Editor’s note: Sonoran Alliance and several other Arizona political news blogs  (ACOM – Arizona Coalition of Online Media) strongly support this bill and will be at the hearing Thursday morning. Help stop the print newspapers’ monopoly over public notices.

by Lynne LaMaster, eNewsAZ

Right now, newspapers have a monopoly on the publication of Public Notices. You know, those ads you see in super-tiny print next to the want ads in the local paper?

Representative David Stevens, however, has a different idea. Let’s allow Public Notices to be published online or in printed newspapers. If his bill passes, competition for Public Notices will go up, prices should go down. Taxpayers will benefit as their governmental agencies won’t have to pay nearly as much in fees (estimated to be over $1.8 million in Arizona alone).

It will also make public notices more available world wide, allow for better, more readable formatting, better access for those with disabilities, and more information to be shared, such as links to maps, bid specifications, agendas and more.

Newspapers aren’t supporting this because they believe they are the watchdog over Public Notices. They also question the ability for online entities to offer verification, and serve those who don’t get the Internet.

See http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/opinion/article_605be59a-4e92-11e1-a963-0019bb2963f4.html

There is a hearing Thursday morning at 9am in front of the committee, and they are going to vote on it. There is also a stakeholder’s meeting Wednesday at 4pm.

Here are the committee members:

• David Stevens (R) – bill sponsor
• Sally Ann Gonzales (D)
• Justin Pierce (R)
• Carl Seel (R)
• Bruce Wheeler (D)
• Terri Proud (R)
• Jeff Dial (R)

Please email or call them and let them know you support this bill. http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp

Bill info – http://www.azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=HB2403&Session_ID=107

Read Lynne’s full analysis of why you should support HB 2403.

This is Our State and even the President needs to show a little respect when he touches down on our turf, especially turf that once sent our men and women off to battle.

Lesson to President Obama: Never mess with a Governor who eats scorpions for breakfast!

The Republican Presidential Preference Election is just around the corner. On February 28th, registered Republicans throughout Arizona will be going to the polls to vote for the person who may face Barack Hussein Obama for the next President of the United States of America.

The election is a closed primary and only voters who are registered or reregistered Republican on or before January 30th midnight will be allowed to vote in this historic event.

During Obama’s administration, our Country has faced monumental challenges – continued high unemployment, millions losing their homes, a reduced standard of living, a $15 trillion dollar increasing national debt and the first downgrade to America’s credit rating ever.

We’ve become a second rate nation in three short years and a sense of deep pessimism has gripped Americans with little hope for the future and little change in their pockets. Obama’s social and political experiments have failed miserably.

Considering the liberal Democrats, progressive socialists and organized labor, I seriously question if America’s enemies are really overseas.

If you are an Independent voter who wants to have their voice heard and their vote count, then take a few minutes and reregister Republican by January 30th midnight.

It’s convenient and easy to do online at www.azgop.org or www.servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/selectLanguage

I look forward to seeing you at the polls on February 28th!

A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, AZGOP Statewide Voter Registration
Arizona Republican Party

A.J. LaFaro also serves as the Chairman of Legislative District 17 Republicans.

On the Ron Paul thread* posted on Sonoran Alliance earlier by MadArizonan, something happened. Comments critical of Ron Paul’s foreign policy vanished.   Questions as to why this was happening also vanished.  So, from foreign policy, we have a free speech issue and how serious Ron Paul supporters adhere to it.  In the interest of promoting transparency, we collected the proof.  We wanted to spare readers going through fifty posts, so we kept the action to the top five posted comments for brevity, somewhat surprised that with the live bait we threw out that it went on so long, and showed no signs of let up so we’re pulling the plug.   A tedious and annoying job,  but Sonoran Alliance actually stands for Conservative values; those include respecting our Constitutional Rights of free speech, especially as pertains to political speech, and this is after all,  a political blog.

A reprint of today’s very illuminating debate … or rather the sabotage of one.
RPr says:
January 10, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Ron Paul The Champion of the Constitution!

REPLY
wanumba says:
January 12, 2012 at 3:44 pm
WHY does Ron Paul attract supporters who have NO problem erasing dissenting comments? That’s CENSORSHIP and a total disregard for FREE SPEECH. Is the word “hypocrisy” or is the word “fraud?” Do Ron Paul supporters TRULY believe in the Constitution or do they just TALK about it and then expect to rip it up later?

