Colorado uses old Republican document to destroy Democracy

COLORADO — The non-elected judges of the Colorado Supreme Court on December 19 used an old Republican document to launch an attack on “democracy.” The State of Colorado—apparently oblivious to the Second Amendment to the Republican document—concentrated on the Fourteenth Amendment to the Republican Constitution to remove Donald Trump from the ballot in the first attack on their own vaunted “democracy.” They also completely ignored Section 5 of this amendment that states, “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The power does not reside with the States.

There has not been one charge of “insurrection” in the mostly peaceful protests of January 6th. All defendants—whose Eighth Amendment rights were violated without protest by Colorado—were charged with misdemeanors and some felonies, but none were charged with insurrection. Nineteen of those were Colorado residents.

In fact, President Donald Trump ordered the National Guard (which is NOT a militia, but people think it is) into Washington and was told to stand down by Nancy Pelosi whom obviously did not consider it an insurrection.

In an AP article by by Nicholas Riccardi, he notes, “Dozens of lawsuits have been filed nationally to disqualify Trump under Section 3, which was designed to keep former Confederates from returning to government after the Civil War. It bars from office anyone who swore an oath to ‘support’ the Constitution and then ‘engaged in insurrection or rebellion’ against it, and has been used only a handful of times since the decade after the Civil War.”

The Fourteenth Amendment was immediately approved by Rinos whom wanted to continually punish the Democrat south after the Civil War. This in direct contrast to President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln wanted healing and was going to issue a blanket pardon for the Rebels.

This event makes it apparent that Colorado is not concerned with supporting even Greek-style Democracy; only Russian or Chinese-style Democracy.

Coconino County Republican Committee January Meeting

Date: January 14, 2023
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Location: Church of the Nazarene, 3505 East Soliere Avenue, Flagstaff, Arizona

This is official notice that there will be a meeting of the Coconino County Republican Committee on Saturday, January 14, 2023 at 10:00 a.m., at the Church of the Nazarene, 3505 East Soliere Ave, Flagstaff.

Our Guest Speaker will be Lori Matthews, newly elected to Flagstaff City Council.

We will continue the donation charge of $5.00. We hope to see you starting at 9:30 a.m. to register so that we can take advantage of the full two hours!

A meeting Agenda and Proxy form are attached. If you do not plan to be at the January 14th meeting, you may complete the attached proxy form and have it delivered by an eligible Republican elector. Be sure your proxy is signed either by two witnesses, or a notary attesting to the signature of the person giving the proxy.

If you have a report to be delivered at the meeting, please provide a printed copy for inclusion in the minutes of the meeting.

President Trump big announcement

President Trump digital trading cards.President Donald Trump made his major announcement on TruthSocial, today. TruthSocial is Trump’s social media website. Yesterday he posted that he had a major announcement to make with a slick super hero video. As it always is with President Trump, the announcement turned out to be big.

The announcement turned out to be a series of digital trading cars that can be obtained at his COLLECTTRUMPCARDS website.

The official limited edition series of trading cards costs $99, but it appears you can buy 1 up to 100. These trading cards, however, comes with special sweepstakes entries. You can also enter the sweepstakes without a purchase. Each card purchased gives you an entry in the sweepstakes that gives you a chance to win several prizes including a one-on-one meeting with the President.
There is a set of 45 digital trading cards that guarantees you a ticket to a dinner with the President.

We have not researched all of the details on the sweepstakes prizes. We ALWAYS recommend that you research the rules carefully to see what the packages contain. For example, does it include transportation to Florida and the hotel?

Northern Arizona Gazette @gazette is on TruthSocial and Twitter @naz_gazette.

Diverting $500 in unspent Ebola funding? Shameful.

By Glen Davis

A researcher holds a container with female Aedes aegypti mosquitoes at the Biomedical Sciences Institute in the Sao Paulo’s University, in Sao Paulo, Brazil, Monday, Jan. 18, 2016. The Aedes aegypti is a vector for transmitting the Zika virus. The Brazilian government announced it will direct funds to a biomedical research center to help develop a vaccine against the Zika virus linked to brain damage in babies. (AP Photo/Andre Penner)

An article on the Foreign Policy web site complained in May 2018, Entitled Ebola is Back. And Trump is trying to kill funding for it.:

As U.S. President Donald Trump announced his decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, the White House discreetly released an official proposal to cut funding for children’s health programs, Medicare, and Ebola responses. The two policies may seem unrelated, but they share the same basic design — assuming vast national security risks simply for the sake of dismantling former President Barack Obama’s legacy.

