Rashida Tlaib Goes Off the Rails at Hearing with ‘Winking’ Conspiracy

 

“Okay, why were you winking at one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle? You winked,” Tlaib demanded.

Democrat Rep. Rashida Tlaib was openly hostile towards a conservative witness during the House Oversight and Reform Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy hearing on vaping. (A post on the lighter side..video)

Rep. Tlaib accused the witness, Vicki Porter, of being part of a conspiracy for winking at Republican Rep. Glenn Grothman and demanded that she was lying about having quit smoking. Porter was invited to speak at the hearing because she was able to quit smoking by switching to vapes and advocates for people quitting smoking.

Rashida Tlaib Attacks Vape Hearing Witness

 

 

Porter explained that Rep. Grothman is a friend of hers and was the one who introduced her. “Oh, I understand. I didn’t know what the winking was.

I thought maybe there was like a conspiracy thing going on. I didn’t know,” Tlaib bizarrely stated. “You think there’s a conspiracy in this hearing, ma’am?” Porter replied, as shocked as everyone else hearing the freshman lawmaker’s assertion.

Not enough yet? More wonderful news. Our special scientist from Detroit with the inside scoop makes some outlandish claims.

 

Other than that, all is well in the swamp. Not so much in Detroit.

For the best in conservative news click below

Advertisements

IG Horowitz congressional hearing that no one knew about or covered

 

DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform on Wednesday morning. Comments made:

Why is the room virtually empty where are all the demon rats what’s the matter can’t they handle the truth?

Where did this hearing come from? There was absolutely zero coverage about it.

@57:43 Horowitz lets it slip that he knows about an upcoming criminal referral of a head of a federal agency.

You would have never known it. C-Span 1,2 or 3 did not cover it. No cable. All afternoon I waited for Fox to report on it but nothing. C-span 3 was covering a hearing on the mental health of the “migrant kids” mental health. After about an hour after the supposed start time of 11 am I finally scurried around the internet and found it being covered live.

The story isn’t the hearing itself but the lack of coverage by anyone. Maybe because there weren’t any Democrats involved? Maybe because we know where this is going to end.

Horowitz covers his referral of the AG over Comey’s lack of candor and it is worthy of a headline. Good stuff. If you care to work through it, I have included the full thing. While it’s still up:

“Regarding US Attorney Durham, are ya’ll in any discussions about what he’s finding or what you have found?” Congressman Hice (R-GA) asked Horowitz.

Horowitz also revealed to lawmakers that he criminally referred former FBI Director James Comey for prosecution.

The Justice Department ultimately declined prosecution and despite Comey bragging about this, the IG indeed concluded he criminally acted.

At the time there were about 12K of us watching…

For whatever reason the full hearing starts about half way into it… it’s the full thing- start from the beginning if you so chose. Will update the post if need be.

Comey referral:

 

Full hearing

 

Other than that the swamp is very happy.

For the best in conservative news click below

WHATFINGER NEWS

 

Vote Tally Count Trump Articles of Impeachment

Check how your congressman or woman voted on the Articles of Impeachment of Trump. 332-95.

For a breakdown by State and District. Go to Gov Track link:

 Gov Track

 

FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 483(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)
H RES 498      YEA-AND-NAY      17-Jul-2019      5:38 PM
QUESTION:  On Motion to Table
BILL TITLE: Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, of high misdemeanors

Click on Nays and Yeas

YEAS NAYS PRES NV
DEMOCRATIC 137 95 1 1
REPUBLICAN 194 3
INDEPENDENT 1
TOTALS 332 95 1 4

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2019/roll483.xml

There were 95 Democrats who voted against the move to table the measure. Notable progressives, including Chairmen Jerry Nadler of the Judiciary Committee and Jim McGovern of the Rules Committee, voted “no” against the effort, along with members of the Congressional Black Caucus and Hispanic Caucus, some of the strongest voices for impeachment in Congress.

A large group of moderates, centrists and freshmen voted with Republicans, putting the divisive topic of impeachment on ice – for the time being.

ABC news

Al Green

House Democratic leaders avoided a direct vote on Rep. Al Green’s articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump with Republicans’ help, as Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy moved Wednesday to table the Texas Democrat’s resolution.

The motion was agreed to, 332-95, with Oregon Democrat Peter A. DeFazio voting “present.”

“In my opinion, it didn’t fail. In my opinion, we got 95 votes this time, 66 the last time. So that’s a plus. But whether we get 95 or 5, the point is we have to make a statement,” Green said after the vote.Read more

Other than that, all is well in the swamp. Whatfingernews for the best in conservative news. Click below.

Arizona bill forces people to submit DNA

 

It’s Friday. So let’s take a look and see how our police state is coming along. The news from Arizona caught my eye, so let’s do a medley of news from “the front” with some flashbacks.

