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.

The election season in Southern Arizona has gotten off to a roaring start with the resignation of Representative Giffords. There is so much more to life than politics – I wish her the very best as she continues to recover.

We have had people asking whether I would be willing to run in one of the new Congressional Districts – CD 1, CD 2 or CD 3. So I figured it was time to clearly end speculation. Through much thought and prayer and with mixed feelings, I have decided not to run for office this year. If I believe it is the right thing to do, I will be back on the campaign trail for the 2014 election.

The main reasons that have led me to this hard decision are, redistricting uncertainties and my job. I have studied the new redistricting lines. Will they be changed by the Department of Justice in the next few months? Or by lawsuits? I am in CD 3 but only several hundred yards from CD 2 and less than two miles from CD 1. Will I be in CD 3 when the lines are finished? It is hard to make an educated decision about running without complete details and statistics. I am also not a career politician. I work as a rocket scientist, so taking time work off to run isn’t easy.

There is more to the equation as to whether someone should run than the statistics. As you know, the numbers were against me when I ran against Congressman Grijalva, but I still felt it was the right thing to do. With many people’s help, we showed that no district is safe. I would imagine this led to having my three main voting blocs taken out of Representative Grijalva’s new district (CD 3).

I am humbled by how many of you throughout 2011 have been truly interested about whether I was running or not, and for which seat. Thank you! We have a long road to put this country back on the right track, so I plan on working with all of you – whether as a candidate or as a volunteer.

Thank you so much for all your support and encouragement!

Ruth McClung

Recently, there was a press release from the Jesse Kelly campaign that showed the results of a polling survey that was conducted by TeleOpinion. While Kelly attempted to tout the poll as having overwhelming support, Kelly himself was only able to garner 35%. This is after Kelly had been the GOP nominee in 2010 and had several million dollars spent by both his campaign and independent expenditure groups on his behalf. Sure, he lost by about 4400 votes, but that was 2010 – the best Republican year in over a generation. Congressional District 8  by enrollment numbers, is a Republican district. While he was running against an entrenched Democrat incumbent, so were many other Republicans throughout the nation in 2010. A comparison of those races show that Jesse Kelly was the only Republican candidate to lose in a Republican district anywhere in the country in 2010.

In his present poll, Kelly’s level of support reveals that 65% of likely primary voters prefer either another candidate or are undecided about the race. This does not bode well for Jesse Kelly. In fact, given the dynamics of this race and the fact that Kelly had run for this very high-profile, high-dollar race before, Kelly has most likely peaked at this point and his poll numbers have nowhere to go but down.

How does Kelly try and remain competitive in this race? His only option is to go negative. Watch for Team Kelly to start launching negative (in many cases unsubstantiated) attacks against both State Senator Frank Antenori and Dave Sitton. Kelly will try to tear his opponents down because that’s his only option to move the needle.

Unfortunately, this will also have the effect of turning off many potential voters to Jesse Kelly and will further spirally his support numbers downward. The question that Jesse now has to answer is: Is he willing to mortally wound fellow Republicans that have an opportunity to win CD-8 back? Or, will he cost Republicans in Arizona and across the nation an additional seat in Congress by continuing a quixotic campaign?

Governor Brewer today proclaimed April 17th as the date for the special congressional election in District 8. Let the games begin!

The logical mind says “try something else”. The progressive mind says “double down.“

COMMENTARY; John Hull, Yahoo Contributor

Liberals fancy themselves as intellectuals, but their actions often tell a different story. How is it these intelligentsia can be so out of phase with reality?

In a campaign speech in Ann Arbor, Mich. on Friday, President Barack Obama advised the crowd, “We’ve got to have a strategy that, yes, is producing our own oil and natural gas.”

He said this without any sense of irony, the same guy who killed the Keystone pipeline just nine days prior and with it tens of thousands of jobs.

Obama’s blocking of the pipeline prompted Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to look to China to bolster its oil industry, as reported by Business Week. Obama has been warned from the beginning that blocking the pipeline would result in Canada going to China, but he chose to step on his union base to protect his campaign donations from the no-growth enviro-wackos, as reported by CNN.

