RUTHFULLY YOURS

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/24/california-passes-law-allowing-12-year-olds-get-tax-paid-transgender-treatments/

You have to be 16 obtain a driver’s license in California, 18 to buy a rifle, engage in consensual sex, or get married without parental consent, and 21 to buy a handgun, alcohol, or marijuana. But in the nation’s most progressive state, you only need to be 12 years old to privately seek and consent to treatment for gender transitioning.

The recently enacted California law was written to “provide that the rights of minors and nonminors in foster care, as described above, include the right to be involved in the development of case plan elements related to placement and gender affirming health care, with consideration of their gender identity.”

The new law also includes this provision: “All children in foster care, as well as former foster youth up to 26 years of age, are entitled to Medi-Cal coverage without cost share or income or resource limits. The Medi-Cal program provides transition-related health care services when those services are determined to be medically necessary.”

That means that all tax-paying Californians will help to pay for all the various services included in these transition cases, regardless of your opinion of the matter.

The law’s authors seem to mean well. The bill also states:

It is the policy of the state that all minors and nonminors in foster care shall have the following rights:

(1) To live in a safe, healthy, and comfortable home where he or she is treated with respect.

(2) To be free from physical, sexual, emotional, or other abuse, or corporal punishment.

Those provisions within this law—and many of the others that follow them—are laudable at first glance. Who would oppose kids living in safe homes and being free of abuse? But meaning well often differs from doing well. The difference can be found in the sub-provisions that enunciate the methods for the well-meaning provisions. One provision says, for example:

The right of minors and nonminors in foster care to health care and mental health care described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 16001.9 includes covered gender affirming health care and gender affirming mental health care. This right is subject to existing laws governing consent to health care for minors and nonminors and does not limit, add, or otherwise affect applicable laws governing consent to health care.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/09/24/two_big_takeaways_from_the_rosenstein_bombshell_138146.html

What should we make of the New York Times’ shocking story that Rod Rosenstein, the second highest official in the Department of Justice, wanted to “wear a wire,” secretly record President Trump, and gather evidence to oust the president via the 25th Amendment? Rosenstein has effectively admitted that he did say something like that, but he has termed it scathing sarcasm, mocking colleagues who pushed him to investigate Trump more aggressively. All this happened when the administration was young and Rosenstein had only been in office a couple of weeks.

The Times’ story has huge implications, both for its substance and for its provenance (who leaked it and why). The two most important takeaways are these:

First, the insiders who tried to nail Trump before the election and afterwards are now turning on each other as they try to wriggle out of their own criminal exposure.
Second, the leak sets a dangerous trap for Trump. He is bound to be infuriated and might be tempted to fire Rosenstein before the Senate votes on Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court justice and before the American people vote in November. Walking into that trap would be political malpractice.

Let’s look closer at each implication. At this stage, we don’t know who leaked the damaging comments. But we do know they must have come from a top law-enforcement official present at a very contentious meeting with Rosenstein. Parts may have come from a one-on-one meeting between Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe, who was then the FBI’s second-in-command and whose boss, James Comey, had just been fired.

These are the same insiders from Loretta Lynch’s DOJ and Comey’s FBI who cleared the gonna-be-president Hillary Clinton of her legal liabilities and then tried to pin those liabilities on her opponent. Their weapon against Trump was America’s powerful counter-intelligence surveillance capabilities. Those are supposed to be used only against suspected spies and require warrants from a secret court created by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (hence, FISA).

The safeguards broke down because they were deliberately—and cleverly—evaded. To get the court’s authorization, top DOJ and FBI officials relied on opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee without clearly informing the court about their biased source. Instead, they hid the vital information in an indirectly worded footnote. They failed to tell the court that key supporting evidence (a news article) actually came from the same source. It wasn’t additional evidence at all. Nor did they disclose that the FBI had officially severed its ties to this source for leaking but that the DOJ’s Bruce Ohr was still meeting with him and providing the bureau with his information. They apparently failed to tell the FISA court that the subject of the warrant, Carter Page, had willingly cooperated with U.S. authorities when they asked to interview him.

