Operational Control Should Be Metric for Success

Washington, D.C. – Republican Congressman Jeff Flake, who represents Arizona’s Sixth District, today criticized the border security proposal outlined by the Department of Homeland Security’s Chief of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The five-year plan moves away from operational control as the metric for measuring effective and sustainable border security and shifts the focus of border security from being resource-based to risk-based.

“Unless the federal government has operational control, the border is not secured,” said Flake. “When the Tucson Sector looks like the Yuma Sector, the Obama Administration can start patting itself on the back. But to abandon operational control as the metric of success now makes me question the seriousness of the Administration’s proposal.”

“We have a plan in Congress that would put the federal government on the path to operational control – The Border Security Enforcement Act.”

In 2011, Congressman Flake introduced in the House H.R. 1507, the Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011, which is focused on increasing resources along the Southern U.S. border. Senators John McCain and Jon Kyl introduced the legislation in the Senate. Among the 10 key provisions of the bill is the deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops and 5,000 additional Border Patrol agents to the United States-Mexico border by 2016. It would create additional Border Patrol stations along the southwest border and six additional permanent Border Patrol Forward Operating Bases and would upgrade existing bases.

###

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Tuesday, May 1, 2012

The blog Western Free Press has put up a push-poll to ensure that untested, unreliable Republican Bob Worsley leads over Russell Pearce. Worsley does not have anything posted on the issues page of his campaign website. Where does he stand on illegal immigration? Abortion? Tax increases and spending? There is a reason why he has left this information off his website. Don’t let this blog skew the results of their poll. Vote for Russell now. http://www.westernfreepress.com/2012/05/01/poll-do-you-support-russell-pearce-or-bob-worsley-in-the-ld-25-senate-republican-primary/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=poll-do-you-support-russell-pearce-or-bob-worsley-in-the-ld-25-senate-republican-primary

Click here to view the embedded video.

Today’s hearing went well. The Obama Administration took the outrageous step of suing one of the 50 states for trying to enforce federal law. Arizona has been hit disproportionately hard by illegal immigration and the state had no choice but to pass SB 1070 to protect our own citizens.

I have read the transcript of today’s SB 1070 hearing in the US Supreme Court. Section 2, the most important of the 4 sections of SB1070 which are being challenged, appears to have the support of Liberal as well as Conservative Justices, and mainly with a large unanimous vote. Section 2 requires Police Officers to engage in a lawful arrest or stop, and to have reasonable suspicion, to inquire with ICE about whether the person is in this country legally. Even two of the most Liberal Justices, Sotamayor and Breyer, asked questions indicating they may vote to hold that section of the law Constitutional.

The lawyer for Arizona pointed out that a Phoenix Police officer had been shot by a suspect who had been accused of attempted murder in El Salvador, had been pulled over three times before encountering this police officer, but had never had his immigration status checked. That was due to the City of Phoenix policies that would be illegal under Section 2. Had inquiry been made before he encountered the Phoenix officer, that officer would not have been shot.

The comments of several Justices were very encouraging. Justice Scalia noted that under SB 1070, “Arizona is not trying to kick out anybody that the federal government has not already said do not belong here.” A number of the other provisions at issue are state copies of Federal laws where the Obama Administration claims that states cannot enforce identical laws in parallel. Justice Scalia added the analogy that federal law prohibits bank robbery, and stated, “Can it be made a state crime to rob those banks? I think it is.” And Chief Justice Roberts noted that the federal role in enforcing immigration law is not harmed by SB 1070 since “all it does is notify the Federal Government, here’s someone who is here illegally, here’s someone who is removable.”

Most troubling is the Federal Government’s argument that SB 1070 is unconstitutional because Arizona interferes with the Federal monopoly on foreign relations. Arizona has not opened any embassies. It has passed a law that foreign countries disagree with. If a Federal Judge can invalidate a state law on the grounds that other countries disagree with it (and it therefore interferes with the Federal monopoly on foreign relations) America’s sovereignty will be severely compromised. Justice Scalia asked the Obama Administration lawyer if “we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico… (that) sounded like what you were saying.”

Finally, I was gratified to see that even the Obama administration lawyer agreed with Chief Justice Roberts’ contention that this case has nothing to do with ethnic and racial profiling. SB 1070 has never allowed racial profiling, and that is a persistent myth that should end today.

###

Congressman Raul Grijalva writes that Arizona’s immigration law, SB1070 will put our country into chaos, should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold the law. The United States Supreme Court will hear arguments in the matter of Arizona’s immigration law, SB1070, today. A recent poll shows that a majority of Americans favor the law. Eight states have adopted similar laws.

Grijalva’s Republican challenger in the Congressional District 3 race, Gabby Saucedo Mercer, says “Grijalva’s failure, in his ten years in Congress, to sponsor meaningful legislation that would serve the country’s economic and national security while addressing the very difficult questions and issues pertaining to immigration, has created a chaotic atmosphere, in which communication has broken down, and real solutions are not being discussed.”

In his opinion piece, written for U.S. News and reports, Raúl M. Grijalva, the co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, wrote, “Arizona’s SB 1070 should be struck down by the Supreme Court.” Grijalva, the radical congressman from Arizona, argues that the Constitution clearly gives exclusive authority to the federal government over immigration and naturalization issues.”

Gabby Saucedo Mercer is challenging the congressman’s claim that SB1070 grants states “the authority to create immigration policy.” She says, “This sort of mischaracterization and hyperbole does not help the people of this country or Arizona. SB1070 is simply recognition of federal law, it does not in any way, grant state and local law enforcement any extraordinary authority.”

The Governor of Arizona released a statement addressing the lies and distortions offered by the law’s foes like Grijalva, “Despite all of the misrepresentations, misleading rhetoric and outright lies told about SB 1070, public support for this law is as strong as ever. I’ve seen it in the donations from citizens of all 50 states who have dug into their own pocketbooks in order to help defray Arizona’s legal costs.

Saucedo Mercer argues that the law’s popularity has increased as the public has grown more aware of the failure of the federal government to protect our county’s border. “The people of Arizona felt that the federal government had failed to protect the country’s economic health and the people’s welfare. Grijalva has been in office for ten years and has failed to take the lead, as a resident of a large border state, to initiate real changes in immigration. He instead prefers open borders.”

Saucedo Mercer, who has lived in the border area communities of Rio Rico, Sierra Vista and Tucson, knows firsthand the concerns that lead the people of Arizona to pass SB1070. Saucedo Mercer supports the ROB Plan for border security. Saucedo Mercer is a conservative advocate for meaningful immigration reform, who knows firsthand the issues facing hopeful immigrants. She does not support blanket amnesty, but does support immigration reform that offers a rigorous but compassionate path to citizenship.

Gabby Saucedo Mercer, a legal immigrant from Mexico who took an oath to defend the Constitution when she became an American citizen, joins many Arizona law makers in the belief that the Supreme Court will find for the state of Arizona.

The Arizona Latino Republican Association has endorsed the law.

Just last week, Saucedo Mercer spent two days in Nogales, Arizona, listening to business leaders’ and government officials’ concerns about our national and economic security. No one expressed opposition to SB1070, but without exception, they advised Saucedo Mercer that political hyperbole does not help their situation.

###

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Saturday, April 21, 2012

Fired Deputy County Attorney spills beans in lawsuit against Supervisors on how they rewarded their friends and  Arpaio/Thomas enemies with $100,000.00′s  Randy Parraz wasn’t even a protester, nor had he filed a lawsuit against the County, yet County Supervisors added him in to receive an inflated award of taxpayers’ money

The payoff for taking out Russell Pearce is now obvious. Here are some excerpts from fired Deputy County Maria Brandon’s federal lawsuit against Maricopa County: In 2010, as the high-profile feud escalated, some in county management began to use the county’s self-insured trust to reward political friends such as anti-Arpaio and anti-Thomas protestors. They also sought to punish Arpaio and Thomas politically by paying more than necessary to settle his claims and lawsuits and then publicly blaming the costs on Arpaio and on Thomas and their mismanagement. Attorneys in Special Litigation who were under the chain of command of county management but providing representation to Arpaio and Thomas as their attorneys, refused on ethical grounds to go along with this behavior. An attempt was made to keep these attorneys from returning to the County Attorney’s office. When this was opposed by newly-elected County Attorney Bill Montgomery, a scheme was devised to circumvent the merit system so the salaries of these employees could be slashed and/or they could be fired without the right to appeal. In February 2010, Risk Management adjuster Jacquie Garrett, who was assigned to adjust three lawsuits filed by a group of seven (7) anti-Arpaio protestors arising from incidents on December 15th and 17th, and Brandon decided requested settlement authority of $7500 foreach protestor, a total of $52,500.32. At the end of April 2010, Risk Manager Rocky Armfield sent Brandon an email explaining that he had obtained additional authority of up to $100,000 per protestor, and that he was adding the claim of Randy Parraz, a political activist who was not arrested or a participant on December 15th and December 17th and had not yet filed a lawsuit. Rocky Armfield was told repeatedly by Brandon and by his adjuster, Jacquie Garrett,that there were defenses and motions that could be applied to these cases to reduce or eliminate the liability for the defendants and the self-insured trust. For example, Mr. Parraz’s notice of claim had been untimely filed, but Armfield was intent on pushing these political cases to a nearly mediation and an early monetary settlement. The lawsuits were settled at the mediation over MCSO’s objections, as follows: Theilen received $99,999; Monica Sandschafer received $99,999; Odhner received $75,000; Nelson $75,000; Bethancourt $50,000; Millan $50,000 and Teran $24,700. Randy Parraz did not settle his claim at that time. The Republic published a front page article regarding the settlement amount of $424,700 for seven protestors who were booked and released, and where there were no claims of excessive force or physical injuries. One protestor, who had not been booked or taken to jailbut had only received a citation in the mail, received $24,700 in settlement funds at the mediation. During these five months, John Does I-V, unknown policymakers for Maricopa County, set up a salary structure that protected the salaries of attorneys at General Litigation who had represented county management, but slashed the salaries of attorneys from Special Litigation who had represented Arpaio/MCSO and Thomas/MCAO. The new salary structure had the effect of punishing attorneys perceived by some as political enemies in the county feud because they represented Sheriff Arpaio, even though that was what they were hired to do. All three line-attorneys in Special Litigation had their salaries significantly reduced under the new salary structure. As of April 18, 2011, the Special Litigation attorneys received the following reductions in salary: Attorney S. Lee White’s salary was reduced by $29,640(about a 30% reduction); K. Peter Muthig’s salary was reduced by $17,971 and Plaintiff Brandon’s salary was reduced by $7737. Under the plan developed during the five months of negotiation between Bill Montgomery and county management, all attorneys brought back from General Litigation and Special Litigation were to be placed on probation despite the fact that many had worked for the county for 20 or even 30 years. Plaintiff Brandon was placed on probation despite the fact that she had worked for Maricopa County continually for 33 years. Tom Liddy said he attended one meeting alone with Assistant County Manager/BudgetDirector/Interim HR Director Sandi Wilson with no written agenda, and she began the meeting by asking, “What are you going to do about Maria Brandon?” Liddy likened the atmosphere to the post-Civil War, Reconstruction period when there were lynchings. Despite her many years of public service, Plaintiff Brandon lost her work, her annual salary of about $134,000 and later of about $126,000, her family’s medical insurance, and her reputation. Prior to June 10th , Plaintiff had never been dismissed or asked to leave a job in her life. The full complaint is posted here.

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Monday, April 16, 2012

Espressopundit makes the case             Harkins megaplex at Scottsdale & 101 may be first target that is shut down

