Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Feinstein category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Feinstein’ Category

Based on this article, it’s apparent that Democrat senators haven’t read Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution. That clause prohibits religious tests, saying “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Sen. Hirono, (D-HI), and Sen. Harris, (D-Calif.) recently sent questions “to District Court judge nominee Brian Buescher, [challenging] his suitability for the bench because he belongs to” the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic organization:

Sens. Mazie Hirono and Kamala Harris, in written questions to District Court judge nominee Brian Buescher, challenged his suitability for the bench because he belongs to this charitable Catholic group. Hirono claimed that the Knights have taken “extreme positions” such as affirming Catholic belief in traditional marriage and even asked Buescher, “If confirmed, do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?” In today’s Democratic Party, the new McCarthyism asks, “Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Knights of Columbus?”

It isn’t difficult to make the case that Sen. Hirono hates men. This video uses Sen. Hirono’s own words to make the case that she hates men:

This isn’t the first time Democrats have used a religious test:

Last year, during confirmation hearings, Sen. Dianne Feinstein noted the devotion of Judge Amy Coney Barrett and her family to the Catholic Church and admonished that “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.” Sen. Feinstein’s devotion to ignoring the Constitution speaks loudly about what’s her highest priority.

At the risk of dating myself, I’ll use a joke from Chevy Chase’s movie titled “Fletch Lives” to convey this message. It doesn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure it out that Heidi Heitkamp is heading for defeat. Larry Holmes could figure this one out. About an hour ago, Heitkamp announced that she won’t confirm Judge Kavanaugh as the next Supreme Court Justice.

Couple that announcement with this weeks polls showing Heitkamp trailing Kevin Kramer by 10 points and 12 points and it’s pretty obvious that she’s history. Of course, that hasn’t stopped her from deploying one of the Democrats’ favorite chanting points:

Heitkamp, who is running for reelection in a state won by Trump, said a public hearing where Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, his first accuser, testified raised questions about Kavanaugh’s “current temperament, honesty, and impartiality” and has “furthered a national discussion about stopping sexual assault. Our actions right now are a poignant signal to young girls and women across our country. I will continue to stand up for them,” Heitkamp said.

This video is worth watching because Chairman Grassley takes the press and Sen. Feinstein to task:

Back to Heitkamp. She’s likely playing for a spot in the next Democrat White House. I predict that she’ll have a long wait for that position.

Had the Democrats simply vigorously opposed Brett Kavanaugh during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s confirmation hearing, they wouldn’t have nationalized these midterm elections. Instead, they turned the hearings into a spectacle, thereby turning the midterms into a referendum on the Democrats’ inability to govern.

Ever since his justified diatribe during last Thursday’s hearing, Lindsey Graham has nailed the Democrats in one interview after another. Last night, he appeared on Sean Hannity’s show to talk about the status of the FBI’s investigation into Judge Kavanaugh. At one point in the interview, Hannity asked him what would happen if Kavanaugh’s confirmation fell a vote short. His answer was nothing short of brilliant, in my estimation:

Here’s the partial transcript of Sen. Graham’s reply:

First of all, I don’t think we will because I don’t think we’ll find out anything new in this investigation. I think Sen. Collins and Sen. Murkowski just wanted to make sure that the FBI did their homework to check the Committee’s work. Now, what would happen if something really weird did occur and we’re 1 vote short on the Committee? Here’s what I’d tell the President. I would appeal the verdict of the Senate to the ballot box. This good man should not be destroyed. If you legitimize this process by falling 1 vote short, woe be unto the next person. I’d hate to be the next person nominated. I would renominate him. I would take this case to the American people and I’d ask voters in Indiana, Missouri and North Dakota and other places where Trump won and see if the voters want to appeal the verdict of their senators.

That’s exactly the right strategy. The Democrats have been totally unfair throughout this process. Let’s see if those states’ voters are as unfair as their senators. I’m betting they aren’t. I’m betting that those voters will boot out those red-state Democrats.

In fact, I’m betting that Democrats have already gone too far with these hearings. When Sen. ‘Spartacus’ said that anyone supporting Judge Kavanaugh was “complicit in evil”, he fired up voters. When Mazie Hirono told men to shut up and do the right thing for once, she fired up voters even more.

The thing, though, that really fired people up was the Democrats constant insistence that Judge Kavanaugh wasn’t entitled to the presumption of innocence because this wasn’t a court trial. The presumption of innocence isn’t just for court trials. It’s the basis for simple fairness. Democrats emphatically implied that Judge Kavanaugh wasn’t entitled to fairness.

This article lays out nicely what’s at stake for red-state Democrats:

Senate Democrats up for reelection this year in deep-red states face a nightmare decision on how to handle Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Vulnerable Democrats are hoping Republicans will force him to withdraw his nomination, allowing them to avoid politically divisive votes.

Their worst nightmare came one step closer when Judge Kavanaugh defiantly said “you might defeat me but I’m not going anywhere.”

The Democrats’ behavior is way over the line. They’ve been despicable, especially Amy Klobuchar, Dianne Feinstein and Mazie Hirono. Those women (I’m using that term exceptionally loosely in that instance) don’t have a bit of integrity combined.

Why has Sen. Klobuchar endorsed accused woman assaulter Keith Ellison but crucified Judge Kavanaugh? The woman who was allegedly assaulted by Keith Ellison has published a doctor’s report. The woman who’s accused Judge Kavanaugh doesn’t have anything in terms of forensic evidence.

Sen. Hirono, Sen. Feinstein and Sen. Schumer have each insisted that, because Judge Kavanaugh isn’t involved in a criminal or civil trial, he isn’t entitled to the presumption of innocence. Most lefty pundits have accepted that as Gospel fact. I don’t accept that as Gospel fact or anything like it. In fact, I dispute it vehemently.

The first question that the outrageous left hasn’t answered is straightforward: at what point does a person lose the presumption of innocence? Do we really want to live in a society where uncorroborated accusations were enough to destroy a person’s life? Right now, the Hate-Filled Left is targeting Brett Kavanaugh but let’s suppose that he withdraws his nomination. There’s a decent possibility that Amy Coney-Barrett would be President Trump’s next nominee. Isn’t it virtually guaranteed that the Hate-Filled Left will attack her with uncorroborated accusations?

The Hate-Filled Left is parading out one woman after another with stories that can’t be verified to prevent a judicial conservative from being confirmed for the Supreme Court. They’ll certainly keep doing that until President Trump nominates another Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.

The ruthless lefties don’t just think conservatives are wrong. They think we’re evil. Don’t believe me? Check this out:

Bill O’Reilly nails it in this interview with Wayne Allen Root:

Without question, the Democrats have a script they’re following on SCOTUS nominees. They’ve been doing that since Ted Kennedy lied through his teeth about Robert Bork. The only difference is that today’s Democrats would make Ted Kennedy look mild.

That should frighten everyone who cares about civil rights.

Let’s imagine a situation where you’re accused of committing a heinous crime. Further, let’s think that you can’t cross-examine your accuser. You know that the accusation is BS. You’ve never done anything like what you’re accused of doing.

Fortunately, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to confront your accuser:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

It’s disturbing to know that a person can accuse you of a heinous crime, then essentially say ‘Forget it. I’ll let the accusation hang over his head but I won’t step forward so he can cross-examine me’.

Think of all the chicanery that might be perpetrated if we operated in a situation where a person can anonymously accuse another person of committing a heinous crime, then not give that person the opportunity to defend himself.

That isn’t justice. That’s giving someone the right to publicly assassinate a person’s reputation, then not give that person the opportunity to defend themselves. That isn’t fair. Unfortunately, that’s what’s happening with Judge Kavanaugh right now.

What’s most unfortunate is that it’s happening to him because Sen. Feinstein is in a tough re-election race and because Democrats don’t think that he’ll rule fairly on cases that matter most to them. They don’t have a bit of proof of that but they’re a paranoid bunch. This sums it up perfectly:

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.