Alan Dershowitz and Pedophilia

Alan Dershowitz is considered a first class lawyer.  You can be a first class lawyer and a convincing lier.  However, you cannot be a first class lawyer and be stupid.  If you lie about something that can easily be disproved you are stupid.  If you stick to the truth you don’t need to make sure that your story is consistent.

When asked, “Did you ever travel to Little St. James island?  Dershowitz responded, “With my wife when the island first opened.  My wife, my daughter and I well before any of these things happened.  Well before he ever met Virginia Roberts.  We stayed one night with Michael Porter the professor at Harvard who came to dinner with us his wife.  There were no young women or anybody on the island except a woman in her 30s and somebody who was taking care of the house.  That was the only time I was ever there.  I never flew on his plane there.  I never participated in any eh eh any activities on the island or anywhere else with Jeffrey.  Never, never, never, under any circumstances.”

The Palm Beach Daily News has a different view. “Flight logs of Palm Beach billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s private jet show attorney Alan Dershowitz flew on it at least four times.”

Dershowitz claimed, “I never flew on the plane with any inappropriate, underage women.  I never flew on the plane with Virginia Roberts, and I never flew on the plane during the time he (Epstein) knew Virginia Roberts, although many prominent academicians did. I was not one of them.”

The Palm Beach Daily News continued, “On one of Epstein’s flight logs where Dershowitz is listed, there was ‘an (apparently young) woman named ‘Tatiana’ who did not appear to serve any business purpose for Epstein,’ according to court papers.”

Alan Dershowitz wants people to know that he never got a massage from anybody on the island and beside he kept he undies on during the event.

“I never got a massage from anybody. It’s made up out of whole cloth,” Dershowitz said in a Jan. 21, 2015, article in the New York Daily News. In an interview the following day on Local 10 News, he said, “I kept my underwear on during the massage.”

As a member of the elite it must be recalled that Alan Dershowitz did not lie.  He lacked candor or possibly misspoke.

Dershowitz claims his client got 18 months in prison.  This may or may not be a lie but it is completely misleading.  Epstein reportedly spent only 13 months in "jail" where he was allowed to go to his office during the day.  

Social Media Shutdowns

Social media is shutting down opponents of the Deep State.

Fox News' Tucker Carlson commented, “Ever notice how certain people have started to disappear? Not vagrants or runaways, the usual missing persons.  But fairly prominent, well-educated people with dissenting political opinions.”  The Deep State is making a major push to silence opposition voices in preparation for the 2020 election.  They are doing this on several fronts.  The sponsors of prominent media personalities are threatened with boycotts.  Conservative commentators are being banned from social media.  Ordinary citizens are facing job loss or even prison for “politically incorrect” comments.   

Facebook and Twitter are working with several organizations to eliminate what they consider as objectionable posts.  These organizations are exclusively “progressive” organizations, including the Amadeu Antonio Foundation founded by East German ex-Stasi agent Anetta Kahane and the recently discredited Southern Poverty Law Center.  

Facebook has recently announced the banning of white nationalists and white separatists on its platform.  The problem is; who is to determine what white nationalism or white separatism is.  Many popular conservative figures can be categorized as such.  Gizmodo reported, “White nationalist Richard Spencer was kicked off Facebook in April of 2018 but it’s not clear where that leaves high profile figures whose views often align with white nationalism like Fox News host Tucker Carlson.”

Facebook claims, “Our policies have long prohibited hateful treatment of people based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity or religion.”  But this is not true.  Motherboard has pointed out that this policy does not apply to Black separatist movements “because of the long history of white supremacism that has been used to subjugate and dehumanize people of color in the United States and around the world.”  Mark Zuckerberg appears to a soft spot for Black (“Pigs in a blanket, fry ’em like bacon”) Lives Matter.  He posted an internal memo chastising Facebook employees for defacing Black Lives Matter slogans on the company’s internal “signature wall.”

The process for determining who is to be banned is frequently deceptive.  Tommy Robinson, the British anti-Muslim pimping activist, provides an excellent example.  Robinson is known as a violent thug, and racist.  Even Fox News describes him as a “right-wing activist.” Robinson at times is tedious in his explanation that he has grown up with Muslims and black friends and that his rallies are attended by people of all races and religions.  He repeatedly asks interviewers to provide him with examples of when he advocated violence.  They cannot respond.  Yet Facebook has banned him for violating their policies.  "Tommy Robinson’s Facebook Page has repeatedly broken [our] standards, posting material that uses dehumanizing language and calls for violence targeted at Muslims. He has also behaved in ways that violate our policies around organized hate.”  Robinson has also been banned from Twitter and PayPal.

Examples of these posts are: a post calling Muslims "filthy scum bags,” a post urging people to terrorize and behead those who follow the Koran, a post urging people to "make war" on Muslims and multiple videos depicting individuals being bullied.  Followers of Robinson were baffled.  They had no recollection of Robinson posting such things.  People who don’t follow Robinson obviously were appalled by Robinson’s posts.  The problem is that Robinson did not post any of these remarks.  They were sent to him by his followers or by provocateurs.  During a Sky News interview Jason Farrellcriticized Robinson for the behavior of some of his followers.  Robinson responded that some Sky News employees had been arrested for pedophilia and pointed at Farrell for a response.  Ferrell’s response was, “You can’t just say something like that.”

Recently ESPN commentator Keith Olbermann tweeted about a 22 year old hunter who had shot a turkey.  Olbermann tweeted, “This pea-brained scumbag identifies himself as Hunter Waltman and we should do our best to make sure the rest of his life is a living hell.”  The tweet was removed, however, Olbermann was not banned.  The people in charge of social media are members of the Deep State.  It is a state that will put you in the witness protection program for drawing Mohammad or threatening jail timefor referring to a transgender as “she” instead of “him.” as is the case in Britain.  It is also the type of state that will reward you handsomely for putting a photo of Jesus in a jar of urine or smearing a portrait of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung along with pictures of vaginas and anuses.

Diversity is our Strength

The University of California has hired a diversity bureaucrat at $250,000 a year in regular salary and possibly more than $100,000 in other benefits.  An internationally known expert in opto-electronics in the university’s engineering school, received a little over $150,000.  The UC San Diego Academic Senate decided that the school would no longer offer a master’s degree in electrical and computer engineering.

STEM graduates have become a vital cog in the wheel of global prosperity and unsurprisingly, China is leading the way. The World Economic Forum reported that China had 4.7 million recent STEM graduates in 2016. India, another academic powerhouse, had 2.6 million new STEM graduates last year while the U.S. had 568,000.  Unfortunately there is no data comparing the number of diversity bureaucrats in China and the U.S.

From the Caltech alumni magazine:

A Conversation with April Castañeda

April Castañeda, appointed in the summer of 2018 to the newly created position of assistant vice president for equity and equity investigations and Title IX coordinator at Caltech, will design and implement a comprehensive approach to all issues pertaining to discrimination, unlawful harassment, and sexual misconduct.

Though the role is new for both the Institute and Castañeda, she is no stranger to campus, having served in a variety of roles at Caltech (in the provost’s and president’s offices, as well as Human Resources) for more than 20 years before spending two year as the assistant director for human resources at JPL.

WHAT MOTIVATES YOU TO DO THIS WORK?
I’ve spent most of my career doing things that are engaged around social justice. It’s important to me that people have the rights and the ability to do good work.

When I first came to Caltech, I was reluctant to be an intern here because before then I had always worked with underserved populations, and here I saw a lot of privilege.

About 15 years ago I was walking across the Caltech campus when I paused to listen to a young lady tour guide telling a group of potential applicants and their parents about life at Caltech. One dad asked, “How hard is the homework?”

The sophomore tour guide thought about it for a moment, and then broke into tears. After 10 or 15 seconds of sobbing, she recovered enough to say that while last year had been pretty tough, this year was much better.

But when Ms. Castañeda first came to Caltech, she, instead, “saw a lot of privilege.”

Marjory was unavailable for comment

All Your Children Belong To Us

A Canadian court recently ruled that a father cannot prevent his 14 year old daughter from “transgendering.”  Governments throughout the West are increasingly taking control of child rearing.  An important part of the progressive agenda is to fundamentally transform society by indoctrinating children. They follow the Jesuit motto: "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man.”  1960s radical Jerry Rubin claimed, “We are stealing the youth of America right out of the kindergartens and elementary schools.”  Beat generation guru, Allen Ginsberg told Norman Podhoretz, “We’ll get you through your children!”  Having captured the commanding heights of the education establishment, progressives are proclaiming that children are the property of the state.

The idea of children belonging to the state goes as far back as Plato’s Republic.  In the ideal republic, “the children shall be common, and that no parent shall know its own offspring nor any child its parent.”  “As the children are born, they’ll be taken over by the officials appointed for the purpose.”  This idea was put into practice during the French Revolution.  Bertrand Barere, a member of the revolutionary Committee on Public Safety) proclaimed, "The principles that ought to guide parents are that children belong to the general family, to the republic, before they belong to particular families.  The spirit of private families must disappear when the great family calls.  You are born for the republic and not for the pride or the despotism of families."  His Fellow revolutionary, the Marquis de Sade, stated, “Do not think you can make good republicans so long as you isolate in their families the children who should belong to the republic alone.” 

This was also the belief of the early Marxists.  Friedrich Engels wrote in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, “With the passage of the means of production into common property, the individual family ceases to be the economic unit of society. The care and education of the children becomes a public matter.”   This was the policy pursued by the early Bolsheviks.  Zlata Lilina, the wife of Grigory Zinoviev, proclaimed, “We must rescue these children from the nefarious influence of family life.   Our task now is to oblige the mother to give her children to us – to the Soviet state.”  Another early Bolshevik functionary, M.N. Liadov asked, “Is it possible to bring up collective man in an individual family? Every conscientious father and mother must say: if we want our child to be liberated from that philistinism which is present in each of us, he must be isolated from ourselves... The sooner the child is taken from his mother and given over to a public nursery, the greater is the guarantee that he will be healthy. ”

This outlook has also been espoused in the West.  Ellen Richards, an early social worker, claimed, "In the social republic, the child as a future citizen is an asset of the state, not the property of its parents.  Hence its welfare is a direct concern of the state." Miriam Van Waters, another early social worker, stated,  “As our case descriptions in clinics and conferences pile up, the wealth of evidence that the ‘normal’ home, as well as the broken home, fosters malnutrition, physical and spiritual, that sordid habit-settings and moral maladjustments occur in the ‘best’ families, and the conclusion grows, not that parents need education, but that a specialized agency had better take over the whole matter of child rearing.”  Feminists have been particularly vocal on this subject.  Simone de Beauvoir stated, "No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children.  Society should be totally different.  Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one."  Kate Millet declared, “The care of the young is infinitely better left to trained professionals rather than to harried amateurs with little time nor taste for the education of young minds.”  Clearly childrearing can not be left to amateurs. 

Professor and former MSNBC host Melissa Harris-Perry asserted, “we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents, or kids belong to their families, and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.”  Hillary Clinton paints a beautiful picture of government childcare in her book, It Takes a Village: “Imagine a country in which nearly all children between the ages of three and five attend preschool in sparkling classrooms, with teachers recruited and trained as child care professionals.   When I went to France in 1989 . . . I saw what happens when a country makes caring for children a top priority.  More than 90 percent of French children between ages three and five attend free or inexpensive preschools.  Even before they reach the age of three, many of them are in full-day programs.  French parents - even mothers who do not work outside the home - choose to send their children to these government-subsidized centers.”   The reality, however, is far different than Hillary’s imaginings.

Anna Freud established a nursery during the Second World War.  She selected her staff with the utmost care.  Her nursery was designed to be an example of optimal care provided by professionals.  Yet her results were disappointing.  It would appear obvious that professional care would be superior to the “amateur” care provided by a mother.  However, this has repeatedly proven to be untrue.  Benjamin Spock did a great deal to promote “professional” childrearing.  Yet he came to regret some of its consequences.  He confessed, “It’s professional people- like me - who have gotten the parents afraid of their children’s hostility, and I don’t know if we can undo it.  Pandora’s box has been opened.”  In spite of substantial evidence that “professionals” provided by the state are less effective in raising children the trend is for more government intervention.  In 1959 Spock attempted to replicate Freud’s finding with a $30,000 foundation grant.  The results were also disappointing.  Government administered childcare can range from disappointing to what can only be described as a horror story revealed by the BBC coverage of Romanian orphanages.