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

Politics on the Rocks anniversary event with Ward Connerly

September 8, 2010 By 1 Comment

Politics on the Rocks is proud to announce our 3 Year Anniversary Party on Thursday, September 16th 6:00 PM at the place where it all started Revolver Lounge located at 7316 E. Stetson Drive in Scottsdale, Arizona. To celebrate this milestone in networking, Arizona’s largest Republican & Conservative networking group has decided to buy everyone’s first drink!!! Dj-Mikyl will be performing live and everyone is welcome to attend t…his free event. Bring business cards and come and meet new and exciting politically-minded people. We would like to thank Scottsdale Nights and Revolver Lounge for their support.

After 36 monthly events and thousands of networkers coming to our functions nationally, we are excited to show our appreciation to everyone that has made Politics on the Rocks possible.

We are excited to announce that Ward Connerly will be speaking at our 3 Year Anniversary Party. Ward Connerly, is founder and President of the American Civil Rights Institute – a national, not-for-profit organization aimed at educating the public about the need to move beyond race and, specifically, racial and gender preferences. Mr. Connerly has gained national attention as an outspoken advocate of equal opportunity for all Americans, regardless of race, sex, or ethnic background. r. Connerly has been profiled on 60 Minutes, the cover of Parade magazine, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek magazine, and virtually every major news magazine in America. He has also appeared on The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Crossfire, Hannity & Colmes, Meet the Press, Dateline, NBC Nightly News, CNN, and C-SPAN.

Politics on the Rocks was formed to educate, motivate, and organize like-minded professionals together where they can network, socialize and hear directly from prominent political and business leaders on matters of social, economic and public importance. Recently, Politics on the Rocks was featured in the Arizona Republic. To view this article please click on this link: http://www.azcentral.com/thingstodo/bars/articles/2010/08/23/20100823political-candidates-meet-young-voters-drinks.html

Please invite your friends and welcome them to join our facebook group by sharing the following link: http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/group.php?gid=14328535931&ref=ts

Also, join our facebook fan page: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Politics-on-the-Rocks/126257510733252?ref=search

Order your Politics on the Rocks merchandise here: http://www.cafepress.com/PoliticsontheRocksMerchandise

We look forward to seeing everyone on September 16th 6:00 PM at Revolver Lounge!

Regards,

Politics on the Rocks National Committee
http://www.PoliticsontheRocks.com/

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Race Relations, Special Event

School districts use public money to influence Arizona elections

September 8, 2010 By 8 Comments

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute

Ever wondered who’s behind those “I Vote 4 Education” signs sprouting up on street corners across Arizona? They’re sponsored by an issue advocacy group called Expect More Arizona. That group is funded by a variety of interests including the Arizona School Boards Association (ASBA), which represents public officials who oversee taxpayer-funded school districts.

ASBA has been directly involved in several recent Arizona elections. The association contributed to the Yes on 100 sales tax increase campaign and, in June, donated $50,000 to the No on Proposition 302 campaign to oppose a November ballot measure that would end a costly and ineffective early-childhood program.

Wait, you might ask, isn’t it illegal to spend public funds on ballot measures? Yes, it is.

ASBA believes it is immune from that law because it is a “private” nonprofit organization. But its voting members consist entirely of school districts, whose dues come from public funds, and all of ASBA’s officers are current school board members. It’s a nifty trick: school boards that cannot use public money to campaign create a “private” organization that can.

It’s not just ballot measures: one of ASBA’s stated goals is to “advocate the core beliefs and political agenda as adopted by the membership.” That translates into a 21-page political agenda that calls for – you guessed it – more spending on public schools.
 
ASBA contends it uses only “private” money generated from its workshops to support its election activities. We decided to find out by submitting a public-records request to see ASBA’s finances. Guess what? Request denied. Even though every voting member is subject to the public-records law, by joining together in ASBA – voila! – suddenly they’re not.

In our view, public money should not be used for lobbying or electioneering. The misuse of public funds doesn’t get any cleaner by laundering them through a theoretically private entity. It’s an abuse of power that cries out for legislative action – and if necessary, litigation.

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

Filed Under: Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Education, Endorsements

PART TWO: SHAKING HANDS WITH THE DEVIL: “Gasoline on the fires” Rodriguez’s MACHETE death wish against Arizonans.

September 8, 2010 By 18 Comments

Stephen Holder of the New York Times, in a  Mt Olympus sort of 2,500 or so miles away, weighs in on the new movie,  MACHETE. “Conveniently timed to sprinkle gasoline on the fires of the immigration debate, Robert Rodriguez’s splatter comedy “Machete” has already riled up hardliners … Although laughter is the appropriate response to this pulpy, lighthearted gorefest, its pro-Mexican, anti-American stance is so gleefully inflammatory that some incensed nativists may refuse to get the joke … Funny throwaway jokes include the casting of Lindsay Lohan in a flashy cameo as April, a rich, scowling slut who dons a nun’s habit to wield a machine gun … She and her sexy blond mother, June (Alicia Rachel Marek), divert Machete in a threesome. Completing the unholy trinity of rotten, greedy Americans, along with McLaughlin and Booth, is Von (Don Johnson), a border vigilante who keeps his own army ready to slaughter any encroaching Mexican horde.

The only American with a conscience, Sartana (Jessica Alba), is a hard-nosed immigration officer who switches sides. The movie’s heroine, Luz (Michelle Rodriguez …) a taco stand operator known as She (pronounced Che), also runs “the network,” a secret revolutionary Mexican army waiting for the signal to rise up.”  http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/09/03/movies/03machete.html?ref=movies

Boy Howdy, we’ve literally circumnavigated the globe and lived on three continents and NO ONE we’ve met from Timbuktou to Katmandu, is able to yuk it up the way ol’  sophisticated Stephen Holder can at the sight of people getting their heads cleaved in two by machetes.  Even though it left New York Times film critic Stephen Holder in stitches,  the  Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists would be appalled to watch such a disrespectful depiction of a Catholic nun.  Religious people  respect  those who commit themselves to  piety,  but evidently, they’re more sophisticated at the “Grey Lady,” than those rubes.

But hullo.  That New York Times review is in stark contrast to this review, evidently from one of the “nativists”  Holder turns his nose up at:

Writer/Director Robert  “Rodriguez’s message is clear — if the racist gringos in Arizona (and Texas and California) prevent this illegal influx — the border crossing Mexicans, not Mexicans crossing the border — the reaction will be bloody carnage by way of machete, the preferred execution tool of drug cartel thugs fond of cutting off the heads of their victims.” – Kurt Nimmo – Infowars.com

There is just no common ground here; could it be there are two versions of MACHETE; one hilariously, by tony Manhattan standards, side-splitting,  and one  horrifyingly skull-splitting, by totally humorless rube standards?  So which review of MACHETE correctly captures the spirit of the “splatter comedy gorefest Machete”?  The oh-so-ironic detached aloofness of the New York Times review or the analysis of the “nativists” as the “do as I preach not as I do” New York Times indulges in some old-fashioned hypocrisy, insensitivity, and  bigoted  “code words” ?  Or is the NYT enabling bigotry but trying to pass it off slashing and hacking as funny?   Kenyans wouldn’t find any hilarity- nearly 2,000 killed, many by attackers armed with machetes, over 200,000 chased from their homes.

Following Classic Progressive Infallibility Requirements,often used by the New York Times, only those who actually were part of the film can say anything about it, so we  dismiss the dueling reviewers in favor of the words of the MACHETE lead actor:

 “… Danny Trejo proclaims the film is an angry response to Arizona’s attempt to prevent a huge influx of not only illegal immigrants but Mexican cartel drug traffickers targeting the state’s police officers.”
http://www.infowars.com/rodriguez-plans-at-least-two-machete-sequels/

Oh, that’s incovenient, “angry response.”   So, “comedy” isn’t the genre.  That proves that Stephen Holder of the New York Times doesn’t know what he’s talking about, so we  go to the review that perfectly matches actor Danny Trejo’s statement and see what other mischief is up:

“The image of a bloody machete in a clenched fist, now plastered across the Latin American world to promote ‘Machete’– spotted recently by a listener in Puerto Rico– holds a double meaning. “Todos con Machete” is more than just a rally cry to join the hero of this Mexploitation film; the machete is the common symbol for peasant uprising in Mexico, Central and South America– the weapon of a disarmed population.”  – Alex Jones & Aaron Dykes – Infowars.com

“The message of ‘Machete’ became politicized back in May shortly after director Robert Rodriguez leaked a trailer with a special “message to Arizona” that stirred fierce debate about the film. Rodriguez backed off of the fiery rhetoric however, after scenes from the script and warnings from Hispanic members of the film’s crew confirmed its overt racial overtones and prejudiced violence. Rodriguez told Ain’t It Cool News that he simply had ‘too much tequila‘ and that many of the most controversial scenes would be cut. ..” http://www.infowars.com/will-machete-release-spark-racial-violence/

So we had to take the word of a director/writer who hides behind a Tequila bottle as his defense. MACHETE is now playing in theaters across Arizona so the public can confirm that director Robert Rodriguez lied about toning  down it’s “overt racial overtones and prejudiced violence.”   Suitably, Tequila as a liquid is completely transparent, totally fitting to the quality of his claim.   http://www.prisonplanet.com/‘machete’-producers-lied-about-racist-bloodbath.html

Stephen Holder of The New York Times wasn’t wrong though on one crucial and chilling element of MACHETE:  ”Conveniently timed to sprinkle gasoline on the fires of the immigration debate …”   Gasoline on the fires is NOT what this nation or Arizona needs now , or ever. 

Excerpts: President Bill Clinton’s Remarks to the People of Rwanda (March 25, 1998)

“…4 years ago in this beautiful, green, lovely land, a clear and conscious decision was made by those then in power that the peoples of this country would not live side by side in peace.

The Government-led effort to exterminate Rwanda’s Tutsi and moderate Hutus … the killers … armed mostly with machetes and clubs …It is important that the world know that these killings were not spontaneous or accidental …These events grew from a policy aimed at the systematic destruction of a people. The ground for violence was carefully prepared, the airwaves poisoned with hate …  scapegoats … denying their humanity … to make it easy for otherwise reluctant people to participate in wholesale slaughter.

We owe to those who died and to those who survived … we owe to all the peoples of the world who are at risk because each bloodletting hastens the next as the value of human life is degraded and violence becomes tolerated, the unimaginable becomes more conceivable.”

According to “warnings from Hispanic members of the film’s crew” the spirit behind the film is more than disturbing, but frightening enough for some Hispanics working on the film to leak that they were worried about the EFFECT this film would have in the form they were seeing develop.   The name to remember is self-described Tequila-dodgy Robert Rodriguez, closely associated with James Tarantino, who ‘specializes’ in revenge-driven, self-absorbed film gore-fests. The multimillionaire actress to remember is Jessica Alba.   She can’t say she needed the money. Evidently behind Alba’s pampered pretty face is a hard-core racist, “I love your money, but I hate you all.”  Remember actor Danny Trejo, fresh from proclaiming the film ” an angry response to Arizona,” beaming on the red carpet, blinking with delight in the flashes of paparazzi and publicists – a movie star hoping for sequels to slice and dice and carve his way through “gringos” to Jessica Alba’s level of wealth made off  “gringos.”  Trejo is fully expecting to make beaucoup bucks  as MACHETE is distributed throughout Latin America.   But why pick on just them?  What were Robert de Niro, Lindsey Lohan, Michelle Rodriguez, Don Johnson  and Stephen Seagal thinking?   They need the money?  Maybe Lohan needed to post bail.  That’s a legit excuse, and certainly sums up the morally and ethically vacant quality of her decision-making in life, and in totally degrading herself  in her role in MACHETE.

But what’s red machete to red carpet Danny Trejo angry about?   How many Mexicans are being killed in Mexico, kidnapped and killed in the United States by Mexicans? Who killed 72 Central Americans two weeks ago in Mexico?  Who is responsible for the murder rate in Tijuana and a dozen other cities across Mexico?  The drug cartels are not made up of aliens from Mars, yet they get a free pass of who they are and from where they came.  How much of the drugs that enrich these cartels end up in elite Hollywood parties, forced through the border properties of hard-working American citizens, on the backs of Mexicans and Central Americans so dehumanized by their fellow “Hispanics,”  they are called “mules?” Who abandons those “mules” to die in the desert rather than be caught with them by our Border Patrol?

Yet, none of this matters! The LIE is what will move people, and film media is an extremely potent and effective way to create not a false reality, which isn’t possible, but a false PERCEPTION of reality, which is sufficient to energize people to do things they would not have done otherwise.  MACHETE characters argue lawlessness, and that people are defined only by their ethnicity, not their citizenship.  American citizens, specifically Hispanics,  should sell out their nation if ethnicity demands it.

With the Obama Administration in un-Constitutional,  full public pillorying of Arizona, through applying the full force of the Federal government against the state for the Audacity of SB 1070,  mobilizing presidential cabinet officials to re-engineer their departments to harass Arizona, Arizona governance, and Arizona law enforcement,  encouraging boycotts to economically hurt Arizonan citizens - the business owners, the employees – and all coordinated by the same political party, the Democrats, in a highly partisan, highly ideological attack aimed to overturn one law,  a film like MACHETE,  re-written  to name Arizona in an on-screen threat,  released at a time like this,  is spelled I-N-C-I-T-E-M-E-N-T.

Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwanda Genocide and the International Community “Linda Melvern … documents the extensive preparation for the genocide by extremists within the government of Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana going back at least to 1991. When the genocide began, they had bought and distributed the equivalent of one machete for every three Hutu males and, with breathtaking cynicism, manipulated the media and state institutions to stoke anti-Tutsi passions to a fever pitch.” http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Murder-Genocide-International-Community/dp/1859845886/ref=sip_rech_dp_10

As the L.A. City Council voted to boycott Arizona to “hurt the state,” director Rodriguez smirked as he retooled his “vision” to contribute to the Obama and Democratic Party theme of “hurt Arizona;” a vision that evidently was created while Rodriguez claims he was drunk, and as such would have been totally without normal inhibitions. Any given two minute scene in a movie takes hours, even days to produce.   That’s a lot of Tequila.  Has Rodriguez had his liver function checked recently? Or is he just lying? Is it lying enhanced by copious Tequila?

We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will be killed with Our Families:  Stories from Rwanda by  Philip Gourevitch : “In 1994 … in April, … Hutu husbands picked up machetes and killed their Tutsi wives … during May … the leading pop singer in Rwanda urged his Hutu countrymen over the state-sponsored radio to “Kill the cockroaches-”the Tutsis … in June, neighborhood “work groups” of Hutu men and women gathered to go over “hit lists” prepared by the government. During the time it took you to read the above, at least five Tutsis were killed, day by day, week by week, through July.”
http://www.amazon.com/Wish-Inform-Tomorrow-Killed-Families/dp/0312243359/ref=sip_rech_dp_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1283738609&sr=8-1

The Democrats under Bill Clinton’s failed leadership averted their eyes when Lt. General Romeo Dallaire, head of the United Nations Mission in Rwanda, warned of a buildup in violent rhetoric and political assassinations, and provided detailed intelligence of the plans of the extremist Hutus in the Rwandan government.  President Bill Clinton hid behind his State Department, which he tasked with spending its time dodging in a manner that would become his shameful trademark: ‘ the meaning of ‘ … “genocide,” while Clinton refused to mobilize anything to stop it.  With the failure of American leadership in this crisis, the United Nations dithered, paralyzed; then worse, withdrew troops.

A Democratic Party Administration presided over the worst single slaughter of a targeted group of human beings since World War II – 800,000 murdered in 100 days –  then played mealy-mouthed contrite and hung their heads and claimed to the surviving Rwandans, “We didn’t really know what was happening.”  How grotesquely similar is the current Democratic Party Administration’s dodgy rhetoric and lack of action today as Arizonans repeatedly warn of the increasing lawlessness at our southern border, the bankrupting of the state from unreimbursed costs,  asking the Federal government to do their duties?  The pleas are falling on willfully deaf Democrat ears, from Obama to Pelosi to Reid, and every Democratic Party-controlled  Department head in-between.  Obama promises 3,000 troops to the border, and lets Arizona sit on the curb until he finally sends … 30, with no more authority or means  as any random  United Nations unarmed “observers.”

The extremist Hutu cabal in Rwanda, refusing to accept any peaceful power-sharing with Tutsis,  very deliberately used relentless radio broadcasts for months before they made their move to seize control and begin the “Final Solution” to their perpetual Tutsi problem, to propagandize Hutus that the Tutsi were pushing them off their ancestral lands, that Tutsis looked down on Hutus as inferior, would make Hutus subservient to them, were exploiting them, and ominously, would destroy them if they weren’t destroyed first.  Thus informed by the extremists, many Hutus acted in what they believed to be national and ethnic self-defense.   The GHOSTS OF RWANDA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xON22c7pZ6c

The extremist Hutu arguments were identical to the extremist Atzlan arguments against Americans. Just swap “Hispanics” for “Hutus” and “Americanos” for “Tutsi.” The machete is indeed the “poor man’s weapon” even in Africa, and is the trademark of violent Salvadoran M-13 gangs which have already well  infiltrated U.S. states up and down the Eastern seaboard. The Hutu extremists shipped in and distributed machetes by the thousands to equip their Hutu gangs as they indoctrinated them with hatred for the Tutsi.

It just takes the right combination of rhetoric and depictions of injustice, no matter if manufactured, to stir righteous rage against “evil suppressors.”

Roberto Rodriguez is a cheap soul brother to the extremist Hutu media propagandists, using film to cynically prejudice Hispanics against Americans, while trying to make a buck and an edgy name for himself.   While wanting to be paid in U.S. dollars, not Mexican pesos, Rodriguez purposely singled out Arizonans to be sure the hate has an identifiable target, “Throughout the script, groups aligned with political attempts to curb, restrict and/or control illegal immigration are thoroughly demonized. Minute Men and militia are portrayed as wanton killers, picking off illegal children in the desert “like jackrabbits” and slinging derogatory terms like “wetback.”    http://www.infowars.com/leaked-machete-script-confirms-race-war-plot/

Should we accept Hollywood’s standard weasel dodge, their self-serving fig leaf derision against the public it seems to hate, only useful for whatever leftover cash is in their pockets?  That “it’s only satire” or “it’s free speech” or that we say nothing despite discovering the  snarky open insult of writer/director and bigot Rodriguez’s “Tequila Defense?”  Rodriguez didn’t “sprinkle gasoline on the fires of immigration, ”  he POURED it.

It doesn’t really matter now if MACHETE doesn’t have much of a theatre audience, does it?  DVD sales – legal and pirated copies - will quickly spread this toxic flick’s poison across the country, across the continent, to be watched again and again and again, dehumanizing Americans and Arizonans – “gringos” again and again and again.  Actions have consequences.   Hollywood elites can afford electric fences, security gates and personal bodyguards, so they obviously do not care about consequences of  their destructive behavior.

Lt General Romeo Dallaire, wrote his memoir of the Rwandan genocide to tell the world what happened, and to hope that by that, other genocides would be averted. The magnitude of the horrors still eludes his human understanding of it, but he remembers one thing clearly, meeting the masterminds of the Hutu extremist cabal who had designed and were directing the slaughter, in a darkened hotel room that reeked with alcohol. Dallaire suddenly, and totally unprepared for it, saw not men confronting him, but things otherworldly, the embodiment of evil.  And there he asked himself a question he never dreamed he would ever ask: “Do I shake hands with the Devil?”

The answer is “NO.”

We don’t need any fraud exploitative films about MACHETES; we already have them, the real thing:
SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL:    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJDGGxaGCNs

To add insult to injury, this is tax-payer supported film-making through political hacks on The Texas Film Committee. How did we get to this place?  Politicized committees handing out other people’s money to subsidize films which demonize or in this case, graphically slaughter those very same people, using the crudest, most derogatory racial stereotyping, and dehumanizing of Americans as justification for murder?  The Texas Film Committee has foolishly shaken hands with the duplicitous Devil in Roberto Rodriguez and his Hollywood cabal of soulless mockers. 

Will innocent Arizonans be the ones to pay for their folly?   Potentially, with Arizona’s open carry of firearms, Arizonans may not be the first ones to pay, but rather Americans in Democratic Party-controlled states and cities where lawful citizens have been disarmed by Progressive Liberal Left laws, and undermined by Democratic Party “sanctuary city” enabling of illegality.   Despite the terror it evokes, a machete is no match fora gun.  The Democratic Party’s poor choices in promoting lawlessness, and inciting violence, while reducing the self- protection capabilities of the lawful may well  backfire on them.  Even the New York Times Stephen Holder, between fake gaffaws petending it’s all a joke, admits that MACHETE is: “gasoline on the fires.”

Filed Under: Culture, Guest Opinion, Public Safety, Race Relations

Roundtable Politics from Monday, September 6

September 7, 2010 By 6 Comments

Last night on Roundtable Politics, hosts Rachel Alexander, James Allen and I discuss whether or not the Republican Party has EARNED party loyalty from conservatives in the General Election. We also touch on ballot Proposition 107 and Jan Brewer’s performance in the Clean Elections gubernatorial debate. Even Fox News is picking up on how atrocious her performance was. Fox is reporting that Coughlin and company now won’t let her debate because they’re afraid she’ll blow what should be an easy election.

Next Monday, we may well discuss the other ballot propositions on RTP.

link to last night’s Roundtable Politics

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

Two ballot propositions needed to keep state budget balanced

September 7, 2010 By 10 Comments

By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.

Most Arizonans probably think the state’s budget problems were solved with Proposition 100, the 18 percent sales tax increase approved in May 2010. However, if Arizona’s voters fail to approve two more budget-related proposals during the Nov. 2 general election, the Legislature will have to move swiftly on additional spending reductions.

Propositions 301 and 302 remove all of the money from two special funds to help balance the current budget. Prop. 301 would take almost $125 million from the Growing Smarter Fund, which was created in 1998 to buy state trust lands and protect them from development, even though only a tiny fraction of Arizona’s land will ever be developed. Prop. 302 would take $325 million from First Things First, an early childhood education program created in 2006 that has no legislative oversight and until this spring hadn’t spent any of its money on programs for children.

The Legislature built the current budget under the assumption these two propositions would pass. If they fail, the state funding shortfall will be at least $700 million. Meanwhile, additional federal funding for the state Medicaid program will be lower than expected. Tax revenues are coming in a bit slower than had been forecasted too.

Earlier this year lawmakers identified $862 million in “contingency cuts” that would have occurred if Prop. 100 hadn’t been approved. Public education would have borne the brunt of the reductions. Now, it’s quite likely these contingency plans will become a reality.

Organized opposition to propositions 301 and 302 has already begun. But no one has stepped forward to lead the campaign to pass the ballot measures. Gov. Jan Brewer has said almost nothing about them. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, an advocate for the sales tax increase, has decided not to weigh in this time. Other groups that supported Prop. 100 are silent too.

If no one leads the propositions to victory, public education will not be spared from the spending reductions that Proposition 100 promised to prevent.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Spending, State Budget, State Economy

PART ONE: Raising Hell in Arizona: Shaking Hands With the Devil

September 6, 2010 By 5 Comments

Excerpts: President Bill Clinton’s Remarks to the People of Rwanda (March 25, 1998)

“…4 years ago in this beautiful, green, lovely land, a clear and conscious decision was made by those then in power that the peoples of this country would not live side by side in peace.

The Government-led effort to exterminate Rwanda’s Tutsi and moderate Hutus … the killers … armed mostly with machetes and clubs …

It is important that the world know that these killings were not spontaneous or accidental … They were most certainly not the result of ancient tribal struggles. Indeed, these people had lived together for centuries…

These events grew from a policy aimed at the systematic destruction of a people. The ground for violence was carefully prepared, the airwaves poisoned with hate, casting the Tutsis as scapegoats for the problems of Rwanda, denying their humanity. All of this was done, clearly, to make it easy for otherwise reluctant people to participate in wholesale slaughter.

We cannot change the past, but we can and must do everything in our power to help you build a future without fear and full of hope.

We owe to those who died and to those who survived … our every effort to increase our vigilance and strengthen our stand against those who would commit such atrocities in the future, here or elsewhere. Indeed, we owe to all the peoples of the world who are at risk because each bloodletting hastens the next as the value of human life is degraded and violence becomes tolerated, the unimaginable becomes more conceivable—we owe to all the people in the world our best efforts to organize ourselves so that we can maximize the chances of preventing these events. And where they cannot be prevented, we can move more quickly to minimize the horror.

So let us challenge ourselves to build a world in which no branch of humanity, because of national, racial, ethnic, or religious origin, is again threatened with destruction because of those characteristics of which people should rightly be proud. Let us work together as a community of civilized nations to strengthen our ability to prevent and, if necessary, to stop genocide.”

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/4602

As the Obama Adminstration and Democratic Party political demonization, harrassment by legal suits, and isolation of Arizona continues for the audacity of SB1070, where are the Democrat Party Icons,  the  Clintons?  How pathetic to see that now Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who as First Lady, stood at her husband’s side on the blood-soaked soil of Rwanda, is apparently nothing but a cynical, willing tool in of the Democratic Party in the Obama Administration to create just the sort of divisions, condemnations, false accusations, and racial and ethnic  demonization against the citizens of Arizona which are indistinguishable from the opening salvos of the extremist Hutu propaganda campaign against the Tutsi, begun at least two years before the Hutu president of Rwanda’s plane crashed, the trigger for the actual genocidal onslaught.   Was Hillary not listening or was it simply another phony Democrat posturing to cover up yet another horrific failure?

Where are the Clintons?  Hillary and Bill said they were like “co-presidents.”  They told the world they’d learned from Rwanda. Why are they not both, Bill Clinton as former president and Hillary today as Secretary of State, standing up for Arizona instead of being either AWOL or producing divisive rhetoric and patently absurd international complaints against Arizona’s elected leadership and her lawful citizens?  They talked a lot about “never again, lessons learned.”  Does this mean their pious speech of peace and conflict resolution is not ever to be taken as if they actually mean it?  Hillary Clinton fancies herself presidential material, but instead of distancing herself, she’s complicit in just the sort of political low down corrosiveness that the extremist Hutus began against the Tutsi to neutralize them as political rivals … not just for the next election cycle, but  permanently. 

With the overwhelming horror overshadowing all, about the Rwandan genocide, there is a critical warning to be learned that is often overlooked:  The radical Hutus used the blunt tool of genocide to stop a comprehensive peace agreement and power sharing government brokered by the U.N. between moderate Hutus and Tutsis.  They deliberately incited mob violence to upend a lawful process being agreed upon by the majority of Rwandan citizens.  Tyrants, Communists and anarchists have long used violence and physical intimidation to overturn Rule of Law.  Rwanda was just one of the more extreme outcomes of the same process. But once started on this downhill road, it’s not always possible to brake to stop the  momentum to total chaos.

 Who with a (D) of the lofty rhetoric of civil rights and human dignity will correct the Democratic Party’s un-Constitutional and dangerous undermining of our nation’s domestic tranquility?  Or is that waaay too much to expect of anyone who associates with a political party that was so committed to slavery it dragged the country into a bloody civil war rather than give slavery up peacefully?

Arizonans may search, but they will find no one in the Democratic Party willing or interested in defending the rights of the PEOPLE. If a catastrophe like Rwanda leaves Democrats from school boards, to town councils, to city councils, to mayors, to representatives, to president publically repentant, but privately uncaring and unchanged, how puny and insignificant the squeaks from some U.S. state must seem in comparison.

But the issue at heart is a hostile Federal Government’s mis- use of  Federal power levers, rank public pilloring, destructive boycotts, negative propaganda and pure demonization to upend a normal, correct and fair law-making by duly elected state officials.  Arizona has done nothing wrong, has nothing to be ashamed of or is guilty of anything.   Unknowingly, Arizona evidently seriously disturbed a Democratic Party national political plan.  With no legitimate means to stop Arizona, the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party  have chosen poorly;  isolating the target, personalizing the target and now seek to destroy the target.  Radical Saul Alinksy wrote those words and he dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals” to “Lucifer.”  Yes, that Lucifer, the Devil.

Arizona’s stand then is not just to protect her lawmakers, her law enforcement officers and her people, but to stand for Rule of Law against anarchy, to stand firm for what’s good and right against those who would carelessly break it all to pieces.

(“Shaking Hands with the Devil”  -  from Lt. General Romeo Dallaire’s Rwanda memoire, “Shake Hands with the Devil.”)

Filed Under: Culture, Government, Guest Opinion, National Security, Public Safety, Race Relations

A Conservative’s Post-Mortem on the State Legislative Races

September 5, 2010 By 40 Comments

As my analysis below will show, conservatives had some victories and suffered some losses. I think, in Arizona, the TEA Party was either too hyped or not as effective as it could have been. While some say that Arizona loves its incumbents (and that’s why some ratings groups like NFIB, RTL and NRA endorsed incumbents over challengers with higher scores), some newcomer candidates ran ineffective campaigns and that may be more to blame than a love of incumbency. While it may be a sign of becoming inured in “the system,” newcomers, if they want to win, simply have to learn how to campaign and do so effectively.

LD 1
The LD 1 Senate race was not contested, so Steve Pierce is our nominee. By all accounts, Mr. Pierce will be one of two major Senate President candidates. Russell Pearce being his opponent. On election night, I overheard Republican Party Executive Director Brett Mecum tell Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen say that he believed that Russell Pearce had the votes to become Senate President. Since then, I believe I’ve seen one news article stating that Russell Pearce does not have the votes necessary. If Steve Pierce wins, we can expect the status quo to be maintained. He was one of the sponsors of the tax increase.

House Whip Andy Tobin won re-election. Karen Fann, a candidate Mr. Tobin recruited, beat Noel Campbell by about 3% or 1,400 votes. I understand that Mr. Campbell was the most conservative candidate in the race, but ran a lackluster campaign. Ms. Fann replaces Lucy Mason who was termed out. I can’t say I’m sad to see Ms. Mason go. She has been far less than an icon of conservatism. I can only hope that Ms. Fann votes to the right of Ms. Mason but I’m not too hopeful since Keith Sipmann labeled her as a Democrat in Disguise on his blog and she was one of the Republicans fundraising for Democrats at the Twelve in `10 fundraiser. As for the Whip, as I stated when I had him on Grassroots Interviews, I was disappointed that House leadership even allowed Prop. 100 on the floor. Mr. Tobin was gracious enough to concede that it was a fair criticism. When I went back to look at Mr. Tobin’s scores from Goldwater Institute, they were all lackluster. He scores about as well as Mason, Quelland, Reagan, Konopnicki, and Crandall and in the 2010 Goldwater scores, he’s almost always at the bottom among Republicans. I don’t think Mr. Tobin belongs in the conservative camp with scores like those and I have no understanding of how he got a PAChyderm endorsement.

Noel Campbell’s loss meant that conservatives didn’t get the optimal results.

LD 3
Doris Goodale and Nancy McLain won re-election to their House seats. Ray Cullsion was the only challenger. Ms. McLain’s 2009 Goldwater scores look like she does about as well as Driggs or Barto in the House. She scored well to the right of her seat-mate Goodale. While Ms. Goodale and Ms. McLain CLAIM they were anti-Prop. 100, they BOTH voted for it in the state legislature. Considering they don’t score well and they assured you’d suffer higher taxes, they should have been held accountable. I would have been willing to roll the dice on Cullison.

Looking at Goodale’s and McLain’s scores from Goldwater, I simply can’t call the House races a win for conservatives. McLain scores about as well as Nancy Barto and Goodale scores with Mason and Reagan. What LD 3 needs is clones of Ron Gould for the House seats.

LD 4
Scott Bundgaard won the Senate nomination rather handily, earning three times as many votes as either Tony Bouie or Shawn Kohner. Bouie had run for the House in LD 6 in 2008 and lost after being tagged as a moderate despite endorsements from Gorman, Shadegg, and Mike Pence. Kohner is a political newcomer and seems by all accounts a rather conservative guy. Scott has some detractors who will point out his flaws, but be that as it may, the voters chose him and this sets up an interesting situation in the legislature because Jack Harper and Judy Burges got 40% of the vote each and the others fought over the remaining 20%. Harper and Burges score extremely well by most conservative organizations, but with the difficulties between Bundgaard and Harper, one has to ask, are they going to kill each other’s bills or are they going to work together to advance the cause of conservatism no matter who might be the sponsor of a bill? Despite their flaws I actually like both Scott and Jack. I truly hope they both will not allow their personal differences get in the way of voting conservatively, even if one or the other is a sponsor or co-sponsor of a bill. I really want to call this a win for conservatives.

LD 5
Sylvia Allen beat the poster boy for RINO Republicans in the House Bill Konopnicki 55% to 44%. Konopnicki is disgusting and a prime example of everything that is wrong with moderates because he not only was the leader of the Sanctuary Six but he always scores about dead last among Republicans by conservative rating organizations. Let me ask, if conservatives are so horrid, why campaign as one? Konopnicki did his best to cast himself as the conservative in this race. I say if you’re a moderate, you should sing it loud and proud, not lie to the electorate. The truth is that the conventional wisdom demands that you run to the right in a Republican primary and Konopnicki wanted power so bad he’d lie, lie, lie just to get elected. I couldn’t be more thankful that LD 5 rejected the Burger Baron.

In the House races, Brenda Barton and Chester Crandell, who ran as a team with Sylvia Allen, defeated Konopnicki’s hand-picked candidate, Keith Alexander. LD 5 was an unmitigated win for conservatives since the most conservative candidates won. This is one of the few races where money didn’t matter as much. Konopnicki outspent Sylvia Allen by a ton.

LD 6
Lori Klein beat incumbent David Braswell by almost a 60-40 split. Braswell has drawn a ton of fire for being a moderate, yet his 2010 Goldwater scores were surprisingly high. He tied for 4th in the Senate on Education issues with Jack Harper. However, Braswell drew some fire for voting against a school choice bill, but Braswell defended the vote because the bill was too narrow and didn’t apply to all schools equally. On constitutional government issues, he tied for 5th with Thayer Verschoor. On economic regulation issues, he tied for 4th with Sylvia Allen. However, Mr. Braswell’s answer to me on meddling in the economy sounded an awful lot like he favored big government meddling in the economy with special breaks for business rather than an even low tax, low regulation, free market regime. On taxation and budgeting issues he tied for 4th with Jack Harper and Thayer Verschoor. Be that as it may, it is my understanding that the Maricopa Board of Supervisors demanded that their appointees support Prop. 100. His answers on Prop. 100 showed he wanted it both ways: he claimed he didn’t support it, but he supported the voters’ right to decide. Overall, Braswell scored as the 5th most conservative Senator and he beat out Thayer Verschoor. Now that Lori has defeated David, she’ll have to score very well with Goldwater to avoid an unfavorable comparison. I truly wish Lori the best of luck and I hope she makes Andy Biggs look like a communist by comparison.

Ms. Klein ran as a team with Carl Seel and David Fitzgerald. Unfortunately, Amanda Reeve, an incumbent moderate, took the greatest percentage of the vote. Reeve may have scored well with Goldwater on Education issues, but her votes quickly fall off on other issues. She was the lowest scoring member in LD 6 and she helped raise money for Democrats at the Twelve in `10 fundraiser. One might attribute her win to having the money to paper the district with mailers. By some accounts, she sent almost as many mail pieces as did Ben Quayle. Carl Seel had the second highest vote total in the House race, narrowly edging out his teammate David Fitzgerald. LD 6’s voters made a poor choice in Reeve. Amanda Reeve will continue to vote at cross purposes with Carl Seel.

LD 7
LD 7’s elections were almost a total disaster. “Sanctuary Six” Nancy Barto won with about 46% of the vote, almost half, and she was 13 points ahead of her closest rival, Ray Barnes. What’s really sad is that TEA Party candidate Brad Buch came in dead last…even behind the guy who was found to have forged his $5 qualifying contributions, Bob Green. In his defense, Mr. Buch was a newcomer and wasn’t knowledgeable about campaigning. I voted for Mr. Buch even though I never expected him to win. Why? Because he was the conservative and the other choices either weren’t palatable or I was skeptical of.

I believe name ID helped David Burnell Smith garner the most votes in the LD 7 House race. Despite Howard Levine’s write up of the LD 7 candidates, I don’t believe Mr. Smith was the most conservative candidate, probably in the top three, but not the most conservative. Other news articles showed Mr. Smith had some odd policy positions for a Republican, namely vilifying insurance companies and opposing tort reform. Be that as it may, with Nancy Barto’s win and Democrat in Disguise Heather Carter winning the other nomination, David Smith will be the lone conservative knight in LD 7. I was thoroughly disgusted that the two most conservative candidates (to my mind) came in 2nd and 3rd to last. Mike Farrar earned only 11% of the vote and Howard Sprague earned only 9% of the vote.

With Barto and Carter winning, the two most liberal candidates in their respective races, LD 7 has pretty much gone moderate…as if it already wasn’t. The one ray of hope was David Smith’s win. Let’s hope David can keep Nancy and Heather from malfing things up too bad.

LD 8
While LD 8’s voters had no choices in the Senate race, they were stuck with the liberal Michele Reagan who raises money for Democrats, they made some pretty conservative choices in the House races. Incumbent conservative John Kavanagh garnered about 40% while conservative Michelle Ugenti came in second with 21% of the vote. While I’m sure the soon-to-be Sen. Reagan will be voting at cross-purposes with Rep. Kavanagh and Ugenti, at least conservatives got one of the most conservative results it could have gotten in this district.

LD 9
Incumbent Rep. Debbie Lesko won re-election with 45% of the vote. Rick Gray came in second, and won nomination with 28% of the vote. If I’m not mistaken, Diane Douglas, who came in 3rd with 25% of the vote was heavily involved in PAChyderm Coalition and had their endorsement. I was leery of Rick Gray when he refused to come on Grassroots Interviews but he states in the 2010 Cap Times Primary Guide that he believes in the Austrian School of economics which should mark him as a free marketer. Considering Lesko not only endorsed McCain (before Hayworth got in the race) AND she voted FOR the tax increase, she should have been held accountable. Lesko failed to garner an Arpaio endorsement, but Douglas and Gray did. I can’t call this as a win for the conservatives since Diane lost.

LD 10
Jim Weiers was the biggest vote getter in the House with about 34% of the vote and Kimberly Yee got the second nomination with 32% of the vote. There’s no doubt that tremendous name ID helped Jim Weiers win. Weiers and Yee had PAChyderm Coalition endorsements. I can’t say I’m sad to see that “Sanctuary Six” Doug Quelland lost. Quelland has also had troubles with the Clean Elections Commission and he has been removed from office before. I can’t say that history helped him. Bill Adams supported Prop. 100 and wanted to sound like he’s pro-Life when he’s not. This was a win for conservatives because the best candidates won. Let’s just hope Yee and Weiers can undo any damage Linda Gray might do in the Senate. Linda Gray is now notoriously pro tax after SPONSORING Prop. 10 and opposing Prop. 13.

LD 11
LD 11 was just as big a disaster as LD 7. In the Senate race, liberal incumbent Rep. Adam Driggs successfully switched houses with about 49% of the vote. Name ID and money meant a lot in this race. Driggs was one of the liberals who helped fundraise for Democrats in the Twelve in `10 fundraiser put on by Greater Phoenix Leadership, a group that supports big government meddling in the economy and more government in education. PAChyderm endorsed Senate candidate Rich Davis came in second and therefore did not earn a nomination, with 40% of the vote.

Conservatives also didn’t get the optimal results in LD 11’s House races. Eric West and Dusti Morris were the PAChyderm Coalition endorsed candidates. However, Dusti dropped out of the race early. Shawnna Bolick would have also been a superlative candidate. While Eric West earned one of the two nominations with 22% of the vote, Kate Brophy McGee, a supporter of big government and tax increases earned 31% of the vote. Shawnna Bolick came in third with 19%, Bev Kraft, the wife of former legislator James Kraft who lied about being related to the Kraft Foods family came in fourth with 17%.

Again, these were not optimal results for conservatives. The dream results would have been Davis in the Senate and Eric West and Shawnna Bolick in the House. As in LD 7, conservatives got 1 out of 3.

LD 12
LD 12’s Senate race couldn’t have been a bigger disaster unless Democrat in Disguise Eve Nunez had won. Rather, the LD 12 voters chose absentee incumbent liberal John Nelson with 56% of the vote. Not only has Nelson consistently earned D’s and F’s from the Goldwater Institute for voting to regulate the economy, but some Democrats score as more free market than Nelson. He voted to increase your taxes and like the Sanctuary Six in the House, he wasn’t present to vote on HB 2280 in the Senate. He also helped raise money for liberal Republicans and Democrats at the Twelve in `10 fundraiser. If you want more information on what a liberal Nelson is, just take a look at the comparison piece on Clark Silver’s website in the lower right corner. There’s nothing Republican about Nelson. The ONLY conservative in the Senate race, Clark Silver, earned 25% of the vote. LD 12’s voters made a huge mistake.

LD 19
LD 19’s Senate race was a disaster for conservatives too. Conservatives had a decent candidate in James Molina, but he dropped out of the race towards the end. That meant the absentee liberal incumbent House member making a switch to the Senate got a free pass. Crandall is the ONLY Republican who missed more votes than John Nelson in 2009. He’s also another demonstrable liberal that campaigns as a conservative. Meanwhile, he was raising money for liberal Republicans and Democrats at the Twelve in `10 fundraiser.

Justin Olson was the only candidate endorsed by PAChyderm Coalition in the LD 19 House race. Luckily he got 36% of the vote. Speaker Adams got about 36% of the vote too. In going over the scores from Goldwater and other conservative rating organizations, I haven’t noticed Speaker Adams at the top of many lists. As Speaker, he also allowed the tax increase on the House floor. I think that was a huge failing. Be that as it may, the other “Republican” candidate in the race, Perkinson, earned 29% of the vote. He wasn’t strong enough on the tax increase and cited Crandall as one of his political influences. Thankfully, he didn’t win a nomination.

I’m not sure I can call this a win for conservatives since Molina dropped out of the Senate race. Granted, conservatives scored a single victory with Olson’s win and avoiding a Crandall clone in the House, but I’ve called other districts disasters when only one conservative won.

LD 20
Since Sen. Huppenthal ran for Superintendent of Public Instruction and Rep. McComish ran unopposed for Huppenthal’s Senate seat, that left two open House seats. The voters chose Jeff Dial with 48% of the vote and former legislator Bob Robson with 38% of the vote. It’s surprising that Dial beat a former legislator by 10%, especially when Dial, McComish and Robson ran as a team. One might expect their vote totals to be a little closer. I wasn’t blown away by Robson’s answers in the Cap Times 2010 Primary Guide on Prop. 100, his “other concerns” or his fiscal philosophy. Rather than giving a direct answer, he said the tax increase was a moot point. I couldn’t disagree more. Taxation has always been a key issue for Republicans and, as an office seeker, he OWES his potential constituents a direct answer. He also said he wanted to “maintain” education infrastructure. To me, it sounds like Mr. Robson wants to protect the education status quo. The status quo isn’t working and we need change, namely slapping down administrators’ wasteful spending, ignoring what the teachers’ union wants and focusing on spending on and the needs of the kids. Mr. Robson says he’s a fiscal conservative, but also a realist. To me, this is a red flag. It says, “I’m a fiscal conservative, except when I’m not.” Robson also got the endorsement of some police and fire groups and they don’t have a reputation for loving de minimis government. Looking at Robson’s past scores from Goldwater, they’re lackluster. This guy scored to the left of Sen. John Nelson some years. Perhaps there’s a reason why he got 10% fewer votes than Dial. Jeff Dial skipped ALL the issues questions in the Cap Times book, but submitted his 250 word piece to the CCEC. Not sure why that is. I’m guessing Jeff wanted voters to get information on him from his own website instead of the guides. The other candidate in the race, Christopher Tolino didn’t seem much different than Robson. Tolino, who got about 14% of the vote said he wanted to “provide incentives to make Arizona a business friendly environment.” Again, this sounds like headhunting, or picking winners and losers in the economy rather than letting the economy grow wild as the free market’s whims may grow it. At least Tolino gave a direct answer on Prop. 100.

A win for conservatives? I’d argue that that’s not the case with Robson as our nominee. In any case, LD 20 has a Democrat Rep in office, Rae Waters, and she’s seeking re-election. I’d rather see her gone than in office, but replacing her with a moderate like Robson makes me queasy.

LD 21
LD 21’s House nominations were good for conservatives. PAChyderm Coalition endorsees Tom Forese and J.D. Mesnard took 35% and 34% of the vote respectively while Democrat in Disguise (DID) Vanessa Whitener earned only 30%.

LD 22 House
LD 22 is an iconic conservative stronghold, so, the fact that DID Steve Urie earned a nomination with 20% of the vote is a severe disappointment. It’s also somewhat of a surprise that Urie was able to pick off incumbent Laurin Hendrx, but Hendrix has been criticized for skipping District meetings and failing to be available to his constituents. Hopefully, Mr. Hendrix’ lesson will be learned by ALL state legislators. Conservative leviathan Eddie Farnsworth earned the other nomination with 34% of the vote, the largest share. Another disappointment in the LD 22 House primaries is that conservatives Kelly Townsend and Bret Petillo earned so few votes. They earned 11% and 7% respectively. Mr. Howell, the other DID running for a nomination, earned only 8%. In such a conservative district, Howell and Urie should have come in last, not Petillo. Not living in the district, my only guess as to how Mr. Urie won a nomination is that he was very good at telling his people to one-shot him while conservatives spread their votes across the other candidates.

LD 23
LD 23’s Senate race was a total win for conservatives. Steve Smith won by almost a 3-1 margin over Matt Byers. Steve had Joe Arpaio’s endorsement and is a straightforward, no non-sense kind of guy. When Steve came on Grassroots Interviews, I was thoroughly impressed with him. I just hope that in this District that has about a 4% Democrat registration advantage that Steve Smith can pick off Rebecca Rios. HOWEVER, only 11K voters voted for Rios whereas almost 16K voted for the Republican candidates. I believe that if Steve campaigns to the Independents and PNDs that are trending Republican these days, he MIGHT be able to defeat her. She has tremendous name ID. I wish him the best of luck since we need people like Steve in the legislature.

LD 26
In LD 26, conservatives got just about the best results they could have hoped for. The voters re-nominated Vic Williams with 41% of the vote and gave conservative Terri Proud 32% of the vote while defeating Democrat in Disguise Wade McLean with only 27% of the vote. Williams is no conservative, but with McLean being described by some as a DID, I’m happy to take Williams over McLean. Now, LD 26 is split in the House with 1 Democrat holding a seat and she’s seeking re-election. I hope the Republicans, independents, PNDs and Libertarians turn out in force and elect Proud and Williams and send the Democrat Nancy Young Wright home.

LD 30
Sen. Frank Antenori’s defeat of the demonstrably liberal Marian McClure by a 2-1 margin is the best conservatives could have hoped for in LD 30’s Senate race considering the candidates in the race.

In the House races, LD 30’s voters nominated incumbents David Gowan and Ted Vogt with 34% and 28% of the vote respectively. Luckily, they were wise enough to send DID Doug Sposito to defeat with 12% of the vote and a third place finish. Gowan and Vogt got B’s overall from Goldwater, so there’s room for them to move to the right. There may have been more conservative candidates in this race. Kurt Knurr, who got 10% of the vote and came in 4th styled himself as a radical conservative. Parralee Schneider got 9% of the vote. She says she’s a grassroots conservative, but then says she favors “business friendly legislation.” If she means cutting taxes and regulation across the board to allow the free market direct economic growth, that’s fine, but if she means tailoring the economy, I’m glad she lost. Brian Abbot, who came in dead last with 7% of the vote was another tax and spend liberal who supported Prop. 100.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

Budget Blow-out, Constituent-Dodging Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick tries the ‘Chutzpah’ Defense

September 4, 2010 By 7 Comments

Yesterday, we heard Ann Kirkpatrick’s (D for DEMOCRAT) radio ad in which she intones she’s so serious about the deficit she took a pay cut and is running her staff on a shoestring budget.  This is equivalent to the man who murders his parents, then throws himself on the mercy of the court on the grounds that he’s an orphan.

(D) Ann Kirkpatrick, who likes to keep a ‘polite’ 2,500 mile distance from her Northern Arizona constituents by phoning in her “town halls,” has outdone the media-pimped farce of the little kid who had a bake sale at school and raised $47.59 which the wee tyke naively sent to Washington to “help pay the deficit.” This political posturing has been jacked to stratospheric heights of absurdity with Kirkpatrick (D) being one of the HANDFUL of people in this nation of three hundred million, who VOTED for everything that MADE our current nation-busting deficit what it is today – and thanks to interest, growing like out of control cancer every minute – telling her constituents who beseeched her NOT to vote for ObamaCare or any of the Bailouts – that she’s so moved by our now precarious national plight she’s going without a token few bucks, to show “she cares” about the deficit. The deficit she voted to create, yet now pretends “just happened.” Spontaneous generation was definitively disproved over a century and a half ago. Likewise, deficits and debts don’t just randomly appear out of nowhere.

Boy howdy does she think we’re all stupid.

The Democrats are steadily promoting their narrative of the, “New Normal,” of life in America as belt-tightening; do with less, scale back expectations of success, achievement, enterprise, and to accept a lower standard of living! Maybe this pathetic suggestive conditioning campaign does work on dummies, but why should Americans unquestioningly accept a Democrat Party-produced FAIL? America is the “Land of Opportunity!” Democrats are doubling down to make America the “Land of Debt, Despair and Decrepitude.”

How about THIS “New Normal” – NEVER VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT. This deficit they’ve produced is borne of a colossal national theft, with paying it off stuck to all living Americans today and through the next generation. So, for the next hundred years, let us repay the draining of our banks, our businesses, our savings, our homes, our dreams, our children’s futures, by never voting for a Democrat for any political office of any kind ever, ever.

Ann Kirkpatrick (D) says she’s so concerned about our mounting deficit she says gave herself a symbolic pay cut, literally less significant than a tiny, single drop in an ocean of debt the size of the Pacific. She needs a bigger pay cut to really FEEL what the destructive policies she helped install are doing to her constituents and to Americans across this country. Until she loses her fat salary, that working on a shoestring staff, and all those office perks, and is thrown into the jobless market she helped produce, only then will she have a clue.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Federal Budget, Government, Guest Opinion, Political Parties

AAN poll shows Schweikert, Kelly & Gosar probably beating incumbent Dems for Congressional seats

September 2, 2010 By 28 Comments

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Schweikert leading Mitchell with 50% of the vote

Gosar leading Kirkpatrict by 5 points, Giffords and Kelly tied

American Action Network has conducted the first major poll after the primary election of Congressional races in Western states. It found that Democrats are in BIG trouble. A majority of likely voters in these districts prefer a Republican in districts where there is currently a Democrat incumbent, and they oppose Obamacare by a whopping 53 to 39%. All three incumbent Democrat members of Congress in Arizona’s CD1, CD5 and CD8 voted for Obamacare. A majority of likely voters surveyed also view Obama and Pelosi unfavorably. The three incumbents voted lockstep with Pelosi and the Obama administration on almost every vote.

In CD1, Republican challenger Paul Gosar leads incumbent Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick 47% to 41%, despite Kirkpatrick’s 97% name ID.

In CD8, Republican challenger Jesse Kelly and incumbent Democrat Gabrielle Giffords are tied at 46%. This is despite Giffords having 99% name ID.

In CD5, Republican challenger David Schweikert leads incumbent Democrat Harry Mitchell 50% to 44%, despite Mitchell’s 97% name ID. Voters surveyed were upset with Mitchell’s support of Obamacare. With Schweikert taking 50% of the vote, there are few undecideds left for Mitchell to win over.

AAN found that 68% of likely voters believe the country is on the wrong track. That’s nearly a 3-to-1 margin. Controlling government spending and making Washington, D.C. accountable were considered high priorities. Considering the three incumbent Democrats have voted against their constituents again and again, ignoring the Tea Party protests outside their offices against the bailouts and Obamacare and voting with Pelosi and Obama instead, it will be difficult for them to be reelected, especially Mitchell and Kirkpatrick who are too far behind at this point. In an anti-incumbent mood, the polls won’t be moving in their favor as it gets closer to the election.

Join Our Mailing List
Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, Spending

Top Medicare official predicts federal reform will hurt health care

September 2, 2010 By 1 Comment

By Diane Cohen

Goldwater Institute

In an extraordinary move, an expert in President Obama’s administration has challenged the federal health care law’s mandate to arbitrarily reduce funding for Medicare under as “unsustainable,” “unworkable,” and likely to block some people from seeing their doctors.

Richard Foster serves as chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the federal agency that administers Medicare coverage, and his job is to predict future health care costs. His office wrote a memo in August 2010 that objects to key estimates in the annual report about the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Trustees of those two funds are also Obama administration officials, led by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathryn Sebelius.

The trustees’ annual report claims the federal health care bill “improves the financial outlook for Medicare substantially.” But Mr. Foster’s staff strongly disputed that, writing that the report’s projections “do not represent the ‘best estimate’ of actual future Medicare spending.” Even worse, people with Medicare coverage will “almost certainly face increasing severe problems with access to care,” the memo says.

The memo also pointed out the annual report doesn’t consider that required spending cuts for Medicare could stop people who do see their doctors from getting the best possible health care, which could result in more patients falling ill or dying early.

Notably, the chief actuary must predict future growth in Medicare enrollment and spending each year, and give that information to a new federal agency created by health care reform called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). That board will have virtually unchecked power to adopt laws setting prices and payments for nearly all medical services.

The Goldwater Institute has identified IPAB as a critical reason why the federal health care bill is unconstitutional and must be struck down. Otherwise, as the chief actuary’s office has predicted, the mandated changes to Medicare likely will result in poorer health care for more people.

Diane Cohen is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Federal Budget, Health Care

Ban Amnesty Now!

September 2, 2010 By 17 Comments

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Thursday, September 2, 2010

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:                                                                   MEDIA CONTACT:

September 1, 2010                                                                        Sean McCaffrey (480/366-5975)

 

MEDIA ADVISORY: Pearce, Arpaio, Others

Press Conference  9:00 AM                                                                                            

PHOENIX, AZ¾ Arizona Senator Russell Pearce, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and other elected officials and VIPs will hold a 30-minute press conference in front of Arizona Diamondbacks Chase Field at South 5th Street and East Jefferson Street.

 The press conference will take place at 9:00AM, Thursday, September 2, 2010.  Sheriff Arpaio and Senator Pearce will be joined by other elected officials and VIPs from around Arizona.

“Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Senator Russell Pearce, both national co-chairmen of BanAmnestyNow.com will be announcing the results of B.A.N.’s nationwide petition to keep the 2011 MLB All-Star Game here in Arizona,” said B.A.N. president Sean McCaffrey.

“Arizona is an All-Star State, leading the way in showing our federal government that laws can indeed be upheld,” McCaffrey said.  “Other states are joining us.  Citizens from all fifty states have signed B.A.N.’s petition asking Major League Baseball not to punish the citizens of Arizona because we chose to uphold the law.”

SUMMARY INFORATION:

Who: Sheriff Arpaio, Senator Pearce & Other VIPs

When: Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010 at 9:00AM

Where: Intersection of S. 5th Street and E. Jefferson St., Phoenix

Why: Because Arizona is an All-Star State!

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 Please contact Sean McCaffrey at B.A.N. at (480) 366-5975

or on his cell-phone at (602) 885-5815

Filed Under: Constitutional Law, Freedom of Speech, Illegal Immigration, Press Release

One Last Request for Help

September 1, 2010 By 13 Comments

JD Logo

Dear Loyal Supporter,

My staff is closing out the final details of the campaign and has one last plea for help:  Could you please remove JD Hayworth campaign signs along the roadways?

Most Arizona communities require political signs to be removed no later than Friday, September 3rd.  If you see any of my signs along the paths you travel, it would be greatly appreciated if you could please remove and dispose of them.  Most are hung with zip ties and need only a pair of heavy-duty scissors or utility knife to remove.

If you are able to volunteer to remove signs in addition to the ones along your usual path, please email jennifer@jdforsenate.com.

Sincerely,

JD Hayworth

P.S. Your enduring support for me and my candidacy is truly humbling.  Thank you for everything you have done throughout the past seven months.  I feel blessed to have had the opportunity to meet so many wonderful patriots willing to take a stand to save our country.  I assure you, my work in restoring conservative values and our Constitutional republic is not over.

Paid for by JD HAYWORTH 2010, Inc.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections

New education report card grades student success, Arizona lags behind

September 1, 2010 By 19 Comments

By Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.

Goldwater Institute

Today, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) released a new book that provides a simple, direct way of comparing the effectiveness of public education in every state. I co-authored the Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform with Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Dan Lips and school choice expert Andrew LeFevre. ALEC is distributing the book to state lawmakers across the country.

For the Report Card, we rank all 50 states and the District of Columbia based on student test scores and learning gains on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). We focused in particular on the scores of low-income students who were not in special education programs from 2003 to 2009, the years in which all jurisdictions took the tests used by NAEP

Our rankings give the same weight to overall performance (which states had the highest test scores) and overall gains (which states made the most progress over time). The table below shows the rankings:

 

NAEP Score Rankings on 4th and 8th Grade Math and Reading 

(Performance and Gains) for low-income students
Vermont 1 District of Columbia 26
Massachusetts 2 Georgia 27
Florida 3 Wyoming 28
New Hampshire 4 Connecticut 29
New York 5 California 30
Pennsylvania 6 Iowa 31
Kansas 7 Oregon 32
Texas 8 Nebraska 33
Montana 9 Missouri 34
New Jersey 10 Ohio 35
Alaska 11 Tennessee 36
Virginia 12 Kentucky 37
Indiana 13 Illinois 38
Maine 14 South Dakota 39
Hawaii 15 Alabama 40
Washington 16 North Carolina 41
Colorado 17 Utah 42
Nevada 18 Oklahoma 43
Delaware 19 Arkansas 44
Maryland 20 Arizona 45
Wisconsin 21 Mississippi 46
Idaho 22 Louisiana 47
Minnesota 23 New Mexico 48
North Dakota 24 Michigan 49
Rhode Island 25 West Virginia 50
    South Carolina 51

Our rankings are not favorable for states with low test scores that didn’t improve over time, like Arizona. States fare well in the rankings if they had relatively high NAEP scores that continued to rise during those six years.

Florida scored No. 3 on the list because that state had high scores (ranked 11th overall) and made big gains (ranked first overall), even though a majority of Florida’s students come from disadvantaged backgrounds.

This year the Arizona Legislature adopted a number of Florida’s previous education reforms that led to that state’s top ranking. Now, policymakers should use this new report card as a rallying cry to make sure those reforms are carried out in every Arizona public school.

The ALEC Report Card demonstrates once again why when it comes to K-12 reform: I’ll have what Florida is having!

Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.

Filed Under: Uncategorized
Newer Posts »