Terrorist’s short term, early release, should be inconceivable

May 23, 2019

In 1953, turning on your country was a crime punishable by death. Ethel, 35, and Julius Rosenberg, 37, the parents of two young sons, were charged with conspiracy to commit espionage.

On March 29, 1951 the couple was found guilty of spying on behalf of the Soviet Union, and were executed in the electric chair on June 19, 1953, although the evidence against Ethel was weak.

Fast forward to 2019. John Walker Lindh, 38, a Californian who converted to Islam at age 16, provided support to the Taliban. He became known as the “American Taliban” after his battlefield capture in Afghanistan in November 2001, where he was fighting with the Afghan Taliban two months after the 9/11 attacks.

On February 5, 2002, Lindh was indicted by a federal grand jury on ten charges of conspiracy, including conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens and providing material support and resources to terrorist organizations. He could have received up to three life sentences and 90 additional years in prison.

Instead, Lindh, who now uses the name Abu Sulayman al-Irland, has preposterously been granted an early release from a federal prison after being sentenced to a paltry 20 years. Lindh is getting out 3 years early for “good behavior,” though his actions resulted in American deaths.

In 2010 Lindh and a Syrian-American prisoner, represented by the ACLU, sued to lift restrictions on group prayer by Muslim inmates. U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson, an Obama appointee, ruled in their favor, saying that the government had shown no compelling interest in restricting the religious speech of the inmates by prohibiting them from praying together.

According to an internal report by the National Counterterrorism Center, Lindh told a visiting television news producer that he had not renounced extremist violence and continues to advocate for global jihad, saying, “ISIS,” the terrorist group that beheaded Americans, “is doing a spectacular job.”

The burning question is, what can we expect next as this America-hater is free?

Advertisements

Pres. Trump’s legal shakedown from Dem DC judge

May 21, 2019

Obama appointed Judge upholds Dem subpoena for president’s tax records

On Monday, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta issued this 41-page order in favor of the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Oversight sub-committee* seeking President Donald Trump’s personal and business tax records from his accounting firm, Mazars USA LLP.

The flamboyant opinion filled with inflammatory quotes, opens with an 1860 statement of protest from President James Buchanan which Mehta parallels to President Trump, writing, “Some 160 years later, President Donald J. Trump has taken up the fight of his predecessor.” Mehta gives cover to the partisan committee writing, it “has shown that it is not engaged in a pure fishing expedition for the President’s financial records,” disingenuously adding that “the documents might assist Congress in passing laws and performing other core functions.”

“Might”? In Mehta’s convoluted, partisan thinking, that meets a sufficient legal standard.

Judge Mehta also denied a request to stay his decision pending an appeal. Additionally, Mehta provocatively asserted that Congress can investigate President Trump without beginning formal impeachment proceedings.

These are the Judges on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia:

District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan (appointed by Bill Clinton: 1994)

District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Bill Clinton: 1997)

District Judge James E. Boasberg (Barack Obama: 2011)

District Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Barack Obama: 2011)

District Judge Rudolph Contreras (Barack Obama: 2012)

District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson (Barack Obama: 2013)

District Judge Christopher R. Cooper (Barack Obama: 2014)

District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan (Barack Obama: 2014)

District Judge Randolph D. Moss (Barack Obama: 2014)

District Judge Amit P. Mehta (Barack Obama: 2014)

District Judge Timothy J. Kelly (Donald Trump: 2017)

District Judge Trevor N. McFadden (Donald Trump: 2017)

District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich (Donald Trump: 2017)

 

* Scroll through to see the committee members and their party affiliations.


Janet Napolitano drops “Big Sis” guise, becomes “Big Bro”*

April 26, 2019

Issues directive requiring California universities to quarantine students and staff unable to prove they were vaccinated against measles

Janet Napolitano —- formerly Arizona’s radically left-wing governor who took a midterm hike to ineffectively head the Department of Homeland Security for Barack Obama —- is currently the president of the University of California system. 

Longtime Arizonans rate her as the undisputed worst governor in memory. Wielding her veto pen in a manic rage over bills passed through the GOP controlled state legislature, she earned the nickname “J-No.”

Lax leftist Napolitano, bonded to an open border policy, was renowned for her dismissively blasé retort when frustrated Arizonans pleaded for border security: “Show me a 50-foot fence, and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder.”

Called “Big Sis,” for her ham-handed tactcs, Napolitano has now fully morphed into “Big Bro,” mandating that California universities quarantine students and staff who are unable to prove they were vaccinated against measles. CBS 2 Los Angeles carries the full report.

Years preceding the shameful attempts to keep Judge Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court, Napolitano was integral to the attempt to defame Clarence Thomas as he was put through a brutal hearing prior to his confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court nearly three decades ago.  A black, conservative justice was more than the left could tolerate. Napolitano represented Anita Hill, who suddenly recalled offensive comments she attributed to Thomas —- though she inexplicably continued to follow Thomas, who vigorously denied her charges, from job to job.

It’s a sure bet there are few who miss “Big Bro/J-No” but for those who have a hankering to see her, she has authored a book targeting President Trump as a bigot for enacting national security measures. She will be reviewing it and signing copies next month for a mere $45 fee.

Using these printable coupons, treat yourself and take a few guests out to dinner at Red Lobster for the same amount.  Crab or lobsters and shrimp, even with their antenna intact, are easier on the eyes than Janet Napolitano any day of the week.

Here she is with her gal-pal Kyrsten Sinema out for a night on the town a few years ago.

*“Big Brother is watching you,” was the warning that appears on posters throughout Oceania, the fictional dictatorship described by George Orwell in his book titled, “1984.”


Desperate Dems embrace NPV absurdity

March 22, 2019

The National Popular Vote has emerged among the latest schemes of Democrat politicians. They are also enamored with open borders and lowering the voting age to 16. Now that marijuana is mainstreamed, desperate Dems see a clear pathway to winning elections…the Constitution be damned.

Donald Trump’s 2018 sweeping presidential victory, which dazed the Democrats like a direct hit of a lightening bolt has made them eager to explore every absurdity to gain control. If it takes mind numbed teens, illiterate in American history and our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, who have never paid a bill or taxes to fulfill their dream, Dems are onboard giving them the vote. Obliterating Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and allowing all comers to invade the United States is an integral part of the plan, since they will be low hanging fruit ripe for Democrat picking. Why should citizenship matter? Democrat candidates are also hoping to pack the Supreme Court by inflating the number of leftist justices. Read the history of that scam attempted by Democrat President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1937 in the last two paragraphs of this post.

In 2016 Breitbart News headlined, “MoveOn.org Petition Demands: ‘Abolish the Electoral College,” which laid the groundwork for this George Soros backed movement.

Our Founders specifically included the Electoral Vote to forestall the inherent dangers of what James Madison called “the tyranny of the majority.” This Heritage Foundation commentary, Preventing “The Tyranny of the Majority by Edwin J. Feulner is listed as a two minute read. You won’t spend a more enlightening two minutes today.

Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution grants the power to elect the president and vice president to the states through the system known as the Electoral College. Under the Constitution, the highest-ranking U.S. officials elected by the direct popular vote of the people are the governors of the states.

The Electoral College gives smaller and rural states with lower populations an equal voice. If the popular vote alone decided elections, presidential candidates would have no need to visit those states or consider the needs of rural residents in their policy platforms. The Electoral College dynamics require candidates to get votes from multiple states — large and small — ensuring that the president addresses the needs of the entire country. America’s Founders, in their wisdom, also wanted the Electoral College system to enforce the concept of federalism — the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.

There are 538 possible electoral votes. 270 electoral votes are required for a candidate to win the electoral college vote. This was the 2016 election breakdown. With the National Popular Vote, Hillary Clinton would be sitting in the Oval Office.

Declared and still exploring Democrat presidential candidates might be adversaries, but they are unified in their desire to gut our Constitution. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, (D-Mass) and Bob O’Rourke, (D-TX); support doing away with the Electoral College. Sen. Cory Booker, (D-N.J); has expressed a desire to increase the number of justices on the Supreme Court and term limit them. Bob also supports expanding the high court.  Sen. Kamala Harris, (D-CA) supports uncontrolled illegal immigration and free education and healthcare for all. Socialist Bernie Sanders (S-VT) ditto. Like her fellow candidates, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, (D- NY) is for whatever sucker punches the GOP and takes out President Trump.

The U.S. Constitution provides for a separation of powers, dividing the federal government into three distinct branches to ensure no individual or group will have too much power: Legislative (makes laws), Executive (carries out laws) and Judicial (interprets laws) — operate independently.

It should be abundantly clear by now that Democrats have no use for the Constitution.


SCOTUS backs Trump on detaining illegals, reverses 9th Circus

March 20, 2019

Dems seek to increase the size of the U.S. Supreme Court

President Trump and his administration were vindicated Tuesday, when the United States Supreme Court reversed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision which held that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials must immediately detain for deportation those entering our country illegally or they are exempt from ever being detained.

The 5-4 decision, split along party lines, said federal officials can detain illegals at any time for possible deportation after they have served their time in the U.S. for other crimes.

Read the complete opinion, including the wordy and contorted dissent written by Justice Stephen Breyer.

Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Justices Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan dissented.

The case Neilsen, Secretary of Homeland Security v. Preap, was argued October 10, 2018 and decided March 19, 2019. Today’s edition of the local newspaper buried the account on its single USA Today page insert, headlining it, “Justices rule against migrants.”

Democrat presidential aspirants are now discussing expanding the Supreme Court in 2020. This is not a new left-wing scheme. A bit of history:

In 1937, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), a liberal Democrat, was foiled in his attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court with 15 justices, allegedly to make it more effective. His actual motivation was to neutralize Supreme Court justices who opposed his “New Deal.”  In the 1930’s, it didn’t have the word “Green“ preceding it, but his economic policies were just as extreme, as he used the Great Depression to shift the national tone from individualism to collectivism with the dramatic expansion of the welfare state and regulation of the economy.

President Franklin Roosevelt was the reason the 22nd Amendment was added to the U.S. Constitution — limiting the length of time a President could serve to two-four year terms. Congress passed the amendment in 1947 (ratified in 1951) after Roosevelt was serving his fourth term. FDR died while in office, but the man who used a cigarette holder, spoke pompously and on occasion wore a silk top hat, clearly regarded himself as president for life. The Great Depression, with its staggering unemployment, so devastated Americans, many were reluctant to change the nation’s leader, who was worshiped by some and reviled by others. Those dire years were followed by the Japanese bombing attack on the U.S. fleet stationed in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, which lead to America’s entry into World War II, thrusting the United States into further turmoil.  Roosevelt was succeeded by then-Vice President Harry Truman a plain-spoken former haberdasher but decisive leader from Missouri, who never let his political office keep him from the walks he called his “morning constitutional.” On his desk was a sign declaring, “The buck stops here,” acknowledging he ultimately bore the responsibility for the often difficult decisions he made.


Paul Manafort’s jeopardy: There’s a leftist link 

March 14, 2019

The syndicated game show Jeopardy! has been In the news recently after the debonair host Alex Trebek shockingly disclosed he’s been diagnosed with a stage 4 pancreatic malignancy. 

Longtime viewers of the popular quiz show will remember former contestant Matt Jackson, a young paralegal who had one of the long-running show’s most memorable winning streaks —- 13 episodes. The intellectually gifted 23-year-old was impossible not to cheer for. The Yale philosophy major never caught up with all-time winner Ken Jennings who topped out at a record 74 episodes in a row, but Jackson won $413,612. He recently appeared with other top winners participating in the All-Star Tournament.

Wondering what this has to do with Paul Manafort, President Trump‘s former campaign manager who has been charged in connection with fraud unrelated to the campaign?

Early in the show, Trebek asked Jackson to talk about his “very different” parents.

He responded, “My mother is white, liberal and Jewish, and my dad is black, Christian and conservative.”

Matt Jackson comes from an intellectual gene pool. Both of his parents are lawyers. His father is Washington, D. C. attorney Darryl Jackson, who served as a Commerce Department official under former President George W. Bush.

His maternal grandfather, Barnett Berman, was a physician at Johns Hopkins University. Matt Jackson cited him as an early influence in becoming well-read.

And Jackson’s mother — the woman her own son described as “liberal”? Barack Obama nominated Amy Berman Jackson as United States District Judge for the District of Columbia. She was confirmed by a 97–0 vote on March 17, 2011, and was commissioned the next day. The roll call vote can be seen here.  Following their established pattern, Arizona Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl both voted to confirm the leftist nominee.

It was Judge Jackson who added three-and-a-half years on top of the nearly four-year sentence Manafort received last week in a separate case in Virginia, though he’ll get credit for nine months already served.

This is the statement the nearly 70-year-old delivered to the court prior to the sentence being handed down. It was met with an icy reception from Judge Amy Berman who said she was not satisfied with Manafort’s apology, accusing him of trying to avoid punishment.


AZ Supreme Court: Pals in high places can hinder

March 2, 2019

Despite objections by Chief Justice Scott Bales, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey used the power of his office to unnecessarily expand the state Supreme Court from five to seven justices in May 2016. The high court’s director of government affairs testified against expansion, saying, “We just do not believe it’s needed. The court is current in its cases. There’s nothing that we are seeing that’s going to lead to a greatly increased caseload.”

One of the newly robed justices — Clint Bolick — former chief litigator at the libertarian Goldwater Institute and open borders advocate who co-authored a book on the topic with Jeb Bush, is a friend of Ducey’s. So close are the two men, they routinely text one another.

People holding top jobs erroneously think they are above scrutiny. The Phoenix New Times, through a Freedom of Information Act request was able to secure the two men’s electronic correspondence.

The justice lobbied the governor providing his opinion regarding the best choice for the vacancy on Arizona’s highest court. Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery was among the 11 applicants for the post which the governor will fill from a vetted and pared down list of applicants sent to him by the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.  (Two of the original 13 appear to have withdrawn their applications.)

The commission met Friday and forwarded a list of five names to Ducey.  Montgomery, who would have made an excellent justice, was not among them.

Three judges from the Arizona Court of Appeals Division One, James Beene, (Republican); Kent Cattani, (Republican); and Maria Elena Cruz, (unregistered prior to September 24, 2002 when she became a Democrat); along with Pima County Superior Court Judge Richard Gordon, (Republican); and private practice attorney Andrew Jacobs, (Democrat); made the cut. On their applications, two of the applicants state they are of mixed ethnicity.

Predictably, the local newspaper’s take is exemplified by this front page headline: “Arizona’s Supreme Court short on diversity — Disparity under scrutiny with justice’s retirement.”

Diversity is never about ideas, only ethnicity. We’ve had female justices for years with several serving as chief justice, so it’s not even about plumbing. This 2012 post provides the stellar history of Arizona’s female justices. The first was Lorna Lockwood — born in 1903 in the Arizona territory. Lockwood is notable for being the first woman in the nation to become Chief Justice of a state Supreme Court. President Ronald Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Connor as the first woman on U.S. Supreme Court in 1981.

Justice John Pelander’s retirement was effective March 1, 2019.