In remembrance of Russell Pearce and the fate of the “Republic”

January 18, 2023

Although it is not our policy to post articles we did not write or something of this length, this is the worthy exception. Read it and you’ll understand.

A Celebration of the Life of Russell Pearce took place Monday, January 16 in the town he always called home…Mesa. Friends, family, and a crowd of admirers assembled to celebrate the life of this conservative stalwart and thoroughly decent man.

Former Congressman JD Hayworth was in attendance, and could not help but notice the difference between Monday’s service and the “send-off” provided by the daily newspaper. It prompted Hayworth to pen this column, reprinted below.


Russell Pearce and the fate of the “Republic”

You need not look very far to find the latest evidence reaffirming the well-earned nickname of The Arizona Republic.

A reading of the Jan. 5 article on the death of former State Senator Russell Pearce brings to mind the single word that serves both as an accurate description of that sickly publication’s open borders bias…as well as its oft-employed sobriquet: Repugnant.

The trio of creative writers tasked with putting Pearce’s passing “in perspective” certainly didn’t disappoint their editorial overlords; they deliberately mischaracterized the intent of his carefully crafted, ultimately passed, and signed-into-law Senate Bill 1070.

Actually, headline writers began the barrage by calling the legislation “controversial.” That word serves as the “tell sign” when a publication disapproves of the subject of its coverage. Reporters Andrew Oxford, Mary Jo Pitzl, and Daniel Gonzalez weren’t far behind; by the article’s third paragraph, they included predictable leftist doggerel, peddled as fact: “Arizona’s ‘show me your papers’ law,” they wrote.

Had the trio of scribes been interested in objectivity instead of smearing the departed, a simple bit of research into SB 1070 and its fate in the courts would have been highlighted.

The “Fair and Legal Employment Act,” as Pearce named the legislation, drafted in consultation with then-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who now serves as that state’s Attorney General, was formulated with the intent of defining Arizona’s right to identify and detain illegal immigrants, based on existing federal law.

As Senator Pearce said in 2010, in response to the inevitable court challenges from the Obama Administration and other advocates for open borders, “SB 1070 makes no new immigration law. It simply enforces the laws already on the books…I refuse to apologize for standing up for America and the rule of law.”

In fact, no less a liberal tribunal than the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear in 1983 that nothing in federal law precludes a city from enforcing the criminal provisions of immigration law, and SB 1070, its supporters maintained, simply advanced that same practice for the entire state of Arizona.

But the intervening 27 years brought forth an activism intent on defining “open borders” as noble, and any effort to enforce existing immigration law as wrongheaded, or on “the wrong side of history,” to use the favorite buzz-phrase of the left.

Such a dubious cause sought to wrap itself in legitimacy, and exploit the growing realization that many jurists on the federal bench were more than willing to usurp legislative authority if such a drastic action were in tune with their own political goals. Instead of “equal justice under law,” our nation has witnessed the advent of “unequal application of the law, based upon political preference.”

Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of SB 1070, and the high court, while finding some portions of the legislation in conflict with federal law, upheld the provision that the left and its media lackeys still mischaracterize.

Far from radical, the “Supremes” found that seeking documentation for a person’s immigration status was entirely reasonable. The ruling stated that if law enforcement officers have stopped a subject for a legitimate reason, those officers must “reasonably attempt” to determine that subject’s immigration status when there is a “reasonable suspicion” that the person may be in the country illegally.

But reasonableness means nothing to the rabid, and the reporting of the “Repugnant” focuses on pleasing a particular point of view typified by those whose hatred of Russell Pearce has not abated…even after his earthly departure.

How else to describe the featured comments of one “community activist,” who compared Pearce to a terrorist? Said this “activist,” whose name is omitted from this column since she is undeserving of any additional notoriety: “I’m sad for all the terror that he caused our community, [and] all the people who were deported because of his political grandstanding.”

For good measure, the “Repugnant” reporters felt the need to include one more example of this self-appointed “humanitarian’s” inhumanity: her desire to see the deceased lampooned for laughs. “She would love to see one last political cartoon showing Pearce standing at the gates of Heaven, and being asked to ‘show his papers.’”

What does The Arizona Republic have to show for its desired editorial goal of open borders and its eager embrace of amnesty for illegal aliens? Fewer readers, for one thing. A budget awash in red ink, for another.

Russell Pearce met the fate that awaits us all. Now he belongs to history.

The smug and self-assured, so eager to bid him farewell will soon find the publication for which they toil facing its own demise. Maybe then, the staff of The Arizona Republic will realize that they are on “the wrong side of history.”

