Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Saturday, November 3, 2018

Another Lie Regarding Kavanaugh Shown To Be A Fraud.

Kavanaugh Accuser Admits She Never Met Him, Allegations Were Made Up

By Randy DeSoto
November 2, 2018 at 6:58pm

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has referred another person to the Justice Department for criminal investigation regarding apparent false allegations during the confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

In a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and FBI Director Christopher Wray on Friday, Grassley recounted that the Committee reached out to numerous individuals claiming to have relevant information as part of the process of investigating allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Kavanaugh.

“While many of those individuals have provided the Committee information in good faith, it unfortunately appears some have not,” wrote the senator.

He referred Judy Munro-Leighton for investigation of potential violations of providing materially false statements and obstruction of the committee’s investigation regarding Kavanaugh.

Grassley explained that staff members for Democratic Sen. Kamala Harris of California submitted “an undated handwritten letter to committee investigators that her California office had received signed under the alias “Jane Doe from Oceanside, California.”

“The anonymous accuser alleged that Justice Kavanaugh and a friend had raped her ‘several times each’ in the backseat of a car. In addition to being from an anonymous accuser, the letter listed no return address, failed to provide any timeframe, and failed to provide any location — beyond an automobile — in which these alleged incidents took place,” wrote the chairman.

Committee staff questioned Kavanaugh about the allegations in late September.

“(T)he whole thing is ridiculous. Nothing ever — anything like that, nothing,” the then-nominee responded. “(T)he whole thing is just a crock, farce, wrong, didn’t happen, not anything close.”

The committee later released the transcript of the interview publicly.

Do you think Munro-Leighton should be criminally prosecuted?

Three days before Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote, Judy Munro-Leighton wrote an email to the committee claiming, “I am Jane Doe from Oceanside CA — Kavanaugh raped me.”

Munro-Leighton further related that she was “sharing with you the story of the night that Brett Kavanaugh and his friend sexually assaulted and raped me in his car” and referred to “the letter that I sent to Sen. Kamala Harris on Sept. 19 with details of this vicious assault.”

Committee investigators then looked into Munro-Leighton’s background and learned she is a “left-wing activist,” who is decades older than Judge Kavanaugh and lived in “neither the Washington DC area nor California, but in Kentucky.”

Under questioning by the committee, Munro-Leighton admitted she did not write the Jane Doe letter and that she “just wanted to get attention,” and her actions were a “tactic” and a “ploy” because she opposed Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

“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,” wrote Grassley.

Munro-Leighton revealed that she had never even met Kavanaugh.

Grassley concluded his letter to the DOJ, “(I)n light of the seriousness of these facts, and the threat these types of actions pose to the Committee’s ability to perform its constitutional duties, I hope you will give this referral the utmost consideration.”

Last week, the senator referred attorney Michael Avenatti and his client Julie Swetnick to the DOJ for criminal investigation relating to a “potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress.”

A news release from the Judiciary Committee highlighted that Swetnick’s allegations about Kavanaugh, made in a sworn statement to the committee, had “serious credibility problems.” Swetnick claimed Kavanaugh was present at parties when there were gang rapes and that he was involved in spiking punch to make women more susceptible to sexual advances.

“In an October 1 interview with NBC News … Swetnick specifically and explicitly back-tracked or contradicted key parts of her sworn statement on these and other allegations,” the release stated. “In subsequent interviews, Avenatti likewise cast serious doubt on or contradicted the allegations while insisting that he had thoroughly vetted his client.”

Following Grassley’s announcement of the criminal referral, NBC published a storynoting that not only had the network not been able to corroborate Swetnick’s initial claims, but it “found other apparent inconsistencies in a second sworn statement from another woman whose statement Avenatti provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee in a bid to bolster Swetnick’s claims.”

Based on this reporting, Grassley made a second referral to the DOJ regarding Avenatti.

Are We Headed For Anarchy? Are We Afraid To Enforce Laws Anymore?

A migrant, traveling with a caravan of thousands from Central America en route to the United States, holds Mexico's national flag during walk along the highway to Juchitan from Santiago Niltepec, Mexico, on Oct. 30. (Photo: Ueslei Marcelino/Reuters/Newscom)

What makes citizens obey the law is not always their sterling character. Instead, fear of punishment—the shame of arrest, fines, or imprisonment—more often makes us comply with laws.

Law enforcement is not just a way to deal with individual violators but also a way to remind society at large that there can be no civilization without legality. Or, as 17th-century British statesman George Savile famously put it: “Men are not hanged for stealing horses, but that horses may not be stolen.”

In the modern world, we call such prompt, uniform, and guaranteed law enforcement “deterrence,” from the Latin verb meaning “to frighten away.” One protester who disrupts a speech is not the problem. But if unpunished, he green-lights hundreds more like him.

Worse still, when one law is left unenforced, then all sorts of other laws are weakened.

The result of hundreds of “sanctuary cities” is not just to forbid full immigration enforcement in particular jurisdictions. They also signal that U.S. immigration law, and by extension other laws, can be ignored.

The presence of an estimated 12 million or more foreign nationals unlawfully living in the U.S. without legal consequence sends a similar message. The logical result is the current caravan of thousands of Central Americans now inching its way northward to enter the U.S. illegally.

If the border was secure, immigration laws enforced, and illegal residence phased out, deterrence would be re-established and there would likely be no caravan.

Campus protests often turn violent. Agitators shout down and sometimes try to physically intimidate speakers with whom they disagree.

Most of the disruptors are upper-middle-class students. Many have invested up to $200,000 in their higher education, often to ensure well-paying careers upon graduation.

Protesters assume that ignoring laws about peaceful assembly poses no consequences. Usually student disruptors are right. College administrators will typically shrug at even violent protests rather than call police to make arrests.

Yet if a few bold disruptors were actually charged with misdemeanors or felonies and had arrests tarnishing their otherwise sterling resumes, there would likely be far fewer illegal and violent protests.

In the last two years, a number of celebrities have openly fantasized about doing physical harm to the president of the United States. Madonna, Kathy Griffin, Johnny Depp, Robert De Niro, Snoop Dogg, and other stars have expressed their wishes that President Donald Trump might be beaten up, blown up, cut up, or shot up.

Their shared premise is that they are too famous, influential, or wealthy to expect consequences that ordinary citizens might face for making threats to the safety of the president of the United States. If the next time a Hollywood icon tweeted or voiced a threat to the president he or she was subsequently put on a no-fly list, the current assassination chic would quickly stop.

Every person assumes the freedom to eat safely in a restaurant, to walk to work without disturbance, and to relax without fear of violence. Now, that is not always the case, at least not if one is deemed politically influential and conservative.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., must worry that when they venture out in public, protesters will scream in their face, attempt to bar their passage, or disrupt their meal—and do so without legal ramifications.

There are many causes of the current legal laxity.

Trump is a polarizing president, and his critics have decided that extraordinary and sometimes extralegal measures are morally justified to stop him. Supposedly high-minded ends are seen as justifying unlawful means. Helping undocumented immigrants evade the law, stopping the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, or otherwise thwarting Trump all warrant special immunity.

The problem with ignoring laws is that it is contagious—and can boomerang.

Sanctuary cities could in theory birth conservative sanctuary zones. Would today’s protesters wish for other jurisdictions to nullify federal laws and court rulings concerning abortion, gun registration, and gay marriage?

If thousands of Hondurans in a caravan are deemed above the law, then why not exempt future mass arrivals of Chinese or South African immigrants?

If Cruz and other Republican politicos can’t eat in peace, will former President Barack Obama; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; and Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., soon face the same disruptions—the illegality justified by higher moral concerns?

If students can block a right-wing speaker or storm a diner, will they also object when anti-abortion protesters bar the passage of a pro-choice campus guest?

German philosopher Immanuel Kant noted that “anarchy is law and freedom without force.”

Translated to our current context, Kant might say that all our high-minded talk about the Bill of Rights means absolutely nothing without the cop on the beat and the local district attorney.

Obama Corrupted CIA As Well As The Rest Of The Government

Chuck Grassley uncovers HUGE Obama bombshell (shocking!)

NOVEMBER 3, 2018

“On the Holmes Front,” with Frank Holmes

Americans are just days away from deciding whether to give Democrats a new lease on political life—but they might want to think about how the liberals will abuse the power and authority once they crawl their way back into office.

An explosive new discovery shows just how deep corruption ran the last time Democrats ran the show… and it’s uglier than we ever thought.

A new report has surfaced explaining that former President Barack Obama actually spied on Congress so he could punish the whistleblowers who warned them about Obama’s ‘Big

Investigators finally revealed on Monday that the Obama administration secretly stole communications sent to congressional staffers from CIA whistleblowers—people sounding the alarm that the Obama administration had been abusing the nation’s top spy organization.

“The fact that the CIA under the Obama administration was reading congressional staff’s e-mails about intelligence community whistleblowers raises serious policy concerns, as well as potential constitutional separation-of-powers issues that must be discussed publicly,” said Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, who is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Nothing—nothing—should inhibit or interfere with Congress’s constitutional job and protecting whistleblowers,” Grassley said.

The new documents are smoking hot—but they didn’t come overnight. Sen. Grassley had to fight the Deep State tooth and nail for more than four years to blow the lid off the program.

Grassley first asked for memos about Obama illegally spying on Congress in April of 2014.

The Iowa Republican said that he had to fight years of “bureaucratic foot dragging” from two top Obama officials… and he named names.

James Clapper, Obama’s National Intelligence Director, and John Brennan, a one-time Communist Party voter who Obama tapped to be his CIA Director, kept everything under wraps, according to the Senate leader.

Even the people who were supposed to hold Obama accountable did nothing but whitewash his crimes and misdemeanors.

The inspector general, I. Charles McCullough III, called Obama’s spying on Congress “lawful and justified.”

Obama-era officials said the surveillance was totally innocent, and they only picked up Congressional e-mails during “routine counterintelligence (CI) monitoring of government computer systems.”

Obama violated the Constitution and spied on every single, living American. Then he monitored Congress, so that he could punish people who warned the people what he was up to.

But he claims there’s nothing to see here, move along!

Grassley followed up in 2017, but the Deep State kept on stonewalling him… even under President Donald Trump.

But Trump appointed a new inspector general, Michael K. Atkinson, in May — and he’s shutting down Obama’s conspiracy of silence.

Grassley got through to the right person last month — and the documents that finally came out showed how Obama would stop at nothing to pry into your privacy without you ever finding out.

He turned the country into one huge spy ring — and nobody was exempt… Congress, the CIA, private citizens, presidential candidates, nobody.

He put at least one spy in Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

Obama’s NSA spied on the entire country.

“Americans should be alarmed that the NSA is vacuuming up their emails and phone calls without a warrant,” the ACLU said about the Obama-era NSA just last year.

To keep the government’s all-seeing eye open, Obama put the screws to anyone who tried to warn the country about what he was doing.

Obama prosecuted nine whistleblowers for leaking information — three times as many as all other U.S. presidents combined.

Those dangerous forces got sent up the river for reporting on Obama’s dirty, secret spy programs to outlets like Fox News and the conservative Hoover Institute.

Obama didn’t care that these people leaked “national secrets”… after all, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s homebrew e-mail server leaked top-secret documents like a sieve.

Obama didn’t care when China or Russia got U.S. secrets — only when his employees told the conservative media just how stupid, hapless, and unconstitutional Obama really was.

That had to be shut down… no matter how badly it hurt the government or the country.

Grassley said Obama’s actions were “unacceptable and unpatriotic,” because they could stop “responsible citizens from disclosing waste, fraud and abuse in our government.”

“Blowing the whistle has played an integral role in maintaining good government,” Sen. Grassley said.

But shutting people up about massive government abuse is exactly what Obama intended — and if Hillary had been elected, we still wouldn’t know any of this.

If Democrats end up back in power, everything you do goes back under the government microscope. Everything the government does gets swept back under the rug. And the Constitution goes back into the shredder.

Frank Holmes is a reporter for The Horn News. He is a veteran journalist and an outspoken conservative that talks about the news that was in his weekly article, “On The Holmes Front.”