Pearce to Boycott New Times Russell Pearce’s supporters just sent out this email. Sen. Pearce and I are calling on all conservatives across Arizona to boycott businesses which advertise with the Phoenix New Times.The PNT is entirely reliant on ad revenue to fund its pro-amnesty, anti-Arpaio, pro-illegal immigration agenda that rabidly attacks Arizona law enforcement, Arizona conservatives and the community leaders and public servants who dare oppose their dangerous, leftist beliefs.  That companies such as local auto dealers, Harkins Theaters and many local restaurants we all patronize fund this campaign against Sheriff Arpaio is something that cannot go on. Corporate responsibility is not limited just to environmental causes and the like. Arizona businesses are (possibly inadvertently) funding the Left’s campaign for lawlessness, crime, illegal immigration, amnesty and worse.  http://www.banamnestynow.com/buy-cott/and in each week’s edition of THE RUSSELL PEARCE SHOW, live on Monday’s at 7pm on KFNX News Talk Radio 1100. Could this work?  The Limbaugh boycott has fizzled, and boycotts are so retro–and so over-called for–that they seem to have lost any punch.  In fact, a few years ago I would have said that Pearce is wasting his time, but now I’m not so sure.  There are a some factors at play that might just make a Pearce-led boycott an effective tool: First, New Times itself has changed.  We think of New Times as liberal, but it’s really more anti-authoritarian.  The paper was certainly a pain in Napolitano’s backside.   Now that the state has a Conservative Governor and Legislature, New Times’ anti-authoritarian outlook is also a hard left outlook.  The paper has also become a one note tune that’s anti Arpaio all the time. These changes will not be lost on advertisers.  After all, Arpaio/Pearce supporters can go to, say, Dan Harkins and rightly say that New Times is trying to destroy them personally.  We can debate how much popular support Arpaio/Pearce enjoy, but the number is not small.  If Arpaio/Pearce supporters simply stop attending Harkins theaters, that would be noticed.  If they start demonstrating in front of Harkins Theaters that would be huge.  Harkins would be foolish to risk even one protest for whatever benefit he gets from New Times ads. Which leads to the second point.  New Times has picked up some “respectable” advertisers.   Nothing against car alarms, breast augmentation and tatoo removal but those industries are unlikely to care about Russell Pearce’s views on anything.  Car dealers, restaurants, movie theaters and yes, breast augmentation surgeons however, will be sensitive to large pro-Arpaio crowds in their parking lots.  Pearce is smart enough to use the Alinsky rules and will target, freeze personalize and polarize individual advertisers–and not just in Mesa.  Shutting down the Harkins megaplex at Scottsdale and the 101 on the opening night of each summer Blockbuster would be a powerful message. Next, the world is changing in three important ways that will have the potential to make the boycott successful.  First is that Pearce can get his message out through the social media, twitter, email plus his radio show.  I know that everyone uses social media now, and it may not be the organizational panacea that people claim, but it is very effective for organizing a midsized–a few thousand–group of highly motivated individuals.  And having a thousand people break into groups of five or ten and target New Times’ 50 biggest advertisers for a few weekends can only be organized–and reported–through social media. The Internet also gives advertisers more choices.  Businesses shouldn’t be expected to forgo revenue just because someone is offended by their advertising choices.  But now they don’t have to.  Newspaper advertising is now one of many alternatives and if companies took the money they spent on those full page ads and devoted those same resources to their own social media campaigns they might be better off. Newspaper economics have also changed.  It’s not like Pearce is trying to take out New Times at its anti Mecham, anti Symington peak.    New Times used to run 224 pages now its often fewer than 100.  Newspapers are on life support. Pearce is just going to stand on its oxygen hose. This boycott is different because Pearce is not trying to change behavior.  Most groups launch a boycott because they oppose a specific policy…the company doesn’t hire enough minority workers, it offers benefits to its gay employees, it uses sweatshops in Thailand…but Pearce doesn’t want to change New Times, he wants to bankrupt New Times.   The paper is not ever going to stop opposing him. His only option is to ignore it or destroy it.  He’s been ignoring it for years and look where it got him. The Pearce boycott is unlikely to actually drive New Times out of business, but he will hurt them and he may even manage to tip the balance and finish them off. Reprinted from http://www.espressopundit.com/2012/03/heres-a-new-twist-on-an-old-song.html

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Saturday, April 7, 2012

Monday, March 26, B.A.N. leadership announced a “buy-cott” of retailers and restaurants who purchased paid advertisements in ultra-liberal, pro-Amnesty, pro-illegal immigration rags like the Phoenix New Times. “The pro-amnesty New Times is 100% dependent on ad-revenue,” said Sean McCaffrey, B.A.N. founder. “Without ad dollars spent by local businesses, the New Times could not afford to print their vicious, heinous attacks against law enforcement, elected officials and conservative leaders who dare to oppose illegal immigration, dare to oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, dare to enforce the law, and dare to put American workers first.” In a recent online survey, 98.5% of supporter respondents said they would actively support a boycott of New Times advertisers. In response to this clear mandate, Ban Amnesty Now will publish a list of prominent New Times advertisers (CLICK HERE FOR THE LIST). “I am confident responsible conservatives will take this buy-cott to heart, and stop spending their hard-earned dollars with businesses and restaurants that support the illegal alien agenda,” said Sen. Russell Pearce, president of B.A.N. “There are plenty of car dealers, retailers and great Arizona restaurants that don’t advertise in the New Times that will be happy to have our business.” In addition, B.A.N. will also make available a “You Lost My Business Coupon” which B.A.N. supporters may print and give to “Buy-Cotted” establishments (CLICK HERE FOR THE COUPON). With more than 800,000 active members and supporters nationwide, over half of whom reside in Arizona, our hope is that B.A.N. patriots will choose to spend their money with retailers and restaurants that do not fund hyper-partisan, pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigration media establishments dedicated to attacking public servants like Sheriff Joe Arpaio and other leading conservatives. Please also click here to follow B.A.N. and this “Buy-Cott” on Facebook.

Fellow Patriots,

You hopefully read the email I sent Thursday asking you to join our boycott of businesses which support the pro-amnesty, pro-illegal immigration Phoenix New Times. As a “free” publication, they are 100% funded by advertising revenue… which ultimately comes from businesses where WE spend our hard-earned money!

There is another reason why responsible businesses MUST pull their ads from the New Times:

According to reports in the Associated Press and many other news agencies and sites, for at least THREE YEARS and possibly longer, the Phoenix New Times and their parent company, Village Voice Media, have been complicit in something even worse… something even dirtier and darker than supporting illegal immigration and amnesty for criminal illegal aliens:

According to prosecutors, the New Times company REFUSED TO STOP RUNNING ADVERTISEMENTS THAT ARE A FRONT FOR PROSTITUTION AND OTHER SEX CRIMES!

PETITION LAW ENFORCEMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE PRO-AMNESTY NEW-TIMES TODAY! 

And who is paying to advertise alongside those who would exploit women and children in our society? Car dealers, movie theaters, retailers and restaurants that you and I go to!

Can you believe what arrogance and greed it must take for prosecutors to show the Phoenix New Times company evidence that 50 cases of sex trafficking from 22 states have originated on their pages…

…and they still refuse to stop running the ads promoting such terrible criminal behavior?

Is it any wonder they oppose Sheriff Joe Arpaio so much, when he’s not just America’s toughest lawman, but also one of the leading law enforcement agents in the nation in the fight against human trafficking!

PETITION LAW ENFORCEMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE PRO-AMNESTY NEW-TIMES TODAY! 

Now, what happened when confronted by our proposed boycott of their advertisers? Last week, New Times editor-in-chief Rick Barrs went to our Ban Amnesty Now page on Facebook and called our 29,000+ Facebook members “racists”!

Did he express any concern about the hateful actions of his staff, or the remorse for the prostitution or sex-trafficking businesses run on their advertising pages? No. He ranted that we were racists.

Today, what we need most is YOU! Please join me today in signing this petition against the New Times Company:

Calling on law enforcement to investigate whether the New Times has knowingly profited from a criminal enterprise;

Calling on all responsible Arizona businesses to cancel their advertising in this ultra-liberal, pro-amnesty business with alleged ties to prostitution and worse; and

Pledging to boycott businesses who continue to advertise with the Phoenix New Times.

Fellow conservatives, we must stand up to pariahs in society like this… The media and blogosphere is coming around to see our side, and we need your support!

Writes Greg Patterson in The Espresso Pundit, “The [Ban Amnesty Now] boycott is unlikely to actually drive New Times out of business, but he will hurt them and he may even manage to tip the balance and finish them off.”

PETITION LAW ENFORCEMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE PRO-AMNESTY NEW-TIMES TODAY! 

When you think about the New Times, never forget: according to prosecutors, for THREE YEARS, they knew their ad pages were being used by the worst sexual predators in society to sell women for sex…

…and not only did they do nothing, but they repeatedly refused to take down these ad pages because of the millions of dollars they were making!

Remember every crude, vicious attack the New Times has unleashed on conservatives like Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Senator Pearce, Governor Brewer and others. Remember the years they have spent ranting and raving against those who oppose amnesty and illegal immigration, and the campaigns of hate they wage even on citizens and groups who oppose them. Remember every vile word, every vicious hit piece, every slated attack…

PETITION LAW ENFORCEMENT TO INVESTIGATE THE PRO-AMNESTY NEW-TIMES TODAY! 

…and now please join us in righting a wrong by signing this petition so that law enforcement acts quickly, and legitimate businesses stop sharing advertising space with the worst sex offenders plaguing our society!

For America,

Sean McCaffrey
Founder

(TUCSON) – Congressman Raul Grijalva’s Republican challenger, Gabby Saucedo Mercer is calling for real immigration reform. The conservative activist, Saucedo Mercer, endorses the Krentz plan for border security and supports real immigration reform, including a documented worker program along the lines of the old “Bracero” guest worker program.

Grijalva continues his exploitation of difficult social issues for his political purposes. He does not seek solutions, only seeks to create more confusion and acrimony. Last week, Raul Grijalva, with his fellow progressives in Congress, filed a challenge to Arizona’s SB 1070. While many states across the country have similar laws, in April 2010, the Congressman called for a boycott of his own constituents in protest of the Arizona law.

In the press conference called to address his amicus brief, Grijalva and other progressives, including Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, exploited the recent killing of Trayvon Martin, the teenager killed in an altercation with a neighborhood-watch volunteer.

Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said a law like SB 1070 will give police “the right to be judge and jury,” which could have disastrous results “in a nation where we all are different. In one case, a hoodie equals suspicion,” she said. “In another case, it is a tanness of your skin, or the coloration of your skin, or maybe the configuration of your face,” according to an AP article.

“To sensationalize and exploit a young man’s death, to argue against national security and the state of Arizona’s attempt to protect itself when the Federal government has failed to do so, is at best dangerous; it is shameful,” said Saucedo Mercer.

Just this month Emilia Palomino-Robles, 42 of Sonora, Mexico, was sentenced to prison, for her role in an attempt to purchase military-grade weaponry that was ultimately destined for export and transfer to a Mexican drug trafficking organization in the Republic of Mexico. The cartel attempted to buy:

• A Dragon Fire anti-tank weapon;
• Two AT-4s (an 84-mm unguided, portable, single-shot recoilless smoothbore weapon);
• A Law Rocket (a Light Anti-Tank Weapon);
• A Stinger Missile (a portable infrared homing anti-aircraft surface-to-air missile);
• Two Def Tech grenade launchers and a dozen 40 mm grenades;
• One M-60 machine gun;
• One .30 caliber machine gun; and
• Three cases of hand grenades

“Every day the people of Arizona and our country are at risk from the federal government’s failure to protect our national security and the security of our neighborhoods. Grijalva would rather play politics with our lives than get down to the business of supporting real immigration reform and border security.”

The Krentz plan was developed by Arizona cattleman in response to the shooting death of Southern Arizona rancher Rob Krentz.

###

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Saturday, March 24, 2012

It seems like every Republican candidate boasts about their perfect record when it comes to cutting wasteful spending and being a fiscal conservative. But some candidates have voting records that support their claims and some do not.   Kirk Adams is one of those candidates whose rhetoric does not match his record.   In March 2011, the Arizona House of Representatives, led by then-Speaker of the House Kirk Adams, passed HB 2718, a $5 million “earmark” to Sheriff Paul Babeu and the Pinal County Sheriff’s Department. HB 2718 was intended to send “emergency” funds to Pinal County for “border security operations” and “public safety equipment,” despite the fact that Pinal County does not border Mexico.   Using an enormous amount of his political clout, Sheriff Babeu leaned hard on Kirk Adams to co-sponsor and lead the passing of this wasteful earmark through the legislature. Adams, only a couple months away from announcing his campaign for Congress, was happy to oblige Sheriff Babeu in hopes that it would earn him Babeu’s once-highly influential endorsement for his congressional campaign.   In a press release sent from his Speaker’s office on February 23, 2011, Kirk Adams defended HB 2718, stating:   “Sheriff Babeu has stepped up to the plate and is fighting to protect Arizonans – in Pinal County and beyond,” said House Speaker Kirk Adams, sponsor of the legislation. “Years of neglect and denial have allowed Pinal County to become the top corridor into our state and country for illegal activity. Sheriff Babeu’s important and courageous work will help keep America and Arizona safe.”   Babeu, eager to receive the additional funding from the state, went on to spend nearly $1 million to purchase a patrol helicopter for his Sheriff’s office. Since then, Pinal county officials have determined they do not have the necessary funds to consistently purchase the gas needed to operate the helicopter. Now, the Pinal County Sheriff’s office is in possession of a taxpayer-paid helicopter that can’t be used for “border security” or “public safety.”   At a time when Arizona faced a budget crisis like never seen before and Arizona families struggled to make ends meet, Kirk Adams chose to flush millions of taxpayer dollars down the drain.   Arizona voters need to look past the rhetoric of Republican candidates who claim to be fiscally conservative. Our country can’t afford more politicians in Congress who talk tough about cutting wasteful spending but continue to vote for more of it. Now more than ever, we must entrust our country’s future with candidates who possess a proven fiscal record to back up their campaign rhetoric.   In the end, the tough talk from Kirk Adams about cutting wasteful spending and being fiscally responsible reminds me of that earmarked helicopter: it just doesn’t fly.

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Thursday, March 22, 2012

Newly announced challenger to Russell Pearce trying to erase his open borders position        His comments said “we have suffered” as a result of SB 1070

Bob Worsley, pretending he’s not against SB1070 Pearce Foe Sanitizes Anti-SB1070 Comments Arizona Capitol Times by Luige del Puerto March 19, 2012 Hours after announcing he was running for a legislative seat that pits him against immigration hawk Russell Pearce, a prominent Mesa businessman deleted his comments from a church website that were critical of Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration laws. Bob Worsley, a Mesa Republican and founder of the in-flight catalog company SkyMall, declared this morning that he is seeking the Senate seat in newly drawn Legislative District 25. That sets up a showdown between Worsley and former Senate President Russell Pearce, the architect of major anti-immigration laws in Arizona, including SB1070. A profile of Worsley on Mormon.org, the official website of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, earlier in the day outlined the Mesa businessman’s pointed criticisms of Arizona’s immigration laws. Archived version of the Worsley profile (click to enlarge) Within several hours of his announcement, however, the comments were deleted. A church representative in Salt Lake City told Arizona Capitol Times that the comments were removed by Worsley himself, and not by the church. The archived webpage shows Worsley, who is the president of a 150-member Hispanic branch of the church in Mesa, expressed displeasure with Arizona’s immigration laws. Altered version of the Worsley profile (click to enlarge) “We have suffered with the Arizona law that encouraged those immigrants without proper documents to leave the State. I have fought for the rights of Latinos and to replace those lawmakers who were most extreme in their views,” the earlier webpage reads. That passage appears to be specifically targeting SB1070, whose provisions are largely on hold by the courts. At the time of its passage in May 2010, the law was the toughest state-level immigration law in the country and it has spawned a slew of similar measures across the country since then. But the decision to pull the comments signals a tight balancing act for a candidate who’s running in a district with Republican primary voters who presumably strongly support anti-illegal immigration laws. Pearce, the most prominent champion of laws cracking down on illegal immigration in Arizona, was defeated by now-Sen. Jerry Lewis, a fellow Mormon, in a special recall election in November. Immigration was a key issue in that race, and the Lewis camp tapped into the close-knit Mormon community to help win the historic recall against Pearce. Some parallels have already been drawn between Lewis, who has been drawn to a different district, and Worsley. Both are prominent local Mormon leaders. Lewis prefers a more collaborative approach to solving the illegal immigration problem. From his now-deleted remarks on his church’s website, it appears that Worsley, who served as a missionary in Uruguay and Paraguay, has misgivings about proposals that seek only illegal immigrants’ expulsion. Worsley also gave Lewis $424 during last year’s recall campaign. The incumbent in the new LD25 is Sen. Rich Crandall, a Mesa Republican, who has said in the past that he plans to run for re-election. But Crandall announced via Twitter late this evening that he was endorsing Worsley and throwing his entire campaign infrastructure behind him. Crandall’s tweet came shortly after Pearce announced he was seeking a comeback to the Senate, and planned to run in LD25. Crandall and Pearce have at times been at odds and Crandall beat back a primary challenge last election by a Pearce-backed candidate.

]]> http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/03/24/pearce-challenger-erases-his-anti-sb1070-comments-on-church-website/feed/ 27 http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/03/14/march-19th-please-join-me/ http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/03/14/march-19th-please-join-me/#comments Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:10:48 +0000 American Post Gazette http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=27017 A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

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

Monday, March 12, 2012

Dear fellow Patriots: Join me March 19th at 7PM at the Red Mountain Tea Party at 74th Street and Apache Trail in Mesa (North side at the Charter School).  I will be joined by many elected officials, i.e. Sheriff Joe, Senators and Representatives, Congressional and legislative candidates, Arizona Republican Latinos, Tea Party Leaders, Tea Party Patriots and other Conservative leaders in our state.  We have some heavy lifting to do and strong conservative leadership is a must.  As I make this very tough decision to run or not to run for the Senate, I am reminded of my duty to the freedoms we have been blessed with in this God given Republic.  My first priority is to make sure we have a strong Constitutional Conservative Caucus and work well together.  As it goes, family can have disagreements, I hope as we do, we deal with them in a manner that keeps us close and united in our efforts to improve the quality of life for our families, taxpayers, businesses, protect our God given rights and our Constitutional liberties.  I am saddened by those who have invaded our state to go after Patriots doing their Constitutional duty and I am saddened by those who have joined them in this destructive behavior. I intend to stay in this fight for Constitutional liberties, families and a secure America.  How, I intend to be involved will be announced Monday, March 19th.  Just for the record:  I vote 100% pro life I vote 100% pro freedom (sponsored legislation making Arizona #1 in the nation in 2nd Amendment and other freedom issues) I vote 100% for parental rights I vote for limited government and reduced regulation on businesses I vote for Private Property Rights protections I wrote the legislation to eliminate Affirmative Action in the State of Arizona As President of the Senate I helped produce a Constitutionally balanced budget (the first in many years) I am a national leader in securing our border and the rule of law I refuse to retreat from the attacks from the far left and open border crowd and their threats, insults and slander I stand for School Choice and have received the Apple Award for my strong position of quality education and accountability I wrote SB1070 and many other bills supported across American by over 2 to 1  I am always rated at the top by taxpayer groups, Pachyderm Coalition, Goldwater Institute in protecting the taxpayers, protecting freedom, stopping the encroachment of government on liberties and voting constitutionally.  There are core principles that we must work together on as this state faces some very difficult issues, i.e. budget, jobs, taxes, quality education/school choice, border security, transportation issues and dedicated and strong public safety issues. I served in the Legislature for 11 years, 8 of those years as Appropriations Chair, making the tough decisions with our limited dollars and promoting strong fiscal accountability in the process. I have served as Chief Deputy of the 4th largest Sheriff’s office in the nation, the Director of Arizona’s MVD, and as a Judge, and in every one of those positions I have been vigilant in service to our citizens, in reducing cost, improving efficiencies, requiring accountability and operating with transparency. I promise to continue to work in that manner, and to promote a climate of mutual respect for the process and your issues.  As the President of the Senate I help produce a Constitutionally balanced budget (No borrowing, NO bonding and NO gimmicks); I helped Arizona become #1 in school choice, #1 in 2nd Amendment freedom, #1 in protecting the unborn, moving Arizona from 49 in nation to #7 in job creation and economic recovery. One factor in my decision to run is that we are losing many of our members due to IRC and the gerrymandering that took place and many years of critical experience. I have given priority to our budget and to helping control reckless spending.  I offer my experience and dedication to you at this time. I can promise I will be vigilant in the promotion of our Republican agenda and the platform we adopt as my record is a proven record. As always, All Promised Made will be kept. Leadership, practiced at its best, is the art and science of calling to the hearts and minds of others. It is engaging others in an enterprise of sound strategic focus, where they can experience a sense of ownership, of making a difference, of being valued and adding value.  You know my passion and my commitment to our Party’s principles and values.  I am asking for your support. We are certainly not out of the woods as our recession continues and demands on our tax dollars increase. Still, in 2010 we passed some tremendous legislation, including nationally recognized legislation to enforce the laws of the land, improve school choice, protect mothers and their babies, restore our lost 2nd Amendment rights, enforce our laws and the nation is following our lead.  We also made much needed cuts in spending and have begun the long process of restoring fiscal sanity to our great state.  In short, I promise to work for you, with you, and with our business community as we grow “private” sector jobs, not government jobs.  I will always put the Constitution, taxpayers and families of this state ahead of any other agenda. I hope that I can count on your support. In Liberty, Russell Pearce

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