Barack Obama – The President of Shiny Objects

President Obama is a president of shiny objects. He deflects, distracts and distorts as his method of governing.

Here are two examples:

Back in the second week of June, Attorney General Eric Holder was under fire by the US Senate during testimony in the US Senate. There were calls for his resignation and contempt citations. The US Supreme Court was also due to release its ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070. And the Inspector General released a report on Secret Service misconduct. What did President Obama do? He issued the notorious deferred action order which basically told children born to illegal immigrants in the US that federal agencies would ignore existing law and put them into some vague legal limbo.

THIS WAS A DISTRACTION.

Fast forward to September 11, 2012 and four US citizens including an ambassador are murdered in cold blood while serving at the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The President and his administration do everything they can to avoid using the word terrorism but it becomes very apparent that they and their willing accomplices in media (with the exception of FoxNews) finally get caught omitting and covering for candidate Obama right before the election. Suddenly and strangely, the head of the CIA self-outs himself as an adulterer and immediately resigns his position days before he is scheduled to testify before the US Senate on what really happened in Benghazi. Coincidence?

One thing is certain. Everyone’s attention has been shifted off the four murdered Americans on to a titillating and salacious sex scandal involving US generals and Pentagon housewives.

The lesson to be learned here? Keep your eyes on this president. His MO is to deflect, distract, distort, divide and deny.

Something Republicans Just Need to Learn

By Thomas Martin Salazar

Growing up my father (a Mexican national) taught me the importance of having three basic priorities that should govern my life. These priorities were to always place God first, family second, and work/school third above everything else. After the spanking the Republicans  received this last election day, it seems as if we as a party could benefit from considering these priorities, especially when it comes to the family.  I understand that not every Hispanic person is the same, nor is every Mexican American for that matter. But I do believe that these priorities are important and relatable to the Hispanic and Latino community. While the GOP tends to do a great job at defending religious liberty and is the most active in the defense of the unborn, it seems to neglect one of the most important priorities – family and fails miserably at communicating the third – work/education.

If Republicans wish to gain back the support of the Latino vote, especially that of the Mexican Americans in many southwestern states, then we need to end the rhetorical attacks on their families. Hispanics are not going to vote for any candidate whom they  think is going to deport their abuelita or go after their parents, husbands or wives.  They also will not support candidates of a party who want to end birthright citizenship. If we are to be the party of family values which I believe we are, then we must let go of our rhetoric and reach out in good faith to work towards some form of immigration reform just as George W. Bush tried to do. Conservatives seem to think and fear that Hispanics are inherently liberal. I disagree. The Democratic party does not hold our values; but neither do they pander to the immigration enforcement only crowd as republicans tend to do. I am not calling for open borders or lax enforcement. I am suggesting that we use our enforcement resources on the border and go after the criminals and the cartels, meanwhile, finding a humane way to keep families united and help build a better future for America and the Republican Party. When the Republicans finally embrace pro-family policies and cease the rhetoric that has been perceived as anti-Hispanic, then the door will be opened for further dialogue.

After we reach out in good faith, then we, as a party, must communicate better toward Hispanics and Latinos in general. We need candidates and organized groups to reach out and educate them on economic issues. Both employment and education are top priorities for many Hispanics, but if they do not see the connection from the policy played out in their daily lives, then we are failing to communicate.  Republicans must do a better job at explaining how raising tax rates and continued deficit spending will negatively impact them. While at the same time, Republicans need to articulately respond with fiscally sound economic policies that will lead to economic growth and rising incomes. Moreover, we need to defend the free market and explain how it is their inherent right as human beings, created by God, to choose how to spend and use their money. Republicans should also educate Hispanic voters on  the myriads of federal regulations and taxes that are inhibiting his or her ability to freely choose, by decreasing growth and upward mobility.

Furthermore,  we need to work harder at  defending educational choice for parents. We have an over regulated education system that sends billions of dollars to bureaucrats in the Department of Education, while spending on students and their classrooms  are both neglected. Moreover, Republicans can defiantly win on the issue of school choice. School choice is not a federal program; it is the right for parents to have the choice whether to send their children to public, private or charter schools or even homeschool if they wish. Parents should be afforded all options because each child learns differently and no one size fits all federal education program will meet those needs. We must oppose federal one size fits all cookie cutter educational standards and move  towards state rights  and parental rights. Education is a pivotal issue for each and every Hispanic mother and father. This goal will be hindered if  we do not reach out and clearly articulate to Hispanic voters our educational polices.

Thus, we must do better at articulating our values to the Hispanic and in particular  the Mexican American community. I do believe this goal is attainable and I am optimistic.  Just recently, conservative talk show host, Sean Hannity, came out in favor for immigration reform and the Speaker of the House,  John Boehner, said he is “confident”  that the Republican congress can reach a deal on an immigration reform bill. Again, we are the ones who need to reach out in good faith and restart the dialogue. Therefore, I pray that the GOP will heed these words and consider the three top priorities of this frustrated Republican: God, family, and work/education. If we do anything less, failure is inevitable.

Editors note: as with all blog postings that appear with a by-line, the opinions presented are the author’s and not necessarily the positions of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

Thomas Martin Salazar is an Arizona leader of the Café con Leche Republicans. Thomas was born and raised in Arizona. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in History from Grand Canyon University and is currently working on obtaining a MDiv in Biblical Communication from Phoenix Seminary. Thomas has also served as the Grand Canyon University College Republicans Vice President and interim President (February 2007-April 2008) and as a Maricopa County Republican Precinct committeeman (August 2009 – August 2012).

Pro-Immigrant Republicans React to AZ Election Results: AZ Turning Purple!

Phoenix, Arizona – National pro-immigration GOP group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today reacted to Arizona’s election results.

Nationally, the election results show the Republican Party needs to fundamentally change the way the GOP engages with Hispanics, who overwhelmingly voted for Obama, especially the tone on immigration. According to a Pew Research polls, 62% of Hispanics are center-right ideologically, yet Mitt Romney received 23%, barely one third of that. Just eight years ago President Bush received over 40% of the Hispanic vote.

Mitt Romney received bad advice and focused messaging to Hispanics on the economy and largely ignored immigration. However, as Marco Rubio said “It’s very hard to make the economic argument to people who think you want to deport their grandmother.

In 1994 California Gov. Pete Wilson jumped on the anti-illegal immigration Proposition 187 bandwagon to bolster his flagging reelection poll numbers. Proposition 187 drove legions of conservative Hispanics from the GOP, and the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races in California ever since.

Arizona has been the scene of some of the harshest rhetoric on immigration, and this week’s election results show many Arizonans, especially Hispanics, reject extremism on immigration, and while they want secure borders, they also want practical and humane solutions to our broken immigration system.

For a ‘deep red’ state, this week’s results show that extremism on immigration is hurting the Republican Party in Arizona. Normally Arizona’s U.S. Senate seats are ‘safe’ for Republicans because Arizona is a very conservative state, but Jeff Flake received a bare majority, just 50.01%, in his U.S. Senate race against a Democratic candidate with considerable personal baggage.

It is rare for Libertarian candidates anywhere to receive more than 1% of the vote, but in Arizona many Libertarian candidates received well over 1% in competitive three-way races, while the Libertarian presidential candidate received 1.29% in Arizona versus 0.9% nationally. Here are the Libertarian Party unofficial results in competitive three-way races in Arizona from the Arizona Secretary of State web site:

U.S. Senate 4.38%
Congressional District 1 – 5.88% (Republican Jonathon Paton lost to Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick, 48.49% – 45.54% due to Libertarian vote)
Congressional District 3 – 4.37%
Congressional District 4 – 3.7%
Congressional District 6 – 3.29%
Congressional District 9 – 6.35% (Republican Vernon Parker lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema, 47.81% – 45.71% due to Libertarian vote)
Legislative District 8 Senator – 4.9% (Republican Joe Ortiz lost to Democrat Barbara McGuire, 48.68% – 46.32% due to Libertarian vote)

Libertarian party values and positions are much closer to conservatives than liberals, and it is apparent many conservatives voted Libertarian in protest against the Arizona GOP’s heavy tilt into extremism in recent years. In Congressional districts one and nine, and senator from LD 8, it is apparent the Libertarian candidate siphoned enough votes away from the GOP candidate that the Democrat won the election!

It would be easy to attribute the Libertarian protest vote to other reasons, but in the 2010 election Libertarian Andrea Garcia won 9% of the vote against Russell Pearce, one of Arizona’s most notorious immigration extremists, the second highest ever for any Libertarian candidate in a competitive three-way race. Andrea Garcia was a GOP activist for many years, before moving to Mesa and finding an unwelcome climate in the GOP there, and switching to Libertarian.

Another Republican activist for many years, Blanca Guerra, left the GOP and ran as a Libertarian, in large measure due to the hostility she encountered. Blanca was one of Cafe Con Leche Republican’s founding members, and initially ran as a GOP candidate for CD 3 before leaving the GOP (and Cafe Con Leche Republicans) to run as a Libertarian. In reviewing election results for CD 3 over a period of years shows candidates with more extreme views on immigration lose by larger margins.

A welcome exception to Arizona’s trend towards purple is Bob Worsley’s election as Senator in LD 25. Bob Worsley is a conservative Mormon, who has been pastor in a predominately Hispanic Church, spent years overseas as a missionary in Latin America, and has sensible views on immigration and understands immigration and Hispanics. Not surprisingly, he won handily against his Democratic opponent, and also handily defeated Russell Pearce in the GOP primary.

It’s time for a wave of change in the Arizona GOP. Arizona is clearly turning purple, and a high percentage of Hispanics, Arizona’s fastest growing demographic is voting Democrat, despite generally conservative values. We’ve lately heard rumors that Russell Pearce may become Arizona’s next state chairman. In our opinion, electing Russell Pearce as Arizona GOP Chairman would be catastrophic for the GOP. If anything Pearce should step down as First Vice-Chair, as he is one of the most polarizing figures in Arizona politics today. It’s time to return the Arizona GOP to the Party of Lincoln, following Reagan’s “big tent” model rather than shrinking the GOP base into something more of a ‘pup tent.’

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

(original link)

National Pro-Immigration GOP Group: Time to Make Lemonade from Lemons

Original link

Marshall, MN – National pro-immigration reform group Cafe Con Leche Republicans today reacted to the presidential election debacle. Bob Quasius, president, said

Yesterday’s election results show it is imperative that the Republican Party improve Latino outreach or become permanently uncompetitive in presidential and many other races. Exit and election-eve polls put Mitt Romney’s votes among Latinos at 23%, although over 60% of Latinos are center-right, according to Pew Research.

Polls consistently show a majority of Republicans support immigration reform, including a path to legalization, and a PEW Research poll from May 2011 showed that even among staunch conservatives there is a 49/49% split on immigration reform. However, due to lack of engagement and outreach and shrill rhetoric on this issue from a small minority of Republican politicians, Democrats have been successful in unfairly framing the Republican party as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, particularly in states where there has been harsh rhetoric on immigration.

This trend started in California. Prior to proposition 187, Republicans were competitive in statewide races, but since Governor Pete Wilson jumped on the proposition 187 bandwagon, many Hispanics left the GOP and since then the GOP has not been competitive in statewide races in California.

Latino outreach improved during the Reagan/Bush years, and President Bush won over 40% of the Latino vote during his reelection campaign, proving that Latinos can be swayed to vote Republican with the right messaging and sensible solutions to issues of interest to Latinos like immigration.

However, since SB1070 and other harsh laws were passed, mass exodus of conservative Hispanics has occurred in Colorado following Tom Tancredo’s candidacy for Governor, in Arizona following SB1070, and in Nevada due to harsh rhetoric from Sharon Angle in the U.S. Senate race.

Cafe Con Leche Republicans initially supported Newt Gingrich, and one of our reasons is that Newt’s campaign recognized the importance of outreach to Latinos and a sensible stance on immigration reform, neither mass amnesty nor mass deportations but a solution that addresses our broken immigration system and seeks to strike a balance between accountability for illegal immigration, and the need to keep families together and avoid damaging our economy. Newt’s campaign reached out to us, and ultimately Cafe Con Leche Republicans provided five members of Newt’s national Hispanic leadership team.

When Newt dropped out of the race and Mitt Romney became the nominee, we decided to support Mitt Romney. Numerous attempts to connect with the Romney campaign’s Hispanic outreach proved fruitless. In our one year of existence, we’ve also had just one conversation with the RNC’s Latino outreach, and were left with the impression the RNC wasn’t interested in working with us due to our pro-immigration focus.

A common complaint among Latino Republican leaders is that RNC Latino outreach is dominated by a small clique of Latino Republicans from Washington DC and Florida, to the exclusion of others, particularly from the Southwest. We share the frustration of Latino Republican leaders from outside the DC/Florida clique that Mitt Romney received bad advice to largely ignore immigration, and some of Mitt’s rhetoric and association with immigration extremist Kris Kobach early in the campaign provided useful fodder for Democrats to frame Mitt Romney as anti-immigrant and anti-Latino, which we don’t believe is the case.

It’s time to root out the small minority of immigration extremists from the GOP. That process is already underway, for example Russell Pearce, the author of SB1070, has now twice been defeated by conservative Republicans who differed mainly by having sensible positions on immigration reform. We’d like to see Kris Kobach leave the party. Kobach is a top lieutenant to John Tanton, a notorious bigot and population control progressive, who once bragged how he manipulates Republicans. In a letter to a supporter, Tanton in 2001 stated:

The goal is to change Republicans’ perception of immigration so that when they encounter the word “immigrant,” their reaction is “Democrat.”

Our plan is to hire a lobbyist who will carry the following message to Republicans on Capitol Hill and to business leaders: Continued massive immigration will soon cost you political control of the White House and Congress, given the current, even division of the electorate, and the massive infusion of voters about to be made to the Democratic side. We are about to replay the Democratic hegemony of 1933-53, fueled back then by the massive immigration of 1890-1924.

It’s time for the GOP to recognize this pattern of manipulation, and fully embrace immigration reform based on free market principles, and not arbitrarily low quotas promoted by population control progressives like Tanton. Harsh rhetoric on immigration coupled with lack of adequate engagement with Latinos and race baiting by Democrats has resulted in very low GOP support among Latinos, and we ignore this at our own political peril.

The 2012 election served up lemons for Republicans, but with sensible changes in strategy and direction we can make lemonade instead. Already we’re hearing that party leaders have woken up and ‘smelled the coffee’ and we’re hopeful this situation can be turned around.

President Obama promised to pursue immigration reform during his second term. Due to President Obama’s history of immigration fakery and failure to put anything on the table during his first term, we have reason to doubt this promise, but he is welcome to surprise us. With the election behind us, we have put our partisan hats and boxing gloves aside, and we stand fully ready to work with President Obama and Democrats on immigration reform, which won’t happen without bipartisan support. We hope that President Obama will ‘hit the reset button’ in his relationship with Republicans in Congress, as the hyper-partisanship that has characterized the last four years has been a major stumbling block to governing our nation.

####

About Us – Cafe Con Leche Republicans is a national organization of Republicans who welcome “New Americans”, defined as immigrants and family of recent immigrants. Our mission is to make America and the GOP, more welcoming to “New Immigrants” through political activism, “in-reach” and education within the Republican Party, and lobbying government to adopt more immigrant friendly policies. We also seek to bring more conservative and moderate “New Americans” to the Republican Party. These efforts will strengthen the GOP, and lead more Republicans to embrace welcoming policies for immigrants and their families. We have members nationwide, with chapters in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Texas, Oklahoma, Arizona, and California. Our members and leadership are predominantly Hispanic, though we define ourselves by mission and guiding principles, not ethnicity, and we welcome all who share our goals. Our leadership is 100% Republican.

Support Your Local Sheriff!

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
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Support Your Local Sheriff! 

 

Joe has always been there for us, now it’s our turn to be there for him.
Help get out the Republican vote!

Give the chronically unemployed something to do for the next 4 years.

 

When is enough, enough?

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
Tuesday, October 30, 2012

When is enough, enough?

As the AP wrote on 10/22/12, “A federal judge refused to order counties to accept new voter registrations without the proof of citizenship mandated by Proposition 200.” U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver rejected arguments by various groups that federal law requires counties to honor a national mail-in voter registration form that does not require applicants to prove they are citizens. Silver said the requirements of the National Voter Registration Act are simply a starting point. She said states are free to enact measures – including requiring proof of citizenship – to make sure those people who sign up to vote are in fact legally qualified to do so.

Monday’s ruling does not end the lawsuits filed by organizations ranging from the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund and the League of Women Voters to the Inter Tribal Council of Arizona. It simply denies them the restraining order they sought for immediate relief.

Frustrated with the moves by Democrat then-Governor Janet Napolitano and the U.S. Congress’ efforts to reward illegal immigration by granting aliens licenses, government benefits, amnesty and the right to vote, I wrote Proposition 200 and with the help of wonderful Patriots took our battle to the streets; and gathered well over the needed signatures of 122,612 registered voters to put “Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act” on the 2004 ballot.  In November of 2004 it passed over whelmingly by the voters of Arizona. 

The Arizona Taxpayers and Citizens Protection Act (Prop 200) requires three things:

1.      Proof of citizenship to register to vote.

2.      Photo I.D. When voting.

3.      Proof of eligibility to receive public benefits. 

 Remember the 100,000 illegal alien march?  There chant was “today we march, tomorrow we Vote”.  Prop. 200 gave us standards, so out of 100,000 protest marchers only 126 were able to register to vote.  Apparently this offended the pro illegal alien crowd to actually require some evidence or proof and so they have taken Prop. 200 to court 7 times and always lose. Their effort is a continuous endeavor to gain political control at any cost, even if it means further destruction of the Rule of Law. They continue to invent arguments, while the whole issue is about ‘illegal’ vs. ‘legal’ and giving rights and benefits to people who are not entitled under the Constitution or the laws.  The issue is about corruption by the left in political power, and the cheap labor crowd (Profits over Patriotism as I call them) while the citizens and taxpayers pick up the tab.

 The Illegal Alien Invasion:

  •         10,000 daily crossing our borders, hundreds of thousands of “illegal” aliens marching in our streets demanding “rights.” Motto: “Today we march. Tomorrow we Vote.”
  •         Billions of dollars in costs – Our state health insurance system, AHCCCS, paid out $200 million dollars in 2001, in 2002 the amount increased almost 600% to 1.2 billion! $2.6 billion annually to educate, medicate and incarcerate illegal aliens in the state of Arizona
  •         Crime ridden neighborhoods
  •         Over 9,000 killed every single year by illegal aliens. according to a Congressional report
  • $2.6 billion annually in Arizona to educate, medicate and incarcerate
  • Voter fraud

 There is currently a battle raging in our country that will determine whether our nation enforces its immigration laws and secures its borders or becomes a victim of its enemies. We are a nation built upon the “rule of law,” and either we stand up for the principles that our Founding Fathers gave us to ensure lasting liberty, enshrined in a Constitution that protects those liberties, or we destroy all that is sacred and the end result will be a nation that commits suicide.

 I am the author of Proposition 200 in 2004 to stop voter fraud and taxpayers from abuse and fraud, The Arizona’s Legal Workers Act to protect jobs for Americans (upheld by the Supreme Court by a 5 to 3 decision in 2011), and SB1070 in 2010 to remove illegal sanctuary policies and allow law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws, among many others. SB1070 is supported by over 70% of Americans and 11 of the 14 sections were found to be legal, Constitutional and common sense by the Supreme Court.

 I wrote all of these to protect Arizona jobs, taxpayers, the integrity of our elections, including as MVD Director in 1996 NO drivers license if not “legally present” in the United States, I authored Proposition 100, 102, 103 and 300 all passed by 75% of Arizonans in 2006.  It has been a long fight to preserve the rule of law and protect the taxpayers and citizens of this state.

 They say this initiative is divisive? Like its name says, it seeks to protect Arizona taxpayers and citizens. The only divisiveness our initiative could cause might be between those for whom laws matter and those for whom laws don’t matter.

 Our local, state, and federal officials steadfastly refused to protect our borders and enforce our immigration laws. No longer can we sit on the sidelines and be spectators to the destruction of the Rule of Law or the cost to our citizens in crime, billions in dollars, jobs taken from Americans.  Enough is enough.  We must hold our elected and appointed officials accountable. It is up to us to do something about illegal activity and the issues of voter fraud and theft of taxpayer dollars.

 The time has come to fight.

  •         Fight to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance;
  •         Fight to keep God in our national motto;
  •         Fight to keep the Ten Commandments on public display;
  •         Fight to return prayer to the classrooms;
  •         Fight against abortion;
  •         Fight against pornography;
  •         Fight to secure our borders;
  •         Fight to preserve the rule of law;
  •         Fight to protect the taxpayers from wasteful and unconstitutional spending by the government;
  •         Fight for our God given rights as recognized by our Founding Fathers;
  •         Fight, fight, fight, and (in the words of Winston Churchill) never, never, never, never give up!

 May God bless continue to bless the United States of America

Former President of the Senate Russell Pearce

 
 
Join Our Mailing List

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
Sunday, October 28, 2012

 My Heroes Have Always Been Cowboys

October 27, 2012  

                                                                                    

Press Release: Pinal County Republican Committee endorses Steve Smith for Speaker of the Arizona House and Andy Biggs for President of the Arizona Senate

Today the Pinal County Republican Committee unanimously drafted Senator Steve Smith to be a candidate for Speaker of the Arizona House and endorsed Andy Biggs by acclimation for President of the Arizona Senate. This endorsement of legislative leadership is unprecedented in Party history and was taken due to the deep concerns about the failures of the current legislative leadership. The PCRC thanks Sen. Al Melvin for his floor motion to make the endorsements as well as his well-reasoned recitation outlining the substantive case necessitating this action.
 
November 6, 2012 marks one of the most important election dates in the history of our nation. The American public will determine the election of the world’s leader as well as the makeup of our Congress and state legislature. While that date will be remembered by millions for decades to come, another critical election will occur on November 7 that will certainly determine the course here in Arizona and that election will be unnoticed by all but a very few – the election of the Arizona Legislature leadership teams.
 
Arizona now more than ever needs strong and principled leaders who will correct the course of our economy, secure our border, reduce government intrusion into our lives, halt the rise of public employee union influence and restore our primary and secondary education options for parents, students and teachers.
 
It is clear that Republican Precinct Committeemen and the elected county and legislative district chairmen have earned the right and the responsibility to give counsel to those officials we will elect on the issue of who will lead our legislative efforts for the next two years. Over the last two years, the current leaders of our legislature have been steering an erratic course. It is a stark reality that the policies and principles endorsed by the electorate have been thwarted at the sole discretion of the current Senate President and Speaker of the House.
 
During the last session of our legislature, some of the most egregious leadership actions include:
 Killed critically important immigration legislation
 Killed pension reform legislation
 Killed public employee union reforms
 Killed State Guard legislation
 
Outside of the legislative session, the Senate President and Speaker raised hundreds of thousands of dollars with the promise that the Republican Victory Fund would be used to help elect Republicans during the General election. However, a large portion of these funds were used in a Republican Primary to defeat a conservative Republican Representative. This irresponsible decision is now being compounded by further incredulous actions in the General Election.
 
Legislative Districts 8, 9, and 10 are the most competitive districts in the state and we have highly qualified candidates, including many incumbents, who are being pummeled by the Democrat Party while NO support is provided from the so-called “Republican Victory Fund.” It is increasingly apparent that the funds are being spent to help only those candidates that would be a friendly vote for the reelection of the current leaders.
 
Gratefully, Senator Andy Biggs has stepped up to the plate as a candidate for Arizona Senate President. Senator Biggs has a strong history of principled conservative leadership and will lead our state senate on a course consistent with our Constitution and our Party Platform, and we heartily endorse his candidacy for this position. However, as we have seen in Washington, the efforts of one house of the legislature can be totally destroyed without the concurrence of the other.
Before today, no one had stepped up to contest Representative Tobin for the position of Speaker of the House. It is with that in mind that the Pinal County Republican Committee called upon its favorite son, Senator Steve Smith, to be a candidate for this important position. Steve Smith’s conservative credentials are unsurpassed, having achieved the highest rankings from the PAChyderm Coalition, the Goldwater Institute and Americans for Prosperity.
 
President Biggs and Speaker Smith would labor side-by-side to pass legislation to protect Arizonans during these challenging times and their first priority will be the citizens of Arizona, not their own personal political careers.
 
The necessary actions by this body should demonstrate the magnitude of the problem and encourage others across the state to join us in making sure that the people’s voice will be loudly and clearly heard.

Stephen Kohut
Chairman, Pinal County Republican Committee

 

http://sonoranalliance.com/2012/10/28/31099/

Part Two: Kyrsten Sinema Addresses SB1070, the Border and comments by Gabriela Saucedo Mercer with Muslim Community

*Last week, Honey Marques published an article on Western Free Press entitled ‘Kyrsten Sinema associates tied to Hamas-linked CAIR and other MB front groups: Part 1’ which exposed the questionable backgrounds of two individuals who sponsored an event for Sinema’s campaign. This second part includes audio files and deals with the event itself wherein Sinema took the opportunity to discuss with members of the Muslim community matters of immigration, border security and to deliver criticism of Republican congressional candidate, Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, who is running against the CD-3 incumbent Democrat Raul Grijalva, over comments she made in a discussion regarding OTMs (Other Than Mexicans).

***

1948 is a year of historic significance. It is the year in which the nation of Israel gained her independence.  Interestingly, 1948 is also the security code publicly listed on the Sinema campaign event page for entry into the residential area for those who attended the September 29 campaign event hosted by Hassan Elsaad and Mohamed El-Sharkawy.  It seemed a premonitory coincidence.

