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

Democratic Party Proposals are Meant to Help People

October 8, 2009 By 5 Comments

The State of Michigan is in real trouble. Faced with a the highest unemployment rate in the US (14%) and reeling from the continued demise of auto manufacturing in the state, it is refreshing to find some real-world answers to these daunting challenges.

Mark Brewer is the Michigan Democratic Party chairman, and he recently took the bull by the horns and came up with this 5-point plan to help struggling families and get the great State of Michigan back on track again.

From Mark’s Op-ed piece in the Michigan Oakland Press:

We’re facing record unemployment, a poor economy and an uncertain future. We need to be proactive in addressing these problems, and the Michigan Democratic Party believes its proposed ballot initiatives will not only help to get people back on their feet, but also stimulate our economy.  Our plan includes five proposals that put people first — ahead of the greedy, corporate CEOs who are responsible for our economic meltdown.

1. We’re proposing that all employers in Michigan be required to provide affordable, quality health care for their employees and dependents or pay a penalty. We have more than 1.2 million people in this state who do not have health insurance. Many of those people are employed but their employers do not provide health insurance.These uninsured and their children are either going without health care or are flooding our emergency rooms for health care, forcing those who are insured to pay significantly higher premiums. This proposal would not only save businesses money in the long-run, with better, healthier workers but would save all residents money and lower premiums.
2. We believe the minimum wage should be increased from $7.40/hour to $10/hour. A worker who is earning the current minimum wage while supporting a family of four is living below the poverty level. This is unacceptable. Someone who is working 40-plus hours per week should not be earning below poverty level wages. Study after study has proven that raising the minimum wage would not deter job creation in our state. These higher wages would allow businesses to save money long-term by having a less transient and more stable work force. Higher wages also would provide an economic stimulus.
3. We must increase unemployment benefits for those out of work through no fault of their own and close loopholes that prevent more than a quarter of a million people from receiving any benefits at all. Michigan’s unemployment benefits have not increased in years and are not keeping up with the rate of inflation. We believe increasing these benefits by $100 a week would provide more stability to our struggling families. We should extend the amount of time the unemployed can receive those benefits by six months. This gives these citizens more time to find jobs, or get training, and stay in our great state.
4. Cutting utility rates by 20 percent would be a significant savings to both consumers and businesses. Electric rates alone have skyrocketed more than 30 percent in the last six years. This is an unnecessary burden for our citizens and businesses and is hurting our economy.
5. A one-year moratorium on home foreclosures would address the emergency faced by tens of thousands of people who face foreclosure. Foreclosure depresses everyone’s property values and creates eyesores and havens for criminal activity. This freeze would allow banks and homeowners to work out problems.These proposals are just some of the ways we can help people in this state. We are all in this together and must unite to resolve this economic crisis.

And now you know why Michigan has the problems it does.

Filed Under: Economic Development, Economics Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Gun Rights Case Confronts Horrendous Precedent

October 8, 2009 By 1 Comment

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute 
 
When the U.S. Supreme Court last year recognized the individual right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, it left open a gaping question: does the Second Amendment restrict state and local regulations?
 
The Court was able to momentarily dodge the issue because the Heller case involved a challenge to a law of the District of Columbia. But now that it has accepted review of a challenge to a Chicago law, the Court must address that question. Two federal appeals courts have held that the Second Amendment does not apply to state and local governments.
 
The first eight amendments in the Bill of Rights by their terms restrict federal action only. Over the years, the Court has applied some of the Bill of Rights to the states via the due process guarantee of the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War to restrict state abuses of individual liberty.
 
But the due process clause was not intended to protect the full range of rights retained by the people. That task was assigned to the first of the 14th Amendment’s guarantees, which forbids states from infringing the “privileges or immunities” of citizens. While thousands of state and local laws have been struck down over the years as violations of the 14th Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees, the privileges or immunities clause, oddly, has essentially been a dead letter.
 
That status owes to the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, in which the Court upheld a slaughterhouse monopoly in Louisiana that drove scores of butchers out of business. In one of the Court’s worst decisions ever, a 5-4 majority ruled that the clause protects only a few rights, such as access to the seat of government.
 
In fact, the privileges or immunities clause was intended to protect the basic rights that citizens of all free governments possess, such as economic liberty and the freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, including the right to keep and bear arms.
 
As the Court acts to protect gun owners’ rights, it can set an even greater precedent for freedom by at long last consigning the Slaughter-House Cases to the dustbin of history.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Filed Under: 2nd Amendment, Constitutional Law, Judicial

Mayor Parker Announces Tempe Mayor Hallman as Chair of Governor Campaign Committee

October 7, 2009 By 7 Comments

Hugh Hallman, the well-known and well-regarded Republican Mayor of Tempe, has taken on another leadership position:  Chairman of Paradise Valley Mayor Vernon Parker’s Exploratory Campaign for Governor.

The two recently joined Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane in a guest column opposing a $100 million sales tax subsidy for a north Phoenix shopping center.

“Vernon Parker is the fresh new voice our party and state needs right now,” said Hallman.  “He has an innovative agenda and the right temperament to lead Arizona.  Every now and then you get particularly excited about someone running for office.  That’s the way I feel about Mayor Parker, should he choose to run,” Hallman said.

Now in his second term as Mayor of Tempe, Hallman is viewed by many to be a formidable future candidate for federal or statewide office.  Known for being whip smart and a tenacious advocate, Hallman’s organization would be a real boost for Parker.  Hallman recently took over as Headmaster at Tempe Prep, one of the best charter schools in the state.
“Hugh is one of the most thoughtful and brightest individuals I have ever met, and I am humbled that he believes in me enough to chair my campaign.  I know his support will give me every chance to win.  Mayor Hallman has fought for effective change in Tempe.  And I look forward to his counsel for doing the same on a statewide level,” said Parker.

Parker, 49, is the current mayor of Paradise Valley, Arizona.  He has previously served the administrations of George H.W. Bush, George Bush, as an Assistant Secretary for the $90 billion United States Department of Agriculture, small businessman, and as a pastor for two years at a small non-denominational church in Paradise Valley.
Parker has the most compelling life story of any candidate emerging for Governor.  Raised by his grandmother in a severely underprivileged neighborhood in Long Beach, California, Parker was able to escape the drugs and violence through love, education and the commitment of family.  Noted rap star Snoop Dogg was one of Parker’s neighbors.
“I truly believe it’s going to take someone who has defied the odds to help Arizona overcome the odds now facing it,” Parker said.

For more information contact Jason Rose or go to www.Parker2010.com.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Press Release

To Islam: What is Hate Speech?

October 7, 2009 By 1 Comment
Often we are unaware of events happening on the other side of the Atlantic.  This has been posted, so that you may consider the issue of “Defamation of Religions” as viewed by the Islamic world.

Of course, little thought is given by them to reciprocity in regards to Christians…

 Printer Friendly Forward to a Friend
http://www.eclj.org/
(Geneva, Switzerland) – The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ), the international affiliate of the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), has told the United Nations Human Rights Council that it is pleased that the “Defamation of Religions” concept being promoted by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) is continuing to lose support.

It became clear that the OIC countries – lead by Egypt and Pakistan – continue to see an erosion of support which became evident during a public discussion before the U.N. Human Rights Council on September 30th.  During that session, discussion focused on the most recent report “on the manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers.” (Document A/HRC/12/38)

This report, presented by Githu Muigai, the new Special Rapporteur “on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance” advocates for a “change of paradigm” – has shifted the debate from the “sociological notion of the defamation of religions to the human rights and legal concept of incitement to racial and religious hatred.”  This legal concept is grounded in relevant international, regional and national instruments, in particular references are made to article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and to articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which proscribe incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.

The ECLJ, in its oral presentation before the Human Right Council, expressed its satisfaction to see the gradual abandonment of the concept of “defamation of religion” and the shift toward a legal approach. The ECLJ has been advocating for two years in favor of this legal approach and considers this change as very positive. The ECLJ representative recalled that anti-blasphemy laws are very often implemented in a totally arbitrary way and serve as a pretext for persecution of religious minorities – mostly Christians – in countries like Pakistan, for example.

“It is clear that the continuing push to protect Islam with this ‘defamation of religions’ concept amounts to a dangerous effort to eradicate current international standards on freedom of expression, said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ECLJ and ACLJ.  “We’re already getting ready for the next phase in the challenge over the ‘defamation of religions’ which will intensify at the end of October at the U.N. General Assembly in New York, when the OIC is expected to once again introduce its ‘defamation of religions’ resolution.  We will continue to educate member nations about the dangers of this concept.”

During the discussion, the OIC countries strongly opposed this shift away from the concept of defamation of religions, explaining that the issue is “too complex” to be addressed by the legal norm of non-incitement to national, racial or religious hatred. In fact, it’s clear that the goal of the Islamic countries is nothing less that to internationally defend and safeguard the “name of Mohamed” and the religion of Islam against any form of irreverence or criticism, by limiting the freedom of expression actually protected in international human rights laws.  That places current international legal standards on freedom of expression at risk.

The ECLJ has been working to educate and inform member nations about the dangers of the concept of “defamation of religion”, a concept often used to silence religious minorities – including Christianity in many countries. A growing number of organizations and legal experts recognize now the threat of this notion to religious freedom.

In June, the European Center for Law and Justice had already been invited to submit to the U.N. High Commissioner of Human Rights a detailed legal analysis on the same issue.

Does anyone see the irony in Defamation of Religion?

Does anyone see the irony in Defamation of Religion?
Filed Under: Culture, Demographics, Freedom of Speech, Migrants, Political Correctness, Predictions, Religion

AZGOP video of Arpaio/Thomas conference on feds taking away illegal immigration funds

October 7, 2009 By Leave a Comment
YouTube Preview Image
Filed Under: Border, County Government, Crime and Punishment, Illegal Immigration

Congressman Franks and Ranking Member Smith Respond to DHS Decision to Cancel 287(g) Agreement with Maricopa County

October 7, 2009 By 2 Comments

In response to reports that the Department of Homeland Security will discontinue its 287(g) agreement with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Department, Representatives Lamar Smith (TX-21) and Trent Franks (AZ-02), issued the following statement.  Smith is the Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee and one of the authors of the legislation that created the 287(g) program.  Franks, a member of the Judiciary Committee, represents Maricopa County and has been a vocal advocate of immigration enforcement.

Ranking Member Smith and Representative Franks:

“This unbelievable move by the Obama Administration represents a politicized attempt to hinder one of our most effective illegal immigration enforcement mechanisms, the 287(g) program.

“The key to combating illegal immigration is federal, state, and local cooperation.  This is why we believe it is crucial for the federal government to continue to support individuals like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the implementation of agreements under section 287(g), which provides for the Department of Homeland Security to delegate authority to enforce federal immigration laws to state and local officials.  To date, hundreds of local officers have been trained in enforcing U.S. immigration laws, and nowhere in the country is this more critical than in Maricopa County.  Currently, over 33% of inmates in Maricopa County Sheriff facilities are illegal, and more than 53% of violent crimes in Maricopa County are committed by illegal immigrants.

“The fact is, the 287(g) program works.  Thousands of illegal immigrants apprehended for other crimes are being identified and deported.   Claims that the program was supposed to focus only on serious crimes are false.  In fact, the program was created to let state and local law enforcement officials help enforce all immigration laws, not a select few.  We must not forget that we live in a post-9/11 world and have a profound responsibility to secure the borders of this nation to prevent another terrorist attack.  Terrorists are looking for our weakest link and will exploit such weaknesses at any cost.   Border security and national security are inextricably linked.

“Local law enforcement agencies deserve the thanks, and not punishment, of the federal government for helping to address the problem of rampant illegal immigration, especially in area like Maricopa County that see an increase in crime, drug trafficking, and other issues because of it.  Instead of launching a politicized attack against a local law official who has yielded great success with the 287(g) program, the Obama Administration should replicate the success we have experienced in Maricopa County in other areas that are desperately in need of similar solutions. It is reprehensible for DHS to bully law enforcement officials who have honorably served this nation and the state of Arizona by enforcing federal and state laws and who are continuing to work to protect the American people.”

Filed Under: Border, County Government, Crime and Punishment, Illegal Immigration

Arizona is out of budget gimmicks

October 7, 2009 By 5 Comments

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
Remember this number: $4 billion. That’s the current spending gap in Arizona’s budget.
 
The state was $500 million in arrears for fiscal 2009. With Governor Brewer’s vetoes and revenues continuing to plummet, the current 2010 fiscal year is estimated to be $1 billion in deficit. The Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimates the state will be $2.5 billion in the red for fiscal 2011, which the legislature will budget for this spring.

The state is gimmicked out. Buildings have already been mortgaged, payments have been delayed, and every possible fund balance has been raided. A record property tax increase has gone into effect. All of this has been done in a desperate attempt to keep spending on a par with the big-spending year of 2007 in which actual operating General Fund spending was $9.5 billion. That’s when times were good.

So how about after the economy turned sharply south? The legislature originally sent Governor Brewer a fiscal year 2010 budget of $9.7 billion. Then she used her line-item veto authority to increase spending. Now 2010 operating spending is over $10.3 billion.

Where are the spending reductions? If we keep spending at current levels, it will be impossible to close even the one-year gap for 2011. The state would have to increase taxes supporting the General Fund by a third to avoid budget cuts in 2011. 

Those who say we can’t afford to reduce spending should explain where the money will come from. The reality is we can’t afford not to make reductions. Arizona is out of gimmicks.
 
Byron Schlomach, Ph.D, is director of economic policy at the Goldwater Institute.

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

Public Prayer cited as cause of physical illness?

October 7, 2009 By 13 Comments

For Immediate Release: Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Contact: President Brad Dacus (916) 857-6900

Atheists Tell Federal Appeals Court: Public Prayer Makes Us Sick

Washington, D.C. – Briefing is nearing a close in a high-profile case challenging prayer at Presidential inaugurations, currently before the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit, filed by hundreds of atheists and atheist groups, led by frequent litigant Michael Newdow, was thrown out by the lower federal court. The two ministers who offered prayers at President Obama’s inauguration, Dr. Rick Warren and Dr. Joseph Lowery, are named defendants in the lawsuit and are being represented by Pacific Justice Institute.

In its Opposition Brief filed last week, Pacific Justice Institute countered the legal arguments of atheists who said public prayer traumatized them to the point of illness. Among the more dire claims, one plaintiff declared, “[W]hen Chief Justice Roberts asked the President to say, ‘So help me God,’ I felt threatened and sick to my stomach.” Another plaintiff stated in court documents, “As I watched this inauguration, I cringed with disgust as I witnessed this special secular event again being poisoned with sectarian religious nonsense.”

The plaintiffs in this case include numerous individuals, and groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, The American Humanist Association, Atheists United, Atheists for Human Rights, and Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers.

PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, who authored the opposition brief submitted last week on behalf of Drs. Warren and Lowery, commented, “Prayers designed to solemnize public events have a long and venerable history in our nation.

Are you familiar with this symbol?

Are you familiar with this symbol?

The Constitution simply does not demand that our public institutions be amoral or atheistic.”

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, “The First Amendment cannot be divorced from common sense. While atheists, humanists and freethinkers are a tiny minority in America, they are free to express and practice their lack of faith as they please. That does not mean, however, that the vast majority of God-fearing citizens and public officials must be silenced in order to appease them.”

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, History, Human Condition, Liberals, Religion

A Street Car Named Nada

October 7, 2009 By 7 Comments

Big news for Tucson. We can spend even more money on yet another streetcar project.

The Tucson Modern Streetcar just got approval from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to go ahead and proceed with their final design.

First I must clarify.  The Tucson Modern Streetcar Project is a totally different from the the Old Pueblo Trolley Project.  The Trolley Project connects the University of Arizona campus to downtown Tucson. The NEW Streetcar Project will be much better because it will connect the University of Arizona to downtown Tucson.  See the map.

The NEW Tucson Modern Streetcar will be a 3.9 mile rail transit system connecting the Arizona Health Sciences Center, University of Arizona, Main Gate Square, 4th Avenue Shopping District, and much, much more. According to the Tucson Transit Study website, this economic calamity is only going to cost $150 million dollars.  According to my old-school math, IF this comes in on budget, [yeah right] that breaks down to $38.46 million per mile.

Sleepy Tucson voters approved a 1/2 cent sales tax increase back in 2006 for half the cost of the modern streetcar project.  “Federal funds” would be matching the targeted $75 million raised  from the tax increase.  Tucsonans fell for that old “shell game” once again. (Apparently these same sleepy voters forget that those federal funds come from their own wallets, but I digress…).

The FTA states Tucson can “incur costs” for rails, ties, demolition, commodities and other specialized equipment. But all is not guaranteed.  The FTA goes on to say it’s not a commitment on the part of the government that it will approve future federal funds.  The city undertakes “these activities at its own risk“.

The FTA must have seen the way Tucson’s City Council handled Rio Nuevo.

Let the fun begin with this quote from Tucson Transportation Director Jim Glock:

“We’re going to provide a modern streetcar to this community by hook or by crook” .

Looking at the track record of Tucson’s City Council,  I’m going to go with “B”, Meredith, by crook.  Confidence abounds everywhere in the Tucson leadership, first at the Federal level:

The federal government now believes that Tucson can “pull it off” and has allowed the city to enter into the final design as an exempt project.  But the construction process must still be approved and that comes next.  It could come in January. [Uh-huh].

And now at the local level:

Jimmy Glock continues “I’m cautiously optimistic that we’re going to fare well. It’s been a long road getting here to date and you never know”.

And wrapping up this trifecta recipe for disaster, our own Raul Grijalva weighs in with his expert opinion.

“The Streetcar project will help Tucsonans connect to each other and will encourage the economic vitality of our city and revitalization of our Downtown.”

Hey Raul, you forget to get in your customary “rich cultural heritage” and “Tucson’s diversity” lines in your press release.

