Welcome to the New Sonoran Alliance!

Welcome to the new design of Sonoran Alliance!

It’s been FIVE years since the original site went live with the design you’ve all grown accustomed to. Over that time, we’ve done virtually nothing to the design until today.

As you can see, we now have widgets enabled along the right side of the page. This will allow readers to search, view tags, categories and archives and polls. You will also be able to tweet our posts and subscribe to our email list through feedburner.

Another thing you will notice is that Sonoran Alliance is finally running ads! That’s right, we’re finally monetized! Any business or candidate running for office now has the opportunity place an ad on the site and drive some traffic to their website! (Contact me if I can get that set up.)

I hope you like the changes. Please feel free to leave feedback.

Finally, I want to give a huge thanks to my friend and the technical guru behind Sonoran Alliance, Tim R. and company at Adeptplus! Five years ago, Tim breathed 1′s and 0′s into Sonoran Alliance and the rest was history. Thanks Tim!

Ron Paul, Herman Cain win Tea Party poll to run against Obama

The national Tea Party Patriots convention or “Policy Summit” occurred this past weekend at the Phoenix Convention Center.

Here’s a snippet from Reuters:

Rep. Ron Paul and Georgia businessman Herman Cain were conservative Tea Party activists’ top picks to run against Barack Obama for president in 2012, leaving former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in third place (click here for whole article).

“In a ‘presidential straw poll’ of nearly 1,600 conservative members of the Tea Party Patriots released on Sunday, 581 voted for U.S. Representative Ron Paul, a Texas Republican, to run against Obama next year

“Herman Cain, a Georgia businessman and talk-radio host, came in second with 256 votes.

“Palin, a favorite of the conservative movement who was Senator John McCain’s running mate against Obama in 2008, trailed in a distant third place with 149 votes.

“‘Mr. Cain and Rep. Paul’s positions resonated with Tea Party Patriots this weekend,’ said Mark Meckler, the Tea Party Patriots’ national coordinator, of the poll taken at the group’s policy summit in Phoenix over the weekend and online.”

Joint Statement by State Senator Scott Bundgaard and Aubry Ballard Regarding Friday Night

CONTACT: Jason Rose


“We want to jointly apologize for allowing a private matter to interrupt the public – and especially for taking up the valuable time of law enforcement. The police officers who responded deserve thanks for their sensitivity and compassion.

We have cared for each other in the past; we wish the best for each other in the future. Like most relationships, ours has had some ups and downs, but it has always been based on our Christian faith and our respect for one another. With that in mind, we intend to go our separate ways now and put what happened Friday night and Saturday in the past.

Obviously, we’re both tired and embarrassed. Each of us would like to reclaim some privacy. We hope the media and the public can respect that decision. Thank you for your understanding.”




Statement by State Senator Scott Bundgaard regarding erroneous reports by Arizona Republic

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 26, 2011
CONTACT: Jason Rose


“Shame on an azcentral.com reporter for posting a story without even phoning me first. Here’s what might have been learned if that reporter had the decency and professionalism to do so. Last night, I was a participant in the National Kidney Foundation of Arizona ‘Dancing With The Stars’ charitable event to raise money for this fine organization. Other participants included Governor Brewer’s Chief of Staff Eileen Klein, Gallagher and Kennedy Partner Mike Gallagher, Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce and his wife, and numerous other business, political and community leaders.

I am proud to have helped raise thousands of dollars for this charity, so much so that my girlfriend, parents and other family members were in attendance. While I may not have won the competition it was a wonderful night for a wonderful cause. Perhaps my fault was failing to ask my girlfriend to meet with Kurt Warner’s wife about how to understand and support a spouse or partner for a ‘Dancing With The Stars’ competition.

