I listened to some of the committee hearing on the confirmation of Senator Sessions to be the Attorney General and I tuned in at the time Senator Al Franken was speaking and he took up the entire time until the vote. He went on and on about whether Sessions was honest or misrepresented something and then attacked Senator Ted Cruz about Cruz’s defense of Sessions in earlier hearings.
Franken spent a lot of his time attacking President Trump and his assertion that millions of people voted illegally. Franken then went on to say Trump was going to look for people who are registered in more than one state. At that time Franken pointed to Trump family members and staff who are registered in two states.
Franken basically called Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions and Donald Trump liars because, you know, liberals know lying when they see it.
So let me help out Franken because this unfunny has been comedian is a liberal hack who needs help.
It is unclear if Sessions was untruthful on his questionnaire because the definition of significant is different to different people. Maybe what Sessions did was significant for the work he was doing and maybe it was not. But Franken, who is not a lawyer, was putting his own definition on the case and using that. He also took the word of some other person over the word of Sessions. I expected as much as Democrats are working hard to harm Trump’s cabinet nominations.
Franken’s assertion about being registered in two states is misleading. I believe what the President means is people who are registered in two states and VOTED in BOTH. We see this a lot with liberal snow birds and liberal college students. They vote absentee in one state and then vote in person in the other. They do this intentionally. As far as I know, it is not illegal to be registered to vote in two states. If you are registered in one place and move and then register in the new place your first registration might not get cancelled. One is supposed to update the first registration but a lot of people never think of that. This is why a number of people can be registered in two places. It is not until you vote in both of them that you have broken the law. Nice try Al but as usual, you are wrong.
As for Franken’s claims that there were not millions of people who voted illegally and that this has been debunked he has no real way of knowing. He knows that Democrats think there was fraud but believe it came from the right and they are convinced of that because their fraud was not enough to win. Even cheating they lost so the other side must have cheated too. Funny thing is Franken got elected on fraudulent votes that were miraculously discovered after he was behind in the recount. It was just enough to put him over the top. Yeah Al, tell me again about cheating you lying jackass.
Barack Obama encouraged illegals to vote (a violation of the law) and California has millions of illegals with driver’s licenses who are able to vote. It is not beyond belief that millions of illegals voted and that people voted in two different locations. Franken said that people who commit voter fraud should be found and prosecuted but he asserts that fewer than 100 cases have occurred or been found. Really? Then why did Democrats scream about fraud in 2000? Why did Democrats demand so many recounts after the last election?
Democrats don’t want this looked into so they claim it has been debunked. If it is looked at they are afraid the fraud committed by them will be discovered. The votes from dead people, from snow birds and college kids coupled with the illegals could very well be in the millions. I hope Trump has this investigated and I hope he finds 5 million illegal votes just so we can shove it down Franken’s throat.
Oh yeah, Franken also stated that Trump came up with a 3-5 million number because Hillary won by 2 point something million. Al, Hillary did not win by 2 million something votes because we do not have a national election. She won some states and she lost other states but she lost the electoral vote and that is all that matters. To claim she won the popular vote is moronic and misleading since we do not have a national election we do not have a national popular vote.
Franken also took the time to praise Sally Yates as a hero who stood up to an illegal order. Once again it is Franken who is lying. He couched it with the “I think we can all agree…” but we do not all agree. First of all the order was NOT illegal. It was in accordance with the law and it is a law that Obama signed. It also follows Title 8 of The United States Code, if Franken cares to read it. Yates did not exercise courage or heroism, she was insubordinate. If she had expressed concerns based on the Constitution or the law she would still have a job. Instead, she just took it upon herself to say she disagreed with it and then told her people not to defend it. This is gross insubordination.
General Stanley McChrystal tendered his resignation (was fired by Barack Obama) based on some things he allegedly said (the claim is his words, and those of his soldiers, were taken out of context) in a Rolling Stone interview. Those things were viewed as improper and Obama wasted no time in Accepting his resignation (dismissing him), a true hero by the way.
Yates was grossly insubordinate and a moron like Franken thinks she is a hero.
As expected the Democrats on the committee all voted against Sessions and the Republicans all voted for so he will go for a full vote and is sure to be confirmed. It is a shame that these people who have worked with Sessions for decades would stoop so low as to impugn his character all in the name of politics and all because they are butt hurt that Trump won.
After the last few days I never ever want to hear a Democrat cry about obstruction from Republicans and I never want to hear them complain about any character assassination. Screw every last one of them. They are low life scum sucking ass hats who should all be put out to pasture.
Yes, they are vile and loathsome creatures.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 27, 2011 Political
Weird Al Franken, the “what were they thinking” Senator from Minnesota was on the floor to discuss the current debt ceiling debate and he had a few charts that were rather disturbing. He borrowed the first chart from the set Obama placed on the southern border. The chart read; Welcome Terrorists. Then he went on to explain that members of the GOP were briefed about what would happen if the debt ceiling was not raised. He showed how much money there was and where it would go and what would not be paid.
Franken listed the following as being paid (all numbers in billions); Service debt-29.0, Social Security-49.2, Medicare/Medicaid-50.0, Defense Vendors-31.7, and Unemployment 12.8.
The next chart shows what would not be paid and it includes Military pay and Veteran’s benefits for a combined 5.8 billion dollars. There are other agencies listed as well including the Department of justice at 1.4 billion dollars.
Franken is trying to scare people into believing that we will invite terrorists in because the military and the DOJ will not be funded. What he is actually pointing out is that Franken (and by extension, his Democrat buddies) would rather pay unemployment benefits to people who are not producing anything (regardless of why they are out of work) and not pay the active military and veterans. He would also rather pay the unemployed than pay the Department of Justice.
So tell me, under this scheme, who is actually inviting the terrorists into the country.
The idea that those who are sitting at home doing nothing would be paid while the men and women who defend this country would not makes my skin boil and the fact that Franken has prioritized it this way is enough to earn him a well deserved butt kicking. They should take him and anyone who tries to implement something like this out back of the Capitol and hang them for treason. I am sure we can make the case they are giving material aid and comfort to our enemies. Welcoming terrorists is an act of treason and if not raising the debt ceiling would invite terrorists then it is Franken and his ilk who would be sending the invitations.
I don’t even think the vendors should be on the list. They get paid when the issue is settled. If they want they can charge interest for carrying the debt load. Or perhaps it would be a good time to review our contracts and eliminate those that are not actually needed.
No matter what, the military should not go without pay. How dare this half baked moron even suggest that the unemployed should keep getting unemployment checks while our brave men and women go without.
This is a scare tactic and it shows that Democrats are either not serious about the issue, don’t understand the issue or actually hate the military.
I bet it is all three.
I wonder what would happen if all those men and women showed up with their weaponry and demanded their paychecks.
I also wonder if Franken includes members of Congress in the federal employees who do not get paid. No member of Congress should ever get paid before a member of the military.
And neither should the unemployed (and if we are lucky most of Congress will be unemployed in 2012).
But if Franken and his colleagues insist on this scheme then we can take the 15 million or so people drawing unemployment and ship them to the borders to keep the terrorists out. We can also send half a million of them to the Middle East and bring our troops home.
Al Franken is an absolute moron who couldn’t pour urine out of a boot if the directions were written on the bottom.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jul 14, 2010 Political
When George Bush won the presidency in 2000 the Democrats claimed that fraud was committed around the country and particularly in Florida where horror stories of voter polls being purged denied people their vote. Whenever a big bureaucracy is involved in anything there are certain to be mistakes but for the most part, people were purged because they were not supposed to be on the list of eligible voters. The purge removed convicted felons, those in jail and people who were registered at the same address as hundreds of other people or at addresses where no residence existed. In short, people were removed because they did not belong on the list.
It had nothing to do with race (though that is always the motive when liberals get their panties in a wad) and had everything to do with the law. We have laws governing who can vote and they should be followed. Liberals do not like them followed because they lose seats when the felons cannot vote.
In 2008 there was certainly voter fraud. The Democrats mobilized the fraud groups such as ACORN and those groups ensured that the votes were there even when they were not. In some places in this country more people voted than actually lived in the voting jurisdiction. Democrats, to this day, tell us that no fraud took place and certainly not enough to make a difference in any race.
Enter Al Franken. Franken might have benefited from Minnesota’s inability to purge its voter rolls and then its inability or refusal to disqualify votes that were illegal during the long recount process. Al Franken won by 312 votes (recounts almost always result in just enough ballots being “found” to ensure victory for a Democrat) but an 18 month analysis of the vote shows that 341 felons, who were not authorized to vote, actually voted in the contest. This means there were more illegal votes than the margin of victory. Did enough of those votes go to Franken to ensure victory? That is unknown but if the voting rolls had been purged and then the votes scrutinized during he recount we would not have any reason to be suspicious.
The six-month election recount that turned former “Saturday Night Live” comedian Al Franken into a U.S. senator may have been decided by convicted felons who voted illegally in Minnesota’s Twin Cities. FOX News
When Bush won the presidency the next eight years (and to this day) had Democrats screaming about an illegitimate president. There have been no such claims by the left with regard to Franken because they refuse to concede that any fraud took place and if they hint at it they minimize it. There is only fraud if their candidate loses.
Never surrender, never submit.
Jun 30, 2010 Political
Elena Kagan will be confirmed barring any major gaffe (a Joe Biden type gaffe) on her part. There is no way (short of a filibuster) to stop her confirmation even though she has little experience for the position which should not be an issue, she is after all, in the mold of Barry and he was the least qualified person to hold his current job.
Kagan will end up being a Justice on the Supreme Court and despite what she says, her politics and personal views and NOT the Constitution will guide her. Chuck Schumer describes her as a moderate which she is definitely not. She seems intelligent and articulate but moderate she is not.
She banned military recruiters at Harvard (and yet insists she didn’t) because she disagreed with “don’t ask, don’t tell.” I have no problem with that action as long as she then refused federal funding in accordance with the law. Kagan has been describing what she did but her version is different from reality. She opposed DADT but did not initially ban recruiters because of the funding issue. As soon as a lower court ruled the Solomon Amendment unconstitutional she banned them. This is because she would not lose the money. When the Supreme Court overturned that ruling she allowed recruiters once again. She is not as principled as she claims because she put getting taxpayer money ahead of her so called principled views.
A principled person would have banned them regardless of the money.
But having principles is not necessarily her strong point. Case in point, she avoided many questions by claiming that the issue might come before the court which is not unusual for a nominee to do. However, in her case she is doing that which she railed against in the past:
Kagan in 1995:
In a 1995 book review, Ms. Kagan wrote that recent Supreme Court confirmation hearings had taken on “an air of vacuity and farce” because nominees would not engage in a meaningful discussion of legal issues, declining to answer any question that might “have some bearing on a case that might some day come before the Court.” She called on senators and future nominees to engage in a much more open and detailed discussion of legal issues.
Under questioning by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, Ms. Kagan said she thought it would be inappropriate for her to talk about how she might rule on pending cases or cases “that might come before the court in the future” — or to answer questions that were “veiled” efforts to get at such issues. The New York Times
The common feeling is that nominees evade things during confirmation and claim they will follow the Constitution and then do what they want once on the bench. Of course Kagan and her supporters say she would not do such a thing but she has demonstrated that she will change her stance based on politics. She said that nominees should be more open but now the politics of the issue requires her to do the exact opposite.
Kagan also refused to comment on past rulings of the Court because she felt she would be grading the Court. How is this even an issue? She should comment on the so called settled cases and let the Senate know how she would have ruled or how she feels about a ruling. You can bet she would not mind commenting on past cases that are popular. If someone asked her how she felt about Brown v. Board of Education or the Dred Scott Decision you can bet she would tell how wonderful it is that we now have fully desegregated schools and and how the Fourteenth* Amendment overturned Scott and made freemen citizens and not property.
So why not opine on other decisions? If stare decisis is so sacrosanct, why not comment?
It is also alleged that Kagan was instrumental in altering a document in order to present a view to the Supreme Court that was not intended by the experts who wrote the document. This is dishonest and should have resulted in her disbarment. The document altered changed an opinion of OB doctors from anti partial birth abortion to pro partial birth abortion. This should tell us all we need to know about her.
There is no doubt Kagan is a progressive and will rule based on progressive ideals. We expected that when Obama nominated her. Her lack of experience is troubling and we could end up with the same kind of disaster we call Obama. The difference is, the longest we can possibly be stuck with him is eight years. She is young and her appointment will be for a lifetime which could be 30 or 40 years.
Well, at least that is plenty of time for on the job training.
At least Al Franken had a good time. I have to say it is a pretty good drawing.
*changed from Thirteenth
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 5, 2009 Political
Al Franken was questioning Assistant Attorney General David Kris with regard to the Patriot Act and Franken was particularly interested in the roving wire taps. Franken asked a few questions and then pulled out the copy of the Constitution that he received when he was sworn in and cited the Fourth Amendment. He then asked if Kris believed that the roving wire taps were in accordance with the Amendment. Kris explained that they were and cited the courts that have ruled on the issue.
Kris further explained that they actually go above and beyond what the FISA courts require.
It is also important to remember the Fourth Amendment deals with unreasonable searches and seizures.
I wrote long ago about the wire taps and the precedent as well as the court rulings. Carter, Clinton and a host of other presidents have done the same thing because it has been ruled as Constitutional and not unreasonable.
I agree with John at Powerline when he states:
Still, one can only commend Franken for reading that copy of the Constitution they gave him when he assumed office. Maybe he’ll let us know whether he finds anything about owning automobile companies and controlling American citizens’ health care.
I commend Franken for reading the Constitution even if he is fuzzy on what he has sworn with regard to it (“And I was sworn to uphold it, or support it anyway, and protect it”).
I have a copy of the Constitution that I carry with me. Every citizen should have one and every citizen should actually read it.
I would like to know how Franken weighs in on gun ownership and the right to keep and bear arms. I wonder if they get to that debate if he will wave his Constitution and cite the Second Amendment (which is the one that ensures all the others) while proudly affirming that the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Or will he decide that this Amendment is different and does not deserve support. You see, Franken has been against gun ownership and for tighter control and only changed his views when he ran for office:
Franken has expressed past reservation about private gun ownership and admitted to attending marches for gun-control; in Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot And Other Observations, he wrote that having guns in the home was “too dangerous” and included mocking language about needing a shotgun for every room of the house. In 2003’s book Oh, The Things I Know! he also wrote that those who donate to the NRA should volunteer at hospitals that treat gunshot victims. During the campaign, Franken took a more moderate stance, saying he supported the right to own and bear arms for protection and hunting, but it’s unclear how those statements will transfer to his Senate votes. Who Runs Gov
So it would seem that Franken is one of those folks who waves the Constitution but believes that only parts of it apply. He, like many liberals, believe that the Constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Gun control is infringement and violates the Second Amendment, so I wonder if Al will have his Constitution when that debate ensues.
I also wonder if Al could find that passage in the Constitution that allows abortion (Franken is strongly pro-abortion). Perhaps he could find the part that allows the government to take money from people and give it to other people (he is a proponent of heavily taxing the wealthy to pay for government largess). Like John, I would like to know what part allows government to own car companies and I am particularly interested in where the Constitution first defines the right to free health care and then where it says that the government has the right to force other people to pay for it. I would also be interested in the part that gives government the authority to force people to buy it.
I would like Franken to reconcile his positions that run contrary to the Constitution since he has waved his copy and decided that it should be followed (even if he does not understand when things are being legally followed).
Anyone who has Franken’s ear, please ask him how he can put on such a charade when his positions run contrary to the Constitution.
I would be interested in how he answers the questions though I have a feeling he would rationalize his unconstitutional positions.
Totally unrelated link to The Other McCain