PR – Vernon Parker to Host Concealed Carry Course Fundraiser

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Contact:  Kassee Bulen

Phone Number:  602-710-7397

E-Mail:  kassee@parker2010.com

 

CELEBRATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITH VERNON PARKER

Congressional Candidate to Host Concealed Carry Course Fundraiser

 

On Saturday, February 20th, congressional candidate Vernon Parker will host a concealed weapon carry course taught by expert instructor Jim Neff of Generation Firearms.  Parker is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment, and will be earning his own concealed carry permit at the event.  Neff is a highly regarded firearms training expert, and the course will be limited to 30 individuals.  The course will start at 7AM and runs 10 hours.  The cost is $85.  Contributions to Parker’s campaign for Arizona Congressional District 3 will be accepted.

 

BACKGROUND

 

Parker announced an exploratory committee for Governor on September 23rd and since then raised his seed money faster than Governor Brewer, generated endorsements and excitement across the state and was on track to qualify for Clean Elections funding next month. 

 

However, since the surprising announcement by Congressman John Shadegg that he will not seek re-election, Parker has been called by dozens of supporters and state leaders encouraging him to consider a run for the Congressional District Three Republican nomination. 

 

Paradise Valley lies in the heart of the district, where just two years ago Parker garnered a record number of votes in his initial run for office.

 

Parker, 50, is the current mayor of Paradise Valley, Arizona.  He previously served as General Counsel of the United States Office of Personnel Management, then in the White House as Special Assistant to President George H.W. Bush.  Later, Parker was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed with bipartisan support by the United States Senate, as an Assistant Secretary at the United States Department of Agriculture.  A small businessman, Parker also served as a pastor for two years at a small non-denominational church in Paradise Valley.  He is a graduate of Georgetown Law School in Washington, D.C., where he met his wife Lisa.

 

Parker’s life story is compelling.  Raised by his grandmother in a severely underprivileged neighborhood in Long Beach, California, Parker was able to escape the drugs and violence through love, education and the commitment of family.

 

For more information contact Kassee Bulen.

 

-30-

 

Paid for by Vernon Parker For Congress

Something is happening out there for Vernon Parker

Vernon

Vernon Parker with his wife and son

Vernon Parker is picking up steam fast in the race for governor. He bested Governor Brewer in raising his $51,000 in seed money in only 41 days. And that’s no easy task at $140 per person. Now, informed scuttlebutt suggests that Parker has eclipsed his internal $5 qualifying contribution goals and is over 60 percent home, which will soon qualify him for the full Clean Elections funding of his race.

If true, it shows that Parker is striking a chord and that while career politicians like Brewer and Martin may appear to have an advantage now, receiving fawning coverage from a mainstream media  too slow to figure out what’s happening, keep an eye on this surging outsider. A candidate we might add, that was recently attacked by Planned Parenthood for his opposition to the organization.

If you haven’t checked out his website lately, please do so, it has been recently upgraded and is a top-tier level site.

Mayor Phil Gordon dubbed by Walrus Guys as “most famous Walrus in Arizona”

Click image to enlarge. From the top of the Walrus Guys website.
walrus-gordon

Click here to go to the Walrus Guys website

CD5 candidate Jim Ward funded by open borders Chamber of Commerce

One of the carpetbaggers who has jumped into the CD5 race against Harry Mitchell is Jim Ward from California’s San Francisco area. The open borders Arizona Chamber of Commerce, known for fighting Arizona’s employer sanctions law through lawsuits and advocacy, is supporting Ward and putting on a fundraiser for him. We know who he will be beholden to if elected.

It is peculiar why any Republican would want the support of the Chamber of Commerce. The Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce is currently mired in scandal over its illegal donations to Democrat former Scottsdale Mayor Mary Manross. They supported Manross last year over the principled Republican candidate Jim Lane, who nevertheless ended up winning. The Arizona Chamber has a reputation for protecting illegal immigration so big business can continue hiring and exploiting illegal immigrants, undercutting the salaries of hardworking Americans. Ward’s campaign contributors so far represent a who’s who of big business, with money coming from large grocers, hotels, etc. – the very kind of industries that tend to hire illegal immigrants.

Ward does not represent the interests of Arizonans, especially Republicans who want to protect our borders and enforce our laws against illegal immigration. 69% of Arizonans support employer sanctions against businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

Below is the email sent out by the Chamber of Commerce to its members, inviting them to a special fundraiser they are putting on for Ward:

From: Glenn Hamer [mailto:ghamer@azchamber.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:38 PM
To: Glenn Hamer
Subject: Invitation: Reception with Jim Ward

Dear Members of the Board of Directors:

On Thursday, December 17, 2009, Congressional candidate Jim Ward will be hosting a meet and greet at his house for various Board Members from several Chambers. Jim is running for Congress in District 5 and would like to give you the opportunity to hear from him.  Many of you already know Jim as a result of his participation in the Chamber, but for those who don’t, this is a great opportunity.

The event will be held from 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. in Scottsdale. Further details and information on how to RSVP are attached.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Thank you!

-Glenn

Glenn Hamer

President & CEO

Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry

jimwardfundraiser

Dowling vindicated in Supervisors’ witchhunt against her

Sandra DowlingEven the liberal Arizona Republic editorial board agreed that the investigation of former County Schools Superintendent, urged by the County Supervisors and initiated by Attorney General Terry Goddard, was groundless. In a stunning defeat for the Supervisors, who hounded Dowling with lawsuits the last couple of years she was in office, fighting to drastically reduce funding to her agency the way they have done to other county agencies and keep it for themselves instead, the court awarded Dowling $25,000 in legal fees.

From yesterday’s editorial:

Compared with what came before – furious claims against Dowling of criminal theft and gross incompetence; declarations by prosecutors that Dowling’s actions in office constituted a “sad and serious breach of trust” – this conclusion is strangely anticlimactic. Surely, it seemed, someone’s head should roll.

At least it will not be the head of Dowling. The former Marine – the woman whose sole “crime” may have been that she was too devoted to the education of homeless kids in Maricopa County – can walk away from these years of conflict with her head held high.

But as the case unfolded, the central charge against Dowling – that she stole $1.8 million from the Pappas schools for homeless children – disintegrated. The crime is that more of us did not see sooner the political vengeance in the eyes of her attackers.

Rumors abound that Dowling is planning on running for County Supervisor against Max Wilson, who currently represents the West Valley.

Prepare to shop at Safeway/Fry’s this weekend to thwart union picketing

Photo courtesy of the Arizona Republic

Photo courtesy of the Arizona Republic

In a strikingly bizarre twist, grocery store employees at Safeway and Fry’s Grocery have been picketing the stores’ union this week in order to stop it from picketing. The  United Food & Commercial Union Local 99 is threatening to go on strike this Friday at 6pm over health insurance. Their reason? Safeway and Fry’s are planning on starting to charge employees a minimal cost for health insurance – $5 – $15/wk – which they now provide for free. The union is refusing to accept any cost at all. Even this minimal cost! Considering how expensive healthcare is, it seems ridiculous that the union can force the company to continue providing all health insurance for free.

Many Safeway and Fry’s employees realize this, and do not want to be out of work indefinitely during this down economy, right before Christmas.  Estimates are that over 20,000 employees will be affected. Non-union employees may be prevented from working during the strike, and will receive no compensation. Union employees will receive $100/week in strike pay, a piddly amount, not much to tide them over. Arizona is a right to work state, meaning employees are not required to join unions. A strike will likely affect the non-union employees who just want to work.  This is unfair.

Safeway and Fry’s have been preparing for the strike by hiring temporary workers to fill in. Out of care for their longtime employees, they are only hiring temporary employees, not permanent replacements. The two chains are sticking together, agreeing that if the union goes on strike against one chain, the other chain will lock its union employees out.

It is irresponsible of the union to be calling for a strike based on demands for free healthcare, especially at this time of year when the employees don’t want it. The unions aren’t representing the employees, they are representing the interests of the socialist bosses who run them. Most Americans realize that healthcare isn’t free, no matter how hard Obama and the Democrats in Congress try to ram it down our throats.

The last strike like this occurred in California against subsidiaries of Safeway and Fry’s in 2003, lasting 20 weeks and costing the stores billions of dollars.

It is looking like a satisfactory agreement will not be achieved by 6pm Friday night. If so, the union will  start picketing certain stores. They may only target Safeway, since Safeway has been struggling financially more than Fry’s. Or they may target just a few stores. Regardless, be prepared to shop at Safeway and Fry’s this weekend. Even if you don’t regularly shop at those stores, please consider stopping by to encourage them and keep their sales up. I am holding off my weekly shopping until this weekend and intend to buy extra purchases in addition there, instead of making an extra trip to Walmart to buy certain items cheaper. Don’t let a few socialists running the unions force their unrealistic demands upon employees against their will, causing them to suffer this Christmas season. Even the Arizona Republic has editorialized against the union strike! The union no longer represents the interests of its employees.

The National Right to Work Foundation is offering free legal aid to employees during the strike. There is some concern that union officials will try and prohibit union members from working during the strike, and NRWF wants to make sure union members know their rights. Union members have a right to continue working during the strike, however they may want to resign from the union in order to avoid oppressive union disciplinary actions and fines. They can also sign a decertification petition to hold a secret ballot election to remove the union hierarchy from the workplace.

Supervisors considering increasing photo speed camera fees today

The County Supervisors are considering increasing photo speed camera revenues. This is a mistake, considering Napolitano has already placed more speed cameras around the state than any other state in the country, turning us into a big brother state with these cameras that are nothing more than hidden taxes, yet Arizona has the second worst budget crisis in the country after California. Speed cameras do not work as revenue generators, because the private companies take too much of the profit. 40% of speed camera tickets are appealed, which puts a huge financial and resource strain on our justice courts, since many of them end up being thrown out. Considering the Supervisors’ poor record of overspending on items like the $340 million court tower Taj Mahal, they should not be voting to increase the fines on speed camera tickets by another $20. It is not surprising that instead of cutting taxes and spending, the Supervisors are about to increase another hidden tax that does not work.

From Supervisors agenda for today -

ESTABLISH A PHOTO ENFORCEMENT FEE
Pursuant to A.R.S. §11-251.08, convene the scheduled public hearing, to solicit comments and consider the adoption of Photo Enforcement Fee of $20.00 per defendant to begin December 1, 2009. The proposed photo enforcement fee will be assessed against each individual charged

AZ budget: Why the rush?

This was written by Patrick Gleason of Americans for Tax Reform in the Philadelphia Enquirer in regards to the Pennyslvania budget, but applies just as well to our state.

Despite the long impasse, there was scant opportunity for public scrutiny.

By Patrick M. Gleason

Last week, just before the nation’s longest budget impasse ended, Pennsylvania legislators had begun feeling the heat from constituents angered by their inability to pass a budget. Talking to reporters about the budget after a meeting at the governor’s mansion, House Speaker Keith McCall (D., Carbon) told reporters that he and his colleagues hoped to “get it done and get it done now.”

My question at this point is: What was the rush? I’m not saying the budget stalemate should have been dragged out any longer; indeed, the budget was long overdue and needed to be completed as soon as reasonably possible. However, there should have been more of an opportunity for review of the final product once an agreement was reached. Transparency and open debate on the state’s spending priorities should not be sacrificed for the sake of “having something.”

Thanks to politicians in Washington, we have seen this year what the hasty approval of large, costly, and complex legislation leads to: buyers’ remorse on the part of both lawmakers and voters.

The U.S. House narrowly passed “cap and trade” climate-control legislation in June. To the outrage of many, a 300-page amendment was added hours before the final vote. In fact, the final version of the bill wasn’t even available until 96 hours after it was passed by the House.

In February, the $787 billion “stimulus” bill, which spanned well over 1,000 pages, passed both the House and Senate just a little more than 13 hours after it was released from the closed-door meetings in which it was crafted. Weeks later, the public learned that the stimulus included language authorizing millions in bonuses for executives at AIG, the insurance giant that received a multibillion-dollar, taxpayer-funded bailout only months before.

The public shock and outrage was – shockingly and outrageously – shared by the very lawmakers whose votes permitted the bonuses. Not one member who voted for the stimulus bill could claim to have read it.

While it would be great to live in a world where lawmakers read the bills they vote on, requiring that they do so is not the answer. It’s more important that bills – especially those with a fiscal impact – be available to the public well before a final vote is held. That’s why lawmakers in Washington, Harrisburg, and at all levels of government should be required to put all bills, conference reports, and fiscal notes online for at least three days – but preferably five days – before a final vote.

There are at least some in Congress who recognize the wisdom of such a reform. A resolution introduced in June by Rep. Brian Baird (D., Wash.) would require all legislation to be posted online 72 hours prior to the final vote. Last week, eight Democratic senators sent a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) requesting that federal health-care reform legislation and the corresponding fiscal statement be posted online 72 hours before a floor vote.

The Pennsylvania budget and all state legislation with a fiscal impact should be subject to the same requirement.

As a result of reforms passed in 2007, there is technically a 24-hour “cooling off” period before legislation can be voted on in the Pennsylvania legislature. However, this rule has proven insufficient and easily surmountable.

New polling shows that voters want transparency brought to the legislative process. A recent Rasmussen poll found that 83 percent of voters say legislation should be posted online in its final form and be available for everyone to read before it is voted on.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, of which 36 Pennsylvania state legislators are active members, has even adopted model state legislation prohibiting hearings or votes on appropriations and revenue-related bills until 72 hours after introduction.

Legislation and budgeting will improve if concerned citizens, watchdog groups, the media, bloggers, think tanks, academics, and policy experts from across the political spectrum have the opportunity to analyze, digest, explain, and weigh in on it.

Lawmakers in Harrisburg let more than 100 days go by after the budget deadline passed. What’s a few more to ensure that lawmakers and their constituents know precisely what they’re getting?


Patrick Gleason is state affairs manager for Americans for Tax Reform, a nonprofit taxpayer advocacy organization based in Washington. He can be contacted at pgleason@atr.org.

Patriots, one and all

COMMON SENSE

“In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise and the worthy need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious or unfriendly, will cease of themselves, unless too much pains is bestowed upon their conversion.”

October 5, 2009

Patriots, one and all
Let us show gratitude

They pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor so we can live in freedom in the greatest nation the world has ever seen. Their names are legends – Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Adams, along with many others. They were the Founding Fathers, and left us a priceless legacy now under assault by people whose values are antithetical to all we hold dear.
The enemies of liberty are at work every day. We saw the results of their craft when they took down Congressman JD Hayworth in a bitter election. Democrats lied and smeared their way to the House of Representatives with slimy allegations that proved to be false, but too late to save the seat for a champion of the people. That campaign cost Congressman Hayworth dearly. Like the Founding Fathers, he drained his personal resources so he could defend us against scoundrels, but that debt still hangs over his head like Damocles’ sword.

We are all too young to have fought for the Founders in the American Revolution, but can honor their sacrifice and that of Congressman Hayworth by helping him dig out of the onerous burden bogging him down. This man served us well; we cannot begin to count the money he saved us. The least we can do is show our gratitude by opening our hearts and wallets. They say many hands make light work. Do your part now. The deadline is January 2010. Send however much you can to: “The Freedom in Truth Trust,”

The FIT Trust
P.O. Box 984
Willows, California 95988

Perhaps, someday, JD Hayworth will be able to repay our efforts by re-entering political life. Visit http://www.jdhayworth.com/fit-trust.html for full details.

Who the author of this Production is, is wholly unnecessary to the Public, as the Object for Attention is the Doctrine itself, not the Man. Yet it may not be unnecessary to say, That he is unconnected with any Party, and under no sort of Influence public or private, but the influence of reason and principle.

Philadelphia, February 14, 1776

More on J.D. Hayworth’s potential challenge to McCain

JDHayworth

Some excerpts from the Yellow Sheet Report -

On his radio show Monday afternoon, Hayworth told listeners that it’s “not exactly a secret” that he’s considering a bid against McCain. “You and I have talked about this before,” Hayworth told listeners. “I’m not trying to be coy or keep any secrets from you. …..He spent the next several minutes reading polls showing McCain’s support among Republicans weak… “In all sincerity, I have to tell you . . . a day doesn’t go by without me receiving from you, an email, a phone call, maybe we will encounter each other on the street, and you say some very nice things,” Hayworth said. Hayworth ended the segment, saying, “The problem for John McCain isn’t J.D. Hayworth, or Chris Simcox . . . The problem for John McCain is, well, John McCain.”

New Federal Law Impacts Tenants and Foreclosures

by Judge Gerald A. Williams

North Valley Justice of the Peace

Congress recently passed, and the President recently signed, “The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009.”  12 U.S.C. § 5220.  It essentially allows good tenants at least an additional 90 days to stay in the residence after a foreclosure.  This law applies to any federally-related mortgage or deed of trust (like a VA, FHA or HUD loan).

Most Arizona homeowners technically don’t have a mortgage.  Arizona is a deed of trust jurisdiction and if a homeowner signs one, then the lender can sell the house at a trustee’s sale if the homeowner is behind in his payments, didn’t pay for property insurance or didn’t pay his property taxes.  If a homeowner is in one of these categories, then the lender can sell the home in approximately 90 days.

Under this new law, a buyer of a residence at a trustee’s sale must honor any existing lease that was signed before the notice of trustee’s sale was issued.  If the buyer purchased the house as an investment, and if the tenant has and continues to follow the terms of the lease, then the tenant can continue to live in the residence until the lease expires.

If the buyer is going to move in and will occupy the home as his primary residence, then the tenant will have to move.  However, the buyer must give the tenant a notice to vacate 90 days before an eviction action could be filed.

It is very important for everyone to understand that this law does not protect tenants who are in default.  If you are a tenant and you hear that your residence may be going into foreclosure, perhaps the worst thing you can do is stop paying rent.  Doing so will likely trigger an eviction action for nonpayment of rent, which will move a lot faster than any foreclosure proceeding.

Occasionally, tenants going through this process face a practical problem of more than one person claiming to be their landlord.  Tenants have a duty to pay rent; but obviously not twice for the same month to two different people.  If an eviction action has been filed, then a tenant can pay their rent to the court as a “litigant bond.”  At trial, the judge will determine who is the real landlord and the tenant will avoid having a judgment entered against him.

Judge Williams is the presiding justice of the peace for the Northwest Regional Court Center.  His column appears monthly in The Foothills Focus.

Two liberal activist judges: Donahoe & Daughton

Judge Gary Donahoe

Judge Gary Donahoe

AZ Judges Review has done a nice job exposing Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell’s handpicking of retired judges to handle key political cases, in order to ensure a liberal outcome. Most recently, she chose retired Democrat judge Donald Daughton, who has contributed to Obama and Harry Mitchell, to handle the lawsuit filed by Planned Parenthood demanding a temporary restraining order against Arizona’s newly passed abortion legislation. Of course Daughton granted it, stopping the laws from going into effect and thwarting the will of the people.

Another activist liberal judge whose high-profile biased court decisions keep popping up is Gary Donahoe. This time he has held the Sheriff’s Office in contempt for not being able to transport inmates to Court hearings on time. Problem is, it’s not their fault. The Board of Supervisors cut the Sheriff’s budget by 15%, in order to pay for the brand-new state of the art $340 million court tower which contains penthouse quarters for the judges.

In his order, Presiding Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe wrote that the sheriff’s court-security division is “chronically understaffed,” which he characterized as a consistent and conscious decision on the part of the Sheriff’s Office.

Well yes, we’ve heard that the Sheriff’s Office has been losing around 10 employees a month for the past year due to attrition, and it has not been able to replace them due to the severe budget cuts by the Supervisors. Guess Judge Donahoe forgot to put that in his memo.

