Trump picks for attorney general, DHS kick off week of confirmation hearings
President-elect Donald Trump’s nominees to lead the departments of Justice and Homeland Security will appear before Senate commitees Tuesday to kick off what is likely to be a contentious confirmation process.
Ok, that’s fair I suppose, as long as the ‘contentiousness’ doesn’t devolve into ad hominem hyperbolic attacks that are based in personal feelings, and devoid of facts. Oh, wait …
Late Monday, Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., announced that he would testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee against the nomination of Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions to be attorney general. Booker will be joined by Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., and Rep. Cedric Richmond, D-La. — the head of the Congressional Black Caucus — as part of an effort by Democrats to portray Sessions as out of the mainstream on civil rights legislation.
‘Out of the mainstream’ meaning that Sen. Session’s views don’t mesh with Democrats views, the supposed ‘mainstream’ position on anything, but especially race relations. Disregard everything Sen. Sessions has done in defense of civil rights (we’ll get to that below) and the testimony of those he’s worked with over the years, and because he’s white, and from the South, paint him as an automatic red neck, KKK loving, racist who will see to it that all civil rights legislation (pushed through by Republicans, btw – look it up) is either ignored or repealed. Or, you know, the usual.
Booker is believed to be the first sitting Senator to testify in a confirmation hearing against another sitting senator nominated for a Cabinet position.
Whoop dee do. All kinds of ‘glass ceilings’ being broken this election season.
“I do not take lightly the decision to testify against a Senate colleague,” Booker said in a statement. “But the immense powers of the Attorney General combined with the deeply troubling views of this nominee is a call to conscience.
A call to conscience? Seriously? You just happen to be the frontman in the Democrat effort to smear Sen. Sessions as a racist.
“The Attorney General is responsible for ensuring the fair administration of justice, and based on his record, I lack confidence that Senator Sessions can honor this duty,” the senator added.
After the previous two examples of ‘the fair administration of justice’ Ag’s, you’d think that statements like this would be kept at a minimum, but apparently due to a lack of awareness of just exactly what is being said, and that you can look things up on the internet, I guess we’ll be seeing more of things like this. It appears that Sen. Booker thinks that none of us out here in Fly Over Country knows how to use the internet.
Democrats don’t have the power to block the nomination of either Sessions or retired Marine Gen. John Kelly to head DHS, since Republicans control the Senate and only need a simple majority to confirm both men.
However, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are expected to try and paint Sessions as being out of the mainstream on issues critical to the party’s core voters — Hispanics, African Americans and women — ahead of the 2018 election cycle.
So instead of doing their jobs properly, which is to ask pointed questions to gain information – not an advantage – they think the obvious course of action is to paint Sen. Sessions as a racist, and in the most damning of ways so as to scare their constituents in the hope of boosting their electoral chances in 2018. What’s that one definition of insanity? Doing something over and over again, hoping for a different result? Yeah, go with that Dems. We’re not as stupid as you seem to think we are, and I’m including your constituents in that statement.
The next five paragraphs then set out to do the Dems work for them, painting Sen. Sessions in as unflattering a light as possible. Let’s break those down, shall we?
Sessions has been a leading advocate not only for cracking down on illegal immigration, but also for slowing all legal immigration, increasing mass deportations and giving more scrutiny to those entering the United States. He vehemently opposed the bipartisan immigration bill that the Senate passed in 2013 that included a pathway to citizenship for the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.
Cracking down on crime is only semi-ok, as long as it doesn’t involve someone not born here, but that is here without permission (In other words, an illegal alien)? Hmmm, seems to me that would be a feature, and not a bug.
As for slowing down legal immigration? Most legal immigrants come here seeking employment, and generally are willing to accept lower wages than an American worker, which then displaces American workers from American jobs. We’re talking about immigrants here, not visitors here on temporary visa’s, ok? These people want to stay. As long as they come here LEGALLY, I’m not opposed to them coming here per se, but at a measured pace. We need to control our own borders, and access to our country. Something that is anathema to Democrats, who would love to see all immigration restrictions relegated to the “dust bin of history”, as they like to say. That’s also why they don’t like that Sen. Sessions would like to see as many illegals as possible removed from our country.
As for Sen. Session’s opposition to the Gang of 8 “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill, that would have granted amnesty to at least 11 million illegal aliens (they aren’t “undocumented immigrants” – they are trespassers who have broken the law, hence illegal aliens)? Excellent!
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who worked with Republicans to craft the immigration legislation, indicated last week that he would have a hard time supporting Sessions, saying “he has been more anti-immigration than just about any other single member of Congress.”
No, Sen. Schumer, he has not been anti-immigration, he has been anti-illegal immigration. There is a difference, which you are purposefully eliding. You would think that someone opposed to people breaking the law would be held in higher regard, but since this is about slowing down the growth of the Democrat base, the Democrats in Congress are taking it as a personal affront, and when that happens, they lie, which is what Sen. Schumer just did.
In 1986, Sessions was nominated to the federal bench by then-President Ronald Reagan, but was rejected by the Senate Judiciary Committee over allegations that he had called a black attorney “boy” — which he denied — and described the NAACP and ACLU as “un-American.”
I wasn’t there to hear Sen. Sessions allegedly refer to a black attorney as “boy”, so I can’t speak directly to that, except to say that if it had been proven true, and from everything I’ve seen, it has not, I would be opposed to his nomination as well. However, since it has not been proven unequivocally to be true, I am more inclined to take Sen. Sessions at his word.
As for calling the NAACP and ACLU un-American? Perhaps that is painting with too broad of a brush, but there have been several instances down the years where those particular organizations have indulged themselves in activities that have not been seen as having been in the best interests of America.
Last week, the NAACP staged a sit-in at one of Sessions’ Alabama offices, and its legal defense fund said it was “inconceivable that he should be entrusted with the oversight of our civil rights laws.”
To me, it’s inconceivable that people still resort to 1960’s style political grandstanding to make a “grand gesture”, rather than simply hold a press conference which would accomplish the same thing, but without the theatrics. But I guess when your argument is weak, you do what you feel you have to in order to deflect peoples attention from that weak argument.
Hank Sanders, a Democratic state senator in Alabama, points to cases Sessions pursued as a prosecutor against civil rights activists in the 1980s. “They called them voter fraud cases,” said Sanders, who won acquittals for the defendants. “I called them voter persecution cases.”
I would like to ask Mr. Sanders something. Were this case brought by then-prosecuting attorney Sessions on his own, or were they brought by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama? In other words, were this case brought because of a personal animus or bias, or was he just doing his job following up on allegations of voter fraud (which he lost, btw, which is neither here nor there really)?
I’d also like to ask Mr. Sanders what he would have done should the roles had been reversed, but that’s a hypothetical. I’m 100% positive that Mr. Sanders would have absolutely refused to do his job, and would not have brought charges against the defendants in that case, as it would have offended his sensibilities. Well, actually, no I’m not 100% positive of what Mr. Sanders would have done if the roles had been reversed. Just trying to make a point about stereotyping.
I’ll let Albert Turner Jr. have the last word on this point.
However, Albert Turner Jr., the son of two of those defendants recently said he believed Sessions “is not a racist” and “was simply doing his job” when he prosecuted the cases.
The final four paragraphs finally get around to stating positive things about Sen. Sessions, although not ONCE in the entire article is he shown the respect due to a sitting Senator, as the author(s) never refer to him as Senator Sessions, or Sen. Sessions. Not once. Yet, all other national political office holders are. Ok, rant over. I’m irritated by the omission. At any rate, here are the positives that the author(s) appended to the article, almost as an after thought.
Supporters describe Sessions as a man of integrity who fought for desegregation during his career as a local GOP leader, prosecutor and elected official.
Doesn’t matter. He’s a white male from Alabama, hence automatically a cracker red neck, KKK lovin’ racist.
As U.S. attorney, Sessions’ office investigated and helped secure convictions in the 1981 Ku Klux Klan lynching of Michael Donald, a black teenager found hanging from a tree.
Doesn’t matter. He’s a white male from Alabama, hence automatically a cracker red neck, KKK lovin’ racist. Rinse, repeat.
Greg Griffin, a black Alabama judge who worked as a state attorney when Sessions was Alabama attorney general, told the Associated Press over the weekend that Sessions “always treated me with respect” and called him “one of the best bosses I ever had.”
Doesn’t matter. He’s a white male from Alabama, hence automatically a cracker red neck, KKK lovin’ racist. Rinse, repeat.
While in the Senate, Sessions voted to confirm Obama’s first attorney general, Eric Holder, the first black man to lead the Justice Department. He also worked with Democratic colleagues on efforts to combat prison rape and to reduce federal sentencing disparities between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses, saying the gap unfairly targeted the “African-American community simply because that is where crack is most often used.”
I think voting to confirm Holder was definitely a mistake, but I won’t hold it against him. As for the rest of what is stated in the paragraph? Doesn’t matter. He’s a white male from Alabama, hence automatically a cracker red neck, KKK lovin’ racist. At least, that is what the Democrats want to paint him as, irrespective of any facts.
As for the other fellow this article was supposedly about, retired General Kelly, the nominee for the head of DHS? He gets a mere one measly paragraph that says he shouldn’t have any problems, but makes an error in stating that he’ll be the first non-civilian to ever head the agency. What part of retired don’t you get? Once you have put in enough time to retire, and do so, you are no longer considered active duty, therefore your status is civilian. Sorry. I keep forgetting that most “journalists” have never been in the military, so they have no idea what they’re talking about when it comes to the military, and make all kinds of glaring mistakes – at least to veterans, and it’s annoying.
Neither man should have any real problems being confirmed, although Democrats are going to try to make Sen. Sessions squirm as much as they can before they concede the inevitable. I just hope they don’t take it to ridiculous lengths. Both men are good picks and should be confirmed.