Obama is willing to abandon a proven energy source and real jobs, yet worries about losing those that are impractical, unaffordable and are hemorrhaging jobs as evidenced by the following statement from his Ann Arbor speech: “I don’t want to cede the wind or the solar or the battery industry to China or Germany because we were too timid.”

Obama advised Congress must “double down” the taxpayer funding of “clean energy” even after three solar companies received over $660 million of our dollars crashed and burned in rapid succession, as reported in Yahoo!.

To the logical thinker, this is nothing short of ridiculous. To the progressive, this makes perfect sense. This is because progressivism is a cult religion, beliefs that transcend reason.

The silliest belief in the progressive philosophy is its call for fairness through unfair means. Theirs is an unattainable, child-like utopian dream of fairness of outcome. They reject the fact that, although all men are created equal, they do not stay equal, by their own making. Some are smarter than others, some are lazy or do drugs, etc. In order to achieve this fairness of outcome for some, they must be fundamentally unfair to others.

They must take from those who work hard and earn and give to those who do not, and it’s okay, so long as the person taken from is someone else. Perhaps someone who has a little bit more than them.

This is not unlike a baby with a rattle who sees another with a lollipop. He wants the other baby’s lollipop, but will not give up his rattle, and feels he deserves the lollipop simply because he wants it. He doesn’t care that the other baby had to get a booster shot to earn that lollipop.

This is the mindset that calls for more government and more welfare in spite of the fact that in the 7 decades since welfare began the need for welfare has grown. It has made them dependent rather than independent.

The logical mind says “try something else”. The progressive mind says “double down.”

In other news on Yahoo…

As for the notion that liberals are more intelligent than conservatives, I would like to cite the following study:

According to a May 2010 study from The American Institute for Economic Research entitled: “Economic Enlightenment in Relation to College-going, Ideology, and Other Variables: A Zogby Survey of Americans, participants were separated into six classes by political ideology.

The study consisted of 4,835 participants who were asked eight questions about economics. The results in order from most right answers to most wrong answers were as follows; Very conservative, libertarian, conservative, liberal and progressive.

The closing remarks of the President’s State of the Union address the other night were moving. He spoke of the teamwork necessary to accomplish incredibly difficult and complex missions. He spoke of members of a team having each other’s backs. He said that the way in which those members of our armed forces conducted themselves spoke exactly to the way in which elected officials should conduct the public’s business – selflessly serving the public good.

Unfortunately, our President words don’t match his deeds. On far too many occasions as it relates to his administration’s relationship towards Arizona, this President has let us down, time and again.

Rather than respond thoughtfully to the public outrage over illegal immigration, he played the race card, implying that “people could get arrested for going out for Ice cream.” Rather than owning the debacle that has become the Fast & Furious gun walking fiasco, his Justice Department is laying the blame at the feet of Arizonans – both Democrat and Republican who know full well that the program was fully authorized at the highest levels of the Justice Department. When the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas blew up, Janet Reno had the class to own it. This Justice Department hasn’t met a problem it can’t deny.

Don’t forget that Holder didn’t even read the 1070 legislation before commenting on it. They sued the state without so much as considering how to work with us and continue to fail to understand the root problem of the immigration crisis to begin with: Mexico. Rather than deal with the problem, they continue to play politics.

American reaction to the immigration crisis will continue to focus on the tail; immigration, rather than the dog; Mexico, until a Presidential Administration steps up and begins to redefine our nation’s relationship with our fourth largest trading partner and Arizona’s largest trading partner.

The President of the United States knows this and continues to use this issue as a political cudgel rallying the troops on the left to fight the troops on the right. That is why President Obama opted to confront Governor Brewer about her book yesterday instead of discussing with her how she has been able to start the “Arizona Comeback.” The President obviously can talk a good game about leadership, selflessness, and teamwork, but when it comes down to it his actions – picking a fight about a book, playing the race card on immigration, or owning his administration’s failure to let guns walk into Mexico – he is incapable of living up to his own rhetoric.

When President Obama uses stirring references like the one he used earlier this week in his speech, I just don’t believe him, and I don’t trust him and neither do a majority of the American people.

After his defeat of Senator McCain in 2008, I really wanted him to succeed; now I just want him to go.

J. Charles “Chuck” Coughlin is the Founder & President of Highground.

Those who are promoting the repeal of SB1070 are upholding and empowering cartels and gangs who are committing cross border criminal activity.

We are in a State of Emergency here in Arizona. Our border is not secure. The crippling drug war in Mexico is seeping like a very bad wound into our state. Violent beheadings and body dismemberment, the signature of the drug cartel’s, have now come into the Valley of the Sun, and are even finding their ugly way into the heart of America: A young girl brutally killed in Oklahoma only a week ago!

Increased gun battles along the Arizona border and 75-miles into Arizona; dangerous vehicle pursuits with drug cartel members and those who are delivery agents of drugs occur most frequently; kidnappings too. Continued reports by U.S. Border Patrol Agents of military-grade weapons being used against them; reports of sophisticated communication systems, including professional-grade radio towers, satellite radios and encrypted phone systems; look-outs controlling mountain ranges in southern Arizona; and a cancer-like growth of pure vile and hatred toward any law enforcement, and the laws of the United States.

Drugs and human trafficking create billions of dollars for these evil violent Mexican drug gangs/cartels. Just the competition for bounty from human and sex trafficking generated an estimated $2 billion last year to Mexican gangs and cartels.

At a time when the Obama Administration is not only refusing to secure our borders but implementing policies that will embolden this criminal element we must stand firm in enforcing internal immigration laws for the protection of our state and citizens. SB1070 is all this state has to stop illegal immigration since our border is not secure.

The Tucson Sector is the busiest drug and alien smuggling corridor on the border.

Agents working the Tucson Sector estimate they are apprehending less than five percent of what they know is crossing the border on a monthly basis. That means over 95% of what they know is coming across the border is not being apprehended and therefore not counted. (April 2011)

Agents in the Tucson Sector estimate that they only work about 70% of their border area during any month. That means for 30% of the border they have no idea what is coming across. (April 2011)

More law enforcement is needed to help address this emergency created by our open borders. I will be introducing SB1083 – Organizing the AZ State Guard – to help state law enforcement with cross-border criminal activity.

Approximately 62% of the Arizona border with Mexico is federal public land. Significant drug and alien smuggling occurs on this land, especially where the Border Patrol does not have unfettered access to patrol the border. Federal agencies on the Arizona Border, citing environmental concerns, restrict and in some cases prevent effective border patrol access to the border area for the purposes of patrolling the border.

This is an insane policy that only protects and empowers the criminals but leaves Arizona citizens at risk. Our state has a right and a responsibility for the welfare, health and safety of the people to use our police powers to protect our state. I will be introducing SCR1008 – titled, “Declaration of emergency: state authority” – to address this issue.

In summary, nobody knows how many illegal drugs and alien smugglers are crossing the borders of the United States, and the numbers they are reporting are not accurate enough to even predict trends in illegal crossings. And friends, that is just the Tucson Sector. What about the rest of the land and sea borders of the United States? Our ranchers and farmers who live within 100 miles of the border are speaking out, and no one hears. Governor Brewer has written strong letters to President Obama asking for help with our border, and it all goes on deaf ears.

Those who are suggesting we weaken internal enforcement of our immigration laws by repealing SB1070 will only empower the drug cartels/human smugglers, and cross-border criminal activity. The Open Borders crowd does not care about the harm that is being caused to citizens. The open-borders crowd does not care about the rule of law or our Constitutional form of government. Arizona must stand firm in protecting our citizens, property and lives.

Until we can rid ourselves of the Obama Administration, the corrupt (Fast and Furious) Justice Department, and the do-nothing Homeland Security and their failure to protect our country, then the State of Arizona must do what we can to protect our citizens. No responsible elected official would suggest that we weaken SB1070 until our borders are secure.

###

With Congress’ approval ratings in single digits, many are asking why I want to return to Washington. It is, after all, one of the most unpopular jobs in America. The fact is, Congress has rightfully earned its unpopular reputation. But instead of ignoring it, I am running to do something about it.

We must take real action to begin to restore the confidence of the American people in the belief that Congress is an institution serving the public interest, not self-interest.

In November, 60 Minutes aired an alarming story about members in Congress who were allegedly using insider information to trade stocks. The program listed members from both parties – including House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi – who were accused of enriching themselves or their spouses using knowledge they were privy to on Capitol Hill.

The 60 Minutes piece is just the tip of the iceberg. If you really want to lose a few nights sleep, take three hours to read the 176 page book by Peter Schweizer of the Hoover Institution, ‘Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and their Friends Get Rich Off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals and Cronyism That would Send the Rest of Us to Prison!’

Essentially, Congress has exempted itself from insider trading rules, and the SEC doesn’t have the courage (or the backing of the insider dominated Obama administration) to go after the people writing the laws. It has to start now, and with us.

The real nexus of influence peddling and festering corruption in Washington is not in campaign contributions, it is insider trading by members of Congress and this Administration, elected to serve the public but choosing to serve themselves. True free market conservatives must act now to preserve whatever integrity is left in the “free markets” we love to preach about.

Here’s my proposal for Congress: ban individual stock trading for all members of Congress and their spouses, and punish those who don’t comply with jail.

For newly elected members of Congress, the first day in Washington can be much like the first day at a new school. You learn quickly that you are never supposed to challenge your leadership. Instead, you are supposed to find the go-along, get-along path to making friends and staying popular in the Washington crowd.

After my first term in Congress, I grew disheartened with many of my colleagues and my own party leadership for their failure to focus on cutting spending and reducing our national debt. Swept up in the booming economy, these Republicans didn’t make balancing the budget a top priority.

That was when I knew I was going to have to say enough is enough and stand up for the public interest over self-interest. In only my second term, I went on national television and demanded that my leader, the Speaker of the House, relinquish his position. Soon after, Speaker Gingrich announced his retirement.

Joining me in the unpopular crowd were around a dozen other courageous members – including NFL Hall of Famer and former Congressman Steve Largent (R-OK), former Congressman Joe Scarborough (R-FL), and former Congressman and current Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK).

We set about doing the hard work. We said enough is enough to the out of control spending and by the time I left Congress, America had its first balanced budget in over 50 years and , in fact, a surplus of more than $230 billion.

All the way until the end, I was committed to keeping my word of doing the right thing. When three terms were completed, I honored my pledge and left Congress – something that others chose not to do.

Certainly not every member of Congress is guilty of the insider trading taking place on Capitol Hill. But, as is often the case, it only takes a few to destroy the reputation of the many. We cannot afford to delay any longer as the integrity of our nation’s governing institutions is at stake. We must not waiver, we must not blink, we must act and we must act now.

If elected, I will return with my same commitment of doing the right thing. That is why I pledge to introduce legislation that bans members and their spouses from trading stocks and bonds, and bans family members of elected Senators and Representatives from lobbying or trading on insider information provided to members of Congress.

I pledge to the people of Arizona that before I am sworn in I will place all assets that my wife or I own in a blind trust that will be managed without my knowledge during my entire term in Congress and for four years after I leave Congress.

Just like before, I’m not looking to become the most popular member, or the richest in Congress. But hopefully I’ll make a few friends who will stand with me and demand that Congress start putting the public interest over self-interest. Through small steps such as these we can begin to restore the confidence of the American people in their governing institutions.

Download this editorial.

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.

The year was 1962, and in Southern California, a pregnant teenager was facing a difficult decision. As a young, unwed girl, Mary Lynn Sheridan wasn’t sure she was ready for a child.

How would she tell her family? If she was going to keep the baby, how would she care for it?

She drove with two friends to an abortion clinic over the Mexican border.

However, while on the drive to the clinic, Mary Lynn had a change of heart. The young mother decided against the plan, and sometime later gave birth to a healthy baby boy at an unwed mother’s home in Los Angeles. She gave the baby up for adoption. Six weeks later, a wonderful couple brought him home and into a loving family.

Thirty-six years later, that boy, through an accident, found the contact information for his birth mother. After a family discussion, he sent a handwritten note to Mary Lynn Sheridan. After 10 days, he received a joyful call from Mary Lynn, and through the tears, she managed to ask how he was doing and if he was healthy.

She told him about the hope and pain she felt every year on his birthday and that she prayed for him daily.

I was that adopted boy and Mary Lynn Sheridan is my birth mother.

I am Congressman David Schweikert, and I am here because of a young woman’s commitment to life in spite of overwhelming difficulties.

People often ask me why I am pro-life. I tell them my story and about the wonderful love I experienced from not only my adopted mother, but my birth mother as well. If anyone has a compelling reason to support life, it would be me.

Ronald Reagan made a great observation when he said, “Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.”

My life hung in the balance on a car ride to an abortion clinic 49 years ago. I take very seriously my responsibility to defend the lives of those unborn children who may be in the same situation as I was. My fight is for those unborn and innocent babies who cannot yet defend themselves.

I am a firm believer that life begins at conception.

Any attempt to take a human life in the womb is morally unconscionable. Just like our Founding Fathers did, we must acknowledge that every American, born and unborn, has the God-given right to liberty, the pursuit of happiness and, most importantly, life.

I always have and always will support the interests of organizations that provide encouragement and resources to women with crisis pregnancies. I believe this is a very necessary contribution we must make.

However, I will never support a “medical procedure” that is administered with the intent of purposefully terminating a life. It is time we end a medical practice that not only takes the lives of innocent children, but scars the women who go through it.

As someone who was fortunate to have a mother who chose adoption over abortion, I will always be pro-life. Mary Lynn Sheridan summoned the courage to bring me into this world, and I will always honor her and the choice she made by defending the sanctity of life.

David Schweikert represents Arizona’s 5th Congressional District.

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Anthony Martin Conservative Examiner

In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal. The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part, “Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face. “Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction.” In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state. This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue. Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government’s lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case. The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above. In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America. From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border. This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston. The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense. This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance. Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.

The F-35 is America’s next fifth-generation, multi-role fighter that our military leaders have designated to replace our military’s current arsenal of ageing F-16 and F-18 fighters. The F-35 is a pragmatic approach to modernizing America’s air superiority by using the same platform to serve the Air Force, Navy, and Marines. The highly advanced capabilities of the F-35 will provide out troops in the air, sea and land with the technology and situational awareness to get the job done and safely return home.

A recent program update proves that 2011 was a banner year for the program. Of the 872 test flights and 6,622 test points the F-35 was to endure in 2011, the program surpassed those goals by flying 972 test flights and completing 7,823 test points. These flights and test points ensure that the plane is strong and reliable through hundreds of challenging scenarios. The results prove that the F-35 program is maturing faster than anticipated – which is a good problem to have when working with advanced military technology.

Despite these overachievements, we have seen a lot of change in America’s political landscape. Most significantly, the deficit reducing “supercommittee” failed, forcing $600 billion in mandatory cuts from Department of Defense programs. During negotiations leading up to the supercommittee, there was a groundswell of support for full program funding and members of the committee were prepared to defend the F-35 because they recognized it’s importance to America.

Unfortunately, because the committee failed, the program is once again under debate. As evidence, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently confirmed that he aims to cut Defense Department spending on next generation weapons programs which could include the F-35. While no one believes that the F-35 will be cancelled, small businesses right here in Arizona are watching closely to see if the Pentagon will uphold their commitment to program funding, since the small business community has capitalized their production lines in anticipation of program growth.

The bottom-line is that we cannot allow political expedience to dampen the progress of the F-35. The program is deeply connected to our economy and cuts would send ripple effects across a nation. The programs suppliers, consisting of 1,300 independent companies across the United States and supporting 127,000 jobs, have the most to lose. If those parts are no longer needed in the quantities that were originally requested, then those suppliers will be unable to meet payroll and the rising jobless claim rates in the United States will see a significant uptick.

The security of our nation and the protection of our troops are important to all of us. It is our job to ensure that the men and women in the armed services are armed with globally superior technology and protection. America’s ingenuity and industrial infrastructure can deliver that superiority, and we Americans can make sure that the program and our troops are fully supported. The F-35 is not just a budget line item. It is a line item that represents real people and business, and we need to let our elected officials in Washington know that we support the F-35.

Lt. Col. Wendy Rogers, USAF (retired) was one of the first 100 women pilots in today’s Air Force. In 2010, she ran and narrowly lost a bid for the Arizona State Senate in Democrat-leaning Legislative District 17. She owns and operates a Tempe-based office complex as well as a home inspection business with 10 fulltime employees operating in four counties. Lt Col Rogers and her retired Air Force husband have two adult ASU-grad children and live in Arizona’s brand new Congressional District 9.

Many people have asked me whether I believe there is a real chance for bi-partisanship, political civility and statesmanship to prevail in our current political climate. They are surprised when I say yes! The majority of legislation passed in every session at the capital is very much a product of bipartisan cooperation. Though said bills may be characterized as non controversial or “simple” they are numerous and have a real impact on people’s lives.

In times past, bipartisanship was only possible when bountiful state budgets provided ample capital with which to negotiate. This used to serve as the basis for bipartisan statesmanship and “compromise”. Regardless of what it is presently called what is obvious is that the elements of the art of statesmanship and compromise have now changed which must now be accomplished without the use of once seemingly limitless budgets.

It is an irrefutable fact that we no longer have discretionary funds. Those funds have been exhausted and we now find ourselves in debt. We could continue to borrow in order to support our operational costs but at some point we must recognize that such practices will cease to be an option.

Despite our circumstances I believe cooperation in our capital is still possible. In the last three years, we addressed the structural deficit through permanent spending reductions and through tough negotiations to only temporarily raise revenues. With these solutions behind us, it is now time to engage in meaningful policymaking. This will require us to put aside partisan bickering in order to concentrate on what is right and necessary for the good of all Arizona’s citizens.

We do also need to examine the hearts and minds of Arizonans to learn about their desires which with this state will move forward. Some desire their state government to secure everyone’s chances to their pursuit of happiness, individual competition as well as charitable opportunity. Others desire the redistribution of private wealth and increased dependency on the public funds of the state. It is time for the people to decide which philosophy will provide them with the best future.

Despite these conflicting ideological differences, I foresee what can hold us together is not unlike what cements the bonds between the men and women of our military. Our armed forces are comprised of Republicans and Democrats alike. They fight as one to defend our nation’s freedom. This serves as a great example of how people whom ascribe to extremely differing philosophies can still fight for a common cause.

Therefore, if we collectively hold a soft, unproductive economy and an insurmountable debt as our common enemy I propose we find the common ground with which to defeat it. If Democrats can’t agree to cut without raising taxes and Republicans won’t vote for increased taxes then let’s cap the budget where it is and dedicate future revenue increases and spending savings to service our debt and emergency contingencies.

So if bipartisanship is to be known as the act of people being intellectually engaged and ready to fight then surely there is room in the legislature for it. No good will be accomplished and our economic woes will never be resolved if the representatives of the people temper their passions and beliefs while trying to combat our common enemy.

We cannot allow for those whom seek to promote infighting in the pursuit of partisan advancement. The people of Arizona sent us 90 leaders to move Arizona forward. I am proud to honor and serve with this talented and resourceful group of public servants. I expect that in our 100th year of statehood we will live up to our obligation to provide for the common good, the security of the American Dream and to authentically come together to fight our common enemies. This is my New Year’s wish for my beloved Arizona.

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/

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

• All the Tea Party constitutionalists who opined on talk radio that Gingrich and Cain would have made a great GOP ticket missing the constitutional provision that the President and Vice President must come from different states.
• Self-righteous and indignant Arizona Democrats who defend Independent Redistricting Commission Chair Colleen Mathis as a persecuted unpaid volunteer dedicated to justice and fairness. A cursory glance at her actions clearly indicates she was a Democrat shill wired from day one who stacked the deck and still takes text messages her Democrat husband and others send from the back of the meetings. Any competent political reporter not in the bag for the Dems would’ve noticed and reported that by now.
• Lazy and inept Arizona Republicans who blithely ignored the giant sandbag that Dems had constructed for them on the supposedly “independent” commission and believed the game was on the level.
• A spineless Governor who once waffled and froze over signing SB1070 finally succumbing to the obvious and acquiring an unearned reputation for courage much like Mrs. Mathis. Neither are exactly Joan of Arc. Mrs. Dithers was finally convinced to “do something” about the hijacked IRC and bounced Mathis. Cluelessness followed capped by the single page Hail Mary letter she threw the Supreme Court and her hasty retreat to the showers after the interception.
• Libertarians and Paulistas who attempt to redefine a movement they were never part of by trashing conservatives for being conservatives and not libertarians.
• Conservatives and Tea Party types who try to read other conservatives out of the movement for deviations from them. Conservatism has always been a big tent and included big government types. Somebody had to write the Alien and Sedition Laws. Want Hamilton and Adams airbrushed out of the portraits of the Founders? Edit Hamilton’s portions out of THE FEDERALIST?
• Romney supporters who keep telling me “he’s the inevitable GOP nominee.” Not being Buddhist, Marxist or Calvinist, I never bought anything being inevitable and his supporters do him no favor by claiming it.
• Romney detractors who claim he’s too liberal and then cite Reagan as a standard. Governor Reagan was to the left of this GOP field including Huntsman.
• Liberals who whine about educational funding and claim concern for children when their actual concern is the payrolls of their political and union allies some of whom on occasion are actually involved with a schoolchild. When these frauds tell you we need more money “for the childen” note that usually means paying another adult.
• Conservatives who support corporate welfare whenever it’s for something they slobber over like stadium skyboxes.
• Occupy folks who have yet to compute that the money they’ll never be able to pay off for that Art History degree wasn’t just a scam by the banks. They ignore the bloated university staffs who collected it and the pols who enabled them by changing the bankruptcy laws.
• Finally the hypocrisy and arrogant narcissism of Congressman Paul who sanctimoniously claims high integrity, but cops out on the repulsive racist and other bilge printed under his name and from which he profited, by claiming it was done by “ghost writers” and that “he never read it”. That makes him not only totally irresponsible and easily manipulated, but worse a fraud who sees nothing wrong in falsely claiming the thoughts of others as his own. Paul also needs to explain why he “stands on principle” in refusing to support any of the other GOP candidates for President while as a House member he has consistently supported the choice of the GOP caucus for Speaker including Newt Gingrich. Perhaps for the massive earmarks he brings to his Texas district?

A number of readers have … lamented … the lack of a discussion thread on the previous two RECALL topics, so it was fortuitous that a new wrinkle has made this topic timely and worth re-opening.  Below is a summary of the previous RECALL Mathematics commentary, updated  and with a link to a more critical inspection that perpetual mystery candidate Ron Paul fully deserves as Open Primary state Iowa is in the news, and how these seemingly disparate subjects of RECALL-MISCHIEF VOTERS-OPEN PRIMARIES seem to have so many things in common, including a whiff of the curiously Left-appealing political resemblances shared between Jerry Lewis (R) and Ron Paul (R), and a sobering warning to freedom-lovers from that great man Vaclav Havel.  There should be plenty to discuss!

The raw numbers of the 2010 GENERAL ELECTION as compared to the 2011 RECALL:

2011 November RECALL 2010 November GENERAL ELECTION

Lewis:        10,816 =  53.4%                Democrat:       10,663 =  34%
Pearce:        9,188 = 45.4 %                 Pearce:            17,552 =    57%
Cortez:           252 = 1.2%                      L:                       2,808 =     9%
TOTAL:   20,256 votes cast                 TOTAL:          31,023 votes cast

Difference between 2010 and 2011:
Total RECALL votes cast show an overall decline in voter participation of 10,767, which took more than a 1/3 chunk out of the general election turnout numbers of 2010.  Of that, 77.7% of that 35% decrease in total votes was suffered by Pearce; so Pearce’s 2010 general election base turnout was essentially cut in half in the RECALL. They didn’t shift their votes to Lewis, they just didn’t show up.

Referring back to the official tallies in the table above, only in 2010 did (L) differentiate: 2,808 votes for a third candidate. In 2011, there was no third candidate: the DEMS and INDs who voted, voted  for Lewis (R)  against Pearce (R), informally certifying  Lewis as a decidedly Liberal Left-appealing candidate.

Polling charts provided by recall supporters indicate that a number of those (L) voters who voted against Pearce in 2010 came back and voted against Pearce by voting for Lewis, yet the combined Democrat and (L) votes of the 2011 RECALL as votes opposing Pearce were still less than the Democrat votes alone in 2010 opposing Pearce. In the RECALL, Democrat plus (L) turnout combined opposing Pearce were thousands of votes less than in 2010, but not as devastatingly poor for the RECALLers as the no-shows on Pearce’s side in 2011.

Looking back at the charts above, the combined opposition against Pearce in November 2011 was 10,663 (D) + 2,808 (L) = 13,471 to Pearce’s 17,552.  Pearce’s Mesa united support easily surpassed his entire opposition combined in 2010.

In the RECALL 2011, the total opposition votes of three groups united against Pearce was less than the numbers of two opposition groups in the 2010 results. The recall supporters are claiming a wide surge of voter discontent with Pearce, but the raw numbers don’t support that claim.

The numbers show the Pearce defeat was a result of two factors: a typical recall dynamic: voter no-show, combined with the ability to shift the opposition DEM and IND votes to Lewis (R) in order to oppose Pearce (R).  The RECALL was not a primary of any sort, so Democrats and Independents were free to vote for either candidate, informally certifying Lewis (R)  as the most appealing to the Left side of the political spectrum.

The votes do not support any contention that there was widespread Republican disenchantment with Pearce, but the RECALLers with great glee highlight the existence of a small minority of self-identified disgruntled Republicans, perhaps henceforth, the Ephialtes Cabal from Mesa, who were willing to act on allying with two other normally politically hostile minorities, to deliver defeat at the great expense and detriment of the large Republican majority in that particular district.

The RECALL task was to convert an extreme losing position into a winning position. If the voters couldn’t be changed, then the playing field needed adjustment, and two shallow bench teams had to be re-combined against one deep bench team, which needed to be cut down to a more defeatable size, through massive attrition and some key defections.

The RECALL displayed what possibilities there are to exploit in an OPEN PRIMARY.

The RECALL votes don’t support any broad mandate of “anger” against Pearce, as claimed. The RECALL numbers actually reconfirm the results of the 2010 general election, but the tactic of recall removed the usual rules and election schedule to fully exploit the off-cycle dynamics. The 2010 general election was a more fair result of the consensus of a majority of voters in that district with much wider participation, while the 2011 RECALL was representative of a minority of three minorities, a fundamentally unrepresentative election. The voters of that district are now represented by someone the overwhelming majority didn’t vote for, and twice, at that. The disenfranchisement of the majority of the 2010 general election voters has been accomplished, in twelve months flat.

The mathematics of a political coup.

Interestingly, what appear to be quite similar dynamics are appearing in Iowa, an open primary state where what Byron York describes as “MISCHIEF VOTERS” seem to be forming voting coalitions of DEMS/INDY/RINOs to push the Jerry Lewis-like  Ron Paul to the forefront.  Byron York has looked into more detailed analysis which indicates that Ron Paul’s base is not monolithic Republicans at all, but a coalition of Democrat/Independent voters who go on to vote Democrat in the general elections, aided in the primaries by none other than self-described disgruntled Republicans … that Ephialtes Cabal again … part of the MISCHIEF VOTERS who are combining to jack Ron Paul over the heads of the other candidates who have more consistent and broad Republican bases.

Not coincidentally it seems is the increasingly noisy campaign to eliminate closed primaries and replace them with open primaries which enable coalitions of minorities to overwhelm solid Republican voter blocks, something that plays into the hands of the Democrats at the expense of Republicans.

The past week on Instapundit, a poster mentioned a Vaclav Havel quote he’d read at the blog smalldeadanimals.  The writer explained Havel was referring to Communist regimes, but  alarmingly, these things are becoming familiar to us:

The post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. I t falsifies the past.  It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future.  It falsifies statistics.  It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one.  It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.

This bears repeating, alas: The Republican Party needs to be pro-active, forward-thinking and innovative to address this new political battle – plugging leaking holes is not the solution to the problem of a ship under a broadside attack.  Republicans should note that Ephialtes, the traitor who sold out the valiant Spartans at Thermopylae,  means “nightmare” in the Greek.

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

2011 November recall: http://www.azcentral.com/elections/index.php?pgDate=20111108

2010 November RECALL : http://www.azcentral.com/elections/index.php

‘Mischief Voters push Paul in front of GOP’
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/mischief-voters-push-paul-front-gop-race/276751

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