The following press conference took place Wednesday, April 25th in Phoenix with members of several Tea Parties, Arizona lawmakers and candidates. (Thanks to Right Wing Housewife for her video!)
Arizona Lawmakers and Tea Party Members Stand in Solidarity in Support of SB-1070
April 25, 2012 By 3 Comments
AG Tom Horne Statement on Supreme Court SB 1070 Hearing
April 25, 2012 By Leave a Comment
Today’s hearing went well. The Obama Administration took the outrageous step of suing one of the 50 states for trying to enforce federal law. Arizona has been hit disproportionately hard by illegal immigration and the state had no choice but to pass SB 1070 to protect our own citizens.
I have read the transcript of today’s SB 1070 hearing in the US Supreme Court. Section 2, the most important of the 4 sections of SB1070 which are being challenged, appears to have the support of Liberal as well as Conservative Justices, and mainly with a large unanimous vote. Section 2 requires Police Officers to engage in a lawful arrest or stop, and to have reasonable suspicion, to inquire with ICE about whether the person is in this country legally. Even two of the most Liberal Justices, Sotamayor and Breyer, asked questions indicating they may vote to hold that section of the law Constitutional.
The lawyer for Arizona pointed out that a Phoenix Police officer had been shot by a suspect who had been accused of attempted murder in El Salvador, had been pulled over three times before encountering this police officer, but had never had his immigration status checked. That was due to the City of Phoenix policies that would be illegal under Section 2. Had inquiry been made before he encountered the Phoenix officer, that officer would not have been shot.
The comments of several Justices were very encouraging. Justice Scalia noted that under SB 1070, “Arizona is not trying to kick out anybody that the federal government has not already said do not belong here.” A number of the other provisions at issue are state copies of Federal laws where the Obama Administration claims that states cannot enforce identical laws in parallel. Justice Scalia added the analogy that federal law prohibits bank robbery, and stated, “Can it be made a state crime to rob those banks? I think it is.” And Chief Justice Roberts noted that the federal role in enforcing immigration law is not harmed by SB 1070 since “all it does is notify the Federal Government, here’s someone who is here illegally, here’s someone who is removable.”
Most troubling is the Federal Government’s argument that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because Arizona interferes with the Federal monopoly on foreign relations. Arizona has not opened any embassies. It has passed a law that foreign countries disagree with. If a Federal Judge can invalidate a state law on the grounds that other countries disagree with it (and it therefore interferes with the Federal monopoly on foreign relations) America’s sovereignty will be severely compromised. Justice Scalia asked the Obama Administration lawyer if “we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico… (that) sounded like what you were saying.”
Finally, I was gratified to see that even the Obama administration lawyer agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ contention that this case has nothing to do with ethnic and racial profiling. SB 1070 has never allowed racial profiling, and that is a persistent myth that should end today.
###
Saucedo-Mercer: Court hearing on Arizona’s law opportunity to fuel reform not rhetoric
April 25, 2012 By Leave a Comment
Congressman Raul Grijalva writes that Arizona’s immigration law, SB1070 will put our country into chaos, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the law. The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the matter of Arizona’s immigration law, SB1070, today. A recent poll shows that a majority of Americans favor the law. Eight states have adopted similar laws.
Grijalva’s Republican challenger in the Congressional District 3 race, Gabby Saucedo Mercer, says “Grijalva’s failure, in his ten years in Congress, to sponsor meaningful legislation that would serve the country’s economic and national security while addressing the very difficult questions and issues pertaining to immigration, has created a chaotic atmosphere, in which communication has broken down, and real solutions are not being discussed.”
In his opinion piece, written for U.S. News and reports, Raúl M. Grijalva, the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, wrote, “Arizona’s SB 1070 should be struck down by the Supreme Court.” Grijalva, the radical congressman from Arizona, argues that the Constitution clearly gives exclusive authority to the federal government over immigration and naturalization issues.”
Gabby Saucedo Mercer is challenging the congressman’s claim that SB1070 grants states “the authority to create immigration policy.” She says, “This sort of mischaracterization and hyperbole does not help the people of this country or Arizona. SB1070 is simply recognition of federal law, it does not in any way, grant state and local law enforcement any extraordinary authority.”
