It was with deep disappointment that I read the following letter forwarded to me from my colleagues in the  RTKBA community . 

I hope our readers will share this with United We Stand for Americans; the good patriots in the 912 Project; and the Campaign for Liberty.  Share via FB with those who have scraped their dimes and nickels together to pay Sheriff Mack’s speaking fee.   You’ve been sold out.

Konopnicki simply want a “prop” or “trophy wife” to showcase to voters that he really is a “Constitutional Conservative” and is spending mega-bucks to prove it.  But his actions speak louder than words so he needed “street cred” … and bought some.  What follows is how someone betrays his cause, his friends, and those who have trusted him.

Sheriff Mack … there is no explanation for this betrayal to a politician who only wishes to use you to get what he wants.

From: Richard Mack
Subject: my appologies, but
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Dear friends:
I have some news for you that is weighing heavy on me, but I must go with my heart and

what I feel is best. I have decided to support Bill Konopnicki for State Senate. Please allow

me to explain my decision.  I have known Bill for a very long time, perhaps 35 maybe 40 years.

He has been a good friend and a good friend of my parents.

I know Bill to be a good husband and father. Because of this relationship I’ve been struggling

with my decision as to who to support in this race. I know Sylvia is a good person, also.

Then yesterday Bill asked to meet with me in his office. He was most eager to hear more about my victory at the U S Supreme Court and how the ruling might benefit Arizona in its present litigation with the federal gov’t. He was very impressed and told me that he would make certain that the Governor and her counsel would receive this vital information. There is no question that my case, based on state sovereignty, will help us all in these trying times of federal intervention and control. Bill took it upon himself to get my info. to the Governor. He showed leadership and dedication; he took the initiative to

help and to make a difference.  Needless to say, I was moved and impressed.

On the other hand, Sylvia has not called me or asked me to help in the least.  She and I were asked to speak at an event in Globe together and she declined the invitation. Now, I think I have seen a difference and it has moved me to support Bill Konopnicki.

I am asking for your understanding and assure you that this decision has been a matter of prayer and deep contemplation. My wife and I discussed it in great detail, also.  I will always fight for freedom and try with all my might to restore the Constitution as the law of this great land.  I will never shrink from this quest.

Respectfully,

Sheriff Richard Mack  (Ret)

Contact: J.P. Twist
Mobile: 602-689-7647
jp@GosarforCongress.com

Sarah Palin Endorses Dr. Paul Gosar for Congress

“Paul stands firmly behind Governor Jan Brewer’s
efforts to protect Arizonans”

(Prescott, Arizona)  Today, Governor Sarah Palin endorsed Dr. Paul Gosar for Congress. Dr. Paul Gosar is running in the Republican Primary Election in Arizona’s First Congressional District.

In announcing here endorsement of Facebook, Governor Sarah Palin stated:

“I’m also proud to endorse Dr. Paul Gosar for Arizona’s 1st Congressional District. Thankfully, Paul shares our belief that the federal government’s reckless spending is putting us on a dangerous path towards insolvency – and he’s determined to do something about that. In addition to being a proud family man, Paul is a dentist, and as a small business owner running his practice, Paul understands the challenges confronting job creators when DC stifles us with endless mandates, over-regulation, plans to impose new energy taxes, and just generally (and unnecessarily) overreaches into the private sector. The good doctor knows that true job creation comes from the private sector, not government; and he will work to rein in the fed’s long arm and get our economy moving again by getting government out of the way.

Paul stands firmly behind Governor Jan Brewer’s efforts to protect Arizonans, and the rest of us for that matter, by securing the border. He’s endorsed by three of Arizona’s leading sheriffs because they know America needs Dr. Paul Gosar to hold Washington accountable on this imperative national security issue.

Paul is a bold man! He deserves our support, so please join me in helping him help this great country. You can visit his website at www.gosarforcongress.com and follow him on Facebook and Twitter.”

“I am very honored to have received the endorsement and support of Governor Sarah Palin,” said Dr. Paul Gosar. “I ask that Republican voters join her in supporting my campaign and together we will take back Congress.”

Dr. Paul Gosar is a small businessman who knows how to create and protect jobs. He is a dentist and health care provider who has garnered many awards and honors, such as the Arizona Dental Association’s “Dentist of the Year,” and was inducted into the Arizona Dental Association’s Hall of Fame.  He served as the President of both the Northern Arizona Dental Society and the Arizona Dental Association. He also served as the Vice-Chair of the ADA Council on Governmental Affairs.

Dr. Gosar is a 25 year active resident of Flagstaff where he has been married to Maude for 22 years. They have three children.

###

Happy 4th, all! At UnitedWeStandforAmericans.org, we had a special 2 hour show with Goldwater Institute attorney Clint Bolick on the Constitution and the current state of Constitutional law. Sounds long, but I think it goes by VERY fast! We cover everything from basic Constitutional concepts to recent cases like the McDonald gun rights case and Clean Elections. Enjoy!

4th of July UWSFA show on the Constitution

Yesterday, in a fit of utter confusion, I sent the NRA a strongly worded email suggesting an endorsement of Sen. Harry Reid in Nevada would be a disaster. My NRA card would quickly become a target that I would use to sight in my new rifle. I received this email two seconds ago:

Thank you for contacting NRA-ILA regarding the recent rumor that NRA-PVF has indicated they will endorse Harry Reid.

Regarding any potential endorsement of Sen. Reid in the upcoming elections, NRA-PVF has not yet announced any ratings or endorsements in this race. Ratings and endorsements will be determined closer to the election. It is important to note, however, that the NRA is a single issue organization and that when our ratings and endorsements are announced, they are based solely on a candidate’s support for, or opposition to, our Second Amendment rights. Other issues, as important as they may be to many people, do not and cannot play any role in those decisions. NRA represents a broad coalition of American gun owners, who are bound together by their support for the right to keep and bear arms.

In 2004, Senator Reid was rated “B” in his reelection by the NRA Political Victory Fund. Since then, as U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Senator Reid has proven himself to be a supporter of our Second Amendment rights. It would be accurate to say that few, if any, of NRA’s legislative victories in Congress during the last six years would have occurred without his active support.

As an example, he was instrumental in Senate passage (and eventual enactment into law) of the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” (PLCAA)”, which shut down reckless lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers that attempted to hold them liable for the misuse of firearms by criminals. Sen. Reid also cosponsored S. 659 (PLCCA) in the 108th Congress and voted against “poison pill” amendments to it, including the Feinstein Amendment to renew the federal ban on so-called “assault weapons”, and the Kennedy Amendment that would have banned most hunting ammunition.

Following Hurricane Katrina, he voted for legislation, that is now federal law, to prohibit gun confiscation during states of emergency. He also voted for legislation to allow commercial airline pilots to be armed in the cockpit to protect their passengers and crew. In this congressional session, Sen. Reid voted for the Ensign Amendment to repeal Washington D.C.’s gun ban and restore self-defense rights in our nation’s capital. He cosponsored similar legislation–S. 1414–in the 108th Congress. He also voted for an amendment to allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for self-defense in national parks and wildlife refuges. This federal policy change just took effect on February 22.

Early last year, Sen. Reid emphatically stated that he would oppose any effort to reinstate an “assault weapons” ban if the Senate were to vote on it in the future. In addition, he voted last year for the Thune-Vitter Amendment to provide national reciprocity for state Right-to-Carry permits. He also voted twice for the Wicker Amendment allowing Amtrak passengers to include firearms in their checked luggage. These votes were possible only because of Senator Reid’s actions in his capacity as Senate Majority Leader. Finally, he was among the 58 Senators who signed the pro-gun congressional amicus brief in the McDonald v. Chicago case, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2nd, which will decide whether the Second Amendment applies to all states and localities.

Most recently, the NRA worked with Sen. Reid to include in his manager’s amendment to the health care reform bill a provision that prohibits the disclosure or collection of information relating to the lawful ownership, use or storage of firearms or ammunition and also prohibits lawful gun ownership, possession and use from being used as a factor to determine eligibility or premium rates for health insurance. This provision was adopted on December 22, 2009 and was included in this legislation when it was signed into law on March 23.

Finally, Senator Reid is opposed to any anti-gun treaties that might come before the U.S. Senate for ratification.

These are a few examples of Senator Reid’s support and leadership on Second Amendment issues. Given the Senate could vote on gun-related issues in the coming months, rest assured any votes will be considered in future candidate evaluations. Regarding NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre and NRA-ILA Executive Director Chris Cox recently attending the grand opening of the Clark County Shooting Park (CCSP) with U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and other Nevada elected officials.

The CCSP is the largest shooting park in the world. This 2,900-acre state-of-the-art facility is devoted entirely to the shooting sports and is the nation’s premier shooting park. As the nation’s largest shooting sports organization, the NRA’s presence at the ribbon-cutting ceremony should come as no surprise. NRA actively worked with several Members of the Nevada congressional delegation, including Senator Reid, to ensure that this range was built. The development and construction of the CCSP has the full bipartisan support of the Nevada congressional delegation, and Nevada’s Republican Governor.

Senator Reid was instrumental in arranging not only the transfer of the then-federal lands to Clark County where the Park is located, but also in securing $61 million in funding to develop and build the Park. The Clark County Shooting Park would not have been built without his active efforts and support.

Once again, thank you for your inquiry.

I guarantee that an endorsement of Reid will have real consequences for the NRA. It will not only ultimately hurt their fundraising efforts but it will lead to more regulation down the road. Despite the NRA, quizzically trying to spin Reid’s record, his support of 2^nd amendment rights has been lacking, as RedState has demonstrated.

My gun club is already circulating an email that has us all in agreement. We will rip up our NRA membership card if they endorse Reid. We will still consider it if they don’t endorse Angle. Don’t tempt your base NRA…don’t!

Despite protestations to the contrary from the law’s sponsor and others, this law turns the Arizona drivers license  (actually any state license) into a national id.

It’s a common misconception to believe that the national id must be a card or a chip.

National ID not a card or a chip, but is the data that the federal government has on you.  What the federal government has been attempting to do for many years, most notably under the Clinton administration, was to find a way to integrate all of the various data they have on American citizens into an easily searchable, easily sharable database and data exchange format.

SB1070 states

F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the purposes of determining eligibiltiy for any … license and for the purposes of verifying any claim of residence or domicile.

This section removes ALL restrictions from the exchange of license data between any state agency and any federal agency.  This section applies to ANY PERSON.  This section includes ANY LICENSE.  Under this section ANY state agency may exchange ANY person’s license data with ANY federal agency without any restriction whatsoever.

This problem has nothing to do with what occurs at a police stop. It removes ALL restrictions from data exchange, including a full data dump, or including full back and forth real-time queryability, between any state license database and any or ALL federal agencies, beginning July 1, including the IRS or Homeland Security.

Protestations from the bill’s sponsor have included:  “That’s not what it says.”  “That’s not what it means.”  “It’s not in there.”

Yes, Mr. Pearce, but that’s what the law SAYS word for word, in black and white, in 8th grade level English, no lawyers required.

Other  protestations such as in this post include playing word games….

The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA (REAL ID Act) in Arizona.

First, what does the REAL ID act have to do with it?   Nothing.  The REAL ID Act was a single federal program which attempted to force the state to turn over certain data to the feds.  This bill turns over the same data that the REAL ID Act mandated, but does so voluntarily by the state, having nothing to do with REAL ID, but having everything to do with national id once the federal government gets their hands on the data.  REAL ID here is completely irrelevant.

Second, what is “immigration status” relative to a citizens’ domicile?  Or how would you verify a citizen’s eligibility for a drivers license (or any license) via exchange of that citizen’s data with the federal government?  Why would you need to?  Where is the limitation to the term “immigration status” in the data exchange with the federal government in checking a citizen’s domicile information with the feds or a citizen’s eligibility for a driver’s license (or a business license, or a hunting license - ANY license, remember). Nowhere.  Why would the state need to do so relative to its citizens?  But that’s precisely what the law enables.

The county attorney’s office goes onto state:

Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes

A bureaucrat accessing the person’ s information is not at question here.  Removal of all restrictions in sending law abiding citizen’s data to the federal government relevant to check the citizen’s domicile and/or eligibility for a license is.

Arizona law cannot dictate what the federal government does with law abiding citizen’s data once it is handed over to the feds.  The feds, of course, will promptly put the data into whatever database they want which accomplishes their longstanding goal to implement a national id system.

Again, national id is NOT a card. It is the unique identifiers such as your name, SSN, domicile and biometric data such as your digitial photo on file with the MVD, once turned over to the feds and put into their national id database.  Once the data is placed into the national id database, then your DL can be run against that national id database and is, VOILA, a national id.

Russell Pearce continues to protest stating that he’s against national ids and that this bill does not contain national id.

And, yet, he fails to address the matter of the data exchange of law abiding citizens’ license data with “any agency” of the federal government, including Janet Napolitano’s agency, who is dying to get her hands on this information, especially gun owners’ information.

The only time the exchange of citizens’ data has ever been addressed was in the opinion that Andrew Thomas’ office wrote, linked to above, which stated it’s not REAL ID.   So what?  REAL ID is not the only national id program.  PASS ID, BELIEVE ID, or just drivers’ license database dumps into the Homeland Security database all turn state drivers licenses into national ids…..

….but only if the state hands over the data.  Which SB1070 does, willingly, of all citizens.

Russell Pearce is quoted as saying, “If we don’t turn over all of our data to the federal government, then how will be know who is SUPPOSED to be here.”

Wait a second, Senator Pearce, I thought this bill was supposed to be about who is NOT supposed to be here.

Senator Pearce, if you’re telling the truth and are against national id, THEN FIX THE LAW and prohibit the exchange of law abiding citizens’ data with the federal government.

No patriot hands over the private data of law abiding citizens to the feds, such as you have done in SB1070.

Anyone who does betrays the hard work of conservative patriots who have been fighting national ids since before the Clinton administration and since.

Fix the law before July 1. Otherwise, welcome to the leftist globalist Clintonista agenda as implemented by the right.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan opposed national ids http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa237.html

Gun Owners of America oppose national ids because they state that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases…

“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.” http://seclists.org/politech/2005/Feb/0016.html

Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY.   We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in.

Fix the law, Senator Pearce.

Several weeks ago, I posted about how the right, in its vigor to try to stem the problems of illegal immigration, is actually advancing the leftists agenda of national id and north american integration.

This installment is to provide more evidence of the same.

In a March 8, 2010 Wall Street Journal article, “ID Card for Workers is at Center of Immigration Plan”, you can see that it is the explicit intent of the leftists (such as Schumer), globalists and RINOs (such as Lindsay Graham) to force anyone applying for a job to present a national id to obtain one.

What do you think e-Verify is?  It’s a web front end sitting on top of the US Department of Homeland Security’s national id database which integrates data from the US Department of Labor, the US Department of Health and Human Services, the State Department, pretty much every department, but most importantly and worst of all, from the states.

Why do the feds need the state data on the states’ own citizens so badly?  Because otherwise, the feds to not have all of the data they need to track each legal citizen uniquely.  Why? Because in the past it’s been ILLEGAL to do so.  Not to mention the fact that there is absolutely no authority in the constitution for the federal government to track law abiding citzens, nor to expend sacred tax dollars on doing so.

How does the federal government get data from the states?  There are several ways, but here’s a summary of a few relevant ones….

1) 42USC666 (a)(13), implemented under the federal Deadbeat Dad’s law.  This federal statute required states to collect SSNs from all drivers’ license applicants and remit them to the federal government.  However, this information alone was still not enough to create a water  tight data tracking system for citizens (nor to obtain enough information on individuals to tie to legal gun purchases from dealers, but that’s another story.)

2) REAL ID. The REAL ID program was a federal mandate on the states to collect and remit certain information on their citzens in order for the federal government to complete building out their national id database.  The cost of compliance on states was very high.  Additionally, conservatives opposed this strongly on religious and political grounds and many states, such as Arizona, “opted out”.

3) A state voluntarily hands over the data.

This one is a tricky one.  For example, the state of Arizona, has always traditionally resisted handing over data from its law abiding citizens.  However, recently under SB1070, the anti-immigration law, SB1070 removes ALL RESTRICTIONS from sending and exchanging license data for ANY LICENSE for ANY PERSON (legal or illegal), with ANY AGENCY of the federal government.

SB1070 does not restrict the sending and exchange of law abiding Arizona citizens’ data with the feds to a police stop.  It removes ALL RESTRICTIONS and ALL PROHIBITIONS from the exchange of law abiding Arizona citizens’ license data with the federal government, beginning July 1.

That means any agency that has license data on Arizonans can send all or none, it can send the entire database of license data anytime it wants, beginning July 1, 2010.

You can rest assured that the federal government, especially Janet Napolitano and the US Department of Homeland Security, will amply incentivize the MVD and DPS to do so, so she can get her hands on the data she needs to track your gun purchases, among other things.

So, whereas Arizona opted out of the federal mandate program called “REAL ID” wherein the federal government attempted to pull data from Arizona to complete its national id database data on Arizona citizens, under SB1070, Arizona turns around and hands Janet Napolitano and G_d only knows who else, including the IRS, all data it has on you as a law abiding Arizona citizen.

Hmm… betcha didn’t know that was in the immigration law, did ya?

Read the bill - indeed.

So, how does that turn Arizona licenses into national ids?  Despite the cartoon picture at the top of this post, a national id is not a card, barcode, RFID chip, nor a magnetic strip.

It is the DATA the government has on you, such as your unique identifers, name, domicile, any biometric identifiers such as the digitized MVD photo on your license, which is also in your MVD data file.

So, if Arizona hands the data over to the feds and the feds promptly stick the data in their national id database and all of that data links directly to your drivers license, guess what?!?!?!?

VOILA…. your Arizona drivers license turns into something Clinton always pined for and dreamed of foisting on the country, A NATIONAL ID CARD!

The same card can and will be used to deny birth certificates for your children, unless you agree to a national id card check.

The same card can and will be used to deny you the ability to work, per the WSJ article above, to deny you work.  In other words, no citizen may work before the US Department of Homeland Security clears them to work (or doesn’t if you happen to be a political opponent.)

If you do not have your unique identifiers and national id on your mind or in your hand at all times,  you will be denied the ability to buy, sell, or engage legally in any commercial transaction, such as banking, buying/selling a home, opening a business (SB1070 does not exempt the exchange of business license data with the feds either.)

Conservatives have ALWAYS opposed national ids, since day 1 when FDR wanted them, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was vehemently opposed, in the 1990s the conservatives stopped every Clinton and democrat attempt at creating them.

Now, conservatives are supporting them.    Worse, it’s conservatives advancing the leftist globalist agenda, which has always been to number and catalog citizens as a form of control and……..

.

I know we like to think of the GOP as the party of law and order.

However, we are also the party of Barry Goldwater and, especially in Arizona, we have also to maintain the western spirit of republicanism – individualism and opposition to government growth.

At the 1964 RNC national convention, Barry Goldwater delivered the speech “Extremism in the Defense of Liberty is No Vice“.

We must maintain the Rebel spirit, the Spirit of 1776, rebellion against government, such as our forefathers did who slept on the frozen ground at Valley Forge and then went off to fight the greatest military force of all time.

Yes, we are the party of law and order, but only supporting those laws that minimize government, lower taxes, lower spending and prevent crime against other people where there is an aggrieved party.

The wussie Republicans of today say that speeding 11 mph over the limit and getting a photo radar ticket is ok, because we are the party of law and order.  Phooey on them.  If there were an aggrieved party other than the State, then ok.  If the driving were reckless and endangering others, I’d agree.  But, for example, speeding alone is no reason to bring down the hammer of the State onto otherwise law abiding citizens.

Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.  Remember that or go join your Tory bretheren and let posterity remember that you were not my countryman.

Here’s a litty ditty posted at BACKWOODS HOME MAGAZINE.  “Become a FREEDOM OUTLAW”!  YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHAW.  Let Arizona return to its rabid individualistic roots upon which it was founded!

“Freedom Outlaw.” The term came up here a few days ago. It’ll arise again and again on this blog.

If you’ve been hanging out in my vicinity for a few years, you probably know what I mean by it. If not, you might be puzzled or even offended by the notion that people who believe in freedom are (or should be) criminals. Thought I’d stop this morning and define some terms.

So this is mostly for people who haven’t heard it all before.

A Freedom Outlaw is (loosely) somebody who cares so much about freedom that he or she will go after it regardless of any laws or regulations blocking the way. Will go after it personally. Not petition for it. Not write letters for it. Not vote for it. But GO for it.

Also, a Freedom Outlaw has panache. Think Robin Hood. Think V. Think (not to be self-promotional here, but …) of the swashbuckling fellow on the cover of this book.

Does a Freedom Outlaw really have to be a criminal? Well … yes and no. If the thought of being a criminal offends you, I can only say, “Get over it.” As Kent McManigal states so well, every, single one of us is already a criminal. We violate obscure laws from the time we open our eyes in the morning till the moment we fall exhausted into bed. Three Felonies a Day according to Harvey Silverglate. And the more innocent we are in our hearts when we commit those “crimes,” the riper we are for the plucking by corrupt prosecutors and regulators.

Heck, we probably violate laws, federal or state, even as we snooze. Maybe our PJs flout fireproofing regulations. Perhaps our snoring is regulated somewhere as noise pollution. Maybe our dreams are filled with acts of subversion.

But the simple fact is that we are already criminals, each and every one of us, even if we do our utmost to be “law-abiding citizens.”

There are simply too many laws to abide.

So we might as well embrace and enjoy what we are.

<more>

In case you missed it, US Senate candidate, JD Hayworth did receive an “A” Rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA) Political Victory Fund. Here is a copy of the letter signed by the Chairman Chris Cox.

Jon Kyl strikes out against conservatives once again, mitigating his opposition  against (read: spinning his support for)  Senate approval of Kagan for the Supreme Court.

This is not unprecedented.   Jon Kyl also voted for the “Assault Weapons Ban” in the 1990s hidden inside the Clinton Crime Bill and was a sponsor of one of the amnesty bills in the 2000s.

Gun Owners of America reports in a recent broadcast email to its membership (note Kyl’s past and current support of Kagan):

Why is Senator Kyl Caving in to the Obama Administration?

 

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

 

What is Senator Jon Kyl thinking?

On the Sunday talk show circuit, Senator Kyl said that, “The filibuster should be relegated to the extreme circumstances, and I don’t think Elena Kagan represents that.”

In other words, even though the Republicans have the 60 votes to defeat Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court using a filibuster, he (Jon Kyl) wants Republicans to keep their ultimate weapon holstered during the nomination process.

But without a filibuster against Kagan, there is no chance of defeating this radical nomination.

Never mind the fact that Elena Kagan could become the deciding vote that overturns the pro-gun aspects of the D.C. v. Heller decision and upholds ObamaCare, thus saddling us with socialized medicine for the rest of our lifetimes.

Kagan is a radical anti-gunner.  She helped draft a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban — and, as a law clerk, advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional.

But how can she be the deciding vote on the Court, you say?  Isn’t she just replacing a liberal justice?  Won’t the votes still be slanted 5-4 in our direction?

Well, President Obama is hoping for much more than that.  There has been a lot of speculation at the White House that Elena Kagan will exert influence on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who until now, has usually been the “swing vote” that often sides with the conservatives on the Court.

President Obama is hoping that Kagan’s reputed consensus building skills will be able to pull Kennedy back over to the liberal side of the fence.  For example, Time magazine reported on May 11 that:

Few think [Kagan] will be able to change the positions of the most devoted conservatives, Scalia, Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. But apparently Obama thinks she may sway Kennedy….  Kagan supporters point to the fact that she convinced some hard-line Republicans to vote for her when she was nominated to be Solicitor General, most notably Jon Kyl of Arizona, the behind-the-scenes GOP power on the Judiciary Committee….  But what’s most important, her backers say, is her ability to work the process; her skill as a consensus builder, they argue, could eventually make a difference [in swaying Kennedy].

 

Back in 1999/2000, there was another “conservative” Senator trying to spin his support for Clinton federal court appointees, Orrin Hatch, at the time the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  In 2000 he was literally booed off the stage both in the Utah County Republican convention and at the Utah State Republican convention both for his support of all but 2 Clinton federal court appointees as well as for anti-gun provisions he wrote into his Juvenile Crime Bill.

It looks like Jon Kyl is trying very hard to uphold that tradition of pawing himself off in Arizona as a conservative, but behaving like a globalist liberal RINO sellout when he goes home to Washington.

Look at what just happened to another one of Kyl’s longtime “conservative” colleagues (click here).

It’s looks like it’s time to take a que from the Utah teapartyers and help another RINO retire from politics.  Two years to go. He starts campaigning for reelection next year.

A controversy seems to have come up among conservatives and pro-liberty activists in Arizona regarding Senator Pearce’s anti-illegal immigration bill, SB1070.

I received this nastygram on my windshield at last Thursday’s big teaparty in Tempe.

So, Naturally, I looked into it. 

I found that this amendment had been added to Russell Pearce’s anti-illegal immigration bill, SB1070.

“D.  Nothing in this act shall implement or shall be construed or interpreted to implement or establish the REAL ID act of 2005 (P.L. 109-13, division B; 119 Stat. 302) including the use of a radio frequency identification chip.”

However, I also found that this group, the Arizona Campaign for Liberty, is unconcerned about any REAL ID ramifications and specifically pointed out another  section of the bill: E. E1 and E2, in SB1070, which states:

E. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the following official purposes:

1. Determining eligibility for any public benefit, service or license provided by any federal, state, local or other political subdivision of this state.

2. Verifying any claim of residence or domicile if determination of residence or domicile is required under the laws of this state or a judicial order issued pursuant to a civil or criminal proceeding in this state.

 Campaign for Liberty asserts that this language

…allows any state agency or political subdivision to hand over to the US Department of Homeland Security any data on any person for any license.

The Campaign for Liberty states it is not against the anti-illegal immigration measures in the bill, just this part of the bill.   The Campaign for Liberty also states that:

…this means that DPS can hand over your CCW data, the Motor Vehicle Division can hand over your drivers license data and Game and Fish can hand over your hunting license data to the US Department of Homeland Security or any federal department or agency.

Does this part of the bill create a national id?  Analysis:

It appears that the Campaign for Liberty is correct, based on the reading of the language of the bill.  There is nothing that prohibits any state agency from “exchanging” any data from any person (legal or illegal) with the US Department of Homeland Security (or any other federal department or agency) when investigating an applicant for any license (or benefit). 

It’s pretty clear that “any state agency” includes the agencies (or political subdivisions mentioned above).  It’s pretty clear that any person means any person.  It’s also pretty clear that any license includes drivers or hunting licenses.    “Shall not be prohibited” is a stronger version of “is allowed to”.      Does “any license” also include CCW?  I don’t know.

So does this in itself create a national id?  No.  But after the federal government obtains the information from Arizona state agencies, nothing stops the feds  from integrating it with all the other data they have on you and from the federal government creating a national id database out of it.

It should be noted that the “Revolution” flyer does not appear to be from the Campaign for Liberty, but from this other group.

 Personally, I am vehemently opposed to national id efforts of any kind (for any reason) on spiritual grounds.  I also oppose it on historical grounds.  National ids were part of the Clintonista agenda of the early 90s.  Conservatives opposed it at the time on the grounds of internal passports had only ever been used by totalitarian and communist governments.

Ronald Reagan was also against national ids.  http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa237.html

I’m really concerned about SB1070.  It is simply not worth risking the liberty and privacy of law abiding Arizonans and handing over their data to the feds.  Why can’t Arizona do what Oklahoma is doing?   Apparently, the very same anti-illegal immigrations efforts are underway in Oklahoma, but the Oklahoma state legislature has figured out a way of doing the same thing without turning over the private data of law abiding Oklahomans to Obama and the US Department of Homeland Security:

 http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/mark-lerner-on-the-power-hour-jan-25-from-8-9am-cst/

The arguments that the Campaign for Liberty make are compelling.  If I were a conservative legislator posed with voting on this bill, I’d make sure that I read it first and asked some tough questions about why the privacy of law abiding Arizonans is being sacrificed to Obama (incl. CCW permit info?!?) when Oklahoma has figured out how to do the same thing without sacrificing law abiding Oklahomans’ data.

Here’s another little interesting tidbit……  It appears that our friends to the north are concerned about the same thing in Nevada.  More interesting, it appears like the vote on entering Nevada into the REAL ID program is occurring on the same day(!) that  the Arizona State Legislature is voting on roughly the equivalent in Arizona.

http://gonv.org/blog/2010/04/18/stop-real-id/

http://www.nevadafamilies.org/RealID.htm

Also Gun Owners of America states that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases!!!

“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.” http://seclists.org/politech/2005/Feb/0016.html

Gun Owners of America clearly is against providing law abiding citizens data to the federal government.

Based on GOA’s assessment above and the fact that the Arizona MVD can voluntarily hand over your drivers license data to the feds (DPS and CCW data too?), could SB1070 inadvertently lead to gun registration? 

The risk here is too great.  In our rush to pass strict anti-illegal immigration measures, have we not paid attention to the greater concern?  Protecting our state sovereignity and our individual independence from the federal government?

Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY!   We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in!

http://biggovernment.com/capitolconfidential/2010/03/10/national-id-card-being-considered-by-senators/

Does the legislature know what it’s doing?  I’m not sure it does.

Is the fringe “revolution” group who produced the flyer right?  If you take out the personal invectives and just focus on the facts, it looks like they are.

What is more important to the NRA — the Second Amendment or playing politics with Washington insiders like John McCain? At present, it unfortunately seems like the latter is true.

With an epic battle brewing between John McCain and JD Hayworth, gun owners from around the state have started to engage in the race. Within the first week or two, the Gun Owners of America wholeheartedly endorsed JD Hayworth, yet to date, the NRA hasn’t followed suit. To anyone who cares about gun issues, this seems very mysterious. Remember that the NRA has called John McCain “one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the second amendment”, so why are they having trouble taking a position on this race? What other factors are they taking into consideration? There seems to be a clear difference between the flip-flops and leftward lurches of John McCain on this critical issue, and the consistent dedication to our Second Amendment shown by then Congressman JD Hayworth.

Here are some facts for the NRA and its members to consider:

John McCain authored and championed his McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform that took away the constitutional right of Freedom of Speech from groups like the NRA and GOA. Thankfully, the Supreme Court ruled that his so-called reform was an unconstitutional infringement on our First Amendment rights and tossed it into the rubbish bin.

After 9/11, when national security experts, gun advocacy groups, and pilots all united in support of allowing commercial pilots to arm themselves for self-defense, John McCain prepared an amendment that would have replaced the term “firearms” with “stun guns.” In a case of forced entry into the cockpit, as was done by terrorists on 9/11, how could John McCain think that a stun gun would be an effective deterant, and why did McCain align with the “guns are bad” crowd on such an important public safety and national security issue?

John McCain teamed up with the anti-gun lobbying group Americans for Gun Safety to exploit the post 9/11 terrorist threat to try and close down gun shows. This group, with McCain as its figurehead, repeatedly tried to scare Americans into believing that terrorists were going to gun shows and buying large numbers of weapons. I don’t know what gun shows they were talking about, but the ones that I attend would be the LAST place a terrorist would want to show up. This group, funded by an anti-gun New York billionaire went so far as to buy 30 second advertisements at movie theaters across the country to warn people about the dangers of firearms. In July 2001, the NRA’s magazine America’s First Freedom commented that “according to McCain and AGS, the only safe gun is one that is completely inaccessible to the owner in an emergency.” Those are the NRA’s own words on John McCain!

John McCain then went on to co-sponsor a bill with Joe Lieberman on a bill to close the so-called “gun show loophole”. This bill would have given unprecedented federal control over how gun shows are run and promoted. All guns shows would have to be approved and licensed by the federal government. All attendees of a gun show would have to give the federal government personal information and failure to do so would be grounds for imprisonment. These are but a few of the provisions included within the McCain-Lieberman bill. Does that sound like a Constitution-friendly bill? I ask because John McCain wrote it!

Over the past decade the NRA has constantly called into question John McCain’s support of the Second Amendment. They are constantly calling its members to arms, pun intended, warning us of the federal government’s encroachment on our civil and constitutional liberties. They have repeatedly pointed out McCain’s hypocrisy in claiming to be an advocate for firearms and a supporter of the Second Amendment while at the same time working to restrict our freedoms and rights as Americans.

Sure, in 2008, largely because of their affection of Sarah Palin and their justifiable fear of Barack Obama, the NRA managed to convince themselves to endorse the McCain/Palin ticket. But that wasn’t about John McCain’s record on the issue. All the NRA’s leadership team has to do is read their own magazine over the past 10 years to see numerous examples of why they CANNOT support John McCain this year. For the first time in a very long while, there is a strong conservative alternative who supports and fights for our Second Amendment rights, JD Hayworth.

Hayworth holds a lifetime “A” rating from both the Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association (compare that to the “C” and “D” grades that McCain has earned). Hayworth has defended gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits stemming from product misuse. He opposes any restrictions on a citizen’s constitutional right to bear arms. He opposed McCain-Feingold and McCain-Lieberman. The citizens of Arizona can finally have a Senator who will stand up for their Second Amendment rights and freedoms, and the U.S. Senate and gun owners all over America will be better off for it.

So now we wait for the NRA to decide if they are going to stand and fight, as they urge us to do every single month in their magazine. Or will they duck and cover and provide more ammunition to groups like GOA who accuse them of being too political and too willing to compromise? After all, if you will stay on the sidelines when a Senator is trying to take away your member’s rights and silence your ability to advocate on their behalf, then what sort of advocacy group are you?

HAYWORTH V. MCCAIN
Gun Owners of America Endorse Conservative Senate Candidate J.D. Hayworth

PHOENIX, ARIZONA.  FEBRUARY 23, 2010. Second Amendment patriots, Gun Owners of America, have announced their endorsement of Conservative candidate J.D. Hayworth in his run against 24-year incumbent Senator John McCain.

The statement by Gun Owners of America can be found here.

The Second Amendment is yet another area where Hayworth has a more conservative record than the long-time incumbent.
McCain is vulnerable to the more conservative Hayworth on taxes, pro-life and pro-family issues as well as illegal immigration.  Hayworth also has a better lifetime rating from Citizens Against Government Waste.

McCain voted for the $850 billion bailout of the big banks which included $150 billion in pork, proposed a $300 billion bailout for mortgage lenders and, according to the Heritage Foundation, sponsored an amnesty bill that would have cost taxpayers $2.6 trillion over the long-term.

For more information about the campaign or to make a donation please go to www.JDforSenate.com.

Sonoran Alliance was featured on this Sunday’s edition of 12 News’ Sunday Square-Off. That’s right, yours truly made my debut appearance on the show in which I had the opportunity to represent conservative Arizona bloggers and activists.

Brahm Resnik hosts this weekly show which is always fast-paced and quick thinking. My two co-guests were Katie Hobbs from the liberal blog, Democratic Diva as well as a Democratic candidate in LD-15, and Casey Newton from the Arizona Republic. The show will actually not show tomorrow morning because it is being pre-empted by another show but you can view it online right here on Sonoran Alliance.

PHOENIX – In its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that individual gun ownership is a basic right guaranteed to Americans by the U.S. Constitution. But the decision applied immediately only to unconstitutional restrictions on gun ownership adopted under federal authority, not the individual states. A new case before the Supreme Court presents an opportunity to protect gun rights from state or local interference through the 14th Amendment, just like other freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights.

Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s constitutional policy director, explains why in a new policy brief, “Reconsidering McDonald v. Chicago: How the 14th Amendment Obligates States to Protect the Fundamental Right to Bear Arms.”

The 14th Amendment originally was adopted after the Civil War to guarantee that former slaves could exercise all of their rights as American citizens. Since then, the Supreme Court has used the 14th Amendment to stop states from usurping basic constitutional liberties. But the Court has been reluctant to expressly state that all rights protected by the U.S. Constitution must be guaranteed by federal and state and local governments.

The Supreme Court is now considering McDonald v. Chicago because two appellate courts have refused to apply gun rights to the states, citing three century-old opinions from the higher court. But Mr. Dranias concludes those three cases do not authorize states to violate rights protected by the Second Amendment. He adds the principle of federalism, the idea that states have the sovereign right to act in areas not granted to the federal government, cannot be used to justify the stripping of gun rights.

“Federalism is ultimately aimed at securing individual liberty,” Mr. Dranias writes. “The goal of preserving federalism should not trump the fundamental rights federalism was meant to protect.”

Goldwater’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation also filed an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago and the Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case on March 2, 2010.

“Reconsidering McDonald v. Chicago” is available online or by calling (602) 462-5000.

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

About the author: Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact:  Kassee Bulen

Phone Number:  602-710-7397

E-Mail:  kassee@parker2010.com

CELEBRATE THE SECOND AMENDMENT WITH VERNON PARKER

Congressional Candidate to Host Concealed Carry Course Fundraiser

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

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

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

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

For more information contact Kassee Bulen.

-30-

Paid for by Vernon Parker For Congress