Time for a Congressional Investigation? Shattering New Developments of Corruption in Rep. Renzi Trial

rckrnz3by Rachel Alexander
Reprinted from Townhall

The case of the corrupt prosecution against imprisoned former Congressman Rick Renzi continues to explode with new evidence of wrongdoing – literally every few weeks something else comes out. It is beginning to look like Fast and Furious as more information pours out implicating the government.

As I’ve explained previously, the crux of the case against Renzi was he had proposed a federal land exchange that allegedly would have benefited himself. Evidence came out during the trial and especially afterward revealing this wasn’t true. The FBI offered to give money to the government’s key witness/”victim,” Philip Aries, to change his story and say the land exchange was Renzi’s idea. The DOJ prosecutor, Gary Restaino, whose wife worked closely under Janet Napolitano, never disclosed this information to the defense.

As more evidence came out about this collusion in July, U.S. Federal District Court Judge David Bury granted a hearing to consider a new trial. I attended the hearing,  where I met several of Renzi’s 12 children, who have developed into impressive young adults, sure of their dad’s innocence. I was shocked by what I heard as Aries and the main FBI agent repeatedly contradicted each other’s testimony on the witness stand. How can you convict someone based on that?

The prosecution offered Renzi a deal right before the trial where he would have only done 10 months in prison if he would just lie and plead guilty to a small public corruption charge of failure to properly disclose his financial interest. If Renzi didn’t accept it, he was looking at possibly more than 35 felony charges and over 150 years in prison. Renzi prayed and fasted for seven days, drinking only water and asking God for wisdom. At the end of the fast, his son had to help assist him so he could eat. After eating, decided he could not accept the deal.

His children recall him telling them he would rather die than get up in court and lie that he ever misused his public office. He could not in good conscience allow a despicable deal which would have covered up the truth – that the South African former president of a foreign-owned mining company, Resolution Copper Company, named Bruno Hagner, along with a corrupt FBI agent, took out an innocent U.S. Congressman. Renzi would rather let the world know the truth, even if it meant a life behind bars.

Ever since I started writing about the corruption in this case beginning in July, people all over the country are finally hearing what really happened and are emailing me information that even Renzi’s defense team was unaware of. Someone in Colorado told me a couple of weeks ago that Aries’ father Frank has a history of sleazy real estate deals – yet more evidence it was Aries who had proposed the land exchange, not Renzi.

The Phoenix New Times described real estate developer Frank Aries in 1990, “Aries, who drove a Rolls-Royce, lived in a $1.6 million home in the ritzy Broadmoor district of Colorado Springs and liked to brag about the multimillion-dollar sailboat he had his eye on, was not a man who thought small.” The article explains how he connived $240 million from Western Savings & Loan to invest in a real estate project in Colorado Springs that had little chance of surviving,

Aries’ willingness to pay top dollar for raw land in a time of economic uncertainty and Western’s blind faith in the bet-it-all principles of Sun Belt real estate are straight out of a financial fairy tale…The remarkable loan agreement he worked out with Western saw to it that he wasn’t personally responsible for a dime of the money. At last word, the 56-year-old Aries was making plans to sail “probably all over the world…As Aries sails off into the sunset, Western Savings is now under the control of the government’s thrift bailout agency, the RTC. The taxpayers will pick up the tab.

Yet what may be the most alarming new piece of information is the role former U.S. Secretary of the Interior, powerful Democrat Bruce Babbitt from Arizona, played in the land exchange. Aries’ proposal to Renzi at their first – and only – meeting contained a document that contained a footer revealing it had been drafted from the computer of Babbitt’s current law firm. It included the “Sandlin property,” something the prosecutors had claimed was Renzi’s idea to include in the exchange all along to make it look like he was setting up the exchange to benefit himself. At that meeting, Aries even boasted to Renzi that the entire proposed land exchange – which included the Sandlin property – “met Babbitt’s gold standard.” Why would Renzi not feel comfortable at that point, with a former powerful Democratic Secretary of the Interior approving of the exchange? If including the Sandlin property was so wrongful, why did Babbitt give it his approval?

The problem is, what judge is going to risk taking on and implicating Babbitt in all this? The Babbitts are one of the most  powerful, longstanding families in Arizona, heavily tied into the Democrats who control much of the legal system.

