Sunday, November 4th open thread: ‘Metal Health’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is the open thread for Sunday, November 4th. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates and you can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is Quiet Riot performing “Metal Health” live in 1983, enjoy:
Brett Kavanaugh rape accuser admits she lied
We have said it before but in the left’s zeal to be anything anti-Trump they have become unhinged. Of course when you reach such a frenzied state you are no longer able to think straight and sometimes your judgement becomes impaired and you are not able to make good decisions.
Such was the case during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. As I wrote here, the first allegation against the then nominee made by Christine Ford was at least plausible and believable, however as the hours went by the left was apparently not satisfied with the vilification of Brett Kavanaugh and the accusations got more and more outrageous and less and less credible as the days wore on.
The accusations went from a teenage Brett Kavanaugh possibly being a little too aggressive with a classmate before backing down to not only being an full blown rapist but also participating in several gang rapes.
Since his confirmation we have seen these stories begin to fall apart; first Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick were referred to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation for lying to the Congress about the gang rape parties, and now another rape accuser has admitted to lying about rape for political reasons and has also been referred to the Department of Justice for a possible criminal investigation.
Here is more:
The Senate Judiciary Committee has referred a Kentucky woman to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) after she admitted making up an accusation that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh had raped her.
Munro-Leighton contacted the committee via e-mail, claiming that she was “Jane Doe” and that Kavanaugh had raped her. However, she later admitted that she was not “Jane Doe” and had never met Kavanaugh.
In his referral to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) elaborates:
And here is more:
Committee investigators began investigating Ms. Munro-Leighton’s allegations. Given her relatively unique name, Committee investigators were able to use open-source research to locate Ms. Munro-Leighton and determine that she: (1) is a left-wing activist; (2) is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh; and (3) lives in neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky.
Under questioning by Committee investigators, Ms. Munro-Leighton admitted, contrary to her prior claims, that she had not been sexually assaulted by Judge Kavanaugh and was not the author of the original “Jane Doe” letter. When directly asked by Committee investigators if she was, as she had claimed, the “Jane Doe” from Oceanside California who had sent the letter to Senator Harris, she admitted: “No, no, no. I did that as a way to grab attention. I am not Jane Doe . . . but I did read Jane Doe’s letter. I read the transcript of the call to your Committee. . . . I saw it online. It was news.”
She further confessed to Committee investigators that (1) she “just wanted to get attention”; (2) “it was a tactic”; and (3) “that was just a ploy.” She told Committee investigators that she had called Congress multiple times during the Kavanaugh hearing process – including prior to the time Dr. Ford’s allegations surfaced – to oppose his nomination. Regarding the false sexual-assault allegation she made via her email to the Committee, she said: “I was angry, and I sent it out.”
When asked by Committee investigators whether she had ever met Judge Kavanaugh, she said: “Oh Lord, no.”
This woman opposed the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh so much–and truth be told would have opposed any nominee with equal hatred–that she not only tried to stop him from getting onto the Supreme Court but had no issue attempting to ruin his life, and his family’s life, by sending him to jail for a political agenda. This woman needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!
Ironically, as the accusations got more and more absurd, and as these women tried to outdo each other with their oh-yeah-well-he-did-this-to-me stories that instead of undermining Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court they ended up relegating the one credible accusation into obscurity.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Elizabeth Warren has been hit with an ethics complaint for allegedly fundraising off of her promise to vote against Brett Kavanaugh and she apparently first learned about it in embarrassing fashion during a debate.
Elizabeth Warren actually does have an opponent–although not competition–in her bid to win reelection. His name is Geoff Diehl and although he has been running for the Senate for two years now this race will most likely be called five minutes after the polls close. But anyway, Elizabeth Warren and Geoff Diehl had their third and final debate the other day and to her apparent surprise Geoff Diehl mentioned her alleged fundraising violation.
Here is more:
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) claimed she was unaware of the ethics complaint against her during a U.S. Senate debate in Massachusetts Tuesday.
During the debate, Republican challenger Geoff Diehl pointed out Warren is alleged to have fundraised off Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings, asking for donations in exchange for her vote against the nominee.
“Senator Warren was fundraising illegally using the vote on Justice Kavanaugh, the confirmation vote, to try to raise money for her campaigns,” Diehl said.