Anti-Semitism Is The Poison That Kills Countries (As Well As Jews)

A mourner places flowers on the memorials erected outside of the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Oct. 29, 2018. (Photo: Matthew Hatcher/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

All my life I have reminded fellow Jews in America that we are the luckiest Jews to have ever lived in a non-Jewish country.

I know what I’m talking about. I wrote a book on anti-Semitism, taught Jewish history at Brooklyn College, and fought anti-Semitism since I was 21, when Israel sent me into the Soviet Union to smuggle in Jewish religious items and smuggle out Jewish names.

Even after the massacre of 11 Jews in a Pittsburgh synagogue, this assessment remains true.

But the greatest massacre of Jews in American history is a unique American tragedy.

It is a tragedy in part because America has finally made the list of countries in which Jews were murdered for being Jews. While this was probably inevitable, given that 330 million people live in America, it is painful—equally for me as an American and as a Jew.

And second, while there is no difference between the murder of Christians at a church and the murder of Jews in a synagogue with regard to the loss of life and the suffering of loved ones, there is something unique about the murder of Jews for being Jews: Anti-Semitism is exterminationist. Anti-Semites don’t just want to persecute, enslave, or expel Jews; they want to kill them all.

On Passover, Jews read the Haggadah, the ancient Jewish prayer book of the Passover Seder. In it are contained these words: “In every generation, they arise to annihilate us”—not “persecute” us; not “enslave” us; annihilate us.

So, when the murderer yelled, “All Jews must die,” he encapsulated the uniqueness of anti-Semitism.

There is another unique aspect to anti-Semitism: It destroys every society in which it grows. The animating force within Adolf Hitler was Jew-hatred. More than anything else—desire for German “Lebensraum,” hatred of Bolshevism, a view of Slavs as subhuman—it was anti-Semitism that invigorated him. Anti-Semitism was not a Nazi scapegoat; it was the Nazis’ raison d’etre.

The results of German anti-Semitism for Germans alone: more than 5 million dead, including half a million German civilians; 130,000 more civilians murdered by the Nazi regime; 12 million Germans expelled from East Europe, 2 million of whom died; innumerable rapes of German women; Germany divided in two for half a century—and the loss of a sense of self and reputation.

I have no idea if, outside the universities and the Israel-hating left, there has been an increase in anti-Semitism in America. I wish I could trust the Anti-Defamation League, other Jewish organizations, and Jewish community newspapers. Sadly, only Jews on the left do, because most of these organizations have a left-wing, anti-Trump agenda.

Here’s a perfect example:

The mainstream left-wing media, along with left-wing Jewish organizations and media, told us every day for months after Donald Trump’s election that anti-Semitism had greatly increased. They cited the great number of Jewish Community Centers that received bomb threats.

It turned out, however, that about 90 percent of those threats were called in by a mentally disturbed American Jewish teenager living in Israel, and the other 10 percent were made by a black radical seeking to frame his ex-girlfriend.

So, the claim eventually vanished from the news—with not one Jewish or non-Jewish organization or media outlet apologizing for crying anti-Semitic “fire” in a crowded theater.

The dishonest now have the Pittsburgh massacre to blame on Trump. But that’s as big a falsehood as blaming Trump for the bomb threats. In reality, the Pittsburgh murderer criticized Trump for his close connections to Jews and Israel.

For Jews to blame the most pro-Israel president since Harry Truman—the only president with a Jewish child and Jewish grandchildren, moreover—for increasing anti-Semitism is another example of a truism this Jew has known all his life: Unlike Jewish liberals, who get most of their values from Judaism, Jewish leftists are ethnically Jewish but get their values from leftism.

The biggest increase in anti-Semitism in the last 10 or so years has come from the left. Just ask young Jews who wear yarmulkes or are vocally pro-Israel on most American college campuses. And this generation’s threat of Jewish annihilation comes from Israel’s Iranian and Arab enemies.

As a Jew who attends synagogue every Shabbat, and as an advocate for the carrying of concealed weapons, I fervently pray we will not need armed guards at American synagogues. America’s uniqueness has been exemplified by the fact that Jews do not need armed guards in their synagogues.

May it always be so.

Even if you don’t love Jews—if you only love America—you need to fight anti-Semites. As the Jews go, so goes the fate of the nation in which they live.

Conservative Musings

Contact Form