Leftist AZ newspaper works to purge elected Republicans

May 23, 2016

Routinely calls on elected Republicans to resign

The newspaper of record in the state of Arizona is auditioning for a new gig as its readership is dwindling to non-existence.  The remaining crew — few can legitimately be called journalists — have found their niche in despotism.

Its latest trick is an attempt to seize power by demanding office holders not of their liking step down.  The newspaper has even advocated for appointment rather than elections to political posts.

The folks at the newspaper recoil from Republican voters having their say, opting instead for open primaries, where the top two vote getters — which they hope are both Democrats — vie against one another.  Recently columnist Robert Robb pondered why the state treasurer was an elective office. Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio has long been in their stand-down sights, marginalized at every turn. Longtime Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell “must resign” due to long lines on Election Day. Secretary of State Michele Reagan is ridiculed as “inept” by left-wing  partisan E.J. Montini. His fellow traveler, columnist Laurie Roberts mocked Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for not postponing the May 17 election due to a snafu with the publicity pamphlets getting mailed out in a timely manner. The state legislature is continually accused of nefarious schemes. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas has been the subject of ongoing insidious insults and a failed recall attempt.

The list of those unworthy of staying in office is long and decidedly partisan, since the elected officers they love to hate are invariably Republicans — most often conservatives.

An editorial preceding Arizona’s March 22, 2016 presidential preference primary bared the newspaper‘s agenda clearly with the headline urging voters to “Reject Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Vote John Kasich instead.” Trump and Cruz are anti-GOP establishment.  Kasich would be better suited running as a Democrat. The skewed view was sounded rejected by voters who gave the majority — 47% — to Trump.

Film critic Bill Goodykoontz was pulled in on the double duty task to write, “Covering Trump’s lies no simple task.”  Neither subtlety nor honesty rank as top considerations at the unabashedly liberal Arizona Republic.

Here are the facts: Arizona holds the distinction of having Republican majorities in both the state House and Senate. The Senate President and Speaker of the House are Republicans. The Governor is a Republican, as is the Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, the state Mine Inspector and the five members of the Corporation Commission. Arizona has nine congressional districts, with Republicans holding five of the seats and those misappropriating the GOP brand holding the two U.S. Senate seats.

Maricopa County, which includes the capitol of Phoenix and numerous other cities and towns, has Republicans holding 4 of the 5 Board of Supervisor posts, a Republican Sheriff, County Attorney, Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder, Clerk of the Superior Court and County School Superintendent.

This is untenable to the left and they strive to change it on a daily basis.


Left’s utterly ridiculous education statements

April 30, 2016

Liberal Provocateur E.J. Montini, one of the remaining henchmen at the increasingly irrelevant Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) headlines his column “Arizona is selling our kids’ brains to the Koch brothers.”

In Liberal Land, the Koch brothers are targeted and reviled for being wealthy political conservatives who usually donate to GOP candidates. No such indignant hostility exists when radical leftist ideologues George Soros, Tom Steyer, or Michael Bloomberg — among the multitude of other Dems* finance the left-wing agenda.

Question for E.J. Montini: Would the disturbing facts dropping out of the mouth of Robert Chanin, longtime General Counsel for the “powerful” American Education Association (on the occasion of his retirement),  also qualify as “selling our kids’ brains?” Those leftwing unionist teachers spend more time with America’s children than most of their parents do. The NEA members  are proficient propagandists. Keep these words in mind when you mark your ballots on Prop. 123. Don’t fall for the con. Vote No. 

* H/T The Sunlight Foundation.


Pondering our undoing

April 23, 2016

Thomas Sowell is a man who possesses a brilliant mind, which makes his “Random Thoughts” worth reading.

This is an example:

“Historians of the future, when they look back on our times, may be completely baffled when trying to understand how Western civilization welcomed vast numbers of people hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization, people who had been taught that they have a right to kill those who do not share their beliefs.”

Ponder that.


Are you inclined to vote away your right to vote?

April 12, 2016

 The Arizona Republic would like nothing better than to relieve you of the burden

Fishy_Arizona_RepublicRobert Robb, the libertarian-leaning columnist at the daily newspaper has often been the stand alone voice of reason at the increasingly leftist publication. Recently, however, he’s been veering into uncharted territory, pulling a complete switcheroo on issues of importance. In February we exposed the scheme being pushed by the Arizona Republic, calling him out for his disappointing change of mind from his previous stance on the “Top Two Primary,” titling the piece, “Robert Robb: Forgetful, schizophrenic or seeking job security?” The post includes Robb’s original logical assessment of the overreach in the second paragraph.

Now with State Treasurer Jeff DeWit announcing his intention not to seek reelection when his term ends in 2018, we get another odd dose of Robert Robb. This time he’s devoted a column to asking, “Why do we elect a state treasurer?”

We’ve been down this road before. In this May 2015 post “AZ Republic wants to mute your voice, muzzle your vote,” we reminded our readers about the deception that has previously come packaged as a component of the benign-sounding “Home Rule.” We characterized the contemptible plan to separate citizens from their votes with these words:

“There have been other such schemes over the years. The warm and fuzzy sounding “Home Rule,” included provisions to appoint all county “line officers” as they were dismissively called, including the County Attorney, Sheriff, Treasurer and School Superintendent. Though its intent was to eliminate citizen’s ability to vote for these and other county officials —-  turning the immense appointment power over to the Board of Supervisors —- it was promoted as merely a “housekeeping” budgetary provision. Arizona voters caught on quickly as did the elected office holders, both successfully pushing back against this ruse.”

The slippery tricksters at the Fish Wrap even went editorial to advocate for appointing the five members of the Arizona Corporation Commission. In July 2012 we wrote, “Left promotes schemes to separate you from your vote.”

In fact the intended mission was to get citizens to the ballot box to….vote away their right to vote. Under the guise of simplifying the process, we would cede to the Board of Supervisors our ability to vote for what were contemptuously termed “line officers.” 

The argument always began with the office of the mine inspector — a state official.  “Who knows who the mine inspector is or what he does? Why should that be an elective office?” From there it went down the line of county officers from assessor to  recorder and every office in between.  When the Sheriff was the topic, the incessant liberal echo was “The police chief is appointed, why not the sheriff?”

The plan is to encourage voters to vote to give their votes away. Think of it as a deliberate attempt to separate you from your vote by telling you others can vote on your behalf more efficiently and effectively.

What each of these offices have in common is the fact that they are all held by elected Republicans. No wonder the newspaper wants them appointed.


“Court packing” double talk from the devious left

April 11, 2016

Linda Valdez, the far-left editorial writer at the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) is having anxiety attacks over what she repeatedly refers to as “packing the court.” A piece of legislation (HB 2537) winding its way through the chambers allows for the addition of two new Supreme Court justices on the Arizona high court, expanding the number from the current five to seven members. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey would make the appointments filling the two vacancies if the bill wins approval.

The court building and bench were constructed to accommodate the increased number of justices.

SRAZ currently takes no position on the plan. But it’s interesting to ponder if Valdez would be so indignant if the date were 1937 and it was the U.S. Supreme Court that was under consideration for expansion to as many as 15 justices.

That was the Machiavellian scheme of Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt who planned to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his radically liberal “New Deal” of overreaching  federal programs. During the previous two years, the high court struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.

In an obsessive power grab, Roosevelt then attempted to mandate retirement at full pay for all members of the court over age 70. If a justice refused to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed, ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called “court-packing” plan — with the Senate striking it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Ultimately, Roosevelt nominated his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

Our bet is Linda Valdez would have been all too happy to see such liberal activism from the executive branch in reconfiguring the federal judiciary.

After Franklin Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented fourth term, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed, officially limiting presidential tenure in office to two terms of four years each.

Valdez doubtless would have opposed that curtailment of the “president for life” measure, as long as the president was a like-minded liberal.

Smithsonian.com has a wealth of information on FDR and his audacious court packing scheme.


The unnerving implosion of Donald Trump

April 2, 2016

“You realize our candidate is mental? It’s like constantly having to bail out your sixteen-year-old son from prison” — Trump supporter Ann Coulter

Presidential candidate Donald Trump reached zenith heights early on by not only talking about the illegal invasion, but actually saying he was going to do something about it.  His “I’m gonna build a wall along our Southern border and make Mexico pay for it,” resonated with Americans weary of supporting costly illegals, (2013 figures) who not only enter our country by stealth, but make outrageous demands as they refuse to assimilate while taking American jobs. The billionaire reality showman easily found a loyal base.

We all knew Trump was shallow and not presidential. His inconsistent political background as a registered Democrat, Independent and Republican has been worrisome. His lack of preparedness, vacillation on key issues, hurled insults, vindictiveness, loutish crudeness and repetitive, blustery responses have been unnerving, but the assumption has been the successful entrepreneur would grow with exposure to the political realm and make us proud.  That hasn’t happened. He has only grown in cringe-worthiness, alienating more than uniting and failing miserably with the women he needs to win. Social conservatives and evangelicals are especially apprehensive.

Presidential primary campaigns are typically rough and tumble affairs, but the current contest has taken an especially heavy toll on Republican unity at a time when we can least afford it — with Hillary Clinton salivating at the prospect of  returning to the White House.

Now Trump’s strong conservative supporter Ann Coulter has called him “mental.” The author of Adios America! The Left’s Plan to Turn Our Country Into a Third World Hellhole concedes, “Let’s just talk about what he’s good on. He’s the only one who’s going to build a wall, but please stop testing our patience on the rest of this stuff,” she begged The Donald.

We feel Coulter’s pain.


The “Religion of Peace” has struck again

March 28, 2016

Unfathomable atrocity: Today we read that Islamic terrorists have crucified a Catholic priest in Yemen over Easter weekend

Former Republican Congressman and presidential candidate Tom Tancredo is among the few to credit with bringing the issue of illegal immigration to the forefront back when it was barely a blip on the national radar. Hearing him passionately address the invasion a couple of decades ago provided the prominence needed to thrust it into public consciousness and ultimately drive the 2016 presidential debate.

Placement of the word “former” is not in error. Last October the onetime Republican Congressman had his fill of the Grand Old Party under whose banner he had run and been elected from 1999 to 2009. His rationale for leaving was posted on Breitbart.  Tancredo summed up his decision with these thoughts although his complete commentary is exceedingly enlightening.

  1. The Republican establishment does not want to control spending.
  2. It does not want to secure the borders or enforce immigration laws.
  3. It does not care about American sovereignty.
  4. It has no interest in ending the unaccountable and corrupt culture that has become a hallmark of official Washington.

As a presidential candidate Tom Tancredo, who built his campaign on stopping illegal immigration, boycotted the Dec. 9, 2007 Univision televised debate at the University of Miami because it was being broadcast in Spanish. The rest of the pack attended, including John McCain.

Now Tom Tancredo has written a blunt commentary, which we highly recommend,  titled, The ISIS Barbarians Are Already Inside our Gates.  

Tancredo states:

“ It is Islam’s basic worldview that inspires hatred of the West, not grievances against U.S. foreign policy or lack of economic opportunity in Muslim societies. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928, not 1988, decades before any American soldier set foot in Kuwait. Why then is it “Islamophobic” to speak the truth about Islam’s hostility to Western values?” Tancredo asks. “Self-censorship is the main obstacle to effective steps to halt ISIS in its tracks, and people who preach such nonsense — and the Quislings who tolerate it — are aiding ISIS and need to be called out for it.”

Tom Tancredo effectively calls them out  —  loud and clear.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 378 other followers