How do red states win by resettling illegals?

December 30, 2019

Conservative Review does a masterful job of exposing the 15 Republican governors who are asking for more refugee resettlement in their red states. 

The question is, “Why?”

Here is the answer from Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey: Read the full Arizona Initial Resettlement Consent letter he sent to U.S. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo which contains these words: “Throughout our nation’s history, the United States has been a refuge for individuals fleeing religious and political persecution in their homeland, and Arizona has historically been one of the most welcoming states in terms of the number of refugees resettled here.”

The fact is, the word “refugee” is loosely used to describe illegal aliens who have been coached by their legal advocates to claim asylum status. This has been ongoing. In 2014, the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security of the Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. House of Representatives held hearings on the topic,Asylum Fraud: Abusing America‘s Compassion?”

On April 6, 2019 the situation in the Arizona border county of Yuma, had grown so dire Yuma Mayor Douglas J. Nicholls issued this Proclamation of Emergency declaring an emergency situation exists due to the mass release of migrant* families into the city of Yuma, exceeding the ability to provide adequate services while protecting the health, safety and welfare of people and property located in the city of Yuma.” Nicholls guardedly avoided using the word, “citizens.”

On December 19, 2019, Yuma Mayor Nicholls mysteriously withdrew his emergency declaration, though the border was still a sieve.

For a walk back in time, on January 28, 2013 we posted,McCain tells GOP it must accept amnesty,” McCain and Flake preempt Obama by leading Democrats on amnesty.  It generated 67 responses.

In 2018, the Daily Caller reported on a collection of activist groups known as “March Without Borders” organizing a march in California to the U.S.-Mexico border to meet “asylum seekers” from a much publicized, massive caravan. Immigration lawyers ready to advise the illegal hordes on the best way to submit asylum applications to U.S. immigration authorities were part of the procession.

*Mayor Nicholls’ word. Seeing Red AZ only uses the term “migrant” when describing the migrating swallows that return to Mission San Juan Capistrano from Goya, Argentina each year.


Trump impeachment: Oscar worthy theatrical production

December 19, 2019

Absence of bi-partisan effort exposed: Insufficient votes to remove the president in the senate keeps Pelosi from moving forward with sham impeachment


The impeachment talk that began in November 2016, immediately following the inauguration of Donald Trump as America’s 45th president, culminated Wednesday with a theatrical production leading to articles of impeachment filed in the U.S. House. The contrivance could hardly be called a bi-partisan effort since not a single Republican voted for it. In fact, they were joined by two dissenting Democrats and another who refused to vote. From its inception, the entire effort has been steeped in rank Trump hatred.

Staged to convey a somber tone to the gleefully awaited event, the leftist members melodramatically dressed in black and declared the need to remove the president so they could face their children and grandchildren. Since more than a few qualify as senior citizens, they could have mentioned their great-grandchildren for added impact. Then the all day and evening performance bizarrely veered off into the stratosphere when Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced she may not send the articles of impeachment to the (Republican majority) senate.

Despite ongoing efforts to smear him, President Trump remains immensely popular, drawing record crowds to his rallies. He smoothly held one in Battle Creek, Michigan yesterday as his Democrat antagonists were poised to obliterate his presidency. Americans, benefiting from his economic programs, waited for hours in sub-zero temperatures to hear him speak.

It’s not only Trump and his policies the left loathes. They also despise us, because they know we will reelect him in 2020. They lie with impunity and hate with vigor. We are the “smelly Walmart shoppers,” described by Barack Obama as “clinging to out guns and bibles.” Like schoolyard bullies, they disingenuously promote the notion that Hillary Clinton would be in the White House if it wasn’t for rabidly sexist and racist Republican voters.

Skipping the double talk in favor of quadruple talk, Pelosi was able to keep a straight face as she said, “We’re not sending [the articles] tonight because it’s difficult to determine who the managers would be until we see the arena in which we will be participating. So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us, so hopefully it will be fairer and when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.” That the word “fair” was able to escape her unprincipled lips is a marvel.

 In a recent commentary, the brilliant Victor Davis Hanson, wrote:

“Given the current criteria of the Trump impeachment, Barack Obama easily would have been impeached: in Fast and Furious, the Iran nuclear deal, and Benghazi, Obama stonewalled congressional requests or kept critical information from the public and Congress. On illegal immigration, Obama simply made up or ignored laws in the manner earlier that he said to have done so would be antidemocratic and monarchial.

Every impeachment charge against Trump far more easily could have been lodged against an imperial Obama presidency—without mentioning that Obama ultimately may be found to be knowledgeable of the entire CIA, FBI, and Justice Department surveilling of an opposition campaign and sabotage of a presidential transition.”

The editorial in today’s issue of the steeply declining, Hillary-endorsing Arizona Republic is topped with an absurd headline, “The best way forward now? We, the people, get to vote.” The leftist editorial board conveniently forgets, we already did.

* Photo courtesy of New York Post


Mark Levin, Alan Dershowitz agree impeachment is a sham

December 9, 2019

Political opposites find agreement on impeachment

If you missed Sunday’s Mark Levin program, “Life, Liberty & Levin” we are happy to bring you the important interview with Harvard law professor emeritus Alan Dershowitz, a self described liberal. Although he admits voting for Hillary Clinton, Dershowitz describes impeaching President Trump under the current circumstances as an example of political tyranny, questioning the ethics of the U.S. House.

The article,Liberal attorney Alan Dershowitz: Dems’ impeachment case doesn’t meet any credible legal standard,“ is well worth your time…especially today.

This, and more, are all available on The Blaze.


Impeachment circus: Dem law prof. channels McCain, mocks kids

December 5, 2019

Constitutional scholar Prof. Jonathan Turley, not a Trump supporter, comes to the president’s defense at impeachment hearing

Democrat partisan Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, who donated $1,000 to Elizabeth Warren’s presidential campaign, veered off into the stratosphere at the impeachment farce Wednesday when she was asked how the powers of a president differ from those of a British king.

Karlan, a childless, married lesbian, eagerly jumped at the opportunity to slam the Trump family, by invoking their 13-year-old son, saying kings had virtually unlimited authority while the Constitution limits presidential powers. To illustrate her point, she referenced President Trump’s son, Barron.

“The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron,” Karlan said to laughter and appreciative applause from the Democrats in the hearing room.

First Lady Melania Trump’s rapid response elicited an apology from the boorish law professor, who later said she regretted her comment.

Karlan’s comments bring to mind the slur that John McCain used to mock Bill and Hillary Clinton’s then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. McCain, appearing at an Arizona fundraiser asked a room full of high dollar donors, “Do you know why Chelsea Clinton is so ugly?” He then provided his own answer, saying, “Because Janet Reno (then-U.S. Attorney General) is her father.” Mannish and single, Reno was 6′ 2”.

Pamela Karlan stood in stark contrast to Constitutional scholar and George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley, who told the House Judiciary Committee that he did not vote for Donald Trump for president, but said the Democrats were abusing their power in bringing this “slipshod” partisan case and “setting a dangerous precedent.” Turley, cautioned against the impeachment, saying that to proceed on this course against President Trump based on the current evidence “would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.” His full statement can be viewed here.

 


AZ ACLU advises students on reciting Pledge of Allegiance

December 4, 2019

Though reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is a bridge too far for leftist ACLU, Republican Gov. Ducey is supportive, reported to have expressed surprise that grade school students no longer begin their mornings with the pledge

As difficult as it is to fathom, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona has a 25-page manual for public school students, titled,Know Your Rights,” urging them “Don’t just know your rights…fight for them!” The advice includes:

 “Act Now! Get a copy of your school’s Code of Student Conduct. Learn from this booklet what rights you have, and ensure those rights are protected by the school. Don’t wait until your rights are violated to speak up.”

“Document and Organize! If you feel your rights have been violated, write a statement with details of the incident, including: who, what, when and where. Get witness statements…” seemingly preparing them for a lawsuit.

Page five addresses the question: “Do we have to say the Pledge of Allegiance?”

The ACLU’s answer is “No. The courts say that students have the right to sit silently during the flag salute and Pledge of Allegiance. As long as you do not disrupt the pledge, you may refuse to participate.”

According to the ACLU, needing a parent’s permission to opt out, could have a “chilling effect on students’ free speech.” Seriously.

The pledge, long regarded as a symbol of patriotism, has reached red flag urgency status due to a bill currently in the state legislature, allowing for the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of each day — apparently now regarded as an outrageous assault on the tender psyches of Arizona children. Not only does it support allegiance to the United States of America, but it contains the two words, “under God,” that are anathema to the ACLU.  HB 2017, a simple one-page bill sponsored by Rep. John Fillmore (R-LD16) allows for “quiet reflection” in lieu of the recitation.

In 1954 Congress added the words “under God” at the request of President Eisenhower. The thirty-one words now creating a commotion are, “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Count on this…Quiet reflection will still be considered an affront.


AZ election integrity concerns are valid 

November 17, 2019

The question is ballot integrity…Stephen Richer is the answer

The old adage “everything old is new again,” is being proved right, though not in a way that inspires confidence. As far back as June 2011, when Tom Horne was Arizona Attorney General, there were concerns about voter integrity, as he accused the Obama administration of impeding the state voter ID laws in a blatant attempt to enable illegal aliens to vote in upcoming elections.

Two years later he personally argued Arizona’s Voting Rights case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Two months after, the SCOTUS tossed the law requiring proof of citizenship to vote — with a caveat — as seen in this press release. Notice the name of the contact person. Stephanie Grisham is now President Trump’s Press Secretary.

Now the daily reports that cyber security experts have advised AZ counties to adopt safety measures because election websites are not secure. The chief technology officer at McAfee is quoted as warning, a “two, three percent manipulation can swing an election.”

Tensions ran high as newly elected Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, the first Democrat to head the office in decades, oversaw an Election Day debacle in the 2018 midterms. Fewer polling places, resulting in long lines and waiting times to cast ballots, had voters in an uproar. Returns took days to process and in some cases, final results were weeks in coming. Republicans who were initially winning local and statewide offices — including U.S. Senate, secretary of state, superintendent of public instruction and corporation commission — were suddenly displaced by Democrats after election day, leading to suspicions regarding manipulation of the ballots. Fontes opened “emergency” voting centers in Democrat strongholds for those who claimed they were unable to get to the polls, though mail-in balloting extends for weeks. Frustrated citizens assembled outside Fontes’ office calling for his resignation.

Maricopa County voters have a far superior choice as Stephen Richer runs to unseat the problematic Fontes.  Richer, a Republican attorney who conducted a pro bono audit of the office at the request of the AZ GOP, has been making the rounds of district meetings and various organizations, with a superb power-point presentation explaining the duties and obligations of the Recorders Office, what can go wrong and the need for leadership integrity. Check out Richer’s Election Audit Report and his request for public records regarding what appear to be partisan “community relations” positions created by  Democrat Recorder Fontes.  Follow the link to Records Request.

Book Stephen Richer for your group. This office can no longer fly under the radar.  The integrity of our elections is paramount in maintaining a free society.


Finally…SCOTUS hears oral arguments on DACA

November 13, 2019

In a victory for the Trump administration, oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court began Tuesday morning on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (which morphed into the acronym DACA). President Trump moved to end the program in 2017 but was thwarted by lower court rulings.

Estimates of those affected by Obama’s political construct via an executive order, bypassing congress, now range between 700,000 to 800,000. The flawed premise was to bestow the gift of U.S. citizenship to those who needed only affirm they were 16 years of age or younger when they initially entered the United States or arrived by 2007. They merely had to declare that they have been of good moral character since initially being brought to the U.S. as children by their invader parents — illegally. Verifying how many came as babes in arms or ably propelled themselves over the border last month is impossible to substantiate. Many of those who claim to have been brought as babes in arms are now grandparents.

Government attorneys representing the Trump administration told the court that the program “sanctions the ongoing violation of federal law by more than half a million people,” arguing it is not authorized by immigration statutes. They stated leaving DACA in place interferes with the ability to send “a message that leaves no doubt regarding the clear, consistent and transparent enforcement of the immigration laws.”

A ruling isn’t expected until mid 2020.

DACA worked hand-in-hand with another scam known as the D.R.E.A.M. Act. The acronym stood for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors. It was introduced as S.1291. The 2002 bill was drafted before the speech police ruled the words “illegal” and “alien” unacceptable, so they were used extensively throughout the bill.

The D.R.E.A.M. Act, an actual nightmare, whose recipients slickly morphed into “Dreamers,” was a liberal dream come true, a warm and fuzzy piece of legislation also lacking any means of verification while permanently swelling the ranks of the Democrat Party. Read SRAZ’s complete 2016 post,D.R.E.A.M. Act morphs into dreamy amnesty.” Knowledge is power.

Those who claim this status have obtained protection from deportation under DACA, which permits them to work legally in the United States and also provides access to myriad benefits including driver’s licenses, in-state tuition rates at state colleges and universities, education grants, the ability to apply for Social Security Numbers — required to claim Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), a major tax benefit for lower-income earners — which allows recipients to participate in Social Security and Medicare. 

The open border, pro-illegals Arizona Republic runs a bizarre and insulting op-ed by Arizona’s worst governor, Janet Napolitano. A radical leftist noted for her blasé retort when frustrated Arizonans pleaded for border action: “Show me a 50-foot fence, and I’ll show you a 51-foot ladder,” she was at the Supreme Court yesterday opposing the Trump administration. We are not linking to her convoluted rationale. She resigned the governor’s post to become Obama’s Secretary of Homeland INsecurity. Her latest argument is, “Ending DACA is profoundly negative.”