Connect with us

Guns and Crime

Michael Avenatti, not Julie Swetnick, helped get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed

Published

on

Michael Avenatti not Julie Swetnick helped get Brett Kavanaugh confirmed

In the aftermath of the announcements by three swing Senators to confirm Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court tomorrow, a battle erupted based on Senator Susan Collins’ assertion that the third sexual misconduct allegation against Kavanaugh may have swayed her towards supporting him.

“This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others,” Collins said in her speech on the Senate floor.

Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for third accuser Julie Swetnick and coincidentally the lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels, took to Twitter to attack Collins.

So far, Collins hasn’t replied to the Tweets. Hopefully she won’t.

Thanks to Collins, Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), and all Republican Senators other than Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Kavanaugh is almost certain to be confirmed Saturday. What role did Avenatti play in this? Quite a bit, to the point that some on the left are even questioning Avenatti’s loyalties and motives:

The third accusation

When Christine Blasey Ford came forward, nearly everyone on the left called for a full stop while some on the right wanted to hit the pause button on Kavanaugh’s confirmation. She accused him of attempted rape when they were in high school. The second accuser, Deborah Ramirez, had a story in New Yorker Magazine that drew criticism from even leftist publications like the NY Times and Washington Post for lack of corroboration, but it was a plausible story in light of the Ford accusations. Allegedly at a college party Kavanaugh exposed himself and touched Ramirez with his penis.

Avenatti orchestrated the grand unveiling of the third accusation by Swetnick. Instead of doing what any good attorney would do in this situation, he instead teased its release on social media to shine the spotlight on himself. He promised a bombshell. What he delivered was Swetnick’s story of over ten parties she attended where Kavanaugh and his cronies gang raped teenage girls and at least one adult – Swetnick herself.

The obvious questions started popping up such as why an adult woman would continue to attend parties where she knew teenage boys were constantly gang raping girls. Her sworn statement was loaded with outrageous accusations that seemed to be peppered in with an intended focus on Swetnick’s accusations that Kavanaugh would get very drunk and aggressive towards girls.

It didn’t make sense. Why focus the attention on aggressive drunken behavior with brief mentions of gang rapes? Then, Swetnick did an interview on Kavanaugh-hating MSNBC. Reluctantly, the interview had to place a disclaimer ahead of the interview because she and her producers realized there were multiple inconsistencies between her sworn statement and the answers she gave during the interview.

Avenatti botched the sworn statement. Then he botched preparations for his client ahead of the interview. While Democrats rightly wanted to focus on Ford’s accusation and testimony, Republicans were able to invoke Swetnick’s gang-rape-ringleader accusation to point out how outrageous ALL of the claims were. It played well for supporters of Kavanaugh and left his detractors in a lurch.

It’s very possible that had Avenatti properly guided his client through the process from sworn statement to interview, Kavanaugh may have lost a vote or two. Collins’ indications and history would make her a prime candidate to vote against if it weren’t for the gang rape allegations that seemed too outrageous to be anything other than a smear by Democrats.

If Swetnick had a good lawyer, her sworn statement would have done a better job at portraying the events as Swetnick remembered them. A better lawyer would have prepared Swetnick to deliver an interview that matched the story in her sworn statement. A better lawyer would have allowed Swetnick to be the focus of the story instead of himself.

Do you know the names of Ford’s or Ramirez’ lawyers? I’d need to look them up.

The unhinged left, of which Avenatti is a card-bearing member, will do anything to discredit conservatives. Americans are learning this and realizing they can’t just take their words at face value.

Advertisement

0

Foreign Affairs

Two asylum-seekers later discovered to be wanted by Mexico on kidnapping, homicide charges

Published

on

Two asylum-seekers later discovered to be wanted by Mexico on kidnapping homicide charges

According to many Democrats, anyone coming to the United States who files asylum claims should be released to the interior immediately. That’s the stance of such notable progressives as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Elizabeth Warren. Among the people they want released, no questions asked, are two separate Mexican asylum-seekers who, as border patrol later learned, were wanted in Mexico on charges of kidnapping and homicide.

Thankfully, border patrol did their jobs properly detaining the asylum-seekers until their request was denied, at which time they were ordered repatriated to Mexico.

Border Patrol Repatriates Two Wanted Felons

EAGLE PASS, Texas – Within the past two weeks, Border Patrol agents assigned to the Del Rio Sector Foreign Operations Branch worked with the FBI, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the government of Mexico to coordinate the repatriation of two men wanted by Mexican authorities on kidnapping and homicide charges.

“The U.S. Border Patrol works closely with the government of Mexico to identify fugitives,” said Del Rio Sector Chief Patrol Agent Raul L. Ortiz. “Because of that outstanding level of cooperation, these violent criminals were quickly located and returned to Mexico to answer the egregious charges against them.”

Border Patrol agents at the FOB were contacted by Mexican government officials in July regarding two subjects wanted on kidnapping and homicide charges. One of the men was apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol in November 2018 near Eagle Pass, while the other surrendered to Customs and Border Protection Officers at the Eagle Pass Port of Entry in December 2018. Both men made credible fear claims, and were ordered removed by an immigration judge after those claims were denied.

There was no indication prior to contact by Mexican officials that these men were wanted when border patrol picked them up. Had their “reasonable fear” claims been accepted in their hearings, they would have become legal residents of the United States. Only after their claims were denied did news come from Mexico that they were wanted.

Demands by Democrats for immediate release of all asylum-seekers upon processing is the most blatantly dangerous policy they want to inflict on American citizens. You won’t see progressive media reporting this, so it must be spread by conservatives.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Dean Cain’s label of San Francisco’s new incarceration language is spot on

Published

on

Dean Cains label of San Franciscos new incarceration language is spot on

Actor Dean Cain is one of the few outspoken conservatives in Hollywood. The star of Lois & Clark: The New Adventures of Superman has taken plenty of heat for voicing support for President Trump and for calling out his progressive peers as they rant unhinged.

One of his latest critiques of leftism was in response to San Francisco’s plan to change official words that pertain to convicted felons and juvenile delinquents. In pure Bay Area-style, the city is planning on sanitizing certain phrases so as to not “further victimize” criminals.

Once we catch our breath after laughing at the way these progressives see criminals, reality sets in about how asinine – and potentially dangerous – it is to cater to the criminal aspects of society at the expense of law abiding citizens.

Here are some of the details of the proposal:

San Francisco to do away with terms like ‘convict’, will instead call them ‘formerly incarcerated person’

They recently passed a resolution containing “person first” language guidelines that all agencies and departments are urged to used.

For example, an offender will now be called a “formerly incarcerated person”, “justice-involved person”, or “returning resident.”

A juvenile delinquent will go by “young person with justice system involvement” or a “young person impacted by the juvenile justice system.”

How did San Francisco leaders find time to address this non-issue when homelessness has reached crisis-levels and their city is literally covered in human feces? Have voters become so engulfed in tribal allegiance that they can’t see the absurdity in front of their faces?

Cain’s reaction was short and perfect.

In George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, the nation of Oceania had adopted the official language of Newspeak, “a controlled language of restricted grammar and limited vocabulary, meant to limit the freedom of thought.” It’s both a partial precursor to and a necessity of socialism because freedom of thought allows deviations from authoritarian control. Whether the leaders of San Francisco know it or not, they’re building a version of Oceania right now.

As long as Americans stand by and elect leaders who are more interested in not offending criminals than solving the massive problems faced by law abiding American citizens, this lunacy will continue. San Francisco is dying.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Democrats

Buying back the ‘assault weapon’ scam with military style hate speech

Published

on

By

Buying back the assault weapon scam with military style hate speech

A look at the insanity of leftist weasel words in furthering their socialist national agenda.

It would seem we are in the calm before the storm of the next gun debate. We’ve gone through the invective of having blood on our hands and all the other insane accusations while the story has dropped from the headlines. But rest assured this is only a lull in the action. Republican leadership has foolishly decided to give a hearing on all the gun confiscation schemes the authoritarian socialist left has been able to dream up the past few years.

