Bloomberg’s $50 million attack on 2nd Amendment

April 17, 2014

Anti-gun leftist, feds & even your doctor want your weapons

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is not letting any grass grow under his resoled loafers now that he’s unemployed. Instead he‘s refocusing his efforts at restricting guns in America, and pledging at least $50 million to accomplish his goal.

Bloomberg, reputedly worth over $31 billion dollars —- ranking 10th on Forbes’ list of America’s Richest People —- has unsuccessfully tried in the past to wage a national campaign against guns. Now the Second Amendment restrictionist is launching a new gun control organization, ‘Everytown for Gun Safety,’ that he hopes can rival the mega status of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Bloomberg’s bottom line is expansion of background checks to prevent increasing numbers of law-abiding citizens from owning guns. He’s working hand-in-glove with the Obama administration which is stealthily at work creating the infrastructure for a universal gun registry. In budget proposals known as “Program Increases” for the FBI, Attorney General Eric Holder says: “This program enhancement will double the capacity of the existing NICS —- National Instant Check System.  These expansions are vital in ensuring that the NICS system can support a Universal Background Check requirement, which is expected to double gross NICS transactions.” Gun Owners of America‘s alert continues here.

Everytown’s mission statement, claims the effort is “a movement of Americans working together to end gun violence and build safer communities.”

Then comes the tirade:

Speaking of the NRA, Bloomberg bizarrely rants: “They say, ‘We don’t care. We’re going to go after you, If you don’t vote with us we’re going to go after your kids and your grandkids and your great-grandkids. And we’re never going to stop.’ We’ve got to make them afraid of us,” Bloomberg bellowed.

And if you think mature adult gun owners are safe from this lunacy, think again.

Health care attorney Marshall Kapp, director of the Center for Innovative Collaboration in Medicine and Law at Florida State University Medical School is of the opinion that doctors who treat older patients should routinely ask whether they have access to guns. He defends speaking with family members about confiscating weapons, saying “the physician’s right to engage in firearm-related inquiries could actually be characterized as a legally enforceable obligation.”

“If families are unwilling to cooperate, doctors may need to turn to the law for help,” Kapp said. “Failure to address firearm safety for seniors can be considered a form of neglect that should be reported to the Adult Protective Services agency since it arguably constitutes elder mistreatment.”

Kapp’s shocking report, “Geriatric Patients, Firearms, and Physicians,” was published September 2013 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.


Vindication for AZ Attorney General Tom Horne

April 15, 2014

Judge clears AG Horne in campaign finance case

After several days of trial and hearing evidence from both sides, administrative law judge Tammy Eigenheer has ruled that Yavapai County did not prove the case of illegal coordination with an independent expenditure committee during Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne’s 2010 campaign.

In her decision, Judge Eigenheer made note of the fact that the Yavapai County Attorney’s Office acknowledged it had no knowledge or evidence as to the content of phone conversations or the circumstances surrounding e-mails between Kathleen Winn, who headed the independent committee, ‘Business Leaders for Arizona,’ and Horne —- and instead drew inferences.

“It confirms what we’ve been saying all along. There never was any coordination,” Horne is quoted as saying. “Basically, I’m just going to continue doing what I’ve been doing — fighting for the people of Arizona, fighting to close our border, doing consumer protection — and fighting federal overreach.”

Monday’s legal decision by Judge Eigenheer is good news. Horne’s continued commitment to serve the citizens of the state of Arizona is what we have come to expect since he was first elected to the state legislature in 1997. He later served two terms as state Superintendent of Public Instruction before his election as Attorney General.

Attorney General Horne has personally and successfully argued cases before the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Arizona.


SCOTUS scores win for political free speech

April 3, 2014

Herman Cain correctly predicated a “left-wing hissy fit.” McCain doesn’t disappoint

In a major victory for the First Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a federal law limiting how much money a citizen may contribute to political campaigns during an election cycle. The limitation was initially imposed in 1971 and reworked several times before it was overhauled by the McCain/Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.    

Yes.  That McCain.

The Court’s five-to-four decision in McCutcheon v. FEC (read here) removes the 1971 limit on political speech.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders. Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades —- despite the profound offense such spectacles cause —- it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

“This is especially true for elections,” he wrote. The Supreme Court in 1971 held that “the First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.”

Predictably, Democrat Nancy Pelosi whined, “I’m concerned about what it means for our democracy. Our founders, they sacrificed their lives, their liberty, their sacred honor for a democracy: a government of the many, not a government of the money. It’s totally ridiculous. But that is the path that this court is on.”

Once again, Pelosi is wrong.  Campaign finance laws have been an incumbent protection racket. Their survival is threatened when newcomers have the ability to become more viable candidates. Pelosi joins the other leftists who are throwing tantrums over this

And while Republicans overwhelmingly applauded the victory for free speech, it was no surprise that John McCain came out against the decision. McCain, who co-sponsored the campaign finance law that restricted corporate donations to campaigns —- largely struck down by the Citizens United ruling —- released this written statement in which he emulated his Democrat cohorts:

“I was disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision today. While I have advocated for increasing the aggregate limits on individual contributions to candidates and party committees, I am concerned that today’s ruling may represent the latest step in an effort by a majority of the court to dismantle entirely the longstanding structure of campaign finance law erected to limit the undue influence of special interests on American politics. I predict that as a result of recent court decisions, there will be scandals involving corrupt public officials and unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions that will force the system to be reformed once again.”

There’s no way to improve on this comment on Best of Cain:

“Look on the bright side, Democrats. When you lose in November, you’ll have a brand new, ready-made, excuse. It’s not your disastrous, unpopular, policies and your atrocious President that are causing your failure.  It’s evil Republican money.  It won’t be true, but you can put it on a t-shirt and sell it to the sheep. It’ll be a new way to raise all that money you despise!”

Bingo!


JD Hayworth interviews AZ AG Tom Horne 9:30am today

March 21, 2014

Conservative duo starts Friday morning right

Be sure to watch as JD Hayworth interviews Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne this morning onAmerica’s Forum.”

Tune in at www.newsmaxtv.com. The program begins at approx. 9:30 AZ time.


AZ Gov. Jan Brewer won’t seek reelection… because she can’t

March 12, 2014

Although she’s played the re-election game for all the juice she can squeeze out of it, even declaring that there is “ambiguity” in the state Constitution regarding her ability to run for another term, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, announced today that she would not seek re-election.

“There does come a time to pass the torch of leadership,“ she said, “and after completing this term in office, I will be doing just that.”

In 2012 with a surge of bravado, Brewer told the daily, “I haven’t ruled it out, and I’ve been encouraged by people —- legal scholars and other people —- that it’s probably something that I ought to pursue.”

Because the Arizona Constitution specifically limits governors to two terms, Brewer, 69, had talked about circumventing the perimeters, since her first term came by appointment after then-governor Janet Napolitano, left to join the Obama administration. Brewer tried to make the case that although she served two terms, one of them was not an elected term and shouldn’t count.

But such a bit of gimmickry would have required a legal challenge to the Arizona Constitution —- since state law clearly permits statewide-elected officials to serve only two consecutive terms. Article 5, Section 1 of the Arizona Constitution states, “No member of the executive department after serving the maximum number of terms, which shall include any part of a term served, may serve in the same office until out of office for no less than one full term.”

Wannabe governor Christine Jones immediately jumped on the announcement by congratulating Brewer for her service. But odds favor Brewer, whose office is stacked high with McCain advisers, endorsing state treasurer Doug Ducey, another McCain ally. Ducey’s campaign website even boasts of their longstanding connection, revealing that he worked his way through ASU toiling at Hensley & Co., the local Anheuser-Busch distributorship owned by Cindy Hensley McCain.

Kyl’s already onboard with him. We’re betting McCain and Flake won’t be far behind.


Nearly 100 Floridians falsify information, vote illegally

March 11, 2014

 The 1992 Motor Voter law requires no proof of citizenship to register to vote

We are continually being told that reports of voter fraud are a non-issuea fabrication, at best; a means of voter suppression, at worst.

NBC News 2 in Florida found out differently as it decided to conduct its own two-month-long investigation. In some cases, potential jurors checked the box that they were non-citizens and unable to serve.  When their names were compared to the voter rolls, the NBC news investigative team got quite a surprise — or more correctly, nearly a hundred such surprises.

Here in Arizona, Attorney General Tom Horne has been relentless in his efforts to expose the existence of voter fraudeven personally arguing before the United States Supreme Court that Arizona should require voter registrants to provide evidence of citizenship.

Voter fraud is not unique to Florida, it is widespreadAs an example, this shocking video exposes the corruption in Minnesota.

For in-depth information on this serious issue, click on the links above.


Canadian homosexual activists vs. religious rights

March 3, 2014
In a nutshell, Canadian Faith McGregor is a lesbian who wanted a “businessmen’s haircut.” Late in 2012, she went to the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto, owned by Omar Mahrouk, a Muslim barber.  He follows Sharia law, which prohibits males touching women not related to them.

Within short order, a legal complaint was lodged with the government’s Human Rights Tribunal in Ontario, where McGregor demanded that Mahrouk give her a haircut.

The Toronto Sun‘s Ezra Levant wrote, In the past, human rights commissions have been a great ally to gay activists, since traditionally, these activists have complained against Christians. And white Christians are the one ethnic identity group that human rights commissions don’t value, and that multiculturalism doesn’t include.

In recent years, Canadian human rights commissions have weighed a complaint about a women’s-only health club that refused a pre-operative transsexual male who wanted to change in the locker rooms.

They’ve ordered bed and breakfasts owned by Christian families to take in gay couples. They’ve censored pastors and priests who have criticized same-sex marriage. Gays win, because it’s a test of who is most outraged and offended.”

One might expect that in the case of the Muslim barber, the homosexual activists had met their match — if the test is who can be the most offended or most politically correct.

Read how the issue was actually resolved months after the complaint was filed.

This sensible editorial, “In the great Toronto haircut debate, common sense should prevail,” ran in the Toronto Star. In Arizona, the state’s newspaper of record relentlessly used its editorial and reporting contrivance bully pulpit to promote bias against the faith-based.


Democrat AZ Rep wants felons to get automatic vote

February 7, 2014

State Rep. Martin J. Quezada, has a nifty new scheme for increasing the number of Democrat voters. The Avondale Democrat has sponsored HB 2132, which would automatically restore the right to vote to released prisoners who have been convicted of two or more felonies.

Quezada has more than a passing interest in the controversial topic. He’s an immigration and criminal defense lawyer whose practice also includes election law.  Like Barack Obama, he refers to himself as a “community activist.”

Current law (Title 13, Chapter 9) allows restoration of voting rights for first-time felons after completing probation and paying fines and restitution. Quezada’s bill intends to eliminate those pesky provisions, since he says the fines are an impediment to exercising good citizenship by voting.

Most Arizonans would likely agree that “good citizenship” is a commodity in short supply with those who have been convicted of numerous felonies — but that doesn‘t deter supporters of increasing the Democrat voter base.

Cronkite News, the left-leaning ASU Journalism School student team that fills in where the Arizona Republic’s dwindling number of actual reporters once  toiled, quotes the left-agendized Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based group that advocates for prison and sentencing reform. According to its estimates 200,000 felons in Arizona remain ineligible to voteThat’s enough to make any Democrat salivate.

The article featured obligatory interviews with the ACLU executive director who agrees voting rights should be automatically restored, and Donna Leone Hamm, founder of Middle Ground Prison Reform, who also sees voting as a “bridge for felons to rejoin society.”

She should know. Her husband, James Hamm, then a drug dealer, shot two men in the back of the head at point-blank range during a robbery in 1974. After his early release, he had his rights restored in 2001 and registered to vote the same day. He also took up a seat at the ASU Law School where he was admitted as a law student but not allowed to practice based on grounds of moral turpitude.

Arizona’s law-abiding citizens have every reason to regard the restoration of voting rights as a privilege — to be earned by fulfilling obligations outlined in state law.  HB 2132 should find its place in the round file.


Brnovich’s campaign ads violate code of conduct

February 5, 2014

Mark Brnovich is a candidate for Attorney General, recruited by McCain allies to challenge a conservative incumbent. Brnovich’s wife, Susan, is a Maricopa County Superior Court judge, appointed by Gov. Janet Napolitano in 2009.  Although liberal Napolitano reserved her appointments for kindred spirits, Judge Brnovich’s problem has to do with ethical violations rather than her associations. Susan M. Skibba Brnovich has appeared in her husband’s political commercials (one such video is linked here), in which she is identified as a former prosecutor. That’s true. However as a judge, she is prohibited from such activities. She’s been on the bench long enough to have at least a passing knowledge of the Canons of Ethics. Her husband Mark, a candidate for the state’s top law enforcement post, who purports himself to be a devoted family man, should not have encouraged his wife to engage in such a violation.

The Arizona Code of Judicial Conduct is very clear in citing which political activities judges are permitted to engage in (Page 35).

CANON 4

A  JUDGE OR CANDIDATE FOR JUDICIAL OFFICE SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN POLITICAL OR CAMPAIGN ACTIVITY THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INDEPENDENCE, INTEGRITY, OR IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY.

RULE 4.1. Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General

(A) A judge or a judicial candidate shall not do any of the following:

(1) act as a leader in, or hold an office in, a political organization;

(2) make speeches on behalf of a political organization or another candidate for public office;

(3) publicly endorse or oppose another candidate for any public office;

(4) solicit funds for or pay an assessment to a political organization or candidate, make contributions to any candidate or political organization in excess of the amounts permitted by law, or make total contributions in excess of fifty percent of the cumulative total permitted by law. See, e.g., A.R.S. § 16-905.

(5) actively take part in any political campaign other than his or her own campaign for election, reelection or retention in office;

(6) personally solicit or accept campaign contributions other than through a campaign committee authorized by Rule 4.4;

(7) use or permit the use of campaign contributions for the private benefit of the judge, the candidate, or others, except as provided by law;

(8) use court staff, facilities, or other court resources in a campaign for judicial office;

(9) make any statement that would reasonably be expected to affect the outcome or impair the fairness of a matter pending or impending in any court; or

(10) in connection with cases, controversies, or issues that are likely to come before the court, make pledges, promises, or commitments that are inconsistent with the impartial performance of the adjudicative duties of judicial office.

Comment 7 (page 36) is specific regarding a family member’s political activity or campaign for public office.

7. Although members of the families of judges and judicial candidates are free to engage in their own political activity, including running for public office, there is no “family exception” to the prohibition in paragraph (A)(3) against a judge or candidate publicly endorsing candidates for public office. A judge or judicial candidate must not become involved in, or publicly associated with, a family member’s political activity or campaign for public office. To avoid public misunderstanding, judges and judicial candidates should take and should urge members of their families to take reasonable steps to avoid any implication that the judge or judicial candidate endorses any family member’s candidacy or other political activity.

It hasn’t escaped the notice of political watchers that Brnovich’s first quarter filings show his donations far below what would be expected from one recruited by establishment elites. It was filed in the late hours of the Jan. 31, deadline, no doubt hoping it might escape notice. He dropped $2,000 of the weak total into his own campaign coffers, and nearly $10,000 was donated by his in-laws, the Skibba family. In actual donations from supporters, many state legislative district candidates have far exceeded Brnovich’s statewide fundraising.


Fed. judge assails traditional marriage as “irrational”

January 16, 2014

Liberal federal judge enacts social engineering, dismisses support of 76% of voters for traditional marriage as “irrational”

A federal judge has declared Oklahoma’s law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman to be “irrational” and well as unconstitutional. Read his 68-page Opinion and Order here.

“The Court holds that Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Terence Kern — as he emulated other courts engaged in in the liberal practice of fundamentally transforming the definition of marriage.

Oklahoma’s constitutional amendment was passed in 2004, shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that state’s constitution required recognition of same-sex marriages. The Oklahoma ban passed the state Senate by a vote of 38 to 7, and the state House, 92 to 4, making its way to the ballot.

Kern, age 70 and semi-retired, stepped down from the court, assuming senior status in January 2010, yet he was able to subvert the will of 76% of the state’s voters, substituting his judgment for that of 1,075,216 Oklahomans.

His  decision was in response to a lawsuit filed by two lesbian couples challenging Oklahoma’s law restricting marriage to a union between one man and one woman. He based his ruling on his conclusion that the Oklahoma ban “intentionally discriminates against same-sex couples desiring an Oklahoma marriage license without a legally sufficient justification [for the discrimination].”

Adding insult to injury, Kern opined that  Oklahomans who passed the constitutional amendment had engaged in “an arbitrary, irrational exclusion of just one class of Oklahoma citizens from a government benefit.”

Kern was nominated to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma in 1994 — one of 305 District Court judges appointed by Bill Clinton. He was confirmed by a voice vote, leaving no record of individual yeas or nays.

Oklahoma’s Republican Gov. Mary Fallin issued this blistering statement: “The people of Oklahoma have spoken on this issue. I support the right of Oklahoma’s voters to govern themselves on this and other policy matters. I am disappointed in the judge’s ruling and troubled that the will of the people has once against been ignored by the federal government.”

Ed Whelan’s Bench Notes written for National Review provide a brief but worthy analysis.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 288 other followers