DOWNLOADS: (112)

PLAYS: (616)

Embed

Texas Sen. John Cornyn (R) on Thursday warned his colleagues in the Senate that people who were "wearing some form of turban" were illegally immigrating into the United States by crossing the Southern border.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing to consider amendments to the bipartisan immigration reform bill, Cornyn asserted that he had "anecdotal" evidence that only 25 percent of undocumented immigrants crossing the border were caught by U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

"In fact, anecdotally, the border patrol last -- on Sunday and Monday were telling me, they think they maybe catch one out of every four people coming across the border," he declared. "Maybe one out of every three. And that's a problem."

The Texas senator argued that this made the case for an amendment offered by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), which establishes "triggers" that prohibits legalizing undocumented immigrants until the Department of Homeland Security has established "effective control" of the border for six months.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), however, pointed out that a 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that the Border Patrol had a 82 percent effectiveness rate at catching illegal border crossings.

"I would love to see that report because I don't believe that's the case," Cornyn replied. "The problem is the effectiveness rate you referred to doesn't take into account the people that cross illegally and the department is not tracking. In other words, it doesn't take into account the people that get away, which could, according to the anecdotal reports, be two out of every three, three out of every four."

Cornyn added that he had also been told during his recent visit to the southern border in Texas that "we're not just seeing the border penetrated by people from Mexico or Central America."

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (136)

PLAYS: (566)

Embed

Oklahoma Rep. Frank Lucas (R) recently told a conservative radio show that President Barack Obama's administration may be engaged in a "conspiracy" to purchase all available ammunition as a form of gun control.

Last week, Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s National Security Subcommittee caved to conspiracies theories in the conservative media and held a hearing about whether the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was buying a billion rounds of ammunition to use against the American people.

In an interview with NewsMax host Steve Malzberg on Monday, Lucas explained that he had joined with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) to introduce a bill that would limit the amount of ammunition the federal government can buy.

"What do you think that they think they need this for?" Malzberg wondered.

"You know, it's hard to see into the mind of an Obama-appointed official," Lucas opined. "But this is the administration that's super gun control, that really, really, really doesn't trust people with firearms and obviously they don't trust people with ammunition."

"Is this a conspiracy to buy up all the bullets so they're not available to us? I don't know," he added. "But I suspect, Steve, it's a combination of these big purchases by the non-Defense Department government agencies like Homeland Security and a near-panic buying among my constituents, who are afraid that in some gun control bill there were be a limitation on on their ability to buy ammunition. Or the president will do something by executive order."

Although conspiracies theories about government ammunition purchases have been thoroughly debunked, Republican lawmakers have continued to let conservative sites like Alex Jones' Infowars, Glenn Beck's The Blaze and The Drudge Report drive their agenda.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (203)

PLAYS: (1447)

Embed

Rep. John Tierney (D-MA), the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's National Security Subcommittee, slammed Republicans on Thursday for conducting a hearing that he said was driven by Internet conspiracy theories suggesting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was buying a billion rounds of ammunition to use against the American people.

In his opening statement on Thursday, subcommittee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) cited "recent news reports" about the "federal government's massive procurement of ammunition."

"The question is, what is an appropriate use of this ammunition, where is it stored, how much are they paying for it and what are they doing with it?" the Utah Republican asked.

Although Chaffetz mentioned media outlets like The Associated Press and USA Today, much of the hype about DHS ammunition purchases have been driven by conservative websites like Alex Jones' Infowars and Glenn Beck's The Blaze. And the theories have been kept alive by the Fox News Channel, the Fox Business Network and even televangelist Pat Robertson.

"To the extent that we're responding to conspiracy theories or whatever, I think we're really wasting everybody's time on that," Tierney said in his opening statement. "It might have been predictable that Sarah Palin would have taken opportunity to feed these conspiracy theories with statements that the government was preparing for civil unrest, but it was a little more disturbing that Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) would seize the opportunity to accuse the government cornering the market on ammunition to drive up prices."

"Unsubstantiated false conspiracy theories have no place in this committee room -- hopefully," he continued. "Federal ammunition purchases are a fraction of the total ammunition market and they've been decreasing in recent years. Even the National Rifle Association distances itself from these conspiracy theories."

DOWNLOADS: (182)

PLAYS: (1640)

Embed

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Monday became irate and yelled at Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) during a Senate hearing at the suggestion that he had used last week's Boston Marathon bombing to try and delay immigration reform.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday, Grassley had said that knowing the immigration status of the Boston bombers would "help shed light on the weaknesses of our system."

"How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?" he asked.

In his opening remarks on Monday, committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) said that he was troubled that some people would use the tragedy in Boston to slow down immigration reform.

"Let no one be so cruel as to try to use the heinous act of these two young men last week to derail the dreams and futures of millions of hardworking people," Leahy remarked. "A nation as strong as ours can welcome the oppressed and persecuted without making compromise on our security. We are capable of vigilance in pursuit of these values."

Grassley made it clear that he had taken Leahy's opening statement personally.

"If you want to want to avoid partisanship, I would say, let's be very deliberate," the Iowa Republican said. "And I want you to take note of the fact that when you proposed gun legislation, I didn't accuse you of using the Norsetown [sic] killings as an excuse."

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (109)

PLAYS: (315)

Embed

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) on Friday said that Monday's tragic bombing at the Boston Marathon was a reason not move to quickly to pass a bipartisan proposal for comprehensive immigration reform.

"Given the events of this week, it's important for us to understand the gaps and loopholes in our immigration system," Grassley told the Senate Judiciary Committee. "While we don't yet know the immigration status of people who terrorized the the communities in Massachusetts, when we find out, it will help shed light on the weaknesses of our system."

"How can individuals evade authority and plan such attacks on our soil? How can we beef up security checks on people who wish to enter the United States? How do we ensure that people who wish to do us harm are not eligible for benefits under the immigration laws, including this new bill before us?"

CBS News reported on Friday that 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the man being hunted by police as a suspect in Monday's bombings, became a U.S. citizen on Sept. 11, 2012 after coming to the country on a tourist visa in April 2002. Before becoming a citizen, he sought asylum in September 2002 and gained lawful resident status in February 2007.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was killed in a firefight with police on Thursday night. His legal status was not immediately known.

Earlier this week, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) speculated that the bombings in Boston had been perpetrated by a “foreign national” and that Congress should proceed with caution on any immigration reform efforts. Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) also warned that “radical Islamists” were “being trained to come in and act like Hispanics.”

(h/t: Huffington Post)

DOWNLOADS: (541)

PLAYS: (6299)

Embed

Jon Stewart had a field day with the clown show that was the Senate's hearing on gun violence this week. Whether it was NRA head Wayne LaPierre opining that background checks won't work because criminals won't submit to them, the fact that he's done a complete 180 on his stance in 1999 -- or Lindsey Graham and his fearmongering that people are going to be running wild in the streets, looting and raping.

He also gave the IWF's Gayle Trotter the treatment she deserves for her ridiculous fairy tale about mothers needing to fend off hoards of intruders with AR-15's and then telling Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse she couldn't remember what type of gun the woman in the real life case she was citing as an example actually used.

Here's more from Raw Story on Stewart's take down of LaPierre: Jon Stewart mocks NRA chief: Lets only pass laws that criminals will follow:

At a Senate hearing on gun violence, LaPierre explained that citizens of the United States needed high-power firearms to both defend themselves from an overbearing government and protect themselves from being abandoned by the government.

“I’m lost,” Stewart remarked.

LaPierre also argued that requiring universal background checks for gun purchases was a flawed policy because criminals didn’t follow the law. The argument is one often used by gun advocates.

“Good point,” Stewart mockingly retorted. “Let's pass laws that only criminals will obey. Let's do that. Hey, what’s this ‘thou shalt not kill,’ you know, murders are just going to bypass that. They’ll find a way around it.”

DOWNLOADS: (243)

PLAYS: (2840)

Embed

CNN host Soledad O'Brien on Thursday scolded Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and told him he should know better than to try to link assault weapons to "black violence on blacks" because most recent mass killings had been carried out by white men.

Following National Rifle Association chief Wayne LaPierre's Wednesday testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee that he opposed universal background checks at gun shows, O'Brien asked Grassley why not support something that seemed like an obvious part of the solution.

Grassley argued that universal background checks would burden people trying to buy a gun on Sunday.

"Obviously we have some background checks, it's how encompassing do you do it?" he explained. "Do you do it for one father selling to a son or another relative or how do you cover everything? I think that's the issue. And also, the extent to which you have private sales on Sunday between relatives, and maybe you can't access the system all the time and as fast as you want to do it."

O'Brien pressed Grassley on why he opposed an assault weapons ban, when even the temporary 1994 ban had reduced the number of crimes involving those firearms by between 17 percent and 72 percent, according to a 2004 study by the University of Pennsylvania.

"I guess you can argue over numbers," Grassley replied, adding that the Columbine High School massacre had occurred during the 1994 ban.

"Part of the argument is if you start now that there's potential down the road to make some of a difference," the CNN host pointed out. "Sometimes I hear the argument that you're never going to get rid of all the guns or you're never going to get rid of all the assault weapons. It seems to me to be a little bit of a specious argument."

O'Brien then wondered why Grassley was also against a "common-sense kind of thing" like tasking the Center for Disease Control with studying gun violence.

"The Center for Disease Control is all about studying diseases, and ownership of guns is not a disease," Grassley insisted.

"Public health?" O'Brien noted. "If you look at a city like Chicago, where there has been just massive, massive deaths from gun violence. That's not a public health issue?"

"Well, I think that's the place in our society where you would study the issue of black violence on blacks," the Iowa Republican asserted. "Most of those guns are pistols and not the guns that you're talking about on this program."

"Well, certainly when we are looking at assault weapons, I know that you know that most of the perpetrators have been white men," O'Brien remarked while noting that the CDC had spent $2.5 million studying gun violence in 1993.

"I would think that anybody who wants to figure out how to stop people from dying in gun violence -- whether it's suicide, whether it's small children being killed in a massacre, whether it's domestic violence -- that just studying the issue would be a good idea for everybody," she continued.

"I said I agree with you because that's part of the mental health issue that we have to deal with, yet, during this debate," Grassley replied. "Because in everyone of these instances that keeps cropping up, where mass killings, people had mental health issues. They shouldn't have had guns in the first place."

DOWNLOADS: (227)

PLAYS: (2705)

Embed

A senior fellow from the conservative Independent Women's Forum (IWF) on Wednesday told a Senate committee that assault weapons should not be outlawed because they were the "weapon of choice" for young mothers who need a "scary-looking gun."

At Senate Judiciary Hearing on gun violence, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) asked IWF's Gayle Trotter, who also writes for The Daily Caller, if it would "disproportionately burden women" to ban assault rifles like the Bushmaster AR-15 used to slaughter 20 children in Newtown, Connecticut.

"Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice," Trotter explained. "The guns are accurate. They have good handling. They're light. They're easy for women to hold."

She added: "And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon, and the peace of mind that a woman has as she's facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she's fighting hardened, violent criminals."

"And if we ban these types of assault weapons, you are putting women at a great disadvantage, more so than men, because they do not have the same type of physical strength and opportunity to defend themselves in a hand-to-hand struggle. They're not criminals, they're moms, they're young women. And they're not used to violent confrontations."

DOWNLOADS: (171)

PLAYS: (662)

Embed

As Think Progress reported today: Executive Privilege Does Not Apply Exclusively To Presidential Communications. Apparently it was asking too much for CNN's John King to have pointed that out to Sen. Chuck Grassley today. The Hill didn't inform their readers of that fact either in this report: White House move sets off lawmaker questions over 'Fast and Furious':

Republican leaders in both chambers are raising sharper questions about the White House's involvement in the controversial "Fast and Furious" program after President Obama invoked executive privilege to withhold documents from Republican investigators.

Both the White House and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder have claimed repeatedly that high-level officials – both in the Department of Justice and in the White House – were unaware of the nature of the botched program, which put firearms into the hands of known gun-runners in an effort to trace them to drug-smugglers along the Mexican border.

But with the White House moving unilaterally Wednesday to assert executive privilege over documents sought by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Republicans have grown more suspicious that those officials knew more than they've claimed.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said the administration's maneuver "raises monumental questions" about who knew what – and when.

"How can the president assert executive privilege if there was no White House involvement? How can the president exert executive privilege over documents he's supposedly never seen?" Grassley, who met with Holder Tuesday night, said Wednesday in a statement. "Is something very big being hidden to go to this extreme? ... The questions from Congress go to determining what happened in a disastrous government program for accountability and so that it's never repeated again.”

The office of House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was quick to raise similar concerns. Read on...

Here's more from Think Progress from earlier this week on Darrell Issa's witchhunt: Five Things To Know About The Republican Witchhunt Against Attorney General Holder.

DOWNLOADS: (164)

PLAYS: (151)

Embed

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) on Thursday accused Democrats of inventing an "imaginary" war on women to score political points in an election year.

During a Senate speech outlining why he supported reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act, something that many Republicans oppose, McCain blasted Democrats for "dividing the country in the name of greater fairness and unity."

"My friends, this supposed 'War on Women' or the use of similarly outlandish rhetoric by partisan operatives has two purposes, and both are purely political in their purpose and effect: The first is to distract citizens from real issues that really matter and the second is to give talking heads something to sputter about when they appear on cable television," the Arizona senator declared.

"I believe women and men in our country are smart enough to recognize that when a politician or political party resorts to dividing us in the name of bringing us together it usually means that they are either out of ideas or short on resolve to address the challenges of our time," he added. "At this time in our nation’s history, we face an abundance of hard choices. Divisive slogans and the declaring of phony wars are intended to avoid those hard choices and to escape paying a political price for doing so."

"Women and men are no different in their rights and responsibilities," McCain concluded. "I believe this legislation recognizes that. I don’t believe the ludicrous, partisan posturing that has conjured up this imaginary war does."

Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) recently explained to CNN's Candy Crowley why she thought if was fair to pin the "war on women" label on the GOP.

“The policies that have come out of the Republican Party, saying that we should have a debate again over contraception and whether we should have access to it and it should be affordable, saying that — like Gov. Scott Walker in Wisconsin, you know, he tried to quietly repeal the Equal Pay Act,” Wasserman Schultz noted. “Women aren’t going to stand for that. Governor Walker just signed a bill that repeals the equal pay law they had in Wisconsin for years.”

She continued: “You have Republicans who have engaged themselves for the entire Congress trying to redefine rape as only being forcible rape, defunding Planned Parenthood and family planning programs. The Lilly Ledbetter Act — the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act put teeth behind the notion that women deserve equal pay for equal work. That was the first bill the President Obama signed into law. The overwhelming majority of Republicans serving in Congress voted against it.”

“So, the focus of the Republican Party on turning back the clock for women really is something that is unacceptable and shows how callous and insensitive they are towards women’s priorities.”

House Republicans on Wednesday introduced a watered-down version of the Violence Against Women Act that diminishes protections for Native women, lacks provisions for the LGBT community and removes added visas for undocumented victims of violence.

The law was first passed in 1994 and then reauthorized in 2000 and 2005, all by bipartisan majorities.

Vice President Joe Biden, who drafted the original bill while serving as a senator, said last week that he couldn't understand why it had now become a partisan issue.

"The idea we’re still fighting about this in Congress, that this is even a debatable issue, is truly sad," the vice president lamented.

“No one should question whether this is needed,” Biden added. “It would have been bad if the law had never been passed. But imagine now, the message it sends if it is not reauthorized. Just ask what message it would send to every one of our daughters, every woman imprisoned in their home.”

(h/t: The Huffington Post)