LD22 GOP Statement on Russell Pearce Recall


The LD22 GOP meeting on Thursday night was noteworthy, as a higher-than-usual turnout showed up to elect a new 4th Vice Chair.   After the ballots were cast, an open discussion was held regarding the Russell Pearce recall.   The consensus arrived at was clear:   although as a general rule the district should not get involved in advocating for a specific candidate in primary elections, it is apparent that the Pearce Recall is a deliberate, malicious attempt to discredit the effort to secure our border, and that this effort starts by destroying Senator Russell Pearce.   Those who favor doing nothing about illegal immigration do not care what policy is made or what votes are cast in the Legislature by anyone who manages to defeat Pearce; it is obvious that powerful out-of-state, leftist interests want to see Pearce removed just for the sake of dealing a blow to the effort to combat illegal immigration.  Their greatest wish to is ensure nationwide headlines that read “Anti-Illegal Immigration Forces Dealt Stunning Blow in Arizona”.   Embarrassing and dividing the State GOP is a bonus to the leftist puppet masters.

The Pearce recall is not a primary election.   It is a bought & paid for operation designed to strike a blow against the Republican platform by removing the man who is now viewed as the face of the movement to secure our borders.   It is an attempt by those who know they cannot win a Republican primary to circumvent the normal party nomination process and focus national leftist power and funds on one small local election – not in an attempt to elect someone who sympathizes with their viewpoint, but rather an ambitious plan to score a propaganda coup.

Consequently, an overwhelming majority of precinct committeemen in one of Arizona’s largest, most diverse legislative districts came together and spoke with one voice:   WE STAND WITH RUSSELL PEARCE AGAINST LEFTIST POLITICAL MANIPULATION.

The debate was spirited.   There were those who were concerned about setting precedents about the district interfering with other districts, or getting involved in elections where two Republicans are running against each other.   And yet, the discussion maintained a high level of civility and respect.   In many cases, people who raised concerns about a precedent being set also stated that the disgrace of a recall election bought and paid for by out-of-state special interest groups was itself a unique situation in Arizona, more akin to the events in Wisconsin where union leaders attempted to recall Republicans who voted for their beliefs.  More than one person expressed the view that although they often do not support some of Pearce’s legislation, in this particular case it was more important to present a unified front against those who would attempt to splinter our party by making one of its leading figures appear weak.   For too many years, Divide and Conquer has been an effective leftist strategy.   No longer.

The members of Legislative District 22 are pleased to present this resolution, passed on September 8th, 2011,  to the public:

RESOLUTION SUPPORTING SENATOR PEARCE IN UPCOMING LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT 18 RECALL ELECTION

RESOLVED,

WHEREAS it is our belief that the recall election against Senator Russell Pearce in Arizona Legislative District 18 is an orchestrated Democratic assault against Republican principles, and

WHEREAS, the defeat of Senator Pearce is a core objective of the Democratic National Committee and Moveon.org,

WE, the members of Arizona Legislative District 22, do hereby express our support of Senator Russell Pearce.

Adopted September 8, 2011

 


Comments

  1. amattclarkson says:

    Steve, it doesn’t happen often, but I am going to disagree with you. I understand that you might just be a mouthpiece for LD 22.

    I disagree on LD 22 support for Russell Pearce for several reasons:

    First, it is believed and often said that Senator Pearce has worked to secure our border. I have yet to see legislation that has worked toward this end. S1070 is usually credited with having accomplished this, but no where in the legislation was the border addressed. Instead, S1070 was a weapon used in the “war of attrition” against illegal immigration, a war Arizona’s economy has suffered for.

    Second, LD 22 has overstepped the fine line drawn between being against the recall and supporting one GOP candidate over another GOP candidate. The recall was instigated by (insert insult) liberals. But, the leaders of the recall don’t have the power to call an election all by themselves. They needed over 7,000 people to back their cause. They received the support of over 10,000 people, a percentage of which were Republicans in the district unhappy with the way they were being represented. It is fine to be against the recall of a GOP official. I was not for the recall, I did not sign a petition. We part in the extent to which we will take our distaste for the recall. While I was not for the recall, I still have a choice to make between two GOP candidates on Nov. 8. That is where I feel LD 22 has overstepped it’s bounds. I understand that this is my opinion, and in all reality, I’m in LD 18 and therefore you should care about my opinion as much as I care for yours.

    But to anyone in LD 18 that will vote on Nov. 8, we have a choice between two conservative candidates. We know what we will get in Russell Pearce, more bills attempting to squelch illegal immigration. In Jerry Lewis, voters have a chance to choose a fresh voice for Mesa. He looks to the future of Arizona by trying to improve education and the economy. You can be against the recall and still support Jerry Lewis.

    • JOYCECRISSMAN says:

      Mr. Clarkson:

      I appreciate your writing a comment. The thought behind this was not that we were supporting a candidate in Russell Pearce but the fact that we were against the recall at all.

    • Border control takes many forms, not all of them physical. The cheapest, easiest, and least onerous way to solve the problem of aliens entering our country illegally is for them either matriculate back to their home countries or not to come here in the first place. SB 1070 accomplishes just that by giving our local agencies a mechanism to enforce federal laws already on the books. So, simply by enforcing already existing law aliens are discouraged from breaking into and entering the country illegally. So yes, Senator Pearce is a nationally-recognized leader in controlling the border simply by virtue of SB1070.

      The suffering that has been foisted upon Arizona’s economy is the burden placed upon the taxpayer by illegals who engage in willful evisceration of our public social services. And jobs? I would argue any day that any available jobs should be filled by unemployed CITIZENS. One of the worst abuses of our economy by illegals, one that is seldom mentioned, is that they steal jobs that used to be filled by our youth.

  2. Steve Calabrese says:

    Matt, it would be really boring if we agreed all the time. I’ll answer your points one by one:

    1. SB1070 is both a law designed to be enforced and a shot across the bow of a Federal Government that has been utterly, totally useless in stemming the tide of illegal immigration. Unlike Pearce and many of his other supporters, I for one believe that a solution to our border issues requires both a secure border and an orderly, humane plan for those illegal aliens who are already here. I do honestly believe that there are powerful forces on both sides that seem to have a vested interest in keeping the illegal population in the limbo they currently reside in. People who have no legal standing, who can’t use the legal mechanisms of society, and yet also are not being actively pursued and deported are an ideal pool of people to be exploited. SB1070 rekindled the discussion. It is a shout to the nation that we, as a State, have the right to take action to support Federal laws that are being ignored. No one complains when local law enforcement investigates bank robbery, which is a FEDERAL crime, or when local law enforcement in other states assist Federal authorities in drug raids of marijuana dispensaries that are legal under state law but illegal under Federal law. And yet we have millions of people taking advantage of our nation by coming here illegally, and we are told we are not allowed to do anything about. That is unacceptable. We have some of the weakest laws in the world regarding people entering our country illegally, and even those laws are often ignored by the Federal government. Since the Federal government is unable or unwilling to enforce its own laws, it should not have any objection to a state attempting to enforce a law that is a mirror-image of Federal law as long as the state law is not stricter than the original. SB1070 has reignited the debate that showcases the abject failure of the Federal government to fulfill its constitutional duty to defend individual states against invasion – and make no mistake, illegal immigration has changed from being largely about people fleeing poverty and misery. Illegal immigration is now officially sanctioned by the government of Mexico, a nation that persecutes more Hispanics than any nation on earth – as long as the “illegality” in question occurs against the United States. In Mexico, illegal immigrants from other countries are treated as felons and jailed for years, and yet the corrupt, evil Mexican government dares to attempt to dictate policy to the United States while pursuing a policy of Aztlan repatriation. SB1070 is currently largely symbolic, but symbols are important. As for Arizona’s economy suffering because of 1070, that’s kind of a joke. A few conventions have been cancelled and some pampered rock stars have bypassed our state. We suffer far more from the costs of illegal immigration, and there has been a flight of illegal aliens from Arizona to other places since the passing of 1070.

    2. I agree 100% that normally legislative districts should not interfere in races between Republicans – but this is an unprecedented situation. The forces behind the Pearce recall began the recall because they hate the fact that a state is attempting to stem the tide of illegal immigration. There are funds and skilled personnel pouring in from all over the country to defeat Pearce, for they know that bringing down Pearce, rightly or wrongly, will be viewed by the media as a repudiation of ALL efforts to combat illegal immigration. With that goal in mind, they have bypassed the normal electoral process so that pesky things like party primaries – which are supposed to determine who represents the party – are disregarded, and they can then bring down a political figure who normally would be secure in his heavily conservative base. There’s lots of things Pearce can be justifiably attacked for – I for one am alarmed by his desires to overlook “police state creep” in his zeal to fight illegal immigration, and don’t like trying to make non-law enforcement citizens like doctors, nurses and school officials deputy immigration enforcement agents. But, as a former Democratic activist myself, I understand the goal of their movement very clearly – they do not care about Russell Pearce the Legislator; they care about the symbol. They could put a man in office who has an “R” by his name and who votes exactly like Pearce on every single issue, and they still would think it’s great – because our foes understand that it is the symbol that must be destroyed. They are willing to loan support and funding to any candidate – even a conservative Republican – to defeat Pearce, because their goal is not to change how one district votes in the Legislature but rather to bring down the man who has brought illegal immigration to the forefront of the national debate. And, since they want him brought down, they don’t want to take any chances by running a Democrat against him – they find an LDS Stake President who has appeal in conservative circles. It’s sort of like when the Arizona Democratic Party was mailing out flyers endorsing the Libertarian candidate in CD-5 against David Schweikert, proclaiming that the Libertarian candidate would “Stop Obamacare!” – they knew the goal was to draw votes away from Schweikert, even if it meant spending funds on a Libertarian. In this case, the goal is to take immigration off of the national dialogue, and if they have to replace a Republican with a different Republican, so be it. I won’t play that game. Let them put up a Democrat, and if Pearce wins, let Jerry Lewis or any other Republican face Pearce in the primary, the way it should be. Don’t help the left fracture our party by participating in this farce.

    Respectfully, I disagree that you can be “against the recall and still support Jerry Lewis”. The recall is a well-organized, well-financed leftist plot to discredit a major leader of a core principle of the Republican platform: securing our border. However, despite the money, skill and effort expended by the leftists, the recall has no chance of success whatsoever – unless Republicans join in by acknowledging it and running a GOP candidate. By agreeing to participate in the recall election, Jerry Lewis has converted the recall from something doomed to failure to something that actually has a chance to succeed. Jerry Lewis seems like a good man; I’ve spoken to several people who universally praise his ethics. And many of the Pearce supporters come across as mean-spirited and hateful, especially with their mocking jokes about the criminal assault on Lewis. I would have enjoyed seeing a primary debate between Lewis and Pearce. Instead, though, Lewis is allowing himself to be used by the enemies of the GOP. And, you’re right – commenting on another district’s election is something that I usually frown upon – but in this case, the party is being attacked from the outside, and LD22 refuses to play along. We’ve seen this technique in Wisconsin, and it almost worked there. LD22 will not stand idly and be silent when our party is being attacked from outside forces. I understand that the Chairman of LD18 must avoid splintering his district, and has adapted a stance of neutrality, which is right and proper for him to do. LD18 is the eye of the storm. That doesn’t mean that LD22 has to stand by and watch the entire Democratic machine crush a Republican in order to change the debate on immigration.

    • amattclarkson says:

      Sorry it took me so long to respond, Steve. There is no way to discuss all the points you made and I don’t think we differ ultimately. There were just two points I disagreed with most. First, Russell Pearce has done very little to secure the border, even though many people credit him with this. His legislation has focused on interior enforcement. He has done a great job spotlighting the illegal immigration issue, but he has done little to actually secure the border.

      Second, losing Russell Pearce only moves the immigration debate forward. I will credit him with singlehandedly killing any opportunity for substantive immigration reform. His style of politics is taken right from “Rules for Radicals”(shout out to the liberally studied, Con American.) I feel that Russell Pearce is one of those powerful forces you mentioned that wants to keep illegal immigrants from normalizing. He can continue his schtick of “giving the finger to the Feds” while successfully not accomplishing anything. The illegal immigration debate will not move forward until Russell Pearce is gone, unless he decided to budge on his stance. I just don’t see that happening…ever.

      • Conservative American says:

        amattclarkson wrote: “He can continue his schtick of “giving the finger to the Feds” while successfully not accomplishing anything.”

        Illegal Immigrants Leaving Arizona Over New Law

        (AP) Many of the cars that once stopped in the Home Depot parking lot to pick up day laborers to hang drywall or do landscaping now just drive on by.

        An estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants have left Arizona in the past two years as it cracked down on illegal immigration and its economy was especially hard hit by the Great Recession.

        Source: CBS News

        Illegal immigrants leaving Arizona

        PHOENIX (AP) — Illegal immigrants in Arizona, frustrated with a flagging economy and tough new legislation cracking down on their employers, are returning to their home countries or trying their luck in other states.

        http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-22-immigration-leaving_N.htm

        Illegal immigrants leaving AZ, Oklahoma; going to Texas

        Associated Press
        Feb. 3, 2008 03:22 PM

        HOUSTON – Illegal immigrants are coming into Texas, but not from where one might think.

        The rush is coming from Arizona, Oklahoma and other states – places that have recently passed tough new anti-illegal immigrant laws.

        http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0203immigrant-ON.html

        Illegal immigrants are leaving Arizona
        Law targeting employers dries up job prospects
        March 02, 2008|Jacques Billeaud, Associated Press

        PHOENIX – Parents are pulling students out of school. Construction workers are abandoning their jobs. Families are hastily moving out of apartments.

        Two months after Arizona enacted a law punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants, the law is already achieving one of its goals: Scores of immigrants are fleeing to other states or back to their Latin American homelands.

        http://articles.boston.com/2008-03-02/news/29268775_1_illegal-immigrants-law-democratic-governor-janet-napolitano

        We now know how credible “facts” from amattclarkson are, don’t we!

        • amattclarkson says:

          I apologize, Con American. I should have said, “he can continue his schtick of ‘giving the finger to the Feds’ while successfully making Arizona a worse place to live,” hence the mass migration of immigrant, tourism, and business.

          By the way, someone has been burning the midnight oil.

          • Conservative American says:

            ROFL!!! Too funny! :-)

            You got caught, didn’t you! You tried to pawn off a big lie on readers and got caught red handed. Any credibility you may have had with readers is now gone. They can never be certain any more if you are telling the truth or merely trying to get away with passing off a big lie.

            “Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive!”

  3. As a precinct committeeman of LD22, I’m very disappointed in this resolution. Although the recall efforts in LD18 have been orchestrated by Democrats, however wrong the motives may be, it is within the rights of the people of that district to petition for a recall of an elected official. It is not the business of another GOP district to collectively pick winners or losers amongst several Republican’s now seeking the same office.

    It is the duty of the GOP as a whole at each level to organization to combine resources and ensure a Republican victory when faced with opposition from another political party, not pit republican vs. republican. This is a sin of omission against Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment.

    I can not support an effort that further divides a recovering party from fragmentation. If this continues on a micro level within our neighborhoods it will spill over to the 2012 Presidential election and will result in 2008 deja vu. We can all agree another four years of the current Administration would be catastrophic in this frail experiment we call America.

    • Conservative American says:

      Viramontes wrote: “It is not the business of another GOP district to collectively pick winners or losers amongst several Republican’s now seeking the same office.” I beg to differ. It is their business. Why?

      The votes cast and the legislation crafted by a Republican state Senator impacts all Republicans throughout the state. Would you have Republicans of another district remain silent when there is a choice between two candidates one of which supports “immigration reform” and the other of which supports enforcing immigration law?

      Virmontes wrote: “It is the duty of the GOP as a whole at each level to organization to combine resources and ensure a Republican victory when faced with opposition from another political party, not pit republican vs. republican.” What about when a Republican is running against a Republican?

      Viramontes wrote: “This is a sin of omission against Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment.” Forgive me, but I don’t remember reading about Ronald Reagan in the Bible. It is a sin of omission to stand by and not speak up on behalf of Senator Pearce when he is being challenged.

      Vriamontes wrote: “I can not support an effort that further divides a recovering party from fragmentation.” If that is your concern, then why not support Senator Pearce who is the President of the Arizona State Senate, a sitting state Senator and who was duly elected to office?

      Viramontes wrote: “If this continues on a micro level within our neighborhoods it will spill over to the 2012 Presidential election and will result in 2008 deja vu.” Where did you come by your crystal ball? We are not going to become pacifists in a political war, if that is what you are hoping. You forgot to mention that the 2008 candidate was anti-Conservative John McCain who, just like Obama, favors “comprehensive immigration reform”. Perhaps this time we will be given a real choice and a genuinely Conservative candidate.

      Virmontes wrote: “We can all agree another four years of the current Administration would be catastrophic in this frail experiment we call America.” No, we can’t all agree. To be sure, four more years of Obamanomics and Obamanesty would make our fight more difficult. I take exception both to your characterization of America as an experiment and as being “frail”. America is well established and the American people, who are America, are strong and robust despite everything which has been thrown at them. Furthermore, we shall prevail.

      • 11thCommandment says:

        ConservativeAmerican: Please check your facts about Reagan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eleventh_Commandment_%28Ronald_Reagan%29

        • Conservative American says:

          11thCommandment: Please check your facts about what I wrote.

          “Forgive me, but I don’t remember reading about Ronald Reagan in the Bible.”

          Have you found Ronald Reagan in the Bible? If so, please give the reference, chapter and verse.

          The only commandments I honor are the Ten Commandments and I don’t confuse them with something stated by a politician.

          • 11thCommandment says:

            Wow, CA, you’ve really shown your inability to engage in a meaningful discussion.

          • Conservative American says:

            Thank you, 11thCommandent, for providing an excellent object lesson in what Liberal leftists do when they run out of arguments. They go back to their bible, Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”.

            “5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” – Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”, 1971, page 128.

            So, my fellow Conservatives, when you encounter Saul Alinsky’s “Rule 5″, which you will frequently, don’t react. Simply expose it for what it is, a calculated tactic, and expose it’s origins.

          • 11thCommandment says:

            “Conservative American”:
            If you want to ignore the original poster’s question to you about Reagan’s belief that Republicans should not criticize other Republicans, go right ahead. You’re not addressing the original question because you are hung up on semantics. Yes, the word “commandment” is associated with the bible, but it’s got nothing to do with what Viramonte asked you.

            You seem to care an awful lot about what Russell Pearce says and thinks, but when confronted with Reagan’s ideas, suddenly you won’t address the question because Reagan’s not mentioned in the bible?

            Your argumentative style is weak. Admit it, you had no idea what Reagan’s 11th commandment was and your answer to Viramonte exposed you for the fool you are.

          • Conservative American says:

            ROFL! You want to talk about Ronald Reagan, a dead President. Yes, I care an awful lot about what Russell Pearce says and thinks because he is alive, he is the President of the Arizona State Senate, he is a sitting Republican Senator and he is currenlty facing a recall election right here in Arizona. If you want to got out and dig up dead Presidents, if that has more meaning for you than what is currently going on politically in Arizona, then get your pick and shovel and have at it!

            Pay attention, fellow Conservatives. Here we see Saul Alinsky’s “Rule 5″ in play again. To quote Alinsky directly, from his book, “Rules for Radicals”:

            ““5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.” – Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals”, 1971, page 128.

            What form is “Rule 5″ taking this time?

            “Your argumentative style is weak. Admit it, you had no idea what Reagan’s 11th commandment was and your answer to Viramonte exposed you for the fool you are.”

            Here is Rule 1 for Conservatives: Never permit leftists to dictate to the terms of the debate. 11thCommandment wants me to go off on some tangent of his choosing. He obviously has a reason for that and it isn’t because he seeks to promote Conservatism. As they say in the game of Chess, “Play your own game, not your opponent’s!”

          • CD6 Businessman says:

            @Con Am.. Alinsky is more dead than Reagan yet you seem to be ok with quoting from him.

          • Conservative American says:

            ROFL! This may come as a great shock to you, CD6, but Saul Alinsky was never President of The United States. He therefore doesn’t qualify as a dead president.

            Come on, CD6, keep coming, keep coming, LOL!

            BTW, how do you determine which deceased person is more dead? I didn’t know that there were degrees of being dead. I thought it was like a light swithch, on or off. Either you’re dead or you’re alive. What do you know that you’re not telling us? Enquiring minds want to know!

  4. Conservative American says:

    Now let’s hear the rest of the story!

    amattclarkson:

    1 – The legislative efforts of Senator Pearce were never aimed at securing the border, as some have claimed. Those who claim that are factually in error. Instead, Senator Pearce has crafted legislation dsigned to remove the incentive for illegal aliens to enter our country in the first place; jobs.

    2 – The Arizona economy has suffered for what amattclarkson has reasonbly referred to as a “war of attrition” against illegal immigration. I believe that to be a statement of truth, but not a statement of the whole truth. What factors not mentioned would constitute the whole truth?

    First, the whole truth is that illegal immigration in and of itself is costing Arizona huge amounts of money. The state of Arizona has sued the federal government to reimburse Arizona for $760 million in costs for incarcerating illegal aliens and for additional costs incurred for securing the border. The lawsuit is being paid for with private funds and not taxpayer dollars. Follow the link for details:

    http://www.newsmax.com/US/ArizonaSuesUSGovernmentoverIllegals/2011/02/11/id/385722

    3 – The Chamber of Commerce of The United States filed a lawsuit claiming that provisions of legislation crafted by Senator Pearce were unconsitutional. The case was ultimately heard by the Supreme Court of The United States which found that the provisions in question are, in fact, constitutional. How much of an economic hit is too much to suffer to assert and uphold the constitutional rights of the State of Arizona and of the residents of Arizona? Constitutional rights have always come at a cost, beginning with the American Revolutionary War. Are we to be the generation which asserts that the costs of such rights are too high?

    4 – Who was it who called for a boycott of Arizona, hurting our economy, to protest SB1070? First, we have Democrat U. S. Congressman Luis Gutierrez of Chicago, part of the Obama political machine and someone who is not a resident of the State of Arizona. Congressman Gutierrez called for a boycott of Arizona and even went so far as to travel to Arizona to protest Senator Pearce’s legislation. Within the state, we had Democrat U. S. Congressman from Arizona, Raul Grijalva, who called for a boycott of his own state. So our economy was not hurt by Senator Pearce or his legislation, it was hurt by people like Luis Gutierrez and Raul Grijalva. Their intent was to have one of our state laws be rescinded by putting economic pressure on us. We should not yield to such tactics and, with Senator Pearce, we have not yielded to such tactics.

    5 – “Second, LD 22 has overstepped the fine line drawn between being against the recall and supporting one GOP candidate over another GOP candidate.” Who has drawn that line? It isn’t a legal line. You may not care for it but it is within the legal rights of the LD22 GOP.

    6 – “But to anyone in LD 18 that will vote on Nov. 8, we have a choice between two conservative candidates.” I beg to differ. It depends on what you consider to be “Conservative”. I don’t consider Mr. Leiws, who openly supports “immigration reform”, as does B. Hussein Obama, to be Conservative. I consider Senator Pearce, who seeks to enforce the law, to be Conservative.

    Senator Pearce, with his legislation and his defense of that legislation, has taken on Obama. Obama asserted that the enforcement of immigration law was the sole purview of the federal government and that Arizona could not defend itself by helping to enforce immigration law. The Supreme Court of The United States has found Obama to be constiutionally wrong in his assertions. That affirmation of the constitutional rights of states, including the State of Arizona, brought about by Senator Pearce is a monumental accomplishment in pushing back the attempted unconstitutional usurpation of the rights of states by Obama.

    How would this have turned out if Mr. Lewis, who supports “immigration reform”, were in office instead of Senator Pearce? Would we have had the vigorous assertion of and defense of the constitutional rights of the State of Arizona? Would our right to defend ourselves have been affirmed by the Supreme Court of The United States? Would there have been a barrier established against the attempts of Obama to usurp the constitutional rights of states? Would we instead have had negotiations over “immigration reform” in which we would have forfeited our constitutional rights?

    Senator Pearce stands for exercising our right to help enforce immigration law. Mr. Lewis stands for “immigration reform” whereby the law is changed to acccomdate those who enter our country illegally. Are both to be consdiered “Conservative”?

    • CD6 Businessman says:

      Con Am, wouldn’t SB1070 be considered “immigration reform”? It is a new law regardless of how you look at it. So obviously all sides believe in some kind of reform. We agree that it is costing millions of taxpayer money but the issue is more complex than saying all we need to do is “enforce the law”. By supporting SB1070 you then agree with some kind of reform.

      Can one be considered conservative in your eyes if they disagree with you on immigration but agree with you on all other issues?

      This is why I disagree with Pearce on this ONE issue. God love him for protecting the 2nd amendment, the unborn, and many other stances which I applaud. The problem is that he has taken immigration too far, in my view, and has been a polarizing figure which has in turn made him ineffective in promoting the entire conservative platform. You have done the same in your emails as labeling Jerry Lewis as a liberal puppet based on assumptions alone. This type of rhetoric does not strengthen conservative values but us a turn off.

      I disagree with Steve Calabrese in his post but it was well worded and I respect him. Both Con Am and other Pearce should take note because there is no way so many Republicans would want Pearce gone if they matched his maturity and intellect in describing personal views.

