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.
I listened yesterday as Dianne Feinstein, a very old senator from California (as in should be out to pasture), questioned Senator Sessions as he goes through the process to be the next Attorney General. She was a typical liberal and asked about things that dealt with abortion and gay marriage. She was concerned that Sessions still considers Roe v Wade to be the worst decision the SCOTUS ever made (I agree with him that it was unconstitutional and should have been a 10th Amendment issue). Sessions was candid and said it was the law and he would enforce it but that he personally thinks it was wrongly decided. I think the same is true about gay marriage. Marriage of any kind is not in the Constitution so it is not the business of the federal government.
It was obvious to me that Feinstein is biased and does not want Sessions to be confirmed. That is obvious with regard to most Democrats who questioned him. They have decided to run a racist allegation smear and are sticking to it despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. It is how they do things in DC. It matters not that these folks work together and that they have good relationships. As soon as politics are in play they abuse each other with lies. It is a wink, wink situation where they say, nothing personal dude but I have to play up to the base so I look good.
It started with Feinstein’s opening remarks where she expressed concerns (allegedly told to her by victim groups) about Sessions’ ability to be the AG for all people and to enforce all the laws, particularly the ones with which he disagrees.
I have no doubt Sessions will do just that BUT, I want to know where Feinstein was with regard to former AG Eric Holder. Feinstein supported Holder even though he has a history as a radical. While in office Holder refused to defend laws with which he disagreed. He refused to defend the Defense of Marriage Act stating gay rights were the last civil rights. Did Feinstein have a chat with Holder about supporting the law EVEN THOSE WITH WHICH HE DISAGREES?
In 2011, the attorney general said he won’t defend Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) which rules that federal interpretation of “marriage” applies only to heterosexual couples. Last year, Holder told ABC News, “From my perspective, [gay marriage] is really the latest civil-rights issue.” So when six state attorneys general said they would not defend laws that ban gay marriage, Holder did not step in. Instead, Holder said they didn’t have to defend the laws if they believed they were unconstitutional. ABC News
Is it OK for AG Sessions to ignore laws or state AGs who ignore laws that they consider unconstitutional? If a state AG decided that Obamacare or gay marriage or abortion were unconstitutional and refused to enforce or defend the laws guiding them would Feinstein be OK with that? She certainly had no issue with Holder…
Feinstein also expressed concern that Sessions had a history of racism (not proven and contrary to evidence) and she was concerned that people of color (and other protected minority groups) would not get a fair shake under an AG Sessions. Where was Feinstein when Holder refused to prosecute the Black Panthers who were recorded intimidating white voters? She was nowhere to be found when Holder claimed that the focus on the Black Panther Case demeans “my people.”
Did Feinstein call Holder in to let him know it was racist to take that attitude and that all Americans are his people?
It is obvious that the Democrats have a hard on for Sessions (actually they hate Trump and want to wound him this way). That is all well and good BUT a real leader, a principled person in the Senate, would evaluate a person based on skill and career. The reality is the Democrats (hell, most politicians) are immoral and cowardly. They do not care what is good for the country or what is right. They care about how they can get and keep power and how they can control each and every one of us.
Feinstein is a moron and a political hack. She is out for blood because her besty Hillary Clinton got her rear end whipped by Donald Trump.
I want adults with ethical principles and of good moral character to sit in the senate and that is why Feinstein should be put out to pasture.
She is a disgrace to herself and the body in which she sits.
As an aside, Al Franken is as partisan and cowardly as Feinstein.
Democrats ram stuff through when they are in charge and expect their nominees to be accepted. When they are the minority they expect bipartisanship and the ability to oppose nominees because they know what is best for America.
They are a ruthless bunch and must be handled with brutal force. Get them down and keep them down.
Never surrender, never submit.
Hillary Clinton, fresh off her tie in Iowa, is in New Hampshire to discuss why she should be the Democrat nominee for president. At the end of an event she was asked about cyber security and she was actually able to answer it with a straight face.
Hillary stated that cyber security is one of the most important challenges the next president faces and that there are nations constantly attacking our cyber networks and that we, among other things, have to let them know we will not tolerate their cyber evasiveness.
The very same woman who used an unsecured personal server for official emails, a server that was undoubtedly hacked by the very nations she mentioned, and who was very evasive with her cyber footprint wants us to believe that she is able to handle cyber security.
Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information and put it at risk of disclosure, particularly to hostile nations. She broke the law and she did this in order to avoid having her email archived in accordance with federal law (cyber evasiveness).
Hillary Clinton said that cyber security would be an important challenge for the next president.
She should know since cyber security was very challenging for her. In fact it was so challenging that she failed it miserably and will only avoid indictment if the hacks in DC play politics and give her a pass.
Loretta Lynch is unlikely to prosecute any Democrat particularly the one running for the presidency.
In any event, Hillary broke many laws.
During the last election Hillary asked us who we wanted to answer the 3 am phone call. Turns out she was not the right choice as demonstrated by her response to the events in Benghazi. She failed the 3 am test miserably.
Hillary is no more qualified to handle cyber security than she is to handle a 3 am phone call.
We don’t need Hillary in cyber security, we need her in maximum security.
Never surrender, never submit.
Socialist Bernie Sanders wants to be president and his rhetoric of promising everyone everything (to the tune of 18 TRILLION dollars) is hitting home with the “me” generation and the Gimmiedats.
They all like Bernie’s idea of taxing the rich more to pay for the millennial’s needs. Why yes, tax those greedy rich suckers and give us more stuff.
There is no way to tax the rich and pay for what Bernie wants to give away (notice he is very generous with OTHER people’s money). If Bernie could confiscate 100% of the money the wealthy have (even up to about the top 40% of those considered wealthy, not just the 1%) it would not be enough money to run the government for more than a few months. After that the well would be dry and there would need to be new sources of cash to feed the left’s insatiable appetite.
But Bernie wants to give stuff away. He wants a paid family leave program where people could have time off and get paid. His example is for a woman who gives birth. Bernie thinks she should get paid time off and of course everyone else pays for that.
You see, he wants to add just a little to the payroll tax to finance his paid time off plan. It is just a little bit he says but he also says it will affect all workers. To the socialist all must pay in to help the others.
So now the young “me” generation will have to foot the bill for people to have time off.
Many of them might think that is Ok but what happens when the little bit taken is not enough to pay for the program? Then the little bit more in taxes becomes a whole lot more in taxes. We already know that no government program ever dies so getting rid of it will be out of the question. No, we just need a little bit more on top of the little bit we take already.
Pretty soon all the little bits add up to a whole lot. It ends up being death by a thousand cuts.
And more people end up barely making ends meet while their hard earned cash goes to care for people who took life decisions that did not involve them.
Most millennials are not very bright and they will complain about the taxes and then vote for the next liberal/progressive/socialist who promises more free stuff.
These youngsters just can figure out that nothing is free. Someone, somewhere has to pay for it.
And it will end up being them.
Never surrender, never submit.
Sep 8, 2015 Political
Hillary Clinton has been under fire for some time now for a number of things. One of the lasting items is her use of a private email server that bypassed official channels. As new information trickles out it is obvious that Clinton passed classified information through that server. She broke the law and a lot of her staff did as well.
Hillary has been under fire and while she is the presumptive nominee for the Democrats Bernie Sanders is giving her a run for her money and worried Democrat donors are trying to entice Joe Biden to enter the race.
But all is OK now. Hillary Clinton apologized for using the server saying it was a mistake she is sorry for and that it is something she could have and should have done better.
Perhaps if she were not trying to skirt the law by keeping her communications out of the eye of oversight and perhaps if she were above board this would not be an issue because she would have done the right thing and used the official email that all government employees are required to use.
I imagine there will now be screams to leave this poor woman alone. She has apologized and gee whiz, she is trying to win the presidency.
All well and good for a liberal twit but to the rest of us she broke the law, her actions resulted in the deaths of Americans and she is a criminal. We need to bury her under her own evil deeds.
But I have to ask. If she believes she was wrong (that is what an apology is for) and that she could have done things better why should we now believe she is qualified to run the country?
We already know she is not fit to handle the 3 am phone call she touted in the last campaign and now it is clear she will cut corners to do what she wishes.
In this case she wanted to avoid being detected doing something wrong. She wanted to make sure she could control what others saw so none of it would damage her when she ran for the White House. She was involved in criminal acts and she covered them up (that is what deleting 30,000 emails is) so why should we trust her to run the country?
She is a liberal criminal (but I repeat myself) and the only term she is qualified for is 25 to life.
Never surrender, never submit.