Michelle Udall: Public Prayer, An Honored Tradition

Michelle UdallA few weeks ago, the Mesa School Board looked at their policy for prayer in public board meetings and recognized a need for a change.  Since then, they have sought legal counsel, listened to input from the community, and worked to formulate a more appropriate policy.  Beginning school board meetings with prayer is an honored tradition in Mesa, long upheld and appreciated by the community.  Likewise, the Supreme Court has noted that beginning public meetings of deliberative bodies with prayer is a part of the fabric of our society.  This valued tradition should be reincorporated into board meetings.  Doing so shows respect for the founders of our nation.

In Arizona, prayer has been a part of public meetings for more than 100 years.  In 1910, the Arizona Constitutional Convention was opened with an invocation and our State Legislature has opened with prayer since statehood.  Mesa City Council Meetings and Mesa School Board Meetings have also begun with prayer since their earliest beginnings.

An appropriate policy for beginning board meetings with prayer ought to show respect for the diverse perspectives of the community.  The opportunity to offer an invocation ought to be opened up to any and all faiths represented in the district.  The newly proposed policy will do so.  Such a policy provides the opportunity to invite members of the community who may not otherwise attend school board meetings.  They will have the chance to learn more about what is happening in Mesa schools and how they can get involved.  Greater community involvement in schools will benefit all students.

Beginning a meeting with prayer helps set the tone of the deliberations to follow.  It solemnizes the proceedings, encourages a sense of cooperation, and is a means of expressing confidence in the future and recognition for that which is worthy of appreciation in society.  Those who wish not to participate are always allowed to refrain.  Certainly there is a need for mutual respect for those of all faiths and beliefs.  School board meetings ought to be a place where tolerant, respectful behavior is modeled and promoted.

The founding fathers, authors of the Constitution, began their public meetings with prayer both before and after ratification of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court and our founding fathers recognize the value of elected officials seeking divine guidance and wisdom when making decisions that affect the entire community.  School board members ought to be as free as the founders to take advantage of such guidance and wisdom.  With the daunting task of educating the children of the community resting on their shoulders, they can use all the help they can get.  Heaven knows they need it!

Written by Michelle Udall, current Mesa School Board member.

Arizona Republican Party Commemorates 150th Anniversary of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address

PHOENIX – Robert Graham, Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, issued the following statement in commemoration of the 150th Anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, a historical speech given by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to dedicate the Gettysburg National Cemetery after a brutal battle during the Civil War.

“Lincoln’s speech was brief but profound, and it is a solemn reminder that our nation is constantly being tested.  He reminds us that the first principle of our nation’s founding is the perpetual challenge to increase our freedom.  As the founder of the Republican Party, Abraham Lincoln boldly proclaimed that the work of the nation he presided over was still unfinished.  And while we have made great progress in these 150 years, the unfinished work of expanding our freedom and recognizing our equality with each other still remains.  I implore all Arizonans to join me in our party’s efforts to take up this challenge, to do everything in our power to fight for our liberty and celebrate the principle that all men are created equal.”

Representative Brenda Barton issues statement on recent Facebook post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lisa Anderson Endorses Trevor Hansen in Mesa City Council District 6 Race

I am endorsing Trevor Hansen for Mesa City Council in District 6.  He cares deeply about this community, and preserving its history.  In addition, he has the business background and experience necessary to move The City of Mesa toward the future.” 

Trevor HansenMesa, AZ – Trevor Hansen, Candidate for Mesa City Council in District 6 made another significant stride in his campaign today.  He received the endorsement of Lisa Anderson; CEO of Mesa Historical Society and resident of district 6.

I am endorsing Trevor Hansen for Mesa City Council in District 6.  He cares deeply about this community, and preserving its history.  In addition, he has the business background and experience necessary to move The City of Mesa toward the future.” said Lisa Anderson

Trevor Hansen has been working diligently to build a broad base of support for his campaign.  This includes earning the endorsement of citizens and community leaders throughout his district and the City of Mesa.  “I am honored to receive the endorsement of Lisa Anderson.  We share a great passion for history, one that I am dedicated to continue as I serve the City.”

For more information please visit Trevor Hansen’s Facebook page at www.facebook.com/VoteTrevorHansen or his campaign website at www.votetrevorhansen.com

### 

Trevor Hansen has lived in Arizona since childhood and attended Dobson High school.  He has lived in Mesa for nearly two decades, and is an experienced strategic marketing and product development manager. He is currently the Director of Product Marketing for Thomas Reprographics.  Trevor and his wife Wendy have six children. 

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

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

Democrat Richard Carmona attack on women only latest in telling remarks by Arizona liberals [ @Carmonaforaz ]

Liberal Democrat Richard Carmona’s attack on a professional woman–calling 30-year journalist Candy Crowley of CNN ugly during a live debate–is only the latest in a string of incidents over the years in which liberal Democrats in Arizona have self-destructed when caught off-guard expressing their true beliefs. A Dr. Phil-type might suggest that the constant stress of pretending to be moderate when you are not might be what makes these politicians eventually snap, but putting pop psychology aside, let’s review some other examples, going back in time from Carmona’s slur against women.

Most recently prior to that, we had liberal criminal defense lawyer and Democrat District 9 Congressional candidate Kyrsten Sinema, also attacking women, in this case moms who have the audacity to work from home to raise their families. Sinema’s attack on moms is Hall of Fame outrageous:


“These women who act like staying at home, leeching off their husbands or boyfriends, and just cashing the checks is some sort of feminism because they’re choosing to live that life. That’s bulls—. I mean, what the f— are we really talking about here?”

[In fairness, Sinema has made other outrageous comments and proposed truly outrageous legislation, but we’re just sticking to one comment per candidate in this post.]

Prior to that, it was Phoenix lawyer and Democrat Steve Owens, running against JD Hayworth, who denigrated Arizona and his own Congressional District (at least the one he chose to run in) as…


“a little, rinky-dink congressional district in the state of Arizona.”

Ouch, Steve! Sorry we’re not ‘cool’ like Berkeley or Hyde Park. Arizonans rejected him that November.

And finally there was liberal Democrat Congressman Sam Coppersmith, running against now-Senator Jon Kyl in their 1994 Senate race. Coppersmith was caught on tape denigrating Arizona’s 4 C’s–cattle, citrus, copper and climate–which he deemed somehow beneath Arizona as a state. [I could not find that quote on Google because that race occurred, yes children, BEFORE there was a Google; it was even before a company called Netscape had its IPO! But trust me, he said it; I had my first political job as Research Director for Kyl’s campaign that year and I will never forget that insight into Coppersmith’s views of Arizona.]

Kyl dispatched Coppersmith easily that November.

So there you have it, a brief walk down memory lane. Four liberal Democrats pretending to be moderates. They keep their game face on as long as possible, but eventually, the mask slips, and Arizona voters see the real deal. Don’t worry, Dr. Carmona, you will have plenty of company with Sinema, Owens and Coppersmith in the private sector, and the Romney-Flake-Vernon Parker economy will enable all of you to get good jobs that are so lacking right now under Obamanomics.

Downtown Mesa to be future home of Goldwater Library and Archives

The City of Mesa and the Barry and Peggy Goldwater Library and Archives (BPGLA) are pleased to announce the BPGLA will be located in downtown Mesa. The Library will be built on the southeast corner of Macdonald and First Avenue.

“It is quite an honor for my family to see the Barry and Peggy Goldwater Library and Archives locate in downtown Mesa and become a step closer to reality,” Michael Goldwater said. “Not only will it preserve and tell the story of my father’s life and career, but it honors his commitment to ‘collect, preserve and disseminate’ the history of Arizona and the United States.”

The BPGLA will house a remarkable collection of manuscripts, photographs and rare books owned by the Senator. The Library will also preserve other notable 20th century political and public policy collections including the papers from of the Arizona Congressional Delegation dating back to statehood. The BPGLA will be recognized as a Center for the Study of Congress, raising the profile of one of the premiere Congressional collections in the U.S. In addition to its own materials, the BPGLA will exhibit collections on loan from both Presidential Libraries and other Centers for the Study of Congress.

“Having the Goldwater Library and Archives in our downtown is a tremendous honor for Mesa,” Mayor Scott Smith said. “The combination of the Library, the new colleges and universities along with the light rail extension will create incredible opportunities for both Mesa and Arizona.”

The BPGLA will be housed in a three-story, 40-thousand square foot LEED certified building. LEED is the United States Green Building Council Leadership in Environmental and Energy Design registration. The building will include an exhibition area, reading room, café and automatic archival retrieval system.

“This building will house Arizona’s history as seen through the eyes of Senator Goldwater and others who represented our great state in Washington, D.C.,” District 4 Councilmember and BPGLA Board Member Chris Glover said. “I could not be more proud that this great facility will call downtown Mesa home.”

The Library will be built on City land subject to the City and BPGLA reaching an agreement on the terms. The design, construction and maintenance of the BPGLA will be privately funded. Fundraising is just beginning for construction and the establishment of an endowment fund. The goal is to open the BPGLA in 2016. It is expected to attract an estimated 57,000 visitors per year.

For more information about the BPGLA, visit https://barrygoldwaterlibrary.org/.

-30-

Is Quelland the Man to Represent You in LD 20?

by Anonymous Because I Could Lose My Job

Usually, rank-and-file voters make up their minds last minute.  Additionally, they only really bother to vote in the races at the top of the ticket:  President, U.S. Senate, Congress, and Governor.  State offices tend to fall by the wayside.  If voters aren’t going to bother to be informed, it’s not such a bad thing because no one in their right mind would advocate for the uninformed casting votes.  But if you live in the new LD 20, if you are going to bother to vote down-ticket from the Presidential race, the U.S. Senate race, and Congressional races, much less vote at all, it’s high time you know the truth about the LD 20 Arizona Senate candidate named Doug Quelland.  Elections have consequences.  If you vote for him, just know the kind of person you’ll be voting for.

Voters should know Quelland has been removed from office before because he violated a number of campaign finance laws.  In fact, Quelland is continuing to skirt the law even today by putting up “Q” signs without the required “paid by” disclosure (more on this later).  Once you learn about Quelland’s assertions about his campaign finance as opposed to the evidence to the contrary, couple that with his claims about his political beliefs as opposed to his record, and see his actions today, you’ll understand that the man has a continuing track record of fundamental dishonesty.

The only thing worse than a politician that lies is a lying politician that stands for nothing.  Doug Quelland is that politician.  In the past, Quelland has campaigned as a conservative, but his voting record shows him as anything but.  His scores from Goldwater Institute, Americans for Prosperity, and Pachyderm Coalition show that his votes have been all over the map:  some years, he scored as high as the most conservative members; other years, he was the most liberal Republican in the House.

Is this really who you want to vote for?

QUELLAND’S DISHONESTY re PAYING A POLITICAL CONSULTANT WITH BUSINESS FUNDS IN 2008

During the 2008 campaign season, Quelland, mid-stream, decided to become a “participating” candidate.  Quelland failed to disclose a consulting contract with Larry Davis of Intermedia PR that he was required to disclose when he became a Clean Elections candidate.  Quelland asserts that he aborted the contract 2 days after he made it and before he became a participating candidate, never paid the consultant at all and wasn’t required to report it.  However, the CCEC produced a number of checks from Quelland’s Q-Land Enterprises, Inc. business account to the consultant during the course of the campaign.  Not only were payments made, but the corporate payments to the consultant were made on the exact same time schedule agreed to in the contract that Quelland claimed he terminated.  Clean Elections candidates can’t accept corporate donations, but Quelland financed his “clean elections” campaign not only with public money, but with his business’ money too.  One could argue that Quelland sought to circumvent campaign finance laws by trying to pay a consultant through his business so the corporate donations would be off the campaign books and undetectable.  Additional information tends to prove that Quelland didn’t terminate the contract at all:  the consultant did campaign work for Quelland, got a campaign debit card to make expenditures, worked with vendors for Quelland’s campaign, collected signatures for him and held two fundraisers for him.  What’s worse is that Quelland testified that the consultant collected no signatures for his campaign, but signed petitions show that the consultant did collect signatures.  In simple terms, Quelland lied to the CCEC about hiring the consultant, illegally paid the consultant through his business account, and lied about the consultant collecting signatures for him.  Granted, Quelland asserts that he hired Intermedia to do work for his businesses and that Davis did volunteer work for his campaign, but if that’s true, why wasn’t there a separate contract for business services and only the contract for campaign services that Quelland claims he terminated and why did the corporate payments to Intermedia match the schedule in the political consulting contract?

QUELLAND VIOLATED SPENDING CAPS

If one runs as a participating candidate, they agree, up front, to spending limits.  Quelland’s corporate payments to Intermedia not only were illegal because they were business donations, but the amount spent put Quelland well over the spending limits he agreed to.  Do you want to vote for someone who violates agreements?  Is it honest?  Is it the level of honesty that you expect from a politician?

QUELLAND VIOLATED CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES WITH HIS WEBSITE

In addition to violating the CCEC campaign funding rules by failing to disclose the political consulting contract when he chose to become a participating candidate and paying for the political consulting services with his corporate accounts, he re-used a campaign website he used from 2006 and failed to report its use to the CCEC.  According to CCEC rules, Quelland was required to report the use of the website and count the fair market value of the site’s use as a campaign expense.  Quelland failed to make any report of the site.

QUELLAND’S VOTING RECORD

As mentioned before, Quelland made representations to those who signed his petitions that he was a conservative.  True conservatives believe in, and endeavor not to waver from, a set of principles:  less taxation, less spending, smaller government, the law meaning what it says (that is the rule of law as opposed to judicial activism).  A hallmark of true conservatism is a consistent voting record.  In 2003 and 2006, the Goldwater Institute gave Quelland scores that put him in the middle of the Republican pack.  In 2004 and 2005, according to Goldwater, Quelland earned scores that put him in the company of top conservatives.

In 2009, Goldwater scored him as one of the most liberal Republicans in the legislature.  The Pachyderm Coalition gave him the lowest score of any Republican in the legislature that year for the regular session, but their special session report marks him as a middle-of-the-road Republican.

In 2010, according to Goldwater, Quelland returned to voting with the middle of the Republican pack.  Americans for Prosperity’s 2010 score card that includes cumulative scoring gives Quelland a rating that equates him with liberal Republicans.  Pachyderm’s ratings that year again gave Quelland the lowest marks in the legislature.

As is illustrated by these scores, Quelland oscillates politically like a garden sprinkler.  He’s all over the map from year to year.  The fact that the man is absolutely inconsistent in his voting record shows that no voter can trust what the man says he believes in because he may vote the opposite way the very next year.

DOUG QUELLAND’S CONTINUING, CONSISTENT PATTERN OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY

If you live in LD 20 or the immediate area, you’ve likely seen red “Q” signs that are similar to campaign signs.  While, Quelland has claimed the signs are promoting his business, the “business signs” are the size of campaign signs, they’re put up in the exact same areas as other political signs, are erected during campaign season, and are shuttled to their spots in a truck covered in Quelland for Senate signs.  Most importantly, Quelland asks supporters to put a Q sign in their yards on his political website.  If the Q signs are not political signs, why does he ask supporters to put them up in their yards like they are campaign signs?  Additionally, the signs on the truck have no “paid by” disclosure either.  But this isn’t all when it comes to Quelland’s consistently dishonest behavior!

This election cycle, Quelland has paid for letters distributed to homes in the district inviting the residents to visit his campaign website and learn about his policy positions.  Quelland claimed that he put “paid by” stickers on the letters and the stickers must have fallen off, but when the Secretary of State’s office tried to remove one of the stickers Quelland claims he applied, the letter was damaged.  Considering the letter was damaged when the sticker was removed, do YOU believe the stickers “just fell off”?

Even after the complaint about Quelland’s letters arose, one local news outlet noticed that Quelland’s campaign website also lacked the requisite funding disclosures.  Since the news outlet pointed out the lack of campaign disclosures on Quelland’s website, the disclosure has been added.  So, taken in the aggregate, one can see that Quelland has serious difficulties with campaign finance requirements and an inability to tell the truth about it.  One might think that if a candidate had encountered difficulties with campaign finance disclosures, they might become paranoid about them and disclose who things are paid by more often than is necessary, but Quelland seems to take the opposite lesson.

Quelland has an outstanding CCEC judgment against him for $31,000 from 2009 and he has yet to pay it.  Apparently, he has an agreement to pay the judgment, but he has not adhered to the agreement.  According to one source, he has a, “wink and a nod agreement with the Attorney General.”  In other words, Quelland and the AG put up a written agreement to make it appear that there’s enforcement, but Quelland has no intention of paying back the $31,000 and the AG will do nothing to truly see that the fine is paid.

Between his website and linked Twitter account, Quelland  states that he will personally visit every household in LD 20.  Numerous individuals questioned about visits by Quelland said that they were never paid a visit by him.  Insignificant?  Sure, but it shows a consistent, continuing pattern of dishonesty by Quelland.

CURRENT THOUGHT ABOUT QUELLAND’S CAMPAIGN

In a recent Capitol Times article, consultants noted that Quelland hasn’t raised very much money for his campaign and has contributed personal funds to keep the campaign going.  The consultants interviewed were dismissive of his campaign.  That’s dangerous.  Any candidate should always take their opponents seriously lest they be upset.  One of the consultants stated that if Quelland wanted to win, he needed to stroke a big personal check, but if he stroked a personal check it suggests he could pay the fine he’s been willfully ignoring.

CONCLUSION

The only thing consistent about Quelland is inconsistency.  There’s inconsistency in the fabricated excuses he tried to sell the CCEC, inconsistency in his voting record, and inconsistency between his current behavior and the law.  Voters expect candidates to fulfil their promises:  promises to pay fines, promises to abide by campaign finance laws, promises to be transparent in their campaign funding, and promises to adhere to either party platforms or stated positions.  Quelland can’t be counted on to fulfill any promises.

If one speculates that Quelland may actually believe the lies he’s told, one might discern a pattern of insanity in the man.  Quelland’s actions actually conform when viewed through the lens of insanity as an explanation for his actions:  believing his own lies; megalomania, believing he’s above the law, expressed in his consistent flaunting of disclosure laws and refusal to pay the judgment against him; the strange moustache; outrageous assertions that he’s visited every home in the district…it all fits.  Granted, this is all pure speculative musings from someone with no expertise in the mental health field.

Elections have consequences.  If you’re going to vote, learn what you can about the candidates and vote as wisely as possible.  The questions remains, LD 20 voters, considering everything above, is this the man you want representing you?  Is he reflective of your views?  Is this the man you want standing in your stead casting votes in your name?

The “Open Government” Initiative Is Utter Trash

[Update: Site Administrator has moved it under “Guest Opinion”]

(Author’s note:  This is NOT a press release, it’s a Guest Opinion, but I don’t have that log-in.  This opinion was posted anonymously for a reason:  some people can’t express their opinions without endangering their jobs.)

Arizona Voters,

Let me be brutally frank.  You’ve been dazzled by good-sounding ballot initiative titles quite regularly and, in the end, the initiatives never do what their liberal proponents have duped you into believing they’d do.  Let me give you some examples to illustrate and prove the point.  According to “Clean Elections”’ liberal proponents, the measure was supposed to “level the playing field,” which has been an illegal purpose according to American jurisprudence for quite some time, but in the end, it got more conservatives elected.  The recent proposal to increase sales taxes by 18% was sold to you as a measure to protect education, health care and public safety funding.  Did it?  No!  The Independent Redistricting Commission was supposed to give us more competitive races.  Has it?  No!  We’ve got more uncontested races and races that will be decided in a primary than ever before!  Term limits were supposed to force turnover in politics so those “evil politicians” couldn’t accumulate too much power.  In reality, politicians stay in power despite term limits by playing a virtual musical chairs of elected positions.  Ultimately, you,. The voter, are directly responsible for killing institutional knowledge and increasing the power of unelected legislative staff members.  Great job!

Certainly you have heard the cliché, “Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.”  Frankly, voters, you’re WELL PAST the shame on you stage!  You voted for all the above measures and NONE of them delivered on the promises the liberal proponents made to you!  Similarly, this “Open Government” initiative sounds great at first blush, but its liberal proponents will not deliver on their promises.  They will fail you this time like they’ve failed you every time before.

If you read between the lines of the arguments that the sponsors and proponents of the jungle primary make, it’s plain to see that they have an agenda:  to drag the political football to the left.  The sponsors and proponents of the initiative argue that a jungle primary will fill the legislature with fewer extremists and more moderates will be elected.  No Republican has any business voting for this initiative.  Democrats?  Well, what Democrat doesn’t want fewer Republicans elected overall and a greater percentage of those Republican office holders to be moderate?  Independents, if you want to continue to be dissatisfied with the parties, go ahead and vote for this initiative.  Do you, voters, honestly believe that extremist Democrats like former State Senator Kyrsten Sinema or current State Senator Steve Gallardo will be ousted by moderate Democrats?  Extremist Democrats won’t be ousted at all, but what the liberals are hoping is that conservative legislators will be picked off by liberal “Republicans” like Senators Rich Crandall, Adam Driggs, John Nelson, Nancy Barto; Speaker Andy Tobin; Representatives Heather Carter, Karen Fann, Bob Robson; and former-Rep. Bill Konopnicki, etc.

So, with extreme Democrats and liberal Republicans in power, you can see that the ultimate result will be that the state will take a hard left turn because liberal “Republicans” will betray the party’s principles and side with the Democrats when it matters most.  Big government is already a problem considering our national debt and deficit spending, this initiative will only compound our problems by adding irresponsible state spending on top of outrageous federal spending.

Recently, we’ve witnessed ultra-liberal Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts embark on a “Dekookify” the state campaign.  Laurie has heralded this “Open Government” proposal in her column and has argued, like the sponsors of this measure, that it will remove the “kooks” from the legislature and install moderates in power.  Let’s be perfectly clear:  the ONLY people Ms. Roberts considers “kooks” are conservatives and she is the Left’s willing “useful idiot.”  Ms. Roberts is so benighted that she doesn’t understand that without the “kooks” she’d have nothing to write about and she’d be out of a job.  People want to hear about CONFLICT, it’s what gets them engaged and interested in politics.  If she got what she claims she wants, moderate legislators all holding hands and singing Kum By Ya and constantly passing “non-controversial” legislation that steadily grows the government, no one would want to read the stories about everyone compromising.  It’s one of the reasons why Rodney King’s admontion , “Can’t we all just get along?” is so laughable.  Like it or not, humans LIVE for conflict.  It’s the common and uniting theme in our history, our music, or novels, our plays, our news, etc.  Laurie Roberts would put herself out of a job because even fewer people would buy the Republic, subscriptions would decline even further and there’d be no money to pay Ms. Roberts’ salary because no one wants to read non-stories with no conflict.  Idiot.  I am ASTOUNDED that she is actually PAID to put her opinions in print!!

Let me ask you, voters and Ms. Roberts, if the electorate is so dissatisfied with our elected officials, why do we have so many uncontested races?  Why are so many contests being settled in the primary?  Why isn’t EVERY race contested?  Why aren’t ALL races settled in a general election?  The fact that we have so few contested races reflects that people aren’t as unhappy as you, Ms. Roberts, and the sponsors of this initative (and even the proponents of the IRC initiative) like to intentionally mislead the public into believing.  The lack of any real contests proves that you are a bald-faced liar, Ms. Roberts, and that goes for the sponsors of this initiative as well.  Shane may have treated you with kid gloves on Sunday Square Off, Ms. Roberts, but I won’t because you’re threatening the state that I love dearly.  I take my patriotism very seriously.

If the proponents of this “Open Government” initiative aim to get more Democrats elected and, of the Republicans elected, more moderates, think about what the impact would be on voter registration.  It would energize the Democrats and they’d recover their flagging registration percentages while disenfranchised and discouraged conservatives would flee the Republican Party to re-register as Independents.  This initiative is insidious and it’s a liberal’s wet dream come true.  I cannot urge voters enough to reject this initiative.

I know you, voters, are also familiar with the cliché, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant.”  As stated above, no one would pay attention to politics if we all elected a bunch of moderate, compromising legislators that had no guiding principles.  Basically, you would lose any interest in politics and that, my friends, would breed corruption.  Is corruption  really what you want?

I know you’ve also heard the adage that, “There’s not a lick of difference between the Demopublicans and the Republicrats.”  This measure would fuel that cynicism and continue to drive people away from the parties.  In essence, it is a lack of adherence to a set of guiding principles that has driven voters from both parties.  Former President Ronald Reagan likened strong adherence to principles to, “bold colors” and likened a lack of guiding principles to, “pale pastels.”  He wanted stark contrasts between Republicans and Democrats.  It is a LACK of differences between the parties that breeds cynicism, opacity.  Bold colors have served BOTH parties very well.  Democrats are energized by liberal politicians like President Obama and Republicans are energized by strong conservatives like Ronald Reagan.  Democrats have been critical of both Clinton and Obama for not being liberal enough!  Similarly, conservatives castigate moderate Republicans for not being conservative enough.  To further illustrate the point, no one gets excited about moderate elected officials.  No one cares about liberal RepublicanU.S. Sens. Lindsay Graham or Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.  So, if you vote for the “Open Government” initiative, you’re going to be voting to replace our current elected officials with boring officials that prove the old cliché about there being no difference between the parties and you’re going to be asleep at the wheel (or voter booth as the case may be…if you even bother to vote in the future).  Is that really what you want?

As stated above, elected officials’ lack of adherence to a clearly defined set of guiding principles has driven liberals out of the Democratic Party and conservatives out of the Republican Party.  Not only will this initiative promote opacity in government because it will breed apathy because of boring elected officials, but it will also breed opacity in that it will continue to drive voters from the parties and thereby make it much more difficult to identify and target voters for contact by those seeking office.  It’s easy for Republicans to target Republicans in an election and easy for Democrats to target Democrats…but how does a campaign identify exactly what an “Independent” believes and get information to like-minded independent voters to turn them out to vote?  If you vote for this, people are going to become increasingly dissatisfied with the parties and you will receive less information on the candidates.  In other words, you’ll not only be voting for a lack of enthusiasm about politics if you vote for this initiative, but you’ll also be voting to make yourself more ignorant about candidates since you can’t be as easily targeted for contact.  Apathy, ignorance, opacity.  Sounds like just what we need!

One concept that you, voters, seem to fail to grasp on a regular basis is that we are guaranteed a republican form of government.  The initiative process is a democratic form of government.  We’ve been warned since Plato and even by our Founding Fathers that democracy is an inferior form of government to a republic.  Your consistently poor votes on initiatives are proof of that fact.  You’ve heard the cliché that, “elections have consequences.”  That cliché is absolutely true.  WAKE UP, people!  Quit falling for soundbite arguments and do some critical thinking for once and REJECT this utterly stupid proposal!  I know my arguments are counter-intuitive, they take some time and thought to understand, but I believe the points are valid because they’re supported by evidence.  If you pass this initiative, you get what you deserve…and I’ll be observing the results and waiting in the wings to excoriate you again when I’m proven right.

Invented Guests and Ladies Under Extinguished Gentlemen? Barack Obama’s Toilet Flush at the Très Gauche 2012 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner

Despite the mass media present en mass, if one had not been there nor watched the unedited video, one wouldn’t know Obama acted through a bizarre and vulgar opening “outhouse theatre,” grossly – in both senses of the word – beneath the dignity of the Office of the President of the United States. American culture has definitely coarsened, thanks largely to that very audience in attendance, but not so much that this opening-the-event bathroom farce wasn’t received with nervous confusion as grotesquely out of place.

As Sherlock Holmes once deduced the significance of the absence of a dog’s barking, long before Obama ate a dog, it’s also noticeable the near total absence of comment on the 2012 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner and staged entry of President Obama. He performed a jaw-dropping awkward, adolescent-quality skit of “open mike” pretending to be overheard getting ready, making everyone wait in their seats while he complained about the evening event, his grumbling ending with an amplified grand gurgling swoosh of a flushing toilet, before emerging to take his place at the podium as guest of honor.

2012 White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfG8Btb0l3g

While pundits focused on Obama’s inappropriate dancing with vulgarity “tasty-pit bull” dig at Governor Palin, a fail to co-opt the New Media blow-back at Obama’s old autobiographical attempt to gain World-Traveler (WT) ‘cool’ ‘cred’ through dog-eating, but a success in dragging Palin’s name into the night’s sophomoric groping for tawdry laughs, with not enough focus on the inexcusable leadership disconnect of Obama to slam one by one the people and agencies which report to him, as if he lost the ‘Buck Stops Here’ sign with his snarky and damaging comments such as the Secretary of State “drunk texting from Cartagena,” how many are asking why did the POTUS put so much effort into literally potty humor at an extraordinarily elite and sophisticated soiree?

None of it was off the cuff; all of it was planned, written and practiced. The audience receiving Obama’s full mooning was his own elite support base … an A-List Hollywood – Beltway Insider MSM – Harvard crowd. Just because this diamond-studded media crowd is responsible for products like “Dumb and Dumber,” and who were the ones who dragged “tea-bagger” out of the gay bathhouse culture and into the nightly news, doesn’t mean they consider their debauched product represents them.

When was the last time anyone can recall any president of any nation wallowing in vulgar innuendos and toilet references, much less the actual sound of a flushing commode to demean everyone in attendance at a high level, exclusive, black tie and evening gown official event?
Coincidentally, there is one precedent of president + black tie + crapper. It’s not known much in the USA, but in East Africa it’s legend. It was simply a sensation at the time, “viral” before “viral” was coined, a tour de force of insults and double-entendre.

With breath-taking audacity in London, at the most elite diplomatic function for heads of state and royalty in black tie, sashes, ribbons, tiaras and crowns, adroitly playing off the lazy analysis that he was a half-educated buffoon to explain his seemingly erratic behavior, the presidential guest of honor, a product of British education and British military training, dished it back to his hosts … what he really thought of them.

Amongst the myriad veiled vulgar word plays of this speech, the product of a plainly intelligent, educated, tri-lingual and incredibly shrewd but supremely angry and vengeful man, is a common East African slangy usage of “short call” and “long call,” used mostly by English speakers to connote a short visit or a ‘chat” and a longer visit or ‘discussion,’ but in colloquial Uganda, ‘short call’ meant ‘taking a piss’ and ‘long call’ meant ‘taking a crap.’

President Idi Amin Dada’s speech to Queen Elizabeth:
“My majesty Mr. Queen Sir, horrible ministers and members of parliament, invented Guests, ladies under gentlemen; I hereby thank you completely … Mr. Queen, sir … and also what he has done for me and my fellow Uganda who come with me.

We have really eaten very much and we are fed up completely. Also very thanks to you keenly open up from all windows so that those plenty climates can come into lunch. But before I go back to my country with a plane from the Entebbe airport of London, I wish to invitation you Mr. Queen, to become home to Uganda so that we can also revenge on you.

You will eat a full cow, and also feel up your stomach and walk with difficult because of full stomach completely. Even when you want to rest at night, I will make sure that you sleep on top of me in the top upstairs of my mansion completely so that you can enjoy all the gravity of fresh air.

But now am sorry because I have to tell you that I have made a short call on you only. But next time I shall make a long call on you to last the whole moon completely. Thank you very much to allow me to undress you completely before these extinguished ladies under gentlemen sir.

Lastly but not list, I ask the band to play our international anthem of the Republic of Uganda and also the British international anthem. Your majesty sir, I thank you from the bottom of my heart and from the bottoms of all the people of Uganda. With this few words I thank you Sir.”

This speech would be the archest of political satire if Idi Amin hadn’t slaughtered so many of his own Black African countrymen while destroying Uganda’s economy, governing institutions, society – schools, hospitals, policing, national security – aggressively fueling racial and tribal animosities to justify seizing private property, industry, businesses and re-distributing them to his tribal cronies. Most of these looted investments were founded and owned by Ugandan Asians, that is to say, entrepreneurial shopkeepers and traders from India whose parents had immigrated a generation before, brought in with the British colonization and more despised than the British.  The Ugandan economy collapsed with shocking speed.

It redefined ‘cheeky,’ but hateful mockery infuses it, delivered directly to the faces of the hated persons by a man who employed deadly code constantly, where innocuous words like ‘serve some tea’ meant a particular type of assassination, and it had Idi Amin’s supporters by the thousands laughing out loud at home, greatly increasing his populist appeal to millions more as the British elites, who’d deluded themselves that because he’d grown up in their education system, trained and advanced along the British system, rewarded by and conformed to all things British that he was really one of them, sat with uneasy incomprehension, while his political opposition who could interpret Amin’s own personal variation of a double-talking, two-faced dialect of English, fled in terror as Amin held the tyrannical power to decree who lived or died in Uganda.

Ignoring that Amin dragged beautiful, once-prosperous Uganda into horrific ruin,  Idi Amin Dada’s speech is preserved today as the supreme in-your-face payback of the Black African against the White Colonialists, in Uganda and Kenya’s case, specifically Great Britain as represented by the Queen of England. Those who do not know the context consider it amateur slapstick comedy, a terrible fail to grasp what Amin very deliberately was doing as part of his grand political strategy.

For over thirty years The Speech has been infamous for Idi Ami Dada alluding to his trip to white Anglo-Saxon Britain as, “I came to crap on you all.”

Given Obama’s background, his choices of associates in Chicago, his long East African Luo tribal connections along the Kenya-Uganda border, it would be very unlikely he isn’t familiar with Amin’s speech. Moments before crudely flushing the toilet on his glitterati audience, Obama reminded everyone that he as POTUS holds the nuclear codes – the power of life and death over hundreds of millions of people – a very strange choice of un-humorous subject to be idly passing the time contemplating as Barack Obama ostensibly sat in the loo, ostensibly evacuating either his bladder or his bowels or both, making the multimillionaire movers and shakers of the media audience wait for him, during his ‘long call.’

It was quite unique in modern political oratory, until Obama flushed on his audience. At best, what Obama did was a complete disgrace, a total civility fail, but never should a U.S. president’s behavior or rhetoric even hint of any parallels with any despot, much less with one of the quality of Idi Amin Dada.

Further, with an administration obsessed with controlling the ‘messaging,’ what then was the meaning of the message Barack Obama spent so much time on the ‘john’ crafting to deliver?

The elite media which was witness to all this, uncharacteristically mute … has ‘no comment.’

Not obscure: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Atx.bzmLwMhwDnhWNaWSHjGbvZx4?p=idi+amins+speech+to+queen&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701

A popular topic long after Amin’s 1979 toppling by the Tanzanians and his subsequent flight to Saudi Arabia.  Amin  appealed for asylum in The Kingdom on the grounds of being a Muslim convert.

Oddities of the Celtic world. Coincidentally, while Barack Obama promoted his Celtic roots just a couple of months ago during this year’s St. Patrick’s Day as the Irish ‘O’Bama,’ Idi Amin, who rose up the ranks in a Scottish military regiment, often made a slyly complex political statement paralleling the English conquest and oppression of Celtic Scotland to the English conquest of Uganda by promoting himself as “King of Scotland.”

Toilet flushing will do that: Brokaw says WHCA Dinner is sending wrong message  http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/may/6/brokaw-white-house-correspondents-dinner-hurting-p/

 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~