Dear Readers:
This is the more than the fifth comment removed from this slot just this afternoon, one of over a dozen comments REMOVED and whitewashed because the comments were critical of Ron Paul’s POLICIES. Now the subject is the extremely serious Constitutional issue of FREE SPEECH and alarmingly, how honestly are Ron Paul supporters respecting it? The inflexible and intolerant performance today is very disturbing and raises grave suspicions that the so-called Libertarian/Conservative marketing of Ron Paul is a complete sham. Those who talk Constitution, do the walk. What MadArizonan has done today is a slithery attempt to bury criticism of Ron Paul through elimination of opposing political speech.

REPLY
Gilbert Guy says:
January 10, 2012 at 11:33 pm
“We urge the other conservatives in the race to get out and to forget their conservative views on social issues and to ignore the 20th century on foreign policy and endorse Ron Paul.”

REPLY
Oberserve says:
January 10, 2012 at 11:56 pm
On social issues? Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, pro-life activist endorsed Ron Paul

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1957698/posts

If you’re going to criticize the man, at least pick a topic that’s accurate to criticize him on.

REPLY
wanumba says:
January 12, 2012 at 3:45 pm
The TOPIC is FREE SPEECH and CENSORSHIP and there’s plenty to criticize.

BELOW ARE SCREEN GRABS FROM TODAY’S COMMENTS:

Comments **********************************
RPr says:
January 10, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Ron Paul The Champion of the Constitution!

REPLY
wanumba says:
January 12, 2012 at 12:58 pm
RonPaulbot madarizonan totalitarian narrative-manager is denying me my free speech by censoring my comments, denying me a chance to answer the questions asked of me by other commenters. 50 comments back down to 44. Roller coaster DELETE.
Constitution? What’s THAT? Something to shred apparently. “An impediment” as Obama said. Birds of a feather.

REPLY
Gilbert Guy says:
January 10, 2012 at 11:33 pm
“We urge the other conservatives in the race to get out and to forget their conservative views on social issues and to ignore the 20th century on foreign policy and endorse Ron Paul.”

 REPLY
Oberserve says:
January 10, 2012 at 11:56 pm
On social issues? Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, pro-life activist endorsed Ron Paul

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1957698/posts

If you’re going to criticize the man, at least pick a topic that’s accurate to criticize him on.

REPLY
wanumba says:
January 12, 2012 at 12:59 pm
I want to pick FREE SPEECH and CENSORSHIP OF POLITICAL SPEECH amongst his totalitarian followers..
How’s them apples?

↓ WOOPS!! VANISH: Where did the criticism of Ron Paul go? ↓

Comments *************************
RPr says:
January 10, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Ron Paul The Champion of the Constitution!

REPLY
Gilbert Guy says:
January 10, 2012 at 11:33 pm
“We urge the other conservatives in the race to get out and to forget their conservative views on social issues and to ignore the 20th century on foreign policy and endorse Ron Paul.”

REPLY
Oberserve says:
January 10, 2012 at 11:56 pm
On social issues? Norma McCorvey, aka Jane Roe, pro-life activist endorsed Ron Paul

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1957698/posts

If you’re going to criticize the man, at least pick a topic that’s accurate to criticize him on.

REPLY
SamFox says:
January 11, 2012 at 1:12 am
Gilbert G, so what exactly is Ron Paul’s foreign policy. I note you put up a cheap shot, but didn’t back it up. How about you list Ron’s FP for us, in HIS own words, then do a critique for us to see. I am very tierd of cheap shot artist with no back up. All you types do is prove Cass Sunstein right when he called you easy to manipulate Homer Simpsons.

~~~~~~

I dunno. As a Homer Simpson type, I found it pretty easy to gather enough evidence to prove MADARIZONAN Ron Paul comments moderator had NO QUALMS about actively censoring speech MadArizonan didn’t like on a blog that promotes upholding free speech … not even clearing it with the blog owner, while supporters vehemently claimed how much Ron Paul promotes the Constitution.  What does that say about Ron Paul? Birds of a feather or Ron Paul can’t control his supporters or none of them aren’t actually really serious about that Constitution blah-blah, but it sounds good?  Walking the talk. Actions speak louder than words. Ye know them by their fruit.

What’s the truth? Inquiring minds want to know … and especially before voting or taking Ron Paul and his supporters suggestion we all quit and “unite with his campaign” and vision.  MADARIZONAN needs to explain exactly what the true Ron Paul vision is.

***************

As for Sonoran Alliance real commenting guidelines, your free speech can be done with a reasonable level of decorum in discourse.

*http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/01/10/bold-statement-from-the-paul-campaign/

***********************

By Congressman Jeff Flake

Some would say it’s Grinch-like that members of Congress cannot send any mail pieces from their offices wishing constituents a “Merry Christmas.” But read a little deeper into this issue, and chances are you’ll be siding with the bah-humbug crowd.

Members of Congress can, of course, extend any holiday wishes they desire on a personal basis: Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Blessed Kwanzaa or even, with a nod to George Costanza, Happy Festivus. Members of Congress just can’t use taxpayer dollars to send these season’s greetings if extending such greetings “is the primary purpose of the communication.”

This is a good thing. Do you really need to pay for Congressman X’s awkward family photo featuring a dozen grandchildren and the family dog in matching sweaters with the U.S. Capitol photoshopped into the background?

While we’re on the subject of taxpayer-funded salutations, you may be interested to know that Congress is moving beyond the standard campaign-esque glossy mailers. Elected officials have begun touting their feats of strength on the right-hand column of your Facebook page and Google searches—and you’re paying for it!

Since members seeking to pay for these Internet advertisements with taxpayer-funded office budgets are required to file such advertisements with the House Franking Office, my staff and I examined a few of them. What we found may surprise you—or, given Congress’s 9% approval rating, perhaps not.

“Congressman X is Fighting the Madness,” screams one Facebook ad, “Fighting Plans to End Medicare, Government Shutdown, Giveaways to Big Oil.” “Rep. X is working to lower gas prices by increasing American energy production. Find out more and like my page today!” says another. “Congressman X is Committed to Creating Jobs, Driving Down Spending and Shrinking the Size of the Federal Government.” Well, apparently not all spending.

Each click on these ads costs taxpayers additional money, as each click-through drives up a member’s ad bill.

Members of Congress can also use taxpayer funds to make sure their name pops up when someone does a Google search. As a general example, clicking on the member’s name that was primed to pop up with a Google search for the phrase “raising debt ceiling” would cost taxpayers approximately $4.70 per click. Ouch.

Then there are the political hijinks that members of Congress can play using taxpayer dollars. A member trying to lure conservation voters can use taxpayer funds to buy ads on conservation-themed websites. A member with an eye on a governor’s mansion can use taxpayer money to purchase ads that will pop up when a person in the member’s state searches for “governor” on Google.

So what do all of these ads cost taxpayers every year? The truth is, we don’t yet know. The current practice of the House is to shield the actual cost of these ads from public view. And this practice probably won’t change any time soon: Both parties engage in this ad buying, so both parties tend to look the other way when it comes to policing the practice.

Sitting members of Congress have abundant opportunities for earned media and press secretaries to ensure that our accomplishments, such as they are, are trumpeted far and wide. Social media have become a useful tool to promote ideas and policies, and many such media are free—or at least don’t cost the public anything. Why, then, should members be able to use taxpayer funds to purchase additional name ID for themselves?

Mr. Flake, a Republican, is a congressman from Arizona.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Be sure to subscribe to Bill’s YouTube Channel.

Arizona continues to be a shining star in the midst of liberal darkness that shrouds our country. As we hear reports of inequality regarding the treatment of the Tea Party vs. the treatment of the Occupy protesters in Richmond and other locations, I wish to give thanks the leaders of our great State for their support and fair treatment of our groups over the last two and a half years.

Not once have we received resistance to our events, been unduly denied permits or access to public areas, nor harassed in any manner. On the contrary, the City of Phoenix has provided police protection for our members and has provided freedom of expression of our first and second amendment rights. We have always felt free to express our message, even when it is alongside the violent opposition.

Indeed, Arizona has been a beacon for those wishing to lift their voices in protest, not only for the Conservative voice, but also for the law-breaking entitlement groups who hate our State and our country. When a group of illegal immigration proponents threw a large American flag on the State Capitol grounds, placed a toilet seat on it and instructed their children to stomp their dirty shoes over it in defiance of our laws, the Arizona Capitol police protected their 1st amendment rights as well.

Yes, here in Arizona you can wave your Mexican flag on the porch of the Capitol and declare that it is truly Mexico, not the United States, and get away with it. As abhorrent as that seems, it is the nature of Arizona to uphold the law and the rights of her people, even when it hurts. We applaud our great State, and offer her example to those officials in other parts of our great country who have forgotten what it means to respect the protection of the Constitution.

Kelly Townsend is Co-Founder of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party.

INVITES YOU TO ATTEND

Sharia Law:  What We Need To Know

PRESENTED BY AL FADI

Date: Saturday, December 3, 2011
Time: 10:00 am – 12:00 noon
Location: The Scottsdale Bible Church  Room E-210
Address: 7601 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ

Al Fadi is a former Wahabbi Muslim from Saudi Arabia.  He is the researcher, editor, writer, and translator for numerous ministries, including “Answering Islam” and runs an outreach center called; the Center for Islamic Research & Awareness. The center focus is to bring awareness regarding Islam, to build bridges with Muslims, and to provide expert input on issues related to Sharia Law and Democracy.

Al is the editor, co-author and contributor of “The Qur’an Dilemma” (both English & Arabic versions) – a critical analysis book of the Qur’an. He is also the director of TheQuran.com Group (www.theQuran.com) which desires to assist both Muslims and non-Muslims who seek to learn more about the main source of Islamic teachings, the Qur’an, to research it, to critically analyze it, and to better comprehend its contents without the traditional religious and cultural barriers designed to indoctrinate and encapsulate the minds of many truth seekers.

Al has a Masters in Engineering and is currently working on completing his M.Div. in Biblical Communications. He is an invited teacher/lecturer on Islam and related Islamic study topics. He is an invited guest speaker and trainer at numerous churches and mission agencies on the topic of Islam & Evangelism to Muslims. As a former devout Muslim, he is an expert on the teaching and challenges of Islam. In addition, Al is an invited guest/expert on numerous Arabic evangelical Satellite TV and Radio shows on the topics of Islam and the Middle East.

Refreshments will be served

Cost: $10 per person

Go to www.arizonamainstreamproject.org to make payment by credit card.  If making payment at the door, please RSVP to Susan Leeper at 480-998-5022 or susan@arizonamainstreamproject.org

Almost two years ago, in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment prohibited the government from forcing any corporation, union or other association to channel their money through a political action committee in order to make independent expenditures. Arizona responded by thumbing its nose at the decision.

Under the guise of requiring disclosure of independent expenditures, the state enacted a law that effectively forces any corporation, union or limited liability company that exists “primarily” to influence elections to channel its independent expenditures through a political committee. Now, in the name of transparency, the Arizona Secretary of State is engaged in a headlong effort to enforce compliance with this unconstitutional regulatory regime.

Independent groups are right to resist. Applied to independent expenditures, Arizona’s political committee regulations are essentially the same as those struck down in Citizens United. Both threaten civil or criminal penalties merely for raising and spending money to talk about politics.

To avoid such sanctions, both sets of regulations require forming and registering an elaborate political organization, complete with segregated accounts, appointed officers and responsibility for regular financial reporting, as well as exposure to audits by governmental agencies. This forces groups who want to engage in political speech to develop an expertise in volumes of campaign finance laws, related regulations, and agency interpretations of regulations.

As a result, both sets of regulations minimally impact well-funded, politically-connected groups, but heavily impact the least sophisticated, the least connected, and the most underfunded.

Neither the federal government nor Arizona have the constitutional authority to require such high regulatory hurdles for independent groups engaging in free speech. The First Amendment does not allow “transparency” to become a banner under which the government silences independent voices.

American citizens have a constitutional right to spend money expressing their support or opposition for candidates. That right is not forfeited when they organize a corporation, union or limited liability company to serve as the means of pooling their resources.

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.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: A Case for Limiting Campaign Finance Regulations

A.R.S. § 16-902 (2011): Arizona Political Committee Regulations

A.R.S. § 16-901 (2011): Arizona Statutory Definitions

A.R.S. § 16-919 (2011): Criminal Sanctions for Contributions other than to Independent Expenditure Committee

As often happens during election season, the media has been up in arms about “secret funds” being spent by independent groups on messages meant to support or oppose candidates.

They should get a grip. The First Amendment enshrines freedom of speech, not witch-hunts led by the political establishment under the banner of “transparency.”

Our nation was founded on anonymous free speech by independent groups. Under pseudonyms, the Founders deliberately hid their identities as they engaged in coordinated advocacy of the ratification of the Constitution in 85 pamphlets. The pamphlets were crucial to rebutting the arguments of those who opposed the Constitution.

Without anonymity, the arguments advanced by the Founders could have been evaded with ad hominem attacks. Anonymity forced the opposition to grapple with ideas on their merits. This resulted in a better debate, which the Founders won on the strength of their ideas.

The marketplace of ideas is enhanced, not diminished, by the freedom to engage in anonymous speech. Broadside government attacks on anonymous speech threaten to suppress the marketplace of ideas, which ultimately threatens the media as much as any independent group.

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.

Learn More:

Arizona Republic: Throw a light on secret funds

Library of Congress: The Federalist Papers

I have always believed that running Olivia Cortes was a huge mistake if not just plain stupid. Gaming the system in such a manner goes against the American Association of Political Consultants Code of Ethics.

I did not participate in the fiasco of running her as a candidate other than providing a forum for supporters and detractors to discuss her participation in the race.

Ultimately what Tom Ryan did to her was evil by dragging her through the mud and into the court system. If there was anyone YOU should be attacking for disrespecting Latinas, it is Tom Ryan and his minions for humiliating her in the courts. Shame on you DeeDee for not defending her!

Yes, Olivia Cortes was dragged into this stupid, unnecessary recall fiasco as a means to game the system. Those who pulled her into this were wrong for doing so.

DeeDee Garcia Blase, we may agree on several other issues but you are DEAD WRONG on my participation in the Cortes fiasco.

You should also go back and read Sonoran Alliance and see that I gave Jerry Lewis supporters the opportunity to post on Sonoran Alliance as guest opinions. I even gave Tyler Montague and Chad Snow space and time to get their opinions out:

Deep Thoughts from Team Pearce: A new interpretation of, “We report, you decide.” by Tyler Montague

Citizens for a Better Arizona Official Statement – “Why a Recall – Why Now?” by Chad Snow

You need to do your research before you start hysterically lashing out at what you don’t know.

This blog is well read across the State of Arizona and in Washington, D.C. Anyone who is a frequent reader and visitor will see that I have given each side the opportunity to voice their opinions.

If you want to continue to pursue this and tell lies about my position, I will be more than willing to dedicate space on Sonoran Alliance to make sure that you received negative ink on a daily basis. This is your opportunity to retract your posts that are outright lies and likely libelous. In exchange, I will remove this post. The choice is yours DeeDee Blase.

Finally, go back and read Sonoran Alliance in 2010 and you will see that John McCain had his supporters also posting on the blog. It was NOT one-sided as you alleged on your most recent post.

I am getting sick and tired of people like you who think that I write every post on Sonoran Alliance or don’t allow other viewpoints. There are plenty of people who will back me up that Sonoran Alliance bends over backwards to give equal access to both sides. Hell DeeDee, I would even give you your own login if you asked!

So tell the truth DeeDee Blase and take the opportunity to correct and retract your statements before you wear out my graces.

Former Deputy Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Alexander faces disciplinary action for following orders from her boss, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. Whether or not you agree or disagree with Thomas’ office’s allegations against some of the county supervisors is irrelevant. The issue here is what appears to be nothing short of a political assassination of a dedicated employee and public servant in Alexander. Others who also worked on the racketeering suit have had no such allegations made against them, interestingly.

According the the Arizona Republic, “Alexander is charged with seven ethical violations stemming from her work on the racketeering suit. Charges include using means to burden or embarrass, filing and asserting a frivolous proceeding, and disobeying an obligation under the rules of a tribunal.”

Most of the above ethics charges stem from Alexander following orders from her boss. As a Maricopa County Attorney’s Office employee, anyone would and should feel comfortable that their boss, the duly elected County Attorney, was following the law, and that what he was directing his employee to do was legal. He was the county’s highest ranking lawyer, after all. So of course, if one is asked to file paperwork and pursue a case, an employee would do so, even if she objected. It was her job.

Alexander is being charged, despite a long, unblemished record at MCAO, solely for her role working on the RICO case. What was her role? She worked under her supervisor Pete Spaw’s direction. Shaw was an experienced RICO attorney who, according to my sources, started the drafts of the pleadings, finalized the drafts of the pleadings with Andrew Thomas, and developed the key theories in them. He exclusively dealt with opposing counsel, and filed all of the pleadings electronically. Alexander’s role consisted of mostly research for the pleadings, and taking direction from Spaw, nothing further. Yet Spaw was not charged by the Bar, only Alexander.

The “filing, asserting, & disobeying an obligation” charges are mostly just there for the purpose of piling on. The real issue here is the allegation that Alexander sought to burden and embarrass county supervisors. The allegation is nothing short of hilarious on its face, if anyone has ever heard or read a statement from Mary Rose Wilcox, or followed the Brock sex-scandal case, or followed the new court house boondoggle. The supervisors, with a few exceptions, have done a pretty good job of bringing poor press and embarrassment upon themselves. And they did so all without the help of Alexander.

But digging deeper, the charges against Alexander reek of fulfilling a vendetta for running a political blog, and a conservative one at that. Most of their unfettered discontent comes from blog posts they attribute to Alexander, that she in fact did not write. The Arizona State Bar is anything but a right-leaning organization, and it appears to seek to censor a person with whom they disagree, while leaving others untouched.

As Alexander’s attorney, Scott Zwillinger, says, “She was simply one lawyer of several assigned to a controversial matter, but unfortunately for her, she is the one now fighting for her career.”

Alexander will hopefully prevail in this matter, but the tragedy will remain that the Arizona State Bar used it’s power to try to silence a grass-roots activist with whom they have political disagreements. Arizona is not being served well in this, and its legal community is being embarrassed. And, of course, political blogging isn’t going anywhere…

And in case you’re wondering, here is Interrogatory that specifically targets Rachel Alexander for blogging.

By Roy Warden

On September 07, 2011 the Tucson City Council fired City Manager Mike Letcher, whom Councilwoman Karen Uhlich called a “man of integrity” who was “hired to bring more transparency and openness to city government,” ushering in a new era in Tucson City Politics.

Regarding “transparency and openness to city government,” it only took a week for this new era’s true character to reveal itself.

In a breathtaking usurpation of power, Mayor Walkup, using terms such as “civility in public discourse,” effectively announced on September 13, 2011 that city policy now bans the public from offering any future criticism of Tucson City Officials at city council meetings, effectively suspending the First Amendment.

And 20 minutes later the Tucson Police Department enforced the new policy when, upon Mayor Walkup’s direct command, they stopped the public address of Tucson Activist Roy Warden, arrested him, and removed him from the council chamber.

“It is shocking, stunning,” said Warden afterwards in an interview with KGUN News.

“In one fell swoop, Mayor Walkup overturned 235 years of law, the First Amendment and the fruits of the American Revolution.”

On September 13, Warden began his address by reminding the council of the lawful relationship between government and the people, as set forth in the Arizona Constitution, with the purpose of government being to protect the individual rights of the people.

Warden then turned to the issue of City Manager Richard Miranda, City Attorney Mike Rankin, and the theft of more than half a million dollars of public funds to pay the punitive damages awarded by a federal jury against three Tucson City Officials, including Richard Miranda, in 2006.

It was at this point that Mayor Walkup cut him off.

When Warden tried to read the punitive damage standards set forth in Arizona case law, Mayor Walkup had the police arrest and remove him from the city council chambers.

Outside, TPD Officer Couch aggressively confronted Warden and told him: “Get out of here! You’re just a troublemaker!”

Warden says whether or not the Mayor and City Council has the authority to prohibit public speech they deem to be “uncivil” will be resolved via a Special Action he intends to file in Pima County Superior Court.

Then Warden plans to file a action against Mayor Walkup and Tucson City Attorney Mike Rankin in US District Court on the issue of civil rights violations, and damages.

“It’s remarkable,” Warden says.

“The Mayor had me arrested to prevent me from bringing to public view the theft of half a million dollars of public money,” Warden says.

“Now, by his own arrogance and outrageous conduct, he’s given me the power to make a federal case out of it.”

And now the video:

Click here to view the embedded video.

The game is described as:

DON’T GET TEA-BAGGED! The Tea Party zombies are walking the streets of America. Grab your weapons and bash their rotten brains to bits! Destroy zombie Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, the Koch Brothers, and many more!

Keep in mind that the creator of the game, Jason Oda, disclaims his latest creation as “just a personal project.” We’re wondering when he’ll release the Obama Zombies Must Die version or maybe the Democratic Congressman Zombies Must Die version.

Zombies or not, the reality of the situation is that liberal Democrats don’t play by the same rules for society. Imagine if a conservative gaming company created a game that allowed the killing of the President of the United States. Image the outrage.

There is no reasoning with folks that live in an alter-universe where killing high profile conservative leaders is a game or joke. Yes, it is free expression protected under the Constitution and conservatives should defend it with every ounce of energy. But Wow! Is it ever in bad taste and dripping with hypocrisy.

(h/t to Tom Jenney, Stephen Gutowski and MRCTV.)