GASCON TO TESTIFY BEFORE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Mesa police chief, George Gascon, is scheduled to testify before the House Judiciary committee tomorrow. The committee is holding hearings regarding local law enforcement’s involvement in enforcing U.S. immigration laws. Mesa is Arizona’s third largest city and a haven for ILLEGAL immigrants because, in part, Chief Gascon (like his Phoenix counterpart, Jack Harris) is a committed to non-enforcement of our immigration laws.

 

2008 was an embarrassing year for Gascon. Crime sweeps last April conducted by the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department in Mesa netted dozens of ILLEGALS. All Gascon could do was grumble in a letter to Sheriff Joe Arpaio saying: “….these operations have attracted a substantial level of attention by groups in support and against your anti-immigration policies.” “Anti-immigration policies”? If there were any doubts about where Gascon stood on ILLEGAL immigration he really let the cat out of the bag on that one! More embarrassment was to follow.

 

In October sheriff’s deputies armed with 25 warrants conducted a pre-dawn roundup in the Mesa city hall and in the library arresting over a dozen persons here illegally using stolen identification and employed by a cleaning service under contract with the city. The roundup was the culmination of an investigation that lasted several months and began when a former city employee reported to the Mesa police that the company was hiring ILLEGAL aliens. When no action was taken the former employee tipped off the sheriff’s department which infiltrated the company with an undercover person claiming to be here illegally. Say what you will about the sheriff’s tactics but with this many ILLEGALS right under Gascon’s nose how could he be so inert?

 

There is no question where Chief Gascon stands on ILLEGAL immigration issues. In both word and deed he is a firm believer in non-enforcement of our immigration laws. So, I will predict in summary form what Gascon will tell the committee tomorrow: he will say that local enforcement of immigration laws is dangerous, anti-immigrant and, probably, racist.

Something Strictly Platonic in Thought

by Gayle Plato, M.Ed.

Every good friend looks you in the eye, giving respect, supports each thought and valued opinion, and finally tells you when you’ve spinach in your teeth.  The best of Platonic relationship is up front and forthright.  As I am Plato, all I give must honor the name.

I do not live amongst the parties and the platforms so I have the luxury to write in plain sight.  Yet, we live in a country where it is allowed to be anonymous and still bluntly honest yet constructive in the face of reality (emphasis on honest).

With that, I offer a thought or two today, while we STILL have the right to wax on without controls. This country is under attack: fiscal regulation begets, policy change; public control of thought and debate leads to world regulation and international courts standing over our constitutional structure.

As the G20 meets, and I keep reading all of the MSM or crazy fringe blogs, something gells in my aging cranium. We the people are waking up to the power grab.  What would I DO if I wanted to continue grabbing?  I’d make a diversion.  If I were in power proselytizing the need to take advantage of crises, I would make sure to instill a crisis very soon. 

It might be April 1st, but this is not a Fool’s Day in Phoenix. As ideas percolate the bird rises from the ashes and sends me a little twitter here and there.  Why is Homeland Security all of a sudden following me with Tweets, and why are some of the nutjob blogo crazies talking up Red Alerts?  Did not more than one analyst on FOX and CNN this week mention it seems like pre 9-11 with the terrorist communication traffic?

Well since many are already putting me in the black helicopter of conspiracy, what do I have to lose to speculate a bit?  I am even respecting the saavy of the POTUS Administration giving Queen Elizabeth of England an iPod.  They HAD to know it would be harped up  as another tacky act within the MSM-especially on the right.  So why do it other than to grab at the news cycle a bit,  and give us all a nugget to chew as the regulatory law machine of international debate goes on without much depth of coverage?

What is next?  Me thinks the game is afoot:  I suspect we are due for a good crisis. The wind is blowing around the ashes of discontent here at the foot of Phoenix and this noble savage fears the benevolent dictator.  But then, I am Plato and I know a good philosophical argument when I see it.  Thank goodness I can debate and brainstorm without fear of repercussion or silencing here in the free world wide web.  For Now…

 

Rasmussen Poll

Because we’ve had a number of inquiries as to recent polling here is information from Fox News Phoenix which ran a story on voter attitude toward taxes here in Arizona:

Rasmussen Arizona Poll Survey of 500 Likely Voters in Arizona
Conducted March 17, 2009
By Rasmussen Reports

1. How would you rate the job Barack Obama has been doing as President… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job he’s been doing?

32% Strongly approve
21% Somewhat approve
8% Somewhat disapprove
39% Strongly disapprove
1% Not sure

2. How would you rate the job Jan Brewer has been doing as Governor… do you strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, or strongly disapprove of the job she’s been doing?

9% Strongly approve
48% Somewhat approve
26% Somewhat disapprove
11% Strongly disapprove
6% Not sure

3. Do you favor or oppose a temporary tax increase to help stem the state’ budget shortfall?

22% Favor
65% Oppose
13% Not sure

4. How likely is it that a temporary tax hike will become permanent?

70% Very likely
19% Somewhat likely
8% Not very likely
1% Not at all likely
2% Not sure

5. Should there be a special election to raise state sales tax to help with the budget shortfall and to save some programs that have to be cut?

41% Yes
42% No
17% Not sure

6. Should taxes only be raised by a majority vote of the people?

76% Yes
16% No
8% Not sure

7. Would you favor or oppose doing away with property taxes completely if it meant an increase in sales tax?

42% Favor
33% Oppose
26% Not sure

8. Would you favor or oppose doing away with property taxes completely if it meant a loss of programs?

24% Favor
55% Oppose
22% Not sure

9. Do you have a very favorable, somewhat favorable, somewhat unfavorable or very unfavorable impression of Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio?
46% Very favorable
22% Somewhat favorable
10% Somewhat unfavorable
16% Very unfavorable
7% Not sure

10. If a police officer pulls someone over for a traffic violation, should the officer automatically check to see if that person is in the country legally?
74% Yes
21% No
5% Not sure

11. If law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, should they sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal immigrants?
63% Yes
31% No
6% Not sure

12. How concerned are you that efforts to identify and deport illegal immigrants will also end up violating the civil rights of some U.S. citizens?

32% Very concerned
24% Somewhat concerned
30% Not very concerned
13% Not at all concerned
1% Not sure

13. Which concerns you more – illegal immigration or drug violence?
29% Illegal immigration
60% Drug violence
10% Not sure

14. If drug violence continues to escalate along the Mexican border should the U.S. Military be used along the border to protect American citizens?
76% Yes
14% No
9% Not sure
NOTE: Margin of Sampling Error, +/- 4.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence

 

Anonymity and Responsibility

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? If an anonymous writer makes a statement of questionable account, and they are called out on it, is that a call to limit free speech or a call for responsible speech? If your actions reflect on others, is there a duty to consider the others?

The tree falls, the sound waves go out but without a receptor they have no auditory effect. An incendiary post sends out waves of response but with no one really there to bear the result, anonymity being the filter, the writer just keeps on writing. Meantime, others cry foul, not about the ability to be anonymous, but about the morality and ethics of making dubious public claims while hiding behind a veil of secrecy.  Hmmmm. 

I accuse you of a bad deed, paint it on the side of a building, my friend owns the building. I’ve put other stuff on there before, sort of my own personal message board. I sign it with some clever little name that gives no clue as to who I really am, but everyone who reads it knows who you are! My friend just happens to also run a business out of the building I use for my missives. Is he complicit in my deeds? What if there are serious questions as to the validity of my statements? What if they are all true, every word!  What if you are allowed to respond, does that minimize my obligation?

Having read all the back and forth, this site and EP and being an anonymous poster, I hope I never have to give my “real” name or I will stop posting. Some may find that a good thing. There are reasons I use a pen name, one of which is the neutrality it brings to my words in the mind of the reader. They may begin to develop a connotation to my writings in time but “I” will not influence that process. Another is the personal repercussions to my positions should they be in disagreement with others, others with whom I may associate or do business. Keep it on the boards. But, I believe there is a price I pay for my personal comfort. Part of that price is to be very sure what I write is true, honest, and without malice. The other is to be very cognizant of the moderator/owner of the site. My words become his words even if he does not see them prior to posting or agree in any form. This site brings a valuable voice to many topics of conservative concern. It cannot become the side of a building used by someone, or some group, holding a spray paint can and an ax to grind under the cover of anonymity or it will degenerate into a distorted aberration of a previously appreciated form.

Just my anonymous opinion.

On Coughlin, espressopundit, and anonymous blogging

Greg Patterson at espressopundit has clarified that his post about our blogging entitled “Adult Supervision Required” did not mean that he thinks anonymous blogging should be prohibited. That’s fine, we’ll take him at face value, but we beg to differ that we were purposely trying to interpret him otherwise. When you title something “Adult Supervision Required,” and talk about how the Arizona blogosphere needs to come up with guidelines for anonymous blogging, it sounds like you’re trying to shut it down, or regulate it until it’s no longer feasible. Reading the post, I distinctly felt like he was pressuring Shane to put a halt to this anonymous blogging.

What is peculiar is the subject matter Patterson has chosen to defend. This isn’t some dispute between two solid Republicans, like the controversies during the election of Pullen and James for State GOP chair. This is about stopping a tax increase by a Republican governor, which many Republicans at the legislature are concerned is being pushed behind the scenes by lobbyist Chuck Coughlin, known for backing liberal causes. Besides the TIME initiative, Coughlin was the consultant on the Prop. 400 campaign in 2004, the light rail/massive infrastructure tax increase initiative. Wonder how much business his client Associated General Contractors made off of that. Don’t forget all the brand-new equipment the construction companies went and bought for that project – it was an abuse of taxpayer dollars.


Coughlin’s fake sanctimony on playing nice rings hollow. Besides the untruthful ad he ran during the Attorney General’s race, he’s run ads comparing supporters of an initiative to Nazis:

In May 2005, Peter Kanelos, Wal-Mart’s Community Affairs Director for Arizona and Southern California, approved an advertisement in the Arizona Daily Sun that featured a well-known 1933 photo of Nazis throwing books on a pyre at Berlin’s Opernplatz. The ad equated those who wanted to restrict Wal-Mart’s growth to Nazis. Wal-Mart’s advertising consultants produced the ad and the company acknowledged approving it.

Wal-Mart’s use of Nazi imagery in its ads was widely and nationally criticized by community groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) and several members of Congress. “It’s not the imagery itself. It trivializes the Nazis and what they did. And to try to attach that imagery to a municipal election goes beyond distasteful,” said Bill Straus of the ADL.

Wal-Mart and Protect Flagstaff’s Future eventually issued full apologies, but at the time Chuck Coughlin, the president of the consulting company that produced the ads fought back. “We wanted people to think about the freedoms we enjoy in America. The intent was wholly honorable and good,” said Coughlin. “We will not back away from the substance of the ads.”

And just yesterday, the Yellow Sheet reported that Coughlin’s firm High Ground was behind a suspicious poll that found voters supposedly support a tax increase. Coughlin had denied being behind it (does he have a problem telling the truth?). The Yellow Sheet says the High Ground poll results were the exact opposite of a poll that was taken 2 weeks ago. The well-established polling company Rasmussen Reports had found in their poll on March 17 that 65% oppose a temporary tax increase to help the state’s budget. Isn’t it coincidental how Coughlin’s self-interest in getting this tax increase passed results in a poll with vastly different results from the reputable Rasmussen poll.

Coughlin’s cronies are posting numerous comments after these posts in order to try to prevent this kind of information from coming out. Add that to the usual cadre of leftists leaving comments, it is creating the impression that this information shouldn’t come out, it’s all just “mean personal attacks.” But in reality, there’s a silent majority out there telling us they want to know what’s really going on behind the scenes at the Capitol, and they don’t buy into the spin labeling this kind of information as a personal attack. It’s understandable why Patterson takes the position he does – he’s a lobbyist and has to work with Coughlin. Coughlin may be the most powerful lobbyist in the state, but he does not control all of the press. Republican voters have a right to know the truth about backhanded tax increases initiated by Republicans.