Religious affiliation now a disqualifier for public service according to Democrats?

So say Leftists, to include Diane Feinstein.

From Breitbart.com:

Dianne Feinstein Interrogates Judicial Nominee’s Catholic Faith

by Joel B Pollak

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and other Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned whether the Catholic faith of a judicial nominee would disqualify her from carrying out the duties of her intended office.

Stop. My first thought? President John F Kennedy. A Democrat. Back in 1961. Have we not progressed from there? Or have we regressed? Not A, but B.

Feinstein told Notre Dame Law School Professor Amy Coney Barrett, who has been nominated by President Donald Trump to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, that “the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.”

Let’s listen to Diane Feinstein.

Now let’s listen to Dick Durbin.

Furthermore, Demorats ask: “can a Catholic be a judge?” A far cry from a Catholic president, is it not? Back in 1961? Back then: “a Catholic will ruin our nation.”

Perhaps we should next rightly ask: can a Muslim be a member of Congress? If not a Christian, then why a Muslim? Or a Buddhist? Or a Shinto priest? Keith Ellison and Andre Carson, go away. Right? Because they are “religious.”

Or is this a Constitutional issue the likes of which persons such as Diane Feinstein don’t comprehend as illustrated by her discourse with the late Antonin Scalia?

Gorsuch also happened to school Diane Feinstein during hearings.

Are you, like me, beginning to question the validity and veracity of Diane Feinstein with regard to overall competence? If not, you certainly should. We continue.

Feinstein was referring to abortion, though her question was based on a law review article written by Barrett in 1998 that argued that Catholic judges who object to the death penalty should recuse themselves from cases in which it is a possible sentence because “litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice.”

But wait. There’s more.

Article VI of the U.S. Constitution provides that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States,” yet Feinstein and other Democrats on the panel effectively imposed a religious test on Barrett. It was the second time in recent months that the opposition had attempted to do so: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) asked Russell Vought, nominated for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, about his Christian belief that salvation comes only through Jesus, as if that would be disqualifying.

Bottom line — the one that the American Media Maggots fail to report?

Barrett stated, “I would stress that my personal church affiliation or my religious belief would not bear on my duties as a judge.”

There was a bit of pushback, from Politico.com:

Senators take fire over questions for Catholic judicial nominee

by Josh Gerstein

At least two prominent university presidents are accusing senators of religious bias for challenging a Catholic judicial nominee over her faith-driven views during a confirmation hearing last week.

University of Notre Dame President Rev. John Jenkins and Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber both wrote letters objecting to lawmakers’ pointed questions on the topic to Notre Dame law professor Amy Barrett last week, whom President Donald Trump has nominated to the Chicago-based 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

Jenkins wrote directly to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s ranking Democrat, Dianne Feinstein of California, taking issue with her statements that Barrett’s worldview seems strongly driven by “dogma.”

“Your concern, as you expressed it, is that ‘dogma lives loudly in [Professor Barrett], and that is a concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country,'” Jenkins wrote. “I am one in whose heart ‘dogma lives loudly,’ as it has for centuries in the lives of many Americans, some of whom have given their lives in service to this nation. Indeed, it lived loudly in the hearts of those who founded our nation as one where citizens could practice their faith freely and without apology.”

Look, this is truly nothing new in terms of today’s Demorats. Religion, with the exception of Islam, means nothing. Perhaps less than nothing, rolling over to subjugation and oppression.

If only Leftists would focus their critical eyes inwards.

Demorats fear the law. They only wish new interpretations and not decisions based but upon precedent.

BZ

 

Feinstein: crossing the Rubicon?

I suspect many Demorats may believe so today, after she said this on Sunday.

Let us not forget that Senator Feinstein (Leftist central, as Fornicalia’s second senator is none other than the next Demorat nominee for president in 2020, Kamala Harris) is the highest ranking Demorat on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

She essentially called, publicly, for an open investigation into the manner in which Obama’s last Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, handled the Hillary Clinton email inquiry in re Lynch’s directive to former FBI Director James Comey.

Comey clearly outs himself that he willingly chose to step “into the tank” with Lynch, Obama and the Demorats.

The NYPost.com wrote:

Top Democrat calls for investigation of Loretta Lynch’s Clinton probe

by Marisa Schultz

WASHINGTON – The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee called Sunday for a congressional investigation into former Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email probe.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said she’s concerned by former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony Thursday that Lynch asked him to downplay his “investigation” into the Democratic presidential nominee as merely a “matter.”

Comey said the political request called into the question the credibility of Lynch’s Department of Justice and made him “queasy.”

“I would have a queasy feeling too,” Feinstein admitted Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “I think we need to know more about that. And there’s only one way to know about it and that’s to have the Judiciary Committee take a look at that.”

The “queasy” feeling only occurred when Comey realized he’d likely be later called onto the public carpet, which he was.

Lynch, a President Obama nominee, ultimately had to distance herself from the FBI probe after meeting with former President Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix during the height of the election campaign and email investigation.

Lynch said the meeting was impromptu and they didn’t discuss Clinton’s private email server, but the appearance of impropriety forced her to back off and for Comey to become the public face of the probe.

Asked whether Lynch provided improper political cover for Clinton, Feinstein said: “I can’t answer that,” but a “separate investigation” is worthwhile to find out.

Ultimate Translation from DemSpeak to common English: Feinstein realizes she’d best get out ahead on this one as it’s sufficiently dirty to potentially sully even her skirts.

Ah, nothing like a little political Demorat arse-covering, eh wot?

BZ

 

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, May 18th, 2017

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.

I learned a valuable lesson tonight: embrace the suck. Semper Gumby. Expect the unexpected and then have a Plan B and a Plan C. Sometimes a Plan D. Enough of “Inside Radio.”

Tonight in the Saloon:

  • Snowball is your bartender, the lava lamp is lighted;
  • The Sack Heads should be a complete triumvirate by next week;
  • I haven’t yet decided to activate the YouTube cam for the show; maybe next week?
  • BZ: the penultimate face made for radio;
  • Victor Davis Hanson’s article: “The Russian Farce”;
  • July 5th was the Turning Point for James Comey;
  • More than 60% of NSC employees were placed by Barack Hussein Obama;
  • What is a Fornicalia CEA? A political appointee whose “Career Ends Abruptly”;
  • American Media Maggots: where are your sources? One source? Reuters says “anonymous sources are the weakest sources”;
  • James Clapper on Meet The Press: there is NO evidence between Russia/Trump;
  • Obama: “I’m gonna be a lot more flexible with you Rooskies”; no shite;
  • Russian reset? Russian reset button via Hillary Clinton?
  • Special prosecutor? Special counsel? Impeachment? Is that the Demorat goal?
  • Loretta Lynch needs to be prosecuted: “no criminal charges against Hillary”;
  • Comey:’it calls for a classified response”;
  • And much more buttery goodness.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, May 18th, 2017″ on Spreaker.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast.

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here.

BZ

 

BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, May 4th, 2017

My thanks to the SHR Media Network for allowing me to broadcast in their studio and over their air twice weekly, Tuesdays and Thursdays, as well as appear on the Sack Heads Radio Show™ each Wednesday evening.

This was BZ’s third night running the new SHR laptop, bristling as it does with a full 16 gigs of buttery RAM goodness and a nice sound card. Once again, like Tuesday, BZ discovered that Windows 10 wanted to update right in the middle of the show. Uh, no. Learned that lesson.

Tonight in the Saloon we discussed:

  • “I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now”;
  • Happy Stories: CNN’s Wolf Blitzer shuts down Diane Feinstein when he doesn’t get the answer he wants from her;
  • Senator Ted Cruz chats with former temp AG Sally Yates, fired by Trump;
  • 8 USC 1182: it exists, get over it;
  • Thousands flee Cook County because of Chicago violence;
  • I was vastly wrong: NYPD has 34,000 officers, not 24,000;
  • Pat Dollard was busy; we’re hoping for another appearance shortly;
  • Obama says: you need to eat a bug;
  • What is “anthropogenic”?
  • Scientists: you need to eat insects to stop “global warming”;
  • Memorial Day represents nothing but US oppression around the globe;
  • Obama’s rampant hypocrisy: $400,000 speeches & $3.26 million dollar cash grab;
  • Obama’s private jet and 14-vehicle convoy to Milan’s Globalist Food Control meet;
  • I tell you about the Religious Left: it takes faith to believe in global warming;
  • Al Gore only wants $15 trillion dollars from every nation and tax payer;
  • Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren thinks Obama might be just a bit hypocritical;
  • Bernie Sanders thinks Obama might be just a bit hypocritical;
  • Bill Maher thinks Obama might be just a bit hypocritical;
  • The sky began falling this past Tuesday;
  • An in-depth analysis of the firing of James Comey by President Donald Trump.

Listen to “BZ’s Berserk Bobcat Saloon, “The Aftermath,” Thursday, May 11th, 2017″ on Spreaker.

Please join me, the Bloviating Zeppelin (on Twitter @BZep and on Gab.ai @BZep), every Tuesday and Thursday night on the SHR Media Network from 11 PM to 1 AM Eastern and 8 PM to 10 PM Pacific, at the Berserk Bobcat Saloon — where the speech is free but the drinks are not.

As ever, thank you so kindly for listening, commenting, and interacting in the chat room or listening via podcast. With luck all screens will be functioning next week. Shaun said so. Heh. Perhaps, if I speak soothing words, I’ll have the live feed on YouTube up and running. No promises yet. Besides, after last Wednesday on Sack Heads, why would you want to look at my ugly mug?

Want to listen to all the Berserk Bobcat Saloon archives in podcast? Go here.

BZ

 

“Lordy, that would be really bad”

Truer words, as above, have not recently been written. It’s all about James Comey.

And the testimony of FBI Director James Comey on Wednesday before the US Senate Judiciary Committee on FBI Oversight only serves to underline and prove one thing: Mr Comey needs to be forced to resign, and immediately.

Certainly Hillary Clinton thinks so. It was Comey and the Russians who did her in despite saying she is taking “absolute personal full responsibility” for her loss. Uh, no. She doesn’t take full responsibility. She spoke to CNN’s Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday.

“If the election had been on October 27, I would be your president,” she told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour at a Women for Women International event in New York.

“I take absolute personal responsibility. I was the candidate, I was the person who was on the ballot. I am very aware of the challenges, the problems, the shortfalls that we had,” Clinton said, before adding that she was “on the way to winning until a combination of Jim Comey’s letter on October 28 and Russian WikiLeaks raised doubts in the minds of people who were inclined to vote for me and got scared off.”

This is the same Hillary Clinton who was enraged that the election wasn’t simply handed over to her as required by us underlings, proles. commoners, serfs and unwashed rabble.

[It’s interesting to note that Hillary Clinton is writing a book about her loss, Huma Abedin is writing a book and Barack Hussein Obama is making $400,000 speeches to Wall Street.]

The very next day following Clinton’s fuzzy softball interview, Director Comey’s testimony in the Senate was jam-gepacked with bursting volumes of self-serving and contradictory statements. (The full testimony can be read here. Full video is here.) Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley originally called the Wednesday oversight hearing of the FBI to examine what the agency knows about a 2015 terrorist attack in Garland, Texas. Things got a bit off-topic, however.

To what am I referring? From Breitbart.com:

Comey: Anthony Weiner Received Classified Clinton Emails

by Kristina Wong

FBI Director James Comey hit back Wednesday against Democratic criticism of his decision to reopen the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails 11 days before the 2016 election.

He said although it made him “mildly nauseous” to think he could have had some impact on the election, he believes he did the right thing and to this day, would not change his mind.

In explaining his decision to reopen the investigation, he said investigators found metadata on the seized laptop of Anthony Weiner — top Clinton aide Huma Abedin’s husband — that showed there were “thousands” of Clinton’s emails on the device, including classified information.

Investigators believed the emails could include emails missing from her first three months as secretary of state.

Comey said after repeatedly telling members of Congress that the FBI had concluded its investigation into Clinton, the only right thing to do was to let Congress know the case was reopened.

“I could see two doors and they were both actions. One was labeled ‘speak,’ the other was labeled ‘conceal,’” he said.

But wait. Was classified information really involved in any of those emails?

He said Abedin forwarded “hundreds of thousands” of emails to Weiner, 40,000 of which they reviewed. Three thousand of those were work-related, and 12 of them contained classified information, he said.

But he said Abedin and Weiner were not charged with any wrongdoing since investigators did not find a general sense of criminal intent — a decision that Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) scoffed at.

The hearing conducted on Wednesday featured Senator Diane Feinstein asking a question that, in retrospect, she wished she never touched.

She received a lot more information, damning information, than she wanted. She opened the door and FBI Director James Comey walked right through it. I suspect she was hoping Comey would simply reply that the information was classified. Sorry, senator. Feinstein was just pissed, regarding 702 data**, that her Demorat ox got gored.

But what really happened here? Again, just like July of 2016, Comey makes an argument for prosecution — first, against Hillary Clinton now, here, against Huma Abedin — and then does nothing about it. How did Weiner come to be in possession of classified information? Huma Abedin sent it to him. This is a violation of 18 USC 793 — Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information, to wit:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

As I wrote in July of last year regarding Director Comey’s decision to refuse sending the Hillary Clinton case on to DOJ:

To me it is quite clear that FBI Director James Comey, about whose probity I wrote quite a number of times on the blog, has dishonored his law enforcement oath, showing that he has no fidelity, no bravery and no integrity with regard to his decision to not recommend prosecution of Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But in today’s hearing with Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffetz as documented at Politico, James Comey revealed his flawed and craven, cowardly political thinking when one is familiar with law enforcement prosecutorial thresholds as I am.

Director Comey determined a manner in which to weasel his way out of recommending the prosecution of Clinton.  At Thursday’s hearing he went out of his way — again, just like Wednesday — to make his own case and then fall back on a position/decision that isn’t his to make.

But the most insightful part has arrived.  Comey outs himself:

Chaffetz then asked whether it was that he was just not able to prosecute it or that Clinton broke the law.

“Well, I don’t want to give an overly lawyerly answer,” Comey said. “The question I always look at is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute, and my judgment here is there is not. “

And this is how James Comey attempts to rationalize his decision.  He states he does not believe his case established guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

NEWSFLASH: It is not UP to YOU, Director Comey, to assemble a case that yields a determination of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”  That threshold is up to the DOJ or more pointedly a Grand Jury, not you or your organization.  All you need to compile a case for submission is “probable cause.”  That’s what real cops and real DAs in America do.  Their jobs.  They stay in their lanes and do their jobs.

As noted about Comey’s wrong-headed decision to give a pass to Hillary Clinton regarding the classified information on her server and in her emails, there are crimes of specific intent and general intent. Comey insists he must have specific intent before forwarding a case to DOJ. That’s wrong. There are sections, as above, that demand no such thing. Watch:

“She had no sense that what she was doing was a violation of the law.” Really, Mr Comey? “We couldn’t prove any sort of criminal intent.” You might try reading the law, Mr Comey. Federal law. The law you’re tasked with following and upholding.

Senator Ted Cruz had questions.

The fact patterns in Hillary Clinton’s case and Huma Abedin’s case do violate federal law as indicated by Senator Cruz above and common sense.

Director Comey’s job is not to be the attorney, but to be the compiler, and assembler of cases and, then, submitting a case to the Department of Justice. He essentially has and is usurping the function of prosecutors by withholding cases from the DOJ.

Tucker Carlson, below, interviews Democrat Representative Tim Ryan of Ohio and, more pointedly, former US Attorney Jim Digenova. Listen to Digenova’s clear and cogent case against FBI Director James Comey.

On Wednesday, for good measure, Director Comey decided to throw former US Attorney General Loretta Lynch under the bus — deservedly but quite willingly.

Now there is information from RightScoop.com, announced by Catherine Herridge of Fox News:

REVEALED: FBI found email that Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from CRIMINAL CHARGES

Fox News reporter Catherine Herridge says this is one of the biggest headlines out of the hearing today with the FBI director, pointing out that the FBI had found an email was obtained by Russian hackers that indicated that former DOJ hack Loretta Lynch would do everything she could to protect Hillary from prosecution:

 

This was the story from Wednesday. And who covered it? Anyone but Fox?

Note how Director Comey refuses to answer. The fix was in. Comey is a disreputable political hack and has proven himself time and again to be so.

FBI Director James Comey must go. He is too self-centered, too much the political animal and, frankly, too narcissistic to continue in his current position. He insists he is apolitical but every movement he makes and statement he gives proves otherwise.

It’s all about James Comey.

BZ

NOTE:

** 702 data, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978:

Section 702 permits the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence to jointly authorize targeting of persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, but is limited to targeting non-U.S. persons. Once authorized, such acquisitions may last for periods of up to one year.

Under subsection 702(b) of the FISA Amendments Act, such an acquisition is also subject to several limitations. Specifically, an acquisition:

  • May not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States;
  • May not intentionally target a person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States if the purpose of such acquisition is to target a particular, known person reasonably believed to be in the United States;
  • May not intentionally target a U.S. person reasonably believed to be located outside the United States;
  • May not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of the acquisition to be located in the United States;
  • Must be conducted in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.[10]