Rep. Paul Gosar Introduces the F.A.U.L.T Act

Congressman Paul Gosar

‘Sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to hostile countries is unconscionable’   

WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S (AZ-04) introduced the Foreign Assistance Under Limitation and Transparency Act or the F.A.U.L.T Act. This legislation is intended to limit foreign aid to five countries that undermine U.S. foreign policy objectives – Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan. Rep. Gosar issued the following statement:

“Sending billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to hostile countries is unconscionable. Yet, only in Washington, D.C. does it make sense to pay other governments to undermine our foreign policy objectives.”

Rep. Gosar continued, “When countries like Iran, North Korea, Syria, Egypt, and Pakistan act like enemies rather than friends toward the United States and our allies, the time to cut them off from U.S. taxpayer dollars is now.”

Rep. Gosar previously introduced amendments to the last two Department of Defense Appropriations Acts that sought to ensure that foreign aid was not given to hostile international regimes and organizations.  He has introduced the F.A.U.L.T Act as stand-alone legislation in the hope to expand upon these principles and codify them into law.

ICYMI: Rep. Paul Gosar on C-Span’s Washington Journal Discussing Benghazi Hearings

WASHINGTON, D.C. -U.S. Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S (AZ-04) appeared on C-Span’s Washington Journal to discuss the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the Benghazi Consulate attack.

Please click HERE or the image below to watch the interview:

YouTube Preview Image

“There’s accountability in the private sector, but what we lack here is accountability in the public sector.”
—-
“This narrative that was put out was a deceitful lie that misled the American public.”
—-
“There is definitely a problem that we’ve got here. It’s not a matter of if, it’s just when, this is going to happen again and that’s why these hearings are so important.”

Chuck Hagel: An Idiotic Choice? No, A Tactical Maneuver

By Lisa Benson

Lisa BensonNeoconservative backers of the Iraq War have long had issues with Chuck Hagel, President Barack Obama’s choice for Secretary of Defense (OSD). Of all the stories floating around about the nomination of Chuck Hagel, his involvement with the George Soros — Obama’s Boss — and the devil incarnate is the most insidious in my opinion.

Hagel has a long-standing feud with Lindsey Graham and John McCain over breaking away from supporting the Iraqi war. However, as much as I am reading that Obama’s choice for OSD is to exasperate a rift within the Republican establishment, I am inclined to believe that the purpose is broader, more sweeping and more serious than just what the mainstream media is reporting.

In my opinion, if we activists and national security/Pro-Israel policy hawks focus on the minutia of Hagel’s remarks regarding Israel, we will certainly lose any effort to thwart his appointment.

This appointment can only be stopped in its tracks if our elected officials get to the root of the problem: the overarching agenda of this administration and those who support it.

The “paymaster of the Democratic Party” is behind this nomination; the man who is responsible for many of the problems that beset the west. GEORGE SOROS

Much is written about Soros and his communist connections beginning when he fled Hungry in 1946. He made exits through major Soviet check points even when others could not. He traded currencies on the black market during Hitler’s occupation in Hungary and started a banking enterprise, worldwide. Much is written, spoken and debated about the Soros plan for a “one world order” and his communist connections.

The Obama “brain trust” includes the likes of George Soros, John Podesta (who managed the Obama transition team in 2008), Gary Hart, Mike Allen, Brent Scowcroft and Thomas Pickering.

This week we learned that the Obama “brain trust,” with the financial backing of George Soros, hired the brother of John Podesta – Tony Podesta – of the elite lobbying firm THE PODESTA GROUP, Washington, D.C. to take up the Hagel cause. In short order: the Podesta firm has been hired to influence defense contractors to finance, promote ads and back Chuck Hagel. By “influence” I mean “support or lose your government defense contracts” is the not so subtle innuendo. Financed lobbying effort by George Soros.

What IS very concerning to me is the involvement of notorious Communist, George Soros in the nomination of Chuck Hagel.

As someone said to me today, “Soros is as Jewish as Hitler was a Christian.”

Everything George Soros involves himself with is to promote a Progressive, Socialist, Communist reformist agenda, including his backing of Chuck Hagel.

…And What About the Deutsche Bank?

Hagel was appointed in 2009 to Deutsche Bank’s Americas Advisory Board. The PAID position placed him in close contact with the bank’s senior leadership.

SorosHagel

Here is the clincher and a jaw dropping revelation:

Germany’s Deutsche Bank is reportedly being probed by U.S. authorities for VIOLATING the trade embargo on Iran’s oil and energy sector, which is believed to play a key role in Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program.

Much of this information regarding Deutsche Bank can be read in THE WASHTINGTON FREE BEACON. However, the George Soros promotion of Hagel is hardly spoken.

Most recently, and in my opinion, seriously concerning, is evidence of Hagel as an IRANIAN APOLOGIST, as an opponent of sanctions or strong policy against a nuclear Iran. His appointment continues the Obama administration’s weak, apologetic and appeasement diplomacy this administration is known for — weak and uninformed is the norm in the Situation Room. As witnessed by the horrific details emerging regarding Benghazi.

When the nomination for the United States Secretary of Defense merits a press release from the Iranian government, as happened yesterday, applauding the President of the United States for his choice for OSD, everyone needs to take notice — or should take notice.

Summary:

Tony Podesta, THE PODESTA GROUP, tripled its staff three years ago, receives half a million dollars a year from General Dynamics, a military contractor. Brother John is a close ally of President Obama and headed up the Obama transition team in 2008.

We have a Socialist/Communist lead administration, funded by George Soros, making government contract deals with defense contractors. ??????

Some say that George Soros is a pawn for the Obama administration. I beg to differ. Soros is the boss and he is dangerously manifesting his “one world order” plan on the backs, and in contrast, to everything this Republic stands for.

“Bye Bye American Pie!”

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is the principal staff element of the Secretary of Defense in the exercise of policy development, planning, resource management, fiscal, and program evaluation responsibilities. OSD includes the immediate offices of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, Under Secretaries of Defense, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Assistant Secretaries of Defense, General Counsel, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Assistants to the Secretary of Defense, Director of Administration and Management and such other staff offices as the Secretary establishes to assist in carrying out assigned responsibilities.

Hagel, as a “Soros Machine Puppet” will be responsible for every aspect of our nation’s defense, and apparently, George Soros has great influence on the Obama administration and on the policy and direction of the United States. This, actually makes me shudder.

It is obvious, after conducting this research that Chuck Hagel, if appointed, will be a pawn/ puppet and member of the Soros Machine ready, willing and able and positioned to lead the charge against strong national security policies. Israel will be hanging out there alone in the Iranian matter.

Finally, I would like to add, if we keep the heat on the Hagel nomination, don’t be so sure that Hagel himself won’t opt out of the appointment.

Tell the Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Armed Services “NO to Hagel.” Contact Chairman Levin today.

Lisa Benson is an nationally renowned expert on anti-Islamic national security issues. As the owner of Lisa Benson Consulting, LLC, she also works in fundraising community raising hundreds of millions of dollars for causes and campaigns. You can find out more about Lisa at her website: LisaBensonConsulting.com

When is enough, enough?

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
Tuesday, October 30, 2012

When is enough, enough?

As the AP wrote on 10/22/12, “A federal judge refused to order counties to accept new voter registrations without the proof of citizenship mandated by Proposition 200.” U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver rejected arguments by various groups that federal law requires counties to honor a national mail-in voter registration form that does not require applicants to prove they are citizens. Silver said the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act are simply a starting point. She said states are free to enact measures – including requiring proof of citizenship – to make sure those people who sign up to vote are in fact legally qualified to do so.

Monday’s ruling does not end the lawsuits filed by organizations ranging from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the League of Women Voters to the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. It simply denies them the restraining order they sought for immediate relief.

Frustrated with the moves by Democrat then-Governor Janet Napolitano and the U.S. Congress’ efforts to reward illegal immigration by granting aliens licenses, government benefits, amnesty and the right to vote, I wrote Proposition 200 and with the help of wonderful Patriots took our battle to the streets; and gathered well over the needed signatures of 122,612 registered voters to put “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act” on the 2004 ballot.  In November of 2004 it passed over whelmingly by the voters of Arizona. 

The Arizona Taxpayers and Citizens Protection Act (Prop 200) requires three things:

1.      Proof of citizenship to register to vote.

2.      Photo I.D. When voting.

3.      Proof of eligibility to receive public benefits. 

 Remember the 100,000 illegal alien march?  There chant was “today we march, tomorrow we Vote”.  Prop. 200 gave us standards, so out of 100,000 protest marchers only 126 were able to register to vote.  Apparently this offended the pro illegal alien crowd to actually require some evidence or proof and so they have taken Prop. 200 to court 7 times and always lose. Their effort is a continuous endeavor to gain political control at any cost, even if it means further destruction of the Rule of Law. They continue to invent arguments, while the whole issue is about ‘illegal’ vs. ‘legal’ and giving rights and benefits to people who are not entitled under the Constitution or the laws.  The issue is about corruption by the left in political power, and the cheap labor crowd (Profits over Patriotism as I call them) while the citizens and taxpayers pick up the tab.

 The Illegal Alien Invasion:

  •         10,000 daily crossing our borders, hundreds of thousands of “illegal” aliens marching in our streets demanding “rights.” Motto: “Today we march. Tomorrow we Vote.”
  •         Billions of dollars in costs – Our state health insurance system, AHCCCS, paid out $200 million dollars in 2001, in 2002 the amount increased almost 600% to 1.2 billion! $2.6 billion annually to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens in the state of Arizona
  •         Crime ridden neighborhoods
  •         Over 9,000 killed every single year by illegal aliens. according to a Congressional report
  • $2.6 billion annually in Arizona to educate, medicate and incarcerate
  • Voter fraud

 There is currently a battle raging in our country that will determine whether our nation enforces its immigration laws and secures its borders or becomes a victim of its enemies. We are a nation built upon the “rule of law,” and either we stand up for the principles that our Founding Fathers gave us to ensure lasting liberty, enshrined in a Constitution that protects those liberties, or we destroy all that is sacred and the end result will be a nation that commits suicide.

 I am the author of Proposition 200 in 2004 to stop voter fraud and taxpayers from abuse and fraud, The Arizona’s Legal Workers Act to protect jobs for Americans (upheld by the Supreme Court by a 5 to 3 decision in 2011), and SB1070 in 2010 to remove illegal sanctuary policies and allow law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws, among many others. SB1070 is supported by over 70% of Americans and 11 of the 14 sections were found to be legal, Constitutional and common sense by the Supreme Court.

 I wrote all of these to protect Arizona jobs, taxpayers, the integrity of our elections, including as MVD Director in 1996 NO drivers license if not “legally present” in the United States, I authored Proposition 100, 102, 103 and 300 all passed by 75% of Arizonans in 2006.  It has been a long fight to preserve the rule of law and protect the taxpayers and citizens of this state.

 They say this initiative is divisive? Like its name says, it seeks to protect Arizona taxpayers and citizens. The only divisiveness our initiative could cause might be between those for whom laws matter and those for whom laws don’t matter.

 Our local, state, and federal officials steadfastly refused to protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. No longer can we sit on the sidelines and be spectators to the destruction of the Rule of Law or the cost to our citizens in crime, billions in dollars, jobs taken from Americans.  Enough is enough.  We must hold our elected and appointed officials accountable. It is up to us to do something about illegal activity and the issues of voter fraud and theft of taxpayer dollars.

 The time has come to fight.

  •         Fight to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance;
  •         Fight to keep God in our national motto;
  •         Fight to keep the Ten Commandments on public display;
  •         Fight to return prayer to the classrooms;
  •         Fight against abortion;
  •         Fight against pornography;
  •         Fight to secure our borders;
  •         Fight to preserve the rule of law;
  •         Fight to protect the taxpayers from wasteful and unconstitutional spending by the government;
  •         Fight for our God given rights as recognized by our Founding Fathers;
  •         Fight, fight, fight, and (in the words of Winston Churchill) never, never, never, never give up!

 May God bless continue to bless the United States of America

Former President of the Senate Russell Pearce

 
 
Join Our Mailing List

Four More Years?

YouTube Preview Image

Sometimes, we must see the future clearly to act boldly in the present.
Take a glimpse into the darkness of Obama’s America in 2016.
High unemployment. Record high gas prices. The Middle East in chaos.
Religion on the run. Record debt levels. America downsized.
America downgraded.

Part Two: Kyrsten Sinema Addresses SB1070, the Border and comments by Gabriela Saucedo Mercer with Muslim Community

*Last week, Honey Marques published an article on Western Free Press entitled ‘Kyrsten Sinema associates tied to Hamas-linked CAIR and other MB front groups: Part 1’ which exposed the questionable backgrounds of two individuals who sponsored an event for Sinema’s campaign. This second part includes audio files and deals with the event itself wherein Sinema took the opportunity to discuss with members of the Muslim community matters of immigration, border security and to deliver criticism of Republican congressional candidate, Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, who is running against the CD-3 incumbent Democrat Raul Grijalva, over comments she made in a discussion regarding OTMs (Other Than Mexicans).

***

1948 is a year of historic significance. It is the year in which the nation of Israel gained her independence.  Interestingly, 1948 is also the security code publicly listed on the Sinema campaign event page for entry into the residential area for those who attended the September 29 campaign event hosted by Hassan Elsaad and Mohamed El-Sharkawy.  It seemed a premonitory coincidence.

Upon entering the home of Hassan Elsaad, one was welcomed graciously. When Kyrsten Sinema spoke, she largely discussed her formative years which served as the basis for her future career as an attorney and in the Arizona state legislature highlighting her work on domestic violence issues. Certainly, working on issues concerning the serious nature of domestic violence is noble; however, most of the room was filled with men aligned with organizations, such as CAIR, which support the implementation of Shariah Law wherein the rights of women do not exist. Does Ms. Sinema realize the irony in her statements?

Sinema then invited the audience to ask questions. The first question was from a gentleman regarding her position on SB1070, which is in the following audio file: SB1070 discussion

The following highlights are worth noting from Sinema’s commentary:

  1. Sinema’s omission of the threat of violence coming from a group of people, categorized as OTMs, crossing our southern border illegally.  Many of these individuals include radical Islamic extremists coming from terrorist sponsoring nations whose only intentions are to bring Jihad to America.
  2. Referring to illegal Mexicans as “migrants.”  We used to call them “illegal aliens.”
  3. Accusing Sheriff Joe of “…specializing in abusing people’s civil liberties.”  This is factually inaccurate and misleading. See recent article posted in Feds Close Criminal Investigation into Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
  4. Advising Muslims who happen to be without “papers” to seek legal advice - indicating they may be unlawfully profiled if detained for not having proof of citizenship or legal residency. This seemed a potential incongruity. Why wouldn’t they have “papers” if they are here legally? Furthermore, law enforcement cannot inquire about one’s identification unless there is a question raised. For example, identity can be questioned during a routine traffic stop wherein a driver fails to produce a license or registration. If someone is questioned at a crime scene, again, they simply need to identify themselves – something we all do every single day through business transactions, writing checks, using or applying for credit or jobs, etc.