This sordid prosecution also ties back to the powerful Keating Five – another powerhouse Renzi was facing. Ron Ober, campaign manager and chief of staff for former Arizona Democratic Senator Dennis DeConcini – who successfully escaped anything but a mere wrist-slap finding against him for his role in the scandal due to his immense power and influence – was hired as a lobbyist to represent the Resolution Copper Company to procure the land exchange through Renzi. Ober was also a friend of Charles Keating, Jr. Keating served four and a half years in prison, but Ober managed to distance himself and escape any tarnishing from that association.

Ober told Renzi that if he didn’t agree to push through the land exchange, RCC would go to Arizona Congressman Jim Kolbe instead, which would make Renzi look bad since the land exchange was located in Renzi’s district. Ober asked him if there were any other properties that should be included in the land exchange, and Renzi suggested he speak with The Nature Conservancy, the military officials at Fort Huachuca and Senator McCain’s office – all of who had told him that they wanted to see the Sandlin property included in the next land exchange in order to save the Fort and the San Pedro River. In fact, the court record shows that many supported including the Sandlin property in the exchange, including two mayors from Sierra Vista, the chair of the Cochise County Supervisors, the Fort Huachaca 50 business council and a host of other officials from around the state. The alfalfa farmer using the Sandlin property was draining massive water from the land. Renzi finally reluctantly agreed to the land exchange, but he still had concerns about allowing a foreign-owned company run by a South African to buy out a significant amount of Arizona’s resources. Renzi also revealed verbally to RCC and on his public financial disclosure statements that Sandlin was a former business associate and that Renzi would recuse himself if that was an issue.

Ober and the powerful, connected Democrats working with him representing RCC then started getting pushy, demanding that Renzi ram through the legislation on their timeline. They never liked Renzi from the start, not wanting a Republican to get the credit for a land exchange that would benefit so many parties – including Native Americans, the Fort Huachuca military base, and the Nature Conservancy – and finally turned against him. They secretly decided to scrap the deal and just went through the motions, setting Renzi up for a fall by pretending that he had proposed the land exchange – namely the Sandlin property inclusion – since they had figured out Sandlin loosely owed Renzi money and they could say that Renzi had set it up to benefit him so Sandlin could pay him back. Eventually Renzi discovered they even had a name for the plot to take him down, “Operation Eagle.”

The reality is, Sandlin easily could have paid Renzi back the money at any time from all of his real estate holdings. He owned free and clear a property that was worth in excess of $5 million which would have been simply to obtain a 20 percent loan from.

But the powerful Democrats who controlled the governorship and much of the legal system weren’t going to risk a chance that Renzi might eventually run against Janet Napolitano for governor or continue on his successful path as a Republican who even Democrats liked. Evidence came in discovery during the trial that RCC had gone to Janet Napolitano and told her that the deal must be killed or it would help Renzi, who had become a #1 target of Democrats. No one doubts at this point that Napolitano was calling the shots, telling Restaino through his wife to continue the prosecution against Renzi no matter how trumped up.

I’ve still never met Rick Renzi. But the more I investigate this case, the sicker I get to my stomach.

What is now beyond doubt in the Renzi case is that a foreigner from South Africa named Bruno Hagner, who lived in Arizona, developed and executed a plan called Operation Eagle to take out an innocent U.S. Congressman. This former executive of RCC and his conspirators should be investigated by an independent counsel. All electronic records where Hagner discusses Operation Eagle should be investigated and turned over to Renzi’s attorneys. There also needs to be an electioneering investigation into Hagner and the the DOJ employees named in a memo from the Justice Department who were targeting Renzi and leaking information deliberately about the FBI investigation to hurt Renzi’s reelection chances.

Just like Fast and Furious, now that the criminal activity continues to leak out, it is time for a reexamination of the entire land exchange and prosecution – maybe it’s time for a congressional investigation. Otherwise the process of how we elect our representatives will never be safe from foreign predators.

It has now been since July that Judge Bury was made aware of this new information. Will he stand up to the powerful corrupt interests, or will he let an innocent man sit in prison?

Still a Shot in Rural Counties to Influence Education Standards

This Week! AZ Standards Development Committee is coming to a county near you to hear what you think of AZ K-12 Education Standards. Come give your input! If you don’t…who’s voice will be heard?

* Do you like the standards the way they are now?
* What do you want to see added?
* What do you want to see changed?
* What do you want to see deleted?

