GOP aids Obama’s stealth immigration, climate change power grab & UPDATE

May 19, 2015

Republicans foolishly poised to give Obama fast track on Trans Pacific Partnership, providing irreversible authority, since treaties supersede statutes under U.S. Constitution

This is huge,” Dick Morris tells America‘s Forum host J.D. Hayworth as he discusses Obama’s attempt to fast track Trans Pacific Partnership.*  (video under link)

“I hope that everybody listening takes action, call your senator about it.  If he‘s a Republican. he‘s voting wrong.  I don’t think the people understand that in this deal, which is a trade agreement among Australia, Malaysia, Vietnam, South Korea, Japan, Canada, United States, Mexico, Peru and Chili, there is a provision for free flow of workers, just like in the European Union.

What that means is unrestricted immigration.  It means literally that Congress would not have the authority to restrict immigration, because a treaty supersedes a statute under our constitution.”

Morris continues, “Obama is going to try to circumvent the legislative process and use the treaty-making authority do stuff that Congress can’t repeal, and a future president can’t change. As he enters the seventh year of his presidency, that’s what he’s focused on.  Under the guise of a NAFTA-like trade agreement it provides for unrestricted immigration within these eleven countries, which means any Mexican can come here to the United States legally, stay here, be naturalized, become a citizen and vote — and Congress can’t do anything about it. The Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress. One of them is Immigration and Naturalization.  This supersedes that and it does so for all time. Because you can’t repeal a treaty unless the other signatories agree.’

“It also could become the way to get Climate Change in,” Morris warns.  “He’s taking the whole legislative agenda and putting it in a treaty and getting it ratified and then it becomes as good as a Constitutional Amendment.

In this case Obama is putting it in a treaty and asking congress to approve fast track authority.  The idea that with all the power this president has grabbed, the Republicans are about to give him fast track, which means he can do  any trade agreement he wants and ratification is almost automatic, and the Democrats are opposing this. It is entirely Republican votes that are pushing it and they just don’t understand what’s in the damn bill.”

“This is not amnesty,“ Morris tells Hayworth. “Amnesty is for people who are already here.”

Watch this vitally important interview beginning at 5:52.

 * Besides the United States there are 11 other countries involved in  the TPP: :Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

Update-tag

On Thurs. May 21, 2015, by a roll call vote of 62 to 38, this is the Senate vote on HR 1314. This measure is expected to be the vehicle in the Senate guaranteeing Obama’s trade promotion authority. Check out the votes of Arizona’s Senators.


Double murderer a dreamer?

May 17, 2015

The Arizona Republic newspaper, short on news and long on far-left opinion, fills its pages with sports, vacuous celebrity-based entertainment coverage, oversized photos and a load of editorializing. News content is slim, often lacking facts. The staff that remains pushes, ad nauseam, the dual agenda of amnesty for illegals —- along with in-state tuition for their children, now affectionately known as “dreamers” —- and same-sex marriage. They pause only long enough to give yet another uppercut to the jaw of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as part of the ongoing attempt to decimate the dedicated and lifelong lawman.

To plump up the scant weekend news, the newspaper has devised bit of trickery labeled, “The Week in Review.” Rehashed articles from each day of the preceding week are reprinted. Among those considered worthy of regurgitation is one titled, “For 20 years, cop killer ‘living the dream’ in California.”

The five-paragraph report tells of Ernesto Salgado Martinez, an Indio, California resident, sentenced to death for the Aug. 15, 1995 murder of Arizona Department of Public Safety Officer Robert Martin, 57, who had pulled Martinez over for a traffic stop near Phoenix. Later that same day, Martinez crossed into California and used the dead officer’s service revolver to kill Randip Singh, 43, in Blythe during a convenience store robbery.

Although the Arizona Republic mentions Martinez’ name seven times in the short article and identifies him as one of the most dangerous prisoners in Riverside County and member of a notorious prison gang, the names of his victims were omitted. We found them and the facts of the Arizona case with a Google search. What the newspaper deemed important to focus on were his words of bravado in speaking to a judge on April 17, during a recent court hearing. “I’m housed here in Riverside,” Martinez boasted. “All is well. Living the dream.”