For those sucking up the Socialist kool-aid, there will be lots more of this coming to your town soon.

Arizona: Bonus: You have to pay the $250 buckeroos for it.

New legislation working its way through the Arizona Senate would establish one of the country’s first statewide DNA databases in which wide swaths of residents would be forced to give up their genetic material.

The DNA database would be maintained by the Department of Public Safety, which would include a person’s name, social security number, date of birth and last known address – and could be accessed and used by law enforcement for investigations. The database can also be shared with other government agencies across the country for the purposes for “employment, licensing, death registration, missing persons identification,” and IDing people using aliases or multiple identities, reports AZ Central.

No other state has anything this expansive in place, according to David Kaye, an associate dean for research at Penn State University who studies genetics and its application in law.

Kaye said the proposed bill is one step away from requiring DNA from anyone who wants a driver’s license. –AZ Central

…..

Arizona wants some DNA, but the FBI wants all of it

While Arizona’s bill collects DNA from certain categories of individuals – and eventually everyone once they’re dead, the FBI is creating a “nation of suspects” according to a US think tank, as they seek to collect every single American’s DNA for a massive database signed into law in 2017 by President Trump which comes into effect this year.

The Rapid DNA Act allows police to routinely collect DNA samples from anyone they’ve arrested, but before they’ve been convicted of a crime. The 2017 law requires several states to connect Rapid DNA machines to the “Codis,” the FBI’s national DNA database.

Approximately the size of a desktop printer, use of the Rapid DNA machines made by Thermo Fisher Scientific and others, are “expected to become as routine a process as taking fingerprints,” according to the Daily Star.

But John W. Whitehead from The Rutherford Institute believes it is a sinister development which will make everyone a suspect.
Speaking to Daily Star Online, he said: “The fact of the matter is that these machines are not full-proof.“But we could look at a situation in which someone could be arrested, have their mouth swabbed and then be charged within hours after generating a DNA profile.“We are looking at the erosion of the concept of innocent before proven guilty because it will allow police to go on fishing expeditions. –Daily Star

More at  Zero Hedge

 

Meanwhile Phones are making Minority Report’s Precrime a reality – and other things we’ve learned.

Phillip K Dick predicted it, Steven Spielberg committed it to film and FOX is about to bring it to TV – but it looks like Precrime is already becoming a reality.

We’ve been reading through a new report released by EPJ Data Science called “a survey of results on mobile phone datasets analysis” which looks at what 15 years of mobile data has taught us.

For example, a study published by Bogomolov et al has used mobile phone traces to try to predict whether a certain area would become a crime hotspot within the next month. The study used the estimated number of people in each area, the age, gender as well as work, home and visitor group splits. All of the information was directly gained from mobile phone data.

That information was then pushed through the system and it found they could predict whether a certain area would be the scene of a crime in the next month with an accuracy of 70%.

In a separate study Bogomolov et al set out to find out if mobile phones could predict a person’s daily stress levels from non-invasive sensors, as well as mobile data.

Only using one lot of data provided a poor result but if the data was combined with personality traits and knowledge of the weather conditions they found a 72% accuracy in predicted whether people were stressed. Full story over at Tech Data

Here is a home grown movie ad, inserting facts with the regular ad for Minority Report

 

 

Nestled in President Obama’s stirring speech reasserting America’s commitment to the Rule of Law was a stunning announcement of a plan for a new legal construct justifying the “prolonged detention” of people we think might misbehave in the future.

This is the change Obama promised. Swathes of the discontent rounded up and imprisoned indefinitely. The persecution of the witches was nothing to what the schemers pulling his strings have laid plans for.

From

Senate Intelligence Authorization Act, Would Allow Arrest of Journalists, Anti-war Activists, Academics and Students

Let’s add this final memory from my way back machine not so long ago:

Meet ‘Sensitivity Readers’ looking for thought crimes prior to publication

…Censors who study manuscripts for thought crimes so that books can be revised or rejected prior to publication are called “sensitivity readers.” The Chicago Tribune approvingly defines a sensitivity reader as “a person who, for a nominal fee, will scan the book for racist, sexist or otherwise offensive content.”

“The industry recognizes this is a real concern,” said Cheryl Klein, a children’s and young adult book editor and author of “The Magic Words: Writing Great Books for Children and Young Adults.” Klein, who works at the publisher Lee & Low, said that she has seen the casual use of specialized readers for many years but that the process has become more standardized and more of a priority, especially in books for young readers.

Rigid control of what young people read is a higher priority, because their opinions are more malleable, still being in the process of forming.

Sensitivity readers have emerged in a climate – fueled in part by social media – in which writers are under increased scrutiny for their portrayals of people from marginalized [i.e., politically favored] groups, especially when the author is not a part of that group.

If you portray characters in any light that could possibly be construed as reflecting negatively on a politically preferred group like blacks, you are a racist thought criminal; good luck getting published. Avoiding this problem by ignoring blacks is exclusionary and therefore also racist. The only course of action that is not racist is to crowd your work with cartoonishly correct black characters who have been explicitly approved by the thought police. If you do that you are not racist; you are a cultural expropriator. More at Moonbattery

American Justice? Maybe

 

American Justice?  Maybe.

by Mustang

“That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.” —Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776)

John Locke

 

The roots of such thinking was John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government, wherein he argued that political society existed for the sake of protecting property, which is to say, life, liberty, and estate.  He also argued that a magistrate’s power must be limited to preserving an individual’s civil interests, which he reiterated as life, “liberty, health, and indolency of body and the passage of outward things.”

So the phrasing of Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence relied upon this thinking to proclaim these goals on behalf of British colonists demanding (well, at least a third of them) their independence from the British Crown.

Through the years, Americans conclude that we are, therefore, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness … happiness being to acquire and maintain property, which was back then, the source of all material wealth.

There ae no absolutes, however.  We may be entitled to pursue happiness, but the government has the power to take away our happiness for its own purposes.  In law,eminent domain is the power of government (local, state, federal) to seize private property while offering the landowner fair compensation —the word fair meaning “according to the government’s determination.”

This right of eminent domain may be delegated to private corporations when they are able to argue that their use of our property fulfills a public good—which also means “economic development” because it is assumed that land development is good for the public.  This may, in fact, be true … but should economic development usurp the inalienable right of citizens to their property?

Bush the Younger said no … he signed an executive order limiting federal seizures to public-use arguments, but his order has no effect on what states and local municipalities may do.  A state, country, city, or town may seize private property for their own purposes and pay the unwilling owner of the property a fair market value for that property.  Then they may turn around and sell that seized property to a developer, who then makes a fortune on land that he was never entitled to.

Pursuit of happiness?  Really?  Whose happiness?

This discussion fits nicely into the question of whether a citizen may sue the government.  The answer is, no … a citizen may not sue the federal or a state government without that government’s permission.  And the government may seize our private property, which is done more often than the average citizen may think.

You own a recreational vehicle and for ten months of the year, you lease it to others.  One of these renters is stopped for speeding along Interstate 10.  During the stop, police alert to the odor of marijuana.  A lawful search is conducted and not only do the police determine the presence of marijuana residue, they also find some quantity of another illegal substance.  Sorry Charlie … you just lost your motor home.  Federal, state, or local police seized it.  It will be auctioned off and you’ll continue making monthly payments.  Police can do the same thing to a house you’ve rented out to others.

Is this fair treatment, or does it fly in the face of our inherent right to happiness?

What does the good book tell us about justice?  “Justice, and only justice, you shall pursue, that you may live and possess the land which the Lord your God is giving you.”  — Deuteronomy 16:20.

 

Mustang has other great reads over at his two blogs – Thoughts from Afar

with Old West Tales and Fix Bayonets

Congressional Dishonesty

 

Congressional Dishonesty

by Mustang

Whenever someone violates an oath or a vow, either by swearing to what is untrue, or through omission (concealing truth), intentional or otherwise, or to fail to do what has been promised under oath, they are guilty of false swearing.  In our judicial system, we call this perjury.

 

 

It is a felony, punishable by fines or imprisonment.  We’ve even seen where high-ranking officials have been sent to jail for lying to federal law enforcement officers.  As an aside, the prefix per– in Latin means “harmful,” so whenever someone perjures themselves, they do harm to the truth.  Not all lying is perjury —only lying under oath or lying to a member of the FBI.  Now, of course, a person may avoid perjury by refusing to make an oath, or in law enforcement or judicial matters (including testimony in congress) by claiming his or her right against self-incrimination.

What brought me to this discussion was the post of a few days back about the recently elected and seated member of Congress, Rashida Tlaib.  The oath she took reads as follows:

“I, (State your name) do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States.”

This oath, by the way, is required:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” — U.S. Constitution, Article VI, clause 3

Not everyone back then agreed.  During the Constitutional Convention, the question arose, should an oath be required at all in a free country?  James Wilson, a delegate from Pennsylvania, said that oaths only provided “left-handed security.”  A good government, he argued, did not need an oath, and a bad government ought not be supported at all.  Noah Webster agreed with Wilson when he said that oaths were instruments of slavery and a badge of folly.

People would be naturally inclined to support just government, so oaths were unnecessary.  Wilson served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, so I suppose to a man who committed treason against his king may not be inclined to offer an oath of allegiance.  The Supreme Court finally got around to addressing this issue in 1833, when Justice Joseph Story opined that requiring officials to take an oath “would seem to be a proposition too clear to render any reasoning necessary in support of it.”

All of this happened before there were Moslems in America working to undermine Republican Democracy.  A politically incorrect person, such as I, might observe that these Moslems are really no more than wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing.

In any case, researching back to the Clinton administration, I could find only one member of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch convicted of perjury.  Judge Thomas Porteous (D) (a Clinton appointee) for the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas was convicted of perjury in 2010.

Now a quick word about Taqiyya (spelled in several ways).  It is a practice emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their true religious purposes to avoid persecution, prosecution, or compulsion.  It has been politically legitimized among Moslems in order to maintain unity and fraternity among Moslems of all sects.  One Moslem scholar (teaching at Columbia) explained, “Taqiyya is an Islamic judicial term whose shifting meaning relates to when a Moslem is allowed, under Sharia Law, to lie.  It is a concept whose meaning has varied significantly among Islamic sects, scholars, countries, and political regimes, and it has become a key term used by anti-Moslem polemicists.”  Imagine a judicial system that allows dishonesty …

We could all agree that whenever a member of Congress takes the oath of office and then violates that oath, then that person has committed perjury.  They lied.  They either lied overtly or through omission, and for intentions that act against the interests of the United States Constitution and the citizens of the United States.

Yet, over the past three decades, people in power routinely ignore the lies told by others —especially within their own party or administration, because who wants to admit publicly that they support telling lies, or misstatements, or concealing the truth?  Where we are today is in a land called word-play.  Lying has become “mis-speaking,” or “spin.”  But a lie is a lie, and concealing the truth is a lie.  A lie is unacceptable under any scenario, but apparently, only if one is actually able to utter the word, “lie.”  If not, then “spin” is perfectly acceptable —to people who lie.

Rashida Tlaib at the Islamic Society of North America

Now to the issue of Rashida Tlaib: she took an oath to support the Constitution of the United States (not defend it, of course).  No sooner had she taken that oath, she turned around and threatened an innocent man with congressional impeachment, adding in a bit of profanity unacceptable under any circumstances, and in so doing, given her position as a member of Congress, assumed the guilt of a man who under the law of the land is entitled to the presumption of innocence.

None of this may matter, though … since even if we had an honest and forthright House of Representatives, there are no real punishments for lying to Congress if you happen to be a member of Congress.  The only sanctions offered by the House Ethics Committee are censure, reprimand, and expulsion.  In the entire history of the Congress, only five members have been expelled, all of whom were Democrats: three were expelled during the Civil War for violating their oaths to the US Constitution by joining the Confederacy, and two after being convicted of bribery during judicial proceedings (1980, 2002).  This is not to say that members haven’t been “reprimanded,” but nothing more drastic as punishment than having to write an essay and pay back the money you stole.

I’m not happy with people, particularly Moslems, who become members of our government and then begin to work against the interests of the American people.  They take oaths, then violate them, and no one ever holds them to account.  Since there are no real punishment for lying in Congress, it is no surprise to find so much dishonesty in that body.  No wonder the American people have such disdain for the Congress of the United States.  They’re liars.

 

Just who is Rashida Tlaib – of the vulgar impeachment remark fame?

 

By now most of us have heard of Rashida Tlaib, famous for her vulgar impeachment screed made recently. But just who is this piece of work? No surprise really. A Soros sponsored anti-Semitic Muslim for Congress gal. Let’s take a quick look. No doubt just a beginning.

Congresswoman-elect Rashida Tlaib (D., Mich.) did not disclose the name of the source of funds for a fellowship that was paid by liberal billionaire George Soros—as required by the House ethics committee—and also disclosed a lesser amount than she received, according to a review of tax and financial disclosure forms. (She of course will get a pass.)

The Washington Free Beacon obtained the most recent copies of tax forms for a number of Soros’s organizations, including the Open Society Institute, the legal name for the Open Society Foundations, the entity in which Soros pushes millions in funding to a number of liberal causes and organizations.

An expenditure of $85,307 to Rashida Tlaib in Detroit, Mich., from 2017 is shown on page 97 of the 321-page report to “increase involvement of disenfranchised urban communities of color with their local governance process by creating a community benefits strategy for equitable development and creating a leadership training for impacted residents focused on negotiation skills and identifying leverage at the local level.”

Tlaib did not report any income in the amount of $85,307 on financial disclosure forms submitted as she was running for office, which identified the names of the sources that provided her income in three of four cases.

However, the fourth reported source of earned income is marked as a “Leadership in Government Fellowship,” but does not identify who provided the payment.

A press release from 2016 shows that Tlaib was chosen for a “leadership in government” fellowship by Soros’s Open Society Foundations along with seven other individuals.

Tlaib was paid $139,873 by Soros’s group in 2016, tax forms show. Between 2016 and 2017, Tlaib received a total of $225,180

More at Free Beacon

This just tops off the story.

%d bloggers like this: