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!

Advertisements

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.


Judicial Watch files ethics complaint against Rep. Ilhan Omar

July 24, 2019

This letter containing an ethics complaint, delivered to David Skaggs, chairman of the Office of Congressional Ethics in the U.S. House of Representatives from Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch, details what is described as:

“Substantial, compelling and, to date, unrefuted evidence [that] has been uncovered revealing Rep. Ilhan Omar may have committed the following crimes in violation of both federal law and Minnesota state law: perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, state and federal tax fraud, and federal student loan fraud.”

Omar, a Somali immigrant and radical Islamic activist, has even been accused of marrying her own brother in order to facilitate his emigration to the United States from the United Kingdom.

Fitton writes, “In the words of investigative reporter David Steinberg: “The facts describe perhaps the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American History.”

The evidence developed against Rep. Omar was the result of a three-year long investigation in both the United States and the United Kingdom by investigator David Steinberg and his investigative reporter colleagues Preya Samsundar and Scott Johnson.

The letter concludes by requesting the Office of Congressional Ethics to launch an immediate investigation into Rep. Omar’s conduct.

Ilhan Omar (D-MN) is one of the radical congressional freshmen members of the self-anointed “Squad,” notable for their vile race-based hatred and anti-Semitism which Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is incapable of reining in, as noted by Matt Vespa in his Townhall expose.

Joel B. Pollak, writing for Breitbart News, exposes the contemptible quartet which also includes U.S. Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA).

Elections have consequences. We urge you to read the linked articles to build your information arsenal.


AZ Rep. Paul Gosar blasts Green Card scheme

July 13, 2019

Principled AZ Congressmen Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs stand firm for American tech workers

On Friday SRAZ covered the collusion of Congressional Republicans who aligned with leftist Democrats inUS job giveaway bizarrely garners GOP support.” We once again provide the House vote on HR 1044, the deceptively titled bill bearing the name, “Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act.” In short, it replaces American tech workers with Green Card holders, predominantly from India.

Breitbart News has relentlessly reported on this sham. Most recently, John Binder wrote: 

“This week, 140 House Republicans, 224 House Democrats, and Rep. Justin Amash (I-MI*) — led by Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — voted to allow Indian nationals to effectively monopolize the U.S. green card system for at least the next ten years, providing a constant stream of foreign workers that American professionals will be forced to compete against for white-collar jobs.”

Worthy of note to Arizonans is the headline topping the article:Exclusive–Paul Gosar: GOP/Dems Gifting Tech Elites More Foreign Labor to Replace Americans.” We highly recommend you read it. It’s chock full of facts, but it will also imbue you with an added dose of pride in CD 4 Congressman Paul Gosar, interviewed for the report. Of Arizona’s four remaining Republican U.S. House members, only Reps. Paul Gosar and Andy Biggs had the fortitude to stand up to the House leadership and tech lobbyists, pushing this unholy scheme.

Americans who have been laid off and forced to train their foreign H-1B visa replacements say there is “no shortage” of qualified U.S. workers for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) jobs.

We’ve been had — aided and abetted by GOP colluders.

* Amash, going for explosive coverage, left the Republican Party on the Fourth of July this year, becoming a registered Independent. The former McCain campaign donor has advocated for the impeachment of President Trump.


JD Hayworth on FOX News tonight 7PM

July 3, 2019

Fox News‘ “The Ingraham Angle” treats its viewers to an interview segment this evening with former Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth.

Be sure to tune in at 7 PM.

For Arizona conservatives, it doesn’t get much better than this.


Americans benefit having businessman Trump in WH

July 2, 2019

Historic economic expansion ignored by Trump-hating, leftist Arizona Republic

Sensational economic news gets the coverage it deserves in the New York Post —  a publication founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

The Post’s Editorial Board made this acknowledgement Monday:

President Trump has now gotten the US economic expansion to outlast any other in modern history.

As of Monday, growth has rolled along for 121 months straight, starting in June 2009. The now-second-longest expansion ran from March 1991 to March 2001. The new record is also over twice the 58 months of the average expansion since 1980.

All of which means that, even with the weakness of the growth for most of the Obama era, the economy was overdue for a dip when Trump took office. Yet it has instead remained pretty strong, expanding 2.9% in 2018 and at an annual 3.1% for the first quarter of 2019.

Unemployment has fallen steadily, too, to its lowest level in 50 years: In May, the seasonally adjusted rate was 3.4%, down from 5.1% in January 2017. Job openings in April topped the number of unemployed by the widest margin ever, and the tight labor market has fueled wage hikes.

Trump’s deregulation and tax cuts, each a stark reverse of Obama policies, changed the course. As Bankrate senior economist Mark Hamrick told The Post, the president unleashed America’s “animal spirits,” boosting the stock market and consumer confidence. (The S&P 500 and the Dow hit record highs Monday, on news of a truce in the US-China trade war.)

And growth has “lifted all boats,” notes Hamrick. Despite the Democratic line, the “1%” are far from the only ones to gain. Federal Reserve data show that pay hikes these past three years surged faster for the poorest quarter of workers (4.4%) than for the richest (3.2%).

Blue-collar employment is also up big since January 2017: 657,000 new construction jobs and 484,000 more in manufacturing. And joblessness among blacks fell from 7.7% in January 2017 to 6.2% in May.

Nothing lasts forever, but when the economy does finally turn south, it’s well worth remembering which policies delivered the record results.

In an in-tandem report in the same edition, titled,US economy marks longest expansion in American history,” we are doubly treated to the news the Hillary Clinton-endorsing Arizona Republic newspaper is loath to report. The NY Post endorsed “rookie” Trump, described as having “electrified the public” in the 2016 Primary, making no endorsement in the General Election.


Trump appointees to SCOTUS having major impact

June 23, 2019

The Daily Caller headlines its post by Kevin Daley, “Kagan Seethes As High Court Conservatives Deliver Property Rights Win.”

It contains less legalese than the SCOTUSblog, but they each cover this significant case and Justice Elena Kagan’s searing rebuke of her conservative colleagues, accusing them of smashing “a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens.”

The dissent noted Friday’s case was the second time this term that the conservative justices have overturned a controlling precedent, prompting Kagan to ask, forebodingly, which precedent the high court will overrule next.

“Just last month, when the Court overturned another longstanding precedent, Justice [Stephen] Breyer penned a dissent,” Kagan wrote. “He wrote of the dangers of reversing legal course ‘only because five members of a later Court’ decide that an earlier ruling was incorrect. He concluded: ‘Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the Court will overrule next.’”

“Well, that didn’t take long,” Kagan added. “Now one may wonder yet again.”

Kagan was referencing Breyer’s May dissent in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which asked whether states are immune from lawsuits in the courts of other states. In Hyatt, the five-justice conservative majority overturned a 1979 decision and said the states do indeed have sovereign immunity in the courts of their sister states.

Friday’s property rights dispute arose when a small town in Pennsylvania adopted an ordinance requiring that cemeteries “be kept open and accessible to the general public during daylight hours.” The town told Rose Mary Knick, whose 90-acre property includes a small family cemetery, that she must comply with the rule. Knick sued, saying the ordinance violates the takings clause of the Constitution. The takings clause says the government must compensate property owners for any land seized for public use.

 A 1985 Supreme Court case called Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank required Knick to seek compensation at the state level before going to federal court. Indeed, that ruling required Knick and plaintiffs like her to exhaust all possible state compensation remedies before turning to the federal judiciary.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the Williamson County decision was wrong and Knick can go to a federal judge right away.

“Williamson County was not just wrong,” the chief wrote. “Its reasoning was exceptionally ill founded and conflicted with much of our takings jurisprudence.”

The Williamson County ruling, Roberts said elsewhere, imposes “an unjustifiable burden on takings plaintiffs, conflicts with the rest of our takings jurisprudence, and must be overruled. A property owner has an actionable Fifth Amendment takings claim when the government takes his property without paying for it.”

The chief justice noted the Court considers several factors when deciding to overrule a prior decision. In that connection, he cited the 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision, which said government unions cannot force non-members to pay so-called agency fees. The citation to Janus drew a sharp rebuke from Kagan.

“If that is the way the majority means to proceed — relying on one subversion of stare decisis to support another — we may as well not have principles about precedents at all,” Kagan wrote. “Stare decisis” is a Latin legal term meaning “to stand by things decided.” Janus overturned the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education ruling.

Friday’s case is No. 17-647, Knick v. Township of Scott.

This was the Aug. 5, 2010 senate roll call vote on Elena Kagen’s confirmation.