Happy Mother’s Day – 2013

American-born impressionist Mary Cassatt (1844 – 1926) specialized in paintings of mothers and children. Our selection for this Mother’s Day, Young Mother and Two Children, depicts a flame-haired infant boy and his older sister embraced by their mother, in a warm reflection of this special day.

This 1905 oil painting is part of the White House Collection.

MoveOn demands Paul Ryan apologize for truth

Anchor babies are a fact of life in the world of illegal immigration. Birthright Citizenship is the costly, automatic granting of citizenship to children born within a nation’s borders or territories. The United States and Canada are the world’s only industrialized nations still offering such an extravagant gift to both tourists and illegal aliens.

Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on American soil. They are called “anchor babies” because, as U.S. citizens, they become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. “anchor” for their extended  foreign family.

Such births have even forged an industry aside from the children born to foreign national parents illegally residing in the United States. As an example, Dr. Jose Duran, a gynecologist and obstetrician and his colleague, Dr. Marco Saucedo, both Nogales, AZ physicians have an unusual way of bringing in business.  The two doctors advertise their services on flashing digital billboards south of the border which read: “Do you want to have your baby in the United States?” They refer to the practice as “a tradition.”

For years, Tucson Medical Center’s “birth package” has actively recruited such business, encouraging what amounts to the purchase of U.S. citizenship.

Seeing Red AZ has written about what is called “Birth Tourism” with pregnant clients arriving from China and Middle Eastern nations.

In August 2010, we wrote that the issue of birthright citizenship — an incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment — was getting another look by the most unlikely of people. Arizona’s own amnesty architects, Sens. John McCain and (now retired) Jon Kyl, along with Sen. Lindsey Gramnesty (R-SC) each said they intended to revisit the issue, and would look at the advisability of a constitutional amendment that would repeal the citizenship provisions. The amendment was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War. Its intent was to allow American-born children of freed African-born slaves to have all of the rights and privileges of citizenship. It was necessary then, but has no relevancy today.

We hope you weren’t holding your breath waiting for such actions from the amnesty loving senators.

With this as background, why would the far-left extremists at MoveOn.org be waging a war, complete with a petition drive, against U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, demanding that he apologize for using an “offensive anti-immigrant slur”– anchor babies — while discussing immigration reform.  In Racine, Wisconsin, a group of liberal Wisconsinites gathered at Monument Square to demand Ryan apologize.  As this video shows, these charming and well-informed folks have targeted him before.

Sorry. Anchor babies live and breathe.  They are a fact of life. Apologies are not in order.

Polls: Americans fear gov’t over terrorism

Recent polling tells the grim story of the underlying fear many Americans express about our government. For the first time since September 11, 2001, Americans are more fearful their government will abuse constitutional liberties than fail to keep its citizens safe.

Even in the wake of the April 15 Boston Marathon bombings, in which a pair of radical Islamic jihadist brothers are accused of planting explosives that took the lives of 3 and wounded over 200 — two distinct polls indicate Americans are unwilling to give up any further freedoms in exchange for promises of increased “security.”

This Fox News poll of a random sample of 619 registered voters the day after the Boston bombings found interviewees responded very differently than following 9/11 in which nearly 3000 lost their lives.  For the first time since a similar question was asked in May 2001, more Americans answered “no” to the question: “Would you be willing to give up some of your personal freedom in order to reduce the threat of terrorism?”

Of those surveyed on April 16, 2013, 45% answered “no” to the question, compared to 43% answering “yes.” In May 2001, before 9/11, 40 percent answered “no” while 33% answered “yes.”

Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, there was a dramatic reversal as 71% of Americans agreed to sacrifice personal freedom to reduce the threat of terrorism. Subsequent polls asking the same question in 2002, 2005 and 2006 found Americans consistently willing to give up freedom in exchange for security. There was a marked decline from 71% following 9/11 to only 54% by May 2006.

Today it appears the sentiment expressed in Benjamin Franklin’s famous quote — “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety” — is more valued by Americans than it has been in over a dozen years.

This Washington Post survey, using a similar polling sample of 588 adults, conducted April 17 and 18 also discovered the change in attitude. “Which worries you more,” the Post asked, “that the government will not go far enough to investigate terrorism because of concerns about constitutional rights, or that it will go too far in compromising constitutional rights in order to investigate terrorism?”

The poll found 48% of respondents worry the government will go too far, compared to 41% who worry it won’t go far enough.

And similar to the Fox News poll, the Post found the worry to be a new development. Only 44% worried the government would go too far in January 2006 and only 27% expressed such concerns about governmental overreaches in January 2010.

The Fox News poll broke the responses down further by political affiliation:

A troubling 51% of Democrats responded they would forfeit personal freedom to reduce the threat of terror, compared to 36% who opposed the concept.

Forty-seven percent of Republicans opposed giving up freedoms, compared to only 43% in favor.

Independents were the most resistant, with only 29% willing to sacrifice freedom, while 58% opposed losing constitutional rights.

Leftist school assignments: Think like a Nazi; doses of political bias

Ed Supe blames Common Core for “Jews are evil” assignment

The Times Union reports on a “sophisticated” assignment given to Albany High School students. They were to watch and read Nazi propaganda and then write an argument that Jews are evil and the source of Germany’s problems, using a Nazi perspective. “You must argue that Jews are evil, and use solid rationale from government propaganda to convince me of your loyalty to the Third Reich!,” their teacher instructed.  In addition, the students were asked to include ”any experiences you have with … Jews being evil.”

One third of the English class refused to participate in the assignment.

Albany Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard blamed tougher Common Core standards that require “sophisticated” writing linking English composition to other subjects, like world history.

Calling the exercise “especially tone deaf,” New York magazine noted that the assignment could have concerned a wide range of topics.

“I would apologize to our families,” Vanden Wyngaard said. “I don’t believe there was malice or intent to cause any insensitivities to our families of Jewish faith.” Vanden Wyngaard said that the teacher will face some kind of disciplinary action, which could range from a letter of reprimand to firing. “You asked a child to support the notion that the Holocaust was justified, that’s my struggle,” she said. “It’s an illogical leap for a student to make.”

There’s even more. EAG reports that eighth-graders in Wisconsin’s Union Grove School District were assigned to fill out a “Liberalism vs. Conservatism” crossword puzzle — learning some new and very questionable “facts” along the way.

In conjunction with their “civics” assignment the students got a good dose of political bias and indoctrination, as they learned conservatism is “the political belief of preserving traditional moral values by restricting personal freedoms.” And liberalism? That’s “the political belief of equality and personal freedom for everyone, often changing the current system to increase government protection of civil liberties.”

How about teachers coaching fourth graders at Cedar Hills Elementary in Jacksonville, Florida to write, “I am willing to give up some of my constitutional rights in order to be safer or more secure.” Read more here.

On its website, Education Action Group (EAG) says it shines a spotlight on the leftist agenda and activists and their mission to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America through the government education system.

Good luck. America’s children are being indoctrinated by these people each and every school day.

Joyous Easter wishes

 We send our sincere best wishes for a joyful Easter.

Your friends at Seeing Red AZ

Republicans prepare to sign their own death certificate

Is GOP leadership seeking mass exodus from party?

It’s highly unusual for Seeing Red AZ to link directly to another site as our post. This extraordinary set of circumstances reported by Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), compels us to do so. Read their five paragraph report, “Republican National Committee Supports Amnesty.”

FAIR’s shocking article begins with these words:
Embracing the false notion perpetuated by the open-borders lobby that the Party will continue to lose elections until it pushes amnesty, the Republican National Committee (RNC) has told its members they must support “comprehensive immigration reform.” (See Growth and Opportunity Project at p. 8, Mar. 18, 2013)

Then get a dose of grim reality from Ann Coulter, who cites straightforward facts in this must-read commentary, titled, Hispanicked GOP Elite: They’ll respect us in the morning.

We also urge you to express your views to the RNC, at  202-863-8500. Or email them at http://www.gop.com/contact-us/.

AZ AG Horne victory: Judge upholds ethnic studies ban

Sanity prevails

Federal District Court Judge A. Wallace Tashima has ruled on Tucson Unified School District’s (TUSD) appeal of the ban on the ethnocentric Mexican American Studies (MAS) Program, upholding the ban. The law was held to be constitutional, with one minor exception, Section (A)(3).

Judge Tashima said objections did not “meet the high threshold to establish a constitutional violation.” The 31-page ruling can be read here.

Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne, was formerly the two-term elected State Superintendent of Public Instruction when this issue arose. Horne, who personally argued the case in U.S. District Court in Tucson, issued this statement after the decision was announced: “This is a victory for ensuring that public education is not held captive to radical, political elements and that students treat each other as individuals — not on the basis of the race they were born into.”  His complete statement can be read here. The order was enforced the last day of Horne’s term and enacted by incoming Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal, whose name appears on the ruling. A search of his website lacked any press release regarding this defining issue for his office.

As Superintendent, Horne protested the program and was instrumental in passage of HB 2281 which “prohibits a school district or charter school from including courses or classes that either promote the overthrow of the United States government or promote resentment toward a race or class of people.” (Complete bill information here).

Interestingly, Horne had an unlikely ally in his efforts: The Arizona Republic.  On Jan. 4, 2011, the newspaper ran an editorial rightfully calling the data used to buttress the claims “repeated constantly by [the program’s] defenders that students perform better academically as a result of taking ethnic studies classes and that they go on to college more often” — “academically unsupportable.” Further the newspaper stated that officials who make such claims “are acting irresponsibly in doing so.” The editorial goes so far as to say the results “appear rigged.”

Enforcement of the law resulted in cancellation of TUSD’s racially discriminatory Mexican-American Studies Program after an independent Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that the program presented material in a “biased, political, and emotionally charged manner.” The ALJ also stated: “Teaching in such a manner promotes social or political activism against white people, promotes racial resentment, and advocates ethnic solidarity instead of treating people as individuals.”

Readers can refresh their memories regarding this ongoing and radical saga here.  Horne was killed in effigy by students as a thuggish mob of La Raza Studies supporters tried to shout down the Attorney General.

Basebrawl in Chase Field: WBC Mexico-Canada

Worldwide goodwill, sportsmanship fly out the window

Sporting News MLB reports on the riotous baseball brawl that took place earlier this afternoon at Phoenix’ Chase Field. The vicious fight involved several players — and even fans — as the melee erupted in the ninth inning of Canada’s 10-3 clobber of Mexico in the World Baseball Classic.

The event was reminiscent of the June 2011 melee, as Mexican fans — most of whom resided in America — jeered the U.S. team and chanted obscenities at the goalkeeper, as they blared air horns and bounced beach balls during the playing of our national anthem at the Gold Cup Final at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California. The U.S. team was roundly booed as a vast majority of attendees supported Mexico in the U.S.-Mexico soccer match. It was regarded as a Mexican “home game” held on U.S. soil.

The attendance of 93,420 was the largest for a Gold Cup game in the United States. Shamefully, the entire post-match ceremony was conducted in Spanish. The U.K. Daily Mail’s incredulous report on that pathetic event can be read here. Be sure to scroll through the shocking photos.

SSM Political Correctness reigns: Where’s Johnny Mc?

An amicus brief, or friend-of-the-court, has been filed with the U. S. Supreme Court, deceptively arguing that same-sex marriage (SSM) promotes family values by allowing children raised by such couples to grow up in two-parent homes, and that it advances conservative values of “limited government and maximizing individual freedom.”

As of Tuesday, 75 Republicans signed on, petitioning the Supreme Court to grant constitutional protections to SSM. Hollingsworth v. Perry is the appeal by proponents of California’s Proposition 8, which upholds the state‘s Defense of Marriage Act.  This is the amicus brief filed in support of the traditional definition of marriage by faith-based organizations.

In 2008, Arizona voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 102, the Marriage Protection Amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, by a vote of 56-44 percent. At the time, the crafty word-twisters at the Arizona Republic, defined the issue as the “Gay Marriage Ban.”

Yet, sticking a finger in the eye of Arizonans, in 2010, while their husband and father was a candidate, both Cindy and Meghan McCain signed on as poster women (scroll down for their photos) with the NOH8 campaign (No Hate, get it?) promoting the very issue that had been voted down in their home state.

In making the brief’s argument that SSM bans are discriminatory, the signatories are at odds with the House Republican leadership, which has authorized the defense of  the 1996 marriage law. Federal law defines marriage as a legal union of a man and a woman. As expected, Barack Obama has weighed in, urging the overturning of the law.

Proposition 8, the Defense of Marriage Act,  was passed by California voters in Nov. 2008, overturning a ruling by the California Supreme Court which had authorized same-sex unions.

Oral arguments in ” Hollingsworth v. Perry are scheduled for March 26.

Jon Huntsman, former Utah Governor and unable-to-gain-traction presidential candidate, doing his best imitation of an anything-goes guy, writes of his acceptance of SSM, illogically calling the issue a conservative cause: “The party of Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan has now lost the popular vote in five of the last six presidential elections. The marketplace of ideas will render us irrelevant, and soon, if we are not honest about our time and place in history,”  Huntsman says.

The Roman Empire collapsed in large measure due to the breakdown of economic, cultural and social institutions — in effect decaying from within. Huntsman and the Republicans who have abandoned their reason at the altar of political correctness, need to reacquaint themselves with the Judeo-Christian, biblical-based values that define the greatness of this nation.

AZ República hearts Señor Juan McPhony, extols illegal releases

The amnesty devotees at the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) are in a congratulatory mode. The object of their editorial affection is none other than the “senator [who] showed political moxie.”

That, of course would be John McCain, the doddering dodger who nearly got run out of several Arizona towns as he took his amnesty show on the road last week. Readers will recall that after facing angry crowds at Town Hall meetings — just preceding his chummy tête-à-tête south of the border with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto — promising a path to citizenship for Nieto’s own citizens, McCain actually said “I’ve seen a shift in attitude….”

There’s not a chance he came away from those meetings with enraged constituents drawing that ridiculous conclusion, but when did reality matter to John McCain?

McCain’s new senate underling Jeff Flake rates editorial praise, also. The two of them are colluding with other pro-amnesty hustlers known as the Gang of 8, (although Flake managed to work in a short side trip to Cuba to shore up his creds in the Communist island). But back in March 2011, that was not the case. As his McMentor strolled the border claiming he wanted to “complete the danged fence,” Flake was busy shifting into campaign backpedal form. Clearly dismayed editorialist Doug MacEachern called Flake’s change of heart on legalizing millions of illegal aliens “jarring,” and declared Flake a mere “politician” — no longer a “statesman” — for emulating John McCain’s campaign border epiphany during his last senatorial campaign.

Now happily able to blame the mandatory federal budget cuts of sequestration, Janet Napolitano, Homeland INsecurity chieftain, has begun releasing illegal aliens held in detention centers across the country. An ICE spokesman farcically claims they will “be placed on an appropriate, more cost-effective form of supervised release,” monitored either by electronic device or by being required to check in with ICE by phone or in person.

Such clearly illogical reasoning begs the question, “How are committed lawbreakers, who hold our sovereign nation and its laws in the lowest of regard, going to be held on ‘supervised release’ and ‘required’ to do anything?”

The editorial concludes: “McCain didn’t take the easy way. He showed the kind of leadership that is essential to achieving immigration reform. Bravo Senator.”

Rational thinkers beware. Such language carries a high probability of causing gag reflexes to unexpectedly shift into high gear.