Remember silence speaks volumes. This is your time to speak up for our children.

Guess who’s been coming to previous public input meetings? District Superintendents, Curriculum Specialists, Principals, Teachers weary of change and some Parents. Many who have attended earn a paycheck from the school system. ALL voices need to be heard.

Who will speak for You and your kids if you don’t?

Meetings this week are in: Maricopa, Mohave, La Paz, Graham/Greenlee, Santa Cruz, and Yuma Counties

(Too Late for these) Monday November 9th 6pm

Maricopa County: Peoria High School
11200 N 83rd Ave, Peoria, AZ 85345

Mohave County/Kingman: Mohave County Admin Building
700 W Beale St, Kingman, AZ 86401

(TODAY!) Tuesday November 10th 6pm

La Paz County/Parker: Parker High School
1600 S Kofa Ave, Parker, AZ 85344

Graham/Greenlee Counties/Safford: Graham County General Services Building
921 W Thatcher Blvd, Safford, AZ 85546

Thursday November 12th 6pm

Santa Cruz County/Nogales: Santa Cruz County Complex
2150 N Congress Dr, Nogales, AZ 85621

Yuma County/ Yuma: Yuma School District One
450 W 6th St, Yuma, AZ 85364

OpEd: Colorado’s problems reveal danger of legal pot

By Seth Leibsohn and Sheila Polk

As Arizonans prepare for a public debate on legalizing marijuana, we encourage a close look at Colorado — the first state to fully legalize recreational use and sale of marijuana – and Ohio, the most recent state to defeat it.

Ohio—a key bellwether state—defeated legalized marijuana this week by a margin of 28 points. What Ohio made clear is that when the facts about today’s more potent and dangerous marijuana are aptly communicated and exposed, there are no good reasons left to make it both legal and more widely available – and it loses.

Perhaps recent news in Colorado is what informed Ohioans. For example: legalization advocates claimed it would help put an end to the black market and illegal sales. In just the last month in Colorado, however, we witnessed the contrary. To wit:

October 28: Officers find 6,400 illegal marijuana plants in southern Colorado forest.

October 9: 32 busted in big Colorado illegal marijuana cultivation crackdown.

October 6: DHS suspends 7 cross country runners.

October 8: Manitou Springs police: Mustangs boys’ soccer marijuana issue handled by school.

As Chief John Jackson of the Colorado Association of Police Chiefs said on 60 Minutes earlier this year, “I can resoundly say that the black market is alive and doing well.”

The largest of these raids, also last month, found 20,000 marijuana plants, 700 pounds of dried weed, and more than 30 guns. Among those arrested were Honduran, Mexican, and Cuban nationals. Clearly, instead of putting an end to the black market, legalization in Colorado has created a magnet for it as legality and availability drive sales and consumption.

As just this one month in Colorado also reveals, the notion that we can solve an international drug cartel program by legalizing a dangerous product that harms our youth is, quite simply, a fraud.

As noted above, high-school marijuana use—including by those on athletic teams—is also a major problem and growing concern. Why? As explained in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors just last month: “[A]s marijuana has become more accessible and adults have become more tolerant regarding marijuana use, adolescents perceive marijuana as more beneficial and are more likely to use if they are living in an environment that is more tolerant of marijuana use.”

Legalizing an intoxicating substance for adults will not keep it out of the hands of our youth—which is why 77% more of Arizona’s youth use alcohol than marijuana today. Making marijuana like alcohol means more adolescents will use more marijuana…just like they do alcohol. And it’s critical to note that today’s marijuana is not the same as it was in decades past—it’s at least five times more potent, practically an entirely different drug.

One month in Colorado is, of course, not the whole story; we recommend reading September’s Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Report. This report documents that, since legalization in Colorado, marijuana has been associated with such social fallout as increased homelessness, school suspensions and expulsions, and traffic deaths.

It couldn’t be clearer: Arizonans should not want this for its families and communities, and we certainly do not need it.

Seth Leibsohn is the host of The Seth Leibsohn Show on 960am/KKNT. Sheila Polk is the Yavapai County Attorney. Respectively, they are the Chair and Vice-Chair of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy.

