Category: J. Marsolo

208280.jpg

Ford's Accusation against Kavanaugh Is Not Credible


The Dems and the media said Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct, including the rape of Juanita Broaddrick, was irrelevant to Clinton serving as president.  They also said Teddy Kennedy’s driving his car into the pond drunk at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die, while he swam away and waited twelve hours to report to the police, was irrelevant to him serving as senator and running for the presidency.

Now the Dems and the media say any claim of sexual misconduct, no matter how remote and unreliable, is enough to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh because they are afraid he will cast a vote to overrule Roe v. Wade.

Christine Blasey Ford sent a letter dated July 30, 2018 to Dianne Feinstein stating that in the early 1980s, she was at a “gathering” at a home in suburban Maryland with four others.  Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, both drunk, forced her into a room and locked the door, and Kavanaugh then got on top of her.  Judge also “periodically” jumped on top of both.  Kavanaugh put a hand over her mouth and she believed he would “inadvertently” kill her.  At one point, Judge jumped on both again, and she took this “opportune” moment to run outside and go home.

Ford reported this incident to her “local government representative” on July 6, 2018.

Ford wrote to Feinstein to provide “relevant information regarding the current nominee” to the Supreme Court.

It is important to read the actual letter to see how unreliable it is:

July 30 2018  CONFIDENTIAL


Senator Dianne Feinstein


Dear Senator Feinstein;


I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court. As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.  Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s.  He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.  Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.


The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.  Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well [sic] from the living room.  They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.  Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh.  They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state.  With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.  From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”


At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial.  The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.  After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom.  I locked the bathroom door behind me.  Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.  I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.  I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault.  I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.


I have received medical treatment regarding the assault.  On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them [sic] how to proceed with sharing this information.  It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.


I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss.  I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.


In confidence, REDACTED.

Ford did not report this until 2012, when she was in couples’ therapy, where she reported it to her therapist.  The therapist notes do not include Kavanaugh’s name, which Ford blames on the therapist.  Her husband, Russell Ford, said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh’s name during the 2012 therapy session and that they were concerned that Kavanaugh would be nominated to the Supreme Court.

First, why, if this happened, didn’t this 15-year-old girl immediately tell her parents that she was attacked and then report to the police?  The police could then have questioned everyone at the “gathering.”  She says she thought Kavanaugh would inadvertently kill her, yet she does not report this to her parents and the police?  This isn’t credible.  According to the Post, her explanation is as follows:

My biggest fear was, do I look like someone just attacked me?  I’m not ever telling anyone this.  This is nothing, it didn’t happen, and he didn’t rape me.

Her parents would not believe her because she didn’t look as though someone had attacked her?  What parents will not believe their 15-year-old daughter who runs home to tell them drunken boys tried to rape her?

Second, Kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI for appointments to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, White House counsel, and other federal jobs.  Why didn’t Ford call the FBI so the FBI could investigate Kavanaugh?

Third, Mark Judge has denied the accusation.

Fourth, according to her husband, the motivation for telling the therapist in 2012 was that Kavanaugh might be appointed to the Supreme Court.  This shows political motivation: she does not want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, although she did not care that he was on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fifth, why write to a “local government representative” on July 6, 2018 and then Feinstein on July 30, 2018 instead of contacting the FBI?  The “local” Democrat and Feinstein should have immediately referred this to the FBI for investigation.  Feinstein should have immediately shared the letter with the entire Judiciary Committee so members could question Kavanaugh.  Instead, Feinstein played a political game to wait for an ambush.

Sixth, note the odd language in the letter.  She was at a “gathering,” not a party.  She contacted her “local Democratic representative” to find out how to proceed.  She is a college professor, yet she acts as though she doesn’t know to call the FBI.  She says she received “medical treatment” “for the assault,” but aside from one couples therapy session in 2012, there is no mention of any other treatment.

Seventh, Ford said there were four boys at the “gathering.”  Her attorney, Debra Katz, now says there was a girl present.

Ford’s letter of July 30 and her therapy notes of 2012 show her motivation and provide much material for a vigorous cross-examination if this were a case handled by real attorneys.

Unfortunately, we have weak Republicans who will be afraid to ask Ford tough questions for fear of backlash and bad press from the swamp.  The Dems will give speeches attacking Kavanaugh and Trump.  Kavanaugh will testify with candor and credibility that he did not attack Ford.  There is no pattern or other accusations, as with Bill Clinton and others.

We do not know if Ford will appear on Monday, September 24 to testify under oath and answer questions on cross-exam.  The latest is that Ford wants the FBI to investigate before she testifies.  The bottom line is that Ford and the Dems and the media want to delay the vote and hope Kavanaugh withdraws.

Ford and the Dems and the media know that her story will not hold up.

The Dems and the media said Bill Clinton’s sexual misconduct, including the rape of Juanita Broaddrick, was irrelevant to Clinton serving as president.  They also said Teddy Kennedy’s driving his car into the pond drunk at Chappaquiddick, leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die, while he swam away and waited twelve hours to report to the police, was irrelevant to him serving as senator and running for the presidency.

Now the Dems and the media say any claim of sexual misconduct, no matter how remote and unreliable, is enough to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh because they are afraid he will cast a vote to overrule Roe v. Wade.

Christine Blasey Ford sent a letter dated July 30, 2018 to Dianne Feinstein stating that in the early 1980s, she was at a “gathering” at a home in suburban Maryland with four others.  Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, both drunk, forced her into a room and locked the door, and Kavanaugh then got on top of her.  Judge also “periodically” jumped on top of both.  Kavanaugh put a hand over her mouth and she believed he would “inadvertently” kill her.  At one point, Judge jumped on both again, and she took this “opportune” moment to run outside and go home.

Ford reported this incident to her “local government representative” on July 6, 2018.

Ford wrote to Feinstein to provide “relevant information regarding the current nominee” to the Supreme Court.

It is important to read the actual letter to see how unreliable it is:

July 30 2018  CONFIDENTIAL


Senator Dianne Feinstein


Dear Senator Feinstein;


I am writing with information relevant in evaluating the current nominee to the Supreme Court. As a constituent, I expect that you will maintain this as confidential until we have further opportunity to speak.  Brett Kavanaugh physically and sexually assaulted me during high school in the early 1980’s.  He conducted these acts with the assistance of REDACTED.  Both were one to two years older than me and students at a local private school.


The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others.  Kavanaugh physically pushed me into a bedroom as I was headed for a bathroom up a short stair well [sic] from the living room.  They locked the door and played loud music precluding any successful attempt to yell for help.  Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with REDACTED, who periodically jumped onto Kavanaugh.  They both laughed as Kavanaugh tried to disrobe me in their highly inebriated state.  With Kavanaugh’s hand over my mouth I feared he may inadvertently kill me.  From across the room a very drunken REDACTED said mixed words to Kavanaugh ranging from “go for it” to “stop.”


At one point when REDACTED jumped onto the bed the weight on me was substantial.  The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.  After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom.  I locked the bathroom door behind me.  Both loudly stumbled down the stair well at which point other persons at the house were talking with them.  I exited the bathroom, ran outside of the house and went home.  I have not knowingly seen Kavanaugh since the assault.  I did see REDACTED once at the REDACTED where he was extremely uncomfortable seeing me.


I have received medical treatment regarding the assault.  On July 6 I notified my local government representative to ask them [sic] how to proceed with sharing this information.  It is upsetting to discuss sexual assault and its repercussions, yet I felt guilty and compelled as a citizen about the idea of not saying anything.


I am available to speak further should you wish to discuss.  I am currently REDACTED and will be in REDACTED.


In confidence, REDACTED.

Ford did not report this until 2012, when she was in couples’ therapy, where she reported it to her therapist.  The therapist notes do not include Kavanaugh’s name, which Ford blames on the therapist.  Her husband, Russell Ford, said he remembered his wife specifically using Kavanaugh’s name during the 2012 therapy session and that they were concerned that Kavanaugh would be nominated to the Supreme Court.

First, why, if this happened, didn’t this 15-year-old girl immediately tell her parents that she was attacked and then report to the police?  The police could then have questioned everyone at the “gathering.”  She says she thought Kavanaugh would inadvertently kill her, yet she does not report this to her parents and the police?  This isn’t credible.  According to the Post, her explanation is as follows:

My biggest fear was, do I look like someone just attacked me?  I’m not ever telling anyone this.  This is nothing, it didn’t happen, and he didn’t rape me.

Her parents would not believe her because she didn’t look as though someone had attacked her?  What parents will not believe their 15-year-old daughter who runs home to tell them drunken boys tried to rape her?

Second, Kavanaugh has been investigated by the FBI for appointments to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, White House counsel, and other federal jobs.  Why didn’t Ford call the FBI so the FBI could investigate Kavanaugh?

Third, Mark Judge has denied the accusation.

