senior Senator

( * )


  1. ZZMike
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:27 pm |

    She never did answer the question (which may have been a little over-the-top, but still, with people like liberal Democrats, you can never be too careful).

    I remember the time during the campaign, when she was at an interview, and he asked her if she would debate her opponent. She got up and walked out.

  2. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted March 14, 2013 at 9:31 pm |

    Cruz – Sen. Difi, I’ll rephrase to make it facile for Your Narrowmindedness:
    Following your ‘reasoning’, your version of the Bill of Rights would be as follows:
    First Amendment
    – speech – Citizens are limited to ten words a day and be no more ten newspapers in the country are enough.
    – religion – Ten houses of worship in any jurisdiction are enough.
    – assembly – Ten people at any gathering are enough.
    – petition – No citizen needs to sign more than ten petitions per year.
    Third Amendment – Citizens may be required to house up to ten soldiers.
    Fourth Amendment – The State can rifle (oops – bad word) citizens’ papers and search their cars up to ten times per year.
    Fifth Amendment – Citizens may be tried for the same offense up to ten times.
    Sixth Amendment – A jury needs only a max of ten people; less is better during sequestration.
    Seventh Amendment – Ten jurors are plenty to award millions in damages
    Eighth Amendment – The State may pull no more in combination than ten teeth or fingernails to obtain a confession.
    Ninth Amendment – The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people unless ten Congressmen disagree.
    Tenth Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people Congress at their whim.

    DiFi you ignorant power drunk control slut, the “shall” in “shall not be infringed” means not ever, forever, no limits.

  3. Posted March 14, 2013 at 10:53 pm |

    The Second Amendment is already so infringed, I’m afraid we’re already standing at the bottom of the slippery slope. Now, we’re only waiting to sink into the quicksand.

  4. Merovign
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 2:04 am |

    She’s not just stupid, she’s a liar, and a habitual one.

  5. Claire
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 3:40 am |

    When a legislator is forced to use emotion and insults — rather than the law — it is a tacit admission that that’s all she’s got in her *assault argument*.

  6. JoeBandMember™
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 5:25 am |

    Will she be the one who incites the next revolution?

    And will the presstitutes blame THAT on Bush, too?

  7. Brad
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 5:34 am |

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these…it is the Right of the People … to abolish it…

    when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their duty, to throw off such Government… such is now the necessity… the present… is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of absolute Tyranny…

    We have warned them…

  8. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 6:56 am |

    Feinstein is a classic version of a senator sneator who has no fear of not being reelected. Accordingly, her “We gotta do something” proposed ban on 57 perfectly legal firearms will NOT prevent a mentally insane person from shooting multiple victims. What then is her objective? In my opinion, and the opinion of a lot of Americans, Feinstein`s ultimate objective is a BAN ON FIREARMS; period, end of story!

    However, the bulk of our 100 senators DO have to worry at election time. As such, I believe her proposed law will NOT, as written, be passed by the senate!!!! There are too many owners of firearms who have been aroused and are watching!

  9. geezerette
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:40 am |

    I was waiting for her to slap the table and ask, “What difference does it make”? Her lib followers would have been pissing their pants.

  10. dick, not quite dead white guy
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:46 am |

    Col Jerry, I think the one third of senators facing reelection in 2014 will rationalize to their voters that a database to check backgrounds more thoroughly is “reasonable and not an election threat. Feinstein is in high dudgeon, pushing for the whole kit and kaboodle. That is the usual Prog tactic, loudly ask for four steps forward and settle for one. It will sound like they lost, but in fact, they are one step closer to their goal.
    IMHO, the one step they’ll settle for in this instance is a national database of gun owners via centralizing the Form 4473 applications and state data on permits. The goal is confiscation, which once a data base of gun owners is in place, comes later during a “nation emergency”. What’s scary is a number of RINO’s think a database is “reasonable”.

  11. DougM (ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ)
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 7:51 am |

    Are you as smart as a sixth-grader, Señora Senator?
    Uh, no.

  12. geezerette
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 8:04 am |

    She may have hidden behind Cruz’s back but look who saw her— gotcha Ms Frankenfeinstein.

  13. DougM (ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ)
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 8:50 am |

    DiFi wasn’t the only one dissin’ Sen Cruz.

  14. Jess
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 9:23 am |

    This is why I think all congress critters should wear a shock collar controlled by a volunteer that can pass a detailed quiz on the Constitution.

    Sen Feinstein, are you going to answer the question, or writhe like a spastic with diarrhea?

  15. Colonel Jerry USMC
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 9:26 am |

    Ye-ah, retiring Durbin and Cheney`s Fuck You senator sneator + some invisible voice that clued sneator Notso Feinstein to *pornography*; all being Proggybots chimed in.

    I have been paying attention to polls and comments and all are overwhelminly angry at this sneaky gun confiscation. Yes, not all sneators are up for election in 2014, but, they gotta raise campaign $$$$$$ 24/7/365 and they don`t want to risk that money by voting in favor of Notso Feinstein`s thinly veiled confiscation ploy…………..

  16. Lord of the Fleas
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 11:24 am |

    I’m quite amazed that her nameplate actually says MRS rather than MSSSSSSSSS Feinstein.

    Up here in Canuckistan, that sort of un-PC horror would get a staffer fired for sure.

  17. Steve Skubinna
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 1:48 pm |

    She claims to be well versed on the Constitution, and yet she believes that a simple majority in the Senate is sufficient to overturn it.

    She claims she knows first hand the horrible carnage done by “weapons of war,” yet her political career was started by a nut with a Smith and Wesson revolver.

  18. geezerette
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 1:59 pm |

    Msssssss Frankenfeinstein sucks. I’m sorry I just couldn’t help it.

  19. ZZMike
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 4:26 pm |

    Lord of the Fleas (#16): I’m surprised she didn’t insist on “SENATOR Feinstein” (with the “Senator” is gold letters).

  20. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted March 15, 2013 at 4:33 pm |

    geezerette (9)…brilliant!!!

  21. JoeBandMember™
    Posted March 16, 2013 at 6:13 am |

    She, Obama, and so many other progressives have stated that removal of private firearms is their goal.

    We must not ever forget that.

  22. Posted March 18, 2013 at 4:15 pm |

    Tremendous issues here. I’m very glad to look your post. Thanks a lot and I’m having a
    look ahead to contact you. Will you please drop me a e-mail?