Judge Unravels Illegal Activity by Prosecution That Ensured a Conviction of Renzi — But Will he Do Anything About it?

rckrnzBy Rachel Alexander
Reprinted from Townhall

Last Monday, Federal District Court Judge David Bury held an evidentiary hearing in Tucson to consider new evidence that prosecutorial wrongdoing took place during the criminal prosecution of imprisoned former Congressman Rick Renzi. Specifically, the judge considered whether the the FBI had offered money to the one “victim” Renzi had allegedly extorted, to change his testimony and make it unfavorable toward Renzi in order to ensure a conviction. As the hearing was ending and the shocking bribery exposed, Judge Bury told chief DOJ prosecuting attorney Gary Restaino he wrongly violated Renzi’s rights.

Who is Restaino and why was he so intent on convicting Renzi that he would violate the law? His wife, Leezie Kim, worked closely for former Arizona Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano, and Renzi had been rumored to be a potential contender against her for governor in 2006. In 2003, Kim took a sabbatical from Quarles Brady where she was an attorney to serve as the executive director of Napolitano’s Governor’s Citizens Finance Review Commission. She became the treasurer of Napolitano’s 2006 gubernatorial campaign and the treasurer of the Competitive Edge PAC in 2007, which was primarily started to support Napolitano.

Kim next became Napolitano’s general counsel in February 2008, and after Napolitano was confirmed as Secretary of Homeland Security, joined her in Washington as a deputy general counsel. Kim left Washington in 2010 after news reports indicated that she was involved in efforts to limit responses to politically sensitive Freedom of Information Act requests. In addition to these active roles, Kim also donated $400 to the Arizona Democratic Party in 2005 and $928 to Democratic candidates in 2008.

Like his wife, Restaino is also a staunch Democrat who has donated to numerous Democrats in the past, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Janet Napolitano and Felecia Rotellini. He contributed money to the Arizona Democratic Party, which turned around and sent out an attack mailer against Renzi prior to the 2006 election. This happened while Restaino was prosecuting Renzi.

None of this activity was ever disclosed to the defense. As anyone with a political pulse from Arizona knows, Napolitano has done more to promote Democrats and destroy Republicans than any elected public official in the state ever, much of it behind the scenes.

Renzi’s position all along is that he didn’t propose the federal land swap and would not have benefited from it — so there was no illegal activity. He simply thought it was a good deal for all the parties involved — even the Nature Conservancy had testified in favor of the land swap — and started to put the wheels in motion to make it happen. No good deeds go unpunished.

Last July, Renzi discovered that the government’s key witness, businessman Philip Aries, who was to participate in the land swap, had recently emailed Restaino inquiring when his money for cooperating against  Renzi would pay off. Aries had been told he would receive a monetary reward for testifying unfavorably against Renzi. Renzi believes, and the evidence supports, that Aries initially was going to testify and possibly exonerate Renzi until the government promised him money, which is illegal without providing notice to the defense.

The government engaged in multiple illegal wiretaps of phone calls to Renzi, which were thrown out of the original trial. Ironically, in one recorded call, Aries admitted that it was he — not Renzi — who had proposed the land for the swap, known as the Sandlin property. Yet, during the trial, Aries curiously changed his tune, no doubt due to the promise of reward money, and testified that it was Renzi’s idea.

The hearing on Monday was full of contradictory statements — at a minimum, one or both of the two witnesses impeached themselves; at worst, they committed perjury. The primary FBI agent on the case, Dan Odom, kept denying that he offered Aries a payoff for testifying against Renzi. But Aries discussed in length during his testimony how money was offered to him — almost breaking down into tears as he discussed how he was going through a traumatic time in his life when he received the generous offer. Aries filed bankruptcy shortly afterwards, so it was pretty clear he needed the money.

Agent Odom admitted on the stand that he received promotions after his efforts persuading Aries to record phone calls with Renzi and testify against him. He also admitted that he thought Aries should be compensated for his extensive work recording conversations with Renzi and assisting with the case against him — which seemed to clearly contradict his statements that he never offered Aries any money.

In criminal cases where the prosecution has withheld favorable evidence to the defense, a new trial has been ordered. At a minimum, the jury should have been informed of this bias by the prosecution’s key witness and alleged victim. With the prosecution’s star witness thoroughly discredited as motivated by money, Renzi deserves a new trial.

Judge Bury suggested at the conclusion of the hearing that Aries’ credibility had already been called into question during the original trial, so it was less material now. If so, why was Aries allowed to testify to the jury at the original trial as the prosecution’s key witness? Regardless, in Horton v. Mayle, a recent case in this Ninth Circuit jurisdiction, the court held that some evidence of bias does not diminish the value of other evidence describing a different source of bias.

