Republican. Joe’s article can be found at THE HILL.

An extended excerpt from Joe Concha’s article:

The examples of misleading tales are apparent for all to see, mostly on the anti-Kavanaugh side.

For example, MSNBC goes heavy with a story affirming the allegations from Ford’s classmate based on a Facebook post. The classmate later admitted to not even knowing Ford or hearing a story firsthand. The national news outlet covered this without, apparently, any reasonable vetting.

“I did not know her personally but I remember her. This incident did happen,” Ford schoolmate Christina King Miranda wrote. “Many of us heard a buzz about it indirectly with few specific details. However, Christine’s vivid recollection should be more than enough for us to truly, deeply know that the accusation is true.”

This was enough for MSNBC and other outlets to run with the story.

Third-party tale? She didn’t know Ford directly? Screw it. Let’s go with it anyway.

It’s gossip treated as gospel.

MSNBC would later in a subsequent tweet note that King Miranda had removed the post without deleting the initial tweet, which was retweeted nearly 900 times.

The follow-up tweet was retweeted less than 100 times, or nine times fewer, for those keeping score at home.

“That it happened or not, I have no idea,” King Miranda told NPR on Friday. “I can’t say that it did or didn’t.”

“I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter,” she later added.

Meanwhile, CNN anchor Jim Scuitto tweets out an incomplete claim about how and where Ford could potentially be interviewed, publicly or privately or in Washington, D.C., or California, where she lives. The tweet’s omission is egregious enough that committee chairman Sen. Charles Grassley’s (R-Iowa) office is forced to respond to.

“The offer to #ChristinaBlaseyFord is blunt: testify in public six days from now while under death threats or your allegation will be ignored in the confirmation of a SCOTUS nominee. That is quite a choice,” Scuitto wrote in a tweet that is retweeted more than 7,600 times and liked 17,000 times.

“This is not close to the offer to #ChristinaBlaseyFord,” replied Grassley’s office to Scuitto, a former Obama State Department official. “Chairman Grassley offered an open or closed hearing, reached out to discuss timing that would work for Dr. Ford, has even offered to send staff to California. This deserves a correction.”

More than 20 hours later, Sciutto sends a second tweet clarifying his original tweet. That is retweeted just 134 times and liked just 320 times.

[….]

Washington Post bureau chief Philip Rucker also was lambasted for a story involving a photo showing a ritual that Kavanaugh’s fraternity at Yale participated in back in 1985 involving a flag woven together by women’s underwear.

[….]

[….]

One small problem: The photo doesn’t have Kavanaugh in it….

(Read it all at THE HILL)

POWERLINE notes another glaringly wrong media story (see Kimberley’s TWITTER for more):

Trey Gowdy On Kavanaugh, FISA Documents And Jeff Sessions

Published by Papa Giorgio

Sep. 20, 2018 – 8:37 – Republican chairman of the House Oversight Committee says he hopes both Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser Christine Blasey Ford face ‘good, fair but firm’ questions from Senate Judicial Committee.

HAT-TIP to INDEPENDENT SENTINEL (See SARA CARTER’S newest)

Wow! Fear & Loathing At The DOJ

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is the same tactic Andrew Weissmann used on Flynn (WASHINGTON TIMES)…

UPDATED POST by POWERLINE intros the video for us:

In the memoir Cardiac Arrest: Five Heart-Stopping Years as a CEO on the Feds’ Hit List (written with Stephen Saltarelli), Howard Root tells the story of his experience as chief executive officer of Vascular Solutions caught in the crosshairs of the federal government when prosecutors sought to put his company out of business and to send him to the big house. Howard touched on one aspect of his story in the Wall Street Journal column “Sally Yates’s legacy of injustice at the Department of Justice.”

Howard is one of the most amazing people I have ever met. Among other things, he is a corporate lawyer turned entrepreneur, inventor, and corporate executive.

Howard faced down the government. The jury didn’t think much of the government’s case. It returned with a verdict of acquittal on all charges after a day of deliberations, and that includes the time spent electing a foreman.

Howard’s case is important in its own way. The crimes charged were bogus. The government procured testimony through serious prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecution represented fruit of the poisonous Yates Memo tree. Howard had the resources to fight the government’s case against him and his company, but it exacted an enormous toll. The case cries out for study and reform.

Howard has thus sought to engage prosecutors in discussion of the case in person before professional audiences of lawyers and businessmen for whom it holds immediate relevance. The prosecutors and their superiors in the department have sought to keep Howard from speaking to such audiences. When I wrote the Department of Justice to request its explanation for what it was doing, it declined to comment (a week after I asked the question).

Former Assistant United States Attorney Andrew McCarthy was more forthcoming. He called out the Department of Justice’s behavior as “a disgrace.”

The Department of Justice declines to answer to Howard or me but it has at long last responded to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley and Utah Senator Mike Lee. Senators Grassley and Lee sent a letter to Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein seeking an update on the Justice Department’s inquiry into professional misconduct committed by prosecutors and higher-ups who brought the charges against Howard and have since sought to prevent him from being heard. I posted the Grassley/Lee letter in “Fear & loathing at the DoJ, cont’d.”

In their letter Senators Grassley and Lee noted that “reports suggest a pattern of threatened and actual retribution against defendants and witnesses borne out of the Department’s disappointment with the outcome of a particular case. This not only casts doubt on the Department’s ability to accept the results of judicial proceedings in a professional manner befitting the nation’s preeminent law enforcement agency, but it significantly undermines our confidence in its commitment to hold government attorneys accountable for questionable actions that may have occurred in the course of this case or other cases.” …..

DECLASSIFIED: Jay Sekulow | Jim Jordan | Devin Nunes | Jason Chaffetz

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hannity led his radio interview of Rep. Jim Jordan with Jay Sekulow (I added the extended video of what was audio). A good interview, Jim is on it and we will within weeks have many more damning texts and understandings of the flimsy evidence of the “dossier” used to get the FISA warrants. See more here:

  • Nunes: Democrats, Journalists Will Be “Frightened” By Declassified Trump-Russia Documents (DAILY CALLER)

Here is Jason Chaffetz discussing his book regarding the “deep state”

The Bible Assumes Private Property and Business Ownership

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally posted February 2011)

Here is a great quote from Dr. Grudem:

A. PRIVATE PROPERTY

According to the teachings of the Bible, government should both document and protect the ownership of private property in a nation.

The Bible regularly assumes and reinforces a system in which property belongs to individuals, not to the government or to society as a whole.

We see this implied in the Ten Commandments, for example, because the eighth commandment, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15), assumes that human beings will own property that belongs to them individually and not to other people. I should not steal my neighbor’s ox or donkey because it belongs to my neighbor, not to me and not to anyone else.

The tenth commandment makes this more explicit when it prohibits not just stealing but also desiring to steal what belongs to my neighbor:

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male servant, or his female servant, or his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s” (Exod. 20:17).

The reason I should not “covet” my neighbor’s house or anything else is that these things belong to my neighbor, not to me and not to the community or the nation.

This assumption of private ownership of property, found in this fundamental moral code of the Bible, puts the Bible in direct opposition to the communist system advocated by Karl Marx. Marx said:

The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: abolition of private property.

One reason why communism is so incredibly dehumanizing is that when private property is abolished, government controls all economic activity. And when government controls all economic activity, it controls what you can buy, where you will live, and what job you will have (and therefore what job you are allowed to train for, and where you go to school), and how much you will earn. It essentially controls all of life, and human liberty is destroyed. Communism enslaves people and destroys human freedom of choice. The entire nation becomes one huge prison. For this reason, it seems to me that communism is the most dehumanizing economic system ever invented by man.

Other passages of Scripture also support the idea that property should belong to individuals, not to “society” or to the government (except for certain property required for proper government purposes, such as government offices, military bases, and streets and highways). The Bible contains many laws concerning punishments for stealing and appropriate restitution for damage of another person’s farm animals or agricultural fields (for example, see Exod. 21:28-36; 22:1-15; Deut. 22:1-4; 23:24-25). Another commandment guaranteed that property boundaries would be protected: “You shall not move your neighbor’s landmark, which the men of old have set, in the inheritance that you will hold in the land that the LORD your God is giving you to possess” (Deut. 19:14). To move the landmark was to move the boundaries of the land and thus to steal land that belonged to one’s neighbor (compare Prov. 22:28; 23:10).