      • Conservative American says:

        ROFL! Oh, classic Liberal tactics, LOL! Let’s look at how these tactics work, shall we.

        1 – Redefine. Red becomes green and blue becomes yellow. The best example of this is in the marriage battle where Liberals seek to redefine marriage as including same sex couples and family as including to persons of the same sex with legal custody of a child.

        2 – Make a statement of truth so that readers agree but on a point that is totally irrelevant. “It is a new law regardless of how you look at it.” Yes. So what. What does that have to do with the issue? Are we debating what constitutes and old law versus what constitutes a new law?

        3 – Make a leap to something which is not a statement of truth. “So obviously all sides believe in some kind of reform.” No, all sides do not believe in some kind of “reform”.

        4 – State that the issue is “complex”. Leftists love to fabricate complexity where there is none as it allows them to range far afield in their arguments.

        5 – Speak for your opponent. “By supporting SB1070 you then agree with some kind of reform.” No, I do not agree with some kind of “reform”. Speak for yourself.

        6 – Pose hypothetical questions as they lead away from the issue at hand. “Can one be considered conservative in your eyes if they disagree with you on immigration but agree with you on all other issues?” Who is it who disagrees with me on immigration but agrees with me on all other issues? Where is this person? It’s hypothetical and removed from the issue at hand.

        7 – Make statements of “glittering generalities” instead of statements based upon fact. “The problem is that he has taken immigration too far, in my view, and has been a polarizing figure which has in turn made him ineffective in promoting the entire conservative platform.” Let’s take this one point at a time, shall we.

        “The problem is that he has taken immigration too far…” What, precisely, constitutes “too far”?

        “…been a polarizing figure…” And the great evil in that is what? Is our goal to be confluence above all else, agreeing to never disagree?

        “…which has in turn made him ineffective in promoting the entire conservative platform.” Specifically, to what “conservative platform” do you refer? Can you post a copy of it for us to examine?

        “This type of rhetoric does not strengthen conservative values but us a turn off.” I don’t think that rhetoric either strengthens or weakens Conservative values. Such values are what they are. The fact that you are turned off is a personal issue which should be dealt with in therapy.

        Once you get on to the debate tactics of Liberal leftists, they are pretty easy to bust. They like to lead their readers down labyrinthine corridors of pseudo-intellectual obfuscations. In short, they’re full of it, LOL! ;-)

        • 11thCommandment says:

          Conservative American:
          Do you really not have any better counterarguments than “typical liberal response..” when you don’t like someone’s point of view? Really?

          Here, I’ll give you some bait: “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times while president.” Please, spin this fact into an anti-liberal rant.

          • Conservative American says:

            First of all, you obviously need to re-read my post. You quote me as saying “typical liberal response” but I didn’t say that. I said, “classic Liberal tactics”. Is it beyond you to quote people accurately?

            Secondly, there is a little more to my post than “classic Liberal tactics” or did you miss everything below that line.

            Here, I’ll give you some bait. Gay activists say that Russell Pearce should be recalled because he is a “homophobe”. Spin that!

      • I believe a better question to ask is if one can be a Conservative and be against the “Rule of Law”.

        • Conservative American says:

          Bernard scores yet again! :-)

        • CD6 Businessman says:

          I am against Obamacare which is the law. I am for reformation of entitlements which are current law. I also oppose abortion which is upheld by current law. So wanting reform of the current “Rule of Law” is very much a conservative principle.

          • CD6 Businessman says:

            By the responses It appears you are both (Bernard and Con Am) saying that you cannot be a conservative, in your eyes, if you support immigration reform. Am I correct in this? I will try to not put words in your mouth so am curious to hear your response.

          • Conservative American says:

            CD6, you are confusing us with people who care what you are for or against. Be for or against whatever you want. Consider yourself to be any political flavor you want.

            If you want to have intellectual debates about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, try a college debate club.

          • Did I say that? I support immigration reform, and it begins with a FENCE! Furthermore, I am too abhorred by the current laws protecting abortion, and I hope to changes those laws through the ballot box. However, I am not going to ignore some other laws to infringe on those who are protected by the current law. Now, the question is over the “Rule of Law” do you or don’t you believe in enforcing the current laws written? And since we are not going to put word in each other mouths, may I ask a question of you, being curious and all to hear your response; as business man in CD6, do you profit from aliens being in the country illegally?

          • CD6 Businessman says:

            @Bernard…. To answer your questions in order

            1. No you did not say you do not support immigration reform but Con Am did. My original post was pointing out that items such as SB1070 and a border fence are part of a reform process. Since Con Am was criticizing Jerry Lewis for stating he supports immigration reform, I thought it was relevant to explain that “reform” can me a wide variety of things.

            2. Of course I believe in enforcing current laws. I just believe the current laws are not sufficient and are not able to completely address the problem. Do you believe the current laws are sufficient?

            3. I do not employ illegals or use their services.

          • @ CD6 Businessman
            I believe we should fully enforce the current laws before we deem them sufficient or not, especially those laws dealing with those who do employ illegals or use their services.
            BTW, I did not ask if you employed illegals or used their services; I asked if you had profited from aliens being in the country illegally.

          • Conservative American says:

            Hey, Bernard, you’re good! A tip of the Conservative American hat to you! :-)

          • CD6 Businessman says:

            @Bernard… yes I make massive amounts of money from illegals. And no you cannot have a job.

            @Con Am…. I am having a hard time finding guidance from my liberal handbook on how to respond to you. But now that I know you do not care about my responses then I will just leave it alone. For someone who doesn’t care I am not sure why you would risk Carpal Tunnel with such lengthy responses anyway.

          • Conservative American says:

            CD6 wrote: “For someone who doesn’t care I am not sure why you would risk Carpal Tunnel with such lengthy responses anyway.”

            You don’t need to be sure why I would risk Carpal Tunnel. That’s on a “need to know” basis and you don’t need to know.

  5. The recall in LD-18 is nothing more than an attempt to place a high profile conservative trophy on the wall of the extreme radical left. Russell Pearce (and Governor Jan Brewer) has national notoriety as conservative leaders who stood up against the Obama/Napolitano/Holder federal government on the issue of border security and illegal immigration. Should the recall leaders succeed, it will send a message across the country that any conservative leader can be taken out (as Jimmy Hoffa loudly threatened).

    If the recallers were intellectually honest and consistent, they would have gone after many more legislators on both sides of the aisle for the same votes that Russell Pearce cast. They are attempting to make Russell Pearce the Evan Mecham of 2011.

    For those who support Jerry Lewis in his endeavor, I would venture to say that many are from the same effort to defeat Russell Pearce in the 2008 Primary when Kevin Gibbons challenged Pearce. Jerry Lewis seems like a very nice guy and would probably vote 95% along the same lines as Russell Pearce but the recallers are putting style above substance in this race and that to me, doesn’t warrant a change of guard. I would expect the recallers to throw Jerry Lewis under the bus once his votes mimic Russell’s. But then again, the recallers won’t do it because its more about hating a man rather than disagreeing on public policy.

    Thus far, LD-22 has issued a proclamation supporting Russell Pearce, the Maricopa County Republican Party has endorsed him and a whole lineup of elected officials, including Governor Jan Brewer, has endorsed Russell Pearce.

    We cannot let the leftist hate and extreme radical manipulation of our political process rule in the State of Arizona.

    • 11thCommandment says:

      Shane Wikfors: “If the recallers were intellectually honest and consistent, they would have gone after many more legislators on both sides of the aisle for the same votes that Russell Pearce cast. They are attempting to make Russell Pearce the Evan Mecham of 2011.”

      Libs don’t have unlimited funds anymore than Reps do. Like any group, they’ve got to pick their battles. Russell Pearce is the biggest target. He’s the owner, the “father”, if you will, of Arizona’s right-wing. And he’s weak. He didn’t win by a slam-dunk margin in 2010 as many people believe. And he doesn’t have much appeal outside of his home district, either- he’ll never achieve federal office. And I can’t for one minute believe that he’s “loved” by his fellow senators; if he were loved (why did not a single on of his five immigration-related bills pass?). Feared, perhaps, but not loved. Once he’s out, and I believe he will lose this recall, watch them drop him like a hot potato.

  6. Viramontes says:

    @Conservative American

    Its obvious that your remarks were meant to combat and not constructive. We are speaking apples and oranges here, I’m referring to processes while your referring to people. Maybe you should take some more time learning how arguments are structured and delivered rather then being so quick to the detonater.

    The entire point of my argument was the GOP as an organization is there to support its candidates against the Democrats during an election, not play favorites amongst themselves. I hope that we can agree that it would inappropriate if the GOP at any level of its organization endorsed a candidate in a primary election. Although this is a unique circumstance being a special election, not having a Primary, it should be treated as such. when two good Republicans face-off

    • Consverative American says:

      Viramontes wrote: “Its obvious that your remarks were meant to combat and not constructive.” Really? It is “obvious”? Stating that it is “obvious” conveniently relieves you of the burden of proving your contention, doesn’t it. No, it is not “obvious” and if it is so “obvious”, prove it!

      Ah yes, once again, the typical liberal tactic of speaking for your opponent. How have you become the authority on what I meant? Are you my interpreter? Do you have my power of attorney? Have I hired you to speak for me? No. I speak for myself. What I meant is what I meant and not what you say I meant.

      Viramontes wrote: ” Maybe you should take some more time learning how arguments are structured and delivered…” I see. So you are the Supreme Authority regarding how arguments should be structured and delivered. How did you become the Supreme Authority? Were you appointed? Were you elected? Or perhpas this too is considered by you to be “obvious”?

      Viramontes wrote: “…rather then being so quick to the detonater.” So now you want to equate me with someone who sets off explosive devices. What happend to your pontificating on how you address processes and I refer to people?

      Viramontes wrote: “The entire point of my argument was the GOP as an organization is there to support its candidates against the Democrats during an election, not play favorites amongst themselves.” Right. We got your point and I’ll respond to your point with the same question I asked the first time; “What about when a Republican is running against a Republican?”

      Viramontes wrote: “I hope that we can agree that it would inappropriate if the GOP at any level of its organization endorsed a candidate in a primary election.” In the great tradition of Liberal debate tactics, a hypothetical question which is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. This is not a primary election. This is an attempt on the part of one Republican to unseat another Republican who was duly elected, who is a sitting Republican state Senator and who also happens to be President of the Arizona State Senate. That is reality and not hypothetical.

      Viramontes wrote: “Although this is a unique circumstance being a special election, not having a Primary, it should be treated as such.” Why? Why should two things which are entirely different be treated the same? That makes no sense at all. This is not a primary, it is a recall election. We have a Republican who has seen fit to choose to attempt to unseat an already-elected Republican who is currently serving as a state Senator and who is President of the Arizona State Senate.

      In a Republican primary, two potential candidates of the same party duke it out to see who is going to be chosen as the official candidate to run against Democrat and other candidates. In this instance, we have Russell Pearce, who was chosen as the Republican candidate, ran for office and was duly elected. His opponent is another Republican who did not run in a primary, who was not chosen from that primary to be the candidate and who has not yet been elected to anything.

      Let me make the situation clear for you. We have a Republican seeking to unseat a sitting Republican state Senator. What is the difference between that and what Democrat candidates do? The difference is that Mr. Lewis is a Republican and it is to his great shame that he is acting like a Democrat, seeking to politcally knock off a sitting Republican Senator. Your contention that we are looking at two “good” Republicans is not accepted. A Republican who behaves like a Democrat is not a “good” Republican.

      Might I suggest, Viramontes, that Republicans should be spending their time, effort and money to defeat leftist Democrats and replace them with Conservative Republicans rather than spending time, effort and money to seek to remove from office already elected Conservative Republicans. Get your mind right!

      • I wouldn’t even waste your time with “Viramontes”. He likes to blather about “rhetoric” and appear as though everyone else are ignorant “political infants” while he is the wise one who must educate us. A less condesending attitude may have served him better this week in his run for 4th vice chair in LD22. It has already been shown that he is very much in favor of the recall of Pearce and refuses to support him under any circumstances. He is one of the “libertarians” that the Parraz/Snow liberal activists prayed would get on board and who is salivating at the prospect of Pearce being taken out because of his open borders immigration stance.

        According to DeeDee Blase upon announcing their joining forces with Citizens for a Better AZ: “The principles for which we stand are solid, and thus our message continues to be well received within the Libertarian movement which values government restraint, the Progressive movement whose tenants speak to social justice, and the Conservative movement which supports traditional social values…….Additionally, we’re working with the Arizona Libertarian Party and look forward to seeing their series of position statements on the overlap between individual liberties and immigrant rights and on the fallacies of the Pearce Republicans’ claims of libertarian compatibility with overreaching laws.”

        Randy Parraz said, ” From our own experience, we found that we could achieve much greater results with an innovative approach – one that transformed adversaries into allies, conflict into cooperation, and hatred into goodwill.”

        How, as Republicans, have we come to accept the recall of our own party member especially when we know that a majority of those who signed the petition are democrats and the leader of the recall is also a democrat? Did our party and the voters in LD 18 not legitimately elect Pearce in 2010? Why then, just 2 months later, did Parraz suddenly start gathering petitions for Pearce’s recall right after his own failed attempt to beat McCain? Bitter? Why didn’t he start the recall process in February 2010 after the legislature passed it? Better yet, why not in 2006, 2007 or 2008 when similar bills and the employee sanctions law was passed? Probably because Parraz was still learning how to “transform” by using those who, under any other circumstance, wouldn’t dare associate with a liberal political activist.

        The way I see it, either people for the recall have not done their due dilligence and researched those behind the recall, or they know, but choose to dance with the devil simply for their own selfish cause because the end justifies the means.

        • Steve Calabrese says:

          This is somewhat off-topic, but I feel it needs to be said.

          I have to point out here that Viramontes withdrew from the race when the superb Mickie Niland decided to run. As someone who was not only supporting Viramontes but specifically asked that he run, I can attest to the fact that Viramontes only ran because he was approached by people who wanted to ensure that someone with a strong fundraising background take the 4th Vice position. Viramontes never made it a secret that he had no real desire to run but rather felt it was his duty, as there were no other immediate candidates who had the fundraising background he did. (In LD22, the 4th Vice Chair is responsible for fundraising.)

          Viramontes is blunt, speaks his mind, and sometimes offends people unnecessarily. There’s sometimes when I think he’s a bit over the top, and I consider him a good friend. Still, he was willing to put all his pride aside to serve the district when asked. He knew that if he ran for the board he would have to reign in his sometimes fiery speech, and accepted it. He and outgoing 4th Vice chair Kristen Desmangles are primarily responsible for the comfortable bank balance that LD22 currently enjoys. He deserves respect.

          We are fortunate in LD22 that Mickie decided to run. Mickie is one of the very few people in LD22 who works as hard as, if not harder, than Viramontes. Mickie also proved she could raise money when she ran Victor Peterson’s underdog campaign – a man who many people thought had no chance, as Mickie herself pointed out to me when I questioned if she was ready to raise money. Had someone with less solid credentials than Mickie run for the 4th Vice Chair, Viramontes most likely would have stayed in the race and won.

          Viramontes continues to spend long hours working behind the scenes at LD22 orchestrating events with other districts. He excels at it, and gets no reward other than to know that he advancing the objectives of the Party he loves. He is a great Republican, and although I disagree with him on this narrow issue, we would have no problem winning more elections if we had more Viramontes. Criticize his positions all you want, but treat him with the respect that a true GOP hard worker deserves. I wish every LD22 PC put as much time into the district as he does.

          • Conservative American says:

            I have no reason to doubt you regarding Viramontes, Steve. I addressed only what Viramontes chose to post in this public forum. We are on opposing sides of an important issue. Viramontes made his points and I have made mine. We have each had our say on the subject at hand.

        • Conservative American says:

          A very interesting post, 2nd AMD!

    • And what about your remarks about the Tea Party?

  7. The issue of divisiveness was determined the minute that Jerry Lewis entered the race.

    The recall petition was sponsored by a bunch of left-wing radicals.

    These radicals know that if they persuaded a Democrat to run against Pearce, he would be slaughtered (if that isn’t to Non-PC of an expression to use). Consequently, they have a gift in the form of Jerry Lewis, Republican, to run against Pearce.

    Had no Republican entered the race against Pearce, then the whole Recall would have fallen flat on its face.

    Jerry Lewis, by his very candidacy, is the divisive one in this contest.

    All REAL Republicans should recognize his duplicity in this effort and refuse to support him in any way. There is absolutely nothing honorable about his candidacy, nor those who support him.

    Jerry Lewis is a fraud; I don’t care what position he holds in any religious organization. He is blatantly supporting an effort designed to undermine our political process. If he really had any integrity, he would recognize how he is being used, set aside his personal pride, and resign from the race. (The timing would actually be very good to do so this coming Monday, 9/12/11, since today, 9/9/11, is the filing deadline to qualify for the ballot. Russell would win by default barring any write-in campaign.)

    I encourage EVERY Republican affiliated organization (Legislative Districts, County Party Organizations, State Party Organizations, Pachyderm clubs, etc.) to endorse Russell Pearce.

    Those organizations that refuse to endorse Russell, or worse, endorse Lewis, should forever be distrusted. Their failure to support Russell demonstrates that they are just as disloyal to the Republican Party as those Party members who endorsed Janet Napolitano for Governor.

    Brook no dissent on this.

    Either you are with us or you are agin’ us.

    • Dutch,

      Respectfully you claimed:

      “Those organizations that refuse to endorse Russell, or worse, endorse Lewis, should forever be distrusted. Their failure to support Russell demonstrates that they are just as disloyal to the Republican Party as those Party members who endorsed Janet Napolitano for Governor.”

      Clearly you can’t in truth believe this.

      By your litmus, Sheriff Joe Arpio and State GOP Chairman Tom Morrissey “should forever be distrusted” as they both publicly endorsed Janet Napolitano in her run for Governor.

      Are Joe Arpiao and Tom Morrissey “REAL Republicans” in your estimation?

      As a longtime Mesa Resident, Friend of Jerry Lewis, and supporter of his run, I want you to explain to me how, “There is absolutely nothing honorable about . . . those who support him.”

      Dutch, you should do the honorable thing and publicly retract the derogatory statements in this post that malign good people. I think Joe, Tom, myself and Jerry all deserve more respect then your binary Litmus affords.

  8. I support the rule of law, of which a recall is within the rights of the people. I personally have no opinion of the Pearce recall itself, only that other districts and the state party should remain neutral.

    2nd AMD, I dig the name so much I put it on my license plate. But I’d be a fool to think there is no coincidence between your alias and you inaccuratly attacking me w/ such misguided remarks; very clever.

    Thank you Steve for setting the record straight publicly as a member the LD22 executive board.

    • Conservative American says:

      Take it easy, Viramontes. No one is out to get you, literally or figuratively. I think that you set yourself up with what you say in your posts, however. You have a way of getting people’s dander up, LOL! Now if you can aim that at Liberal leftists, we’ll all have a good time! They’ll go bonkers! You just might be our secret weapon! ;-)

      Keep up the good work of which Steve spoke. Most politcal work is grunt and sweat. Only the candidates sparkle in the spotlight. Political work is predominantly self-sacrificing work. We have to be satisfied with the fact that virtue is it’s own reward.

    • I would like to paraphrase Viramotes’ comment “I personally have no opinion of the Pearce recall itself, only that other districts and the state party should remain neutral.” To me it means “sit down and shut up.” And that you should keep your opinions to yourself, especially since I disagree with them.

      If this was a standard primary election, then we would not have seen any support for a primary candidate from any Legislative District. But this is not a standard primary election. This is an election to make an example of a Republican who has been successful at finding ways to reduce Arizona as a desirable place for criminal aliens to reside.

      We all know that this election is all about how Arizona deals with illegal immigration in the future, Do we continue to make it more difficult for criminal aliens to be in Arizona and more difficult for companies to illegally employ criminal aliens or do we want to stop and make Arizona more friendly for them.

      This election is much larger than just LD-18, it will have a direct bearing on what happens through the entire state.

  9. Recalls are permitted by law. They are meant to be used for gross cases of misconduct, that are of the nature that the person continuing to serve would be harmful to the position and the people he/she is supposed to represent.

    The Democrats have politicized this very simple and common sense mechanism to use it not as intended, but to harrass incumbents, a variation on their toxic use of lawsuits to harrass. The complaints against Pearce are overwhelmingly political in nature, which should be resolved at the normal voting dates by the voters, not by political operatives. Sore losers running lawsuits and recalls are the ones at fault, who do not respect rule of law as established at the voting booth – the PEOPLE deciding.

    Because of this, Republicans should be united in fighting off the Pearce recall. No candidate is perfect and Pearce is better than most, so demanding perfection is worthless. Voters aren’t perfect and so aren’t political opinionators and operatives. Condemning Pearce for imperfection is a political bludgeon, and not fair at all. He’s more than just good enough and should not be harrassed by this calculated disruption of his lawful duties. His constituents need him focusing on them, not political attacks. If the GOP caves, expect MORE of the same strategy against ALL of them.

    • Conservative American says:

      Excellent points, wanumba.

      This situation doesn’t exist in a vacuum and should be viewed in context, All we need do is look at Wisconsin.

      Republicans were elected in Wisconsin and the Democrats, the leftists and the unions went bonkers. So, what did they do? They initiated recalls! Their stated goal was not to remove a particular candidate but rather to gain control of the Wisconsin Senate, which they failed to do.

      Next, they will seek to recall the Republican Governor of Wisconsin who was duly elected and is implementing exactly what he promised to implement when he ran for office. His program of expense reduction is already working and bringing about the desired results. The Democrats want to try to get him out of office as quickly as possible before proof of the effectiveness of his policies mounts to where it is absolutely undeniable.

      Unions are no more than a defacto DNC. Republicans in Wisconsin were showing how to rein in the excesses of the unions. Democrats couldn’t have their machine dismantled and a lot of Democrat money flowed into Wisconsin from out of state. If an effective method were established for castrating unions, it could bring down the entire web of leftist unions across the country and Obama and his chums would be in big trouble come election time.

      So recalls are just one of the latest tactics being exploited and abused by the Liberal left to have their way by any means. The operant principle of the Communists has always been that the end justifies the means and they have always relied on exploiting dupes to achieve their ends.

    • amattclarkson says:

      Wanumba, your opinion regarding the use of a recall is not backed by statue. There is no such provision for conduct or action on the part of the elected official.

      http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/19/00201.htm&Title=19&DocType=ARS

      Also, if Mesa voters felt Senator Pearce was focusing on them, they might not have signed the recall. While I disagree with your opinion on the recall, I was not for the recall. But now that we have an election with what I feel to be a better candidate, only a fool would vote for what he/she felt to be the lesser candidate just so they can stick it to the crazy liberals.

      • The Left loves to call everyone a fool. That don’t make it so.

        If you have a better candidate run ‘em next election. The recalls are being used as political hammers, so this cynical political gimmick should NOT be supported in any measure. Support the incumbent or we toss our electoral system in the trash and be stuck with chaotic anarchy with elections being demanded for every “wrong” election result. Governing or legislating will become impossible to do, just a election-defensive occupation that wastes peoples’ time, money and wears on their spirits.

      • Conservative American says:

        amattclarkson wrote: “…just so they can stick it to the crazy liberals.” LOL, you’re not going to sneak that one by! You know quite well that that is not what it’s about.

        I might add, that the Liberals are so “crazy” that they managed to get B. Hussein Obama elected President of The United States. “Crazy” like a fox! It is always a fatal error to underestimate the enemy.

  10. We, the (Democratic, Republican, Independent, Liberal, Conservative) people of LD 18 are disgusted with the leadership of Russell Pearce. He had “led” our Community, our City and our State into near-financial, medical and education ruin. His ties to outside-anarchist organizations such as the Neo-Nazi party, FAIR, VDARE, PAN and their assasination squad, the Minutemen, are well documented. These un-American goon squads whose doctrine is “Power to the White Europeans” embodies all that is loathsome to civilized society. Documented legal residents of Mesa’s LD 18 have taken issue by (knowingly) signing recall petitions to oust this thug whose true loyalties lies with these extremists groups. This is America and this is not acceptable!! Good bye, Russell Pearce and good bye to your fanatic followers. The American citizens of Mesa Arizona have spoken!

    • Conservative American says:

      First of all, Diane, you are not “the people” and you don’t speak for “the people”. You are a segment of “the people” and it remains to be seen if you are even a majority of “the people”. So don’t try to seize the high ground by seeking to illegitimately pass yourself off as “the people”. You’re not.

      Some of the people in LD 18 may be disgusted. Obviously, not all of the people are disgusted because there are plenty of people from LD 18 who post here in support of Russell Pearce. So stop trying to fill your sails with wind.

      FAIR? The Federation for American Immigration Reform is an “outside-anarchist organization”? Oh, please do show me where FAIR supports and promotes anarchy, LOL! They don’t share your support for unlimited, uncontrolled, illegal immigration. Could that be why you don’t like them?

      Diane wrote: “These un-American goon squads whose doctrine is “Power to the White Europeans” embodies all that is loathsome to civilized society.” Really? Are you racially prejudiced against “White Europeans”? You hate us because of the color of our skin and because of being of European descent? And you, of course, with all of your hateful rhetoric, would create a “civilized” society?

      ROFL! Your are hilarious, Diane! Is this for real or is this just a spoof? You are complaining about “extremists groups” and listen to your rhetoric, LOL!

      The American citizens of Mesa Arizona haven’t said anything yet. There’s that small matter of an election, although I’m certain that you wish you didn’t have to bother with that inconvenience.

      You are spouting the classic Communist line using classic Communist rhetoric so let’s remind everyone of the ultimate outcome when Communists control a country. There is a memorial, in Washington, D. C., to the estimated one hundred million people around the world who were killed by the Communists for political reasons. Let us never forget that reality when the volume is turned up on the propaganda!

      • By casting a wide net of supposed adherents, Diane is attempting to disguise her true ‘colors.’ Oops, un-PC word. She is a liberal, leftist Democrat attempting to inject doubt and ‘centrist reasonableness’ into the conservative discussion. Her intent is to paint conservatives and their beliefs as extreme, and her attempt to make Russell Pearce a target of his own party is a pathetic lie.

        • Conservative American says:

          Hey, you have a great writing style, Vicki. I’ts very succinct and to the point. Reminiscent of the classic style of journalistic writing which we rarely see any more.

          • Thanks, CA. Appreciate you calling Diane out. You are obviously familiar with her ilk. These types turn up with regularity on most of the conservative blogs I follow. Pretty easy to spot.

          • Conservative American says:

            You’re most welcome, Vicki! :-)

            I just love it that they come out and post. First, because people get to see the real Liberal left in action, with all of their disingenuous tactics, falsehoods and distortions. Secondly, we get to give ‘em a good virtual trashing in public.

            They are at an inherent disadvantage because they start out having to figure a way around the truth, LOL!

    • Nice play of the race card Diane. It sounds to me like you are using projection as a psychological defense mechanism.

  11. :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Diane says:
    September 10, 2011 at 9:30 am
    We, the (Democratic, Republican, Independent, Liberal, Conservative) people of LD 18 are disgusted with the leadership of Russell Pearce. He had “led” our Community, our City and our State into near-financial, medical and education ruin. His ties to outside-anarchist organizations such as the Neo-Nazi party, FAIR, VDARE, PAN and their assasination squad, the Minutemen, are well documented. These un-American goon squads whose doctrine is “Power to the White Europeans” embodies all that is loathsome to civilized society.
    :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

    Ya know what’s loathome to cvilized society?

    Lying.

    We actually have a law enforcement and court system that still functions better than most in every other country on the planet, if any modecum of anything in that run of hysterical acusations were true, prison years ago for every one of your imagined characters would have been the reality.

    How loathsome is it to lie against a decently functioning system that is fairer than the ones the majority of immigrants worldwide LEFT behind?

  12. One thing I’ve always loved about the United States is that as our customs, we don’t cheat foreigners in our land. The price of tomatoes doesn’t shift depending on the color of the buyer – it’s marked. If you don’t like it go to a different store where their prices are openly marked. Not a single immigrant legal or illegal has to pay a “foreigner tax” like other countries do to Americans every day in all transactions.

    I’vee been in plenty of other countries and can attest that Americans truly treat the “foreigners in their midst” with far more fairness and dignity than those same foreigner treats Americans when the situations are reversed. I can also attest that there is more positive attitudes about Americans than the Left wants us to know. Much of the ant-American rhetoric has been spread internationally by the New York Times – they provided the smack talk foreigners read and repeat. How about that? Why do they hate us? Because the Liberals at our media outlets taught them everything they know about the USA.

    Americans have no reason to be ashamed or apologize for how we treat foreigners, even illegals. The complaints are manufactured to cause dissention.

  13. Conservative American says:

    Russell Pearce took on the POTUS, B. Hussein Obama, and whipped him.

    Obama is a lawyer who specialized in constitutional law and who taught constitutional law. Russell Pearce beat Obama before the Supreme Court of The United States.

    Think of it, Obama defeated by a an Arizona State Senator, not even a U. S. Senator! Obama taken down by Arizona, the state he tried to stomp on! Why if Pearce stays in office, other legislators on the state level, from other states might take on the POTUS… and they might win! Obama needs to “make an example” of Senator Pearce.

    Good luck, B. Hussein Obama, you’re going to need it! This isn’t Chicago, it’s Arizona. Russell Perace whipped your butt before the SCOTUS and he’s going to whip it again right here in Arizona!

    • A little clarification:
      Obama WAS a lawyer. He has not been allowed to practice in any manner in that profession for years. He and his wife had to give up their law licenses for as yet undisclosed reasons, which is something that voters really did have a right to know before being presented with him as candidate for POTUS,but were not informed of. thanks to the media which chose NOT to disclose this to the nation at the time.

      • Conservative American says:

        Point well taken, wanumba! ;-)

      • 11thCommandment says:
        • I’m right. The Obamas were presented to the public as being lawyers when they have not been practicing for years, and his professorship was greatly exaggerated from a part-time teaching gig of which we have only a pix of him scribbling Marxist anti-capitalistic bolierplate on the board.

          • TrueAmericanConservative says:

            Nope, Wanumba. You’re wrong. Facts are facts.
            You said, “He and his wife had to give up their law licenses for as yet undisclosed reasons…” They did not “give up” their law licenses. They voluntarily put them on “inactive” status, which is by no means, even by your up-is-down, hot-is-cold, left-is-right reasoning, the same as surrendering their licenses for “as yet undisclosed reasons”. Grow a pair and face facts.

    • Excellent point, Conservative American. I knew I liked Pearce for some very good reasons.

      • Conservative American says:

        Yeah, Vicki, Obama claimed that enforcing immigration laws was constitutionally the sole purview of the federal government. A lawsuit was brought against several provisions of one of Pearce’s pieces of legislation on that basis. SCOTUS took a big dump on the head of B. Hussein Obama, affirming that states do, in fact, have the constitutional right to help enforce immigration law.

        So here we have B. Hussein Obama, POTUS and former constitutional law professor, whose ideas about what is contitutional are soundly rebuffed by SCOTUS! Anyone who took one of Hussein’s constitutional law clasess should ask for a refund, LOL! ;-)

        Thank you, Arizona State Senate President, Russell Pearce, for giving B. Hussein Obama a lesson in constitutional law!

  14. Mark Swartz says:

    Lots of labels being thrown around. This probably means that the “sheeple” are under the delusion that one of the parties is the “bad party”, taking America down the road to destruction.

    Elected officials that willingly accept material goods in the name of “fact finding”, or “researching” are destroying America.

    How about some labels like greed, corruption, or self-serving thrown around

  15. I am the Chairman of the Recall. I am a Republican, a Mormon, and a lifelong Arizonan. I have 5 children in Arizona’s public schools and own two businesses here that depend on a vibrant economy. I am a Boy Scout leader in my church. I suppose in many people’s eyes who post on here, I am what constitutes a “left-wing radical”. It’s much easier to call vile names and throw out wild accusations than check the facts and have a reasonable debate (this includes you Shane, I would have expected better from you).

    The facts are this: the recall is not a national movement nor is it “well funded”. Anyone who has seen our shabby office in Mesa could attest to this. We have no ties to the DNC or moveon.org or any other left leaning organizations. It was started by 5 or 6 of us in January of this year (half Republican, half Democrat) when we saw that Pearce was going to be foisting his extreme agenda on the entire state. It ballooned to over 1,100 volunteers and donors in very short order. Some of the biggest supporters were the Republican precinct committee people from LD18.

    For the people who have trashed Jerry Lewis on here I ask you this – why do you think the Republican precinct committee people in Pearce’s own ultra-conservative district did not vote for him to represent them at the state level? Doesn’t that indicate that something is wrong when the people from his own district and party want him out? Take off the tin-foil conspiracy hats for a moment and think about it objectively. Why do the Republicans that know Pearce best want him gone?

    Pearce has fed you all a line about him being a “patriot” and being the only one to “protect America” and you all have bought it hook. line, and sinker. How do you all feel about Pearce accepting $40,000 in bribes from the Fiesta Bowl and giving them millions of taxpayer dollars? How do you feel about him lying on his financial disclosures? How do you feel about Pearce having multiple fundraisers hosted and attended exclusively by lobbyists? Or having out of state organizations like CCA, FAIR, ALEC, and others fund him and write legislation for him? If you were true CONSERVATIVES, these things would outrage you. You can call me and the other recall organizers all the names you want, but these facts still stand.

    • Conservative American says:

      First of all, Chad, we don’t care if you’re an Eagle Scout and help little old ladies across the street. That is irrelevant to your political positions.

