This blog is not affiliated in any way with, nor endorsed by, any political candidate

Saturday, June 30, 2012

Highest Unemployment in U.S. is in Arizona Representative Raul Grijalva's District

From the Associated Press (via Saucedo Mercer for Congress):

Yuma, Arizona has the highest unemployment rate in the nation for the month of May, 2012:  28.9%!
Yuma happens to be in Arizona's 7th Congressional District (soon to be CD-3) represented by Raul "Boycott Arizona" Grijalva, who supports amnesty for illegal aliens and is actively going after Mexican youth in order to bring them into this country (increasing the number of people who are unemployed).  He also refuses to support the Rosemont Copper Mine (that would bring hundreds of jobs to the area) citing environmental reasons (see photos here), and who also flipped off the family of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry by walking out of the House vote against Attorney General Eric Holder for contempt of Congress.  Holder refuses to hand over documents from ATF Operation Fast & Furious that would show how American firearms "walked" into the hands of the Mexican drug cartel henchmen who killed Terry, Jaime Zapata and hundreds of Mexican nationals. 

By the way, Brian Terry was killed in Raul Grijalva's Congressional District.  How much noise has anyone heard Grijalva make about it?

Friday, June 29, 2012

Consevative Observer Endorses Gabriela Saucedo Mercer for Arizona CD-3

Conservative Observer believes Gabriela Saucedo Mercer is the best candidate to replace the traitorous racist Raul Grijalva and raise the standard of representation for Arizona's 3rd Congressional District.  We acknowledge that just about anybody would be an improvement over Grijalva, but Saucedo Mercer is a breath of fresh air and brings qualities to the table that many politicians do not have.

For starters, she listens.  When you watch her in conversation with people, she is attentive and follows what others are saying.  She's not looking around the room, scanning for a big name or a big money person to schmooze.  She doesn't interrupt and isn't waiting for the opportunity to cut the other person off and start telling them how it is.  She takes the phrase, "public servant" for what it really means. 

That's not to say she doesn't have her own ideas and opinions; she does have them.  Here she is in April 2010 addressing the Tucson City Council when they wanted to sue the State of Arizona over SB 1070 (first ~45 sec is council getting legal information):

Anyone running for political office has to have a position on the various issues or they don't get considered by voters.  Gabriela has her positions, and she also is clear about why she holds those positions.  They are drawn from her deeply rooted beliefs, tempered by her life experience (which has not been as easy as her gentle demeanor seems to indicate), and they are constructed thoughtfully and logically.

Her views on the issues are conservative.  She is rock solid pro-life.  She believes that prosperity comes from a free-market economy set loose from unreasonable and intrusive governmental regulation.  Limited government and low taxes: get the government out of the way of individual freedom, innovation, and entreprenurialism.  It is the way to create jobs, bring money into the community and raise the standard of living.

Gabriela brings a perspective which, in her case, is a decided advantage:  she is a legal immigrant.  She did it right.  She came to the United States from Mexico because she wanted to pursue the American dream.  Not the shortcut, hollow facsimile touted by liberals as the "Dream Act".  She had to take classes in American history, in English, and the Constitution.  She was tested on her understanding, passed, and took the oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic.  So she knows what America was designed to be, what it has been, what it is today, and perhaps most importantly, what it can become.

Like all candidates, Saucedo Mercer has her positions on the current issues.  She has knowledge and understanding of them and of our country.  She has knowledge and understanding of southern Arizona.  But current issues change.  At the end of the day, Conservative Observer wants a representative for CD3 who solidly knows who they are and what their integrity is attached to, so that, come hell or high water, that person is trustworthy to do the job right. 

Gabriela Saucedo Mercer is that person for CD3.

Brian Terry's Legacy

I heard about this on Michael Savage's radio program today.

The family of murdered Border Patrol officer Brian Terry has created the Brian Terry Foundation to raise money to assist families of BP agents killed in the line of duty.  The purpose of the foundation reads, in part,
"The foundation will attempt to honor Brian’s work ethic, love of country, and love for his fellow Border Patrol Agents. It is the foundation’s intention to do that by providing emotional and financial assistance to family members of U.S. Border Patrol Agents killed and injured in the line of duty. Among other activities, the foundation also intends to provide academic scholarships to those individuals wishing to attend college in pursuit of an education and career in law enforcement." 

Other features of the site include links to extensive information on Operation Gunrunner, Fast and Furious, Wide Reciever, and congressional hearings.

The Brian Terry Foundation's web site, http://honorbrianterry.com also invites readers to sign "Never Again", an online petition that our nation's leadership will never again make the mistakes that led to Brian Terry's needless death.

I've signed it, and I hope you do too.

Congressional Black Caucus Flips Off Brian Terry and Jaime Zapata

During Congress' decision today to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt because of his refusal to come forth with documents about the Fast and Furious operation, Democrats and the Congressional Black Caucus, in a planned move, walked out in protest.  These self-righteous _____ actually claim that the vote was intended to distract Holder from fighting Florida's removal of non-voters from the rolls of legal voters.  Why?  Because removing the non-voters apparently discriminates against Blacks. 

Consider the effect of something so asinine on the family of Brian Terry.  Said Kent Terry, his brother:

"Very sad that our childish Goverment walks out. What kind of respect? Does that tell you they're for getting justice for Brian and [Jaime] Zapata and any law enforcement that dies in the line of duty? This is the respect they get."

Obviously these people had no thought to consider that it might be disrespectful. 

Oh, and for those of you in Arizona's 3rd Congressional District, your elected Representative also walked out with the Congressional Black Caucus without voting.

h/t to Mary Chastain at Breitbart.com.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

SCOTUS Finds a Way to Make the Illegal Legal - Part 2

Continuing from the SCOTUS decision:
"CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable...
But, for the reasons explained, the Commerce Clause does not give Congress that power. It is therefore necessary to turn to the Government’s alternative argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, §8, cl. 1."
Now, I don't know what the government said in its oral arguments before the court, but (in a rather striking parallel) this sounds more and more like a child trying to find reasons dad should give him $10. If you won't do it because of X, then do it because of Y (whine whine whine).
"In pressing its taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product. Because "every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality," Hooper v. California."

Hooper v. California was a SCOTUS case decided way back in 1895 and oddly involved a California insurance broker buying insurance for a California customer from a company not licensed in California. The customer was charged with a crime because he bought out of state insurance, which was illegal under CA law. The defendant argued he had a Constitutional right to buy the product from out of state, where CA did not have jurisdiction - interstate commerce. In their search for something to avoid unconstitutionality, SCOTUS hit upon the idea that the broker was an agent not only for the insurance company, but also for the customer, and so the customer's transaction was internal to CA. Thus, he was subject to California law, which was constitutional after all. Wham! Bam! Thank you Ma'am!  Pay $5 or spend the night in jail.  The broker never considered himself to be an agent of the customer (or at least never maintained it in court), and the idea totally came from SCOTUS.

Now, recall my points from paragraph 2 above, that the law was publicly and overtly DEFINED to be administered under the Commerce Clause? And, that the law was publicly and overtly argued NOT to be a tax? That is what sets this case apart from Hooper! The INTENTION of the lawmakers and the president was clearly and publicly stated, and that should have been the basis for SCOTUS's evaluation of it. 

SCOTUS had no legal grounds (in my opinion) to freely deviate from the stated intent of the Obamacare Act. Yet, they did. The court went out of its way to find a way to get around the bumbling of Congress and the President to declare it legal in spite of them.

And We the People lost more ground to the Socialist-in-Chief.

SCOTUS Finds a way to make the Illegal Legal - Part 1

I hate long blog posts.  So I have broken my rant up into 2 posts, which are still too long in themselves.  I'm sorry, but please read and comment anyway if you have time.

Today's ruling on Obamacare sickens me, no pun intended.  What is more appalling is the rationale given by Justice Roberts for upholding the individual mandate portion.

Recall that Pelosi and Reid and the rest of them claimed that Congress could impose the individual mandate under its authority to regulate interstate commerce?  Remember Obama repeatedly arguing that the penalty was not a tax (everything you need to see is in the first 5 minutes)?

Now here are sections from the SCOTUS ruling released today (italics are in the original):

"Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate it, not to compel it.  Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers.  The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress's power to "regulate Commerce."
"Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable CareAct’s other reforms... Even if the individual mandate is "necessary" to the Affordable Care Act’s other reforms, such an expansion of federal power is not a "proper" means for making those reforms effective."
But just when it seemed the individual mandate was not going to survive, ...


Like many of you, I am angry and sick about today's SCOTUS decision on Obamacare.  Now, I have recovered enough that I am reading the 193 page pile of flaming you-know-what.  I've heard stuff on the radio, but I want to see for myself how the majority, especially Justice Roberts, justify this decision. 

You will be hearing on this blog soon my thoughts about this and also the Holder-in-contempt story.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

A Question of Duty and Honor

This November is an important election in our country's history.  I believe we are at a very critical fork in the road.  Along one path, there is a continuing dark descent into the abyss of socialism and dictatorship.  Along the other path, there is hope, light, and a future of potential as we regain the freedoms the founding fathers envisioned when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

We Americans have choices.  President and Vice-President in the Executive branch of our federal government.  Senators and Representatives to be our voices in the Legislative branch.  At the county and state level, we elect our judges.

"The Grand Experiment" is the phrase used to describe the United States of America because the founding fathers attempted to do something that had not been done in the modern world:  a country ruled by its own people instead of a king.  What a concept, right?  When asked, after the signing of the Constitution, what kind of government had been decided upon, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it."

If we can keep it.

We have something that the rest of the world has tried to emulate ever since that time.  France was one of the first, and they failed miserably as millions died a bloody death beneath the guillotine's blade in reactionary reform efforts where there was no accountability.

We have had challenging times where our sons and daughters have had to defend our freedom with their blood and their lives, and for the most part now, we rightly honor them for their commitment and sacrifice.  Yet for all that, a disappointing number of Americans do them a great dishonor by failing to act right here at home in order to keep our freedoms.

Too many eligible voters do not vote.

Nappy Takes Her DHS and Goes Home.

Former governor Janet Napolitano, who abandoned the people of Arizona to go be part of Barak "The One" Obama's cabinet, further crapped on her former state by cutting off Arizona's law enforcement agencies from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).  I'm not an expert in these things, but I believe it is ICE who usually processes illegal detainees captured by local law enforcement.

The move is a childish retaliation by yet another federal government liberal who wants to pick and choose which laws they will enforce and which ones they won't, never mind what the people want.

Our Border Patrol is caught in the middle of this.  What are they supposed to do?  They are being told, by Nappy, to run and hide when the bad guys are around.  Right.  What a load that is...

Thanks, ex-Gov.  Don't bother coming home for Thanksgiving after you get tossed out in the election.  You look too much like a turkey.

Monday, June 25, 2012

Feds Trying to Emasculate Border Patrol

The Obama administration, through the Department of Homeland Security, has been apparently running a non-public "in-your-face" campaign in addition to the myriads of public ones intended to install a fascist-socialist dictatorship under the leadership of The One.
This from the Border Patrol union web site www.Local2544.org:

"Border Patrol Agents Taught to "Run Away" and "Hide" when Encountering a Shooter

06-20-12 In another nauseating series of "Virtual Learning Center" brainwashing courses that Border Patrol agents are forced to sit behind a computer for hours and endure, we are now taught in an "Active Shooter" course that if we encounter a shooter in a public place we are to "run away" and "hide". If we are cornered by such a shooter we are to (only as a last resort) become "aggressive" and "throw things" at him or her. We are then advised to "call law enforcement" and wait for their arrival (presumably, while more innocent victims are slaughtered). Shooting incidents cited in the course are Columbine, the Giffords shooting and the Virginia Tech shooting.

These types of mandatory brainwashing courses and the idiocy that accompanies them are simply stunning when they are force-fed to law enforcement officers. Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that any three of the above shootings would have been stopped cold by an off-duty law enforcement officer or a law abiding citizen with a gun. The Fort Hood shooting would have been stopped cold by someone with a gun as well. The shooters in these situations depend on unarmed and scared victims. It gives them the power they seek. We could go on and on with examples of shootings that could have been stopped by someone with a firearm. One of the videos in this course actually shows a terrified female hiding behind a desk as an example of how to "hide" from some deranged shooter. Multiple quizzes throughout the course and a final test ensure repeatedly that we know that we only have three options when encountering some murderous thug in a public place. 1. Run away; 2. Hide; and 3. Only put up a fight as a last resort by acting aggressively and throwing things at the shooter. Not one mention anywhere of "if you are carrying a gun and you have the opportunity take the shooter out". Calling 911 in these instances is obvious, but we all know that waiting on the arrival of uniformed law enforcement will ensure more people are killed, injured, or taken hostage. Telling law enforcement officers that in all instances they are to run away and hide from some thug while innocent victims are butchered is simply inexcusable and pathetic.

It is always comforting to know that for those of us who carry a weapon when we are off-duty, if we should encounter such a situation, stop a shooter and save countless lives, we can look forward to being disciplined or fired by the Border Patrol because we should have run away to hide and then maybe thrown objects at the deranged killer instead of taking action and stopping him with a firearm. This, in addition to the scrutiny and second-guessing that will come from local authorities and the inevitable possibility of lawsuits and criminal conviction.
Welcome to the New Patrol."
UPDATE:  7/1/2012 - This story has finally been picked up by a major media outlet, FoxNews (who else?).  h/t to Gateway Pundit for moving it forward.

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Another Slit Throat by Pima County Attorney's Office

"Tucson man given 7 years in fatal shooting

June 18, 2012 1:03 pm  

Sounds like a nasty boy who was angry about his father being replaced in the family.  Must've got what he deserved.
"Last month Lerma pleaded guilty to manslaughter and aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Under the terms of his plea agreement, he was facing between seven and 36 years in prison."
If he was indicted on first-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder, why would the prosecutors offer this plea agreement to manslaughter?
"Lerma shot Castillo, a registered sex offender who was in the country illegally, because he was beating Lerma's mother in front of several children, defense attorney Sheena Chawla has said. The second man was almost shot in the process, she said."
HOLD THE PHONE!!... 18-year-old Angel Lerma sees his mother 1) being physically attacked and beaten, 2) in front of several children 3) by her alleged boyfriend, 4) a registered sex offender, 5) who is in the country illegally. 
WHY SHOULDN'T HE KILL HIM?  Visualize, reader, an image from your childhood days of your mother.  Now visualize a man beating her, striking her repeatedly.  He's a rapist or child molester, and he's not even supposed to be in this country. 
What would you do?  You cannot wait for the police to arrive, she may be dead by then.  You have to act to save your mother's life.
"Soccer coaches, a counselor and a teacher wrote letters to Pima County Superior Court Judge Teresa Godoy on Lerma’s behalf, court documents state."
"Godoy sentenced Lerma to seven years for the manslaughter and five years for the assault and ran them concurrently."

The fact that they offered Lerma a plea bargain tells me that they probably could not have gotten a conviction on even manslaughter.  Under Arizona's recently renovated self-defense statute, it's possible Lerma could have been acquitted on all charges.  Where was Ms. Chawla?  Who else advised him to take the plea?  And, of course, Lerma himself bears the ultimate responsibility for accepting the plea.  While these are all issues for those involved, it is critically important not to miss an underlying and pervasive problem.

My main complaint here is that the prosecutor in this case is a domestic violence specialist.  She has tried at least 2, and probably more cases that she has turned into murder cases, in which she trumped up the charge to first degree murder KNOWING that there was no way the evidence demonstrated any time for "reflection" on the defendant's part before shooting (the Arizona Revised Statutes definition of criteria for premeditation).

The only reason for the trumped up charges is to have a greater number of "lesser included charges", i.e., 2nd degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide.  It probably also looks more impressive on her resume.  So if the jury acquits of first degree murder, they still have to consider 2nd degree, and then manslaughter and so forth.  Can you imagine a jury having to consider 4 different levels of homicide and acquitting on all 4?  No way.  My God, we have to convict him on something!!!

Which is the response forced by this tactic.  Another conviction, another feather in her cap, maybe another award from the YWCA for best DV prosecutor.  But the Arizona Bar Association Code of Ethics states that prosecutors have a responsibility to act as "ministers of justice" by prosecuting cases even-handedly.  This prosecutor's approach to pressing cases couldn't be more sharply in contrast with her profession's ethical code.  That goes for a number of people in the Pima County Attorney's office.

There will be more on Pima County's criminal justice system soon in this blog.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Racist Raul Grijalva Flips Off Southern Arizona Again

Arizona's 7th Congressional District Representative Raul "Boycott Arizona" Grijalva has done it again: betrayed Southern Arizona home and business owners and kicked them in the teeth.  From the June 19, 2012 Arizona Daily Star online:

WASHINGTON — The Republican-controlled U.S. House approved a bill today that would allow the Border Patrol to circumvent more than a dozen environmental laws on all federally managed lands within 100 miles of the borders with Mexico and Canada.
The newest member of Congress, Tucson CD-8 Rep. Democrat Ron Barber, crossed party lines to vote for the bill shortly after he was sworn into office Tuesday.
“Border security is the No. 1 priority for the people who live and work along our nation’s southern border,” Barber, who represents portions of the Arizona border region with Mexico, said in a written statement. “There is no doubt that this bill will make our borders more secure. But this legislation is far from perfect and I will work to make changes as it moves through the process.”
So Democrat Ron Barber recognizes the seriousness of the issue to the degree that he's willing - in his very first vote as a representative - to cross party lines and vote with Republicans.  He knows the cause is right, and he will not sacrifice "crucial citizenry protections" on behalf of the environment.

But you, Mr. Grijalva, you make "Crucial environmental protections," one of your weapons to keep the Border Patrol from effectively doing their jobs - catching illegal aliens and protecting U.S. Citizens.  Plainly, you really don't give a damn about the environment anyway, because if you did, you would be raising hell about scenes like these.

Keep it up, Raul.  It's going to catch up with you in November.

Trash left by illegal aliens in Arizona 

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

I Voted in Arizona's CD-8 Special Election

I just got home from work and voting in Arizona's CD-8 special election.  Gabrielle Giffords resigned after her shooting injury to facilitate her recovery.  Her sidekick, Ron Barber, got her blessing and ran unopposed by other Democrats (not at first however).  The Republican primary was in January, and Jesse Kelly won the nomination.

I always feel a sense of responsibility and contribution when I vote, even in an election like this  (despite the somewhat high profile nature of this election, the winner is only CD-8 representative for 6 months.  The general election in November is the big one).  I'll admit to being a little naive, but even in a state that has weathered some of the nation's most blistering attacks (and continues to) in recent memory, the election process here is clean.  What we say is what gets counted and reported.  No hanging chads here.  Occasionally there are "irregularities", such as mysterious people going door to door offering to take voters' early ballots to the polls for them, but these have been quickly brought to light and addressed.

So now we wait, but in my mind, my eyes are targeted on November.

Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Aaron Walker, Brett Kimberlin, and Judge Cornelius Vaughey - Signs of the Times

Via Michelle Malkin.  (If you don't like Michelle Malkin, you can still follow her links to the sources)
Where are all of the flag-burners and finger flippers when free speech is truly - and viciously - shut down by court order?  The outrage that has unfolded in the wake of convicted felon bomber Brett Kimberlin's false 911 call that triggered a SWAT response to conservative blogger Aaron Walker's home has blatently violated Walker's first amendment rights.

Walker was arrested for blogging about a public figure.

Judge Vaughey:  "Well, forget Brandenburg [Brandenburg v. Ohio, a landmark Supreme Court First Amendment case].  Let's go with Vaughey right now..."

You can read a fuller transcript here.  What we have here is a liar and a terrorist in cahoots with a maverick judge, who threatens to jail Walker for simply making legitimate objections. 

"THE COURT: So what I’m going to do is I am going to pass this Peace Order, and it’s going to remain in effect, sir, for six months. So this is May 15, [inaudible] June, July, August, September, October, November–

WALKER: –Your Honor, if I could say one thing here–

THE COURT: –No, you can’t. Now, you — that’s what you’ve got *** the Appeals Court’s over there.

WALKER: Okay, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Okay. All right, sir, this Order shall remain in effect until 11-15 2012. During that period of time, you not — shall commit any act that causes in person (ph) fear and apprehension of bodily harm, any act that places the gentleman in fear and apprehension of grave bodily harm, any assault, rape, attempted rape, sex offense, false imprisonment, harassment, stalking, [inaudible] or malicious destruction of property. The Respondent shall not contact the person in person, by telephone, in writing or any other means, and any other means is putting it on a blog, a Tweet, a megaphone, a — smoke signals — what else is out there — sonar, radar, laser, nothing.

WALKER: So I’m not allowed to speak about him for 6 months? How about the First Amendment?

THE COURT: How many times have you been interrupting? And you shall not contact or harass him in any way. You shall not enter his residence, wherever he may be living. You shall remain away from his place of employment, wherever that may be, he may be employed.
Now, let me get to the — now, should this — should you violate this order, sir, you are subject to being prosecuted by the state’s attorney’s office as a criminal case, and if found guilty, the maximum penalty for the first violation is 90 days in jail and/or it’s a $500 fine, could be a $1,000 fine. Or worse than that, you could be in contempt of this court, where you could — I could do anything that I deem necessary to keep you away from — or e-mailing him or Twitting him or Googling him or Tooting him or smoking (ph) him, whatever phrase you use. I don’t know if [inaudible]. Thank you [inaudible]."

This is the kind of thing that one expects to hear about in Nazi Germany and the old Soviet Union.

And if you think this is an isolated case, go sit in on a few cases in the Pima County (AZ) Superior Courts.  More to come.