You are here: Home / 2010 / Archives for June 2010

Governor Brewer Invites 0bama to a lunch and learn

June 24, 2010 By 12 Comments

Doing what she can to solve the border problem, today Governor Brewer sent a 4 page letter to President Hopey Changey urging him to live up to his promises (good luck with that!) and help secure the border.

When we visited, you committed to present details, within two weeks of our meeting, regarding your plans to commit National Guard troops to the Arizona border and expend $500 million in additional funds on border security matters. You also discussed sending members of your senior staff to Arizona to discuss your plans.  While I am pleased the 28th has been set for a meeting time and we have reviewed a copy of the Department of Homeland Security’s “Southwest Border Next Steps” Press Release, I am still awaiting details on National Guard deployments and how the proposed additional border security funding will specifically affect Arizona (and the other Border States). 

As I mentioned to you on June 3rd, it is very difficult to have much of a dialogue without specific details regarding your proposals. I strongly urge you to request your staff provide us with missing details of your proposals prior to the meeting on the 28th.

As you can tell, the Governor wants details (emphasis mine).  This is a woman in charge!

Governor Brewer’s letter took a very balanced and reasonable tone.  Instead of imitating the shrill attacks and finger pointing of Al Sharpton, Kyrsten Sinema and President Hopey Changey, the Governor firmly but politely made the case that the state law is a reaction to the lawlessness on the border.  Holding out an olive branch, the Governor let the President know that

 

when the public sees consistent evidence of federal commitment, I am convinced the demand for state action will wane.  State and local governments have plenty to do and will be happy to stay out of border security and immigration law enforcement – along with the expenses of such work – if the federal government takes a firm and effective grip on the problem.

 

She concludes with this invitation:

And when you do come, lunch is on me.

 

Oaxaca or Bombay Palace, I presume.  But if Governor Brewer really wants Obama to visit, she should have invited him to play golf.

Here is the full text of the letter:

June 23, 2010

Dear Mr. President:

Thank you for the opportunity to visit with you in person during my recent trip to Washington, D.C. As you know, the issue of border security is foremost in the thoughts of many Arizonans and Americans alike, and I appreciated the chance to personally relate to you my concerns and outline my proposed solutions.

Mr. President, the need for action to secure Arizona’s border could not be clearer. Recently, my office received a number of calls from constituents concerned at reports of new sign postings in interior counties of Arizona warning residents not to access federal lands due to criminal activity associated with the border.  These warnings signal to some that we have handed over portions of our border areas to illegal immigrants and drug traffickers. This is unacceptable. 

Instead of warning Americans to stay out of parts of our own country, we ought to be warning international lawbreakers that they will be detained and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We ought to be establishing measures to ensure that illegal traffic of any sort is kept to an absolute minimum, and that Americans are safe and secure within our own borders.

When we visited, you committed to present details, within two weeks of our meeting, regarding your plans to commit National Guard troops to the Arizona border and expend $500 million in additional funds on border security matters. You also discussed sending members of your senior staff to Arizona to discuss your plans.  While I am pleased the 28th has been set for a meeting time and we have reviewed a copy of the Department of Homeland Security’s “Southwest Border Next Steps” Press Release, I am still awaiting details on National Guard deployments and how the proposed additional border security funding will specifically affect Arizona (and the other Border States). 

As I mentioned to you on June 3rd, it is very difficult to have much of a dialogue without specific details regarding your proposals. I strongly urge you to request your staff provide us with missing details of your proposals prior to the meeting on the 28th.

While we await the specific details of your border security plans, I wanted to take the time to reemphasize some of what I shared with you and respond further to some of what we discussed. In essence, I have proposed a four-point Border Surge strategy, as outlined in my recent letter to Senator Charles Schumer, summarized as follows:

1.  National Guard Personnel and Aviation

I believe a significant number of troops operating with a legitimate mission set is an essential part of any strategy to secure the border. I appreciate your commitment of 1,200 troops and the promise that Arizona would receive the largest contingent. I am concerned, however, that more is required, such as the deployment of 6,000 personnel proposed by Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain for the entire southwestern border.

In addition, I want to make sure that these troops have legitimate missions that:
•       Support federal, state and local law enforcement—all three!
•       Serve as a blocking force to stop illegal crossing activities.

•       Employ the troops in a way that speaks loudly to all—both north and south of the border—that the U.S. is serious about this matter.

As part of your commitment, I also hope that you order a significant increase in aviation resources supporting border security operations on the ground.  After meeting and talking to various experts, I am persuaded that aviation support is critical to the effort on the ground. Any effort will fail absent the ability to coordinate ground assets from the air, particularly given the nature of much of Arizona’s border region terrain. 

I respectfully ask that you give serious consideration to my May 20, 2010 correspondence, which makes a very reasonable request for a reallocation of National Guard OH-58 helicopter assets in order to make a Border Surge effective.  Your support of this request can make a significant difference between a winning effort versus a losing effort.

2.  Border Fence

In short Mr. President, we need to complete, reinforce and then maintain the border fence.  In my April 6, 2010 letter to you I proposed inmate labor and other methods (i.e., purchasing instead of leasing equipment) as a means to bring down construction/maintenance costs. 

I certainly support efficient and effective Ports of Entry where both American and Mexican border officials can allow legal traffic and crossings.  Everywhere else along the border, though, I strongly believe we must have fencing and barriers that are both substantial and monitored if the illegal crossings are to be minimized.

3.  Enforce Federal Law and Appropriately Fund the Effort

The United States must be prepared to detain, prosecute and then incarcerate convicted violators of United States laws.  The current “no consequences policy” has resulted in a border security failure.  I appreciate your general proposal to commit additional resources, but it is very difficult for me to comment without any details. 

It is without doubt, though, that the current border policy will continue to fail the State of Arizona without additional resources committed to the Border Patrol, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel and detention facilities; prosecution; public defense; and federal prisons.

4.  Reimburse States for the Additional Burden of Illegal Immigration

As I mentioned the very first time we met last year, I must continue the calls for Arizona to be reimbursed for expenses we are forced to carry because of our porous southern border. Arizona and a few other states are at a terrible disadvantage in good times, and an even worse position during bad times, because of the additional costs of illegal immigration. 

Just in terms of state prison costs, we estimate ongoing expenses at approximately $150 million to incarcerate criminal aliens. While substantial on its own, this figure does not include law enforcement, prosecution and defense costs, or the enormous societal costs of the criminal behavior of those who are not even legally entitled to be here.

We are hundreds of millions of dollars short of what we should receive to relieve the disproportionate law enforcement/jail/prison, health care and education burdens we face due to our porous southern border and rampant illegal immigration. It is simply unfair for the federal government to force Border State taxpayers to carry these burdens.

Immigration Reform

You shared with me your thoughts about the matter of immigration reform and I am grateful you listened to mine.  As I mentioned in our meeting, the phrase “comprehensive immigration reform” is code for “amnesty” to many in Arizona and elsewhere in our Nation. 

Many Americans are still waiting for the reforms that were promised by the federal government in the 1980s when amnesty was granted to thousands of illegal immigrants.  Until we establish a secure border, and reestablish trust with the public that our international borders are meaningful and important, and enforcement of federal immigration law is not an idle threat, any discussion of “comprehensive reform” is premature.

Let’s first block illegal entry into the United States and enforce current law, and then other discussions, including immigration reform, might then, and only then, make sense to the public.  I am committed to a serious discussion of legitimate reform—but not any false front for amnesty—when the federal government halts the free flow of illegal immigrants and illegal drugs across the southwestern border.

Arizona’s Law

You also shared some concerns about a “patchwork” approach to policy.  This makes sense to me, but the failure of the federal government has driven frustration levels to the point that tolerating the status quo is no longer acceptable for Arizona.  From my perspective, the single most significant factor behind the passage this year of SB 1070 and HB 2162 (the follow-up bill with amendments to SB 1070) was the frustration of Arizona elected officials, and the public we serve, regarding the failure of the federal government over the years to effectively address the problem of illegal immigration.

The growing concerns over spillover violence, the increased awareness of kidnappings, the spread of drop houses in neighborhoods throughout metropolitan areas, the scourge of the drug trade and the oppressive financial burdens posed by illegal immigration—burdens even more difficult to shoulder in this economic downturn—all contributed to accelerating the public’s frustration.

I am 100% committed to fair and just enforcement of the new Arizona law. I have made it clear that civil rights will not be compromised. The first step has been educating and training law enforcement, as well as the public, on the details of the law—a step I have already ordered in Arizona.

Instead of any discussion about suing Arizona and not cooperating with the efforts of local Arizona law enforcement to address illegal immigration, the federal government should reassure Arizona (and other states) that securing the border and enforcing federal immigration laws are duties to which the federal government will make a renewed and sincere commitment.

When the public sees consistent evidence of federal commitment, I am convinced the demand for state actions will wane. State and local governments have plenty to do and will be happy to stay out of border security and immigration law enforcement—along with the expenses of such work—if the federal government takes a firm and effective grip on the problem.

Conclusion

In closing, I want to assure you that I am looking to develop a solution, not have a standoff, with you and the federal government.  Illegal immigration is a serious problem and I am sincerely committed to seeing something done to curb it. 

The real challenges at hand are about violent crime, huge taxpayer burdens, the rule of law and ensuring that our southern border does not become an open door for radical terrorists. Commerce with other countries is important to me and Arizonans—I truly want a vibrant and positive relationship with Sonora, other Mexican States and the rest of the world.  Federal immigration law, however, must be honored and enforced, and our border must represent an effective means to help ensure our sovereignty and security. 

I remain eager to receive the specific details of your proposals and to have the follow-up meeting with your senior staff.  It is disappointing that we are such a short time away from the meeting and Arizona and the other Border States still are awaiting the specific details of what you are proposing.  There is still time, however, to ensure the meeting next week is productive. 

Finally, I want to re-extend the invitation I made to you to come to Arizona yourself, visit with families living along the southwestern border and see the situation firsthand.  My prior visits to the border and the air survey of the Cochise County region have been very important to shaping my perspectives and thinking.  Governor Richardson joined me for one trip and I believe you would also benefit from such an experience. 

And when you do come, lunch is on me!

Yours in service to the great state of Arizona,

                                        Janice K. Brewer
                                        Governor

Filed Under: Border

Obama Law Firm Targets John Huppenthal

June 24, 2010 By 11 Comments

Obama Law Firm Targets John Huppenthal

Democrats Appeal To Arizona Supreme Court To Take Conservative Candidate Name Off Arizona Ballot

PHOENIX, ARIZONA. JUNE 23, 2010.  Perkins Coie Brown & Bain, an international law firm that represented the Presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John Kerry, has set its litigation gun sights on stopping the people of Arizona from having the opportunity to vote for John Huppenthal in the Republican Primary Election for Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Last week,  Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig dismissed a Democratic Party lawsuit that sought to have Huppenthal’s name removed from the ballot based on claims the signatures were collected too early.  Judge Oberbillig stated it would be an “extreme remedy” to throw out signatures that everyone agreed were not collected in a fraudulent or irregular way.

Yesterday, the law firm of Perkins Coie Brown & Bain filed an appeal with the Arizona Supreme Court, again seeking to have Huppenthal’s name removed from the Republican Primary Election Ballot.

According to the Wikipedia article on Perkins Coie:

“Perkins Coie is an international law firm based in Seattle, Washington.   …The firm is counsel of record for the Democratic National Committee, and other political clients include nearly all Democratic members of the United States Congress, as well as several Presidential campaigns, including those of John Kerry and Barack Obama. …With its main office located in Seattle, Perkins Coie is the oldest and largest law firm headquartered in the Pacific Northwest.

…In 2009, President Obama appointed Robert Bauer, the Chair of the firm’s Political Law Group, to become his White House Counsel.  … The firm also represents the Democratic Leadership Council, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.”

Democratic party has a long history of unsuccessful attacks on Huppenthal

The attempt by the Democratic Party to have Huppenthal’s name removed from the ballot by litigation is just the latest in a long history of attacks.

Recently, the Democratic Party attempted to smear Huppenthal by promoting a doctored video that purported to show Huppenthal walking out of an interview with a high school student.  The political dirty trick was exposed when the student journalist spoke out to set the record straight.  An editorial in the Arizona Republic condemned the Democrat’s doctored video in strong language, stating “Sometimes, a lie really is just a lie.“

In 2008, the Arizona Democratic Party spent tens of thousands of dollars on independent expenditures that made wild claims about Huppenthal and implied he was responsible for child abductions, cancer-causing toxins, internet sex crimes and the release of violent criminals.  The Democrat’s spending on attack ads failed to produce results,  and Huppenthal went on to defeat the Democratic candidate by more than 15%.

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.

For more information, please visit www.JohnHuppenthal.com or contact Emily Graham.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections Tagged With: , , , , , ,

Kirkpatrick Complies with Gosar’s Challenge

June 24, 2010 By 1 Comment


For Immediate Release

Contact:

J.P. Twist

Mobile: 602-689-7647

jp@GosarforCongress.com

 

Kirkpatrick Complies with Gosar’s Challenge


Flagstaff, AZ. June 24, 2010:  On June 18, 2010, in response to headlines reporting that  the U.S. Department of Justice under the directions of President Obama will sue the state of Arizona over SB 1070, Dr. Paul Gosar, CD1 republican primary frontrunner, issued a challenge to President Obama and Representative Kirkpatrick to “Secure our border, don’t sue Arizona” and specifically to Kirkpatrick, “I call on you to stand with me and with Sheriff Babeu, Sheriff Arpaio, former Coconino County Sheriff Joe Richards and with the vast majority of Arizonans and denounce this administration’s challenge to SB 1070.”

Just three days later, Kirkpatrick’s office issued the following statement in a June 21st, 2010 press release, “I am calling on the President and the Attorney General,” said Kirkpatrick, “to abandon preparations for a lawsuit against Arizona, and to recommit to finding a national solution to fixing this national problem.”

In the very same statement, Kirkpatrick says, “I oppose SB 1070….” However, she does not want the Obama Administration to sue the state of Arizona.  Instead, she seeks to use the publicity of a state and national crisis to promote herself and her liberal political ambitions.  She attempts to protect the state of Arizona while being openly against a law overwhelmingly supported by her constituents.

Dr. Gosar had the following response to Kirkpatrick’s statement, “I am glad that Rep. Kirkpatrick has decided to follow my lead and join the thousands of Arizonans already denouncing the administration’s intent to sue our state.  Whether it was my statement calling on her to act last Friday or the press conference I held with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and State Representative Frank Pratt in front of her office in Casa Grande early Monday morning, I am glad that my challenges to her have been answered.  Unfortunately her response looks to be nothing more than another failed attempt by this liberal Democrat to move herself closer to the center.  District 1 deserves true leadership, not election year platitudes.”

Dr. Gosar, who has consistently outraised every other Republican candidate in the primary election, continues to gain momentum for his tough stance on illegal immigration and restoring common sense, no-nonsense solutions back to Washington.  He has earned the endorsements of:  Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, former Coconino County Sheriff Joe Richards, former AZ Attorney General & NRA President Bob Corbin, Pinal County Supervisor Bryan Martyn and many others.

Dr. Gosar, a 25 year resident of Flagstaff, father of three, sports and hunting enthusiast has been traveling all over Arizona’s First Congressional District for the nearly a year now and has enjoyed meeting with supporters who share his belief that his background, and his expertise in rural Arizona’s way of life, make him the GOP favorite to unseat liberal incumbent Ann Kirkpatrick.  Dr. Gosar has practiced dentistry in Flagstaff for 25 years and is Arizona’s former “Dentist of the Year.”

-30-

Filed Under: Border, Campaigns & Elections, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Employment, Press Release

Why Jim Deakin Should Support JD Hayworth for the US Senate

June 24, 2010 By 58 Comments

by Michael Holliday

It’s great that Jim Deakin, the self-appointed Arizona Tea Party candidate, stepped up to the plate—like other similarly outraged conservatives with good intentions—to ride the wave of popular discontent and draw attention not only to himself, but to the difficult problems facing Arizona, such as the illegal alien invasion and some bona fide national issues, like our out of control Federal Reserve Bank, which is neither federal nor has any reserves.

And, although not enough to base a Senatorial campaign on, the fact that America now has more politically appointed, non-elected “Czars”—than several centuries’ worth of pre-Soviet-era Russian empires, combined—should be enough to alarm any true lover of freedom, and not just Mr. Deakin.

However, the political landscape leading up to the Arizona Primaries has developed in such a manner—the race between JD Hayworth and John McCain is so close (Rasmussen Reports has the race at 47 percent McCain and 36 percent J.D. Hayworth, with Jim Deakin taking 7 percent)—that Deakin’s sincerest contribution to the greater good, and proof of his dedication to the conservative cause celebre: stopping the illegal alien invasion and resisting amnesty, requires that he relinquish his self-indulgent Senatorial aspirations and subordinate them to the needs of something greater than himself.  That is, to the concerted effort to defeat John McCain.

I’m not suggesting that he step down from his well-intentioned efforts, rather I’m asking that he redirect them and step up to his important moral obligation.  That despite Deakin’s good intentions, the road to hell may await us all, unless we elect a candidate capable of effectuating authentic resistance against McCain’s nefarious direction.  JD Hayworth has pledged to do just that, and has even written the definitive book on the subject entitled Whatever it Takes:  Illegal Immigration, Border Security and the War on Terror.

Jim Deakin brings nothing new to the table that JD hasn’t already discussed in regard to securing our borders.  If anything, he brings lack of experience.  The biggest wake-up call for the world was the 911 attacks that brought mass destruction, through Jihadist terrorism, to US soil.  This changed everything, including the need to safeguard our borders immediately, without compromise.  However, it still wasn’t enough to change John McCain.

Furthermore, Deakin plays fast and loose with the truth by making the intellectually dishonest statement that a vote for Hayworth is a vote for McCain.  JD Hayworth has a stellar, 100% pro-life voting record.  John McCain does not.  In the eternal scheme of things, there is an unbridgeable abyss between JD Hayworth and John McCain on the right to life issue, alone.  That Deakin can’t see this is cause for worry!

Hayworth will fight McCain’s comprehensive immigration reform plan, holds a better overall conservative record— He maintained an “A” rating from the NRA, a 100% Pro-Life voting record, a lifetime rating of 89 from Citizens Against Government Waste and a lifetime rating of 98 from the American Conservative Union—and is officially endorsed by the original North Phoenix Tea Party.  A side-by-side comparison of Hayworth and McCain can be found here: http://www.jdforsenate.com/who-shares-your-values.

If I thought Deakin offered a realistic chance of beating John McCain, I would be giving him serious consideration, as would many other concerned Arizonans, as would the media, as would John McCain.  None are.  This is a big indication that he lacks the traction to sway the majority population of conscientious voters toward his goals, which are, for the most part the same as JD Hayworth’s—not McCain’s!  However, Deakin can still sway the votes of the critical few.  And this is where the problem lies.

For Deakin, hoping that every Arizonan will secretly convert, and fill in his name on the ballot—in an eleventh-hour Primary, “Damascus Road Experience” of sorts—is not only wanton wishful thinking wedded to self-deception, it’s, at best, a futile exercise in political overreaching and, at worst, a negligent act of self-destruction.  Even that megalomaniacal, power-hungry shrew Hillary Clinton, had to surrender her coveted delusions of Presidential grandeur to the reality of a superior, electable Obama.  And, anything but a full grasp of reality from a candidate, at this critical junction in America’s history, is unacceptable.  In fact, it makes me question not only Deakin’s true motives, but his fitness for public service.

Sometimes it’s not enough to do the right thing; sometimes one must do what is necessary.  Sometimes doing nothing is doing something.  And, sometimes doing nothing is doing something—extraordinary!  If Jim Deakin cares about Arizona more than he cares about himself, he’ll do nothing towards furthering his Senatorial campaign and lend his support to JD Hayworth.  It’s both necessary and the right thing to do.

Furthermore, in a close race like this, the cold-hard reality is that a vote for Jim Deakin is a vote for John McCain!

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

Grassroots Interviews with CD-3 candidate Pamela Gorman

June 24, 2010 By 20 Comments

Last night, I interviewed Pamela Gorman on GrassrootsInterviews.com.  She’s running for Congress in Arizona’s Third Congressional District.  There are ten candidates running in CD 3 and the voters really do need to do their homework.  I wish her the best of luck in her race!

 

 

Pamela Gorman Interview

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Interview

Southern Arizona Sheriff Endorses Andrew Thomas For Attorney General

June 23, 2010 By 5 Comments

Graham County Sheriff P.J. Allred Endorses Andrew Thomas For AZ Attorney General
PHOENIX, ARIZONA. JUNE 23, 2010.  Yet another Arizona Sheriff has endorsed Former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas in the race for Arizona Attorney General.  Graham County Sheriff Preston “P.J.” Allred announced his endorsement earlier today.  Thomas is known for his tough on crime policies which are very much in line with Sheriff Allred.
“Andrew Thomas understands the battle against crime that Southern Arizona is facing.  He helped reduce crime and illegal immigration in Maricopa County and I have every confidence he can help us do this in Graham County and at a statewide level too,” Allred said.
Thomas has also been endorsed by notable Arizona law enforcement leaders including Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Yavapai County Sheriff Steve Waugh, Mohave County Attorney Matthew Smith, Mohave County Sheriff Tom Sheahan, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, Arizona Police Association and former Arizona Attorney General and NRA President Bob Corbin.  Former Arizona State Senator Jonathan Paton and Arizona Right to Life endorsed Thomas as well.
During Thomas’ time in office, crime rates plummeted.  The 19 percent drop is more than twice the national rate of decline, in despite of an 11 percent increase in the county’s population during that time.  The illegal immigrant population has dropped by anywhere from 18 percent (Dept. of Homeland Security estimate) to 30 percent (Center for Immigration Studies estimate). Like the fall in crime rates, this dramatic decline in illegal immigration is far greater than the average in the rest of the nation.
Thomas has a track record of successfully defending illegal immigration crackdowns in our courts, including his successful efforts to prosecute illegal immigrants for conspiring to violate the state’s human-smuggling law and to defend Prop 200′s voter ID requirements and the employer-sanctions law, which he defended along with the Attorney General’s Office.
If elected Attorney General Thomas has pledged to expand that office’s prosecutions of illegal immigrants under the state’s human smuggling laws. The office is not currently pursuing such prosecutions.
Thomas is married with four children.  He is a graduate of Harvard Law School.  Prior to serving as Maricopa County Attorney, Thomas served as an assistant attorney general for Arizona, deputy counsel and criminal justice policy advisor to the Governor, special assistant to the Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, and a deputy county attorney.
To schedule an interview please contact Jason Rose.  For more information about Andrew Thomas, please go towww.ThomasforArizona.com.
Paid for by Thomas for AG
Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Crime and Punishment, Endorsements

Review of the LD 12 Senate CCEC debate

June 23, 2010 By 11 Comments

CLARK SILVER
Clark Silver spoke about lowering our tax rates to attract businesses to Arizona. In particular, Clark wanted to lower the business personal property tax rate to incentivize businesses to come to Arizona. He understands that a reduction in tax rates will increase revenue by attracting jobs, employing people and broadening the tax base. Clark also advocated reducing regulation to encourage business to thrive in Arizona.

Clark Silver supports SB 1070 and has said its employer sanctions are too soft. He advocates treating all business locations as one for purposes of determining how many times a business breaks laws against employing illegal aliens. He also believes that the three year probation terms in SB 1070 are too light.

Clark opposed Prop. 100 and stated that waste, fraud and abuse should be cut from government.
Mr. Silver noted that Arizona spends more per pupil than does Florida, yet even Florida’s disadvantaged students outperform Arizona’s students. He stated that he believes that we’re paying too much for our top-heavy school administration.

When comparing Clark’s positions to those of Nelson and Nunez, it’s clear that Clark is the only true conservative in the race.

NELSON
The CCEC refused to ask one of the most important questions: why was Nelson fundraising with Democrats at the Greater Phoenix Leadership’s Twelve in `10 fundraiser? No true Republican should have been helping Democrats raise money. Additionally, if these RINO legislators and candidates are for special perks for businesses and they are a mixture of Democrats and Republicans, that illustrates these individuals will be voting together and against the Republican belief in the free market. Nelson is no free market Republicans and his consistent D’s and F’s from the Goldwater Institute paints a very clear picture of him as a big government “Republican”.

Sen. Nelson strolled in right before the debate started, sat down, and started mumbling something about a water resources bill being signed. How tone deaf can someone be? First, we’re in an anti-incumbency year and he starts spinning the same “Experience” line that failed Hillary Clinton. Second, a water resources bill is hardly a sexy issue, nor one of the most important to voters right now. Immigration, the budget and education seem to be FAR more important than water resources. Nelson also styled himself as someone who can get bills through the legislature…in other words he’s a compromising deal maker. This is not the year for compromisers. We need legislators who are going to stand their ground on the issues. Compromises lead us to the tax increase. If the legislature holds firm, whether it was against Napolitano years ago or against Jan Brewer today, it is best for the citizens. When governors bully the legislature, we get tax increases and excessive spending.

On immigration issues, Nelson claims he supports SB 1070, but he TWICE failed to vote on SB 1070’s predecessor bill to end sanctuary city policies, SB 2280. If Nelson were an anti-illegal immigration stalwart, he would have bothered to vote on the bill.

The anti-incumbency sentiment is a TEA Party sentiment and that acronym initially meant “Taxed Enough Already.” Building on his tone-deafness, Nelson then states his support for Prop. 100. Only a spin doctor would claim the tax increase was popular when the special election was held on an odd date and several organized constituencies were rabid to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. Raising taxes is a Democrat thing to do and Nelson shows his RINO colors in supporting the tax increase. Additionally, it shows that Nelson doesn’t have the stomach for cutting government.

Not only did Nelson support Prop. 100, but he warns against tax cuts. He says tax cuts must be done judiciously so as not to affect government services. That’s a pro-big government stance coming out of a “Republican.” That’s the point of tax cuts and spending reductions, John: a roll back of unnecessary government services. Nelson’s statement also betrays that he does not believe that tax cuts lift burdens off the economy and can thereby result in an increase of revenue. Nelson buys into the Democrat “wisdom” that tax cuts always result in less revenue.

Nelson gets it backwards on jobs too. He said he wants to attract businesses first, THEN cut taxes. No, John, you cut taxes to attract the businesses. Doing it your way means more government giveaways and more government engineering of the economy. That failed in Soviet Russia and the Eastern Bloc, John.

Despite reports that the U.S. may be seeing around 10% employment and abysmal growth for some time to come, Nelson thinks we’re coming out of the recession. He said he wants to create more programs and incentives for small business. That’s a pro-business, not a free market stance. A conservative would be getting government out of the way of business, but Nelson thinks its government’s role to pick winners and losers.

Then Nelson speaks out of the other side of his mouth and says he wants to streamline government. A conservative would do that by reducing regulation and making government smaller. How does RINO Nelson want to streamline government? By creating more government. He’s not only sponsored bills to create government efficiency commissions, but he’s STILL championing the idea. If a politician needs some government commission to tell them where to cut government, not only are they out of ideas, but they aren’t doing their jobs. Remember, this is the guy that got straight Ds and Fs from Goldwater for voting to regulate the economy. HE is the reason why government isn’t efficient.

NUNEZ
The “Reverend” and former Democrat Eve Nunez who STILL refuses to state if she’s received any theological schooling, spoke favorably of government meddling in the economy and picking winners and losers. She too is tone deaf because she’s ignoring the criticism the federal government got for picking winner and losers in its bailouts.

Ms. Nunez incorrectly stated that Arizona was last in spending per pupil. Not only does Arizona spend THOUSANDS more per pupil, but we perform below those states which spend less per pupil. She shows her true Democrat colors when she exhibits that she believes that throwing more money at the problem will solve our education woes. Arizonans have been throwing money at education for years and nothing has changed.

Nunez was critical of tax cuts leading to our budget difficulties rather than pointing at excessive spending. This statement could have come out of Kyrsten Sinema’s mouth it is such a Democrat canard. Nunez needs to go back to being a Democrat.

Like the Democrat she is, Nunez is soft on crime. Just as she did in 2008 when she ran for the LD 12 House as a Democrat, she thinks we spend too much on the Department of Corrections and she wants to release prisoners early.
Like any Democrat in the state legislature, Nunez is anti-1070. She has characterized it as inhumane. She says the federal government should do its job, granted, it should, but if we rely on the federal government, we’re embracing the status quo or trying to stem the tidal wave of illegal immigration with meager federal efforts. The second best line of the night, and a complete lie from Nunez, was her claim that just because she’s Hispanic that cops can stop her and ask for her birth certificate. Apparently, like the Obama Administration, she hasn’t bothered to read the bill.

Like Nelson, Nunez wants to “do job creation.” That’s code for she wants the government to meddle in the economy. A free market conservative would get government out of the way.

In general, Nunez made several emotional appeals in her explanation of her policy positions. Running on emotions rather than facts is a Democrat thing to do.

The best lines of the night were Nunez criticizing Mr. Silver for breaking Reagan’s 11th Commandment and angrily claiming that she’s a Reagan Republican. I guess she is a Reagan Republican if she means that she was a former Democrat and favors amnesty. Clark might have been guilty of violating the 11th Commandment if he had been criticizing a Republican.

Finally, I had a belly laugh when Somos Republicans reported that the TEA Partiers in attendance were jumping ship to support Nunez. That’s not what the TEA Partiers reported here.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Debates

Joint APC and WVRP event with Candidates

June 23, 2010 By Leave a Comment

On GrassrootsInterviews.com, I interviewed Keith Sipmann about the joint Arizona Patriot Caucus and West Valley Republican Professionals event featuring J.D. Hayworth, Ruth McClung, and Janet Contreras. Details are in the very short video.

Event Announcement

Filed Under: Uncategorized

McCain: A Maverick La Raza can Rely Upon

June 23, 2010 By Leave a Comment

Arizona Senator John McCain may have done well in national polls last year during the Presidential race but the folks back in Arizona that know him best don’t seem to agree with the national numbers. McCain has been consistently identified as a flip-flopper on the issues, in particular amnesty and immigration. With the passing of Arizona’s SB1070, and the overwhelming support of the measure by Tea Parties and Arizona Voters – McCain seems to have found his Republican roots…once again. Very convenient for him, but not so much for Arizona.

Poll: Has John McCain failed Arizona as Senator?

Recently a Youtube video was feverishly sent around various media outlets portraying JD Hayworth in a infomercial ad that promoted the use of federal grants. The video made its way to the desk of Glen Beck who, without actually conducting a fact check on the issue, claimed JD Hayworth’s chances of beating John McCain for the US Senate seat were over and that his campaign was finished. The McCain and Deakin camps achieved its combined goal of spreading the video and tarnishing Hayworth – but only to a certain extent. JD Hayworth was quick to respond and brush off the attack during an interview with ‘Round Table Politics’. As Hayworth said in the interview, “…Mr. McCain and those around him realize they cannot run on their own record…” and “when you cant run on your record you have to attack your opponent for getting up in the morning.”

McCain should be very careful to throw rocks when he lives in a glass house. Being in the Senate for nearly 30 years provides researchers, bloggers and the media a lot of video coverage that can be used against him…and a majority of it pertains to bills that will actually impact the entire country and not just a few watchers of late night TV that happened to see the infomercial ad that Hayworth participated in.

Lets take a look at some videos (old and new) featuring John McCain saying things that actually do matter…

Below: Does this sound like a candidate that is for or against amnesty? Or does he sound like an ideologically flexible politician that changes his tune during election season? You be the judge.

YouTube Preview Image

Below: John McCain during a Presidential debate saying he’s for tougher boarder security, and not for amnesty…

YouTube Preview Image

Below: Here, in 2007 during his run for President, McCain says he is for secure boarders, enforcing existing immigration law…and for amnesty and supports a guest worker program…

YouTube Preview Image

Below: Again,in 2007 McCain says he’s for securing the boarders…and “touch back” (aka amnesty) and a guest workers program…again.

YouTube Preview Image

Below: Here Senator McCain says that he wouldn’t vote for the immigration bill that he drafted. I ask you again, is he ideologically flexible during campaign cycles?

YouTube Preview Image

Below: Absence on purpose? Notice how he did not state that he was against amnesty when he had the opportunity to do so.

YouTube Preview Image

Below: McCain saying that he made his position on immigration clear to a potential voter at a town hall.

YouTube Preview Image

Below: President Obama during a debate states he was in agreement with John McCain’s and Ted Kennedy’s immigration plan…the fact that a extremely liberal politician supports McCain’s immigration position is a red flag and problem all by itself.

YouTube Preview Image

Below: John McCain again pushing his amnesty plan and his position on a guest worker program…

YouTube Preview Image

Below: McCain now says he’s opposed to amnesty during an quick interview…

YouTube Preview Image

Below: McCain pushing the same old tired message on how to fix illegal immigration…biometric ID cards, walls and sensors. Here he also claims to be a conservative with conservative solutions.

YouTube Preview Image

Below: Here Glen Beck destroys Senator McCains amnesty bill.

YouTube Preview Image

Below: At the end of the interview with, McCain dodges Sean Hannity’s question on immigration reform…

YouTube Preview Image

Below: John McCain vs. John McCain

YouTube Preview Image

The bottom line is this, if we were to post all of the Youtube and internet videos showing McCain flip-flopping on the issues we’d be here all day and we’d run out of space on our server. The only thing Senator John McCain has proven to Arizona voters is that he is ideologically flexible and that he’s a political opportunist that will do anything that he can to stay in office and run his opposition out of town. It’s time for this solider to come home..for good.

Poll: Has John McCain failed Arizona as Senator?

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Illegal Immigration Tagged With:

The New Class Warfare: The Public vs. Private Sector

June 22, 2010 By 6 Comments

A guest opinion by James Allen.  The original can be found here.

The New Class Warfare: The Public vs. Private Sector

During economically difficult times we need a way to unite under a common banner. Gender, race, and socio-economic class are so 20th century, and I have the solution to level the uneven playing field. As Americans, we first and foremost believe in liberty – you know that expression of freedom that allows individual talents and ideas to grow. My plan is to unite the country under a new “class warfare.” Unity requires a common enemy and what can be more common than appealing to the common authority – you know that thing we all despise because it wastes our money and tells us what to do, while smiling in the camera.

To win votes, this grinning leviathan called Government often likes to pit people against each other and say that it’s fighting for you, the little person, against that malevolent big person in what is called “class warfare”. But class warfare has been around for a long time and the old divisions, while still lingering to a certain extent, are losing their power. So, we need a new way to divide people. The new class warfare is not black against white or man against women or rich against poor or even minorities against the white-man. So, move over Jesse Jackson and the race hustling industry. Step aside John Edwards with your “Two Americas.” Get out of the way Rosy O’Donnell with your feminist dripping sarcasm, and Michael Moore take a few notes as we dismantle the separation between the proletariat and bourgeoisie.

The new class warfare is against the money-sucking-vacuum of the highly paid and under achieving public sector against the withering money-tree of the private sector – something all of us can get behind. Well, all of us except for the government workers out there, which, for the first time have actually exceeded those working the private sector…

Currently, we live under the assumption that those in power are experts – maybe expert campaigners, but that is a story for a different day. We are told that we need the state to fund state parks and we believe them. We are told that we have to pay an extra two percent sales tax on food to save police, fire fighters, teachers, libraries, and senior centers, and we don’t think twice. We are told that we can spend our way out of bankruptcy and we need more government regulation because the current government regulation just wasn’t quite stringent and controlling enough to do the trick. Yet, we are also told that higher taxes and higher regulation will somehow equal more jobs and boost the economy instead of strangling the private sector until it shrinks out of existence. Unfortunately, I have a sneaking suspicion that this could be the plan for some, but to those who don’t actually dream of a neo-Marxist utopian society, I believe we have more opportunity for good in the private sector, and this opportunity not only allows us to turn a profit (which is essentially the idea that a person has a right to keep the fruits of their labor), but to use our talents with our liberty to make the most of our communities and of ourselves and produce a pretty decent place to live. Utopia be damned!  The problem here is that federal, county, city and other elected officials are using our emotions against us. We need to be just as smart as they think they are and see through the constant appeals to pity, with which we are bombarded.

When government employees make 45% more than private sector employees, mixed together with 14.8 million Americans out of work or looking for work, we have the ingredients for a new “class warfare.” I know what you are thinking, and fairness and social justice for all is on my mind, as well. So, I made list of questions to help clarify my point.

  1. Should the public sector (or state) create jobs that the private sector can fill?
  2. What happens when public sector jobs can no longer pay for themselves?
  3. Why should government workers get paid so much?
  4. Should government workers’ benefits extend beyond the time that they are working?
  5. When did it become morally wrong to allow the private sector to pick up the opportunity for jobs that, in essence, they are already paying for through taxes?
  6. Do public sector jobs actually create anything besides more tax revenue from the private sector?
  7. Why has the stimulus plan profited public sector jobs more than private sector jobs?
  8. When we hear about private sector growth, why is it always in the context of “Green Jobs?”
  9. What would happen if the pay for public sector jobs were cut by 10 to 15%?
  10. Do we really need the government in so many aspects of out lives, as if we cannot be trusted in the creation of our own wealth?

This new class warfare is unfortunately a reality that we must face because our economy, properly understood, is one of the foundations of our society. This does not mean that gender wars have ceased or that racism is a thing of the past. It is rather one more mountain to overcome as the issue of fairness and justice are continually misunderstood, as we fight for the soul of America.

Filed Under: Guest Opinion

Grassroots Interviews with Maricopa County Attorney Candidate Bill Montgomery

June 22, 2010 By 2 Comments

I interviewed Maricopa County Attorney candidate Bill Montgomery.  There’s a lot of bright line differences between the candidates in this race.  I wish Bill a lot of luck in his race!

Bill Montgomery Interview

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Interview

John Fund: “John McCain was all about Washington”

June 22, 2010 By 18 Comments

In case you missed what John Fund (Wall Street Journal) really thinks about John McCain.

YouTube Preview Image
Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

WSJ: “JD Huckster”

June 22, 2010 By 19 Comments

The Wall Street Journal has weighed in on the reality of JD Hayworth.  Not the spin, not the shiny object, revisionist history campaign fluff…the real story.  This reality is best personified in the portion of the infomercial  starring the “former member of the powerful Weighs and Means Committee” where he uses the trust of the people who elected him to sway the hearts and minds of others into a complete and total scam. 

These two quotes exemplify the duplicity that is JD Hayworth via the Wall Street Journal:

Everybody is allowed to make a living, but at a minimum Mr. Hayworth’s pitches on behalf of a company urging people to apply for “free” government money undermine his claims to be a legitimate conservative challenger to Mr. McCain.”

(Here’s a big question…What “real” conservative believes anything from the government is free? )

Then there’s his voting record. During 12 years in Congress, Mr. Hayworth may have talked a good game about restraining spending. Far more than Mr. McCain, however, he was an “enabler” of questionable budget items. It was Mr. Hayworth, not Mr. McCain, who voted for a 2003 prescription drug benefit that added enormously to the nation’s future liabilities. It was Mr. Hayworth who voted for bloated farm and highway bills, while Mr. McCain opposed them. It was Mr. Hayworth who was a consistent seeker and supporter of pork-barrel Congressional earmarks. Mr. McCain, on the other hand, never requested earmarks in appropriations bills and led many a crusade against those he felt were improperly slipped into bills.”

The country has been made aware of what many of us in Arizona knew all along…JD Hayworth is a smooth operator.  The guy can spin like no other, his ability to preen and perform is quite a talent.  

He says it was just a job, just a way to make a living, and no harm no foul…right?  (Tell that to the honest folks who lost money after they believed this could work because JD told them it would)  His starring role in the infomercial speaks volumes to his ability to pitch and sell, who cares who gets hurt…JD got paid!

Of course, Team Hayworth has come out blaming the McCain campaign for the public awareness of his choices and actions.  He even used a variation of the juvenile and insulting ”so and so did it, too” defense and is, once again, blaming others for his choices.  Just never mind it was published in the Weekly Standard, Fox News, MSNBC and the YouTube video has gone viral!  He is like the cheating husband who is not sorry he cheated just sorry he got caught after it messes up his perceived reputation. 

For a guy who wants us to trust him enough to represent us in the US Senate, he sure has a bad track record for thinking things through, evaluating the consequences, and vetting his decisions. 

OK, we all know about his arm-pit deep involvement with Abramoff…more recently we learned about his “close friend” and paid advisor Chris Simcox….now we find out he was a paid spokesperson for a company that was given an “F” by the BBB and used his Congressional seat as evidence of the companies good name and truthful claims.

What’s next? Hopefully it is his withdrawal from the race and the end to his public humiliation.

 

Filed Under: Advertising, Campaigns & Elections, Ethics

Grassroots Interviews with CD-5 Candidate, David Schweikert

June 22, 2010 By 10 Comments

I’ve been remiss in posting my Grassroots Interviews, so, I’ll be playing a little catch-up. I interviewed David Schweikert on June 16. I wish him the best of luck in CD 5! Currently, Mark Spinks is the only other candidate to have confirmed a date on the show and I have a mere 9 dates left to book before the August 24th primary.  After the primary, I’ll start interviewing those candidates that had no contested primaries and those that won their primaries.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Interview Tagged With:

Latest Rasmussen: John McCain “potentially vulnerable”

June 22, 2010 By 12 Comments

The latest Rasmussen poll has been released and in the race for US Senator, John McCain holds a flat-lined lead. Rasmussen’s website reports the following:

“Any incumbent who earns less 50% support is considered potentially vulnerable, and McCain has been hovering around that mark all year. Since January, McCain’s support has fallen in a narrow 47% to 53% range.”

“The 2008 Republican presidential nominee cannot be comforted by the fact that his level of support in early primary polling is similar to the numbers for another veteran senator, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. Specter, ultimately defeated in the state’s Democratic Primary by Joe Sestak, led in just about all early polling but could never get much above the 50% level of support.”

Since the race began, John McCain has been able to rise above the necessary threshold to close the deal with Arizona voters. Other polls Rasmussen has conducted here in Arizona and across the country have also underestimated the intense effect of the Tea Party Movement. It is not until a primary election has taken place that the true mood of the voters has been revealed. Like Roberts in Utah and Specter in Pennsylvania, John McCain is likely to suffer the same demise. However, given the current trajectory, the protest candidate will likely affect the outcome of this election. The Tea Party Movement can have a real impact here in Arizona but it needs to move quickly in derailing the protest candidate and pronouncing its support for JD Hayworth.

 

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Polls

The Democrats: More focused on defeating Republicans than solving problems

June 22, 2010 By 4 Comments

They refuse to call terrorists “terrorists”.  Their response to the worst environmental disaster is to point fingers and block the Governor of Louisanna and foreign firms from cleaning up the oil spill.  Their solution to near 10% unemployment and a long recession is to give handouts to their political cronies and blame former President George Bush.

But when it comes to patriotic and law-abiding Americans, the Democrats seem excited to call them “racist” and “violent”. 

And so it comes to the securing the border.  First Obama claimed the bill would lead to racial profiling despite having never read the bill.  Then Obama lied to Governor Brewer that he would visit Arizona with a plan to secure the border.  Now we find out that Obama lied about telling Senator Jon Kyl that he would not secure the border unless it was part of “comprehensive immigration reform.”

Byron York of the Washington Examiner sums it up nicely:

…Even if [Obama] didn’t have so many other fights on its hands, it would be unusual for an administration to align itself against an American state. But that’s precisely what has happened. Soon it will be up to the courts and voters to decide whether Obama’s campaign against Arizona will succeed or fail.

Filed Under: Border, Political Parties

THE WEEKLY STANDARD: “The End of the JD Hayworth Campaign”

June 21, 2010 By 20 Comments
YouTube Preview Image

The conservative publication, The Weekly Standard, is reporting a story they feel is so damaging they question how JD can survive.  Political Wire  runs the title, “Hayworth Pitched “Free Money” Seminars” and calls the video where he touts how to make fortunes out of foreclosures…priceless.

Using his Congressional seat as verification of the legitimacy of the offer, Hayworth offers this explanation: 

The money is out there, the opportunities are out there. And by the way, it’s not something where it’s the government’s money — it’s really your money. You surrendered it in the form of taxation. Now’s the time to take advantage of a situation where the government can invest in you. And in turn, you’ll have a chance to build a business, or make a better life for yourself — and in so doing, you’ll help improve the country.”

Well, not exactly… KVOA in Tucson reported that National Grants Conference, the company that Hayworth shamelessly shills in the 2007 ad, was investigated and found to be a scam.  In the KVOA video folks tell stories of handing over thousands of dollars, hard-earned dollars, in hopes of claiming what Hayworth called “free money”.  Hayworth adamantly verifies it to be absolutely real and backs it up with his Congressional experience on the “powerful Ways and Means Committee”.

Mercenary much?  How about scruples or shame?  How much did you get paid “Former Congressman JD Hayworth” to use your positions to take advantage of trusting Americans?  A flat fee or a percentage of the take?   

With Mike Broomhead killing the drive time ratings and the Senate thing looking pretty dismal, maybe this guy is ready to retire and a replacement is needed?  

Filed Under: Advertising, Federal Budget
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »