Sheriff Arpaio trips, breaks shoulder

Sheriff Joe Arpaio broke his left shoulder earlier today.  He’s obviously on the mend. After a tender kiss from his wife Ava, here he is giving an update:

 

We wish our Maricopa County Sheriff the very best and a rapid recovery.  We need this good man on the job!

Follow him on Twitter@RealSheriffJoe

Read the AZ Family News 3 report.

SSM Political Correctness reigns: Where’s Johnny Mc?

An amicus brief, or friend-of-the-court, has been filed with the U. S. Supreme Court, deceptively arguing that same-sex marriage (SSM) promotes family values by allowing children raised by such couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”

As of Tuesday, 75 Republicans signed on, petitioning the Supreme Court to grant constitutional protections to SSM. Hollingsworth v. Perry is the appeal by proponents of California’s Proposition 8, which upholds the state‘s Defense of Marriage Act.  This is the amicus brief filed in support of the traditional definition of marriage by faith-based organizations.

In 2008, Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 102, the Marriage Protection Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, by a vote of 56-44 percent. At the time, the crafty word-twisters at the Arizona Republic, defined the issue as the “Gay Marriage Ban.”

Yet, sticking a finger in the eye of Arizonans, in 2010, while their husband and father was a candidate, both Cindy and Meghan McCain signed on as poster women (scroll down for their photos) with the NOH8 campaign (No Hate, get it?) promoting the very issue that had been voted down in their home state.

In making the brief’s argument that SSM bans are discriminatory, the signatories are at odds with the House Republican leadership, which has authorized the defense of  the 1996 marriage law. Federal law defines marriage as a legal union of a man and a woman. As expected, Barack Obama has weighed in, urging the overturning of the law.

Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act,  was passed by California voters in Nov. 2008, overturning a ruling by the California Supreme Court which had authorized same-sex unions.

Oral arguments in ” Hollingsworth v. Perry are scheduled for March 26.

Jon Huntsman, former Utah Governor and unable-to-gain-traction presidential candidate, doing his best imitation of an anything-goes guy, writes of his acceptance of SSM, illogically calling the issue a conservative cause: “The party of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan has now lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The marketplace of ideas will render us irrelevant, and soon, if we are not honest about our time and place in history,”  Huntsman says.

The Roman Empire collapsed in large measure due to the breakdown of economic, cultural and social institutions — in effect decaying from within. Huntsman and the Republicans who have abandoned their reason at the altar of political correctness, need to reacquaint themselves with the Judeo-Christian, biblical-based values that define the greatness of this nation.

Released illegals raise new ?? as DHS official resigns

Obama and Napolitano in the dark or was this release actually authorized?

After releasing an unspecified number — said to be in the “hundreds” — of jailed foreign nationals illegally in the United States, Gary Mead, the Homeland Security Department official in charge of the agency’s immigration enforcement and removal operations has abruptly resigned. In his role with DHS, Mead oversaw a $2.5 billion budget.

Between 1974 and 2006, Mead held various positions in the U.S. Marshals Service. From 2008 to 2009, Mead was a self-employed criminal justice and immigration consultant. He must have been providing complementary consulting services to illegals since his business lasted less than a year.

A spokesman for Barack Obama claimed today that the White House was never consulted in this release action, although the illegals were described as “low-risk, non-criminal detainees.” Since all were facing deportation, that raises the question of exactly how “low-risk” they are. ICE’s recent policy involved detention of those who committed additional criminal acts once entering the U.S. in violation of the law.

Previously, federal spending cuts were given as the reason for releasing the illegal aliens from jails across the country. Who and what to believe? The Obama administration’s believability record is non-existent.

This is what WND reports.

AZ República hearts Señor Juan McPhony, extols illegal releases

The amnesty devotees at the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) are in a congratulatory mode. The object of their editorial affection is none other than the “senator [who] showed political moxie.”

That, of course would be John McCain, the doddering dodger who nearly got run out of several Arizona towns as he took his amnesty show on the road last week. Readers will recall that after facing angry crowds at Town Hall meetings — just preceding his chummy tête-à-tête south of the border with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto — promising a path to citizenship for Nieto’s own citizens, McCain actually said “I’ve seen a shift in attitude….”

There’s not a chance he came away from those meetings with enraged constituents drawing that ridiculous conclusion, but when did reality matter to John McCain?

McCain’s new senate underling Jeff Flake rates editorial praise, also. The two of them are colluding with other pro-amnesty hustlers known as the Gang of 8, (although Flake managed to work in a short side trip to Cuba to shore up his creds in the Communist island). But back in March 2011, that was not the case. As his McMentor strolled the border claiming he wanted to “complete the danged fence,” Flake was busy shifting into campaign backpedal form. Clearly dismayed editorialist Doug MacEachern called Flake’s change of heart on legalizing millions of illegal aliens “jarring,” and declared Flake a mere “politician” — no longer a “statesman” — for emulating John McCain’s campaign border epiphany during his last senatorial campaign.

Now happily able to blame the mandatory federal budget cuts of sequestration, Janet Napolitano, Homeland INsecurity chieftain, has begun releasing illegal aliens held in detention centers across the country. An ICE spokesman farcically claims they will “be placed on an appropriate, more cost-effective form of supervised release,” monitored either by electronic device or by being required to check in with ICE by phone or in person.

Such clearly illogical reasoning begs the question, “How are committed lawbreakers, who hold our sovereign nation and its laws in the lowest of regard, going to be held on ‘supervised release’ and ‘required’ to do anything?”

The editorial concludes: “McCain didn’t take the easy way. He showed the kind of leadership that is essential to achieving immigration reform. Bravo Senator.”

Rational thinkers beware. Such language carries a high probability of causing gag reflexes to unexpectedly shift into high gear.

Proposed Phx. ordinance raises valid concerns & Update

Discrimination?  Toward whom?

A new ordinance being rushed through by Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton is being broadly characterized as a non-discrimination law that provides protections for homosexual Phoenix residents. Yet the city’s lengthy Municipal Code already provides protections to residents based on race, gender, national origin and religion.

Faith-based organizations such as Center for Arizona Policy and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix see this fast-tracked issue through a much different lens. On Monday, the Diocese issued this statement clarifying its opposition. “As written, the proposed ordinance could be interpreted as forcing people to actively endorse, support and promote actions and behaviors that violate their own personal, deeply held religious beliefs,” the Diocese states. “We call upon the Phoenix City Council to acknowledge and protect the conscience rights of all people to live and act according to their faith and values.”

Using the pretext of “prohibiting discrimination” against people on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression, this poorly crafted proposed ordinance holds devastating legal and ethical consequences for Phoenix residents.

More commonly known as the “Bathroom Bill,” the proposed city regulation presents serious problems for every church, pastor, parent, and small business owner within the city of Phoenix.

Faith leaders have questioned whether the ordinance fully exempts religious organizations, as city staff and supporters claim. They also have raised significant concerns that it would allow transgender men to share bathrooms with young girls and women.

Phoenix District 6 City Councilman Sal DiCiccio opposes the measure, saying “Mayor Stanton needs to push back on this radical proposal he’s got, this is his proposal, he wants to get it through and he is trying to cram it through.”

CitizenLink, associated with Focus on the Family, provides in-depth information on this issue.

Mayor Stanton and his wife Nicole were recently featured in Echo Magazine — a homosexual publication — based on the special relationship they have fostered with that community, even marching in Phoenix’ Gay Pride parade. The pair was honored as the magazine’s 2012 Man and Woman of the Year — the first “straight” pair so warmly acknowledged.

The council is scheduled to meet today at 2:30 pm at the Orpheum Theatre, 203 West Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85003. (map) The public is invited to participate.

In a flashy display of its own pro-homosexual bias, the daily newspaper heralds the passage of this unnecessary and problematic ordinance with the following Page One headline: Phoenix OKs ban on gay bias.

The clearly one-sided report describes the vote “to broadly outlaw discrimination against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender residents,” peppered with numerous quotes from the homosexual lobbies and descriptions of their advocates in attendance.  The crowd estimated at 500, included those who disagreed with this expansive measure. Called “opponents” throughout the article, they received little coverage, although the latter portion of the report acknowledged  that boos and expletives were hurled at Councilman Sal DiCiccio by the supposedly dispirited contingent.

Although there was no tangible evidence of bias presented, the vote of the supposedly non-partisan city council went mainly along party lines in a 5 – 3 vote.  Republican councilmen Sal DiCiccio, Bill Gates and Jim Waring voted against the measure. RINO Thelda Williams joined Democrat Council members Michael Johnson, Daniel Valenzuela, and openly homosexual Tom Simplot, who united with Mayor Greg Stanton in support.  Michael Nowakowski, who has previously expressed his backing of the measure was not in attendance.

Promotion of homosexual issues have stepped front and center with the Arizona Republic since January 2008, when flagrant homosexual Randy Lovely took over as chief editor and VP of News at the daily newspaper. Under his guidance, in August 2010, the newspaper editorially endorsed same sex “marriage.”

Obamanation on sequestration: He can’t have it both ways

BHO manufactured this crisis he now calls “a meat cleaver approach”

In the midst of the blame game and threats emanating from the White House regarding sequestration — or automatic spending cuts — set to kick in March 1, 2013, let’s remember one thing: The idea originated with Barack Obama. 

He used the issue as a political hammer to force Republican agreement as part of The Budget Control Act of 2011, establishing the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction of 12 House and Senate members to deal with cuts of approximately $1.5 trillion dollars over 10 years. The bi-partisan committee, on which former Arizona Senator Jon Kyl was a member, failed in its mission of writing deficit-reduction legislation.

Obama vowed to trim the budget Nov. 21, 2011, when he said this regarding Congress and automatic spending cuts:

“My message to them is simple: No. I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending. There will be no easy off ramps on this one.”

This is Obama this past Saturday, February 23, blaming Republicans:

NewsMax’ Bradley Blakeman provides up-to-date, cogent analysis here.

McCain, leftist pals, denounce Oscar contender

Liberal senators with too much time on their hands, intimidate Academy Awards

Just when we hoped to have heard the last of John McCain for a while, we read that pushing sweeping amnesty proposals are not his only interest. He has joined forces with liberal Senators Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin (what else is new?).

In this Dec. 19, letter to Sony Pictures Entertainment, the studio distributing the movie “Zero Dark Thirty” — they denounce the premise of the film. The contender for the Oscar has been highjacked by the leftist politics of torture. The trio of egotistical grandstanders wants to make it clear that what they consider loathsome interrogation techniques that led to the CIA’s capture and killing of Usama bin Laden are beyond reprehensible,  regardless of the bloody crimes for which he was responsible.

The film, which should rightfully be in the running for best picture at tonight’s Oscar awards is being snubbed, as the Academy Awards drops Kathryn Bigelow from consideration for best director.

We urge you to read this important commentary “Hollywood Forgets 9/11,” by Daniel Henninger, deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page.

McCain: Better reception in Mexico than Arizona

Those who know him best, like him least

After being met with hostile receptions at his Arizona Town Halls, John McCain decided to take his amnesty show down the road — a little further south.  The Los Angeles Times reports that McCain was in Mexico yesterday, enjoying a more convivial meeting with President Enrique Pena Nieto and other officials, where he praised the government for its commitment to security. The AZ República, the state’s major newspaper, has chosen to ignore the meeting.

At the conclusion of the closed-door tête-à-tête McCain declared he was “convinced” that Pena Nieto was “committed to taking action against the drug cartels.”

Is McCain hallucinating?

Via Congress’ generous squandering of American taxpayer dollars, a money train of nearly $ 2 billion has been funneled to Mexico, ostensibly to fight its organized crime cartels. Gang and cartel led deaths, the flow of drugs and destruction have not abated.

The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), previously in control for seven decades from 1929 to 2000 — with a 12-year hiatus — and under whose banner Pena Nieto ran, was marked by a relaxed interaction with drug cartels.

The Los Angeles Times reported that after meeting with Pena Nieto, McCain held a news conference saying they had a “substantive discussion about the immigration policy debate in Washington.” But McCain, who heads the notorious Gang of 8 senators pushing amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S., remained unspecific regarding details of his talk with the Mexican president on the matter.

“I think the president very appropriately began our conversation by saying he doesn’t want to tell the U.S. Congress what they should do,” McCain said. An odd comment given the fact that the Mexican government has long played the key role of enthusiastic co-conspirator to illegals’ passage north. In 2005, Mexico’s Foreign Ministry published a thirty-two page illustrated comic book, “The Guide for the Mexican Migrant,” providing maps and directions to the most expedient routes and safest passageways, detailing where water stations and supplies have been left by well-meaning but misguided do-gooders. American Patrol shows the guide, page by page here.

Then a Congressman representing Arizona, J.D. Hayworth’s reaction was “more astonishment than anger that a government that claims to want to be an active partner in preventing illegal immigration is an active and willing accomplice to engendering more illegal immigration.” An enlightening article, including this quote, appeared in Human Events.  It was written by former Colorado Congressman, Tom Tancredo.

Although Arizona citizens statewide expressed their fury with McCain at several Town Halls in the past few days, the delusional senator configured the heated verbal attacks as agreement: “I’ve seen a shift in attitude, a realization that we can’t forever have 11 million people living in the shadows.”

Fantasy and facts blur in the mind of John McCain.

Rep. Kwasman leads opposition to ObamaCare in AZ

The Arizona Capitol Times posts an excellent commentary “Medicaid expansion would be a ‘nightmare’ for Arizona.”

State Rep. Adam Kwasman, (R-LD11) is a freshman legislator who not only comprehends the seriousness of the situation, but explains the massive problem in easily understandable terms.

It’s refreshing to see a legislator follow through on a campaign promise, despite pressure from a governor of his own party. This is a guy to watch.

Ready to cede your voting rights over to Mary Rose?

Under the guise of standing against the recall being waged against newly reelected Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio by a pack of radical ethnic activists, East Valley Tribune columnist Bill Richardson takes a sharp left turn, veering into political La-la land.

He concludes his opinion piece venturing into the hazy territory of Home Rule. Slogging through his commentary guarantees you’ll come away even hazier.

Richardson, not keen on our current sheriff, but opposed to the recall, appears to think there is a better system. He’d like to cajole us to give up our right to vote. The so-called Home Rule he advocates does just that.  Maricopa County citizens, all of whom come equipped with voting rights granted us by our founding documents, would willingly cede their votes over to the Board of Supervisors, who would then select our sheriff for us.  Neat and clean.  Not even a stubby pencil or pesky ballot need touch our hands.

As the term is currently used, Home Rule, which must be re-approved by voters every four years, is an administrative item granting cities flexibility in setting their own budgets, apart from rules specified by the state   What Richardson doesn’t reveal is that the county-wide Home Rule scheme he advocates would remove our right to vote for all county offices.  The argument for this bitter pill invariably begins with a discussion of the county recorder.  Who is the recorder? What does that individual do? Why is the post elective?

Of great significance is the fact that the U.S. Constitution singles out the right to vote more often than any other rights — five times.

To make his case, Richardson’s not averse to tweaking the facts, as he ticks off a list of sheriffs dating back to 1968. Among those he considers unqualified for the post are candidates with a vast array of law enforcement experience — including Joe Arpaio whose impressive résumé is a standout, by any standards.

Richardson contends “Home Rule would allow the Board of Supervisors to function like a city council and the sheriff would be hired and fired based on experience, education and a successful professional track record instead of winning a popularity contest.”

Fortunately, it’s the voting citizens, exercising their judgment, who are entrusted with the decision making as they cast their ballots — in effect hiring and firing. The same argument could be made for every office where candidates stand for election. If we are ready to turn over our votes for county officers to the Board of Supervisors, will city, state and federal offices be next on this arrogant agenda’s chopping block?  It’s a sure bet most citizens would opt to keep this most basic freedom — their right to vote. And few would agree to turn their rights over to unsavory Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox.