Sen. Cruz (left) & Sen. Feinstein (right)
“Everything about the left is perception, manipulation, and lies. Everything. Everything is 'Wag the Dog.' Everything is a structured deception.”- Rush Limbaugh
On Thursday, March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing and accompanying debate on Senator Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), began by giving a very respectful, logical, common sense speech pointing out the uselessness of the assault weapons ban, and he put forth some very important points that should have been included in the ban, but surprisingly (or not) were not included in the ban. Here is a video (and transcript) of Senator Cruz’s speech:
On Thursday, March 14, 2013, the Senate Judiciary Committee conducted a hearing and accompanying debate on Senator Dianne Feinstein’s “Assault Weapons Ban of 2013.” Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), began by giving a very respectful, logical, common sense speech pointing out the uselessness of the assault weapons ban, and he put forth some very important points that should have been included in the ban, but surprisingly (or not) were not included in the ban. Here is a video (and transcript) of Senator Cruz’s speech:
“Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think all of us understand the passions that this topic elicits, but in my view, decisions in this body, on everything, and especially on this topic, should be driven by facts and the data and by the Constitution, not by passion. So I’d like to make four points briefly.
Number One: Machine guns are already functionally illegal. When this topic is discussed in the public forum a great many people when they hear the phrase “assault weapon” believe that what is being discussed is fully automatic machine guns. Senior senator from California made reference to an AK-47, I believe wielded by a gang member. An AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun that is functionally illegal today. Tragically, gang members don’t tend to follow gun laws.
Number Two: This bill, the data demonstrate would be singularly ineffective in preventing violent crime. That, I think, is not surprising because as the hearing s on this bill demonstrated, the weapons that would be prohibited by this bill are functionally identical to semi-automatic deer rifles, millions of which are in circulation, and this bill targets cosmetic features on guns, cosmetic features that at the end of the day make the guns appear scary, but does not alter the basic mechanism; and I would note that we don’t have to hypothesize about the effectiveness because we, in fact, have seen what happens when a very, very similar bill is in effect. The prior assault weapons ban was in effect for a decade. Three times the department of justice funded studies on that assault weapons bill, and three times the studies were not able to find any statistically significant impact on violent crime, as a result of the assault weapons ban. That’s three studies in a row which is very difficult to get away from, and indeed, since the assault weapons ban expired we now see murders by rifles are roughly half today what they were when the assault weapons ban is in effect. So this is not a law that I think has any reasonable prospect of reducing violent crime. Something I know everybody on this committee would like to see violent crime reduced. Indeed, I would suggest as my third point:
That if the real objective is reducing violent crime we should be devoting our time to far more effective steps. We should be devoting our time to laws that target violent criminals; we should be devoting our time to laws that improve the next background check. We have heard testimony that 18 states right now have submitted one hundred or fewer mental health records to the background check program. That’s a serious problem. I would note that my home state of Texas has submitted over 200,000 mental health records to that background system. And, I fully expect to support on the floor legislation that is targeted at violent criminals and not at law abiding citizens. Indeed, if we wanted to go further, and really consider significant steps to stop violent crime, I would suggest we could consider legislation, or a constitutional amendment, to alter or repeal the exclusionary rule in criminal proceedings. Now there is a rule that consistently excludes evidence of guilt from violent criminals, and has resulted in violent criminals being freed over, and over, and over again. If the passion that is focused on this issue right now were targeted at preventing violent crime, I would suggest considering the impact of the exclusionary rule would be a far more fruitful area for actually stopping violent crime, because I too, as have many of the members of this committee, have worked in law enforcement for many, many years have dealt with victims of crime and think we need to be serious about protecting Americans from violent crime with every tool at our disposal.
My fourth and final point is that the constitution, in my opinion, should be the touchstone of everything we do. Some have suggested in this hearing that the role of Congress is to pass laws, and it’s up to the court to consider constitutionality. I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the constitution, and that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body. There has been some suggestion that Heller would allow this regulation. I would point out I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented 31 states before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case. So I have an intimate familiarity with that case having been an active part of litigating it and winning 5-4 before the Supreme Court. And, what the Supreme Court said in Heller, it did say are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissible, and for example it specifically identified the current prohibition on fully automatic machine guns. But it also said that weapons that are in common use, such as in that case, handguns were the principal issue being discussed, and the same arguments that have been suggested here about why so-called assault weapons can be banned were made by the District of Columbia in Heller for why hand guns could be banned. And the Supreme Court said, “No, if they’re in common use for self-defense they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.”
