Warzone Hacks Cheats Buy Undetected Aimbot ESP Wallhack 2022
Fortnite Hacks Cheats Aimbot esp Wallhack 2022
Rust Hacks Cheats Buy Undetected Aimbot ESP Wallhack
Apex Legends Hacks Cheats Aimbot ESP 2022
Valorant Hacks Cheats Buy Undetected Aimbot ESP Wallhack
R6 Rainbow Six Siege Hacks Cheats Buy Undetected Aimbot ESP Wallhack
Emil Franzi

My New Year’s List of Folks Who Never Would Be Missed

By Emil Franzi

  • All the Tea Party constitutionalists who opined on talk radio that Gingrich and Cain would have made a great GOP ticket missing the constitutional provision that the President and Vice President must come from different states.
  • Self-righteous and indignant Arizona Democrats who defend Independent Redistricting Commission Chair Colleen Mathis as a persecuted unpaid volunteer dedicated to justice and fairness. A cursory glance at her actions clearly indicates she was a Democrat shill wired from day one who stacked the deck and still takes text messages her Democrat husband and others send from the back of the meetings. Any competent political reporter not in the bag for the Dems would’ve noticed and reported that by now.
  • Lazy and inept Arizona Republicans who blithely ignored the giant sandbag that Dems had constructed for them on the supposedly “independent” commission and believed the game was on the level.
  • A spineless Governor who once waffled and froze over signing SB1070 finally succumbing to the obvious and acquiring an unearned reputation for courage much like Mrs. Mathis. Neither are exactly Joan of Arc. Mrs. Dithers was finally convinced to “do something” about the hijacked IRC and bounced Mathis. Cluelessness followed capped by the single page Hail Mary letter she threw the Supreme Court and her hasty retreat to the showers after the interception.
  • Libertarians and Paulistas who attempt to redefine a movement they were never part of by trashing conservatives for being conservatives and not libertarians.
  • Conservatives and Tea Party types who try to read other conservatives out of the movement for deviations from them. Conservatism has always been a big tent and included big government types. Somebody had to write the Alien and Sedition Laws. Want Hamilton and Adams airbrushed out of the portraits of the Founders? Edit Hamilton’s portions out of THE FEDERALIST?
  • Romney supporters who keep telling me “he’s the inevitable GOP nominee.” Not being Buddhist, Marxist or Calvinist, I never bought anything being inevitable and his supporters do him no favor by claiming it.
  • Romney detractors who claim he’s too liberal and then cite Reagan as a standard. Governor Reagan was to the left of this GOP field including Huntsman.
  • Liberals who whine about educational funding and claim concern for children when their actual concern is the payrolls of their political and union allies some of whom on occasion are actually involved with a schoolchild. When these frauds tell you we need more money “for the childen” note that usually means paying another adult.
  • Conservatives who support corporate welfare whenever it’s for something they slobber over like stadium skyboxes.
  • Occupy folks who have yet to compute that the money they’ll never be able to pay off for that Art History degree wasn’t just a scam by the banks. They ignore the bloated university staffs who collected it and the pols who enabled them by changing the bankruptcy laws.
  • Finally the hypocrisy and arrogant narcissism of Congressman Paul who sanctimoniously claims high integrity, but cops out on the repulsive racist and other bilge printed under his name and from which he profited, by claiming it was done by “ghost writers” and that “he never read it”. That makes him not only totally irresponsible and easily manipulated, but worse a fraud who sees nothing wrong in falsely claiming the thoughts of others as his own. Paul also needs to explain why he “stands on principle” in refusing to support any of the other GOP candidates for President while as a House member he has consistently supported the choice of the GOP caucus for Speaker including Newt Gingrich. Perhaps for the massive earmarks he brings to his Texas district?