This case exemplifies the problem with our legal system: it is fraught with corruption. Federal judges have a cordial relationship with Department of Justice prosecutors and want to keep it that way. No one wants to get on the wrong side of the powerful DOJ, especially when the president is calling the shots and can have anyone targeted. A former manager at the DOJ told me about a year ago that attorneys there just dutifully and quietly took their walking orders from above, fully aware their bosses were instructing them to target people they didn’t like.

Compounding the problem in Renzi’s case is the complexity of the case. The left goes out of its way to target conservatives involved in complex business deals, because they know the average American (or juror) does not have the time nor knowledge to understand the facts in these types of cases. Use the phrases “white collar crime” and “public corruption” and everyone will start nodding, even if they have no idea what the facts are — it just sounds vaguely unethical.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, a former U.S. Attorney for the DOJ, admitted during the third Republican presidential debate last week,

It has been a Justice Department that decided that they want to pick who the winners and losers are. They like General Motors, so they give them a pass. They don’t like somebody else like David Petraeus, they prosecute them and send a decorated general on to disgrace. It’s a political Justice Department.

While General Petraeus may have done an outstanding job as a general, in his personal morals, he failed, which may have put the country at risk. He was prosecuted for far less than Hillary Clinton is accused of. Renzi has suffered for too long in prison since February. Upon first glance, this seems like just any other criminal case. But once you start looking under the prosecutorial spin, the facts just don’t convict Renzi and certainly provide no justification for sending him to prison.

Senator Sylvia Allen: Win, Win for Schools and Taxpayers!

Senator Sylvia Allen

Senator Sylvia Allen

I am proud of our schools in Arizona.  A number of our high schools are consistently ranked near the top of U.S. studies.  We were one of the first states to create charter schools and our Empowerment Scholarship Accounts allow parents to find the best education option for their children. These two reforms are models being emulated throughout the country.  I personally have toured and seen the excellent achievement of our students and teachers throughout my district.

Friday, October 30, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed an increase of $3.5 billion over the next ten years to our schools.  This will bring new money into our K-12 school system, if voters approve the plan in a special election to be held May 17, 2016.

Part of the funding will come from a new percentage level, 6.9%, distributed to the State Schools Fund from the Permanent Land Endowment Trust Funds (PLETF).  The Arizona Constitution determines the portion of investment earnings the Treasurer must distribute annually to each beneficiary.  Right now annual distributions are set at 2.5% of the average monthly market valuation of the PLETF from the preceding five years.  The voters will be asking to approve the increase above 2.5% in the May election.

Governor Ducey was State Treasurer before being elected Governor, so he understands this trust fund and how it functions.  In 2012 he developed Proposition 118, to move to a fixed rate of 2.5%, instead of a fluctuating rate used at the time.   Voters approved that proposal.

Three years later, the Governor proposed to increase that amount to 6.9%, and the Legislature agreed.  We spent much time in debate and talking to lawyers and staff about the ramifications of the increased percentage.  I am convinced that we have been short changing our schools all these years.  The PLETF is now valued at $5 billion and the consensus of those who voted yes is that we can safely pay this out to our schools and protect the principle of the fund.

Triggers are placed within the law in case we have another major economic downturn. It would require the Directors of the Office of Strategic Planning and Budgeting (OSPB) and the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) to jointly notify the Governor, the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House that a reduction to the distribution is necessary to preserve the safety of the capital in the PLETF, if the value of the PLETF has decreased.  At that point we would return to the 2.5%.

This was a complicated issue that took hundreds of hours of work by all concerned, but I am confident that we have made a very good decision in increasing the payout from the State Schools Trust Fund.

The proposal also included increased money for schools from the General Fund.

  • Increases the per pupil amount by $173.26
  • Increases basic state aid by $248,829,400 in FY2016 by increasing the base level per pupil amount
  • Includes additional inflation of $74,394,000 in FY2016
  • Increases the Permanent State School Fund distribution line item by $172,081,000
  • Appropriates to the Superintendent of Public Instruction additional funding for school districts and charter schools of $50 million annually in FY2016 through FY2020
  • Allows flexibility for school districts to budget the additional funding to where they feel it is needed.

None of this will increase taxes for our citizens and is being done within the capacity of what we have now.  

