CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley: Sen. Feinstein (D-CA) & Rep. Rogers (R-MI) Both Say America Is Less Safe From Terrorism Today Than It Has Been in Recent Years … What Happened to Obama’s Claim “Al-Qaeda is on the run”
Looks like Americans were told another lie, I thought President Barack Hussein Obama told us that Al-Qaeda was on the run and on the road to defeat?
This Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union with Candy Crowley, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), chair of the House Intelligence Committee, were in complete bipartisan agreement that the United States is less safe from terrorism today than it has been in recent years. Remember when Barack Obama ran on the reelection sound byte that “Al-Qaeda was on the run and on the path to defeat”. Hmm, too bad this president is all about campaigning to win an election and not about leading to defend America against its enemies.
Americans shouldn’t feel safer today than they did before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the leaders of the Senate and House intelligence committees said Sunday.
The country now faces a larger number of threats from splintered terrorist groups and more complex weapons than when the U.S. began combat operations in Afghanistan in 2001, the lawmakers said on CNN’s State of the Union. At the same time, the nation’s spy programs–which can help foil terrorist plots–are under heavy scrutiny that could ultimately lessen their effectiveness.
“The threat is higher today and we’re probably less safe,” Rep. Mike Rogers (R., Mich.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said.
His counterpart in the Senate agreed.
“I think terror is up world-wide,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.). “There are new bombs, very big bombs…and more groups than ever.”
Sen. Feinstein said advanced weapons make it easier to bring a bomb onto an airplane and make it harder to track possible threats.
CROWLEY: The big question that’s always asked, are we safer now than we were a year ago, two years ago? In general?
FEINSTEIN: I don’t think so. I think terror is up worldwide, the statistics indicate that, the fatalities are way up. The numbers are way up. There are new bombs, very big bombs, trucks being reinforced for those bombs. There are bombs that go through magnatometers. The bomb maker is still alive. There are more groups that ever and there’s huge malevolence out there.
CROWLEY: So congressman, I have to say, that is not the answer I expected. I expected to hear, oh, we’re safer. Do you agree?
ROGERS: Oh, I absolutely agree that we’re not safer today for the same very reasons.
So the pressure on our intelligence services to get it right to prevent an attack are enormous. And it’s getting more difficult because we see the al Qaeda as we knew it before is metastasizing to something different, more affiliates than we’ve ever had before, meaning more groups that operated independently of al Qaeda have now joined al Qaeda around the world, all of them have at least some aspiration to commit an act of violence in the United States or against western targets all around the world.
They’ve now switched to this notion that maybe smaller events are okay. So if you have more smaller events than bigger events, they think that might still lead to their objectives and their goals. That makes it exponentially harder for our intelligence services to stop an event like that.
CROWLEY: Because essentially one person can do a small event.
CROWLEY: So, one of the things that the senator said was that there is more hatred out there, more – and why is that? (read more HERE)
How’s that post Iraq looking these days? How’s that claim of the defeat of terrorism looking today? How’s that talking with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the very enemy we looked to defeat, for a troop withdrawal looking these days? How is Libya looking? How about Syria? This is what happens when you put a community agitator, presidential novice in the White House.
Democrats in Full Scale Panic … Congressional Democrats Give Barack Obama 72 Hour Ultimatum to Fix Obamacare or Else … Even Sen. DiFi Off Bandwagon
Barack Obama, the Divider in Chief appears to be dividing his own party: Just how bad is it for Barack Obama and Obamacare … Democrats are looking to break ranks with Obama and actually vote with the GOP.
As reported last night by Megyn Kelly on ‘The Kelly Files’ Congressional Democrats have reportedly given President Barack Obama a 72 hour ultimatum, Friday, to fix Obamacare significantly. If not, they supposedly claim that they will vote with Republicans in a bipartisan effort to fix the train wreck known as Obamacare.
Could it really be true? Are Democrats actually finally willing to break ranks with Obama to save their political skin? The roll out has been so disastrous with the malfunctioning Healthcare.gov website, woefully low amounts of individuals signing up and millions of Americans losing their insurance after Barack Obama had promised otherwise. However, yesterday former Bill Clinton gave the wink and nod to Democrats that it was okay to run long, deep and far away from Obamacare.
It gets even worse for Barack Oabma, if possible. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), a Democrat who is not up for reelection in 2014, a liberal in the deep blue state of California that voted for Obama 60% – 37% in 2012, now says she will co-sponsor a bill by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), a Democrat who is up for reelection in 2014, to require insurance companies to continue offering their existing health care.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that she will co-sponsor a bill by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) to require insurance companies to continue offering their existing health care plans — a way to make good on President Barack Obama’s promise that consumers can keep their current coverage if they like it.
“This bill provides a simple fix to a complex problem,” Feinstein said in a statement Tuesday, calling Landrieu’s proposal a “commonsense fix” and urged Congress to pass it “quickly.”
Feinstein’s support is more evidence that an increasing number of congressional Democrats are getting uneasy about last month’s bungled rollout of the health care law – Obama’s signature domestic policy achievement.
Democrats are demanding Obama to “fix” healthcare by Friday or they will vote with the House GOP on proposed legislation that “would allow insurance companies the option of continuing all existing health plans for a year.” However, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you can’t get your plan back that you were canceled from. Insurance companies acted in accordance with Obamacare regulations and canceled individuals plans to meet the requirements. They cannot all of a sudden mandate an insurance company to reissue the policies because Obama wants an Obamacare “Mulligan”.
Amazing, Senator Feinstein (D-CA) Says Watertown Citizens Don’t Need “Assault Weapons” During a Time When Killer Terrorists Roamed Their Town
Unbelievable, these liberal Senators who have their own protection tell you that you do not have the right to protect yourself.
Following the Boston Marathon bombings by Islamist terrorists, Senator Feinstein (D-CA) went on FOX News Sunday where she shamefully pushed once again for her failed assault weapons ban. As the city of Boston and surrounding towns were in lock down as two terrorist brothers roamed the streets with explosive devices and unregistered guns, millions of Boston area citizens were in fear as they who were told to stay inside during the door to door man hunt for the Islamist killers. When Chris Wallace asked whether the citizens should have had the right to protect themselves, Feinstein responded by saying … Watertown Citizens Don’t Need “Assault Weapons” .
Because she knows better than you America. How many people who were pinned down in their homes probably wish they had an assault-style weapon to defend themselves and their family? Shouldn’t that be “We the People’s” choice on how to defend ourselves and our right to bare arms and not a government who failed to act in the first place when they were first notified in 2011 by Russia?
“Some may have (wanted to have guns), yes. But if where you’re going is, “Do they need an assault weapon?” I don’t think so… We did away with machine guns because of how they’re used.”
And Now for the Shock of the Day: Massachusetts Police Say Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects Didn’t Have Gun Permit to Carry Firearms
Hey Barack Obama, you can lash out all you want, this is why your ridiculous bill did not pass …
Here comes the shocker of the say for liberals, President Barack Obama, Sens. Feinstein and Chuck Schumer, and the other gun grabbing, gun registering, background check, anti-Second Amendment folks … the Boston Marathon bombing suspects didn’t have gun permits to carry firearms. Imagine that, the two terrorist bombers who shot and killed MIT Patrol Officer Sean A. Collier, 26, of Somerville, Mass. did not have a permit nor would they ever have contemplated getting one. How difficult was this for the AP and Reuters to report the facts that these killers did not have gun permits, further proving the liberal agenda of wanting to take guns and Second Amendment rights away from law abiding citizens. When will liberals ever admit that the laws they are putting forward do nothing to stop crime? What better example do they need that the gun fire exchanged between the two terrorist brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and police HERE and HERE.
Imagine that Libs, MSM and Barack Obama, these two killers did not have permits to carry guns, so what background law would have prevented this?
Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn’t have gun permits.
Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE’-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.
He says it’s unclear whether either ever applied and the applications aren’t considered public records.
What’s this world coming to when an Islamist terrorist does not have a registered gun, does not adhere to the laws and pass background check? Oh the humanity. Next thing we will learn that the pressure cookers were unregistered as well as well as the explosives that the brothers used to throw at the police and used in the bombs at the Boston Marathon that killed 3 people and injured over 170. Is it any wonder why the Democrats anti-gun legislation failed and Obama’s knee jerk reaction to take advantage of the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting went down in flames. The bill was then pulled by Democrat Senate Majority leader Harry Reid because he did not want any debate on said bill, go figure.
EXIT QUESTION … HOW COME THE LEFT, OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS DON’T CARE AS MUCH FOR LAW ABIDING CITIZENS SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS AS THEY DO FOR DZOKHAR TSARNAEV’S MIRANDA RIGHTS?
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s Gun Ban Shot Down By Harry Reid, Vows She is Not Done Yet … “I’m Not Going To Lay Down And Play Dead”
Senator Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) anti-Second Amendment gun bill shot down by fellow Democrat Senator Harry Reid.
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has gutted the gun control (anti-Second Amendment Democrat gun grab). As it turns out, the controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill next month. As reported at The Washington Times, Sen. Dianne Feinstein emerged from a closed-door meeting with Majority Leader Harry Reid on Monday, but her ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines didn’t. Reid turned down her attempt to bring her ban on 157 different weapons and ammunition clips aboard the Democratic Party’s comprehensive gun bill, Politico reported. The eventual bill that will come up fro a vote will resemble little of what Barack Obama had demanded after trying to exploit the 26 murders at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT.
Dianne Feinstein claims … I’m Not Going To Lay Down And Play Dead” … What a sick and poor choice of words.
The gun control bill headed for the Senate floor bears little resemblance to the far-reaching proposal President Obama unveiled after the deadly shooting in Newtown, Conn.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has decided the federal assault weapons ban will not be a part of the base bill and warned Tuesday an expansion of background checks to cover private sales might not make the cut, either. [...]
Reid said the assault weapons ban sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), which faces staunch opposition from the gun rights group, could have sunk the entire legislative effort.
“Right now, her amendment, using the most optimistic numbers, has less than 40 votes. That’s not 60. I have to get something on the floor so we can have votes on that issue and the other issues that I’ve talked about. That’s what I’m going to try to do,” Reid told reporters Tuesday. Reid has previously opposed the assault weapons ban.
Obviously Harry Reid realized that the so-called assault weapons ban had little chance of passing the US Senate, especially after DI-FI was schooled by Sen. Cruz when Feinstein claims she was not a 6th grader. Out apologies to 6th graders everywhere. Feinstein claims that Reid promised her a separate vote. This loon actually thinks that this bill would pass on its own. Even Reid wants no part of it in a gun safety bill.
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) Schools 6th Grade Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) on the US Constitution and the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments … Feinstein Responds: “I’m Not a 6th Grader… I’ve Been Here For a Long Time!”
WHY WE LOVE SENATOR TED CRUZ AND NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER HE IS ELIGIBLE TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.
Yesterday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) took Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) to school and taught her the finer points of the US Constitution and the 1st, 2nd and 4th Amendments. In an astute, logical and intelligent manner, Sen. Cruz asked Sen. Feinstein a simple question as to whether the 1st Amendment should only apply to some books and not others? Also, would the 4th Amendment only protect the rights od some individuals from illegal searches and seizures and not others? Cruz so brilliantly phrased, constructed and articulated his comparison question that it left Feinstein to snap back in an emotional manner and say, “I’m not a sixth grader … it’s fine you want to lecture me on the Constitution.”
The Question from Ted Cruz to Dianne Feinstein From 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?
Senator Feinstein took exception to the fact that she was schooled by Cruz stating she thought he was arrogant and patronizing (VIDEO). Arrogant? Actually Feinstein thinks she should not be questioned by a freshman Senator. Now that’s arrogant. Obviously the Democrat Senator who’s only qualification on the US Constitution is that she has been in the Senate for decades cannot deal with a debate on her Unconstitutional gun ban. Actually Senator Feinstein, the fact that you have been in the Senate is only more of a reason why there should be term limits.
GAME, SET AND MATCH as in the end Feinstein was forced to answer Cruz’s question saying, “Obviously YES!”,However, do you want to get in the mind of a ceased, anti-Second Amendment liberal … Dianne Feinstein compared the so-called assault weapons banned, that has already failed in the past, to child porn.
Ted Cruz is a star in the making and a breath of fresh air in the US Senate in Washington, DC. Another reason why we love Senator Ted Cruz, from Weasel Zippers, checks out his back ground and the reason why he could so easily make Feinstein twist in the wind.
In one corner we have Ted Cruz, a brilliant Harvard educated Constitutional lawyer who has authored more than 80 Supreme Court briefs and presented more than 40 oral arguments, including nine before the Supreme Court itself, he also served as law clerk for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist.
By the way DI-FI, next time don’t insult sixth graders.
The Hypocrisy of the LEFT … Government Officials Can Still Own Assault Weapons Under Sen. Feinstein’s Assault Weapons Ban Bill
MORE LEFTIST HYPOCRISY: ASSAULT STYLE WEAPONS BAN FOR THEE, NOT FOR WE …
We have known for quite some time that the LEFT have considered themselves better than “We the People” and that they live by a different set of rules, even though they tell us to do just the opposite. However, the hypocrisy from the LEFT might have hit an all time high, or low as the case may be. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (CA-D) has for decades tried to ban assault-style weapons and infringe upon our Second Amendment rights. Her latest bill is just yet another attempt to take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens. But there is one little provision that seems to have been overlooked. For all of Feinstein’s grandstanding and exploiting the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, for all of her appearances in the MSM calling assault-style guns and the other weapons on her banned list evil, government officials are exempt as weapons used by government officials and law enforcement will not be prohibited by the law!!!
Not everyone is exempted from owning military-style assault weapons under new legislation proposed by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
Weapons used by government officials and law enforcement will not be prohibited by the law proposed by the California Democrat, which would prohibit the sale, manufacture and importation of 158 specifically named semi-automatic weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Any weapons legally owned before the bill’s enactment would also be exempt, although those firearms would have to be registered in a national database.
In addition, more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles and manually operated firearms would also be exempt.
Check out all of the weapons under Feinstein’s bill that John Q. Public is not allowed to have, but the privileged class of the government is exempt from and will be able to own.
Since when is the government more important than “We the People”? Since when are the people treated like second rate citizens as compared to the ruling class? This is exactly what Our Founding Fathers set out to prevent when they created the United States of America. UNBELIEVABLE! Just curious, if these weapons are so dangerous, why would government officials be allowed to have them? Could it be because they are a great form of protection against the bad guys? This really is nothing more than a gun grab by the LEFT.
WAKE THE HELL UP AMERICA, MANY INDIVIDUALS HAVE DIED TO PROTECT YOUR LIBERTIES AND FREEDOM. PRETEND LIKE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE A CLUE LIKE YOU CARE AND CARE ABOUT YOUR COUNTRY.