AZTLAN – Go to Oz, turn left past Camelot and head siuth

AZTLAN – Go to Oz, turn left past Camelot and head south
Posted: Wednesday, June 1, 2011 4:00 am
AZTLAN – Go to Oz, turn left past Camelot and head south By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer Explorer News | 0 comments
The recent outbursts – the proponents’ behavior was too thuggish to call it a legitimate debate – over Ethnic Studies at TUSD concerned making the program elective. The program as taught should be completely scrapped for the fraud it is.
Society gets no benefit from teaching blatant falsehoods. Claims that lands ceded by Mexico to the United States after the War of 1846 were the home of an advanced Aztec culture called Aztlan that was eliminated by invading Europeans are simply absurd.
Native tribes living here had little contact with the Aztecs, a culture engaged in the same group psychosis and internal genocide as Pol Pot’s Cambodia. The Aztecs were conquered by a handful of Spaniards because many other tribes Aztecs oppressed and murdered joined the invaders. Life for the average Native American of this continent before Columbus was best illustrated in “Apocalypto.” Try Netflix for a real elective.
Until Mexican Independence in 1821, the area may have been colored Spanish on European maps but they were barely ruling anything. Scattered settlements and missions existed at the sufferance of the mostly nomadic warrior tribes who were really in charge and constantly fought with each other.
Mexican successors to the Spaniards also fought each other and neglected their northern provinces, often not even arming what few troops they posted. By the 1840s, the real rulers of “Aztlan” were folks like the Comanche, who sent giant raiding parties within 200 miles of Mexico City and brought parrots back to Texas. Apaches and other warrior tribes controlled the rest. Forget that peaceful farmers bilge. It insults great warrior cultures that were the real rulers of that mythical realm.
By the time President Polk led the American Empire against the one Santa Ana was establishing., there were few Mexicans remaining in northern Mexico. Those surviving lived in the accumulations of hovels that were Tucson and other small settlements, finally under the protection of a country that at least bothered to send an army.
While there was discrimination by some Europeans against Mexicans, the overwhelming majority of both hadn’t arrived yet. The hostility between native tribes and Mexicans was even greater than that between gringos and either of them. To teach otherwise is to blatantly distort the truth.
So is teaching that Euro-Americans oppress Mexican-Americans. Media covered one female student claiming she never knew she was oppressed until she was taught it in her Ethnic Studies class. Really?
The Alabama slave working the fields all day knew he was oppressed. So did the Jewish family hiding in an attic from the Nazis in occupied Holland, the Chinese woman raped by occupying Japanese troops, and the Cambodian school teacher hunted down to be part of a mass execution by Pol Pot’s lunatic regime. Closer to home, so did the young Aztec man having his heart cut out by a batch of insane priests from a vicious society of which so many are genuinely ignorant and wish to honor. Nobody had to tell any of them they were being oppressed.
If you don’t know you are being oppressed, you are probably aren’t. Here are some more hints.
If you can run off at the mouth about it and nobody busts you, you probably aren’t oppressed. If you can freely and publicly meet with others who share your perspectives and particularly if those who tell you of oppression are on the payroll of the very society they claim is doing the oppressing and are funded by taxes raised from the supposed oppressors, there’s a real good chance you aren’t oppressed.
If you abuse others and keep them from speaking, threaten folks and disturb public meetings that give you your own say, you just moved into being the oppressor yourself. That’s what you and the rest of those at TUSD really need to learn about.
Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturday from 1 to 4 p.m. on KVOI 1030 AM.
© 2011 The Explorer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.


Baja Arizona supporters are clueless Tucson narcissists

The recent proposal by some Tucson Democrats to secede from the rest of the state once again shows us how clueless most of them are.

Attempts to make a state called Baja Arizona have been around a long time; they have about as much real viability as running the Mexican Reconquista proposed in certain TUSD classes the other way and grabbing Rocky Point. Two things are different this time. First is the attention given it by many who whomp the legislature for wasting time on trivial issues. The second is the re-definition of “Baja Arizona.”

Current proponents now define it as only Pima County. The traditional definition is those current counties included all or in part in the Gadsden Purchase. Beyond Pima, that’s Yuma, La Paz, Pinal, Santa Cruz, Cochise, Graham and Greenlee. That would include close to two million people and with some stray pieces of Maricopa currently is represented by most of two Congressional districts with parts of two others.

On the surface this would make another blue state as the two larger Congressional districts both just elected Democrats, although by close margins, but add the other pieces and you’d tip at least one Republican.

More relevant are the state legislative districts. There are about nine of them, and for a long time they were dominated by Democrats. That domination ended in 2010. Six of the nine senators are Republican as are 11 of the 18 House members. That approximates the state totals of 21-9 and 40-20. The real Baja Arizona would be another GOP state.

And unlike the mushmouths and RINOs the southern GOP used to send to Phoenix, these Republicans are real conservatives generally allied with their northern brethren.

Tucson Democrats may claim they wish to escape from Phoenix “crazies” but what they really want to get away from is Saddlebrooke, Safford and Sierra Vista. I suspect that some Democrat supporting this may have run the numbers.

They want to put the secession option on the ballot in Pima County. OK, but first let’s allow the voters all the real options. One of those would be joining the rest of Southern Arizona in a genuine Baja state. Another would be opting out of a Tucsoncentric operation. Why should Marana, Oro Valley, Sahuarita and unincorporated Pima move to a new domination by Tucson crazies?

Democrats have a major problem. They are unable to deal with reality. They (and too many others) falsely assumed that the 2008 election was the new dawn. They lost big in 2010 and are still in denial. From Wisconsin to Arizona they are generally unable to accept it and are trying to change or even ignore the rules.

Whenever I see some batch of losers trying to “reform the process” by changing the rules (exemplified by the Morrison Institute attempts to destroy real representative government in Arizona because they don’t like our current representatives), I think back to all of those friendly little dealer’s choice poker games. There was often some twerp who’d been losing all night who decided the only shot he had was calling the bizarre like No Peaky and Anaconda because he lost his butt at the real ones like draw and stud.

Politics is a lot like poker. There’s always another hand sitting right on top of the deck and there are no “safe” constituencies long term or else we’d still have a few Whigs in office somewhere. The attitude Democrats have towards losing is petty and will hardly win back most of what they already lost with bad candidates and worse ideas. There only real hope is Republican incompetence, something that’s preserved a lot of lucky Democrats who shouldn’t let it go to their head.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays from 1 to 4 p.m. on KVOI 1030 AM.

A Conservative Response to January 8, 2011

Conservative reflections on January 8th
Tuesday, February 1, 2011.

By Emil Franzi

Special to The Explorer – Explorer News

Jan. 8th will never be the same again in Southern Arizona. While the tragedy at Safeway had a national impact, it will always have a special place in the hearts and souls of we who live here.

Responses local and national have ranged from noble and intelligent to repulsive and confused, representing the best and worst in human nature. The best were well reported. Many of the worst have been allowed to slide.

Narcissism hit bottom with the memorial service turned tacky pep rally. Commemorative T-shirts? An incoherent invocation from a pseudo-Shaman? Boo the governor? Cheer the sheriff? I expected beer vendors next. While President Obama and the other officials handled it well, I suspect many family members of victims quietly felt the same.

Some believe our atmosphere has been so fouled by militant political speech, specifically from the right, that even if this killer never heard any, some process of osmosis motivated his deranged brain. That, and the easy availability of firearms, has been the focus from much of the left, chanted with standard hoary hyperboles. As when similar tragedies occurred, some simply ignored facts. Others basely pimp partisan advantage.

Americans are strongly divided over many issues. Periods when they weren’t, even briefly, are rare. Maybe the day after Pearl Harbor. There are few periods in our history when we weren’t vitriolic and “uncivil” starting with the Declaration of Independence. It’s the American way, and the way of a free society. Watch Question Time in the Brit or Australian Parliaments, or check the Knesset. The only thing different is conservative rhetoric just won a big victory over leftist rhetoric. What the left really doesn’t like is this time theirs didn’t work.

There were exceptions. Those who condemn the hardball campaign against U.S. Rep. Giffords ignore that she and her support groups were slightly better at it.

FBI stats for the past 50 years tell us that gun ownership increased while violent crime went down. That may or may not be cause and effect but it negates gun proliferation as a cause argument. This nutter had a stack of drug arrests. Had someone charged him with a felony or ordered a mental evaluation referral, he would’ve been barred from legal purchase. He could still have easily acquired an illegal weapon the same way he acquired his illegal dope – illegally.

More important is where, with no means of support and living with his parents, he got $500 to buy a Glock from anybody. Those blaming his actions on abstract forces should focus on the parents who ignored his many busts, his expulsion from college, and the skull shrine in their backyard. Don’t feel sorry for them; they were the real enablers, not Sarah Palin.

Hoplophobia is again rampant. The same pathetic and baseless fears that disarmed Wilbur Wildcat and stopped the traditional contest for the Kit Carson Rifle between the UA and UNM is back. Dillinger Days is modified to not somehow stimulate the addled. Otherwise rational City Council members accommodate irrational neighbors who fear the sale of ammunition at the new WalMart. All avoid the real problem, the evil sicko who commits the crime and those who directly aid him including they who act as his PR staff.

Sadly, this tragedy will repeat. There will be copycats. Massive publicity given this perp guarantees it. We already know the response if the next incident revolves around a Democratic official. But what if a Republican, or an entertainment or business figure, or just a group of innocent people is targeted? Who or what will be blamed besides the killer?

Leftist hate speech? Violent movies? Video games? Target Stores? Bullet Trains? Tombstone re-enactments?

The picture of our killer on the cover of Time magazine all but guarantees a sequel. And please note, I never used the creep’s name.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays from 1 to 4 p.m. on KVOI 1030 AM.


A precedent is not a principle

By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer
November-24-2010 12:10am
The massive gains made nationally by Republicans in 2010 differed from those in 1994 in several ways.

In 2010, the Democrats saw it coming and contained losses as well as they could. That the losses were greater at almost all levels does not mean that Democrats didn’t do an excellent job of keeping those losses from being much bigger.

The biggest area for GOP gains was in the heartland, starting in Pennsylvania and ending around the Mississippi, with sporadic victories scattered from there. The GOP had smaller gains in both the Northeast and Far West. The South and other parts of the West were already heavily GOP, and gains were smaller by comparison.

A major difference over the last 16 years was the large increase in at-home voting. It is no longer necessary to haul marginal voters to the polls. Get an early ballot request, or, better, put them on a permanent list and then drop by to make sure the ballot gets filled out and delivered. That clearly requires a large work force of volunteers or paid workers. Democrats were effective in matching increased Republican enthusiasm with a bigger street force, and tighter voter identification, particularly in the West, where at-home voting is in vogue.

Besides accruing to those with the most money and auxiliaries (public employee unions come to mind), the large increase in at-home voting is responsible for the agonizingly slow counts while all the ballots that came in on Election Day are run through the complex process currently mandated.

In most wave elections, the close ones go to the side of the wave. That did not happen in 2010, proving once more that a precedent is not a principle.

2010 was not, as some Democrat pundits still believe, an “anti-incumbent” election. It was clearly anti-Democrat, proving that too many Democrat-leaning pundits are in denial.

It also wasn’t a pro-Republican election. Americans have rejected much of the leftist agenda. They are now giving the GOP a chance to present an alternative. The next election will be won not only over the conflicting substance of those agendas, but in their presentation. As President Obama has yet to learn, both are required.

Republicans and conservatives gained much for future recruitment and should be able to field a higher quality of candidate in 2012. Many voters choose beyond party and ideology. Quality Tea Party candidates like Marco Rubio in Florida and Rand Paul in Kentucky won big, flakes like Christine O’Donnell in Delaware didn’t.

The GOP may get up off the couch now in places it hasn’t, like Delaware, where the party was so moribund that O’Donnell was actually their nominee in the last two Senate elections. Delaware is also the only state to lose an incumbent Republican state senator in 2010.

District 26 has finally demonstrably proven that you don’t need to be a moderate Republican to win. For years, northern Pima County with few exceptions sent a variety of centrists and liberals north based on the eroding myth that it was all that could be elected. The myth even spread to neighboring District 25.

District 26 just returned conservative Sen. Al Melvin by over 6,000 votes, up from 2,000 last time. On the House side, Conservative Terri Proud lead the ticket and not only knocked off Democrat Nancy Young Wright, but ran 2,000 votes ahead of sometimes conservative incumbent Republican Vic Williams. In District 25, all three seats were taken by conservatives by even greater margins.

This happened for three reasons. More conservatives moved in, many existing Republicans and most independents moved to the right, and Democrats moved to the left.

More later.

EXPLORER -EF endorses

GOP has some flakes, but they pale next to Dems

By Emil Franzi, Special to The Explorer

Vote a straight Republican ticket. The GOP has some flakes, and there are a few decent folks running against them. That pales next to the combination of incoherence, sleaze and statism now dominating the Democrats who deserve not only defeat but humiliation.

The Libertarian Party, which I once led to ballot status in Arizona, has degenerated from a coalition of Objectivists, Heinleinians, real conservatives and genuine liberals to a surly pack of quasi-leftists. They’ve morphed to clueless about the heritage of the movement they represent and often resemble a Code Pink rally. Glenn Beck was responsible for more sales of Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” in one day than there are current LP members who have heard of it, let alone read it.

If the GOP is successful, a certainty in Arizona and other states, they’ll be on strict probation pending behavior modification for past sins. Get ready for 2012. Now the ballot props.

106 – Yes. The “no” argument says shut up and await judicial decisions, a typical liberal elitist argument avoiding the real substance. If you believe it’s wrong for the government to force you to purchase private health insurance, vote yes. If enough people do that in enough places, Obamacare might actually get repealed by Congress. Hearing the voters is part of the process, something liberals are apparently scared to death of.

107 – Yes. Minorities have been impeded, and worse further isolated, by so-called affirmative action programs. Promoters of them claim moral high ground based on noble intent. Reality and ultimate results contradict them. Arguments claiming job losses border on incoherency.

109 – Yes. The argument that it’s a power grab because it transfers decision making from an unelected bureaucracy to representatives we elect is a ludicrous attempt to mask the real opposition which simply doesn’t want hunting to be installed as a constitutional right.

110 — Yes. Selling public lands near military bases has little opposition.

111 —No. If you want a LtGuv, add one. Voters dumped that idea so proponents now want to call the Secretary of State something else. Making that office a satellite of the governor by having them run as a ticket simply further reduces voter choices.

112 — Yes. Petition deadline extension has no real opposition.

113 —Yes. Once again the “shut up and wait for the judge” argument masks the real one. Today’s unions are more interested in the agenda of the leftist coalition they are part of than taking care of their members. Unions fought hard to establish a secret ballot to stop worker intimidation. Today’s union leaders are such losers they want secret ballots eliminated so they can do the intimidating.

203 — No. You might get me if proponents would argue based on the freedom of the individual instead of medical voodoo and the phony belief that legal pot would somehow hurt the drug cartels handling it. Did ending Prohibition really slow down the Mob?

301 and 302 — Yes. If for no other reason that the sick arguments that claim allowing voters to reconsider anything they once supported somehow injures them. 30l allows the money for land purchases to be spent elsewhere while 302 does the same for early childhood education.

I support the acquisition of open space and reluctantly will vote yes on 301. I am happy to vote yes on 302 and repeal the allocation of funds to another program that transfers responsibility for raising kids from parents to the state.

Should either or both fail, the new legislature should come back in 2012 or earlier via special election with a sunset measure that gives all ballot props allocating funds an automatic reconsideration date.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m., KVOI 1030AM.

May will tell many political tales

American politics will have jelled for at least the November election in the next six or so weeks. Primaries occur in diverse states like Pennsylvania, Arkansas and Kentucky. Obamacare is in its first stage of getting early reactions to reality, not hype. National polling data will either solidify around current trends favoring GOP candidates or move back to the Democrats. Many states and localities, including Arizona, will vote on tax and other measures.

The Real Clear Politics polling average currently shows the GOP slightly ahead in generic voting, and President Obama below 50 percent approval. If that holds until May, Democrats are due for a bath in November.

Democrat pundits like Bob Beckel over on Fox are telling us “now that the President has time to explain it,” things will change. Right, Bob, like what else has he done? But like Juan Williams, Bob’s a class act and fakes that righteous indignation beautifully. I think Juan really believes it. Fox has great numbers, not just from conservatives. Liberals get better representation there than the screaming losers elsewhere on cable.

The problem for Democrats with the GOP being slightly up or even is in the voter distribution. Partly geographic and partly through the “separate but equal” nature of concentrated big city minority districts, Dems get heavy districts that don’t have real general elections thanks to federal mandate, making others more competitive.

Locally, we will know if Arizonans and others are ready to raise their taxes. The governments themselves will continue to reduce the most popular and useful services and avoid laying off employees as their highest priority to encourage voter cooperation. They may find that also encourages voter rebellion.

A poll released by Moore and Associates of Portland, Ore., for proponents says 59 percent of Arizonans favor a 1-cent increase in the state sales tax. I was once told by an able pollster that any revenue proposal with serious opposition starting below 60 percent is in trouble. Ironically, that pollster was from the Moore firm. I’m sure proponents were told that, too, so a happy face is not yet in order for them. A bipartisan coalition including business and labor will now spend a fortune on a media blitz which may ultimately be counter-productive.

The four-way GOP gubernatorial primary will become clearer. The tax hike Gov. Brewer supports is opposed by all three of her opponents. Conventional wisdom maintains multiple opponents aid an incumbent. Conventional wisdom is based on precedent, not principle. Incumbents like Oro Valley Mayor Paul Loomis are coming in third. Recent polling has two of Brewer’s opponents, State Treasurer Dean Martin and Prescott businessman Buz Mills, even with her, with Tucson attorney John Munger gaining. If the tax goes down, any one of them – maybe all of them – could beat her.

The GOP U.S. Senate primary between John McCain and J.D. Hayworth may also clarify, with Jim Deakin illustrating if he can be a factor. In CD8, the four-way Republican contest would use that shaky conventional wisdom to favor former State Sen. Jonathan Paton, followed by businessman Jesse Kelly, USAFR pilot Brian Miller and Cochise County’s Andy Goss. Goss has raised little money but is the most entertaining and gets Mr. Congeniality for futures. Kelly has raised enough money and built a sufficient volunteer force to be in the game, while Miller cannot be counted out.

Arizona Democrats have no major primaries much of anywhere. Pima Dem Chair Jeff Rogers says that’s because they are so well-disciplined. I guess the Chicago way has filtered down. That’s a long way from Will Rogers quip about being a Democrat means belonging to no organized political party.

Some advice from General George Patton. When everybody’s thinking alike, nobody’s thinking.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturday 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.

Voting was never a root canal

Emil FranziOnce again Oro Valley is conducting a mail-in election. And once again I will tell you why the concept is fundamentally wrong.

It makes voting easier? Check Iraq or Afghanistan or lots of other places trying to build democratic regimes where they still shoot at you for making the attempt. Voting was pretty damn easy here for quite a while.

My liberal Democrat radio co-host Tom Danehy, who shares my opinion on this subject, reminds us of a news clip from a Philippine election in which an official with a ballot box is being chased by a group of thugs. Not shown is the part where they succeeded and killed him. I witnessed a few years back huge lines in Rocky Point when they were holding something unusual in Mexico – a real election. People wanted to be part of it.

We had it pretty soft. Having to actually leave home and go to a safe polling place isn’t exactly a root canal.

Voting by mail does make it easier – for the election bureaucracy. They prefer to use the money involved to hire a few more permanent employees rather than go through the hassle (for them) of using Election Day temps.

The costs involved are clearly increased in some areas (postage) and decreased in others (poll workers), but that should never be a deciding factor. Ahead of even cops, courts and armies, choosing who’s in charge is the first and most primary duty of government.

At-home voting destroys the secret ballot. Why do you think we have those little booths and curtains? So husbands can’t muscle wives or wives husbands. Mailing out ballots is an invitation to cajole by anyone from the family patriarch and union boss to your mama.

It’s also quite obviously a fraud magnet. Why the same Republicans who are convinced thousands of illegal aliens are voting at the polls are ignoring a system that eliminates their having to go there to do it is beyond me. I recognize that most voting systems are legit, but it doesn’t take much dog barf to ruin an otherwise great burger.

While supposedly being in the best interest of individual voters, the at home ballot can screw them in two ways by returning it too early or returning it too late.

Return it too early and you may learn something that would’ve changed your mind about a candidate or an issue. The elimination of late information was sold as a virtue by advocates of early voting because it would eliminate last-minute smears. It also eliminates last-minute facts. Which is why many folks hold onto their ballot until the last minute.

Only return it too late and it doesn’t count. One stat I have never seen election officials produce is how many ballots get tossed every time for late delivery.

But my greatest complaint is that the entire concept (beyond taking care of the ballots of those physically unable to get to a polling place including those who are out of town) is totally demeaning to the election process.

What advocates are really saying is “we recognize this voting thing is really not important to you. You’re right — it’s no big deal. We want to make it so easy it won’t inconvenience you at all.” Turnout is not increased by telling people voting is not worth much effort.

Election days used to be local and national events. They were part of that Norman Rockwell kind of glue that helped hold the country and its culture together. To eliminate them is to eliminate one more part of what made America a great nation.

There is no viable third way

Emil FranziMany conservatives and libertarians were so turned off by recent sins of the GOP leadership in both the Bush administration and the Congressional leadership that they either became or stayed independent voters. A vocal handful drifted off to other parties like Libertarian or Constitution, but the meager voter returns those options garnered recently should illustrate their current lack of general appeal. I sympathize with them and was once an advocate of that approach.

In 1976, the GOP was far more liberal than now. Those thinking John McCain too far to the left should study Richard Nixon. Wage-price controls defines what a real RINO is. Those claiming McCain’s loss hurt the Republican Party should note how injured it was by Nixon’s victory.

After the 1974 election, Republicans were reduced to 37 Senators and 144 House members. States with a GOP governor and state legislature consisted of Kansas. Worse, there was little fight left on the right. Former Governor Reagan made his second try for the presidency against Gerald Ford, but the attitude of too many conservatives was best expressed by the late syndicated columnist James J. Kilpatrick, who told us that Gerald Ford was the most conservative president we’d ever get. Too many suffered from political post-traumatic stress disorder.

Ford won the nomination. I’d had it with squishies. I switched registration to Libertarian and had my name on a ballot for the first (and last) time as an elector pledged to Roger McBride. I stubbornly remained with the LP after it was obvious that third parties no longer work.

Political parties are coalitions. In coalitions you support some policies that you care little about to secure those you do. The LP has been with us for 39 years, had some marginal success at the local level, once broke a million votes for President with Ed Clark in 1980 and has made the word “libertarian” generally understood. I always shared its core belief in Austrian economics and the part of that sojourn I most treasure is friendship with its great exponent, the late Murray Rothbard, and others. But there are too many deal-breaker issues for me.

Libertarian blogs are filled with nut cases from 9-11 truthers to those so anti-cop they claim we’re a police state. They should try living in a real one or chatting with older black folks who grew up in parts of the South or Eastern big cities. They don’t believe America had a foreign threat since George III. Many favor real open borders. Not a coalition I, nor most people, care to be part of.

I voted for Ron Paul for President – in 1988. If I had it to do over, I wouldn’t. But that he now survives as a voice for most libertarian views as a member of the GOP should make the point. His 2008 campaign and his bully pulpit are far more useful to his cause than his prior LP effort.

The differences between the two major parties have never been this clear. Real liberal Republicans and genuine conservative Democrats are far more endangered than polar bears. Those who possess reasonably coherent political ideologies that lean one way or the other can best advance their agenda by being part of one or the other. There is no viable third way, either in the center or outside it. Both parties have open nominating processes. That differs from earlier times when third parties were sometimes viable options.

Boss Tweed once said he didn’t care who did the votin’ long as he did the nominatin’. You get to do the nominating now. Quit whining and go help take over your local party.

Hear Emil Franzi and Tom Danehy Saturdays 1-4 p.m. on KVOI 1030AM.

Kyl does well in a job he doesn’t need

Emil FranziSitting in Sen. Jon Kyl’s office waiting for my scheduled interview, I was struck at just how hard any senator is expected to work and how much time is spent doing it by those who, as most do, take their job seriously.

His rather typical day back home was tightly scheduled in 15-minute segments, ranging from media and constituent interviews to a ceremony awarding a Bronze Star to a deceased WW2 vet’s son. He was kept busy from an early morning radio interview to a 6 p.m. appearance with 800 Tea Party folks in Oro Valley.

Members of Congress receive $174,000 in salary and the same benefit package as other federal employees, phony e-mail blasts to the contrary notwithstanding. Prior to his first election to the U.S. House in 1986, Jon Kyl was one of the top attorneys in Arizona. He doesn’t need the job. Regardless of party, those who don’t tend to give you better government.

We all want members of Congress to “read the bills.” Someone who would read every word himself if possible, trust me, is Jon Kyl. He can’t, there’s simply too many. Kyl handles it by breaking bills into portions and sharing them with his staff, and also by sharing information with trusted colleagues. He specifically mentioned one of my favorites, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.

Kyl also is number two in the GOP Senate hierarchy, which further stretches his time commitment. I asked him to assess the 2010 Senate elections, and he named eight states where he felt the GOP had good to excellent chances of pick-ups along with holding current seats. He doesn’t bluster, that’s an honest assessment.

We went through the major issues, with health care at the top of the pile. Kyl observed that the process has been as damaging to the Democrat product as the product itself and noted that we have only seen the obvious pay-offs and have no idea what other commitments were traded for senators’ votes. He believes it’s not over yet, and that opponents should keep the heat up, particularly Arizonans who have three Democrat House members in marginal seats – Giffords, Kirkpatrick and Mitchell – who voted for it.

Jobs creation was next on Kyl’s list. He believes you don’t fight unemployment with more stimulus money to local governments, but by giving private industry including small business the stable economic environment necessary for them to expand and create jobs.

Jon KylKyl supports military efforts in Afghanistan and believes President Obama acted correctly if too slowly. Space prohibits listing the many other areas of this administration’s foreign policy he differs with.

Illegal immigration was on the minds of many at the Tea Party meeting. Kyl firmly believes that before any revision in policy occurs, securing the border by finishing the fence and hiring the as-promised additional Border Patrol officers is mandatory. He met with Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano prior to her confirmation to stress this, obviously without avail.

Watching Kyl in front of a Tea Party was edifying. How did an establishment GOP lawyer/senator do with all those supposed right-wing crazies? OV types aren’t atypical. Kyl treated them with respect, and they responded in kind.

He randomly selected questioners on any subject, unlike some colleagues who wanted them in writing and pre-screened them or, worse, were too craven to show up at all. His answers were succinct, responses were direct and occasionally not what the questioner wanted to hear. Kyl doesn’t pander, something the audience would have caught anyway.

TIME magazine rated both he and John McCain among the 10 most effective members of the United States Senate. It’s easy to understand why.

judi online bonanza88 slot baccarat online slot idn live situs idn poker judi bola tangkas88 pragmatic play sbobet slot dana casino online idn pokerseri joker123 selot slot88
Türkiye’den Kıbrıs’a evden eve nakliyat