Monthly Archives: April 2012
In December, Van Irion, lead attorney of the Liberty Legal Foundation, filed suit against the National Democrat Party and its chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Irion asked the court for an injunction to prevent the Party naming Barack Hussein Obama its candidate for President in 2012 by ruling he is not a “natural born citizen,” as required by the Constitution of the United States.
Although both defendants were served with the action, neither bothered to respond or show up in court, something of a standard practice by Obama and his colleagues. When Irion asked the court for a default judgment against the Democrat Party and Schultz, Judge Bolton denied the motion, claiming the Democrat Party had not been properly served according to HER particular interpretation of federal law for the legal service of defendants. As Irion puts it, “Bolton acted more like a defense attorney than a judge,” as she “…denied [a] motion for default judgment by interpreting a procedural rule in a way that it has apparently never been interpreted before.”
Although Irion explained the law to Bolton and provided the proof-of-delivery receipt from the USPS, Judge Bolton still refused to accept the written delivery certification of the Post Office! Irion explains, “What’s disturbing about [this] ruling is the fact that most courts routinely grant default judgments when defendants don’t show up. If a defendant later show up and proves they were not properly served the court can easily vacate the judgment…”
In short, Judge Bolton not only ignored usual court procedure, she became counsel for the interests of the Democrat Party, “…[asserting] defenses that the absent defendant didn’t offer on its own behalf.”
By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz apologized for boasting that the Obama Administration’s approach toward environmental enemies was to “crucify them.” Armendariz attributed his remarks to his misunderstanding of the scope of the President’s authority.
“While it is agreed that the President is empowered to kill those he deems a threat, I have been advised by the Attorney General that actually crucifying them would be construed as ‘cruel and unusual,’” Armendariz said. “Only more covert methods are currently approved.”
Armendariz acknowledged “the President’s right to impose whatever restrictions he sees fit. After all, he is our ruler. I have to think, though, that a more demonstrative display of the consequences of opposing the President’s agenda would be more effective as a deterrent. I mean, crucifixion was a very effective enforcement tool for the Romans. Since their empire lasted a thousand years I wouldn’t be so quick to disdain their methods.”
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson further clarified Armendariz’s statement, insisting that “the crucifixion we had in mind was never a literal duplication of the Roman practice. Bankrupting the businesses and destroying the reputations of those we deem responsible for polluting the environment is as far as we intend to go at this time.”
Department of Labor Backs Down
The Department of Labor announced that it was withdrawing its proposed rule banning the employment of persons younger than 16 years of age on farms.
“There are many hazards in agricultural work,” observed Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. “Dangerous machines, sharp tools, and large animals pose a threat to those working in this environment. Our aim was to protect children from being injured or worse. We had no idea that farm families routinely call upon their minor children to participate in undertaking the tasks of running the family business.”
An outpouring of opposition to the proposed new rule from the farming community was what persuaded the Department to reverse itself. “The message seems to be that engaging one’s own children in such dangerous work is both an economic necessity and a way to train the next generation to take over the business,” Solis acknowledged. “I suppose if we are going to have family-owned farms this is necessary. But given the hazards, we might want to think more seriously about restructuring the industry. It seems there would be considerable economies-of-scale from consolidating the current hodgepodge of individually owned farming units into larger collective or communal operations.”
First Family’s Lavish Vacations Defended
Since President Barack Obama assumed office the First Family has racked up a total of 17 vacations. This is nearly five times the number of excursions taken by a typical American family over that time span. Costs are also a sore point. One trip to Spain hit up taxpayers for almost $500,000.
The high costs are not really the Obamas’ fault explained First Lady Michelle. “It’s only because Barack is the President that the cost is so high,” she argued. “We are hostages to the office. Everywhere we go we have to be accompanied by an entourage of bodyguards and personal assistants. We can’t just book a commercial flight and rent a car like common people do. Get used to it—expensive travel comes with the territory.”
As for the seemingly large number of trips, Michelle pointed out that “a person is only President for eight years. We’re just trying to cram in as much as we can in this limited amount of time. We’d be fools not to take advantage of this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.”
Dem Says High Unemployment Will Help Party “Cruise to Victory”
The normal expectation would be that high unemployment would hurt the President and his fellow Democrats come the November elections. “Not so,” says Representative Chaka Fattah (D-PA). “Every person who’s unemployed or on welfare knows that it’s the Democrats who will look out for them.” Fattah asserted.
“The flaw in the GOP’s reasoning is the mistaken notion that putting more people to work is what voters want,” Fattah said. “What everyone wants is a paycheck. They’ll work for it if they have to. But getting one without being forced to work for it is the type of total freedom that the Democratic Party has stood for the last 80 years.”
“Freedom of speech and freedom of religion get a lot of publicity, but I would guess that freedom from toil is a benefit more prized by your average American,” Fattah contended. “Our Party is the one that recognizes that. Our Party is the one voters can trust to deliver it.”
