Propaganda (cont...)

The comments section contained this: “You might want to access the [enclosed] by WZZM news It appears the allegation may be retribution for the judge’s endorsement of a candidate for his position. Looks like a ‘Kavanaugh’-like hit job. He’s been on the bench since 1998. Why 2 months before his retirement? Sounds like an unjust, vindictive allegation that’s a payback for his support of a candidate others disapprove of. Dirty politics. If allegation is proved to be false, his accuser should pay a price.” (Let men know when that happens.)

While it is probably the case that since the attempted (and nearly successful) assassination of Bret Kavanaugh by extreme leftwing senators and media, those who make false allegations of sexual abuse will certainly be emboldened, they are by no means a new phenomenon. And there is no doubt that some allegations have merit. There are now and have always been those who will abuse positions of power for personal gain, whether sexual, monetary, child custody or vengeance motivated. The concern is that with the suspension of due process in all matters sexual, and in the name of believing and protecting all accusers, the presumption of guilt and the ability to act in accordance with that presumption make any allegations a fait accompli, putting the onus on the accused to try to undo what has already been done.

Of course, as America moves toward becoming a totalitarian police state, sexual abuse allegations are not the only place this technique can be employed, civil forfeiture3 in suspected drug cases is another obvious example, and even before changes that allowed police to seize property unrelated to the alleged crime (which never has to be proven), the rules of legal due process were changed by the High Court to require the taxpayer to bear the burden in a civil case brought by the Treasury Department.4
However, it is the widespread use of sexual abuse allegations in criminal, civil, and extrajudicial prosecutions that have made this the weapon of choice for both Left and Right wing activists seeking to take down an opponent. This tactic was given a mighty boost by the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, the imprisonment of Julian Assange, the Dear Colleague letter of April 2011, and the #MeToo movement, where the mere allegation of sexual misconduct by men became sufficient to end careers, cause public humiliation, and impose severe financial burdens on many who, unable to bear the cost of mounting an effective defense, (or, as in the Assange case, fight the power of three colluding governments, all of whom want to be rid of you without the burden of your being a sympathetic victim of foul play) have been subjected to false imprisonment.

Some of those accused by the #MeToo crusade owned responsibility for improper behavior and resigned, but others did not and were either fired or were forced to resign despite their protestations, and without any kind of process in which their side of the story was allowed to be heard. Tavis Smiley has sued PBS for firing him over sexual misconduct allegations.5 “After receiving an allegation that Mr. Smiley had engaged in some type of unidentified misconduct, PBS asked its legal counsel to perform an ‘investigation’ that would show Mr. Smiley had engaged in misconduct,” the suit reads. “The ‘investigation,’ however, was poorly executed and incomplete. Based on this incomplete, trumped-up investigation, and in violation of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, PBS decided to use a technical provision in its contract with TSM to stop distributing Tavis Smiley – the only nightly television show featuring a person of color as the host. With the relationship already having deteriorated, this allegation gave PBS executives a pretext to finally rid themselves of Mr. Smiley, who was not the ‘team player’ type of African American personality PBS preferred to have hosting a nightly national news and public affairs program.”

As an African American, Smiley can raised the issue of racial discrimination in his lawsuit, but experience is that racial concerns have taken a back seat to feminism ever since the latter’s reappearance on the scene in the late 1960s. The notion that there is an alliance between the concerns of black males and females of any color is a delusion that allows the Left to keep men in the fold. It does the same thing with white men by reassuring them that all feminists are seeking is equality, when of course, what they are seeking is absolute power. Their willingness to jettison any kind of due process is the proof and also the means by which they can easily achieve their end.
 [Former Obama Spokesperson] Jen Psaki recently told CNN host Jake Tapper with a straight face that an allegation alone should be enough to end any political aspiration the accused [male] may have. Think about that for a moment. Can there be a clearer statement that men are not entitled to due process of any kind? Things would “get bloody” she said, but we needed to go through this American equivalent of ethnic cleansing in order to achieve justice for women and a moral society. And Tapper, like a good little German, stood mute. If he had protested he would probably be out of a job now, with no prospects for future employment.6

And that is the real rub. PBS has fired back at Smiley, saying: “Today’s meritless lawsuit is yet another example of Tavis Smiley’s attempts to distract the public from his pattern of sexual misconduct in the workplace...PBS hired an independent law firm to conduct an investigation. The ongoing investigation, which included a lengthy interview with Mr. Smiley, revealed that he had multiple sexual encounters with subordinates over many years and yielded credible allegations7 of additional misconduct inconsistent with the values and standards of PBS. That is what led PBS to the decision to indefinitely suspend distribution of Mr. Smiley’s program...The notion that PBS’ decision to suspend distribution of the program was made for any reason aside from Mr. Smiley’s own behavior is ridiculous and false.”

However, according to Mr. Smiley, the investigation was deliberately biased, and details of the allegations have been kept secret, not allowing for any kind of response from, or due process for Mr. Smiley, prior to the termination of his employment/distribution contract.8 This tactic was one that Christina Ford’s lawyers attempted to employ against Brett Kavanaugh, actually stating that a condition of her testimony was that he be required to defend himself prior to her giving testimony regarding exactly what her allegations were. As legal scholar and professor emeritus at Harvard Law School Alan Dershowitz pointed out in a television interview, this tactic of requiring a defendant to provide a defense against unknown allegations was routinely employed during the Inquisition.9

In a country in which it is not a crime for police to make a false statement to a suspect in order to elicit a confession or inculpatory statement (Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 [1969]), it is illegal for a person to lie to an investigator under Title 18 Section 1001, of the U.S. Code,10 and Michigan law.11 Police and FBI are increasingly using this code to obtain convictions against people who have committed no crime, but for whatever reason, don’t care to provide a truthful answer about something that may be none of the government’s business, or that they simply don’t have a clear recollection of, but which their questioners have researched and already know the answers to. This is how many of the convictions in the Mueller investigation have been obtained. No American has been charged with a crime related to colluding with Russia to interfere with the American Election of 2016, let alone having ties to the Trump campaign.12

Despite Adam Schiff’s assertion that, “There have been “credible allegations” (that phrase again) that the Russians may have laundered money through the Trump organization…”13 there has been no evidence of anything remotely tying Trump to Russian interference. However, by repeating the propaganda of Russian collusion, Schiff, Mueller and the those on both sides of the isle who want Trump out of office have been able to keep the fishing expedition going for two years, and it is obvious that they intend to keep it going until they remove Trump from office, or, better yet, put him or a family member in prison.

On October 25, 2018, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee Chuck Grassley referred Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for investigation and possible criminal prosecution for making false statements and obstruction regarding their outrageously malicious and inconsistent allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “The law prohibits such false statements to Congress and obstruction of congressional committee investigations. For the law to work, we can’t just brush aside potential violations. I don’t take lightly making a referral of this nature, but ignoring this behavior will just invite more of it in the future,”
Grassley said in a statement.14 Grassley made another referral a week later of Judy Munro-Leighton, a woman who admitted to making a false allegation simply because she was angry.15

 What do these referrals for false sex abuse allegations have to do with making false statements to the FBI and allegations of Russian collusion? Just that even when feminists or their representatives make ridiculously false and unsupported allegations of abuse, there is seldom any consequence. If Swetnick, Avenatti, and Munro-Leighton actually believed there would be any consequences it is unlikely that they would have taken the actions they did. But, what the hell, they saw Ford get away with it, and get a lot of attention and money to boot16, so why not? Lying is what the police and FBI charge someone with they have already decided to target;17 if you’re one of the good guys you get a pass. Moreover, even in the unlikely event that they are charged and convicted their punishment for making false allegations will not be commensurate with the damage they have caused through their callous contempt for American Democracy and law.

 I recently finished a thorough rereading of the Torah, a part of the Bible I had only skimmed through before because I am not Jewish, or even Christian by most measures, and am inherently suspicious of anyone who portends to be God’s gatekeeper. Nor have I ever considered the Bible to be anything resembling an accurate portrayal of history. But this time I read it more closely because I am more convinced of its importance as one of—if not the—most important foundations of Western Civilization.

 I was surprised by how much is there. Along with a lot of interaction between God and the gatekeeper Moses (who is the only representative of the Jewish people that God will deal with as long has he is alive, and whose gatekeeper descendants were obviously concerned about preserving their power), miracles that defy science, and ridiculously harsh punishments for relatively minor infractions (except that they challenged the gatekeepers’ authority), there are some pretty good rules for living.

 One of those rules, as everyone is the West has at some time or another been informed, is: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”18 19 What I did not recall, prior to this close reading, is what the penalty was for bearing false witness. Does anyone remember? (Deuteronomy 19:16-19 KJV) “If a false witness rise up against any man to testify against him that which is wrong; then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the Lord, before the priests and the judges, which shall be in those days; and the judges shall make diligent inquisition: and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother; then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.”

 An eye for an eye does not always result in justice (and indeed, may end in making the whole world blind20). However, it is also the case that when the results of making a false allegation of a crime are in no way commensurate with the results of a successful false accusation—such as the one week sentence Shae Lynn Mullins21 received for making such a proven false allegation against her ex-husband, the father of her child—and, additionally, that the existence of the crime of false witness itself is denied by those who are in positions of power and influence, then we are indeed embracing chaos.

 Though I do not subscribe to a specific religion, I wonder whether society can survive without a religious foundation, or rule of law without a moral foundation. I’ve heard the argument that the most developed countries are the least religious, but the absence of religion in the West is a relatively recent phenomenon, and most historians agree that, along with Greek and Roman culture, and English Common Law, Judeo-Christianity is one of the building blocks of Western Civilization.

 Now we have people openly espousing that we jettison all of the above in favor of political fad and some nebulous concept called “Multiculturalism.” And throw out meritocracy while we’re at it. To ignore the evidence that these trends signal our society’s headlong rush toward self-destruction is extremely naïve. Entire civilizations have embraced madness, including the sublime stupidity of “the dictatorship of the proletariat.” The West is already throwing away its babies, insuring that our culture will die out without offspring to replace us. Are we now going to throw away half of our adults as well, thus hastening our rapid demise?

 When Jesus was asked which commandment was the most important, he quoted one from Deuteronomy, which, though repeated, does not appear among the Ten. “Love God with all your heart and mind and soul.” And the second, he said, quoting Leviticus, is similar, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” For he said that by living a life of love, we would fulfill all the other commandments (the law and the prophets).22 Love was a basic tenant of the hippie movement, but that sentiment, lacking a religious foundation, was quickly replaced by the secular religion of politics.

 The politically minded would have us believe their goal is to serve, but their actions belie their words. They display a lust for power and control, which is the opposite of, and incompatible with, love and service. No one can serve two masters; we must choose one and reject the other. But one master has the power to restore, and the other to destroy. Can we, as a culture, turn back and tap the source of all creative energy, or have we gone past the point of no return?




3 The first statute authorizing civil forfeiture was enacted by Congress in 1789 as a sanction for the use of ships in customs violations.[ Act of July 31, 1789, Sections 12, 36; 1 Stat. 39, 47] In 1978, Congress expanded the law to permit forfeiture of all money used in, or acquired from, the illegal drug trade [21 U.S.C. Section 881(a)(6)] and authorized the forfeiture of real property in 1984.[ 21 U.S.C. Section 853]

4 United States Supreme Court, WICKWIRE v. REINECKE, (1927), No. 149, , , “…It is within the undoubted power [275 U.S. 101, 106]   of Congress to provide any reasonable system for the collection of taxes and the recovery of them when illegal, without a jury trial-if only the injunction against the taking of property without due process of law in the method of collection and protection of the taxpayer is satisfied.”

5 Tavis Smiley Files Racially Charged Lawsuit Against PBS Over His Firing After Sexual Misconduct Investigation, by Erik Pedersen, Deadline Hollywood, February 20, 2018 6:45pm

6 [Former Obama Spokesperson] Jen Psaki: If Somebody’s Accused Of Sexual Harassment, They Shouldn’t Run For Office, ‘The fact is that Democrats and the Democratic Party cannot be, here, you have a waiver,’ [In conversation with CNN Host Jake Tapper] Dec 17, 2017 5:18 PM, By Grabien Staff

7 “Credible allegations” has become the new way of saying that the allegations have not been subjected to any reasonable standard of proof or due process, but we believe them because they fit our preconceived notion of what happened.

8 Tavis Smiley To Tucker Carlson: Millions Of Taxpayer Dollars Will Be Squandered On Lawsuit If PBS Does Not “Fix This” by Lisa de Moraes, December 18, 2017 6:27pm

9 “...DERSHOWITZ: It doesn’t matter if he or her is guilty. If somebody is accusing of you being a communist and you angrily responded and said you’re not, then you don’t have the temperament to have the job, and it’s just a job interview if you’re getting fired for being a Professor after 40 years, and what’s the difference if you’re innocent or guilty. Somebody has said you’re a communist. This goes all the way back to the inquisition, when they would call you in first and make you testify and then they present the evidence...”

10 Cornell Law School,

11 It’s now against the law to lie to police officers in Michigan, By Rick Pluta • 4/20/2012,

12 Everyone Who’s Been Charged as a Result of the Mueller Investigation, By The New York Times, updated Sept. 7, 2018

13 Trump Repeatedly Threatens Retaliation Against Russia Investigators, Congressman Adam Schiff has plans to probe several uncomfortable subjects for the Trump administration, and the president is ready to fight. Uri Friedman, The Atlantic, Nov 7, 2018

14 Grassley Refers Swetnick, Avenatti To Justice Dept. for Investigation, By Jordain Carney - 10/25/18 01:05 Pm Edt

15 ‘I was angry and I sent it’: Another Kavanaugh accuser referred to FBI after recanting, Christal Hayes, USA TODAY Published 8:05 p.m. ET Nov. 2, 2018 | Updated 1:45 p.m. ET Nov. 3, 2018

16 ‘Nothing to Gain,’ Kavanaugh Accuser Raises Nearly $1 Million, By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigations, , October 29, 2018, In fact, Ford stands to gain some $1 million and counting from national crowdfunding campaigns launched by friends and other supporters, while she is said to be fielding book offers.

17 Should Lying to the Police Be a Crime? By Jim Talent, National Review, 2/21/2018, “It’s happening more and more. The FBI gathers information about a person, finds facts that the person might want to conceal — not because the facts prove a crime but because they are embarrassing for some other reason — then asks about those facts in an interview, on the expectation that the person will lie and thereby incriminate himself.”

18 Exodus 20:16, KJV

19 Deuteronomy 5: 20, KJV

20 Often misattributed to Gandhi, variations of it were used by others as noted in this cite. Perhaps it is most often credited to Gandhi because it was used by his biographer, Louis Fischer in the Book, Gandhi and Stalin (1947)

21 Court of Appeals of Michigan. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v SHAE LYNN MULLINS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 334098, Decided: November 30, 2017

22 Matthew 22:37-40, (paraphrase)


Michael G. Brock, MA, LMSW, is a forensic mental health professional in private practice at Counseling and Evaluation Services in Wyandotte, Michigan. He has worked in the mental health field since 1974, and has been in full-time private practice since 1985. Much of his practice in recent years relates to driver license restoration and substance abuse evaluation, but he also consults and serves as an expert witness regarding forensic interviewing and the use of forensic interviewing protocols in cases of child sexual abuse allegations. He may be contacted at Michael G. Brock, Counseling and Evaluation Services, 2514 Biddle, Wyandotte, 48192; 313-802-0863, fax/phone 734-692-1082; e-mail:, website,