from The American Thinker:
The religious freedom legislation that gelatin-spined Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer vetoed wasn’t controversial until the Left started lying about it.
The state-level civil rights bill that Brewer mothballed Feb. 26 was killed by a media-led propaganda campaign that falsely characterized it as “anti-gay.” To no one’s surprise, both of the GOP’s last two RINO losers, Mitt Romney and John McCain, urged a veto.
As Ed Whelan blogs at National Review,
There has been a blizzard of hysterical misinformation about Arizona’s SB 1062. As anyone who takes the trouble to consult the text of the legislation will readily discover, SB 1062 does not mention, much less single out, gays or same-sex ceremonies.
As Douglas Laycock (who supports redefining marriage to include same-sex couples) and other leading religious-liberty scholars explain in a letter to Arizona governor Jan Brewer, SB 1062 “has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.”
FLORENCE, Ariz. (TheBlaze/AP) — Authorities along the Arizona border say a man accused of driving a car carrying 220 pounds of marijuana had been deported to Mexico 11 times.
The Pinal County Sheriff’s Office says 21year-old Daniel Jupa-Fino was arrested Tuesday after he ran from the car after a deputy made a traffic stop on Interstate 8.
Fox has more:
Both men fled on foot into a nearby trailer park following the initial stop, authorities said. Gonzalez-Tempura, who was injured while trying to climb over barbwire fencing, was taken into custody a short time later, but Jupa-Fino eluded responding authorities.
by: the Common Constitutionalist
Wildfires have raged across the Southwest. Environmentalists insist it is the fault of global warming. Oops, climate change.
They of course claim that hot and dry conditions can only be attributed to man-made warming. Our beloved president naturally had to weigh in.
On June 25 he stated his conviction that climate change is to blame. Never let a good crisis go to waste, eh Mr. President? He said: “Many Americans who already feel the effects of climate change don’t have time to deny it.”
It’s funny how often Obama insists we have no more time. He can’t wait for others to act. It never matters what the “crisis” is. We must always take immediate action. Pick any so-called “crisis” and you’ll find an Obama call to action.
But even man-made climate change (of which there is none) can start a wildfire. So what is the cause of the wildfires, like the Arizona blaze that killed 19 elite firefighters?
Many believe it simply lightening strikes. That seems to be the most reasonable explanation. A single lightning strike to an overgrown forest can easily spark a wildfire.
Yet there is an interesting twist to the possible cause of the wildfires. A Palestinian jihadist group, the Masada al-Mujahideen have recently claimed credit for setting the Western forests ablaze, particularly Arizona.
Does the name Mujahideen ring a bell? It is a new, similar version of the group we helped in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Bin Laden was part of a Mujahideen group in the ‘80s.
Their statement was posted on several jihadist forum sites. The post read: “We had previously announced an unconventional war against the occupation state of Israel, and then we escalated this war to reach its main supporter, America, so that it receives a major share of it, which will destroy their flora and fauna, with permission from Allah and then with our hands. In order to make it clear and to make it known that we can reach it [the U. S.] when we warn it, and to make it certain that our hands don’t just reach it but also strike it.”
The Post also boasted of the 19 dead firefighters.
In January 2012 the same group claimed credit for the Nevada wildfires.
US intelligence does not put much stock in the claims by the terror group. They believe the group is simply taking credit for a tragic natural occurrence.
But last year Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) claimed that factions of Al Qaeda were responsible for fires across Europe. This is the same intelligence service that warned us of the Tsarnaev brothers. Maybe we should start listening to them.
In a 2012 issue of Al Qaeda’s “Inspire” Magazine there was an 11 page how-to article on starting forest fires, a “forest jihad”
In the article was: “Fire is one of the soldiers of Allah. Imagine that, after all the damages caused, if a jihad organization were to take responsibility for the forest fires. You can imagine the dread it would cause people in the United States, Europe, Russia and Australia.”
By this did they mean to just take responsibility for the fires?
Well, Alexander Bortnikov, chief of the FSB said: “One should note that setting fires to forests in the countries of the European Union is a new tendency in Al Qaeda’s strategy of a ‘thousand cuts’. This method allows Al Qaeda to inflict significant economic and moral damage without serious preliminary preparations, technical equipment or significant expenses.”
As I stated, the conventional wisdom is these fires were not arson but naturally caused. I hope our “intelligence services” are taking a closer look. I’d hate to find out that they discounted the Russian claim and dropped the ball again.
From the, “What the Hell is wrong with this Country” file comes this travesty:
Parents take innocent bathtime photos in to be developed at Walmart and employee calls police
An Arizona couple falsely accused of taking pornographic pictures of their three young daughters are suing Walmart in a bid to win damages after an horrific ordeal which they claim robbed them of precious time with their kids and cost them $75,000 in legal fees.
In 2008, Lisa and Anthony ‘A.J.’ Demaree took their three young daughters – then aged five, four and 18 months – on a trip to San Diego.
On returning home they took 144 photographs, mostly from their recent trip, to their local Walmart in Peoria, Arizona to have them developed.
What happened next was the start of a nightmare for the Demarees.
A Walmart employee, unhappy over the content of several bath time pictures, contacted bosses with concerns that they may have been images of child pornography.
Instead of receiving a batch of happy memories of a fun family outing, the couple were reported to the police and their children were placed into the care of the Arizona Child Protective Services Agency.
‘It was a nightmare, it was unbelievable. I was in so much disbelief. I started to hyperventilate,’ Lisa Demaree told ABC News at the time.
It was a month before the girls were returned to their parents, after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled the photographs were in fact harmless and a medical exam revealed no signs of sexual abuse.
The family was reunited but the damage had been done. The couple’s named went on a central registry of sex offenders, while Lisa was suspended from her job at a local school for a year while the investigation was under way.
The couple also had to spent $75,000 on legal bills.
‘We’ve missed a year of our children’s lives as far as memories go,’ Demaree told ABC News.
‘As crazy as it may seem, what you may think are the most beautiful innocent pictures of your children may be seen as something completely different and completely perverted.’
In 2009, the couple sued the city of Peoria and the State Attorney General’s office for defamation. They also sued Walmart for failing to tell them that they had an ‘unsuitable print policy’ and could turn over photos to law enforcement without the customer’s knowledge.
The couple lost the initial hearing after a federal judge sided with Walmart, ruling that employees in Arizona cannot be held liable for reporting suspected child pornography.
However the Demarees appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and on March 6 the court held a hearing before three judges.
The family’s lawyer has argued that Walmart committed fraud by not disclosing to customers that employees would look at their photographs and was also negligent because ‘untrained clerks’ were given the authority to make assumptions about the content of the pictures and report them to police.
Lawyers for Walmart argued that under Arizona statute employees who report child abuse without malice are immune from prosecution and there was no indication of malice in this case.
The Demarees are currently awaiting a verdict from the appeals court on the case against the city and Walmart.
Attribution: David Mccormack, Mail Online
by: the Common Constitutionalist
So the Supreme Court, or should I say 5 of them, in conjunction with King Barack, Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano and Eric “The Red” Holder, have granted defacto amnesty to those who invade the state of Arizona and most likely, the rest of the country. What’s to stop them now? Like a Christmas sale at Walmart, they will rush the gate. Once they are here, as long as they don’t commit a felony, they’re home free.
The wizards of smart who criticize state and local government action on immigration fail to keep in mind one simple but critical point: The states have these rights.
It is preposterous to take the position that, short of federal action or the commission of a crime, governors and mayors are constitutionally powerless to deal with illegal immigrants within their states and cities. The argument that state and local governments must incur enormous fiscal and societal costs, asserting that all aspects of immigration (legal or illegal) are entirely the purview of the federal government, is constitutionally suspect, if not absurd.
The Ninth and Tenth Amendments firmly established the federalist system of government by first stating that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should “not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and adding the corollary limiting provision that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The power delegated to Congress, in this matter, seems to me, quite clear. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 4 states, “Congress shall have the power… to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Plain English; no more, no less. Naturalization and Immigration are not synonymous and must not be construed as such.
The legal definition of Naturalization: “The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America.”
The legal definition of Immigration: “The removing into one place from another. It differs from emigration, which is the moving from one place into another.
You know James Madison, the father of our Constitution. If he wanted immigration to be the sole purview of the federal government, he would have put it in there.
He did, however state the following in Federalist 45: “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all (emphasis added) the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States.”
As the U.S. Supreme Court found more than 100 years ago in Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905), state and local police power is “an exercise of the sovereign right of the Government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort and general welfare of the people.” This decision followed Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. 122, 193 (1819), in which the Supreme Court found that those sovereign powers “proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several states; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before.”
In my opinion, the Constitution, which was ratified by a razor thin margin in the first place, would have never been, if the states knew they would had to surrender their sovereignty on this issue.
If immigration is indeed the sole responsibility of the feds, are not sanctuary cities then illegal? After all, these cities took it upon themselves to grant favorable immigration status to some, outside federal jurisdiction.
What about other things, like the fact that some states have emission standards that are higher than the federal. Is that not illegal? How about local or state minimum wage laws that exceed the federal. Why is that legal?
I could continue to demonstrate the absurd by being absurd but I think I’ve made my point.
My frustration stems from incredulity. How is it that a clear majority of Americans agree with Arizona, yet congress does nothing? A nation of well over 300 million people could be ruled by so few. 5 in this case.
Buckle up. It may get worse come Thursday! Our lives literally hang in the balance.
Attribution: Matt Mayer at Heritage