In support of his case, Fattah credited Democrats for relieving 50% of the population from paying federal income taxes. “If we add the 8% who’re unemployed to the 50% who’re exempt from paying taxes I think we have the makings of a Democratic landslide next November.”
Congressman Groped by TSA Agent
Representative Francisco Canseco (R-Texas) took offense when a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) agent grabbed his penis during a “routine” pat down at the San Antonio Airport. The Congressman’s effort to push the agent’s hand aside was characterized as “an assault” that “impeded security protocols” by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Charges may be pending.
“Nothing must be allowed to interfere with our efforts to keep this nation secure from threats,” Napolitano said. “It is essential that everyone fully comply with the procedures of the TSA. Thorough searches of sensitive areas are essential. To put them off-limits would be to invite terrorists to conceal weapons there. Patriotic Americans would willingly put aside any notions of personal privacy for the sake of public safety.”
Napolitano denied that the State Department’s recent declaration that the war on terror is over should affect TSA procedures. “I’ve said many times that al-Qaeda is not the only threat we face,” Napolitano declared. “In my opinion, there are much greater threats coming from home-grown opponents of our government. As we speak, groups are organizing efforts to unseat the President. I think we must remain vigilant.”
DNC Chair Denies Need for Budget
It has been three years since Congressional Democrats have passed a budget. Annual efforts by the Republican-controlled House to get a budget enacted have been blocked by the Democrat-controlled Senate.
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chairperson, Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Fla) insisted that “the absence of a budget isn’t the President’s fault. He’s given us two budgets in the last two years. He can’t be blamed if Republicans won’t go along.”
Neither of Obama’s two budgets received a single vote from any member of congress from either party. Wasserman-Schultz was unable to explain this total lack of support. She speculated that “I may have stepped out of the room when those votes were taken.”
“Anyway, budgets are unnecessary,” Wasserman-Schultz added. “The government has been running fine without one. Taxes continue to flow in. We’ve been able to spend more money than ever before. So why mess up a good thing?”
Wasserman-Schultz discounted the possibility that Republicans could use this as a winning campaign issue. “Voters aren’t interested in these kind of things,” she claimed. “As long as we keep them fed and amused why should they care about how we keep the books?”
Public School Bill Assailed by Union
The Nevada State Education Association took exception to proposed legislation aimed at improving public school teaching. In Nevada, teachers who complete one year on the job are granted tenure and are virtually immune from dismissal. Under the proposed bill (AB225) a teacher could be dismissed after three years of poor performance.
This new performance standard is a violation of teachers’ human rights says Lynn Warne, president of the Nevada State Education Association. “The expectation has been that once you clear that first year you have a secure job,” Warne said. “Teachers have planned their lives based on this expectation. To rip it away from them, ex post facto like this isn’t right.”
Warne also argued that the legislation is discriminatory. “Other government employees in Nevada have a similar tenure type system,” she maintained. “When a person can’t do the job they don’t get fired. The government just hires another person to take up the slack. Why do you think the number of employees has grown faster than the amount of actual services the state delivers? Unless they’re going to level this playing field it would be unfair to single out under-performing teachers.”
Ms. Warne declined to address the issue of the rights of students whose education might be damaged by poor teaching, saying “that is not my concern. I represent the teachers not the students. If students want representation they should form their own union.”
A Satirical Look at Recent News
By Russell Pearce, Maricopa County GOP Committee Member
In 2010, I introduced SB1070 to the Arizona Senate with two goals: To alleviate the problems that the federal government’s failure to secure our border and enforce our immigration laws inflicted on the citizens of Arizona, and to spark a national conversation about this issue that would eventually lead the federal government to act.
Despite parts of the bill being blocked by activist lower court judges, it has already succeeded on both counts. In 2009, illegal immigrants comprised 9.8 percent of Arizona’s workforce (Pew Hispanic Center) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform found that illegals cost Arizona taxpayers $2.6 billion a year. At the same time, failure to enforce our laws led to rampant crime, Phoenix had the highest kidnapping rate in the country, and dozens of police officers and citizens were killed or maimed by illegals.
The purpose of this bill is not to indiscriminately go through Hispanic neighborhoods and ask everyone to prove they are citizens. Rather, SB1070 is part of Arizona’s attrition through enforcement strategy that began with 2004’s Prop 200 and 2007’s Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), which I also authored.
If you prevent illegal aliens from getting jobs or receiving taxpayer-subsidized benefits, and you routinely enforce the law, illegal aliens will, as Mitt Romney and others have said, “self-deport.” Even without full-implementation, illegal aliens know that they are not welcome in Arizona and the strategy is working.
According to the latest Department of Homeland Security estimates, Arizona’s illegal population fell by 110,000 in 2010, or 23 percent. In contrast, the nationwide illegal population declined by less than 1 percent. Since LAWA’s enactment in 2008, 200,000 illegal aliens, 35 percent of the illegal population, have left the state. The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association released a statement noting, “Since SB1070, Phoenix has experienced a 30-year low crime rate.” Dozens of states have introduced legislation modeled after SB1070 and it has become law in South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama. Legislators in other states tell me that the inevitable litigation is a major obstacle to getting it passed, but if the Supreme Court upholds SB1070, you can be sure many more states will follow Arizona’s lead.
Ultimately, the federal government must do its job by securing the border, cracking down on employers of those here illegally and vigorously enforcing the laws already on the books in cooperation with local law enforcement. The 360,000 illegal aliens remaining in Arizona are a constant reminder that the problem has not been entirely solved and that the courts need to take the handcuffs off of law enforcement and allow them to enforce SB1070.
Even President Obama has acknowledged that SB1070 was a result of “our failure to act responsibly at the federal level.” The issue before court is not whether the law is effective but whether it is constitutional. I view the issue simply. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not prohibited to the states are reserved to the states, and I cannot see any word of text in the Constitution denying states the right to use their police power to inquire into the status of illegal aliens.
However, I recognize that the courts do not view the issue as straightforward. For that reason, I worked with former Justice Department official and Yale Law Journal editor Kris Kobach to craft the bill in line with recent court precedent on immigration. In 2002, the DOJ issued a memo that states had “inherent power” to enforce federal immigration law. The memo cited numerous cases, such as Gonzales v. Peoria, which said states may arrest individuals when there is “probable cause to believe [they committed] illegal entry.”
While much is made of the fact that SB1070 requires police to look into the immigration status of those it has a “reasonable suspicion” will be here illegally, the Supreme Court ruled in Muehler v. Mena, that police can do so even without reasonable suspicion. Despite the claims of racial profiling, the law specifically bars law enforcement considering “race, color or national origin.”
Last year the Supreme Court upheld LAWA 5-3 in Whiting v. Arizona. While LAWA was not as well known as SB1070, in some ways it is further reaching. SB1070 mirrors federal regulations, while LAWA requires businesses to use E-Verify, which they were not already required to do nationally.
Based on this decision, along with the fact that the Constitution, precedent, and the American people are on our side, I am cautiously optimistic that the court will uphold SB1070.
Speech by Mitt Romeny in New Hampshire
April 24, 2012
Americans have always been eternal optimists. But over the last three and a half years, we have seen hopes and dreams diminished by false promises and weak leadership.
Everywhere I go, Americans are tired of being tired, and many of those who are fortunate enough to have a job are working harder for less.
For every single mom who feels heartbroken when she has to explain to her kids that she needs to take a second job … for grandparents who can’t afford the gas to visit their grandchildren … for the mom and dad who never thought they’d be on food stamps … for the small business owner desperately cutting back just to keep the doors open one more month – to all of the thousands of good and decent Americans I’ve met who want nothing more than a better chance, a fighting chance, to all of you, I have a simple message: Hold on a little longer. A better America begins tonight.
Tonight is the start of a new campaign to unite every American who knows in their heart that we can do better! The last few years have been the best that Barack Obama can do, but it’s not the best America can do!
Tonight is the beginning of the end of the disappointments of the Obama years and the start of a new and better chapter that we will write together.
This has already been a long campaign, but many Americans are just now beginning to focus on the choice before the country. In the days ahead, I look forward to spending time with many of you personally. I want to hear what’s on your mind, hear about your concerns, and learn about your families. I want to know what you think we can do to make this country better…and what you expect from your next president.
And I’ll tell you a little bit about myself. I’ll probably start out talking about my wonderful wife Ann – I usually do – and I’ll probably bore you with stories about our kids and grandkids. I’ll tell you about how much I love this country, where someone like my dad, who grew up poor and never graduated from college, could pursue his dreams and work his way up to running a great car company. Only in America could a man like my dad become governor of the state in which he once sold paint from the trunk of his car.
I’d say that you might have heard that I was successful in business. And that rumor is true. But you might not have heard that I became successful by helping start a business that grew from 10 people to hundreds of people. You might not have heard that our business helped start other businesses, like Staples and Sports Authority and a new steel mill and a learning center called Bright Horizons. And I’d tell you that not every business made it and there were good days and bad days, but every day was a lesson.
And after 25 years, I know how to lead us out of this stagnant Obama economy and into a job-creating recovery!
Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?
Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?
If the answer were “yes” to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements…and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions. That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time. But not here and not now. It’s still about the economy …and we’re not stupid.
People are hurting in America. And we know that something is wrong, terribly wrong with the direction of the country.
We know that this election is about the kind of America we will live in and the kind of America we will leave to future generations. When it comes to the character of America, President Obama and I have very different visions.
Government is at the center of his vision. It dispenses the benefits, borrows what it cannot take, and consumes a greater and greater share of the economy. With Obamacare fully installed, government will come to control half the economy, and we will have effectively ceased to be a free enterprise society.
This president is putting us on a path where our lives will be ruled by bureaucrats and boards, commissions and czars. He’s asking us to accept that Washington knows best – and can provide all.
We’ve already seen where this path leads. It erodes freedom. It deadens the entrepreneurial spirit. And it hurts the very people it’s supposed to help. Those who promise to spread the wealth around only ever succeed in spreading poverty. Other nations have chosen that path. It leads to chronic high unemployment, crushing debt, and stagnant wages.
I have a very different vision for America, and of our future. It is an America driven by freedom, where free people, pursuing happiness in their own unique ways, create free enterprises that employ more and more Americans. Because there are so many enterprises that are succeeding, the competition for hard-working, educated and skilled employees is intense, and so wages and salaries rise.
I see an America with a growing middle class, with rising standards of living. I see children even more successful than their parents – some successful even beyond their wildest dreams – and others congratulating them for their achievement, not attacking them for it.
This America is fundamentally fair. We will stop the unfairness of urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice; we will stop the unfairness of politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses; we will stop the unfairness of requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing; we will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve; and we will stop the unfairness of one generation passing larger and larger debts on to the next.
In the America I see, character and choices matter. And education, hard work, and living within our means are valued and rewarded. And poverty will be defeated, not with a government check, but with respect and achievement that is taught by parents, learned in school, and practiced in the workplace.
This is the America that was won for us by the nation’s Founders, and earned for us by the Greatest Generation. It is the America that has produced the most innovative, most productive, and the most powerful economy in the world.
As I look around at the millions of Americans without work, the graduates who can’t get a job, the soldiers who return home to an unemployment line, it breaks my heart. This does not have to be. It is the result of failed leadership and of a faulty vision. We will restore the promise of America only if we restore the principles of freedom and opportunity that made America the greatest nation on earth.
Today, the hill before us is a little steep but we have always been a nation of big steppers. Many Americans have given up on this president but they haven’t ever thought about giving up. Not on themselves. Not on each other. And not on America.
In the days ahead, join me in the next step toward that destination of November 6th, when across America we can give a sigh of relief and know that the Promise of America has been kept. The dreamers can dream a little bigger, the help wanted signs can be dusted off, and we can start again.
And this time we’ll get it right. We’ll stop the days of apologizing for success at home and never again apologize for America abroad.
There was a time – not so long ago – when each of us could walk a little taller and stand a little straighter because we had a gift that no one else in the world shared. We were Americans. That meant something different to each of us but it meant something special to all of us. We knew it without question. And so did the world.
Those days are coming back. That’s our destiny.
We believe in America. We believe in ourselves. Our greatest days are still ahead. We are, after all, Americans!
God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
You know President Obama’s on shaky ground when the left-stream media’s champion, the New York Times, says Supreme Court justices seem sympathetic toArizona’s border enforcement law, SB 1070.
NYT’s Adam Liptak wrote after today’s oral arguments on SB 1070 at the U.S. Supreme Court: “Justices across the ideological spectrum appeared inclined to uphold a controversial part of Arizona’s aggressive 2010 immigration law, based on their questions on Wednesday at a Supreme Court argument.
To arrive at that conclusion, Liptak only had to listen to one of Obama’s left-wing Court appointees:
“You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor said of a central part of the argument made by Obama’s Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. ““Why don’t you try to come up with something else?”
The Drudge Report posted a huge headline Mr. Verrilli will not be saving for his scrapbook. It declared Obama’s lawyer had laid another egg in the Supreme Court, as he did last month arguing for Obamacare: “Obama’s Lawyer Chokes Again.”
The Washington Times’ Stephen Dinan reported: “Supreme Cour” justices took a dim view of the Obama Administration’s claim that it can stopArizona from enforcing immigration laws, telling government lawyers during oral argument Wednesday that the state appears to want to push federal officials, not conflict with them.”
The bias showed in the reporting by left-stream media Associated Press: “Verrilli did not mention Wednesday that the administration has deported nearly 400,000 people a year, far more than previous administrations, although the information was included in written submissions to the court.” Perhaps the AP regrets not assisting Verrilli prepare for orals.
Chief Justice John Roberts joined with colleagues who took issue with Verrilli’s remarks on theArizonalaw, noting the state only wants to inform federal authorities when it apprehends illegal aliens. “It seems to me that the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here illegally and who’s not,” Roberts said.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed SB 1070 into law, released this statement today:
“Today, more than two years after I signed SB 1070 into law, the State of Arizona had its opportunity to defend this measure before the United States Supreme Court. Many people never gave us a chance to get this far, and it is only due to the continuing support and encouragement of the American people that it was possible.
