Freedom of Speech


McCain was in Tucson over the weekend with fellow Senator Scott Brown. There were about a dozen or so protesters outside the event at the Manning House. The easy political move is to ignore them, or better yet go out and shake their hands and talk with them. Instead, someone called the Tucson Police and reported that there was a fight. One of our readers in Tucson who was there sent this news report to us (thanks for the first-hand account.)

Sat_McCain_protest

I’m not really sure who called the cops at the JOHN MCCAIN PROTEST: ROUND 2 organized by THE GOP PRECINCT COMMITTEEMEN AGAINST MCCAIN that was held on Saturday. I guess they thought a handful of peaceful protesters, including grandmothers and children, who were respectfully exercising their 1st Amendments rights posed such a danger that they had to call in backup. In fact, we were so respectful of Senator McCain’s rally, that even though I had been personally invited by FRIENDS OF JOHN MCCAIN via email to enter the rally, we chose to stand outside on the public sidewalk rather than entering the property. Here’s the invite:

McCain 2010

McCain 2010 Tucson Rally with
Senator Scott Brown!

There is no cost to attend this event!

The Manning House
450 West Paseo Redondo
Tucson, AZ 85701
Saturday, March 6, 2010
4:15 PM and goes until approximately 5:30 PM

Or maybe they felt the only way to level the playing field was to call in TPD since we were receiving more attention than McCain and Brown combined. Perhaps they didn’t like that we were interviewed by 3 out of the 4 local news channels. Or maybe it was because the JOHN MCCAIN PROTEST: ROUND2 was a statewide event that focused on protesting all three of Senator McCain’s campaign stops with fellow Senator Scott Brown – first at Montelucia Resort in Scottsdale, then the Arizona Inn in Tucson, and finally ending at the Manning House, also in Tucson. Perhaps it had something to do with McCain’s paid staff worker, Anthony Miller, also Chairman of LD20, who has recently been battling with a couple of the leaders of THE GOP PRECINCT COMMITTEEMEN AGAINST MCCAIN, who’s probably grouchy about these two recent stories:

http://www.gilacourier.com/?p=5716
http://sonoranweeklyreview.com/?p=2882

And let’s not forget the original TUCSON PROTEST OF JOHN MCCAIN, when this story was written: http://www.gilacourier.com/?p=5647

Maybe the McCain camp has finally reached the breaking point. The fact is that whoever called the police completely falsified their report. When the police came zipping around the corner and pulled up and asked me if we had seen a guy on a bicycle in a striped shirt fighting and yelling with people, we were shocked to say the least. Yes, one of us was on a quadcycle, but he wasn’t wearing a striped shirt or doing anything other than circling the Manning House loop with a sign that read: NO MORE MCCAIN. Hardly a reason to call the already understaffed TPD away from more important duties. In fact, 3 squad cars were called the first time. The second time, after the event had ended and McCain was outside being interviewed by the media, another squad car showed up within seconds after some of us were verbally voicing our 1st Amendment rights. Although this officer was very respectful and understanding of our rights, we were not able to continue exercising our rights because of this interference.

Was someone playing dirty politics here?

This just in from the Jim Deakin campaign. Deakin will visit the campaign headquarters of JD Hayworth today at 2 PM to issue the challenge.

Jim Deakin

For Immediate Release: February 26, 2010

February 26, 2010

John Hayworth
3129 E. Cactus
Phoenix, AZ 85032

Mr. Hayworth,

It has come to my attention that you have extended an offer for a series of debates with John McCain. As the original challenger to the U.S. Senate seat he currently occupies, I have been requesting the opportunity to debate Mr. McCain for months. I have approached several organizations including TEA Party groups, with a request to organize our debates. Now that you are in the race, I welcome your participation, and your efforts in prompting Mr. McCain to come and debate his challengers before the Arizona voter.

I understand your contention, and agree with you that our current Senator must participate in debates with us. However, I also understand that this Senators’ time is limited and a great deal of his attention must be focused on vital tasks in Washington D.C. as he finishes his final term as our representative.

In the meantime, you and I are here, in Arizona, with no encumbrances. I see no reason why you and I cannot start the debate season without his participation. So let’s get started.

I have been the TEA Party Activist candidate in Arizona for 14 months. The Greater Phoenix TEA Party and the Flagstaff TEA Party/ROC’n are ready and eager to host a number of debates. Mr. McCain will always be welcome to join us when he is in available.

Regards,

Jim Deakin

Arizonans for Prosperity

February 25, 2010

Dear Scottsdale/CD5 Taxpayer:

Three upcoming taxpayer events are listed below. Be sure to check out the picture of our gigantic inflatable ATM machine, which we will deploy in front of Scottsdale City Hall for the rally against the Bed Tax on Tuesday afternoon, March 2:

http://www.americansforprosperity.org/022510-three-big-taxpayer-events-scottsdale

(ATM stands for “Already Taxed to the Max.” The message of our upcoming statewide ATM campaign is that politicians should stop treating taxpayers like an ATM machine whenever they get short on cash.)

If that link doesn’t work for you, just go to www.aztaxpayers.org and scroll down under What’s New until you see the photo.

Event Type: Tea Party Protest
Topic: HONKING for Health Care Freedom
City: Scottsdale
Date: Saturday, February 27
Time: 1:00 to 3:00 pm
Host(s): Scottsdale Tea Party Patriots
Location: Harry Mitchell District Office, Camelback and Scottsdale Road, SE corner.
Ideological Orientation of Host(s): Patriotic/Free-Market/ Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist
Contact/Sign Ideas: Judy Hoelscher, judy@shadowlakes.com
More Info: http://www.meetup.com/Scottsdale-Tea-Party/calendar/12706997/ Keep calling Congressman Mitchell! His Scottsdale number is 480-946-2411. DC number: 202-225-2190.

Here is a video from our last Honking event, in Flagstaff:
http://www.americansforprosperity.org/021710-video-honking-health-care-freedom-flagstaff

Event Type: Rally Against the Prop 200 Bed Tax
City: Scottsdale
Date: Tuesday, March 2
Time: 4:30 to 5:30 pm
Host(s): AFP Arizona, Scottsdale Tea Party Patriots, Stop the Tax – NO on 200
Ideological Orientation of Host(s): Patriotic/Free-Market/ Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist
More info on the Bed Tax: http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/4423
Media Inquiries: Ryan O’Daniel, (480) 941-0781, Tom Jenney, (602) 478-0146
Protest Info: Among other fun things, AFP Arizona will deploy its giant ATM machine, to make the point that the people of Scottsdale are Already Taxed to the Max. We are encouraging the people of Scottsdale to vote NO on the Prop 200 Bed Tax.

Event Type: Tea Party Meeting
Topic(s): Defending American Freedom
City: Scottsdale
Date: Tuesday, March 2
Time: 5:15 to 7:30 pm
Host(s): Scottsdale Tea Party Patriots
Location: Arabian Trail Library, 10187 E. McDowell Mountain Ranch Road, 85255
Ideological Orientation of Host(s): Patriotic/Free-Market/ Conservative/Libertarian/Constitutionalist
Contact: Honey Marques, h.marquesz@cox.net, (808) 283-3661
More Info: http://www.meetup.com/Scottsdale-Tea-Party/calendar/12374001
More statewide taxpayer events are posted at www.aztaxpayers.org. Scroll down to the top items under What’s New.

For Liberty,

–Tom
Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
(Arizona Federation of Taxpayers)
www.aztaxpayers.org
tjenney@afphq.org
(602) 478-0146

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has sent a strong signal that it will seriously consider intervening if the fate of matching funds in Arizona’s system of publicly funded campaigns is not determined quickly by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In January, U.S. District Court judge Roslyn Silver ruled in favor of the Goldwater Institute and struck down the matching funds portion of Clean Elections, calling it “unconstitutional under the First Amendment.” However, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit voted 2-1 to put Silver’s ruling on hold until it acts on the case.

