U.S congresswoman: we're gonna impeach the motherfucker video

[Itsback]

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) wasted no time after her historic swearing-in, stepping into the spotlight again with a call to "impeach the motherf***er," which she made at a reception to a storm of applause from the crowd.
Tlaib, certainly not the first Democrat to call for US President Trump's impeachment, shouted the words as she was wrapping up her speech at the reception, organized by Move On, an American progressive public policy advocacy group that has been raising money for left-wing candidates.


Tlaib was telling the packed audience about her son's reaction to her victory. "Look mama, you won. Bullies don't win," her son said, according to her.


https://www.rt.com/usa (https://www.rt.com/usa/448047-tlaib-swearing-impeachement-call)


Video: https://twitter.com (https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/1081034160888795136)

[KEEF]

Wow!

[Anti Globalist]

Good luck with that. Even if Trump did get impeached, nobody is going to do anything about it.

[oyarde]

Thanks michigan . More classy representation I see .

[phill4paul]

Trump has driven these insane motherfucks to the edge. If he holds out and makes them concede to wall funding they will hoist themselves on their own petards. And if, if, he gets the wall funding I think his chances of winning in 2020 are good. And if, if, he does there will be autistic screeching the likes has never been heard, followed by mass suicidal protests.

[Itsback]

Thanks michigan . More classy representation I see .

MAGA = Make America Great Again

[enhanced_deficit]

This video is troubling at multiple levels (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?529888-Dems-Unleashed-quot-Impeach-the-MFer!-quot&p=6729700&viewfull=1#post6729700) and in current atmopshere this should not be taken lightly as even Pelosi lately seems to be hedging (https://www.thedailybeast.com/pelosi-its-possible-to-indict-a-sitting-president) our earlier moderate stances.

[shakey1]

I'm surprised she didn't form a conga line.

[timosman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCHPzKpkvcc

[Philhelm]

Trump has driven these insane motherfucks to the edge. If he holds out and makes them concede to wall funding they will hoist themselves on their own petards. And if, if, he gets the wall funding I think his chances of winning in 2020 are good. And if, if, he does there will be autistic screeching the likes has never been heard, followed by mass suicidal protests.

I hope it happens.

[oyarde]

This woman needs to get busy doing something useful for the new speaker .

[Pauls' Revere]

This video is troubling at multiple levels (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?529888-Dems-Unleashed-quot-Impeach-the-MFer!-quot&p=6729700&viewfull=1#post6729700) and in current atmopshere this should not be taken lightly as even Pelosi lately seems to be hedging (https://www.thedailybeast.com/pelosi-its-possible-to-indict-a-sitting-president) our earlier moderate stances.

Like the Maxine Waters calling for "get in their face" politics. The left will not reach across the aisle, they will not compromise, we are going to be split into two.

[Pauls' Revere]

Trump has driven these insane motherfucks to the edge. If he holds out and makes them concede to wall funding they will hoist themselves on their own petards. And if, if, he gets the wall funding I think his chances of winning in 2020 are good. And if, if, he does there will be autistic screeching the likes has never been heard, followed by mass suicidal protests.

They were insane to begin with. Trump gives them the excuse to act out.

[Anti Federalist]

What’s so wrong with motherf---er?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/01/04/whats-so-wrong-with-motherf-er/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9cf9aa7562ab

By Molly Roberts
Editorial Writer
January 4 at 3:39 PM

Should Democrats impeach President Trump? For that matter, should they, as Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) so eloquently suggested last night, “impeach the motherf---er”?

These questions might seem one and the same. But they’re not. The furor over Tlaib’s profane call for a constitutional reckoning touches the intersection of two fights: There’s the objection to speaking of impeaching the president at all. Then there’s the objection to speaking of it — or anything else about him — so foully.

Neither objection stands, though the former is far less silly than the latter.

Impeachment is a legitimate topic. Tlaib herself has laid out a cogent case that the country is in crisis, and that Trump’s known offenses, from hush money to emoluments, are enough to launch an inquiry even without a report from special counsel Robert S. Mueller III. Congress has the power to do something. Talking about using that power is hardly norm-smashing. Whether doing so is politically clever at this moment is harder to gauge, but at least it’s a useful conversation. Freaking out about “motherf---er” is not.

The argument from the pro-civility crusaders is that talking this way is sinking to Trump’s level. That’s wrong. It not only misses the meaningful difference between words and actions, but it doesn’t even grasp the difference between words and other words.

“Motherf---er” is filler; it means little more than “someone more unpleasant than ‘unpleasant’ can convey.” Saying you grab women “by the p---y,” on the other hand, is truly damaging: It turns members of that gender into something to be played with. Calling immigrants an infestation dehumanizes them.

“Motherf---er,” in short, is about civility. “Shithole countries” is about character. Democrats who conflate the two weaken themselves. They minimize the abuses of the Trump administration, and they invite the president to go on committing them without expecting anything more than an anemic reprimand. Democrats, he understands, won’t ever really fight back.

Then there’s the charge that embracing crude rhetoric is a gift to the president and his supporters. It alienates those wishy-washy suburbanites whom Trump regularly scandalizes, the thinking goes, and it energizes his most fervent fanatics.

But Trump’s most fervent fanatics are already just that: fervent and fanatical. They don’t need nasty language from Democrats to get them chanting MAGA. As for those suburbanites, it’s insulting — and even dangerous — to suggest that voters will base their behavior on whether a freshman congresswoman said a bad word rather than on whether the president tears parents from their children or tells his defense secretary to assassinate Syria’s Bashar al-Assad.

Linguistic timidity might not be worth bemoaning at such length if it were only about language. A better politics isn’t necessarily a more profane politics. But the left half of the left wants to push broader boundaries, and it’s no wonder they worry when the rest of the party starts to pull instead.

The liberal vanguard Tlaib belongs to seeks massive change, from Medicare for all to a grand climate bargain. They see no hope for compromise now, so they look to a future of Democratic control, when ramming transformation through will require breaking things. The party establishment so far has shown small desire to do so. And that, Tlaib might say, is a motherf---ing shame.

[donnay]

She was sworn in on a Quran.

[Anti Federalist]

She was sworn in on a Quran.

So was Kieth Ellison ten years ago.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2007/01/what-jefferson-really-thought-about-islam.html

As to the invocation of Jefferson, we know that when he and James Madison first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and basis of the later First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the preamble began, “Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free.” Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words “Jesus Christ” for “Almighty God” in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia’s representatives wanted the law “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.” Quite right, too, and so far so good, even if the term Mahomedan would not be used today, and even if Jefferson’s own private sympathies were with the last named in that list.

A few years later, in 1786, the new United States found that it was having to deal very directly with the tenets of the Muslim religion. The Barbary states of North Africa (or, if you prefer, the North African provinces of the Ottoman Empire, plus Morocco) were using the ports of today’s Algeria, Libya, and Tunisia to wage a war of piracy and enslavement against all shipping that passed through the Strait of Gibraltar. Thousands of vessels were taken, and more than a million Europeans and Americans sold into slavery. The fledgling United States of America was in an especially difficult position, having forfeited the protection of the British Royal Navy. Under this pressure, Congress gave assent to the Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated by Jefferson’s friend Joel Barlow, which stated roundly that “the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen.” This has often been taken as a secular affirmation, which it probably was, but the difficulty for secularists is that it also attempted to buy off the Muslim pirates by the payment of tribute. That this might not be so easy was discovered by Jefferson and John Adams when they went to call on Tripoli’s envoy to London, Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. They asked him by what right he extorted money and took slaves in this way. As Jefferson later reported to Secretary of State John Jay, and to the Congress:

The ambassador answered us that [the right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

Medieval as it is, this has a modern ring to it. Abdrahaman did not fail to add that a commission paid directly to Tripoli—and another paid to himself—would secure some temporary lenience. I believe on the evidence that it was at this moment that Jefferson decided to make war on the Muslim states of North Africa as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And, even if I am wrong, we can be sure that the dispatch of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps to the Barbary shore was the first and most important act of his presidency. It took several years of bombardment before the practice of kidnap and piracy and slavery was put down, but put down it was, Quranic justification or not.

[A Son of Liberty]

Remember when yelling, "Liar!", was the worst thing evar?

[donnay]

So was Kieth Ellison ten years ago.



The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law
Throughout the history of this world there really have only been two kinds of law. We have given these systems of law very descriptive and easy names to remember. They are Rulers' Law and People's Law. Every legal system can fit under one of these two broad banners. Under Ruler's Law, the king or dictator makes the law. Under People's Law, the people make or accept the law by which they live. It is interesting that some of the most dominant kinds of legal systems have come about when it is claimed to emanate from God. Under Ruler's Law, if the ruler can make the people believe he has a divine right to rule, he can persuade the people to do about anything and the use of force becomes acceptable to many people if done in the name of God. Under People's Law, as was the case in Ancient Israel, when the people accepted Jehovah as their King and accepted His laws as their laws, it had a powerful persuasiveness to right actions. The major difference was that there was no use of force. Not even God would force a leader or laws on a people they did not willingly accept, because He respects the agency of man. Religion has been a powerful force throughout history in either types of law.

In following the example of Ancient Israel, America's Founders set forth laws based on the laws of nature and of nature's God. It has catapulted the United States to an unmatched position as the most prosperous and freest nation on earth.

Now we are faced with the same kind of threat that has been seen in the past-a system of compulsory laws which has the use of force at its very core and which claims to emanate from God. It is called Sharia Law.

In 2010, an exhaustive study was published by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as Shariah. The study was designed to provide a "second opinion" on the official assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government, which assessments included co-existence, accommodation, and even submission. By permission, much of the following is taken from this study.

What is Sharia?
The Arabic word "shariah," according to one modern English-language student textbook on Islam, "literally means a straight path (Quran 45:18) or an endless supply of water. It is the term used to describe the rules of the lifestyle ordained by Allah. In more practical terms, shariah includes all the do's and don'ts of Islam." In other words, shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities - not to be confused with "radical," "extremist" or "political" elements said to operate at the fringes of Islam - to be the perfect expression of divine will and justice and thus is the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all aspects of Muslims' lives, irrespective of when or where they live. Shariah is characterized as a "complete way of life" (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law.

While there are a few additional sources for sharia, the most notable and authoritative is the Quran. In Islamic parlance, the Quran is considered to be the uncreated word of Allah. According to Muslim belief, it has existed since the beginning of time and was revealed by the Archangel Gabriel in the 7th Century to the Prophet Mohammed in the Arabic language of his homeland. It is interesting to note that the verses in the Quran are not compiled in chronological order of revelations but are organized from longest to shortest. This presents confusion in trying to read the Quran. Also, there is really no central authority to clarify or interpret the versus, so many are left to their own understanding of the writings.

While many, many millions of Muslims around the world do not practice their faith in a manner consistent with shariah, those who do practice shariah have grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the authoritative one because of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation-which holds that the later verses supersedes or abrogates the earlier ones. As a result, the later verses become much more violent and forceful in relation to non-Muslims. For example:

"Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Q 9:5)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book [meaning Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [taxes on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Q 9:29)

Shariah is Anti-Constitutional
Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values:

the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;

the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;

freedom of conscience; individual liberty

freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);

economic liberty (including private property);

equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);

freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate "resistance"); and

an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of our democratic republic, not wanton violence. The subversion campaign known as "civilization jihad" must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework.

America's Founders and Islam
America's earliest presidents best understood these founding principles. They were not only deeply involved with their formal adoption, but they were professionally competent in explaining them. When confronted with an Islamic threat, they took the effort to consult primary sources and to conduct competent analysis of that threat.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates.

Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:

"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

John Adams' son and our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, whose formative years coincided with the founding of the republic, offers further insights into the early presidents' views on this subject. Like many Americans, he took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, when faced with an Islamic enemy, he understood his obligation to be educated on the factual aspects of the principles, doctrines, objectives, jurisprudence and theology of shariah that comprised his enemy's threat doctrine.

John Quincy Adams' 136-page series of essays on Islam displayed a clear understanding of the threat facing America then - and now, especially from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Regarding these two topics, Adams states:

"...[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.... The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God.

"The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute. As the essential principle of [Mohammed's] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.

"The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

"This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them - the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions.

"The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike - all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war - it has softened the features of slavery - it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse."

In conclusion, it is clear from the writings of several of our earliest presidents, as well as the texts of the nation's founding documents, that American principles are not at odds with - and imperiled by - some "radical" or "extreme" version of Islam. Rather, it is the mainstream doctrine of shariah that constitutes the threat to the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines. That incompatibility has several practical implications: For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be insinuated into America - even through stealthy means or democratic processes - without violating the Constitution's Article VI Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution "shall be the supreme Law of the land."

Even more reprehensible is the willingness of some among America's elites, and it would appear even a subset of its elected leaders, to accede to these groups' increasingly insistent contention that shariah is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, based on shariah's tenets, its core attributes - especially its intolerance of other faiths and disfavored populations and its bid for supremacy over all other legal or political systems, there can be no confusion on this score: As the Framers fully understood, shariah is an enemy of the United States Constitution. The two are incompatible.

Sincerely,

Earl Taylor, Jr.
https://nccs.net/blogs/articles/the-u-s-constitution-and-sharia-law

[Dr.3D]

Remember when yelling, "Liar!", was the worst thing evar?
Maybe one of them will yell, Motherf**ker during a State of the Union address.

[Itsback]

This woman needs to get busy doing something useful for the new speaker .

She is going back to her kitchen.

[donnay]

Lots of class coming out of Michigan, I must say. :sarcasm: