I think nobody doubts her sincerity or her passion. And yet at the same time, I would note that she chose not to answer the question that I asked, which is: In her judgment would it be consistent with the Constitution for Congress to specify which books are permitted and which books are not.
Finally, Feinstein responded: “The answer is obvious. No.”
Ted Cruz did the old passive-aggressive..... sticking the shiv in while smiling. pResident JugEars does this all the time in his phony bullshyte self-effacing way. Donks hate when the tables are turned on them and they get back what they dish out.
Cruz definitely climbed in my estimation of him. He and Rand Paul get how the game should be played in DC (District of Criminal) and (hopefully) will catch the younger voters attention
The insprational thing about Cruz and what sets him apart from most of his colleagues is that he has the mindset of a winner. He clearly understands that politics is a contact sport and to win you have to be smarter and stronger than your opponent. You have to be on offense to score points.
Unfortunately Republicans’ natural posture is to be on defense, if they’re even on the field at all. Most of the time they are content being spectators in the grandstands.
Cruz is exactly the type of unapologetic warrior we need to stand up to the Democrats and the viscious jackals in the media.
Democrats are accustomed to being on offense, and of course always claiming the moral highground. Really fun to watch one of their own getting ambushed and having to step back and play defense.
I saw Scarborough’s performance the other morning on morning joe about Cruz and its clear the joe has become MSNBC. He has crossed to the other side or at the least has revealed which side he has always been on. It was hard to watch of course that station always is.
The next day Feinstein was still stewing and admitted as much. She’s been on the shelf way past her expiration date. The Senate is full of old fools and I am convinced half of them are on meds that mess up their mind. Voinovich, Pelosi, Arlen Spector being fine examples. John McCaine too
In many House and Senate Offices the senior staff does 99% of the real work such as reading & analyzing a bill and telling the Rep or Senator how to vote and what to say. Also dealing with angry constitiuents and brushing them off because the man our Reps and Senators really wants to see is the lobbyist and preferably with a satchel of campaign fund cash. The Rep or Senators job is just to show up on Capital Hill sometimes, ask questions at hearings that will get him TV face time, to see/network with money laden lobbyists all the time, and to go out for lunch and at night to /network and do dirty deals with the other dirty denizens of DC
It has gown tiresome that anyone who disagrees with the leftarded position on any issue, is simply stupid.
When the reality is that the leftards are the ones who are stupid, and wrong in every tenet of their faith in an achievable utopia.
Feinsteinian liberal double-speak gobbledegook:
The proposed gun control bill doesn’t “prohibit” the guns it prohibits.
It simply “exempts” the 2,271 it doesn’t prohibit.
So in her mind there is no prohibition.
The bill just doesn’t exempt the guns she decided we shouldn’t have.
That makes it perfectly clear and acceptable - to a word twisting, constitution stomping liberal.
A brilliant argument and question from Cruz. Inasmuch as the Nazis (and Feinstein is ostensibly Jewish, if not a Jew) burned banned books.
Equal treatment of the concept of the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE... used in other Rights.
Feinstein was too dumb for the question, didnt’ answer it, then when she did, had to change her answer. Because the answer is... she is a tyrant... and believes that our Rights
and the Bill of Rights are a Bill of “suggestions” malleable to any current times. She showed her arrogance, petulance,and willful stupidity in her reply— and the left is left to call it sexism-— no honey, it’s f’n stupid and we GOT YOU dead to our Rights!
Cruz’s argument will be underlined in the Senate... because Congress has never established “banned books” in session, or banned speech in the same fashion as delineating specific firearms to be “prohibited”.
Even firearms that ARE so called prohibited (by the NFA or 1934 Acts) have conditions for the exercise of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (with a special license classification provided for, for the citizen who wishes to own one— another arguable point as to its constitutionality).
The best quote I can think of, for this time, is from Admiral David Glasgow Farragut "Damn the torpedoes full steam ahead"
Answer is, "It depends." As with any Constitutional issue, this one is an issue of original understand and intent of the framers.
For example, freedom of speech doesn't mean you can go into a schoolroom and start yelling whatever you want. That is not what the framers meant by "freedom of speech." The essential intent in freedom of speech was freedom to express one's opinion, especially political opinion without government interference, as long as the method of your expression doesn't interfere with another's freedom.
Obama's socialist government is nowhere near this kind of careful, pro-Constitution, limited government approach to Constitutional interpretation. But it's the kind of analysis that should take place whenever there is some legitimate question about how to apply the Constitution to a situation, guns included.
I like the fact that Mr. Cruz is challenging the loose cannon socialists in their attempt to put aside Constitutional rights, but his questions are not answered in such back-and-white terms as some would like.
He flogged the girl to a bloody pulp........ her credibility is forever an issue.
She has tons of totally irrelevant experience in preserving the letter of the Bill of Rights.
In all of this discussion what is amazing to me is that the rock of our Nation so to speak is not what people usually argue/discuss. Rather the entire framework of the Constitution is contained and constrained in/by the very first words of the Constitution commonly called the preamble i.e. “ WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, in order to form a more perfect union................., do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” . How much clearer and/or forceful could an intent be expressed. THE PEOPLE by being the force behind the origin of this Nation are first and foremost above the Supreme Court, the Congress, and the President. What the People wrote and expressed in Their Constitution as such cannot be abrogated by any of the three or all three in concert. The three are beholden to the PEOPLE and are to serve the PEOPLE.
Thank God we have the young blood patriots that seem to be kicking the collective ars of the McCain like sick old far!s. I was about to give up but now we have a chance. Thanks Palin, Cruz, and the rest of the young bloods. ATTACK!!!!!
“where Scarborough essentially argued that it doesn’t matter what the Second Amendment says”
Unfortunately, all too many people from the political class and their supporters agree that the Constitution is just some dusty old document which has no relevance or force of law in guiding this country. The liberal attitude is basically one of we’ll do what we want, and the heck with the Constitution unless a court from time to time tells us no.
The communist Progressives certainly do not care what any part of the Constitution says. Their aim is to destroy it.