You are here: Home / Archives for Chewie Shofir

Sheriff Joe Arpaio considers run for Governor?

September 2, 2009 By 17 Comments


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

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

Joe Arpaio already has earned a nationwide reputation for being America’s toughest sheriff. In a meeting this past Friday afternoon , the Sheriff discussed the possibility of his running for governor. While it’s too early for an official announcement because of campaign finance laws, Arpaio did suggest the possibility of a run for the highest office in Arizona. The stars are in alignment. He has the funding, support of the conservative base, and the timing is right.

There is no doubt the “toughest sheriff in the world” would bring the same no nonsense, cost effective approach to the governor’s office and budget negotiations. Arpaio would never even consider a tax increase until all the fat was cut from bloated state agencies. He would get every department off their high fat diet, and onto lean, green bologna, just as he has done running his no-fat Sheriff’s department.

The list of wanna be’s for governor increases with the clear scent of Governor Brewer’s political blood in the air. Few genuine contenders exist, and the Sheriff presents a formidable challenge. Stay tuned for updates!

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, State Government

County Supervisors caught spending astronomical funds on separate outside legal counsel Tom Irvine

September 1, 2009 By 16 Comments

The Arizona Republic’s Craig Harris, a much more objective reporter than Yvonne Wingett who has developed a way-too-cozy relationship with the Supervisors, has written an article covering how much money the Board of Supervisors has thrown at their separate, outside legal counsel Tom Irvine (pictured above). The word downtown is that the Supervisors use Irvine, a Democrat and former attorney for the Democrat Party, instead of the civil attorneys in the County Attorney’s Office who are by law the Board’s attorneys, because he tells them exactly what they want to hear.  If they want to build a $340 million Taj Mahal court tower in the midst of a recession in order to buy off the judges, forcing other county agencies to cut 15% of their budgets to pay for it, he will give them the legal approval to hide behind.

Of course, he doesn’t come cheap. The Republic reports he charges up to $340/hr.  His law clerks and legal assistants charge the county $175/hr. Unbelievable. The Board has paid Irvine’s law firm nearly $1.2 million in legal fees over the last year, the second highest-paid firm by the county! The only firm that received a higher payout last year was a firm that handles indigent defense.  Even the court tower’s project manager Abe Thomas thinks his fees are a bit excessive.  Assistant County Manager Kenny Harris admits that they didn’t need to hire the highest-paid attorneys to take minutes at meetings for projects of this sort.  We doubt they even need an attorney to manage a court tower project, which should be handled by technical people, not lawyers.  We suspect they’re paying Irvine our tax dollars so he will continue to help them defend their indefensible court tower against the wiser advice of the County Attorney’s counsel who they fired because they didn’t like their legal advice in regards to following the law.

Filed Under: County Government, Crime and Punishment, Spending

More problems with the Board of Supervisors: County Manager David Smith

August 27, 2009 By Leave a Comment

Cactus Alliance has an interesting post on how County Manager David Smith is responsible for much of the county’s current financial mess; the other elected officials countywide are unanimously fed up with him.

Filed Under: County Government, Crime and Punishment, Spending

Common Mistakes Made In And Around Courtrooms

August 26, 2009 By 1 Comment

by Judge Gerald A. Williams

North Valley Justice of the Peace

Legal advice, like medical advice, is often preventive. Frequently the best recommendation is some variation of, “Don’t do that.” It is, however, worth sharing the most common mistakes I see litigants make in the courtroom. Unfortunately, many of them are made by tenants who otherwise would have had at least a good argument against their landlord.

First Mistake: Not Showing Up. Almost always, bad things will happen if you ignore or miss your court date. This is especially true if you miss something that results in a warrant being issued for your arrest. The most common excuse is, “I forgot.” Others claim that they inputted the wrong date into their phone. One of my personal favorites is, “I got deported.”

Second Mistake: Tenants Who “Rent Strike.” Often a tenant, in some type of dispute with a landlord, will decide to stop paying rent until the problem is resolved. This is always the wrong thing to do. The landlord will simply file an eviction action for nonpayment of rent and will likely win. Tenants have significant rights under Arizona law if they do what is required. A.R.S. §§ 33-1363 & 33-1364 provide the authority for what to do if the landlord is not fixing something. An explanation of these laws and sample letters are available at: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/justiceCourts/CourtsAndSections/Evictions.asp

Third Mistake: Tenants Who Stop Rent Due To Foreclosure. This one is often very problematic because if the residence is sold at a trustee’s sale, the tenant at some point will be required to move. However, trustee’s sales often get delayed or don’t happen at all and they will always take longer than an eviction action for nonpayment of rent. There is a new federal statute, called the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, that provides additional protections in this area.

Fourth Mistake: Tenants Who Forget To Ask For Their Security Deposit Back. If a tenant requests the security deposit back after he or she has moved out, the landlord must, within 14 days, either give it back or mail an itemized list of everything subtracted from the deposit for property damage. If the landlord does not do so, the tenant can file a lawsuit and recover treble damages. Sample requests are available at the same web page mentioned earlier.

Fifth Mistake: Believing That A Verbal Promise Modifies A Written Contract. The reason we have written contracts is so that both sides, at least in theory, understand the terms of the agreement. Under a legal doctrine called the “parol evidence rule,” if the actual language of the contract is clear, then testimony about oral modifications to it cannot be admitted as evidence.

Sixth Mistake: Believing That Contracts Come With A Grace Period. The right to change your mind and cancel a contract within three days only applies to a very few contracts. For example, A.R.S. § 44-1706 requires that a contract with an organization, claiming that it can improve a buyer’s credit record, history or rating, can be cancelled without penalty for up to three days.

As with anything in life, often the most prepared person with the best information wins in the courtroom. Judges and court clerks are prohibited from giving legal advice; so if you have questions, a good place to start is the Maricopa County Bar Association Lawyer Referral Service at (602) 257-4434. Through that service, you can meet with an attorney for 30 minutes for $35. While no attorney is going to take your case for only $35, often people just need someone to explain their choices. For the cost of an iPod card, that’s not a bad deal.