Advertisement

Ducey flexes muscle, makes judicial appointments just prior to leaving office

December 31, 2022

After needlessly expanding the Arizona Supreme Court and putting two close friends in black robes, Gov. Doug Ducey, on his way out of his ninth-floor office door, has expanded both divisions of the Arizona Court of Appeals. He appointed Michael Catlett, Anni Foster, and Daniel Kiley to Division I. Ducey also appointed Lacey Stover Gard, Michael Kelly, and Christopher O’Neil to Division II. These vacancies were newly and superfluously created by the addition of three at-large appellate seats on each division of the Arizona Courts of Appeals. The Arizona Judicial branch describes the court duties.

Read Ducey’s December 29, 2022 news release announcing his appointments, along with the new judge’s bios, before it disappears. He will be replaced by incoming democrat Katie Hobbs, who will be inaugurated along with other state officials Jan. 5, 2023.

In his statement, Ducey inanely states, “These new judges will provide the much needed resources for the Court of Appeals to handle its growing caseload as more and more people choose Arizona as a place to live, work, and start a business…”  The fact is, Court of Appeals judges working in three-judge panels, without juries, are not corporate lawyers. They deal with both civil and criminal Superior Court cases that are appealed to a higher court for additional review. What Ducey more appropriately should have added is that the state’s open border is a gateway for criminals illegally invading our state, who commit additional crimes once here and are clogging our legal system.

Anni Foster, appointed to Division I, previously dropped out of the race for Maricopa County Attorney after Rachel Mitchell, a former County Attorney’s Office Division Chief was initially appointed and was then elected, to fill the seat vacated by problem plagued Allister Adel, 45, heralded as the first female county attorney. Adel died unexpectedly. Ducey’s general counsel, Foster was fortunate when Ducey ensured her future employment appointing her to the Court of Appeals. She won’t have to campaign since judges are on a retention ballot.


Desiring to further her career, Judge Lin backtracks on vile negativity aimed at Christians

December 4, 2022

GOP Sen. Kennedy holds Biden’s judicial nominee’s feet to the fire

The Obiden-Harris administration has nominated democrat San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Rita F. Lin to fill a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As is frequently the case, her ethnicity and gender take precedence over her credentials. The announcement notes that if confirmed, Lin would be the second Asian Pacific American woman, and first Taiwanese American woman on the district bench.

Republican Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, delving deeper, questioned her about her previous incendiary opinions regarding members of the Christian Coalition. 

Rita Lin, salivating over the prospect of a federal judgeship, says she no longer believes members of the Christian Coalition are “bigots,” something she asserted in an essay when she was a senior at Harvard. “This is what you said, and I quote, your words not mine,” Kennedy stated, ‘”The problem with the Christian Coalition is not that they are Bible thumpers, but that they are bigots.’ Did I quote that correctly?”

Lin responded that the Louisiana senator did quote her correctly but that she does not agree with those statements today.

“I did write that when I was 20 years old…. I do want to be clear. I do not agree with that today. I wrote that before I went to law school, before I had any kind of….”

“You were a grown woman when you wrote this,” Kennedy interjected as he noted that Lin was a junior at Harvard at the time of publication. Despite her notorious bigotry, she was accepted to and graduated from Harvard Law School.

A far-left democrat who previously represented Pres. Trump despising Lambda Legal, Judge Lin was appointed to the Superior Court bench in 2018 by Gov. Jerry ”Moonbeam” Brown. As an incumbent, Lin was the only candidate to file and won the position by default when the election was canceled. Lambda Legal is not appeased, claiming the Biden administration fell short on LGBTQ+ representation.

Watch Sen. Kennedy’s interview of Judge Lin:

Although Lin disclosed she suffers from a hearing loss resulting from a childhood illness, she pointedly omitted that her radical biases made her agreeable to both Jerry Brown and Joe Biden. Her polished-up Fact Sheet omits any personal information.


A method to the Mar-a-Lago break-in madness & UPDATE

August 28, 2022

Contrived raid of Trump’s home was not conducted in a vacuum

U.S. District Judge Aileen Mercedes Cannon, nominated by President Trump to the Southern District of Florida in 2020, has announced her “preliminary intent” to appoint a special master to review documents taken by the FBI during an unauthorized Aug. 8, raid of President Trump’s Florida home. Former First Lady Melania Trump’s personal closet was also ransacked. The family was not in residence at the time of the forced entry.

Trump and his legal team have filed a motion seeking an independent review of the records seized by the FBI during its invasion of Mar-a-Lago, saying the decision to search his private residence just months before the 2022 midterm elections “involved political calculations aimed at diminishing the leading voice in the Republican Party, President Trump.”

That’s known as an undeniable truism.

On Saturday afternoon Judge Cannon wrote in a filing that the decision was made upon the review of Trump’s submissions and “the exceptional circumstances presented,” adding, “Pursuant to Rule 53(b) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s inherent authority, and without prejudice to the parties’ objections, the Court hereby provides notice of its preliminary intent to appoint a special master in this case.”

A hearing is set for Sept.1, at 1:00 p.m. in West Palm Beach, Florida. Judge Cannon also ordered the Justice Department to file a response by Aug. 30, and provide, “under seal,” a “more detailed Receipt for Property specifying all property seized pursuant to the search warrant executed on August 8, 2022.”

The OBiden administration authorized the tyrannical break-in in response to what it claimed to be “a violation of federal laws: 18 USC 793 — gathering, transmitting or losing defense information; 18 USC 2071 — concealment, removal or mutilation; and 18 USC 1519 — destruction, alteration or falsification of records in federal investigations.” U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland must be working overtime to come up with these contrivances to politically hobble former President Trump, since the allegation of “gathering, transmitting or losing defense information” fall under the Espionage Act.

The fact that President Trump and his legal experts dispute the classification, stating they believe the information and records have been declassified, is inconsequential. 

For pertinent background concerning this effort to permanently marginalize former President Trump, read, “What Released Affidavit Reveals About FBI’s Mar-a-Lago Raid,” at The Heritage Foundation’s Daily Signal. Zack Smith and John G. Malcolm’s legal credentials add heft to this excellent report.

UPDATE:

This morning August 29, 2022 Fox News reports, FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago: 5 things the redacted affidavit reveals.


Revolting back story to judge authorizing raid on Trump’s home

August 11, 2022

Partisan Reinhart should have recused himself.

Bruce Reinhart, the U.S. Magistrate Judge who signed the warrant authorizing the reprehensible FBI raid on former President Donald Trump’s Florida home, is far from a neutral party in these contemptible proceedings. He was not, however, appointed to his post by President Trump, as is being reported.

Although Reinhart was sworn in as United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of Florida on March 14, 2018, while Trump was president, Trump had no oversight in his appointment. Unlike U.S. district judges, who are nominated by the president and confirmed by the United States Senate for lifetime tenure, magistrate judges are appointed by a majority vote of the federal district judges of a particular district and serve limited terms. Reinhart is tenth in the line of seniority and the only magistrate on this list lacking a link.

Hardly a disinterested citizen, political partisan Reinhart donated thousands of dollars to former President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and his victory fund in 2008. He also donated to political opponents of Donald Trump during the 2016 election, including $500 to Jeb Bush.

In one of Reinhart’s online posts, he praised former congressman and civil rights activist John Lewis by quoting Robert Reich who said, “Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral stature to kiss John Lewis’s feet.”

Reinhart also betrayed his disdain for Trump by revealing that he tried to ‘ignore’ the then president elect’s tweets.

President Trump’s statement can be read here.

Bruce Reinhart defended Lois Lerner who deleted two years of emails during the IRS scandal that resulted in her resignation. Lerner, an IRS honcho, purposely targeted conservative groups challenging their applications for tax exempt status.


Christian Lamar exemplifies downside of endorsing unknown candidates

July 14, 2022

Before announcing his candidacy as a Republican, Lamar was registered as a PND: “Party Not Designated”

Regular readers of Seeing Red AZ are keenly aware the leftist Arizona Republic newspaper doesn’t rank high on our integrity scale. This headlined article, “Candidate for Arizona House of Representatives was convicted of striking ex-fiancé,” is an exception. Since it’s identified as for subscribers, the link might not open. A few sentences excerpted directly from the report provide the thrust of the coverage:

“Christian Lamar, 37, is one of four Republicans seeking the nomination for the House in Legislative District 2. He was convicted of assault against his then-fiancé in Phoenix in 2015. Both were intoxicated.

The next month the Phoenix Municipal Court convicted him, stating that “the defendant intentionally or knowingly caused physical injury to another, a Class 1 misdemeanor” in violation of the law.

He was fined; served one day in jail with four days suspended and was ordered to serve 11 months of probation. He also had to undergo counseling, enroll in a screening program and was barred from having any contact, invited or not, with the victim, nor “harm, threaten or harass” his ex-fiancé.” 

Not chastised enough, Lamar couldn’t control himself.

“He also filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officer on duty that night, the Phoenix Police Department, the city of Phoenix and others, claiming his civil rights were violated by the arrest. He sought $7 million in damages, though the case was dismissed by a federal judge. In yet another lawsuit, he claimed his 5th and 14th Amendment rights were violated. Lamar alleged “the investigation was maliciously turned against him due to his race and gender.”

These current candidates generously gave Lamar their endorsement, which, at this point, are still on his campaign website…where he prioritizes his “donate” page. The question is, how much longer will they remain?


Repeating a lie doesn’t make it true

July 5, 2022

The U.S. Supreme Court did not outlaw abortions. The justices, in a 5-4 decision, voted to send the matter back to the states, for their own legislatures to individually decide. Fifty states will not all walk in lockstep. Democrats, however, fearing a massive loss in the midterm elections in a backlash vote to Biden’s irresponsible actions and onerous inflation that is having an excruciating effect on Americans, are using abortion to bolster their candidates. Protesting crowds of leftists are easily activated. They come equipped with signs, slogans and super-size quantities of rage. It’s become a career for hordes of them. The issue is of less consequence than the ability to amass, harass and engage in destruction.

Imagine campaigning on dead babies.

“The Constitution does not mention abortion. Further, there is no such built-in right in the Constitution as part of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment guarantees certain rights not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be well rooted in the nation’s history and customs. It is time to give the Constitution its priority, and return the issue to elected officials,” jointly wrote the affirming justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

In fact, the justices said that although various rights can be found in the American Constitution that are not explicitly written, the right to abortion is not one of them, because it was not “deeply rooted” in American existence when the Constitution was written in the 18th century.

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. The authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” states the majority opinion.

We should all rejoice in those rational words.

They logically counter the latest outrageous trend being embraced by Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, and the radical ACLU — using the issue to fund raise — which contend that bisexual, transgender, non-binary men can become pregnant and need abortions.

We are living in a world where absurdities and deceit have replaced medical facts and rational thinking.


Why Mark Finchem deserves your vote for AZ Secretary of State

June 29, 2022

Today we take our readers directly to Gateway Pundit to read a timely report by Jordan Conradson, titled: “State Rep. Mark Finchem Calls On The Attorney General’s Office To Investigate Democrat Adrian “Fast and Furious” Fontes And Others Involved In The June 24th AZ Riot & Insurrection.”

Read Mark Finchem’s recent statement regarding the US Supreme Court’s decision to return Roe v. Wade to the states, which includes his news release.

Arizona does not have a lieutenant governor. Our line of ascension is the secretary of state. Who better in this important position than constitutional conservative State Rep. Mark Finchem?


SCOTUS decision monumental win for Second Amendment

June 24, 2022

Trump’s legacy: Seating three conservative justices on US Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York law that placed strict restrictions on carrying concealed firearms in public for self defense, finding its requirement that applicants seeking a license to carry a concealed handgun demonstrate a “proper cause” to do so in public is unconstitutional.

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision upholding New York’s 108-year-old law limiting who can obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in public. Opponents of the measure warned that a ruling from the high court invalidating the restrictions could threaten gun limitations in several states and lead to more firearms on city streets.

Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion, writing that New York’s “proper-cause requirement” prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) addresses the victory, calling it “the most significant Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade.” Jason Ouimet, executive director, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and Wayne LaPierre, NRA executive vice president discuss the ruling and the role the NRA has played to bring about these triumphs on behalf of law abiding citizens.  If you’re not already a member, JOIN! The NRA has been reliable stalwart in protecting our rights.


Intimidation of US Supreme Court Justices OKed by 27 congressional dems

June 15, 2022

In the wake of death threats to Justice Kavanaugh and his family, the U.S. House followed the Senate in passing in passing S. 4160 Tuesday. It amends title 40, United States Code, to grant the Supreme Court of the United States security-related authorities equivalent to the legislative and executive branches.

Although the bill is a rational step in view of the current harassment of justices — picketing in their front yards and blocking their streets with cars, making egress and ingress for individual justices and their neighbors impossible — the bill was not signed onto by 27 members of Congress, significant for all being democrats.

Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-OH; Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-NY; Rep. Cori Bush, D-MO; Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-TX; Rep. Adriano Espaillat, D-N.; Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Ill.; Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-TX; Rep. Joshua Gottheimer, D-NJ; Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-AZ; Rep. Steven Horsford, D-NV; Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-WA;. Rep. Brenda Lawrence, D-MI; Rep. Barbara Lee, D-CA; Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-NJ; Rep. Marie Newman, D-IL; Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY; Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-NJ; Rep. Donald Payne, D-NJ; Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-CO;. Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Ma; Rep. Mikie Sherrill, D-NJ; Rep. Albio Sires, D-NJ; Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-MI; Rep. Norma Torres, D-CA; Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-NY; Rep. Maxine Waters, D-CA; and Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-NJ.

The lone Arizona congressional dissenting vote was Raul Grijalva, notable for his far leftwing skew, showing up for work drunk and paying a resigning staffer nearly $50,000 of taxpayer funds in an effort to keep her mouth shut about his chronic impairment.

We’ve written about Raul Grijalva on numerous occasions. For a reminder, read this 2010 report titled, “The real Raul Grijalva: At war with Arizona citizens.”

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia Texas held primaries yesterday. A spectacular flip occurred in Texas. Republican Mayra Flores won a special election in Texas’ 34th Congressional District, flipping a House seat after Rep. Filemon Vela, who held the seat for nearly 10 years, resigned in March. Flores had 51% of the vote to democrat candidate Dan Sanchez’ 43% when the AP called the race last night.