In light of all this, we decided to look at some of the language the Left uses in going after a basic human right. Some of it conveys their collectivist mindset, while the rest are simply base substitutions for real civil rights – ‘assault weapons’ instead of arms, hate speech instead of free speech. This gives the left a cynical excuse to attack liberty and individual rights while they pretend that isn’t the case.

These words show the fundamental dichotomy between Individualism and Collectivism

The phrase ‘buy back’ goes to the fundamental political ideologies of Individualism and Collectivism, the basis of all other ideologies and the fundamental precept in arranging a rational political spectrum model. The country began with the setting out of the precepts of individualism in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.

Note that it does not refer to people collectively and that each individual has certain rights that cannot be given away – they are unalienable. Furthermore, it sets out that government is to be limited to securing these rights. Not attempting the impossibilities of fairness and equality, not redistributing other people’s money.

Contrast this with how the collectivists look at the world, were they see everyone as belonging to a certain groups or collective aggregations without individual rights or property. Collectivists have a strange idea that rights or property are somehow under the ‘democratic’ purview of society as a whole. This is how they can rationalize the forcible taking these from some and handing it out to others. It’s that infamous line that is the crux of collectivist thought:

‘From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.’

[Never mind that Karl used gender exclusionary language]

The collectivist mindset is that individuals are only of value in so much that they contribute to the collective, with their rights dependent on being a part of that collective.

The collectivist mentality of a firearm ‘buy-back’

This is how the collectivist can rationalize the theft of private property from individuals. It’s somehow ‘collectively owned’ by society, so taking it back at gun point in exchange for what is essentially someone’s own tax dollars is somehow justified.

Purchasing a gun from a manufacturer precludes it ever being the property of the government [or society as a whole]. Thus, common sense logic would hold that it is impossible for the government to ‘buy-back’ something it never owned. It’s only by the bizarre logic of ‘collective ownership’ that this can be logically rationalized. An authoritarian mindset that believes that private property can be forcibly taken from the people simply because the socialist-left wants it to be so.

Military style hate speech

When it comes to the subject of assaulting liberty, the authoritarian socialist left has no equal. They really know how to twist the language to their own cynical use in developing weasel words as a substitute for basic human rights. These give the left the ongoing opportunity to go after civil liberties while maintaining the false pretense supporting liberty or being ‘Liberal’. The first being the term ‘hate speech’, the term’s construction implies a certain level of laziness in just swapping out the word ‘free’ for the word ‘hate’.

As in all of these weasel words, the idea is to use these as the supposed subject of their ire, while they are really going after free speech. The fact is there is no set definition for the term, so it can be applied to anything they want, this being a common characteristic of these phrases. We tacked on another set of weasel words just to illustrate the absurdity of this genre. Again, there is no set definition of ‘military style’ so it could apply to anything.

The ‘assault weapon’ scam

This is another weasel word construction meant to convey something, but without definition so it can be applied to anything. The fact is, just about anything can be used as a ‘weapon’ to ‘assault’ someone; it’s in the definition of the word weapon. It’s a scam because it’s meant to be used to ban certain arms and then expanded to anything and everything left wants. One can assault someone with any kind of weapon.

Other types of arms have a set definition. Banning those would restrict the standard to just those types of arms. For example, revolvers are one of the oldest repeating firearms. Banning them wouldn’t give them an open-ended way to ban everything else. They can’t very well ban a lever-action firearm as a revolver, for example. This isn’t the case with ‘assault weapons.’ Today it’s semiautomatic firearms with a detachable magazine, tomorrow it can be bolt action rifles. This is why this phase is a scam, although the same term can be applied to all of the other weasel words of the Left.

The bottom-line

All of these phrases should be rejected by those who are fair-minded and support the rule of law. Since they are undefined or make no sense, they have no place in civil discourse. The fact that the left uses them with abandon proves they are not working in good faith with the rest of us, and any legislation that uses these terms should also be rejected.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending