Tag Archives: Dick Durbin

Who Is Paying For The Lawsuits?

Posted on by

On April 21, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the lawfare that the Democrat party is conducting against President Trump and other conservatives and conservative groups.

The article reports:

As Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s transparently political prosecution of former President Donald Trump began last week, it is important to remember that the former president is not the only target of the Democratic Party‘s campaign to use government power to silence political dissent. 

The Left’s efforts to intimidate conservative activists this month included Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) delivering a congressional subpoena to Federalist Society Co-Chairman Leonard Leo. It was voted on by the Senate Judiciary Committee last November without securing a single Republican vote. Durbin has not explained why the subpoena was not delivered for five months.

His attack on Leo comes as another elected Democrat, District of Columbia Attorney General Brian Schwalb, has also used his office to harass Leo. After a complaint filed by the dark money-funded Campaign for Accountability, Schwalb opened an investigation into Leo’s management of two nonprofit organizations. The Campaign for Accountability alleged that Leo used his control of these to enrich his consulting firm by millions of dollars.

Abusing nonprofit status to enrich oneself is a serious matter. We are sure there are many Washington, D.C., nonprofit organizations that deserve such investigations. But Schwalb isn’t investigating any of them. Nor is he investigating Ibram X. Kendi’s Center for Antiracist Research after it blew through tens of millions of dollars in three years without producing anything of value.

One might point out that the Center for Antiracist Research is based in Boston and, therefore, out of Schwalb’s jurisdiction. But so are the two nonprofit groups connected to Leo that Schwalb is investigating. One is in Virginia, and the other is in Texas.

However, there is a connection between the Campaign for Accountability and the Senate Democratic investigation of Leo: far-left megadonor Stephen Silberstein, who has bankrolled Leo’s main inquisitor in the Senate, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and the nonprofit organization leading the investigation against Leo, ProPublica. Silberstein has also worked closely with the Campaign for Accountability. 

The article concludes:

Wealthy Democratic Party donors such as Silberstein are free to fund partisan nonprofit goons such as ProPublica to dig up dirt on political opponents. But when they corrupt elected Democratic officials to use the power of their offices to persecute those political opponents, they cross an ethical line. The Democratic Party must end its lawfare campaigns against Trump and Leo. It disgraces itself until it does so.

Dirty campaigns are not a good thing, but misuse of our legal system should have dire consequences.

Stopping Attempts To Keep Americans Safe

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Yahoo News reported on a bill in the Senate that would have required all illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes be detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Senator Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, attempted to bring the bill to the Senate floor, but the bill was blocked by Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who objected to the request.

The article reports:

Ernst requested unanimous consent from her colleagues in order to advance Sarah’s Law to the floor for a vote. During her speech, she pleaded with colleagues to pass her bill, recalling the death of Sarah Root and also referencing the recent death of Laken Riley, both allegedly at the hands of illegal immigrants.

The bill would require ICE to take into custody illegal immigrants who are arrested and charged with causing the death or serious injury of another. This was reiterated by Ernst during her speech: “It would merely require ICE to detain, just to detain, otherwise deportable illegal immigrants charged with killing or seriously injuring another person,” she said.

Durbin said the bill would detain victims of trafficking or domestic abuse who were charged with crimes. According to him, the bill would “deprive immigrants of the due process that everyone is afforded.”

The due process happened when it was established that they were here illegally. At that point it should be legal to detain and deport them. Why are we harboring criminals that don’t even have the right to be here?

The article concludes:

The senator pointed to the immigration practice known as “catch and release” in which illegal immigrants seeking entry on the basis of asylum are released during the processing period.

“Instead of being detained while he was processed, he was released into our country — never to be heard from again,” she said.

While Ibarra may have been prevented from allegedly killing Riley had he been detained upon entry to the country, Sarah’s Law would not have stopped the attack because Ibarra’s criminal record doesn’t include crimes in which others were killed or injured.

Our laws are supposed to protect us–not endanger us.

Inquiring Minds Want To Know

Posted on by

Every now and then a Senator has the nerve to actually ask a question that the American public wants answered. Generally, efforts will then be made to either marginalize or remove that Senator. Sorry for the cynicism, but I have been watching Republicans for years and wondering if they actually had spines.

On Tuesday, Townhall reported the following:

Republican Senator Marsha Blackburn cornered FBI Director Christopher Wray Monday afternoon about the failure of the Bureau to release the client list of convicted sex trafficker and abuser Jeffrey Epstein. Wray was also pressed about why the FBI ignored accounts of victims. The exchange took place during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the FBI. 

…Last week Democratic Committee Chairman Dick Durbin blocked the release of the flight logs to Epstein’s famous island where women and underaged girls were sex trafficked to high profile men. Former President Bill Clinton was a longtime friend of Epstein before he “committed suicide” in a New York City prison. 

“They don’t want to have a conversation about the estate of Jeffrey Epstein to find out the names of every person who participated in Jeffrey Epstein’s human trafficking ring,” Blackburn released in a statement. 

We can all draw our own conclusions as to why the list has not been released. I am sure that the fact that Ghislaine Maxwell is serving her prison time in a luxury prison in Florida is in no way connected to the fact that the list has not been released.

Please follow the link to the article–it includes the exchange between Senator Blackburn and Director Wray.

 

Breaking Rules Is Not A Problem If No-one Holds You Accountable

Posted on by

On Thursday, Townhall posted an article about the Democrats in the U.S. Senate ignoring the rules of the Senate. I suspect there will be no consequences for their actions because the Republicans have become experts at rolling over and playing dead.

The article reports:

Senate Democrats threw out the rules of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday in order to launch an unprecedented attack on the United States Supreme Court. More specifically, on conservative justices and their friends. 

For months Chairman Dick Durbin and Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse have been trying to issue subpoenas to longtime conservative activists Leonard Leo and billionaire Harlon Crow. Leo and Crow, both private individuals, are also friends to Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. 

Earlier this month, Durbin briefly backed off his conquest to subpoena Leo and Crow. Today, he blatantly disregarded Senate process and voted to do just that. 

“Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats have been destroying the Supreme Court; now they are destroying the Senate. I will not cooperate with this unlawful campaign of political retribution,” Leo released in response to the move. 

The article concludes:

Republicans on the Committee argue that because the vote was taken before noon, any subpoenas issued to Leo or Crow are invalid. 

While Democrats voted to subpoena friends of conservative justices, Durbin blocked efforts to do the same for staff of liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor. 

Until the current Republicans in the Senate develop a spine or new group of Republicans is elected, we can expect more of the same.

Their Concept Is Correct, The Patriotism Is Lacking

Posted on by

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about some recent comments by Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin.

The article reports:

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., was pressed on this “dilemma” that Democrats face as the 2018 midterms approach during an interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Staying united to stop the Supreme Court pick could cost you red state senators. Not fighting it as hard might allow the red state senators to get re-elected and get Democrats in control of the Senate. That’s your dilemma,” host Chuck Todd posited on Sunday.

Durbin conceded that it is a dilemma “in one respect,” but made that case for how it is a trade off Democrats are willing to make.

“It is a dilemma in one respect, but not in another. I will tell you, the men and women that I work with on the Democratic side really take this seriously. They understand it’s an historic decision. It’s about more than the next election,” he said, adding that the issue is about setting the future course for the country.

The balance on the Supreme Court has been slightly left on social issues because of the views of Justice Kennedy. Replacing Kennedy with a conservative justice who believes that the Constitution is the law of the land might change the court for generations. That might change many things. The main thing the Democrats are worried about is Roe v. Wade.

In 2013 Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made a very interesting comment about Roe v. Wade (article here):

Those more acquainted with Ginsburg and her thoughtful, nuanced approach to difficult legal questions were not surprised, however, to hear her say just the opposite, that Roe was a faulty decision. For Ginsburg, the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision that affirmed a woman’s right to an abortion was too far-reaching and too sweeping, and it gave anti-abortion rights activists a very tangible target to rally against in the four decades since.

Ginsburg and Professor Geoffrey Stone, a longtime scholar of reproductive rights and constitutional law, spoke for 90 minutes before a capacity crowd in the Law School auditorium on May 11 on “Roe v. Wade at 40.”

“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

What the frantic pro-abortion people are not telling you is that overturning Roe v. Wade would not end abortion–it would simple give the states the right to decide the issue for themselves (in accordance with the Tenth Amendment) as was the case before 1973.

What the hysteria over this judicial pick illustrates is that we have wandered from the intent of our Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers envisioned the judiciary as the weakest branch of government–they were not elected and theoretically had little power–they did not make laws–Congress did. In 1803 Marberry v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, and the courts assumed power they were never intended to have. It is telling that American law students do not study the U.S. Constitution–they study case law.

President Trump has every right to have his nominee for the Supreme Court approved. Hopefully the Democrats will respect that right. Candidates should be judged on their qualifications–not their politics. Democrats pushed through some very left wing judges under President Obama after invoking the nuclear option. The Democrats demanded that the Republicans vote on qualifications rather than politics. It’s time for the Republicans to demand that same courtesy from the Democrats.

Politics Is More Important Than Action

Posted on by

We have been hearing for a while now that ISIS is a serious threat. President Obama has made a few speeches emphasizing the importance of recognizing and dealing with the threat. I suspect most Americans who are actually paying attention also believe that ISIS is a threat. So what does the Senate do?

Yesterday The Hill reported that Senate Democrats have decided to debate and vote on a broad resolution authorizing military strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) after the election.

The article reports:

“We’re going to take up the construction of a new authorization for the use of military force. It’s long overdue,” said Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

The authorization would focus narrowly on ISIS, likely bar the deployment of ground troops and set a one-year time limit on military action.

The plan to vote on a resolution specifically authorizing strikes against the extremist Sunni group could help reassure liberal Democrats nervous about supporting a measure that authorizes President Obama to train and equip moderate rebels in Syria.

Durbin announced the roadmap at a Democratic leadership press conference shortly before the chamber was scheduled to vote on a government funding measure that included the so-called Title 10 authority to train the rebels.

Durbin said he is pushing the measure with Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.).

“This is one of the most important votes we can cast,” he said.

Durbin said the Senate would take up the measure when the pending authorization for training Syrian rebels expires on Dec. 11.

I guess the Senate Democrats believe that ISIS is a problem that can wait until after the election. That belief goes on my rather long list of reasons the Democrats in the Senate need to be voted out of office. If the threat of ISIS is as important as the President says it is, the Senate needs to figure out what it wants to do to counter the threat as soon as possible.

Lying As A Way Of Life

Posted on by

If you heard someone you knew tell this story, you would immediately feel sympathy:

“I’ve had a situation in my family — a child — who had serious physical problems, who could not have qualified but for group health insurance available to me as a member of Congress,” Durbin (Senator Dick Durbin) said in response to a pointed question to Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas.

“If I had gone on the open market to buy a policy I’m not sure I could have bought one for my family to cover my child,” said Durbin, who was first elected to Congress in 1982 when his Christine was fourteen.

When you hear that story, you immediately think how horrible it would be to have a child who needed medical attention and not be able to provide the necessary care. However, when you look a little bit closer, that is not exactly what the situation was.

The quote above is from a Daily Caller article posted on Tuesday.

The article tells a little more about the story:

…the Illinois Democrat (Senator Dick Durbin) neglected to mention that his late daughter was easily covered by existing insurance, and that he used taxpayer money to reward the hospital that treated her.

Despite her preexisting condition, Christine Durbin, who suffered from a lifelong heart condition and died at age 40 in 2008, was eligible for coverage under existing laws in multiple states, including the senator’s state and the state she ultimately settled in.

Durbin also neglected to mention that he sent his daughter to one of the best children’s hospitals in the country, to which he earmarked millions of dollars from 2002-2010.

…State law also addressed the problem of individuals in the open market suffering from preexisting conditions. In 1987, Illinois passed the Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan (CHIP, which covered any Illinoisan who could not “obtain individual coverage from private insurance companies because of medical conditions.” Thirty-five other states have similar programs, including Maryland, where Christine ultimately settled.

It is entirely possible to address the problem of providing health insurance for people with pre-existing conditions without wrecking health insurance for the rest of us. If the Senator feels that it is necessary to lie to promote ObamaCare, why should we believe anything else he is saying?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Does Anyone Actually Believe This ?

Posted on by

 

Shamrock Texas Tornado

Shamrock Texas Tornado (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Real Clear Politics reported yesterday on a statement made by Senator Dick Durbin earlier this week.

The Senator stated:

“It’s your money or your life. We are either going to dedicate ourselves to a cleaner, more livable planet and accept the initial investment necessary or we’re going to pay a heavier price in terms of loss of human life, damage and costs associated with it.”

This statement was made in response to the recent tornadoes in Texas. There are a few problems with the statement. I don’t think any American politician supports pollution–I just don’t.

I might be a good idea to remember that hurricanes and tornadoes have been with us for a long time. Out of curiosity I looked up the Rhode Island hurricane of 1938 (I couldn’t remember the year). In reading the article, I found a reference to the Great Colonial Hurricane of 1635. In 1939, Hollywood produced “The Wizard of Oz.” Obviously, someone familiar with tornadoes wrote the script. In the 1930’s America did not have the highways and power generating plants that it has now, and weather was still happening. Imagine. Again, I support clean air, but I don’t like being threatened.

This is simply another attempt to convince the American people that the government needs to take more of their money.

Enhanced by Zemanta