Fourth, according to her husband, the motivation for telling the therapist in 2012 was that Kavanaugh might be appointed to the Supreme Court.  This shows political motivation: she does not want Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, although she did not care that he was on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Fifth, why write to a “local government representative” on July 6, 2018 and then Feinstein on July 30, 2018 instead of contacting the FBI?  The “local” Democrat and Feinstein should have immediately referred this to the FBI for investigation.  Feinstein should have immediately shared the letter with the entire Judiciary Committee so members could question Kavanaugh.  Instead, Feinstein played a political game to wait for an ambush.

Sixth, note the odd language in the letter.  She was at a “gathering,” not a party.  She contacted her “local Democratic representative” to find out how to proceed.  She is a college professor, yet she acts as though she doesn’t know to call the FBI.  She says she received “medical treatment” “for the assault,” but aside from one couples therapy session in 2012, there is no mention of any other treatment.

Seventh, Ford said there were four boys at the “gathering.”  Her attorney, Debra Katz, now says there was a girl present.

Ford’s letter of July 30 and her therapy notes of 2012 show her motivation and provide much material for a vigorous cross-examination if this were a case handled by real attorneys.

Unfortunately, we have weak Republicans who will be afraid to ask Ford tough questions for fear of backlash and bad press from the swamp.  The Dems will give speeches attacking Kavanaugh and Trump.  Kavanaugh will testify with candor and credibility that he did not attack Ford.  There is no pattern or other accusations, as with Bill Clinton and others.

We do not know if Ford will appear on Monday, September 24 to testify under oath and answer questions on cross-exam.  The latest is that Ford wants the FBI to investigate before she testifies.  The bottom line is that Ford and the Dems and the media want to delay the vote and hope Kavanaugh withdraws.

Ford and the Dems and the media know that her story will not hold up.



Source link

The Center of the Web



The most important questions that need to be fully investigated by a grand jury is, how and why did all this occur? 



Source link

School Vouchers and the GOP's Health Care Plan


The Republican House bill to replace ObamaCare has been criticized because it gives tax credits to those who cannot afford health insurance to purchase health insurance. ObamaCare used subsidies to pay for those who cannot afford health insurance.

The argument is that there is no difference between tax credits and subsidies.

The criticism is logical in that both credits and subsidies means that the federal government redistributes income by use of the tax code to help some buy health insurance. With a subsidy, the premium is lower; with a tax credit you receive the money to buy health insurance. But the fact that it is logical does not meant that it is a valid reason to oppose the Republican plan.

The federal income tax system is based on the premise that all income is subject to definition, taxation, and redistribution by the federal government.

The federal income tax system is a means to redistribute income by allowing deductions and credits for certain activities.

If you own a business, you can deduct the cost of health insurance for yourself and your employees. You reduce your gross income by the cost of health insurance to arrive at taxable income. Under the premise of the tax system, you are receiving a form of a subsidy because the government is allowing a deduction that reduces your taxable income. The federal government could eliminate this deduction so that businesses and self-employed would pay tax on gross revenues. In fact, some of the proposals for a flat rate income tax, with no deductions, would eliminate deductions and credits thus requiring payment of tax on the gross receipts of businesses, and gross income of individuals.

The tax code has credits for college education, adoptions, child care, home insulation, certain cars, and other tax-favored activities, all based on income. In addition, favored companies, such as Solyndra that contributed to Obama’s campaign, receive generous federal credits, or a bailout like GM, or favorable loans like Chrysler in the 1970s. The income tax code is a vehicle for social engineering as much as it is a vehicle to raise revenue. The only way to end this is to abolish the income tax and replace with a sales tax.

Given this use of the tax code, and looking at the over three trillion dollars wasted by Bush and Obama on nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks on the Republican bill that it gives tax credits to poor Americans to buy health insurance rings hollow.

Further, there is a significant difference between the ObamaCare subsidies and the Republican tax credits. While both involve money from the federal government’s redistribution, tax credits should allow each person to purchase the health insurance plan suitable for the person. Under ObamaCare we are limited to basically three or four plans that vary only in the amount of deductible and amount paid for bills.

The credits may bring down premium costs only if there is competition across state lines, with insurers being able to offer plans with a cafeteria-type selection of coverage. For example, you should be able to buy a simple plan that covers surgery, diagnostic tests, and have a high deductible for you to self-insure for routine care such as office visits. Or you can buy a plan that pays every cost, or some variation thereof.

Now we have no choice — we have to take the plan offered. In my state, my choice when I purchased health insurance was the Gold, Silver, or Bronze plan that differed only in the deductibles and amount paid, not the coverage afforded. Most purchased the Silver plan.

It is common economic sense to allow the consumer to purchase the plan that is suitable for his needs, and to allow insurers to offer plans where one can select the coverage. This is the key to market competition.

