Calif. approves “state sanctioned voter fraud”

October 14, 2015

Jerry Brown continues to expand right for illegals

California’s far left  Gov. Jerry Brown has signed the New Motor Voter Act — Bill 1461 — into law, effectively assuring illegals will be able to cast ballots in future elections.

The legislation automatically registers to vote all California residents when they obtain or renew their driver’s licenses at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Breitbart News quotes True the Vote founder Catherine Engelbrecht saying, “This bill is terrible. It makes an already bad situation much, much worse,” adding that California’s registration databases “lack the necessary safeguards to keep non-citizens off the voter rolls.” She had urged Gov. Brown to veto the bill— to no avail.

Election Integrity Project of California President Linda Paine echoed that Assembly Bill 1461 “will effectively change the form of governance in California from a Republic whose elected officials are determined by United States citizens and will now guarantee that non-citizens will participate in all California elections going forward.” The Election Integrity Project of California had joined True the Vote to demand that Brown veto the bill, calling it a path to “‘state sanctioned’ voter fraud.”

California Secretary of State Alex Padilla, a co-sponsor of the legislation, issued this media release in support of the law saying, “The New Motor Voter Act will make our democracy stronger.” Padilla gushed, the newly signed law will “potentially add millions to California’s voter rolls.” 

“The New Motor Voter Act will make our democracy stronger by removing a key barrier to voting for millions of California citizens,” Padilla said in the statement. Referring to “residents” as “citizens,” Padilla said, “Citizens should not be required to opt in to their fundamental right to vote. We do not have to opt in to other rights, such as free speech or due process.”

In 2013, Brown signed Assembly Bill 60 which made illegal aliens living in California eligible to apply for driver’s licenses. It was the latest action to expand privileges for non-citizens in the nation’s most populous state. California already provides in-state tuition to illegals at all public colleges and universities. Brown also signed an inconceivable law allowing illegals to practice law in the state. In 2014, the San Jose Mercury News reports it was approved in a unanimous ruling by the California Supreme Court

The law allowing California residents to automatically register  to vote when obtaining a driver’s license, goes into effect Jan. 1, 2016, making millions of illegals eligible to vote in the presidential election.

Last year ago we posted ‘Have you heard? The USA is “the other Mexico.”  It’s filled with information well worth reviewing. This video clip of California Gov. Jerry Brown greeting Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto is instructive. In response, Pena Nieto brassily called on other states to “evolve” like California so the United States can be more like his home country….. impoverished and crime ridden.

Jerry Brown stands as a monument of the insanity that undergirds liberalism.

Jeff Flake’s progressively close Democrat ties

August 9, 2015


Gilbert Watch blog* has posted a fact-filled report titled, “Jeff Flake: The Only Republican to Vote for the Judge Who Blocked Release of Fetal Body Sales Videos.”

Flake, like his mentors, John McCain and Jon Kyl, has toiled at burnishing a Republican veneer, even as he gives an award-winning impersonation of a liberal Democrat.   

Just days ago, Seeing Red AZ ran a post titled, “A question for Jeff Flake,” in which we exposed not only his amnesty commitment and the abhorrent actions of his ‘fellow traveler’ liberal Illinois Congressman Luis Gutierrez, but Flake’s increasing associations with Congressional Democrats — recently as the sole Republican accompanying Barack Obama and nearly two dozen Democrats on a trip to Kenya.

Despite his unquestioned dedication to amnesty, he nearly fooled the like-thinkers at Arizona Republic with a brief pre-election turnaround. But he’s been quoted as saying, “that’s the beauty of a six-year term.” Flake counts on the electorate having a short memory. 

Jeff Flake’s untrustworthiness rivals Hillary Clinton’s. It’s not a surprise he’s ranked the most unpopular Senator in the nation.

*Kudos to the reliably conservative Gilbert Watch blog

“Marriage equality”: The ongoing saga

July 2, 2015

SCOTUS’ redefinition of marriage: The can of worms has been opened

The Billings Gazette reports that a Montana man and his two wives have applied for a marriage license.

Claiming the Supreme Court’s decision redefining marriage allows for polygamy, Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage.

Collier, 46, said last week’s landmark ruling on same-sex unions inspired him to legitimize his marriage to his second wife. The trio has seven children of their own and from previous relationships

Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy. Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied. “It’s about marriage equality,” Collier said. “You can’t have this without polygamy.

Yellowstone County clerk officials initially denied his application, and then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

The county attorney’s civil division chief, Kevin Gillen, said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expects to send a formal response to Collier by next week. “I think he deserves an answer,” Gillen said, but added his review is finding that “the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.”


The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday made same-sex marriages legal nationwide. In his dissent Chief Justice John Roberts said people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

In this instance, Roberts was right.

Faith-based tax exempt status in jeopardy

July 1, 2015

Churches under assault for support of traditional marriage

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26th decision to redefine marriage, the tax-exempt status of religious institutions is now in jeopardy.

Mark Oppenheimer, who writes the “Beliefs” column for the New York Times, leaves no room for doubt where his own beliefs are, as he opines, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn’t be subsidizing religion and non-profits.”

His article, ”Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions,” is appalling in its flagrant dismissal of faith-based institutions.

A self-described” gay-rights supporter,” Oppenheimer was “elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision.” The rest of us should prepare for what appears to be on the horizon as the two issues are mow brazenly linked.

In case you had any doubts, the assault on churches —- along with the schools, hospitals and various services they administer —- is in full bloom and comes in rapid succession to the court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

Katie Pavlich, in her Townhall column says it best: “Religious liberty is under attack in America and the next five years will serve as a battleground to protect or destroy it. If religious liberty is in fact destroyed, America will no longer hold onto one of the most important principles that makes it an exceptional nation more tolerant than the rest in the world. We are at a tipping point.” 

SCOTUS: Citizenship no longer matters when voting

June 29, 2015

In deciding to deny the petition for certiorari in the key election case Kobach, et al. v. Election Assistance Commission, (background here) the United States Supreme Court has summarily decided that citizenship is of no consequence in voting in U.S. elections.

At issue was the question of whether Arizona and Kansas could require voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote with what has become known as the “federal form.” The form pertains to state and federal elections. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach led the suit against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), on an appeal of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court decision.

SCOTUS rules in two cases affecting Arizona

June 29, 2015

Liberals on SCOTUS thwarted in abolishing death penalty, rule against AZ legislature

Arizona’s application of lethal injection holds, based on today’s Supreme Court ruling in Glossip v. Gross, an Oklahoma case brought by inmates challenging the drug protocol. Lethal injection opponents cited an execution they referred to as “botched.”

The 5-4 decision, was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor a death penalty opponent, theatrically stated that the use of the drug midazolam leaves the prisoners “exposed to what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.”  Sotomayor neglected to call attention to the victims of the criminals whose crimes were heinous enough to be worthy of the death penalty.

The Arizona Legislature was dealt an unfortunate blow in the case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission . At issue was whether an unelected “Independent” Commission should infringe on the Arizona Legislature’s ability to draw redistricting boundaries. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision sided with the appointed commission‘s authority. 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the opinion for the majority, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the liberals. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his dissent, Roberts said that majority’s position “has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court.”

Governmental jumble as SCOTUS Justices legislate

June 28, 2015

Speculation on opinions pointless since liberal justices vote as a bloc

Americans, as young students have been taught that the U.S. Constitution provides a separation of powers via three distinct branches of government. The Legislative branch makes laws, the Executive branch carries them out, and the Judicial branch evaluates them.

Our Founders created a Constitution with an ingenious and intricate system of checks and balances to guard the people’s liberty against combinations of government power. It structured the Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary separate and wholly independent, yet coordinated for proper operation, with safeguards to prevent usurpations of power.

The Tenth Amendment clearly delineates the separation of powers —- creating a federal government with enumerated and limited powers, designed to keep government as close to the people as possible. 

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

James Madison stressed the necessity to reserve all possible authority in the states and people saying, “The powers delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

With these thoughts as background, take time today to enlighten yourself by reading Andrew C. McCarthy’s heard-hitting assessment of the past week’s U.S. Supreme Court actions. Then brace yourself for those still to come on Monday.

McCarthy’s insightful article, printed in National Review, is titled: “Let’s Drop the Charade: The Supreme Court Is a Political Branch, Not a Judicial One.”

Background: Arizona Senator John McCain voted to confirm liberals Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer to the Supreme Court. McCain and Kyl joined the group of 36 GOP senators and one Democrat in opposing Elena Kagan’s nomination to the high court. The Huffington Post has the statements each of the senators gave as their reason.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 374 other followers