“Of course, we likely will not know the Court’s decision for weeks. But I am filled with optimism – the kind that comes with knowing thatArizona’s cause is just and its course is true.
“On the day I signed SB 1070, I called it ‘another tool for our state to use as we work to solve a crisis we did not create and the federal government has refused to fix.’ Those words still hold true – as I was reminded last week when I returned to the border to visit law enforcement and ranchers who live and work in southeasternArizona.
”Their message: The job of securing the border is not done, not so long as drugs and humans continue to be smuggled north in large numbers at the direction of violent cartels and armed gangs. As Governor, I have a duty to uphold the Constitution and a responsibility to protect the people ofArizona. With SB 1070, I am confident we can do both.”
Unbelievably, left-wing JusticeElena Kagan recused herself from the case. She refused to demonstrate the same integrity last month in the Obamacare oral arguments.
Thank you for reading! Tell your friends to bookmark The Arizona Conservative. We’re scooping other blogs and providing the best coverage on 1070, Obamacare, elections and other top-of-mind topics to Arizonans.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is planning a second press conference in the next few weeks to announce more findings about President Barack Obama’s birth place controversy and eligibility to serve as president.
Last month, Sheriff Joe announced his investigators had confirmed what graphic designers had previously reported: there is probable cause that Obama’s long form birth certificate was doctored.
PHOENIX ─ Today, the Arizona State Senate passed the Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act of Arizona (HB 2800) that will defund abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood of state family planning money. The vote was 18-8.
The bill is based on model legislation developed by the Susan B. Anthony List and the Alliance Defense Fund, and prioritizes family planning funds away from abortion-centered businesses like Planned Parenthood to entities that provide women with comprehensive health care.
Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colorado), Vice President of Government Affairs for the SBA List said, “Planned Parenthood’s abortion-centered business model does not need or deserve taxpayer dollars. We encourage Gov. Brewer to quickly sign this bill into law. Arizona is leading the charge to protect taxpayers and women from Planned Parenthood and the violence of abortion.”
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, president & CEO of Americans United for Life, called today’s Senate action “a devastating blow for Planned Parenthood. Arizona has dealt a historic rejection to Planned Parenthood. It’s a huge blow to the abortion empire with national implications for the entire pro-life movement. This historic ban will immediately save lives in Arizona despite Planned Parenthood’s best efforts to preserve this horrific and lucrative late-term abortion procedure.”
Arizona is joining a fast-growing group of states defunding Planned Parenthood, which kills more than 300,000 preborn children each year and has been accused of defrauding taxpayers with the $487 million it receives in federal funding.
According to SBA List, eight states successfully defunded Planned Parenthood of more than $61.7 million last year. Currently, Ohio, Iowa, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma are also weighing legislation that would defund the nation’s abortion giant.
Dave Tombers of the American Post-Gazette reports …
A longtime prosecutor who worked in concert with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, whose Cold Case Posse found probable cause that Barack Obama’s birth certificate was forged, says he was caught in a “witch hunt” for trying to remove corruption in the county.
Former county prosecutor Andrew Thomas has a deadline Tuesday to say whether he will appeal the decision. An ethics panel found Thomas’ office wrongfully accused three officials of illegal conduct to embarrass them.
Thomas has defended the prosecutions as necessary for rooting out corruption in government.
The allegations included scandal, fraud, payoffs and lavish vacations by county officials.
Thomas told WND, “This has been a massive cover-up and, for me, genuinely a Dreyfus-like injustice.”
WND has learned that as many as 11 county employees have been terminated in recent months for allegedly accepting bribes in a court tower construction scandal – one of the Thomas investigations that was stymied.
WND has also learned that the FDIC recently announced the loss of millions of dollars. There also are allegations that some $5.5 million was linked to county official Don Stapley, the subject of another Thomas investigation that was thwarted.
The October WND report documented the early troubles between then-Maricopa County Attorney Thomas and County Supervisor Stapley.
In 2006, Stapley tried to rein in Thomas’ ability to hire outside counsel for the county, saying Thomas based his “appointments upon who was favorable to him, not necessarily who was best qualified to represent the county.”
According to the complaint, the county board, under Stapley, wanted to oversee attorney selection and even hire outside counsel for the board itself. Thomas let them know on numerous occasions that the actions were illegal.
The complaint quoted Thomas saying, “Board members are immune from suit when they rely in good faith upon opinions of the county attorney, but no such immunity would apply and they may be personally liable for actions on advice of other counsel.”
Thomas essentially was arguing that the citizens of Maricopa County elected him to be the county attorney, and Stapley’s actions gave the appearance of circumventing the wishes of the voters.
The Arizona Bar Association took Thomas’ admonition of the county board to be a conflict of interest.
In another instance, Thomas initiated an investigation of Stapley for criminal wrongdoing.
A grand jury brought more than 100 charges against Stapley, ranging from failing to file financial disclosures to accepting expensive gifts such as three-week Hawaiian vacations and expensive ski trips for him and his family.
Allegations also arose that Stapley raised political contributions to run for president of the National Association of Counties, even though he was running unopposed.
The cash he raised was alleged to have been used to pay for personal luxuries instead.
But several judges who handled various steps of the case threw out charges, even though outside investigators had cited the “merit” of the counts. And bar association officials said the one-year statute of limitations had expired on dozens of charges.
Ultimately, none of the counts went to trial, and Stapley testified before the bar that the investigation “ruined his life.”
In an email to WND Thomas said of the bar association results, “The findings are completely divorced from the actual facts and evidence presented at the hearing.
“While I was county attorney, I antagonized powerful people and special interests – particularly the judiciary, which rendered this decision – over crime control, illegal immigration and other issues.
These forces targeted my law license for five years; at the end, they simply mobilized, ganged up and overwhelmed me, fabricating wrongdoing to achieve their desired end.”
Others targeted included former assistants Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander.
The bar association revoked Aubuchon’s license and suspended Alexander’s, which will force her to re-take the bar exam.
Referring to a recent national survey found at stateintegrity.org, Thomas said this week, “Arizona has some of the worst corruption in America.
“Today, corruption has won and justice has lost,” he continued. “I brought corruption cases in good faith involving powerful people, and the political and legal establishment blatantly covered it up and retaliated by targeting my law license.”
WND’s previously reported the maneuvers could have been politically motivated, with even some of Thomas’ political opponents saying the counts have “no merit.”
“Arizona after what happened yesterday has become Mexico,” Thomas said. “People in this community need to understand what happened yesterday when my law license was terminated.
“Powerful politicians twice indicted for corruption have gone free. Others who blocked investigations and prosecutions retaliated against law enforcement and demolished county government to protect themselves escaped justice. Insiders who knew how the system works and how to work the system have had a field day. Honest prosecutors have been unjustly smeared and punished.
“The rule of law is no more in this county,” he said.
“We will never know all the corruption cases that aren’t filed and the criminals that go free because of what’s happened. But the chilling effect on prosecutors is clear: Public safety and clean government inevitably will suffer. They already have.
“The political witch hunt that’s just ended makes things worse [regarding corruption in America] by sending a chilling message to prosecutors: ‘Those who take on the powerful will lose their livelihood,'” he said.
The bar association refers people to the disciplinary order and says, “The panel found that Thomas and Aubuchon used their positions as Maricopa County attorney and deputy county attorney to target political enemies.
“A 247-page order details how they ignored conflicts of interest and used their positions to burden and embarrass targeted individuals. The order also states they violated the Rules of Professional Conduct relating to perjury and violating court rules.
“Alexander, who also worked as a deputy county attorney, was found to have filed a lawsuit without completing a proper factual investigation.
“The case was tried over nine weeks before a hearing panel comprised of the presiding disciplinary judge and two volunteer panel members (one attorney and a member of the public). Forty-eight witnesses testified and nearly 6,200 pages of exhibits were admitted.”
The panel ruled, “This case is replete with intentionally orchestrated malignant actions.”
Bar spokesman Rick DeBruhl told WND that there was nothing further to comment on.
“The association doesn’t disbar attorneys,” he said. “We simply follow the orders of the independent panel.”
The order itself explains Thomas should have seen the clouds on his horizon.
“Attorneys must ever guard against the temptation to confuse what is legal with what is ethical or moral. Because an act is legal, according to the letter of the law, does not make it ethical. Because an act is ethical does not make it legal,” it said.
Then it added, “Speeding is illegal but isn’t always unethical. If one speeds because he believes it will save a life, the action may still be found to be illegal but not necessarily unethical. On the other hand, cheating on a spouse is ethically wrong, but may be legal.”
But the harsh judgment makes no mention of recent scandals, many stemming from the original corruption investigations Thomas and his colleagues began.
“Look at all the corruption scandals that have happened recently in Arizona while the rule of law has basically been repealed in Maricopa County,” said Thomas. “We had the U.S. attorney who resigned in disgrace. We had the criminal chief of the U.S. attorney’s office plead the Fifth Amendment before Congress.
“We have the firings after the court tower corruption scandal came out. We have the golf tournament scandal, which the Arizona Republic has reported. Now [Maricopa County Supervisor] Don Stapley is enmeshed in an FDIC lawsuit which involves some of the original counts we first filed against him.”
Thomas announced in his press conference his intentions to target corruption through a ballot measure and a forthcoming book.
“We now have a constitutional crisis, as prosecutors and members of the executive branch are being targeted by the judiciary and other branches for blowing the whistle on corruption and misconduct in the judiciary,” Thomas said. “That is essentially what has happened to me.
“As county attorney, I took on many powerful special interests and corrupt individuals who retaliated with a witch-hunt targeting my law license,” he said. “Unless we want Arizona to become as corrupt as Mexico, the people of Arizona must take back their government. At this point, only the people of Arizona can make things right.”
He said he would seek voter help for reforms to fight corruption.
“This fight now shifts to the court of public opinion, a fair court,” he said.
WND reported earlier on comments from even some of Thomas’ critics.
Said columnist Robert Robb, who has made no display of supporting Thomas, “I have written scathingly about the gross abuse of power by former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Thomas and Arpaio proclaimed that there was a giant conspiracy involving the county board of supervisors, senior county management and several judges in which the judges agreed to protect county officials against criminal probes in exchange for the county constructing a new office building for the judges.”
Robb said there was no evidence to support the racketeering and criminal complaints, but he said the complaint brought by the Arizona Bar Association against Thomas includes “gross overcharging,” which he called a “serious disservice.”
Among the issues that originally attracted attention was the $347 million in taxpayer funds used for a court tower during an economic downturn, a building that featured plush quarters for judges and raised eyebrows as it was done at a time when county employees were being laid off.
By John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News
President Obama’s Press Secretary Jay Carney lashed out at the GOP for “politicizing the upcoming elections.” “They’re trying to exploit so-called scandals and policy failures for political gain,” Carney complained.
The scandals referenced by Carney included the sexploits of the Secret Service in Columbia and lavish parties thrown by the General Services Administration (GSA).
“These things aren’t the president’s fault,” Carney insisted. “Historically, the role of the Secret Service has been to cover up the president’s illicit sexual liaisons, not engage in their own. What would’ve happened to President Kennedy or Clinton if their bodyguards had been as self-serving as those assigned to President Obama?”
“As for the GSA, the biggest scandalous party didn’t even cost a million dollars,” Carney pointed out. “It didn’t amount to a hill of beans in a budget that’s over a trillion dollars in the red. Besides, abusing the expense account is one of the perks of the job. And let’s not forget that every dollar spent helps stimulate the economy. So is what they are doing really such a bad thing?”
“Even more absurd is the implication that there have been significant policy failures,” Carney added. “The premise that high unemployment, high gas prices, and high deficits are undesirable is mistaken. These are necessary steps on the path to the social transformation the President promised voters in 2008.”
Carney characterized the “negativity toward the President as disloyalty bordering on treason. It’s one thing to run for office. I mean, we wouldn’t have much of a democracy if there was only one candidate on the ballot. But tearing down what he’s trying to do goes beyond the pro forma requirements of the democratic process.”
In related news, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) urged the President’s critics to reconsider. “You know, the President has been so patient and respectful toward these people,” Pelosi contended. “They should remember that it is in his power to have them jailed or even killed if he deems them a threat to the government.”
Pundit Asks “Would Dumping the First African-American President Be Racist?”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews wondered whether it would be racist for voters to oust Barack Obama from the presidency.
“When he was running in 2008 there was some speculation that not voting for him could be construed as racist,” Matthews remembered. “Then he was only a candidate with little political experience. Now, though, he has three plus years as president under his belt. He has the executive experience he lacked in 2008. And incumbents are generally reelected. If he gets bounced by someone who has no presidential experience wouldn’t that be even more racist?”
Matthews further suggested that “to judge him by white standards seems inappropriate. The whole notion that a person ought to excel or achieve—isn’t that what people of color call ‘acting white?’ Shouldn’t breaking this stereotype be one of the objectives of America’s first non-white Chief Executive? I mean, compared to other African-Americans hasn’t Obama done quite well? He’s not on drugs. He’s not in jail. He’s head-and-shoulders above his racial peers. Isn’t that a record deserving of a second term?”
Democrats Propose Constitutional Amendment
Convinced that unfettered freedom of speech is destroying our democracy, congressional Democrats are proposing that the First Amendment of the US Constitution be, itself, amended.
“As it stands right now, the Constitution says that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech,” complained Representative Jim McGovern (D-Mass), co-sponsor of the proposed amendment. “Well, we want to make a law, we need to make a law that puts clamps on unwarranted criticism of the government.”
The proposed amendment is seen as necessary to protect the pending DISCLOSE Act from possibly being overturned by the Supreme Court. This Act would require that anyone criticizing the government be compelled to identify themselves. “Too many people think they should be able to anonymously contradict, ridicule, or otherwise contest the official policies of the government,” said amendment co-sponsor Representative Donna Edwards (D-Md). “This type of cowardly attack on authority is not what our nation’s founders envisioned.”
The proposed amendment would strike the total ban on Congressional suppression of free speech and replace it with a conditional one granting Congress the power to abridge speech “when deemed necessary.”
Governor Says Polygamist Past May Hamper Romney Presidential Bid
Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) says that the fact that Mitt Romney’s father was the son of a polygamist may cause voters to question his suitability to be president.
“It’s my impression that polygamy might not be too popular with women voters,” Schweitzer mused. “Do they really want to put a man who’s only two generations removed from that abhorrent practice in the White House?”
Schweitzer dismissed the fact that President Barack Obama, Jr’s namesake—Barack Obama, Sr.—was also the son of a polygamist, calling it “irrelevant.” “Look, Obama’s father isn’t known for certain,” Schweitzer argued. “No one’s seen a genuine birth certificate. So, there’s no proof that the Obama from Kenya after whom he’s named is his actual father. And even if he is, he was the product of a much more primitive culture. So, it would be unfair to hold President Obama to the same standards we might apply to his opponents.”
Gains for Leisure Class May Boost Obama Reelection Chances
A record 5.4 million former workers and their dependents have signed up to receive federal disability payments since Obama took office. At 6% of the potential workforce now, the ratio of persons on disability has more than doubled since the Reagan Administration. Add this to the 70% increase in the number of persons getting food stamps since 2007 and it is clear that the 2008 election of Barack Obama may be ushering in some transformative changes in the way Americans live.
“The notion that people want to work is the flaw in Republican thinking,” said Obama adviser David Axelrod. “Work is a disutility. People only put up with it under the belief that it is necessary in order to live. But what if we can change that belief? The strides that the President and Congress have made toward liberating a growing portion of our population from the drudgery of slaving for a living ought to be reflected in how people vote.”
Axelrod acknowledged that “we can never liberate 100% of the population from the burdens of labor, but the closer we can get to that figure the better off we’ll be as a society. Freed of the daily grind imposed upon them by corporate taskmasters, more and more Americans will be able to reach a higher plane of self-actualization.”
President Weighing Pardon
President Obama is said to be weighing whether to pardon Amanda Clayton. Clayton was recently arrested for continuing to accept federal assistance after she won a million dollars in the Michigan state lottery.
Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette argued that “it should be common sense that if you’ve got a million dollars you aren’t entitled to welfare. Welfare is for people who are poor.”
The president is said to consider Schuette’s actions discriminatory. “If Warren Buffett won the lottery he wouldn’t be expected to forfeit his other income,” Obama observed. “Rich as he is, he would be allowed to keep both. Why then, shouldn’t Miss Clayton be allowed to keep her other source of income?”
First Lady Touts Husband’s God-Like Quality
Searching for a persuasive theme for President Obama’s reelection campaign hasn’t been easy. First Lady Michelle Obama described her difficult quest for “a meaningful way to convey the message that we must reelect my husband as president.”
“I was listening to this radio show where a caller was asking Ted Nugent if he would be supporting my husband’s reelection,” Michelle recalled. “When I heard him say ‘Jesus Christ, Obama?’ I knew we had our strategy.”
“Think about it,” Michelle urged. “My husband has brought this country out of the dark and into the light. Isn’t that what Jesus would do? How could any good person vote against that?”
In related news, it was revealed that Mrs Obama had listed her two daughters Malia (aged 13) and Sasha (aged 10) as “senior staffers” on a $400,000 trip to South Africa and Botswana. Michelle explained, “In the sense that they are part of the First Family they are, in effect, ‘senior’ to everyone else in America. So, no, I don’t think that it was misleading of me to use that designation for the trip.”
The First Lady also dismissed critics’ complaints about the cost of the trip “In the eyes of the world, we are America,” Michelle maintained. “So, everything America has is rightfully ours to do with as we please. In this context, the $400,000 was far less than we could’ve spent. We are not getting credit for the remarkable restraint we are exercising considering.”
A Satirical Look at Recent News
National Journal: “Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona… has one of the most liberal records on immigration of any Republican member”
Career politician Jeff Flake says he has the courage to be Arizona’s next U.S. Senator, but the Congressman is lacking straight talk and honesty with voters. Congressman Flake broke his term limit pledge and has been dishonest about his record on illegal immigration. For over a decade, Congressman Flake has been the Washington poster boy for a pro-amnesty liberal immigration policy instead of fighting to secure our borders. While Congressman Flake has been advocating for comprehensive immigration reform and a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, he has also been pushing legislation with liberal Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to force Arizona taxpayers to pay for “in-state tuition for children of illegal immigrants.”
Congressional Republicans strongly opposed Congressman Flake’s bill and his pro-amnesty record that he shares with Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi. So, when career politician Jeff Flake realized Arizona Republicans also did not trust his position on illegal immigration, he changed his ten-year pro-amnesty position right before announcing his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
No one really believes career politician Jeff Flake or trusts his liberal views on illegal immigration.
Congressman Jeff Flake is a career politician we can’t trust.