Premiums will not decrease if we do not have this competition. There must be competition among insurers nationwide, with the consumer free to choose what he wants to pay for.

The credits should be based on income. This is no different than giving vouchers to parents to use to send their children to the school they choose, whether private or public school. Conservatives are all in for vouchers but some now oppose tax credits to purchase health insurance, and threaten to derail the Republican plan. Conservatives have argued that giving parents vouchers for education will improve the schools because of competition, and more importantly will benefit the children to receive a better education. Giving credits to poor Americans, not covered by employer paid health insurance, will similarly improve competition among insurers and benefit poor Americans. Employees who receive employer paid health insurance are receiving a form of subsidy paid by all taxpayers because the employer receives a deduction for the premiums. The tax rates reflect the deductions and credits taken by all taxpayers.

What is the realistic, practical difference between vouchers for education and tax credits for health insurance?

The Republican House bill to replace ObamaCare has been criticized because it gives tax credits to those who cannot afford health insurance to purchase health insurance. ObamaCare used subsidies to pay for those who cannot afford health insurance.

The argument is that there is no difference between tax credits and subsidies.

The criticism is logical in that both credits and subsidies means that the federal government redistributes income by use of the tax code to help some buy health insurance. With a subsidy, the premium is lower; with a tax credit you receive the money to buy health insurance. But the fact that it is logical does not meant that it is a valid reason to oppose the Republican plan.

The federal income tax system is based on the premise that all income is subject to definition, taxation, and redistribution by the federal government.

The federal income tax system is a means to redistribute income by allowing deductions and credits for certain activities.

If you own a business, you can deduct the cost of health insurance for yourself and your employees. You reduce your gross income by the cost of health insurance to arrive at taxable income. Under the premise of the tax system, you are receiving a form of a subsidy because the government is allowing a deduction that reduces your taxable income. The federal government could eliminate this deduction so that businesses and self-employed would pay tax on gross revenues. In fact, some of the proposals for a flat rate income tax, with no deductions, would eliminate deductions and credits thus requiring payment of tax on the gross receipts of businesses, and gross income of individuals.

The tax code has credits for college education, adoptions, child care, home insulation, certain cars, and other tax-favored activities, all based on income. In addition, favored companies, such as Solyndra that contributed to Obama’s campaign, receive generous federal credits, or a bailout like GM, or favorable loans like Chrysler in the 1970s. The income tax code is a vehicle for social engineering as much as it is a vehicle to raise revenue. The only way to end this is to abolish the income tax and replace with a sales tax.

Given this use of the tax code, and looking at the over three trillion dollars wasted by Bush and Obama on nation building in Iraq and Afghanistan, the attacks on the Republican bill that it gives tax credits to poor Americans to buy health insurance rings hollow.

Further, there is a significant difference between the ObamaCare subsidies and the Republican tax credits. While both involve money from the federal government’s redistribution, tax credits should allow each person to purchase the health insurance plan suitable for the person. Under ObamaCare we are limited to basically three or four plans that vary only in the amount of deductible and amount paid for bills.

The credits may bring down premium costs only if there is competition across state lines, with insurers being able to offer plans with a cafeteria-type selection of coverage. For example, you should be able to buy a simple plan that covers surgery, diagnostic tests, and have a high deductible for you to self-insure for routine care such as office visits. Or you can buy a plan that pays every cost, or some variation thereof.

Now we have no choice — we have to take the plan offered. In my state, my choice when I purchased health insurance was the Gold, Silver, or Bronze plan that differed only in the deductibles and amount paid, not the coverage afforded. Most purchased the Silver plan.

It is common economic sense to allow the consumer to purchase the plan that is suitable for his needs, and to allow insurers to offer plans where one can select the coverage. This is the key to market competition.

Premiums will not decrease if we do not have this competition. There must be competition among insurers nationwide, with the consumer free to choose what he wants to pay for.

The credits should be based on income. This is no different than giving vouchers to parents to use to send their children to the school they choose, whether private or public school. Conservatives are all in for vouchers but some now oppose tax credits to purchase health insurance, and threaten to derail the Republican plan. Conservatives have argued that giving parents vouchers for education will improve the schools because of competition, and more importantly will benefit the children to receive a better education. Giving credits to poor Americans, not covered by employer paid health insurance, will similarly improve competition among insurers and benefit poor Americans. Employees who receive employer paid health insurance are receiving a form of subsidy paid by all taxpayers because the employer receives a deduction for the premiums. The tax rates reflect the deductions and credits taken by all taxpayers.

What is the realistic, practical difference between vouchers for education and tax credits for health insurance?



Source link