      Chad wrote: “The facts are this: the recall is not a national movement nor is it “well funded”. So what? The effect is the same regardless.

      Chad wrote: “…when we saw that Pearce was going to be foisting his extreme agenda on the entire state.” “Extreme agenda? And you’re complaining about “vile names” and throwing out “wild accusations”? Take the log out of your own eye! What, precisely, is this “extreme agenda”? That is name-calling without any specifics. It is a subjective judgement. Why don’t you present to us this “exterme agenda” and permit us to make our own judgement of it.

      Chad wrote: “…why do you think the Republican precinct committee people in Pearce’s own ultra-conservative district did not vote for him to represent them at the state level?” Why do you think that Russell Pearce was elected to the Arizona State Senate by his constituents and why do you think he was made President of the Arizona State Senate?

      Chad wrote: “Doesn’t that indicate that something is wrong when the people from his own district and party want him out?” Yes, I think that something is very wrong, especially because Pearce was duly elected to office. I think that something is very wrong when a Republican is going to run in a recall election against a sitting Republican. I think that something is very wrong when homosexual activists on the Daily Kos “progressive” Democrat website offer 20 reasons to recall Russell Pearce and you agree that Pearce should be recalled.

      “Top 20 Reasons To Recall Senator Russell Pearce”

      “He’s a homophobe. Name any piece of anti-LGBT legislation in Arizona, and I bet you’ll find Russell Pearce’s name attached to it. While in the House he introduced the “Parameters of Marriage” Amendment to the State Constitution, which defined marriage the way he likes it and denied benefits to same-sex couples. When it failed in the Senate, he and other Republicans took the argument to voters and pushed for the “Marriage Protection Amendment.” The ballot proposition passed in 2008 and is now, thankfully, “protecting” my marriage from being destroyed by the gays.”

      http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/01/30/939749/-Top-20-Reasons-To-Recall-Senator-Russell-Pearce

      Do you support homosexual “marriage”, Chad?

      Chad wrote: “Take off the tin-foil conspiracy hats for a moment and think about it objectively.” What happened to your holy concern about “vile names” and “wild accusations”? That went by the way quickly when you found it convenient to say that we are wearers of “tin-foil hats” and are into “conspiracy”. Chad Snow, based on the conflict between what you preach and what you actually practice, you fit the definintion of a hypocrite. Is this the sort of behavior you practice while at the same time declaring yourself to be Mormon?

      Chad wrote: “Pearce has fed you all a line about him being a “patriot” and being the only one to “protect America” and you all have bought it hook. line, and sinker.” Really? We’re that stupid? A “line” is it? Well Mr. Snow here are some facts for you:

      Arizona State Senate President, Republican Senator Russell Pearce, crafted legislation empowering Arizona to help enforce immigration law in the face of the onslaught of illegal aliens. B. Hussein Obama held that it is unconstitutional for Arizona to help enforce immigration law, that it is the sole purview of the federal government. When a lawsuit was brought against provisions of Pearce’s legislation, it was defended all the way to the Supreme Court of The United States. The Court upheld the provisions of Pearce’s legislation and found Obama’s assertions to be constitutionally wrong. What impact does this have?

      The attempted continued usurpation of state’s rights by President B. Hussein Obama was stopped. It wasn’t stopped by a U. S. Senator or Congressman. It wasn’t stopped by Jerry Lewis. It wasn’t stopped by Chad Snow. It was stopped by Arizona State Senate President, Republican Senator Russell Pearce. You dont’ think that makes Senator Pearce a patriot? You don’t think that amounts to protecting America by defending the constitutional rights of all fifty states? Tell me, Mr. Snow, what, precisely have you and Mr. Lewis done which makes you patriots and defenders of The Constitution?

      Chad wrote: ” How do you all feel about Pearce accepting $40,000 in bribes from the Fiesta Bowl and giving them millions of taxpayer dollars?” How do you feel about telling us which court or legislative body has found that to be fact? Surely there must be a conviction, an indictiment a censure somewhere? Please, post it here to back up your “facts”. Failure to do so means that you just committed slander and libel.

      How do you feel, Chad, about out of state Liberal Democrat Congressman Luis Gutierrez from Chicago coming here to protest Pearce’s SB1070 and calling for a boycott of Arizona? Does that “out of state” action bother you? How do you feel about homosexual activist organizations protesting Pearce’s SB1070 and calling for a boycott of Arizona? Does that bother you?

      “LGBT groups support boycott over Ariz. immigration law
      by Shaun Knittel
      EDGE Contributor
      Wednesday Aug 11, 2010″

      “As the debate over Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 continues to rage, a myriad of LGBT organizations and activists have come together to demand action under a unified “Boycott Arizona” banner.”

      http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=108963

      Chad, to paraphrase you, you can call Conservatives all the names you want but these facts still stand.

      • Nice comeback points. Pearce displays unusual courage for a politician. I hope he beats the recall.

        • Conservative American says:

          Hi, Vicki! Thank you! You really hit the nail on the head. It is the courage of Senator Pearce which makes him so effective.

          The principal weapon of B. Hussein Obama and the Liberal left is intimidation. They seek to intimidate their opponents into inaction. Russell Pearce threw a monkey wrench into their plans we he refused to succomb to fear.

          Russell Pearce had the courage to stand behind his legislation all the way to the Supreme Court of The United States. He called the bluff of Obama and the Liberal left and he prevailed! A person of less courage would have crumped under the immense pressure.

          Russell Pearce wore the badge of a law enforcement officer and put his life on the line to enforce the law. Although no longer a law enforcement officer, he still has that same courage.

    • Chad, if you aren’t as “well funded” as you claim, where did the $10k in your warchest come from by January 31st? When did your group register with the Corporation Commission? Before or after you accumulated that $10k? Care to disclose your largest donors?

      “We are a well-established group that has what it takes to raise the necessary funds both across the state and across the nation and we’re rapidly closing on $10,000 already raised to help us achieve our goals!” – Citizens for a Better Arizona Jan 31, 2011

      Is Chase Barrett really Lewis’s campaign manager? Wasn’t he Kevin Gibbon’s manager as well? Yet, we are supposed to believe that this recall is much more than just being about immigration?

      What is your relationship with DeeDee Blase?

    • In response to your question “I ask you this – why do you think the Republican precinct committee people in Pearce’s own ultra-conservative district did not vote for him to represent them at the state level?”
      In the last election cycle there were some very questionable activities around the election of PCs. We saw this activity in my district (LD-19), as well as many others. A great example of what went on is that the Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, Randy Pullen, was not elected as a State Committeeman. This made Randy ineligible to run for re-election. Therefore, I believe that if Russell was not elected as a State Committeeman, one reason is because of these questionable activities.

      Chad, now I have a questions about your businesses. Does it or you profit for either the employment of or the activities of illegal aliens?

  16. TrueAmericanConservative says:

    Well said, Chad!

  17. TrueAmericanConservative says:

    Con Am: so you care more about what a dead liberal thought than a dead American icon of conservatism? This speaks volumes.

    • Conservative American says:

      I most certainly hope it does speak volumes!

      What the “dead liberal” thought, wrote and promulgated is being used today, right here, right now, in this forum in an attempt to bring down a sitting Conservative Republican Arizona Senator. Those leftist techniques and tactics articulated by Saul Alinsky and others need to be exposed for what they are so that voters know the truth. Ronald Reagan isn’t here to fight this battle. It’s our turn at bat and we should remain fully focused on the battle at hand.

      • TrueAmericanConservative says:

        ConAm: Do you really believe that there is a sinister plot against the sonoranalliance.com comments section by liberal thugs who’ve received training in Alinsky’s ideology?

        • Conservative American says:

          Did I say that there is a sinister plot against the sonoranalliance.com comments section by liberal thugs who’ve received training in Alinsky’s ideology?

          • TrueAmericanConservative says:

            ConAm: Yes, you say it repeatedly. Over and over. Again and again. I’d estimate about 50% of your posts lead with it.

          • Conservative American says:

            Point us to where I said, “There is a sinster plot against sororanalliance.com comments section by liberal thugs who received training in Alinsky’s ideology.”

            You’re saying I said that. Where did I say that, Meathead. Point to where I said that.

  18. Well, not everyone dedicates his book to Satan. Most people would get chills down their spines and avoid it like the plague with an inspiration like that, and when it’s found well-read and dog-eared on the bookshelves of people like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and a host of their regular aquaintances … it certainly adds a sinister creepiness to what should be pretty normal stuff.

    Hard to know what’s worse to behold, the brazen invoking of total evil or the size of the inflated human ego that thought it actually had any control over it.

Speak Your Mind

*