Upon leaving the event I was accused of inappropriately touching my dancing partner, in front of my parents and family mind you, and she proceeded to throw my clothes and other things out of my car on a freeway as I took her home. I stopped on the freeway to retrieve these items. As I was doing so my girlfriend yelled that she was going to take my car and moved into the driver’s seat. I immediately returned to the car and asked her to get out. She refused. I had no choice but to pull her from the driver’s seat which resulted in marks on her knees. I had also had no choice but to stop her from punching me and risking highway safety, all of which resulted in a black eye for me and a busted lip (photos available upon request). The authorities arrived as I tried to retrieve my belongings from the highway. I have never inappropriately touched a woman and never would. Period. I was not intoxicated. There was no ‘domestic violence.’ Such conduct is offensive to me as it should be to all people. I waive any and all ‘legislative immunity.’ If I did something wrong, charge me. I did not.

While a personal matter, I understand the public interest and apologize to any and all for what has taken place. I will not hide behind statements. This was done so to set the record straight. I am available for any and all interviews and for any and all questions.”

- Arizona State Senate Majority Leader Scott Bundgaard

We Are The Courts and We Are Here To Help You—

The letter below is just one story of many, the phone number has been removed for the sender’s privacy but the message is the same:

I am sending this to you and others who live in Arizona.  As a few of you know, my 92-1/2 old mother became a ward of the probate court in February 2008.  At the time I knew nothing of the history of the probate court system.  At that time I agreed she would be better off because she was spending too much money on junk coins and other “stuff” salesmen easily sold to a lonely widow who still loves men! My mother did not have a fortune set aside but with reasonable management it would last her and she could stay in her house until she passed. Now, the reality:  The court-appointed conservator, a for-profit company, managed to spend all of her money in about 28 months.  I am her court-appointed guardian so all the conservator had to do was pay normal household bills and try and settle some outstanding bills to those salesmen I mentioned above. We (her family) requested financial information numerous times but the most I received were incomplete schedules which often raised more questions than they answered. After the conservator spent all the money the court released them from that position.  Only at that time, after complaining again, did I get copies of monthly billing statements from the conservator.  (I have never received any financial statements so still do not know all of the liabilities that are still lurking out there.) You could have knocked me over with a feather.  The conservator charged $85 – $95 an hour for entry-level clerical duties.  Accounts payable clerks also were billed at those rates but were not skilled in those positions, so things took longer to get done and often had to be redone.  And, you guessed it, my mother had paid for every single hour. I am only going to give you one example, but it irritates me so much I need to vent a little.  In May 2009 my mother turned 91, and the conservator wanted to throw her a birthday party.  Nice gesture, I thought, especially since my mother’s court-appointed attorney, the other relatives and I understood this was going to be a gift from the conservator.  The party was very nice, but the bill was over $5,000, and as I found out a year later it was billed to and paid for by my mother!!!  House cleaning was charged at $95 per hour.  Invitations were bought and returned at $95 and more per hour plus the cost of the invitations.  The conservator knew my mother’s finances and any reasonable person would know she could not afford that amount of money.

There are two legislative bills that have been introduced this year:  House Bill 2424 and Senate Bill 1499.  THEY COULD NOT BE MORE DIFFERENT.  HB 2424 was put together with input from people who have experienced such financial and other abuses at the hands of the probate courts (I was not involved because I just became aware of the dueling bills.)  It is not perfect but goes a long was in making probate court transactions open to the wards and other interested parties.  SB 1499 was written by a committee set up to fix these probate court abuses.  Too bad the committee members are the same judges, commissioners, attorneys and conservators that are currently committing the abuses.  Talk about the fox watching the hen house!  SB 1499 does not begin to address court reform.  I’m sure the bill was introduced by legislators who had been told by the committee members that only a little “tweaking” was necessary.  This bill is a sham being perpetrated by the people who need to be held accountable. I’m sorry this e-mail is so long, but the word needs to get out that HB 2424 is GOOD, SB 1499 is BAD, BAD, BAD. If you have any questions call me at 602-xxx-xxxx and I will put you in touch with people who can answer them better than I. Thanx for taking the time to read this.  It is a very sore subject with me as my mother sits, not in her house, but in a room and board home paid for by the Arizona Long Term Care System!!!