SB1070 was passed and signed into law as a step toward discouraging illegals from unlawful entry into the state in the first place. It was also written to put pressure on the federal government to finally do the job it isrequired to do which is to protect our border. Our state law mirrored federal law. All Arizona did was reiterate that responsibility and hold the federal government accountable on its duty. If Ms. Sinema is looking to point a finger at who has put Arizona’s citizens at risk, she ought to point to the federal government’s negligence, which has put an undue hardship on our ranchers, Arizona businesses, our state’s economy, education and healthcare institutions, law enforcement, and taxpayers.

Toward the end of the audio clip addressing SB1070, Sinema also addresses Mohamed El-Sharkawy’s work with law enforcement in Phoenix to assist with “cultural understanding.”  In order to truly understand the nature of such “understanding,” it is important to note that part of CAIR’s mission is for the Islamic community to foster a relationship within our law enforcement communities for the purpose of sensitivity training.  As readers may recall, Marques’ article last week revealed that the FBI “…cut all ties with Hamas-linked CAIR at both the national and local levels across the nation as a result of the findings of a 15-year FBI investigation of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HFL), the largest Islamic charity in the U.S. at that time.”

It is troubling that our local law enforcement is willing to work with El Sharkawy and Hamas-linked CAIR despite the FBI’s legitimate disassociation with the group. One wonders if CAIR addresses concerns about OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) with local law enforcement.  Again, such concern was clearly absent on the part of Kyrsten Sinema, who failed to mention the real threat of terrorists among OTMs before launching into an attack on comments delivered by Republican congressional candidate Gabriela Saucedo Mercer on the subject. An audience member asked for Sinema to respond to Mercer’s comments and here is what she had to say: Response to comments by Saucedo Mercer

First of all, Sinema appeared to be clueless about the true nature of Mercer’s comments or who Mercer was. Mercer’s statements were on point with OTMs crossing the southern border at an alarming rate.  (See full version of Mercer video where she clearly speaks of OTMs  beginning at 7:27; she refers to OTMs coming from ‘special interest countries’ our government defines as terrorist sponsoring nations: WFP Interviews Gabriela Saucedo Mercer).

The issue of OTMs from countries of special interest was something Sinema never addressed in previous audio clips or when speaking about her position on Immigration Reform.  For such an important topic, why was this issue not addressed with the group of moderate Muslims at the event who share the same concern about radical Islamic extremists committing terrorist acts against this nation?

CAIR Arizona was also very critical and accused Mercer of discriminating against all Middle Easterners which is simply not the truth. Even the media were quick to conveniently edit Mercer’s comments out of context as seen in this outrageous report: CAIR-AZ Asks Governor Not to Back GOP Candidate

The issue of Islamic radicals entering the United States illegally, and legally, with the intent to do our nation harm has been well documented. We know that some of the 9/11 terrorists were in this country legally. Some even attended flight schools, took English courses and lived in Arizona cities. As recently as September 2012, three men of Middle Eastern descent with ties to Hezbollah (one an American citizen and two citzens of Belize) were apprehended in Mexico.

In fact, reports are available online detailing the significant rise in OTM’s from countries of special interest (countries sponsoring terror networks) coming through our porous southern border (255 Illegals From Countries That Promote, Produce, Protect Terrorists Along US-Mexico Border;  Judicial Watch Obtains New Border Patrol Statistics for Illegal Alien Smugglers and “Special Interest Aliens”Foreign Terrorists Breach U.S. Border).

The Washington Times reported the following OTM information last year:

“Department of Homeland Security statistics confirm that hundreds of OTMs are apprehended each year. An independent analysis of department data shows that the problem of OTM apprehensions on the southwestern border has been growing at an alarming rate. While overall apprehensions at the Mexican border have declined dramatically – 67 percent – from 2000 to 2009, apprehensions of OTMs have not declined. In fact, apprehensions of OTMs and special-interest aliens – those migrants who originate in countries that are known to sponsor terror – have jumped during the same period – 58 percent and 67 percent, respectively.”

Read more: SWAIN & SHARAD: Radicals lay siege to our border – Washington Times

The CRS Report for Congress titled Border Security: Apprehensions of ‘Other Than Mexican’ Aliens (Updated June 20, 2006) also validates the Washington Times piece as illustrated in the following:

Overall OTM Apprehensions
Figure 1 shows the overall number of OTMs apprehended by the Border Patrol
over the past nine years. The number of OTM apprehensions remained relatively
stable from 1998 to 2002, averaging almost 37,000 a year over the six-year time
period. Apprehensions increased by 33% from FY2002 to FY2003, and 52% from
FY2003 to FY2004. In FY2005, OTM apprehensions more than doubled from
FY2004, increasing by 119%. Indeed, over the last three years OTM apprehensions
have more than quadrupled, increasing by 343%. This trend is in stark contrast to
apprehensions of Mexican aliens, which have remained relatively stable over the
same period. Figure 1 illustrates the dramatic increase in OTM apprehensions over
the past three years.

Surprisingly, no further updates for the CRS Report for Congress (Border Security: Apprehensions of ‘Other Than Mexican’ Alienswere found on the expected government websites listing CRS reports and  TRAC Immigration.

For someone seeking a congressional seat, and as one who has served in the legislature of a border state, it is incomprehensible that Sinema would not take the opportunity to discuss the OTM threat to an audience clearly raising questions about her immigration views. Her naïve approach and simplistic remarks regarding a very serious, timely, and dangerous threat to our national security and sovereignty cannot go without sound critique. In fact, what is most revealing is what was not said at the event (including discussions of the attacks in Libya or the situation in Syria). Aside from the occassional acknowledgement of cartels described as “bad,” mean,” or “dangerous,” Sinema made their activity and presence on the border appear as a remote issue altogether separate from the popular narrative of the poor seeking a better life (as if breaking federal law and not honoring our immigration system somehow illustrates one’s pursuit of a better life). Perhaps if one’s goal is to see the Dream Act manifest nationally and cater to groups of people for political points instead of promoting assimilation into American life, then it is rather inconvenient to present sound truths and solid solutions rooted in the preservation of America’s heritage.

During the event, Sinema brought up her desire that all who wish to enter this country to achieve the American Dream be given the opportunity to do so, failing to note that that opportunity already exists in the form of legal immigration. To listen to Sinema’s comments, one  would think there were no present “path” to citizenship. Of course, we have had a process from the founding of this country whereby one becomes a citizen; it is rooted in shedding allegiances to the country of origin in order to adopt American values, laws, and language so as to assimilate and contribute to this great nation. It appears that some in attendance of this event view themselves as victims, and stated so; some choose to self-segregate, referring only to their community and desire to reinforce their own history and culture, which is being done through their own schools. Sinema also spoke of the school noted in the previous audio link.

There was an additional concern brought up by someone in attendance referring to “special needs” of their community being addressed by government officials: The community addressing congress. In the link, Sinema also mentions that Keith Ellison, the Muslim congressman from Minnesota, held a fundraiser for her recently. Please listen to full audio carefully to hear a man in attendance mention Ellison’s suggestion that they (in the Muslim community) pay a pilgrimage to DC as they do to Mecca.

Many in attendance have been in this country for some time. Some expressed their involvement in politics stemming back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Assuming they are citizens or here with legal residency, are they not afforded the same Constitutional rights as ALL Americans?  Once someone becomes a citizen of this country, they become the beneficiaries of the same rights that any other American enjoys including the freedom to practice their faith, vote, have a voice, and to enjoy the unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness – just as Gabriela Saucedo Mercer chose to do. Therefore, the Muslim community is not being disenfranchised. Self-segregating instead of assimilating is entirely their preference; however, it does not constitute as any sort of disenfranchisement worthy of a congressional ear.

The September 29 event would have been a perfect opportunity for Kyrsten Sinema to educate instead of fostering a mentality of victimhood within the community, reinforcing false narratives concerning major legislation, and failing to adequately address the mortal danger presented by the federal government’s negligence on border security and abandoning current immigration policy.

So what additional “special needs” are being demanded from the Muslim community when their civil liberties are already protected equally as with non-Muslims under our Constitution? Does Sharia Law now become part of that discussion of “special needs” (CAIR’s Sharia Fog Machine)?

The event for Kyrsten Sinema never became an outright discussion on Sharia Law; however, Arizonans should be concerned about candidates and sitting representatives sympathizing with and having support among groups (like CAIR) who advocate for the implementation of Sharia Law – at any level – for it cannot coexist with the Constitution of the United States.

 

See supported links below including extra audio from the September 29 event.

Audio:

Response to housewife comments, NRCC ads, being referred to as communist

Mohamed speaking about Sinema

Corey Harris speaks

Sinema identifies points of importance to her

 

Site links for more info:

DHS Funded Report Assesses Factors Related to Violent Extremism Among Somalis in Minneapolis-St. Paul

Southwest Border Violence: Issues In Identifying and Measuring Spillover Violence

Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress

Hezbollah: Background and Issues for Congress

Immigration Fiscal Impact Statement

HB 2582: Arizona’s attempt to stop Sharia Law in the state

Congressman Flake Issues Statement on Shooting of Border Patrol Agents in Naco, Arizona

Mesa, Arizona – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today issued the following statement on the shooting of two border patrol agents, one who was killed and the other wounded, near the Brian Terry Station in the Tucson Sector of Border Patrol:

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the agents’ families at this difficult time,” said Flake. “Violence along Arizona’s border cannot be tolerated by the federal government any longer. The federal government must commit the necessary resources to secure the border, because that’s simply not happening right now.”

###

Frank Antenori: A Response to Patrick Gatti

By Senator Frank Antenori

This morning, while perusing the local left wing rag (Tucson Weekly), I came across an article titled “Congressional Dreaming” written by propaganda specialist Mari Herreras.  It was about the Congressional District 1 race; in particular, it was discussing the “underdogs” in the race.  The article was essentially your standard ho-hum political diatribe until I got near the end and read this gem: “He portrays himself as a warrior, but he was in the National Guard, which I consider to be of lesser quality than full Army.”

Now one might think this might have come from a military loathing lefty; if you thought that, you’d be wrong.  Imagine my surprise when I saw the quote attributed to Republican Congressional candidate Patrick Gatti of Show Low.

This comment would have really set me off if it had come from the left, but the fact that it came from a Republican has ticked me off even more.

In my 20+ years in the military I served in combat with many National Guard and Reserve soldiers.  One of them was SFC Daniel Romero; a fellow Special Forces soldier assigned to the 19th Special Forces Group (Colorado Army National Guard).  Dan and his fellow 19th Group soldiers fought alongside my unit, the 3rd Special Forces Group, in Afghanistan during Operation Anaconda.  Dan was killed in action on April 15th 2002.  I can tell you no one even noticed, let alone mentioned the fact that he was in the National Guard.  To us he was a brother, a fellow Green Beret, who like many before him, laid down his life for his country.  To imply that Dan was a “lesser quality” soldier because he was in the Guard is nothing short of a complete insult. He was one of this country’s most skilled and proficient warriors; above all, he was a patriot.

Since September 11, 2001, the Arizona National Guard has lost seven soldiers in combat.  To be clear, Arizona has lost seven of her finest sons and daughters fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for our great country and our fine state. All were warriors and patriots, all were cut from the highest quality of American cloth.  To imply they were somehow “lesser quality” is disgraceful.

Every soldier, whether they be active duty, National Guard or Reserves, must meet the Army’s high qualification standards prior to being deployed; everything from physical fitness, combat skills, marksmanship, and Military Occupational Specialty (job) performance levels are evaluated.  These standards are so high that the Pentagon issued a warning in a 2009 report showing data that that 75% of the nation’s 17- to 24-year-olds are ineligible for Army service for a variety of reasons. Add in the washout rates during training, and that percentage grows even higher.  If anything, one can easily say that one must be of the highest quality to serve in the Guard and Reserve.

As far as I’m concerned the only one of “lesser quality” is Mr. Gatti who has demonstrated that he is ignorant of the skills and performance required to be in the Guard and Reserve, not to mention the contribution our Army National Guard and Reserves (a.k.a. Minutemen) have made to this country since the Army’s inception on June 14, 1775.  It is also pretty clear he does not deserve to represent anyone in Congress.

Senator Frank Antenori
Legislative District 30 (new Legislative District 10)

Governor Jan Brewer: Mourning the Loss and Honoring the Service of U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Richard L. Berry

Mourning the Loss and Honoring the Service of U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Richard L. Berry 

“This is a day of sorrow as Arizonans bid goodbye to one of our Nation’s heroes. United States Army Staff Sgt. Richard L. Berry, of Scottsdale, Arizona, died July 22, 2012, after sustaining serious injuries when an improvised explosive device detonated near his dismounted patrol. At the time of the incident, Staff Sgt. Berry, 27, was serving in the Kandahar Providence of

Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

“Staff Sgt. Berry had been assigned to the A Company, 508th Special Troops Battalion, 82nd Airborne Division, based at Fort Bragg, in North Carolina. On this somber day, I encourage all Arizonans to take a moment to reflect upon the daily sacrifice of men and women in uniform such as Staff Sgt. Berry. Their bravery and selfless service protects and preserves the American freedoms we hold dear. Please join me in keeping Staff Sgt. Berry, his family and his fellow servicemen and women in your hearts and prayers during this difficult time.

“On Friday, July 20, President Obama ordered that the American flag be flown at half-staff until sunset July 25, 2012, in remembrance of the victims of the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Today, per my order, lowered State flags in Arizona also will stand as special recognition and tribute to Staff Sgt. Richard L. Berry for his service and sacrifice to a grateful Nation. State flags will be lowered once more on the day of his interment, for which services are pending.”

###

Rep. Ben Quayle Discusses Border Security on Fox and Friends

YouTube Preview Image

ICYMI: Ben Quayle on Fox America’s Newsroom and 3-TV Discussing Immigration

Congressman Ben Quayle was on Fox America’s Newsroom with Bill Hemmer yesterday to talk about immigration enforcement issues. Congressman Quayle attacks the White House’s blatant double standard in choosing which states cooperate with immigration enforcement.

Senators John McCain and Joseph Lieberman Speaking on the Massacre of 17,000 Syrians

YouTube Preview Image

Rep. Ben Quayle Questions Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

Congressman Ben Quayle questioned Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano earlier today on immigration enforcement metrics, prosecutorial discretion and the 287(g) Task Force agreement.

The exchange between Rep. Quayle and Sec. Napolitano can be viewed by clicking below.

YouTube Preview Image

One topic of Rep. Quayle’s questions was the Obama Administration’s use of prosecutorial discretion to avoid enforcement of the law. Rep. Quayle asked how Congress needed to write laws to ensure that they actually get enforced by federal agencies. Stopping the misuse of prosecutorial discretion, and the Obama Administration’s attempts to sidestep Congress has been a priority of Rep. Quayle’s. His Washington Times Op-Ed on these issues can be viewed here.

 

###

Victory: Court Decision on Arizona’s Controversial Immigration Law SB 1070

By Former State Senator Karen Johnson

Many people are unhappy about the June 25th Court decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law (SB1070) and the fact that the Court struck down three out of the four provisions of the bill that had been challenged. Now, if this were a game of tennis or baseball, losing three out of four would be a near defeat. But the ruling on SB1070 is not about sports, and a mere count of the provisions the court affirmed or struck down is not a measure of the success or failure of SB1070. The court’s ruling was, in fact, a great victory. There is no cause for mourning over SB1070.

First, it must be understood that SB1070 was a long, complex piece of legislation that ran for 19 pages and involved 10 sections of statute, some of which had multiple provisions in subsections. Some very important sections of SB1070 were never challenged, such as the sections on human smuggling and employee sanctions. Attempts were made early on to challenge Section 2 (a prohibition against “sanctuary cities”) and Section 5(a) (streetside solicitation by day workers). But these attempts to thwart SB1070 were fended off in early court proceedings before the suit arrived at the Supreme Court. So, of the 10 sections to the bill, a full six of them, many with multiple provisions, were either in effect from the start or had been exonerated by the time the challenge arrived at the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. That means that 60 percent of SB1070 had already been cleared before June 25. What remained for review by the Supreme Court were all of Sections 3 and 6, and a single piece each of Sections 2 and 5. Section 2(b) was upheld in the June 25th ruling, so comes off the table (70 percent of SB1070′s 10 sections now prevailing.). That leaves three items.

Sections 3 and 6 each address a single provision of law, and each were struck down by the Court. But Section 3 isn’t absolutely required in order for the states to arrest and detain illegal immigrants; it was just an additional tool. Nice to have, but not a key provision of SB1070. Section 6 was somewhat redundant because states already have authority for that provision and can work around the court’s decision. So, losing Sections 3 and 6 is not a fatal blow to SB1070.

Lastly, Section 5 had seven different provisions in it, but only one was challenged. The Court struck it down, so a mere one-seventh of Section 5 was invalidated by the June 25th ruling, while the remaining six-sevenths stood. So, in the end, three small provisions that were not terribly crucial were struck down by the court. In contrast, the most significant provision of SB1070, the one which allows police officers making traffic stops to check for residency status, was upheld. This provision was the heart of SB1070. It was by far the most important part of the bill, the most important item under judicial review, and the one to which the Justices gave the most attention during oral arguments. And that section was upheld unanimously by all eight Justices.

Despite SB1070′s near perfect score after two years of attacks by the Left, and despite the puny success of the opponents who were so enraged about the passage of the bill, the media blathered incoherently the day of the decision about how the court “gutted” the bill and overturned nearly all of it. It’s hard to know whether such trash reporting merely reflects the usual incompetence of the mainstream media or is an overt attempt to spin the story to cover up a very public defeat of the radical Left. The anti-American Hispanic groups, the Chamber of Commerce, and various other open borders advocates spent two years and a lot of ink trying to kill SB1070 without success. Considering that the lawsuit against SB1070 was brought by the current administration in Washington, then the administration shares with its Leftist friends the sting of defeat in the face of the court’s ruling. Our current leaders forsook the Constitution long ago. The court ruling on SB1070 is a stern reminder to them that even kings (and presidents) are not above the rule of law.

Among the most satisfying aspects of the June 25th ruling are the comments and support offered in the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia. Scalia voted to uphold all four provisions of SB1070 that were under review, and he expresses an articulate defense of the law in his dissent. “Scalia eviscerates Kennedy’s explanation” for the majority, said Arizona Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs, an attorney who helped to pass SB1070 in 2010 and reviewed the opinion as soon as it appeared on the Court’s website. Basically, reports Biggs, Scalia says that Kennedy’s legal logic was faulty, and that Justice Kennedy misunderstood aspects ofArizona law, a failure which colored his opinion.

While Scalia’s dissent is a minority opinion, it will likely be embraced by patriots because it gives hope to those who love our country and want to protect it from the malicious efforts of those who consistently tear away at the Constitution. Here are a few of Scalia’s comments in his dissent:

“There is no federal law prohibiting the States’ sovereign power to exclude [illegal aliens].”[1]

“… the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers.”[2]

“… the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.”[3]

“Arizona is entitled to have ‘its own immigration policy’ ­ including a more rigorous enforcement policy ­ so so long as that does not conflict with federal law.”[4]

“… there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for … any illegal alien … to remain in Arizona.”[5]

“In my view, the State can go further … and punish them for their unlawful entry and presence in Arizona.”[6]

“The Government complains that state officials might not heed ‘federal priorities’. Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona.”[7]

“The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes ….”[8]

“It is beyond question that a State may make a violation of federal law a violation of state law as well.”[9]

Scalia is scathing in his denunciation of the majority opinion:

“But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of [federal law] that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”[10]

“What I do fear ­ and what Arizona and the States that suppport it fear ­ is that ‘federal policies’ of non-enfforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites in its prologue but leaves unremedied in its disposition.”[11]

Scalia’s scorn for the majority ruling condenses itself into a question about the Constitutional Convention in 1787: “Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?”[12]

His answer: “The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.”[13]

Scalia exposes the main obstacle the states face in their struggle to contain illegal immigration: “A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.”[14]

And he raises the question that needs to be faced by everyone who cares about our freedom:. “Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?”[15]

The answer to that question, of course, is no. Our nation was built on the concept of “popular sovereignty,” meaning that power rests in individuals, not government. We confer certain limited powers on government for the purpose of maintaining an orderly society, not for the purpose of stealing our freedom. The Founders recognized the dangers of an all-powerful, overbearing federal government. They did not leave the states or individual citizens at the mercy of the Executive Branch.

But what is the remedy, then, for a government that refuses to obey the laws and the Constitution and does everything it can to thwart state efforts to do so? Senator Biggs calls the current leaders in Washington ”a rogue administration. They are acting outside the scope of their Constitutional authority.”

In times past, the remedy for rogue government was almost always, of necessity, an overthrow. But in a country like ours, that honors the rule of law, revolution isn’t the first option. The answer is (what else?): the rule of law! Even the most clever despot cannot outwit the rule of law. It is probably not possible to overstress the importance of this principle. Dallin H. Oaks, former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, has said that, “All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law …. The rule of law is the basis of liberty.”[16] If that is the case, and I believe it is, then the remedy for a lawless government is to pursue the rule of law vigorously. The answer lies in the state legislatures, which are, after all, supposed to be stronger than the federal government anyway. SB1070 is a state assertion of the rule of law. Many other options exist, such as nullification and rejection of the federal money that makes the states slaves to federal mandates. Are we at the mercy of the Federal Government? Not on your life. Not unless the state legislatures choose to make us so.

The Supreme Court ruling on SB1070 was a step toward reestablishing respect for the rule of law. Our current Chief Executive (who has no respect whatsoever for the rule of law) has already announced that he will oppose efforts by Arizona to implement the provisions of SB1070 and will instruct ICE officials to refuse to cooperate with local law enforcement officers who apprehend illegal aliens. Arizona will need to stand up to such outrageous lawlessness on the part of the federal government.

The commander in chief is setting up a power struggle between the states and Washington, a national staring contest, so to speak, a giant game of Chicken. Whoever blinks first loses. But liberty never backs down. Freedom never loses in the long run. The pages of history are filled with tales of tyrants who went too far.[17] Tyrants always lose. Scalia closes his dissent with a blunt stand on behalf of state sovereignty that should give all states the courage to assert themselves and not back down to the federal government:

“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30 ”are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment. Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in completee compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.”[18]

Hurray for Justice Scalia! Hurray for the Constitution! Hurray for SB1070!

(c) 2012 Karen Johnson - All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. Supreme Court decision on SB1070. Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182., Scalia Dissent, p. 7. [Link]
2. Ibid., p. 8. [Link]
3. Ibid., p. 8. [Link]
4. Ibid., p. 12. [Link]
5. Ibid., p. 12. [Link]
6. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
7. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
8. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
9. Ibid., p. 14. [Link]
10. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
11. Ibid., p. 16. [Link]
12. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
13. Ibid., p. 22. [Link]
14. Ibid., p. 21 [Link]
15. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
16. Dallin H. Oaks, former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, February, 1992.
17. See “The Utah Compact and the Rule of Law,” by Karen Johnson, Sept. 14, 2011.
18. Supreme Court decision on SB1070. Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182., Scalia Dissent, p. 22.

Schweikert on Fox News: “This type of arrogance from the White House is a pattern”

Rep. Schweikert spoke to Fox News’ America’s Newsroom about latest news that President Obama is invoking executive privilege over missing Fast and Furious documents.

YouTube Preview Image

Quayle Introduces Bill to Stop Obama’s Immigration Power Play

Ben Quayle

PHOENIX, AZ- On Monday, June 18, Congressman Ben Quayle introduced the “Prohibiting Back-Door Amnesty Act of 2012”. This bill prohibits the Department of Homeland Security from picking winners and losers and blatantly ignoring our laws.

“President Obama’s decision to alter our nation’s immigration laws undermines border security and our entire immigration system. It is disappointing that the President of the United States is so desperate that he has to launch backdoor amnesty orders in an attempt to pander to voters.”

“The American people want their border secured and that must be accomplished now, as I have insisted for two years. The president has refused to honor that plain duty of his office, and now seeks to exercise power he does not have for his own political purposes. His first obligation is to the Constitution, and all of the American people, and not to his re-election calculus.”

“My bill, the ‘Prohibiting Back-Door Amnesty Act of 2012’ will nullify the immigration policy changes outlined by President Obama and Secretary Napolitano. In addition to stopping these policy changes, the bill will also prevent any similar executive overreaches from occurring. It’s time to send a clear message to the President that his clear disdain for our nation’s laws and reversal on border security enforcement will not be accepted.”

—————————–

Congressman Ben Quayle was the first to introduce legislation to counteract Obama’s immigration edict. He continues to gain attention for his leadership on the issue of immigration enforcement and border security. The immigration enforcement advocacy group “Numbers USA” recently granted Rep. Quayle an ‘A’ grade, ranking him the highest in the Arizona delegation.

###

Congressman Flake Applauds Passage of Secure Border Act

Operational Control in Each Border Sector is Key to Achieving Border Security

Washington, D.C. – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today praised the passage of H.R. 1299, the Secure Border Act, introduced by Congresswoman Candice Miller of Michigan.

The bill directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create for congressional approval a strategy for gaining operational control of the northern and southern U.S. borders.

“Given that the Obama Administration has given up reporting the level of operational control on the border, it’s no wonder Congress has to force them to come up with an approved plan to achieve it,” said Flake.

In 2011, Congressman Flake introduced in the House H.R. 1507, the Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011, which is focused on achieving operational control of the southern U.S. border by increasing border resources. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl 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 six additional permanent Border Patrol Forward Operating Bases and would upgrade existing bases.

###