Explosive Exchange at Gun Hearing Between Ted Cruz and Dianne Feinstein
Submitted by celeste on Thu, 03/14/2013 - 13:30Via the Weekly Standard:
"The question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is," said Cruz to Feinstein, "Would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for Congress to specify that the First Amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?
Likewise, would she think that the Fourth Amendment's protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the following specified individuals and not to the individuals that Congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights?
"I'm not a sixth grader," said Feinstein.
Continue reading at: http://www.weeklystandard...
Dick Durbin- "None of these Rights are Absolute"
WTF?
So called "Assault" Rifes do not equate with Child Porn
It would have been nice if the "Child Porn" cheap shot was sternly rebuffed.
It think the argument is that Child Porn implies a victim with every single instance. Nearly all Assault rifles never produce a victim.
The porn reference was purely an emotive punch and is a terrible discredit in the eyes too many (gullible) people.
"Congress is in the Business of Making (Unconstitutional) Law."
Feinstein: "Sir, congress is in the business of making law.
The supreme court interprets the law.
[if] they strike down the law, they strike down the law."
I so wish that Cruz would have asked if it was o.k. for congress to pass unconstitutional law until a time where the supreme court strikes down that law.
She saw the kids bodies for sandy hook?
Not even the Parents saw the bodies of there kids! But here is is old Feinstein talking about how and AR-15 "dismembered" them. She is SO fear mongering & lying.
she is a Liar
High treason. She is the patsy that we, as gentlemen, will not prosecute. Tell me feminism is not part of the dismantling of men's and women's rights. This is just the beginning. Get smart people. forget the old world and look at how they are exploiting us for being "civilized" or "well mannered" . these issues will only grow by ignoring them. Learn about the federal governments influence on the feminist movement. Please learn, before it is too late.
Feinstein's admission that she is familiar with the Constitution
should be enough to leave her "painted in a corner". She has no out after admitting she is violating her oath to defend and preserve the Constitution. I doubt even she, with her doublespeak, could find a way to define preserve or protect which wouldn't incriminate her actions or words. Time for impeachment proceedings to be instituted and any Representatives who stand in the way should be considered as accessories to the fact. Oh...wait a minute, for a moment I thought I was in America.
If not us than who?
I love the way that Senator Cruz...
Looks at feinschtein as if she were a sixth grader!
Expect no quarter from these den of vipers, Senator. And also, give none.
March onward for the rights of the people, Senator Cruz. We stand firmly beside you.
its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
Defeat CORKER! Bailed out the banks. In training to steal more.
Defeat ALEXANDER! Career traitor! Handsomely rich in a poor Nation.
He didn't get time to speak but there's an easy way to shut
whore up when they start talking about "not absolute" concerning child pornography and the like.
The ONLY time YOUR rights are ever diminished are when something YOU'RE doing infringes in some way on the rights of OTHERS.
Child pornography? Absolutely... You're exploiting others.
Guns... Absolutely but ONLY on an INDIVIDUAL case by case basis and in many cases only for the duration of your CRIME against your fellow men and women might call for. And even still, not for life.
Huge difference in those things.
Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.
Extreme constitutionalist question...
Child pornography? Absolutely... You're exploiting others.
Unless you were involved in MAKING this admittedly very SICK entertainment... how exactly are you exploiting others?
You get decades in prison if caught with a FILE like that on your computer. Regardless of how the file is made how can you be protected against some cop planting this on your computer? I go to the extreme when it comes to rights because I feel if you give them even the really DARK shade of grey they will take every shade all the way up to white.
Rights IMO - are a black and white issue... anything less gives an inch in preparation for the miles they will take. How does some sick demented individual VIEWING anything - regardless of what it is.. how does that infringe on the rights of anyone if he/she had no involvement in making it?
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
That is easily answered
Do you have the right to drive a stolen vehicle, just because you didn't steal it? No. Why? Because you cannot claim legal title to the vehicle.
Liberty is the concept of owning legal title to one's self. Did the child in the pornography grant legal title to those pictures? Of course not, since such a grant would constitute a contract - which minors are not able to enter into. As such, a person in possession of child pornography is in possession of stolen material. And since it is KNOWN stolen material, they are KNOWN to have violated the rights of another.
