Guilty Until Proven Innocent - Todd Strandberg - https://www.raptureready.com/category/nearing-midnight/
The presumption of innocence is the bedrock of a free society. If someone thinks you did something wrong, you remain innocent until they can prove you are guilty. This concept is expressed by the Latin maxim ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ("the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on the one who denies").
The United States Constitution does not explicitly cite the presumption of innocence, but it is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. The Supreme Court case of Coffin v. United States (1895) officially established the presumption of innocence of persons accused of crimes.
When a government or corporation is given the power to declare people guilty at will, tyranny is always the result. It can sometimes be very difficult to prove that you are innocent of a crime. A few years back, we had a major problem with states' civil forfeiture laws being used to seize property. Agencies would often assume people's cash or bank accounts were connected to drug transactions, and then seize the money. The owner had to track down why their money was impounded, then prove that it was not the result of criminal activity.
A number of states passed laws that required the filing of criminal charges before the government could permanently confiscate property. The problem of guilty until proven innocent moved to a new front - like social media. Because all large internet companies are run by far-leftist liberals, conservatives are being openly persecuted for their political views.
On Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter, leftists can call for violence; and in many cases, little or nothing happens to them. If someone on the right uses the wrong words, they are regularly locked out of their account. Alex Jones has been banned by every major platform for promoting various conspiracy views. While Jones sits in hate-speech jail, anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, doesn't even show up on radar.
I gave up on Twitter last week when it locked actor James Woods out of his account for the bizarre assertion that he was meddling with the upcoming election. The post in question featured a hoax meme, claiming to come from the Democrats, and encouraged men not to vote in the midterm elections. Mr. Woods - noted for his conservative views in liberal-leaning Hollywood - acknowledged the meme was probably not real when he shared it. The post was made in July, so justice at Twitter moves strangely slow.
I knew it was only a matter of time before Woods would be banned when he pointed out Twitter accounts of people who threatened to kill the President and they were not punished. Twitter would love to ban President Trump because they claim he has done something wrong. Right now, Twitter fears a backlash from public opinion if they declare Trump guilty of hate. I'm sure Twitter expects the time will quickly come when it can pounce at will.
George Orwell's dystopian novel "1984" may be a work of fiction, but we are living it right now. The Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings have ripped to shreds the Supreme Court nomination process. Gone are the days when 95 Senators would vote to confirm a nominee. We now live in a time where a candidate is automatically labeled by the Democrats as unfit for the job, and every one of them will vote no on a confirmation.
During any other time, Christine Blasey Ford's letter to Senator Diane Feinstein would be received as well as a guy who keeps sending Rapture Ready emails claiming that he is Jesus Christ. The Democrats decided to run with Ford's story because they couldn't find any real dirt on Kavanaugh.
A group working for Planned Parenthood was promoting a message that turns the presumption of guilt on its head: "The confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh would be a slap in the face to survivors across this country. We will NOT stand by and watch a sexual abuser ascend to our nation's highest court to carry out the GOP's anti-woman agenda."
What we saw last week was simply a replay of the 1991 Anita Hill playbook. While Kavanaugh was making his rounds in visiting with various senators, Senator Diane Feinstein was scheming to use Christine Blasey Ford as a victim that could block his nomination.
It is just insane that this was allowed to turn into a media circus. Anyone with an IQ above 70 should know that these rape allegations are a complete fabrication. The Democrats said they were going to check to see if Kavanaugh was a sex offender, and amazingly, they hit the lottery on the first try.
I am very disappointed that there wasn't a massive backlash against this attack on the presumption of innocence. There is some hope that voters will register their anger at the November election. The left has become so depraved in their quest for power that any defeat at the ballot could mean the end of democracy in America.
"Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them" (Romans 1:28-32 NIV).
Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a �psychologist,� but records indict this is a false statement
Testifying under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Christine Blasey Ford identified herself as a �psychologist,� but records indict this is a false statement under California law. Someone at Stanford University also appears to have caught the blunder and edited Ford�s faculty page.
Just one sentence into her sworn testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding allegations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford may have told a lie.
After thanking members of the committee on Thursday, and while under oath, Ford opened her testimony saying, �My name is Christine Blasey Ford, I am a professor of psychology at Palo Alto University and a research psychologist at the Stanford University School of Medicine.
The issue lies with the word �psychologist,� and Ford potentially misrepresenting herself and her credentials, an infraction that is taken very seriously in the psychology field as well as under California law.
Under California law, in order for a person to identify publicly as a psychologist they must be licensed by the California Board of Psychology, a process that includes 3,000 hours of post-doctoral professional experience and passing two rigorous exams. To call oneself a psychologist without being licensed by a state board is the equivalent of a law school graduate calling herself a lawyer without ever taking the bar exam.
According to records, Ford is not licensed in the state of California. A recent search through the Department of Consumer Affairs License Bureau, which provides a state-run database of all licensed psychologists in California, produced no results for any variation of spelling on Ford�s name. If Ford at one time had a license but it is now inactive, she would legally still be allowed to call herself a �psychologist� but forbidden from practicing psychology on patients until it was renewed. However, the database would have shown any past licenses granted to Ford, even if they were inactive.
Ford also does not appear to have been licensed in any other states outside California. Since graduating with a PhD in educational psychology from the University of Southern California in 1996 it does not appear Ford has spent any significant amount of time outside the state. She married her husband in California in 2002, and completed a master�s degree in California in 2009. She reportedly completed an internship in Hawaii, but a search of Hawaii�s Board of Psychology licensing databased also did not turn up any results for Ford.
What makes Ford�s claim even more suspicious is someone affiliated with Stanford University appears to have also been aware of the potentially damning use of the word �psychologist� and rushed to cover for Ford. DANGEROUS exclusively uncovered an archived version of Christine�s Blasey�s page on the school�s faculty directory. On September 10, 2015, the only archived date available, Ford�s faculty page was saved to the Wayback Machine and showed Ford listed as a �research psychologist� along with her email address and office phone number.
The most recent version of that page shows Ford listed only as an �Affiliate� in the department, with the words �research psychologist� removed along with Ford�s email address and phone number. This suggests the page was altered by someone very recently to scrub Ford�s contact information and title after she entered the national spotlight.
It is common for academics and researchers in psychology to not hold a license. California law does not prohibit anyone from engaging in research, teaching, or other activities associated with psychology if they are not licensed, so long as those individuals do not use the word �psychologist� when referring to themselves publicly.
Several searches on California�s licensing database revealed many of Ford�s colleagues in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Studies at Stanford are not licensed psychologists in California, including the department chairman Laura Roberts, who identifies herself only as a professor. Of the unlicensed members of the faculty � which includes researchers, clinicians, professors, and fellows � none refer to themselves as a �psychologist� or �psychiatrist,� unless they also had a license issued in California.
Aside from potentially misleading the committee, Ford also appears to have violated California law. California�s Business and Professional Code Sections 2900-2919 govern the state�s laws for practicing psychology. Section 2903 reads, �No person may engage in the practice of psychology, or represent himself or herself to be a psychologist, without a license granted under this chapter, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.� Section 2902(c) states: (c) �A person represents himself or herself to be a psychologist when the person holds himself or herself out to the public by any title or description of services incorporating the words �psychology,� �psychological,� �psychologist,� �psychology consultation,� �psychology consultant,� �psychometry,� �psychometrics� or �psychometrist,� �psychotherapy,� �psychotherapist,� �psychoanalysis,� or �psychoanalyst,� or when the person holds himself or herself out to be trained, experienced, or an expert in the field of psychology.�
This appears to include titles like �research psychologist.� There is one specific exemption to the law regarding the title �school psychologist,� which refers to school counselors who do not need to be licensed. School psychologists are legally forbidden from referring to themselves as simply �psychologists.�
Whereas the term �research psychologist� may be common in academic parlance, the issue seems to be publicly presenting oneself under any title containing the word �psychologist� if a person is not licensed. Ford is a professor and a researcher, but not a psychologist. Section 2910 of the law states, �This chapter shall not be construed to restrict the practice of psychology on the part of persons who are salaried employees of accredited or approved academic institutions, public schools, or governmental agencies, if those employees are complying with the following (1) Performing those psychological activities as part of the duties for which they were hired. (2) Performing those activities solely within the jurisdiction or confines of those organizations. (3) Do not hold themselves out to the public by any title or description of activities incorporating the words �psychology,� �psychological,� or �psychologist.�
It is unknown why Ford, 51, a seasoned academic in the field of psychology would have made such an obvious mistake unless she was unaware of the law or trying to intentionally mislead the public and members of the committee about her credentials in the field of psychology. Her bizarre testimony often veered off into psychological jargon about brain chemistry, memory storage, and how trauma effects the brain, analysis one would expect from a clinical psychologist, rather than an academic involved in research. When asked by committee members of her most vivid memory from the attack that allegedly occurred nearly 40 years ago, Ford responded, �Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter, the uproarious laughter between the two [men], and their having fun at my expense,� referring to the part of the brain mainly associated with memory. When discussing her trauma, Ford replied, �The etiology of anxiety and PTSD is multifactorial. [The incident] was certainly a critical risk factor. That would be a predictor of the [conditions] that I now have � I can�t rule out that I would have some biological predisposition to be an anxious-type person.�
Yet, Ford�s academic focus for years has been statistics, not memory or trauma. To look at her as some sort of expert in this area would be like asking a podiatrist about heart disease simply because he�s in the medical field. Still, the media ate it up. Hours after her testimony ended, various mainstream media outlets falsely identified Ford as a �psychologist� and praised her approach to science during the hearing, calling the statistician an �expert� on issues more closely related to clinical psychology.
The Washington Post ran a headline that simply read, �Christine Blasey Ford, psychologist,� The Atlantic�s headline read, �Christine Blasey Ford, A Psychologist, Testifies to Congress,� Slate�s headline read, �Christine Blasey Ford�s testimony combined her own expert analysis of the situation,� The New Yorker�s headline read �Christine Blasey Ford is Serving As Both A Witness And An Expert,� and the Wall Street Journal ran with �Ford�s Testimony Reminds Us That She�s A Psychologist.� As of Friday morning, Ford�s Wikipedia entry also identified her occupation as �Psychologist.� According to California law, all of these are false. Ford is not a psychologist.
The Senate judiciary committee is set to decide Friday on a date for Kavanaugh�s confirmation vote. If Ford committed perjury, she could face up to five years in federal prison.
Read more at InfoWars
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.