Ducey bypasses GOP applicants, picks another Dem judge

September 15, 2019

Hands out judicial appointments to Democrats as though there were no Republicans on the vetted lists he receives from judicial selection commissions

With this hyperbolic announcement Gov. Doug Ducey, who twice ran as a Republican, boldly shows his leftist stripes by appointing yet another Democrat to the judicial bench. Superior Court Judge David Gass has been elevated to the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Among the accolades Ducey heaped on his new appointee was pointing out that he “served as counsel to the Democratic Caucus of the Arizona House of Representatives and currently serves on the Maricopa County Superior Court where he has been for the past 10 years after his appointment by Governor Napolitano.” Ducey didn’t miss a trick, adding that earlier in his career, Gass “clerked for then Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Ruth McGregor,“ another Democrat.

Those are definitely credentials that warm the cockles of the Republican base, whose votes put him in office, first as state treasurer and then for two terms in the lofty ninth floor governor‘s office.

The gaseous Gass appointment was made to fill the vacancy created by the appointment of Justice James P. Beene to the Arizona Supreme Court. Currently, Ducey has far outpaced hyper-partisan Democrat Gov. Janet Napolitano who also had an aversion to Republican judges, as SRAZ pointed out in 2007. So far during his terms, Ducey has made 26 cross-party judicial appointments — far outpacing his predecessors — leftist Napolitano at 16 or Republican Jan Brewer who jumped the political fence 7 times.

On the governor’s office home page is a box containing these words:

AtYOURService

Connect. Engage. Speak out.

Don’t kid yourself thinking the Guv actually wants to hear from you. He’s obviously still busy channeling his RINO McMentor. Ducey’s first job when he arrived in Arizona to attend ASU was working at Cindy Hensley McCain’s Anheuser-Busch beer distributorship empire, which fostered a enduring friendship between Ducey, later including his wife, and the McCain’s. John McCain reveled in his “maverick” status, even bucking the Republican Party with his thumb-in-the-eye, “thumb’s down” final senate vote. (brief video.)  Ducey was an able pupil.

Advertisements

Pres. Trump wins major SCOTUS victory on asylum claims & Update

September 12, 2019

Supreme Court ruling clears the way for new asylum restrictions

Finally some sanity from the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of the illegal invasion of the United States. In a Wednesday ruling, the court granted a request by President Trump to enforce a recent rule intended to restrain asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border. This has been a key component of the administration’s policies to staunch the flood of hundreds of thousands of Central Americans claiming to seek asylum.

The justices authorized the government to enforce the rule that would bar illegal aliens from applying for asylum if they pass through another country — routinely Mexico — without seeking asylum there before arriving in the United States. The leftist 9th Circus Court of Appeals had blocked the government from implementing the new rule in Arizona and California, though now the government can enforce it nationwide while it appeals a decision by California U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, to the Ninth Circuit, or if necessary, back to the Supreme Court. Tigar is a Berkeley educated Obama appointee.

 The only dissents came from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Asylum” is the key word. Illegal immigration advocates including ACLU legal teams, coaching the hordes of humanity illegally entering our country have instructed them to use the golden ticket word.

But asylum claims lose their validity when the so-called asylum seekers pass through Mexico without making their claim — instead traveling hundreds of miles further north to the United States, completely ignoring Mexico, which abuts the Central American counties they are leaving.

There is no language barrier in Mexico. But there is a symbiotic relationship. Mexico, which facilitates their incursion to the U.S. doesn’t want them. The Guatemalans, Hondurans and El Salvadorans, eager to access American taxpayer-funded benefits, have no desire to remain in Mexico, dispelling their asylum claims.

Mexico has wasted no time in loudly protesting the asylum decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, calling it “hard-line and astonishing.”

“This is the ruling by the court, it’s a U.S. issue, and obviously we don’t agree with it, we have a different policy,” Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard told a news conference.

That’s for sure. 

Mexican government hypocrisy is stunning. Mexico has long had barriers at its own southern border abutting Central America. Its current policy is to act as a collaborating facilitator allowing the hordes of illegals it doesn’t want, to move freely through its land mass to the U.S. border.

Mexico has strenuously resisted signing a formal “safe third country” agreement that would commit it to hearing the asylum cases of Central Americans and other illegals.

Getting an immense dose of the invasion the Mexican government has previously aided, Mexico‘s own citizens are reacting negatively to the influx. “We have seen outbreaks of acts of xenophobia in Mexico that did not exist before, mainly in the north of the country,” said Israel Ibarra, described as an immigration expert with the Continente Movil consultancy in Tijuana.

How interesting that Mexicans are now being accused of being “xenophobic” regarding other Hispanics.

Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wrote this enlightening column, “Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens,” containing a bullet-pointed list citing the regulations and restrictions Mexico imposes on foreigners — when Arizona was dealing with the repercussions following the passage of SB1070.


Sanctuary city San Francisco declares NRA a domestic terrorist org.

September 6, 2019

Before San Francisco’s streets became littered with homeless addicts, their drug paraphernalia, piles of human waste and the accompanying rats, it was a destination city for vacationers. Arizonans often filled the flights. In addition to its myriad unique attractions, it featured top-rated dining establishments, unrivaled shopping and a Union Square discount ticket booth for same night theatre productions.

Even in it’s heyday, San Francisco was a politically leftist bastion, but the city’s magic pushed that fact aside, since visitors didn’t have to live under the reign of radicals.

Stark reality brought us to our senses after a 5-time deported illegal alien who had served time in a federal prison, shot and killed Kate Steinle, walking arm-in-arm with her father along the pier in 2015. The Mexican national murderer, residing in the sanctuary city ultimately had his guilty conviction overturned by a California appeals court.

Now the news from the ‘City by the Bay’ unequivocally demonstrates the irrationality of the leftists in control. Following recent deplorable national shootings, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved this deceitful resolution declaring the National Rifle Association a domestic terrorist organization.

It comes as no surprise that the 11-member board, which runs under a “non-partisan” guise, is made up solely of Democrats, who were paid $110,858 per year in 2015. Undoubtedly that has increased in almost 5 years.

The unanimous vote to turn the organization that is the most valiant defender of protecting our Second Amendment rights into a terrorist organization should strike fear in the hearts of every rational American. Obviously, the leftists who voted in unison against our freedoms are not conversant with our founding documents and the reasons supporting each of our clearly defined rights.

Next the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will blame cars for drunken drivers and label American Motors a terrorist organization.

Support the NRA. It supports us all. If you’re not a member, join nowOur future is at stake.

 


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


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?


Media irretrievably corrupted: contemptible arm of Dem Party

August 7, 2019

Beware: Gun control is on the horizon

The New York Times, which ordinarily doesn’t allow access to non-subscribers, has broken its own rule to herald this headlined report:Red Flag’ Gun Control Bills Pick Up Momentum With G.O.P. in Congress. It’s linked from a bright red Drudge Report header blasting: “Republicans coalesce around gun control.” 

As Second Amendment supporters ponder what exactly is looming, take a moment to remember that this is the same newspaper that caved to leftist pressure Tuesday and changed a headline that treated President Trump objectively and without interjected liberal malice.

The NYT’s early edition carried the headline, “TRUMP URGES UNITY VS. RACISM,”  in which he strongly condemned “White Supremacy.” That was too evenhanded to suit the likes of gesticulator Robert Francis O’Rourke, nicknamed “Beto” as a boy by his family’s Mexican maid.

After a fury of liberal backlash was unleashed — O’Rourke called the headline “unbelievable” and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez termed it “cowardice” — the newspaper capitulated, changing the headline in a later edition to: “ASSAILING HATE, BUT NOT GUNS.” 

Even in her dotage, the once venerable Gray Lady, founded in 1865 should have known better than to rile her base with a front-page headline which gave a positive impression of President Donald Trump’s response to two mass shootings. Wielding its heft, today’s left has made the Mafia in its heyday, look tame.

The NRA has an entire section dedicated to state gun laws. Arizona’s informative page can be accessed here.

Red Flag laws, which sharply curtail the rights of Americans, are currently being pushed by Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey as he channels his mentor John McCain. He calls his version the Severe Threat Order of Protection or STOP. Breitbart covered the depths of Ducey’s deception.

Following the recent Texas and Ohio premeditated murders, the NRA, now facing internal problems after briefly bringing in the arrogant Oliver North, issued this statement, NRA Welcomes Call to Address Root Causes of Violence which contains these words:

“The NRA welcomes the President’s call to address the root causes of the horrific acts of violence that have occurred in our country.  It has been the NRA’s long-standing position that those who have been adjudicated as a danger to themselves or others should not have access to firearms and should be admitted for treatment.”

Meanwhile, in the most bizarre of alliances, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R- SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), yes…he’s the one who deceitfully claimed to be a Vietnam combat veteran, though he never set foot in the war-torn country — announced a bipartisan bill that would create a federal grant program to aid states in adopting “Red Flag” laws, in response to the mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton over the weekend.

The law, a knee-jerk response to the dual killing rampages, permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the removal of firearms from a person who they believe may present a danger to others or themselves. It is rife for abuse.

“These grants will be given to law enforcement so they can hire and consult with mental health professionals to better determine which cases need to be acted upon,” Graham said in a statement.


Judge tosses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team

July 31, 2019

Claims are “entirely divorced from the facts”

Judge John Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC’s charge of illegal hacking with regard to the 2016 presidential campaign was “entirely divorced” from the facts.

The ruling came as Democrats have increasingly attempted to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia — despite former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings that the campaign, in fact, refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.

The Democratic National Committee initially filed its suit in April 2018.

“In short, the DNC raises a number of connections and communications between the defendants and with people loosely connected to the Russian Federation, but at no point does the DNC allege any facts to show that any of the defendants other than the Russian Federation, participated in the theft of the DNC’s information,” Judge Koeltl said.

“Nor does the DNC allege that the defendants ever agreed to help the Russian Federation steal the DNC’s documents,” he added.

Judge Koeltl denied the Trump team’s motion for sanctions but dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning it had a substantive legal defect and could not be refiled.

This was the President’s exuberant reaction: