Ex's letter may cause name change to Christine Blasey Fraud

The veracity of Christine Blasey Ford has come into question after an ex-boyfriend reportedly wrote a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that contradicted her testimony last Thursday about her knowledge and experience with polygraphs. It caused Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to raise some doubts about her truthfulness.

The man [whose name was redacted] was in a relationship with Blasey Ford from 1992 to 1998. The letter in question was obtained by Fox News and it stated that he once saw Ford help assuage the anxiety of a friend preparing to take a polygraph by "explaining in detail what to expect" and how they work.

At the Brett Kavanaugh hearing last Thursday, Arizona sex-crimes prosecutor Rachel Mitchell asked Ford if she had ever spoken to anyone other than her lawyers about "how to take a polygraph." Ford's reply: "Never."

The anonymous man also said that throughout the endurance of their relationship with Ford, she never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh or her experience as a sexual assault victim.

Grassley asked Ford's lawyers in a letter for the results of her polygraph saying the ex-boyfriend's claim "raises specific concerns about the reliability of [Ford's] polygraph examination-results."

Democrats are showing themselves to be upset that poor little Dr. Ford may not be as honest as she tries to appear. In spite of all the sexual misconduct events that have been alleged to have taken place with members of their party [Cory Booker being one of the members alleged to have been abusive to a former female partner], they have displayed indignation with the very idea of not believing Ford's story.

After being totally open to hearing it, and being respectful to Ford, the left portrays the situation as "guilty until proved innocent."


Click the "Follow Posts" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet

The poverty of honesty of the SPLC

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) where honesty is their poverty and truth their nemesis, has been caught covering up evidence of anti-white hate being taught in American schools, as documented by Paul Sperry for The New York Post. 

SPLC released a report entitled "The Trump Effect: The Impact of the 2016 Presidential Election on Our Nation's Schools." 

It gathered and assessed data from about 10,000 educators of K-12 across the country concluding that "the results of the election are having a profoundly negative impact on schools and students" and that "ninety percent of educators report that school climate has been negatively affected, and most of them believe it will have a long-lasting impact."

The problem with the SPLC report was the fact that they were only interested in bigotry in one direction. Of the 10,000 teachers surveyed, "Four in 10 have heard derogatory language directed at students of color, Muslims, immigrants and people based on gender or sexual orientation."

SPLC asked whether or not respondents "have heard derogatory language or slurs about white students" but they did not include those answers in their report. Sperry requested the information from SPLC and their spokes-progressive Kirsten Bokenkamp told him that "about 20 percent answered affirmatively to that question."

So it was okay with SPLC to leave out 2,000 incidents of anti-white bias--that is disgusting.

SPLC says that it isn't a partisan organization and they are not a lobby group for the Democratic Party and don't exclusively champion Muslims and other minorities.

Anti-white hate doesn't work well for SPLC. "They left that result out because it would not fit their ideological narrative," Hans Bader, a former Education Department civil rights attorney told The New York Post. "It was deemed an inconvenient truth," he said.

SPLC is about as honest as a Hillary Clinton southern accent.


Tweet

Hypocrisy Rodham Clinton

This isn't brand new--we've always known that Hillary Clinton pays women about $0.71 to the dollar the men at the Clinton Foundation make, but now hacked emails released by WikiLeaks describes a payroll schedule where men at the foundation averaged about $68,000 per year in salary and women averaged about $64,000.

The disclosing email was sent by an employee to Bruce Lindsey, the foundation's chairman, and to Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta.

The averages were based on 25 men and 37 women employed by the foundation.

Hillary has always been quite vocal for a woman's right to choose for herself if she wants to kill her unborn child. She has also advocated equal pay for all but the foundation checkbook evidently didn't get the memo.

Her hypocrisy is palpable.

She lies when she claims to be for women's rights--if she really was, she would be appalled at anyone who accepted money from nations that oppress, beat and kill women. But she accepts money from the Saudis and a bunch of other Islamic nations that do just that.

She lies when she denies all wrong doing with national security. She lies about a video being responsible for the attack in Benghazi, and then lied to the families of the dead.

She lies about her support of TPP and open borders. 

She lies when she says "hello."



Tweet

Lying Liars

It's estimated that over 136,000 people have died since the Syrian revolution began in 2011. Assad still hasn't turned over his stash of chemical weapons and when Jay Carney was confronted about this by Ed Henry of Fox News, Carney admitted that Assad has certainly "blown some deadlines."

So, while Assad has blown some deadlines, we have Jay Carney blowing some smoke in places where smoke should not be blown. 

Can you recall the last time Carney has actually answered a question directly, factually, and honestly? I honestly cannot. The same goes for Obama and his entire administration.