Diehl was referencing a complaint sent Monday to the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) sent the complaint to Sens. Johnny Isakson (R., Ga.) and Chris Coons (D., Del.), the respective committee chairman and vice chairman.
It alleges Warren fundraised based off her intended vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Court. The Senate prohibits “linking a promise of official action to a solicitation of campaign contributions.”
After some back and forth between the candidates, one of the moderators cut off Warren’s complaint about the president to return to the ethics complaint against her. “I would like to drill down on what Representative Diehl said. The fundraising while the vote was being taken on the Kavanaugh hearing – did you or did you not do that?”
“Actually, I don’t know,” she replied.
The audience gasped.
“Yes, there’s an ethics complaint that has been filed about a fundraising email,” one moderator replied.
“Then, then I will, I will check into it,” Warren said, “but I don’t know.”
I am more than a little surprised the moderator followed up on this to be quite honest and normally you would think this would be an embarrassing moment for the Senator from Massachusetts but she has proven to have no shame when she lied about being a Native American all those years ago and then recently when she tried to defend it with disastrous results.
Of course none of this will matter to the voters of Massachusetts because integrity and honesty are only an issue when your name is Donald Trump, other than that the end justifies the means.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Beto O’Rourke once supported taking homes away from low income families because his family benefited from the plan
The Democratic party is desperately trying to find some young blood it can rally behind as the future of the party and they have hitched their wagons to a couple of candidates. These candidates would be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Beto O’Rourke.
And speaking of Beto O’Rourke it has just come to light that while he was a United States Representative he once supported a plan put forward by a billionaire real estate investor to seize the property of poor people through eminent domain so he could build businesses on the properties. But it gets worse because it turns out that he was married to the man’s daughter, making the billionaire his father-in-law. So he obviously had a vested interest in seeing the project through.
Here is more, surprisingly enough, from the New York Times:
At a special City Council meeting in 2006, a billionaire real estate investor unveiled his vision for redeveloping downtown El Paso. To replace tenements and boarded-up buildings, he proposed restaurants, shops and an arts walk rivaling San Antonio’s River Walk.
Representative Beto O’Rourke, one of hundreds attending, wasn’t exactly a disinterested party.
Not only had he married the investor’s daughter, but as a member of City Council, he represented the targeted area, including a historic Mexican-American neighborhood.
Calling downtown “one piece of El Paso that was missing on the road back to greatness,” Mr. O’Rourke, now a congressman and the Democratic candidate for Senate in Texas, voted to take the first step forward with the plan.
Over the next two years, Mr. O’Rourke would defend the plan before angry barrio residents and vote to advance it. At other times, he would abstain. Business owners who opposed the plan accused Mr. O’Rourke of a conflict, citing the involvement of his father-in-law, the billionaire developer William D. Sanders.
Here is more from some people who remember it well:
Mr. O’Rourke was perceived by many as siding with the moneyed elite against angry barrio residents, small business owners and even the Jesuit priests who ministered to the immigrant community at Sacred Heart Church.
“Mr. O’Rourke was basically the pretty face of this very ugly plan against our most vulnerable neighborhoods,” said David Dorado Romo, a local historian who added that the episode had resurrected longstanding race and class divisions in the city.
Barrio residents feared that they would lose their homes through eminent domain, and a city-funded branding study suggested that the residents of El Paso were perceived as “dirty” and “lazy.’’ Among some constituents, the hurt feelings have lingered.
One of them is Guadalupe Ochoa, 75, who owns a home near the redevelopment area. “We had voted for Mr. Beto, and now that he got to the top, and close to the power, he turned things around on us,” Ms. Ochoa said through an interpreter, Dr. Romo.
So it turns out Beto O’Rourke is not the person he claims to be now, and yet he still has the support of the Democratic voters because the party has put itself in that weird position where they have to vote for a person who supported taking homes from the poor and giving them to the rich because his family benefited from it. And they are doing it simply because he is anti-Trump, and that is because in the end–just like Beto O’Rourke–they really only care about themselves despite their protestations that it is the Republican party which cares not for the poor.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, October 28th open thread: ‘Pulled Up’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is the open thread for Sunday, October 28th. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
Last week we only discussed 3 stories so you probably did not miss any of them but if you did there is an easy way to make sure it does not happen again. You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates. You can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
Here is what appears to be a crowd-shot homemade video of Talking Heads performing “Pulled Up” live in 1978. Enjoy:
After NBC report Charles Grassley criminally refers Michael Avenatti to the DOJ for a second time
It has been a bad couple of days for Michael Avenatti. First Charles Grassley referred he and his client, Julie Swetnick to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation for lying to the Congress during the Brett Kavanaugh hearing and then yesterday NBC came out with a report that claimed that Michael Avenatti basically lied about some of the accusations Julie Swetnick was making.
Because of this report Charles Grassley has referred Michael Avenatti to the Department of Justice a second time for further investigation.
At this point it should be noted that it is being reported NBC had this information during the hearing and sat on it in their zest to bring down Brett Kavanaugh. Now that Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed they have decided they might as well release what they are calling “new information.” Think about that for a moment: these were not just allegations of some type of inappropriate touching, these were serious allegations of drugging and gang raping several women and NBC had information which would refute these claims and decided it was not worth reporting. This is not just journalistic malpractice, it enters the territory of journalistic malfeasance.
Back to Michael Avenatti, here is more:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) announced Friday that he is issuing a second criminal referral regarding lawyer Michael Avenatti.
Grassley announced the move a day after referring Avenatti and his client, Julie Swetnick, to the Justice Department for a potential criminal investigation into whether they made false statements to Congress about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The GOP chairman indicated that the second referral was precipitated by an NBC News report on Thursday, which contended that Swetnick denied making key allegations, saying that Avenatti “twisted [her] words.”
Grassley wrote that based on the NBC report, “the purported declarant denied – both before and after the sworn statement was released – the key allegations Mr. Avenatti attributed to her.”
“She stated she was clear and consistent ‘from day one’ with Mr. Avenatti that those claims were not true. And she said Mr. Avenatti ‘twisted [her] words.’ When reporters pressed him on these discrepancies, Mr. Avenatti attempted to deceive them in an apparent effort to thwart the truth coming out,” Grassley wrote.
Michael Avenatti responded in a not so professional manner by saying Charles Grassley was “full of crap” and he wanted to prove it ASAP. He also made the claim this would put Brett Kavanaugh at risk for being removed from the Supreme Court although it is hard to envision any scenario in which that could happen at this point.
Michael Avenatti is a guy who was clearly out to make a name for himself while the Stormy Daniels iron was hot and he saw his opportunity. He did not care how he made his name and he did not care who he hurt in the process and this includes a future Supreme Court Justice and even his client.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Charles Grassley refers Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department for criminal investigation
It looks like there could be some fallout from the Brett Kavanaugh hearing as it is being reported here that Charles Grassley has referred Michael Avenatti and Julie Swetnick to the Justice Department for a criminal investigation for lying to the Congress. Here is more:
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley on Thursday referred lawyer Michael Avenatti and a woman he represents to the Justice Department and the FBI for criminal investigation, claiming they made potentially false statements to Congress about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and alleged sexual misconduct.
Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, cited “contradictions” between what Avenatti’s client, Julie Swetnick, originally told the Judiciary Committee about Kavanaugh in an affidavit in late September, and what she said about the then-Supreme Court nominee days later in an interview with NBC News.
In his letter Thursday to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray asking for an investigation, Grassley listed “potential violations” of federal criminal code, specifically “conspiracy, false statements and obstruction of Congress.”
“Swetnick made her allegations in a sworn statement to the committee on September 26. In an October 1 interview with NBC News, however, Swetnick specifically and explicitly back-tracked or contradicted key parts of her sworn statement on these and other allegations,” the Judiciary Committee said in a statement.
“In subsequent interviews, Avenatti likewise cast serious doubt on or contradicted the allegations while insisting that he had thoroughly vetted his client,” according to the statement.
While Christine Ford’s accusations were unproven and without credible witnesses they were at least plausible. One can easily see how back in the day Brett Kavanaugh might have been interested in Christine Ford and put the moves on her only to be rejected. One could also see how decades later both people might have a different interpretation of what happened.
The same cannot be said for Julie Swetnick’s outrageous claims of Brett Kavanaugh repeatedly being involved in gang rape. To think that she saw the future Supreme Court Justice involved in this type of activity 10 times and not only said nothing but also kept returning to the “rape parties” takes a willing suspension of disbelief and now she could be about to pay the price for taking the advice of a lawyer who obviously was looking for his 15 minutes of fame.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Corey Booker accused of 2014 sexual harassment
An anonymous man has come forward with no proof and is accusing Spartacus of sexually assaulting him in a bathroom in 2014. Here is more:
Here is a description of the incident as I described it to a lawyer: I stopped to use one of the building’s single-occupancy restrooms. Upon washing my hands prior to leaving, I heard knocking on the door. When it comes to these restrooms it is customary to knock first in case someone is using it, even though there is an inner lock. When I opened the door, Mr. Booker was there. He smiled and very gregariously said “Hey!” We engaged in some brief idle chitchat in the entryway and then he asked me to speak in private.
What happened next, happened so fast that it was hard for me to comprehend what was going on. It was one of those surreal moments where what was happening was such a deviation and such a perversion of one’s natural daily routine that I hardly knew how to react. He pulled me into the restroom, albeit not too forcefully and slowly pushed me against the restroom wall.
He said that “Being a hero was a serious turn-on”. He continued, “The Senate appreciates fine citizens like you. Especially this Senator.”
There is more but I see no reason to reprint it here, you can follow the link above if you would want to read more about what allegedly happened between the man and Corey Booker.
In today’s America where a man is guilty until proven innocent and the victim must always be believed without question even if there is no proof I would expect an angry mob of Democrats to protest Corey Booker and call for his resignation beginning today. But of course that is not going to happen…
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
Sunday, October 21st open thread: ‘The Mob Rules’
“This is the day which the Lord hath made; we will rejoice and be glad in it.” (Psalm 118:24 KJV)
Here is the open thread for Sunday, October 21st. Please feel free to post links to interesting articles and to discuss whatever issues arise during the course of the day. Nothing is off-topic here.
Last week we only discussed 3 stories so you probably did not miss any of them but if you did there is an easy way to make sure it does not happen again. You can subscribe to America’s Watchtower to receive email updates. You can also follow America’s Watchtower on Facebook and Twitter by clicking the links on the right.
We learned last week that the angry mob of Democratic voters who have been threatening and harassing people just because they have different beliefs does not like being called a mob so I dedicate this song to them. Here is Heaven and Hell performing “The Mob Rules” live in 2007.
“You’ve nothing to say
They’re breaking away
If you listen to fools
The mob rules”
Mitch McConnell confronted by angry Democrats in restaurant
Remember several years ago when Barack Obama once called on Americans to use words that heal instead of harm? It might seem like a distance memory and that is because it is a distant memory, and it sounds nothing like the angry rhetoric Democrat leaders have used to replace it.
Nowadays Democrats, like Maxine Waters, are urging their constituents to accost Republicans wherever they are seen and to get in their faces and to confront them in restaurants when they are trying to enjoy a meal with their families.
We have seen this with Sarah Sanders and Ted Cruz, and we have also seen threats made against Republicans. Do I even need to mention Steve Scalise? The latest victim of Democratic hate comes to us from a restaurant in Louisville, where Mitch McConnell was confronted by angry Democrats. According to this story one person slammed his fists on Mitch McConnell’s table and threw his food out the door while telling him to get out of the country.
Here is more:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, was confronted Friday night by some angry diners who loudly berated him for his politics.
The Kentucky Senator was eating dinner with his wife at Havana Rumba in Louisville, when 4 men confronted Mitch. The main aggressor screams at McConnell, “Why don’t you get out of here? Why don’t you leave the entire country?”
The woman who shot the video tells us, before she started recording, the main aggressor slammed his fists down on McConnell’s table, grabbed his doggie bag and threw the food out the door of the restaurant.
The woman says the main gripe seemed to be the Senator’s stance on Social Security and health care.
And of course Hillary Clinton has basically said the only way to stop this is to elect Democrats in November, which sounds an awful lot like a veiled threat if you ask me. These people are so desperate for power they will do anything to get it back and that includes inciting their base to violence.
malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium
America's Watchtower 