Lets look into Nancy Pelosi’s finances

American Patriot
Published on Jan 11, 2019
McConnell Holds the Line – Blocks Two House-Passed Bills to Reopen Government (VIDEO)
January 10, 2019
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) held the line Thursday and blocked two House-passed bills that would reopen the government and stiff President Trump on border wall funding.
Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Ben Cardin (D-MD) and two dozen Democrat colleagues in the Senate tried to bring two House-passed bills to the floor that would fund the DHS through early February along with a separate package that would fund the remaining agencies through September.
McConnell dug in his heels and blocked both bills, arguing they would be “show votes” and that he’s not going to waste time.
“The last thing we need to do right now is trade pointless, absolutely pointless show votes back and forth across the aisle,” McConnell said.
According to Senate rules, any Senator can try to force a vote, but any Senator can also block them.
McConnell blocking the Democrat Senators from forcing a vote reaffirms his commitment that he will not allow a vote on a Democrat bill that the President won’t sign.
Thank you, Leader McConnell!
VIDEO:
‘Deepfakes’ in action: Seattle TV station accused of doctoring Trump speech video
As the nation tuned in to President Trump’s national address on border security, one Seattle TV station apparently manipulated its coverage on the fly, editing the footage to show Trump sticking out his tongue at viewers.
In a side-by-side comparison, Q13 Fox in Seattle appears to have edited its coverage of Trump’s address, turning the president’s skin color a ludicrous shade of orange. In between sentences, the station seems to have doctored the footage to show Trump sticking out his tongue and licking his lips.
Q13 told MyNorthWest that the footage was indeed doctored, and that the culprit has been placed on leave.
“We are investigating this to determine what happened,” said Q13’s news director. “This does not meet our editorial standards and we regret if it is seen as portraying the President in a negative light. The editor responsible for editing the footage is being placed on leave while we investigate further.”
Faking video footage has become easy in recent years, thanks to the widespread availability of video editing software. A combative press conference debate between CNN anchor Jim Acosta and President Trump in November put the issue in the spotlight, after internet detectives accused Infowars editor Paul Joseph Watson of editing video footage of Acosta pushing a White House intern to make the anchor look bad. The ‘edited’ video was shared by the White House, Watson denied the accusation, and eventually the debate was forgotten about.
Deepfakes could change porn and politics
Slowing down video footage is one thing, but so-called ‘deepfake’ videos – real and fake footage spliced together with the help of artificial intelligence – are becoming increasingly harder to spot and can be put to a limitless array of malicious uses.
Deepfake technology has been used by the porn industry to superimpose celebrity faces onto porn actors’ bodies. One company, Naughty America, is launching a service to allow users to place their own likenesses – or those of their friends – onto performers’ bodies.
ALSO ON RT.COMFace swap porn: Naughty America to superimpose viewers heads onto actors’ bodies
In political circles, concern has been raised that ‘deepfakes’ can be used to doctor footage of politicians and leaders, making them appear to do or say just about anything. As Russian hysteria gripped the nation following the 2016 election, news outlets and commentators repeatedly warned that ‘Russian trolls’ were planning on using deepfake videos to disrupt the 2018 midterm elections.
The predictions never came to pass. However, as the footage from Seattle this week shows, AI-enhanced meddling is a legitimate concern, and is being put to use at home in the US.
JUDGE RULES BRENDA SNIPES’ CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS VIOLATED BY FLA. GOVERNOR
Broward election supervisor suspended following controversial recount
By David Smiley
As signs build that Florida’s new governor may suspend Broward County’s elected sheriff from office, a federal judge has ruled that the state’s former governor overstepped when he effectively fired Broward County’s elections supervisor.
In a Wednesday evening order, U.S. District Court Judge Mark Walker found that Rick Scott exceeded his authority when, on the heels of a controversial election recount, he suspended Brenda Snipes from office. Due to the timing of her removal and her plans to resign in early January, Snipes was left without the ability to challenge her ouster or contest the allegations contained in Scott’s executive order.
Walker declined to reinstate Snipes, a 15-year veteran of the elections department, which she had sought in the form of a preliminary injunction. He also agreed that the Florida Senate was right to deny her a hearing that by law is typically afforded politicians who seek to challenge a suspension by the governor.
But he did order Scott’s successor, the newly elected Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, to issue a new order by the end of the month explaining the reasons for Snipes’ suspension, and demand that Snipes be granted a special hearing before the governor no later than March 31.
“Judges face murky legal issues every day. Today is not one of those days,” wrote Walker, who has been critical of Scott in previous rulings. “Flagrantly disregarding [Snipes’] constitutional rights fits into an unfortunate rhythm for Scott.”
Walker, of Tallahassee, was explicit that he was not mandating an outcome that Snipes be reinstated and wrote that he was not aware “of any principle demanding such a remedy.” But he said that Snipes must have a forum to be heard.
A spokesman for Scott, who was sworn in as a U.S. Senator Tuesday, dismissed Walker as a “liberal judge” and said Scott “stands by his decision.” He pointed to a number of mistakes made by Snipes’ office during the 2018 recount of the governor’s race and Scott’s U.S. Senate race against Bill Nelson, and to past missteps involving the Broward elections office under Snipes. Snipes has been re-elected four times since being appointed in 2003.
“Supervisor Snipes violated state law and turned Broward County’s elections operation into a laughing stock,” said Scott spokesman Chris Hartline. “She failed to fulfill her duties, and for that she was suspended and should stay suspended.”
Still, though DeSantis has also been critical of Snipes — even alluding to botched elections in his inaugural speech — Walker’s ruling seems to leave the new governor to clean up the old governor’s controversy. Scott began the ordeal in November when he suspended Snipes less than two weeks after she announced plans to resign on Jan. 4.
A day after Scott suspended her, Snipes rescinded her resignation and said she would fight back against claims of incompetence and misconduct.
Scott immediately replaced her with his former general counsel, Pete Antonacci, which according to the Florida Senate sealed her resignation as irrevocable despite her subsequent reversal and attempts to fight to keep her job. That, Walker said, left Snipes no ability to properly contest the allegations that Scott made in removing her — some of which Walker said were erroneous.
Snipes’ attorney, Burnadette Norris-Weeks, said Wednesday night that the ousted supervisor’s legal team is pleased with Walker’s determination that Scott could not legally “vilify” Snipes without giving her a chance to respond (Walker was not taken by an argument from Scott’s attorney that Snipes could respond through the press.)
“Scott utilized numerous tactics to bully my client and apply standards to her that he did not apply to any other state Supervisor of Elections,” said Norris-Weeks. “We are looking forward to telling our complete story and we’re also encouraged that Judge Walker recognized that former governor Scott has a history of disregarding the legal rights of others…”
A DeSantis spokesman had no comment late Wednesday, but Walker’s ruling could complicate his apparent plans to suspend Broward Sheriff Scott Israel.
DeSantis has hinted that he’ll suspend Israel, whom he criticized on the campaign trail over the Broward Sheriff’s Office’s response to the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. DeSantis has suggested that he’s vetting replacements for Israel, and said Wednesday morning that he’ll “be back soon” in South Florida when asked if he was going to suspend Israel.
AWFUL! Star CNN Contributor Ana Navarro Files Nails on Live TV as Guest Discusses Murders by Illegal Aliens (VIDEO)
by Jim Hoft January 10, 2019
This is CNN–
Star CNN personality Ana Navarro rolled her eyes and filed her nails as a conservative guest Steve Cortes described innocent Americans murdered by illegal aliens.
Steve Cortes: You can do your nails. You know who can’t do their nails are people killed by illegal aliens who’ve been allowed to stay in this country because of leftist policies that people like you promote in so-called sanctuary cities.
Navarro then started screaming at the guest saying, “I don’t care what you have to say.”
POLL: Should Trump Close Down The Southern Border?
Via Benny Johnson from The DC.
Hat Tip Katie
(GLOBALISM) – What They’re Not Telling You About the Yellow Vests by Paul Joseph Watson

OpenMind
Published on Jan 10, 2019
ALL THE BEST PELOSI/SCHUMER MEMES FROM LAST NIGHT’S ADDRESS
Well, this backfired didn’t it?
JANUARY 9, 2019
(CENSORSHIP) – MUST-SEE: MSM TALKING HEADS DIDN’T WANT NETWORKS TO AIR TRUMP SPEECH
‘Why should they run Donald Trump’s address?’
JANUARY 9, 2019
The Liberal media tries to stop TV networks from airing Trump’s Immigration Address to the Nation.
Democrats Preview Response to Trump Oval Office Speech: ‘There Is No National Emergency on the Southern Border’
By Joel B. Pollak
Democrats have already dropped hints of what their response to President Donald Trump’s address Tuesday evening from the Oval Office on the border crisis will be.
The networks have granted Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) airtime to respond. Their message will be that there is no crisis that merits building a barrier on the border. The only crisis, to them, is the partial government shutdown.
As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said last week, responding to the suggestion Trump may declare an emergency so he can order the military to build the barrier: “There is no national emergency on the southern border.” He described the idea as “stealing resources from the Defense Department.”
The real solution to what he called the “complex issues at our southern border” — which are not an emergency, mind you — is “comprehensive immigration reform.”
The idea that there is no crisis at the border will be a tough sell, especially as Democrats and the media described the situation as a crisis last summer, when the Trump administration started enforcing its “zero tolerance” policy toward illegal crossings that resulted — thanks to existing rules dating to the Obama administration — in children being separated from adults. Pelosi even questioned “why there aren’t uprisings all over the country” about it.
To Democrats, the only “crisis” — aside from the government being partially closed for two weeks — results from the enforcement of existing laws at the border. To resolve that “crisis,” they want to pass more laws — which, they insist, include provisions for “border security,” though they do not want to enforce the laws already on the books.
Here are some other arguments Democrats will likely use, based on their statements over the past several days.
1. Trump is a liar. “I expect the president to lie to the American people,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), the new chair of the House Judiciary Committee, during a visit to the border yesterday. (Nadler added: “There’s no security crisis at the border.”) Nadler echoed the CNN line, which is that the president’s speeches should not enjoy live coverage because he might say inaccurate things — a problem journalists never had with President Barack Obama.
2. Border walls and fences do not work. This is another weak argument, since many House and Senate Democrats — including Schumer — voted for the Secure Fence Act of 2006. Other variants of this argument is that a wall would be “immoral” (Pelosi) and “racist” (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)). However, given examples of walls or fences to stop migrants in the European Union, Israel, and even Botswana, these arguments are also easily defeated.
3. Trump’s $5 billion proposal is wasteful. This is a tough argument to sustain after Democrats’ own proposals to end the partial shutdown and re-open the government. Democrats want “over $12 billion more in foreign aid than the Trump administration requested,” according to Breitbart News’ Rebecca Mansour. Democrats also asked for a combined $10 billion in extra funding for the United Nations and other supposed priorities. $5 billion is nothing.
4. Mexico should be paying for it. Democrats have been taking potshots at the president for months by reminding him of his refrain from the campaign trail in 2016. Trump has argued that Mexico is paying for the wall through its concessions on trade. But the U.S. could also tax remittances Mexican workers in the U.S. send home, or raise fees for crossing the border. There are many ways to collect in future, if needed; what the wall needs is a down payment.
5. Government shutdowns are wrong. This used to be a winning argument for Democrats — until they shut down the government themselves last year in an effort to force President Trump and the Republicans to legalize the so-called “Dreamers,” i.e. illegal aliens brought to the country as minors. The contrast also works in favor of Trump: Democrats shut down the government to protect illegal aliens, while the president is doing so to protect Americans.
The fact is that the Democrats’ best and only case against the border wall is that Trump proposed it. They know if he fails to deliver on his core campaign promise, he will lose his voter base. And they know if he buckles and re-opens the government without the funding he wants, they can walk all over him for the next two years.
What they may not realize is those reasons also make him stronger: he cannot compromise, therefore he has the advantage.
Tom's Blog 