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.


Law school grads failing bar exams under scrutiny

March 5, 2019

Loony Left insultingly claims diversity considerations trump academic achievement

The fact that too many law school graduates are failing to pass the bar exam on the first test has caused the American Bar Association to consider a proposal requiring the schools to have a 75 percent rate of passage within the first two years of graduation, rather than the current five-year time frame. It has also increased the standards for accreditation of law schools. Arizona’s problem-plagued Summit Law School will cease operation after the current class graduates in 2020.

The proposals are sensible, given the fact that lawyers can have clients whose future hangs in the balance depending on the outcome of a trial. Putting it another way, how many people would choose a surgeon who had difficulty passing the medical boards?

Before applying for a medical license, there is a three-step test called the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE), the board exam that must be passed in order to practice medicine. This test is unusual for two reasons. First, students take each part at different stages of their medical education. Second, unlike many standardized tests, the USMLE actually assesses mastery of the material, not how well one takes a test.

Patients and legal clients have every right to expect their doctor or lawyer knows what they’re doing.

But liberalism has now invaded the examination bastion, taking precedence over rationality. This stand-alone, bold-faced paragraph in the Hillary-endorsing Arizona Republic newspaper tells what radio commentator Paul Harvey, used to call “the rest of the story”:

“Critics worry struggling schools will respond by requiring higher scores on the law-school entrance exam. This would hurt diversity in law schools and the legal profession, critics say, because minority and economically disadvantaged students historically … scored lower on the Law School Admissions Test.”

When they require legal services, count on the fact that those “critics” will seek the best lawyer they can find — regardless of ethnicity. Insultingly demeaning a trained professional as being unable to cut the legal mustard due to their “diversity” component, exposes the not-so-subtle bigotry of low expectations routinely engaged in by the radical left. Hypocritically giving lip service to the fraudulent, separatist concept of diversity should no longer be tolerated.  Regardless of manufactured protestations to the contrary, rational Americans know our strength is derived from unity and ability comes in all colors and from all economic backgrounds.

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.

Smollett’s bogus “hate crime” exposed; No MAGA component & Update

February 22, 2019

By now we’re all past the point of nausea with the ongoing saga of Jussie Smollett, a character most of us had never heard of before he staged his racially based charade of being the victim of a hate crime —- perpetrated by, you guessed it — two guys wearing MAGA caps.  They tied him up, beat him, poured bleach on him, put a loose noose around his neck, for ultimate effect and derided him with racial and homophobic slurs. Smollett was victimized because he is black and homosexual. Leftist celebrities and politicians raced to his side, using the incident to castigate Trump supporters.

Except no such crime occurred. 

Jussie Smollett concocted the bizarre hoax to bring attention to himself with the ultimate goal of boosting his salary in the televised series in which he co-starred. Smollett was paid a paltry $65,000 per episode for his role in the “Empire.”  There are 18 episodes per season. No wonder he was dissatisfied.

Smollett, 36, initially sent a threatening note to himself. When that didn’t do the trick, he hired two Nigerian brothers for $3,500 to stage the attack.

Obviously, Smollett doesn’t watch ‘Forensic Files,’ or he would have known his scheme would unravel and he’d be found out. Police work is exemplary in the 21st century.

Smollett was arrested and released Thursday after posting $100,000 bond. If convicted of the Class 4 Felony, he faces up to three years in prison for his role in this hoax, finally gaining more notoriety then he did for his role in the program, which in all likelihood is his career finale.

Read the full bond proffer here.

The best part of this pathetic charade in which he purposely blamed the fake assault on supporters of President Trump, was this stellar press conference featuring Chicago Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson. And whaddaya know? it’s been blasted by Smollett’s defense attorneys.


Friday, March 8, 2019

Grand Jury indicts Smollett on 16 counts

A Chicago Grand Jury has indicted “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett on 16 counts of disorderly conduct and lying to police about being the victim of a racist and anti-gay attack.  When he story became suspicious, His character was written out of upcoming episodes.

Following his false reporting of the crime, extensive investigations of video footage of the purported crime scene showed no attack occurred.

Two brothers Smollett paid $3500 to stage the hoax came forward with evidence that Smollett was angry because he was not being paid what he thought his talents were worth. He might be able to read lines, but he has major trouble with staging. He described the non-existent attackers as wearing MAGA hats and other Trump gear, and yelling racist and anti-gay slurs at him

If found guilty, each charge carries a sentence that could range from probation to four years.

AZ child pornographer given 60 year sentence

February 19, 2019

Missing information: Citizenship status of Josue Eduardo Cota

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona is to be commended for its part in the dual nation investigation leading to its successful prosecution and conviction of this perverted monster, though a key piece of information is missing. What is his immigration status?

Josue Eduardo Cota, 33, a Douglas, Arizona resident and former corrections officer, has pleaded guilty to eight counts of production of child pornography and has been sentenced to 60 years in a case that began with a Canadian investigation. The U.S. investigation in this case was conducted by the Douglas Office Homeland Security Investigation team.

The fact that Douglas is a border town in Cochise County, abutting Mexico, makes Cota’s status relevant. According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, over 73 percent of residents identified as Hispanic or Latino. Over 65% speak a language other than English in their home. Between 2013 and 2017, a quarter of the population identified as foreign born and 31.9% live in poverty, with a per capita income in the past 12 months (in 2017 dollars) of $15,294. This information leads to the conclusion that a high rate of illegal aliens reside in Douglas. Is Josue Eduardo Cota one of them?

Cota is pictured in this report in the Douglas Dispatch.

The U. S. Department of Justice’s media release can be read here. All involved in apprehending, prosecuting and gaining a conviction of this despicable pervert who sexually exploited young children deserve our gratitude.

Crime is bad but appropriate punishment is worse

February 17, 2019

The hoax of criminal justice reform

A recently released poll by purports to show Arizona voters across the political spectrum support “bold reforms” to the state’s criminal justice system.

The left-wing group refers to a “prison crisis,” rather than accurately calling it a crime crisis.

Public Opinion Strategies which conducted the survey ludicrously concluded only one percent of Arizonans want to spend additional tax dollars on jails and prisons. The obvious conclusion, according to the pollsters, is 99 percent of Arizonans prefer living among violent criminals.

Additionally, the survey farcically claims support for less prosecution of crimes cuts across political party affiliations and demographic groups, with majority support supposedly among victims of crime. The far left group declares its pro-criminal efforts have “bi-partisan” support, the conveniently used buzz word providing cover to radical agendas.

In 2018 President Todd Schulte opposed California bill SB10, which he preposterously referred to as bringing “extraordinary harm caused by unnecessary pretrial jailing” and the “requiring of bail.” Bail ensures bondable criminals don’t flee prior to trial. Pretrial incarceration keeps dangerous offenders off the streets.

Among the ill-conceived bills’ Arizona proponents have introduced this state legislative session are HB 2245 (Prime Sponsor: Rep. Tony Riverio, LD-21) which allows prisoners to cut an additional 25% percent from their sentences for good behavior and participation in rehabilitation programs, both of which are expected of criminal inmates and HB 2362 (Prime Sponsor: Rep. Ben Toma, LD-22). This bill allows individual judges to determine the punishment if, in his or her opinion, the mandatory minimum sentence is not justified based on “the crime and individual” — ignoring the law and making criminal defendants’ fate a crap shoot depending on the luck of the judicial draw., is heavily funded to the tune of $100’s of millions by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Open Society Foundation founder George Soros, who has been working behind the scenes to overhaul the U.S. Justice system in his extreme leftist image.

The liberal billionaires lead a host of moneyed, like-thinkers who embrace open borders, spew leftist rhetoric and hire numerous lobbying groups to press their issues with city and state governments and congress. Illegal alien profiteers at the Chambers of Commerce whose members seek cheap, illegal labor are also in the tank for open borders, which is why they so disdain President Donald Trump and his commitment to build a border wall.

These people put criminals and illegal aliens above the safety and security of American citizens.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s lobbying operation alone spent nearly $95 million last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. What do you think would be worth that much money and effort?

Second Amendment freedoms under assault

February 15, 2019

Pay attention: This is just the beginning as Socialist agenda gains traction

The unambiguous Second Amendment is under assault by leftists, but nowhere is the attack on our constitutional right more vigorous than in what is becoming the repressive People’s Republic of California.

In 2018, the NRA partnered with its state association, the California Rifle and Pistol Association to once again sue the state, challenging the state’s restrictions on sales of ammunition.

A portion of the Safety for All Act of 2016, (scroll past the letter to read the bill) known as Proposition 63 –– which goes into full effect in July 2019 ––requires a background check to buy ammunition. Retailers will be legally obligated to log the amount of ammo gun owners purchase. That record will then be sent to a Justice Department database.

At the time, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome, a co-author of Prop 63, responded to the lawsuit by stating, “California voters made their decision loud and clear that guns and ammo do not belong in the hands of dangerous individuals,” a disingenuous way of characterizing law-abiding gun owners. Using more honest language, he also declared, the state “would fight the NRA every step of the way.” Newsome is now the governor. He blames everyone but the lax sanctuary city policies he has endorsed and presided over.

A lawsuit was filed by Kim Rhode, six-time Olympic medal winning shooter who set a record winning her first gold medal at the 1996 Atlanta Games five days after her 17th birthday. She has been joined in her legal action by gun retailers across the nation.

A court-ordered temporary injunction has blocked portions of the law from taking effect, including a clause which makes large-capacity magazine possession a misdemeanor.

The Democrats are doing all they can to suppress our rights. The NRA stands as a bulwark in maintaining our freedoms.

Check out this Quick Reference Guide for gun owners of firearms now classified as “assault weapons.”