FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: February 7, 2012
CONTACT: Sen. Russell Pearce

Ban Amnesty Now president says America’s highest court will not turn back on states’ rights

PHOENIX—Senator Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070 and newly-appointed president of America’s largest grassroots anti-illegal immigration organization, said today the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to hear arguments on Arizona’s contested SB1070 legislation was great news for every legal U.S. citizen.

“When the activist judges in lower federal courts bowed to Barack Obama’s whims and put illegal aliens ahead of American citizens, undermined the Rule of Law, they followed in the president’s footsteps in perpetrating a great injustice against our nation, our citizens Constitutional rights and the state of Arizona,” said Pearce.

“We are a nation of fifty sovereign U.S. states, not a nation of 50 subservient states to be dictated to by a Big Brother leviathan. When the Supreme Court rules, I expect that Washington will learn an important lesson in its proper role, not just on immigration but in its role in governance,” Pearce said.

“We send far too much money to Washington for this to be the treatment we get in return. Sovereign U.S. states and legal U.S. citizens were never meant by our Founding Fathers to become penniless orphans in some Twilight Zone version of a Charles Dickens story, begging for scraps from an all-powerful, dictatorial federal government which waves full ladles of nourishment above our heads but never pours anything into our bowls,” said Pearce.

“When the Court rules, I expect power to return to the states, and Ban Amnesty Now by then will be working diligently to pass SB1070-style legislation in all 50 states, like Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia already have” he said. “The president can sue every state if he pleases, or he can get out of the way while we do the job Washington won’t in protecting our great nation from illegal aliens.

“I fully expect we, the legal citizens of Arizona and America, will win in the Supreme Court on SB1070, just as we did with Arizona’s Employers Sanction Law, the toughest in the nation, which goes after illegal employers and protects American jobs and was upheld five-to-three in the Supreme Court,” said Pearce.

While 6 of the 10 provisions of SB1070 were upheld, four main provisions of the contested SB1070 were blocked from implementation by lower courts, including:

(1) requiring law enforcement officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is reasonable suspicion that person is an illegal alien;

(2) creating a crime of failure to apply for or carry “alien-registration papers”;

(3) permitting the arrest of an illegal alien in which there is probable cause to believe the individual committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S.; and,

(4) making it a crime for illegal aliens to solicit, apply for or perform work.

“America is greater than any one man, than any one president,” said Pearce. “I believe the court will rule on the side of law, our Constitution, and states’ rights, and that we will prove our nation can indeed work again. This will be an important ruling, an important milestone, in a long road ahead to restoring the rule of law, America’s economy, political and national security.”

# # #

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Regarding that “scathing” Dept of Justice report being used as a club against Sheriff Arpaio, isn’t this the Dept of Justice, under Eric Holder, who attacked SB1070 before he had even read the bill?
 
Isn’t Eric Holder under investigation for Fast and Furious for deliberately allowing guns to flow to Mexican drug cartels, and that resulted in the death of Arizona Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry?
 
Isn’t the Civil Rights Division, under Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, the same one that has been sanctioned for more than $4 million for frivolous lawsuits and misconduct?
 
Thomas Perez once served as president of Casa de Maryland, a radical open borders group that encourages ILLEGAL aliens not to speak with the police and urges local governments not to enforce federal fugitive warrants against them.
 
Thomas Perez fought to mandate that Mexican ID be recognized as valid photo ID in the United States, even though two thirds of Mexico’s states and districts don’t accept them because they are so rife with fraud.
 
It was Thomas Perez who demanded the dismissal of charges of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers, despite videotape evidence and documented testimony from Bartle Bull, a civil rights activist who supported Robert Kennedy.
 
Thomas Perez’s Voting Section suppressed the military vote in 2010 by dragging its feet, so that many of our fighting men and women overseas don’t have a place to register to vote, and don’t get their ballots in time for their votes to be counted.
 
The barrage of “investigations” against Arpaio began 49 days after Barack Obama was inaugurated, and you don’t think these attacks are politically motivated?  Do you believe that the DOJ cares about the Civil Rights of US citizens?  I think it spends most of its time subverting our country’s immigration and voting laws.
 
Thanks,
Anita Christy
1173 E Constitution Dr
Gilbert, AZ 85296

First, coverage of Arizona Democrats making their best but feeble effort to repeal Arizona’s SB 1070:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Second, coverage of Arizona Republicans standing firm and united for Arizona’s southern border security and SB 1070.

Click here to view the embedded video.

What most of the media didn’t show or report was what the President saw out his window en route.

First it was the amnesty demands of pro illegal groups:

 Further down the road, a couple hundred, mostly upset Arizonans chanting “You are fired!”:

 Probably not the ‘welcoming committee’ Obama wished for.

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.

###

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

Need a show of support for SB 1070        Sen. Gallardo will be holding a press conference to announce his bill to repeal SB 1070

RALLY AT STATE CAPITOL MONDAY AT NOON (ARRIVE AT 11:30AM)   ALERT!!! – SUPPORTERS OF SB1070 NEED TO SHOW THEIR SUPPORT THIS MONDAY AT OUR CAPITOL!!!                                                                                                                                           Sen. Sylvia Allen and Arizona Border Security Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Border Security State Sovereignty will be responding to a public Press Conference being held this Monday, at the Arizona State Capitol approximately 12noon. Sen. Allen will be responding to Sen. Gallardo (Friend of Randy Parazz)who is a publicly proclaimed advocate for Open Borders and severely opposesthe development of the Arizona State Guard to secure Arizona’s Border, and provide protection to the citizens of Arizona who continue to fight off the assault of illegal’s and drugs coming into Arizona. Sen. Allen is requesting citizen support from fellow Arizonans who are willing to stand for a secure border. Arizonans willing to stand with Sen. Allen, Sen. Stevens, Sen. Griffin, Sen. Antenori, and Sen. Melvin.   Please show your public support for these elected officials who are willing to stand and fight the good fight to preserve the welfare of Arizona.   Come to the Arizona State Capitol this Monday by 11:30am. Come and bring your voices and your determination to preserve our Great Grand Canyon State

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.

Mr. George W. Romney, was elected Governor of Michigan. Because there was talk George W. might run for the presidency, his citizenship eligibility came into question and because it extends to the child at the time of birth, there is now question regarding Willard (Mitt) Romney:

Mitt Romney’s, father George W. Romney, Not A Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America, and was NOT, eligible for the Office of President, by Pinckney G. McElwee of D.C. Bar.)

Congressional Record (House) June 14, 1967

“I find no proper legal or historical basis on which to conclude that a person born outside of the United States could ever be eligible to occupy the Office of the President of the United States. In other words, In my opinion, Mr. George Romney of Michigan Is Ineligible to become President of the United States because he was born In Mexico and is, therefore, not a natural-born citizen as required by the United States Constitution.”

Thus, we have the same situation as with Obama/Soetoro: A father born in a foreign country who never became a U.S. citizen. Several people have been doing some serious research on this:

“The big question is this…how did George and Gaskell Romney get their US Citizenship back if they still had it at all? If Gaskell (son) and Miles Park Romney (father) who were both Mexican citizens how could they transfer US Citizenship to George Romney? Mitt Romney, however, may be a birthright baby because he fell under the 14th Amendment (I doubt they were under the jurisdiction of the US) but it is absolutely clear that Mitt Romney is NOT a Natural Born Citizen unless he can prove that George Romney gained citizenship from naturalization prior to Mitt’s birth in 1947. I have found no records showing this to be the case.”

more.

The history of civilized man has seen a never-ending evolution of what we call a “system of  justice.”  It was not until well after Christ that the concept of a judge and jury was born to enable the accused in criminal matters to be judged by a group of his/her peers.  As a matter of fact; in ancient Rome there was no such thing as a “criminal court.”   If a person were to have been criminally wronged it was his/her responsibility to pursue a civil claim against the accused.  The government took no interest in prosecuting any crimes unless they were against the government itself.  Essentially; a person with no immediate family could be robbed and killed in the middle of the street in broad daylight and there would be no prosecution because no-one had standing to pursue the claim.

My; how things have changed.  In today’s world we are all judges, juries and prosecutioners who look only to the daily news and commentaries to reach judgment.  We assume that everything we see and hear; especially from any source of reasonably reliable information; such as the news media, is the gospel truth.  We feel no responsibility to question the conclusion reached by a public figure.  The problem is; if we are all guilty of everything we are accused of; Satan’s waiting area would simply not be large enough to process all of the new admittees.

Case in point: I enjoy listening to Barry Young every morning on KFYI but I am consistently baffled by his attacks on former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce.  Mind you; Senator Pearce is a friend of mine and that may appear to suggest bias; but with or without any predilection of opinion concerning anyone’s character I am frustrated by Mr. Young’s assumption that Senator Pearce participated in some sort of conspiracy to plant Olivia Cortes on the ballot for Senator Pearce’s seat in the senate.  Let’s look at the facts:

1. Senator Pearce is; in no uncertain terms, the “father” of SB 1070; the legislation that adopted already existing federal law into a much less stringent set of Arizona statutes.  This made Senator Pearce a target for the liberal media to effectively “take him down.”
2. The media fueled a recall effort that was; in no uncertain terms, baseless.
3. Certain members of a tea party conspired to plant a sham candidate on the ballot in order to dilute Jerry Lewis’ support.
4. Certain members of Senator Pearce’s political panel; including some of his own relatives, perceived the benefits of this independent candidate without any knowledge or understanding of the basis for her political support and actually assisted in the effort.
5. Only after it became known that Ms. Cortes was not an actual candidate was any assistance and support withdrawn from her campaign.

Under no circumstances is there any shred of evidence that Senator Pearce, his campaign staff, or his relatives had any knowledge of the sham while they were taking advantage of it.  Nevertheless; they are duly tried, prosecuted, and convicted by Mr. Young and the rest of the media for a crime they did not commit.  The sad truth of this is that the State of Arizona has now been robbed of a man of unblemished character who has served us in law enforcement for many years, has been shot and wounded by criminals, and has almost lost his own son in the same fashion.  Yet he is a very happy man when he observes large groups of newly naturalized citizens of the United States; primarily Hispanics, as they are sworn in near the State’s Capital.  I have yet to see any of the liberal media; or even Barry Young, comment on this.  I must assume that this revelation of the actual truth may serve to confuse and mislead the propagandized readers and electorate and it therefore would be nonsensical to acknowledge this reality.  It is therefore best that the media let the sleeping dog lie and allow the general public to have grossly distorted opinions of one of their greatest heroes.  Sounds fair to me.

Senator Pearce; as I am certain we are all aware is not the only victim of the distortion of the truth.  I do not personally know former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas any more than occasional meetings and I therefore can make no comment concerning his matters before the Court.  I am nevertheless honored to claim that Rachel Alexander is a close friend who is also the victim of; sadly enough, malicious prosecution simply because she was doing her job.  Unfortunately; when doing one’s job may interfere with the goals of someone in power, somebody has to take the fall.

Let me put this in perspective:  Ms. Alexander has not discussed with me any of the behind-the-scenes details of what led to her being accused of these compromises in ethical duties.  She was working at her post as Assistant Maricopa County Prosecutor.  Her boss; Mr. Thomas, assigned to her the prosecution of certain elected officials.  She was presented with facts and evidence that clearly raised reasonable suspicion concerning wrongs committed by these individuals.  It was therefore her duty to proceed with levying charges against them.  UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE DID SHE DO ANYTHING WRONG.  Nevertheless; exposure of these facts concerning these elected officials meant that they needed to fight back.  Please notice that there has never been a shred of allegation that Ms. Alexander did anything unethical in the rest of her life.  The ONLY claim that can be made may be that she was working very hard to do her job.

Ms. Alexander’s need to answer her accusers is entirely political.  It is work to take the attention off of the accused and shift it to the accuser.  It has thus far been successful; which raises the point, why continue to accuse Ms. Alexander of any wrong-doing when there is no shred of evidence that she was not simply doing her job? . . . . . Because somebody has to take the fall to save these politicos from personal humiliation.

It is an unfortunate circumstance of life that we are all wrongly accused of indiscretions throughout our existence.  It began in childhood with finger pointing at our siblings and even the family pet.  Even I must confess to having been prosecuted by the State Bar Association in the early 90’s similarly to Ms. Alexander.  I therefore understand the burden that she will carry whether she is completely acquitted or whether they determine that she deserves the least available public admonishment of a censure; which is a published reprimand without any suspension of her license.

Let me tell you why I was censured.  The facts are that I never did anything wrong but I nevertheless failed to oversee what my employees were doing and therefore my trust account didn’t balance.  The reason I didn’t see what was wrong with the account was that certain employees were scheming to embezzle money from the firm.  They put up smoke screens and hid from me what they were doing.  I nevertheless confessed to this and I simply made sure that the final reports specifically stated that I did nothing wrong, but that the errors were based on“negligence.”

The problem with this is that most people who see that I was censured ASSUME that I did something dastardly wrong and that I am a hardened criminal.  The worse problem is that I am in fact responsible for the errors made by my employees but that Senator Pearce and Ms. Alexander did absolutely nothing wrong.  They never had ill intent, they never consciously acted to wrong anyone.  They were simply doing their jobs and they were doing them quite well; only to be dragged into “politically necessary” damage control by their opponents fueled by the almighty left-wing media.

I beg of any who read this: do not rush to conclusions until you know and understand the facts.  That is a patent expression of “innocent until proven guilty” but it is painfully obvious that the media do not grasp the significance of those words.  Let me put it this way: Senator Pearce and Rachel Alexander both knew by virtue of considerable experience with politics and the media that any misstep would be attacked without mercy.  Do you really believe that either of them would have even contemplated doing anything like what they accused of?  If so; they are not the real victims of medial prosecution, you the general public are.  You are hypnotized into believing trumped up exaggerations produced by those who resist the good of what these people are doing for justice.  It is a baffling quandary that the very system we fight to defend is the very same thing that fights to defeat us.

Justice will begin to be served when Senator Pearce is back in office and when all charges against Rachel Alexander are summarily dropped.  That service will only end when every person acknowledges that these dedicated individuals are in fact innocent of any wrongdoing.

