From the office of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California...I was wrong in my conclusions about the retirees who wanted a meeting with her about healthcare...
...which led to this correction at Columbia Conservative Examiner.
I wish to be fair in my articles, and if I am wrong I will say so.
Showing posts with label Senator Dianne Feinstein. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senator Dianne Feinstein. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Sunday, August 02, 2009
FEINSTEIN CALLS POLICE TO RETIREES!
Retired constituents of U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, found out the hard way that their elected representative was in no mood to hear their views on healthcare! Read this from the San Francisco Chronicle!
Monday, April 27, 2009
Feinstein's Non-Ethics
When it comes to ethics in the manner in which she conducts herself as a U.S. Senator, Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, has none.
Remember that this is the woman who admitted that she carries a handgun for protection, although she would deny that right to tens of millions of Americans. And this is the woman, who, as the ranking member of a Senate panel that awards government contracts on behalf of the military, made sure that multi-millions of dollars of government contracts were funneled to her husband's business.
Now, it seems, the Senator is at it again:
Of oourse, never once has the ethically-challenged Senator been investigated by the Senate for corruption. Since 2006 her cronies have controlled Congress.
Remember that this is the woman who admitted that she carries a handgun for protection, although she would deny that right to tens of millions of Americans. And this is the woman, who, as the ranking member of a Senate panel that awards government contracts on behalf of the military, made sure that multi-millions of dollars of government contracts were funneled to her husband's business.
Now, it seems, the Senator is at it again:
On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.
Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.
Of oourse, never once has the ethically-challenged Senator been investigated by the Senate for corruption. Since 2006 her cronies have controlled Congress.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Little Chucky Decides to Support Bush AG Nominee
Little Chucky Schumer, left, along with the Hildabeast...
Little Chucky Schumer, D-NY, announced that he is going to vote in favor of confirmation for President Bush's nominee for Attorney-General, Judge Michael Mukasey.
I suppose when you have been subject to ridicule and derision over proclaiming that 'the Reagan era is dead,' you have to do something to try to salvage what remaining credibility you have left, albeit minuscule.
Mukasey, a Reagan appointee who has broad support across the political spectrum as being a brilliant and effective jurist, had run into trouble with the Democrats on the Hill because of his unwillingness to say, one way or the other, whether or not waterboarding is 'torture.'
The Dean of the Congressional Trivial, Senator Patrick Leahy, stated he would vote against Mukasey for that reason.
But then, it was Little Chucky and the perennially ethically-challenged Dianne Feinstein to the rescue. Both stated that they would vote in favor of confirmation...odd, given their history over the past few years.
Yet when one takes into consideration that Congress stands at the all-time low approval rating of 11%, perhaps Little Chucky and Dianne suddenly got religion.
Little Chucky Schumer, D-NY, announced that he is going to vote in favor of confirmation for President Bush's nominee for Attorney-General, Judge Michael Mukasey.
I suppose when you have been subject to ridicule and derision over proclaiming that 'the Reagan era is dead,' you have to do something to try to salvage what remaining credibility you have left, albeit minuscule.
Mukasey, a Reagan appointee who has broad support across the political spectrum as being a brilliant and effective jurist, had run into trouble with the Democrats on the Hill because of his unwillingness to say, one way or the other, whether or not waterboarding is 'torture.'
The Dean of the Congressional Trivial, Senator Patrick Leahy, stated he would vote against Mukasey for that reason.
But then, it was Little Chucky and the perennially ethically-challenged Dianne Feinstein to the rescue. Both stated that they would vote in favor of confirmation...odd, given their history over the past few years.
Yet when one takes into consideration that Congress stands at the all-time low approval rating of 11%, perhaps Little Chucky and Dianne suddenly got religion.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Rangel and Feinstein: King and Queen of Pork
When the Democrats asked the American people in November of 2006 to put them in charge of Congress, they made many promises to close the deal. Two of those promises were ethics reform and a major curb on earmarks.
The ethics reform promise has turned out to be a joke. This is one of the most corrupt and ethically challenged Congressional terms ever seen in modern history. We have documented examples of the corruption many times on The Liberty Sphere.
This Congress is also poised to be the most reckless purveyor of pork in recent memory as well.
Pork barrel spending is the practice of politicians of inserting into legislation spending amendments that benefit their home territory--'earmarks,' as they are commonly called today.
The promise of the Democrats to do something about earmarks is also quickly becoming a big joke in Washington. Recently U.S. Senator Jim Coburn, R-Oklahoma, castigated the Senate for putting earmarks ahead of bridge safety, even as the nation reels from a major tragedy regarding an unsafe bridge in Minnesota.
What did the Democrats decide to do instead?
Two examples, one from the Senate, and the other from House, perfectly depict the attitude of this Congress toward pork-barrel spending.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, who has yet to face one single hearing into the scandal revolving around her awarding lucrative government contracts to her husband's businesses, requested a $4 billion dollar earmark in order to build a park in--and get ready for sudden onset nausea--Beverly Hills.
You read that right. Beverly Hills, California.
Even the dimmest watt in the socket knows that Beverly Hills is absolutely the last place in America that needs a park funded by taxpayers to the tune of 4 billion dollars. Without doubt, the top ten earners in the Beverly Hills zip code could build the park out of their own pockets and never miss it.
Moving on to the U.S. House of Representatives we have Charles Rangel, that jovial ole chap whose intellect never quite climbed up to equal his personality. A pleasant fellow, no doubt, Rangel nonetheless has always been afflicted with the disease that epitomizes the woes of the Democratic Party leadership. He has never met a tax he didn't like, and he believes that taxpayers exist to fund government programs so that government can help taxpayers.
The circular logic of such a thing aside, Rangel wants to build a monument to himself in New York City. The U.S. Representative from New York wishes that the taxpayers of America--you and I--pay the sum of $2 million to refurbish an old building for a library on the campus of City College of New York in Harlem.
And that's not all. Rangel wants the building named after himself.
Maybe I am drawing a complete blank at this point, but I thought this sort of thing is what they do for politicians who are dead. Or at least to honor those who retire from Congress after years of service.
But who's really concerned about such things? When you are the King and Queen of pork barrel spending like Rangel and Feinstein, I suppose you can get whatever you want at taxpayer expense, whenever and wherever you want it.
As the late Republican Senator and conservative icon Everette Dirksen quipped about the spending of Congressional Democrats during the 1960s, 'A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.'
It turns out that Dirksen's observations are just as relevant today as they were then.
The ethics reform promise has turned out to be a joke. This is one of the most corrupt and ethically challenged Congressional terms ever seen in modern history. We have documented examples of the corruption many times on The Liberty Sphere.
This Congress is also poised to be the most reckless purveyor of pork in recent memory as well.
Pork barrel spending is the practice of politicians of inserting into legislation spending amendments that benefit their home territory--'earmarks,' as they are commonly called today.
The promise of the Democrats to do something about earmarks is also quickly becoming a big joke in Washington. Recently U.S. Senator Jim Coburn, R-Oklahoma, castigated the Senate for putting earmarks ahead of bridge safety, even as the nation reels from a major tragedy regarding an unsafe bridge in Minnesota.
What did the Democrats decide to do instead?
Two examples, one from the Senate, and the other from House, perfectly depict the attitude of this Congress toward pork-barrel spending.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, who has yet to face one single hearing into the scandal revolving around her awarding lucrative government contracts to her husband's businesses, requested a $4 billion dollar earmark in order to build a park in--and get ready for sudden onset nausea--Beverly Hills.
You read that right. Beverly Hills, California.
Even the dimmest watt in the socket knows that Beverly Hills is absolutely the last place in America that needs a park funded by taxpayers to the tune of 4 billion dollars. Without doubt, the top ten earners in the Beverly Hills zip code could build the park out of their own pockets and never miss it.
Moving on to the U.S. House of Representatives we have Charles Rangel, that jovial ole chap whose intellect never quite climbed up to equal his personality. A pleasant fellow, no doubt, Rangel nonetheless has always been afflicted with the disease that epitomizes the woes of the Democratic Party leadership. He has never met a tax he didn't like, and he believes that taxpayers exist to fund government programs so that government can help taxpayers.
The circular logic of such a thing aside, Rangel wants to build a monument to himself in New York City. The U.S. Representative from New York wishes that the taxpayers of America--you and I--pay the sum of $2 million to refurbish an old building for a library on the campus of City College of New York in Harlem.
And that's not all. Rangel wants the building named after himself.
Maybe I am drawing a complete blank at this point, but I thought this sort of thing is what they do for politicians who are dead. Or at least to honor those who retire from Congress after years of service.
But who's really concerned about such things? When you are the King and Queen of pork barrel spending like Rangel and Feinstein, I suppose you can get whatever you want at taxpayer expense, whenever and wherever you want it.
As the late Republican Senator and conservative icon Everette Dirksen quipped about the spending of Congressional Democrats during the 1960s, 'A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money.'
It turns out that Dirksen's observations are just as relevant today as they were then.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Smoking Gun Leads to Oval Office
Important and shocking facts have surfaced within the last few days that may indicate high level corruption at the Bush White House. These facts may well lead straight to the Oval Office itself.
This major scandal has nothing to do with 9/11. The 9/11 attack was not an 'inside job' no matter what wackos such as Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell have to say.
More importantly, it also has nothing to do with the present Democratic hissy-fit over the firing of eight U.S. prosecuting attorneys. The President was well within his Constitutional authority to fire those attorneys at will.
The scandal that may well lead to the unraveling of the Bush White House revolves around the prosecution and imprisonment of the two Border Patrol agents who were sent to jail for over a decade for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler in the buttocks.
We know, for example, that the two men are not guilty of the charges brought against them. Their supervisors were present when the incident took place. We also know that U.S. Attorney and Bush crony Johnny Sutton hid evidence from the court and charged the two men under statutes that were not appropriate for their alleged crimes, for the single purpose of putting them away for a long, long time.
Why was Sutton so determined to get these men out of the way for over a decade?
We know, further, that members of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security lied to Congress about this case. Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacker, R-California, can recount in minute detail each time a member of the Administration lied to him and his committee that was charged with investigating this case.
These Administration officials even admitted to that committee that they had lied.
What were their lies intended to hide?
People do not lie to Congress unless they are engaged in a cover up of some sort.
In addition, when Rep. Rohrabacker attempted to get the White House to agree to release the two Agents on bond pending the appeal of their sentence, even then the White House refused.
Why?
Part of the answer lies in formerly classified documents that were released under the Freedom of Information Act. Not only did Johnny Sutton grant the Mexican drug smuggler immunity in exchange for providing testimony against the two Agents, but he provided him with unlimited border pass privileges, even though Sutton knew he had engaged in more drug smuggling AFTER the incident in which he was shot in the buttocks by the Agents.
My friends, this kind of gross malfeasance occurs only when there is more beneath the surface than one can readily observe. Johnny Sutton, President Bush, and others involved in this case would not engage in such activity unless there were much more to hide.
The two Border Patrol agents were merely the tip of the iceberg. Under the surface lies a massive cauldron of corruption involving the Mexican government, the Bush administration, shady deals with criminals to appease Mexican government thugs, and heavy-handed attempts to suppress law enforcement at our southern border, while publicly claiming that 'we need to make sure our borders are secure.'
Sutton and others like him in the DOJ and the DHS would not be conducting these kinds of dirty deals unless they were part of an overall policy implemented by the Administration.
Rep. Rohrabacker has stated repeatedly that he is not 'out to get President Bush.' He has made it clear that he is not the enemy, even going as far as personally inviting the White House to come clean about the situation so that steps can be taken to correct it without soiling the President's reputation.
Yet at each and every juncture, Rohrabacker has been met with rudeness and stonewalling. Not even holding out an olive branch could sway the Bush White House.
As we have stated many, many times before on The Liberty Sphere, the President made what could be a politically fatal mistake when he refused to cooperate with Rep. Rohrabacker, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Tom Tancredo, and others within the Republican Party who were never the President's enemies.
Now he is facing a totally hostile environment in the Senate as the President's sworn political enemies are clearly attempting to grab at straws--anything to destroy him.
The President has refused to cooperate with the very people who have supported him through thick and thin. Now he must face hostile enemies who smell blood.
If the Democrats find out that the investigation of the firing of eight attorneys gets them nowhere, and that the dozens of other investigations they have opened all lead to dead-ends (and this most definitely WILL be the outcome), then they will gradually hop on the issue of the two innocent Border Patrol agents with a vengeance.
Of all of the investigations the Democrats hoped would lead to the demise of the Bush White House, this is the ONLY one that has the facts to back up the suspicions.
Dianne Feinstein has already sniffed out a coup. She has sent the President a memo calling for the release of Agents Ramos and Compean.
But the President is highly naive if he thinks she and her colleagues will stop there.
They will simply keep snooping around until they uncover the vast corruption involving our southern border and the country of Mexico--and the President's stubborn refusal to deal with it.
Whoever has been giving the President advice on this issue should be fired and sued for the return of their government salaries. It is obvious they are about three cards shy of a full deck and have done nothing but allow the President to become vulnerable to political suicide. In fact, their ineptitude is alarming.
Any political advisor who allows this to happen is nothing but a numbskull.
Even so, the President still has a chance to salvage his reputation, his Administration, and his Party, by coming clean, clearing out the sleaze that has infested the DOJ and the DHS, and setting the two Border Patrol agents free.
This major scandal has nothing to do with 9/11. The 9/11 attack was not an 'inside job' no matter what wackos such as Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell have to say.
More importantly, it also has nothing to do with the present Democratic hissy-fit over the firing of eight U.S. prosecuting attorneys. The President was well within his Constitutional authority to fire those attorneys at will.
The scandal that may well lead to the unraveling of the Bush White House revolves around the prosecution and imprisonment of the two Border Patrol agents who were sent to jail for over a decade for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler in the buttocks.
We know, for example, that the two men are not guilty of the charges brought against them. Their supervisors were present when the incident took place. We also know that U.S. Attorney and Bush crony Johnny Sutton hid evidence from the court and charged the two men under statutes that were not appropriate for their alleged crimes, for the single purpose of putting them away for a long, long time.
Why was Sutton so determined to get these men out of the way for over a decade?
We know, further, that members of the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security lied to Congress about this case. Republican Representative Dana Rohrabacker, R-California, can recount in minute detail each time a member of the Administration lied to him and his committee that was charged with investigating this case.
These Administration officials even admitted to that committee that they had lied.
What were their lies intended to hide?
People do not lie to Congress unless they are engaged in a cover up of some sort.
In addition, when Rep. Rohrabacker attempted to get the White House to agree to release the two Agents on bond pending the appeal of their sentence, even then the White House refused.
Why?
Part of the answer lies in formerly classified documents that were released under the Freedom of Information Act. Not only did Johnny Sutton grant the Mexican drug smuggler immunity in exchange for providing testimony against the two Agents, but he provided him with unlimited border pass privileges, even though Sutton knew he had engaged in more drug smuggling AFTER the incident in which he was shot in the buttocks by the Agents.
My friends, this kind of gross malfeasance occurs only when there is more beneath the surface than one can readily observe. Johnny Sutton, President Bush, and others involved in this case would not engage in such activity unless there were much more to hide.
The two Border Patrol agents were merely the tip of the iceberg. Under the surface lies a massive cauldron of corruption involving the Mexican government, the Bush administration, shady deals with criminals to appease Mexican government thugs, and heavy-handed attempts to suppress law enforcement at our southern border, while publicly claiming that 'we need to make sure our borders are secure.'
Sutton and others like him in the DOJ and the DHS would not be conducting these kinds of dirty deals unless they were part of an overall policy implemented by the Administration.
Rep. Rohrabacker has stated repeatedly that he is not 'out to get President Bush.' He has made it clear that he is not the enemy, even going as far as personally inviting the White House to come clean about the situation so that steps can be taken to correct it without soiling the President's reputation.
Yet at each and every juncture, Rohrabacker has been met with rudeness and stonewalling. Not even holding out an olive branch could sway the Bush White House.
As we have stated many, many times before on The Liberty Sphere, the President made what could be a politically fatal mistake when he refused to cooperate with Rep. Rohrabacker, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Tom Tancredo, and others within the Republican Party who were never the President's enemies.
Now he is facing a totally hostile environment in the Senate as the President's sworn political enemies are clearly attempting to grab at straws--anything to destroy him.
The President has refused to cooperate with the very people who have supported him through thick and thin. Now he must face hostile enemies who smell blood.
If the Democrats find out that the investigation of the firing of eight attorneys gets them nowhere, and that the dozens of other investigations they have opened all lead to dead-ends (and this most definitely WILL be the outcome), then they will gradually hop on the issue of the two innocent Border Patrol agents with a vengeance.
Of all of the investigations the Democrats hoped would lead to the demise of the Bush White House, this is the ONLY one that has the facts to back up the suspicions.
Dianne Feinstein has already sniffed out a coup. She has sent the President a memo calling for the release of Agents Ramos and Compean.
But the President is highly naive if he thinks she and her colleagues will stop there.
They will simply keep snooping around until they uncover the vast corruption involving our southern border and the country of Mexico--and the President's stubborn refusal to deal with it.
Whoever has been giving the President advice on this issue should be fired and sued for the return of their government salaries. It is obvious they are about three cards shy of a full deck and have done nothing but allow the President to become vulnerable to political suicide. In fact, their ineptitude is alarming.
Any political advisor who allows this to happen is nothing but a numbskull.
Even so, the President still has a chance to salvage his reputation, his Administration, and his Party, by coming clean, clearing out the sleaze that has infested the DOJ and the DHS, and setting the two Border Patrol agents free.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Dianne Feinstein a Strange Ally in Border Patrol Fight
Washington, DC (TLS). Despite all of her faults, including the cloud of corruption hanging over her head in the scandal that sent millions of dollars of government contracts to her husband's companies, Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, has become an ally in the fight to free the two innocent Border Patrol agents.
As The Liberty Sphere reported earlier, the U.S. Senate opened an investigation into government corruption surrounding the Bush Administration's handling of the Ramos-Compean case--the two Border Patrol agents who were wrongfully prosecuted, convicted, sent to prison for over 10 years for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler in the buttocks.
The U.S. House of Representatives repeatedly tried and failed to get cooperation from the Bush Administration in its investigation into the matter. House Republicans were at the forefront of the fight to free the two innocent men.
Yet the Administration continually rebuffed members of the President's own Party, and even lied to the Congressional committee charged with investigating the case.
Not surprisingly, the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate seized the issue, sensing an opportunity for a good Bush-bash. Normally these exercises are nothing more than displays of political opportunism.
In this case, however, if the Democrats are acting for political purposes only, they picked an excellent case over which to give a much-deserved licking to President Bush and his Administration.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, of all people, sent a memo to the President calling for Agents Ramos and Compean to be freed from prison.
The Liberty Sphere heartily applauds Senator Feinstein for her stand.
This is one of the few cases where Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Libertarians can agree and work together.
The Bush Administration was wrong to pursue this case against the Agents. It was wrong to defend Johnny Sutton, the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted them. It was wrong to lie to Congress about the two falsely-accused Agents.
We warned the President that unless he cleans house on his own, fires Johnny Sutton, frees the Agents, and rids the DOJ and Homeland Security of those who lie to Congress, the Democrats in Congress will conduct a hostile investigation into this matter, which may result in not only a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2008, but the loss of the White House to the Democrats as well.
Senator Feinstein's memo to the President concerning the release of Ramos and Compean should be the least of Mr. Bush's worries. If Senate Democrats choose to pursue this matter further, exposing the corruption of the Sutton-DOJ-Homeland Security debacle in handling this case, the President may well find himself in a tanker-load of legal hot water.
The more digging the Democrats in the Senate do, the more I am sure the President wishes he had cooperated with Republicans in the House in their attempt to do the right thing.
The President now has political enemies breathing down his neck on the Border Patrol scandal. The Dianne Feinstein memo is only the beginning.
As The Liberty Sphere reported earlier, the U.S. Senate opened an investigation into government corruption surrounding the Bush Administration's handling of the Ramos-Compean case--the two Border Patrol agents who were wrongfully prosecuted, convicted, sent to prison for over 10 years for shooting an illegal alien drug smuggler in the buttocks.
The U.S. House of Representatives repeatedly tried and failed to get cooperation from the Bush Administration in its investigation into the matter. House Republicans were at the forefront of the fight to free the two innocent men.
Yet the Administration continually rebuffed members of the President's own Party, and even lied to the Congressional committee charged with investigating the case.
Not surprisingly, the Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate seized the issue, sensing an opportunity for a good Bush-bash. Normally these exercises are nothing more than displays of political opportunism.
In this case, however, if the Democrats are acting for political purposes only, they picked an excellent case over which to give a much-deserved licking to President Bush and his Administration.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, of all people, sent a memo to the President calling for Agents Ramos and Compean to be freed from prison.
The Liberty Sphere heartily applauds Senator Feinstein for her stand.
This is one of the few cases where Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Libertarians can agree and work together.
The Bush Administration was wrong to pursue this case against the Agents. It was wrong to defend Johnny Sutton, the U.S. Attorney who prosecuted them. It was wrong to lie to Congress about the two falsely-accused Agents.
We warned the President that unless he cleans house on his own, fires Johnny Sutton, frees the Agents, and rids the DOJ and Homeland Security of those who lie to Congress, the Democrats in Congress will conduct a hostile investigation into this matter, which may result in not only a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2008, but the loss of the White House to the Democrats as well.
Senator Feinstein's memo to the President concerning the release of Ramos and Compean should be the least of Mr. Bush's worries. If Senate Democrats choose to pursue this matter further, exposing the corruption of the Sutton-DOJ-Homeland Security debacle in handling this case, the President may well find himself in a tanker-load of legal hot water.
The more digging the Democrats in the Senate do, the more I am sure the President wishes he had cooperated with Republicans in the House in their attempt to do the right thing.
The President now has political enemies breathing down his neck on the Border Patrol scandal. The Dianne Feinstein memo is only the beginning.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Sen. Barbara Boxer Wants to Impeach Bush
Washington, DC (TLS). For the majority of the Bush Presidency The Liberty Sphere has supported most of the policies and political philosophy propounded by Mr. Bush and his administration.
Of course, we had reservations about some things, such as the notion that a 'conservative' can actually support such a massive expansion of big government, and the tendency to place limits on some of our time-honored, sacred Constitutional rights.
However, we favored the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, both of which are tributaries of the overall War on Terror. We believe that mistakes have been made that severely hampered our progress in these areas, not the least of which has been listening to the wrong people, particularly those within the politically correct movement who seem to hold to the idiotic premise that war can be 'clean, quick, and tidy.'
War by its very nature is nasty, protracted, and bloody. Yet it is sometimes an unavoidable necessary evil. Fighting wars with the tactics used in Viet Nam is a recipe for failure. If we must go to War, it must be to win no matter how much damage is done to the enemy.
You don't fight wars like playing a nice little game of tiddly winks.
We favored the Bush tax cuts, the attempt to be more supportive of private educational initiatives, the opposition to abortion, and appointing to the Supreme Court only those justices that hold to a strict constructionist model.
We do, however, have increasing frustration and deep reservations about some of the Bush initiatives, most of which arise out of the President's personal weaknesses, such as his stubbornness with regard to such things as freeing two innocent Border Patrol agents, his stance on immigration, and other such indefensible positions.
But impeachment? That is way too extreme.
Not to Barbara Boxer's way of thinking, however. Recently Boxer granted an interview in which she stated that she thinks the notion of impeaching the President 'should be put on the table.'
This is in addition to her scheme along with Hillary Clinton and other Democrats to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly by bringing back 'the Fairness Doctrine.'
We make no attempt to hide the fact that we believe Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and and several others to be leftwing nutcases. But to suggest that it is time to impeach Mr. Bush is so far over the top that perhaps it is time to consider expulsion for some members of Congress, such as a few of the aforementioned socialists.
You can view the interview by clicking here:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2967.html
Of course, we had reservations about some things, such as the notion that a 'conservative' can actually support such a massive expansion of big government, and the tendency to place limits on some of our time-honored, sacred Constitutional rights.
However, we favored the War in Afghanistan, the War in Iraq, both of which are tributaries of the overall War on Terror. We believe that mistakes have been made that severely hampered our progress in these areas, not the least of which has been listening to the wrong people, particularly those within the politically correct movement who seem to hold to the idiotic premise that war can be 'clean, quick, and tidy.'
War by its very nature is nasty, protracted, and bloody. Yet it is sometimes an unavoidable necessary evil. Fighting wars with the tactics used in Viet Nam is a recipe for failure. If we must go to War, it must be to win no matter how much damage is done to the enemy.
You don't fight wars like playing a nice little game of tiddly winks.
We favored the Bush tax cuts, the attempt to be more supportive of private educational initiatives, the opposition to abortion, and appointing to the Supreme Court only those justices that hold to a strict constructionist model.
We do, however, have increasing frustration and deep reservations about some of the Bush initiatives, most of which arise out of the President's personal weaknesses, such as his stubbornness with regard to such things as freeing two innocent Border Patrol agents, his stance on immigration, and other such indefensible positions.
But impeachment? That is way too extreme.
Not to Barbara Boxer's way of thinking, however. Recently Boxer granted an interview in which she stated that she thinks the notion of impeaching the President 'should be put on the table.'
This is in addition to her scheme along with Hillary Clinton and other Democrats to silence Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly by bringing back 'the Fairness Doctrine.'
We make no attempt to hide the fact that we believe Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, and and several others to be leftwing nutcases. But to suggest that it is time to impeach Mr. Bush is so far over the top that perhaps it is time to consider expulsion for some members of Congress, such as a few of the aforementioned socialists.
You can view the interview by clicking here:
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/2967.html
Thursday, June 28, 2007
The Demise of the Immigration Compromise Bill
Washington, DC (TLS). As expected, the U.S. Senate failed to garner the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture Thursday morning, and proceed to a vote on the immigration reform bill. This means that the bill is dead.
Six top Republicans defected from the shaky coalition of Democrats and Republican leaders in order to insure the demise of the bill. This was in stark contrast to the vote on Tuesday when the bill's supporters received 64 votes.
However, in the intervening hours between the first vote and today's vote, a massive avalanche of angry citizens inundated Congress with phone calls, faxes, emails, and text messages.
One person who contacted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was so explosive in his derogatory comments that Reid indicated he would be turning over the communication to the government's investigative authorities.
Obviously, the vast majority of the contacts were not violent in nature, and thus, the Senators heard the deep concerns of the people loud and clear.
Even Senator Dianne Feinstein commented on the number of complaints from citizens, but stated that she would vote in favor of the bill anyway because 'those who oppose the bill do not understand it.'
Sure, Senator. Only elitists like you can truly understand the intricacies of government and legislation, and we, the misinformed and ignorant commoners, are too dumb to comprehend.
Senator Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, on the other hand, asked, 'What part of ‘no’ don’t we understand? This fight has 'reengaged the American people.'
However, Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, one of the bill's staunchest proponents, stated, 'Remember this day if you vote no. The bill will not come back in its present form, and this is as good as it gets.'
Perhaps someone should remind Senator Graham that we don't need another bill. What we need is enforcement of the laws already on the books that deal directly with the problem of illegal aliens and what to do about them.
The problem is not inadequate laws. The problem is the inadequate enforcement of current law.
Some liberal groups are already warning that the opposition to this bill among Republicans will spell defeat for them in 2008. The common reasoning behind this view is that Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly turning to Democrats, and today's vote will only accelerate that process.
Critics point to the fact that George W. Bush received 40% of the Hispanic vote but that in 2008 that level of support is expected to drop.
A closer look, however, reveals that Hispanics have never been in the hip-pocket of Republicans to begin with. 40% of the Hispanic vote is not a majority. Democrats have always been the beneficiaries of the influx of Hispanic immigrants, which is the biggest reason they block enforcement of current law and come within a hair's breadth of supporting open borders.
It should not be very difficult, however, to show Hispanic voters that this bill is not about legal immigration. This has NEVER been about legal immigration. The vast millions of Hispanic immigrants who have gained citizenship through legal means are valued and productive citizens. They work hard. They are deeply religious. They support their families.
Republicans, conservatives, independents, and libertarians who opposed the immigration compromise bill have no quarrel at all with these exemplary members of the LEGAL Hispanic immigrant community. Our quarrel has been with illegal aliens, period...and the corrupt government of Mexico that apparently wishes to dump its criminals onto America by supporting their illegal entry into the country.
The bill as it stood did very little to adequately address the problem of illegal aliens. Granting a path to citizenship for illegals would be a slap in the face to every immigrant who followed the law and attained their citizenship the right way.
Americans of every stripe continue to welcome immigrants who are willing to obey the law, learn English, and follow the path to citizenship already laid out in the U.S. Code.
We still support those who obey the law. But we remain vehemently opposed to those who disregard the law.
Six top Republicans defected from the shaky coalition of Democrats and Republican leaders in order to insure the demise of the bill. This was in stark contrast to the vote on Tuesday when the bill's supporters received 64 votes.
However, in the intervening hours between the first vote and today's vote, a massive avalanche of angry citizens inundated Congress with phone calls, faxes, emails, and text messages.
One person who contacted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was so explosive in his derogatory comments that Reid indicated he would be turning over the communication to the government's investigative authorities.
Obviously, the vast majority of the contacts were not violent in nature, and thus, the Senators heard the deep concerns of the people loud and clear.
Even Senator Dianne Feinstein commented on the number of complaints from citizens, but stated that she would vote in favor of the bill anyway because 'those who oppose the bill do not understand it.'
Sure, Senator. Only elitists like you can truly understand the intricacies of government and legislation, and we, the misinformed and ignorant commoners, are too dumb to comprehend.
Senator Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, on the other hand, asked, 'What part of ‘no’ don’t we understand? This fight has 'reengaged the American people.'
However, Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, one of the bill's staunchest proponents, stated, 'Remember this day if you vote no. The bill will not come back in its present form, and this is as good as it gets.'
Perhaps someone should remind Senator Graham that we don't need another bill. What we need is enforcement of the laws already on the books that deal directly with the problem of illegal aliens and what to do about them.
The problem is not inadequate laws. The problem is the inadequate enforcement of current law.
Some liberal groups are already warning that the opposition to this bill among Republicans will spell defeat for them in 2008. The common reasoning behind this view is that Hispanic voters are overwhelmingly turning to Democrats, and today's vote will only accelerate that process.
Critics point to the fact that George W. Bush received 40% of the Hispanic vote but that in 2008 that level of support is expected to drop.
A closer look, however, reveals that Hispanics have never been in the hip-pocket of Republicans to begin with. 40% of the Hispanic vote is not a majority. Democrats have always been the beneficiaries of the influx of Hispanic immigrants, which is the biggest reason they block enforcement of current law and come within a hair's breadth of supporting open borders.
It should not be very difficult, however, to show Hispanic voters that this bill is not about legal immigration. This has NEVER been about legal immigration. The vast millions of Hispanic immigrants who have gained citizenship through legal means are valued and productive citizens. They work hard. They are deeply religious. They support their families.
Republicans, conservatives, independents, and libertarians who opposed the immigration compromise bill have no quarrel at all with these exemplary members of the LEGAL Hispanic immigrant community. Our quarrel has been with illegal aliens, period...and the corrupt government of Mexico that apparently wishes to dump its criminals onto America by supporting their illegal entry into the country.
The bill as it stood did very little to adequately address the problem of illegal aliens. Granting a path to citizenship for illegals would be a slap in the face to every immigrant who followed the law and attained their citizenship the right way.
Americans of every stripe continue to welcome immigrants who are willing to obey the law, learn English, and follow the path to citizenship already laid out in the U.S. Code.
We still support those who obey the law. But we remain vehemently opposed to those who disregard the law.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
The Rank Stench Emanating From Washington
Here is a small assignment for you. Go outside and stand facing in the direction of Washington, DC. Then, take in a deep breath.
Get a whiff?
The obnoxious fumes you picked up is the rank stench of corruption emanating from Washington.
The 2006 election cycle was supposed to be about 'restoring integrity to the political process in Washington' after over a decade of Republican leadership that supposedly gave us ethics violations, one of which was 'misleading us into war.'
As it turns out, the Republicans are all standing in line for Sainthood compared to the mob of ethically-challenged mongrels who run Congress now.
Let's look at a brief run-down of just how corrupt the new Democratic leadership has been in the few months they've been in control, shall we?
**Nancy Pelosi had a four-day party-bash to celebrate her coronation as Queen of the House, costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Her spending spree had continued with her globe-trotting as no other Speaker in the history of the House has done, including traveling to the Middle East to talk to our enemies and the parties involved in the Iraq War, which is expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution!
**Harry Reid, new Senate majority leader, was fresh from an ethics flap over some illegal campaign contributions when he took his new job. He escaped punishment by promising not to do it again and giving the money back. Wonder if that's enough to keep you out of jail if you are hauled to Court to face the judge for illegal activity? Reid also declared that America has lost the War in Iraq while our troops are still in harm's way.
**John Conyers broke federal campaign laws by using his Congressional staff to do campaign work. Once again, he promised not to do it again and all was well.
**William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in cold cash (pardon the pun) found in his freezer. He has been charged with several felonies and yet not a word has been said of it by the House leadership. He still sits in his seat in Congress.
**Senator Dianne Feinstein sat on the committee that oversaw the granting of military construction contracts (she was the ranking member). As it turns out Feinstein's husband's companies were the recipients of millions of dollars of government contracts that directly benefited Feinstein and her husband. But do you think a word has been said by the Senate leadership about 'conflict of interest?' Feinstein still sits there in her seat in the Senate.
**Muslim Keith Ellison insisted that a Koran be used in his photo-op swearing-in ceremony...a book which forbids anyone from swearing allegiance to anything other than Allah. One wonders how he can swear allegiance to his country and the Constitution when the very book he had his hand on forbids swearing such allegiances. In addition, it was disclosed that Ellison had once defended and raised funds for the terrorist who once attempted to bomb Dianne Feinstein's home in San Francisco back when she worked for the city. And this is not to mention that Ellison's bid for Congress was supported by CAIR--the Muslim entity that has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a funds-to-foreign-terrorists scheme prosecuted by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Yet, there he is, big as Ike, sitting in his seat in the House.
I could go further, but I will stop there with just the tip of the iceberg. It is said that what is seen and known of corruption is never the biggest part. That stench you smell emanating from Washington is but one small whiff of a much larger, hidden cauldron of corruption boiling beneath the surface.
As the saying goes, 'We ain't seen nothing yet,' particularly if Hillary is elected to the White House.
Get a whiff?
The obnoxious fumes you picked up is the rank stench of corruption emanating from Washington.
The 2006 election cycle was supposed to be about 'restoring integrity to the political process in Washington' after over a decade of Republican leadership that supposedly gave us ethics violations, one of which was 'misleading us into war.'
As it turns out, the Republicans are all standing in line for Sainthood compared to the mob of ethically-challenged mongrels who run Congress now.
Let's look at a brief run-down of just how corrupt the new Democratic leadership has been in the few months they've been in control, shall we?
**Nancy Pelosi had a four-day party-bash to celebrate her coronation as Queen of the House, costing the taxpayers thousands of dollars. Her spending spree had continued with her globe-trotting as no other Speaker in the history of the House has done, including traveling to the Middle East to talk to our enemies and the parties involved in the Iraq War, which is expressly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution!
**Harry Reid, new Senate majority leader, was fresh from an ethics flap over some illegal campaign contributions when he took his new job. He escaped punishment by promising not to do it again and giving the money back. Wonder if that's enough to keep you out of jail if you are hauled to Court to face the judge for illegal activity? Reid also declared that America has lost the War in Iraq while our troops are still in harm's way.
**John Conyers broke federal campaign laws by using his Congressional staff to do campaign work. Once again, he promised not to do it again and all was well.
**William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in cold cash (pardon the pun) found in his freezer. He has been charged with several felonies and yet not a word has been said of it by the House leadership. He still sits in his seat in Congress.
**Senator Dianne Feinstein sat on the committee that oversaw the granting of military construction contracts (she was the ranking member). As it turns out Feinstein's husband's companies were the recipients of millions of dollars of government contracts that directly benefited Feinstein and her husband. But do you think a word has been said by the Senate leadership about 'conflict of interest?' Feinstein still sits there in her seat in the Senate.
**Muslim Keith Ellison insisted that a Koran be used in his photo-op swearing-in ceremony...a book which forbids anyone from swearing allegiance to anything other than Allah. One wonders how he can swear allegiance to his country and the Constitution when the very book he had his hand on forbids swearing such allegiances. In addition, it was disclosed that Ellison had once defended and raised funds for the terrorist who once attempted to bomb Dianne Feinstein's home in San Francisco back when she worked for the city. And this is not to mention that Ellison's bid for Congress was supported by CAIR--the Muslim entity that has been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in a funds-to-foreign-terrorists scheme prosecuted by the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Yet, there he is, big as Ike, sitting in his seat in the House.
I could go further, but I will stop there with just the tip of the iceberg. It is said that what is seen and known of corruption is never the biggest part. That stench you smell emanating from Washington is but one small whiff of a much larger, hidden cauldron of corruption boiling beneath the surface.
As the saying goes, 'We ain't seen nothing yet,' particularly if Hillary is elected to the White House.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Feinstein Scandal Won't Go Away Despite Media Blackout
Washington, DC (TLS). The Dianne Feinstein conflict of interest scandal that led to her husband's pocketing of millions of dollars' worth of government contracts is not going away, say government watchdog groups.
In spite of the mainstream media blackout of the story, and the Democrat-controlled Senate's attempt to hide it, this scandal just keeps building steam.
According to California law, the funds that went to the spouse of Senator Feinstein are considered to be hers as well as her husbands, according to a legal statute known as 'community property law,' which maintains that all benefits, assets, and profits accumulated by one partner in a marriage is considered the joint property of both spouses.
This means, in short, that by channeling government contracts to her husband's companies, not only was Feinstein helping her husband's businesses, but she was helping herself...a clear conflict of interest.
To read more about this still-growing scandal, click here:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200705/POL20070508a.html
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Dems Condemn Supreme Court Ban of Barbarism
Washington, DC (TLS). In a stunning victory for pro-life forces, the United States Supreme Court yesterday banned a procedure that critics have long designated as an unnecessary, gruesome, and barbaric attack against unborn children.
The high court banned the procedure known as 'partial birth abortions,' a late-term procedure during which the child is partially delivered, killed by drilling a hole in its head and sucking out the brain, and then delivering the rest of the child dead.
Republican Presidential candidates praised the decision of the Court.
Democrats, on the other hand, condemned it.
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, D-California, took to the floor of the Senate to deliver a lengthy diatribe against the court's decision, claiming that it took away all the progress toward 'women's rights' that we have made over the past 30 years.
Excuse me, Senator, but how does a ban on barbarism set back human rights? In addition, you should be under arrest at this very moment in order to face charges of war profiteering--a scheme during which you sent to your husband's companies millions of dollars' worth of military construction contracts while you were the Chair of the very committee that approved those contracts.
Hillary Clinton, as expected, condemned the decision, as did Barack Hussein Obama. No surprises there.
John Edwards, however, issued a most stinging rebuke, stated that he 'could not disagree more strongly' with the decision.
In that one single statement alone, Edwards betrayed his upbringing and the values of his home state of South Carolina. As a native of Seneca, which is located in the upstate of S.C. where people value faith, freedom, the rule of law, and traditional family values, Edwards demonstrated today he has little regard for those values.
Let the record show for all to see that every single Democratic candidate for President is on the record for supporting one of the most blood-thirsty, gruesome, chilling, and barbaric procedures ever devised in the demented minds of abortion doctors.
The high court banned the procedure known as 'partial birth abortions,' a late-term procedure during which the child is partially delivered, killed by drilling a hole in its head and sucking out the brain, and then delivering the rest of the child dead.
Republican Presidential candidates praised the decision of the Court.
Democrats, on the other hand, condemned it.
U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein, D-California, took to the floor of the Senate to deliver a lengthy diatribe against the court's decision, claiming that it took away all the progress toward 'women's rights' that we have made over the past 30 years.
Excuse me, Senator, but how does a ban on barbarism set back human rights? In addition, you should be under arrest at this very moment in order to face charges of war profiteering--a scheme during which you sent to your husband's companies millions of dollars' worth of military construction contracts while you were the Chair of the very committee that approved those contracts.
Hillary Clinton, as expected, condemned the decision, as did Barack Hussein Obama. No surprises there.
John Edwards, however, issued a most stinging rebuke, stated that he 'could not disagree more strongly' with the decision.
In that one single statement alone, Edwards betrayed his upbringing and the values of his home state of South Carolina. As a native of Seneca, which is located in the upstate of S.C. where people value faith, freedom, the rule of law, and traditional family values, Edwards demonstrated today he has little regard for those values.
Let the record show for all to see that every single Democratic candidate for President is on the record for supporting one of the most blood-thirsty, gruesome, chilling, and barbaric procedures ever devised in the demented minds of abortion doctors.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Dealing with the Feinstein Scandal
Washington, DC (TLS). Senate Democrats are no doubt in quite a quandary at this hour, in spite of the fact that they are on a rather lengthy Easter break. Although the news has barely caused a ripple in the mainstream media, here comes the Internet news sources, bloggers, and a few secondary newspapers swarming around the scandal involving Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-California, and her war profiteering scheme with her husband.
First, let us put this scandal within its proper context. Democrats, the Liberal variety in particular, have made it their trademark to be anti-war. San Francisco is where Feinstein cut her political teeth, having once served in the city government. And everyone knows that San Francisco has become the nation's number one hotbed of rabid, putrid ultra-leftwing extremism.
This is the area that refuses to allow ROTC recruiters in public schools or to allow a major U.S. battleship, which has been placed in retirement, to find harbor.
Feinstein, along with Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, are the heroines of the extremist Left. And, as such they tow the Party line on all the hot-button issues--gun control advocacy, abortion-on-demand, tax-and-spend expansion of government power, and most important of all, the vilification of American military power and prowess.
War is an evil symbol of American imperialism, according to the true believers of the extreme Left. Nevermind that the present war was declared on us first and that Iraq was a centerpiece of its propagation. Even Hillary Clinton stated that Saddam was training, funding, and giving safe haven to Islamic terrorists--that is, until she started running for President.
Feinstein, therefore, has walked the walk and talked the talk on the hot-button issues. Until now.
There have been hints all along that perhaps Feinstein was not the true believer everyone thought. She admitted before a Senate panel in 1995 that she had bought and carried a concealed handgun in the 70s when she and her family were being threatened by a terrorist who had planted a bomb outside her daughter's window.
Somehow, miraculously, the bomb did not detonate.
Yet Feinstein has consistently been one of the most avid and rabid anti-gun bigots on Capitol Hill, voting regularly to deny to ordinary citizens the right she exercised when she and her family were threatened with harm.
Now we discover that the quintessential Liberal Democrat from California, the anti-war crusader from San Francisco, is up to her neck in a war profiteering scandal of draconian proportions. While publicly decrying the military and the war, Feinstein was making cozy with U.S. military officials concerning construction projects and overseeing the process by which her husband's companies would receive billions of dollars' worth of government construction contracts for the military.
In short, as Chair of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Feinstein personally approved billions of dollars' worth of government contracts that were awarded to her husband's companies.
While our men and women were being shipped overseas to fight the War on Terror, which Feinstein harshly denounced, she and her husband were padding their pockets off of U.S. involvement in the war.
Publicly she blasted President Bush's War on Terror. Privately she profited mightily from that very war.
The question that is before the Senate, therefore, is what to do about it. If the brief history of Democrat control of Congress is any hint of what they will do, the answer is nothing at all. After all, Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, is himself waste-deep in scandal due to the receiving of illegal campaign funds. In spite of the fact that he gave the money back, it was still against federal law.
Senator Blowhard is responsible for the death of a young woman, but he walked away free as a bird and never suffered ANY repercussions from it.
Senator 'Leaky' Leahy leaked classified information while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee--a major breach of national security. Yet the worst thing that ever happened to him was to resign from the committee.
And this is just in the Senate. If we go over to the House, we find even more glaring corruption on the part of the Party that purported to 'restore integrity to government.'
The problem, however, is that after these cases hit the news over and over, the public finally begins to get the message that something is terribly amiss. The news of the Feinstein scandal is simply too much, too big to ignore. If the Democrat leadership allows this to pass by without even as much as an investigation, then the whole country will know without any doubt whatsoever that the Democrat Party is all talk and no substance.
The thing is, they already know it. The latest polls show that approval of Congress has slipped back into the 25% range--much worse than President Bush's approval numbers.
With Feinstein's war profiteering scheme making the headlines--and sooner or later the big guns in the media will be forced to make it a headline--the public will have even more reason to lose faith in Congressional Democrats.
Feinstein needs to go. She should either resign from her seat or be expelled from Congress.
First, let us put this scandal within its proper context. Democrats, the Liberal variety in particular, have made it their trademark to be anti-war. San Francisco is where Feinstein cut her political teeth, having once served in the city government. And everyone knows that San Francisco has become the nation's number one hotbed of rabid, putrid ultra-leftwing extremism.
This is the area that refuses to allow ROTC recruiters in public schools or to allow a major U.S. battleship, which has been placed in retirement, to find harbor.
Feinstein, along with Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, are the heroines of the extremist Left. And, as such they tow the Party line on all the hot-button issues--gun control advocacy, abortion-on-demand, tax-and-spend expansion of government power, and most important of all, the vilification of American military power and prowess.
War is an evil symbol of American imperialism, according to the true believers of the extreme Left. Nevermind that the present war was declared on us first and that Iraq was a centerpiece of its propagation. Even Hillary Clinton stated that Saddam was training, funding, and giving safe haven to Islamic terrorists--that is, until she started running for President.
Feinstein, therefore, has walked the walk and talked the talk on the hot-button issues. Until now.
There have been hints all along that perhaps Feinstein was not the true believer everyone thought. She admitted before a Senate panel in 1995 that she had bought and carried a concealed handgun in the 70s when she and her family were being threatened by a terrorist who had planted a bomb outside her daughter's window.
Somehow, miraculously, the bomb did not detonate.
Yet Feinstein has consistently been one of the most avid and rabid anti-gun bigots on Capitol Hill, voting regularly to deny to ordinary citizens the right she exercised when she and her family were threatened with harm.
Now we discover that the quintessential Liberal Democrat from California, the anti-war crusader from San Francisco, is up to her neck in a war profiteering scandal of draconian proportions. While publicly decrying the military and the war, Feinstein was making cozy with U.S. military officials concerning construction projects and overseeing the process by which her husband's companies would receive billions of dollars' worth of government construction contracts for the military.
In short, as Chair of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, Feinstein personally approved billions of dollars' worth of government contracts that were awarded to her husband's companies.
While our men and women were being shipped overseas to fight the War on Terror, which Feinstein harshly denounced, she and her husband were padding their pockets off of U.S. involvement in the war.
Publicly she blasted President Bush's War on Terror. Privately she profited mightily from that very war.
The question that is before the Senate, therefore, is what to do about it. If the brief history of Democrat control of Congress is any hint of what they will do, the answer is nothing at all. After all, Senator Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, is himself waste-deep in scandal due to the receiving of illegal campaign funds. In spite of the fact that he gave the money back, it was still against federal law.
Senator Blowhard is responsible for the death of a young woman, but he walked away free as a bird and never suffered ANY repercussions from it.
Senator 'Leaky' Leahy leaked classified information while serving on the Senate Intelligence Committee--a major breach of national security. Yet the worst thing that ever happened to him was to resign from the committee.
And this is just in the Senate. If we go over to the House, we find even more glaring corruption on the part of the Party that purported to 'restore integrity to government.'
The problem, however, is that after these cases hit the news over and over, the public finally begins to get the message that something is terribly amiss. The news of the Feinstein scandal is simply too much, too big to ignore. If the Democrat leadership allows this to pass by without even as much as an investigation, then the whole country will know without any doubt whatsoever that the Democrat Party is all talk and no substance.
The thing is, they already know it. The latest polls show that approval of Congress has slipped back into the 25% range--much worse than President Bush's approval numbers.
With Feinstein's war profiteering scheme making the headlines--and sooner or later the big guns in the media will be forced to make it a headline--the public will have even more reason to lose faith in Congressional Democrats.
Feinstein needs to go. She should either resign from her seat or be expelled from Congress.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)