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

Filed Under: Crime and Punishment, Judicial

Dana Marie Kennedy: a far left partisan extremist, and proud of it

August 20, 2009 By 14 Comments

You have to hand it to Phoenix City Council Democrat candidate Dana Marie Kennedy: she isn’t afraid to tell voters what she’s about. She is running against Republican incumbent Sal DeCiccio.

Normally liberal candidates for office try to downplay or even hide their far left-wing views, but not Dana.  Her website proudly displays the support she is receiving from all kinds of far-left organizations and politicians http://www.kennedyforphoenix.com/links.html.  Here are a few:

Congressman Raul Grijalva (from Tucson no less!)
Congressman Ed Pastor
Arizona Representative Kyrsten Sinema
Arizona Representative David Lujan
Don Bivens, Arizona Democrat Party chair
Arizona List (rabid pro-abortion group)
Planned Parenthood (see above)
Attorney General Terry Goddard
Arizona Senator Ken Cheuvront
City Councilman Michael Nowakowski
Arizona Senator Leah Landrum Taylor
AFSCME (government employees union)
AFA-CWA (union)

One would think she would be hesitant to advertise this as she’s running in a relatively conservative council district.  But we suppose it’s hardly surprising given the woman says her political idol is Paul Wellstone!  http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2009/07/31/20090731phx-cityhall0801.html

And we’re still waiting for her to be criticized for injecting partisanship into the supposedly non-partisan race, as Randy Pullen was when he ran for Mayor.

But regardless, Kennedy gets an A+ for honesty.  But an F for political acumen.

Filed Under: Campaigns & Elections, City Government, Voters Guide

American Post-Gazette: Goofy is as goofy does

August 20, 2009 By 12 Comments
A m e r i c a n P o s t – G a z e t t e

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

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Remember the clowns at Ringling Brothers Circus?

They may be running the county now

Excessive spending going on at County IT

Check out the article in the New Times about Maricopa County IT CIO Steve Wetzel spending money on computer equipment like it’s going out of style. What is going on? The county is in the middle of one of the biggest fiscal crises ever, and the Board of Supervisors is already in trouble for spending $347 million on a new luxury court tower. The Board of Supervisors has forced the Sheriff and County Attorney to cut their law enforcement budgets by 15%.

Who is this guy and why is he doing it?

According to New Times, an anonymous letter revealed that Wetzel is a former employee of Cisco Systems, and got Cisco to give the county a mysterious $527,000 donation. Obviously they’re not doing it out of the generosity of their hearts.

Excerpts from the article:

Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent wiring these offices and more for Cisco WiFi, only to find out that security rules governing wireless transmission of the sensitive data these offices handle, ever prohibit them from turning them on!

Additionally, Mr. Wetzel has spent millions on Cisco racks, routers and installation labor in order to build his “Gigabit to the desktop” across the County. Much of the equipment is still not turned on, yet the County is already on year two of a three year Cisco warranty!

A trip to the basement of the County’s 301 building will show stacks of expensive Cisco equipment still sitting in their original boxes, uninstalled.

The letter also states that a member of the Board of Supervisors, (whom the letter, suspiciously, does not name), traveled to Sweden on Cisco’s dime to attend Al Gore’s Nobel Prize ceremony.

The anonymous letter says that this is the 5th CIO the county has hired within the fast few years! Inept. Wonder how much it cost taxpayers to hire and train all of them. Apparently Wetzel is buying these ultra-expensive servers in order to turn the county into a #1 data center. Which goes against the grain of government, which should be concerned about costs, not fancy new computer equipment trying to compete with the private sector. According to the anonymous writer, the county currently runs on one Cisco server just fine, but Wetzel is buying four more at a cost of $500,000 each! Arizona Republic reporter Yvonne Wingett gives this outrage a free pass, since the County Supervisors and managers have sidled up to her giving her special access to their offices. What a shame, at least the New Times is reporting this.

Posted by Cactus Alliance at Wednesday, August 19, 2009 http://www.blogger.com/img/icon18_edit_allbkg.gif

Filed Under: County Government, Spending

Russell Pearce responds to those skeptical about the drop in crime and illegal immigration

August 13, 2009 By 60 Comments

YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER JURISDICTION AND THE RESULT OF ENFORCEMENT? Here is another jurisdiction that took a zero tolerance to those in this country illegally. Prince William County announced that violent crimes decreased by a whopping 22% in 2007, demonstrating once again the value of protecting the quality of life by having local law enforcement participate in efforts to reduce the number of illegal aliens unlawfully present in our communities. The previous year, more than half of all murders in the county were committed by illegal aliens. By encouraging illegal aliens to depart, and ensuring that those who do not and are arrested for state and local crimes are turned over to the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for deportation, we’ve addressed to some degree an important public safety issue that few states and localities have the courage to even consider, much to the detriment of their own residents.

I cannot believe what I am reading on those defending “illegal” aliens and ignoring the facts. Why are some ignoring the deaths, maimings, rapes and billions in cost? Is it Profits over Patriotism? Political power that comes to the left? Are the deaths, maimings, rapes, molestations of our children and billions in cost just collateral damage for the open border or cheap labor advocates?

Just recently “Chief” Harris of Phoenix PD held a Press Conference about the reduction in crime and stated he did not know why it was down. It does not take a high IQ to know why. With employer sanctions, Sheriff enforcing the law, along with the economy 30% have left Arizona.

I wonder why Phoenix is 2nd in the world in kidnappings only behind Mexico City. I can tell you that if you’re the victim of an illegal alien, statistics don’t mean much. If it is you or your the family member, like the family of Officer Erfle who was murdered when an illegal alien was released instead of being deported, or the family of Officer Figueroa who was killed by an illegal alien or Bob Miller who lost his son, and the list goes on.

You want to hear from some real victims of Sanctuary Cities, the hurt, the pain, please go to this web site and watch. http://www.investigativecommunications.com/

Citizens have a constitutional right to expect the protection of federal and state laws which prohibit unauthorized activities by non-citizens and are denied equal protection law enforcement, police departments or a magistrate fails to enforce those laws.

You ought to be concerned about the cost to Arizona taxpayers in the cost to medicate, incarcerate and educate illegals ($1 billion annually in K-12 alone). You ought to be concerned about the deaths, maimings, rapes, kidnappings, home invasions, not to mention jobs taken from Americans and wages suppressed.

The issue has been debated many times. What part of the Rule of Law, Citizens Constitutional rights, the Oath of Office, or the Constitution do you not agree with?

We held a hearing in Judiciary Committee on Warrants, who’s job is it? What we should have held hearings on is Sanctuary Cities; the greatest threat to safe neighborhoods and billions in cost to the taxpayer. Not to mention in violation of federal law!! Mayors and Police Chiefs that encourage or have policies that restrict the enforcement of immigration laws are complicit in the deaths, maimings of citizens and police officers and the billions in cost to the taxpayers. I did hold hearings in Appropriations and had victims, law enforcement officers, Sheriff Joe, Sheriff Babeu, Maricopa County Attorney, by video Congressman King, and Victims of 9-11 families, and others in an ALL DAY hearing. The other side was invited and refused to come and give public testimony on their support of sanctuary policies and their trip to testify before congress as part of the Al Sharpton fan club. I will be glad to provide the video to anyone who cares enough to ask, as they did not bother to attend and hear from law enforcement and victims directly about the impact of this illegal alien invasion. (over 8 hours of testimony)

How many more have do die, or how many more in billions of dollars cost to the taxpayer before we stop all sanctuary policies??????????? I PLEDGE TO CONTINUE UNTIL THESE “ILLEGAL” POLICES ARE ABOLISHED; IF WE WILL ELIMINATE ALL SANCTUARY POLICIES IN THIS STATE, THE RESULT WILL BE LESS CRIME, LOWER TAXES.

Endorsements: 75% to 80% of Arizonans, Arizona State Republican Party, Maricopa County Republican Party, Sheriff Joe, Sheriff Babeu, County Attorney Andrew Thomas, Arizona African American Club, Albert Rodriguez of a national Hispanic group “You Don’t Speak For Me”, Anna Gains a Hispanic and her group of “American Citizen’s United”, NAILEM a neighborhood group of several thousand, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (2600 officers), Border Patrol 2544 (over 3500 Arizona border patrol officers, several other law enforcement groups that support but have not taken official action. Enforce our laws and put America and Americans First.

Unsanctioned entry into the United States is a crime.

8 USC Sec. 1644: (“No local ordinance, rule, or measure shall stop law enforcement officers from enforcement of this section”) Referring to immigration violations.

I sat ashen as I watched the news reports. Several chiefs of police, including Phoenix’s Jack Harris and Mesa’s Gascon, stood at a Press Conference and publicly refused to enforce the law. Less than a month after the brutal murder of a police officer at the hands of an illegal alien, they snub the opportunity to make necessary changes, all for the sake of political correctness, while citizens are killed, maimed, raped, the cost to educate, medicate and incarcerate are in the billions for Arizona, plus, jobs taken from Americans.

9-11 Terrorist Attack: Had our immigration laws been enforced 9-11 probably would have been averted. 4 of the 5 organizers and pilots had been contacted by law enforcement prior to the attack (one still had the ticket in the glove box of his car at the airport), and had they been arrested on immigration violations, 9-11 probably would have been prevented!!

When is enough, enough??? DEATH & MAIMINGS OF POLICE OFFICERS & CITIZENS BY ILLEGAL ALIENS: http://www.investigativecommunications.com/

Enforcement by our law enforcement officers, removing the policies that restrict their ability to ask and act (a sanctuary policy is simply placing restrictions of enforcing our laws). Removing those restrictions would have the greatest affect on public safety of all the legislation we have passed to date.

Arizona: Dept of Justice and FBI reports:

Phoenix, #2 in the world in kidnappings, home invasions

Phoenix, 3rd most violent city in America

Phoenix #1 in crime overall

Arizona the home invasion, car jacking, identity theft capitol of the world

#2 in auto theft

1/3 of federal prisoners are illegal aliens for serious crimes

Over $1 billion annual cost for illegals in K-12

Drugs

1 million gang members in the U.S. mostly made up of illegal aliens

1 million sex crime victims by illegal aliens

If you want loser taxes, less crime, smaller classrooms, short emergency room lines and safer neighborhoods ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS.

“If it be asked, what is the most sacred duty and the greatest source of our security in a Republic? The answer would be an inviolable respect for the Constitution and Laws” - Alexander Hamilton.

A Congressional Report: CONFIRMING THE THREAT AT THE SOUTHWEST BORDER; on crime, violence, drugs, gangs, terrorist, sex predators coming into America among the 4 million to 10 million entering illegally ANNUALLY!!!! Over 9,000 people killed in the U.S. each year at the hands of illegal aliens; 25 each day, 12 by stabbings and shootings & 13 by DUI or other vehicular crimes.

Death and maimings of police officers and citizens by illegal aliens (short list)

* Phoenix Officer Shane Figueroa
* Tracy from Highland High in Gilbert
* Child serial rapist in Chandler
* Phoenix Officer Glidewell (shot in chest)
* 15 year old raped by school janitor in Scottsdale
* 15 year old kidnapped and raped in Guadalupe
* Phoenix Officer Nick Erfle

• Phoenix Officer Marc Atkinson;

• Phoenix Officer Robert Sitek;

• Kris Eggle-park ranger in southern Arizona;

• Border Patrol Agent James Epling;

• Maricopa County Deputy Sean Pearce critically wounded while serving homicide warrant

• Maricopa County Deputy Lew Argetsinger shot while executing a search warrant for homicide;

• Sgt. Manuel H. Tapia was shot by a drug suspect;

• DPS Officer Robert K. Martin, murdered by illegal alien 19-year-old ex-convict;

• Agent Richard Fass, 37, of the United States Drug Enforcement Agency, murdered;

• Agent Alexander Kirpnick, 27, Border Patrol, murdered;

• Jason Schechterle suffered fourth-degree burns when his patrol care went up in flames after being struck by a taxi – the driver was an illegal alien.

• Gilbert mother killed by illegal alien fleeing from Mesa PD (had prior arrest and not deported).

• Jason, Decorated Iraq war veteran stabbed in his own front yard by illegal alien.

• Mother “legal immigrant” killed by illegal alien trying to ram Sheriff’s Deputy’s car in Phoenix.

• Illegal, 17, runs down hero cop – juvenile released by Border Patrol 10 days earlier

• Murder suspect – an illegal with driver’s license – now faces 41 counts

• Illegal alien accused of triple homicide

• 3 illegals beat pregnant woman – mayhem rampage

• 5 illegals face deportation after killing principal

• Unlawful immigrants piloted pickup truck that smashed into Florida woman’s car

• Decapitated heads of two police officials found in Acapulco, Mexico

• Feds arrest 2,100 Operation Return to Sender sends agents across country to target violent criminal aliens

• Cop murder spotlights crisis of killer aliens – No government agency tracks crimes by illegals, not even attacks on police

• Shotgun preteen vs. illegal alien home invaders – Home invasion gone wrong for criminals

• Illegals kill deputy in New Year’s Eve hit and run

• State Trooper Shot to Death in Tennessee by Hispanic Drug Dealers

• Day laborer from Guatemala charged with killing girlfriend’s baby

• Utah gunman, 18, was Muslim from Bosnia – Killed 5 in crowded shopping mall

• Illegal detained in death of “Christmas Story” director Bob Clark, son die in collision

• DUI illegal kills pedestrian week after given probation – Hit-and-run

• Woman involved in accident dies from injuries by illegal immigrant

• Sniper, John Lee Malvo, required by law to be immediately deported. Instead they released John Lee Malvo upon the unsuspecting American Public. He and his cohort killed 10 people.

• Tanee Natividad, a high school student, was murdered by an illegal

• Darlene Squires’s disabled teenage daughter and another disabled girl were raped by three members of a Salvadoran street gang. Both victims are deaf.

• David March, a Los Angeles County Sheriff, was killed during a routine traffic stop. The driver was a dangerous Mexican drug dealer, Armando Garcia, who had been deported twice and has a long history of violent crime.

• Eighteen-year-old Tricia Taylor lost both her legs above the knees by drunken driver Jose Carcamo who had 17 violations since 1995.

• Walter Contreras Valenzuela, a 10-year-old boy was murdered by an illegal alien from Honduras.

• An illegal alien killed Kimberley Hope while trying to steal her car.

• Five year old Ana Cerna was killed by an illegal alien.

• Joseph Crummy was murdered by illegal alien Jesus Hernandez in Utah.

• Amber Merkle was only 8, killed in a wreck caused by illegal alien Arturo Lupian.

• Vinessa Hoera, 23, was brutally raped and murdered by an illegal alien from Guatemala, Faustino Chavez who apparently was angry when his advances toward her were not received positively. 9,000 MORE EACH YEAR.

Study: 1 million sex crimes by illegals; More than 100 sex offenders crossing border daily Deborah Schurman-Kauflin: Based on a one-year in-depth study, a researcher estimates there are about 240,000 illegal immigrant sex offenders in the United States who have had an average of four victims each.

5,000 to 10,000 cross illegally into the U.S. every single day, and 1 out of 10 already have felony convictions.

WHY DO WE STRUGGLE WITH WHAT IS RIGHT? Another Police Officer killed by an illegal alien. Officer Shane Figueroa. I have introduced 5 years in a row legislation to allow Police Officers to enforce our laws and remove the political handcuffs placed on them by our local politicians and chiefs. Our citizens deserve no less, our law enforcement have the authority, and must allow them to do their job.

My personal background in law enforcement has given me a unique and in-touch perspective with the needs and hazards experienced by rank-and-file police officers. PLEA understands the danger of ignoring illegal immigration. The burden of blind-eye police department policies and open-border philosophies were paid for with the lives of not only law enforcement officers, but many other good citizens as the danger clearly spread beyond law enforcement into our communities with more lives being lost. The quality of life in our state is being sacrificed for political correctness. Phoenix Law Enforcement Officers, PLEA, Border Patrol and I stand side by side for the rule of law.

MARK SPENCER President of P.L.E.A., “Mark my words another police officer will be killed as a result of Mayor Gordon’s pretended revision of their policy on when you can ask and when you cannot ask on one’s immigration status. ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER, HUSBAND, FATHER, AMERICAN KILLED BY AN ILLEGAL ALIEN. GOVERNMENT IS COMPLICIT IN THE DEATHS, MAIMINGS AND BILLIONS IN COST TO OUR CITIZENS.

Simply enforce our laws and you will see less crime, lower taxes, smaller class sizes, shorter lines in our emergency rooms and reduced deaths, murders, maimings, drugs, home invasions, car jackings, kidnappings, jobs taken from Americans, reduced wages, an ultimately save the taxpayer billions of dollars. We cannot afford to “NOT” enforce our laws.

Attrition by Enforcement.

THIS IS THE “ONLY” LAW WE PUT CONDITIONS ON BEFORE A POLICE OFFICER CAN ENFORCE, THE ONLY CRIMINALS WE PROTECT BY POLICIES!!!!!!! NO OTHER CRIME OR CRIMINAL GETS THIS PROTECTION BY RESTRICTIVE POLICIES BY OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS.

I PLEDGE; TO WORK TO ELIMINATE ALL SANCTUARY POLICIES IN THIS STATE, THE RESULT WILL BE LESS CRIME, LOWER TAXES & SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS.

Our local & national leader’s refusal to enforce U.S. Immigration laws & failure to carry out their constitutional duty to defend this nation from that invasion is guilty of impeachable offenses.

We are sowing the seeds of our own destruction in America today.

I believe in our Constitution, the rule of law, in liberty & freedom. I will not retreat from the defense of our Republic or the protection of our citizens from our enemies foreign or domestic!!!

Filed Under: Border, Crime and Punishment, Government, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Employment, Illegal Immigration

Blog aggregator Cactus Alliance launches its own blog

August 9, 2009 By 1 Comment

The prolife folks at CactusAlliance.org have launched their own blog at CactusAlliance.com. They’ve posted the original letter Rep. McComish sent to Maricopa County Chair Rob Haney explaining why he voted against the bill to ban sanctuary cities.

Filed Under: Blogs, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigration, Sanctity of Life

Gould and Gorman holding out on tax increase for principled reasons

August 8, 2009 By 54 Comments

I respectfully disagree with AZ Insider’s post below. While anti-tax organizations like Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity have backed off on their criticism of the tax increase referral, because of all the tax cuts, tax credits, etc. that have been added to it lessening the blow, it is still the most principled position to oppose ANY tax increase referral. Years down the road, when people have forgotten this budget bill, all that most of them will hear about is whether a particular representative voted for or against Brewer’s tax increase referral. Legislators like Gould and Gorman represent the conservative, principled base of the party, and perhaps they would like a future in politics. They can run on a record of consistently opposing taxes WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

So while it is understandable why other conservative legislators have finally caved, it is still much more impressive as a principled conservative legislator to hold out against the tax referral. The Goldwater Institute still has not come out and said it’s ok to vote for the tax increase referral. Their last article on the proposed budget deal and tax referral was highly critical of the referral. I doubt legislators who vote for the tax increase referral will be getting as high of scores in the Goldwater Institute’s next legislative rankings compared to the legislators who held out against voting for it.  Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Tax Reform finally agreed that the tax increase referral could be neutral, ONLY if every tax cut that has been added to sweeten the deal actually gets added. (see article here and AFP chart here)

Although conservatives are optimistic that a tax referral will be voted down at the ballot, they underestimate the power of special interests. Prop. 400, the Phoenix blight rail initiative, passed easily at the ballot in 2004 because it was masqueraded as a transportation initiative that would improve our roads. Chuck Coughlin’s High Ground is the primary entity pushing Brewer’s tax increase referral, hoping to benefit his construction and infrastructure clients like the Associated General Contractors. The tax referral will be masked as “Vote Yes to Improve Arizona’s Roads” or something similar.  Proponents will probably even find some crazy way to claim it won’t actually raise taxes, by claiming whatever infrastructure projects they fund will generate their own revenues or some other hare-brained scheme.  With the millions Coughlin’s wealthy clients can throw in to fund glossy flyers touting the initiative, it won’t be too hard to fool the voters. Furthermore, if the tax increase is bundled in an initiative with the tax cuts, there is no way to enact the tax cuts without voting for the tax increase!

While it is understandable why some conservative legislators have caved in on the tax increase referral in hopes that the tax reduction package will be included and the voters will vote against the tax increase (and no doubt due to tremendous pressure by leadership, Brewer, and Coughlin who is reportedly at the Capitol constantly harassing them) ultimately the most principled stance would be to hold out against the tax increase referral.

Filed Under: Initiative(s), Legislation, Spending, State Budget, Taxation

Maricopa County GOP chairman Rob Haney responds to Rep. McComish on opposing sanctuary city ban

August 6, 2009 By

Dear Representative McComish,

I was elected as MCRC Chairman by conservative precinct committeemen who wanted someone to speak out clearly within the party to represent their opinions. These PCs believed they were being ignored by most of Arizona’s congressional delegation who were advocating for amnesty and other liberal agenda items, such as closing gun shows and Campaign Finance Reform. They also believed that too many Republican state legislators sided with former Governor Napolitano to pass Democrat budgets and legislation and were not representing the conservative beliefs of the PCs.

Your comments in defense of those Republicans who opposed Sen. Pearce’s bill to end sanctuary cities have been addressed previously by Sen. Pearce here.

Your position on my job responsibilities echos the comment of Senator Kyl after the defeat of the amnesty bill he championed. The bill was defeated through the leadership of party officials and Republican activists who publicly opposed the bill. I was proud to be one of those officials. Senator Kyl stated that the party had exceeded its role. He further stated that the party exists to get Republicans elected, not declare positions on issues. Sen. Kyl’s position is a common misconception by many party incumbents.

I disagree with both of you. The party does exist to elect Republicans, raise money, provide volunteers & resources, etc. But the party must first be guided by our Constitution and the party platform, otherwise our existence is unjustified. Too many Republican officials have supported incumbents who have shown themselves to be unworthy of the Republican name. This has led to disastrous election results in 2006 and 2008. I cite Senator Specter and “Jumpin” Jim Jeffords as only two examples of many.

Republican activists and party leaders must oppose legislation which is unconstitutional, and support legislation which is critical to the very survival of our party and country. Certainly, the Democrats will not. They are advocating for the same legislation as these wayward Republicans. Only party activists prevented passage of the amnesty bill. Only party activists gave us Prop 200 over the objections of our entire congressional delegation. Only party activists gave us employer sanctions over the objections from members of our state and federal delegation. Only party activists stopped the attempt to close the gun shows, and fought against the loss of Constitutionally guaranteed free speech which occurred because of the Campaign Finance Reform bill. This egregious bill was introduced by a Republican Senator, passed by a Republican congress and signed by a Republican president. There are many more examples of party officials and activists finding it necessary to speak out against Republicans who stray from Constitutional and platform principles. Here is a famous party official you will recognize. Tom DeLay: “John McCain has done the most to hurt the GOP”

I would not meet my responsibility as a party leader if I were to ignore the Constitution and platform for the benefit of someone with an “R” after their name who fails to advance a Republican agenda. I will continue to give voice to Republican activists who feel their elected officials have let them down and no longer represent them.

I will not offer an apology where none is warranted, and certainly I will not resign as you request. Instead, I would urge you and others who did not support Sen. Pearce’s bill to realize that the illegal alien invasion has a massive detrimental effect on a myriad of issues. To grant wholesale citizenship to those who would swell the ranks of the Democrat party is political suicide. I urge you to make anti-sanctuary legislation a top priority next session.

Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio, County Attorney Thomas and all the law enforcement agencies which are on record as supporting Sen. Pearce’s bill deserve nothing less than our commitment to achieve these objectives.

You state that you believe the “County Party has some rules regarding endorsements that require 60% approval of the EGC.” You also believe that as a result of these rules, I should obtain 60% approval before I publicly take sides in a policy dispute.

The bylaw to which you refer requires a 60% approval by the EGC members in order for the EGC to endorse a candidate in a primary election. There is no bylaw which restricts the Chairman’s freedom of political speech. In any case, I was representing my own beliefs and not those of the EGC.

A third point you make is that as county party leader I have voluntarily placed restrictions on my free speech. Again, I must disagree. It is wholly inconsistent to believe that I have less freedom to speak after my election than I had before my election. I am confident that our Founders drafted their First Amendment, contemplating that this freedom of speech protection would apply to all citizens, including Republican Party Officials.

My hope is that in the coming session, Republican State legislators will back strong anti-illegal immigration legislation so that party officials will not feel compelled to speak out in opposition. I believe that you can play a positive role in advancing that legislation as we move forward– focused on passing laws in support of the Constitution and the Republican Platform.

Respectfully,

Rob Haney

Filed Under: Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigration, Legislation

Maricopa County Supervisors implement even MORE diversity efforts

August 6, 2009 By 3 Comments


Just three months after instructing county agencies in a memo sent June 1 to step up their efforts promoting diversity, the Board of Supervisors now feels the need to step up efforts even more. According to this article in the Republic, the reason for the new push is because of a complaint the county received about discrimination. The complaint came from an Hispanic activist organization, Valle del Sol, regarding questions it received while discussing a proposal for housing for the elderly at a Community Development Advisory Committee meeting. The committee is composed of volunteers. Examples of the “offensive” questions provided by the Republic were, “”Are all the officers in your organization Latino?” and “This (program) is ‘gonna be just for Hispanic?’”

Do these questions seem discriminatory or something that would require the county during this budget crisis to implement even more diversity training? Of course not. Sounds like the commission members were curious to learn about Valle del Sol, and probably also concerned that preferring one ethnic group over another is wrong – the AZ Civil Rights Initiative to ban government race and gender preferences will be on the ballot in 2010 and is expected to pass easily.

Yet the liberal County Supervisors have decided that asking those questions now requires implementing diversity training for Maricopa County’s 31 boards and commissions. When is enough enough? We are in the middle of a budget crisis and the Supervisors just want to ram diversity down everyone’s throat due to a radical organization that decided to be offended by perfectly normal questions?

Fortunately, not everyone bought into the bizarre accusations of discrimination. “My honest opinion is there wasn’t anything out of line,” said then-committee Chairman Richard Painchaud, who added that he would not attend diversity training if offered. “That would be a direct insult to the rest of us. We’re trying to do a decent job.”

The Maricopa County Supervisors should not be setting up a re-education camp with our tax dollars. It sends a clear message to citizens who want to be active in county government via boards and commissions: toe the politically correct, liberal line, or you will be made an example of publicly and subject to humiliating re-education classes. Whatever you do, don’t offend any of these loony left ethnic interest groups, or the powers that be – which include liberal Republicans on the Board of Supervisors – will come down on you like a ton of bricks.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Judiciary on Trial

July 28, 2009 By 31 Comments

Maricopa County Superior Court Presiding Judge Gary Donahoe

TIME FOR JUDICIAL REFORM

Our sources tell us that the Arizona Supreme Court is currently considering an appeal of a Superior Court decision that disqualified the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office from investigating the Court Tower. Superior Court Presiding Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe refused to let the County Attorney’s Office prosecute the case, yet allowed the Court’s attorney Tom Irvine of the law firm Polsinelli Shughart, who was also representing the Board of Supervisors that authorized the purchase of the Court Tower, remain as legal counsel for both the Board and the Court.  In a shocking display of judicial arrogance, Donahoe torpedoed the investigation to protect the Court Tower (where he will have a penthouse office) and Irvine.

The Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick, a nationally renowned attorney who has argued in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, declared that,

    Irvine’s dual representation is “a blatant conflict of interest, one of the first kinds of conflicts you learn about in law school.”

If attorneys in this state realized what was going on, they would be shocked. Irvine is representing both sides of a business transaction – the Superior Court side that asked for the Court Tower, AND the Board of Supervisors side that authorized the expenditure. Irvine never even bothered to disclose his dual representation in the case. In fact, the Republican-dominated Board of Supervisors has actually allowed Irvine, a Democrat activist who used to be the attorney for the Arizona Democrat Party, to become their attorney instead of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in violation of the law.

The one-sided decision by Judge Donahue declaring that the County Attorney’s Office has a conflict of interest but the Court and the Board of Supervisors don’t when they’re sharing the same attorney is the most shocking display of judicial arrogance since the Prop. 100 fiasco a couple of years ago, when the Superior Court refused to enforce the new law prohibiting bail for illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes. In that situation, the Arizona Supreme Court had to step in to force the Superior Court to uphold the law. It looks like the Supreme Court is going to have to step in again to clean up this mess.

The appeal submitted to the Supreme Court summarizes the conflicts this way:

The conflicts of interest in this matter are numerous and severe. Shughart [Irvine] simultaneously represented two clients, the Superior Court and the Board, on the very same matter, the Court Tower project. Through this process, Shughart obtained a ruling from one client, the Superior Court, to benefit the other client, the Board. Moreover, in his minute entry, Respondent Judge stated he was releasing the ruling to the public in part to allow Shughart to use it to benefit Mr. Irvine in his other civil litigation. As a result, the minute entry has been used by Shughart not only to shut down the grand-jury investigation of the Court Tower, but also in an unrelated civil lawsuit filed by MCAO against the Board in which Shughart represents the Board. Finally, Shughart provided these legal services with all these multiple conflicts while one of its attorneys was the subject of a criminal investigation related to the Court Tower.

This is the strongest evidence yet that the judiciary is in dire need of reform. The Superior Court apparently thinks it’s above the law. This is the last straw for merit system appointment of judges, real reform will also include a change to electing judges.

Click here for video of Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick declaring Irvine’s representation of both the County Supervisors and the Superior Court a “blatant conflict of interest”

Filed Under: County Government, Judicial, Spending

County Supervisors: Do as we say, not as we do

July 23, 2009 By 28 Comments

Here are some excerpts from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors’ latest million dollar “CLEAN AIR MAKE MORE” advertising campaign.  They are sending people these email messages even though they are in the process of building a $347 million dollar court tower downtown, which will send regional courts downtown creating more driving for people coming from Mesa who would have formerly only driven to the Mesa court, increasing congestion and pollution downtown. Wasting your tax dollars on useless environmental campaigns they defeat by ignoring themselves.

Take Action
• Refuel after dark
• Eliminate all unnecessary driving and/or combine trips
• Carpool or ride the bus
• Do not use gas powered lawn or garden equipment
• Learn more about air pollution at www.CleanAirMakeMore.com
• To find a carpool or vanpool visit www.ValleyMetro.org or call 602.253.5000

Trip Coordinators
Due to unhealthy levels of Ozone, Trip Coordinators are encouraged to email employees and activate your HPA plans. The Maricopa County Air Quality Department encourages the use of alternative modes of transportation, especially when pollution levels are expected to be on the rise.

Remind employees that they are encouraged to make more clean air. By taking small, simple steps every day, we can all make a difference. Additional tips on how to reduce air pollution can be found at www.CleanAirMakeMore.com.

Filed Under: County Government, Spending, Taxation

What is Natural Law and How Does It Effect Handguns?

July 23, 2009 By 8 Comments

by Judge Gerald A. Williams
North Valley Justice of the Peace

The concept of natural law has returned and become a part of public debate. In its most basic form, a belief in natural law is a belief that everyone is entitled at birth to a set of natural rights that guarantee their personal safety and property. Such rights are fundamental and cannot be restricted by individuals or even by governments. Not surprisingly, this idea is not without controversy.

In the United States, the best known declaration of natural law theory is in our founding document. Our Declaration of Independence states simply and poetically: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The U.S. Supreme Court relied heavily on natural law concepts in the recent case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783 (2008). That case concerned a gun ban in Washington, D.C., that was extreme by any definition.

The D.C. handgun ban made it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and the registration of handguns was prohibited. Mr. Heller was a court security officer at the Federal Judicial Center. He was required to have a handgun at work; but was not allowed to have one at home.

In Heller, the Supreme Court adopted a natural law argument and agreed, by a 5 to 4 vote, that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, restated pre-existing rights and that those rights exist with or without the Constitution. The majority believed that the Second Amendment protects an individual fundamental right to keep and to bear arms, including handguns, for lawful purposes.

But what about the “well regulated Militia” language in the Second Amendment? Doesn’t that limit individual rights? The short answer is no. The Second Amendment guarantees rights to “the people,” not to an army. If it is a collective right, then what would that right be? Some have argued that the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment really means that individuals have the right to join the military. Such an argument is absurd in part because military members neither pick their own weapons nor need a Constitutional right to carry them.

Others have claimed that the militia language really refers to the modern national guard; but a militia and the national guard are not the same thing. Many states have militia statutes that basically make everyone a member. Arizona’s Constitution declares that everyone between the ages of 18 and 45 is a member of the state militia. In contrast, the Arizona Army National Guard is a uniformed armed force that has both a federal and state mission. A guard unit generally reports to its state’s governor; but it can be mobilized and placed under federal control.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it is perhaps no accident that the right to life, which includes the inherent right of self-defense, is first on this list. While many modern day Americans might find natural law arguments troubling, they were certainly clear to the gentlemen who founded our great nation. John Adams reportedly stated the following.

“Many of our rights are inherent and essential, agreed on as maxims and established as preliminaries even before parliament existed. We have a right to them, derived from our Maker. . . . Liberty is not based on the doctrine that a few nobles have a right to inherit the earth. . . . It stands on this principle, that the meanest and lowest of the people are by the unalterable indefeasible laws of God and nature as well entitled to the benefit of the air to breathe, light to see, food to eat and clothes to wear as the nobles or the king. That is liberty and liberty will reign in America.”

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

Filed Under: 2nd Amendment, Constitutional Law, Judicial

Goddard expects to run for Governor after laying off 49 employees & attorneys while bringing on 3 political hacks?

July 21, 2009 By 12 Comments

It is so sad that Attorney General Goddard would lay off 49 employees, including several seasoned attorneys, so he can hire three political hacks at inflated salaries. First, he laid off 20 employees in January including seasoned prosecutors like nationally renowned cybercrime expert Gail Thackeray.  Then, after he got those employees out of the way, he brought in Phoenix City Councilman Democrat Greg Stanton as a lobbyist for $119,000/yr, who didn’t need a job but in fact had to resign from the City Council in order to take the job. Next, Goddard brought on failed County Attorney candidate Democrat Gerald Richard in February as a “special policy advisor” making $97,000/yr.  Last month, he hired the other failed Democrat County Attorney candidate, Tim Nelson, as his Chief Deputy in a blatantly transparent attempt to set him up in a position to run for Attorney General after Goddard leaves. Monday, he laid off 29 more employees, including 12 more attorneys.

Under Goddard, the office was mismanaged and run without consideration as to costs. Even though the economy was tanking over the past couple of years, Goddard continued to hire additional attorneys and support staff instead of tightening his budget. Now, Goddard is letting staff and attorneys go who have been with the office for years – so much for seniority. Goddard thinks that he can get away with this, and get elected as governor in 2010. This is a brutal way to treat your employees and Arizonans will remember this when they go to the ballot box. Mismanaging an office then hiring political operatives while you cover for your mismanagement by ruining people’s lives is a nasty way to run Arizona.

Filed Under: Political Parties, Spending, State Budget, State Government

Sonoran News calls out Rep. Barto on missing the Sanctuary City vote

July 16, 2009 By 32 Comments

Another unfortunate thing about not passing the Sanctuary City bill is it would have ensured that Sheriff Arpaio’s illegal immigration enforcement funding cannot be taken away, as Napolitano has done to him. The Sanctuary Six Republicans who refused to vote on HB2280 really hurt our state when it comes to illegal immigration enforcement.  Sonoran News has an article discussing Rep. Barto’s failure to appear for a vote on the bill. They discovered that this is not the first time Barto has avoided voting on an illegal immigration bill – which has the same effect as a no vote. Here is what they found -

During the 2006 legislative session, Barto voted “present” on House Bill 2577 (illegal aliens; employment; verification) and failed to vote during the third reading.

Barto refused to vote on HB2580 (illegal aliens; serious felonies; bail).

Barto voted “present” on Feb. 6 on HB 2582 but then refused to vote on March 9, while finally voting “yea” a few days later.

She voted “present” on HB 2837, an anti-sanctuary bill, later voting against it.

Initially Barto voted “present” on another bill, dealing with illegal aliens and trespassing, but later voted against it.

Filed Under: Border, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Immigration, Legislation

Crandall, Driggs, Quelland, Mason & Konopnicki tried to have it both ways on immigration

July 13, 2009 By 25 Comments

Rep. Nancy Barto was one of six legislators (aka the “Sanctuary Six“) who walked out during the vote on HB2280, a bill to ban sanctuary cities, resulting in its defeat. As discussed in a prior post, Barto ran on a platform sounding tough on illegal immigration. Turns out her fellow five walkers also have made statements in the past indicating they would be tough on illegal immigration. They can’t have it both ways, if you’re going to represent to your constituents that you will vote for laws cracking down on illegal immigration, you can’t sneak out your responsibility as a legislator to vote, which essentially amounts to a “no” vote defeating the bill. Let’s look at what these other members of the Sanctuary Six said in the past:

Rep. Rich Crandall – Dist. 19

2008 Publicity Pamphlet:
There are several issues being addressed by the legislature that are important to me but my top four are education, safety and security, family values and meaningful economic development. I am for school choice, a strong border, protecting the unborn and lowering taxes, especially business and personal property taxes.”

What one state action do you think would work best to combat the problem of illegal immigration. Why?

The currently enacted employer sanctions legislation needs to be given a chance to work. Before we add more regulations to businesses, let’s see how the already passed bills work.

from http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/questionnaire2008/legislative08.php?action=ViewAns&canname=crandar

Rep. Adam Driggs – Dist. 11

2008 Publicity Pamphlet:
“I currently have my own law firm, specializing in federal immigration law. Immigration is one of the most controversial issues confronting our state today. My practical knowledge in this area will be an asset as the state works to solve one of its biggest problems.”

State Rep. Adam Driggs, R-Phoenix, introduced a bill in February that would increase penalties for human smugglers and make selling, renting or leasing property for the purpose of smuggling a felony.
from http://www.saveourstate.org/vforums/showthread.php?t=40135

Rep. Bill Konopnicki – Dist. 5

• House Bill 2386 — Employer sanctions. Establish a fine and civil penalty for employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. Primary sponsor: Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R-Safford.
from http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/165295

Defending his employer sanctions bills on Horizon on Jan. 22, 2008 -
“If the individuals [critics] would read the bills and see what is there, they would actually see that it is strengthening the law and removing some of the problems. It puts teeth into the employer sanctions law so it can be enforced. Now we have a lot of people who have the emotion piece that say ‘Oh he’s trying to tear the law down,’ but in fact what we’re really trying to do is have something that we can live with. The citizens of the state of Arizona want something that’s enforceable. These bills make that law more enforceable.”
from http://www.azpbs.org/horizon/detailvid.php?id=1346

Regarding building a private prison to house illegal immigrants –
“This is a creative idea and worthy of exploration,” said Republican Rep. Bill Konopnicki of Safford.
from http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2005/02/az_wants_to_bui.html

His recommendations on 2006 ballot propositions:
Yes on Prop. 100, prohibiting bail for illegal immigrants accused of serious crimes
Yes on Prop. 104, English as official language
from http://web.archive.org/web/20070907115057/www.kono4.us/exec/eAnnouncements.asp?id=24

Rep. Lucy Mason Dist. 1

2008 Publicity Pamphlet:
“Lucy believes it is critical to secure our borders. She met with federal Homeland Security officials and as a result, proposed a border security plan that increases law enforcement on the border immediately, deports criminal illegals quickly, and protects Arizona citizens by providing resources that support the federal government’s plan, rather than duplicating it.”

Rep. Doug Quelland Dist. 10

Supported Prop. 200
from http://www.pan2004.com/about.htm

X

f) Children of illegal immigrants, born in the United States, should not automatically receive U.S. citizenship.

from http://www.votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=16323#863

Filed Under: Border, Illegal Aliens, Illegal Employment, Illegal Immigration, Legislation
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »