Aging small fry used against Bill Montgomery’s Supreme Court appt

August 13, 2019

There’s a new, albeit pathetic arrow, in the quiver of the leftist newspaper’s relentless campaign to scuttle Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery’s appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court. Since Montgomery made the short list, the partisan war against him has revved into high gear.

Gov. Doug Ducey has approximately 6 weeks to name the replacement to the seat of recently retired state Supreme Court Justice John Pelander.

Republican Montgomery was initially elected to lead the prosecutor’s office in the nation’s fourth most populous county in 2010, bringing a résumé of impressive credentials. A West Point graduate, decorated Gulf War veteran, former deputy county attorney and a professional prosecutor, he has dedicated his personal and professional life to serving others.

Though Montgomery’s credentials makes others pale in comparison, he has attracted a distinctly marginal detractor described in the newspaper’s Page One headline as a “son.” For a man in his 60s that’s more of a put-down than what he’s maliciously trying to serve to Montgomery. The “son” is the grandpa-aged child of former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. A RINO apple who didn’t fall far from his maternal tree — Sandra O’Connor reveled in being the swing vote frequently siding with the high court’s Democrats — Scott  thinks Montgomery is “too political” to be an effective Arizona Supreme Court Justice — an absurdity on it’s face.

Prior to Scott’s mother being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, she also had a “political career.” Sandra O’Connor campaigned and was elected to the Arizona state senate, and later (prior to the current system of judicial selection) campaigned, ran and won a seat on the Maricopa County Superior Court as a Republican. But she was sufficiently left-leaning enough for liberal Democrat Bruce Babbitt, that the then-governor appointed her to the Arizona Court of Appeals in 1979. That fact alone should have given President Reagan pause.

Unfortunately, she was able to con President Reagan who nominated her as the first woman on the U.S. Supreme Court, where she delighted in being the swing vote, regularly aligning with Democrats. Reagan knew the O’Connor’s as friends of his Arizona in-laws.

In 2012, O’Connor’s son was the appropriately distrusted GOP Legislative District 28 chairman. At the time SRAZ wrote,Dist. 28 (formerly 11) recertifies its RINO status Update: O’Connor responds.”

A few other posts to bring you up to date:

 March 24, 2009: Sandra O’Connor: Case closed

Oct. 5, 2009: O’Connor denounces more conservative court, regrets her rulings “dismantled

Feb. 19, 2016: Sandra O’Connor comes clean

March 28, 2018: Foul-mouthed radical leftist wins Sandra Day O’Connor award

Advertisements

Venomous column signals bent of Republic’s new ownership 

August 11, 2019

The steady decline of the Hillary-endorsing Arizona Republic appears to have exacerbated with its recent acquisition by Gatehouse. The newspaper was actually founded in 1890 as the Arizona Republican, a name it kept for nearly half a century. Later, the then-conservative newspaper flourished under the ownership of Eugene and Nina Pulliam, changing its direction after their deaths.

The best indication of the course being taken is the massive photo of an elephant’s backside atop this headline: “I leave GOP as it turns its back on what it stood for.”

The “Your Turn guest column,” a shifty vehicle for securing free editorials, is written by a Mesa immigration lawyer with the incongruous name of Yasser Sanchez. A dichotomy of complexities, he’s also a graduate of BYU.

As our astute readers have likely guessed, President Donald Trump is at the core of Sanchez’ complaints. Among Sanchez’ litany of criticisms is what he refers to by the left’s favored contrived term of “nativism.” “Nationalism,” a reliable indicator of love of country and patriotism is also the recipient of his ire. According to Sanchez, such feelings are pejoratives.

The lawyer needs to revisit our nation’s founding documents. Included in his litany of things that “sicken him” are the freedoms delineated in the Second Amendment. He is also “repulsed” by President Trump.

Sanchez, who says he came to the United States as a child with his parents doesn’t clarify if they entered legally, but he misuses the termundocumented immigrantswhen describing illegal aliens, the legally correct, precise term used by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The high court has decided numerous cases involving federal immigration law using “illegal alien” — as Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, capably points out in this brief column.

Sanchez also has an aversion to the term “invasion,” though it would be interesting to know what he calls hundreds of thousands of people who illegally breach our sovereign border on their way to accessing American taxpayer funded benefits while flipping off border agents.

As pointed out in this Media Research Center’s now older though still accurate report,The Liberal Media: Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It.”

The policy of insulting its few remaining readers that brought Gannett and the industry to it’s knees, is obviously the path the that will be followed by the newspaper’s new ownership.

If you still subscribe, save your money. The insults will keep coming.  Why fund them?


Why wasn’t Obama blamed for Sandy Hook, other massacres?

August 6, 2019

In the wake of the two horrific mass shootings this past weekend, the drumbeat emanating from the left is as reliable as day following night. Regardless of how they report or discuss the unrelated slaughters of innocents, the blame is always placed at the feet of President Donald Trump.  Barack Obama was in office from Jan. 20, 2009 to Jan. 20, 2017, during which time numerous gun related killings occurred. The inconceivably horrific Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in which 26 people were killed, including 20 six and seven year-old children, occurred two weeks into Obama’s second term.

He was never blamed.

The Arizona Republic continues on it’s politicizing rampage today:

Few things rev up radical leftwing columnist EJ Montini more than elected members of congress offering sympathy in the form of prayers or even as in the case of atheist Democrat Sen. Kyrsten Sinema tweeting her “heart is with the people of the people of El Paso.” He derides Republicans, Congressman Andy Biggs’ and Sen. Martha McSally’s responses, calling them “lame.” What hater Montini actually wants is total obliteration of the Second Amendment.

Racist Elvia Diaz, the bigoted Linda Valdez replacement, devotes a column to asking, “Why is evil by whites excused as mental illness?”

Syndicated Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, a Trump-hater extraordinaire whose column appears in today’s Arizona Republic, writes, “Republicans have trapped us in dark age. “  It begins with these incendiary words:

“The Republican Party is the modern-day equivalent of the medieval church. It fights science. It protects ignorance. Above all, it embraces a lunatic reading of the Second Amendment so that any nut can buy a weapon that can kill a maximum number of people in a minimum amount of time.”

The horrific Boston Marathon bombing occurred on April 15, 2013, celebrated as Patriots’ Day in Massachusetts, and occurred under Barack Obama‘s watch. Two Muslim brothers who immigrated with their parents from the former Soviet republic of Kyrgyzstan diligently crafted homemade pressure cooker bombs set to detonate near the finish line. Three people, two young women and a little boy were killed, and hundreds of others were wounded, including 16 who lost limbs, one a 7-year old girl.

There were no calls to ban pressure cookers and no blame hurled at Obama — nor should there have been.

Rational Americans should question the radical left’s double standard.


AZ Republic sows hatred, blames mass murders on Trump

August 5, 2019

Count on the failing Arizona Republic to ensure its even more rapid demise. The troubled, Hillary-endorsing newspaper appears unable to control itself, even when its own existence is at stake. Today’s spew from the “editorial board” following the El Paso massacre is a case in point. The headline, “Trump cannot help El Paso heal; his words ensured that,” blames the President for the senseless killing spree committed by an obviously troubled, 21-year-old domestic terrorist. His actions were replicated within hours at a bar in Dayton, Ohio, by another young murderer who also gunned down his own sister.

The newspaper devoted a nearly full page report to printing the names and bios of five of the six Mexican national victims — one remains unidentified — among the 20 killed in El Paso. American citizens rated no such coverage.

Topping the disingenuous tripe passing for an editorial are these words: Trump’s use of ‘invasion’ to describe Mexican-American immigrants created an atmosphere of hate.

Let’s cut to the chase.  America is being invaded. When hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens caravan into our sovereign nation, it is nothing short of an invasion. Actual immigrants use our generous system to gain legal access to our country. Those who breach our border in violation of our laws have neither respect nor love for the United States. If they truly seek asylum, Central Americans would claim it in Mexico, the first country they enter. But Mexico doesn’t offer the benefits they can readily access in the USA, nor does it want them.

The editorial’s online version extensively quotes Peter Simi a Trump-hating liberal associate professor of sociology at Chapman University — currently working on a book examining the domestic front in the “war on terror” boorishly titled: “Sting: Inside the FBI’s Provocation of Terror.” 

Simi failed miserably attempting to link the Trump administration to connections with and effect on white supremacists and neo-Nazi propaganda. He added that Trump senior advisor Stephen Miller followed and retweeted David Duke, omitting the fact that Miller, a descendant of Russian immigrants escaping persecution in the early 1900’s, is Jewish, hardly a Nazi sympathizer.

Simi deceptively rants, “Normally, when someone from the Republican party is elected President, they’re probably not going to receive a lot of active support from white supremacists. White supremacists over the years have become disconnected from mainstream politics. With Trump, it seems to have galvanized them and given them some hope for being able to utilize the system.”

“There’s this pot that’s been simmering, and he pulled the lid off and gave permission in some ways for people to act on their angers, frustration, fears, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism and everything else.”

In his blatant attempt to link President Trump to anti-Semitism, this agendized goon neglects crucial points. Trump is the loving father, father-in-law and grandfather of orthodox Jews, Ivanka, her husband Jared Kushner and their three children. He is a resolute supporter of Israel, following through on his campaign promise to support moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, and has maintained a strong relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who leads the lone democracy in the Middle East. To no one’s surprise, Simi never mentions the anti-Semitic spew that routinely emanates from members of the radical Democrat freshman congressional members now known as “The Squad.”

The desperate Arizona Republic, now a homeless vagrant on borrowed time, is dying, vomiting lies with its last gasps and shamelessly providing cover to others of its ilk. Save your money and sanity. If you are among the dwindling number of subscribers, ditch the newspaper, which is nothing more than a purveyor of deception.


Cindy Hensley McCain’s misplaced sympathy

July 28, 2019

Dead APS customers have “impacted Don personally”

Cindy Hensley McCain has been moved to come to the defense of the Chairman of the Board and CEO of Arizona Public Service — a subsidiary of Pinnacle West Capital Corp. — claiming authorship of a foolishly insulting ‘My Turn’ editorial in the failing Arizona Republic newspaper, her husband’s personal public relations vehicle.

What would cause her (or more likely a surrogate) to write, “Maligned Don Brandt of APS is a good and decent man”? She refers to him as “a community leader called to serve a greater good,” and, of course, drawing a parallel to her late husband, gifted deity status by the same newspaper. Brandt eulogized McCain during at least one of his three funerals, whose self-prepared guest list pointedly excluded President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania.

Acknowledging, “Donald Brandt, the head of APS, is a long, dear friend of John and mine,” and enumerating his many business awards, Hensley & Co. Anheuser-Busch beer heiress Cindy takes exception to the loud voices raised in protest of the utility’s policies that allowed electricity to be cut to the homes of elderly residents, resulting in gruesome heat-related deaths.

Responding to citizen outrage, Arizona Corporation Commission regulators recently imposed a summertime ban on disconnecting home customers following the latest such death of a Arizona Public Service Co. customer in Sun City West after her power was cut off for nonpayment of $51. The families of two other customers who similarly died have won undisclosed judgments against the utility.

Cindy‘s praise includes these inane words:

“And because I have seen Don’s kindness (during her husband‘s final illness), I know the recent tragedies that have befallen our community have impacted Don personally.

We all mourn the loss of life, and I hope he doesn’t mind my words on his behalf.”

After the deservedly bad press he’s been getting, “Don,” the exceedingly well compensated, high dollar donor to your husband’s campaigns and the McCain Institute, won’t mind a bit, Cindy.


AZ Supreme Court: Judiciary by mob rule? Let’s hope not & Update

July 26, 2019

ACLU thugs stage rowdy street protest against stellar AZ Supreme Court applicant

Today the state Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will interview nine applicants vying to fill a vacancy on the Arizona Supreme Court brought about by the retirement of Justice Scott Bales 

Filling judicial vacancies on the participating trial courts, both divisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is usually a dignified, orderly procedure, following constitutional guidelines. The 16-member commissions include both public and attorney members, representing various political parties and on the appellate level, diverse counties. They vet the applicants and select those they will interview. Following the interviews, commissions are constitutionally mandated to send a list of not more than two-thirds of one political party to the governor who makes the final selection.

Among the current supreme court applicants (read their applications), Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, a West Point graduate and military officer has a background that, to most observers, would appear stellar. This is not intended to diminish other applicants, but to point to his prominence bringing out the rowdy protesters. The left-wing Arizona Republic newspaper described the repeatedly elected Montgomery as a “controversial Republican leader,” conveniently omitting how he excelled despite family adversity, graduated law school with high honors and rose to lead an esteemed prosecutor’s office with over 1,000 employees, managing a budget of approximately $100 million, while contributing time to community activities and raising a family.

He was recently the subject of a raucous ACLU-led mob of thugs assembled outside his office, yelling, “Block Bill! Block Bill!,” taking him to task for his views which are far more mainstream than theirs. A similar sized crowd of admirers held signs stating their support. Montgomery ably addresses his publicly stated views on issues that affect Arizonans on Question Number 29 of his application:

Describe any additional professional experience you would like to bring to the Commission’s attention: As a publicly elected official, I have had to ensure that the political dimensions of the Office never interfere with the obligation to seek justice in all the matters that Arizona law requires me to address. While I may engage in debate over various public policy matters that intersect with the duties and responsibilities of the office I serve in, I have never let politics affect the decisions I have to make. First and foremost in my mind is the constant realization that I have to set an example for the men and women of the Office. If I am to expect civil attorneys and prosecutors to base their decisions on objective information and argue from facts, then I must do the same. The approach to deciding cases of statewide impact for a Supreme Court Justice reflects a similar reality. While controversy may swirl about a pending case, the members of the Court must stay focused on the matter before them and on the facts and the law to be applied. Additionally, I have experienced the necessity for ignoring the political rhetoric that often flows from advocating for a position different than that of various special interest groups, whether it involves criminal justice policy or ballot initiatives.  I have the practical experience of not letting political differences interfere with my obligation to work with fellow county officials or with fellow criminal justice system stakeholders in Maricopa County, independent of political affiliation or their side of an issue.  While high volume criticism, regardless of the justification or lack thereof, may be a part of the political dimension of the job, I have never let it define how I work to maintain the public’s confidence in our civil, criminal, and juvenile justice systems. This understanding of the nature of my position and the work I have engaged in over the last eight plus years gives me a greater sensitivity for the apolitical nature of the judiciary and the fact that the public policy matters I have engaged in are for the Executive and Legislative branches.  In order to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and to serve honorably as an Arizona Supreme Court Justice, I recognize I must forego all such activity and I actually look forward to pursuing a new challenge in doing so.

Arizonans would be well represented having a man of Montgomery’s background and caliber selected for the high court. Caving to the loudest, contrived voices is not a recipe for excellence. Thuggery should not be a factor in deciding who sits on Arizona’s Supreme Court.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery was on the list of seven applicants sent to Gov. Doug Ducey, following a 10-2 vote. Chief Justice Robert Brutinel, who chaired the commission, chose to abstain from balloting. The other finalists are:

Sean Brearcliffe, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Kent Cattani, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Maria Elena Cruz, (Democrat) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

David Euchner, (Libertarian) a Pima County Public Defender.

Randall Howe, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Andrew Jacobs, (Democrat) a partner at Snell & Wilmer law firm.


Dying AZ Republic begs for subscribers with last gasps

July 23, 2019

…as it continues to insult its few remaining readers

To be charitable, it must take more than a small amount of grit to admit that you are looking doom in the eye. Still, it’s not easy to be benevolent to an entity that is responsible for waging war on people and issues that exemplify the best our state and nation have to offer.

Reading the pathetic plea for new subscribers by Greg Burton, the Arizona Republic’s newly hired executive editor, evoked feelings akin to watching a fly trying to wrangle its way out of a sticky spider’s web. The onlooker knows full well the imminent future in store for the fly, but it remains impossible to overt one‘s eyes. And after the cruel fate being historically replicated, its difficult not to wonder why the fly went to its demise without learning to avoid the trap.

The Hillary-endorsing newspaper, ignoring her lies and scandals, has waged relentless, multi-pronged attacks on President Donald Trump, either forgetting or determining as irrelevant, that he won all of Arizona’s electoral votes. If not blinded by rabid anti-Trumpism, his popularity would not have been difficult to discern based solely on the massive and exuberant turnout at his Arizona rallies.

In his short tenure, this is not Greg Burton’s first bite at the begging-for-subscribers apple. Earlier this month he began his plea by extolling the gender and ethnic diversity in the newsroom, as if such factors determine excellence. His offensive premise is only “people of color” can relate to “other people of color.”

He wrote, “We’ve dedicated ourselves to improving diversity as we recruit and retool. In 2018 and 2019, we rebuilt the newsroom to 30% people of color. As I write this, we’re at 31%.”

Following that brilliance to its logical conclusion, as an imperfect white male, Burton should be jobless again in record time.

His most recent plea actually states:

“At every point, journalists on assignment for The Arizona Republic stood on the shoulders of subscribers. That’s where we stand today. In return, our promise is to chronicle the best of Arizona, expose the worst and deeply examine the issues that matter most to you.

The future of our business depends on more than casual readers, though – we need loyal, paying subscribers to continue our mission.

To reward that commitment to our journalism, we’re rolling out a new program this week in which we publish a portion of our work exclusively for subscribers.”

Translated, Burton’s promise to “expose the worst,” means the newspaper will continue to brutalize President Trump and endorse Democrats for state and county offices.

For these ongoing insults and its vow to “continue to investigate police shootings” —  as if police are marauding gang members, rather than public protectors — the aptly nicknamed Arizona Repulsive continually hikes its subscription rates, while delivering fewer pages and content written by ASU student interns lacking editors. They are taught early on that the politically correct words “immigrant” or “undocumented immigrant” should be applied to illegal aliens. The U.S. Supreme Court, which has decided numerous cases involving federal immigration law, uses the correct, precise legal term “illegal alien,” as noted by Hans von Spakovsky, a Senior Legal Fellow with the Heritage Foundation.

In a nod to its aging readers, today’s edition of the emaciated daily — in both size and content —  has seven full page ads for hearing aids. It also engages in propagandizing them, as in a column today in which the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen refers to President Trump using these incendiary words: “He is the most un-American of all American presidents, a boorish man who has erased the distance between the mob and the speaker. He is both at the same time.”

 Is it any wonder the newspaper is dying?