Friday Poll: Who should replace Jon Kyl?

Sonoran Alliance is now running a weekly feature we will call Friday Poll.

This Friday’s poll will revisit the US Senate Primary here in Arizona. Since our last poll, we’ve discovered that several of the potential GOP candidates have indicated they are not interested in running. We’ve gone back over the field of serious and potential candidates and have distilled them down to the latest list.

Voting will start immediately and will end tomorrow at midnight. IP addresses are tracked which prevents multiple votes coming from the same IP address.

Please spread the word about this week’s Friday poll and get your friends to vote today and tomorrow.

Here’s this week’s Friday Poll:

Next week, we will look at a congressional race.

Congressman Trent Franks – Tied for 1st Place as ‘Most Conservative’

National Review just released its rankings of Most Conservative Congressman and tied for 1st place (among 5) was Arizona’s Congressman, Trent Franks!

Here is what National Journal has posted on its website:

Tied for 1st – (from left to right) Reps. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas; Sam Johnson, R-Texas; Jim Jordan, R-Ohio; Doug Lamborn, R-Colo.; Trent Franks, R-Ariz.

Five representatives tied for most conservative in the 2010 vote rankings with a composite score of 95.0. Franks, Lamborn, and Neugebauer were ranked 1st most conservative in 2009. For Franks this is his 4th straight year tied as the most conservative House member.

Not on the top 10 list of most conservative are Congressmen Jeff Flake and John Shadegg. Shadegg was ranked at #26 and Flake was ranked #64. Here is a link to those ratings.

Saucedo Mercer running for Congress in AZ-07

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 24, 2011
CONTACT: John Ellinwood

Tucson, AZ Gabriela Saucedo Mercer will formally announce her campaign to represent the people of District 7. The event will take place on Wednesday, March 2nd, 11:00 am, at the Hotel Tucson City Center, 475 N. Granada Avenue in Tucson. Members of the news media are encouraged to attend and cover this exciting political development. Gabriela will be available after the event to answer questions from reporters.

Saucedo Mercer released the following statement regarding her campaign, “We can no longer afford to sit by as Raul Grijalva recklessly votes to spend this country into a bottomless pit of debt. It is time to focus on growing the economy and bringing new jobs to Arizona and to America. When I am in Congress, I will be a champion for effective free-market policies that rebuild our economy and get America working again.”

Gabriela Saucedo Mercer was born in Mexico and legally immigrated to the United States in 1986. She and her husband Ted live on Tucson’s west side. They have three adult children. Gabriela has worked in the defense electronics industry.

The campaign website is www.SaucedoMercer.com. For more information please contact John Ellinwood.


Arizona Legislature Must Act to Protect Employee Paychecks from Political Abuse

The Arizona Senate is ready for floor debate on a ballot referral critically important to gaining lasting control over our state and local budgets — SCR 1028 on Paycheck Protection.  The below letter was delivered Wednesday to all Republican lawmakers.


Coalition to Protect
Employee Paychecks from Politics

February 23, 2011

The Honorable Russell Pearce
President of the Arizona Senate
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

The Honorable Kirk Adams
Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

RE: SCR 1028 & HCR 2032 on Paycheck Protection

Dear President Pearce and Speaker Adams:

The on-going protests in Madison, Wisconsin should sound the alarm here in Arizona regarding the danger of indulging special interests to the point where they threaten to close down state government and disrupt our political processes.  As representatives of conservative, grassroots and small business organizations, we urge you to take proactive steps to ensure that Arizona never becomes as beholden to these special interests as the Badger State has.

Therefore, we request that you use your considerable influence and institutional powers to give Arizonans the opportunity to vote to enshrine in the Arizona Constitution their fundamental right to protect employee paychecks from politics.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1028, introduced by Senator Frank Antenori and 43 co-sponsors, and House Concurrent Resolution 2032, introduced by Representative Judy Burges and 44 co-sponsors, state: 

An employee in this state shall be free from any employer deducting or facilitating the deduction of a payment from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes, unless the employee annually provides express written permission to make the deduction.

The language is fair, reasonable and straight-forward—precisely the qualities of a constitutional amendment that the Arizona electorate rewards with their votes.  This referral does not discriminate between political money deducted by labor unions or corporate political action committees.  Both are treated equally.  Moreover, this construction places the focus where it belongs, on the fundamental rights of all workers to control their paychecks.

A 2010 poll of 400 likely Arizona voters found 76 percent favor such an amendment and 20 percent oppose.  The poll also found that 64 percent were “definitely yes” while only 14 percent were “definitely no” voters.

The time is now to seize the initiative and provide voters this opportunity to affirm their rights through a constitutional amendment.  We urge you to schedule a floor vote on a paycheck protection ballot question during the 2011 Regular Session so the conservative, grassroots and small business supporters of paycheck protection can use the full year-and-a-half between now and Election Day 2012 to organize, educate and raise the funds necessary to secure victory.

It is imperative that you help the conservative, grassroots and small business base by giving us enough time to wage an aggressive and well-financed effort.  The 2010 election cycle is illustrative of why we feel passing a referral in 2011 is essential to our ultimate success.  Propositions 106 (Healthcare Freedom), 107 (Civil Rights) and 113 (Save Our Secret Ballot) were all launched by referrals in 2009 and all won by comfortable margins.  Conversely, every constitutional amendment referred in 2010 failed, some by very narrow margins.

Constitutional Amendment   Constitutional Amendment
Campaigns Begun in 2009   Campaigns Begun in 2010
Prop. 106: Healthcare Freedom Prop. 109: Hunting & Fishing
Yes 892,693 55.28%   Yes 714,144 43.52%
No 722,300 44.72%   No 926,991 56.48%
  1,614,993       1,641,135  
        Prop. 110: State Trust Lands
Prop. 107: Civil Rights   Yes 792,394 49.71%
Yes 952,086 59.51%   No 801,670 50.29%
No 647,713 40.49%     1,594,064  
        Prop. 111: Lt. Governor
        Yes 655,252 40.77%
Prop. 113: Save Our Secret Ballot No 951,820 59.23%
Yes 978,109 60.46%     1,607,072  
No 639,692 39.54%        
  1,617,801     Prop. 112: Initiative Timeline
        Yes 792,697 50.00%
        No 792,825 50.00%


We know legislative leadership has traditionally held that ballot propositions are best referred in the year of the election.  However, as the protests in Madison, Wisconsin illustrate, the likely forces opposed to paycheck protection can and will always bring maximum resources to fight for their big government agenda regardless of notice.  Regrettably, the forces supporting a smaller government and individual responsibility are the ones that need time to organize and mobilize. 

We cannot afford to wait until less than six months before the election to decide to rise to this challenge.  Please give us the best chance to support and pass this crucial constitutional amendment that will serve as a foundation to regaining and maintaining Arizona’s fiscal health.

Please schedule floor votes on SCR 1028 and/or HCR 2032 during this session of the Arizona Legislature.

Thank you for considering our views. We would welcome the opportunity at your earliest convenience to discuss the merits of referring this measure to the ballot this year.


Farrell Quinlan
Arizona State Director
National Federation of Independent Business
3550 North Central Avenue, Suite 1806
Phoenix, Arizona  85012

Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
One East Camelback Road, Suite 550
Phoenix, Arizona  85012

Roy Miller
Arizona Employee Protection Committee
8912 East Pinnacle Peak Road, Suite F9-235
Scottsdale, Arizona  85255

Sydney Hay
President of AMIGOS
Arizona Mining Industry Gets Our Support
Post Office Box 25187
Phoenix, Arizona  85002-5187

cc:  All Members of the Republican Majority in the Arizona House of Representatives
       All Members of the Republican Majority in the Arizona Senate

We only need a fraction of the Founders’ courage

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

Federal debt listed on the books now tops $14 trillion. But the federal government has made long-term spending commitments that actually exceed $100 trillion. As a result, the states increasingly look like colonies of Washington, D.C. Like the colonists who objected to taxation without representation during the American Revolution, those who have the most to lose from federal irresponsibility—our children, grandchildren and unborn generations to come—have no voice in the current political process. Congress will never limit its own power for their sake. Change led from outside of Washington, D.C., is their best hope for a better future.

A similar situation faced the Founders of the United States in 1776. They risked everything to throw off the chains of a distant and unresponsive regime. They did not know with absolute certainty that their rebellion would result in greater freedom and a more representative government. The Founders risked losing their lives and fortunes, as well as what few English liberties their countrymen still enjoyed.

But the Founders understood the greater risk was the status quo because London had no political reason to respect the rights of mere colonies. The sacred honor and practical judgment of American patriots demanded action, not submission.

Similarly, accepting today’s status quo will lead us down a road that threatens massive federal tax hikes, hyperinflation, and national bankruptcy. Fortunately, the Founders made sure the states can lead the way for change. Under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, 34 state legislatures have the power to initiate proposals of constitutional amendments that could limit any increase in the federal debt, require a balanced budget every year, and take other steps to prevent a disaster created by excessive federal spending.

On Friday, the Goldwater Institute will host a policy forum from 4:30 to 6:00 p.m. to discuss the use of Article V to rein in the federal government. I hope you can join us.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Make your reservation for the policy forum “Using Article V to Rein-In the Federal Government”

Goldwater Institute: Amending the Constitution by Convention: A Practical Guide for Citizens and Policymakers

Goldwater Institute: 10 Facts to Rebut the Mythology of a Runaway Convention

Forbes: America Poised for a Hyperinflationary Event?

Arizona Legislature: Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016

Arizona Legislature: Committee hearing on SCR1016 (47 minute mark)

Representative Dan Schottel (1935-2011)

One of the true conservative gentlemen who had a influence on my early political life passed away this last Friday.

Daniel H. Schottel was a friend, a mentor and someone who stood unwavering on conservative principles.

When I ran for the Arizona Legislature in 1994, Dan was the one who shepherded me around introducing me to everyone and bragging I was going to be his only southern Arizona conservative seatmate. He really took me under his wing and kept a watchful eye over me.

But Dan was more than just a mentor, he was someone who knew what he believed and stood his ground. Some of my memories of him include watching him serve on the Education Committee as Chairman and keeping the AEA on the defense and pushing for parental rights and school choice.

One fond memory I have of Dan Schottel was a train ride we took from Benson to the ghost town of Charleston in southern Arizona. As the train made its way down the tracks and back in time, Dan stood looking out the window at the passing scenery. In those moments, he appeared to me like John Wayne watching over the train’s passengers.

Dan is survived by his wife Eileen and children and an abundance of grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Thank you Dan for your service and having an impact on many of us. Rest in peace.

Here is his obituary which appeared in the Arizona Daily Star:

Daniel Herman Schottel 75 went home to his Lord and Savior on February 18, 2011, while surrounded by his family. Daniel was born in St. Louis, Missouri on August 10, 1935. After serving in the United States Air Force, he moved to Tucson in 1957. He worked in finance and food sales before opening several small businesses Dan was elected to the Arizona House of Representatives in 1992 where he served for eight years. The highlights of his career were serving as Chairman of Education and being appointed by the governor to the Western Interstate Commission for higher Education. in 1995. Dan is survived by his wife, Eileen; son, Carl (Jackie); daughters, Stacey and Kathe (Louis) Jahn along with six grandchildren, six great-grandchildren and sister, Gloria King. Dan was preceded in death by his son, Daniel Jr. Daniel (AKA “Pops”) was a strong loyal friend who valued honesty and respect. His sense of humor and love will be deeply missed by everyone he touched. A Memorial Service will be held on Friday, February 25, 2011 at 11:00 a.m. at Ascension Lutheran Church, 1220 W. Magee Road. In lieu of flowers, please make a donation to your favorite educational program. Arrangements by ADAIR FUNERAL HOME, Dodge Chapel.

Arizona Needs Bold Pension Reform Plan

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute

If termites were eating your house, would you do what it takes to stop the damage, or would you sweep the termites’ trails off your foundation and pretend the problem doesn’t exist?

Unfortunately, the latter appears to be the strategy some lawmakers want to follow in dealing with Arizona’s woefully under-funded government employee pensions.

In 2003, all levels of government contributed $200 million to retirement systems for government workers. Last year, they contributed $1.1 billion. That’s an increase of $370 per Arizona household, adjusted for population growth. Paying for pensions is squeezing out spending on other budget areas, such as organ transplants for low-income people, public schools, and city services like libraries and parks.

The annual reports of the state’s four government employee retirement funds tell the tale. Contribution rates from taxpayers and employees will have to rise yearly for years to come, and even then the funds will get weaker before they get stronger.

It doesn’t have to be this way. A bill that makes only modest reforms to the state pension system barely passed a state House committee recently. Lawmakers must move ahead with this package of reforms, but they must not stop there. Arizona can stop digging its pension hole by acting more boldly, following lawmakers in Alaska and Michigan with a long-term strategy to provide retirement benefits without putting taxpayers at risk.

All new government employees should be placed in a 401(k) retirement plan with taxpayers only responsible for funding regular, annual contributions. If Arizona governments were making the average private-sector contributions to 401(k) retirement plans, the savings to all governments would amount to $800 million per year.

In the end, the ultimate goals of reforming the pension systems should be three-fold: create certainty in the budgeting process; give government employees control of their own financial futures; and prevent yet-to-be-born taxpayers from having to pay for other people’s retirements.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

Learn More:

Arizona State Retirement System: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

Public Safety Personnel Retirement System: Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports

Michigan Office of Retirement Services: Two Plans for State Employees

Alaska Department of Administration: Defined Contribution Retirement Plan

JD Hayworth on The Savage Nation Tonight!

That’s right! JD Hayworth will be filling in for Michael Savage tonight. If you plan on listening, tune in to KFYI-550 AM at 7 PM.

And if you want to tune in now (live on KSTE) and ask him questions, click here. You can also call in at (800) 449-8255.

To follow JD on Facebook, click here.

Show Me the Money… And I’ll Show You Someone Who Opposes Probate Court Reform!


1. Publicly Paid Lobbyists AKA Legislative Liaisons:  These folks move about from legislative office to office, wearing the cloak of the courts.  Invoking their bosses “The Supremes”, not to be confused with Diana, Mary and Florence, they are never denied access. They work on the public dole but in the case of probate reform, are anything but publicly minded.

Speaking in committee last week they gushed over SB1499 as the answer to all the courts woes.  Unfortunately, after the testimony of the multiple citizens who waited for hours to testify, 1499 was lambasted as ineffective, failed to come close to meeting the serious needs of the public, and ultimately described by Sen. Linda Gray as nothing more than a vehicle to amend in hopes of offering true reform.

The next day in the House, same story, different verse.  SB1499 is great, HB2424 is an intrusion of the legislature into the courts and should not pass.  Then the PEOPLE spoke.  It passed.

DRAT!  Good thing for these folks that they work for the pay-check fairy, AKA the government, and do not have to worry about how the money to pay them is provided.  Someone should tell them…”You know those folks who just stood in line for over an hour to register on the kiosk, then waited another couple of hours to testify, then came back to do it again the next day, taking time off of their jobs to be heard.  THEY PAY THE TAXES THAT PAY YOUR SALARY. AND PAY, AND PAY, AND PAY! THEY ARE THE REASON THE COURTS EXIST.”  That may be a new tune to The Supremes!  

2. Court Ordered Fiduciaries AKA bottom feeders…OK, not all of them: Assigned to care for those the courts deemed incapacitated, it is a darn good gig.  It’s a well paying “Job For Life”, and by life, I mean the life of the latest victim…um..er…client or until said client runs out of money, whichever comes first.  And if you think the re-stocking fee on returned merchandise at the local big box store is bad, try saying “Thanks, but no thanks” to the court’s choice of fiduciary.  If things aren’t right and you have hopes of getting a replacement, you better be ready to pay big time! 

They will defend their appointment and the right to keep your account (that is what you really are, an account) in court with THEIR high-priced lawyers and ….TA-DA—YOU PAY FOR IT!  Yep, you pay for their lawyer to tell the court why you should not be allowed to get another fiduciary.  No worries, it should only run you a few hundred thousand for their bill.  That’s part of the beauty of SB1499, it cements the stranglehold the courts and fiduciaries have over your future making it even harder to escape their grips.  HB2424, the bill written to respond to the outrageous but true accounts of current probate practice would allow the change once a year without the burden of proof being put on the “account”, or the entity formerly known as a private citizen with rights.   

AH HECK, what’s a few bedsores or broken hips, might as well stay with them.  Even if they are sucking you dry to open your mail, by the time you fight the B-ST-R-S in court, you will be broke anyway.  Either way sooner or later, you’re in the state system.  For this you saved all those years?  Maybe blowing it at the Casino wasn’t such a bad idea after all!

STAY TUNED FOR PART II: Activist Judges and Millionaire Attorneys…

Arizona Education Association advocating for Wisconsin public employees

With all the debate and discussion taking place over public employee protests in Wisconsin, I thought I’d take a look at the Arizona Education Association website to see what the teachers’ union in Arizona thought about the situation in Wisconsin.

Here is what you get when you go to their website:

Now correct me if I’m wrong but I was under the impression that part of the AEA’s mission was “to make Arizona’s public schools the best they can be.”

So I guess my question is why is the Arizona Education Association advocating and supporting the Wisconsin Education Association Council using Arizona resources?

Time To Stand Up To The Feds On Voting Rights

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute

One of the most abusive assaults on Arizona sovereignty is one of the least-known: the inclusion of Arizona among a handful of states subject to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Section 5 requires covered jurisdictions—mostly deep-South states—to get approval beforehand from the U.S. Justice Department for every legal change that might affect an election. That means every tiny adjustment by any government entity within these states must comply with this costly and cumbersome procedure, including election locations, voter registration forms, property annexations, and the like.

Arizona was roped into the requirement through a 1975 Voting Rights Act amendment that extended protection to people who speak a foreign language. The law outlived its purpose long ago—the Justice Department approves 999 out of every 1,000 pre-clearances—but the federal government continues to put Arizona in an undeserved penalty box.

Governor Jan Brewer has encouraged Arizona local governments to “bail out” of coverage under Section 5. With statewide redistricting looming, the potential costs and burdens for complying with Section 5 will be enormous.

Jurisdictions may opt out of Section 5 if they’ve had no voting rights complaints for 10 years. But it requires asking permission from a federal court in Washington, D.C. The cost of hundreds of local governments doing so would be hefty.

Here’s a better idea: The state should challenge the constitutionality of Section 5 as it applies to Arizona. In a 2009 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court nearly struck down Section 5, opting instead to allow a utility district to bail out.

The case for placing Arizona in the penalty box was flimsy in the first place; today it is nonexistent and a serious affront to federalism. At the same time, striking down Section 5 would leave intact other voting rights protections that apply everywhere in the country.

We have offered to represent Secretary of State Ken Bennett for free in such a challenge, and made the same offer to Jan Brewer when she occupied that post. Neither one has accepted. But the offer still stands.

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

Learn More:

Office of the Governor: Four Cornerstones of Reform

U.S. Supreme Court: Northwest Austin Municipal Utility Dist. No. 1 v. Holder

East Valley Tribune: Permission required

E-Verify is a Tool to Stop Illegals, Right? FALSE

  Wait, isn’t e-Verify central to stopping illegals?

Well, no, stopping them at the border STOPS illegals.

Then won’t e-Verify stop illegals by not letting them get jobs?

That’s the claim, except for a couple of important points:

1) e-Verify, or in other words, “Automated Employment Eligibility Verification”, was actually the brainchild of the Council on Foreign Relations, otherwise known as the OPEN BORDERS GLOBALIST LOBBY!  (Click here to read for yourself.)

How can that be you ask?  Well, it’s central to their cross-border CANAMEXUS “labor mobility” plan.

They know that once everyone is in the work database (really the US Department of Homeland Security national id database for which e-Verify is just a user front end), that as soon as “open borders” passes, they simply flip the switch from Mexican Citizen eligible = N to Mexican Citizen eligible = Y, and VOILA, the 21 million illegals go from e-Verify clearance NO to YES …. OVERNIGHT!!!!

(Betcha Kris Kobach of FAIR who wrote SB1070 didn’t tell you about that part.  Oh, should we mention that Kris Kobach is a former lawyer for the US Department of Homeland Security who is building the national id database?)

2) The only way e-Verify works in the first place is if they have the records BEFOREHAND of everyone who is “supposed to be here”.  Well, how does the federal government get that information?  Hmmm…..

(See I Dont Care Who you Are The Government Does)

The STATES give it to them!  The states turn over their drivers license and birth certificate databases to the US Department of Homeland Security so the feds can construct a massive national id database on all US citizens.

Yes, but didn’t Arizona defeat REAL ID?  Sure, but REAL ID is only 1 of 100 or more national id programs.  In Arizona, one of the only parts of SB1070 left standing after the federal judge ruling was the section that GUESS WHAT!!!!! turned over all state citizens’ private license data (for any license), including all UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS over to GUESS WHOM??? the US Department of Homeland Security to put in their national id database!  (Betcha Russell Pearce didn’t tell you about that little detail!)

Anyway, is it any surpise the feds are doing this?  They’ve been at it for over a decade.  Too bad the teapartiers weren’t paying attention as “conservatives” they were supporting sold out their privacy,  sovereignity, and birthright to the feds for some silver pieces (attention in the media).

3) Now we have this… Of course, it was an inevitability.  CITIZENS’ BIOMETRICS NEEDED for E-VERIFY to WORK

To make e-Verify “really work”, we’re going to have to pony up the most private of private data, our personal bio-metrics to the feds to put in their national id database, including our HANDS (finger prints) and our FORHEADS (facial recognition technology). 

See Security Industry Assoiation Recommends Biometric Authentication for Federal E-Verify Programme

Are our “conservatives” like Pearce and Adams going to tell us that us law abiding citizens have to give up MORE to the feds to “stop illegals”?   

(By the way have you noticed how those you thought were “conservatives” have stopped calls to secure the ACTUAL BORDER?  Weird right?)


Real conservatives, in other words, those who are religious and opposing the mark as well as those who have never wavered from wanting smaller government, less government intrusion, lower spending and lower taxes have been sold out by false conservatives who use the illegal immigration issue as cover to push their agenda of larger government, more police power over law abiding citizens and to implement national id.

The teaparty should take note. 

Smaller government is NOT bigger government and bigger government is NOT smaller government.

Further the way you secure the border NOW is PUTTING ARIZONAS NATIONAL GUARD THERE.  Not putting all law abiding citizens into the US Department of Homeland Security’s national id database.