We hear all the time how bad Arizona ranks in school spending, but those rankings can be very misleading. Other states have 95% of land privately owned and is part of the tax base. In Arizona, we are generating revenue from 13% private property. We will never raise revenues to the level of those other states.

Also, Arizona has a high population of those under 18 years of age and a large population of adults over 65 years of age.  In the 18-64 age bracket where the bulk of taxpayers reside, we have a proportionally small population, so again, we will never be able to reach the revenues of other states without significantly increasing taxes.

This ranking propaganda by our critics is designed to pressure taxpayers to fund more into our schools.  We are short changing our teachers and kids when we constantly focus on a ranking instead of results.   Funding is important but does not guarantee a good education that depends on parents, teachers, and, most of all, students.  

I wish to thank the Arizona taxpayer who is willing to give their hard-earned money to better the life of children through our education system in Arizona.

Time to Fire John McCain!

By Retire McCain

It is time for Arizona Senator John McCain to retire! After strings of broken promises and faux conservatism, it is time for fresh new bold conservative leadership for Arizona!

Yuma County Sheriff Leon Wilmot: ‘Feds Refusing to Prosecute Illegals’

By Olaf Ekberg
(Reposted from The American Mirror)

Yuma County, Arizona Sheriff Leon Wilmot is tired of his county’s taxpayers paying to recapture illegal immigrants because of the federal government’s refusal to enforce the law.

“If you are not going to do your job and we have to do it for you, you should be paying us,” Wilmot tells KYMA.

leon-wilmotWilmot says his department has arrested illegal immigrants for drug smuggling and identity theft, but the U.S. District Attorney “fails to prosecute them.” The sheriff says the feds’ inaction is costing Yuma County taxpayers about a million dollars a year.

The Sheriff’s Office has made more than 150 arrests since last October, and 13 illegals in the last week alone for fake passports.

Wilmot says it has cost about $950,000 over the last year to house illegals in the county jail. That amount has increased to $980,000 and so far, there’s no word from the District Attorney about whether the feds will help cover the cost.

“They think it’s better served by the local authorities. Our point on that is you’re costing us an arm and a leg to do your job,” says Capt. Eben Bratcher, according to The Republic.

Illegal immigration prosecutions in Arizona were down 15% between July 2014 and July 2015, according to data compiled by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University.

To Bratcher, that means more drug smugglers and immigrants who use false identification are getting off the hook too easily.

“We don’t believe that letting these people go is doing anything to protect our border,” he says.

Bratcher says local authorities have been charging illegals for crimes based on state statutes. “He gave the example of a man who was caught transporting 30 pounds of methamphetamine at a border crossing but whom federal prosecutors declined to pursue,” according to the paper.

Marc Rosenblum, deputy director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute, says fewer arrests and less resources “could contribute to the decline in prosecutions.”

All Hands on Deck in Tempe! Rally To Stop The TUHSD Override!

By Peggy McClain

Are you tired of governments demanding more of your paycheck with negative results?

Say NO to Tempe Union High School Override (TUHSD)

All are invited to join us on Tuesday, 10-13-15 at 2 PM at the TUHSD office at 500 W. Guadalupe Tempe  85283 (NW corner of Guadalupe and Kyrene)

Let’s let the TUHSD Superintendent and Governing Board know they cannot fool us anymore.  Other districts will be taking notice as these override elections are occurring in many districts.

VOTE NO:  Why does TUHSD need 28,000 devices “for the students” if the student population is 13,600?

VOTE NO:  This is a permanent tax increase as overhead, staff, and increased bandwidth have not been budgeted for.

VOTE NO: There is NO PARENTAL CONTROL over who your student will interact with on-line nor what content your child will download.

VOTE NO: This tax increase WILL NOT lead to more money for teachers but will lead to a decrease in teachers.


Alan Korwin: Method for Stopping Shooting Rampages Emerges

By Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman

Alan KorwinHard evidence — not doctor theories, news commentary, conjecture, hyperbole, rumor, innuendo or any other proposals — clearly shows that the only known way to actually stop spree murderers is to shoot them — or scare them into shooting themselves. Time and again society has found this works.

According to the evidence, every mass murder in recent times has been halted, in the final analysis, by shooting the murderers, or threatening to shoot them, with guns. Members of the press corps continue to debate the subject, despite the evidence. Sources speaking privately say the mediaconsciously reject this fact. In stark contrast, self-defense incidents using guns are suppressed, by news-media policy, and do not appear on the public stage.

An excellent write up about the censorship of firearms used in self defense appears here —

and here —

Multiple reports of self-defense, accomplished by shooting criminals, appear as paid space in USA Today, which otherwise censors such reports:

Although knowledgeable commentators are still debating the merits of shooting murderers, the visible evidence clearly demonstrates that shooting the perpetrators does take care of the problem. No other solutions have worked.

The only problem identified is the relative slowness of this effective remedy, due mainly to the delay in getting guns to the scene where innocent victims are assaulted. The scenes have virtually always been in supposed “gun-free zones,” with posted signs flatly rejected by the perpetrators.

President Barack Hussein Obama, whose middle name is not supposed to be used, went on national TV, twice in the past week, to propose other solutions, which he announced as “politicized.” He promised to “continue talking.”

Further analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, has determined that background checks, or newly proposed additional background checks, recommended by Mr. Obama and others, would be pointless for people who already own guns, since they already own guns. The best estimates indicate this is about 100 million armed Americans.

And in other analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, waiting periods have no meaning whatsoever for Americans who already own guns, when they go shopping for guns, since they already own guns. That is also 100 million Americans.

Waiting periods have one additional drawback overlooked in mainstream reports. They require the public to trust psychotic individuals who wait five days to get their first gun, to remain calm for the balance of their lives. Somehow, the five-day waiting period doesn’t seem like a long enough “cooling off” period, but this has not made it into nightly “news” reports, or the President’s commentaries, for reasons that were unclear at press time.

The murderer in Oregon who sparked the recent repetitive debates owned more than a dozen guns, according to early reports, all legally acquired. While Hillary, Mr. Obama and others are still calling for more background checks, they have apparently failed to notice these obvious errors in their plan.

Only new, or “virgin” gun buyers would be affected, most of whom would pass checks anyway, according to leading experts and past experience. The point of adding even more checks, when current checks are not used to take criminals off the streets, was not clear as this report was prepped for release.

“News” commentators have also failed to make this connection, so far, and have repeated the calls from politicians on both sides of the aisle, who are discussing background checks and waiting periods.

The role of ultra-violent body-rending video games, horrific grizzly blood and all gore movies on nightly TV and a debasement of popular American culture at every level has not figured prominently into the president’s prolific pronouncements.

The public — not some famous vilified “the gun lobby” — rises up loudly to condemn the assault on their fundamental civil and human rights. This is the same 100 million armed Americans mentioned earlier. Some reports suggest it is “only” 80 million armed Americans. The NRA, often cited as “the gun lobby,” has only 5 million members.

Counter-Intuitive Man Says:

Referring to murderers as “gun men” is offensive to men, a violation of journalism ethics, due to its biased and prejudicial nature, and sexist.

Calling murderers “gun men” is virtually propaganda against men and firearms.

It denigrates men, it is derogatory, defamatory and it is discriminatory.

What would media and pundits say if a woman was the criminal perpetrator?

The correct terms include murderer, killer, villain, criminal, assailant and perpetrator, without gratuitously singling out gender.

By using the propaganda term “gun man,” the media vilifies a tool they frequently demonstrate hatred for, along with men, which agenda-driven political groups seek to demean or belittle. That’s simply wrong, and unethical.

Murderers should be called murderers, not gun men. This would help remove the glorification many mass murderers seek, which encourages others to copy their behavior.

By encouraging such behavior, the media shares responsibility for these acts, according to leading national experts, who are speaking out against such behavior in increasing numbers.

Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Author of ten books on gun law
Publisher, Bloomfield Press

P.S. My previous request to the President, to have him call me for common-sense solutions he is not getting from his side of the aisle, has gone unanswered so far. I patiently await. The ideas coming from the TV set are so off base it is hard to imagine they are actually on the air. Has anyone considered education in the schools yet? Schools are currently an empty hole of ignorance on the subject.

Tim Steller Verdict Is In: Billboards Are True


The facts are the facts. Shirley Scott, Regina Romero, and Paul Cunningham are tearing our city down. Due to the recent lawsuit filed by Liberal extremist Barbara Tellman, claiming the Revitalize billboards are ‘misleading’, Tim Stellar, reporter at the Arizona Daily Star decided to take a look at whether the Revitalize Tucson billboards are truthful or partisan.

TOO much Crime -TOO many families in Poverty – TOO many Potholes – TOO LONG IN OFFICE!

A recent survey of highly likely voters, mostly Democrats and Independents, has 60% saying Shirley Scott, Regina Romero, and Paul Cunningham are doing a poor job. Now the far left media can no longer ignore the facts and joins Revitalize Tucson to complete the bi-partisan consensus: it is bad and it is time to CHANGE TUCSON.

Revitalize Tucson hopes that Mr. Stellar shares his findings with Barbara Tellman and Vince Rabago.

ChangeTucson4From Tim Stellars article from October 4, 2015. (The article has been edited with the final opinion highlighted for purposes of this article. The complete article can be found here. )

So let’s go sign-by-sign and see if Revitalize Tucson is telling the truth or just being partisan …

Billboard 1: “Who made Tucson the 5th poorest city in the US? Ask Shirley Scott, Paul Cunningham and Regina Romero”
There’s no doubt Tucson is a poor city, so arguing over exactly how poor might be seen as pointless quibbling.

ChangeTucson3Steller Verdict: TRUE

Billboard 2: “Who let a few radicals hold downtown hostage? Ask Shirley Scott, Paul Cunningham and Regina Romero”
Tim Steller: ” … To that extent, you could say the council “let” them take over part of downtown… ”

Steller Verdict: TRUE

Billboard 3: “Who gets $1.36 billion and won’t fix the potholes? Ask Shirley Scott, Paul Cunningham and Regina Romero”
Tim Steller: ” … A study that came out this year showed Tucson’s road conditions were the worst among 11 western cities.
(Aside: I must comment on Steller’s comments: Steller joins the Tucson City Councilmen in blabbing on and on about all the work they are doing to fix the roads. You really need to be replaced in office if you are going to run on Tucson road conditions… ” )

ChangeTucson2Steller Verdict: TRUE

Billboard 4: “Why are we Arizona’s most dangerous city? Ask Shirley Scott, Paul Cunningham and Regina Romero”
Tim Steller: ” … Can’t argue with this one… ”

Steller Verdict: TRUE

Billboard 5: “Who raises water rates four years in a row? Ask Shirley Scott, Paul Cunningham and Regina Romero”
Tim Steller: ” … the City Council has … indeed repeatedly raised rates…”

Steller Verdict: TRUE

Billboard 6: “Who is paying $40 million for empty Sun Tran buses? Ask Shirley Scott, Paul Cunningham and Regina Romero”
Tim Steller: ” … So, to an extent, the “empty” buses are the council’s fault… ”

Steller Verdict: TRUE

( Note: In the original article Steller questions the $40.4 million dollar amount. This can be found as a subsidy for transit on page 76 of the most recent CAFR. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/files/finance/2014_CAFR_Book_CD.pdf . )

Billboard 7: “Who still can’t find the $230 million from Rio Nuevo? Ask Shirley Scott, Paul Cunningham and Regina Romero”
Stellar agrees (though it pains him greatly): ” … the fact is, nobody can “find the $230 million …”

Steller Verdict: TRUE

(Aside: Mr. Stellar tries to make the point that no one is looking for the money anymore. That fact does not take away from the fact that Shirley Scott, Regina Romero, and Paul Cunninghman lost $230 million.
Steller also points out that the State Legislature removed control of Rio Nuevo in 2010 from the Tucson City Council. What he does not point out is that Shirley Scott, Regina Romero, and Paul Cunninghman are now campaigning that they have restored the downtown. This is far more than a cheap tactic, this is an outright lie. )

Billboard 8: “Who lost jobs at McDonald’s and Grand Canyon U? Ask Shirley Scott, Paul Cunningham and Regina Romero”
Tim Steller: ” … The short answer to this would be: Nobody…”

Steller Verdict: NOT TRUE

(Aside: Steller’s comments miss the basis of the question. Unemployment is high in Tucson and the jobs that exist are low paying jobs. Like it or not the McDonalds on 22nd street/Alvernon has become a symbol of much that is wrong in Tucson. A man has a dream and works hard and spends money to realize the dream just to have it squashed by the Tucson City Council. Business owner after business owner relates and understands the frustration and aggravation of trying to do business in Tucson. The Councils treatment of this businessman is the proverbial straw that has broken the back of the Tucson business community. )