Another guarantee of the ownership of private property was the fact that, even if property was sold to someone else, in the Year of Jubilee it had to return to the family that originally owned it:

It shall be a Jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property and each of you shall return to his clan (Lev. 25:10).

This is why the land could not be sold forever: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me” (Lev. 25:23).

This last verse emphasizes the fact that private property is never viewed in the Bible as an absolute right, because all that people have is ultimately given to them by God, and people are viewed as God’s “stewards” to manage what he has entrusted to their care.

The earth is the LORD’S and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein (Ps. 24:1; compare Ps. 50:10-12; Hag. 2:8).

Yet the fact remains that, under the overall sovereign lordship of God himself, property is regularly said to belong to individuals, not to the government and not to “society” or the nation as a whole.

When Samuel warned the people about the evils that would be imposed upon them by a king, he emphasized the fact that the monarch, with so much government power, would “take” and “take” and “take” from the people and confiscate things for his own use:

So Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking for a king from him. He said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and to be his horsemen and to run before his chariots. And he will appoint for himself commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and some to plow his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his implements of war and the equipment of his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive orchards and give them to his servants. He will take the tenth of your grain and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and to his servants. He will take your male servants and female servants and the best of your young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves. And in that day you will cry out because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD will not answer you in that day” (1 Sam. 8:10-18).

This prediction was tragically fulfilled in the story of the theft of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite by Ahab the wicked king and Jezebel, his even more wicked queen (see 1 Kings 21:1-29). The regular tendency of human governments is to seek to take control of more and more of the property of a nation that God intends to be owned and controlled by private individuals.

SOCIALISM likewise is the taking over of private property, industry, and the capital of a man’s labor. Here is a good working definition of socialism followed by Professor Richards describing it as well:

In order to have a “favorable” view of socialism one must have either forgotten what the entire world learned about socialism from the late nineteenth century on, or have never learned anything about it in the first place. The latter is obviously true of much of the younger generation.

Socialism started out being defined as “government ownership of the means of production,” which is why the government of the Soviet Union confiscated all businesses, factories, and farms, murdering millions of dissenters and resisters in the process. It is also why socialist political parties in Europe, once in power, nationalized as many of the major industries (steel, automobiles, coal mines, electricity, telephone ser­vices) as they could. The Labour Party in post-World War II Great Britain would be an example of this. All of this was done, ostensibly, in the name of pursuing material “equality.”

In the foreword to the 1976 edition of his famous book, The Road to Serfdom, Nobel laureate economist Friedrich Hayek wrote that the definition of “socialism” evolved in the twentieth century to mean income redis­tribution in pursuit of “equality,” not through govern­ment ownership of the means of production but through the institutions of the welfare state and the “progres­sive” income tax. The means may have changed, but the ostensible end—equality—remained the same.

Hayek’s mentor, fellow Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, explained in his classic treatise Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, that the wel­fare state, the “progressive” income tax, and especially pervasive government regulation of business were all tools of “destructionism” in the eyes of the socialists of his day. That is, he observed that the proponents of socialism always employed a two-pronged approach: (1) the government takeover of as many industries and as much land as possible, and (2) attempts to destroy existing capitalist societies with onerous taxes, regula­tions, the welfare state, inflation, or whatever they thought could get the job done.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Problem with Socialism (New Jersey, NJ: Regnery, 2016), 4-5.

On Puerto Rico, Trump Is Right (UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is all POWERLINE, but soo important for the “Mantra Busting” that …. here ya go:

…This is what is going on: Some “scientists”–read anti-Trump Democratic Party activists–constructed a theoretical baseline of how many deaths would be expected to occur in Puerto Rico during the months after Hurricane Maria. They then compared this baseline to the actual number of deaths, and voila! The actual number was higher than their hypothetical guess by 3,000. So all of those deaths–whether caused by cancer, car accidents, or whatever–are attributed to the hurricane. These activists have not made any attempt to count the actual number of hurricane-related deaths.

No one would use such a foolish methodology except for political reasons. This is more fake news propagated by anti-Trump activists. The fake news media, like CNN, have attacked President Trump for disputing the “scientists” who came up with the 3,000 number. Sadly, some Republicans have joined them, probably because they are ignorant about what is actually going on here.

For what it is worth, Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico in September 2017, and Puerto Rico’s death rate declined in 2017, after years of increases:

(click to enlarge)

So, following the logic of the Left and the #NeverTrumpers, MORE hurricanes should hit Puerto Rico. Just sayin’ — I love the holes dug by these early reactors to the MSM. Some article to preserve:

…Excess mortality studies have been used to measure everything from the life expectancy of smokers to “temperature-related stress” in the Netherlands. The problem is that such studies are inherently reliant on conjecture. There can be other problems as well, namely politics, as I learned a decade ago while poking holes in an excess mortality study in Iraq published by the Lancet.

An article in the British medical journal estimated some 650,000 “excess” Iraqi deaths in the 40 months following the U.S. invasion. This figure was seven times higher than the toll based on body counts. It was based on field surveys supposedly done by a former health official in Saddam Hussein’s government and was authored by outspoken critics of the Iraq war — and of George W. Bush. It was also timed to come out just before the 2006 midterm elections.

To some neutral observers, the controversy underscored the importance of actually documenting wartime casualties. I don’t know how much Donald Trump knows about this topic. But he apparently is aware that “excess mortality” is not how U.S. authorities have previously tallied storm deaths. The National Hurricane Center, for example, estimated that 1,833 people died in Hurricane Katrina, most from drowning.

In Puerto Rico, there were myriad problems getting accurate data, the biggest being that electricity was knocked out for so long. This inhibited the reporting ability of island health officials. It also led to deprivations that killed health-impaired residents months after the hurricane season ended. In that environment, excess mortality studies made sense. Inevitably, they would be imprecise, and perhaps just wrong. The first such study, by researchers at Penn State University, estimated the number of deaths at 1,085 – when the government in San Juan was still listing the official toll as 64. Days later, the New York Times, using island death certificates, produced an estimate of 1,052.

Harvard went next. Its study, trumpeted uncritically around the world, had problems. For one thing, its range of 793 to 8,498 excess deaths was unhelpful. So the media settled on the median figure, 4,645, which was little more than a guess. The bigger problem is that the methodology was a mish-mash. Harvard’s researchers compared actual deaths in 2016 to estimates based on interviews – polling surveys – in 2017. “The big thing is the methodology is so completely different, you don’t now what you’re dealing with,” said University of Texas biostatistics professor Donald Berry. “What you end up with is garbage.”

That’s the background when the governor of Puerto Rico tapped George Washington University’s school of public health to do another excess mortality survey. Like all such studies, it’s based on assumptions and guesswork – in this case assumptions complicated by the outward migration of tens of thousands of Puerto Ricans to the mainland after the hurricane. That said, I know of no evidence that would undermine its estimate of 2,975 excess deaths…

(REAL CLEAR POLITICS)

Self Reporting is the worst!

The difference between survey results and demonstrable realities was also pointed out by the author of Hillbilly Elegy: “In a recent Gallup poll, Southerners and Midwesterners reported the highest rates of church attendance in the country. Yet actual church attendance is much lower in the South.”

Thomas Sowell, Discrimination and Disparities (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2018), 23-25 (added references).

As Twitchy reported, the media went wild last week when a report from Harvard University estimated that nearly 5,000 people in Puerto Rico had died from Hurricane Maria.

The Washington Post’s Fact Checker blog, though, took a look at how Harvard, whose researchers admitted they conducted “a quick study on a limited budget,” came up with that number and found that the methodology was ridiculously flawed:

In effect, the researchers took one number — 15 deaths identified from a survey of 3,299 households — and extrapolated that to come up with 4,645 deaths across the island. That number came with a very large caveat, clearly identified in the report, but few news media accounts bothered to explain the nuances….

(TWITCHY)

Flashback: Puerto Rican Gov. admitted higher ‘death toll is only an approximation, not a concrete list of names’

The death toll is ‘a very broad estimate for the number of people who died above what you’d expect to see in a normal year’ – ‘But that number is not a count of the death toll in Puerto Rico caused by Hurricane Maria. Instead, it’s just the midpoint of a wide-ranging estimate of the possible number of deaths’

(CLIMATE DEPOT)

…It turns out there is no list of names.   There is no accounting of what causes of death were attributable to the aftermath of the devastating storm.  In fact, having now scanned the George Washington University report at the heart of this all, I have an itching feeling they missed a big statistical point.

The bottom line is that the researchers developed a model and made a projected estimate of the number of deaths to be expected on the island during the six months following the storm, based on previous year’s death numbers.   They then factored in the fact that a full 8 percent of the population, 280,000 people roughly, left the island following the storm.

With that population change factored in, the “expected” number of deaths was about 3,000 fewer than the 16,000 deaths which were recorded September through February.  Those 3,000 “excess” deaths above the projection are the one’s being attributed to the effects of the storm.  I’m rounding because their report admits the projection is not exact.  The chart I included above notes the higher death rate per 10,000 people.

There are not 3,000 death certificates noting hurricane-related causes (loss of electricity, stress, poor transportation response) and the authors chide the local medical community for not being sufficiently exact in filling out their death certificates.  So they are left with models and projections and estimates, which have translated into MSM-accepted Truth.

Here’s my question, the itch not addressed in the report, that I saw:   Who left?  Who departed following the storm?  Would the elderly, infirm and impoverished have been the ones to decamp to the mainland?  Or would they have been the one’s left behind?  Doesn’t the shift in the baseline also at least in part explain this?  The death rate really only jumped dramatically when you reduce the baseline population…

(BACON’S REBELLION)

Weather Ruckus (Mundane Monday)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Remember this FLASHBACK to exaggerating weather?

Well, there is a new contender… and then the responses on Twitter (give em’ a sec to render). FIRST, the weather reporter going for the Golden Globes:

NOW THE RESPONSES – LOL

ANDERSON COOPER’S DRAMA


More Lisa Page Testimony Enlightens Capital Hill

Published by Papa Giorgio

  • “Lisa Page left me with the impression, based on her own words, that the lead investigator of the Russian collusion case, Peter Strzok, had found no evidence of collusion after nearly a year.”

– U.S. Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas

In other words… when Mueller was appointed, no crime was found to be committed, the opposite of how a Special Council should be appointed. U.S. Attorney John Huber will convene a Grand Jury, have a crime put into the books that was committed, from the evidence of crimes committed, whether duping a FISA Judge (James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, Andrew McCabe, Sally Yates) or leaking classified information to the press (James Comey, Lisa Page, Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe). THE SPECIAL COUNCIL will act once a crime has been found. No crime was found to start Mueller’s case.

Now, if the Manafort case stands (even though the criminal evidence was ultimately found in an illegal manner), then a whole can of whoop ass is about to be unleashed…

…CNN reported Friday that attorney Greg Craig, who was White House counsel from 2009 to 2010, is under scrutiny over whether he lobbied for Ukrainian leaders without registering as a foreign agent.

The investigation also touches on the firm of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, where Craig was a partner at the time.

Craig’s actions were taken after he left the White House, according to the report.

Connections between Manafort, the firm and Craig were revealed in filings in the Manafort case….

(WESTERN JOURNAL)

Two lobbying firms, including one owned by Democratic superlobbyist Tony Podesta, knowingly worked with Paul Manafort at the direction of the Ukrainian government, according to an indictment released Friday by the special counsel’s office.

The indictment, which was released ahead of an expected plea deal for Manafort, the former chairman of President Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, says that as a part of his “lobbying scheme,” Manafort solicited two lobbying firms in February 2012 to lobby on behalf of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

“Various employees of Companies A and B understood that they were receiving direction from MANAFORT and President Yanukovych, not the Centre, which was not even operational when Companies A and B began lobbying for Ukraine,” reads the indictment. The Centre is a reference to the European Centre for a Modern Ukraine, a Brussels-based non-profit that the government says was used to support Yanukovych.

Company A has been identified as Mercury Public Affairs, a lobbying shop operated by former Minnesota Republican Rep. Vin Weber. Company B has been identified as Podesta Group, the firm that Tony Podesta founded with his brother, John, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s campaign….

(DC CALLER)