He still has not been tried for the California murder or extradited to Arizona to face the death penalty to which he was sentenced.


Grand Jury reinstates charges in dog deaths: Flakes excluded

May 7, 2015

Did prosecutor present sculpted facts to new Grand Jury omitting the actual responsible parties?

Hear that prolonged “phew” resonating across the Valley? That’s Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery breathing a deep sigh of relief after a County Grand Jury reinstated animal cruelty charges against the owners of Green Acre Dog Boarding in Gilbert in connection with the agonizing heat related suffocation deaths of nearly two dozen dogs that occurred during the searing summer heat of June 2014.

Todd Hughes, 32, and MaLeisa Hughes, 45, owners of the kennel each face 21 Class 6 felony counts and 7 Class 1 misdemeanor counts of cruelty to animals. Both also face one Class 2 felony count of fraudulent schemes and artifices.

The couple was vacationing in Florida when the deaths occurred last June. They are the expendable mother and stepfather of Logan Flake —- wife of Sen. Jeff Flake’s son Austin —- who were actually in charge of the facility when the dogs were crammed into a small laundry room overnight without air-conditioning, food or water.

Charging the Flakes is what gave Montgomery heartburn. So just before Christmas 2014, when he thought few were paying attention, Montgomery dismissed all felony and misdemeanor charges against Jeff Flake’s son and daughter-in-law. A single fraud charge remained against Todd and MaLeisa Hughes.

It was clear from the June 20 onset, when the dead and dying dogs were found, Bill Montgomery was loath to touch this case. He dillied and dallied, even after Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s extensive three-month examination of facts which included veterinarian performed necropsies. The sheriff’s office recommended numerous felony charges of animal neglect and cruelty in connection with the horrific abuse of the pets. The dogs suffered excruciating pain before dying. When the Flakes found them the next morning, they neglected to even call a veterinarian to aid the not yet dead pets, which they callously hosed down in a vain attempt to cool them. The dead dogs were carted off to a shed where they were stacked like cordwood.

As we noted last September in the post, “Bill Montgomery: Between a Flake and a hard place,” the politically ambitious Montgomery, who endorsed Jeff Flake in his senate race, has career aspirations that are rumored to include the state’s second senate seat, when McCain finally moves on. Obviously how he chose to handle this widely scrutinized case could have had devastating consequences for his ambitions.

This is the latest news release announcing the reinstatement of charges against the Hugheses.  Notice the tempered wording of this May 6 announcement as Montgomery refers to the dead pets as “beloved animals.”  Previously at a Sept. 10, 2014  press conference Montgomery exhibited raw insensitivity to the grieving pet owners as he provided insight as to his bent. “This isn’t to cheapen or minimize the loss of the pets to the families,” Montgomery said. “But we’re not talking about the deaths of 23 children.”

Without the weight of an indictment, Austin and Logan Flake have moved on. Now that Montgomery has dropped all felony charges against them, they’re suing Maricopa County and Sheriff Joe Arpaio, seeking $8 million to resurrect their formerly pristine reputations, claiming they were targeted by the Sheriff’s office and their sterling characters were ruined by this investigation. 

Maricopa County taxpayers should prepare to dig deep for this legal escapade by two marginal Flakes. Since the lawsuit against the county specifically names Sheriff Arpaio, the daily fish wrap will serve as lead cheerleader as these lightweights attempt to get rich on our backs and the carcasses of the dogs they allowed to suffer and die.

This post, “Bill Montgomery sets Flakes loose on county taxpayers” includes additional background.


Police sacrificial pawns in mob-based charges

May 3, 2015

Prosecutor appeases rioting mobs and looters in Democrat-run city

All six Baltimore police officers charged with homicide in the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray who died in a hospital after suffering a spinal injury while in police custody have posted bail. They were released on bonds ranging between $250,000 and $350,000.

In a lightening speed rush to judgment, Maryland State Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced the charges ranging from assault to murder Friday. Mosby has been practicing law for less than ten years —- three of which were spent at Liberty Mutual Insurance, reviewing dubious claims.

Anti-police protests, driven by tech savvy anarchists adept at social media, have simultaneously erupted in cities across the country including New York, Denver, Seattle, Chicago and Portland, Oregon.  After the charges were announced, organizers billed their marches a “victory rally” and celebratory partying followed.

Charges against the Baltimore officers —- three black and three white —- are serious and  carry heavy penalties:

Officer Caesar Goodson Jr. was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter, second-degree assault, two vehicular manslaughter charges and misconduct in office. 

Officer William Porter, Lt. Brian Rice and Sgt. Alicia White were all charged with involuntary manslaughter, second-degree assault and misconduct in office. 

Officer Edward Nero was charged with second-degree assault and misconduct in office, and Officer Garrett Miller was charged with those charges plus false imprisonment.  

Goodson, facing the most serious charges, could potentially be sentenced to as much as 63 years of prison. The others face a maximum sentence of between 20 and 30 years.

Baltimore’s police union president, Gene Ryan, said none of the officers charged are responsible for Gray’s death. Michael E. Davey, an attorney who works with the union and is representing one of the officers, decried what he called an “egregious rush to judgment.”

Opposition to these charges transcend politics. Alan Dershowitz —- a nationally renown criminal appellate lawyer and self-described liberal Democrat who twice campaigned for Barack Obama —- noted that Mosley’s actions were motivated more by political expediency and short-term public safety than strong evidence. He called the charges “outrageous and irresponsible,” especially the second degree murder count filed against police van driver Caesar Goodson Jr. under a rarely seen legal principle known as “depraved heart,” which allows prosecutors in that jurisdiction to charge a person with murder without having to prove intent to kill.

“The decision to file charges was made not based on considerations of justice, but on considerations of crowd control,” Dershowitz said Saturday. “It’s a sad day for justice,” he declared. 


Another AZGOP Exec. Comm. Member voices frustration with Graham

April 28, 2015

To: AZ GOP Chairman Robert Graham

cc: Members of the AZ GOP Executive Committee

It has been just over one week since the Executive Committee (EC) of the Arizona GOP met to conduct its business. I have had a chance to read some of the commentary on what became a marathon Executive Committee meeting of almost 6 hours. But upon reflection and based upon my desire for the Republican Party to succeed in the future after being very active in the Party for over 50 years, I feel it is my responsibility to report what I observed. The EC did a great disservice to the over 1300 State Committeemen who voted overwhelmingly for a Resolution to restore our closed primary system in partisan elections by filing a lawsuit with the Arizona Courts and working with the Legislature to pass new legislation.

In this marathon meeting, almost 2 hours was spent discussing this one agenda line item, Close Primary. Mr. Chairman, when we got to this agenda item you spent over 35 minutes discussing all the reasons why we “could not” file a lawsuit to restore our previously closed primary system. Then you opened up the floor for discussion. I realized later that we were mis-directed and forced to re-debate the issue. This discussion/debate in reality was “Out of Order”. We were not there April 18th to discuss the merits of filing a lawsuit, it had already been debated and discussed back on January 24th at the AZ GOP Statutory Meeting. At this Jan. 24th meeting the Resolution, after spending over half an hour of debate, was passed by an overwhelming majority of the State Committeemen (SC) present (1321 present in person or by proxy). Again, we the Executive Committee were given an order to execute an approved Party Resolution. We were to proceed with closing our Primaries in a two-fold approach, legislatively and by lawsuit. It was not our purview to re-debate, only to execute. I tried to do that. I am the member who made the motion to set aside $75K in our budget (3% of a $2.5M budget) to fund the lawsuit effort. I had mentioned to the body that there were two ways to do this: 1) either go over budget on the legal expense line item or 2) fund it as its own project. It was suggested to me to fund it separately so I made the motion. It failed to pass.

However, there was no plan on how to go back to the State Committeemen, the party members that elected all of us, on why we were not going to do what they directed us to do back in January. The Resolution passed was to close our primaries. This must be dealt with, not kicked down the road or ignored. I believe that each of us has a responsibility to the SC’s who elected us, in my case the SC’s from CD4. They overwhelmingly supported the Resolution. We still have a problem with non-Republicans voting in our Primaries that was not even addressed at the EC mtg. All we heard were reasons why we could not file a lawsuit.

Before I make a couple of recommendations, I must share a few more comments. We were told that the Libertarian Party lawsuit is different than the one we would file. The Libertarian Party was able to explain severe burden or risk, that their election results could be skewed by Independents voting in their primaries. I agree. But that has also started to happen in our Republican Primary. Just look at the 2014 Republican Primary results for State Senate in LD25. The winning Republican candidate won by 1646 votes. The number of Independents who voted in that election was 4316, more than enough to influence and determine the winner. Add to this the fact that over $500K was spent on electioneering in that State Senate Republican primary and its not hard to conclude that big money could also influence Independent voter participation in our Primaries. Remember, there are 24 other LD’s that have Independent voter registration within 10% of the total Republican registration in those districts. So I believe we will see more elections where Independent voters determine who wins in our primaries.

Another point about Independent Voters involved in the Republican Party’s Political business. Less we forget, it was just the ONE INDEPENDENT member of the Independent Redistricting Committee who decided the election boundaries for all 30 legislative districts and 9 congressional districts in Arizona. How did that work out for fairness to Republicans!

I can also imagine that the members of the Libertarian Party are sure glad that their leaders didn’t come to the same conclusions about fighting open primaries that the leadership of the Arizona Republican Party has displayed. Can you picture what some of the discussions were like back in 2002 when the Libertarian Party debated whether to go to court:

We Libertarians can’t go to court to fight the Arizona Constitution, it will cost us millions!

It will take years to deliberate with no guarantee of success.

And who will pay for our primaries if we shut out the Independents; we will have to pay for our own primaries!

We need to form a Fundraising Committee to pay for this expensive court action, but there are only 27,000 registered Libertarians across the whole state of Arizona!

We may have a case of severe burden on our Primary results, but again, we would be going against the Arizona Constitution and who can win a court case against a Constitutional law?

Why file a court action anyway to close the Libertarian Party Primary, we will never win!

It is time Mr. Chairman, for all of us as the AZGOP Executive Committee to provide the leadership we were elected to provide by properly responding to the Resolution of the State Committeemen and proceed with a legislative action plan as well as a legal action plan to protect our Republican Primary selection process with closed primaries. I offer my help in that endeavor. Remember, Democrats file lawsuits all the time against Arizona laws and have a great batting average.

I have fought for the Republican Party and what it stands for and will continue to do so. And in case you chose not to proceed with an appropriate response to the party members, then I would like to be appointed to the next Bylaws committee that reviews the Continuing Bylaws of the Arizona Republican Party. Either we need to remove the ability of passing Resolutions as a Party because they are not followed through by the Chairman and the Executive Committee or the Resolutions section needs to be revised so that it is clear that Resolutions are binding on the Party and require regular updates to the Party until they are enacted upon and completed.

Sincerely,

Don M. Ascoli

Member At Large CD4

AZ GOP Executive Committee

Background reading:

April 18, 2015: Republican PCs threatened with arrest at AZ GOP HQs & UPDATE  First person accounts of April 18, 2015 AZ GOP newly closed executive meeting by LD 28 PCs. It garnered  63 comments from readers.

April 13, 2015: A.J. LaFaro dispels Robert Graham’s myth on closing Primary

April 5, 2015: Need more proof of McCain chokehold on AZGOP?  Robert Graham closing meeting to elected Precinct Committeemen, shutting down information flow


U.S. SC Justices’ bias void impartiality claims

April 22, 2015

Justices Ginsburg, Kagan have taken public stance in favor of same-sex marriage

Should U.S. Supreme Court justices who effectively endorsed same-sex marriage by officiating at such ceremonies be ruling on whether or not the Constitution grants states the right to ban them?

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg performed a same-sex marriage in Washington, D.C., in August 2013. Justice Elena Kagan officiated at a same-sex marriage for her former law clerk and his partner last September. 

Herbert Titus, a nationally recognized constitutional authority, is quoted as saying the two justices must have known at the time that it was almost inevitable for the issue to be put to the Supreme Court, “yet they went ahead and put their official imprimatur on same-sex marriage.” Titus said the likely response from the justices will be that they believe that they can be neutral on the issue of same-sex marriage.

“It tells you an awful lot about the culture,” he continued. “These people are immersed in the homosexual culture to the point they would step out of their role as a justice to officiate in a wedding that would put them in a position of lending their name and prestige to same-sex marriage when they had every good reason to believe the issue would be before the court.”

April 28 is the day the Supreme Court will hear arguments in an appeal from the Sixth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of state constitutional bans on same-sex marriage. A helpful guide intended for fledgling reporters covering the challenges can be read on the SCOTUS blog

The American Family Association (AFA) provides a way for citizens to tell their congressional representatives that both Ginsburg and Kagan need to recuse themselves from the case.

“U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse themselves from any cases involving the homosexual marriage issue on the basis that they have conducted same-sex marriage ceremonies,” the campaign letter states.

Joining AFA is the Coalition of African-American Pastors, (CAAP). It has also called upon the justices to recuse themselves, since each has revealed a pro-homosexual bias.

“A Justice of the Supreme Court is called on to avoid the appearance of bias—especially on a highly controversial and sensitive issue that is currently before the Court,” said Rev. William Owens, president and founder of CAAP. “And yet, both Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan have taken a public stance in favor of same-sex marriage, even going so far as to officiate at a same-sex wedding.”

“Not only is this a breach of ethics, but it calls into question the integrity of the Court and the supposed balance that the judicial branch is meant to provide in constitutional interpretation. It is beyond objectionable that no action has yet been taken to ensure that the case will be adjudicated fairly. And so it falls to us, the people, to take action. CAAP is launching a petition urging Justices Kagan and Ginsburg remove themselves from decision-making on this issue and prevent a crisis brought on by the taint of a biased judiciary.”


Hinckley roams freely, Chapman denied parole

April 20, 2015

The facts of the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan’s life and the others who were shot on March 30, 1981 can be found on the Encyclopedia Britannica blog. What is startling is that for the past year, under a judge’s order, would-be assassin John Hinckley, the last man to shoot a U.S. President, spends 17 days a month at his 85-year-old mother’s gated Williamsburg resort community home overlooking a golf course.

Court hearings are set to begin this week on whether to further expand Hinckley’s time away from the mental health facility —- possibly permanently. His outings began in 2003 with day visits outside the institution, then local overnight visits. Starting in 2006, Hinckley was allowed three-night trips to Williamsburg, then four, then more. In late 2013, a judge approved the current 17-day stretches. Paul Friedman, Senior District Judge for the District of Columbia said he was persuaded Hinckley was not a danger and that the longer stays might “provide new opportunities for employment and structured community activities.”

How nice.

Hinckley now nearly 60, volunteers, goes to movies, plays guitar, eats in restaurants and drives alone, but only to places where “people will be expecting him.” He must “avoid areas where the president or members of Congress may be visiting.” 

“Avoid?” Is there no stronger admonition?

Prosecutors have consistently opposed Hinckley’s release, arguing he has a history of deceptive behavior and troubling relationships with women. During the last hearings, they cited a July 2011 incident in which he went to a bookstore instead of a movie and then lied about it. The Secret Service, whose agents sporadically tail Hinckley, reported he looked at shelves that contained books about Reagan and his attempted assassination, though he didn’t pick anything up.

“Mr. Hinckley has not shown himself ready to conduct the hard work of transitioning to a new city,” prosecutor Sarah Chasson said in 2011.

Mark David Chapman shot and killed John Lennon in 1980. He was sentenced to 20 years to life. He has been denied parole eight times.  The parole board concluded that releasing Chapman would “deprecate the seriousness of the crime and serve to undermine respect for the law.”

Why couldn’t Judge Friedman, a 1994 Bill Clinton appointee, reach the same conclusion when it comes to John Hinckley?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 363 other followers