We have heard testimony that there are some four million weapons that would be covered by this bill, I would suggest on any measure, four million weapons qualifies as “in common use” and so, under the terms of Heller they cannot constitutionally be prohibited.
The final point I would make on the Constitution is some have pointed to public opinion polls. In my view, the Constitution is particularly important when the Bill of Rights is unpopular. That was the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights. When our rights are popular, we don’t need the Constitution. The purpose of it is to stand for the rights of the minority when the majority is acting to strip their rights. And I would note the senior Senator from New York asked about other rights. I think we should be vigorous in protecting every right in the Constitution. Just last week a number of us spent some 13 hours on the floor of the senate defending the Fifth Amendment and in particular the right of Americans not to be denied their life without due process of law. And, indeed, Senator Rand Paul and I have introduced legislation to make clear that the United States government cannot use a drone to kill a U. S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat, and I would certainly welcome support from any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on that important protection of the Fifth Amendment. Likewise, earlier this week, this committee voted to fund a study of the impact of films and video games on violent crimes, and I would note that I voted no against that as well because I believe in the First Amendment, I believe in the Second Amendment, I believe in the Fifth Amendment, and I would suggest that every one of us has an obligation to the Constitution; I will happily welcome support from anyone who wants to stand and fight for the Constitution, because in my view, that should be our principal responsibility and obligation. Thank you.”
As the question and answer debate began, Senator Cruz continued standing on logical arguments and posited a very pointed and logical question to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Rather than answer the question (which Feinstein never did), Senator’s Leahy (Judiciary chairman), Feinstein (the bill’s author), and Durbin took the opportunity to attack Senator Cruz personally. Here is a video (and transcript) of that exchange:
Number One: Machine guns are already functionally illegal. When this topic is discussed in the public forum a great many people when they hear the phrase “assault weapon” believe that what is being discussed is fully automatic machine guns. Senior senator from California made reference to an AK-47, I believe wielded by a gang member. An AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun that is functionally illegal today. Tragically, gang members don’t tend to follow gun laws.
Number Two: This bill, the data demonstrate would be singularly ineffective in preventing violent crime. That, I think, is not surprising because as the hearing s on this bill demonstrated, the weapons that would be prohibited by this bill are functionally identical to semi-automatic deer rifles, millions of which are in circulation, and this bill targets cosmetic features on guns, cosmetic features that at the end of the day make the guns appear scary, but does not alter the basic mechanism; and I would note that we don’t have to hypothesize about the effectiveness because we, in fact, have seen what happens when a very, very similar bill is in effect. The prior assault weapons ban was in effect for a decade. Three times the department of justice funded studies on that assault weapons bill, and three times the studies were not able to find any statistically significant impact on violent crime, as a result of the assault weapons ban. That’s three studies in a row which is very difficult to get away from, and indeed, since the assault weapons ban expired we now see murders by rifles are roughly half today what they were when the assault weapons ban is in effect. So this is not a law that I think has any reasonable prospect of reducing violent crime. Something I know everybody on this committee would like to see violent crime reduced. Indeed, I would suggest as my third point:
That if the real objective is reducing violent crime we should be devoting our time to far more effective steps. We should be devoting our time to laws that target violent criminals; we should be devoting our time to laws that improve the next background check. We have heard testimony that 18 states right now have submitted one hundred or fewer mental health records to the background check program. That’s a serious problem. I would note that my home state of Texas has submitted over 200,000 mental health records to that background system. And, I fully expect to support on the floor legislation that is targeted at violent criminals and not at law abiding citizens. Indeed, if we wanted to go further, and really consider significant steps to stop violent crime, I would suggest we could consider legislation, or a constitutional amendment, to alter or repeal the exclusionary rule in criminal proceedings. Now there is a rule that consistently excludes evidence of guilt from violent criminals, and has resulted in violent criminals being freed over, and over, and over again. If the passion that is focused on this issue right now were targeted at preventing violent crime, I would suggest considering the impact of the exclusionary rule would be a far more fruitful area for actually stopping violent crime, because I too, as have many of the members of this committee, have worked in law enforcement for many, many years have dealt with victims of crime and think we need to be serious about protecting Americans from violent crime with every tool at our disposal.
My fourth and final point is that the constitution, in my opinion, should be the touchstone of everything we do. Some have suggested in this hearing that the role of Congress is to pass laws, and it’s up to the court to consider constitutionality. I would point out that every one of us takes an oath to defend the constitution, and that is a fundamental obligation of every member of this body. There has been some suggestion that Heller would allow this regulation. I would point out I am not unfamiliar with the Heller case. Indeed, I represented 31 states before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Heller case. So I have an intimate familiarity with that case having been an active part of litigating it and winning 5-4 before the Supreme Court. And, what the Supreme Court said in Heller, it did say are some restrictions on the Second Amendment that are permissible, and for example it specifically identified the current prohibition on fully automatic machine guns. But it also said that weapons that are in common use, such as in that case, handguns were the principal issue being discussed, and the same arguments that have been suggested here about why so-called assault weapons can be banned were made by the District of Columbia in Heller for why hand guns could be banned. And the Supreme Court said, “No, if they’re in common use for self-defense they cannot be banned consistent with the Second Amendment.”
We have heard testimony that there are some four million weapons that would be covered by this bill, I would suggest on any measure, four million weapons qualifies as “in common use” and so, under the terms of Heller they cannot constitutionally be prohibited.
The final point I would make on the Constitution is some have pointed to public opinion polls. In my view, the Constitution is particularly important when the Bill of Rights is unpopular. That was the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights. When our rights are popular, we don’t need the Constitution. The purpose of it is to stand for the rights of the minority when the majority is acting to strip their rights. And I would note the senior Senator from New York asked about other rights. I think we should be vigorous in protecting every right in the Constitution. Just last week a number of us spent some 13 hours on the floor of the senate defending the Fifth Amendment and in particular the right of Americans not to be denied their life without due process of law. And, indeed, Senator Rand Paul and I have introduced legislation to make clear that the United States government cannot use a drone to kill a U. S. citizen on U.S. soil if that individual does not pose an imminent threat, and I would certainly welcome support from any of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle on that important protection of the Fifth Amendment. Likewise, earlier this week, this committee voted to fund a study of the impact of films and video games on violent crimes, and I would note that I voted no against that as well because I believe in the First Amendment, I believe in the Second Amendment, I believe in the Fifth Amendment, and I would suggest that every one of us has an obligation to the Constitution; I will happily welcome support from anyone who wants to stand and fight for the Constitution, because in my view, that should be our principal responsibility and obligation. Thank you.”
As the question and answer debate began, Senator Cruz continued standing on logical arguments and posited a very pointed and logical question to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). Rather than answer the question (which Feinstein never did), Senator’s Leahy (Judiciary chairman), Feinstein (the bill’s author), and Durbin took the opportunity to attack Senator Cruz personally. Here is a video (and transcript) of that exchange:
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Cruz.
CRUZ: If I might pose a question to the senior Senator from California? In your response to Senator Cornyn you mention that there’s some 100 pages of the bill that specify particular firearms that if this bill were passed, Congress would have deemed prohibited. It seems to me that all of us should begin, as our foundational document, with the Constitution.
FEINSTEIN: M-hm.
CRUZ: And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The term, “the right of the people”, when the framers included it in the Bill of Rights, they used it as a term of [order?], that same phrase, “the right of the people” is found in the First Amendment: “The right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances.” It’s also found in the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
And the question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is, 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?
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Would the senator yield for a question?
FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response.
One, I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, I mean, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit, your used the word prohibit, it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so. So I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Durbin, is that {garbled).
DURBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can’t add anything to that.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I would ask yet another, or, another question of the senior Senator of California. 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, and to use the specific number … (interrupted by Senator Feinstein)
FEINSTEIN: The answer is obvious, no.
CRUZ: And may I ask … (interrupted by the Chairman)
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Could we keep on the, and I appreciate that we have a discussion on books, I know that they have that in your state of Texas where your educational board tells people what books they should or should not read in their schools, something that we would not do in Vermont, but you know we’re not going to talk about your right, but let’s stick to guns, I know Senator … (Feinstein begins to speak. Then Cruz speaks)
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your acknowledging the state of Texas allows books, I would specify a little more bluntly … (interrupted by Chairman Leahy and Senator Feinstein)
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Pornography books?
UNKNOWN VOICE: Child pornography? Protected by the First Amendment?
FEINSTEIN: It’s obvious that there are different tests on different amendments. And I think what the senator’s going to point out is something that didn’t occur to me at the moment, there are certain kinds of pornographic materials that would not be covered by the First Amendment.
CRUZ: And is it the view of the senior Senator from California that Congress should be in the business of specifying particular books, or for that matter with respect to the Fourth Amendment particular individuals who are not covered by the Bill of Rights?
FEINSTEIN: Sir, Congress is in the business of making law. The Supreme Court interprets the law. They strike down the law, they strike down the law. The tests in Heller, with respect to unusual weapons and to other things, I think do not cover, in other words, they cover an exemption for assault weapons. And if this is brought up before the court, if it should pass, I’m sure that argument will be made.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: The Senator from Illinois wish…
DURBIN: That’s exactly the point. The senator knows having attended law school and professes to have some experience in the Constitution; none of these rights are absolute. None of them. And the Heller decision goes specifically to the question of this amendment and tells us, when they were asked in the Heller decision, a panel, [hour?] two, a panel of Republican appointed judges rejected a Second Amendment challenge to DC’s assault weapons ban and magazine limits. A Second Amendment challenge. The DC Circuit Court held that such laws, quote, do not effectively disarm individuals … [end of video]
I find it interesting that Senator Cruz asks a simple question, which frames his thoughts on the subject. It is not an attack on Senator Feinstein (or anyone for that matter), just a simply stated, and politely stated question. Not only does Feinstein refuse to answer the question, but she resorts to an attack on Senator Cruz himself, accusing him of lecturing her on the Constitution, and then moves into a very patronizing speech of her own, pointing out that she has 20 years experience as a senator (implying that Senator Cruz is only a junior senator, with less experience, and should sit by and be quiet while the adults talk and make the decisions). Before long, Senator Feinstein is joined by Senator Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, and he too begins to attack and patronize not only Senator Cruz, but also Cruz’s home state of Texas, by pointing stating that Texas tells people what they can and cannot read in the schools – something Leahy says his state of Vermont would never do; and before long other democrat senators jump in and claim that Cruz and his home state of Texas approve of child pornography.
To his credit, Senator Cruz does not take the bait, and he sits patiently while senator’s Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin and others clearly show to the world that they are completely without ethics, completely without manners, that they are patronizing, ignorant, liars. Senator Cruz made a valiant attempt to remove from the eyes of the public, the rose colored glasses that Feinstein and other socialists in our government have foisted upon the American people by playing on their fears and desire for safety, and politicizing tragic events such as the Newtown Massacre in order to further their agenda.
Within days of the debate, Senator Feinstein was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Here is a transcript of that interview:
[Here is a link to the video of that interview: http://mrctv.org/videos/senator-dianne-feinstein-i-felt-patronized-ted-cruzs-questions-constitution]
WOLF BLITZER: Feinstein is joining us now from Capitol Hill, Senator, clearly you were insulted by what Senator Cruz said, walk us through your thinking.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Well, I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it, and when you’ve come from where I come from and what you’ve seen, and when you’ve found a dead body, and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons. And then as you go up the technical ladder with these weapons and they become more sophisticated and more the product of a [garbled word] and you’ve got these huge clips or drums of 100 bullets out there that people can buy. When you see these weapons becoming attractive to grievance killers. Now people who take them into schools, into theaters, into malls, you wonder, does America really need these weapons? My answer to that is no. And, so, it’s based on my experience, and I think, well, the bottom line is we passed the bill out of committee by a vote of 10 to 8*, the President has issued a very strong statement in support of it, so … (interrupted by Blitzer)
BLITZER: You think he’s doing enough though? You think he’s doing enough behind the scenes to help you get this passed through the senate?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I think it’s now going to begin. I think it’s now out of committee. Every Democrat voted for it. Hopefully we will have the debate before too long on the senate floor and we will see. It’s going to be my intention to divide the question, so that hopefully, I want to sit down with the leader, there will be two votes, one on the entire bill and one on the part that prohibits clips and ammunition feeding devices of more than 10 bullets.
BLITZER: Did you have a chance to speak to Senator Cruz after that public exchange?
FEINSTEIN: No. I needed to cool down.
BLITZER: Have you cooled down yet?
FEINSTEIN: I’m cooled down.
BLITZER: So when you see him the next time, what will you say?
FEINSTEIN: Oh yes, oh yes. Well, I did say, “look, I’m sorry, but, you know, this is one thing I feel very passionate about, and I appreciate the lecture, but,” and that’s all I’m going to say.
[* note that there are 10 democrats and 8 republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which tells you that what the democrats propose, will likely automatically pass. Debate, such as on this bill, is only a formality as the passing is likely a foregone conclusion.]
In this clearly biased “interview,” Feinstein claims, “I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it, and when you’ve come from where I come from and what you’ve seen, and when you’ve found a dead body, and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons.” And, “I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode.”
As with many politicians (and others in the public eye), Feinstein is not above lying I her attempt to sway opinions in her favor, and this situation is no different. Of the claims she makes (as noted above), only one is true. She has seen a dead body. On November 27, 1978, former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White climbed through a first-floor window on the side of City Hall carrying a .38 revolver and 10 rounds of ammunition. With that weapon and ammunition, White shot and killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk. As a member of the board of supervisors, Feinstein was nearby, and heard the gun shots. Upon investigating, she discovered Harvey Milk’s body.
Her other claims, that she saw people shot, that she has looked at the bodies of people who have been shot with assault weapons, that she has seen bullets that implode, and that she put her finger in bullet holes, are all untrue. Lies, plain and simple. Unless, of course, she has some sort of bizarre bullet hole fetish and she makes midnight visits to the local morgue so she can stick her fingers in them. Unlikely, but, hey, who knows? And “bullets that implode”? Sorry senator, there’s no such thing. It is nuclear weapons that implode, not bullets.
The weapon that Dan White used, was a .38 caliber revolver, and he carried 10 bullets with him. The gun is legal, the number of bullets is legal, and they appear nowhere on Feinstein’s list of weapons she wants to ban. So the murders committed by White aren’t really pertinent to the discussion. It is only a tool being used by Feinstein in an attempt to sway people to accept her agenda; and that agenda is, plain and simple, to disarm the American public. Her proposed ban does not extend to government employees, law enforcement and retired law enforcement. It does absolutely nothing to disarm criminals (as do none of the Democrat sponsored gun control bills – but is what Senator Cruz attempted to integrate into the bill, and the Democrats argued against it), it will only disarm the law abiding public, those who would not commit the horrible crimes that Feinstein is claiming she wants to protect us all from.
Clearly, protecting the American people is not important to Senator Feinstein, and is only a ploy she is using to promote her agenda – an agenda shared by all socialists throughout history, the disarming of a population. Why? The answer is found throughout history as well - a disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to - and dependence upon - the organs of a parental state. Adolph Hitler, a self-admitted socialist, once said, “The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed public can't fight back.”
Clearly, a disarmed population is far easier to control than an armed population. So the real question that should be asked is, why does the government, specifically the socialist members of the government, want a disarmed populace? Could it have anything to do with what appears to be the stripping of our constitutional rights? Interestingly, during the course of the debate between Senator Cruz and Senator Feinstein, it was Senator Dick Durbin who joined the fray and stated, “The senator [Cruz] knows, having attended law school, and professes to have some experience in the Constitution, none of these rights are absolute. None of them.”
Aside from Durbin’s snarky comments, what is important to note is his comment that not one of the rights contained in the U.S. Constitution is absolute. Not one of them. According to the esteemed socialist senator from Illinois, we can, at the whim of Congress, lose our constitutionally protected rights. The right to freedom of speech is already being infringed due to HR 347 which was signed into law in 2012. The right to keep and bear arms is slated to be infringed, if Senator Feinstein gets her way. What will be next? Will Congress establish or promote a specific religion, or prohibit a specific religion or religions? Will we be required to allow members of the military, such as military intelligence operatives to live in our homes, or in our assigned living areas? Will warrantless searches be allowed – oh, wait, they already are.
Well, what about our right to a speedy and public trial when we are accused of …. Wait, never mind, I forgot about NDAA. That’s already gone as well; as is the right to be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process – NDAA took care of those rights as well. I would suggest reading the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, so that you too can see what rights you used to have as a free citizen in America. Rights, that as Senator Durbin pronounced, are not absolute, not guaranteed, and subject to elimination at the whim of those enemies of America who are currently embedded in Congress, and other positions of power in our government.
CRUZ: If I might pose a question to the senior Senator from California? In your response to Senator Cornyn you mention that there’s some 100 pages of the bill that specify particular firearms that if this bill were passed, Congress would have deemed prohibited. It seems to me that all of us should begin, as our foundational document, with the Constitution.
FEINSTEIN: M-hm.
CRUZ: And the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The term, “the right of the people”, when the framers included it in the Bill of Rights, they used it as a term of [order?], that same phrase, “the right of the people” is found in the First Amendment: “The right of the people to peacefully assemble and to petition their government for redress of grievances.” It’s also found in the Fourth Amendment: “The right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.”
And the question that I would pose to the senior senator from California is, 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?
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Would the senator yield for a question?
FEINSTEIN: Let me just make a couple of points in response.
One, I’m not a sixth grader. Senator, I’ve been on this committee for 20 years. I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode. In Sandy Hook, youngsters were dismembered. Look, there are other weapons. I’ve been up — I’m not a lawyer, but after 20 years I’ve been up close and personal to the Constitution. I have great respect for it. This doesn’t mean that weapons of war and the Heller decision clearly points out three exceptions, two of which are pertinent here. And so I — you know, I mean, it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution. I appreciate it. Just know I’ve been here for a long time. I’ve passed on a number of bills. I’ve studied the Constitution myself. I am reasonably well educated, and I thank you for the lecture. Incidentally, this does not prohibit, your used the word prohibit, it exempts 2,271 weapons. Isn’t that enough for the people in the United States? Do they need a bazooka? Do they need other high powered weapons that military people use to kill in close combat? I don’t think so. So I come from a different place than you do. I respect your views. I ask you to respect my views.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Durbin, is that {garbled).
DURBIN: Mr. Chairman, I can’t add anything to that.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Senator Cruz?
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I would ask yet another, or, another question of the senior Senator of California. 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, and to use the specific number … (interrupted by Senator Feinstein)
FEINSTEIN: The answer is obvious, no.
CRUZ: And may I ask … (interrupted by the Chairman)
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Could we keep on the, and I appreciate that we have a discussion on books, I know that they have that in your state of Texas where your educational board tells people what books they should or should not read in their schools, something that we would not do in Vermont, but you know we’re not going to talk about your right, but let’s stick to guns, I know Senator … (Feinstein begins to speak. Then Cruz speaks)
CRUZ: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your acknowledging the state of Texas allows books, I would specify a little more bluntly … (interrupted by Chairman Leahy and Senator Feinstein)
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: Pornography books?
UNKNOWN VOICE: Child pornography? Protected by the First Amendment?
FEINSTEIN: It’s obvious that there are different tests on different amendments. And I think what the senator’s going to point out is something that didn’t occur to me at the moment, there are certain kinds of pornographic materials that would not be covered by the First Amendment.
CRUZ: And is it the view of the senior Senator from California that Congress should be in the business of specifying particular books, or for that matter with respect to the Fourth Amendment particular individuals who are not covered by the Bill of Rights?
FEINSTEIN: Sir, Congress is in the business of making law. The Supreme Court interprets the law. They strike down the law, they strike down the law. The tests in Heller, with respect to unusual weapons and to other things, I think do not cover, in other words, they cover an exemption for assault weapons. And if this is brought up before the court, if it should pass, I’m sure that argument will be made.
CHAIRMAN LEAHY: The Senator from Illinois wish…
DURBIN: That’s exactly the point. The senator knows having attended law school and professes to have some experience in the Constitution; none of these rights are absolute. None of them. And the Heller decision goes specifically to the question of this amendment and tells us, when they were asked in the Heller decision, a panel, [hour?] two, a panel of Republican appointed judges rejected a Second Amendment challenge to DC’s assault weapons ban and magazine limits. A Second Amendment challenge. The DC Circuit Court held that such laws, quote, do not effectively disarm individuals … [end of video]
I find it interesting that Senator Cruz asks a simple question, which frames his thoughts on the subject. It is not an attack on Senator Feinstein (or anyone for that matter), just a simply stated, and politely stated question. Not only does Feinstein refuse to answer the question, but she resorts to an attack on Senator Cruz himself, accusing him of lecturing her on the Constitution, and then moves into a very patronizing speech of her own, pointing out that she has 20 years experience as a senator (implying that Senator Cruz is only a junior senator, with less experience, and should sit by and be quiet while the adults talk and make the decisions). Before long, Senator Feinstein is joined by Senator Leahy, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary, and he too begins to attack and patronize not only Senator Cruz, but also Cruz’s home state of Texas, by pointing stating that Texas tells people what they can and cannot read in the schools – something Leahy says his state of Vermont would never do; and before long other democrat senators jump in and claim that Cruz and his home state of Texas approve of child pornography.
To his credit, Senator Cruz does not take the bait, and he sits patiently while senator’s Feinstein, Leahy, Durbin and others clearly show to the world that they are completely without ethics, completely without manners, that they are patronizing, ignorant, liars. Senator Cruz made a valiant attempt to remove from the eyes of the public, the rose colored glasses that Feinstein and other socialists in our government have foisted upon the American people by playing on their fears and desire for safety, and politicizing tragic events such as the Newtown Massacre in order to further their agenda.
Within days of the debate, Senator Feinstein was interviewed by CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. Here is a transcript of that interview:
[Here is a link to the video of that interview: http://mrctv.org/videos/senator-dianne-feinstein-i-felt-patronized-ted-cruzs-questions-constitution]
WOLF BLITZER: Feinstein is joining us now from Capitol Hill, Senator, clearly you were insulted by what Senator Cruz said, walk us through your thinking.
SENATOR FEINSTEIN: Well, I just felt patronized. I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it, and when you’ve come from where I come from and what you’ve seen, and when you’ve found a dead body, and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons. And then as you go up the technical ladder with these weapons and they become more sophisticated and more the product of a [garbled word] and you’ve got these huge clips or drums of 100 bullets out there that people can buy. When you see these weapons becoming attractive to grievance killers. Now people who take them into schools, into theaters, into malls, you wonder, does America really need these weapons? My answer to that is no. And, so, it’s based on my experience, and I think, well, the bottom line is we passed the bill out of committee by a vote of 10 to 8*, the President has issued a very strong statement in support of it, so … (interrupted by Blitzer)
BLITZER: You think he’s doing enough though? You think he’s doing enough behind the scenes to help you get this passed through the senate?
FEINSTEIN: Well, I think it’s now going to begin. I think it’s now out of committee. Every Democrat voted for it. Hopefully we will have the debate before too long on the senate floor and we will see. It’s going to be my intention to divide the question, so that hopefully, I want to sit down with the leader, there will be two votes, one on the entire bill and one on the part that prohibits clips and ammunition feeding devices of more than 10 bullets.
BLITZER: Did you have a chance to speak to Senator Cruz after that public exchange?
FEINSTEIN: No. I needed to cool down.
BLITZER: Have you cooled down yet?
FEINSTEIN: I’m cooled down.
BLITZER: So when you see him the next time, what will you say?
FEINSTEIN: Oh yes, oh yes. Well, I did say, “look, I’m sorry, but, you know, this is one thing I feel very passionate about, and I appreciate the lecture, but,” and that’s all I’m going to say.
[* note that there are 10 democrats and 8 republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which tells you that what the democrats propose, will likely automatically pass. Debate, such as on this bill, is only a formality as the passing is likely a foregone conclusion.]
In this clearly biased “interview,” Feinstein claims, “I felt he was somewhat arrogant about it, and when you’ve come from where I come from and what you’ve seen, and when you’ve found a dead body, and you put your finger in bullet holes, you really realize the impact of weapons.” And, “I was a mayor for nine years. I walked in, I saw people shot. I’ve looked at bodies that have been shot with these weapons. I’ve seen the bullets that implode.”
As with many politicians (and others in the public eye), Feinstein is not above lying I her attempt to sway opinions in her favor, and this situation is no different. Of the claims she makes (as noted above), only one is true. She has seen a dead body. On November 27, 1978, former San Francisco Supervisor Dan White climbed through a first-floor window on the side of City Hall carrying a .38 revolver and 10 rounds of ammunition. With that weapon and ammunition, White shot and killed San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk. As a member of the board of supervisors, Feinstein was nearby, and heard the gun shots. Upon investigating, she discovered Harvey Milk’s body.
Her other claims, that she saw people shot, that she has looked at the bodies of people who have been shot with assault weapons, that she has seen bullets that implode, and that she put her finger in bullet holes, are all untrue. Lies, plain and simple. Unless, of course, she has some sort of bizarre bullet hole fetish and she makes midnight visits to the local morgue so she can stick her fingers in them. Unlikely, but, hey, who knows? And “bullets that implode”? Sorry senator, there’s no such thing. It is nuclear weapons that implode, not bullets.
The weapon that Dan White used, was a .38 caliber revolver, and he carried 10 bullets with him. The gun is legal, the number of bullets is legal, and they appear nowhere on Feinstein’s list of weapons she wants to ban. So the murders committed by White aren’t really pertinent to the discussion. It is only a tool being used by Feinstein in an attempt to sway people to accept her agenda; and that agenda is, plain and simple, to disarm the American public. Her proposed ban does not extend to government employees, law enforcement and retired law enforcement. It does absolutely nothing to disarm criminals (as do none of the Democrat sponsored gun control bills – but is what Senator Cruz attempted to integrate into the bill, and the Democrats argued against it), it will only disarm the law abiding public, those who would not commit the horrible crimes that Feinstein is claiming she wants to protect us all from.
Clearly, protecting the American people is not important to Senator Feinstein, and is only a ploy she is using to promote her agenda – an agenda shared by all socialists throughout history, the disarming of a population. Why? The answer is found throughout history as well - a disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to - and dependence upon - the organs of a parental state. Adolph Hitler, a self-admitted socialist, once said, “The first thing you have to do is disarm the people. A disarmed public can't fight back.”
Clearly, a disarmed population is far easier to control than an armed population. So the real question that should be asked is, why does the government, specifically the socialist members of the government, want a disarmed populace? Could it have anything to do with what appears to be the stripping of our constitutional rights? Interestingly, during the course of the debate between Senator Cruz and Senator Feinstein, it was Senator Dick Durbin who joined the fray and stated, “The senator [Cruz] knows, having attended law school, and professes to have some experience in the Constitution, none of these rights are absolute. None of them.”
Aside from Durbin’s snarky comments, what is important to note is his comment that not one of the rights contained in the U.S. Constitution is absolute. Not one of them. According to the esteemed socialist senator from Illinois, we can, at the whim of Congress, lose our constitutionally protected rights. The right to freedom of speech is already being infringed due to HR 347 which was signed into law in 2012. The right to keep and bear arms is slated to be infringed, if Senator Feinstein gets her way. What will be next? Will Congress establish or promote a specific religion, or prohibit a specific religion or religions? Will we be required to allow members of the military, such as military intelligence operatives to live in our homes, or in our assigned living areas? Will warrantless searches be allowed – oh, wait, they already are.
Well, what about our right to a speedy and public trial when we are accused of …. Wait, never mind, I forgot about NDAA. That’s already gone as well; as is the right to be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process – NDAA took care of those rights as well. I would suggest reading the U.S. Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, so that you too can see what rights you used to have as a free citizen in America. Rights, that as Senator Durbin pronounced, are not absolute, not guaranteed, and subject to elimination at the whim of those enemies of America who are currently embedded in Congress, and other positions of power in our government.
RSS Feed