Kavanaugh’s accuser and the curious George Soros links By Cheryl K. Chumley
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/18/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-and-links-ge/

Look at what’s going on with Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation proceedings for the Supreme Court, and the fingerprints of George Soros are all over it.First there was a report from June in the Daily Caller that found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop … Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties to the liberal financier” Soros.

What are those ties?The group, Demand Justice, established in 2018, gets its money from the Sixteen Thirty Fund — and the Sixteen Thirty Fund received roughly $2.2 million from the Open Society Policy Center, one of Soros’ outlets, between the years of 2012 and 2016.
Who is Christine Blasey Ford, Part II: The Soros connection
https://www.worldtribune.com/who-is-christine-blasey-ford-part-

The lawyer representing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser is a leader in an organization that has been directly funded by George Soros’s Open Society Foundation, reports say.Debra Katz, who is representing Christine Blasey Ford, is vice chair of the Project on Government Oversight. Last month, Katz’s organization, along with several other left-leaning groups, co-signed a letter to Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Charles Grassley demanding Kavanaugh records. Katz has also donated thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates, including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.Fox News noted that Katz “also has a history of downplaying or dismissing accusations made by women against Democratic politicians – including former President Bill Clinton and former Minnesota Sen. Al Franken.”In June, the Daily Caller found “a new political advocacy group that vowed to put $5 million behind an effort to stop … Kavanaugh’s confirmation has significant ties” to Soros.
FORD’S ATTORNEY DEBRA KATZ HAS CLOSE TIES TO GEORGE SOROS https://davidharrisjr.com/politics/fords-attorney-debra-katz-has-close-ties-to-george-soros/

Debra Katz, who is the lawyer for Christine Ford, is a long-time political activist, with strong ties to George Soros, also known as “The Evil One”. Even though the Democrats insist that Ford is not political, she has marched in several anti-Trump demonstrations, works for a company that makes the abortion pill, has a lawyer with ties to Soros and has an adviser who has worked for Biden, Clinton and Obama. She is also the one that brought Anita Hill to the spotlight.

http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2018/09/23/constitution/character-assassination-tactic-war/
Casualties of war

War normally brings casualties and lots of them, and this one is no different. One of the casualties is Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court. Today’s Report will use the battle surrounding Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination as an opportunity to discuss the war itself. Please keep in mind that the real issue is not how Judge Kavanaugh treated women when he was in high school 36 years ago. The real issue is Judge Kavanaugh’s conservative view of the Constitution when he is on the bench today.

A war of survival is a war of desperation, and the closer one side comes to losing the more desperate that side will be. Both sides might respect a set of rules for “civilized warfare”, such as the Geneva Convention, until one starts to prevail and then its gloves off for the other. Losing means the loss of everything that side holds dear for itself and for future generations, so the rules no longer apply.

The Democrats have tried very hard to destroy freedom in America. I say that with some doubt but it is true from at least one standpoint; we are no longer free to say or even think whatever we want without suffering the most dire consequences. That seems to be one of the Democrat goals then, to make only expression and thought that they agree with legally and socially possible.
Weakening of control

Despite holding all the high ground in the battlefront, such as the media high ground, the education high ground, the Silicon Valley high ground, and the high ground of Hollywood, they can see that they do not yet control a majority of America and their control of America’s future is weakening. This slipping of their control came about because of the election of Donald Trump and his unique opportunity to appoint two and possibly more Supreme Court Justices, thus swinging the ideological scale back toward the side that elected Trump to do just that.

Since there is no honest reason to reject Judge Kavanaugh, dishonest ones must be devised. Character assassination is one dishonest tactic that should be expected, after all, in war it’s quite a common tactic to use. When one has no ammunition to win a debate honestly, then one will usually resort to a personal attack against the opponent. Should we be surprised then when Judge Kavanaugh has his character assassinated, and his reputation damaged or destroyed by people who have no character but do have a lot to lose.
The character assassination campaign

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/23

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

—Barack Obama, October 30, 2008

By traditional metrics, Barack Obama’s presidency was mostly a failure. The economy, in a new first, never hit annualized growth of 3 percent. His signature domestic policy—Obamacare—caused chaos. Millions lost their coverage and doctors, and paid far more in deductibles and premiums. The stagnant recovery after the 2008 recession was the worst in 50 years.

Myriads of new regulations, higher taxes, and socialist jawboning vegetated the economy. Scandals at the IRS, Department of Veterans Affairs, FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Justice Department, General Services Administration, and National Security Council abounded. Obama weaponized the federal government by punishing opponents through the IRS, monitoring suspect reporters, scapegoating and jailing a video maker, and using the deep state to exonerate Hillary Clinton from serial wrongdoing and to sabotage the 2016 Trump presidential campaign.

Abroad, a diplomatic “reset” empowered Vladimir Putin’s Russia from the Crimea to the Middle East. The Iran deal legitimized Iran’s ascendant Middle East hegemony. Chinese trade cheating was of no concern. ISIS was but a “JV” terrorist clique. North Korea freely pointed nuclear missiles at the West Coast. Israel and the Gulf monarchies and Egypt were no longer close allies. Outreach and deference instead were shown to Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. “Lead from behind” bombing of Libya led to a disaster. Nonexistent “red lines” in Syria, flexible nonproliferation “deadlines” issued to Iran, and rhetorical “step-over” lines given Vladimir Putin all eroded U.S. credibility. And on and on.

Yet in terms of culture, Obama clearly won.

“White Privilege” Goes Mainstream
He institutionalized radical cultural shifts by creating entirely new rubrics of privileging race and gender. The old idea of due process and the rule of law were subordinated to identity politics, whether in matters of sanctuary cities and non-enforcement of immigration law or campus charges of sexual assault.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271411/lefts-show-trial-kavanaugh-matthew-vadum

Two more women accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh of dubious improprieties materialized out of thin air late Sunday, throwing Senate Republicans’ hope of finally confirming the Supreme Court nominee this week even more into doubt.

The new allegations came yesterday amid reports that Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) tentatively scheduled a hearing for this Thursday to take testimony from Christine Blasey Ford, 51, who claims Kavanaugh, 53, sexually assaulted her decades ago when he was a high school student. Suspiciously, Ford can’t –or won’t— say when or where the alleged incident happened and can provide few details.

As Paul Sperry writes at the New York Post, working with Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and backed financially by George Soros’s money, Ford’s lawyers spent the last few days gaming the system. After stalling Grassley and getting repeated extensions, the attorneys got the chairman to cave on various demands, such as that Kavanaugh not be in the room when Ford gives evidence.

Republicans never seem to learn from their mistakes.

As usual, Republicans’ seeming reasonableness is rewarded with more abuse by the Left. Give left-wingers an inch and they’ll take a mile.

Democrats, it turns out, used the extra time created through their delaying tactics to produce two new women with questionable claims against Kavanaugh. More accusers could be on their way.

President Trump continues to support Kavanaugh, who maintains his innocence.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/271385/feminist-cult-victimhood-dawn-perlmutter

Christine Blasey Ford is the latest poster child in the feminist cult of victimhood. She achieved that status by claiming she was physically attacked at a high school party by Supreme Court Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh three decades ago. She immediately became the perfect useful idiot whose false memories and false allegations are being fully exploited to postpone the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh. She is the latest symbol of oppression among anti-Trump women activists. Instead of characteristics like honor, integrity and courage, feminist heroines must first and foremost be victims, real or imagined.

The current feminist movement has become a cult of angry miserable women recruited by the guru of man hating misery Hillary Clinton. There are certain predisposing factors that facilitate recruitment into cults. These factors typically include: a desire to belong, impaired capacity for critical thinking, disillusionment, dissatisfaction, idealism, lack of self-confidence and a desire for meaning in one’s life. Thousands of vulnerable unhappy women were ripe for recruitment into the cult of women activists. Now thoroughly indoctrinated in anti-Trump hatred they have been brainwashed, organized and unleashed on the public. Their goal is to destroy the Trump administration, their strategy is resistance and their tactics are accusation, disinformation, and extortion. Christine Blasey Ford’s attempt to politically assassinate Kavanaugh can be likened to the Manson cult followers who were sent out to start ‘Helter Skelter’, an apocalyptic race war initiated by murdering influential white people.

Cults often like to create a recognizable visual identity. This is often accomplished with uniform clothing that functions as a recognizable symbol of the group. The latest popular outfit of women’s rights activists are full length scarlet robes and puritanical white bonnets. Always seeking attention these women have hung up their Women’s March ‘pussy hats’ to dress up as characters from ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. Groups of feminist protesters have been dressing in creepy cult-like ankle-length red dresses and cloaks, red gloves and white bonnets during protests in courthouses, government building and other public places. The uniforms signify their new-found identity and purpose in life in their Anti-Trump sisterhood.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/four-reasons-the-new-accusations-against-kavanaugh-are-weaker-than-fords/

As Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh lost all credibility, it was reasonable to assume there was a reason for all the stalling. Many believed that somewhere, somehow, leftists would find someone else to come forward with accusations of sexual misconduct against Judge Kavanaugh.

Earlier this evening The New Yorker published a story written by Ronan Farrow and Jane Meyer proving that theory correct. This story centers on Deborah Ramirez, who has come forward (or was pushed to come forward) with a claim that while she and Kavanaugh were both students at Yale, they were both at a drunken dorm party where Kavanaugh allegedly exposed himself to her.

Judge Kavanaugh has already released a statement denying the allegation. “This alleged event from 35 years ago did not happen. The people who knew me then know that this did not happen, and have said so. This is a smear, plain and simple. I look forward to testifying on Thursday about the truth, and defending my good name — and the reputation for character and integrity I have spent a lifetime — against these last-minute allegations.”

Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director at the Judicial Crisis Network, released the following statement to PJ Media regarding the allegations:

Senate Republicans must not allow unsubstantiated and discredited allegations from over three decades ago to destroy the life and reputation of a good man. Countless people from every phase of Brett Kavanaugh’s life have testified that he is a good man of the highest character and integrity. Chuck Schumer vowed to oppose Kavanaugh with everything he’s got, and apparently that took the form of character assassination. This has all of the ingredients of a smear campaign on steroids. Senate Republicans should stand up to these unsubstantiated and discredited allegations and move forward with a vote to confirm Kavanaugh.

While reading The New Yorker story, the weakness of the allegation becomes apparent immediately. In fact, I would argue that these new allegations are even weaker than Ford’s accusations. Here are four reasons why Ramirez’s accusations are even weaker than Christine Blasey Ford’s.
The Top Five Shameful Ways Democrats Have Tried to Thwart Kavanaugh’s Confirmation
1. Ramirez admits gaps in her memory and wasn’t certain it was Kavanaugh

According to the article, “Ramirez acknowledged that there are significant gaps in her memories of the evening, and that, if she ever presents her story to the F.B.I. or members of the Senate, she will inevitably be pressed on her motivation for coming forward after so many years, and questioned about her memory, given her drinking at the party.”

In addition to her acknowledged memory gaps, she reportedly “was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.” What changed? Christine Blasey Ford. “Ramirez said that she hoped her story would support that of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor who has raised an allegation of sexual misconduct against Kavanaugh that bears several similarities to Ramirez’s claim.” So, Ramirez went from uncertain, to confident in order to support Ford’s claim.

Did I mention Ramirez is a Democrat?
2. The New Yorker tried to find eyewitnesses… and failed

Despite contacting “several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh” about the incident, they were unable to find any eyewitnesses to the alleged incident that supposedly occurred at a party with lots of Yale students present.

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.

None of the people who believe Ramirez’s story claim to have witnessed the incident, only to have heard about it.

3. Others alleged to have been involved deny it happened

Remember how Christine Blasey Ford named three individuals who either witnessed her alleged assault, or were present at the party, and that none of them corroborated her story? Well, Ramirez also mentioned witnesses involved in the incident who deny it happened.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/23/fourth-supposed-witness-kavanaugh-accusers-alleged-assault-says-didnt-happen/

Christine Blasey Ford’s charge that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her 36 years ago crumpled late Saturday when the final witness Ford identified failed to back her story.

In a Saturday evening email, an attorney representing Ford’s former classmate, Leland Ingham Keyser, stated that his client “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without Dr. Ford.”

Keyser is now the fourth person to refute Ford’s story. Kavanaugh immediately and unequivocally denied Ford’s charge that, while intoxicated, he pushed her into a bedroom, pinned her to a bed, and attempted to rip off her clothing. Kavanaugh also implored the Judiciary Committee to hold a hearing the following day so he could clear himself.

In addition to Kavanaugh, Ford claimed that three other teens were at the party that occurred circa 1982, although she is not sure of the year or location. Ford also said Mark Judge, a friend and Georgetown Preparatory classmate of Kavanaugh, was in the room with her and Kavanaugh at the time of the assault.

Judge refuted Ford’s claim in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, writing “I have no memory of this alleged incident.” “Kavanaugh and I were friends in high school but I do not recall the party described” by Ford, Judge continued. Judge ended his statement by stressing that, while he did not remember the supposed party, he “never saw Brett act in the manner Dr. Ford describes.”

Ford also identified another Georgetown Prep student by his initials “PJ,” and later Patrick J. Smyth, a fellow 1983 grad of the North Bethesda, Maryland all-boys school, came forward to respond to Ford’s charge. In a statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Smyth said he wrote “to make it clear to all involved that I have no knowledge of the party in question; nor do I have any knowledge of the allegations of improper conduct she has leveled against Brett Kavanaugh.”

Smyth then added: “Personally speaking, I have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school and I know him to be a person of great integrity, a great friend, and I have never witnessed any improper conduct by Brett Kavanaugh towards women.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/rod-rosenstein-resistance-president-trump/

Weasel words, weasel moves from an emotionally overwrought deputy AG eager to ingratiate himself with Democrats

Rod Rosenstein is even a weasel when repudiating his weasel moves. Here (with my italics) is the deputy attorney general’s non-denial denial of a New York Times report Friday that he brainstormed about ousting President Trump in May 2017:

The New York Times’s story is inaccurate and factually incorrect. . . . I will not further comment on a story based on anonymous sources who are obviously biased against the department and are advancing their own personal agenda. But let me be clear about this: Based on my personal dealings with the president, there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment.

Let’s parse this.

The Times story “is inaccurate and factually incorrect.” Rosenstein won’t say exactly what is wrong in the report. He is careful not to say that the gist of the report is wrong — he just hopes that, if he sounds indignant enough, you will hear it that way. The Times may have gotten a few details wrong, but you can bet the story is essentially true.
You can’t trust “anonymous sources”: this from the guy who, in approving a FISA warrant application to spy on an American political campaign, relied on anonymous sources — some of them Russian operatives — who were channeling information through a foreign spy from whom the Justice Department continued to take information even after telling a federal court that the spy had been cut out of the investigation for leaking to the media.
And my favorite: Rosenstein knows “there is no basis to invoke the 25th Amendment” against President Trump. Of course, that does not respond to what the Times report actually says, which is that back in May 2017, when he was an emotional wreck because Democrats were being mean to him, Rosenstein urged that there might at that time be a basis to remove the president under the 25th Amendment (specifically, Section 4) if he could get enough top officials to agree that Trump was unfit to discharge his duties.