So there you have it, yet another Street Car project coming our way.  The Old Pueblo Trolley has really helped revitalize Downtown Tucson. 4th Ave tie-dye shirt sales are up, Medusa Hookah Lounge’s business is booming and the Sharks Bar is still hanging in there.   Tucson’s city council doubled-down on development with the $47 million 4th Ave underpass. (That came in only $15 million over budget).  Now Tucson with “cautious optimism“, is going to, someday, maybe,  “pull it off” and have another $150 million streetcar that starts nowhere and ends up leaving Tucsonans with nothing.

Just remember, even the Feds understand, “The city undertakes “these activities at its own risk“”.  We’ve been warned.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

An Open Letter from MCCD Board Member, Jerry Walker

October 6, 2009 By 3 Comments

Maricopa Community College District Board Member, Jerry Walker, issued the following response regarding the recent “chastisement” by the Chicago-based Higher Learning Commission. The HLC alleged that MCCD was acting outside its role as a governing board. Acting MCCD chancellor, Rufus Glasper, apparently made the request to the outside commission to investigate and evaluate whether or not the board has been micromanaging district operations. It is unclear whether Glasper made the request on his own, at the request of the board or as a matter of district policy regarding complaints. If Glasper acted on his own accord, it would certainly appear that his request for the HLC “visit” was an attempt to undermine the authority of the board of directors. Regardless, it is an excellent reminder of who works for whom: Glasper the MCCD Board and the MCCD Board for us, the taxpayers.

Here is Jerry Walker’s Open Letter:

The recent “review” of the Maricopa Community Colleges Governing Board by a team from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) is yet another example of how too few individuals fully understand the state-defined role of the five-member publicly-elected Board. Simply put, the buck stops with us, the board members, and we are the ones who are ultimately responsible for stewardship of the public monies entrusted to us.

Consider the state statutes that define what we must do. Among other things, the requirements for how the Board oversees the District include:

“…the District Board shall (under ARS 15-1444):

  • Visit each community college under its jurisdiction and examine carefully into its management, conditions and needs.
  • Appoint and employ a chancellor or chancellors, vice-chancellors, a president or presidents, vice-presidents, deans, professors, instructors, lecturers, fellows and such other officers and employees it deems necessary.
  • Determine the salaries of persons it appoints and employs.
  • Remove any officer or employee if in its judgment the interests of the education in this state require the removal”

Additionally, “… the District shall (under ARS 15-1445):

  • In conjunction with other district boards, set standards for the establishment, development, administration, operation and accreditation of community colleges in the district”.

When an anonymous letter questioning the work of the Board was sent to the Higher Learning Commission HLC, the chancellor, instead of working with the Board and legal counsel to discuss the unattributed allegations, called in a group of his peers.

I do not believe this is showing leadership, especially at a time when the District needs it. The Board has been putting the Chancellor under growing scrutiny for inadequate performance, and cannot come to his defense under the pretense of accreditation being put in jeopardy.

Further, the Chancellor appointed a former college president who allowed theft, fraud and mismanagement to occur at his campus for years, (see East Valley Tribune investigation, October 2006 and January 2007) but was never punished for it, to oversee the “information gathering” process. When this former president repeatedly asked employees to speak-up, he also warned them that whatever they said may be subject to public record laws, virtually ensuring that no one critical of the administration would come forward for fear of retaliation. What the HLC team got was one-sided Board bashing for the benefit of the Chancellor.

Yet when the Board asked the Chancellor how the HLC visit could impact accreditation, the Chancellor said the visit and the resulting “findings” would not. It’s amazing how the press missed that important point.

By law, the Board must make critical decisions about the operations and financial well-being of the District. Yet when a Board member asks staff for information, the response is often resistant or extremely delayed, sometimes by months. Further, the HLC suggests that we can’t work with staff. This is an impediment to the work of Board members, who spend countless unpaid hours per week as a public service, in our roles.

As a public official who is elected to the Maricopa Community Colleges Governing Board, the voters in my district expect me to uphold state law and to act in the best interests of our citizens seeking higher education.

Accreditation from the HLC is important for academic programs, but this voluntary review and approval of curriculum will not impose itself on the role and responsibilities voters have entrusted me and other Board members to perform.

My style may be direct, but voters in my district and throughout Maricopa County can rest assured that I will continue to work lawfully with integrity, loyalty, fairness, and consistency despite bureaucratic efforts at the District and the colleges to blame the Board for their ills. They resist accountability and change that will ultimately benefit the students and taxpayers alike.

Sincerely,

Mr. Jerry D. Walker
Governing Board- District 2, Maricopa Community Colleges

Related stories:

“Auditor: MCCCD wrong in paying 26 people,” East Valley Tribune, April 21, 2009
“Probe of MCCCD retirement deals nears end,” East Valley Tribune, August 6, 2008
“Pension Payoff: Community college deal attacked,” East Valley Tribune, June 28, 2008
“Two college presidents ousted amid probe,” East Valley Tribune, February 7, 2007

Filed Under: County Government, Education

States can set up federal fight on health care reform

October 6, 2009 By 3 Comments

By Tom Patterson
Goldwater Institute
 
Remember the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act that was on the ballot last year and barely failed with 49.8 percent of the vote? The Legislature has already ensured it will be back on the ballot next year, where it’s likely to pass. If it does, it could be joined by other states around the country to trigger a much-needed reset of the relationship between the states and federal government.

The 2008 ballot proposition was plain vanilla. It would simply have prohibited laws that restrict a person’s choice of private health providers or the right to pay for medical services. The opposition, well-funded by insurance plans and business groups, argued simultaneously that it would do nothing and that it would limit future legislative options. Whipping out the fear-of-the-unknown card, they claimed, falsely, that Medicare and Medicaid patients could lose coverage. It was all typical technique for a “no” campaign, but in the end they confused enough voters to eke out the victory.

Today, Americans are much more focused on health care policy and they have more reason than ever to build firewalls for themselves against an over-reaching federal government. The powers in Washington keep marching forward, determined to eventually bring our health care options under their control.

The history of past federal programs also suggests a strong need for caution. Courts and bureaucrats have a habit of morphing federal programs into forms vastly more comprehensive than originally intended. Social Security was created as a modest supplement for poverty-ridden seniors. Today’s retirees receive a fraction of the income they could have received if they could have saved and invested their own payroll contribution dollars. Yet Social Security owes to future beneficiaries trillions of dollars that we don’t have, casting a pall over the economic future of the country.

So Arizonans are only being practical to seek protection at the state level from relentless federal intrusions. Yet, even if the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act passes on the state level, it will be challenged on the grounds that federal legislation pre-empts state law.

The complicated legal arguments about pre-emption will have to be duked out in court. But the threat to freedom-loving people today is the centralization of power in a federal government that ceaselessly expands and intrudes. Surely, our system of federalism doesn’t permit the feds to extend more control over the decisions of our daily lives while the states helplessly look on. Let’s hope the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act will be the driver for fundamental change.
 
Tom Patterson is chairman of the Goldwater Institute and a former state senator. A longer version of this article first appeared in the East Valley Tribune.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Health Care, Initiative(s), States Rights

Liberal Advocacy Groups Hiring!

October 5, 2009 By 1 Comment

CraigsListAdHeader

Gotta love this. Here’s an ad running on the Phoenix Craig’s List by The Fund for the Public Interest which is hiring individuals to, “Join motivated staff here in City working to make change happen.”

FPI

The position pays $300 to $500 per week.

Hmmmm… That’s between $15,600 – $26,000 per year before taxes are even taken out.  ($14,406 – $24,011 with just the FICA paid). That opens up an entire different discussion on “living wage” - a public policy push that even liberal advocacy groups are not willing to practice.

According to the ad:

Now is our chance to repower America.

Change is in the air. And we know that to revive our economy, we need to rebuild on a sound foundation—one that puts people back to work, contributes to long-term prosperity, and protects our environment. We can renew our country, and our economy, with clean, renewable energy.

But when that prospective job seeker reads the footer at the bottom of the page or clicks on the link, “www.JobsThatMatter.org,” they get swept off to the Boston-based Fund for the Public Interest website with a lead-in flash file of a beaming President Obama posing with the masses.

CraigsListAdFooter

I decided to find out what The Fund for the Public Interests was all about so I clicked on their “About Us” link and found the following information:

Fund For The Public Interest is a national nonprofit organization working to increase the visibility, membership and political power of the nation’s leading environmental and progressive groups.

The Fund was launched in 1982 to develop campaigns and technologies to engage Americans in public interest advocacy efforts. Through our fundraising and non-fundraising canvasses, we’ve gathered over 20 million petition signatures over the past 25 years and raised over $20 million for our partner organizations in the last year alone.

Current Fund partners like Sierra Club and Human Rights Campaign are expanding their donor base and passing tougher legislation against air pollution, forest clear-cutting, hate crimes, and special interest money in politics. We owe our success to the fusion of our staff’s grassroots organizing experience, cost-conscious attitude and work ethic with our partner groups’ issue expertise, initiative and vision.

We’re best known for our canvass programs. Over the years we’ve developed the nation’s largest and most effective network for door-to-door and street canvassing—signing up members in high traffic, public places. We sign up sustainers—members who commit to automatic monthly contributions from a checking account or credit card—as well as one-time contributors. We are also one of the nation’s most prolific signature gathering operations. We have pioneered other creative outreach methods, like canvassing at concerts and gay pride festivals.

So basically this organization is a door-to-door political organization pushing for environmental and homosexual rights causes. I’m guessing that they’re pretty selective about who’s door they knock on and will use the voter registration file to target Democrats and Independents who they think may sign up for their cause and to make automatic monthly credit/debit card donations. In essence, they’re a grassroots fundraising machine for liberal causes.

This begs the question, when was the last time you had someone from a conservative organization knock on your door and ask you to donate money to save unborn babies, social security or solders in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Yes, they’re prettysmart when it comes to exploiting the cheapest labor pool. If you look at their ad, it’s geared to a younger demographic. I even bet they’re down on the ASU campus right now recruiting your young idealistic sons and daughters to go door to door for the Progressive Movement’s multi-pronged liberal agenda.

That leads me to a few questions. What are you going to do if they knock on your door? Are you going to chase them off or will you invite them in and educate them (not to be confused with indoctrination)? What else are you going to do to put your money where your mouth is? Will you get out and participate in the political process and make sure that the conservative viewpoint is not silent? What about funding the conservative movement? Are you going to sit down tonight and commit to monthly donate to your favorite conservative cause?

This is a battle folks and liberal “progressives” have figured out how to organize the community.

Will you do the same?

Filed Under: Liberals

OBAMA, THE FIRST AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PRESIDENT

October 5, 2009 By 23 Comments

I’m still shocked that a person as unfit and anti-American as Obama got elected president. He’s not just your average destructive Liberal. How did it happen? How did a closet-Muslim named ‘Barak Hussein Obama’ get elected? Was it the flaccidness of the Bush administration? Was it the uncompromising weakness of John McCain? Maybe those things contributed but, I think that real answer lies in the social conditioning  infused into our culture by our universities and pop culture over the last five decades—especially in the area of race relations.

 

A critical element of this conditioning is the untrue teaching that America is a “racist” nation and that black people are an oppressed group who are constantly being exploited by the greedy, white majority who ought to feel shame and guilt for the oppressions they inflict—even the unintended ones. The Liberal solution to these oppressions (after a hefty dose of guilt) are “Affirmative Action” programs—programs where blacks and other minorities are given preference in hiring and other areas over white applicants. That’s right, the same folks who insist that race shouldn’t matter want race to matter.

 

During the election I heard many a white Liberal say that “it is time our nation had a black president”. Like any Affirmative Action program the racial outcome is more important than the qualifications. All of these decades of conditioning have bestowed upon Obama a layer of protection never experienced by any previous president; just watch how many of his critics will continue to be labeled a “racist”.

 

You can bet that Hillary Clinton is one Democrat who isn’t enjoying this presidential Affirmative Action but other Liberals remain obsessed with racial issues. Why stop with the presidency? Let’s go whole hog. I think that every Democrat in congress should resign their seat in favor of a minority replacement. Let the healing begin!

Filed Under: Blogs, Campaigns & Elections, Culture, Demographics, Education, Ethics, Government, Human Condition, Liberals, Media, Personalities, Political Correctness, Political Parties, Political Science, Race Relations

PR: Former Arizona GOP Chairman John Munger Launches His Campaign for Arizona Governor

October 5, 2009 By 5 Comments

MungerGovernor 

October 5, 2009

MEDIA ADVISORY

Former Arizona GOP Chairman John Munger Launches His Campaign for Arizona Governor

WHO: John Munger, Former Chairman, Arizona Republican Party

WHAT: Press conferences announcing his campaign for Governor:

WHEN: Tuesday, October 6, 2009
9:00am (Casa Grande)
5:00pm (Prescott)

WHERE:
9:00am Victory Republican Headquarters, 400 Marshall St. Casa Grande, AZ 85122
5:00pm The Palace, 120 South Montezuma, Prescott, AZ 86303

WHY: To return Arizona to Prosperity with Real Leadership, No Excuses.

ADDITIONAL DETAILS: John Munger will kick off a four-day, 10-city tour of Arizona to introduce his candidacy and meet voters. Following his announcement in Casa Grande Tuesday morning, he will travel to Prescott, and make stops throughout the week in Kingman, Lake Havasu City, Yuma, Tucson, Phoenix, Sierra Vista and Safford. At each location he will address issues of specific importance to local residents. For complete schedule and details, visit www.johnmunger.com.

ABOUT JOHN MUNGER: John Munger has devoted his life to building businesses, creating jobs and serving his community and country. Most recently, he has served as Chairman of Imagine Arizona, a public policy organization dedicated to promoting economic growth, the empowerment of free people and limited government. Munger has also served as Arizona’s Republican Party Chairman and Chairman of the Arizona Board of Regents. He is currently a partner of Munger, Chadwick LLC, and has been regularly ranked as one of the top attorneys in Arizona. A proud military veteran with overseas service, John is a founder of St. Albans Episcopal Church in Tucson, a skilled horseman, and holds a Black Belt in Karate. John and his wife Roseann have been married 27 years. Together, they have 5 children and 6 grandchildren and reside in Tucson, Arizona.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Press Release

Look Who’s Setting the Agenda

October 5, 2009 By 4 Comments

This ought to scare the hell out of you. These people have a seat at the table and are influencing the direction of the country.

Filed Under: Conspiracy Theories, Culture, Government

AZ Right to Life: Federal & state courts at odds over new AZ laws

October 5, 2009 By 1 Comment

Logo: Arizona Right to Life

Arizona Right to Life
 Monday, October 5, 2009

Federal and state court rulings conflict on new AZ abortion laws

Phoenix, AZ - Oct. 5, 2009--After pro-abortion groups filed lawsuits in both state and federal courts seeking an injuction against recently passed AZ laws protecting women, parents, and the conscience of healthcare workers, the two courts delivered opposite rulings.

Federal court Judge David Campbell refused to grant an injunction, citing the 1992 Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

“In Casey, the Supreme Court held that a 24-hour waiting period substantially identical
to the Arizona provision did not impose an undue burden on the right to obtain an abortion,” and in addition, Campbell wrote, “Casey held that States may require that women be fully informed of the nature and consequences of their abortions, and may even advocate for childbirth over abortion.”

But at the state level, Maricopa County Judge Donald Daughton, who according to FEC records donated $1250 to known pro-abortion candidates Barack Obama and Congessman Harry Mitchell, was called out of retirement to rule in favor of the nation’s largest abortion provider, Planned Parenthood, who challenged the laws’ constitutionality.  The ruling offers no qualitative reasons for granting the injunction (Full text of Daughton ruling).

Arizona Right to Life President Jinny Perron questioned the validity of the Daughton ruling.  “These laws were thoroughly vetted for constitutionality over several years by attorneys at Alliance Defense Fund, Bioethics Defense Fund, Center for Arizona Policy, and here at Arizona Right to Life,” said Perron, “so why was this high-profile case assigned to a retired judge tasked with interpreting the Arizona Constitution and issuing a ruling the day before the law was supposed to take effect?”

###

–Help us educate Arizona on life issues affecting our state!


Donate
Now it is more imperative than ever to contribute to Arizona Right to Life! Please considering contributing a small donation. Contributions to Life Education are tax-deductible.
Arizona Right to Life
602-285-0063

A non-sectarian, non-partisan, non-profit, 501(c)4 organization, Arizona Right to Life is committed to articulating and protecting the right to life of all human beings, born and unborn. This is accomplished by educating people on the value of every human life and by promoting and supporting pro-life legislation, public policy and elected officials. Arizona Right to Life is the oldest, largest and strongest pro-life organization in the State of Arizona.

Join our Facebook Group!Click to Watch our YouTube ChannelClick to Follow us on Twitter!Click to Join our social network on Ning!
Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Judicial, Sanctity of Life

New study confirms charter schools benefit disadvantaged students

October 5, 2009 By 2 Comments

A new random assignment study on charter school achievement found significantly higher academic gains for students attending charter schools.
 
The study, conducted by Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby, examined test results for students in New York, and compared the academic gains of those students who win a lottery to attend charter schools to those students who lose the lottery and remain in traditional schools.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Among students who had spent their academic careers in charter schools, the average eighth grader in Ms. Hoxby’s study had a state mathematics test score of 680, compared with 650 for those in traditional schools. The tests are generally scored on a roughly 500 to 800 scale, with 650 representing proficiency.

Ms. Hoxby’s study found that the charter-school students, who tend to come from poor and disadvantaged families, scored almost as well as students in the affluent Scarsdale school district in the suburbs north of the city. The English test results showed a similar pattern. The study also found students were more likely to earn a state Regents diploma, given to higher-achieving students, the longer they attended charter schools.
In Arizona the rate of new charter school openings has stalled in recent years. Other states have raced ahead by allowing universities and cities to authorize charter schools. Arizona should follow the examples of these states and encourage charter schools that provide access to high-quality education for our most vulnerable students.
 
Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president for research at the Goldwater Institute.

Filed Under: Education
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »