Ted Cruz Obliterates AG Nominee Loretta Lynch And Republican Senate Majority For Allowing Her Nomination

Early Thursday morning, ahead of Loretta Lynch’s nomination for Attorney General, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, ranted about current Attorney General Eric Holder, the likelihood of having Lynch as his successor, and the Republican Senate majority. He argued that as bad as Eric Holder has been as the attorney general, Lynch would be just as bad, if not worse.

Cruz, who is running for president, posed a tough question to the Senate: what difference would it make whether Republicans or Democrats dominate the Senate, if someone arguably promising to be just like Holder is nominated as AG?

Cruz concluded his speech by saying that any senator who votes in favor of Lynch would ultimately violate their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution–and would have to explain said vote to their constituents.

Just recently, as Western Journalism reported, the Senate approved Lynch on a 56-43 vote. 10 Republicans disregarded Cruz’s advice and supported her nomination: Kelly Ayotte, (N.H.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.).

h/t: Right Scoop

Is there a difference between a Republican or Democratic majority? Why didn’t these ten Republicans heed Cruz’s advice? Will Lynch be just as bad as Holder? Let us know what you think.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Breaking: What These 10 Republicans Just Did Gives A HUGE Boost To Obama’s Executive Amnesty

After a wait of more than five months since President Obama nominated her to replace Eric Holder as U.S. Attorney General, Loretta Lynch has been confirmed by the Senate as the nation’s top law enforcement officer. The vote Thursday afternoon saw more Republicans than expected giving their approval to the controversial nominee, with ten GOP senators joining all Democrats in the upper chamber to propel Lynch into the top Justice Department post.

Still, as Fox News reports: “The vote total for Lynch was the lowest for any attorney general since Michael Mukasey won confirmation with 53 votes in 2007 after Democrats decried his refusal to describe waterboarding as torture.”

In Lynch’s case, a number of Republicans had decried her endorsement of President Obama’s executive order on amnesty. Western Journalism reported on her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January, in which Lynch said she had reviewed the legal rationale behind Obama’s unilateral action to bypass the Congress and change immigration rules for millions of illegals, and she found the president’s actions to be proper and justified.

Curiously, in the same hearing, Lynch told the panel that the U.S. Constitution would be her “lodestar” in making decisions if she were to become attorney general. Many conservatives have contended that Obama’s actions on immigration, as well as Lynch’s expressed support of those executive orders, are not in line with the constitutionally mandated separation of powers.

The Senate vote to confirm Loretta Lynch clears the way for her to be sworn in as the nation’s first African-American woman to head up the Department of Justice. Lynch currently serves as a federal prosecutor in New York state.

Image Credit: Wiki Commons

Image Credit: Wiki Commons

The Hill provides a list of Republican senators who voted in favor of confirmation — a list that, surprisingly, includes Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who had earlier indicated he was inclined to vote against Lynch.

“Ten Republican senators broke ranks and sided with Democrats to get Lynch over the 50-vote threshold: Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Mark Kirk (Ill.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Thad Cochran (Miss.), Ron Johnson (Wis.) and Mitch McConnell (Ky.).”

The Hill points out that Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who had indicated he would stand against Lynch and even delivered a floor speech earlier today opposing her nomination, missed the vote. The reason, as of this writing, is unclear.

In speaking out against the confirmation prior to the vote, one passionate GOP senator called for the confirmation of a nominee who would vow to uphold the Constitution and not support Obama’s executive action that many claim violates both the letter and the spirit of the law.

“Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) added that senators should [not] confirm someone who has ‘publicly committed to denigrating Congress [and] violating the laws of Congress.’”

It has not yet been announced when Loretta Lynch will take the oath of office to replace Eric Holder.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

What Jeb Bush Just Told Republicans To Do Shows How Much He Agrees With Obama and Reid

At a political event in New Hampshire, the man many people think may be the Republican nominee for president just said GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill should do something that many in the party, especially conservatives, are firmly against. The former Florida governor told the town hall-style forum that the Republican-controlled Senate should go ahead and confirm President Obama’s choice for the country’s next attorney general, Loretta Lynch.

Bush’s advice to Republican senators who stand opposed to Lynch’s becoming the nation’s top law enforcement officer puts him squarely at odds with a number of GOP senators, including the two who have announced their run for the White House — Kentucky’s Rand Paul and Florida’s Marco Rubio.

The New York Times reports that Bush told the Thursday night gathering in Concord, N.H., that when it comes to such nominations, “there should be some deference to the executive.”

“’I think presidents have the right to pick their team,’ Mr. Bush said, in response to a questioner who asked where he stood on the nomination of Ms. Lynch, now the United States attorney for the Eastern District of New York.”

However, at the same time that he said President Obama should be granted his choice for attorney general, Bush launched into a stinging criticism of the current head of the Justice Department, Eric Holder. It would not be a stretch to observe that, in addition to being at odds with widespread GOP sentiment about Loretta Lynch,  Bush’s position seems to be at odds with itself. He suggests that the president’s nomination should be okayed, even if that results in the installation of a powerful department head with whom he strongly disagrees.

Breitbart News notes that Jeb’s call for Lynch’s confirmation aligns him with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and other Democrats in the upper chamber. Senate Republicans who fiercely oppose the president’s pick have cited their objections to Lynch’s expressed support for Obama’s executive amnesty that would grant millions of illegal immigrants certain rights and privileges traditionally enjoyed by U.S. citizens.

Essentially then, because of Loretta Lynch’s endorsement of Obama’s executive action on amnesty, Jeb Bush is aligning himself with the president’s position on the highly controversial policy that angers many conservatives.

Breitbart also points out that Bush’s contrary position on the Lynch nomination comes at a time when polling is moving against him.

“Bush’s move comes as he’s lost his frontrunner status–despite all the money he’s raking in–in the 2016 GOP primary to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, who opposes Lynch’s nomination and now leads Bush in polls in all three early primary states.”

And just today, Friday, Politico reports on a new poll of 400 registered Republican voters in Florida who put Rubio ahead of his former political mentor in the Sunshine State.

“Rubio garnered 31 percent support from Republicans and essentially tied Bush’s 30 percent, according to a Mason-Dixon Polling & Research survey conducted Tuesday through Thursday and shared exclusively with POLITICO.”

Thee is still no date announced for the full Senate’s consideration of the nomination of Loretta Lynch, who, if confirmed, would be the country’s first female African American to become attorney general.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

DOJ Banning Veterans From Owning Firearms In Surprising Numbers

Image for representational purposes only.

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, wants to know why so many of our nation’s veterans are being barred from exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

In a letter dated this week to Attorney General Eric Holder, Grassley outlines his concerns that far too many veterans are being denied the right to purchase or own weapons due to an overly broad reporting policy adopted by the Department of Veterans Administration (VA). The senator noted that 99.3 percent of all names reported to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) in “mental defective” category were supplied by the VA, according to a 2012 Congressional Research Service Report.

A 2013 senate report mirrored this percentage, finding that the VA reported 83,000 veterans as “mental defective.”

The standard the VA is supposed to use in reporting veterans to the NICS is whether the veteran poses a risk to himself and/or others. However, according to Grassley:

The VA reports individuals to the gun ban list if an individual merely needs financial assistance managing VA benefits. Although the VA process is not designed to regulate firearm ownership, it results in veterans and their loved ones being barred from exercising their fundamental, Constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights.

The senator explains that the burden of proof actually falls on the veteran, not the VA, in proving competency to manage his or her benefits; and wrapped up in that determination is the veteran’s ability to exercise his or her Second Amendment rights.

Regardless, Grassley argues that competency to manage financial benefits and meeting the standard of not posing a risk to themselves or others in owning firearms are two separate issues.
“A veteran or dependent shouldn’t lose their constitutional rights, because they need help with bookkeeping,” he said.

In light of this current, overly broad VA reporting policy, the senator wants answers to the following questions from Holder:

1. Is the primary purpose of the NICS list to preclude firearm ownership and possession by individuals who are a danger to themselves and/or others? If not, what is the primary purpose of the NICS list?

2. Is the primary purpose of the VA’s reporting system to report the names of individuals who are appointed a fiduciary?

3. Out of all names on the NICS list, what percentage of them have been referred by the VA?

4. Do you believe that a veteran adjudicated as incompetent to manage finances and appointed a fiduciary is likewise mentally defective under the ATF standard? If so, what is the basis for that conclusion?

5. Does the standard employed by the VA to report names to the DOJ for subsequent placement on the NICS list comply with the protections of the Second Amendment? If so, please explain how, in light of due process concerns described above.

6. Given that the VA adjudication process can result in a complete infringement of a person’s fundamental Second Amendment right, do you believe that the use of the “clear and convincing” evidentiary standard is proper? If so, why?

7. Is the DOJ satisfied that all names reported from the VA for placement on the NICS are, in fact and in law, persons who should not own or possess a firearm because they are dangers to themselves and/or others? If so, what evidence supports that conclusion?

8. Given that 99.3% of all names in the NICS “mental defective” category are reported from the VA, has the DOJ reviewed the VA’s reporting standards and procedure? If so, please provide a copy of the review that took place. If no review took place, please explain why not.

9. What review process does DOJ have in place to ensure that names are properly on the NICS list?

10. How many individuals have appealed their placement on the NICS list? How many individuals were successful in their appeal?

11. In light of the fact that the Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment to be a fundamental right, has the DOJ changed any processes and procedures relating to the NICS system which were in existence prior to that holding?

12. Besides the VA, what other federal agencies have reported names to the NICS list since 2005? And how many names were reported by each agency since 2005?

Grassley requested that the attorney general have answers to his questions by April 30, 2015.

h/t: AllenWest.com 

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Bi-Partisan Group Of Senators Investigates Guest Worker Program Being Used To Take Americans’ Jobs

Photo credit: Shutterstock.com

Sens. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., and Dick Durbin, D-Ill., are among a group of 10 senators seeking answers about the apparent abuse of the H-1B guest worker program by corporations.

The program is apparently being misused to lay off thousands of Americans and, in some instances, corporations are adding insult to injury by forcing workers to train their replacements.

In a letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson, and Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez, the senators called for a probe into the hiring and firing practices of companies taking advantage of the H-1B visa program.

In addition to Sessions and Durbin, the other senators who signed the letter include Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, David Vitter, R-La., Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., Bill Cassidy, R-La., Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., and James Inhofe, R-Okla.

Among several questions the signatories have for the department heads is whether the companies involved with replacing American workers participated in illegal “citizen discrimination,” and whether these companies maintained an employer-employee relationship or used the H-1B program to hire contract employees at a lower rate.

The H-1B program is designed to bring in highly-skilled workers on a temporary basis to fill in a shortage in the American labor market. The visa holders can stay for up to six years, but must get paid the equivalent of American workers.

The senators cite Southern California Edison (SCE) as an example where hiring abuse using H-1B visas appears to be practiced. Former IT workers with the second largest utility company in the Golden State wrote testimonials to the senators about being fired and replaced with lower-paid guest workers, who they were forced to train.

As reported by Fox News:

“We had no choice in this,” one anonymous worker, who claimed to have been one of those let go from Southern California Edison, said. The worker described how, when the two vendors were picked – Infosys and TCS, both major Indian companies – SCE employees were told to “sit with, video chat or do whatever was needed to teach them our systems.”

One worker added, in a letter to the senators, “we would be fired and not receive a severance package” if they failed to train their replacements.

“Not one of these jobs being filled by India was a job that an Edison employee wasn’t already performing,” another worker told Computer World.

SCE countered the complaints about replacing Americans with guest workers by stating that the company reduced its IT department by over 500 employees (from 1,400 to 860 workers), and of these, 97 percent are California residents and 3 percent are H-1B visa holders.

According to ComputerWorld, 65 percent of H-1B visa holders approved last year came from the computer-related fields.

A bi-partisan senate bill was introduced in January which would increase the H-1B visa cap from 65,000 per year to 195,000.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom