Who Does This Help

Found at Unz.com in the comments section of an excellent article by CJ Hopkins

Birthr-itis

Itis: forming names of inflammatory diseases.

Yesterday Trump threw the birthright gauntlet down, no doubt in response to the pending invasion, that's what it is, headed to the US's southern border. One does not need a military to "invade" a space. In fact the common refrain about someone 'invading one's personal space" is probably the easiest way to understand this. In order to understand the importance of this issue we need to understand where it came from.

Understand that the US is one of two countries that has "birthright citizenship". Every other country requires that either at least one parent (sometimes only the male) to be a citizen or requires both parents to be citizens. In some countries entire racial groups are explicitly denied citizenship. So generally speaking having the citizenship of the country you happened to drop out the womb in is extremely unusual.

So why does the US have birthright citizenship? The answer lies in the Civil War (The War Between States). One of the major issues of the Civil War was slavery. Slaves were considered the property of whomever owned them. Since property has no citizenship, slaves were not citizens of any state or of the Federal body. Upon emancipation, you had a literal stateless population. By 1865 a large proportion of Africans was no longer attached to any particular African state that they could be removed to. It also assumed that any African who WAS attached to a particular state wanted to return. This was a part of the debate at that time about "repatriating" Africans to Africa and the set up of Liberia. This is outside the scope of this entry though.

So what to do with these stateless persons who could not be removed? Grant citizenship to them. Hence the 14th Amendment which reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The "born" portion covered all previously enslaved Africans since they had been born in the US (note that a good proportion of Africans at that time were NOT born in America). Emancipated Africans were subject to the jurisdiction of the US just as they were when they were legal property.

There was no, zip, zero intention of this law applying to Native Americans who were considered members of their respective Nations. There was zip, zero intentions of this law applying to persons not in the country legally. Previous legal cases testing this have been those who had been granted some sort of permission to enter.

Today it is fashionable to say that opposition to birthright citizenship is a "White supremacist" talking point. The fact show that generally speaking, even at the height of the Jim Crow era, it wasn't much discussed. Why? Because prior to VERY recently, the US government kept a lid on immigration, both legal and illegal. It was common for both Democrats and Republicans to speak in favor or deportation. Of limiting the growth of immigrant populations. People who arrived at Ellis Island were regularly denied entry. It was understood, across the spectrum that no foreigner had any rights to enter the country without permission from the proper representative authorities.

Now that Democrats, as demonstrated in the previously posted video, want to use immigration as an electoral weapon against their political enemies, they support the idea of foreign nationals being able to use birthright citizenship to change the electoral map. Democrats in some locations want to dispense with the privileges of citizenship altogether.

So the question comes down to whether foreign nationals who were not granted permission to enter the US qualify as "born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? I've seen legal arguments that they do not because foreign nationals who are in the US illegally are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". That a foreign national who enters without permission is no different, legally speaking as someone who is at the border. That is, they are not legally present in the US, therefore, the "birth" is not "legally" in the US.

I propose a better way to evaluate this situation. In a nod to the gun control people, I'll call it the "common sense" approach.

If a person enters your home without your permission are they automatically regarded as the same as the lease or mortgage holder? I don't know any jurisdiction that would say "yes" to that.

If that person then had a baby in your house that they entered without your permission would that baby now be considered "one of the family" with both baby and parents holding legal rights to inhabit your house? I don't know any jurisdiction that would answer "yes" to that.

This is the exact same argument. the US is the house of the citizens. Foreign nationals enter with our, the citizen's permission. Failing to get that permission does not entitle you to the rights extended to those who were given permission.

And this doesn't include recognition of the birth tourism that is clearly fraudulent means of getting citizenship. Most recently in Queens NY a Chinese birth tourism ring was busted. There is no doubt that the 14th Amendment was ever intended for that.

So Trump's proposed "end" to birthright citizenship may or may not be on shaky constitutional grounds. Certainly no executive order can undo a constitutional amendment. Certainly the lawyers advising Trump (They ARE doing that right?) know this. However; if there is a legal foundation that the 14th never meant to cover foreign nationals who have illegally entered the country. Then the executive order becomes like Obama's DACA. it's not LAW and it doesn't contradict the letter of the law but it is surely right up there on the line and subject to reversal by any other executive order.

How Much Democrats Changed On Immigration

From Praeger U

The October Surprise

This is the followup to the About Those "Bombs" posting.

As expected, the not only have none of the devices failed to detonate. The person who mailed them (who should never have been given the media attention he is now getting) declared that he didn't mean to harm anyone. Indeed, a cursory glance at the evidence shows this to be the case. In particular the device sent to DeNiro was delivered two days before the retired NYPD officer called in the bomb squad. If that was the case, when was the timer set to go off? It has been many days and we still have not been told when the "bombs" were supposed to detonate. If it had a timer or alarm, this would be known. Secondly we have not been informed of what the explosive material was. Hence it is irresponsible to refer to these devices as bombs. Yes we had a "bomb scare" but we had no bombs.

Since these devices were not intended to actually harm their targets then they could only be thought of as intended to invoke fear in the targets. Isn't it odd that a person who claims that he supports Trump, to the extent that he plastered his van with multiple images of Trump and Pence, would then go and do something so spectacularly stupid? As stated earlier, this event did and does nothing to help Trump or any other Republican. It DOES provide evidence for the continued narrative of crazed, violent Trump supporters.

But then we had the shooting in Pittsburgh, PA. Here had a person who like many of the supposed white nationalists out there, did not support Trump and who had a dislike of Jews. Feeling that his people were under attack, he decided less than two weeks ahead of the mid-term elections to make his way to a Synagogue and shoot it up.

Two separate incidences of political and "racially" motivated crimes that happen prior to a mid-term election. Talk about an October surprise! Personally I'm suspicious. Nothing these two individuals did could not have waited until after the elections. But then again, that supposes that these individuals were really *thinking*.

But shortly after there was a twist I did not see coming. Gab.ai.

The PA shooter had an account on Gab. There he, like many others said his things about Jews. Now, as of this writing, numerous internet companies have no-platformed the company. Strange isn't it? A white male who thinks that Jews have "control over the media and the like" shoots up a synagogue and an array of companies come out and act together to destroy a company simply because the shooter expressed himself there. Way to go providing evidence of "Jewish Power". When BLM member/sympathizer shot up police, nobody went after Facebook which has and had plenty of people calling for police murder. No one called for a shut down of Twitter over the multiple accounts calling for the killing of police and white people in general. If hosting content calling for murders of a race of people, is a no-platforming offense why is Facebook and Twitter even in existence? Do some peoples lives matter more than others? Do some people get a pass on their murderous tirades while others don't? Who and why?

There was recently an election in Brazil. The alleged "far right" candidate won. One of the commentaries I was hearing prior to the election was that many Brazilians were getting their info (and I'm sure, mis-info) from Gab sources. This was because Twitter and Facebook (and no doubt others) were busy de-platforming, censoring and otherwise meddling in the election in Brazil. Hence Gab has been seen as a "credible" threat to the information control exercised by Twitter and Facebook and thee media giants that use it to determine The Narrative(s)

I'm not saying that the "powers that be" knew about the shooting in advance and wanted to use this as a means of shutting down Gab, but I would be surprised if it was NOT the case that shortly after the event, it was seen as the perfect pretense to use the "Constitutional Censor".

But back to the actual events. I'll say this again: The government needs to deal with the political violence. When the Charlottesville police refused to do their duty and allow the Unite The Right Rally to proceed without interference and refused to arrest and prosecute those who assaulted people, they not only contributed to the death of Heather, but they let it be known that political violence was OK so long as it was the "right kind of violence".

When media outlets like the NYT seriously debate whether it's OK to punch a Nazi, you have a serious problem. "Nazi" grew to be Trump supporter. That grew to be Republican. That grew into any white person. Recently in Oregon we had Anti-fa take over a street and assault a man with North Carolina plates because he was trying to go somewhere. The police and authorities did NOTHING. In NYC Anti-fa vandalized a building and sent a note threatening bodily harm to persons who would attend a private meeting. That is *THE* definition of terrorism. Yet the governor of NY blamed the targets of terrorist threats simply because he disagreed with their supposed speech. None of us have heard the speech so we have no idea what exactly was objectionable about it.

And that's the thing now. People can be shut down, threatened and indeed physically assaulted simply for having alleged opinions that are allegedly disagreeable. Brent Kavanaugh was called a rapist for nearly two weeks by all the national media, even though there was zero evidence of any such behavior. Why? He was a conservative [white] male. How is any of this acceptable?

Right now there is a low level civil war going on. It stays low level so long as people think there is a non-violent means to a resolution (and that there is a resolution that allows for staying a single polity). If [more] people think that violence is how they get their way, synagogue shootings and bomb scares will be the least of our worries.

About Those "Bombs"

I don't pretend to know more about the actual facts on the ground in regards to the devices sent to various left persons. What transpires here is mostly educated speculation on the matter.

First it seems highly likely that these devices are in fact fakes. They were never meant to explode or harm the alleged target. It does seem to be a literal terrorist incident much like Anti-fa's vandalism and threatening letter to the Republican club in NY. We will know whether the items were in fact explosives soon enough. Either the relevant agencies will have a press conference in which they tell us what kind of explosive was in the device along with either a demo of the destructive force it would have when exploded; OR there will be radio silence. You should take radio silence as an admission that these were fakes. There is also a chance that the relevant agencies will tell us that they are fake (if they are). I have seen commentary online by alleged experts in bombs who say that these devices are clearly fake because:

1) Pipe bombs don't have wires at both ends.

2) The "Alarm clock" was an LCD bedside clock available from Amazon and has no alarm function.

I cannot verify either one of these statements so take them with grains of salt.

What is important here is to think of who benefits. Lets first go with it's a Trump/Republican supporter who has been riled up by Trump's commentary on the media and Democrats and therefore decided to "do his part" (assuming it's a he). Let's do a pro and con analysis:

Pro: What does he gain? Media attention. Ego gratification. Perhaps some kudos from random internet people. That's all. Cons: He certainly has not eliminated any "enemies" from the field. He hasn't changed any minds. He has given the MSM a talking point to blame Trump for "the environment". Politically it doesn't do much to help Trump or Republicans. This will be particularly true if he is found out prior to the elections.

Now let's assume that this is a false flag perpetrated by a leftist, though not necessarily a Democrat:

Pros: By framing the event as an attack by "far right" and "Trump supporters" (often synonymous in MSM), He manages to push forward the prevailing MSM narrative of violent fascists vs. innocent put-upon liberals. Indeed the head of CNN already went there. Schumer et-al already rejected Trump's condemnation of the devices. Every left-wing media outlet has discussed how Trump's "attacks on media" are the cause of the "environment" and "climate". This will work to motivate left-leaning persons to [further] support Democratic candidates.

Cons: The only real con to this is like the other prospect. Being found out prior to the election would be a devastating blow to Democrats. Not because Democrats are behind the apparent hoax. But because it would be clear to the public that isn't necessarily supportive of Trump that the far left is increasingly out of control and supported by Democrats. It would be the Kavanagh Bump on steroids.

Also it is likely that if the person is discovered after the elections, Trump would be handed a hammer with which to [continue] to hammer the MSM and various politicians.

That said, I believe that if the person does NOT turn out to be a Trump supporter or Republican, that the event will quickly be memory holed with an adjusted narrative which removes the event but keeps up the chatter about "climate". As what happened with Congressman Scalise and Rand Paul

Again, this is speculation based on the current limited information. [update 4:13PM] The NYT is reporting as follows:

The packages have shared the same traits: a manila envelope containing a 1-inch-by-6-inch length of PVC pipe filled with powder believed to be a pyrotechnic substance and packed with shrapnel. The pipes were also equipped with a small battery, a digital clock as a timer and an initiator, which causes the bomb to explode, a law enforcement official said.

"Powder believed to be a pyrotechnic substance".

I think by this time we would know whether it was a pyrotechnic substance. The device found this morning was transported to a secure location. It doesn't take long to determine if the powder was explosive or not.

But Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York said on Thursday that the devices were functional explosives.

“They are bombs capable of detonation. That has been established,” Mr. Cuomo told CNN. “Was that purposeful or incidental? Was it a poorly constructed bomb?”

Sorry but Governor Cuomo has shown himself to be a liar. His commentary regarding Anti-fa's recent behavior shows he is given to political machinations. The governor is not an explosives expert and neither am I. I will take the word of actual experts over Cuomo any day of the week.

More Inconvenient Charts

So the other day investigations into Elizabeth Warren's DNA produced a chart in which there was apparently a way to see the allegedly non-existent different races. Today's chart is the average ACT scores from 1996 on.

That black bar at the bottom...the one that has been at the bottom for the last 20 odd years? Black average results. Asians, once again, reign supreme. Clearly, the results have been manipulated to make black people look bad.

There Is No Race...?

There is no race, except when we need to identify Elizabeth Warren as a Native American. In such cases we find that we can find "African" and "European" genes.

If there is "no such thing as biological race" then how did this highly distinguished geneticist managed to isolate chromosomes by "race"? That should be totally impossible. And think that's ONE [1] chromosome. Who knows what could be found on the other 22.

And what is this thing called "admixed individuals"? I thought one drop meant you were fully "not white"?

This is sooooooo confusing!

New Adventures in One Drop Rule Land

From the NY Daily News:

Sen. Elizabeth Warren – ridiculed by President Trump with the nickname “Pocahontas” – released a DNA test Monday showing “strong evidence” of Native American heritage dating back six to 10 generations.

"Six to 10 " eh? So what does that come out to?

The largest segment involving Native American ancestry was located on chromosome 10 and is “clearly distinct” from Warren’s European ancestry...

The segment size suggests “an unadmixed Native American ancestor in the pedigree at approximately 8 generations before the sample, although the actual number could be somewhat lower or higher,” Bustamante wrote.

So let's see. 8 generations:

1) Mom= 1/2
2) Grandmom: 1/4
3) Great-grandmom: 1/8
4) Great-Great-Grandmom: 1/16
4) 2nd great-grandparents: 1/32
5) 3rd great-grandparents: 1/64
6) 4th great-grandparents:1/128
7) 5th great-grandparents:1/256

So at a minimum, we're talking 1/256 part Native American.

Going to the 9th place or 7th great-grandparent we are at 1/1024th Native American.

If we're going to call someone "Native American" because they have 1/1024th Native American genes, then I suggest that all white people take gene tests and if anything comes back as non-white, they start asking for reparations, Affirmative Action quotas, small business loans and apply for whatever scholarship they now "qualify" for.

I'm pretty certain that the first white person not named Rachel, who attempts to claim "black" due to 1/1024th black ancestry will be laughed out of court.

That White Death

Long form report on [white] people who shoot up in Philly. One of the themes I've noticed is:

Mark got addicted to oxycodone after he was injured by an I.E.D. while on deployment in Iraq. A friend taught him to shoot up heroin because it was a lot cheaper than taking painkillers. And the heroin in Kensington was very cheap. As little as $5 a bag.

A suggestion: If a person is put on strong painkillers as a part of his medical care, then weaning the person off the medication should be a standard part of the process. If that means a week (or however long it usually takes) where the patient is in a care facility, then that should be done. If after having gone through the process, they decide to go get high then that's on them.

I also find it absolutely unacceptable that a person who has served in the military and been harmed while on duty, gets into a situation where they cannot afford the medication (assuming this part of the story to be true).

Also I think that perhaps the dosages are way too high. When I had a tooth extracted, I was given 4 large pills. I took one and I only took it when the pain got too much to bear. For the rest of the time I simply dealt with it. I'm no expert, so take my opinion with the requisite amounts of salt, but perhaps medication should be given per morphology and patients made to understand that pain will NOT be eliminated, only reduced. This could possibly prevent people from getting that "total high" that leads to Heroin.

Jewish Conspiracy?

Now if you say something like "Jews run the media" you'd be denounced as a racist and anti-semite (two-fer). This despite the fact that Jews make up 2% of the US population but make up a rather large proportion of heads (or higher ups) in the media universe (print, movies, etc.). As mentioned in my last post, noticing things that are unpopular with certain populations will get you labeled.

Anyway, as is usual for a group with a rather large amount of power and who have very little to fear from outsiders, they occasionally let slip just how much power and influence they have:

Troy also looked at what he describes as “the disproportionate frenzy surrounding the Jewish vote,” when bearing in mind that Jews comprise just 2 percent of the US electorate.

The reason for such intense scrutiny is the outsize contributions of Jewish donors to US political campaigns, with Jewish donors contributing a whopping 50% of funds received by the Democratic Party and 25% to the Republican Party, Troy says.

Don't get mad at me for noticing this. Tell me, if someone was responsible for 50% of your income, would you do things that would threaten that income? What wouldn't you do to protect that income? Whom would you throw under the bus to maintain that income?

I'm pretty sure this is a case of "nothing to see here, move along."

There Is No Such Thing As "Racist" AI

In the continuing War On Noticing, those afflicted with self-imposed cognitive dissonance have declared that AI is or can be "racist". Let's put this nonsense to rest. First. AI has no survival instinct. It is not alive. AI is concerned with one thing and one thing only: recognizing patterns and modifying it's behavior to better recognize said patterns. That pattern may be how a human player plays a First Person Shooter. It may be on how a cell divides when it is healthy vs. when it is not. It may be recognizing certain proteins in a biological experiment. All the AI cares about is recognizing the pattern. Period.

However; in today's world, recognizing patters has become "problematic". If you notice that certain populations commit more crimes, then you are racist. If you notice that certain populations do poorly in standardized tests, you are racist. If you notice that certain populations have vaginas, uteri(?) and ovaries, you are "transphobic". You can be fired for stating obvious shit like: "there are males and females." It is "bullying" to assert documented facts. AI could care less about your attitude about these things. If there is a pattern, there is a pattern. Here's the latest nonsense:

The company’s experimental hiring tool used artificial intelligence to give job candidates scores ranging from one to five stars - much like shoppers rate products on Amazon, some of the people said.

So what would you feed this program?

That is because Amazon’s computer models were trained to vet applicants by observing patterns in resumes submitted to the company over a 10-year period. Most came from men, a reflection of male dominance across the tech industry.

So the data, which we've discussed on this blog repeatedly, is that males dominate the hard sciences including the higher end of the computing fields. This is because these fields require high IQ's and males dominate at the far right and far left sides of the IQ curve. That is, there are more utterly stupid and stupendously brilliant men than there are women. On top of that, women's revealed preferences show that they are more inclined to engage in careers where there is more empathy and less competition. This is known stuff. It is only controversial to those who are suffering from self-imposed cognitive dissonance.

Thus the AI wasn't given "biased" data. The data is, what it is. If it were fed data that was manipulated to "balance" the numbers, then the data would be wrong. Why would we want to feed a neutral program wrong data?

In effect, Amazon’s system taught itself that male candidates were preferable. It penalized resumes that included the word “women’s,” as in “women’s chess club captain.” And it downgraded graduates of two all-women’s colleges, according to people familiar with the matter. They did not specify the names of the schools.

No, Amazon's system discerned the pattern that males are, generally speaking, the better candidates based on the data. Notice that the Amazon system did not outright reject women because they were women. If the AI wanted to reject women outright, it would have flagged every "female" name it came across. It would have flagged every candidate who self-identified as female. Nowhere in this report does it indicate that the AI did so. Hence, the AI wasn't biased against women, it was biased against women who displayed certain patterns.

Noticed that it downgraded persons who graduated from two all women's schools. Were these schools known for their STEM credentials? Wouldn't YOU want to know what these schools were so that you don't send your children there? Is it "strange" that an AI would discover that certain schools produce a pattern of sub-par candidates?

I'm not here to say that AI is perfect. The fact of the matter is that AI is imperfect and it gets better as it refines its pattern recognition. The problem for many people infected with self-imposed cognitive dissonance is that AI will eventually see the most obvious (and not so obvious) patterns. The question is whether society will accept that these patterns exist or if they will purposely pollute the data in order to make themselves feel better about their false beliefs.

Disparate Impact, Meet Disparate Performance

The LA Times has a piece out on the recent state standardized tests. It has this nifty chart:

20% of black students met state standards in math. So 80% of black students are deficient in math. Meanwhile, 69% of Asian students met state standards in math. So when you look at tech companies that rely on high math ability and see nothing but Asian and White faces are you really sure it's some discrimination?

Worse still, 32% of black students met state standards in English. Never mind that English is the native language of black-Americans.

“It looks like the standards that are being set are reasonable if three-quarters of the Asian kids … and two-thirds of the white kids are meeting or exceeding them. We want the same for all children,” she said.

You can want whatever you like. The data says that "the same for all children" is simply not possible. Yes, not possible. Why? Because even with the highest performing group there is this thing called "variation". You will never, ever get "the same for all children" or "the same for all people". These educators have been doing all kinds of trickery and the results have been the same for decades and decades now. The solution is not magic dirt or magic tests.

It Was Better Before We Attained Democracy

Title a quote from a recent NYT piece on the continued fall of the ANC:

Mr. Magaqa’s province, KwaZulu-Natal, is the deadliest of all. Here, 80 A.N.C. officials were killed between 2011 and 2017, the party says. Even relatively low-level ward councilors have bodyguards, and many politicians carry guns themselves.

“It was better before we attained democracy, because we knew the enemy — that the enemy was the regime, the unjust regime,” said Mluleki Ndobe, the mayor of the district where Mr. Magaqa and five other A.N.C. politicians have been assassinated in the past year.

“Now, you don’t know who is the enemy,” he said.

The enemy has always been the man in the mirror.

This statement about "before democracy" is only one in a long string of reports where Africans have been calling for a return to colonial times. Those old enough to have lived prior to various liberation movements have seen what the liberators have done in many places.

The second part, in regards to knowing the enemy, is exactly what is described, by the likes of Steve Sailer as the coalition of the fringes, united by a hatred of white people. See once you eliminate the White Man(tm) and you see that the situation has not materially changed, it is at that moment you realize that it never really was about The White Man(tm). And being that "false middle class" of Fanon's description: Fully unable to replace what was removed, the only thing left is gangsterism and pillaging of government for personal enrichment.

In America's near future, when white people are "sufficiently" marginalized, black folks will come to understand this. Thus far they have lived under a people they've managed to guilt trip into suicide. The Replacements(tm) will not be so disposed (witness Hileah). People appreciate rule of law....after it's been removed.

Anyway, in regards to South Africa, the above is why I said that the real reason for the killings of white farmers has little to do with actual racial animus and is instead a means of distracting the people from the rot in the ANC. 'Cause it's quite clear they're not particularly concerned with the color of who they "have to" kill to keep power.

Rachel Mitchell's Analysis

As posted by the Washington Post. Interesting parts:

Dr. Ford has struggled to identify Judge Kavanaugh as the assailant by name.

• No name was given in her 2012 marriage therapy notes.
• No name was given in her 2013 individual therapy notes.
• Dr. Ford’s husband claims to recall that she identified Judge Kavanaugh by name in 2012. At that point, Judge Kavanaugh’s name was widely reported in the press as a potential Supreme Court nominee if Governor Romney won the presidential election.

When speaking with her husband, Dr. Ford changed her description of the incident to become less specific.

• Dr. Ford testified that she told her husband about a “sexual assault” before they were married.
• But she told the Washington Post that she informed her husband that she was the victim of “physical abuse” at the beginning of their marriage.
• She testified that, both times, she was referring to the same incident.

This bit is interesting since not all physical abuse is sexual assault.

Perhaps most importantly, she does not remember how she got from the party back to her house.

o Her inability to remember this detail raises significant questions.
o She told the Washington Post that the party took place near the Columbia Country Club. The Club is more than 7 miles from her childhood home as the crow flies, and she testified that it was a roughly 20-minute drive from her childhood home.
o She also agreed for the first time in her testimony that she was driven somewhere that night, either to the party or from the party or both.

This is actually quite significant. "As the crow flies" means that the club is 7 miles if you drew a straight line from her home to the club. Since that's not possible, the 20-minute drive is significant. Assuming that the vehicle could not go over 35 MPH due to local street speed limits (something we can find out). 35mph/1/3hour= 10.5 miles. By foot, with the average person walking 3MPH, that's a 3-hour walk. Certainly, if she had walked home she would have remembered that long walk. Furthermore; I'm quite certain that her parents (if home) would have wondered why their 15 YO daughter arrived home well after midnight. Hence the testimony that she had been driven becomes pretty important. Who drove her home?

o But she has no memory of who drove her or when. Nor has anyone come forward to identify him or herself as the driver.

o Given that this all took place before cell phones, arranging a ride home would not have been easy. Indeed, she stated that she ran out of the house after coming downstairs and did not state that she made a phone call from the house before she did, or that she called anyone else thereafter.

Dr. Ford has not offered a consistent account of the alleged assault.

• According to her letter to Senator Feinstein, Dr. Ford heard Judge Kavanaugh and Mark Judge talking to other partygoers downstairs while she was hiding in the bathroom after the alleged assault. But according to her testimony, she could not hear them talking to anyone.

Dr. Ford could not remember if she was being audio- or video-recorded when she took the polygraph. And she could not remember whether the polygraph occurred the same day as her grandmother’s funeral or the day after her grandmother’s funeral. o It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

There is a photograph of Ford taking the polygraph. The camera was in plain view of her. Also, the point about polygraphs being done while someone is grieving is one reason why polygraphs are inadmissible in court.