Mark Levin, Kelli Ward, Article V, and the Mt. Vernon Conference

LevinWardOn Mark Levin’s January 13 radio show, Levin spoke briefly to Dr. Kelli Ward, Arizona State Senator from LD5. Along with Arizona State Rep. Kelly Townsend (LD16), Ward was part of the Dec 7, 2013 Mt. Vernon Conference where the stage was set for a Convention of States (COS) to propose amendments to the US Constitution.

Convention of States and the Compact for America (CFA) project seek to use Article V of the US Constitution, as intended by the Framers, to rein in our runaway federal government. While they are separately run projects, COS and CFA are complementary and implicitly allied, as discussed here.

It is still a surprise to most Americans to learn that our own state legislatures can amend the Constitution without the permission or approval of Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. Details may be found in the links at the bottom of this article.

COS, CFA, and other Article V initiatives got a big boost with the August 13 publication of Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty AmendmentsIt is one of the few books I read cover-to-cover last year, and I recommend it highly.

Godspeed to Arizona’s two “Kellies”, Ward and Townsend, and all other state legislators across our country who are awakening to the power of Article V to restore our republic.

See/hear Levin and Ward, and read the rest of the article at this link.

Arnold Schwarzenegger for President?

by Bob Quasius – The web site Mediaite is reporting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is considering a run for president, and may challenge the constitutional requirement that presidents be natural born citizens. Quoting an unnamed source:

“Schwarzenegger has been talking openly about working on getting the constitutional rules changed so he can run for president in 2016. He is ready to file legal paperwork to challenge the rules.”

Arnold Schwarzenegger U.S. Citizen President

Arnold Schwarzenegger 1983 Publicity Photo Following His Naturalization

Is Arnold Schwarzenegger Even Eligible?

In a word, no!

When our constitution was adopted, the framers included a requirement that our president be a “natural born citizen.” No definition was provided, strong evidence the term “natural born” was widely understood at the time and the framers believed an explicit definition wasn’t needed. U.S. Constitution Article II Section 1 states:

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

The term “natural born citizen” derives from “natural born subject” from English common law. When we won our independence from Britain, all 13 states embraced English common law, except where it conflicted with their new state constitutions.

Obviously any aspect of the monarchy was not included in the new American common law, but other prevailing law, such as tort law and birthright citizenship remained. Not a single state adopted any other definition of  ”natural born.” Some states continued to use the term “subject” and “citizen” interchangeably for a years.

Under the articles of confederation, the new United States of America had a weak central government, and strong state government. Immigration, citizenship, etc. were state matters.

Blackstones Commentaries

Blackstones Commentaries

So just what did English Common law say about natural born citizenship when the constitution was adopted? The most authoritative text “An Analysis of the Laws of England” by William Blackstone, first published in 1765, and reprinted in 1770, 1773, 1774, 1775, 1778 and 1783. An updated version of Blackstone’s authoritative text was published by Henry John Stephen in 1841, and reprinted often until after World War II.

Sir William Blackstone common law birthright citizenship

Sir William Blackstone

Blackstone defined “natural born subjects” as those born within the dominions of England. In a monarchy, citizens are called “subjects” while in a Republic, “subjects” are called “citizens.” Americans stopped calling themselves “subjects” and began calling themselves “citizens”, consistent with the change in form of government from monarchy to republic, though for some years both terms were used. From William Blackstone (1765), Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62

The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it. Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject.  

Additionally, a 2011 report prepared by the Congressional Research Office concludes:

The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term “natural born” citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship “by birth” or “at birth,” either by being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship “at birth.” Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an “alien” required to go through the legal process of “naturalization” to become a U.S. citizen.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was not born a U.S. Citizen, and so under our present constitution he clearly is not eligible to become president.

Can the Courts or Congress Authorize Arnold Schwarzenegger to Run?

Courts don’t have the authority to rewrite the U.S. constitution, though sometimes they may stretch it (i.e. Roe v. Wade), so any legal challenge in the courts has slim chance of success.

There have been two legislative attempts to expand eligibility to run for president. In 2004, Sen. Don Nickles introduced the Natural Born Citizen Act  to define the term, natural-born citizen, to include people who derived citizenship at birth from a U.S. citizen parent and to children under 18 who were adopted by U.S. citizens.

Derivative citizens are born outside the U.S. to citizen parent(s). They are U.S. citizens at birth and thus natural born citizens, though they are not birthright citizens. Derivative citizenship existed in the U.S. prior to independence, and the Naturalization Act of 1790 continued the practice:

” And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

However, it’s quite clear that children born as foreign citizens who later acquire U.S. citizenship by adoption were not born as U.S. citizens, and are not natural born citizens. Has the Natural Born Citizen Act become law this section of the law likely would have been struck down by the courts.

Should Arnold Schwartzenegger Be Allowed to Run?

Arnold Schwarzenegger California Governor

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger

Arnold Schwarzenegger should be allowed to run, but only if our constitution is amended. No end runs around our constitution. We have enough of that already with Obama!

Our constitution’s framers were concerned that a European noble could be granted U.S. citizenship and then made president, effectively returning America to rule by monarchy. This concern was well founded at the time, as most nations were governed by monarchies, and democracy was very uncommon, though not a new concept since the ancient Greeks had invented democracy. Requiring that a president be a natural born citizen precluded that possibility, since a president would have been born in America, or overseas to two U.S. Citizen parents who had resided in the U.S.

However, the days of monarchy have long been gone. Most of the few remaining monarchies are constitutional monarchies. The possibility of an American monarch are nil in the present era, and so eliminating the natural born citizen requirement and permitting long-term naturalized citizens to serve as president is not without merit.

Our constitution provides a mechanism for amending itself. U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch in 2003 proposed the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment:

`Article–

`SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

`SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.’.

Should Arnold Schwarzenegger Run for President?

I”m not a huge fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger, though I admire his immigrant success story. He is unquestionably patriotic and loyal to America, and does have considerable support. In my opinion he has too much personal baggage, and didn’t leave California’s government with a solid financial foundation, though it’s fair to say Arnold didn’t inherit a good situation, and California’s Democrats have long held a stranglehold on the legislature!

Still, I don’t think as a nation we should limit ourselves to natural born citizens for president. Arnold Schwarzenegger became a U.S. citizen in 1983, 30 years ago. Someone who has been a naturalized citizen for 20 years or more should have a shot at the presidency.

However, if Arnold Schwarzenegger is seriously planning a legal challenge rather than constitutional amendment, then we cannot help but wonder if he respects our constitution! There’s a proscribed method for changing our constitution, and a court challenge isn’t one of them! Our current president doesn’t respect our constitution, and we certainly want our next president to respect our constitution!

####

Bob Quasius is the founder and president of Cafe Con Leche Republicans

Representative Brenda Barton issues statement on recent Facebook post

As many are aware, some recent comments of mine on Facebook have touched a sensitive nerve with many people.  Additionally, many have simply taken my posting out of its contextual environment.  Had I chosen my words differently, or had the President offered to use the power of his office to lessen or mute the public impacts of this impasse in Washington, we might not be having this discussion.

Let me clarify that I never used the word or said that President Obama was “Hitler.”   That was a creative assumption of the Capitol Times reporter, who also reported that I referred to our government as a “Constitutional Democracy.”  I would never use that description because, we are in fact – through law and history – a Constitutional Republic.

What I did suggest, rather directly, was that the National Park Service enforcement personnel (referring to them as “thugs” for their reported behavior) were simply following orders of “their leader” – and I used the German phrase for emphasis, Der Fuhrer.  I am referencing the Presidents behavior as indicated by his actions. The Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary defines “Fuhrer” as “(2) a leader exercising tyrannical authority.”

Consider that the Affordable Care Act  (ACA) originated in the U.S. Senate.  The U.S. Constitution directly states that laws establishing new revenues must originate in the House of Representatives, so the House closest to the people can decide if they want to pay for the new spending.  The way the ACA was established was in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

President Obama has unilaterally changed the ACA several times, through waivers and exemptions, without returning it to Congress.  A president changing established law unilaterally?  Is that Constitutional or “exercising tyrannical authority”?

Consider the reports of the U.S. Park Service Supervisor in Washington, who spoke to the media and said that the Park Service was told to “make things as uncomfortable as possible.”  I ask you, who has the authority to give such a directive?

Please remember, that someone in the Administration directed the IRS to seek out and harass conservative groups and groups identifying themselves with the Tea Party.  Is that not “tyrannical authority” and did it not seem that IRS office personnel obeyed enthusiastically? What President of the people orders the NSA to spy on his citizens and sends the IRS against his enemies?  Is this not behavior in accord with tyrannical authority?

Arresting veterans for visiting their war memorials? Prohibiting Catholic priests from volunteering to perform the Mass for our Catholic men and women in uniform?  Closing businesses on federally leased land?  When did volunteering to minister to our armed forces become a bad thing in America?  How would you classify that; Constitutional authority or Tyrannical authority?

And tell me, how many times in eight years did the Progressive Left and the media depict President Bush with a funny little black mustache, or worse? Yet there was no indignant outrage shown by those who are today outraged at my choice of words. Actions speak louder than words; President Obama’s actions are what I have to base my observation of “tyrannical authority” on.

Nancy Pelosi has called conservatives “terrorists” and “legislative arsonists.” If I had simply said “the leader” in my Facebook post, would we be having this community discussion today?  My purpose was to bring to the public’s attention the actions and behaviors of our president and his administration since this government shut-down began.
For the record, I was suggesting that President Obama was behaving as a tyrant.  Didn’t the Founders of our country call their king a tyrant and worse?

The Declaration of Independence asserts that a government derives its powers and authority from the consent of the governed, and that governments are instituted among peoples to protect the people’s inherent rights endowed by their Creator. President Obama’s actions contradict these fundamental and foundational cornerstones of our Constitutional Republic.

Dave Morse: An Open Letter on Public Lands and the Enabling Act of 1912

Arizona celebrated 100 years of statehood last year. Admittance into the Republic of the united States of America is executed by Congress passing and the (Arizona) Territory agreeing to an “Enabling Act”—describing how the Territory will be reborn as a full-fledged State. With few exception, all states since the original thirteen have achieved statehood through enabling acts.

One significant matter remains to be completed in the century following Arizona being admitted as the forty-eight state. The Federal Government still holds title to forty-three (43) percent of the State’s land area.

This matter is not unique to Arizona. If an imaginary line were drawn straight southward along the western borders of North and South Dakota south to Texas (with an eastward jog for Colorado) an interesting and perplexing contrast is seen between Eastern and Western States. In all states east of this line, each state has no more than five (5) percent of its land area controlled by the Federal Government. Ninety-five (95) percent of the lands are under state control. In all states west of this line an average fifty (50) percent of the State’s lands are under Federal control, and in Nevada eighty-six (86) percent in under federal control. Many have asked “Why this stark contrast?” No one has truly been able to provide an answer to this question.

“So what?” the reader might ask.

Two answers.

Answer 1) From a legal and historical perspective, all States are supposed to be admitted to the Union “on equal footing”. As part of the enabling process the Federal government takes title to all lands in the territory, and then is supposed to “dispose” of title to the newly formed state. Thus giving birth to a new state having same the rights, powers and privileges of existing states. The Federal government is not supposed to hold back large portions of the land within the State’s borders which are the State’s birthright.

Answer 2) The timber, minerals, oil, coal, waters and simply the land itself rightfully belong to the individual State to be managed to best advantage to the State. North Dakota, who has less than four (4) percent Federal intrusion, is experiencing an economic boom unimaginable to most other states. Why? North Dakota has large natural resources available to be used because they are on State land. Utah, Colorado and Wyoming have more proven oil reserves than the entire rest of the world. Yet this wealth cannot be touched because it lies beneath “Federal” lands. It is estimated that on and below Federally controlled lands in the Western States there is over $150 trillion (yes TRILLION) dollars in recoverable natural resources.

Tired of being unemployed or finding only low-paying employment? In North Dakota so much money is coming in from oil, gas and coal royalties, the State Legislature is considering doing away with income taxes. And workers up there are raking in the dough. Tired of high gasoline costs? How much would a gallon cost if we bought oil from our own friendly Rocky Mountain States instead of a hostile Middle East? Who needs involvement in foreign Civil Wars when we have a steady flow of oil from our own wells?

The Federal government, in this writers opinion, has held those lands for three reasons:

1) They want to keep title and control over the lands;

2) They do not want to let the various States take control of the lands and resources thereto; and;

3) No one has forced the Federal Government to dispose of lands to the States since Statehood. There is precedent. In 1832 seven States (Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana and Florida) after years of unrelenting battle, forced the Federal Government to “dispose” of title back to lands of the States—fulfilling promises made at Statehood. One State, Florida, had approximately ninety (90) percent of the State’s land area under Federal Control. After the 1832 “disposal”, Florida has less than four (4) percent land area under Federal Control.

What is to be done? Ask questions. Start a ‘buzz’ about the issue of State’s Lands, State Sovereignty and making the Federal Government keep its promise and give the proud and Sovereign State of Arizona ALL her lands. Ask elected officials and candidates for elected office to make State Land an issue after elected. Keep the talk going.

We have waited a hundred years. Obviously patience alone will not get the job done.

David Morse is resident of Pima, Arizona.

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

To all Arizona County and LD Republican Committee Chairmen -
Below is the front page article of the July 15 Arizona Capitol Times. I want to express my appreciation to those courageous and principled County and LD Republican Committees who have already conducted votes of “censure” and/or “no confidence.”
Jan Brewer, the legislators and their crony capitalist friends that support ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have betrayed Americans, Arizona Republicans and the Republican Party Platform.  Their lack of ethics, integrity and egregious acts are motivated by only two things – greed and the lust for power – at the expense of hard working tax paying Americans.
The law was expected to cost $898 billion over the first decade when the bill was first passed, but this year the Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to $1.85 trillion.  Money that will have to be borrowed from the Chinese or printed in the backroom of the Federal Reserve.  Latest polls indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in opposition.
During the past six months, we did everything we could to make a solid argument against ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, we tried to reason with these people and even tried to make them see the light.  Unfortunately, our lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears and without success.
During one of Ronald Reagan’s difficult political battles he said,
               ”When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”
I’m asking all the County and LD Republican Committees to make these people feel the heat by passing public censures for their actions.  They are elitists who think what they have done should be forgiven. They are mistaken.  We are not going to be able to defeat all of them, but we can defeat a majority of them in the 2014 Primary Election.
You can go to “MCRC Briefs” and get examples of public censures that have already been passed.  http://briefs.maricopagop.org/  Just type “censure” in the search field on the left.
Warmest regards,
 A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, Maricopa County Republican Committee
P.S.  Please encourage all of your PCs to keep up their daily efforts in getting petition signatures for www.urapc.org  Getting ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion on the November 2014 ballot will be historic for Arizona’s grassroots conservatives.

Mark Levin, Constitution Article V, and the “Liberty Amendments”

Mark LevinOn his July 10 radio show, Mark Levin previewed contents of his new book called The Liberty Amendments.  Levin points to Article V of the Constitution, which prescribes the methods by which the Constitution may be amended to reverse the federal power grab and runaway spending.

In the past, most conservatives have pushed off any notion of a Constitutional Convention or “Con-Con” because its agenda might be uncontrollable.  For example the 2nd amendment could even be repealed.  For years, Levin himself consistently said “no way” to a Con-Con.

But after his careful study of Article V and especially the record of the Founding Fathers’ debate on it (George Mason, James Madison et al), he argues we’ve all been missing something critical.

Namely –

Article V was specifically designed to cover the situation we face today — an over-reaching federal government.  The Founders knew that such a government, once entrenched, would never vote for amendments that would reduce its own hold on power.  So they deliberately included a separate amendment process in Article V that keeps Congress, the president, and the Supreme Court out of the loop.

The time for that Article V process has clearly come, says Levin.  It’s been there all along, clearly explained in the historical record, yet we’ve somehow disregarded it.

How would it work?  Consider the following simple, hypothetical amendment to the Constitution:

The debt of the United States shall not be increased except by three-fourths majority vote of both the House and Senate, nor may federal expenditures exceed 20 percent of gross domestic product except by three-fourths consent of the several state legislatures.

The merits of this particular amendment and wording aside, if 38 state legislatures were to ratify this amendment, it would be fully effective immediately as a formal amendment to the Constitution.  No permission from Congress, the president, or the Supreme Court need be sought, none is required, and there is no appeal.  The state legislatures are the ultimate authority — by designThis may come as a shock those who’ve always presumed Washington rules us all.

—————————————–

Read the rest of the article and hear an audio excerpt from Mark Levin’s July 10 show – Click Here.

The Alliance of Principled Conservatives Stands for Founding Principles


In 1776 the British monarchy hired the Hessian mercenaries to terrorize the colonists in the New World. Ideas like “freedom” and “representation” were considered extreme and radical.

Today in Arizona we face a Governor willing to bypass the checks and balances put in place by our Founding Fathers. A Governor who purposely uses special privileges as a weapon against elected legislators. A Governor who is willing to subvert the spirit of the constitution, call a special session and suspend the rules just to force the largest socialistic takeover in U.S. history – the Obamacare/Medicaid Expansion – upon the people she was elected to serve.

She trampled on our rights. She took away our right to fair representation.  The end result of her actions will eventually lead to the full implementation of Obamacare which will force Arizonans to buy taxed tea ..oops.. I mean Federal health insurance.

Our Government is trampling on our freedoms at the National and State level.

The United Republican Alliance of Principled Conservatives is also labeled “extreme” and “fringe.” URAPC has risen up with pens and clipboards in hand to stop Obamacare using volunteer grassroots Arizonans. So the Governor’s Team forms an opposing committee that throws around outrageous accusations that if URAPC is   “successful, there are a lot of people who are going to get harmed” and then threatening “we’re going to be as aggressive as possible to get out to the public.” 

  • They cannot win on the issues.
  • They cannot get a bill passed without suspending the rules, and threatening to remove the President and Speaker.
  • Now they are “aggressively” misleading a.k.a. lying to people to stop us from gathering signatures.

In spite of a well funded $150,000 campaign to stop the gathering of signatures the Alliance of volunteer Republican Principled Conservatives grows. 

Swelling the ranks are activists who have been discouraged by the lack of conviction, the lack of pride in the basic Republican tenets of limited government and individual responsibility, and the courage to stand and say “that is wrong get out of the tent.”

URAPC is committed to maintaining the deep individualist spirit of Arizona and restoring freedom from an obtrusive government by leading the way to Veto Governor Brewer’s Medicaid Expansion.

Join us today and fill out a petition today!

www.urapc.org

Statement from CAP President Cathi Herrod on the SCOTUS Decisions regarding DOMA and Prop 8

Statement from Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod on the U.S. Supreme Court Decisions regarding DOMA and Prop 8

“The key message for Arizonans from the U.S. Supreme Court today is this: Your right to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman is preserved. It’s important to note that the Court did not find a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Neither did the Court declare same-sex marriage a civil right on the order of ethnicity or nationality.” 

Though Center for Arizona Policy disagrees with aspects of the Court’s decision, we are grateful that the Court did not undermine the will of Arizona voters who strongly supported our state’s 2008 marriage amendment. In DOMA, CAP believes that the court erred in claiming that a state that has redefined marriage can force that definition on the federal government for purposes of federal marriage laws. 

In Prop 8, the court has ensured that the state-by-state debate about marriage is allowed to continue. Truly the debate over marriage has just begun.           

Marriage is more than just a personal promise, it serves a public purpose. It is society’s best guarantee of a limited government that stays out of family life. Social science data has proved this time and time again. 

Center for Arizona Policy is committed to continuing to stand for marriage and to defeat any efforts to redefine this essential union.”

Center for Arizona Policy promotes and defends the foundational values of life, marriage and family and religious liberty. CAP led the 2008 effort to constitutionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman in Arizona. 

State Representative Steve Montenegro on the Supreme Court’s decision re: Voting Rights Act

Montenegro-Logo---SOS2PHOENIX – “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory, not just for Arizona, but for our nation.  It is proper recognition that we, as a country and as a people, have made tremendous progress over the last fifty years.  It also works towards ending the discriminatory treatment of states like Arizona that have been forced to beg the permission of a more often than not hyper-partisan Justice Department to make even the simplest of revisions or improvements to the elections process.

Elections should be blind to matters of race, color, ethnicity, and sex.  Today’s decision is a small but important step towards that day when racial gerrymandering ends, and all Americans are treated as independent thinkers, each entitled to their own unique opinion and viewpoint of the world, without being forced together with others simply because they share a skin color or ethnicity.”

# # #

State Representative Steve Montenegro’s statement on today’s Supreme Court decision re: Arizona’s Prop 200 and Voter Registration

Montenegro-Logo---SOS2

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - June 17th, 2013

PHOENIX – “It is common sense that since you must be a citizen to vote, you should be required to show proof of citizenship before you register.  Prop 200 was a common-sense solution to this problem and I commend Attorney General Tom Horne for defending the law.

I am troubled by Justice Scalia’s assertion that Arizona still has ways of getting the job done by asking permission from the Elections Assistance Commission.  He pointed out that in recent years Louisiana requested and was granted such permission.  Yet today, that commission has no members, making it impossible for Arizona to seek such relief.
 Should the commission ever regain voting members, Arizona’s Secretary of State should move to immediately secure such permission.

In the meantime I will continue to advocate for protecting the integrity of our election system, from voter registration to ballot handling to vote tabulating.  Arizona’s voters, like voters everywhere, deserve fair, honest, and transparent elections.”

# # #

RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SO-CALLED COMMON CORE STANDARDS

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards are sets of (currently Mathematics and English) imposed by the Obama administration as a top-down one size fits all curriculum;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the United States Constitution, to wit, education is not listed in the enumerated powers of Congress found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the General Education Act provisions, to wit, “No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system, or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials by any educational institution or school system, or to require the assignment or transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance;

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the General Education Act provisions, to wit, “ . . . no funds provided to the Department of Education or to an applicable program, may be used to pilot test, field test, implement, administer or distribute in any way any federally sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other subject that is not specifically and explicitly provided for in authorizing legislation enacted into law;”

Whereas, the so-called Common Core standards violate the provisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, to wit,  “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.

Whereas, the only two standards experts on the Common Core Standards Commission, Dr. Jim Milgram (Mathematics) and Dr. Sandra Stotsky (English), refused to endorse any Common Core standard due to built-in low expectations, lowering of existing school standards and elimination of classic literature in favor of informational texts;

Whereas,  Dr. Jim Milgram stated that, “Realistically, the most likely outcome of the Core Mathematics geometry standards is the complete suppression of the key topics in Euclidean geometry including proofs and deductive reasoning  . . ;”

Whereas, Dr. Sandra Stotsky testified, “The standards which I have analyzed in detail many times over, do not signify readiness or authentic college level work, at best they point to readiness for a high school diploma . . . Professor Milgram says the same thing about the mathematics standards. We’re talking about the Common Core’s standards. Neither of them makes us competitive with other countries that have high expectations for their high school students . . ;

Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “The Standards, which are intended to prepare students for nonselective community colleges rather than four-year universities are inferior to those in some states and no better than those of many others . . . their de-emphasis of the study of literature in favor of ‘informational texts’ would abandon the goal of truly educating students, focusing instead on training them for static jobs.”

Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “Partnering with the Department of Labor, the Department [of Education] seeks to build a data system that allows tracking of individual students from preschool through the workforce.”  Why the need for population tracking and control?  Already, opponents to data collection, tracking and storage, to include the New York Civil Liberties Union have joined forces to fight this Common Core standard.

And Whereas, The Pioneer Institute wrote, in Controlling Education from the Top, Why Common Core is Bad for America, “The Common Core State Standards . . . and the initiative for their nationwide adoption raise profound questions of federalism, education, content, governance, fiscal responsibility, and student and family privacy.”

Therefore, Be It Resolved, That We, the Precinct Committeemen and Precinct Committeewomen of Legislative District 11, Pima County GOP, unanimously affirm and declare our opposition to the so-called Common Core Standards. 

Resolved, that the State Superintendent of Education and all State Legislators reject and repeal Arizona’s commitment to submit to an unconstitutional and illegal overreach by the federal government.

Resolved, that the proposed tracking of students from preschool through the workforce is another unprecedented intrusion of and violation of personal liberty and confidentiality.

Resolved, that the Common Core standards call into question the very nature of federalism, education, control of curriculum, governance, fiscal responsibility, and student and family privacy.

Richard D. Brinkley

Chair, Legislative District 11

 

VOTER ALERT — Beware SB1263, SB1264, and SCR1019!

Three bills that have made their way through the State Senate and are now making their way through the State House attack the rights of Arizonans to access the petition process and make their voices heard.  It is imperative that your Representatives hear from you to Vote NO on these three bills.

SB1263 would require “background checks” of ALL petition circulators, without specifying the nature or depth of the background check.  It would give the Secretary of State unprecedented power to hinder the circulation of petitions, assigns the Secretary of State unlimited powers to adopt a procedures manual that circulators would have to abide by, and would consume large amounts of time that is precious to any group that is engaged in exercising their constitutional rights.

Imagine that a candidate realizes that their volunteers have been slow to collect signatures, so they decide to hire their neighbor’s college-aged kids to help.  Would you really have to hire a private investigator to do a full background check on your neighbor’s kid?  Yes.  Even your own.  Worse, they could not circulate petitions until the Secretary of State approved them and entered them into a database.  Imagine the stonewalling possible if the Secretary of State was opposing that candidate!  In addition to this being a poorly conceived bill, it is likely unconstitutional.

SB1264 is a poorly disguised effort to give the judiciary the power to kill outright any initiative it does not like.  It makes any error, no matter how slight or immaterial, fatal, meaning that it would kill the entire petition.  The penalty is set in stone so that any judge finding such error would kill the petition, but it provides wide latitude and discretion to the judge as to what is an error or not.

The legal standard should always be the intent of the voter signing the petition – and any legislative action that modifies the petition process must protect the rights of the voters to join together on a petition to make their voices heard.  If their intent is clear, then a judge should allow them to exercise their constitutional rights.

SCR1019 is the most blatantly unconstitutional bill of the three.  It would require that in order for any initiative to qualify for the ballot, at least 25% of its signatures must come outside of Maricopa and Pima County.  Whatever the intent of the bill’s author is, disenfranchising the voters of Maricopa and Pima County by determining that any signatures gathered over a certain amount do not count is an affront to Arizona’s century-old respect for the initiative process.  It is also a clear violation of the Constitution in that it seeks to essentially declare “one man, one vote, unless you live in Maricopa or Pima County.”

In total, these bills represent a real power grab away from the citizens of Arizona, and they should each be defeated.  Unfortunately, we are late in drawing attention to them and they have all passed out of the Senate.  Fortunately, we can stop them in the House.

Please contact your State Representative by calling the main House Switchboard at (800) 352-8404 and let them know that your rights are sacred and are not to be violated.

There have been ballot initiatives that we opposed over the years that would have been stopped by these rules, but that is no reason to support these bills.  The right to petition your government should be sacred in Arizona.  Good ballot initiatives have also been passed over the years to protect private property rights, the right to a secret ballot, requiring voter ID at the polls, protecting our health care freedoms, and more.  Please make your voices heard immediately as these bills could move any day now.

Thank you,

Rep. Steve Montenegro

Rep. David Livingston

Rep. Kelly Townsend

Rep. Darin Mitchell

The Cost of Expanding Medicaid Dependency in Arizona

Unlink Governor Brewer’s media campaign funded by huge corporations and special interest groups, the opposition to expanding Medicaid dependency in Arizona is almost entirely grassroots driven – and there’s good reason for the disparity. The Arizona Medical Industrial Complex stands to gain hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer dollars. This begs the question, “just how much will Medicaid expansion cost Arizona taxpayers?”

Here are two graphics provided by the prestigious conservative organization The Heritage Foundation. Please feel free, to download these and email them to your legislators.

Before the legislature attempts to pass a huge tax on Arizonans, they need to remember Arizona’s Constitution requires a 2/3 majority vote to pass any tax hike. Currently, the Governor would like to redefine the hundreds of millions of dollars as needed as a fee in order to avoid the 2/3′s  requirement. Any legislator needs to know they will be violating the Arizona Constitution if they pass this huge tax hike without the 2/3′s requirement.

CP-medicaid-expansion-by-state-AZ Medicaid Expansion US

 

If you would like to have Americans for Prosperity speak to your organization about why expanding Medicaid dependency is bad for Arizona please contact Americans for Prosperity through www.ArizonaTaxpayers.org.

Rep. Allen proposes HB2480 to eliminate mandatory Bar Association

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

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Sunday, March 10, 2013

Arizona is a right to work state; so why are attorneys required to be part of a union?
Rep. Allen believes mandatory Bar is unconstitutional; eliminating the Bar would eliminate many of the injustices it commits against attorneys

Representative John Allen has introduced a bill which is well overdue, HB2480. It would remove the left wing Arizona Bar’s stranglehold over attorneys, ending its ability to target and discipline conservatives in politically motivated attacks. It is no coincidence that half of the candidates who ran for the Bar’s Board of Governors last year included “reigning in the Bar’s excessive discipline” in their platforms. This is evidence of an epidemic and a cancer in Arizona’s legal community.

We have been seeing the corruption of the Bar’s disciplinary judge William O’Neil exposed over the last few months from his former friend Mark Dixon. It’s time to end this reign of terror and Allen’s bill will do that. Attorneys in Arizona are terrified to speak up about their political views or their opposition to the Bar for fear of being targeted. They have no free speech in their profession. Every attorney who has been disciplined by Judge O’Neil has coincidentally never been allowed back into the practice of law – with the exception of Tom Horne’s “close friend” Carmen Chenal, who we suspect had the power through Horne to broker a deal with O’Neil, unlike Andrew Thomas and other conservatives.

Rep. Allen does an excellent job explaining the unconstitutionality of a mandatory Bar in this hearing. Rep. Eddie Farnsworth observes that even if an attorney is not practicing law, they are required to pay an annual fee of $280 just to continue to “have” the ability to practice law ever again (without being required to take the Bar exam again).

Any discipline of attorneys would be done by the Supreme Court instead, not a left wing State Bar. 20 other states do not have mandatory Bar associations. Here is the language in the bill  – B.  AN ATTORNEY SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO BE A MEMBER OF ANY ORGANIZATION TO BECOME OR REMAIN A LICENSED ATTORNEY IN THIS STATE. Read the full text of the bill here. Please support Rep. Allen’s bill and let’s get this passed, NOW!

Arizona Supreme Court's control over state bar debated, contested in House hearing
Arizona Supreme Court’s control over state bar debated, contested in House hearing
Join Our Mailing List

Maricopa GOP Votes Down Medicaid Expansion in Arizona

March, 2013

A RESOLUTION OF THE EXECUTIVE GUIDANCE COMMITTEE (EGC) OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE (MCRC) MARICOPA COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA

IN OPPOSITION TO

THE ARIZONA GOVERNOR’S PROPOSED EXPANSION OF MEDICAID (AHCCCS) IN SUPPORT OF OBAMACARE

WHEREAS, Arizona voters clearly expressed their will to reject implementation of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and the individual mandate by amending the Arizona Constitution in 2010 via the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, Proposition 106; and

WHEREAS, the “circuit breaker” clause is insufficient to prevent out of control escalation of enrollment and the long term costs will cause severe financial hardship on Arizona’s budget; and

WHEREAS, the “assessment” on hospitals is actually a tax and a disingenuous attempt to subvert Arizona’s Constitution and legislative process requiring tax increases receive supermajority approval in the legislature; and

WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court ruled that each State may reject the expansion of Medicaid and Insurance Exchanges, the two cornerstones of Obamacare, without which it collapses; and

WHEREAS, the best method to honor Arizona voters’ wishes to reject Obamacare is for each State to refuse implementation and allow Obamacare to fail; and

WHEREAS, supporting a government takeover of Arizona’s health care system, even to secure large amounts of federal funds, does not reflect the values of the Republican Party or the interests of the taxpayers of Arizona.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Executive Guidance Committee of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Maricopa County, State of Arizona, does affirm and declare our opposition to the Governor’s plan to expand Medicaid; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Executive Guidance Committee of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Maricopa County, State of Arizona, demands that the Arizona State Legislators uphold the rule of law set forth by Proposition 108 requiring a supermajority vote in this matter; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED by the Executive Guidance Committee of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Maricopa County, State of Arizona, demands that the Arizona State Legislators stand with the people of Arizona in opposition to the Governor’s plan to expand Medicaid by defeating any bill to such ends.

Author: Eric Morgan, Chairman, LD22 Republican Committee

PASSED & APPROVED this 7th day of March 2013, by a vote of 26 (ayes) to 2 (nays) to 0 (abstentions) of the Executive Guidance Committee of the Maricopa County Republican Committee, Maricopa County, State of Arizona.

MARICOPA COUNTY REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE

MARICOPA COUNTY, STATE OF ARIZONA:

A. J. LaFaro

________________________________________

by: A. J. LaFaro, Chairman

Maricopa County Republican Committee

[Download Resolution]

Thoughts on the City of Phoenix LGBT Ordinance

A few thoughts on today’s culture war battle at the City of Phoenix.

I attended the meeting for the purpose of testifying against the tax on food. I signed a card for that specific agenda item having no intention of testifying on the LGBT ordinance.

My position on this has been very clear. I simply do not believe that the City of Phoenix should inject government policy into the personal and private lives of any Phoenicians except when a crime is committed. Some liberals and libertarians would say “keep government out of our bedrooms.” OK, so how about a little consistency by keeping government to a minimum in our private business matters? What the City of Phoenix did tonight was invite a huge conflict between Constitutional rights and individual sexual identity.

By now social conservatives should realize they have lost the culture war on issues related to sexual identity and behavior. The most reasonable position social conservatives can now take is to hold back any level of government from the power position of  picking winners and losers in the conflict between sexual identity and free speech, religious freedom and freedom of conscience.

Locally, social conservatives did not lose the culture battle in Phoenix tonight. Social conservatives lost the culture battle in November of 2011 when it failed to elect conservatives to the Phoenix city council.

We knew this was coming. The signs were there in 2011 when mayoral candidate Greg Stanton made wide overtures to the LGBT community and efforts to align Phoenix with San Francisco values. Anyone who dared to point it out was labeled a bigot. So goes the spirit of tolerance on the left.

(Too often, both sides fail to see this as a debate over public policy rather making it about personal attacks on individuals and their sexual identities.)

Tonight’s meeting was a reflection of the very intolerance those pushing for tolerance decry. Anyone who dared to oppose the ordinance was booed and jeered. No respect for human dignity and certainly no respect for the public policy process.

Social conservative did turn out at the meeting – certainly not in number. And those who did engage were speaking a different language to the huge LGBT majority who did turn out (probably with plenty of advance notice). Two different languages because there are two different worldviews – one based on faith, the other clearly sexual and secular in nature. There were translators in the testimonials – individuals who know the difference and can communicate between the two worldviews – Cathi Herrod from the Center for Arizona Policy, an attorney from the Alliance Defending Freedom and the Rev. Jarrett Maupin spoke. These individuals are bilingual on issues that tangle logic and emotions.

And there was a tremendous amount of emotion – mostly from the LGBT – about living with a sexual identity that conflicts with traditional societal norms. Who was going to argue with the dozen of transgendered individuals who gave personal stories of rejection, anger and sympathy?

Which brings me to my personal feelings on the whole matter.

My pastor, my church, my Jesus preaches love. The Word commands us to love God first and to love our neighbor as ourselves second. There are two commandments in the New Testament. That’s it – pretty simple. My pastor (who happens to oversee five campuses in Phoenix Metro) reminds us to look past a person’s self-identity and love them no matter what. We are to love them like Christ would love them – regardless of their sin(s) (I’m not going to name them here. You can look them up.) But most important, we are to bring others into a real and living relationship with Christ allowing Christ to work in their lives toward God’s glory.

This is where I separate matters of faith from the role of the state (in this case the City of Phoenix).

If I were Mayor of Phoenix I would have rejected the idea of injecting my sliver of government into the personal and private lives of individuals. To do otherwise is asking for the wailing and gnashing of teeth. This seems to be the only position a reasonable community of people can hold without forcing a cultural conflagration to take place.

Entangling sex and politics is a messy business as we learned tonight. Hopefully our politicians will take note and keep social engineering to a minimal melodramatic level in the future. Political social conservatives lost tonight but true Christianity continues to love on.

YouTube Preview Image

Governor Brewer, we DON’T want to expand Medicaid.

In November 2010, the voters of Arizona voted for Prop 106, the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, which was a legislatively-referred Constitutional Amendment that passed by 55.3% of the voters.

The proposition prohibits the enactment of laws or rules that require any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system.  It specifically allows health care providers to accept direct payment and allows private health insurance.

It is also true that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) cannot force any state to expand its Medicaid system to include people who earn from 100% to 133% of the poverty rate.

Arizona went through the disastrous expansion of Medicaid coverage when promised the cost would be paid by the Tobacco Settlement.  When revenue proved inadequate, Arizona had to pick up the costs and the state ran up a $3 BILLION deficit before the legislature could get it under control.  Childless individuals were taken off the Medicaid rolls.  That combined with the temporary 1% sales tax, restored money that was cut from the schools to balance the budget.

The waiver AZ received from the federal government to cut childless people out of Medicaid, when we did not have a surplus, expires in 2014.

Gov. Brewer wants to again expand Medicaid even further.  Yes, the Federal Government promises to pay the cost for new people into Medicaid, (About 57,000 people) but soon that will drop to a 90% match, then to 80% match.  This federal money is not some big free pot of money.  It will be taken from people who would otherwise expand their businesses, create jobs, and grow the economy.

Governor Brewer believes she can write an automatic trigger to push the “new people” out of Medicaid when the federal reimbursement begins to drop.

The reimbursements to doctors from ACCCHS (Arizona’s Medicaid) are so low (about 56% of what private insurance pays) that you will almost never see a doctor.  You will be treated by physicians’ assistants and nurses.  If you are over 50, the Independent Payment Advisory Board will decide if you are even to be admitted.

There are people who will make money off ACCCHS (Medicaid) and those are the one or two big insurance companies who will be permitted in the “exchanges” to write insurance.  Big hospitals and big pharmaceutical companies will also get rich as well as the Medicaid administrator.  Federal law requires states to pay managed care contractors, BUT NOT “PROVIDERS” (i.e. doctors) at “actuarially sound” rates.

Furthermore, the Enrollee Hold Harmless Clause provides the managed care entity with bankruptcy protection so it can do the work of denying care with impunity.  Thus, managed care can cash in on the bonanza with little down side risk.

Nationwide, the 60 million people on Medicaid consume on average 23.5% of state budgets.  For many states that exceeds the K-12 budget.  In Massachusetts, where RomneyCare has been in place since 2006, it consumes 45% of the budget. Why would cost increases be less for Arizona?

Governor Brewer, we DON’T want to expand Medicaid.

Americans should be looking at ways that reduce the cost of medical treatment.  It has been proven many times that when people are spending their own money they are frugal shoppers. Just as car insurance cost would “go thru the roof” if it paid for oil changes, wiper blades and new tires- the same is true of health insurance that covers everything.  Conservatives advocate a catastrophic policy  (coverage for serious illness) combined with a Health Savings Account where individuals pay for routine stuff- then health insurance increases would be no more than normal inflation.

The Governor sees a $300 million cost savings for this year if Medicaid is expanded, but what happens when the federal reimbursement decreases?

Lefties want government to control every aspect of your life.  Constitutionalists believe individuals will make better decisions for themselves.  No Utopian scheme has ever worked.  Not Fascism, not Communism, not Socialism not a bloated government workforce, not crony-capitalism and not compounding debt.  Only true, competitive Capitalism gets an economy growing.

Message from Pima County Republican Chair.