Donahoe ordered the Sheriff’s Security Chief Deputy to pay $10,575 to the court, prosecutors, defendants, their attorneys, and jurors for their loss of time.  Utterly amazing. Why not just turn that money directly over to the Board of Supervisors and their Taj Mundell court tower?

This isn’t the first outrageous decision by this judge. Judge Mundell handpicked him to handle the lawsuit against the Supervisors over the court tower. Donahoe ordered the County Attorney off the case, saying there was a conflict (we’re not sure what – he never provided any reasons, even though the County Attorney had provided sworn affidavits from three ethics experts saying there were no conflicts). He ignored the obvious conflict – the Supervisors’ attorney, Tom Irvine (former attorney for the Democrat Party), was also the attorney for the Court. Donahoe’s ruling was especially offensive because it said the County Attorney had a conflict of interest in the investigation, but Donahoe didn’t even though he would have spacious new quarters in the courthouse being investigated.

This kind of judicial activism must be exposed and stopped.

Republic scandal with Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce forces resignation

Mike RyanAs reported on this blog earlier, Mike Ryan, a Vice President of theRepublic and General Manager of theScottsdale Republic (the Scottsdale community section of the Republic), had a clear conflict of interest by serving on the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce. It was hampering his judgment to report on issues involving the Chamber, such as the scandal last fall when County Supervisors’ attorney Tom Irvine advised the Chamber that it was perfectly acceptable to run a political campaign supporting candidates for Mayor and City Council without registering as a political committee (this isTom Irvine the kind of thing that got Irvine into trouble with the County Supervisors – telling them anything they want to hear). No wonder no one reads the newspapers anymore. Am just surprised this kind of stuff ever sees the light of day, the Republic has ignored it for the past year. Now, after publishing an article in the Republic defending his position to remain in both positions, Ryan has backed off and resigned from the Chamber. The Phoenix New Times has the full story here.

NY Times writes false piece about success of our light rail

In typical liberal biased journalism, The New York Times ran an article a couple of days ago called “In Phoenix, Weekend Users Make Light Rail a Success.” It was a typical puff piece, claiming that light rail has been even more successful than envisioned.

But it conveniently omitted any of the negative information about light rail since it launched in January indicating that it’s NOT a success, which our local media has helpfully been reporting. Sales tax revenues have decreased (guess light rail hasn’t helped spur the economy as predicted) and so there is no money to expand it to the planned 57-mile network. Light rail lost $235,000 in revenues in February alone. According to Phoenix Metro, the lost revenue was due to “technology provided by a German computer plus the passengers who use the ‘smart cards’ to pay their fares.” Nationwide, transit companies everywhere have been suffering economically, so it is suspect that the New York Times claims Phoenix light rail is doing well. “Transit systems all across the country are having very severe financial challenges,” said Virginia Miller, spokeswoman for the American Public Transit Association, a Washington-based lobbying group.

Without expanding light rail,  its range is fairly limited and will not reach any kind of potential or popularity. Right now it barely covers downtown to just past ASU barely to Mesa, and doesn’t go far enough north of downtown to reach anywhere like Glendale. That most important wing, to Glendale, is being put off for at least another three years.  Expansion to Paradise Valley is being put off until 2030.  Expansion into South Tempe has stopped. Scottsdale has withdrawn from participating, indicating there will be no expansion there.  Phoenix Metro admits that decreasing revenues have forced light rail to revise its original design as approved by voters, so to say it’s proven more of a success than envisioned is a flat out lie.

Light rail isn’t even the bargain it was envisioned to be. The costs of providing light rail increased way beyond estimates after it debuted, requiring significant hikes in fares. “Officials say the hike is due to a continual increase in the cost to provide service.” The fares increased dramatically soon after light rail debuted this year, on July 1, from $1.25 to $1.75 for a one-way pass and $2.50 to $3.50 for an all-day pass.  Some fares even more than doubled, with cash one-day onboard fees going from $3.50 to $7.25.

Perhaps  the most alarming news about light rail is that accidents have been increasing. Some of the reasons being looked at for the increasing number of crashes include confused motorists, improper procedures by train operators, defective safety equipment and systems, unclear intersection markings and signage, bike and pedestrian accidents including by ticketed riders, quick stops, insufficient security, and injuries suffered while loading or unloading. Trial lawyers are ready and waiting to file lawsuits, which will result in substantially increased costs.

Light rail is a big mistake for our commuter region. It is too late to try and build a comprehensive light rail system; not only is it too expensive, but there is no room to build, too many properties would need to be condemned. We are too spread out for it to be realistic. In a city where everyone lives on top of each other, like New York, mass transit was possible. But this is Arizona, and we’re becoming so spread out they refer to us as a smaller L.A. What an embarrassing legacy for Phoenix Democrat Mayor Phil Gordon – a failed mass transit system.

The O’Connor House—a shadowy group of elites intent on stripping Arizonans of their rights -Is Coughlin behind this?

The Arizona Republic gave former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s “O’Connor House Project” primo coverage on what the Republic billed as a “government reform effort” pushed by a “broad-based group.” http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2009/09/11/20090911oconnor0911.html

In reality, this shadowy group is committed to stripping Arizonans of their rights and taking us back to the old days where our Legislature was captive of Big Money Special Interests. Let’s look at what the O’Connor House has in mind when it talks about “reform.”

·Stripping Arizonans of our democratic rights to vote for Superintendent of Public Instruction and state Treasurer

· -Getting rid of term limits

· -Getting rid of Clean Elections

· -Doubling the length of state senate terms to four years

· -“Reforming” primary elections to make them less partisan

-“Allowing candidates to pay a “fee” to get on the ballot rather than collect signatures

All of these “reform” efforts have a common theme: the O’Connor House people don’t like the kind of people who are elected by Arizonans, especially now that we have removed Big Money from the electoral process for state elections. They much prefer the old days when candidates for public office had to supplicate themselves to liberal business interests. They want a return to those days when the Special Interests could simply buy the Legislature and ensure that conservative ideas were squelched.

They want to get rid of term limits and increase the length of state senate terms simply for cost saving reasons. Term limits make the process of buying politicians more expensive because they have to keep buying new elected officials as the old ones get termed out. And the longer terms are, the less often these Special Interests have to pony up. It’s amazing how transparent they are about it—they even want Big Money Special Interests to be able to buy spots on the ballot for candidates.

These ideas are way out of the Arizona mainstream. Term limits are popular with everyone except politicians, lobbyists, the media, and other elites. If anything, the public would want to make our term limit laws stricter. It’s laughable to think that given the current state of things, voters are going to take seriously a proposal to abolish term limits, or to increase the terms of legislators.

It’s also important to question who exactly is behind this group—it’s website does not name the members or funding sources. www.oconnorhouse.org. But clearly this group appears to be espousing some of the same radical ideas espoused by left-leaning uber-lobbyist and friend of Brewer Chuck Coughlin in a recent Republic column. http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2009/08/26/20090826coughlin27.html

Coughlin proposed abolishing Clean Elections and term limits. His article also included this gem: “Taxpayer funding [through Clean Elections] removes any market test for candidates to justify themselves in front of centrist-based business.” Who anointed these Big Money businesses this way? When did we ever agree that these Special Interests should occupy some special position that allowed them to veto candidates they deemed unworthy or insufficiently liberal?

The O’Connor House has injected itself and its liberal agenda into our political process, which is of course their right. But we have a right to know who is a part of this group and who is funding it. We call on the O’Connor House to release the following information:

·A clarification of the role that Chuck Coughlin is playing in the group, and full disclosure of any arrangements, formal or informal, with Coughlin or his firm, HighGround, to handle lobbying or ballot efforts for any of these ideas

· -A list of members of this group

·A list of all contributors to this group, along with the amounts contributed

In addition to the liberal, anti-democratic principles being espoused by the O’Connor House, we call on them to embrace openness.

Supervisors want deputy county attorneys to swear a loyalty oath to unelected DAVID SMITH?

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

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

Tuesday, September 08, 2009

Supervisors want deputy county attorneys to swear a loyalty oath to unelected DAVID SMITH?

submitted by a reader

This is unbelievable. The County Supervisors continue to spiral out of control, trying to take over the offices of other county officials in power grabs, and are overspending their budgets by millions of dollars while forcing 15% cuts to law enforcement and other county agencies. Now, they are telling deputy county attorneys – who work for and report to the County Attorney, not the Supervisors – to take a loyalty oath to their unelected county manager, David Smith. Smith is currently under investigation by the Sheriff’s Office. The loyalty oaths would require the deputy attorneys to consult with Smith instead of their bosses in the County Attorney’s Office regarding legal issues! Even our SOLDIERS serving the country aren’t required to take a loyalty oath to the president. This is bizarre because the Supervisors and their manager Smith are not the bosses of these employees, they are in a separate county agency, the County Attorney’s Office.

County Attorney Andrew Thomas filed an objection in court, saying, “It was an obvious attempt to continue carving up the civil division and to amass power at the expense of the taxpayers,” Thomas said. “And so far, they have gotten away with it.”

In another recent power grab, the Supervisors set up their own “shadow county attorney’s office,” slashing the budget of the County Attorney’s civil division by 1/3 and hiring away some of their employees. They hired a 35-year old green attorney to run their shadow county attorney office and are paying him around $175,000/yr – a lot more than even the County Attorney makes. It is obvious that the Supervisors are trying to dismantle the County Attorney’s Office and put that office underneath them. But that’s not the type of government we have. If the voters want a County Attorney that is appointed by the Supervisors, they can change the system of government. But so far they haven’t, and they would prefer to elect the County Attorney, Sheriff, etc.

The question is, who do you want advising the county on civil issues? The County Supervisors (most of them are Republicans but they always side with the Democrats when it comes to spending and social issues like promoting diversity) and their manager David Smith, who have proven time and time again that they are spending out of control, or the County Attorney, who was elected to the position by the people and has a proven record of fiscal responsibility?

Would he take credit for a good rain?

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

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

Smith and Wilson

Taking potshots at elected officials


He was born in Illinois, Land of Corruption, and blew into town in 1994, direct from New York, ready to take on the Arizona hayseeds. His name is David Smith. You might know him as the County Manager of Maricopa County, but there are those who believe Smith is the second coming of Bernie Madoff. However, no one has ever seen Smith and Madoff together – sort of like Superman and Clark Kent, but with bad guys.

The big question is, what does the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors think of their hero? Smith has used his well-honed, east coast, smoke and mirrors tricks for years to pull the wool over the eyes of his “small town” bosses. When the economy in the county turned around in the mid-nineties, Smith took the credit, but it was the normal uptick in the business cycle that did the heavy lifting, not anything that he did. Is it possible that the BoS is finally beginning to realize that Smith might be a clone of Bernie, the master of all Ponzi schemes, Madoff?

Quick to take advantage of his “hero” status, Smith embarked on a program of writing plans, policies and procedures with little, or no, input from the other elected officials, the ones that do the actual “hands-on” work for the citizens of Maricopa County.

The Supervisors let Smith spend big bucks to get name brand accounting and management consulting firms to put their names on his work so each would have a pedigree, and, of course, each and every plan would result in big money savings. Next, he persuaded the supervisors to adopt the plans along with numerous resolutions to allow him to enforce them.

Smith and his deputy, Sandi Wilson who is also the head of the Office of Management and Budget, do not hesitate to blackmail the elected officers to force them to accept his way of doing things. (OMB is often referred to around the County Complex as “Sandi Wilson and her goons”.) This is the same Sandi Wilson that called members of the legislature “abusive parents”. Smith prefers “Somali Pirates” when referring to members of the legislature.

Smith has used (abused) this power to take over functions of other agencies that are the responsibilities of duly elected officers, causing them to unite and begin to push back. Several lawsuits have been filed against the Board, and the light may have come on. The county is a mess, and the Board seems to be catching on that Smith is the cause.

The cure requires a rather simple decision; does the Board want to accept the dysfunctional situation that has existed for most of the past year as the new normal, or do they want to get the County back on a harmonious track? If it is the latter, then they have to unload Smith and Wilson.