You are here: Home / 2009 / Archives for July 2009

Legislators Should Hold the Line Against the Brewer Tax

July 9, 2009 By 10 Comments

Legislators Should Hold the Line Against the Brewer Tax
By Tom Jenney

Down at the Arizona Legislature, several otherwise conservative legislators are right now thinking very hard about capitulating to Governor Brewer’s scheme to put an 18-percent increase in Arizona’s sales tax rate on the ballot.

Those legislators have previously argued that they could wring more spending reductions out of the governor by allowing the sales tax referendum go to the ballot. But with the education and health budgets that passed this week, conservatives appear to have given up on significant spending reductions. So, those legislators are left to argue that if the Brewer Tax goes to the ballot, it will probably fail, thereby giving the Legislature a “mandate” to cut spending.

There are several grave problems with that argument.

For starters, the sales tax might actually win at the ballot. In a low-turnout election, the sky-is-falling propaganda from public employee unions and other spending interests could be persuasive.

If the sales tax does win at the ballot, Arizona will set itself up for short-run and longer-run fiscal distress. In the short run–assuming that the Brewer Tax is actually temporary–we will merely postpone a billion-dollar structural deficit crisis into the year 2012. We will also do damage to our economy at a time when we’re already hurting. The San Francisco Federal Reserve office estimated recently that a dollar taken from the private sector for government spending reduces economic activity anywhere from 60 cents to $2.30.

In the longer run, by resorting to a tax increase, and by failing to reduce spending, we will tell potential investors, businesses, workers, and retirees that Arizona is the next California: we are stuck in a cycle in which the government spends too much money in boom years, goes into deficit crises, raises taxes to keep government spending at high levels, and then repeats the process until it hits bankruptcy.

Even if the sales tax fails at the ballot, voters are not likely to give politicians a mandate to cut spending. Voters are often schizophrenic on fiscal issues. Even if they shoot down a sales tax in 2009, they could easily turn around in 2010 and punish legislators who vote for large spending cuts in popular programs.

Further, even with a “mandate,” Brewer and a majority of legislators may prove unwilling to cut much spending—especially because cutting spending will be harder to do in January, when the fiscal year is already half over and the money is half spent. At that point, the deficit fixes will be dominated by short-term borrowing and other financial gimmickry.

If conservatives keep the Brewer Tax from going to the ballot, that will force the state government to an earlier reckoning. Revenues will soon fall short of paying for the bloated education and health budgets that passed this week, and the Legislature will have to go back to work, perhaps as soon as September. But it’s better to start cutting in September than to wait until January.

As a matter of political prudence, given the Tea Party fervor brewing among the grassroots in Arizona, legislators should avoid a tax referendum like the plague. Grassroots activists know that the job of a conservative legislator is to stop bad legislation, not punt the ball to voters. And if the Governor can muster a majority of legislators to refer her tax hike to the ballot, shrewd legislators would do well to keep their names off the bill.

If necessary, the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity will work hard to defeat the Brewer Tax at the ballot. We will bring our gigantic inflatable ATM bank machine to every town in the state, and drive home the point that Arizona taxpayers should not be used as a cash machine when politicians have overspent their budgets and are short on revenue.

But having a ballot battle over a tax hike would be a deplorable waste of Arizona’s collective resources. Legislators would do much better to hold the line against tax hikes, and start working now to reduce government spending.

–Tom Jenney is Arizona Director for Americans for Prosperity (www.aztaxpayers.org).

Filed Under: Spending, State Budget, State Government, Taxation

A Modest Proposal: Sales Tax on Steroids

July 9, 2009 By 26 Comments

You know what they say. There’s two things you can’t avoid in life – Death and Taxes.

Ask most people to choose between a slow and painful death or a quick sudden death, they’d probably choose the later.

Let’s superimpose that over the current state budget fiasco. The Governor wants to run a one cent (18%) temporary sales tax increase over a three year period. She claims its a management issue – a need for cash flow and liquidity.

Instead of spreading it out over a three year period, what if the Legislature gave her the temporary sales tax increase but instead of spreading it out over a three year period, they put it on steroids and limited it to six months? In other words they see the Governor’s one cent and raise it 5 cents?

(Now of course, you know I’m being completely facetious and oppose any tax increases. But for the sake of having some fun with the current political game being played out between the legislative and executive branches, let’s play the game of what if.)

Does anyone doubt that a sales tax increase of that magnitude would snuff out any embers of economic recovery here in Arizona? Ask anyone who conducts those scientific studies in which they feed lab rats pounds of sugar over a 30-day period what happens to the rats.

The rat gets fat and dies. End of study. The truth is obvious.

Instead of raising taxes to make up the shortfall of revenue, what if the Governor did an about face and lowered taxes across the board – especially business taxes? Imagine all those California businesses scrambling to survive and preparing to move to Nevada or Texas.

My point in all this is is to illustrate the absurdity of closing our budget gap by raising taxes – especially during a recession. Many conservative Republicans remember the approach that the Reagan Administration took in which taxes were lowered and revenues actually went up! Thanks Art Laffer!

If the Governor really wanted to get the economy going, she would take a play from Reagan’s economic policies and lower taxes or eliminate them altogether! This would create an economic environment that would attract new businesses, new jobs, more cash liquidity and ultimately, more revenue for the State.

Unfortunately, ego’s often get in the way of common sense when your standing at 1700 West Washington Street.

Filed Under: Economic Development, Economics, State Budget, State Economy, Taxation

What are Glendale officials cooking up for Coyotes?

July 9, 2009 By Leave a Comment

by Carrie Ann Sitren
Goldwater Institute
 
At a restaurant, you expect to see a menu before you order–after all, you’re the one paying the bill. The City of Glendale, however, doesn’t care to follow that logic. Instead, City officials are refusing to disclose what deals they’re cooking up during closed negotiations for the sale of the Phoenix Coyotes, or what will ultimately be put on the table for Glendale residents to eat–and pay for.

Rumors have been circulating for weeks that Glendale officials are discussing offering concessions and annual subsidies of up to $20 million to potential buyers of the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team who would be willing to keep the team in Glendale. They need the team to stay because of the 30-year lease the Coyotes hold to play in Jobing.com arena, a venue built with $180 million provided by Glendale taxpayers. But since the team’s owner filed for bankruptcy and potential buyers have discussed moving the team to Canada, taxpayers could be left with an expensive, vacant hockey arena, and no team.

This is why the Goldwater Institute filed a public records request for documents showing what Glendale officials are offering potential buyers of the Coyotes. Surprisingly, the City denied the request. The Goldwater Institute promptly filed a lawsuit demanding that the City release the records.

When taxpayers are footing the bill, they have a right to know where the money is going and what their elected officials are doing. At a time when families are pinching pennies, Glendale officials cannot be allowed to give away millions in secrecy.  The judge is expected to decide within two weeks what records the City must disclose. At the very least, Glendale’s taxpayers have a right to see what’s on the menu before they pay the bill.
 
Carrie Ann Sitren is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute.

Filed Under: City Government, Constitutional Law, Judicial, Spending, Sports

Senate President Bob Burns Ousts Taxpayer Champions From Key Positions

July 9, 2009 By 22 Comments

From Patrick Gleason on Thursday, July 9, 2009

Last night Arizona Senate President Bob Burns, in what is viewed by many as a legislative temper tantrum,  booted two colleagues in leadership from key posts. Senator Thayer Verschoor (R-Gilbert) was ousted from his position as Senate President Pro Tem and Senate Majority Whip Pamela Gorman (R-Anthem) was removed from the Rules Committee.

Their crime: Defending taxpayers from a massive tax increase pushed by an unelected governor in the middle of a recession.

It has been a sad state of affairs for Republicans in Arizona this year. There was hope among many that years of fiscal irresponsibility would end with Governor Janet Napolitano being replaced by Republican Jan Brewer. Yet in a move that left many puzzled, Brewer came out of the gate early this year with a proposal for the aforementioned multi-billion dollar sales tax increase. Now true conservatives such as Gorman and Verschoor are being punished for not supporting the Governor’s tax hike.

Verschoor will be replaced by Senator Steve Pierce (R-Prescott). Gorman’s replacement on the rules committee has yet to be named.

Americans for Tax Reform condemns Burns’ actions. ATR urges Arizona taxpayers to contact their representative in the legislature and urge them to join Verschoor and Gorman in standing up against the chocolate soldiers who are pushing to the Brewer-Coughlin tax hike. CLICK HERE to take action!

Filed Under: Spending, State Budget, State Government, Taxation

Three finalists for Supreme Court: Brewer should avoid one of them

July 9, 2009 By 2 Comments

The Commission on Appellate Court appointments has sent up three names to Governor Brewer, who will select one to fill the vacancy provided by retiring Supreme Court Justice Ruth MacGregor. There are two Republicans, Judge Ann Timmer, and Judge John Pelander. They both have moderate records as judges. While Timmer is good on prolife issues, she’s terrible on school choice. The third, Judge Diane Johnson, is a Democrat with a far left record, who should not be selected. Brewer may pick Timmer because she’s a woman, and so she may want a woman to replace MacGregor. Or she may go with Pelander because he’s from the southern part of the state.

Diane Johnson - Scottsdale

Judge Johnsen is a liberal activist and her appointment to the Az SC should be opposed by all conservatives. She has only been a judge on the Court of Appeals since August of 2006 and has ruled on so few (if any) controversial constitutional issues it is difficult to ascertain her judicial philosophy based on her judicial opinions. Her activities before becoming a judge, however, led to the clear conclusion that she is a liberal. Before becoming a judge, she was on the board of directors of two very liberal interest groups and was a big contributor to liberal candidates.

John Pelander - Tucson

Judge John Pelander seems to be a traditional conservative who tends to defer to the government on many close questions, but because he has ruled on so few controversial constitutional issues it is difficult to say whether this is the case with any certainty.

Concurred in result in case holding that a city ordinance requiring single family homes to be wheel chair accessible did not violate privacy because building codes that affect exercise of homeowners’ “personal, private, and aesthetic choices” are proper exercise of police power, nor did it violate equal protection because the homeowners were not members of a suspect class and the law did not affect a fundamental right and there was a legitimate government interest which is enough to get over rational basis scrutiny. Washburn v. Pima County, 206 Ariz. 571, 81 P.3d 1030 (2003).

Held that a city’s restaurant smoking ban was not an unconstitutional taking because it did not deprive restaurant owner of all reasonable use of her property, owner did not show that she suffered loss of revenue as result of ordinance, and owner could have complied with exemption in ordinance by creating a “designated smoking area” as defined in the ordinance, nor a violation of freedom of association because it does not fall within the realm of certain intimate human relationships even though a certain amount of intimate private association may occur in restaurants, nor did it violate equal protection because the restaurant owners did not claim to be members of a protected class and thus only received rational basis scrutiny. City of Tucson v. Grezaffi, 200 Ariz. 130, 23 P.3d 675 (2001).

Ann Scott Timmer - Scottsdale Chief Judge Timmer appears to be a conservative jurist with an overarching textualist philosophy who sometimes defers to the government but often rules on the side of the individual. Her favor for competition and privacy may prove to be a double-edged sword depending on the context, as may her propensity for narrow interpretation of constitutional and statutory texts. She has taken the social conservative position in several high profile cases.

Held that court need to apply a clear and convincing standard for judicial bypass of parental consent for abortion instead of just preponderance of the evidence in finding that a minor did not prove that she was mature enough to give consent for the abortion. In re B.S., 205 Ariz. 611, (App. 2003).Held that Arizona’s ban on same sex marriage does not violate the Arizona or U.S. Constitution. Standhardt v. Arizona, 206 Ariz. 276, 77 P.3d 451 (2003).

Concurred in result in case holding that statute and regulations that prohibited use of public funds for medically necessary abortions, unless abortion was necessary to save the life of the mother, did not violate right to privacy, does not violate privileges and immunities provision of State Constitution because statute does not discriminate on basis of sex, does not impinge upon the exercise of a fundamental right for purposes of analysis under privileges and immunities provision of State Constitution, and is rationally related to legitimate government interest in protecting unborn life and in promoting childbirth and thus does not violate privileges and immunities provision of State Constitution. Simat Corp. v. Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, 200 Ariz. 506, 29 P.3d 281 (2001).

Concurred in the result in case holding that a constitutional amendment prohibiting bail or pretrial release to those felony arrestees who “entered or remained in the United States illegally” did not violate equal protection or substantive due process guarantees. Hernandez v. Lynch, 216 Ariz. 469, 167 P.3d 1264 (2007).

Concurred in the result in case holding that ordinances shutting down private sex clubs on the basis of being labeled a public nuisance, do not constitute a regulatory taking. Mutschler v. City of Phoenix, 212 Ariz. 160, 129 P.3d 71 (2006).

Filed Under: Judicial

The Rest of the Story

July 8, 2009 By 25 Comments

State Representative Nancy Barto has taken some considerable heat from Sen. Russell Pearce and MCRC Chairman Rob Haney for her missed vote on HB 2280.  A solid conservative, she has made sure key pro-life legislation made its way through this session and has been instrumental in supporting other conservative causes. It is a shame that accusations about family members are even considered an acceptable retort, but as we have seen in Alaska…when someone, in this case another strong woman, speaks truth to power sometimes the only place weaker people have to hit is below the belt. 

Here is a copy of the letter Rep. Barto sent out in explanantion: 

It is widely reported that on the last night of session I missed a key immigration vote – outlawing Sanctuary cities in the state – HB 2280.  I did, and for good reason.

What is it about Sen. Russell Pearce’s 2280 that caused so many of his own party to come down on the opposite side of this bill that it failed in a majority-controlled Legislature?  Are we open borders bleeding hearts? 

Quite the opposite.  Since 2006 I and others who oppose this bill voted for key legislation aimed at stopping illegal immigration in the state including two bills prohibiting Sanctuary Cities (read more below), employer sanctions to end illegal hiring in Arizona, ending public benefits, laws requiring proof of citizenship to operate a business in Arizona, stopping illegal day laborer hiring, putting resources and the AZ Nat’l Guard on the border and others.   So accusations that I am “soft on illegal immigration” are false on their face.  I’m interested in solving the problem, not making it worse.

  • I oppose HB 2280 and would have voted “no” had I chosen to be present on the floor but my absence was a silent protest in it coming to the floor in the first place.
  • Secondly, my duty to protect citizens’ health care decisions, promoting the AZ Healthcare Freedom Act, conflicted with final votes as I had four national TV and radio interviews later that day.  Part of my job as a legislator is to represent my constituents on this issue, as well, so I left the Capitol at about 5:00 a.m. to rest and prepare for a 7:30 am. FOX interview.

 HB 2280 is an example of poorly conceived public policy and here is why:

1.   The bill removes officer discretion.

            Supporters claim HB 2280 will “take the handcuffs off” local law enforcement wishing to enforce federal immigration laws.  The irony is that this bill actually goes to the opposite extreme.  The bill handcuffs them by forcing them to perform certain duties by taking away officer discretion.

It is mandate-heavy and leaves individual officers and agencies at high risk of legal action for not enforcing “to the fullest extent of the law,” since anyone can file a private cause of action against them for perceived “non-enforcement.”

Rank and file officers are not calling for this bill – they want and need true discretion to perform their duties.

2.   HB 2280 elevates enforcement of federal immigration law above other crimes.  The state of Arizona does not mandate law enforcement limit or prohibit enforcement of any other crime, ie there is no statute mandating bank robbery cases.

 

In effect, law enforcement will not be able to prioritize investigations among their officers because that could be interpreted to “limit” immigration law.  For example, if they say they are keying on organized crime first, car theft, second, drug dealing third, and then immigration fourth, that could be viewed as “limiting” immigration law. 

Public safety is the primary responsibility of law enforcement.  Elevating immigration enforcement to #1 thwarts that mission.

3. Crime victims and witnesses will not report serious crimes.

This bill prioritizes deporting aliens over that of catching at-large rapists by not including an exception for crime victims and witnesses.  Again, all of our safety is at risk when illegal aliens, fearing deportation, do not cooperate with law enforcement.

4. Border Security is still an unresolved issue. 

Supporters of HB 2280 often claim that more officers will die without this law, and cite Phoenix P.D.’s Nick Erfle as an example of this.  The fact is Officer Erfle’s killer, an illegal alien, had been deported at least once after having being arrested on theft charges  before he again crossed the border and murdered the Officer, which means Phoenix P.D. had been doing their job.  The problem is that our border is still porous.

In addition, ICE is limited in their detention capacity in Arizona.  They have about 5,000 beds and they are full.  When they receive non-dangerous criminals, they often release them pending a hearing in which cases they receive a temporary work permit and SS # to work! 

Increasing local law enforcement’s role will not force ICE to detain illegal aliens unless they have committed another serious crime.  But it will dramatically increase the workload for local law enforcement and stress their limited resources.

5. HB 2280 had not received a hearing in the House or been heard in Committee of the Whole before this vote.  This is what is wrong with our using Strike Everything Amendments to avoid hearings in one of the legislative chambers.

The bill went around the legislative process to get to a final vote on the last night of session. 

6. I supported  alternative bills outlawing Sanctuary cities this session and last.  

HB 2331, sponsored this year by Rep. Tom Boone, passed the House 38-21 and, if it had been allowed a hearing in the Senate, would have certainly enjoyed majority support there, as well.  How do I know?  A nearly identical bill, HB 2807, sponsored by Rep. John Nelson in 2008, passed both chambers and was vetoed by former Governor Napolitano.  

Both bills were simple, clear and effective to prohibit Sanctuary cities.  Either of these bills would have prohibited a city or town or a law enforcement agency from enacting an ordinance or adopting a policy intended to prohibit or effectively prohibit the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.  They would have given rank and file law enforcement the authority plus the necessary discretion to enforce Federal immigration laws while ensuring the public safety.

The truth is, perception trumps reality on illegal immigration and other issues.  Perception often gets in the way of good, careful lawmaking.

Some common examples:  if legislation has the word “military” or “veteran” in its title, no matter how flawed the legislation may be, lawmakers will likely be labeled anti-military if they oppose it.  Include the word “child” or “children” and the same perception applies.  Lawmakers are obviously heartless and unfeeling not to vote for whatever is contained in the bill since it will, no doubt, benefit or protect “the children”!  

In the same way, bills sponsored by certain lawmakers on this issue are considered sacrosanct when they may simply be poor public policy or need more work to make them effective legislation. 

This year we had another chance to pass a really good sanctuary bill and have it signed by a willing Governor.   But because of politics, we missed our opportunity.   

Please let me know if you have questions regarding this legislation and/or my actions.  I will gladly speak with you about it further.

Nancy Barto

 

 

 

Filed Under: Blogs, Crime and Punishment, Ethics, Government, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigration, Legislation

Budget blown wide open by political wrangling

July 8, 2009 By 10 Comments

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute

Last week Governor Brewer line-item vetoed pieces of the budget sent to her by the legislature. With that she blew the budget wide open. Even by the lax standards of state government accounting, the budget is nowhere close to being balanced, a direct violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the state constitution. But there’s more.

The legislature’s late-day actions on Monday did nothing to close the $2 billion gap the governor’s vetoes created. In fact, in order to get a veto-proof majority to keep the schools open and restore Department of Economic Security spending, more money had to be spent than was called for in the original plan. The hole the governor has created is far larger than the half-billion dollars her disastrous sales tax plan would raise. But there’s even more.

The legislature took a shortcut in the budget they passed that has come back to bite them, and the taxpayer. Rather than identifying the amount of money each state agency is allowed to spend, the legislature delivered an appropriations bill that had negative numbers. In other words, the appropriations bill didn’t just appropriate funds; parts of it identified the amount of spending each agency would need to cut relative to last year. So, effectively, with her line item vetoes, Brewer was able to increase government spending with a stroke of a pen.

It’s important to note that the legislature’s budget that Governor Brewer said was “fatally flawed” and embraced cuts she called “excessive,” still kept the state on track for 4 percent growth in annual spending since 2000 and that doesn’t account for the state spending bubble in recent years. Governor Brewer’s tax increase proposal would grow current General Fund revenues by yet another 10 percent. All of these budget increases are on the table despite the fact that we are facing the largest per-capita deficit in the country.

After this ugly episode, it’s clear that the legislature should stop drafting appropriations bills with negative numbers. They should plainly state how much money they want each agency to spend and avoid putting the state in even tougher circumstances come next year.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D, is director of economic policy at the Goldwater Institute.

Filed Under: Economics, Government, Spending, State Budget, State Government

Sanctuaries – setting the record straight

July 8, 2009 By 22 Comments

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e
 Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Illegals – for and against

Senator Russell Pearce stops the spin

Some of you may have received a response putting a spin to defend a “no” vote on the elimination of sanctuary policies and the lack of support for HB2280: I must correct the spin and set the record straight:

The spin stops here!!!!  All I want is a firm understanding on where they stand and where will their vote be in the future.  They will get another chance to vote on this critical issue. The courts have ruled time and time again local law enforcement has inherent authority to enforce immigration law.  In fact 8 USC 1644 and 8 USC 1373 makes these sanctuary policies illegal under federal law.

Rep. Nancy Barto is a good woman; however she has been against local enforcement and we have had many discussions.  She has family involved in the Interfaith Movement, an open border group that protests on a regular basis against me, against Sheriff Joe and advocates for open borders, for Amnesty and they work with ACORN and other extreme left wing groups. I have a hard time to understand anyone not standing firmly for the Rule of Law and especially if one looks around at the Deaths, Maiming, and billions in cost to the taxpayer.  It is in complete violation of their Oath of Office in my opinion.

Rep. John McComish is also a good man, but we differ on this issue.

Last January I put forth a Resolution on the removal of Sanctuary Cities/policies in this state and it passed “unanimously” at the State Republican Party Meeting and Maricopa County Republican Party Meeting.  There were over 800 elected precinct committeemen and women at each of these meetings that represent the grassroots Republicans all across this state, these are our core Republicans and they made it loud and clear how they stand.

These folks are good Republicans,  but simply weak on the most critical issue facing our nation, that is the enforcement by local law enforcement of immigration laws, and employing the most effective tool we have to stop this invasion by illegal aliens.  What they are trying to say simply is not true.  My good friend Representative Boone’s bill was watered down at the request of the Police Chief’s Association, that have fought against me for years on the enforcement of our immigration laws.  It was watered down to include an “intent” clause that would allow them to put conditions on them on when and where they can ask, which is being done now and allow them to only check when illegal aliens are arrested for another crime, which in Maricopa County Sheriff Joe does on every single person arrested and booked into jail; (another crime and another victim before anything would be done). It was unenforceable.  All the Republicans mentioned as no votes or not voting at all have struggled with enforcement and have worked against it for years. Rep. Mason the exception perhaps.  She told me she would have been a yes vote on the bill.  I am not demeaning the character of these folks, but I must set the record straight.

HB2280 was well written and would have passed all court challenges as did my PROP. 200 (7 court challenges by the left and the Chamber of Commerce and I won 7 times), my Employer Sanctions (been to court 5 times and I won 5 times even in the 9th Circuit Court).  These same silly and untrue arguments were used to get folks to not support Protect Arizona NOW (known as Prop. 200) and the employer sanctions law (The Fair and Legal Employment Act).

I will not support legislation that sounds good but changes nothing; no more wink and nod. Our citizens deserve better and that is what the Boone bill did after the amendment was put on.

That is why my bill was endorsed by:

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe, Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Pinal Co. Sheriff Babeu, Az FOP, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Maricopa County Deputies Association, Border Patrol Officers Association, Arizona State Republican Party, Maricopa County Republican Party, Arizona Highway Patrol Association, two large Hispanic groups, Arizona African American Republican Club, Arizona Republican Assembly, The Pachyderms, NumbersUSA, F.A.I.R., and many more.

“Local Law Enforcement’s Inherent Authority of Immigration Law:”

Congress has firmly established that there is a significant public interest in the effective enforcement of immigration law. Congress could have chosen to limit local enforcement pursuant to its plenary power over immigration, but it has not done so. In the absence of a limitation on local enforcement powers, the states are bound by the Supremacy Clause of the United ‘States Constitution to enforce violations of the federal immigration laws. “The statutory law of the United States is part of the law of each state just as if it were written into state statutory law.” States do not need a 287g, IGA, MOU or a permission slip to arrest illegal aliens.  The 287g goes beyond the arrest powers as states already have inherent authority to make arrests.

In Sections 1324 the language that referred to officers “of the United States” when talking about authority to arrest, was stricken from section 1324 by amendment. In People v. Baraja, a California court concluded, “that change can only mean that the scope of the arrest power under section 1324 was enlarged; in no way can it mean that the scope of arrest under the other two sections was restricted. Such an acute non sequitur would attribute to the Congress both serious inconsistency and profound lack of logic.”

The arrest, detention, or transportation of aliens by local police enforcing criminal provisions of the INA is not a regulatory “determination” of the conditions of alien entrance and residency, but merely enforcement of the previously determined conditions. States can prosecute illegal aliens under state laws without running afoul of the INA. State and local laws do not attempt to regulate who may come to and stay in the U.S. , and thus do not impinge upon the federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration, even if they affect immigrants.

In 1999 a decision in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the independent authority of local police departments to enforce federal immigration law, as long as state law prescribing police power of arrest authorized such an arrest. The U.S. Dept. of Justice endorsed this doctrine in April 2002. Under Attorney General Ashcroft, the U.S. Dept. of Justice took the position that state and local police have inherent authority to enforce civil immigration laws.

Assistant Attorney General Kobach explained that the inherent arrest authority of states arises from their pre-constitutional status as sovereign entities. The powers retained by the states at the time of ratification proceeded “not from the people of the United States, but from the people of the several states,” and remain unchanged, except as they have been “abridged” by the Constitution. The authority of a state to arrest for violations of federal law is thus not delegated; but “inheres in the ability of one sovereign to accommodate the interests of another sovereign.” This federalism-based analysis has a strong judicial pedigree.

The courts also ruled (Miller v. U.S., 357 U.S. 301, 305(1958) that a warrant less arrest “of an arrest for violation of federal law by state peace officers, …the lawfulness of the arrest without warrant is to be determined by reference to state law.”

Sanctuary policies are illegal. Local, state, or federal government agencies that sanction or retaliate against employees or officials who report immigration law violations to ICE or the Border Patrol can be sued by the whistleblower under 8 U.S.C. 1373 or 8 U.S.C. 1644 for damages and costs.

Citizens have a constitutional right to expect the protection of federal laws which prohibit unauthorized activities by non-citizens are denied equal protection when a police department or magistrate acts in a manner that encourages or assists persons selected on the basis of nationality or alienage to engage in such unlawful activities.

No policy or humanitarian argument has been identified by the courts that would negate the criminal mens rea (guilty mind) of reckless disregard for the fact that aliens are present in the United States in violation of law. Neither sanctuary nor humanitarian concern is a valid defense to either civil or criminal violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It is illegal for non-profit, religious, or civic organizations to knowingly assist in the commission of an alien smuggling felony, regardless of claims that their member’ convictions may require them to assist aliens. The First Amendment does not protect actions that aid illegal aliens to remain in the United States.

Illegal aliens are not a suspect class entitled to Fourteenth Amendment based strict scrutiny of any discriminatory classification based on that status, nor are they defined by an immutable characteristic, since their status is the product of conscious unlawful action.

A law enforcement officer has probable cause to detain an individual who admits he or she is an alien (legal or illegal) but is not in possession of registration documents. This is a crime that a warrant less arrest can be made in most jurisdictions.

The authority to make arrest for federal offenses under 18 U.S.C. 3041 extends to state and local law enforcement officers. (U.S. v Bowdach, 561 F.2d 1160, 1168 (5th Cir. 1977) An illegal alien is an inherent flight risk.

Supreme Court Ruling Razes Artificial Fire Wall Between Local Law Enforcement and Immigration Enforcement (Muehler v. Mena) 9-0 Landmark Decision (Washington D.C.—April 1, 2005) In its March 22 ruling in the case of Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court removed barriers that prevent local law enforcement officers from questioning the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the United States illegally. In this groundbreaking decision, the high Court rejected the claim of Ira Mena, a permanent resident of the U.S., that police had violated the Fourth Amendment while conducting a lawful search of her home.

The Fourth Amendment provides protection by establishing that persons be shielded against unreasonable search and seizure. Mena argued that by questioning her, and the illegal alien detainees about their immigration status during a lawful search, officers violated her Fourth Amendment rights. Mena further claimed that questions asked about her citizenship required officers to have had independent reasonable suspicion regarding the unlawfulness of her immigration status.

Calling a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals “faulty,” the Supreme Court held that “mere police questioning [regarding one’s immigration status] does not constitute a seizure.” The Court continued its landmark ruling on this issue by stating that “the officers did not need reasonable suspicion to ask Mena for her name, date of birth, or immigration status.”

“If local police are barred from cooperating with federal authorities in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws it is purely a political decision on the part of local politicians and police chiefs. There is no legal barrier to local police inquiring about a person’s immigration status and then acting upon the information they gather.”

Any decision by law enforcement not to enforce immigration laws is a political decision by politicians and local police chiefs, not a lack of authority.

U.S. Justice Dept. makes it clear local law enforcement can enforce immigration laws

Senator Russell Pearce

Filed Under: Border, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigration, Legislation

Politics on the Rocks event Thursday with John Munger

July 8, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Politics on the Rocks

Republican Professionals: “Politics on the Rocks” is proud to announce our July happy hour networking event at The Estate House located at 7134 East Stetson Drive, Suite 200 (Directly across the canal from Olive and Ivy) in Old Town Scottsdale on Thursday, July 9th at 6:00 PM.

We have the entire Upstairs Lounge reserved for this event. There is no cost to attend.

Our honored guest speaker for this event is John Munger. Mr. Munger was former State Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, a former member of the Republican National Committee, and former Pima County Republican Chairman. In 2008 he was Co-Chairman of the McCain for President, Arizona Campaign.
He has also served as President and Member of the Arizona Board of Regents. Currently, he is Chairman of ImagineArizona
http://www.imaginearizona.com/ , a Political Action Committee with a mission to promote policies based on creating dynamic economic growth through the empowerment of free people and limited government.

John Munger currently sits on the Republican Professionals: “Politics on the Rocks” National Advisory Board.

Please RSVP as soon as possible because space is limited. We had hundreds of professionals at our last networking event. The purpose of “Politics on the Rocks” is to bring Republican & Conservative Professionals together in a monthly happy hour where they can network, socialize, and hear directly from prominent politicians and successful business leaders. Politics on the Rocks was started in Phoenix, Arizona and has spread to other cities.

CLICK HERE TO RSVP TODAY!

Click here to watch video from Politics on the Rocks June event

Regards,

Republican Professionals: "Politics on the Rocks"

http://www.politicsontherocks.com/

Filed Under: Special Event

Run Sarah Run

July 7, 2009 By 15 Comments

by Gayle Plato

Blog chatter seems extra cheesy and sharp regarding the prospects of resigning Governor Sarah Palin. Politically she’s dead, disheartened, not listening to staff. Is this the same staff pool who helped Levi the boyfriend get on Larry King? Could it be the crew from John McCain’s camp that drove the bus over Sarah, and the Bloomie’s bag full of clothes they snidely purchased for her during a late night What Not To Wear GOP Meet and Greet?

Even I said Sarah was done, but I didn’t know how accurate that statement might be. I do not think the people around her understand Sarah’s savvy, the Palin ethic, nor the family. I also think she’s a bit rough for the pseudo nice-nice of a gentlemen’s game of poker. Let’s face it, the GOP hadn’t seen such excitement for a leader since Gerald Ford fell down the steps of Air Force One’s exit ramp. This lady does not need to bluff; she is the only game in town.

I don’t know who is more excited she’s quitting either- the Democratic snarkophiles of Daily Kos and HoffPo, or the dandy upper crusts cut off by the Middle America Mom power of warm apple pie. Sarah generates funding, fervor, and fear.

Did many of us AZ Republicans hold our noses and vote McCain last round? Many still talk of walking out with our conservative values, independent spirit and financial contributions.

Sarah says she’s going to fight for the people who are hard working, but she didn’t say HOW– Nor WHERE. Ross Perot never got crowds like Sarah, and he spent a lot of his own money. Maybe Sarah knows she’s had her hat handed to her, and she’s going to take it all the way to right. Run Sarah Run. You might be the one reason I’ll pull out of the GOP and go to the Conservative Party. It’s going to take more than a year or two to get it going. Maybe that’s why you pushed away from the table and said you were done.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

Goldman Sachs Secret Code Stolen

July 6, 2009 By Leave a Comment

 by Gayle Plato

Financial blogs jumped on this: Reuters’ Matthew Goldstein broke the story of a Russian immigrant living in New Jersey with all of the keys to the Goldman Sachs kingdom. Simply, one clever programmer seems to be the ‘lone gunman’ of IT Espionage, and the code to crack computerized trading is out. This is a Willie Wonka Golden Ticket in the hands of the bratty Varuca Salt screaming ‘I want more’.

“The allegations, if true, are big news because the codes the accused man, Sergey Aleynikov, tried to steal is the secret code to unlocking Goldman’s automated stocks and commodities trading businesses. Federal authorities allege the computer codes and related-trading files that Aleynikov uploaded to a German-based website help this major “financial institution” generate millions of dollars in profits each year.” (http://blogs.reuters.com/commentaries/2009/07/05/a-goldman-trading-scandal/)

But then, is he more than a patsy loner? Always look behind the screen for the wizards of Goldman-Sachs(GS) .  

How GS does what it does and gets away with it all is the least transparent shell game on the face of the planet.  It’s a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. Even the players don’t know who’s in charge of what.

When the government makes credit available to try to stimulate the market, they make it available to big investment banks, but the investment companies also trade and are first in line to get the money. They get cheap money and borrow it all of the time and put that money to work. They fund other companies and to grease the financial machine. The Federal Reserve is the ‘bank of last resort; its purpose is to insure liquidity for the United States. The reason is that if you borrow short term and lend out long term, inherently you’ve a risk. In the short run, even if safely invested, there is a possibility of a run.

How investment banks like Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, the now dead Bear Stearns, Merrill Lynch ( now part of Bank of America), and Goldman Sachs factor in this: GS and the others trade Treasury bonds for the United States. All the trades of most US stocks, bonds go through the DTCC, the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation. Computerized trading is managed by truly just a few investment houses; GS handles an immense amount of volume and last week everything went kooky.

While financial reporters look at the crime and tell you it’s a rogue trader looking to make a buck, think about the story a few weeks back. Counterfeit Treasury bonds worth 141 billion came over the Swiss-Italian border. A few crazy guys fake bonds-so no big deal? But to fake these, to look as good as they did, one needs to be in the presence of them. These bonds were said to be quite old, and likely in the bank drawer of some country.

What happens when some rogue gets the notion that he can sell the secrets of Goldman Sachs? Our market of computerized, milli-seconds quick, minute amounts traded in a super-conductor flux-capacitor manner makes for dangerous conditions. As speculated at www.zerohedge.blogspot.com, what do we do when one hacker holds the world hostage over a trading code that can blow up the dollar? I take it a step further, and say that maybe it is not just a rogue or a hacker, but a planned attack. Either way, the technology wins when we allow a few cloaked nerds to hold the keys.

The World Trade Center took months, heck years to build, and one small group of crazy zealots with a simple and evil desire, brought it all down in minutes, forever changing us. The next big boom won’t necessarily be as obvious as a plane flying into your office window; it might just be a byte at the virtual back door.

Filed Under: Economics, International Trade

Prayers for Sean Noble

July 6, 2009 By 6 Comments

Please keep our good friend, Sean Noble, and his family in prayer. Sean was injured and hospitalized over the weekend after a car accident. We are told he suffered some serious injuries but will recover.

According to fellow blogger, Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit in his daily “Morning Shot,”

“Republican Strategist and former Shadegg Chief of Staff Sean Noble was seriously injured in a car accident on Friday night.

Noble lost control of his car while driving down a mountain late Friday night after a youth conference. His car flipped, and Sean had to crawl back up to the road and flag someone down.

He is scheduled to be released from he ICU today then he’s supposed to be in the hospital for one week, then at home for 6 weeks. Our prayers are with Sean and his family.”

Sean writes for one of our favorite blogs, Noble Thinking, and is the former Chief of Staff to Congressman John Shadegg. He has also worked on numerous campaigns and is one of a handful of political geniuses in Arizona.

Please pray for Sean’s speedy recovery.

Filed Under: Blogs, Personalities

Governor Brewer has dug herself into a hole

July 6, 2009 By 30 Comments

By insisting on a sales tax, our Republican governor has put herself into an untenable position. Republicans in the legislature refuse to include it in their budget, and ironically Democrats won’t support it either, noting that it will cost familes an extra $438/yr, more than the governor admits. Now columnist Robert Robb has come out with a column observing that Brewer’s line-item vetos are “irresponsible” and would actually ADD to the budget – not the purpose of the line-item veto.

What Brewer did instead is fiscally insane…Brewer’s vetoes added hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, in spending to the underlying budget…So, she hugely added spending while eliminating the means of paying for it. She kept the doors of state government open, but at an utterly unsustainable spending pace…And then she vetoed the K-12 budget entirely. She’s in essence holding the schools hostage for her sales tax increase…Brewer’s rhetoric in taking this action was grotesquely disingenuous. She said that the legislative budget “incorporates devastating cuts to education, public safety and our state’s most vital health services for the frail.”…It was, however, a budget she agreed to just a week earlier. And there was not a single dime in 2010 restorations for public safety and health care in the sales tax referral agreement.

Brewer is going to meet with the legislature today or tomorrow to discuss working out a new budget. It’s reported that Senate Majority leader Bob Burns is already out of town on vacation, and he was one of the few Senators who had agreed to support her tax increase. Without his support any longer, the legislature should have no problem stopping her, she has no support left.

The blog Gila Courier is already discussing which Republicans will run against her for governor in 2012. Her political career appears to be over because of stubborn insistence on a tax increase. It has already been exposed on this blog and elsewhere that Brewer’s political consultant Chuck Coughlin is behind the tax increase, because his contractor clients will benefit from infrastructure projects. How long is Brewer going to continue to fight for him and his special interests, while using a fake “it’s the children” excuse as cover? It’s been disappointing watching her ruin her career over this, transforming into a Democrat.

Filed Under: Political Parties, Spending, State Budget, State Government, Taxation, Transportation

Governor Sarah Palin – Taking A Play from Governor Ronald Reagan?

July 5, 2009 By 20 Comments

Here are a few paragraphs courtesy of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library:

1975 – Looking beyind the Governorship:

…after leaving office, a consulting and public relations firm began to book speeches for Reagan, and provide him with opportunities to write newspaper columns and give radio commentaries. This allowed Reagan to reflect on his past 8 years of public service and contemplate the next chapter of his life (link).

November 13 – Ronald Reagan runs for President of the United States

Throughout the Carter administration, Ronald Reagan became increasingly concerned about things that were happening in Washington, D.C. Cuts in defense spending, distribution of wealth, national economic planning, faltering national security, rising unemployment, increasing inflation and climbing interest rates were leading the nation into a serious recession. Worst of all, Americans were losing faith in themselves and in their country and were growing increasingly frustrated with excessive taxation and oppressive government regulation. With a public outcry for change, and confidence that Ronald Reagan would be the agent of change, Reagan agreed to fun for President of the United States and declared his intention in a speech at the New York Hilton Hotel on November 13, 1979 (link).

Fast forward to today.

I will concede that Governor Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan but I won’t concede that she has inspired and charged the core and base of the Republican party.

As the U.S. Senate takes up the intrusive, burdensome and mislabeled global warming legislation, we can expect it to fail. Energy will become the most important issue of the future. There is no doubt about it. For Democrats, it is about controlling people’s lives. For Republicans, its about prosperity, national defense and sustainability. Sarah Palin knows this and has seen a huge opportunity to get out in front of this issue. When the “Cap & Trade” bill goes down in defeat, expect the Governor to step up and show some leadership on this issue.

Sarah Palin is not done with public service and she knows where the debate is heading. As I mentioned in an earlier post, she is one smart lady. (and I know that drives you liberals krazy!)

Filed Under: Energy, History, Predictions

Education Budget Scare Can Be Righted

July 4, 2009 By 15 Comments

by Gayle Plato, M. Ed.

Governor Brewer has drawn the line in the sand, veto pen marking right over the agreement, going right to left on the page of the budget presented. While I am impressed with her chutzpah, I am also convinced she’s bluffing. The Honorable Governor Brewer has my respect, but I disagree with the poker game. Any legislator coming back in on Monday, I say this as a conservative, a voter, a small business owner, a mom, a teacher- play hard ball and offer not one more dime. Shut the engine off, close up the windows on this tax vehicle and let the inside just cook in its own juices. Have the guts, like you did all the way through, and let the budget go down undone.

Republican members of the legislature have been met by complaints and leftist rhetoric this entire year. As I wrote a few days ago, social agencies and bratty union leaders did not one thing to work the problem. This budget demise was no mystery, and all constituents have been very clear: NO NEW TAXES.

Either you stand up now or forever regret it, and we see the Californication of our economy.

This is not a game: this town, this state is already redlined and the citizens cannot front the costs of rigged up programs. It’s easy to say education is going to suffer and pretend that all of the children are ‘being left behind’, but that is a lie. Where were all of you who love the kids six months ago?

If every district were to agree to eliminate 200,000-500,000 dollars from its budgets, would we not fix this mess? That amount is approximately five administrators. School administrators conservatively make about 75-100K a year in most school systems. I know some are less, but the point is valid. I propose this, much like Russell Pearce and others were trying to note, ask the districts to cut more. Here is a simple idea in brief:

All School Districts Eliminate Assistant Principals.

Take a portion of those salaries and offer three to five teachers per school, stipends of 5-10K a year as lead teachers. Many educators already hold administrative degrees and certificates; think of it as deputies under sheriffs. I not only know it will work, I also think it will HELP schools with better support for discipline and better on-site staffing of daily needs.

This ONE IDEA could save millions across the state, with very little impact to students. It will tailor quality administrative help at each school. As for the state monies, this is a matter of reworking the way the budget reads. Any statute can be rewritten and reconfigured based on a vote of the body. Do not tell me you cannot change the lines of the budget. You can.

Any teacher in the state can tell you of the thankless job, and overworked reality of most principals. They are managers of small business, out doing public relations, attending endless meetings, and often pulled out of the schools. Principals can be gone more than 50% of the time some weeks. Any parent reading this, have you gone into the school impromptu, only to be told the principal or assistant principal is out of the building? Most principals would rather be in the school working with kids and teachers, helping families see successful students.

This budget demands innovation, not one more moment of rhetoric full of shell games, poker bluffs, and scare tactics. I am easy to find, and I’d willingly present my idea, taking the heat and complaint to  anyone anywhere. It will work and it is not complicated.

This veto situation is a HUGE CON and most of you voting are not teachers. You do not know the inside of the machine.

Have the guts to do this, and then invite all superintendents to a July meeting explaining how to streamline: Superintendents can offer pink slips to the extra staff, hug them and recommend they go back into the classroom, or look for a job in another field.

Please on Monday, members of the voting representation, stand up and JUST SAY NO to spending with a recommendation to districts of an emergency action plan. This is reality; districts are better off cutting administrators rather than teachers or programs with validity.

This is only one piece of a puzzle, but there are more options and we can make this work, cobbling together cuts that will take us through the year. NO, we cannot MAKE districts go forward with specific cuts, but we can mandate general cuts based on district size.  Then, recommendations can be made as to how this would work with suggested cuts of administration.

All agencies must face the reality that there is no extra, no property tax base growth to tap, nor any more individual, sales, nor luxury tax that voters want.  We must change it today-

There is a tide in the affairs of men,

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;

Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

Julius Caesar Act 4, scene 3, 218–224

UPDATE 7/5/09- I looked up the administration at the secondary level  for Mesa Public schools, one of the largest districts in AZ. I counted 17 assistant principals for the junior and senior highs.  Assuming that’s about right, averaging 75K a year, cutting just the Mesa Assistant Principals would save $1,250,000. That’s conservative and not taking into account the benefits costs.

What if we also considered recommending all counseling services be contracted out for all schools?  I know this could be done, servicing  the community better, by offering on-site family services in the evenings and on weekends without costing the school.  Once again, save the state millions from the district level on up. What other programs could be subcontracted?

When most schools chose to quit funding a R.N.  in every health center, people were up in arms, but the policies were changed, support staff were trained, and schools adapted to a leaner system of in-school nursing programs. Noting is perfect, but problems can create better alternatives.

We cannot make any school line out positions, but the legislature can mandate cuts along with very detailed recommendations.  One drastic cut accompanied by very clear action planning might bring the line item veto up to par, and help soften the blow for the scared liberals and Governor.   If all social agencies face this reality, we might see BETTER, LEANER services statewide.

Filed Under: Education, State Budget, State Economy, State Government

Sarah Palin: Getting Out of the Establishment Pool

July 4, 2009 By 40 Comments

I have to sit back and laugh at all the political pundits scratch their heads in bewilderment in response to yesterday’s announcement by Governor Palin of a July 26th resignation.

It makes complete sense to me.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, it’s all about getting out of “the establishment.” There is a huge and growing anti-establishment and anti-incumbent movement. Democrats will be the first target and incumbents in general, the next target of citizen anger and unrest.

Palin knows this and gets it. More importantly, she is more in alignment with those angry at government than the target of that anger. To quote one popular President, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problems, Government is the problem.”

Sure, she’s probably disgusted with the personal and outrageous attacks on her and her family. Wouldn’t you?

But she’s not done with public service and she realizes that if you want to be part of the solution, it doesn’t mean being in public service here and now.

Sarah Palin will be back but it will only be after she gets some real work done outside of the realm of the establishment and outside of the sphere of a government that the citizens no longer have faith in.

If you haven’t figured it out yet, this is one smart lady.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Government, Personalities, Political Science, Predictions, State Government

Is something wrong with us?

July 4, 2009 By 1 Comment

I’m sitting in front of my computer, just finished watching Wimbledon and now watching the Phoenix Police Officer play golf with celebrities on my HD TV mounted in the corner of my office. Hmmm…should we make homemade ice cream today or just take it easy?  Swim later for sure.  Steaks are marinating, nice bottle of wine in the wine fridge.  Fourth of July! I’m an American. Life is good.

In my net-surfing I go to the usual sites including Drudge.  The headlines spell disaster; North Korea test-fires 7 missiles, US troops die in attack in Afghanistan, WHO warns Swine Flu “unstoppable”.

Really, who knew?

Did you hear? Michael Jackson died.  Oh my, what a tragedy!  Tell me more.  Drugs you say?  Excesses and uncontrolled indulgences, people who wouldn’t tell him “no”.  No kidding?  So, sort of living in a fantasy world where everyone pretended things were great and life was good?  I cannot imagine that!

Oh…wait…what is that…?  Unemployment is how high?  What does a barrel of oil cost?  Are you kidding me?!  Hey, have you played Farm Town or Mafia Wars on Facebook?  Yea, they are really fun and addicting.  Just create your avatar to do all the work.  Time flies by.

Cap and tax, or is it cap and trade?  Who knows?  Have you seen that new movie, the one where Jesse James’ wife is well, not completely dressed?  I hear it is funny!  Lots of funny movies out right now.

                       ************************************************************************************************************************* 

Have we developed a pandemic case of what I will call “Celebrity Reality Detachment Syndrome”?  The number of celebrities (including politicians) who have totally detached from life, real life, creating an avatar to show up when the cameras are rolling and the lights are bright to “do the work” only to melt down and burn up in “real life” is amazing.  MJ is just the latest, and no doubt the most pronounced, case of taking the blessings of his life, the liberties of our freedom and perverting it to ultimate destruction.  I will not go near Sanford and Ensign….I’m still too angry. 

How different are we, in a pro-rated sort of way?   Have we extended are credit cards rather than saying NO to that purchase? Have we depended on the government, even calling ourselves conservatives, to do our bidding and then behaved liked spoiled children when we didn’t get our way?  Not particularly concerned with the realities beyond our own motives.  Have we allowed our society to be managed and accepted it as we deluded ourselves in trivialities that made us feel better and distracted us from what we do not want to know or think about?

Phew…..that is a lot to consider. 

Oh well, I think my crops are ready to harvest and I have some money to collect.  Is it noon, yet?  Hey honey…can you get out the ice cream maker? 

 

Filed Under: Blogs, Culture, Human Condition, Legislation, Political Science
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »