Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Feinstein category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Feinstein’ Category

Spoken like a true cookie cutter Democrat, last Friday night, newly minted U.S. Senator Tina Smith said that she’s opposed to building the wall, saying that “the wall is just a dumb idea”, adding that “most people don’t think it’s a good idea.” It’s good to know that Democrats think it’s smart to set national security policy based on public opinion rather than on what works.

I’d love hearing Democrats explain why they’re opposed to the wall after people read this article about El Paso. In the article, it says “Tell that to the residents of El Paso, Texas. Federal data show a far-less imposing wall than the one Trump envisions — a two-story corrugated metal fence first erected under the Bush administration — already has dramatically curtailed both illegal border crossings and crime in Texas’ sixth-largest city, which borders the high-crime Mexican city of Juarez. In fact, the number of deportable illegal immigrants located by the US Border Patrol plummeted by more than 89 percent over the five-year period during which the controversial new fence was built, according to Homeland Security data reviewed by me. When the project first started in 2006, illegal crossings totaled 122,261, but by 2010, when the 131-mile fence was completed from one end of El Paso out into the New Mexico desert, immigrant crossings shrank to just 12,251.”

In other words, a wall has already significantly reduced illegal border crossings in El Paso. That isn’t the only benefit of building the wall:

And crime abated with the reduced human traffic from Juarez, considered one of the most dangerous places in the world due to drug-cartel violence, helping El Paso become one of the safest large cities in America.

Let’s summarize. The wall in El Paso dramatically reduced illegal border crossings and it helped reduce drug-related crime, too. Let’s hear Democrats explain their opposition to something that dramatically reduces illegal border crossings and drug-related crimes.

Before 2010, federal data show the border city was mired in violent crime and drug smuggling, thanks in large part to illicit activities spilling over from the Mexican side. Once the fence went up, however, things changed almost overnight. El Paso since then has consistently topped rankings for cities of 500,000 residents or more with low crime rates, based on FBI-collected statistics.

Democrats opposed to the wall need to explain why they’re opposed to stopping violent crime and drug smuggling.

Another core promise made by Trump to justify constructing a massive wall spanning from Texas to California is that it will slow the flow of drugs coming across the border from Mexico. “We need the wall for security. We need the wall for safety,” Trump said last week while answering questions about the sweeping new GOP immigration bill. “We need the wall for stopping the drugs from pouring in.”
On that score, El Paso already has exceeded expectations.

Drug smuggling along that border entry point has also fallen dramatically. In fact, since the fence was completed, the volume of marijuana and cocaine coming through El Paso and seized by Border Patrol agents has been cut in half. The year before the wall was fully built in 2010, the volume of illegal drugs confiscated by the feds along the El Paso border hit 87,725 pounds. The year after, the amount of drug seizures plummeted to 43,783 pounds. Last year, they dropped even further to a total of 34,329, according to Border Patrol reports obtained by The Post.

Obama, Schumer and Feinstein all voted for building a wall in 2006:

I don’t doubt that Democrats will insist that things have changed since 2006. That’s true. Since then, large portions of the wall have been built. The FBI and ICE have had time to accumulate crime data. Since those sections of walls were built, illegal crossings have dropped, illegal drug confiscation has significantly increased and crime has dropped.

In other words, we now have proof that walls work. This isn’t theory anymore.

While Democrats and Palestinians criticize President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, other nations are announcing that they’re moving their embassies to Jerusalem.

First, “Guatemala courageously decided it would follow the United States’ lead and move its embassy to Jerusalem.” Next, “the Walla news [reported that] Romania and Slovakia are planning to make such a move. Paraguay and Togo are reportedly also considering such a move.”

This is a big deal politically in that Democrats have started criticizing President Trump’s decision. For instance, Bernie Sanders said “There’s a reason why all past US administrations have not made this move, and why leaders around the world have warned Trump against it: It would undermine the prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement and severely, perhaps irreparably, damage our ability to broker it.”

Dianne Feinstein’s letter said this:

The future of Jerusalem is an issue that should be decided by Israel and the Palestinians, not unilaterally by the United States.

That sentence was contained in this letter:

While Democrats criticized President Trump’s decision, world leaders sided with President Trump. That’s what leadership does. Leadership molds consensus. It doesn’t conform to consensus. President Obama led from behind. President Trump just leads. Period.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

Dianne Feinstein’s op-ed is part wishful thinking, part propaganda. She opened by saying “Tax reform shouldn’t add one penny to our deficit or to the tax bills of middle-class Americans. I thought that belief was shared by everyone in the Senate. It appears I was wrong.”

First, it’s incredibly dishonest for Sen. Feinstein to say that she thought everyone shared the belief that tax reform wouldn’t “add a penny to our deficit.” Why doesn’t Sen. Feinstein just admit that virtually everything that Washington, DC does adds to our deficits?

Next, Sen. Feinstein wrote “Behind closed doors, Republicans drafted a bill that raises taxes on millions in the middle class and adds at least $1 trillion to our deficit. The bill also renews the GOP attack on the Affordable Care Act, a move that will drive up health insurance premiums in the individual market by 10% each year and will likely result in 13 million more Americans without coverage.” Actually, removing the individual mandate doesn’t drive up health insurance premiums. It just eliminates the tax for not buying government-required health insurance policies. What’s likely to happen is that people will be free to buy the health insurance policy of their choice.

As for raising taxes on “millions in the middle class”, Sen. Feinstein is just lying. The only people who are getting an increase are high-income people who itemize in high-tax states. This is typical Democrat fear-mongering.

This is an outright lie that’s been demolished:

Unfortunately, they’re not alone. Half of American households will see a tax increase. Meanwhile, billionaires and millionaires will pay less. That’s appalling.

Sen. Feinstein knows that half “of American households” won’t “see a tax increase.” That’s what happens when you don’t have a legitimate argument against a policy. Politicians resort to lying. That’s sad. This is especially rich:

Since the national income tax was created in 1913, Americans have been able to prevent double taxation by deducting state and local taxes they have already paid.

Sen. Feinstein doesn’t have a problem with double taxation of estates but she’s opposed to not being able to deduct state and local taxes. That’s what happens when you play identity politics.

The fight, however, is not over. Senate and House Republicans must now reconcile the differences in their two tax bills (the House version is as disastrous for most Americans as the Senate bill). I urge all Californians to join me in doing everything we can to defeat this legislation. Write, call or email your representatives. Tell them to reject the Republican tax plan and work on bipartisan tax reform that puts the middle class first.

Sorry, Sen. Feinstein. The fight is all but officially over. It’s true that Republicans have to reconcile the two bills but that’s virtually a done deal. President Trump will sign this bill long before Christmas. In a week or 2, we’ll see a repeat of this:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s literary defense of Al Franken is flimsy, using platitudes instead of logic. For instance, Sen. Feinstein wrote “Senate Republicans have done a head-spinning 180 on the value of the ‘blue slip,’ a 100-year-old tool that gives home state senators the ability to sign off on judicial nominees in their states. This practice ensures that the White House consults senators on lifetime appointments and that nominees are mainstream and well-suited to serve in their states.”

Theoretically, that last statement is true. The details matter, though. Al Franken abused the system by saying that Minnesota Supreme Court Justice David Stras was too conservative even though Alan Page, a retired liberal Minnesota Supreme Court Justice, spoke glowingly of Justice Stras’s temperament and intellectual integrity.

Minnesotans who’ve paid attention to this situation know that Sen. Franken was using the blue slip to slow down confirmation of Justice Stras. This wasn’t about making sure President Trump’s nominees were sufficiently mainstream. We knew Justice Stras was because of his ABA rating and because of who endorsed him.

Here’s what Sen. Feinstein is really worried about:

This move would give President Trump free rein to pick whomever he wants and stack our federal courts with young, ideological judges preferred by Washington-based right-wing groups like the Federalist Society and Judicial Crisis Network.

Sen. Feinstein didn’t utter a peep when President Obama worked with Sen. Reid to pack the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with young left-wing ideologues. Now that it’s the Democrats that aren’t getting their way, Democrats are whining. I’ll tell Sen. Feinstein what President Obama told Eric Cantor, which is “Elections have consequences. We won.”

The second false claim is that the blue slip is being abused because senators have never before used it to ensure the White House consults them on judicial nominees.

Sen. Feinstein isn’t telling the whole truth on this. Sen. Franken isn’t using the blue slip to ensure that the Trump administration consults with senators. Sen. Franken is using the blue slip as a one-man veto of conservative judicial nominees. It’s that simple.

It isn’t a secret that Sen. Franken is part of the Resistance Movement. Also, it isn’t a secret that he’s one of the most partisan hacks imaginable.

If I were king for a day, one of the things high on my to-do list would be to officially end the fishing expeditions investigations into Russian collusion. I’d finish them because they’re a waste of time. I’d finish them because senators of both parties have admitted that, after a 9-month-long fishing expeditions investigation, they still haven’t found a single piece of evidence that shows President Trump colluded with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Greg Jarrett’s article highlights the fact that “Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Joe Manchin (D-WV), have said they have seen no evidence of Trump- Russian collaboration. Both sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee.” Jarrett then adds that “even more compelling are the statements of senior Obama administration intelligence officials who were privy to all the information gathered by both the FBI and the alphabet soup of intel agencies which began investigating the matter more than a year ago. Take a gander at what they have said. James Clapper, the former Director of National Intelligence, has twice confirmed that he has seen no evidence of collusion. As the basis for his conclusion, he cited reports from the NSA, FBI and CIA. John Brennan, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, has said the same thing –no sign of ‘collusion.’ And then there is James Comey. When asked if Clapper’s assessment was correct, the fired FBI Director testified that Clapper was ‘right,’ there is no known evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians.”

At this point, it’s pretty clear that Mueller won’t find anything. He won’t because there’s nothing to find on the Trump-Russian collusion topic. It’s time to wrap that up rather than continue to waste taxpayers’ money on a fishing expedition.

Let’s be honest, too. If nobody has proof that Trump and Putin colluded to steal the election from Hillary after 9 months of looking, it doesn’t exist. Let’s remember that the NSA, the FBI and the CIA haven’t found proof of Trump-Putin collusion. If that trio can’t find proof of it, then it doesn’t exist. There’s a better chance that I’ll see the Northern Lights on a foggy night than finding proof of collusion.

This was underscored by the Senate Intelligence Committee when it disclosed that it had conducted in excess of 100 interviews over 250 hours, held 11 open hearings, produced more than 4,000 pages of transcripts, and reviewed some 100,000 documents. Every intel official who drafted the report on Russian election meddling was interviewed, as were all relevant Obama administration officials.

That sounds pretty thorough. If these professional investigators didn’t find anything, it doesn’t exist.

Nothing verifies the fact that Sen. Franken is owned by leftist special interest organizations than a letter from 27 special interest organizations praising him for blocking David Stras’s confirmation.

Until recently, PFAW, aka People for the American Way, has been significantly to the left of the Democratic Party for years. When Ralph Neas was PFAW’s president, he was known for hyperbole. For instance, Neas once said “that if the views of Scalia and Thomas were to become the majority on the Court, ‘the result on issue after issue would be a radical, reactionary shift in U.S. law.’ Specifically: ‘religious liberty would suffer’; ‘church-state separation’ would be compromised; ‘the right to strike and bargain collectively’ would be weakened; ‘laws that protect workers from sexual harassment’ would be overturned; ‘the federal government would be barred from stopping the destruction of endangered species on private land’; ‘local governments’ power to protect the environment would be restricted’; and ‘sensible gun-control legislation would be struck down.'”

Since then, PFAW has moved left. It’s worth noting that PFAW is one of the 27 organizations that is praising Sen. Franken. Here’s the opening paragraph of the special interests’ letter to Sen. Franken:

We, the undersigned civil rights, labor, and other public interest organizations, write to thank you for your commitment to preserving a fair-minded and independent judiciary. Now more than ever, our courts must serve as a check on the president, whose executive actions repeatedly disregard the law and the Constitution, and your recent, principled decision not to return your blue slip on the nomination of Justice David Stras to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit helps ensure that our courts can fulfill this essential role.

When they write that the “courts must serve as a check on the president”, they’re admitting that they’re worried about President Trump. Remember that the left sees Scalia as evil. He actually ruled according to the Constitution. They want a jurist who will implement their policy preferences without questioning.

As former Vice President Mondale has pointed out, in supporting your decision on Justice Stras, the blue slip tradition also has been vital in helping to promote bipartisan cooperation and prevent “overt partisanship” in judicial nominations. Indeed, it is a manifestation of the Constitution’s Advice and Consent process. The blue slip practice is one of the constitutional checks and balances that helps maintain equilibrium among the branches of government. When the Senate majority places partisan loyalty to the president over the Senate’s institutional interests in independently carrying out its constitutional responsibilities, the blue slip serves as a vital corrective.

Under normal circumstances, “the blue slip tradition” is vital to building bipartisan consensus. Democrats have shown, though, that they aren’t even slightly interested in building bipartisan consensus. This website sums up what Sen. Franken and the Democrats are about:

Our mission is to fuel a progressive grassroots network of local groups to resist the Trump agenda.

Thus far this session, Democrats have used every tool to prevent the installation of President Trump’s government. They’ve repeatedly used arcane rules to delay committee hearings on cabinet appointees. They’ve voted in lockstep with Sen. Schumer virtually all the time. Sen. Franken isn’t representing Minnesota. He’s representing Sen. Schumer and the Democrats’ special interest allies.

This is laughable:

You could have followed the examples of Senators McConnell, Sessions, Shelby, and Coats and not reviewed Justice Stras’ record, withholding your blue slip based solely on the lack of meaningful consultation. However, you went beyond process to evaluate extensively his record. Those of us who wrote the Committee on August 31 very much agree with your conclusion that rather than demonstrating fairness and open-mindedness, his record demonstrates that he would reliably rule in favor of powerful corporate interests over working people, and that he would place a high bar before plaintiffs seeking justice at work, at school, and at the ballot box.

That could’ve been written by Ralph Neas. It sounds that paranoid. What’s obvious is that Sen. Franken won’t vote for anyone who doesn’t get PFAW’s stamp of approval.

Sen. Franken isn’t a patriot. Apparently, Sen. Franken doesn’t know that it’s unconstitutional to demand that a nominee pass a ‘religious test’. Watch this video, then tell me that this is a patriot, an honorable man:

Frankly, I’d love to see Sen. Franken, Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Durbin get censured for questioning a judicial nominee’s religious beliefs. It’s immoral. More importantly, it’s unconstitutional. Finally, here’s the list of special interest organizations that signed the letter to Sen. Franken:

African American Ministers In Action
Alliance for Justice
American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Unions
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees
Center for American Progress
Committee for a Fair Judiciary
Courage Campaign
Earthjustice
Every Voice
Family Equality Council
Human Rights Campaign
Lambda Legal
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
MALDEF
MoveOn.org
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Black Justice Coalition
National Center for Lesbian Rights
National Council of Jewish Women
National Education Association
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Women’s Law Center
People For the American Way
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
Voting Rights Forward

These are the organizations that Sen. Franken represents. He doesn’t represent all Minnesotans. He’s a disgrace.

During Amy Coney-Barrett’s confirmation, Dianne Feinstein and Al Franken did something offensive. They questioned Prof. Barrett’s faith. Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber sent a letter to Sen. Charles Grassley, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the ranking member of the Committee.

First, a little background is required. During her questioning, Sen. Feinstein stated “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for, for years in this country.” Sen. Feinstein’s mention of dogma refers to Prof. Barrett’s Catholic faith.

According to Princeton University President Eisgruber’s statement, that’s off-limits. In his letter, President Eisgruber said “I write, as a university president and a constitutional scholar with expertise on religious freedom and judicial appointments, to express concern about questions addressed to Professor Amy Barrett during her confirmation hearings and to urge that the Committee on the Judiciary refrain from interrogating nominees about the religious or spiritual foundations of their jurisprudential views. Article VI of the United States Constitution provides explicitly that ‘no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'”

Sen. Feinstein has been a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee for years. There’s no reason for her not to know that part of the Constitution. In fact, I’d be surprised if Sen. Feinstein didn’t just ignore Article VI. It isn’t an accident that our institutions aren’t functioning properly. When politicians like Sen. Franken and Sen. Feinstein ignore constitutional protections to drive their obstructionist agenda, everyone suffers.

Sen. Feinstein essentially said that she’s skeptical that devout Christians are capable of serving in government. That is a religious test, which the Constitution prohibits. In principle, that isn’t any different than Republicans disqualifying people who don’t take their faith seriously.

Feinstein and Franken are ignoring the Constitution that they swore to uphold. That makes them unfit for the offices they hold.

It’s been too long since I’ve heard from Rep. Thad McCotter. He was one of my favorite congressmen because he was a thinker with a sense of humor. Thanks to this article, McCotter is back better than ever.

Whenever Rep. Adam Schiff, (D-CA), would get in front of a microphone, which felt like 4-6 times a day, he’d talk about President Trump’s collusion with Russia. Each time he’d do that, I thought Rep. Schiff was just attempting to keep that fake story going. I thought that the Agenda Media, aka the MSM, dutifully picked up this BS to maintain their good standing as a member of the Democratic Party. The truth is I’m still certain the MSM willingly provides irresponsible coverage of this nonstory.

Let’s be clear about this. The Trump administration and the Trump family haven’t handled this well. They haven’t made the best decisions. That being said, there’s no proof that they’ve committed any crimes. But I digress. McCotter has an interesting take on what’s driving Schiff’s media appearances:

My radio colleague John Batchelor has pegged U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-NY) as “the Pathfinder.” The reason being that, as ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Schiff has been most vocal and visible in trying to divine the truth behind the alleged collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia—and, in a fortuitous confluence of circumstances for Schiff, find a path to taking Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Senate seat.

Suffice it to say that Rep. McCotter isn’t impressed with Rep. Schiff:

Thanks to the tender mercies of his friends in the media elite, Schiff’s failure to produce any shred of evidence regarding collusion—let alone a crime—has not proven problematic for the Pathfinder. Obviously, the media elite dislikes the president and will brook no facts—or the absence thereof—from getting in the way of a good smearing. The Pathfinder facilitates this mutually advantageous, tawdry political theater by ascribing the “appearance” of the most insidious motivations and actions to President Trump and his campaign in relation to Putin’s Russia; then artfully dodging his lack of evidence with the limp two-step, “I’d love to tell you more, but it’s classified.”

And how the Left-wing applauds and approves! For the media elite, ratings, circulation and “clicks” soar; and the Pathfinder treks ever closer to his coveted senate seat. Yes, their off-Broadway/on-Beltway production of “Trump Done It (Whatever It Was)?” is the smash hit of the post-Obama season.

Whether it’s Susan Page, Julie Pace or Mara Liasson, they keep saying that, unfortunately for the Trump administration, this story isn’t going away.

What they’re really saying is that the liberal media elites, like themselves, aren’t willing to let go of this juicy clickbait of a non-scandal. Let’s be clear about this. The media wing of the Democratic Party is perfectly content to ignore the lack of proof to further the Democrats’ agenda. The bad news for Democrats is that the people don’t trust the media because they’re convinced that the MSM is dishonest and hyper-partisan.

Ergo, in the real world, the Trump campaign’s collusion with Russia or the president’s attempts to “obstruct” justice. Sadly for them, Pathfinder Schiff, the Left and their colluders in the media elite have concocted a kitchen sink thriller with a villain—President Trump—and with no plot to pin on him. Russia-gate isn’t a scripted play as much a fundraising dinner theater of the absurd wherein the Democratic Party and the media elite’s Trump Derangement Syndrome is passed off as performance art.

Fortunately, for the future of our free republic (and dinner theater everywhere), the nonpartisan public isn’t buying tickets.

While some people are buying tickets, those who aren’t on the left aren’t.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

To say that Sen. Grassley gave Jim Comey and Chuck Schumer a tutorial in integrity is understatement. This article highlights Sen. Grassley’s speech on the Senate floor that should’ve been delivered months ago.

First, Sen. Grassley reported that “then-FBI Director James Comey briefed ranking member Dianne Feinstein and him on the Russia probe.” Sen. Grassley then said the briefing included “telling us who was, and who was not, under investigation.” Then Sen. Grassley opened both barrels and trained them on then-FBI Director Comey and Senate Minority Leader Schumer.

During his speech, Grassley said “After that meeting, I publicly called for Mr. Comey to tell the public what he had told us about whether President Trump was under investigation. The public had a right to know. Mr. Comey told me and other Congressional leaders that President Trump was not under investigation. He even told the President himself – repeatedly. But, Mr. Comey didn’t listen to my request for transparency. He didn’t listen to the President’s request. Only months later has the truth finally come out.”

With that, Sen. Schumer was exposed. Then Sen. Grassley added this:

So the media was wrong. So the Democrats were wrong. So the wild speculation and conspiracy theories ended up harming our country. They played right into Russia’s hands. And how did we all learn about this truth? In President Trump’s letter removing Mr. Comey from office.

At first most didn’t believe it. The media scoffed when they wrote what the president said in that letter. They insisted that Mr. Comey would never tell the president that he was not under investigation. Well we learned earlier this month from Mr. Comey himself that he had done exactly that. It wasn’t a surprise to me because Mr. Comey had told me the same thing.

Check out this video of Sen. Grassley’s speech:

Let’s be clear about something. Mr. Comey didn’t tell the American people that President Trump wasn’t being investigated. Further, Senate Minority Leader Schumer didn’t tell the whole truth about the FBI’s investigation when he knew that it wasn’t focusing on President Trump. Instead, Sen. Schumer stuck with the Democrats’ chanting points, pretending that President Trump was under investigation.

At this point, Sen. Schumer’s integrity doesn’t exist. What politician ignores that type of information for political gain? A: The most corrupt leader of Senate Democrats since Harry Reid. People hate politicians because they’re morally bankrupt. Sen. Schumer is the poster child of moral depravity in the Senate. As the Democrats’ leader in the Senate, Schumer should be a leader. Instead, he’s the chief obstructionist in a party without a message.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Sen. Feinstein’s statement on President Trump’s executive order on extreme vetting represents the Democrats’ national security policy. In her statement, Sen. Feinstein, (D-CA), said “Under the president’s executive order, Syrian refugees can only come to this country if they are Christian—regardless of the level of persecution or need. To me, this an unbelievable action. It’s one thing to see that an individual is properly vetted. It’s an entirely different matter to say that because someone comes from a particular country or is a member of a particular faith that he or she has no access to this country.”

Sen. Feinstein isn’t telling the truth. Follow this link to read President Trump’s executive order on extreme vetting. The part that jumped out at me was the part that said “In order to protect Americans, the United States must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward it and its founding principles. The United States cannot, and should not, admit those who do not support the Constitution, or those who would place violent ideologies over American law. In addition, the United States should not admit those who engage in acts of bigotry or hatred (including “honor” killings, other forms of violence against women, or the persecution of those who practice religions different from their own) or those who would oppress Americans of any race, gender, or sexual orientation.”

Then there’s this section:

Sec. 5. Realignment of the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program for Fiscal Year 2017. (a) The Secretary of State shall suspend the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program (USRAP) for 120 days. During the 120-day period, the Secretary of State, in conjunction with the Secretary of Homeland Security and in consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, shall review the USRAP application and adjudication process to determine what additional procedures should be taken to ensure that those approved for refugee admission do not pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States, and shall implement such additional procedures. Refugee applicants who are already in the USRAP process may be admitted upon the initiation and completion of these revised procedures. Upon the date that is 120 days after the date of this order, the Secretary of State shall resume USRAP admissions only for nationals of countries for which the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director of National Intelligence have jointly determined that such additional procedures are adequate to ensure the security and welfare of the United States.

It’s a dark moment when a supposed expert in national security plays games with America’s safety. Here’s Sen. Feinstein’s full statement:

Andy McCarthy’s article either proves that Sen. Feinstein is dumber than a sack of hair about the commander-in-chief’s authority or she’s dishonest. Either Sen. Feinstein knows about this provision or she hasn’t done her homework:

Federal immigration law also includes Section 1182(f), which states: “Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”

The thing that’s frightening is that Democrats sat silent when President Obama tried rewriting existing laws through executive orders but are besides themselves when President Trump issues an EO that states that his administration will follow existing laws:

To temporarily reduce investigative burdens on relevant agencies during the review period described in subsection (a) of this section, to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals, pursuant to section 212(f) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), I hereby proclaim that the immigrant and nonimmigrant entry into the United States of aliens from countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12), would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, and I hereby suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons for 90 days from the date of this order (excluding those foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas).

In other words, President Trump’s EO that temporarily stops refugees from entering our nation cites the specific law he’s obeying.

Think of this. A bill is passed by Congress, then signed by the president. How can something that gets bipartisan support and is signed by the president be un-American? Further, the Constitution gives the Executive Branch the affirmative responsibility of protecting the United States from terrorist attacks.

President Trump’s EO follows US law and the Constitution. That’s what Sen. Feinstein calls un-American. It’s frightening that Sen. Feinstein either doesn’t understand the Constitution or is too dishonest to admit that the Democratic Party is willing to ignore the Constitution for political gain.