The web site Common Dreams reported in February:

Democratic members of Congress on Monday slammed President Donald Trump’s failed management of the nation’s public health system as he attempts to shift congressionally appropriated funds away from other public health emergencies to fund the administration’s effort to combat the growing threat of the coronavirus.

This because President Trump proposes a $2.5 Billion budget to fight the Chinese Communist Party virus funded in part with $530-million in unused Ebola virus response money.

Remember when Obama diverted $510-million in Ebola funding to deal with the Zika virus in April of 2016? Neither do the Democrats.

Unofficial primary election results

WILLIAMS – The unofficial 2018 primary and local election results are out and it looks like Williams will have Moore mayor.

In the Williams elections, incumbent Mayor John Moore received 361 votes with contender George Otero taking 198 and 12 write-in votes. The three incumbent councilmen took the majority of votes with 95 write-in votes. 72.15% of the voters voted for Proposition 415 allowing alternate expenditure limits.

Rob Krombeem received 854 votes for Justice of the Peace for Williams with Brian Flescher receiving 281 and 35 write-in votes. In the Constable race, Rick Remender received 554 votes to 510 votes for Jay Douglass with 28 write-in votes.

These election results are unofficial.

OPINION: So John McCain withdraws support for Donald Trump

OPINION
Glen Davis

JOHN-MCCAINOn October 08, John McCain withdrew his support for Donald Trump with the following statement:

“In addition to my well known differences with Donald Trump on public policy issues, I have raised questions about his character after his comments on Prisoners of War, the Khan Gold Star family, Judge Curiel and earlier inappropriate comments about women. Just this week, he made outrageous statements about the innocent men in the Central Park Five case.
“As I said yesterday, there are no excuses for Donald Trump’s offensive and demeaning comments in the just released video; no woman should ever be victimized by this kind of inappropriate behavior. He alone bears the burden of his conduct and alone should suffer the consequences.
“I have wanted to support the candidate our party nominated. He was not my choice, but as a past nominee, I thought it was important I respect the fact that Donald Trump won a majority of the delegates by the rules our party set. I thought I owed his supporters that deference.
“But Donald Trump’s behavior this week, concluding with the disclosure of his demeaning comments about women and his boasts about sexual assaults, make it impossible to continue to offer even conditional support for his candidacy. Cindy, with her strong background in human rights and respect for women fully agrees with me on this.
“Cindy and I will not vote for Donald Trump. I have never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate and we will not vote for Hillary Clinton. We will write in the name of some good conservative Republican who is qualified to be President.”

I have to say that I agree with John McCain on the Central Park Five case. I have read of two-or-three cases where minorities have been tried and convicted only to have those convictions overturned due to DNA evidence. It has been documented that minorities tend to receive heavier sentences for drug crimes than Caucasians. And I don’t like it. I do not know the answer to this dilemma except to recommend that you question judges up for election on their Constitutional knowledge. And everyone should train themselves on the true nature and power of the jury.

I notice, here, that he mentions the comments of Donald Trump on “prisoners of war.” This was used by Clinton during the debates. The comment that he made was directed at Senator John McCain, though what came out did allude to other prisoners of war. His statement was:

He’s [John McCain] a war hero ’cause he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.

Prisoners of war do not go to war hoping to become prisoners of war. They, in fact, are witness to the most ugly aspect of war. They have my unending respect.

I agree that Trump, who never served, probably has no right to disparage the service of John McCain. After all, John McCain is the only Vietnam POW who had a statue erected in his honor in Hanoi.

Those who served with John McCain have long questioned his imprisonment. In addition, for the first time ever, the United States national government has sealed the records of prisoners of war—even preventing Vietnam prisoners of war from getting their OWN records. McCain, no champion of Vietnam prisoners of war, applauds the action.
Not to excuse the comment that Trump made, but he meant to direct the comment at John McCain after the Senator called 15,000 Trump supporters—no doubt a number of the Senators constituents—crazies.

In fairness, there are those who support John McCain

Like everyone else, McCain brings up an 11-year-old video reported as if no one can change. As if an 11-year-old video represents Trump today. And Trump’s apology seems ineffective. Wonder if we should accept McCain’s apology for a crude joke made 18-years-ago.

I don’t care for Trump and would much rather see a Constitution-loving presidential candidate. Qualified to be president in political parlance usually means one of the good ol’ boys. I do not like the single-payer health insurance plan he intends to replace Obamadoesntcare with. Like the founding fathers, I do not like megacorporations—in their day known as monopolies—squeezing out the small business owner with cheap Chinese imports. He is, however, better than the alternatives.

I do agree that anyone that cannot be positively identified by intelligent sources as escaping actual persecution should not be given a free ticket into the country. I do agree that our educational system should be geared toward preparing our youth in some sort of marketable and useful skill such as vocational skills. Something in which they can achieve $15, or more, an hour for doing. iPad operator and scholar in Communist theory just doesn’t cut it.

What I would much rather vote for is someone who knows and will uphold the Constitution of the United States. So I intend to “write-in” someone more qualified to be Senator for the Great State of Arizona. Someone who understands the Constitution. Someone more Republican than John McCain.

Texas congressmen submit bills to limit refugees

640-1026617801Opinion

300px-Tulsi_GabbardCongress is in a rush to pass bills concerning the recent refugees of young, fighting age men from Syria. The bills are along party lines with the Democrats trying to take in as many as will fit in a boat.

Democrats are concerned about the Christians, all of the sudden. Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii has submitted H.Res.435, “Recognizing the persecution of religious and ethnic minorities, especially Christians and Yezidis, by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as Daesh, and calling for the immediate prioritization of accepting refugees from such communities.” (minus the Christians they throw overboard) It makes no mention of the Christians persecuted here in America, of course.

The web site, D.C. Clothesline, is reporting on one Texas Congressman from the other side of the aisle.

300-Brian-BabinTexas Republican Brian Babin, from the 36th district, has submitted H.R.3314, the Resettlement Accountability National Security Act of 2015, would prohibit the admission of refugees into the U.S. until Congress passes a joint resolution giving them authority. Section 2 of the bill specifies:

Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security may not admit into the United States an alien under section 207 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157) until such time as Congress passes a joint resolution giving the Secretary authority to resume admitting aliens under such section.

The bill would also require a GAO study of:

  1. The average duration for which such an alien received benefits under a program described in section 4.
  2. The percentage of such aliens who received benefits under a program described in section 4.
  3. The cost, per year, to each program described in section 4 for such aliens.
  4. The number of such aliens who paid Federal income tax or Federal employment tax during the first year after being admitted to the United States.
  5. The cost, per year, to the program described in paragraph (5) of section 4 for such aliens.
  6. The number and percentage of such aliens who received benefits under a program described in section 4—
    (A) 2 years after being admitted to the United States;
    (B) 5 years after being admitted to the United States; and
    (C) 10 years after being admitted to the United States.
  7. The cost, per year, to the Federal Government, to State governments, and to units of local government of providing other benefits and services, directly or indirectly, to such aliens.

The benefits listed under Section 4 of the bill that must be reported are:

  1. The Medicare program under title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395 et seq.).
  2. The Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396 et seq.).
  3. Disability insurance benefits under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402 et seq.).
  4. The supplemental nutrition assistance program under the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.).
  5. Rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 1437f).

So these “refugees” will be able to come here and and reap the “benefits” you pay for. We just want to know how much it costs. The benefits that elderly Americans have to wait for (while the U.S. Government hopes they die first), such as disability. They will be waived the fines (or taxes depending on which Supreme Court Justice you talk to) that Americans incur because they cannot afford Obamadoesntcare on their own because they are struggling to feed their families because they are not eligible to get food in a SNAP. The poor refugees will just have to wait until Congress says it’s okay.

300-Michael-McCaulAnother bill, sure to draw the ire of Senator John McCain of Arizona, is a little more stringent. Republican Representative Michael McCaul of the 10th district of Texas has submitted H.R. 3573, the Refugee Resettlement Oversight and Security Act of 2015. This bill seeks to limit the number of refugees, somewhat.

Before the beginning of a fiscal year and after appropriate consultation, the President shall submit to Congress a recommendation on the number of refugees who may be admitted under this section in any fiscal year.

This bill requires the following reports from the GAO not later than one year after this bill passes (if it should pass):

  1. The number of refugees that the Secretary of Homeland Security determined were admissible under paragraph (3) of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)), but who, subsequent to admission to the United States, became inadmissible under such paragraph.
  2. Federal agencies which are not, as of the date of the report, involved in making determinations of admissibility of refugees under such paragraph, which the Comptroller General determines should be so involved.
  3. Issues or gaps in the process for determining the admissibility of refugees under such paragraph.
  4. Recommendations for improving the process for determining the admissibility of refugees under such paragraph in order to better protect the security of the United States.

The one problem with this bill is that it expects the GAO to report refugees who have been admitted, but we realize should not have been admitted. Does he expect that the Department of Homeland Security would keep track of them once they are here? Once they are nestled in their little cell awaiting orders? They can’t even keep track of an illegal deported five-times who kills a woman in San Francisco. (Don’t worry. They will really deport him this time and he’ll stay deported!)

Section 5 of this legislation would give preference to Syrian and Iraqi refugees who are of a “religious minority.”

Beginning in fiscal year 2016 and ending in fiscal year 2020, when considering the admission of refugees who are nationals or citizens of Iraq or Syria, the President shall prioritize refugees who are members of a religious minority community, and have been identified by the Secretary of State, or the designee of the Secretary, as a persecuted group.

In Muslim States that would lead one to presume he is referring to Christians. We are, however, relying on the John Kerry State Department to make that determination.

One might think that it will take time to for these government reports to go through keeping the invasion at bay. When the government wants something, however, those reports will fly out faster than an appointment at a VA hospital. Okay, that is a bad comparison. Everything in the government happens faster than an appointment at a VA hospital.

None of them seem to readily admit that the U.S. government funded ISIS and now they are hoping that bombing the homes of these refugees will correct their mistakes. How about defunding terrorist organizations by using our own oil reserves instead of paying Saudi Arabia?

Governor Ducey vetoes justice of peace residency bill

williams-justice-courtPHOENIX — On Tuesday, Governor Doug Ducey vetoed H.B. 2592 which would have required a candidate for Justice of the Peace to be a resident of the precinct they are to represent at the time they file papers and would have to have been a resident for one-year at the time of the general election date.

The exception would have been a justice of the peace who had been appointed. A.R.S. § 16-230 allows the governor to fill vacancies in the Justice of the Peace office with a person of the same party.

The Governor stated in his veto letter:

I do not believe it is appropriate to create a separate residency standard for one specific elected office.

The Governor also vetoed S.B. 1171 concerning filing of late campaign reports. The bill would have required that the specific amount of daily late penalties and how and when daily late penalties start and stop accruing be added to notices sent to campaigns who file late campaign reports.

Governor Ducey said in his veto letter that this matter could be handled administratively in the office of the Secretary of State.

According to current law, all penalties for late filing must be paid prior to filing the late report.

SACO Act to terminate federal employees who give false testimony

112_rp_al_5_brooks_moWASHINGTON — It seems that Eric Holder may leave a legacy in Washington after all. In honor of his testimony and the testimony of the likes of Lois Lerner, Representative Mo Brooks [R-AL-5] has submitted H.R. 1535. It is referred to as the Safeguarding America’s Congressional Oversight Act or the SACO Act and the purpose of the act is to terminate any Federal employee who refuses to answer questions or gives false testimony in a congressional hearing.

Apparently perjury and contempt of Congress is insufficient.

The legislation, if passed, would allow Congress to terminate a federal employee if three-fourths of the congressional body receiving the testimony finds that they received false testimony from the witness.

The termination can occur if the witness refuses to answer a question at a congressional hearing after being granted immunity. The bill also allows termination if the witness does not “…answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to his or her official duties,…”

House Democrats revive armor piercing bullet ban

m855ammoAR15WASHINGTON — The Bloomers are at it again. After the failed attempt by the BATFE to unconstitutionally outlaw ammunition, the Representative of New York have taken up the gauntlet. Representative Eliot L. Engel (D-NY-16) submitted H.R.1358—the Armor-Piercing Bullets Act of 2015.

This bill would actually increase the types of ammunition considered “armor-piercing” and include shotgun “slugs.” The kicker in the bill is that it would change 921(a)(17) of title 18 to allow:

“…the Attorney General may treat a projectile as not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes if substantial evidence exists that the projectile is not primarily intended to be used for sporting purposes”

Who determines what is intended for “sporting purposes” is the Attorney General.

H.R. 1358 was submitted on March 13, but the Republicans have not remained silent. On March 16, Representative Patrick McHenry [R-NC-10] has submitted the Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act, H.R.1365. The Republican bill would change Section 921(a)(17) of title 18, to read:

“(D) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B), the term ‘armor piercing ammunition’ does not include—
“(i) any M855 (5.56 mm x 45 mm) or SS109 type ammunition; or
“(ii) any ammunition designed, intended, and marketed for use in a rifle.”.

H.R. 1358 is currently in the House Committee on the Judiciary while the Republican bill has moved to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations. If co-sponsors are any indication, the ammo ban bill has nine while the Republican bill sports 41.

Representative Michael Honda [D-CA-17] submitted H.R.378 – Responsible Body Armor Possession Act in January. This bill with five co-sponsors has been in the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations since February. This euphemistically titled bill actually states that private citizens are not responsible enough to possess body armor.

The problem is that the Second Amendment does not protect hunters and sport shooting. The amendment does not read “A well-regulated hunters, being necessary to the security of a free State…” Hunting and hunters are protected by the Ninth Amendment.

The Second Amendment does not protect “firearms” and ammunition specifically. The Second Amendment provides that,

…the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The ban on any arms is technically unconstitutional. According to Federalist Paper No. 29. This was so that local militias could protect the rights of themselves and their communities.