GAME ON….and comments.

Being the pro-McCain contributor on a blog that is administered by a paid Hayworth staffer might seem uncomfortable.  It isn’t.  I have known Shane for a few years and we have a mutual respect for the other’s positions, even if we do not agree.  Shane has made no secret of his work for and endorsement of JD.  Unfortunately, I do not have the same luxury of being able to be so forthcoming; something about a little oath I took that limits me from certain behavior.  Hence, the pen-name Molly Pitcher and the persona that allows me to exercise my First Amendment rights without concern to any violation. 

There is a post on this site entitled, “Who’s the Real Lobbyist?  John McCain or JD Hayworth?” submitted by DSW.  The comments are closed.  That is too bad.

I am posting my views and the McCain response.  Because of the limitations I have on public expression, I understand fully how frustrating it can be to have the ability to express your views stifled or limited, even when it is for a personal cause, therefore comments will be open.  When you have the truth on your side, why be afraid ?

  • First item, the Time Magazine is a direct quote from an Obama campaign memo NOT Mark Halperin’s words.  Really? Obama?  The guy who brought us socialism?  Internal campaign memos are now your big gun?  From the campaign that is pushing back on McCain comments daily, I would suggest you reconsider the use of an old OBAMA memo as evidence of anything but attempts to disingenuously influence the American public into electing the worst POTUS we have ever had.  God save America!  

I respectfully submit the following questions to Team Hayworth and ask for a reply.

  • Congressman Hayworth claims he registered as a lobbyist to help out an unnamed “hometown friend.” Who is this friend, and when and how was Congressman Hayworth approached to do this lobbying?
  • What is Congressman Hayworth’s current relationship with this “hometown friend?” 
  • Exactly what was Congressman Hayworth asked to accomplish for the Wealth Transfer Group?                                                                 
  • Which of Congressman Hayworth’s former House colleagues, and/or his colleagues’ offices and Committees did he lobby, and what did he ask them to do on his client’s behalf?
  • What if any actions did he take on behalf of Wealth Transfer Group?                                                                                                                                                                      
  • What was the result of Congressman Hayworth’s lobbying efforts, and where does the issue stand today?                                                                                                                                                                       
  • Did Wealth Transfer Group pay Hayworth for anything other than his lobbying activities? Was Congressman Hayworth given any other asset or monetary reimbursement for doing this work, including any “success fees”?                                                                                                                                                                       
  • On his lobbying registration forms, Hayworth identifies himself as president of The Great 48th Group, a company he formed in 2007 — a year before he registered to lobby. Who were The Great 48th Group’s other clients, what did they pay Hayworth to do, what actions did he take on their behalf, and how much did they compensate him for his work?
  • Did Congressman Hayworth do any “consulting work” for this or any other clients that did not trigger the lobbying registration that Hayworth filed?                                                                                                                                                                       
  • Did Hayworth lobby or consult either for or against any legislation currently pending in Congress? If so, what is his position on that legislation?

 Comments are on and we are waiting.

Chris Flowers Endorses Ruth McClung

Sonoran Alliance received the following email from the campaign of Chris Flowers who just announced his endorsment of Ruth McClung seeking the Republican nomination for CD-7:

First, I would like to give my sincere thanks to all the people who have helped me so much in my bid for the Republican nomination in Congressional District 7. I hope that all of you who have supported me so generously with your time, effort and money will continue to do so down the road in all my future endeavors. I have not given up the dream of representing the people of Arizona with the conservative values and traditions I hold so dear. Upon careful consideration, however, I have decided to withdraw from the race. 

I didn’t make this decision lightly. Arizonans have a right to the kind of representation that will honor the legacy of our forefathers and the courage of our nation. Right now, we have neither. However, being new to politics, I perhaps underestimated the time and physical constraints involved undertaking such a tremendous—if tremendously worthwhile—challenge. But make no mistake, I will be back and better prepared to make another run two years from now should Raul Grijalva remain in office. Which brings me to an important point.

I have said from the beginning that 2010 is a critical year for Arizona and our great nation. We cannot allow the quickly accelerating spiral into socialism and federal government domination to continue. So I urge all of you who have been so supportive of me to put your efforts behind another candidate for CD7: Ruth McClung. 

Ruth McClung is bright, dedicated and, above all, honest. I know that she will make an excellent representative for the people in our district. Raul Grijalva represents the very worst aspects of our political system. Ruth McClung represents the very best. So I urge you, please, do everything you can to support Ruth and help send her to Congress. 

Again, thank you to all the people who have supported me in this endeavor. Without you, I would never have made it this far, and I look forward to seeing all of you on the campaign trail sometime down the road.

Sincerely and Respectfully,

Chris Flowers
Conservative Candidate AZ CD7
(623) 308 9732
www.voteflowers2010.com

McCain can’t fool the Arizona Tea Party!

John McCain must think that Arizona Republicans are stupid.

The Arizona Tea Party members won’t be fooled. Here is the latest video (few days old) detailing the tenuous and politically expedient relationship between Mitt Romney and John McCain.

My only critique is that the video editor should have used The Who’s classic piece, Won’t Get Fooled Again!

YouTube Preview Image

Media ‘Punked’ By Democratic Dirty Trick Targeting Conservative Schools Reformer They Don’t Want To Face

Doctored Video Of Schools Chief Candidate, State Senator Was Shown On National Television And Hyped In Local Press; Student Journalist Is Speaking Out

 

PHOENIX, AZ. JUNE 16, 2010. A video of State Senator John Huppenthal’s interview with a student journalist was shown on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show yesterday.  The New Times reported Huppenthal was “humiliated” by the interview, “had to walk away,” and voted to “gut funding to the state’s Career and Technical Education programs…after Huppenthal bemoans such cuts.”

 

Now, it turns out the whole story was a sham. Democrats, indeed a former liberal opponent of Huppenthal’s, doctored the video to paint a false picture of what happened.  Huppenthal didn’t abandon the interview.  And… the budget cuts the student journalist asked Huppenthal about, and that some media reported as fact… those cuts never happened!

 

This dirty trick of doctored video tape is just the latest in Democratic tactics aimed at Huppenthal. The Arizona Democratic Party filed a lawsuit last week that seeks to have Huppenthal’s name removed from the Republican Primary Election ballot. The conservative reformer is seen by many as the leading candidate to be the next State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

 

“John Hupenthal is an accomplished conservative reformer and the Democrats are resorting to these kind of tactics because they know from previous experience that they can’t beat him in a fair General Election contest,” said Huppenthal spokesperson Jason Rose.

 

A story in yesterday’s Yellow Sheet Report, which is published by The Arizona Capitol Times newspaper sets the record straight regarding the doctored interview tape:

YELLOW SHEET REPORT
Arizona Capitol Times
6/15/2010

High School Journalist ‘Upset’ At How Video Being Used

The student journalist who interviewed State Senator John Huppenthal about vocational education funding in a video that is now making the rounds told our reporter this morning the edited version that was posted by Democratic Diva blogger Donna Gratehouse does not accurately portray what happened in his meeting with the senator. Huppenthal did leave, Keith Wagner said, but he didn’t disappear and abandon the interview, as the video posted on Gratehouse’s blog purports. (Huppenthal defeated the Dem blogger in the 2006 election for LD20 Senate.)

Wagner said the senator returned with more information on education funding. “He did come back and he was very polite,” he said. Wagner also said he was irked that some are using the video, which was a class project, to score political points. “I am a little upset that the focus of that has been changed to ‘high-schooler interviewing a state senator and kind of catching him off guard,’” Wagner said.

As for the legislation Wagner asked Huppenthal about – he described it in the story only as a bill that cut $550 million from K-12 and decreased the career and technical education funds from $11 million to about $57,000 – the student said he was referring to H2028 (Laws 2009, Chapter 5), which lawmakers approved May 13 last year.

However, the student seems to have misunderstood what the bill did, as it didn’t cut $550 million from K-12 and didn’t wipe out funding for vocational programs. The bill, which was part of a two-bill package that closed a $650 million deficit in FY09, did three things: roll over $100 million in university funding; roll over $300 million in K-12 funding; and cut $250 million from K-12, but backfill the cuts with an equal amount of federal stimulus money. Additionally, budget documents from JLBC show the career and technical education funding levels are unchanged from FY09 at about $11.5 million.

 

[End of Yellow Sheet Report excerpt]

 

 

About John Huppenthal

 

John Huppenthal is one of Arizona’s leading authorities on education issues. In addition to being the current Senate Education Chairman, Huppenthal has served for 17 consecutive years on the State House and State Senate education committees.

 

Huppenthal’s reputation for making policy based on the best research available is well established. A September 2008 editorial in The Arizona Republic stated:

 

…Huppenthal is a veteran of the Legislature, having chaired five committees and being as knowledgeable about the bill-making process as any of his colleagues. He’s a pragmatic conservative who bases his positions on exhaustive research and works across party lines to get worthwhile bills passed. Huppenthal insists that legislation be based on best practices from around the country, and he’s prone to arcane dissertations based on stacks of studies he has compiled as he delves into state and district problems. It’s not sexy stuff but it’s necessary to guide a legislative process too often led astray by raw politics and emotion.”

 

Senator Huppenthal played a key role in helping create school choice for parents. In 1995, as Senate Education Chairman, his legislation took the caps off charter schools. This legislation moved Arizona to first in the nation in school choice (ALEC rankings). In addition, Congressman Trent Franks named Senator Huppenthal one of three legislators most responsible for creating and expanding tuition tax credits in Arizona.

 

During Huppenthal’s legislative career he successfully developed and passed over 200 bills – the most of any legislator in Arizona history. A substantial number of those bills were education related. Huppenthal’s efforts resulted in the creation of the Career Ladder program for teachers, improved measures of academic progress, and higher graduation standards. Huppenthal also worked closely with the disabled community to improve opportunities for children with special challenges, including creating a model summer school for children with autism, increasing resources for the blind and deaf, expanding textbook formats to accommodate children with disabilities and reducing mandates on teachers.

 

Huppenthal has been a leader in adopting performance pay in education. After reviewing over 700 studies and creating new concepts in performance pay, Arizona’s career ladder program has become the only performance pay system in the country resulting in statistically verifiable academic gains. His legislation resulted in enabling Arizona to be the only state nationally where every teacher has a significant portion of pay dependent upon performance measures (Prop 301 classroom site fund).

 

In 2010, Senator Huppenthal sponsored and helped pass major education reform legislation. Known as the “Truth in Advertising” bill, SB 1286 improves accountability by requiring the Arizona Department of Education to rate the performance of schools with easily understood letter grades (A, B, C, D or F). The grades will be based upon overall performance and academic gains over time. The “Truth in Advertising” law is modeled after similar reforms in Florida which significantly improved academic achievement.

 

 

Paid for by John Huppenthal 2010

 

Arizona Immigration Law = National ID for Arizonans

Despite protestations to the contrary from the law’s sponsor and others, this law turns the Arizona drivers license  (actually any state license) into a national id.

It’s a common misconception to believe that the national id must be a card or a chip.

National ID not a card or a chip, but is the data that the federal government has on you.  What the federal government has been attempting to do for many years, most notably under the Clinton administration, was to find a way to integrate all of the various data they have on American citizens into an easily searchable, easily sharable database and data exchange format.

SB1070 states

F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the purposes of determining eligibiltiy for any … license and for the purposes of verifying any claim of residence or domicile.

This section removes ALL restrictions from the exchange of license data between any state agency and any federal agency.  This section applies to ANY PERSON.  This section includes ANY LICENSE.  Under this section ANY state agency may exchange ANY person’s license data with ANY federal agency without any restriction whatsoever.

This problem has nothing to do with what occurs at a police stop. It removes ALL restrictions from data exchange, including a full data dump, or including full back and forth real-time queryability, between any state license database and any or ALL federal agencies, beginning July 1, including the IRS or Homeland Security.

Protestations from the bill’s sponsor have included:  “That’s not what it says.”  “That’s not what it means.”  “It’s not in there.”

Yes, Mr. Pearce, but that’s what the law SAYS word for word, in black and white, in 8th grade level English, no lawyers required.

Other  protestations such as in this post include playing word games….

The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA (REAL ID Act) in Arizona.

First, what does the REAL ID act have to do with it?   Nothing.  The REAL ID Act was a single federal program which attempted to force the state to turn over certain data to the feds.  This bill turns over the same data that the REAL ID Act mandated, but does so voluntarily by the state, having nothing to do with REAL ID, but having everything to do with national id once the federal government gets their hands on the data.  REAL ID here is completely irrelevant.

Second, what is “immigration status” relative to a citizens’ domicile?  Or how would you verify a citizen’s eligibility for a drivers license (or any license) via exchange of that citizen’s data with the federal government?  Why would you need to?  Where is the limitation to the term “immigration status” in the data exchange with the federal government in checking a citizen’s domicile information with the feds or a citizen’s eligibility for a driver’s license (or a business license, or a hunting license - ANY license, remember). Nowhere.  Why would the state need to do so relative to its citizens?  But that’s precisely what the law enables.

The county attorney’s office goes onto state:

Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes

A bureaucrat accessing the person’ s information is not at question here.  Removal of all restrictions in sending law abiding citizen’s data to the federal government relevant to check the citizen’s domicile and/or eligibility for a license is.

Arizona law cannot dictate what the federal government does with law abiding citizen’s data once it is handed over to the feds.  The feds, of course, will promptly put the data into whatever database they want which accomplishes their longstanding goal to implement a national id system.

Again, national id is NOT a card. It is the unique identifiers such as your name, SSN, domicile and biometric data such as your digitial photo on file with the MVD, once turned over to the feds and put into their national id database.  Once the data is placed into the national id database, then your DL can be run against that national id database and is, VOILA, a national id.

Russell Pearce continues to protest stating that he’s against national ids and that this bill does not contain national id.

And, yet, he fails to address the matter of the data exchange of law abiding citizens’ license data with “any agency” of the federal government, including Janet Napolitano’s agency, who is dying to get her hands on this information, especially gun owners’ information.

The only time the exchange of citizens’ data has ever been addressed was in the opinion that Andrew Thomas’ office wrote, linked to above, which stated it’s not REAL ID.   So what?  REAL ID is not the only national id program.  PASS ID, BELIEVE ID, or just drivers’ license database dumps into the Homeland Security database all turn state drivers licenses into national ids…..

….but only if the state hands over the data.  Which SB1070 does, willingly, of all citizens.

Russell Pearce is quoted as saying, “If we don’t turn over all of our data to the federal government, then how will be know who is SUPPOSED to be here.”

Wait a second, Senator Pearce, I thought this bill was supposed to be about who is NOT supposed to be here.

Senator Pearce, if you’re telling the truth and are against national id, THEN FIX THE LAW and prohibit the exchange of law abiding citizens’ data with the federal government.

No patriot hands over the private data of law abiding citizens to the feds, such as you have done in SB1070.

Anyone who does betrays the hard work of conservative patriots who have been fighting national ids since before the Clinton administration and since.

Fix the law before July 1. Otherwise, welcome to the leftist globalist Clintonista agenda as implemented by the right.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan opposed national ids http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa237.html

Gun Owners of America oppose national ids because they state that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases…

“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.” http://seclists.org/politech/2005/Feb/0016.html

Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY.   We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in.

Fix the law, Senator Pearce.