AZ US Rep. Andy Biggs chairs House Freedom Caucus

September 14, 2019

Arizona Republicans have another feather in their MAGA hat, as Rep. Andy Biggs (CD-5) has been elected as the new chairman of the House Freedom Caucus.

The group is home to the crème de la crème of conservative House members. Arizonans can be justifiably proud that our entire GOP delegation are members of the influential group which was formed in 2015 and has grown to weld considerable influence. Other members are U.S. Reps. Paul Gosar (CD-4); David Schweikert (CD-6); and Debbie Lesko (CD-8).

Biggs, a retired attorney, previously served in the Arizona Legislature 14 years, the last 4 as AZ Senate President.

Conservative Review gives Rep. Biggs a Liberty Score of 100% and a letter designation of “A.”

Advertisements

Pres. Trump wins major SCOTUS victory on asylum claims & Update

September 12, 2019

Supreme Court ruling clears the way for new asylum restrictions

Finally some sanity from the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue of the illegal invasion of the United States. In a Wednesday ruling, the court granted a request by President Trump to enforce a recent rule intended to restrain asylum applications at the U.S.-Mexico border. This has been a key component of the administration’s policies to staunch the flood of hundreds of thousands of Central Americans claiming to seek asylum.

The justices authorized the government to enforce the rule that would bar illegal aliens from applying for asylum if they pass through another country — routinely Mexico — without seeking asylum there before arriving in the United States. The leftist 9th Circus Court of Appeals had blocked the government from implementing the new rule in Arizona and California, though now the government can enforce it nationwide while it appeals a decision by California U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, to the Ninth Circuit, or if necessary, back to the Supreme Court. Tigar is a Berkeley educated Obama appointee.

 The only dissents came from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Asylum” is the key word. Illegal immigration advocates including ACLU legal teams, coaching the hordes of humanity illegally entering our country have instructed them to use the golden ticket word.

But asylum claims lose their validity when the so-called asylum seekers pass through Mexico without making their claim — instead traveling hundreds of miles further north to the United States, completely ignoring Mexico, which abuts the Central American counties they are leaving.

There is no language barrier in Mexico. But there is a symbiotic relationship. Mexico, which facilitates their incursion to the U.S. doesn’t want them. The Guatemalans, Hondurans and El Salvadorans, eager to access American taxpayer-funded benefits, have no desire to remain in Mexico, dispelling their asylum claims.

Mexico has wasted no time in loudly protesting the asylum decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, calling it “hard-line and astonishing.”

“This is the ruling by the court, it’s a U.S. issue, and obviously we don’t agree with it, we have a different policy,” Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard told a news conference.

That’s for sure. 

Mexican government hypocrisy is stunning. Mexico has long had barriers at its own southern border abutting Central America. Its current policy is to act as a collaborating facilitator allowing the hordes of illegals it doesn’t want, to move freely through its land mass to the U.S. border.

Mexico has strenuously resisted signing a formal “safe third country” agreement that would commit it to hearing the asylum cases of Central Americans and other illegals.

Getting an immense dose of the invasion the Mexican government has previously aided, Mexico‘s own citizens are reacting negatively to the influx. “We have seen outbreaks of acts of xenophobia in Mexico that did not exist before, mainly in the north of the country,” said Israel Ibarra, described as an immigration expert with the Continente Movil consultancy in Tijuana.

How interesting that Mexicans are now being accused of being “xenophobic” regarding other Hispanics.

Conservative columnist Michelle Malkin wrote this enlightening column, “Police state: How Mexico treats illegal aliens,” containing a bullet-pointed list citing the regulations and restrictions Mexico imposes on foreigners — when Arizona was dealing with the repercussions following the passage of SB1070.


2020 Presidential Election: Crucial facts, your vital role

August 14, 2019

it’s a good bet that even those who consider themselves politically astute wouldn’t be able to name many of the seemingly endless list of increasingly radical 2020 Democrat presidential candidates.

Our focus is on reelecting President Donald J. Trump, whose first term accomplishments* have exceeded the expectations of even his most ardent supporters. 

Fox News provides this wide-ranging site to keep us informed on nearly every aspect of the political scene with continually updated information. The compilations include a national map detailing where candidates have been on the campaign trail, and how much they’ve raised in campaign contributions — with President Trump prominently topping the list. 

What is most significant is the populist president’s support among small dollar donors. In a powerful show of strength, he’s even doing surprisingly well in leftist California, the Times of San Diego reports. Sixty-one percent of contributions raised directly by the Trump campaign this election cycle has come from small donors (donations under $200), according to Federal Election Commission figures.

The map shows the states he’s visited recently. Under campaign visits is a box labeled “Heat Map of All Candidates,” which includes a pull down list of candidates. President Trump is definitely connecting with his base.

He’s doing his job. We need to do ours.

It’s vitally important we recruit GOP precinct committeemen to ensure the president’s reelection. Precinct committeemen (PCs) can be appointed until they are elected during primaries in their own neighborhoods and are integral in getting the vote out. There is no campaigning for the unsalaried, but essential job that is an influential voice for freedom.  Any questions can be answered here.

*H/T Magapill


Nooz & Viewz: JD Hayworth’s new commentary site

August 3, 2019

We now have an opportunity to catch up with popular broadcaster and former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth on a new internet TV platform called “nooz,” with his new site known as “Noos & Viewz.”

Tune in as he provides commentaries on political topics. Seeing Red AZ has made it convenient for our readers to access the site by putting a permanent link to it on our “Blogroll” on the right side (where else?) of our home page. Hayworth’s brief but robust segments are scheduled to be posted on Thursdays but can be accessed at a time convenient to you, by clicking on the link.

Enjoy!


Judge tosses DNC hacking lawsuit against Trump team

July 31, 2019

Claims are “entirely divorced from the facts”

Judge John Koeltl, a Bill Clinton appointee sitting in the Southern District of New York, wrote in his 81-page opinion Tuesday that the DNC’s charge of illegal hacking with regard to the 2016 presidential campaign was “entirely divorced” from the facts.

The ruling came as Democrats have increasingly attempted to tie the Trump team to illegal activity in Russia — despite former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s findings that the campaign, in fact, refused multiple offers by Russians to involve them in hacking and disinformation efforts.

The Democratic National Committee initially filed its suit in April 2018.

“In short, the DNC raises a number of connections and communications between the defendants and with people loosely connected to the Russian Federation, but at no point does the DNC allege any facts to show that any of the defendants other than the Russian Federation, participated in the theft of the DNC’s information,” Judge Koeltl said.

“Nor does the DNC allege that the defendants ever agreed to help the Russian Federation steal the DNC’s documents,” he added.

Judge Koeltl denied the Trump team’s motion for sanctions but dismissed the suit with prejudice, meaning it had a substantive legal defect and could not be refiled.

This was the President’s exuberant reaction:


SCOTUS delivers border wall win for Pres. Trump

July 27, 2019

The U.S. Supreme Court backed the Trump administration on Friday by lifting an impediment imposed by a lower court that had quashed plans to use $2.5 billion in Pentagon funds for border wall construction — a key element of the president’s 2016 winning campaign.

The decision allows the administration to move forward with plans to construct the much needed border wall along major entry points used by illegal aliens.

Chief Justice John Roberts and associate justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in support of the administration.

Liberal associate justices Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democrat appointees, dissented, with their cohort Justice Stephen Breyer issuing this split opinion, unable or unwilling to fully reach the right conclusion.

On February 19, the reliably leftist organizations American Civil Liberties Union and Sierra Club, filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s emergency powers declaration to secure funds to build the barrier along the southern border, after his efforts were stonewalled by congressional Democrats. The lawsuit, brought on behalf of the Sierra Club and the illegal invasion supporting Southern Border Communities Coalition was filed in the Northern District of California.

“We are pleased that the Supreme Court recognized that the lower courts should not have halted construction of walls on the southern border,” Justice Department spokesperson Alexei Woltornist said in a statement. “We will continue to vigorously defend the Administration’s efforts to protect our Nation.”

The President tweeted:


AZ Supreme Court: Judiciary by mob rule? Let’s hope not & Update

July 26, 2019

ACLU thugs stage rowdy street protest against stellar AZ Supreme Court applicant

Today the state Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will interview nine applicants vying to fill a vacancy on the Arizona Supreme Court brought about by the retirement of Justice Scott Bales 

Filling judicial vacancies on the participating trial courts, both divisions of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is usually a dignified, orderly procedure, following constitutional guidelines. The 16-member commissions include both public and attorney members, representing various political parties and on the appellate level, diverse counties. They vet the applicants and select those they will interview. Following the interviews, commissions are constitutionally mandated to send a list of not more than two-thirds of one political party to the governor who makes the final selection.

Among the current supreme court applicants (read their applications), Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, a West Point graduate and military officer has a background that, to most observers, would appear stellar. This is not intended to diminish other applicants, but to point to his prominence bringing out the rowdy protesters. The left-wing Arizona Republic newspaper described the repeatedly elected Montgomery as a “controversial Republican leader,” conveniently omitting how he excelled despite family adversity, graduated law school with high honors and rose to lead an esteemed prosecutor’s office with over 1,000 employees, managing a budget of approximately $100 million, while contributing time to community activities and raising a family.

He was recently the subject of a raucous ACLU-led mob of thugs assembled outside his office, yelling, “Block Bill! Block Bill!,” taking him to task for his views which are far more mainstream than theirs. A similar sized crowd of admirers held signs stating their support. Montgomery ably addresses his publicly stated views on issues that affect Arizonans on Question Number 29 of his application:

Describe any additional professional experience you would like to bring to the Commission’s attention: As a publicly elected official, I have had to ensure that the political dimensions of the Office never interfere with the obligation to seek justice in all the matters that Arizona law requires me to address. While I may engage in debate over various public policy matters that intersect with the duties and responsibilities of the office I serve in, I have never let politics affect the decisions I have to make. First and foremost in my mind is the constant realization that I have to set an example for the men and women of the Office. If I am to expect civil attorneys and prosecutors to base their decisions on objective information and argue from facts, then I must do the same. The approach to deciding cases of statewide impact for a Supreme Court Justice reflects a similar reality. While controversy may swirl about a pending case, the members of the Court must stay focused on the matter before them and on the facts and the law to be applied. Additionally, I have experienced the necessity for ignoring the political rhetoric that often flows from advocating for a position different than that of various special interest groups, whether it involves criminal justice policy or ballot initiatives.  I have the practical experience of not letting political differences interfere with my obligation to work with fellow county officials or with fellow criminal justice system stakeholders in Maricopa County, independent of political affiliation or their side of an issue.  While high volume criticism, regardless of the justification or lack thereof, may be a part of the political dimension of the job, I have never let it define how I work to maintain the public’s confidence in our civil, criminal, and juvenile justice systems. This understanding of the nature of my position and the work I have engaged in over the last eight plus years gives me a greater sensitivity for the apolitical nature of the judiciary and the fact that the public policy matters I have engaged in are for the Executive and Legislative branches.  In order to uphold the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary and to serve honorably as an Arizona Supreme Court Justice, I recognize I must forego all such activity and I actually look forward to pursuing a new challenge in doing so.

Arizonans would be well represented having a man of Montgomery’s background and caliber selected for the high court. Caving to the loudest, contrived voices is not a recipe for excellence. Thuggery should not be a factor in deciding who sits on Arizona’s Supreme Court.

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery was on the list of seven applicants sent to Gov. Doug Ducey, following a 10-2 vote. Chief Justice Robert Brutinel, who chaired the commission, chose to abstain from balloting. The other finalists are:

Sean Brearcliffe, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Kent Cattani, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Maria Elena Cruz, (Democrat) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

David Euchner, (Libertarian) a Pima County Public Defender.

Randall Howe, (Republican) an AZ Court of Appeals judge.

Andrew Jacobs, (Democrat) a partner at Snell & Wilmer law firm.