Tony Rivero: Cell Phone Carriers’ Back Room Deal Could Cost 10,000 Lives a Year

By Peoria City Councilman Tony Rivero

Tony Rivero

Peoria Councilman Tony Rivero

Many people would be surprised to find out that emergency dispatchers often can’t locate them if they dial 9-1-1 from a wireless phone. Earlier this year, the FCC proposed a rule to update their standards, which they estimate could save 10,000 lives a year. This proposed rule will help 9-1-1 professionals and emergency responders locate wireless callers more quickly and accurately.

While modernizing the existing FCC standards to correct these clear flaws in our current system seems like a no-brainer to law enforcement and public safety officials, the cell phone carriers are working on a backroom deal with the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), a public safety trade association, to delay this lifesaving rule.

People call 9-1-1 because they are in desperate need of help. All too often, these individuals are in medical distress, a victim of a crime in progress, unsure of their location, or otherwise unable to communicate. The time lost as first responders try to locate callers often leads to tragic outcomes of those emergencies.  We cannot allow another insider deal to delay the FCC’s original proposed rule by years, costing thousands of additional lives.

While we have had so many technological advances in the way we communicate, our ability to find 9-1-1 callers has not kept pace.  Luckily, the technology to correct this problem exists today, and the FCC’s proposed rule outlines a realistic two-year path to location accuracy for all wireless 9-1-1 calls.

We’re accustomed to backroom Washington deals costing us taxpayer money, but the cost of thousands of lives is unacceptable.  We need to tell the FCC to stand firm and reject any carrier-backed deal that would delay or alter the provisions of this lifesaving rule as it was proposed, so our law enforcement officers and first responders can stop searching for callers and get back to saving lives.

Tony Rivero currently serves on the Peoria City Council and is a candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 21. Find out more about Tony at TonyRivero.com.

Tempe’s Private Little Fiscal Cliff

By Michael Gibbs

Lemmings

What Tempe Council believes

I can’t think of the right adjective to use. Discouraged? Shocked? Appalled? Dismayed? Incredulous? That’s how this week’s Tempe City Council candidate forum left me feeling.

At one point candidate Matt Papke responded to a question by expressing concern about the city’s finances. Several current members of the council dismissed the issue by telling the audience that, by law, the budget has to be balanced. The attitude went beyond nonchalant–they implied that the city’s debt is a GOOD thing.

When Papke showed that in the last ten years alone Tempe’s debt has increased three-fold to nearly three quarters of a billion dollars his opponents made fun of him and one even asked if he had a mortgage on his house. Another stated flatly that you cannot run a city without incurring debt.

It’s this kind of thinking that has driven the entire nation to a $17 trillion dollar deficit, the only difference being that Tempe doesn’t have a printing press in the basement to make more dollars! No wonder Tempe is digging an ever deeper hole despite having the highest property taxes in the valley–it’s run by a bunch of profligates with no regard for their fiscal responsibilities. The spendthrifts in Detroit must be very proud to have Tempe following in their footsteps.

The Voting Pattern of Michele Reagan

It is time to www.fightforarizona.com

Do NOT vote for Michele Reagan. She sold the Republicans out in 2004, 2006, 2008, 2009, 2013.

It is time for all Republicans to take a stand and hold those we elect accountable.

Michele Reagan has a bad pattern that is not Republican and is not Principled

  • Michele Reagan voted to not notify a parent if their own child was to have an abortion.
  • Michele Reagan voted to teach sex education to kindergartners.
  • Michele Reagan voted FOR Obamacare Medicaid Expansion.
  • Michele Reagan voted to give entitlements to illegal immigrants by removing the Proof of Citizenship Requirement.
  • Michele Reagan voted for budgets that spent more money then she knew she had.
  • Michele Reagan voted in 2004, 2008, and 2013 with a handful of Republicans and ALL the Democrats for a Democrat deficit budget.

But she is really nice.  And she wants to be one step away from being the Governor of Arizona.

It is time to hold Republicans accountable.

 =================================================================

2013: Republican Legislative Districts and Counties CENSURED Michele Regan saying:

“we therefore disassociate ourselves from the governor and these legislators, and encourage other Republicans to likewise disassociate themselves from any of the above who may be candidates for any office in the upcoming 2014 elections, or any election thereafter, and affirm our withholding of support of all kinds.”

2006:  Michele votes to stop the notarization of parents when a child wants an abortion joining with 100% of the Democrat caucus and 2 other Republicans on HB 2666 – Notarized Parental Consent for Abortions.

2013: Michele voted for the Obamacare Medicaid Expansion. Then she voted against it.

Michele votes ‘YEA’ for Obrewercare, SB1492, joining 5 Republicans and all the Democrats, in the middle of the night, after Senator McComish makes a motion to suspend the rules, to stop Senate President Andy Biggs from trying to save Arizona from the train-wreck that is Obamacare.

Michele changes her reason for her vote but now she is saying, “I voted for the Andy Biggs budget.”

No she did not.  Andy Bigg’s budget was modified so badly that even he voted against it.

2009:  Michele sponsors a bill to teach sex education in the Kindergarten classroom, HB2544.

2008: In 2008 Michele voted for a deficit producing budget, ‘YEA’ with three Republicans, 100% of the Democrats, and Governor Napolitano on HB2209 to pass by a 31 YEA to 29 NAY vote.

(No Republican that voted for the 2004 or 2008 budget is serving in an elected office except for Michele.)

