News

The Guy Who Could Save Our Republic: Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich

Published

2 years ago

February 24, 2021

During a time when many Republican officials have been unwilling to do anything to battle election fraud, a few are holding firm. Last year, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich got involved with six election lawsuits, including successfully suing the Democratic County Recorder when he tried to send out mail in ballots to everyone in Maricopa County. Brnovich wrote to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors a few days after the election urging them to more than double the hand audit. He also filed an amicus brief in support of the Arizona State Senate demanding that the supervisors turn over the Dominion voting machines for inspection.

Now, he’s taking on the DNC in a case at the Supreme Court that is going to determine whether states can take measures to combat election fraud. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 2. This will likely determine whether the election fraud we saw in the presidential race can continue or whether states will be able to stop it.

The litigation arose before the 2016 election and involves two laws Arizona implemented against election fraud. Two separate cases were consolidated, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee. One law requires that a ballot be thrown out if it was cast in a precinct other than the one matching the voter’s home address. The other law bans ballot harvesting, where third parties (with a few obvious exceptions including close family, household members and caretakers) are allowed to turn ballots in. The DNC sued Arizona over the two laws, claiming racism (no surprise). The federal district court judge and a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Arizona, but the full Ninth Circuit panel overruled the smaller panel.

In order to prove racial discrimination under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, there must be proof of a substantial disparate impact. There is no evidence of this. The district court found that the out-of-precinct policy had no impact on 99.9% of non-minority voters and 99.8% of minority voters. So the DNC is attempting to get the court to ignore the word “substantial” to get around this. Brnovich said in his brief that doing so would lead to chaos. For example, one slight change in voting laws could increase Hispanic voter turnout by 2% while decreasing black turnout by 2%. As for the ballot harvesting ban, the DNC (and Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs) failed to provide any purported evidence of racial discrimination.

Ten senators, led by Ted Cruz, filed a brief supporting Arizona. The Trump administration also filed a brief in support of Arizona, saying the laws do not promote racial discrimination in voting. Surprisingly, when Biden first took office his administration supported that position. Since then, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler backtracked slightly and said in a letter to the court that the administration disagrees on a few points, but didn’t go any further than that. “The Biden administration basically agreed that our voting laws don’t violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” Brnovich told The Daily Signal.

If banning ballot harvesting is racist, then 19 other states must be racist too since they also ban the practice. Most states also require citizens to vote at their assigned precinct.

We saw plenty of evidence from the 2020 election where unscrupulous Democrat activists harvested ballots from voters, coerced them into filling them out or filled them out for them, and turned them in. Project Veritas caught activists taking advantage of elderly Somali immigrants in order to add votes for Rep. Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis. Project Veritas also caught the Biden campaign’s Texas Political Director Dallas Jones harvesting ballots from dead people, homeless people and nursing home residents. There are countless more stories like this. It is a real problem.

This is a key decision because if laws like this can be struck down for being racist, you could make the argument that a lot of election integrity laws could be struck down as racist. Let’s say common sense precautions such as requiring extra poll watchers from both parties results in 1% fewer minority votes. That is so small it is statistically insignificant. But under the Democrats’ standard, that tiny difference would constitute racism.

We may not have been able to defeat election fraud in the 2020 election in time; they broadsided us. But it is imperative to stop it or Republicans may never hold significant offices again. It is the single most important issue we must focus on right now. The future of our country hinges on this decision.

Brnovich is going to be under one of the most horrendous attacks by the left we have ever seen. They already have their sights on him. He was the first state attorney general to sue Google. He filed a lawsuit immediately after Biden took office over the administration’s 100 day freeze on deportations. He led several amicus briefs defending the Second Amendment and religious liberty. He’s taken on the higher education establishment and continues to fight them in state court. And before becoming AG, he served as director of the Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

This will be one of the biggest political fights of our lifetime. Although the Biden administration has backed down on the case, the so-called conservatives on the Supreme Court have proven they cannot be trusted. Most political fights are fought very publicly in the legislative and executive arenas, which is where most major policy is made. The Supreme Court only accepts about 80 cases each year, but a handful of its cases have profound implications. This is the sleeper case no one knows about that may end up like a Roe v. Wade.

Disclaimer: The author worked with Mark Brnovich at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in the early 2000s before he became Attorney General.

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Up Next

Former RNC Digital Director Talks How to Fight Back Against Online Assault on Democracy

Don't Miss

Twitter Strikes Again, Steven Crowder Suspended For Showing Addresses People Voted From

News

Biden’s Energy Policy Dooms the US Economy

Joe Biden has based the nation’s entire energy policy on a massive hoax, the so-called “climate crisis,” which will destroy the US economy.

Published

16 hours ago

June 9, 2023

Ed Brodow

Joe Biden has based the nation’s entire energy policy on a massive hoax, the so-called “climate crisis,” pushed by the UN and the World Economic Forum to further globalist ambitions by redistributing the world’s resources. The climate crisis has nothing to do with climate. In our case, it has to do with destroying the US economy.

The threat of horrific global warming was set in motion in 1972 by the UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its conclusions were based on faulty science that has been refuted by thousands of scientists, including the 31,000 physicists and physical chemists of the Global Warming Petition Project. These experts contend that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, is typical of the many “deniers” who contradict the validity of GW science. “There is no significant man-made global warming at this time,” said Coleman, “there has been none in the past and there is no reason to fear any in the future.” According to Nobel laureate Ivar Giaever, “climate changes all the time and it’s nothing to do with global warming.” MIT Professor Richard Lindzen refers to the global warming crowd as a cult. “As with any cult,” Lindzen says, “once the mythology begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical.”

Government policy in the US and most of Europe is based on the erroneous belief that human beings can control the climate. This is pure nonsense that is contradicted by the facts. It cannot be claimed beyond a reasonable doubt that (a) global warming exists, or that (b) climate change is caused by human activities, or that (c) climate change is dangerous. Ignoring the real science, opportunists like Al Gore, Barack Obama, John Kerry, and Greta Thunberg have spread hysteria that the ice will melt, the oceans will rise, and we will all die from heat exhaustion. Alarmism over climate is being used to justify Democrats’ appetite for bigger government.

“The government scares people into thinking that the end is nigh,” The Federalist Papers Project explained, “and that the only way to turn it around is to cede control to the federal government and allow them to force their economy-killing policies on business.”

The actual purpose of the UN climate strategy is out in the open. “One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” confessed German economist and UN official Ottmar Edenhofer. “Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection. The next world climate summit is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.” Christiana Figueres, the driving force behind the 2015 Paris Agreement, admitted that the goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to destroy capitalism.

In case you don’t understand what that means, UN bureaucrats—under the guise of responding to climate change—want to take what you have and give it to people in the less developed parts of the world. The inevitable result: destruction of the US economy and standard of living. Climate Change Business Journal quantified the cost to the US of proposed anti-GW measures at a whopping $1.5 trillion per year. That’s $1.5 trillion subtracted from our economy to solve a non-existent problem.

How do we justify crippling the US economy in pursuit of ghosts? What do we get for this waste of time, money, and effort? Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg calculates that even if every nation in the world adheres to its climate change commitments by 2030, by the end of this century it will reduce the world’s temperatures by a mere 0.048°C or 1/20th of a degree Celsius. In other words, the whole thing is a bad joke.

The worst part of the joke is that Joe Biden has fallen for it. Under Trump’s presidency, the US economy was roaring and we became energy independent. Biden set out immediately to reverse all of Trump’s accomplishments by mounting an assault on the energy industry. Due to Biden’s policies:

• The vibrant economy that Trump gave us has disappeared. Biden’s attempt to eliminate fossil fuels is sending us into economic collapse. Our economy is dependent upon fossil fuels. A practical alternative does not exist and will not exist in the foreseeable future.

• Inflation is off the charts. Gas prices and the cost of home heating have increased by staggering amounts. Americans are heading for the poorhouse.

• The US is no longer energy independent. “Now we’re begging Venezuela and Saudi Arabia for oil,” said Mark Levin. “Joe Biden did that.”

• Business incentives are disappearing as corporate taxes rise.

• Biden has put the US back into the Paris Accords, which will further sap our economic strength in support of false science.

Yet the White House has suggested that the US is in the midst of an “historic” economic recovery and that the narrative of higher gas prices is false. We are being conned by people who have no idea what they are doing to wreck the country. Or could I be wrong? Perhaps they do know what they are doing. That is even more frightening.

Ed Brodow (www.edbrodowpolitics.com) is a conservative political commentator and author of ten books. His new book is THE WAR ON WHITES: How Hating White People Became the New National Sport, available at Amazon.com.

News

Allen v. Farrow and the American Quest For Truth

Through his own words, Woody Allen reveals himself.

Published

1 week ago

June 2, 2023

Jeff Davidson

In an era where truth is a rare commodity, and nothing seems to be definitive, it’s illuminating to watch a four-hour, four-part HBO series: Allen v. Farrow. In methodical fashion, the long-running legal wrangling between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow over his alleged molestation of seven-year-old Dylan Farrow is explored.

The telecast, first aired two year ago, is absorbing for anyone who’s seen more than one Woody Allen movie, knows anything about the controversy, or has any interest in coming to resolution.

A Pedofile Revealed

Much of the broadcast features Dylan, now 37, married with a child of her own. As she reflects back on her experience at age 7, she is coherent and credible. Mia Farrow, who starred in 13 Allen films, comes off as more balanced than the press has allowed us to see in nearly three decades.

Through his own words and deeds, Woody Allen, birth name Allen Konigsberg, reveals himself: He was obsessed with the young Dylan. He spent much time alone with her. He couldn’t keep his hands off of her.

He claims that he never ‘took her up to the attic,’ there was ‘no train set’ there, and that everyone who has made such observations is wrong. Yet, we learn about the train set in the attic, and that other Allen contentions are wrong.

The Attempt to Normalize His Obsessions

Why was Allen shielded for so long, by so many media outlets? He made so many movies in and about New York that he became a favorite son and easily one of New York’s most popular celebrities. He brought jobs and economic activity and, in virtually every movie, he showed the upside of New York. Few people wanted to believe he was guilty.

All of Allen’s 60+ films, original scripts, notes, and everything related to the making of his movies is archived at Princeton University, as other producers and directors have their film works archived at other universities.

During the telecast, the curator at Princeton makes a compelling observation: Most of Allen’s films focus on an older man with a younger woman, and Allen has been grooming us for 50+ years to accept his worldview. Following his Oscar winning film in 1978, Annie Hall, Allen’s next film was Manhattan, which many people regard as among his best.

Manhattan depicts the 45 year-old Allen dating a 17 year-old portrayed by Mariel Hemingway. This film, like so many of his others, is Allen’s attempt to normalize his preoccupation with vastly younger women. He married Soon-yi, the adopted daughter of his then-girlfriend, Mia Farrow, when he was 56 and she was 21. He met Soon-yi when he was 53 and she was 18.

In Woody Allen films such as Crimes and Misdemeanors, we see Martin Landau as an older ophthalmologist in a relationship with airline attendant and mistress Anjelica Huston, some 20+ years younger. In other Allen films, the same scenario plays out.

Quite Conclusive

After watching all four one-hour episodes in a single night, it became obvious that Allen, now age 87, is guilty. He has used his money, power, and influence to portray himself as something that he is not.

While dating Mia Farrow for 12 years, he steadfastly maintained that he didn’t want to provide care for her children. Yet, once the allegations related to Dylan surfaced, Allen takes Farrow to court to gain custody of three of her nine children: Moses Farrow, an older Asian boy that Mia adopted; Ronan Farrow, Allen’s only biological son; and Dylan Farrow, the young daughter at the center of the controversy.

I personally recall that during the custody trial, the presiding judge asked Allen if he could name any of Dylan’s classmates or neighborhood friends. He could not. He could not name any friends of Ronan Farrow or of Moses Farrow. Further, Allen had never taken any of their children to the dentist or for a haircut. Not one of the children had ever stayed overnight at Allen’s apartment.

Thoroughly Neurotic

What kind of man would take somebody to court to claim custody of three children about whom he knows nearly nothing? This is the kind of man that Woody Allen was and is: a faker, a charlatan, and so neurotic that the elements of his neurosis revealed in his movies don’t even begin to describe his daily afflictions.

As soon as Ronan Farrow, now a renowned investigative reporter, weighs in and defends Dylan’s assertions, Allen’s then 29-year ruse is vanquished.

Allen, like others in high, high office, is a pedophile with zero jail time. The crowning grace is that he’ll go to his grave knowing that he’s been exposed. He cannot spin the voluminous amount of information and testimony presented; a conclusive body of evidence that lays out the truth for all to see.

Comprehensive Coverage?

If only HBO and other major producers would feature comprehensive exposés of, say, Bill Clinton, James Comey, Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray, John Brennan, Andrew McCabe, Eric Holder, Kamila Harris, Merrick Garland, Loretta Lynch, Alejandro Mayorkas, John Kerry, James Clapper, Christopher Steele, Bruce Orr, Susan Rice, John Podesta, Charles Dolan, Christopher Wray, Merrick Garland, Alvin Bragg, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, and Susan Rice.

Or, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Nelly Ohr, Jussie Smollett, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Dick Durbin, Eric Swalwell, Jerry Nadler, Sheldon Whitehouse, Antony Blinken, Ilhan Omar, George Soros, Katie Hobbs, Liz Cheney, Nancy Pelosi, Jeffrey Epstein, Bill Gates, Tom Steyer, Andrew Weissmann, Marc Elias, Andrew Cuomo, David Axelrod, Barack Obama, James Biden, or maybe, gosh, Hunter Biden.

You know, scoundrels like those.

– – – – –