By Fred
I took a look at that list of Brett Kavanaugh’s “lies”.
All I see is petty nit-picking and innuendo. There’s not a single incident there that matches the outright and provable lies Blasey Ford herself told about her phobias and trauma, on which much of her accusation rested.
You say: “obviously” Bill Clinton’s lies have nothing to do with Kavanaugh. I do really hate to gaslight people, so this is my logic:
(1) You’re very upset about a candidate for the Supreme Court being accused of sexual assault, enough to make posts and throw accusations that he lied. Seriously, if Kavanaugh had been caught out on one substantive lie, we would never have heard the end of it. All of these accusations against him are so flimsy, they are truly pathetic and clearly desperate.
(2) You clearly believe Blasey Ford, despite her clear lies about matters that were fully germane to her case against Kavanaugh. Here are some of them, just from a very quick search:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/10/the_three_lies_of_christine_blasey_ford.html
(3) Very shortly before this, a candidate for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton, completely shrugged off and ignored all the accusations that her husband was a serial rapist and abuser of women. Yet Juanita Broaddrick’s testimony is some of the most compelling, consistent and revealing evidence of exactly how Bill Clinton really behaved, and how he was fully backed up by Hillary, his rape enforcer.
Why so upset about a SC judge, when there was a Presidential candidate just before this, who was far, far more compromised, who has told far more lies, and who has covered up far worse incidents of rape than anything Blasey Ford talked about?
If you are really concerned with men in power who abuse women, and the women who protect and enable the abusers, then you should be as concerned with Juanita Broaddrick as you are with Blasey Ford. To me, it appears as a double standard. To you, it’s “obvious” that there’s no connection between Bill Clinton’s proven and in some cases self-confessed lies, and these pathetic dredged-up innuendos that were hurled at Kavanaugh.
Never mind, this is just a perfect example of how politics determines perception.
So, let me rephrase my query. Just out of interest, purely as an attempt to understand how you see these issues, completely separate from Brett Kavanaugh and anything to do with him: how do you see Juanita Broaddrick’s story? Have you followed it? Have you ever made comments about it? Have you ever supported Broaddrick on any forum? If not, why not? Is her story unimportant to you? Is it irrelevant to you? Do you think she’s a liar, as Hillary Clinton implied? If so, what makes you think she’s a liar?
If a candidate for the SC gets you riled up, surely a candidate for the Presidency should get some attention from you? For me, this gives the appearance of a double standard. For you, it’s “obvious” that these issues are not related. For me, it’s obvious that they are, and you’re ducking and dodging, because Juanita Broaddrick’s story is infinitely more credible than Blasey Ford’s, and it doesn’t fit your political narrative.
So let’s agree to disagree about what’s “obvious”, and you tell me, just as a matter of passing interest, what you think about the “obviously” unrelated case of a very powerful politician who raped a supporter of his, and after biting her lip until it was bruised, told her “You’d Better Put Some Ice on That”, the title of her book. Here’s evidence that this actually happened:
—> Norma Rogers, a friend of Mrs Broaddrick, told the Journal that she found the alleged victim in a state of shock. In reported speech, she is said to have alleged that Mrs Broaddrick’s lips were discoloured and swollen to twice their normal size and the crotch of her tights was torn.
“She just stayed on the bed and kept repeating ‘I can’t believe what happened’,” Mrs Rogers said. <—
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/feb/20/clinton.usa
Is this credible to you? Or is it all “obvious” lies? Is it irrelevant to you? If so, why? I’m genuinely interested.
Kurt Vonnegut said that the most powerful force in the universe wasn’t gravity, it was peer pressure. He was on the right track. The most powerful force in the universe is confirmation bias. People will go to the ends of the earth, will start world wars and kill their entire families, just to prove that their pet theories are true.
Full disclosure: I was quite a big fan of Bill Clinton back in the day, he seemed able to connect with people as few recent American politicians have been. I was prepared to overlook the “bimbo factor”, as it was known, until Monica Lewinsky came along, and I thought — this guy’s genuinely more preoccupied with his dick than anything else.
Then I came across Cathy O’Brien’s book, The Trance-Formation of America, and I got a whole new perspective on Bill and Hillary. I wrote to Cathy O’Brien, and got back a long, very articulate, very intelligent, very credible letter from her, around 1997. I decided that she seemed genuine, despite only having a very fragmentary view of these affairs — the view of a mind-controlled sex slave.
Around the same time, I also researched Hillary Clinton’s forays into “outcomes-based education”, which totally matched Cathy O’Brien’s accounts of promoting the New World Order’s education agenda. And I decided the Clintons were total gangsters. This was a long journey, and I was quite prepared to change my mind about Bill Clinton as the facts emerged. I’m not ashamed about this. I corresponded with Richard Pollock, the Daily Caller journalist who picked up the Ranbaxy fake drugs story. He told me that in his days as a White House correspondent, he was also a fan of Bill Clinton, he thought he was quite a cool guy. Then he saw behind the facade and woke up.
It’s really time the Democrats woke up to the real facts about the Clinton crime cartel and how they hijacked your political party. Are you capable of changing your mind, as the facts emerge? What would it take?
Frank Parlato 
Janine Morrison 
J.J. O'Hara 
Richard Luthmann 
Marie White 
Paul Serran
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
That was a long story to point out the obvious.
Great article, Fred. Pizza at my house tonight. Will leave the gate open.
Ewww, that sounds creepy
Fred
You do understand that O’Brien is a lying nutcase, right?
—Religious and political scholars have criticized O’Brien’s claims for their lack of any supporting evidence. David G. Robertson characterized them as symptomatic of “baseless” moral panic and noted that “no-one has ever been prosecuted of such crimes nor has any corroborating material evidence ever been produced”.[8] According to scholar Michael Barkun, “scholarly and journalistic treatments of MKUltra make no mention of a Project Monarch”. Barkun describes O’Brien’s account as “sensational even by the standards of conspiracy literature” and notes that even black helicopter conspiracy theorist Jim Keith considers it “fraudulent or delusional”.[5] Jodi Dean cited O’Brien’s claims as an example of conspiracy theorists’ tendency to excessive “leaps in imagination and willingness to deviate from common sense”.[9]—-
If you believe O’Brien’s bullshit, you are willing to believe anything Fred. You have zero credibility.
How about the supporting evidence of the court documents relating to Cathy O’Brien’s daughter Kelly, and how information on this was suppressed in the courtroom “for reasons of national security”? How on earth does a child’s incarceration in the “care” system become a matter of national security?
I described in another post how it took me five seconds online to locate the judge O’Brien identifies in one of these cases as invoking “national security”, and confirm that he really does exist exactly where she said he exists, he’s still there. Cathy O’Brien’s testimony is packed with such details, and every single one that I have investigated has checked out. I promise you, if I ever find one single discrepancy, I’ll post it here.
You talk about “scholarly and journalistic treatments of MKUltra” — so US government mind control programs are firmly on the record. Is it such a surprise that their “sex slave” component, Project Monarch, was kept quiet? You’re right, “Monarch” is not on the books:
–> “There were 149 subprojects listed under the umbrella of MKULTRA. Project MONARCH has not been officially identified by any government documentation as one of the corresponding subprojects, but is used rather, as a descriptive “catch phrase” by survivors, therapists, and possible “insiders”. <–
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_mindcon02.htm
Many other survivors have mentioned Monarch, but they post-date O'Brien's testimony, so they may have been influenced, I won't quote them here.
Please note: none of the people you quote comes up with a shred of evidence to disprove Cathy O'Brien's evidence. How does she have such encyclopedic knowledge of US politicians? How does she have such knowledge of their office layouts? How does she know such details about Mexican politics? About daily life in Haiti? Her background is one of genuine deprivation. It doesn't make any sense.
Just saying: oh, it's all so crazy, it must be false, is no argument. Fact is often stranger than the most lurid fiction.
I corresponded with Cathy O'Brien over 20 years ago. I got a long, detailed, articulate, intelligent, totally credible letter from her. It answered a lot of the questions I had. What research have you done into her case?
Who was, indeed, a very, very shady guy was her partner Mark Phillips, no question. Especially towards the end, he seemed to go very creepy. For that reason, I never raised O'Brien during the 2016 election. But he's dead now. I am pretty certain that Cathy O'Brien was still being handled as a psy-op by him. I said in my other post that her revelations come from a very limited perspective, that of a sex slave and courier.
Other researchers have pointed out that there were significant people who did NOT appear in her book — Henry Kissinger is one. There were suggestions that one faction of the cabal may have been playing another faction with these partial revelations, as blackmail, as a warning, who knows. I was aware of all of these stories when I wrote to O'Brien. I have never, ever taken her story as the full picture, she herself emphasizes this over and again.
When I replied to Cathy O'Brien and Mark Phillips, among other things, I said — "I hear you're a very shady guy, Mark. I certainly hope so."
By this I meant: if you are in fact handling this case for one of these factions, blackmailing them or whatever with these partial revelations, I hope you do a good job of it and keep Cathy alive. And he did.
This information has been on the record for decades now, and yet I have never seen anyone refute one single detail in Cathy O'Brien's testimony, just slander without a shred of evidence. Insulting someone and calling them delusional, is not an argument.
Where I found Cathy O'Brien most convincing was in her comprehensive descriptions of Global 2000, the education program she was forced to promote. The details she gives exactly match what I myself saw happening in education. I researched outcomes-based education until I myself received the only direct death threats I've ever encountered in a long life of rattling the cage, and I decided to desist from that investigation. I'll tell that story here one day, when there's time. Hillary Clinton figured very large in the picture that was emerging. You go and check out Bill Clinton's Arkansas Governor's School, perhaps one of the most bizarre and under-reported aspects of his early career. This was a grooming exercise of note for future globalists, a real harbinger of what was to come.
I am personally 100% certain that Cathy O'Brien really did experience what she describes. And I checked her out at first hand, I queried her directly myself. Judging by your research, you look for innuendo and slander, and count it as an argument. Flowers, I really hate to tell you this, but this makes your credibility even lower than mine.
Game over. If anyone has genuine information on Cathy O'Brien, I'm quite prepared to listen.
Just out of interest, I’ve tried to find some of the information I saw on the Arkansas Governor’s School. The internet has been radically sanitized since I checked it out 20 years ago. This is the one and only reference I can find to what really went on there:
–> Testimony of parent whose son committed suicide after attending AGS.
Given before Joint Interim Education Committee
(One of four known former AGS students who committed suicide)
My name is Shelvie Cole. I have much to say, and I will talk as quickly as I can. I think once I get started you will understand why I have a lot to say. The first thing I would like to say is I am not a religious zealot. I do not belong to the religious right, and I am not conservative in my beliefs. The reason I am saying this is because anytime anyone seems to have a negative comment toward the Governor’s School, they are automatically categorized into one of those groups, somehow negating their comments.
I am speaking to you today as a professional and as parent. As a professional, I am a trained school psychologist. I have worked over twenty years in the field of education and mental health. As a parent, my youngest son, Brandon, attended Governor’s School in the summer of 1990. In September of 1991 Brandon committed suicide. I find it very significant that it was three years ago today that Brandon committed suicide.
I had no idea the impact that Governor’s School had on Brandon until I read his log after his death. I knew that he had begun to change; but then when I began reading his log, I understood some of the things that had gone on within Brandon that were the result of some of his experiences at Governor’s School. I am not going to be giving you a second hand information today. I am going to let Brandon talk for himself because I am going to read directly from his diary that he kept while he was in Governor’s School.
(…)
Brandon’s words: “We truly have been plucked out of our world. We live in the Governor’s School world. I saw a newspaper the other day and realized how no outside events were talked about here. I don’t think I will be able to leave after this is over. Let me warn you I am changing inside. I hope you will still like me as I am, but I am learning a new outlook on life and reality. Everyday activities are so trivial now to us here. I feel sorry for people who aren’t here. The outside world is so blind toward world events.” <–
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/757149/posts
RIP, Brandon, another victim of the Clinton global crime cartel.
Fred, I have no interest ,at all, in any “firsthand accounts” of this type. Having dealt with the liars and criminals I have had to deal with since 2014, I recognize exactly what these people are doing. I won’t even bother wasting my time reading their BULLSHIT .
I have also corresponded personally with some of these so-called “targeted individuals” , which is how I KNOW, for a fact, that they are all liars. The saddest part is that they convince the gullible that there is some truth to MK-Ultra and other conspiracy theories, and this is used to create fear.
These people are terrorists, Fred. Why are you enabling them?
Geez, Flowers. You won’t listen to first-hand testimony. You won’t accept court records, or Senate hearings, or declassified documents, or journalistic accounts, or academic accounts about the reality of US government mind control. The only evidence you’ll listen to are the voices in your head that say, they’re all liars, liars. Liars and terrorists, no less.
Trigger warning warning: trigger warning ahead.
Trigger warning!
Are you quite sure you’re not a Targeted Individual yourself? Seriously, you’re showing all the signs.
Fred
That was a very odd comment. What are the signs of being a so-called targeted individual? Too funny!!
Apparently you were unable to comprehend my early comment, so please let me clarify….
My conversations with certain conspiracy theorists/targeted individuals convinced me that these people are undoubtably lying, and that are mainly using this narrative to push a political agenda. Some are also using this as an income source- to sell books and to drum up an audience for their blogs, web sites, youtube channels, etc.
Perhaps you would like to explain why the Miller sisters believe Cathy and Mark are lying about their sister, and are in fact the ones who have her under some type of “mind control”?
https://millerfamilyblogging.wordpress.com/about/
That story from the Miller sisters is exactly what I meant by Mark Phillips going “creepy” towards the end of his life. I found it very interesting that just as we needed Cathy O’Brien’s insights most, to ensure that Hillary Clinton was not elected, O’Brien became totally compromised, at least in my book. I doubt that this was a coincidence. Mark Phillips’s death changes the picture again.
Here, finally, you are putting your finger on something tangible and worthwhile. I meant what I said, Flowers, it seems you only trust the voices in your head. That’s why I say you sound like a TI yourself. Point to genuine information and we may get somewhere.
There are more con artists and deception merchants than ever, and yes, they are mostly after a buck. Everything is smoke and mirrors. For example, check out this document, which appears to be a confidential “white hat” briefing on a faction of US intelligence going rogue with mind control:
http://stopthecrime.net/COMM%2012%20BRIEFING001%20(1).pdf
I’ve been trying for years to get any provenance on this document, which among other things unambiguously identifies the cellphone network as a kill grid. No one can tell me the back story. So I never quote it, because I don’t know where it came from; but I’m fairly sure it’s genuine.
Cathy O’Brien is a very real person and her story has yet to happen properly. The trouble is: many people think her information gives a complete picture of what’s going on. It doesn’t and never could. You have to look broader, wider, deeper, and much longer. Now, with 5G, we are truly in the end times, no question. The landscape is becoming much clearer, if you have the right perspective. “They” are finally showing their hand. Reverse-engineer 5G and you will literally unmask Satan himself. Rudolf Steiner says that this individual’s ultimate victory would be to slink into the world unnoticed. This is why I’m making a noise about 5G. If you have eyes to see, the agenda is completely obvious now.
Fred, I do not, and never have, heard any “voices” in my head, and I sincerely hope you don’t, either.
But I can read and search the internet, just as most people can, and I do have the ability to determine what sounds genuine and logical, and what doesn’t. Despite your arrogance, you actually don’t have any special knowledge or magical insight. Lol.
So, let’s be honest about this Mark Phillip’s guy. He was ALWAYS creepy, and I dont think he was much different than Raniere- just another pervy old fart who was able to brainwash pretty young girls into having sex with him.
There is no mystery here, Fred, Phillips was just another sociopathic, abusive man.
Fred, I forgot to mention this in my other post….you say that O’Brien sent you a long letter, so why not post that letter here, so we can all read it and judge it for ourselves?
As I said earlier, I have followed and corresponded with a few people who claim to be targeted individuals. One of them has written and published some interesting stuff, and I thought, at first, that he sounded honest. This guy claims to live in Vancouver, BC, and to have grown up in the area. However, after just a short discussion with him, it became evident that he knew NOTHING about the Vancouver area.
Having lived in greater Vancouver my entire life, I know that everyone from Vancouver knows certain facts about the area, but this guy was clueless. Clearly, he had fabricated his story.
BTW, he is still posting bullshit on his blog, with fairly recent posts about NXIVM and Epstein, which I wouldn’t waste my time reading.
How about all of the other sources in the story?