ACLU sues for illegals’ enhanced rights

April 13, 2016

In June 2015 Seeing Red AZ provided a headache inducing glimpse into California under the bizarre governorship of Jerry Brown in “Leftist lunacy:CA boosts illegals’ healthcare, wages….and even tackles global warming.”

Previously, in 2014, we posted, “Have you heard? The USA is “the other Mexico.” Those were the words of Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto during a trip to California when he called on other states to “evolve” like California so the United States can be more like his home country. Standing alongside LA Mayor Eric Garcetti and Gov. Jerry Brown, Pena Nieto called for amnesty legislation and open borders while criticizing governors who have taken strong positions against illegal immigration. Gov. Brown told the crowd, including illegals, “You’re all welcome in California.” (brief video.)

Now we read that the ACLU Foundation of Southern California and the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project have filed a class action lawsuit claiming that the federal government unfairly sets unacceptably high bond amounts for illegal aliens in deportation proceedings because it fails to consider their inability to pay — resulting in longer incarceration stints for those who illegally invade the USA.

Named in the suit as plaintiffs are Cesar Matias, an asylum seeking Honduran national fighting deportation, and Xochitl Hernandez, an illegal alien from Mexico convicted of shoplifting.. Their ACLU lawyers allege high bail violates the Fifth and Eighth Amendment rights of the foreign nationals.

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has a much more cogent take on the issue. Dan Cadman writes:

The posting of bond by detainees being charged with immigration offenses is authorized by Section 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The purpose behind detention or the posting of bonds in immigration expulsion proceedings is exactly the same as it is in criminal proceedings: first, to ensure the presence of the individual at the trial or deportation hearing; and second, where applicable, to protect the public safety. That is precisely the reason this lawsuit shouldn’t go anywhere.

Imagine, for a moment, an individual arrested for murder who comes up for a bond hearing before the presiding judge or magistrate. Does anyone think that the defendant’s ability to post bond is an intelligent substitute for ensuring the public safety and his appearance for trial?

Read the complete and enlightening CIS commentary on “immigration bonds.” You’ll be glad you did.

Insidious ACLU-think is not just confined to California. The left-wing organization has offices in every state in the union, Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico — an unincorporated U.S. territory currently $70 billion dollars in debt and seeking statehood.


“Court packing” double talk from the devious left

April 11, 2016

Linda Valdez, the far-left editorial writer at the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) is having anxiety attacks over what she repeatedly refers to as “packing the court.” A piece of legislation (HB 2537) winding its way through the chambers allows for the addition of two new Supreme Court justices on the Arizona high court, expanding the number from the current five to seven members. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey would make the appointments filling the two vacancies if the bill wins approval.

The court building and bench were constructed to accommodate the increased number of justices.

SRAZ currently takes no position on the plan. But it’s interesting to ponder if Valdez would be so indignant if the date were 1937 and it was the U.S. Supreme Court that was under consideration for expansion to as many as 15 justices.

That was the Machiavellian scheme of Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt who planned to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his radically liberal “New Deal” of overreaching  federal programs. During the previous two years, the high court struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.

In an obsessive power grab, Roosevelt then attempted to mandate retirement at full pay for all members of the court over age 70. If a justice refused to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed, ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called “court-packing” plan — with the Senate striking it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Ultimately, Roosevelt nominated his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

Our bet is Linda Valdez would have been all too happy to see such liberal activism from the executive branch in reconfiguring the federal judiciary.

After Franklin Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented fourth term, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed, officially limiting presidential tenure in office to two terms of four years each.

Valdez doubtless would have opposed that curtailment of the “president for life” measure, as long as the president was a like-minded liberal.

Smithsonian.com has a wealth of information on FDR and his audacious court packing scheme.


Mark Levin endorses Ted Cruz for President

March 10, 2016

“I want to make it very clear. The Republican Establishment is as diabolical as it’s ever been.” — Mark Levin

Conservative author and talk show host Mark Levin christened his newly launched LevinTV, with an announcement of his support for Ted Cruz, as the next president of the United States.

Levin, said that Cruz supports and fights for the “Constitution, the Republic, individual sovereignty, separation of powers, the Bill of Rights, family, faith, a secure border, and our national security.”

He stated that he knows Cruz isn’t perfect, but looking at the “whole picture” and looking at the entire career of Cruz it really is “a simple decision.”

Levin went on to say that his support of Cruz isn’t because of opposition to Donald TrumpJohn Kasich, or Marco Rubio. Instead, it is because Cruz understands “where this country has been and where it needs to go.”

Levin also said that if Cruz secures the GOP nomination, Cruz would win because facing Hillary he would know how to defeat her and know how to win.


Nancy Reagan 1921 – 2016

March 6, 2016

Ronald_and_Nancy_Reagan_Getty_images

Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Getty images

 “Nancy Davis Reagan has led a remarkable life – as an adoring daughter, a loving mother, a devoted and sensitive partner, and a worthy ambassador for our country as First Lady. I have seen her cope bravely with life’s most difficult challenges, exuding grace and dignity and strength. I am so proud of this woman…I can’t imagine life without her.”

— Ronald Reagan, in a March 1994 message to the Junior League of Los Angeles tribute dinner honoring Nancy Reagan

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library has the details concerning the former First Lady’s memorial.


Medved schemes to obstruct 2016 GOP prez nominee

March 5, 2016

Radio talk show host Michael Medved proclaims his political conservatism, but listening to his weekday program will quickly disabuse anyone but the most naive of that erroneous notion. A law school dropout, he often warmly refers to his short-term Yale law classmate Hillary Rodham and wistfully refers to his days as a liberal, working for left wing politicians — even putting words in their mouths as a speechwriter.  His side career as a movie reviewer is more in keeping with his Hollywoodish liberal leanings. 

On Friday Medved exposed he truth behind his charade when he told a caller he wouldn’t be voting for Donald Trump if he becomes the GOP nominee. The caller reminded Medved that he previously said he would support the Republican candidate. Medved responded by saying he never took a pledge.

Trump is surging due to frustration with the status quo, spineless Republicans holding a majority in both the U.S. House and Senate, who facilitate Obama’s bloated budgets, trade deals, global schemes that penalize the U.S. while giving a pass to third world nations. Americans want their Constitutional rights protected and are tired of executive orders bypassing congress and the flooding of our states with hordes of unvetted mostly young male “refugees” from terror sponsoring nations. They are enraged about losing control of their own healthcare. The lack of political will to close the border with Mexico is fueling ire around the country.

These issues and more have created the perfect storm. Yes, Trump’s undignified manner, goaded by Marco Rubio, is disturbing. Equally so is Kasich’s mulish determination to stay in the race until Ohio‘s primary, in an effort to ensure a brokered convention that will guarantee utter chaos. Rubio ensured his nonentity position as an integral member of John McCain’s amnesty pushing Gang of Eight. 

Trump is far from perfect, but if the election features him against an even less perfect Hillary Clinton, the choice is clear. Another eight years of Obama-like policies imposed by the brazen liar Clinton is entirely unacceptable.  There are sure to be vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court.  A leftward lurch would irretrievably change the direction of our country.  Hillary has even suggested appointing Obama to the Supreme Court.

Medved, who previously supported Jeb! and recently has promoted Marco Rubio, now confirms he’d be fine with Hillary.  Here in Arizona, his program runs from 1:00 PM – 4:00 PM on KKNT, 960 AM  “The Patriot.” Insomniacs, with a penchant for self-abuse, can hear the show repeat 1:00 AM – 4:00 AM.

KKNT’s General Manager is Jim Ryan. He can be reached at (602) 955-9600. If you resent having a liberal charlatan masquerading as a conservative while attempting to undermine the presidential election, you might want to give Mr. Ryan a call Monday morning. It’s bad enough to be assaulted by liberalism from the majority of unapologetic media sources.  But when one stands out as promoting conservatism, and in fact does exactly the opposite, we should let the station and advertisers know that it may be time to change their lineup.


Socialist Labor Party of America issues threat….

February 13, 2016

….Direct from AZ Republic’s Tucson outpost, editorial writer Linda Valdez wishfully warns:

Socialism has a young face in America; look out GOP

Socialism is alive and well in America. It’s young, too. An NBC exit poll found Sen. Bernie Sanders won 84 percent of voters age 18 to 29.  He won 58 percent of the 30 to 44 age group, as well. His anti-establishment appeal resonates with those who will inherit the mess the establishment made. These young people may not create a problem for Hillary Clinton this year. But they will grow into a strong consistency for reversing the small government policies of the far right.

Read the radical Marxist-based platform of the Socialist Party USA rooted in support of the revolutionary overthrow of the U.S. government. No wonder leftist Valdez is licking her chops at the prospect of our representative Republic, based in the rule of law, failing.

This instructive video explains the American form of government, comparing it to other government systems:

Monarchy or Dictatorship: (ruled by one)

Oligarchy: (ruled by a few)

Democracy: (ruled by a majority)

Republic: (ruled by law)

Anarchy: (ruled by no one)

What Valdez neglects to attribute the increase in radical thinking to is the fact that over several decades American students have been force fed liberalism by their unionist public school teachers who hold a decidedly left-wing agenda. (Listen closely to the words of longtime NEA legal counsel Bob Chanin given in his retirement speech in linked ad in previous sentence). The Center for Responsive Politics posts the amounts —  in millions —  that the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers contribute to liberal political campaigns. That answers the question of the leftward lurch.


Popular vote v. Electoral College: Be careful what you wish for

February 8, 2016

National Popular Vote is unconstitutional

Strong dosages of political showmanship are vying for our attention these days. A seemingly endless parade of presidential candidates, debates, caucuses and primaries take center stage as the crucial 2016 cycle approaches. We hear promises, sift through bravado and try to separate fact from blatant fiction. To add to the head spinning exhibitions are a rash of quick fixes, that actually create even more havoc. Arizona House Bill 2456 (national popular vote; interstate agreement) is such a measure — definitely worthy of your attention. Its Senate counterpart, identically named) is SB 1218.

This piece of legislation would require the popular vote for U.S. President to determine the winner, effectively relegating the Electoral College into political obscurity.

There are increasing election machinations to change the system put in place by our Founders to safeguard the election process — clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause II, not to relegate small states into inconsequential obscurity.

Legislators contemplating support for this bill should heed the wisdom of these words: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.” America’s Founders strategically placed fences in an effort to balance power among the branches of the federal government and the states. This balance has served our nation well and it should not impetuously be cast aside.

The Republican Platform succinctly addresses this issue under the heading, The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College:  

“We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.”

This video “The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College,” courtesy of Prager University explains the complex issue and is important to watch. It takes less than five minutes of your time, but will educate you on the issues involved. Knowledge is power.

Click on the House and Senate bills and see if your state legislator is a sponsor. Then use this link to locate them and ask them why they are joining with Democrats on this disastrous legislation.  Act now. Time is short.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 378 other followers