American Airlines Iraqi saboteur successfully plays victim

September 7, 2019

A brief report buried in the single page USA Today insert inside the failing Arizona Republic newspaper is titled, “Airline: Mechanic attempted sabotage.”

This should rightfully have been given Page One coverage, but that was likely deemed politically incorrect by the Hillary-endorsing, far left newspaper.

Here are the facts: An American Airlines mechanic, arrested Thursday by federal air marshals and FBI agents, appeared in federal court Friday on a sabotage charge accusing him of purposely gluing foam inside the tube of an air data module, disabling a critical navigation system on a flight with 150 people aboard before it was scheduled to take off from Miami International Airport in July. His actions were captured on surveillance video.

The reason? According to this criminal complaint filed in Miami federal court, employee Abdul-Majeed Marouf Ahmed Alani, who is from Iraq but reportedly lived in the U.S. for decades, was upset over stalled union contract negotiations. Though his salary averaged $8,000 a month he admitted to investigators he was motivated by the potential for overtime pay.

Alani, was appointed a federal public defender by Magistrate Judge John J. O’Sullivan after the saboteur claimed he was unable to pay for his own defense — although he admitted he owned property in Sarasota and leased two cars, a 2018 Honda and 2016 Camaro. Speaking in halting English, he also requested an Arabic interpreter to translate.

Not only did this criminal intentionally intend to endanger the lives of 150 passengers and crew based solely on greed, but he is playing American taxpayers and the legal system and getting away with it. Those nefarious motives are not enough for the local newspaper to give this prominent coverage, though it routinely finds ample space to attack President Donald Trump.

Advertisements

News report indicative of nothing but anti-Trump bias

August 25, 2019

As avid news followers and supporters of President Trump, this zinger of a headline topping an article that appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle was nothing short of attention-grabbing:

Reported Trump fan convicted in California of voter fraud, identity theft.”

The bizarre contrivance is proof positive that fake news is alive and well. In reading the report, it’s clear that it had nothing to do with the President of the United States. Seven words in the final sentence were given prominence to contort the report of a criminal illegal alien — slickly mischaracterized as an “undocumented resident” — charged with identity theft and voter fraud.

Student intern Alejandro Serrano, posing as a reporter, also wrote that charged perpetrator Gustavo Araujo Lerma was “convicted by a federal grand jury.”

Alejandro, who is doing a stint at the SF Chronicle, following a 10-week summer internship at the Chicago Tribune, needs a remedial course in basic legal proceedings if this is to be his beat. A grand jury has no power to convict anyone of a crime. After hearing evidence presented by prosecutors they can only issue an indictment to charge an individual with a crime. Trials do not take place before a grand jury.

And the illegal charged with the crimes? Alejandro Serrano writes, “according to one report, Lerma testified he was a fan of President Trump.”

According to the obviously leftist novice Alejandro, that sounds like an even more egregious crime than identify theft and voter fraud.

SF Gate, the online sister site of the Chronicle provided this editorial insight,The decline of news,” back in 2007. “The situation at the Chronicle has only worsened in the intervening years, resulting in editor-less interns inadequately filling the positions of seasoned journalists. Neil Henry wrote: “Reportedly losing an estimated $1 million a week, the paper’s owner, the Hearst Corp., concluded it had no recourse but to trim costs by laying off reporters, editors and other skilled professionals, or offering buyouts to the most seasoned journalists in order to induce them to leave. The cuts reportedly will amount to a quarter of The Chronicle’s editorial staff.”

Henry’s editorial is worth your time. The evaluation mirrors the slashing of jobs resulting in of these dire circumstances at the recently sold Arizona Republic.


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?


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:


Feds to retry harborer of illegals

July 30, 2019

Scott Warren is a man who has more empathy for illegal invaders than commitment to the United States of America. Aligned with the fallaciously named, “No More Deaths,” a group that provides assistance to illegal border crossers, he was charged with three felonies resulting from his Jan. 2018 arrest by Border Patrol agents in Ajo, for providing what the leftist media refers to as “humanitarian aid.” The Arizona Republic actually headlined his arrest as “suspicious.”

The Tucson jury deadlocked. Outside the courthouse, Warren castigated the government for charging him for smuggling illegals, saying it, “criminalizes humanitarian aid, kindness, and solidarity.”

“Today it remains as necessary as ever for local residents and humanitarian aid volunteers to stand in solidarity with migrants and refugees,” Warren said. “And we must also stand for our families, friends, and neighbors, and the very land itself, most threatened by the militarization of our borderland communities.”

A retrial is scheduled for November 12.

Parents who pay astronomical tuition and fees to send their kids to Arizona State University will be thrilled to know this 36-year-old goon is a member of the faculty providing his skewed brand of influence.


AZ Supreme Court: Judiciary by mob rule? Let’s hope not & Update

July 26, 2019

ACLU thugs stage rowdy street protest against stellar AZ Supreme Court applicant

Today the state Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will interview nine applicants vying to fill a vacancy on the Arizona Supreme Court brought about by the retirement of Justice Scott Bales 

Filling judicial vacancies on the participating trial courts, both divisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is usually a dignified, orderly procedure, following constitutional guidelines. The 16-member commissions include both public and attorney members, representing various political parties and on the appellate level, diverse counties. They vet the applicants and select those they will interview. Following the interviews, commissions are constitutionally mandated to send a list of not more than two-thirds of one political party to the governor who makes the final selection.

Among the current supreme court applicants (read their applications), Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, a West Point graduate and military officer has a background that, to most observers, would appear stellar. This is not intended to diminish other applicants, but to point to his prominence bringing out the rowdy protesters. The left-wing Arizona Republic newspaper described the repeatedly elected Montgomery as a “controversial Republican leader,” conveniently omitting how he excelled despite family adversity, graduated law school with high honors and rose to lead an esteemed prosecutor’s office with over 1,000 employees, managing a budget of approximately $100 million, while contributing time to community activities and raising a family.

He was recently the subject of a raucous ACLU-led mob of thugs assembled outside his office, yelling, “Block Bill! Block Bill!,” taking him to task for his views which are far more mainstream than theirs. A similar sized crowd of admirers held signs stating their support. Montgomery ably addresses his publicly stated views on issues that affect Arizonans on Question Number 29 of his application:

Describe any additional professional experience you would like to bring to the Commission’s attention: As a publicly elected official, I have had to ensure that the political dimensions of the Office never interfere with the obligation to seek justice in all the matters that Arizona law requires me to address. While I may engage in debate over various public policy matters that intersect with the duties and responsibilities of the office I serve in, I have never let politics affect the decisions I have to make. First and foremost in my mind is the constant realization that I have to set an example for the men and women of the Office. If I am to expect civil attorneys and prosecutors to base their decisions on objective information and argue from facts, then I must do the same. The approach to deciding cases of statewide impact for a Supreme Court Justice reflects a similar reality. While controversy may swirl about a pending case, the members of the Court must stay focused on the matter before them and on the facts and the law to be applied. Additionally, I have experienced the necessity for ignoring the political rhetoric that often flows from advocating for a position different than that of various special interest groups, whether it involves criminal justice policy or ballot initiatives.  I have the practical experience of not letting political differences interfere with my obligation to work with fellow county officials or with fellow criminal justice system stakeholders in Maricopa County, independent of political affiliation or their side of an issue.  While high volume criticism, regardless of the justification or lack thereof, may be a part of the political dimension of the job, I have never let it define how I work to maintain the public’s confidence in our civil, criminal, and juvenile justice systems. This understanding of the nature of my position and the work I have engaged in over the last eight plus years gives me a greater sensitivity for the apolitical nature of the judiciary and the fact that the public policy matters I have engaged in are for the Executive and Legislative branches.  In order to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and to serve honorably as an Arizona Supreme Court Justice, I recognize I must forego all such activity and I actually look forward to pursuing a new challenge in doing so.

Arizonans would be well represented having a man of Montgomery’s background and caliber selected for the high court. Caving to the loudest, contrived voices is not a recipe for excellence. Thuggery should not be a factor in deciding who sits on Arizona’s Supreme Court.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery was on the list of seven applicants sent to Gov. Doug Ducey, following a 10-2 vote. Chief Justice Robert Brutinel, who chaired the commission, chose to abstain from balloting. The other finalists are:

Sean Brearcliffe, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Kent Cattani, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Maria Elena Cruz, (Democrat) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

David Euchner, (Libertarian) a Pima County Public Defender.

Randall Howe, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Andrew Jacobs, (Democrat) a partner at Snell & Wilmer law firm.


Mueller sham investigation, “doddering” testimony exposed

July 25, 2019

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway has likely written the best assessment of Robert Mueller’s difficult to watch testimony, intended to bring President Trump to the gates of political hell. Instead, it elicited unexpected feelings of sympathy for frail, former FBI director, Mueller, described as “doddering.”

Not only is it a miserable end to a lofty career, but there is the impossible to forget spectacle of a less than mentally alert, ashen and disconnected man, repeatedly asking for simple sentences to be repeated, that will provide the indelibly etched memory superseding any previous accomplishments.

Mueller’s obvious decline appears to have self-written Hemingway’s headline, Mueller doddering raises many questions about who precisely was running investigation.”

These not widely reported facts emerge in her commentary:

“What I don’t think anybody expected was Mueller would present himself as doddering, as lacking command of anything to do with the election and thereby raising a whole host of questions about who actually was in charge of this Mueller investigation. A lot of people just gave it leeway because they respected him and seeing today I don’t think anyone thinks he was in charge. It had been previously reported that 13 of his 17 associates were Democrats, 0 were Republicans. Nine were Democratic donors; six were Hillary Clinton donors. Some were pretty close allies of the Clintons. One attended a Hillary Clinton election rally. So what I think you’re going to start seeing many more questions about precisely who was running this investigation and to what end? …

The big change I think is there were Republicans who really did trust the Mueller investigation on the grounds that Robert Mueller was running it alone. He was the only Republican affiliated with it and he apparently had no idea what was going on. So I think you’re going to see some people, you’re going to see an increase in ranks of people who think that maybe the investigation was not handled properly and there were deep problems with it.”

An impossible to argue with assessment, Mrs. Hemingway.