Women and Children “Ordered Like Pizza” In Horrific Orange County Trafficking Ring

The Activist Mommy ^ | November 16, 2019 | The Activist Mommy

[unlearner]

“Yet you believe her story, despite her offering zero evidence to back up her ridiculous claims. Seems legit. Nothing at all like the lefties who believed Blasey-Ford despite her offering zero evidence to back up her ridiculous claims. There is absolutely no reason to believe you might be taking O’Brien’s story on faith simply because she accuses people who you are already ideologically opposed to.”

That’s not an entirely bad point. The difference is context. We know Blasey-Ford’s history. Her testimony does not add up. Cavanaugh has an impeccable track record.

The Clintons do not. Mysterious deaths. Rape. Coverups. Overt criminal activity. Look at Hillary’s history voluntarily defending the man who raped a child and then nearly beat her to death. She laughs about that “interesting” case in which she attacked the credibility of the girl, essentially claiming the girl wanted it. Books have been written, literally, about Clinton corruption. But there is a mystery as to exactly how they have been able to avoid being punished for their crimes.

The answer you don’t seem to want to believe is that they are part of a cabal of psychopathic criminals who conspire (there is that word) together to cover up their crimes and operate with impunity. Within this criminal world are those who use the occult (whether they believe it gives them supernatural power or just embrace the ideology), human trafficking, torture, rape, and murder (including ritual sacrifices). It is about money, pleasure, power, and mind control.

If you had the choice to allow your daughter to spend the summer with the Cavanaughs, would you be afraid for her safety and wellbeing? How about with the Clintons? Honestly?

“Yet you believe her story”

I listen and evaluate what people say.

I hear you, and I don’t believe you.

You don’t believe me.

Fine. I’m not offended. You don’t know me. I don’t know you.

You seem to have a strange filter for who you believe—at least strange to me. It makes me wonder if you really doubt the credibility of these stories or if you are being disingenuous for some other reason. Maybe you have some trust issues from being tricked as a child. Who knows?

Bottom line, we are at an impasse. So, let’s agree to disagree and move on. Okay?

[Boogieman]

“Cavanaugh has an impeccable track record.

The Clintons do not.”

Exactly. You’re already predisposed to want to believe anything bad someone says about them, so when O’Brien comes up with her story with zero evidence, you swallow it uncritically. If we just replaced “Clinton” in her story with some other name that you aren’t predisposed against, you might then magically become critical of her story. That’s emotional thinking.

“The answer you don’t seem to want to believe...”

No, you see that’s where you are completely off base. It doesn’t matter what I “want to believe”. Wanting to believe something is emotional thinking. If you want to believe something, then you have to be particularly critical of the evidence to support that belief because your natural tendency will be to give credence to those ideas without the same level of skepticism you would have for ideas you don’t want to believe. So the problem is not that I “don’t want to believe” something. The problem is that you “do want to believe” something, and haven’t bothered to take the effect that has on your reasoning into account.

“You seem to have a strange filter for who you believe”

I believe people who have evidence or corroboration to back up their stories. I’m not sure how that is strange.

[unlearner]

“You’re already predisposed to want to believe anything bad someone says about them, so when O’Brien comes up with her story with zero evidence, you swallow it uncritically. If we just replaced ‘Clinton’ in her story with some other name that you aren’t predisposed against, you might then magically become critical of her story. That’s emotional thinking.”

Once you accept the fact that Operation Paperclip and MK Ultra are real, and our government has participated in mind control experiments involving the torture of children, then it is not a stretch to suspect certain politicians of being part of this.

I think the allegations that the Clintons are part of it are very reasonable. I suspect people like Adam Schiff are too, but I am not aware of any evidence of his involvement other than trying to make sense out of his public lies, attempts to attack the president, and who he has deep ties with. When I ask myself why he behaves the way he does, I think it is more than merely wanting power. He seems very afraid of being exposed for something. Further, he has an air of shame and guilt about him that makes me suspect it is more than some financial crime. I’ll come back to him in a minute.

Being predisposed to believe something is not necessarily a bad thing. It’s not about believing just “anything” or everything, but things that are reasonable to me. For example, if Cathy O’Brien really thought that Bill Clinton was a space alien disguising himself as a human, I’d say she might believe it to be true, but I don’t think it is true. And it could be that some of her programming involved illusion, disguises, and hypnotic suggestion in order to create confusion and make her stories seem too incredible to believe. This is SOP within intelligence circles for disinformation. But in O’Brien’s case it seems to have been used in the most nefarious of ways.

It’s relying on common sense rather than emotion. Sure, relying on past track records alone is not strong enough to convict someone of an allegation in a court of law. So, your approach might be reasonable if we were trying to determine if the evidence of these particular crimes is accessible enough for us to reach a verdict as a jury member. But that is not the level of evidence needed to assess whether I believe accusations against someone are true or false. Bill Clinton has not been convicted of rape, but the allegations against him are credible and consistent with many other aspects of his behavior and character. Same is true of Hillary.

I have personally witnessed firsthand evidence, used by police to investigate allegations of rape. In one case a girl had apparently consensual sex with a boy at school as evidenced by her accompanying him into a bathroom willingly (although it is possible that she withdrew consent). But the video surveillance of her leaving the bathroom does not show her distressed. I don’t recall the exact details, but I think she may have gotten pregnant and then made the accusation. Anyway, in this case the evidence strongly supported the teenage boy’s defense that he did have a consensual sexual encounter. On the other hand, I was present when a sex assault victim reported the crime to police in which there was physical evidence and a recording that supported the allegations. I also was familiar with those involved and their personal histories and know without a shadow of a doubt that a sex assault occurred. It was strong enough for the police to arrest and interrogate the teenage boy (underage), but it was not strong enough for the DA to be willing to file charges. (The fact that the boy’s parents are wealthy and have a prominent position in the community might have been a factor as well. They immediately lawyered up.) This is often the case in many criminal acts. I’ve seen assault cases that were not prosecuted even with overwhelming evidence and the perp having a criminal record. So, it is certainly possible for a crime to be committed and the perp not get punished (at least by our criminal justice system).

There are other standards that apply to epistemology besides evidence admissible in a court of law or scientific evidence suitable for experimentation. For example, a potential employer can look at someone’s job history. A creditor can look at a person’s credit history.

Likewise, voters can look at a politician’s character. People who criticize politicians (and the legal standards for public figures differ than those for members of the general public) on forums such as this one, can reasonably express their opinions based on what they have observed over the course of time. You think this is drawing conclusions purely on emotion, but I think most of what we think and believe is largely based on what sources we trust (emotionally) versus actually doing the legwork of an investigator or the testing of a scientist. In short, we take their word for it based on our perceptions of their credibility.

I’m not sure whether you are arguing that there is no such Satanic, child abusing cabal in the halls of power, or that you just believe that the Clintons, Podesta, et al. are not among them. Personally, I think your position, either way, is at best, naive.

Besides the examples I’ve already given about the moral character of politicians who support abortion and exposing children to perversion, we have people who have been convicted of crimes. One example is Dennis Hastert (Republican). Based on his voting record, party affiliation, apparent conservatism, and appearance of being a good husband and father, I never would have suspected him of having molested boys, but he has been convicted of this and even admitted it. Bizarrely, there were scores of his colleagues who wrote letters seeking leniency on him due to some of the good things he accomplished. He was caught because he was illegally using fund to pay extortion money. But Congress has paid millions of tax dollars to make secret settlements for similar accusations (such as sex harassment).

But here is something odd. Hastert’s son Joshua did lobbying for John Podesta’s PodestaMattoon, which apparently became the Podesta Group. (The Podesta Brothers both left the firm, even though it kept their last name.) Adam Schiff was very involved in this organization (which is not unusual for an influential lobbying firm), and they received I think in the neighborhood of a million dollars to lobby on behalf the Ukraine government and indirectly for Viktor Yanukovych.

There is something very fishy about this whole Ukraine deal. Schiff and others (particularly in intelligence and State) seem to have panicked over possible investigations. I don’t have evidence to support it, but I highly suspect that more than just money is involved. I think sex trafficking, including children, and the related extortion and blackmail, are probably part of what they are trying to hide. I think it is much bigger than the Biden’s public involvement.

You may think these politicians are normal Joes and that nefarious allegations are just conspiracy theories, but I think when we are dealing with people at these levels of power and wealth, it is naive to not to assume that very large, actual conspiracies are essentially commonplace. I think when you just accept the cover stories, you are the one buying it hook, line, and sinker.

[Yaelle]

The article lists very little info. I’m sure OC has trafficking problems, but worse than other places, like Thailand and Mexico? I don’t see any proof.