And that doesn't even touch upon the distribution of such material.
well
1. if you know the vehicle is stolen, no
2. if you don't, for the duration of your drive you are innocent
child porn
1. if it somehow magically ended up on your property outside of your will (by accident, someone framed you, etc), and the prosecution cannot prove otherwise, innocent
2. if it was you, knowing what is was, who got hold of the stuff, and the prosecution can prove this, guilty
.ro
What a den of vipers.
Cruz didn't get much time to speak. These people could use an hour or two in school.
We see the enemy before us...
These dinosaurs; Feinschtein, cronyn, shumer, and their ilk are the REASON America (you and I) are hated throughout the world and they are THE NUMBER ONE REASON why this country has/is failing.
Vote these whores out!
its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
Defeat CORKER! Bailed out the banks. In training to steal more.
Defeat ALEXANDER! Career traitor! Handsomely rich in a poor Nation.
"None of these rights is absolute."
Right - "A power, privilege, or immunity guaranteed..."
(From Black's 5th)
I believe he's talking about UNguaranteed employee privileges, not rights. WAKE UP people... if you don't WORK THERE these statutory REGULATIONS DO NOT APPLY TO YOU!
This is why they are NOT TRYING TO AMEND the constitution!
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
Nice job, Sen. Cruz - when you pointed out that the Senior
Senator from California was no doubt sincere and passionate in her views but had not answered your question, that really set her off . . .
Debbie
I disagree.
I think he should have cut her off within 30 seconds and said "Hold on a minute senator... we're not going to do this. If you're going to avoid my questions by pulling on the emotional heart strings of this panel I'm going to hold my questions and simply hold you in contempt of both the constitution and this committee.
Then I'm going to accuse you of treason for even introducing this bill and you can try those tactics on an independent prosecutor to see how they work.
Now I'm going to ask you one more time here and I better get a yes or no answer. Do you believe your Bill infringes on the 2nd amendment or don't you?"
(In truth... her bill DOES NOT infringe on the 2nd amendment. In fact it has NO EFFECT ON IT WHATSOEVER. - The bill is to restrict GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE OWNERSHIP OF FIREARMS.)
US Citizens are GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.
The right of the "people" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not say that "citizens of the United States" are guaranteed any right or privilege to bear arms.
http://www.dailypaul.com/268762/us-citizens-have-no-constitu...
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
"None of these rights are absolute!" Sen. Dick Durban. So,
they don't really mean anything then . . . and Feinstein: don't you get uppity with me and lecture me on the Constitution, I've read it and I'm schooled in it, except it doesn't apply here . . .
Debbie
Dick Durbin: PUBLIC ENEMY
The end of the video had Dick Durbin, D., IL, speaking in order to obfuscate the Consuitution.
A simple search of 'Richard Durbin' found a Wikipedia entry about this person, Within it is the root of what drives him. You might not like to hear or read this truth, but it is essential to realize WHO (or rather WHAT) is currently controlling Congress.
Cut-and pasted from Wikipedia:
In 1982, Durbin won the Democratic nomination for the now-eliminated 20th congressional district, which included most of Springfield. He scored a huge upset, defeating 22-year incumbent Paul Findley. As part of the decennial redistricting process, Findley's district had been redrawn to include more Democrats. Durbin's campaign emphasized unemployment and financial difficulties facing farmers, and told voters that electing him would send "a message to Washington and to President Reagan that our economic policies are not working." Durbin benefited from donations by pro-Israel groups from around the United States, in particular, concentrated support from AIPAC,[3] that had been angered by Findley's support for an American policy of a more equal treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis.[4] Ultimately, Findley raised more money than Durbin, $582,793 to $417,635 in the year prior to the election. Durbin was reelected six times, rarely facing serious opposition, and winning more than 55% of the vote in each election except 1994.
IN PARTICULAR, AIPAC.
AIPAC!
American/Isreali Political Action Committee
The SAME ones that are in control of the SPLC
Southern Poverty Law Center
That keep harping about 'militias' and 'white people with guns'
LINK:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/news/splc-report-numbe...
YES, the SAME ONES that have promoted 'political correctness', and are in charge of the NEA...
In order to solve the problem, the first step is to CORRECTLY IDENTIFY the problem.
Zionists are not of a specific race or religion (90% are actually athiests, deists, or from 'other' backgrounds, and a large percentage are NOT CAUCASIAN), so any racially-motivated slurs against this argumentative FACT cannot be logically waged.
To kill a snake, you must cut off its' head. Your enemy also knows this fact. the HEAD LAW is the SUPREME law (CONSTITUTION), and their unwavering and undying GOAL is to KILL YOU ('WE THE PEOPLE of the United States').
Feinstien is a stupid, greedy, manipulated MERE woman (soon to be 'useless eater', but NOW a 'USEFUL TOOL'), but DURBIN is 'a man with a plan', and there is NO DOUBT that he controls her.
You really should study the classics, like 'The 47 Communist Planks For The Overthrow Of America', to gain understanding.
Ted Cruz is young and inexperienced (AND ALONE), and does not understand the barbaric and totalitarian nature of his ravenous and wholly evil enemies that occupy the seats of 'power and control' within the CURRENT 'United States, Incorporated'. He shall surely learn, either by THEIR hands, or by his OWN studies.
Good luck.
I AM
MONTGOMERY SCOTT
Rifles and Hollow Points
Cruz should have asked Feinsteiner why DHS needs 7,000 "assault" rifles and millions of rounds of designed-to-kill hollow points bullets.
http://www.tpnn.com/after-purchasing-4-5-million-hollow-poin...
He should have went on the attack
Calling her out on "assault rifles" "imploding bullets" "dismemberment" and all the other ridiculous shit she said.
"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
I'm a corporate libertarian!
that wasn't an explosive exchange, but this would be
Cruz: Mr Chairman… if I may just pose a few simple questions to the senior senator from California… Senator Feinstein, would you agree that our Declaration of Independence set out our founding principles? That all men are creator equal?
Feinstein: (would hopefully say) Yes
Cruz: Would you also agree that it set out our founding principle that we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights and that AMONG (Cruz would stress ‘among’) these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Feinstein: (would hopefully say) Yes
Cruz: Would you also agree with our founding principle that in order to secure God-given/Natural rights, governments are instituted among men and derive its just powers from the consent of the governed?
Feinstein: (would hopefully say) Yes
Cruz: It would then follow, Senator Feinstein, that you would agree with our founding principle that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and when any Government exhibits a long train of abuses and usurpations, and I can cite many pieces of legislation whereby our Government has abrogated our rights and stepped beyond its enumerated powers, it is the people’s right and duty to throw off such a despotic Government. Senator Feinstein, it is for this very reason that we have the 2nd Amendment. Yet you seem to side with George III, who engaged in many attempts to disarming the People. Are you, Senator Fenstein, agreeing with George III, that he was correct for trying to disarm the people and that our founders had no right to engage in our War of Independence from a tyrannical force?
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
But
The second amendment is not part of NATURAL individual rights. And individual rights do not naturally extend beyond private property. Bill of Rights, in general, was advocated by ANTI-FEDERALIST PAPER authors and not by the founding fathers.
Ummm, many of the founding
Ummm, many of the founding fathers were Anti-Federalists. Wake up! The Federalists won and we lost!!!
"Liberty, once lost, is lost forever" -John Adams
It's hard not to be a menace to society when half the population is happy on their knees. - unknown
The right to defend yourself isn't natural????
What is it then? Something granted by a king or tyrant or government?
(I know, they're all the same thing!)
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
Natural laws apply only to private property
not public property. Public property must be regulated. Therefore, carrying guns in public places IS protected by the 2nd Amendment (but that is not natural individual rights.) The limit on weapons (say the right to possess tanks, mines or stinger on private property) should be in accordance with ACTUAL daily threat you might face. I would allow further debate whether the government can put a limitation on you torturing your own animals on your own property....
I've had my eye on that guy.
He's a STATIST tool... the only question is if he's getting paid to do it or not. It's either that or he has a vested interest in the status quo. Strictly here to provide disinformation and cloud up the issue so people have a more difficult time getting to the truth.
It's just business. Nothing moral.
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
Thanks for the head's up
I couldn't believe what I read. And s/he has the nerve to call itself 'libertyfirst' - another obvious obfuscation of its true intent.
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison
I am waiting for the argument, not and empty rhetoric
?
STARVE
statist troll!
Visit the Mission Command Center & Join Our Ranks!
For making false
allegation out of personal resentment is lame and unbecoming. Please pinpoint your "grievances" and I will debunk you in no time.