The Governor of Arizona released a statement addressing the lies and distortions offered by the law’s foes like Grijalva, “Despite all of the misrepresentations, misleading rhetoric and outright lies told about SB 1070, public support for this law is as strong as ever. I’ve seen it in the donations from citizens of all 50 states who have dug into their own pocketbooks in order to help defray Arizona’s legal costs.
Saucedo Mercer argues that the law’s popularity has increased as the public has grown more aware of the failure of the federal government to protect our county’s border. “The people of Arizona felt that the federal government had failed to protect the country’s economic health and the people’s welfare. Grijalva has been in office for ten years and has failed to take the lead, as a resident of a large border state, to initiate real changes in immigration. He instead prefers open borders.”
Saucedo Mercer, who has lived in the border area communities of Rio Rico, Sierra Vista and Tucson, knows firsthand the concerns that lead the people of Arizona to pass SB1070. Saucedo Mercer supports the ROB Plan for border security. Saucedo Mercer is a conservative advocate for meaningful immigration reform, who knows firsthand the issues facing hopeful immigrants. She does not support blanket amnesty, but does support immigration reform that offers a rigorous but compassionate path to citizenship.
Gabby Saucedo Mercer, a legal immigrant from Mexico who took an oath to defend the Constitution when she became an American citizen, joins many Arizona law makers in the belief that the Supreme Court will find for the state of Arizona.
The Arizona Latino Republican Association has endorsed the law.
Just last week, Saucedo Mercer spent two days in Nogales, Arizona, listening to business leaders’ and government officials’ concerns about our national and economic security. No one expressed opposition to SB1070, but without exception, they advised Saucedo Mercer that political hyperbole does not help their situation.
###
Congressman Flake Urges SCOTUS to Uphold SB 1070
April 25, 2012 By 11 Comments
Obama Administration Ought to Focus on Securing Border Instead of Suing Arizona
Washington, D.C. – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today urged the Supreme Court to uphold SB 1070, Arizona’s immigration enforcement law.
Congressman Flake has consistently opposed the Obama Administration’s decision to sue Arizona over the law.
“It should be expected that states like Arizona will take action to enforce immigration laws when the federal government continues its long history of failing to do so,” said Flake.
“The Obama Administration ought to focus on securing the border instead of suing Arizona for trying to help.”
Congressman Flake has introduced H.R. 1507, the Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl have introduced the legislation in the Senate. Among the 10 key provisions of the bill is the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops and 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents to the United States-Mexico border by 2016. It would create additional Border Patrol stations along the southwest border and create six additional permanent Border Patrol Forward Operating Bases and upgrade existing bases.
###
Seminar on the “Arab Spring” and Sharia Law: Learn the Truth about the Rise to Power of the Muslim Brotherhood and the Threat of Sharia Law!
April 12, 2012 By
ARIZONA MAINSTREAM PROJECT
INVITES YOU TO ATTEND
Seminar on the Arab Spring and Sharia Law
Date: Saturday, April 14, 2012
Time: 1:30 pm – 4:30 pm
Location: Burton Barr Central Library on the 4th Floor
Address: 1221 North Central Ave, Phoenix, AZ
(Doors open at 1:00 pm)
Presented by
Patrick Poole and Al Fadi
What Arab Spring? Learn what is really happening in the Middle East with the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood and the spread of Sharia Law in the East and in our country!
Patrick Poole has just returned from Washington D.C. where he briefed White House Intelligence and Homeland Security on the level of infiltration of the Muslim Brotherhood under the Obama Administration. Patrick will give us the latest details of this recent visit from the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House.
Patrick Poole is a counter-terrorism consultant and intelligence analyst with previous experience in both the business and public policy arenas. Mr. Poole’s area of expertise is the ideology and history of the international Muslim Brotherhood and its operations in the West, and the domestic terror threat from Islamic radicalism. His work in this field resulted in his appoint-ment to Team B II, a panel of distinguished experts, including former CIA Director Jim Woolsey and former DIA Director Lt. Gen. Ed Soyster, on counterterrorism, intelligence and national security issues. His white paper, “10 Failures of the U.S. Government on the Domestic Islamist Threat” was published by the Center for Security Policy in November 2010. In March 2011, Mr. Poole was part of an expert panel that testified before the Arizona House Military Affairs and Public Safety Committee and the Arizona Senate Border Security, Federalism and States’ Sovereignty Committee on the topic of “Cross Border Terror Threats and Islamic Terror Support Networks in Arizona.”
Al Fadi is a former Wahabbi Muslim from Saudi Arabia. He is the researcher, editor, writer, and translator for numerous ministries, including “Answering Islam” and runs an outreach center called; the Center for Islamic Research & Awareness. Al is the editor, co-author and contributor of “The Qur’an Dilemma,” a critical analysis book of the Qur’an. He is also the director of TheQuran.com Group (www.theQuran.com) which desires to assist both Muslims and non-Muslims who seek to learn more about the main source of Islamic teachings, the Qur’an, to research it, to critically analyze it, and to better comprehend its contents without the traditional religious and cultural barriers designed to indoctrinate and encapsulate the minds of many truth seekers. He is an invited teacher/lecturer on Islam and related Islamic study topics. As a former devout Muslim, he is an expert on the teaching and challenges of Islam. In addition, Al is an invited guest/expert on numerous Arabic evangelical Satellite TV and Radio shows on the topics of Islam and the Middle East.
There will be books and DVDs for sale at this event, so bring extra cash with you!!!
Cost: $10 per person
Refreshments will be served
Payment can be made at the door, from our website, or by mail
Arizona Mainstream Project
15029 N. Thompson Peak Pkwy
Suite B-111 Box 589
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
To RSVP and for more information email honey@arizonamainstreamproject.org or call 602-425-7267
Tombstone, Arizona is Ground Zero for State Sovereignty
April 11, 2012 By 1 Comment
By Nick Dranias
In a showdown between the Obama Administration and the “Town Too Tough to Die,” the U.S. Forest Service is refusing to allow the City of Tombstone to repair its mountain spring water infrastructure after the 2011 Monument Fire destroyed pipelines and catchments.
Despite Gov. Jan Brewer’s declared state of emergency to empower Tombstone to restore its municipal water supply, the feds continue to block Tombstone, citing the Wilderness Act, which was passed decades after Tombstone secured the water rights. The Forest Service’s decision risks the lives and properties of Tombstone residents and tourists due to the loss of adequate fire suppression capabilities and safe drinking water.
This is a case of egregious federal overreach. If the Forest Service can effectively seize Tombstone’s 130-year-old water rights during a state of emergency — rights that the Service recognized as valid in 1916 — no state or local government will be safe from the feds. That’s why the Goldwater Institute recently filed for a preliminary injunction to restore Tombstone’s sovereign power to restore its municipal water supply.
There is plenty of reason to believe that Tombstone will ultimately prevail. The Supreme Court is already familiar with federal overreach in Graham County, Arizona. In Printz v. United States, the Court rejected efforts by the federal government to commandeer the Graham County Sheriff into implementing a federal gun control law, writing, “the Framers explicitly chose a Constitution that confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States.” The Forest Service is openly flouting this principle of law.
By denying Tombstone access to its water, the Forest Service is threatening to directly regulate Tombstone to death. Printz makes it clear that the Forest Service has no such constitutional power — not if the guarantee of state sovereignty means anything under the Tenth Amendment.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Learn more:
Goldwater Institute: Tombstone v. United States
Justia.com: Printz v. United States
CD-8 Frank Antenori Slams Obama for Violating Oath of Office and Disrespecting the Constitution
April 3, 2012 By 3 Comments
Republican Congressional candidate Senator Frank Antenori said today that “President Obama is violating his Oath of Office and disrespecting our constitution by attacking the Supreme Court for its review of the constitutionality of Obamacare.”
“Our entire system of governmental checks and balances is designed to safeguard the rights of the American people from being trampled upon by an out of control government. The Supreme Court was deliberately designed to be above electoral politics and have the final say as to whether a law is consistent with the constitution,” Antenori said.
“Obama knows this and has chosen to attack a cornerstone institution of our government as created by the constitution he took an oath to protect,” Senator Antenori said.
“The people have the ultimate right to amend the constitution, but Presidents and Congresses do not have the right to trample it. The President’s comments yesterday hit a new low and underscore an apparent disrespect for our form of government,” he said.
As a State Senator, Antenori was instrumental in advancing Arizona’s formal constitutional challenge to Obamacare.
“Regardless of the outcome of the pending case before the Court, I will respect the Court’s decision even if it proves to be one that I disagree with. If the Court upholds Obamacare than it is my intention to repeal the law in its present form and to move forward with ensuring that affordable health care is available through competitive markets, more doctors, and greater individual choice,” Antenori said.
-30-
Rep. Trent Franks Decries Obama Hypocrisy on Judicial Activism
April 3, 2012 By Leave a Comment
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02), commented today on President Obama’s recent Rose Garden remarks on judicial activism:
“Liberal Democrat Presidents, of which Barack Obama is one, have done for judicial activism what Stonehenge did for rocks. Indeed, without judicial activism and blatant constitutional overreach, the left would have almost no policy precedence to hold up to the world.
“Far left judicial activists are the only appointments Barack Obama has made to the Supreme Court. For him now to attempt to preempt and intimidate the Court from protecting the most basic kind of American freedom by accusing them of judicial activism is an arrogant hypocrisy that should take America’s breath away.
“If the Supreme Court upholds, as fully constitutional, the ObamaCare mandate requiring all American citizens to buy government prescribed and controlled healthcare management, both the Constitution and American freedom itself will be fundamentally abrogated, and left-wing governments like the Obama administration will be then completely unfettered to force Americans to do almost anything.”
###
Congressman Franks is serving his fifth term in the U.S. House of Representatives and is a member of the Judiciary Committee, where he serves as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and a member of the Subcommittee on Courts, Commercial and Administrative Law. He is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, where he serves on the Strategic Forces Subcommittee and the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities.
Landmark Lawsuit Into Second Day of Oral Arguments
March 27, 2012 By Leave a Comment
Arizona state director of named plaintiff says he’s confident Supreme Court will rule in NFIB’s favor.
PHOENIX, Ariz., March 27, 2012 — Farrell Quinlan, Arizona state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, the named plaintiff in the landmark lawsuit, NFIB v. Sebelius, said today he’s confident the U.S. Supreme Court will agree with and rule in favor of NFIB, Arizona and 25 other states challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
“When we filed this lawsuit two years ago, some people called it frivolous, and there are plenty of people today who claim it’s doomed to fail, but we’re convinced the Supreme Court will agree, just as lower courts have, that the individual mandate requiring everyone to buy health insurance is unconstitutional,” Quinlan said.
“The issue here is whether Congress can force individuals to buy health insurance,” he said. “Under the health-care law, most people will be required to buy health insurance starting in 2014. If they don’t, they’ll have to pay a penalty.”
In what some media are calling the most significant court case since Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the U.S. Supreme court yesterday heard the first of three days of oral arguments in NFIB v. Sebelius. Ordinarily, the court allots only one hour for oral arguments, but it’s set aside six hours over the three days to hear the case brought by NFIB, Arizona and 25 other states.
“Congress has no authority to make people buy anything,” Quinlan said. “They can’t force people to buy health insurance the same as they can’t force people to floss their teeth or eat their peas. Despite heroic efforts to obscure this fact, Congress clearly overreached by imposing this health-care law. It’s difficult to think of another case where the federal government’s intrusion into people’s lives has been so blatant and egregious.”
# # #
NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C. and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.
Another judge who protected the county supervisors abruptly resigns
March 12, 2012 By 29 Comments
A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e
Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona
Saturday, March 10, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
The dominoes are falling one by one. Another judge who protected the corrupt Maricopa County Supervisors from prosecution has abruptly resigned. There has been no explanation given as to why he didn’t want to serve out the rest of his term, but we suspect it is related to his rulings shielding the supervisors from being punished for their corrupt acts. He sees others going down now and realizes if he doesn’t get out of there fast, he’ll be next.
Implications for Arizona
February 10, 2012 By 4 Comments
| On Tuesday, two judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the California marriage amendment approved by a vote of the people is unconstitutional. Once again, we see judges making law, not interpreting law. Read the opinion here. Incredibly the judges can find no “rational basis” for Californians to uphold marriage.
Thankfully, this is not the final chapter in the fight to protect marriage. Let’s all remember that this is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals – the most overturned circuit court in the country. Shortly after the decision was released, our friends at Alliance Defense Fund and ProtectMarriage.com announced they would be appealing the decision. There are two key “take-aways” from the opinion:
Check out the Marriage Counterfeits Issue Brief on AZPolicyPages.com to learn more about this topic. |
|
Now We’re Rolling
|
We had a full week at the state legislature. Six CAP-supported bills were heard either in committee or on the House or Senate Floor. Here are some of the highlights:
The other big news of the week is the CAP-supported Mother’s Health and Safety Act introduced by Representative Kimberly Yee. You can read more about HB 2838 from the Associated Press. And, be sure to check out CAP’s Bill Tracker for current status on our bills and to access our Fact Sheets. Several more bills will be heard in committees next week. We’d appreciate your prayers as we work these bills through the legislative process. |
Justice Ginsberg Tells Egypt: Don’t Look to US for Your New Constitution
February 9, 2012 By 149 Comments
In my high school US History class (circa 1964) I recall implicit reverence expressed for the United States Supreme Court. Now, unfortunately, after seeing Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s appearance on Egyptian TV (video below), I can’t help feeling a bit like Dorothy when the curtain was pulled back on the Wizard of Oz. What a letdown. Sigh. On the other hand, Ginsberg did give us another powerful demonstration of how thoroughly Leftism has infected the highest levels of our government.
Why did Justice Ginsberg do this interview in the first place?
First, did she really think Egyptians would honor the opinion of a woman, an American, and a Jew? Isn’t that a hatred trifecta for Egypt’s vaunted Muslim Brotherhood as well as the “Arab Street”? Remember what happened to Lara Logan during the “Arab Spring” demonstrations? Why consent to an interview at all? Did she really think she’d reflect well on herself, the Supreme Court, or our country with this interview? It ended up being rather the opposite, I’d say.
Second, if Justice Ginsberg really must draw back that Wizard-of-Oz-like SCOTUS curtain, could she at least have shown a bit more respect and praise for the Constitution that she swore to preserve, protect, and defend? Evidently not.
Said Ginsberg to the Egyptians:
I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.
I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary … it really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.
Much more recent than the US Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.
Well, thank you, Madame Justice. I had no idea how inferior our Constitution was to Europe’s, Canada’s, and South Africa’s. And how noble and courageous you have been to suffer our dusty old Constitution so stoically for nearly 20 years.
But perhaps I do the Justice an injustice. What is it that Ginsberg finds so attractive in those other constitutions? Given her comments, I infer it must have something to do with what she means by “human rights”. So I looked first to the South Africa Constitution since Ginsberg singled it out as a “great piece of work.” It’s available online.
The first thing I noticed about the SA Constitution (1996) is its sheer size. The US Constitution is only 4400 words long, but the SA Constitution is over 43,700 words long. Much more stuff. And more means better? Anyway, it’s so big that I could never have read it all, so I focused mainly on Chapter 2, the SA Bill of Rights.
Our American Bill of Rights is rather short — just those first ten tersely worded amendments. The SA Bill of Rights is over 4600 words long and contains 33 major headings. Among these are many noble and proper declarations somewhat like our own, but there are others — namely, the ones that I presume Justice Ginsberg admires. Three in particular declare the following (with my emphasis added) as the supreme law of the land in South Africa:
24. Environment — Everyone has the right:
(a) to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
(b) to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that
(i) prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
(ii) promote conservation; and
(iii) secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.…..
26. Housing:
(1) Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing.
(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.
(3) No one may be evicted from their home, or have their home demolished, without an order of court made after considering all the relevant circumstances. No legislation may permit arbitrary evictions.
27. Health care, food, water and social security:
(1) Everyone has the right to have access to:
(a) health care services, including reproductive health care;
(b) sufficient food and water; and
(c) social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.(2) The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.
(3) No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.
Isn’t this nice? What’s not to like? It sounds like an Occupy-Wall-Streeter’s paradise. It sounds like the promises made whenever socialism has been sold to a hopeful and unsuspecting populace. It reads as does the European Union Constitution, where attempts to deliver on promises like these threaten to collapse whole economies and lead to massive civil unrest.
Note that nowhere in the SA Constitution does it say that SA “rights” are to be conferred by any means other than those of “The State”. At virtually every turn, The State is the implied guarantor, provider, and benefactor.
However …
Note also the remarkable Item (2) in italics under Headings 26 and 27 above. The phrase “within its available resources” is a convenient way for The State to renege on the associated promised right. I interpret that clause in italics to mean: If we cannot squeeze enough money from selfish South African ‘makers’ to cover our promises to South African ‘takers‘, then this ‘human right’ may not be fulfilled after all. The State has few resources of its own, you see. So if these promises don’t come true, please remember to blame the selfish ‘makers’, not The State.
Note also the use of the interesting phrase “progressive realization”. What do they mean by “progressive”? It could mean gradual, which gives the state a way to put off demands for all these guaranteed freebies. Or it could mean Progressive in the political sense, which implies heavy taxation on those wealthy makers and little or no taxation on the takers. Either or both can help prolong The State’s hold on power.
So I’m left wondering whether Justice Ginsberg admires those SA Constitution human rights promises or those weasel-worded escape phrases. Perhaps it’s both(?).
Of course our own Bill of Rights is fundamentally different. Ours is about what the Federal Government cannot do to us rather than what it must do for us. To a Leftist like President Obama, we know that sounds like a defect — he’s told us so. But Conservatives know that the American approach has led to the most prosperous populace, at all economic levels, in the history of the world. And similar approaches have worked well in other places (albeit to varying degrees) such as Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore, and Chile.
On the other hand, where the Left has had free reign and made the grandest of promises, like those in the South African Constitution, the results have been horrific beyond belief. Just listen to people who have lived through it in the 20th century (here, here, and here).
Scanning through the South African Constitution I found several other areas that may have attracted Justice Ginsberg’s admiring eye. To limit the length of this article, I’ll include just one more … namely, an amazing provision in “Chapter 1, Founding Provisions” that reads:
6. Languages
(1) The official languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.
(2) Recognising the historically diminished use and status of the indigenous languages of our people, the state must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages.
(3) (a) The national government and provincial governments may use any particular official languages for the purposes of government, taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and each provincial government must use at least two official languages.
(b) Municipalities must take into account the language usage and preferences of their residents.(4) The national government and provincial governments, by legislative and other measures, must regulate and monitor their use of official languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection (2), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably.
(5) A Pan South African Language Board established by national legislation must
(a) promote, and create conditions for, the development and use of (i) all official languages; (ii) the Khoi, Nama and San languages; and (iii) sign language ; and
(b) promote and ensure respect for (i) all languages commonly used by communities in South Africa, including German, Greek, Gujarati, Hindi, Portuguese, Tamil, Telegu and Urdu; and (ii) Arabic, Hebrew, Sanskrit and other languages used for religious purposes in South Africa.
In short, South Africa has 11 “official” languages and a Language Board that “promotes” 15 more. To a poor, benighted soul like me, this sounds like a politically correct polyglot run amok, but perhaps this too won Justice Ginsberg’s approval?
Well …
The Left, including Barack Obama, still loves to portray its socialist leanings as some sort of new, forward-looking, if-only-we’d-try-it philosophy of government that will finally bring us all social justice and fairness. But given its cataclysmic failures and atrocities in the 20th century, I’d say that Leftism and Socialism are both long past their sell-by date.
—————————————————————————–
The road to serfdom begins with the belief you can overcome natural differences to create a tie at the finish line of life.
Herbert London
States Can’t Have It Both Ways on Exchanges
February 9, 2012 By 3 Comments
By Diane Cohen
Some state lawmakers committed to striking down the federal takeover of health care – the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) – have moved forward with establishing PPACA insurance exchanges at the same time the United States Supreme Court will be deciding the law’s fate.
Why? The answer we have heard over and over again is that they are establishing PPACA exchanges in their states in order to preserve state control and flexibility over the exchange. However, this answer is refuted by a review of the law.
The President’s health care law says it all: “An Exchange may not establish rules that conflict with or prevent the application of regulations promulgated by the Secretary under this subtitle.” The very language of PPACA makes clear that any so-called state control or flexibility the states think they have is at the mercy of the federal government.
It’s sort of like a retractable leash. You can walk your dog on such a leash and give them some slack to run around, but ultimately, you can pull your dog in at any moment.
Likewise, with PPACA exchanges, as long as the president and his officials are holding the exchange leash, Arizona and other states establishing state exchanges will leave their sovereignty and the liberty of their citizens at the mercy of the federal government.
It makes no sense for a state that is part of the multi-state lawsuit challenging PPACA that is currently before the Supreme Court to both oppose the statute and enforce it at the same time. But beyond being contradictory, PPACA exchanges are detrimental to the fight against the law enabling them. Over the last several weeks court briefs supporting PPACA specifically cite the fact that states are moving forward with exchanges as evidence that exchanges can survive with or without the law’s mandate that all Americans buy insurance.
With oral arguments scheduled in the Supreme Court in late March and a decision expected in June, it is not too late for states like Arizona to reverse course, as Wisconsin did last month, by sending back the federal exchange grant money they have received and stop exchange implementation activities.
Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.
Learn more:
Goldwater Institute: States must protect the health care freedom of their citizens by saying no to federal health insurance exchanges
Goldwater Institute: States damaging their own case with insurance exchange moves
Senator Russell Pearce predicts Supreme Court will uphold SB1070
February 7, 2012 By 29 Comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 7, 2012
CONTACT: Sen. Russell Pearce
Ban Amnesty Now president says America’s highest court will not turn back on states’ rights
PHOENIX—Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070 and newly-appointed president of America’s largest grassroots anti-illegal immigration organization, said today the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments on Arizona’s contested SB1070 legislation was great news for every legal U.S. citizen.
“When the activist judges in lower federal courts bowed to Barack Obama’s whims and put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens, undermined the Rule of Law, they followed in the president’s footsteps in perpetrating a great injustice against our nation, our citizens Constitutional rights and the state of Arizona,” said Pearce.
“We are a nation of fifty sovereign U.S. states, not a nation of 50 subservient states to be dictated to by a Big Brother leviathan. When the Supreme Court rules, I expect that Washington will learn an important lesson in its proper role, not just on immigration but in its role in governance,” Pearce said.
“We send far too much money to Washington for this to be the treatment we get in return. Sovereign U.S. states and legal U.S. citizens were never meant by our Founding Fathers to become penniless orphans in some Twilight Zone version of a Charles Dickens story, begging for scraps from an all-powerful, dictatorial federal government which waves full ladles of nourishment above our heads but never pours anything into our bowls,” said Pearce.
“When the Court rules, I expect power to return to the states, and Ban Amnesty Now by then will be working diligently to pass SB1070-style legislation in all 50 states, like Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia already have” he said. “The president can sue every state if he pleases, or he can get out of the way while we do the job Washington won’t in protecting our great nation from illegal aliens.
“I fully expect we, the legal citizens of Arizona and America, will win in the Supreme Court on SB1070, just as we did with Arizona’s Employers Sanction Law, the toughest in the nation, which goes after illegal employers and protects American jobs and was upheld five-to-three in the Supreme Court,” said Pearce.
While 6 of the 10 provisions of SB1070 were upheld, four main provisions of the contested SB1070 were blocked from implementation by lower courts, including:
(1) requiring law enforcement officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that person is an illegal alien;
(2) creating a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers”;
(3) permitting the arrest of an illegal alien in which there is probable cause to believe the individual committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; and,
(4) making it a crime for illegal aliens to solicit, apply for or perform work.
“America is greater than any one man, than any one president,” said Pearce. “I believe the court will rule on the side of law, our Constitution, and states’ rights, and that we will prove our nation can indeed work again. This will be an important ruling, an important milestone, in a long road ahead to restoring the rule of law, America’s economy, political and national security.”
# # #
The Decision that Changed Everything
January 20, 2012 By
| This Sunday marks the 39th anniversary of the most tragic U.S. Supreme Court decision in our nation’s history, Roe v. Wade.
Since 1973, more than 50 million abortions have been performed in America – roughly one-sixth of our population has been lost. While there is much work to be done until we see the day when every life is cherished and protected from its very beginning to its natural end, the pro-life movement is stronger than ever. |
|
The Pro-Life Shift
|
| At the time of Roe v. Wade, a majority of Americans were asleep and not aware of the implications of legalized abortion for any reason, at any stage of pregnancy, at any age of the mother. Thankfully, our nation has experienced, and continues to experience, a dramatic shift in Americans’ attitudes about abortion. Americans have woken up to the fact that abortion stops a beating heart, breaks a woman’s heart, harms a woman physically and emotionally, and does not provide solutions to any problems.
Ultrasound technology has proven the humanity of the preborn child. Everyone knows a woman who was harmed by abortion and regrets her so-called “choice.” The dangerous practices of abortion providers like Planned Parenthood and Gosnell in Pennsylvania have been exposed in shocking detail. In July 2011, Gallup found the following:
That means almost 60 percent of Americans believe abortions should be illegal in either all or most circumstances. Even though Planned Parenthood still receives more than 300 million tax dollars annually, there has been a shift in public perception about the abortion giant, in part thanks to Americans United for Life and their recent report The Case for Investigating Planned Parenthood. |
|
Arizona: One of the Most Improved Pro-Life States
|
| In Arizona, thanks to Arizonans voting their pro-life values to elect a pro-life legislature and Governor, we have made significant progress to protect preborn children and women – so much so that Americans United for Life named our state one of the “most-improved” states in the country for pro-life legislation.
In the last year alone, CAP-supported laws have taken effect that:
You can read more about Arizona’s abortion laws on AZPolicyPages.com |
|
The Ongoing Fight
|
| This session, CAP will once again be supporting legislation to promote the health and safety of women considering an abortion, and to protect them against the predatory practices of the abortion industry. Stay tuned over the next two weeks as key pro-life legislation is introduced.
We will also continue our work to defend CAP-supported legislation in court, like the law that would disqualify donations to any organization that provides, promotes, pays for, or provides referrals for abortion from being eligible for the working poor tax credit. This law is currently blocked from taking effect because of a lawsuit the ACLU brought on behalf of the Arizona Domestic Violence Coalition. |
|
Join the Cause
|
Take time to consider these four ways you can make a difference for life in Arizona:
|
Statement of Superintendent Huppenthal on TUSD Governing Board’s Decision to Immediately Suspend Their Mexican American Studies Program
January 11, 2012 By 1 Comment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 11, 2012
CONTACT: Andrew LeFevre
Statement of Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal on the Tucson Unified School District Governing Board’s Decision to Immediately Suspend Their Mexican American Studies Program
Phoenix, AZ, January 11, 2012 – Today, Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal released the following statement regarding the action by the Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD) governing board to immediately suspend their Mexican American Studies Program:
“Last night, by a 4-1 vote, the governing board of the Tucson Unified School District resolved that ‘All Mexican-American Studies (MAS) courses and teaching activities, regardless of funding source, shall be suspended immediately.’
I am very encouraged by the swift and decisive action taken by the members of the governing board last night to address the issues that I raised in my final ruling on January 6, 2012 of the district being in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112.
I am currently reviewing the official resolution that was adopted by the governing board and, upon consultation with TUSD representatives, will make a determination on appropriate method to verify their compliance with A.R.S. § 15-112.
I look forward to working with Superintendent Pedicone and other TUSD leadership to find ways to improve their schools and to provide a quality education for all TUSD.”
###
John Huppenthal Statement on Ruling that TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Program Violates Arizona Law
December 28, 2011 By 12 Comments
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 27, 2011
Statement of Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal on Administrative Law Judge’s Decision that the Tucson Unified School District’s Mexican American Studies Program is in Violation of A.R.S. § 15-112
Phoenix, AZ, December 27, 2011– Today, Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal released the following statement on the decision of Administrative Law Judge Lewis Kowal that affirmed the Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD’s) Mexican American Studies Program was in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112 as per his ruling from June 15, 2011:
“I was very pleased to receive Judge Kowal’s decision today affirming the ruling that I made on June 15 that TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Program was in violation of A.R.S. § 15-112.
In my role as State Superintendent of Public Instruction I have a legal responsibility to uphold the law and a professional imperative to ensure that every student has access to an excellent education.
Upon taking office on January 3, 2011, I was faced with the immediate circumstance of the Tucson Unified School District being found in violation of A.R.S. §15-112 by the outgoing Superintendent. Instead of making a snap decision on the matter, the Arizona Department of Education, at my direction, conducted an intensive investigation, spanning many months, of TUSD’s Mexican American Studies Department (MASD) and its program.
In the end, I made a decision based on the totality of the information and facts gathered during my investigation – a decision that I felt was best for all students in the Tucson Unified School District. The Judge’s decision confirms that it was the right decision.
I will be issuing my final ruling regarding the matter in the near future after a thorough and deliberate review of the Judge’s decision.”
###
