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?

Advertisements

Of course, Census citizenship question matters*

July 6, 2019

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts mimics Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy as swing vote

On Friday, the Justice Department said it will continue researching for legal grounds to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census. Earlier President Trump said he is “very seriously” considering an executive order to get the question on the form.

Although the Dems are hard at work attempting to politicize it, the issue of incorporating the citizenship question on the U.S. Census form, has far reaching ramifications that affect us all.

Congressional districts are apportioned based on the number of voting citizens as opposed to residents.

The Hill released the findings of a Hill-HarrisX survey conducted in late April, showing 60% of Americans support having the citizenship question included on the census form. Support cut across all demographics.

The U.S. Census Bureau explains the history of place of birth, citizenship, year of entry questions, noting the citizenship question originated with the 1820 Census, place of birth originated with the 1850 Census, and year of entry originated with the 1890 Census. In 2005, the USCB transferred to the American Community Survey replacing the decennial census long form.

The citizenship question should not be controversial. Most nations ask it, including Mexico and Canada. The United Nations recommends the practice. The United States previously asked about citizenship as well, but since 1950 the question has not been included in the census forms that most people receive. (A much longer, more detailed questionnaire sent to a small sample of households chosen at random includes the question, which has not previously been a hotly debated topic revving up the ACLU and Democrat presidential candidates until the advent of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Last week, a divided Supreme Court — with Chief Justice John Roberts disappointingly swinging left again and joining four Democrats — ruled that the Trump administration’s stated reason for including a question about citizenship on the 2020 census — to help the Department of Justice better enforce federal voting rights laws — was a pretext. The “evidence,” Chief Roberts wrote, “tells a story that does not match the explanation that” Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross provided. The case has been sent back to the Department of Commerce.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissent joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, wrote that Ross’ decision “was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion.”

When his vote holds massive and long-ranging implications such as with the 2012 opinion upholding Obamacare, Roberts caves.

President Trump said his administration is exploring a number of legal options, including issuing an executive order which have been used by all presidents — with Bill Clinton topping the list at 364.

Take the single minute required to read, “Of Course the Census Should Ask a Citizenship Question,”* by Hans A. von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department lawyer, now Senior Legal Fellow with The Heritage Foundation.


Remembering our many blessings, obligations this Independence Day

July 4, 2019

 ….and honoring those 56 brave men* who had the vision and strength of character to challenge authority and affix their signatures to the Declaration of Independence.

Before signing the Declaration of Independence, our Founders included this memorable line:

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

* Click on each Declaration signer’s name for a brief biography.

On this momentous holiday, we gift our readers with,This Fourth of July, why patriotism is worth defending,” by Kyle Smith — a New York Post columnist whose engaging style and reasoned approach has made him a newly found favorite. Do yourself a favor and get acquainted with his take on popular culture and politics.

Smith’s unique background includes serving as a lieutenant in the U.S. Army during the Persian Gulf War, and with the Second Armored Cavalry Regiment in Saudi Arabia. He graduated summa cum laude from Yale.

This recent Gallup Poll indicates the level of pride in America has plummeted among our own citizens, with only 22% of Democrats saying they are “extremely proud,” down 10 points in one year. For their part, most Republicans have remained extremely proud of our country, though the latest 76% reading is 10 points below the high recorded in 2003. Even when Barack Obama was in office, Republicans’ extreme pride never fell below 68%.

Still, these latest numbers are catastrophic in a country that stands as a beacon of freedom to the world. They are indicative of the media’s extreme anti-Trump sentiment and the fact that the radical hippies who spat on our returning Vietnam vets have permeated our educational establishment, disparaging our history and negatively influencing successive generations.  To ensure our nation’s survival, history and patriotism must be taught at home.

H/T Independence Hall Association (us history.org)


Trump appointees to SCOTUS having major impact

June 23, 2019

The Daily Caller headlines its post by Kevin Daley, “Kagan Seethes As High Court Conservatives Deliver Property Rights Win.”

It contains less legalese than the SCOTUSblog, but they each cover this significant case and Justice Elena Kagan’s searing rebuke of her conservative colleagues, accusing them of smashing “a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens.”

The dissent noted Friday’s case was the second time this term that the conservative justices have overturned a controlling precedent, prompting Kagan to ask, forebodingly, which precedent the high court will overrule next.

“Just last month, when the Court overturned another longstanding precedent, Justice [Stephen] Breyer penned a dissent,” Kagan wrote. “He wrote of the dangers of reversing legal course ‘only because five members of a later Court’ decide that an earlier ruling was incorrect. He concluded: ‘Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.’”

“Well, that didn’t take long,” Kagan added. “Now one may wonder yet again.”

Kagan was referencing Breyer’s May dissent in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which asked whether states are immune from lawsuits in the courts of other states. In Hyatt, the five-justice conservative majority overturned a 1979 decision and said the states do indeed have sovereign immunity in the courts of their sister states.

Friday’s property rights dispute arose when a small town in Pennsylvania adopted an ordinance requiring that cemeteries “be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours.” The town told Rose Mary Knick, whose 90-acre property includes a small family cemetery, that she must comply with the rule. Knick sued, saying the ordinance violates the takings clause of the Constitution. The takings clause says the government must compensate property owners for any land seized for public use.

 A 1985 Supreme Court case called Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank required Knick to seek compensation at the state level before going to federal court. Indeed, that ruling required Knick and plaintiffs like her to exhaust all possible state compensation remedies before turning to the federal judiciary.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Williamson County decision was wrong and Knick can go to a federal judge right away.

“Williamson County was not just wrong,” the chief wrote. “Its reasoning was exceptionally ill founded and conflicted with much of our takings jurisprudence.”

The Williamson County ruling, Roberts said elsewhere, imposes “an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it.”

The chief justice noted the Court considers several factors when deciding to overrule a prior decision. In that connection, he cited the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, which said government unions cannot force non-members to pay so-called agency fees. The citation to Janus drew a sharp rebuke from Kagan.

“If that is the way the majority means to proceed — relying on one subversion of stare decisis to support another — we may as well not have principles about precedents at all,” Kagan wrote. “Stare decisis” is a Latin legal term meaning “to stand by things decided.” Janus overturned the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ruling.

Friday’s case is No. 17-647, Knick v. Township of Scott.

This was the Aug. 5, 2010 senate roll call vote on Elena Kagen’s confirmation.


Happy Father’s Day

June 16, 2019

Fathers take our hands and give us their hearts

With affection and appreciation to all of the Fathers, Dads, Papas and Grandpas who have guided us along the way.


75th D-Day Anniversary: A crucial history lesson

June 6, 2019

Why the world can thank American exceptionalism for successful D-Day,” by Bob McManus, presents a riveting overview of the lead up to the June 6, 1944 Normandy invasion and what transpired in its wake.

Unfortunately, it’s a good bet today’s students aren’t being taught this essential history. Climate change and recycling have replaced American exceptionalism which leftist historical and moral revisionists now view as unacceptable braggadocio for a “flawed country.”

Teach your children or grandchildren what makes America special,the shining city on the hill,” as idyllically described by President Ronald Reagan in his farewell speech to the nation. Acquaint them with how our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights set us apart. They won’t learn it otherwise.


Pres. Trump’s inspiring 2019 Memorial Day message

May 27, 2019

We proudly join with President Donald Trump this Memorial Day as he issues an inspiring Proclamation on Prayer for Peace.

In recognizing “those who rest in the hallowed grounds of our country’s national cemeteries [and] laid their lives upon the altar of freedom,” he requests all Americans observe the National Moment of Remembrance beginning at 3:00 p.m. local time today…Memorial Day.

Additionally, the president asks ”the Governors of the United States and its Territories, and the appropriate officials of all units of government, to direct the flag be flown at half-staff until noon on this Memorial Day on all buildings, grounds, and naval vessels throughout the United States and in all areas under its jurisdiction and control.”

Too many Americans view Memorial Day as a time for sales and cookouts. It is so much more. We should never forget the debt of gratitude we owe so many who gave the ultimate sacrifice so we could live in freedom.