2004: Democrat budget: Michele voted ‘YEA’ with 14 Republicans for Democrat Janet Napolitano’s budget to raise the state budget more than a billion dollars.

Resolutions were passed by every district but one demanding her loyalty to Republican planks saying:

Do not sell out our Republican principles and the promise of 3 years funding that will benefit a few special interests at the cost of our State sovereignty and our core Republican values. We will adamantly oppose those who compromise our core values for short term political expediency.”

She sold YOU OUT.  Did you mean it?  Do NOT vote for Michele Reagan.

It is time for Republicans to hold those we elect accountable for their votes.

 www.fightforarizona.com

For a copy of this document to print out and distribute:  http://www.apcarizona.com/uploads/Reagan_Voting_Pattern.pdf
For a copy of the STATE BLACKLIST to distribute:  http://www.apcarizona.com/The_State_BLACKLIST.html

Bob Worsley Voted For Obamacare Medicaid And Lied To Me

We’re seeing a lot of ads supporting Bob Worsley in his re-election bid to the Arizona State Senate. The last campaign finance report shows that Senator Worsley had over $180,000 of cash on hand (the job pays $24,000/year). Those ads will continue to run covering up his record supporting Obamacare and the MILLIONS of taxes and costs it will require to keep Obamacare Medicaid running here in Arizona.

Because no one can compete with the kind of money being spent on a simple legislative race, I felt compelled to make my own political ad and post it here on Sonoran Alliance. While Bob Worsley rakes in tens of thousands of dollars from bundlers in the healthcare industrial complex and the chamber of commerce, all I have is my handheld camera and a blog.

Here is my very own “selfercial” explaining why I am voting against Bob Worsley for Arizona State Senate.

YouTube Preview Image

For more information, please visit www.ObamacareBobWorsley.com.

I wrote this ad and I paid for it.

 

Chad Roche Responds to Baseless Accusations of Opponent

Repeated unsubstantiated allegations have been printed about me over the last few months. While I’ve ignored blatant lies, I’d like to clear the air a bit. My staff, many of whom support me, have volunteered their time off-the-clock but Arizona Supreme Court Rule 123(e)(1) states that employee payroll records are closed; after consulting with my attorneys, it was made clear that my office is prohibited from releasing them.

I’ve also been accused of violating campaign finance laws by buying signs and collecting signatures prior to organizing my campaign this year. Arizona state law (ARS 16-901) states that if a candidate spends our intends to spend less than $250 they do not need to organize a campaign or file anything. Prior to the end of March, I didn’t spend or intend to spend more than $250 because I didn’t have an opponent; I printed my petitions at home. As for the signs, prior to ordering my new signs on June 25, 2014 I used my campaign signs from 2010 (you can see them in the attached picture). Just for full transparency I’ve also attached a screenshot showing my purchase from Sav-on-Signs in Tucson for the re-election signs.

During a campaign, a challenger with no record, no experience, and no voting history can say anything they want to mislead the public.

I’m the ONLY life-long pro-life REPUBLICAN running for Clerk of the Superior Court and I ask for your vote! If you’ve got any questions about the completely false and unsubstantiated allegations being spread around about me.

Chad Roche SignSign Receipt

Toby Farmer: Vote No on Legislator Pay Raises

Toby Farmer

“Everybody can be great…because anybody can serve. ”

Words of Martin Luther King, Jr., articulating his belief that the notion of true and great public service comes from a heart willing to make the sacrifice to do whatever it takes to make the world a better place for the underserved and future generations.

In Arizona, we have a citizen legislature – normal people leaving the private sector to serve our state for a limited amount of time. A true servant leader is one willing to make the commitments to advocate and to serve the people whom they represent. Being a legislator should not be the best job you’ve ever had, and the notion that pay raises will translate to better legislators is just as fatuous.

Earlier this year State Senator Don Shooter infamously told a reporter that freebies like Fiesta Bowl tickets helped supplement his income and that he wanted a pay raise from taxpayers if he was going to give up lobbyist gifts and perks.

He even remarked: “It costs a lot of money to do this job, there’s an opportunity cost.” So much for sacrifice and a citizen-based legislature.

This November, Prop 304 will ask voters to approve a 45% pay raise for our citizen legislature. Meanwhile our state is facing a $300-plus structural deficit. Add a court judgment requiring the state to pay back an additional $316M to our schools, and this should be a no brainer about where we should be allocating our limited state resources.

As a Republican candidate for LD13 State Senate, I don’t believe in special interest perks and gifts from lobbyists. I’m not running for office because I’m focused on my next stepping stone in life. Being a state legislator should not be the best job you’ve ever had. If you don’t have a mentality of service as a state legislator you don’t deserve to be elected.

Let’s put our priorities in order. Vote No on Prop 304. Vote No on legislator pay raises.

Toby Farmer is a Republican candidate for the Arizona State Senate in legislative district 13. For more information about Toby Farmer, visit his website at FarmerAZ.com

Did Heather Carter Vote to Raise our Taxes?

By Jose Borajero

Heather Carter

Heather Carter

Shortly, the Arizona Supreme Court will be ruling on whether the Medicaid tax imposed by the Democrats, aided and abetted by Representative Heather Carter and eight other Republicans in the House of Representatives is really a tax or something else, like a fee. The only question that will be resolved by the court is whether that move was legal or not. It will not determine whether it was good or bad. We all know that the mere fact something is legal does not automatically make it good, or desirable.

Whether we call it a tax, or something else, like a fee, an assessment, a contribution, an investment, or any of a myriad euphemistic terms that big government advocates use to disguise taxes, the fact remains that Heather Carter voted for bills that increase the amount of money that moves from the pockets of the taxpayers to the pockets of the government.

That fact is reflected in the results of the legislator evaluations done by three conservative leaning organizations.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP): This organization routinely keeps track of how legislators vote on issues having to do with economic matters, like taxation, spending, education, etc. (scorecard)

Goldwater Institute: These folks evaluate legislator performance across a wide variety of subjects, including tax & budget, education, constitutional government, and regulation.

National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB): This is a watchdog group for small businesses, which account for the vast majority of jobs in this country. They evaluate legislators on whether or not their votes enhance small businesses ability to operate in free and open market. (scorecard)

Currently in Arizona, we have 17 Republicans in the Senate and 36 Republicans in the House of Representatives, for a total of 43 Republican legislators. Let us see how Heather Carter was scored by all three organizations.

ORGANIZATION SCORE RANK
Americans for Prosperity – 48%  or 39th out of 43
Goldwater Institute – 61% or 35th out of 43
National Federation of Independent Businesses – 75% or 43rd out of 43

Conclusion: Heather Carter is a friend of Big Government and an enemy of the tax payer. People should keep that in mind when deciding whether to vote for her or for her challenger(s).

 

Hobby and a Lobby of Glass Houses

By Sam Stone

The liberal angst over the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and other Christian-owned family businesses is rapidly spinning out of control. Critics have accused Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court of everything short of genocide. Comedian and MSNBC contributor John Fugelsang tweeted that the Hobby Lobby ruling “proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law”, explicitly comparing the atrocities committed in the name of radical Islam to not requiring someone else to pay for the morning-after pill. That’s ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous in light of what Hobby Lobby really is: one of the best examples of corporate humanity and compassion in this country. It’s even more ridiculous when you compare Hobby Lobby to, for example, Staples – a similar retail business run by founder and CEO Tom Stemberg, who was a significant contributor to President Obama’s campaigns.

Hobby Lobby pays a starting wage of $9.50 per hour for part time employees. Full time employees start at $14 an hour. All employees are eligible to enroll in the company-sponsored health care plan (which covers 16 types of birth control). All employees have Sundays off.

Staples employees often start at whatever minimum wage their local jurisdiction has set. Their average wage for associates is $8.55 an hour. Most associates do not qualify for company-sponsored benefits. Staples is open 7 days a week.

And yet, the left is basically claiming that because Hobby Lobby will only pay for 16 of 20 FDA-approved birth control types, they are the Taliban and the Green family are members of ISIS. What on earth does that make Tom Stemberg and Staples? A Staples employee who doesn’t have company health insurance isn’t getting their morning-after pills paid for by the company, either. Or condoms. Or the pill. Or…you get the picture.

I have a ton of liberal friends and family members who pooh-pooh the idea of a War on Christianity. Frankly, I always have as well. The reaction of liberals and their media allies to the Hobby Lobby case is changing my mind. The mainstream media doesn’t so much as bat an eyelash at the Staples of the world, so long as the plutocrats in charge are willing to keep lining the pockets of liberal candidates (and their own networks). But Christian business owners who pay their employees a living wage and provide healthcare benefits are monsters because they won’t pay for a few specific abortifacients?

Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling or Hobby Lobby’s employee handbook prevents employees from going out and purchasing the morning-after pill for themselves. But, apparently, none of this matters so long as liberals can use the ruling to perpetuate a mythological conservative “war on women” that exists mostly in the minds of the Sandra Fluke’s of the world. Perhaps, instead, they should take a look at their own glass houses.

Frank Riggs: The California Congressman Who Wants To Be Arizona Governor

Bartles and Jaymes called. They want their congressman back!

Frank RiggsThere’s one candidate in the race for Governor who claims to be an Arizona conservative but his political dossier reveals otherwise.

Frank Riggs may have relocated to Arizona in 2001 but the astute voter can clearly detect the odor of California politics emanating from the former congressman. Perhaps it’s just sour grapes.

Riggs, who tried to run for Arizona Governor in 2006, quit his exploratory bid when he realized he failed to meet Arizona’s residency requirement for the race.

Sound familiar?

Riggs pulled the same quitting maneuver in California – twice! When a Democrat state senator challenged him in his congressional re-election, Riggs quit and decided to run for the U.S. Senate instead. But then he dropped out of that race too, blaming his lack of fund-raising prowess and the long commute between northern California and D.C. (Tony Perry, “Riggs’ Money Woes Kill Longshot Bid for U.S. Senate,” Los Angeles Times, 4/10/1998)

But quitting his political races at the slightest nudge of a challenge is not the only indicator of Riggs’ lack of preparedness and commitment.

The former congressman also had a problem keeping his promises. According to the same article, “Riggs spent considerable time in his first term deflecting criticism that he reneged on a promise to turn over his congressional pay increase to charity (he ended up sending half to charity) and another pledge not to take contributions from the oil and timber industries” (read article). Why Riggs held on to the other half of his pay raise, and broke his promise to reject big industry cash, is open to speculation but it may be another indicator that the congressman simply had a problem handling money.

The same Los Angeles Times article stated that Riggs violated federal campaign finance laws and only dodged being penalized because the statute of limitations had run out: “A Federal Elections Commission audit of his 1990 campaign found that he had violated election law by improperly bankrolling his campaign with corporate money and loans from his mother, father and sister that exceeded contribution limits.” When honest people are desperate for cash, they usually buckle down their expenses and find ways to earn extra money – not bend the rules as a means of financial survival.

Frank Riggs House BankingKeep in mind, this is the same Frank Riggs who paraded himself alongside six other freshmen Republicans in 1992 as the “Gang of Seven.” You remember these crusaders. They took on the infamous House banking scandal that embroiled fellow members of Congress who had overdrawn their House checking accounts. There’s only one problem: if you’re going to place yourself on an elite pedestal, you’d better be above reproach yourself. It was later discovered that Riggs also bounced several checks as part of the scandal. Ouch!

But it must be noted that Riggs not only didn’t mind burdening others with his financial problems, he also doesn’t mind burdening small business with increased costs by voting to raise the minimum wage not once, not twice, not even three times. Congressman Frank Riggs voted for legislation to raise the minimum wage four times. That’s four opportunities Riggs missed to stand up for small business and free market economic principles. Today, of course, he claims to be an advocate for small businesses and free enterprise, which directly contradicts previous support for increasing the minimum wage. Can you say flip flop?

But wait, it gets worse! During one term of Congressman Frank Riggs tenure, he managed to sneak $35 Million of pork into bills to benefit his district. That’s right. All told, Congressman Riggs brought home the bacon in the form of university buildings and a harbor dredging project(read article). Doesn’t quite sound like the congressman who only two years earlier, signed on to the Contract with American opining about fiscal prudence and balanced budgets.

But even when Congressman Frank Riggs bothered to show up for work and vote (he missed a higher-than-average number of roll call votes, according to GovTrack), his conservative rating was mediocre at best. According to VoteSmart and the American Conservative Union, Riggs scored a lifetime conservative rating of 76%. To put that in perspective, Riggs’ lifetime conservative score was lower than every one of Arizona’s Republican delegation at the time – including Jim Kolbe.

And when Riggs makes bad votes, they’re not just minor swerves to the left – they’re major over of the cliff calamities. Take the January 12, 1991 vote authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq in accordance with US Security Council Resolution 678. Congressman Frank Riggs was one of three Republicans in the US House who voted against it. Arizona has already had its handful of unprincipled Republicans. She cannot afford another one – especially in the Governor’s office.

Anyone who performs a political credit check on Frank Riggs will easily discover that he scores far below the caliber Arizonans demand in their next governor. When our neighbors to the west leave California, they usually come here for a good reason – to leave behind the liberal California policies, values and bureaucratic regulations and red tape that strangled their businesses and finances. But, based on his record, Frank Riggs wants to bring those mediocre values to Arizona’s government. Republican voters in Arizona are smart and can sniff out the scent of a faux conservative. They should turn up their noses to candidates like Frank Riggs who cannot reconcile their rhetoric with their record.

Arizona Republican Party Presents Awards Highlighting Underachieving Democrats

Democrats Deserve Spotlight on Election Manipulation, AZGOP Uses Satire to Direct Voter Attention
 
PHOENIX - While last night’s awards presented by Arizona Capitol Times at the “Best of the Capitol 2014” were for professional achievement and in some cases for fun, today Arizona Republican Party Chairman Robert Graham issued a few awards of his own to a carefully selected group of Democrat candidates and organizations.
 
“We all know that hard work in a campaign will be rewarded with a well-deserved victory, but it’s important to have a public acknowledgement that so many Democrat candidates are just out there ignoring voters and just taking it easy,” said Robert Graham, Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party. “in contrast, Republicans are engaging voters as they compete for the GOP nomination for all of Arizona’s top offices, while the Democrats have only managed to field one candidate, or even no candidate, for these important positions.”
 
 
Graham’s first award goes to the Arizona Democratic Party, and it’s called the Irony in Action Award.
 
“Democrats talk about having ‘responsible public servants’ and ‘stewardship’ but they’re apparently not interested in fielding a candidate for State Treasurer, a job that involves oversight of $12 billion worth of Arizona’s assets,” Graham said.
 
His next award went to the three Democrats running for Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General. None of the three are competing for their party nomination, leaving voters no choices and rendering the Democrat Primary ballot useless. The award is called the Lawnmower Award because that’s what’s used to clear a field. And once the field has been cleared, it means any potential Democrat opponent simply forfeited.
 
“The Democrats have disenfranchised voters by having party elites, not regular citizens, pick and choose their candidates behind closed doors. Campaigns and elections are supposed to be about competition, contrast, and choice — but the Democrats in Arizona have no interest in that,” Graham said.
 
The third award is called the Gold Coin Award and is presented to Terry Goddard.
 
“This award goes to the candidate that lost three times when he ran for governor, then announced he was interested in being Attorney General, but then later on he apparently flipped a coin and decided to run for Secretary of State, Graham added.
 
As a fourth award Graham issued the Speak Your Mind Award for having either the courage or bad judgment to say something really dumb during a big, important meeting, where it will be recorded in the official minutes.
 
“This award winner is Carolyn Warner, the Arizona Democrats’ National Committeewoman, who said during a major post election meeting in 2012 that Democrat Party leaders should ‘quit spending money on white men.’
 
 
Fifth and final award is the Photoshop Award. Like the Democrats’ Primary Election, there was no competition for this award and DuVal wins it by default.
 
“This is the guy who Photoshopped a picture of himself where he added a beard, costume, and Mexican beer to make himself look Hispanic. Enough said,” Graham added.
 
No one is sure if Warner’s comments contributed to DuVal’s attempt to change his ethnicity.
 
###

A Lesson in Political Ads for Scott Smith

If you haven’t noticed yet, the statewide political ads are just getting started. And while we won’t see the first barrage of ads until mid-July when the early ballots go out, most statewide campaigns are just getting ready for production having enough time to hone their messaging and create that uniquely Arizona feel.

That is, unless you’re the Scott Smith campaign.

Today, the former Mayor of Mesa went up on air with a new ad called, “Crisis Demands Leadership.” In the press release announcing the ad, Smith touts his “record of experience and leadership in overcoming difficult challenges in the private and public sector.” We’ll have more on that record later but in the meantime, we want to straight up critique the ad on its production, political airplay and its content.

iStockVidSmith’s campaign obviously had difficulty overcoming a production challenge because they had to purchase a b-roll video file off an internet site that specializes in stock images and video. In the ad the viewer sees a nice Anglo family smiling as they sit surrounded by a luscious green park. There’s only one problem; the company that made the video footage is from Slovenia. So much for that uniquely Arizona feel. The campaign could have at least borrowed a family of Smith supporters and shot some footage at a local park for a nice local touch. Oops!

Then there’s the challenge of airing the ad statewide. Anyone who’s been around the Arizona political scene for anytime knows you can’t win statewide unless you win or break even in Pima County. The hard political reality is Tucson can make or break an election so you better show up and show some love in the Old Pueblo.

The challenge the Smith campaign cannot overcome here is that they’re not on the air on Tucson television. The last time we checked, the market for the four local affiliates in Tucson was relatively cheaper than the Phoenix market. So why no ads in Tucson? Could it be the financial challenge of not having the money? Or, maybe the campaign hasn’t yet cut an entirely different message that celebrates Smith’s weakness on immigration and his support for Common-Core a position that left-leaning Tucsonans could only appreciate.

Finally, the Smith campaign seems to have a problem overcoming the challenge of original ideas. Near the end of the ad, Mayor Smith holds up a pamphlet he calls “The Business Plan” – which he gives no details. Sound familiar? That’s right, sixteen days ago, Arizona State Treasurer Doug Ducey went on the air with his 2nd TV ad talking about his plan for Arizona, what he calls The Roadmap to Opportunity and Freedom. Ducey at least gives the highlights of his plan in the ad but Smith says nothing about his plan. Call Smith’s little flash of a plan a case of political copy-cat, it comes off as nothing more than catch-up pandering.

SSDDplan

 

Sadly, the Smith campaign does not appear to be ready for prime-time on a statewide election. Perhaps they felt rushed to get up on the air with something they thought would serve as a political placeholder. Regardless, the underlying problem of producing and putting up an appealing political ad with strong messaging may simply be symptomatic of a leadership dearth.

The Arizona Blacklist – 2014 Elections

Alliance of Principled Conservaties

The Arizona Blacklist – 2014 Elections

 

PHASE I – Goodbye LegisTraitors

In the 2013 legislative session Governor Jan Brewer led 15 Republicans a.k.a. the Brewercrats to join with 100% of the Democrats in passing liberal progressive policies that harm economic growth.  They passed Medicaid Expansion, Obrewercare, Common Core and then increased taxes and spending by hundreds of millions of dollars giving Arizona a budget with a structural deficit of 400 million dollars.  They refused 48 Republican offered compromises.

Most of the Brewercrats are in heavy Republican districts where it is extremely difficult for a Republican to lose in the general election.  Five of the six traitorous Senators are in “strong Republican” districts with double-digit Republican leads meaning they are not even competitive in the general election. Four of the nine Representatives have double-digit leads.  Twelve of the traitors are in districts considered non-competitive because they have over a 4% republican voter registration.

We do not accept the excuses for these traitors, we reject the victim mentality, and we are fighting for Arizona.  

The grassroots has fielded conservative candidates across the state to defeat the LegisTraitors and keep Arizona Red.

The status of the 15 LegisTraitors:

  • 3 – No Primary
  • 3 – Gone, Surrendered, moved, running for State Office
  • 9 –have Primaries

PHASE II – NO Thanks Future Brewercrats

The LegisTraitors fight back and have fielded candidates to continue their campaign to turn Arizona Purple with establishment candidates.  Heather Carter, Kate Brophy-McGee, Jeff Dial, and Rob Robson are actively fundraising and campaigning to elect new members to continue to shove the Obama-agenda down our throats.  Yes it is true.  Sitting legislators are trying to replace incumbent candidates in their own party.

PHASE III –Leave the Bubble Blank

Not Voting is a Vote. The grassroots did not field candidates against three of the LegisTraitors. Leave the bubble blank and let your voice of complaint be heard.  Referred to as an “undervote” it is indeed a vote and is often referred to as  “none of the above”.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Alliance of Principled Conservaties

The Arizona Blacklist – 2014 Elections

PHASE I

Goodbye LegisTraitors

LD25 (S) Bob Worsley
LD15       Heather Carter
LD8         Frank Pratt
LD8         T.J. Shope
LD16       Doug Coleman
LD28       Katie Brophy McGee
LD18       Rob Robson
LD18 (S) Jeff Dial

LD16 (S)   Moved – Rich Crandall
LD18 (S)   Surrendered – John McComish
LD 5           Surrendered – Doris Goodale
LD 23(S)   Michele Reagan – Running for SOS

PHASE II – NO Thanks Future Brewercrats

LD28     Mary Hamway
LD18     David Phineas
LD23     Effie Carlson
LD23     Bob Littlefield
LD13     Diane Landis -running against incumbents
LD20     Bill Adams  – running against incumbents
LD11      Jo Grant
LD14     Susan Syfert  – running against incumbents
LD20 (S)  Justin Henry
LD11 (S)   Scott Bartle
LD23 (S)  Jeff Schwartz

PHASE III – Leave the Bubble Blank

LD9           Ethan Orr
LD1 (S)     Steve Pierce
LD28 (S)  Adam Driggs

The Good Guys – Candidates Fielded by the Grassroots to take out the establishment candidates

LD25         Dr. Ralph Heap
LD15         David Burnell Smith, John Allen – VOTE 2
LD8           Darla Dawald – SINGLE SHOT
LD16         John Fillmore, Kelly Townsend – VOTE 2
LD28         Shawnna Bolick – SINGLE SHOT
LD18         John King, Jill Norgaard   - VOTE 2
LD18(S)    Tom Morrissey
LD16(S)    David Farnsworth
LD23         Jay Lawrence, Michelle Ugenti – VOTE 2
LD13         Steve Montenegro, Darin Mitchell – VOTE 2
LD20        Paul Boyer, Anthony Kern – VOTE 2
LD11         Vince Leach, Mark Finchem – VOTE 2
LD14         David Gowan, David Stevens – VOTE 2
LD20(S)   Kimberly Yee
LD11(S)    Steve Smith
LD23(S)   John Kavanaugh

 

 

Paid for by Alliance of Principled Conservatives

 

 

Now, what about that endorsement?

Bad EndorsementsApparently, last week’s posting here on Sonoran Alliance regarding an upcoming endorsement of Scott Smith by Matt Salmon drew the attention of a Yellow Sheets reporter. Because an endorsement of this size and caliber is sure to create a wave in both directions, someone at the Arizona Capitol Times contacted the office of Representative Matt Salmon to confirm the affinity between Salmon & Smith. When the Salmon staffer was asked whether the rumor was true, they would only confirm that such an endorsement would not occur this week – but did not deny that an endorsement was forthcoming.

What apparently was to make a big splash now looks like it will be nothing more than a little ripple for supporters of Scott Smith.

Alternatively, the splash among longstanding supporters of Congressman Matt Salmon may actually be bigger as Salmon finds himself reconciling his support for an Obamacare-supporting, amnesty-sympathizing, Common Core-embracing gubernatorial candidate in Scott Smith.

Congressman Salmon probably needs to hear from his constituents and asked to reconsider such an irreconcilable difference before its too late. As we all know, elections have consequences.

Scott Smith sends mixed message on immigration crisis

Scott SmithTuesday, gubernatorial candidate and former Mesa Mayor Scott Smith announced he would race to the border Wednesday in order to meet with Nogales Mayor Arturo Garino. The reason for their meeting? – to hold a joint press conference to discuss the transportation and “dumping” of immigrant children by the Border Patrol in an old refurbished produce warehouse in Nogales.

In his statement, Mayor Scott Smith called the Obama Administration’s policy of dumping immigrants in Arizona a “failure of leadership” and “the absolute height of stupidity.” The former Mesa mayor also called for Washington to fix our broken border and immigration system.

Smith’s “rush to the border” and his subsequent message following the presser, seem to conflict with his longstanding position on immigration issues and even statements made by Nogales Mayor Garino who was supposedly at the same press conference as Smith.

It was Mayor Scott Smith who opposed Arizona’s effort to enforce federal immigration law through the passage of SB1070 in 2010. This is the same mayor who ran into trouble with Sheriff Joe Arpaio when it was discovered that the City of Mesa was contracting with companies who hired illegal immigrants. Apparently, now that Smith is running for higher office, he’s having to finesse his position to attract hard-line anti-immigration voters. A little pandering only goes so far. Well, maybe not so far in Santa Cruz County.

Smith was also in conflict with Mayor Garino’s statements on Monday when Garino said that all the children being held in the temporary warehouse were in good care and he was comfortable with their living conditions. Keep in mind that Mayor Garino’s record on immigration is quite dismal.  During a private meeting with President Obama, Garino told the president, “I have your back” on comprehensive immigration reform. Garino also argued that the border was secure and criticized illegal crossing prosecution. Yesterday, Garino told the Nogales International that federal officials informed him more children would be processed through the Nogales facility throughout the rest of the summer. He noted after a tour of the facility that, “Border Patrol was doing a great job.”

While the Obama Administration handed the State of Arizona another election year issue, Scott Smith is only nine days late to weigh in on the crisis. Since it was revealed that DHS and the US Border Patrol began the operation over two weeks ago, Arizona officials have already called for federal action. In fact, last Monday, Congressman Paul Gosar at the urging of Governor Brewer and State Treasurer, Doug Ducey, called for a congressional investigation with the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee into the shipping and detention of immigrants in Arizona. Congressman Darrell Issa, chairman of the committee, has pledged to look into the situation as quickly as possible.

Where gubernatorial candidate Scott Smith stands on this issue is anyone’s guess. His opposition to enforcement of immigration law as a mayor tells one story. His support for stronger enforcement as a candidate tells another story. It is an election year after all and finding the right message to appeal to voters is foremost in the mind of most candidates. Let’s hope the voters choose based on proven leadership rather than on finessed messaging.

Arizona race for governor: Next stop, White House?

By Daniel Scarpinato

Arizona has long had an outsized spot on the national political stage, and that will likely put our next governor right smack in the middle of a pretty big spotlight.

Since 1964, we’ve had four prominent figures from our state run for president. Our political leaders often find themselves household names: John McCain, Sandra Day O’Connor, Jan Brewer. From SB1070 to the recent debate over SB1062, Arizona has been at the tip of nearly every major national issue of the last four years.

And our footprint is likely to increase.

We are growing in population and influence. When my parents moved here in 1978, our state had only six presidential electoral votes. Today, we have 11. In the next decade, we’ll probably have even more.

Recently, we haven’t been viewed as a competitive presidential state, but we could be. Bill Clinton won Arizona in 1996. The Southwest is where it’s at for future presidential elections.

All that makes the stakes extremely high in this year’s race for governor.

Why? Because our state’s next chief executive will have the opportunity to funnel these political realities into a national platform that could be significant for themselves and for us.

Think of it this way: Only 50 men and women in our entire country of 315 million people are executives of states.

Reporters who cover the yearly gathering of the National Governors Association will tell you that they can count on one hand the number who are impressive. Hence, governors – even of itty-bitty states – are instantly seen as credible contenders for leader of the free world. Think Howard Dean (from Vermont, the second-smallest state in America) or Sarah Palin (from Alaska, which has fewer residents than metropolitan Tucson).

So why haven’t recent Arizona governors been the subject of such speculation? For many reasons, but one big one: In the last 25 years, only two governors came to office elected in their own right. One resigned early (Fife Symington) and the other left to work for Obama (Janet Napolitano). The two who inherited the office – Jane Hull and Jan Brewer – made clear they were at the tail-end of their careers.

What am I getting at here?

Of the major gubernatorial candidates – Republican and Democrat – the median age is only 54. If the eventual victor is smart, competent and stays out of trouble, he or she could easily be a player on the national scene. And don’t even be surprised if you hear his or her name tossed out for President or Vice President.

Arizona congressman-turned-presidential candidate Mo Udall once joked that “Arizona is the only state where mothers don’t tell their children they can grow up to be President.”

That was back before the Brady Bunch was even in reruns, but four decades later, a new crop of Arizona moms are still waiting for that opportunity.

(Editor’s Note: Daniel Scarpinato is a native Tucsonan, former political reporter for the Arizona Daily Star, and current National Press Secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee in Washington, D.C.)

Dr. Ralph Heap on the Future of Healthcare

Dr Ralph Heap

Dr Ralph Heap

Having worked at the VA 30 years ago in my residency I was troubled by what I experienced back then, just as I am today.

This morning, President Obama announced the resignation of General Shinseki along with the firing of the administrators at the Phoenix VA. The change in management however will have little or no effect on resolving the serious issues involved. The recent revelations of malfeasance at the Veterans hospitals exposes for all to see the problems inherent in a government run healthcare system.

With the Obama-care expansion of Medicaid, the precursor to single payer socialized medicine, the similarities are unmistakable. The access to care is restricted by too many patients and too few providers to see them. The bureaucratic regulations limit the providers’ ability to care for the patients. The lack of accountability drives costs on an ever upward spiral. Many studies have demonstrated the poor quality of care in Medicaid systems all over the country. The results of treatment are commonly worse than is seen in those with no insurance at all.

We need to change course.

Let’s work to improve Medicaid through the introduction of cost effective free market principles such as health savings accounts, copay’s, and catastrophic insurance coverage. In this way we can greatly improve the care we provide to the poor and do it in a cost effective manner fair to those whose taxes pay for these benefits.

For our veterans, whom we owe a great debt, the problems of overworked doctors, wrestling with unintelligible bureaucratic regulations, in poorly staffed facilities, are unlikely to change. Let’s immediately provide vouchers for our veterans languishing on waiting lists, so they can receive the treatment they deserve without any further delay. Let’s work towards eliminating the current system of veterans care and moving the patients into the private medical system. This will insure that our veterans receive the best care available and not continue in the death grip of a disinterested bureaucracy.

Dr. Ralph Heap is a candidate for Arizona State Senate in Legislative District 25. Please join his campaign for a Healthier Arizona on Facebook or at his website at Ralphheap.com

===

Editor’s note: Dr. Heap’s primary opponent voted for Obamacare for Arizona when he voted for the Medicaid Expansion (a provision of the Affordable Care Act).

When I asked Senator Worsley whether he would support the Arizona Constitution’s Proposition 108 – which requires a 2/3 vote in both houses – before voting for Medicaid Expansion, he said that he would support the requirement. When it came time to vote for Medicaid Expansion in a kangaroo-legislative session, Senator Worsley voted against the Constitutional requirement. He lied to me and the entire legislative district.

This is the reason I am supporting Dr. Ralph Heap for State Senate. 

- Shane Wikfors

9th Circuit Court Puts Hold on Arizona Law: Disregards District Court

By Joanne Moudy

There was a time when states had rights and could count on the sovereignty of their own state constitutions and laws.  But with the ever-growing overreach of our tyrannical federal government and liberal judges, that time is long past.  In fact today, as fast as states pass laws to distance themselves from the insanity of unlawful federal mandates and regulations, higher court decisions reverse those efforts.

So it doesn’t come as a huge shock that the 9th Circuit justices issued an injunction against Arizona’s law pertaining to abortion drugs, but it does seem odd that the justices don’t feel obligated to follow federal FDA guidelines on pharmaceutical issues.  I guess all those inconvenient rules are meant to be bent, twisted, and broken as often as necessary to further the socialist agenda.

In 2012, HB 2036 was passed by the Arizona State Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer.  The law, which took effect in April, 2014, was an important step in tightening regulations on abortion providers to ensure that the medical care they provide to pregnant women is in compliance with federal guidelines and not based upon what’s best for the clinic’s profit margin.

But no sooner had the law taken effect than Planned Parenthood and the Tucson Women’s Center filed suit seeking an injunction against it on the grounds that it puts an “undue burden” on women seeking an abortion.  However, U.S. District Court Judge David Bury refused to grant an injunction and rejected their argument, stating the law was put in place to protect women from “dangerous and potentially deadly ‘off-label’ uses” of abortion drugs.

But even before Judge Bury could rule on the legal issues, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals slammed down their collective heavy-handed gavel on Tuesday and granted a temporary stay.  Apparently they have no respect for the lower court’s legal process or deliberation, because they stepped right in and took the case away from the District Court.

ru4864

image credit: LifeNews

The absurdity is that the portion of the law in question simply mandates that the abortifacient drug, RU-486, Mifeprex, be used only per the guidelines of the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  Seems pretty straight forward to most physicians, but Planned Parenthood wants permission to do something no other doctor or hospital in the country can do.  They want to operate outside government rules and collect your tax dollars while doing it.

According to the Center for Arizona Policy, when the FDA approved RU-486, it did so under Subpart H, a much more restrictive section of the FDA’s rules specifically set aside for potentially dangerous drugs.  Out of almost 1800 new drug applications approved by the FDA between 1992 and 2011, only 70 were approved under Subpart H.

The drug itself comes with precise prescribing information, labeled uses, and a lengthy warning list, and the licensing under Subpart H simply reinforced the manufacturer’s intentions.  Clearly, the FDA believed the side effects of using the drug “off-label” – hemorrhage, ruptured uterus, sepsis and/or cardiac arrest – constituted serious threats to the patient.

RU-486 blocks the hormone progesterone, thereby causing the fetus to be starved of all nutrients, die, and detach from the uterine wall.  The manufacturer intended for the drug to be used up until 49 days of gestational age, and not beyond.

“On-label” dosing is for the woman to take 600 milligrams of RU-486 orally at the clinic and then return two days later and take 400 micrograms of Misoprostal in the presence of a licensed healthcare provider.  Misoprostal causes the uterus to contract and expel the dead fetus and any remaining contents.  The idea is that the woman be observed while she expels her uterine contents, on the off chance something goes wrong (other than the obvious).

The FDA also recommends that the woman return to the clinic a third time for a follow-up exam to ensure there are no complications (fragments of the baby still inside, etc.) from the chemical abortion.

As a side note, Arizona State Law requires that all women seeking an abortion must be given a counseling session, followed by a 24-hour waiting period before proceeding with an abortion.  That includes ingesting abortifacient drugs.

But Planned Parenthood wants to skip the initial counseling session and the 24-hour waiting period.  They also want to be able to give the RU-486 up to 63 days gestational age, when the fetus is significantly larger and more difficult to expel.

Planned Parenthood’s normal modus operandi is to do a cursory ‘exam’, convince the woman to swallow the RU-486 and then send her home with instructions to take the second drug at home.  As a matter of fact, they frequently advise their clients to not return to the clinic for a recheck after the abortion and bleeding are finished.

And here’s the rub.  Planned Parenthood dispenses RU-486 in one-third the normal dose (200 milligrams), claiming it’s cheaper and safer for the woman.  Naturally it’s cheaper – it’s one-third the dose.  What Planned Parenthood forgets to mention is that the lower dose also means the baby dies more slowly.

What they also fail to mention is that the dose of the second drug, Misoprostal, – the one the woman will take at home, is double.  So when the uterus starts to violently contract and/or the woman is bleeding heavily, she will be alone, unsupervised and without benefit of medical care.

Since medication abortions now account for 41 percent of all first-trimester abortions performed at Planned Parenthood clinics nationwide, they have a vested interest in making certain they can do as they please, regardless of the risk to the mother.

At least fifteen deaths have been attributed to RU-486 since it was licensed and many more women have had complications serious enough to warrant total hysterectomies.  Regardless of Planned Parenthood’s propaganda, RU-486 is not a benign drug without risk.

Aside from the Court’s reaction, it’s also interesting to see how some of the Arizona candidates from two key races responded.

Chuck Wooten, GOP candidate, U.S. Congress, AZ D-2 said, “Abortion is tragic enough without coupling it with reckless, unsafe “medical” practices.  The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling categorically invalidates and marginalizes scientific, FDA precautions that are designed to protect the health of the women involved in ingesting abortifacient drugs.  As Americans have watched for far too long, liberal judges, particularly in the 9th Circuit are legislating from the bench at the peril of women, many of whom are already in a crisis situation.”

According to the Arizona Republic, as of May 27th, his opponent in the primary, Martha McSally, had no comment this issue, and the democratic incumbent, Ron Barber, ardently supports Planned Parenthood and abortion on demand.

Wendy Rogers, GOP Candidate, U.S. Congress, AZ D-9 told the Republic, “I’m 100 percent pro-life, because life is a precious gift from God.  We need to help young women understand they have options beyond abortion.”

Although her GOP primary opponent, Andrew Walter, did not respond to the Arizona Republic, Walter is on record as being Pro-life.  The democratic incumbent Kyrsten Sinema supports abortion on demand, up to full-term.

Considering that the 5th and 6th Circuit Courts of Appeals have already upheld similar laws in states within their jurisdictions, it seems likely that this battle isn’t over.  The tragedy is that one case at a time, the higher federal courts are rendering states impotent to enforce their own laws and stomping on their unique sovereignty.