Please tell Satan to cancel the remodeling.

• Bill Ponath’s blog
• Bill Ponath’s bankruptcy law practice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 20, 2011
CONTACT: Katie Martin

Phoenix, Arizona – Wil Cardon, candidate for U.S. Senate, issued the following statement after the Obama Administration announced they will reduce the number of National Guard Troops on the border from 1200 to 300 this coming January:

“The decision to reduce troops on our border by the Obama Administration is unconscionable. The federal government’s abandonment of its responsibility to secure the border is alarming and frustrating. This new announcement shows how out of touch with reality the Obama Administration truly is. Our communities cannot afford less support from the federal government to protect our border. A porous border threatens our safety, curtails our quality of life, and diminishes the economic opportunity of hardworking Americans. I am running for the U.S. Senate because we need a leader in Washington who has the wisdom and the courage to act decisively and secure our borders once and for all.” 

###

The somber anniversary of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death, murdered in the line of duty in Arizona, the weapon used to murder him was provided to the criminals through the illegal cross-border networks by the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice through their  heinous FAST and FURIOUS scheme.

Brian Terry: SEMPER FI:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0jTJq_VfS8

One of the biggest obstacles Mitt Romney faced when he ran for President in 2008 was the fear that, if elected, he would take orders from the President of his Church. Like the Catholic Jack Kennedy in his 1960 race for the presidency, Romney, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), had to overcome the uneasy suspicion that the head of his church would dictate public policy. To dispel such fears, Romney gave his memorable “Faith in America” speech in which he stated:

“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States….We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.”

Romney’s speech was generally well received, and it appeared that he had put the matter to rest. Unfortunately, the question of LDS Church influence has roared to life again in 2011, with indications that it could affect the 2012 elections.

It began in November, 2010, when a group of Utah businessmen, politicians, newspaper publishers, and various church denominations launched a list of principles they felt should guide immigration policy. They called it the Utah Compact. Although the LDS Church likely received considerable pressure to sign on to the Compact, they declined to do so. However, they DID issue a news release stating that they endorsed the principles of the Compact. In addition, a few prominent church employees signed the Compact, which added to the perception that the Church endorsed it.

The Compact was filled with vague, benevolent statements that implied that amnesty is the solution to our immigration ills. Many members of the LDS Church then embraced amnesty because they thought their church did.

The first test of the Compact came in the 2011 legislative session in Utah. Roughly 80 percent of the members of the Utah legislature are also members of the LDS Church. Church employees roamed the halls of the Utah capitol lobbying Representatives and Senators for their vote in favor of immigration bills pushed by the supporters of the Utah Compact. Refusal to support those bills was viewed as rejection of the Compact and, by extension, disobedience to the President of the LDS Church. The vote on these immigration bills became a test of the LDS legislators’ allegiance to their Church. LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson never personally lobbied for the bills, but the Church-owned newspaper, the Deseret News, blared its support for both the Compact and the immigration bills, and employees from the Church Public Communications office continued to lobby every day. The message heard by Utah’s LDS legislators was: “If you don’t vote for these bills, you will be disobeying the President of the Church.”

In addition to being a test of one’s allegiance to the LDS Church, the Utah votes were also a test of the LDS legislators’ fidelity to their oath of office. Many of the legislators did not support the proposed immigration bills, but they felt pressured to comply with what they perceived to be the wishes of their church. The choice was between making a correct policy decision or obeying the LDS Church. In the end, many of the Utah legislators caved in. When faced with a clear choice between performing their duties as elected officials or obeying the perceived dictates of the LDS Church, they threw their oath of office out the window and voted the way they thought their Church leaders expected. It wasn’t the first time that Utah legislators changed their votes to conform to the wishes of the LDS Church contrary to their own best instincts. So much for Mitt Romney’s insistence that an elected official would never be influenced by the leaders of the LDS Church. The Left has correctly perceived that obedience to Church leaders is an important value among members of the LDS Church, and they have figured out how to use that to manipulate LDS elected officials.

The image of [some] Utah legislators scurrying about, wringing their hands, and holding their breath as they watched for a sign from church leaders on how to vote is even more sickening when one realizes that it was left-wing, radical, Marxist groups that were pushing the immigration bills (and the Utah Compact) behind the scenes. But things got infinitely worse when the Compact promoters went national.

In early 2011, community organizers fanned across the country laying the groundwork for Compacts in other states. In Arizona, advocates of the Utah Compact launched a recall campaign against the LDS State Senate President, Russell Pearce, the hero of the nation on immigration reform and border security. A 2010 Pearce bill (SB1070) had created hysteria on the Left when it triggered a nationwide rush for similar enforcement bills in other state legislatures. As the author of SB1070 and a prominent national leader on immigration enforcement, Pearce became the bull’s-eye in the target of Leftist radicals who organized to take him out. Pearce’s opponents ran a nasty but effective campaign based on character assassination, voter recruitment, and alienation of the many LDS voters in Pearce’s Mesa, Arizona, legislative district.

The opponents announced their strategy early in the recall campaign. DeeDee Blase, head of Arizona’s Somos Republicans, an open borders advocacy group, said: “The biggest win with regard to our efforts is getting a special supporter who is a devout member and a member of the high council of the Mormon Church. We have scheduled lectures that will be specifically aimed to members of the LDS community as well as the business community. We know that Mesa has a Mormon stronghold, and in order for us to have an overall effective campaign, we must win over the Mormon community. It is imperative for them to know that Russell Pearce (a member of the LDS community) refuses to listen to the Mormon Prophet, and he refused to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

The accusation was a lie. Pearce is a strong constitutionalist and a devout and active member of the LDS Church. Most important, suggesting that he “refused to listen to the Mormon Prophet” was a trap. If he protested that he was obedient to the prophet and supported the Utah Compact (which was a call for amnesty), he was dishonoring his oath of office and violating the wishes of many of his constituents, not to mention his own knowledge of the crisis on our borders. If he proclaimed that he was NOT dictated to by the leaders of his Church, he appeared to be disobedient to his church leaders, which would sully him in the eyes of many of the LDS voters in his district, who view obedience to church leaders as a standard of honor. There is no way for an LDS candidate for office to defend himself against such an accusation.

Blase’s accusation revealed that the recall campaign would promote a religious test for holding office. “Obey the Mormon Church or you’re not qualified for election.” Pearce was repeatedly accused of being disobedient to his Church leaders because of his strong views on immigration. His opponent was portrayed as a choir boy who obeyed the prophet. It cost Pearce votes among LDS voters.

Blame for this dilemma goes not to the Marxist radicals who ran the campaign against Pearce or even to the LDS Church hierarchy, which had lobbied hard for the Utah immigration bills and seemed to support the Utah Compact. The blame goes entirely to the members of the LDS Church in Pearce’s legislative district who swallowed the false argument that Pearce’s highest duty as an elected official was to satisfy the wishes of the LDS Church.

Some Mesa LDS businessmen who support amnesty joined forces with the radical Left to take Senator Pearce down. One of these men, Daryl Williams, an LDS attorney who did not live in Pearce’s district but actively campaigned against him, gave firesides (an LDS cottage meeting) and seminars on the Utah Compact, never missing a chance to say that Senator Pearce was violating church doctrine. In a promo for one of his firesides, Williams proclaimed:

“Russell Pearce, the chief proponent of Arizona’s immigration laws is, like me, a Mormon. His views, however, do not reflect the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the official name of the Mormon church. Indeed, Mr. Pearce’s views are inconsistent with the official position of his church.” (See here.)

Williams’ message was that Senator Pearce should shut up and do what the President of the LDS Church wanted, regardless of his oath of office or his duty to his constituents.

In one interview, Williams stated, “I believe that Mr. Pearce’s position [to enforce the law against illegal immigrants] is inconsistent with policy statements that have been promulgated by the church.” He added, “I personally do not think that you could be a faithful Christian or faithful Mormon and take such … positions ….”[1]

Williams promoted the religious test throughout the campaign. In an Op Ed in one of Arizona’s major papers, Williams declared, “Mormons and other Christians who advocate sealing the borders and the mass deportation of immigrants are out of sync with the official position of the Mormon Church.”[2] According to Williams, a candidate does not deserve to hold public office unless he stays “in sync” with the “official position of the Mormon Church.”

Williams, an attorney who should know better, has created a new standard for members of the LDS Church who want to run for office. The standard is that they must meet a religious test in order to run. The test is obedience to the leaders of the LDS Church. Such a standard is unconstitutional, of course. It is also the death knell for LDS candidates for office. Outside of Utah, Mormons are a distinct minority group. They cannot get elected with the votes of only LDS Church members. They must appeal to a broad base of voters of all faiths, and they must be able to honestly assure the public that their allegiance is to the Constitution, not to the policies of their Church.

Almost singlehandedly, Daryl Williams created an image of LDS elected officials bowing to the wishes of the LDS Church. That perception, of course, is odious to those who belong to other churches. The general public will reject an LDS candidate for office whom they perceive will be a puppet for the LDS Church.

Some LDS Church members in Mesa, Arizona, bought the religious test and voted accordingly. Losing the vote of LDS constituents who mistakenly perceived that he had disobeyed their Church leaders contributed to Pearce’s defeat. This message wasn’t lost on the national media. The Washington Post stated in an editorial recap of the election that “Immigration was a factor in his defeat ­ in large part because the Mormon Church decided that it should be.”[3]

You can be sure that others have gotten the message loud and clear. Mitt Romney’s 2007 “Faith in America” speech aside, many people are wondering once again what a Mormon candidate for political office will do when faced with a decision that appears contrary to the position of the LDS church leadership. Can Romney be trusted to secure the borders, since it appears that the leaders of the Mormon Church want amnesty? Regardless of any tough statements on border security that he might make during the campaign, will he ultimately betray the public on immigration if the LDS Church sends him a cue? What role does the LDS Church really play in politics?

The LDS Church has on occasion taken strong positions on moral issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, and the Equal Rights Amendment. Churches have every right to take a position on moral issues, of course. They also have a right to take positions on policy issues, such as immigration. Church voices are important in public debate. However, elected officials must always remember that when they vote on a particular bill, they are acting as elected officials, not representatives of their Church.

They wear a different hat when they vote on legislation. At those moments, they are duty-bound to exercise their best judgment on an issue, based on months of study, committee hearings, discussions with experts and constituents, and in line with the state and U.S. Constitutions. At that brief moment in time when they cast their vote, they must honor their oath to the Constitution. They must not put the wishes of the Church ahead of their duties as elected officials.

The Arizona recall campaign spells trouble for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. I am not a Romney supporter but, if the public perception grows that LDS officeholders are expected to take orders from their Church leaders, then it will be goodbye to the possibility of an LDS candidate becoming President. Furthermore, qualified, talented LDS Church members will find it increasingly difficult to get elected to public office. That is a shame, because LDS Church members are patriotic and are strong supporters of the Constitution. I am LDS myself, and I know many good LDS elected officials. But LDS candidates will be rejected if the public believes they will put orders from their church leaders ahead of their legislative duties and their oath of office. If that happens, members of the LDS Church will have only themselves to blame for swallowing the idea that LDS candidates must pass a religious test to get elected. There is no religious test for office in this country.

Footnotes:

1. “Stormin Mormons,” AZ Capitol Times, Aug. 8, 2011.
2. “Williams: A Mormon’s View on Immigration,” Op Ed, Arizona Republic, Oct. 22, 2011.
3. “Arizona Recall: Why Russell Pearce Lost,” Washington Post, November 9, 2011.

© 2011 Karen Johnson – All Rights Reserved

There are plenty of new revelations in the article that I certainly missed during the campaign leading up to the election. In fact, Mr. Lewis’ comments in this article completely validate my earlier points that the recall was overwhelmingly about style over substance. Given Lewis’ comments in this article, I have to wonder if Randy Parraz and fellow recallers now regret their decision to help Jerry Lewis get elected?

Here is that article:

Since the nationally watched recall election last month that resulted in the ouster of the architect of Arizona’s controversial illegal immigration law, the liberal media has been claiming a major victory. Because former State Senate President Russell Pearce was a conservative Republican, goes the crowing from the Left, his defeat was a blow to the Right and to SB 1070, the Pearce-crafted measure signed into law by Republican Gov. Jan Brewer last year that permits police to ask for immigration papers if they have “reasonable suspicion” someone is in the U.S. illegally.

But that analysis and conclusion over what happened in Pearce’s Mesa district Nov. 8 is pure moonshine.

Veteran state legislator Pearce was ousted by a fellow conservative stalwart named Jerry Lewis. When we got done repeating all the quips about his being mistaken for the world-famous comedian, and how he met up with the former Arizona state treasurer named Dean Martin (“Arizona’s own Martin and Lewis team”), the 55-year-old Lewis told HUMAN EVENTS last week about his own conservative philosophy, and what led him to finally run in the race after initially saying, “No way.”

“When [Pearce] was exploring a bid for Congress for the seat of Jeff Flake [who is running for the U.S. Senate], a number of people urged me to run for his state senate district,” said Lewis, a nine-year stake president in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and superintendent of the Sequoia Choice Arizona Distance Learning charter school. “I said, ‘No, thank you,’ that I wasn’t a politician and wasn’t interested in running.”

Earlier this year, Pearce opted against a congressional race. But a movement known as Citizens for a Better Arizona secured thousands of signatures from voters, surpassing 25% of those who voted in the last election, as Arizona law requires for a recall, and thus placed question of his continued tenure in the senate on the November ballot.

Regarding the recall movement, Lewis told us: “I never supported it and would not sign the petition. I felt that whatever people thought of the incumbent, he had not violated any laws, and you knew where he stood.”

Lewis decided to run, he told us, “Because I saw too much time and money spent by politicians attacking one another, and too little attacking issues voters cared about.” He added that his much-voiced distaste for career politicians finally convinced him “to step up to the plate and do something about them.” Pearce, a former deputy sheriff, has served in the state house and senate, and was once state motor vehicles commissioner.

In campaigning for Pearce’s seat, Lewis emphasized the themes of the economy and employment, calling for lower taxes—the legislature’s vote to reduce taxes on corporations was “a step in the right direction,” he said—and eliminating regulations that keep businesses from creating jobs in the state. In addition, the longtime charter school leader called for greater choice for parents in education.

Did he oppose the immigration law that is Pearce’s signature cause? Lewis replied without hesitation: “No, not at all. [SB 1070] certainly raised the specter of awareness on this issue among voters, and it was a proper response to the problem, considering that no one else—no one at the federal or state level—is doing anything about the problem.”

But, he added, “I still believe it wasn’t a balanced approach. Before taking a step like this, I would have said, ‘Secure the borders first.’ And then our congressional delegation has to force the issue and engage the federal government in stopping illegal immigration.”

Lewis said that as much as voters agreed with 1070, many also felt that Pearce was focusing too much on illegal immigration and not enough on jobs and the economy. Last month, Lewis unseated Pearce with 54% of the vote. When he was sworn in days ago, Lewis formally declined to participate in the pension program for state legislators, saying that voters should not be burdened with paying for his retirement.

The inevitable final question from us was whether, with such a recognizable and well-liked name, would Jerry Lewis consider a bid for higher office?

“No way,” he shot back. “I’m not a career politician, remember?”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 1, 2011
CONTACT: Tasya Peterson

PHOENIX – Governor Jan Brewer today commended the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for affirming the Federal District Court’s dismissal of the challenge to SB 1070 that was filed by Tucson police officer Martin Escobar. In August 2010, Federal District Judge Susan Bolton dismissed the Escobar challenge for lack of standing.

“I am pleased with today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit affirming the dismissal of this case challenging SB 1070,” said Governor Brewer. “I’ll continue to defend the State of Arizona’s duty and obligation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens.”

Escobar is a Tucson police officer who filed a lawsuit claiming that enforcement of SB 1070 would violate the rights of Latinos. He alleged that he may be subject to civil liability for violating the rights of others in enforcing the Arizona immigration law, and additionally asserted that he would be subject to discipline by his employer and potential civil lawsuits if he failed to enforce SB 1070. The Federal District Court dismissed Escobar’s case, a decision now affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Arizona Legislature enacted SB 1070 primarily to require that Arizona’s law enforcement officers cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Special protections were included in the law to safeguard against racial profiling. SB 1070 was duly-passed by the Arizona Legislature and signed into law by Governor Brewer in order to protect the citizens of Arizona from the federal government’s failure to enforce the immigration laws.

###

Senator Sylvia Allen

The Arizona border remains under assault. This assault is not diminishing but increasing! Just south of Arizona, Mexico is in a state of civil war. The death toll in Mexico is more than 40,000 lives lost since 2006. Only the Mexican military is able to maintain any semblance of order, and many within Mexico are now even openly questioning “for how long?” In a recent exclusive interview with Newsmax, former Mexican President Vicente Fox said bluntly his nation was at “war” with drug cartels. “Everybody’s trying to deny that we’re going through a war but that’s what it is.”

Graphic photos of beheadings, kidnapping scenes, and mass graves are sent to me weekly in Border Briefing reports. The cartels/gangs have corrupted Mexican law enforcement at all levels, thereby protecting their illicit $12-billion-a-year criminal enterprise. You would think the United States government would be greatly concerned; you would think those in positions of public trust in Washington would spend at least as much time working on stabilizing Mexico as they do on Egypt and Libya. Yet hardly a word is said about the increasing problems and threats stemming from our immediate neighbor to the south other than the spin from Washington that “the border is safer now than ever.” But to those of us tasked with providing security to the citizens of Arizona and beyond, nothing of substance is said or enacted and, all the while, a war is headed this way. This war is real, and it is dangerous, and soon this war will be fought with increasing measures in America.

NewsMax devoted two months last Spring conducting more than 20 interviews during visits to border areas in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. They found overwhelming evidence that Mexico’s drug cartels have already penetrated deep into our nation’s heartland, and Americans are increasingly fearful.

As Chairman of the Arizona Senate Committee on Border Security, my committee heard testimony last year from many citizens who live in the border area. They reported home invasions, vandalism, stolen property, and a host of other criminal activities. An Intelligence Briefing to a Joint Session of Selected Legislators on November 10th, 2011, by Zack Taylor, retired Border Patrol Supervisory Agent, and Dr. Lyle Rapacki, a Threat Assessment and Intelligence Specialist, went even further than the NewsMax articles. These experts reported how “lookout posts” are positioned in key points throughout the desert, and as far north (65-miles from the border) as the City of Casa Grande, Arizona, the I-8 corridor and Apache Junction, and along the I-10 corridor approaching the bedroom community of Ahwatukee. This briefing further revealed that the cartels (and lookouts) are heavily armed with military-grade weapons, camouflage, sophisticated and expensive night-vision goggles, satellite communications, food and water, and organized logistical support. If you go to the Pinal County Sheriff’s website, you can read many reports of drug busts, fire fights, auto chases, and other serious encounters with the cartels/gangs/human smugglers occurring frequently in Pinal County, which is far inside the border of the United States of America.

Additionally, and with as much concern, Arizona has to deal with health issues and trash, mounds of trash left by illegals marching into America. Fifth-generation rancher Jim Chilton has seen his once-beautiful ranch, just a few miles from the border with Mexico, be destroyed with crushed trees and cactus, whole hillsides turned into charred eyesores, years worth of his award-winning conservation projects obliterated – and his ranch is littered with trash, tons of trash, and some of this trash is dead bodies. Mr. Chilton stated: “I’ve got 30,000 to 40,000 illegal aliens coming right through my ranch every year, and the Forest Service says each one leaves about eight pounds of trash. This means 100 tons of trash. Some of my cows eat the plastic bags that are thrown down, and about 10 head of cattle die per year, and their deaths are slow and painful. At $1,200 per cow lost, this means I lose $12,000 a year in cows to trash!”

Adding insult is the Bureau of Land Management with their insane proposal to shut down target shooting on 490,000 acres in the Sonoran Desert National Monument, and another 1.4 million acres of additional public lands in Pinal County. The Bureau claims shooters are leaving trash behind. It is NOT the shooters who are decimating the desert but drug and human smugglers! The BLM knows this but have developed this ploy to restrict Arizonans from entering this land. Arizona Game and Fish, on their maps, warn hunters that 35 miles north of the Border the land is impacted by illegal activity from illegals. Arizona is losing control of her sovereign land!

Tragedy upon tragedy, as we add the fires set by illegals that have destroyed our lands! Senator McCain was correct this past summer laying blame on the illegals for some of the horrific and terribly destructive fires that were purposefully set. It cost more than $70 million to fight these insidious fires, and the official U.S. Government response was to attempt to silence McCain. Why is the apparent official policy of the United States to ridicule and silence those who are trying to protect our state of Arizona? Why are the cartels protected? Why do official U.S. government departments, sworn to protect American citizens, extend protection to gangs working with the drug cartels, and even to terrorists entering our nation from various border entry points?

In 2007, speaking on the Larry King show, former Mexican President Vicente Fox confirmed the coming merger with Mexico, Canada, and the United States. Not only did Fox admit that he and George W. Bush had agreed to create a common currency, the Amero, he also contended that a North American Union is “inevitable.” There is, on the other hand, no will to secure our borders or to enforce our laws. There is a concerted, deliberate, and sophisticated program under way to erase our national boundaries and create a North American Union. Merging our country with Mexico and Canada would be a losing proposition for Americans. The governments of these three countries are not alike. The gift of sovereignty handed to us by our Forefathers would be extinguished, and we would become subjects, no longer free. I do not want this for myself or my grandchildren!

Progressive groups, radicals of many persuasions, and even anti-American groups are using the cry for “Open Borders” for their own purposes, and not for the concern of migrants. Those purposes include, but are not limited to, undermining our form of government and eroding our national sovereignty. Many of those entangled are innocent bystanders who become subject to blackmail and abuse by “coyotes,” cartels, human and slave traffickers, and radical political groups who have agendas that reach far beyond the safety and legal status of a vulnerable illegal family. With the recent recall of Senator Russell Pearce, the open borders crowd feels empowered, and they have no intention of stopping until they rid the political and governing scene of each and every individual who stands in the way of full and completely open borders, no national boundaries, and the complete remaking of America into the North American Union.

As an Arizona state legislator, I took an oath to uphold the Federal and State Constitutions and the laws of our land. If those laws need to be changed, we have a process by which people, through their elected representatives, can change them. In the meantime, elected representatives and residents are encouraged to live by the laws intended to provide order and safety for all. There is no higher calling for an elected official, state or federal, than to protect the freedom and public safety of the citizens they represent. Border Security ranks supreme. Without first securing the border, we will never be able to solve the myriad issues involving illegal immigration.

Arizona is in a State of Emergency. If we want to protect our national and state sovereignty, we must secure our border and enforce our laws. This is NOT a political move or call to action; this is a call to declare a State of Emergency in Arizona to preserve our land, our citizens and their property, and our state sovereignty, with all the means afforded to us by the Constitution of the United States of America.

We are still seeking donations to build the border fence. Please take a look at the “Build the Border Fence” website, and consider making a generous donation.

Best wishes to all of you during this holiday season. Despite the gloomy news on the border, we have much to be grateful for! God willing, we will make some progress on securing the border in the months ahead. The next Update will discuss some solutions to the border emergency.