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

Justice Department Sues University In Oklahoma For Discriminating Against Transgender Employee

Photo credit:

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) announced Monday it is suing a state university in Oklahoma because it denied a transgender professor a promotion, which subsequently led to the employee’s termination.

03312015_Oklahoma Tweet_Twitter

Both the Southeastern Oklahoma State University and the Regional University System of Oklahoma (RUSO) are being sued by the DOJ for violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the department announced in a statement Monday.

The reasoning was Southeastern discriminated “against a transgender employee on the basis of her sex and retaliating against her when she complained about the discrimination.” This is the background as told by the DOJ:

Rachel Tudor began working for Southeastern as an Assistant Professor in 2004.  At the time of her hire, Tudor presented as a man. In 2007, Tudor, consistent with her gender identity, began to present as a woman at work.

Throughout her employment, Tudor performed her job well, and in 2009, she applied for a promotion to the tenured position of Associate Professor. Southeastern’s administration denied her application, overruling the recommendations of her department chair and other tenured faculty from her department.

Tudor filed complaints in 2010 because she was denied tenure. She alleges she was denied the right to re-apply for tenure and promotion after the university learned of the complaints, in spite of the school’s policy allowing for re-application. After the 2010-11 school year, Tudor was fired because she did not have tenure.

“By standing beside Dr. Tudor, the Department of Justice sends a clear message that we are committed to eliminating discrimination on the basis of sex and gender identity,” said Attorney General Eric Holder.

We will not allow unfair biases and unjust prejudices to prevent transgender Americans from reaching their full potential as workers and as citizens.  And we will continue to work tirelessly, using every legal tool available, to ensure that transgender individuals are guaranteed the rights and protections that all Americans deserve.

h/t: Reason

Share this if you find this story interesting.

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

Holding Hillary Accountable For ‘Criminal’ Acts Will Depend On This One Thing, Says Judge Nap

Image Credit: Fox News

“She was so good at this, she could have taught Richard Nixon some lessons.” That’s how Judge Andrew Napolitano just described Hillary Clinton’s attempt to keep tight control over all of her emails during her tenure as secretary of state — even the emails concerning her official government business.

The Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst appeared on “America’s Newsroom” Monday morning to respond to the news that the private email server on which Mrs. Clinton kept all of her digital communications had been wiped clean. That, argues the judge, could be “obstruction of justice,” given that congressional subpoenas for those emails had been issued prior to their destruction.

Napolitano told host Bill Hemmer that Mrs. Clinton has now admitted to a number of acts which might be considered crimes, but that the former Obama administration official could get away with what she’s done if no one in authority has the “courage” to pursue her.

“None of her crimes will get to first base in terms of prosecution without a prosecutor to pursue them.” The judge added that it will take one thing to bring Hillary’s controversial actions in front of a grand jury — “courage.”

“She’s in trouble legally if there’s a prosecutor with the courage…to prosecute her.”

And even if Mrs. Clinton is not prosecuted, will she suffer political damage because of the emailgate scandal? You can hear Judge Nap’s answer to that key question, as well as his take on Hillary Clinton’s possible criminal misconduct, by clicking on the video above.

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

Holder Reveals Plan To Stop Racial Profiling

Photo credit:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder recently spoke at Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Georgia, about the unveiling of Justice Department plans to end racial profiling.

Holder traveled to Atlanta in the first of a series of regional meetings around the country with community leaders and law enforcement. Barack Obama asked him to hold such meetings in the wake of the Ferguson decision.

Holder said:

In the coming days, I will announce updated Justice Department guidance regarding profiling by federal law enforcement. This will institute rigorous new standards — and robust safeguards — to help end racial profiling, once and for all.  This new guidance will codify our commitment to the very highest standards of fair and effective policing.

His meeting in Atlanta consisted of a round-table discussion with law enforcement and community leaders, followed by a public interfaith service and community forum.

President Obama made a request on Monday to federal agencies to ensure that the US is not building a “militarized culture” with its police forces. He also wants more police officers to be equpped with cameras. The spending on cameras comes as part of a $263 million package to help police improve community relations.

Holder has called civil rights a cornerstone of his time at the Justice Department and has advocated less harsh treatment for non-violent drug offenders.

He has discussed the importance of easing tensions between police departments and minority communities. The Justice Department has investigated roughly twenty “flawed” police agencies-including Ferguson- in the past five years.

What do you think? Will Holder’s plans to stop racial profiling stop injustice against minority communities? Or will they turn a blind eye toward crimes being committed by minorities?


h/t: patdollard.c0m

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

Courts Give Green Light To Lawsuits That Could Finish ObamaCare

Photo credit: terrellaftermath

In finding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) constitutional, 5 justices of the Supreme Court literally ignored the statutory language of the law and the wishes of Congress. In fact, Chief Justice Roberts rewrote portions of the Act in order to bring its substance into line with his own politically motivated preferences.

In May, the IRS also ignored the will of Congress as expressed in the ACA. The law specifically states that subsidies and tax credits provided to certain ObamaCare enrollees may be awarded ONLY by “a governmental agency or nonprofit entity [ObamaCare exchange] that is established by a state.”(My emphasis) But this would prevent subsidies being awarded in the 33 states that have refused to build an ObamaCare exchange. Such a setback would effectively ruin the Affordable Care Act.

So the IRS decided to rescue its master’s namesake healthcare plan by presenting ObamaCare enrollees with $800 million worth of subsidies and tax credits even in states that have not built an exchange. After all, defenders of ObamaCare maintain that the whole affair simply represents  “…a minor drafting error [in the law] that courts will and should overlook.”

But not everyone agrees that the IRS may legally assume the lawmaking powers of Congress. In 2012, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed an amended suit, claiming that the IRS had no right to pass out subsidies contrary to the will of legislators. And as subsidies are not permitted in states with federally built exchanges, neither are the penalties–or taxes– the law imposes for noncompliance. In short, both the individual and employer mandates must be nullified.

In August, an Oklahoma district court ruled that 3 counts of Pruitt v. Sebelius may go forward. And as these represent the principal arguments of the action, should any of the 3 receive a favorable ruling, the status of ObamaCare exchanges will be placed in significant peril.

On October 22, a federal judge ruled that Halbig v. Sebelius–a suit whose content effectively mirrors that of Pruitt–may proceed. DC District Judge Paul Freidman “…rejected several Justice Department arguments on why the legal challenge should be tossed out of court.”

The existence of two lawsuits demanding the IRS follow the law rather than a political agenda gives opponents of ObamaCare 2 chances of upending the Affordable Care Act. Should an effective split decision occur, the Supreme Court would almost definitely hear the surviving case in its upcoming term.

Some 100 lawsuits filed against one or another facet of the Affordable Care Act are still making their way through the courts. Of the major “Act-ending” actions, Pruitt and Halbig probably represent the best hope of destroying ObamaCare as it now exists. As usual, we can only hope that an honest judge interested in maintaining the rule of law will make the ultimate ruling. If one can be found, ObamaCare’s days may be numbered.


Photo credit: terrellaftermath