“This is truly shameful. Instead of letting Loretta Lynch‘s nomination rise or fall on the merits, Washington liberals in the House and Senate are trying to use her race and gender as a tool to prevent any examination of her record or agenda,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former constitutional law professor at George Mason University and former leadership staffer in the U.S. House of Representatives. “When these same so-called progressives opposed women and minorities who were conservative, such as Janice Rogers Brown for a federal judgeship, no one claimed they were bigots. Liberals should abide by this same standard when they nominate one of their own.
Project 21 member Carl Pittman. “In the case of Loretta Lynch’s nomination to become Attorney General, Congress would be wise to tread carefully since she has stated on the record that she agrees with and supports President Obama’s executive action to effectively grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. By this admission, she is stating she will not enforce the law. Conduct and ideology, not race or gender, should be the compelling reason to tread carefully regarding the Lynch nomination.
“As a black woman and an attorney, I am sick and tired of race always being the liberals’ default talking point,” added Project 21 member Shelby Emmett, another former Capitol Hill staffer. “Ms. Lynch went through four years of college, three years of law school and has decades of experience to put her where she is today
“We should all want the best candidate available, not the best black woman who will toe the Obama line. Congress wasn’t created to be a rubber stamp for the president, hence we have confirmation hearings and a vote,” said Project 21 member Wayne Dup
ALSO…
Don’t Dump Dumb
An op-ed appearing in the weekend edition of USA Today, written by NCPPR’s Director of Risk Analysis Jeff Stier notes the tactic used by radical activists that allows them to bully and abuse corporations like Ringling Bros., despite the fact that the corporations routinely win in court. Indeed, says Stier, PETA and other groups are often forced to pay out big sums of money to corporations for fraud. That doesn’t thwart their enthusiasm though…Select comments below. See full op ed here-
Stier notes, “So the claims by these animal rights extremists against Ringling Bros. have been shown in court to be a total fraud, and claims that the “Greatest Show on Earth” is harmful to animals have been debunked repeatedly in court, as well as in the court of public opinion.
But the threats of further litigation didn’t stop. Activists publicly admit that it doesn’t really matter if you’re successful in court — the act of suing is a useful irritant that costs your adversary time, money and focus, and gets them to give in, even if the underlying litigation is without merit. . In fact, here, Feld conceded that the non-stop litigation and costs of opposing regulatory threats in localities around the country were integral to the Feld family’s decision to retire the 13 currently performing Asian elephants from the traveling circus….” He reports, “The irony here is that Ringling Bros. has done far more to preserve Asian elephants’ on planet earth than the flailing animal rights groups….”
source:
Judy Kent
[email protected]
We Publish News 24/7. Don’t Miss A Story. Click HERE to SUBSCRIBE to Our Newsletter Now!