In response, the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation filed an emergency motion with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy to lift the stay from the Ninth Circuit, arguing the Ninth Circuit “defied” the principles enforced in Citizens United v. FEC by keeping alive the threat of matching funds being handed out to state-funded candidates during Arizona’s 2010 election cycle. Justice Kennedy is the author of the majority opinion in Citizens United, which struck down laws that had prohibited groups of individuals–whether corporations, unions or informal associations–from freely spending their money to express their support or opposition for political candidates.

Last week, Justice Kennedy denied “without prejudice” the Goldwater Institute’s emergency motion after referring it to the full Court for consideration. The referral to the full Court was an unusual act, signaling the possibility that Justice Kennedy considered taking more sweeping action on the case. Instead, the Court decided to give the Ninth Circuit an opportunity to rule on the pending appeals, saying if the Ninth Circuit does not decide the matching funds issue by June 1, 2010, the emergency application can be filed again.

Because the state can start handing out matching funds to taxpayer-funded candidates on June 22, 2010, this shows the Supreme Court wants candidates and their supporters to have reasonable certainty about the rules that will apply to the 2010 statewide elections.

In fact, there is a good chance that the First Amendment will be vindicated before the primary election begins; oral arguments are scheduled before the Ninth Circuit on April 12, 2010.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Found this interesting photo online. Anyone want to take a guess who this cat-in-the-hat-Uncle-Sam-wannabe is?

Cat in the Hat

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Almost a month ago, the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Citizens United v. F.E.C. that there is no such thing as a “de minimis”–or insignificant–denial of free speech. The ruling should have immediately sparked a sweeping repeal of campaign speech regulations that were previously justified as imposing only a “de minimis” burden. An axe, not a scalpel, should have been taken to the volumes of complex, vague and burdensome campaign laws. Instead of seizing the moment, it appears Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett wants follow the lead of U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Secretary Bennett has joined Pelosi’s drive to preserve the barriers to political entry swept away by Citizens United. Instead of outright bans on campaign speech by individuals who associate through corporations or unions, the Secretary of State wants to kill campaign speech through regulation. Secretary Bennett wants to threaten class 6 felony charges against any individual or group spending $500 or more to promote their political ideas unless they register with the State and continuously report their expenditures every 24 hours during an election season.

Political elites easily navigate such laws. But they will confuse ordinary people, deter them from seeking a voice in politics, and entrap them with mistakes that will expose them to serious criminal charges. Advocates of these new regulations have no idea how they would impact newer methods of political expression, such as Internet blogging.  And no one at a recent meeting called by the Secretary of State could identify any actual problem the regulations were meant to fix. The justification was that something had to be done, and the State could always clean up the mess later. Besides, the advocates reasoned, the Supreme Court did not strike down reporting laws.

Only politicians, bureaucrats, and lobbyists could agree with the argument that anything that can be regulated under the Constitution should be regulated. Citizens United does not embrace prior restraints on free speech in the guise of campaign registration and reporting requirements. Rest assured, if Secretary Bennett and Speaker Pelosi go too far, the Goldwater Institute won’t let the State transmute the golden principles applied in Citizens United into a leaden excuse for diminishing our most fundamental rights.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is Director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

October, 2008; Arizona Republic: The national Rasmussen Reports has McCain with 51 percent to Obama’s 46.

“I have to tell you. Sen. Obama is a decent person and a person you don’t have to be scared of as president of the United States,”  John McCain

…better known as the famous McCain straight-talk line, “I was for it before I was against it and, I’ll be for it again once I’m re-elected.”

A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE WITH JOHN MCCAIN… mccaintomexicoImage6

MIKE WALLACE: … let me ask you for some straight talk. Do you think that Senator Obama is a socialist?

MCCAIN: I think his plans are redistribution of the wealth. He said it himself, “We need to spread the wealth around.”

MIKE WALLACE: But, Senator, you voted for the $700 billion bailout that’s being used partially to nationalize American banks. Isn’t that socialism?

MCCAIN: Of course. It was a package that had to be enacted because the economy was about to go into the tank.

… or how about this delightful gem;

LARRY KING: Senator, there was a part of the speech — I wonder if you enjoyed it — when he [the President] criticized the Supreme Court for overturning portions of McCain/Feingold, your treasured legislation. How did you react to that?

MCCAIN: Well, obviously, I agreed with the president.

… and here’s an excerpt from the outrageous ad’s he’s running in Arizona;

[Disconbobulated vaguely soothing and threatening voice:] Perhaps no battle in our lifetime is more vital than the one John McCain fights now: a battle to save America… John McCain leads the charge to slash government spending, bloated bureaucracies, and ridiculously unaffordable ideas like government-run health care.

[Senator McCain:] “President Obama is leading an extreme left-wing crusade to bankrupt America. I stand in his way everyday. If I get a bruise or two knocking some sense into heads in Washington, so be it. I’ll keep fighting for … Arizona as long as I’m in the Senate.”

Here’s a fun challenge, dig into the past and lets find all those little McCainisms proving how often he changes his political stripes and how he’s NOT TO BE TRUSTED.

RETIRE MCCAIN 2010

The latest leftist assault is the condemnation of Tim and Pam Tebow for their audacity to be part of a pro-life commercial scheduled to air during the Super Bowl.  Sports pundits, political talking-heads, and news reporters are all over this story.   Liberal “women’ s groups” have asked CBS to deny Focus on the Family the right to buy air time to broadcast the ad and sports analysts are denouncing the Tebow  effort as damaging to his career.  One writer likened Tim Tebow to a full-time evangelist moonlighting as a football player.  Did he think that was insulting?

I could go on and on about what sort of false religion and destructive values are being exploited every day in pro-sports…. But I digress.

Apparently that writer has no idea the call on the life of the Tebow family and has no understanding of service to something greater than you.  Tim Tebow could no more turn his back on the opportunity to tell the world the miraculous truth of his healthy birth than a sports writer could turn away the scoop of a lifetime.   It is what he was put here to do.  And he knows it. On Florida game days, the most frequent Google search is for whatever scripture Tebow has on his eye black.

With that said, all the hyperbole about this being a sporting event and not a religious venue is a distortion of the truth.  The faulty premise is in the concept that the sanctity of life should be viewed only as a religious cause; it should be a humanitarian cause.  Protecting the life of the unborn, giving hope to women and families who are facing odds they see as insurmountable, and telling the truth where a lie has been accepted is not religious. If there were a call for aid to the people of The Sudan, or any region were genocide is practiced, would it be religious or humanitarian? It may be the love of Christ that empowers them but since when is love a religious act not to be confused with the real world?

An unborn child is a life, a real person with a real soul.  Life does not spontaneously occur and that which is not alive cannot become alive; it is formed and developed just as the unborn child is within the womb of the mother.  We all grow, change and have different stages of our being.  Such is the reality of life…and it starts at conception.

TUSDIn attending my legislative district meeting last night, I heard from State Superintendent Tom Horne who told our group of a situation in the Tucson Unified School District of ethnic racist political correctness gone wild. The situation revolves around a teacher who has been continually harassed by the Ethnic Studies Department at Tucson High School (Do our high schools really need “Ethnic Studies Departments?”) I wanted to bring the letter to our reader’s attention in hope to put pressure on TUSD and support for the teacher(s) fighting this kind of workplace harassment and student indoctrination. Here is that email:

Mr. Horne;

My name is (name withheld for privacy concerns). I currently teach World History and American History to sophomores and juniors. I have been teaching at Tucson High for five years, and I am currently in my eighth year in TUSD. This week Tucson High begins the registration process for the 2010/2011 school year, and I have deep and strong concerns about the level of scholarly interpretation of our nation’s heritage in a number of classes that qualify as US History and US Government credit.

I have, during the last two years, been attacked repeatedly here at Tucson High by members of the Ethnic Studies department because I question the substance and veracity of their American History and Social Justice Government classes. I have been called racist by fellow Tucson High teachers, members of the Ethnic Studies department, and students enrolled in the departments’ classes. These charges come simply because I ask the department to provide the primary source material for the perspective they preach. The teachers of these classes not only refuse to stop the name-calling but openly encourage the students’ behavior. The curriculum advanced in these classes openly attacks the founding fathers, the European Judeo-Christian heritage of the founding fathers, as well as attacking the free market enterprises that created our economy and made it strong. These classes preach hatred and emphasize victimization and oppression by Western culture of minority peoples as well as base their lectures and assignments on outright lies concerning historical data in an effort to glorify socialism and demonize democracy and capitalism.

My letter to you is in the form of a question. Why are these classes given equal accreditation with American History and American Government classes? Many students are allowed to take these abominations in lieu of classes that center on essential American principles and history. Students in Ethnic Studies classes can go through high school in TUSD and NEVER learn about the history of the United States or its government in a way that would allow them to acknowledge the achievements and accomplishments in any positive sense. Often these students are completely ignorant of how the government works at all, yet they have a sense of entitlement coupled with offensive self-righteous belligerence. They congregate and protest but cannot articulate the issues at stake for them or for others.

In this era of reduced pay and endangered job security, I appeal to you and ask you to right this injustice. It is my belief all students in Arizona and in the country should be imbued with the concepts and traditions that make our country great.

Mr. Horne, I urge you to issue a directive or have the legislature consider a bill that mandates that all students in Arizona schools should be required to take American History and American Government. If students want to learn about their culture, they can take the extra class as an elective. As it is here at Tucson High, many students have only three to four classes their senior year and less than a full schedule their junior year.

If education is the key principle here, let students take an extra elective and stay in school longer to achieve the “balance” desired by this anti-American department.

Thank you.

Teacher (name withheld for privacy concerns)

Adelita GrijalvaDuring last night’s meeting Superintendent Horne noted that La Raza has been very involved in influencing TUSD policy with Adelita Grijalva, the daughter of liberal Democrat Raul Grijalva, playing a significant role setting policy as a member of the TUSD Governing Board.

In fact, TUSD has been pushing to expand its ethnic studies program. From the August 1st Arizona Daily Star, here is an article detailing that policy change:

TUSD to expand ethnic studies

By Rhonda Bodfield arizona daily star | Posted: Saturday, August 1, 2009 12:00 am | Comments

The Tucson Unified School District Governing Board this week agreed to expand the district’s ethnic-studies offerings, reduce racial disparities in how discipline is meted out and embark on a new marketing campaign in an effort to persuade a federal judge to lift a 31-year-old order requiring racial balance in TUSD schools.

Here’s what you need to know.

The plan hinges largely on an attempt to gently integrate schools by allowing them to develop specialized niches. More choices in instruction would presumably stimulate the voluntary movement of students across the district.

Among other changes called for in the roughly 70-page document are stronger efforts to make the teaching staff more diverse and increased recruitment of minority students for more challenging coursework.

The district’s finance staff had a hard time drawing up estimates but suggested it would cost about $1.5 million to provide seed money for the necessary training and capital improvements to launch the school-choice program. Transportation costs could jump from an anticipated $7.4 million this year to around $9.3 million. A marketing campaign would run roughly $500,000.

Meanwhile, it could cost $1.7 million to hire more teachers for gifted classes, if enrollment does expand. Ten percent increases in the Mexican-American Studies Department would bring it to $814,135, with African-American studies costing $1.2 million.

An internal compliance officer, plus support staff, would cost about $200,000. An external auditor would run $125,000.

Board member Mark Stegeman was the sole holdout on the plan, which passed on a 4-1 vote Thursday debate.

Stegeman said he was concerned about strong language in two parts of the plan dealing with ethnic studies and with discipline.

While he was clear to distance himself from Mexican-American Studies critics who testified at several public hearings on the plan, he said he was concerned about the cost of expanding ethnic studies overall when so many teachers were given pink slips and schools will go without librarians and counselors.

The plan states that the offerings will be “expanded as requested” by students each year — language which, if interpreted literally, could be sweeping. He said he didn’t think his colleagues would be comfortable making such promises in any other subject area.

And the fact that the plan dictates which schools will get new courses flies in the face of a shift toward greater control at each school site, he said.

Board member Adelita Grijalva, meanwhile, said she was concerned that the Mexican-American Studies Department wasn’t expanding enough. She questioned why, given that the district is 60 percent Latino, the department’s budget continues to be smaller than the African-American Studies Department.

Stegeman said his biggest concern was in the section calling for a decrease in student discipline referrals for black and Hispanic students starting with this school year. Stegeman said he was concerned that the language could lead to the unfair application of discipline.

Grijalva countered that there already is unfair application of discipline. Suspensions and expulsions are a contributing factor in juvenile detention, she said, noting minority youth are disproportionately represented in the criminal justice system.

Their board counterpart, Bruce Burke, suggested that Stegeman was reading the language too technically, and that the board could apply common sense in fixing any unintended issues that arise.

U.S. District Judge David C. Bury should have the plan by Monday. Pleadings are expected to be filed, particularly since the plan still has more than a dozen points on which the district and the black and Hispanic plaintiffs could not agree.

Bury has not indicated when a final ruling might be expected.

On StarNet: Get more school and education news online at azstarnet.com/education

DID YOU KNOW

TUSD has been under a federal court order to desegregate since 1978, following a class-action lawsuit filed by Latino and black parents.

Officials agreed to bus students across the city, as well as to establish magnet schools to racially integrate the district. By creating magnet schools with specific entrance criteria and prescribed ethnic balances, TUSD sought to entice some of its top students to leave their neighborhoods and further create integrated schools.

U.S. District Judge David C. Bury first indicated in August 2007 that he’d release TUSD from the order — if the district could prove it has a plan to continue giving all students equal opportunities.

Horne’s office is currently working on a response to the teacher’s email request they received yesterday but has also re-issued a letter to the citizens of Tucson that originally went public in 2007 on the issue of ethnic studies in the Tucson Unified School District. Here is a link to Horne’s original letter. We are also aware of current legislation that will attempt to remedy the blatant racial indoctrination taking place in our public schools.

If you are aware of any additional incidents taking place in TUSD or any other public school across the state, we’d like to hear from you. Please leave your comments or contact Sonoran Alliance and the Superintendent Tom Horne’s office.


Yellow Sheets is reporting that a US Judge will rule Arizona’s Clean Elections matching funds provision unconstitutional in tomorrow’s decision. What is yet to be determined is how the ruling will affect the 2010 election cycle.

As a co-plaintiff on this suit, this has been a long fought battle to eliminate this hybridized form of taxpayer-funded campaigns. But I will also admit that I have mixed feelings over eliminating a law that has been effectively used by conservatives to strengthen our numbers in the legislature. In fact, many political consultants rely on clean elections money as an almost guaranteed revenue stream.

In the old days, a Republican candidate would have to go begging amongst the business community and chamber of commerce crowd to raise money. Socially conservative candidates were often viewed as “too controversial” to support by the business community who just wanted a candidate to talk fiscal issues and avoid controversy.

Clean Elections allowed conservative, grassroots, populist candidates to do an end-run around these business folks and avoid having to “kiss the ring” of these donors.

If the matching funds provision goes away with in the ruling tomorrow, many campaigns will have to re-think their strategy to win in August and November. Gaming the system will be more difficult but at the same time, organizations like mine (Arizona Taxpayer’s Action Committee) won’t have to compete against the State of Arizona using taxpayer monies when we voice our opinion.

Times are a changin’

Next Page »