There is something peculiar and ironic when the representatives of a state in constant and willful violation of federal law lecture us on the Constitution and the legalities of executive orders.
Like an atomic clock, there is nothing more reliable than a Democrat violating his oath of office.
Feinstein and Pelosi say Trump's immigration executive order is illegal. Senator Feinstein and Representative Pelosi are from a state rife with cities that ignore federal law and one that proposes universal sanctuary state status. Have they spent so much time in Washington, D.C. that they are disconnected from their constituents’ misbehavior?
Back in 2015, when apparently it was politically fashionable, Feinstein seemed tough on illegal aliens.
“The California liberal with a tough-on-crime streak is stirring deep anxiety among immigration activists ever since she said she would write a bill that would force localities to comply with federal immigration requests – prompted by the death of a San Francisco woman, allegedly at the hands of an immigrant here illegally,” Politico reported.
We wonder what happened to those efforts.
Recently, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said she would introduce two bills Monday. One of the bills would rescind Trump's (immigration) order, while the other would give Congress greater oversight of the president's immigration authority.
As we digest all these machinations from the 83-year-old multi-termed multimillionaire “public servant” Feinstein and the 76-year-old multi-termed multimillionaire Pelosi, we must wonder which side of the law they awoke on this morning.
The senator from California seems insulated to the reality that is her home state. A nest of sanctuary cities and a state that considers statewide sanctuary status seem in willful violation of federal law. They are, and certainly Feinstein must know this. Yet she lectures us and the president on the ethical obedience to the Constitution and the laws of this land. Her words have no standing under this arrangement.
California now employs former attorney general Eric Holder to represent the state. He is a perfect selection in this unusual practice of picking and choosing which laws to honor. Like hand in glove, his modus operandi during his tenure as attorney general will meld nicely with the west coast. His actions against Arizona in which he had an issue with that state for enforcing federal law now seems flip-flopped as he positions himself with a state that chooses not to enforce federal law. But there is a consistency here: he doesn’t like federal immigration law. This is a curious track record for once having been the selection as the top law enforcement figure in the country and swearing an oath of service.
Dianne (24 years in office) and Nancy (29 years in office) should revisit their oaths of office (it’s been a while) and dig their high heels into their obligations of office. Start with your home state, ladies, and once you have displayed your allegiance to law, your comments on national issues might carry some weight. Until then, no.