Upon entering the home of Hassan Elsaad, one was welcomed graciously. When Kyrsten Sinema spoke, she largely discussed her formative years which served as the basis for her future career as an attorney and in the Arizona state legislature highlighting her work on domestic violence issues. Certainly, working on issues concerning the serious nature of domestic violence is noble; however, most of the room was filled with men aligned with organizations, such as CAIR, which support the implementation of Shariah Law wherein the rights of women do not exist. Does Ms. Sinema realize the irony in her statements?

Sinema then invited the audience to ask questions. The first question was from a gentleman regarding her position on SB1070, which is in the following audio file: SB1070 discussion

The following highlights are worth noting from Sinema’s commentary:

  1. Sinema’s omission of the threat of violence coming from a group of people, categorized as OTMs, crossing our southern border illegally.  Many of these individuals include radical Islamic extremists coming from terrorist sponsoring nations whose only intentions are to bring Jihad to America.
  2. Referring to illegal Mexicans as “migrants.”  We used to call them “illegal aliens.”
  3. Accusing Sheriff Joe of “…specializing in abusing people’s civil liberties.”  This is factually inaccurate and misleading. See recent article posted in Feds Close Criminal Investigation into Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
  4. Advising Muslims who happen to be without “papers” to seek legal advice - indicating they may be unlawfully profiled if detained for not having proof of citizenship or legal residency. This seemed a potential incongruity. Why wouldn’t they have “papers” if they are here legally? Furthermore, law enforcement cannot inquire about one’s identification unless there is a question raised. For example, identity can be questioned during a routine traffic stop wherein a driver fails to produce a license or registration. If someone is questioned at a crime scene, again, they simply need to identify themselves – something we all do every single day through business transactions, writing checks, using or applying for credit or jobs, etc.

SB1070 was passed and signed into law as a step toward discouraging illegals from unlawful entry into the state in the first place. It was also written to put pressure on the federal government to finally do the job it isrequired to do which is to protect our border. Our state law mirrored federal law. All Arizona did was reiterate that responsibility and hold the federal government accountable on its duty. If Ms. Sinema is looking to point a finger at who has put Arizona’s citizens at risk, she ought to point to the federal government’s negligence, which has put an undue hardship on our ranchers, Arizona businesses, our state’s economy, education and healthcare institutions, law enforcement, and taxpayers.

Toward the end of the audio clip addressing SB1070, Sinema also addresses Mohamed El-Sharkawy’s work with law enforcement in Phoenix to assist with “cultural understanding.”  In order to truly understand the nature of such “understanding,” it is important to note that part of CAIR’s mission is for the Islamic community to foster a relationship within our law enforcement communities for the purpose of sensitivity training.  As readers may recall, Marques’ article last week revealed that the FBI “…cut all ties with Hamas-linked CAIR at both the national and local levels across the nation as a result of the findings of a 15-year FBI investigation of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HFL), the largest Islamic charity in the U.S. at that time.”

It is troubling that our local law enforcement is willing to work with El Sharkawy and Hamas-linked CAIR despite the FBI’s legitimate disassociation with the group. One wonders if CAIR addresses concerns about OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) with local law enforcement.  Again, such concern was clearly absent on the part of Kyrsten Sinema, who failed to mention the real threat of terrorists among OTMs before launching into an attack on comments delivered by Republican congressional candidate Gabriela Saucedo Mercer on the subject. An audience member asked for Sinema to respond to Mercer’s comments and here is what she had to say: Response to comments by Saucedo Mercer

First of all, Sinema appeared to be clueless about the true nature of Mercer’s comments or who Mercer was. Mercer’s statements were on point with OTMs crossing the southern border at an alarming rate.  (See full version of Mercer video where she clearly speaks of OTMs  beginning at 7:27; she refers to OTMs coming from ‘special interest countries’ our government defines as terrorist sponsoring nations: WFP Interviews Gabriela Saucedo Mercer).

The issue of OTMs from countries of special interest was something Sinema never addressed in previous audio clips or when speaking about her position on Immigration Reform.  For such an important topic, why was this issue not addressed with the group of moderate Muslims at the event who share the same concern about radical Islamic extremists committing terrorist acts against this nation?

CAIR Arizona was also very critical and accused Mercer of discriminating against all Middle Easterners which is simply not the truth. Even the media were quick to conveniently edit Mercer’s comments out of context as seen in this outrageous report: CAIR-AZ Asks Governor Not to Back GOP Candidate

The issue of Islamic radicals entering the United States illegally, and legally, with the intent to do our nation harm has been well documented. We know that some of the 9/11 terrorists were in this country legally. Some even attended flight schools, took English courses and lived in Arizona cities. As recently as September 2012, three men of Middle Eastern descent with ties to Hezbollah (one an American citizen and two citzens of Belize) were apprehended in Mexico.

In fact, reports are available online detailing the significant rise in OTM’s from countries of special interest (countries sponsoring terror networks) coming through our porous southern border (255 Illegals From Countries That Promote, Produce, Protect Terrorists Along US-Mexico Border;  Judicial Watch Obtains New Border Patrol Statistics for Illegal Alien Smugglers and “Special Interest Aliens”Foreign Terrorists Breach U.S. Border).

The Washington Times reported the following OTM information last year:

“Department of Homeland Security statistics confirm that hundreds of OTMs are apprehended each year. An independent analysis of department data shows that the problem of OTM apprehensions on the southwestern border has been growing at an alarming rate. While overall apprehensions at the Mexican border have declined dramatically – 67 percent – from 2000 to 2009, apprehensions of OTMs have not declined. In fact, apprehensions of OTMs and special-interest aliens – those migrants who originate in countries that are known to sponsor terror – have jumped during the same period – 58 percent and 67 percent, respectively.”

Read more: SWAIN & SHARAD: Radicals lay siege to our border – Washington Times

The CRS Report for Congress titled Border Security: Apprehensions of ‘Other Than Mexican’ Aliens (Updated June 20, 2006) also validates the Washington Times piece as illustrated in the following:

Overall OTM Apprehensions
Figure 1 shows the overall number of OTMs apprehended by the Border Patrol
over the past nine years. The number of OTM apprehensions remained relatively
stable from 1998 to 2002, averaging almost 37,000 a year over the six-year time
period. Apprehensions increased by 33% from FY2002 to FY2003, and 52% from
FY2003 to FY2004. In FY2005, OTM apprehensions more than doubled from
FY2004, increasing by 119%. Indeed, over the last three years OTM apprehensions
have more than quadrupled, increasing by 343%. This trend is in stark contrast to
apprehensions of Mexican aliens, which have remained relatively stable over the
same period. Figure 1 illustrates the dramatic increase in OTM apprehensions over
the past three years.

Surprisingly, no further updates for the CRS Report for Congress (Border Security: Apprehensions of ‘Other Than Mexican’ Alienswere found on the expected government websites listing CRS reports and  TRAC Immigration.

For someone seeking a congressional seat, and as one who has served in the legislature of a border state, it is incomprehensible that Sinema would not take the opportunity to discuss the OTM threat to an audience clearly raising questions about her immigration views. Her naïve approach and simplistic remarks regarding a very serious, timely, and dangerous threat to our national security and sovereignty cannot go without sound critique. In fact, what is most revealing is what was not said at the event (including discussions of the attacks in Libya or the situation in Syria). Aside from the occassional acknowledgement of cartels described as “bad,” mean,” or “dangerous,” Sinema made their activity and presence on the border appear as a remote issue altogether separate from the popular narrative of the poor seeking a better life (as if breaking federal law and not honoring our immigration system somehow illustrates one’s pursuit of a better life). Perhaps if one’s goal is to see the Dream Act manifest nationally and cater to groups of people for political points instead of promoting assimilation into American life, then it is rather inconvenient to present sound truths and solid solutions rooted in the preservation of America’s heritage.

During the event, Sinema brought up her desire that all who wish to enter this country to achieve the American Dream be given the opportunity to do so, failing to note that that opportunity already exists in the form of legal immigration. To listen to Sinema’s comments, one  would think there were no present “path” to citizenship. Of course, we have had a process from the founding of this country whereby one becomes a citizen; it is rooted in shedding allegiances to the country of origin in order to adopt American values, laws, and language so as to assimilate and contribute to this great nation. It appears that some in attendance of this event view themselves as victims, and stated so; some choose to self-segregate, referring only to their community and desire to reinforce their own history and culture, which is being done through their own schools. Sinema also spoke of the school noted in the previous audio link.

There was an additional concern brought up by someone in attendance referring to “special needs” of their community being addressed by government officials: The community addressing congress. In the link, Sinema also mentions that Keith Ellison, the Muslim congressman from Minnesota, held a fundraiser for her recently. Please listen to full audio carefully to hear a man in attendance mention Ellison’s suggestion that they (in the Muslim community) pay a pilgrimage to DC as they do to Mecca.

Many in attendance have been in this country for some time. Some expressed their involvement in politics stemming back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. Assuming they are citizens or here with legal residency, are they not afforded the same Constitutional rights as ALL Americans?  Once someone becomes a citizen of this country, they become the beneficiaries of the same rights that any other American enjoys including the freedom to practice their faith, vote, have a voice, and to enjoy the unalienable rights of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness – just as Gabriela Saucedo Mercer chose to do. Therefore, the Muslim community is not being disenfranchised. Self-segregating instead of assimilating is entirely their preference; however, it does not constitute as any sort of disenfranchisement worthy of a congressional ear.

The September 29 event would have been a perfect opportunity for Kyrsten Sinema to educate instead of fostering a mentality of victimhood within the community, reinforcing false narratives concerning major legislation, and failing to adequately address the mortal danger presented by the federal government’s negligence on border security and abandoning current immigration policy.

So what additional “special needs” are being demanded from the Muslim community when their civil liberties are already protected equally as with non-Muslims under our Constitution? Does Sharia Law now become part of that discussion of “special needs” (CAIR’s Sharia Fog Machine)?

The event for Kyrsten Sinema never became an outright discussion on Sharia Law; however, Arizonans should be concerned about candidates and sitting representatives sympathizing with and having support among groups (like CAIR) who advocate for the implementation of Sharia Law – at any level – for it cannot coexist with the Constitution of the United States.

 

See supported links below including extra audio from the September 29 event.

Audio:

Response to housewife comments, NRCC ads, being referred to as communist

Mohamed speaking about Sinema

Corey Harris speaks

Sinema identifies points of importance to her

 

Site links for more info:

DHS Funded Report Assesses Factors Related to Violent Extremism Among Somalis in Minneapolis-St. Paul

Southwest Border Violence: Issues In Identifying and Measuring Spillover Violence

Hamas: Background and Issues for Congress

Hezbollah: Background and Issues for Congress

Immigration Fiscal Impact Statement

HB 2582: Arizona’s attempt to stop Sharia Law in the state

Clint Bolick discusses upcoming book on Immigration Reform on AZPBS’ Horizon

ICYMI: Goldwater Institute extraordinaire appeared on Arizona KAET’s Horizon Wednesday night discussing his upcoming book on  immigration reform. Clint will be co-authoring this work with former Florida Governor, Jeb Bush. The book is scheduled for release next May.

YouTube Preview Image

Arizona Correctional Officers Endorse Sheriff Paul Babeu

Florence, Ariz. – The Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association (AZCPOA) formally endorsed Sheriff Paul Babeu for re-election. The labor organization represents 2,500 correction officers throughout Arizona, and many reside in Pinal County with their families.

Kevin McClellan, AZCPOA president said, “Paul Babeu is a great leader, who has delivered results. Not only have the emergency response times improved, Sheriff Paul has increased neighborhood patrols, focused on training and new technology to help his staff do their jobs. We support and proudly endorse Sheriff Paul Babeu for re-election. Sheriff Paul understands the need to ensure our prisons and county jails are secure to keep the criminals behind bars and away from our families. This requires proper facility and equipment maintenance, new technology and continual staff training to ensure that we can meet any threat.”

Sheriff Babeu said, “I’m proud to earn the endorsement from our correctional officers who help keep Pinal County safe. Many correctional and detention officers live locally and they need to know they have our full support and deep appreciation as protectors of our community.”

Sheriff Babeu continued, “Our own Pinal County Jail recently received national accreditation for excellent security, health care, programing, facility maintenance, food services and the quality of staff training. We run the best Jail in Arizona and this is evidenced in our perfect 100% audit rating. We are the only Arizona Jail to receive these high marks and earn national accreditation. I’m so proud of our detention officers and civilian staff that are so disciplined and work hard to protect our families.”

Sheriff Paul Babeu was named America’s 2011 Sheriff of the Year, the first time an Arizona Sheriff has been recognized with this prestigeous honor by National Sheriff’s Association. He reduced his budget by 10% while decreasing response times to emergencies by 50%. As a police officer, Babeu was awarded two medals for saving lives, and served as President of the Chandler Law Enforcement Association. A retired Major in the United States Army National Guard, he commanded Task Force Yuma, which reduced illegal border crossings by 97%, and served a tour of duty in Iraq.

Sheriff Babeu has an Associates Degree in Law Enforcement, Bachelor’s Degree in History and a Masters of Public Administration. Babeu served for two years as the President of the Arizona Sheriff’s Association and is a national leader on fighting illegal immigration, violent Mexican Drug Cartels and fighting the Obama/Holder administrations’ Fast and Furious gun running program. Sheriff Babeu is a member of the American Legion, VFW, board member for the Arizona Peace Officers Memoral and National Organization for Victims’ Rights.

Rep. Ben Quayle Discusses Border Security on Fox and Friends

YouTube Preview Image

CAP Survey: Ben Quayle not very socially conservative

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
Saturday, July 21, 2012

The Center for Arizona Policy has released its candidate questionnaires, and BenQuayle stands out for not being very socially conservative. Unlike Quayle, other well-known conservative Congressional electeds and candidates all answered 100% on the questionnaire (with the exception of Indian gambling where some are divided)  – David Schweikert, Trent Franks, Matt Salmon, Kirk Adams, Vernon Parker, Travis Grantham, Wendy Rogers, Gabriela Saucedo Mercer, Ron Gould, Leah Campos Schandlbauer, even Martin Sepulveda (and you thought he wasn’t conservative). Quayle left the question blank that asked whether he opposed embryonic stem cell research, and added caveats to the question about whether he would ban abortion except to save the life of the mother. Quayle was also known not too long ago for refusing to take a stand on the issue of gay marriage.David Schweikert, on the other hand, has always solidly been pro-life, even though his district which includes Tempe is not very pro-life. He has never “qualified” himself on the issues or ducked questions about social issues.

This is not the first indication that Quayle is not the conservative he claims to be. Last month he reversed himself on the issue of amnesty. First he said he supported a Dream Act kind of amnesty on Channel 12, watch the interview here. A day later he reversed himself, saying he doesn’t support Obama’s plan.

If you are conservative, would you trust him?

The Center for Arizona’s Voter Guide can be found here.

Join Our Mailing List

ICYMI: Ben Quayle on Fox America’s Newsroom and 3-TV Discussing Immigration

Congressman Ben Quayle was on Fox America’s Newsroom with Bill Hemmer yesterday to talk about immigration enforcement issues. Congressman Quayle attacks the White House’s blatant double standard in choosing which states cooperate with immigration enforcement.

Rep. Ben Quayle Questions Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

Congressman Ben Quayle questioned Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano earlier today on immigration enforcement metrics, prosecutorial discretion and the 287(g) Task Force agreement.

The exchange between Rep. Quayle and Sec. Napolitano can be viewed by clicking below.

YouTube Preview Image

One topic of Rep. Quayle’s questions was the Obama Administration’s use of prosecutorial discretion to avoid enforcement of the law. Rep. Quayle asked how Congress needed to write laws to ensure that they actually get enforced by federal agencies. Stopping the misuse of prosecutorial discretion, and the Obama Administration’s attempts to sidestep Congress has been a priority of Rep. Quayle’s. His Washington Times Op-Ed on these issues can be viewed here.

 

###

Victory: Court Decision on Arizona’s Controversial Immigration Law SB 1070

By Former State Senator Karen Johnson

Many people are unhappy about the June 25th Court decision on Arizona’s controversial immigration law (SB1070) and the fact that the Court struck down three out of the four provisions of the bill that had been challenged. Now, if this were a game of tennis or baseball, losing three out of four would be a near defeat. But the ruling on SB1070 is not about sports, and a mere count of the provisions the court affirmed or struck down is not a measure of the success or failure of SB1070. The court’s ruling was, in fact, a great victory. There is no cause for mourning over SB1070.

First, it must be understood that SB1070 was a long, complex piece of legislation that ran for 19 pages and involved 10 sections of statute, some of which had multiple provisions in subsections. Some very important sections of SB1070 were never challenged, such as the sections on human smuggling and employee sanctions. Attempts were made early on to challenge Section 2 (a prohibition against “sanctuary cities”) and Section 5(a) (streetside solicitation by day workers). But these attempts to thwart SB1070 were fended off in early court proceedings before the suit arrived at the Supreme Court. So, of the 10 sections to the bill, a full six of them, many with multiple provisions, were either in effect from the start or had been exonerated by the time the challenge arrived at the doorsteps of the Supreme Court. That means that 60 percent of SB1070 had already been cleared before June 25. What remained for review by the Supreme Court were all of Sections 3 and 6, and a single piece each of Sections 2 and 5. Section 2(b) was upheld in the June 25th ruling, so comes off the table (70 percent of SB1070′s 10 sections now prevailing.). That leaves three items.

Sections 3 and 6 each address a single provision of law, and each were struck down by the Court. But Section 3 isn’t absolutely required in order for the states to arrest and detain illegal immigrants; it was just an additional tool. Nice to have, but not a key provision of SB1070. Section 6 was somewhat redundant because states already have authority for that provision and can work around the court’s decision. So, losing Sections 3 and 6 is not a fatal blow to SB1070.

Lastly, Section 5 had seven different provisions in it, but only one was challenged. The Court struck it down, so a mere one-seventh of Section 5 was invalidated by the June 25th ruling, while the remaining six-sevenths stood. So, in the end, three small provisions that were not terribly crucial were struck down by the court. In contrast, the most significant provision of SB1070, the one which allows police officers making traffic stops to check for residency status, was upheld. This provision was the heart of SB1070. It was by far the most important part of the bill, the most important item under judicial review, and the one to which the Justices gave the most attention during oral arguments. And that section was upheld unanimously by all eight Justices.

Despite SB1070′s near perfect score after two years of attacks by the Left, and despite the puny success of the opponents who were so enraged about the passage of the bill, the media blathered incoherently the day of the decision about how the court “gutted” the bill and overturned nearly all of it. It’s hard to know whether such trash reporting merely reflects the usual incompetence of the mainstream media or is an overt attempt to spin the story to cover up a very public defeat of the radical Left. The anti-American Hispanic groups, the Chamber of Commerce, and various other open borders advocates spent two years and a lot of ink trying to kill SB1070 without success. Considering that the lawsuit against SB1070 was brought by the current administration in Washington, then the administration shares with its Leftist friends the sting of defeat in the face of the court’s ruling. Our current leaders forsook the Constitution long ago. The court ruling on SB1070 is a stern reminder to them that even kings (and presidents) are not above the rule of law.

Among the most satisfying aspects of the June 25th ruling are the comments and support offered in the dissenting opinion of Justice Scalia. Scalia voted to uphold all four provisions of SB1070 that were under review, and he expresses an articulate defense of the law in his dissent. “Scalia eviscerates Kennedy’s explanation” for the majority, said Arizona Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs, an attorney who helped to pass SB1070 in 2010 and reviewed the opinion as soon as it appeared on the Court’s website. Basically, reports Biggs, Scalia says that Kennedy’s legal logic was faulty, and that Justice Kennedy misunderstood aspects ofArizona law, a failure which colored his opinion.

While Scalia’s dissent is a minority opinion, it will likely be embraced by patriots because it gives hope to those who love our country and want to protect it from the malicious efforts of those who consistently tear away at the Constitution. Here are a few of Scalia’s comments in his dissent:

“There is no federal law prohibiting the States’ sovereign power to exclude [illegal aliens].”[1]

“… the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers.”[2]

“… the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.”[3]

“Arizona is entitled to have ‘its own immigration policy’ ­ including a more rigorous enforcement policy ­ so so long as that does not conflict with federal law.”[4]

“… there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for … any illegal alien … to remain in Arizona.”[5]

“In my view, the State can go further … and punish them for their unlawful entry and presence in Arizona.”[6]

“The Government complains that state officials might not heed ‘federal priorities’. Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona.”[7]

“The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes ….”[8]

“It is beyond question that a State may make a violation of federal law a violation of state law as well.”[9]

Scalia is scathing in his denunciation of the majority opinion:

“But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of [federal law] that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.”[10]

“What I do fear ­ and what Arizona and the States that suppport it fear ­ is that ‘federal policies’ of non-enfforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites in its prologue but leaves unremedied in its disposition.”[11]

Scalia’s scorn for the majority ruling condenses itself into a question about the Constitutional Convention in 1787: “Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding?”[12]

His answer: “The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.”[13]

Scalia exposes the main obstacle the states face in their struggle to contain illegal immigration: “A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude.”[14]

And he raises the question that needs to be faced by everyone who cares about our freedom:. “Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?”[15]

The answer to that question, of course, is no. Our nation was built on the concept of “popular sovereignty,” meaning that power rests in individuals, not government. We confer certain limited powers on government for the purpose of maintaining an orderly society, not for the purpose of stealing our freedom. The Founders recognized the dangers of an all-powerful, overbearing federal government. They did not leave the states or individual citizens at the mercy of the Executive Branch.

But what is the remedy, then, for a government that refuses to obey the laws and the Constitution and does everything it can to thwart state efforts to do so? Senator Biggs calls the current leaders in Washington ”a rogue administration. They are acting outside the scope of their Constitutional authority.”

In times past, the remedy for rogue government was almost always, of necessity, an overthrow. But in a country like ours, that honors the rule of law, revolution isn’t the first option. The answer is (what else?): the rule of law! Even the most clever despot cannot outwit the rule of law. It is probably not possible to overstress the importance of this principle. Dallin H. Oaks, former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, has said that, “All the blessings enjoyed under the United States Constitution are dependent upon the rule of law …. The rule of law is the basis of liberty.”[16] If that is the case, and I believe it is, then the remedy for a lawless government is to pursue the rule of law vigorously. The answer lies in the state legislatures, which are, after all, supposed to be stronger than the federal government anyway. SB1070 is a state assertion of the rule of law. Many other options exist, such as nullification and rejection of the federal money that makes the states slaves to federal mandates. Are we at the mercy of the Federal Government? Not on your life. Not unless the state legislatures choose to make us so.

The Supreme Court ruling on SB1070 was a step toward reestablishing respect for the rule of law. Our current Chief Executive (who has no respect whatsoever for the rule of law) has already announced that he will oppose efforts by Arizona to implement the provisions of SB1070 and will instruct ICE officials to refuse to cooperate with local law enforcement officers who apprehend illegal aliens. Arizona will need to stand up to such outrageous lawlessness on the part of the federal government.

The commander in chief is setting up a power struggle between the states and Washington, a national staring contest, so to speak, a giant game of Chicken. Whoever blinks first loses. But liberty never backs down. Freedom never loses in the long run. The pages of history are filled with tales of tyrants who went too far.[17] Tyrants always lose. Scalia closes his dissent with a blunt stand on behalf of state sovereignty that should give all states the courage to assert themselves and not back down to the federal government:

“Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30 ”are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Arizona citizens for employment. Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in completee compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.”[18]

Hurray for Justice Scalia! Hurray for the Constitution! Hurray for SB1070!

(c) 2012 Karen Johnson - All Rights Reserved

Footnotes:

1. Supreme Court decision on SB1070. Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182., Scalia Dissent, p. 7. [Link]
2. Ibid., p. 8. [Link]
3. Ibid., p. 8. [Link]
4. Ibid., p. 12. [Link]
5. Ibid., p. 12. [Link]
6. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
7. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
8. Ibid., p. 13. [Link]
9. Ibid., p. 14. [Link]
10. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
11. Ibid., p. 16. [Link]
12. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
13. Ibid., p. 22. [Link]
14. Ibid., p. 21 [Link]
15. Ibid., p. 21. [Link]
16. Dallin H. Oaks, former Justice of the Utah Supreme Court, “The Divinely Inspired Constitution,” Ensign, February, 1992.
17. See “The Utah Compact and the Rule of Law,” by Karen Johnson, Sept. 14, 2011.
18. Supreme Court decision on SB1070. Arizona et al v. United States, No. 11-182., Scalia Dissent, p. 22.

What’s the Best Solution to the DREAMers Immigration Problem?

Protesters’ lawsuits against Arpaio thrown out of court

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
Saturday, June 23, 2012

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office Press Release

ARPAIO SAYS DISMISSAL OF PROTESTORS LAWSUIT
SHOULD SERVE AS A WARNING FOR TOMORROW’S
PLANNED DEMONSTRATION

(Phoenix, AZ) Sunita Patel, a young woman who participated in a
large scale protest on July 29, 2010 causing disruption to operations at
the downtown 4th Avenue Jail was dismissed today by federal court
judge Neil Wake.

U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake ruled today that Maricopa County
Sheriff’s deputies had probable cause to arrest Patel as she stood on a
sidewalk and gutter near the driveway of the jail.

Patel, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, was
serving as a legal observer during the demonstrations in July 2010
when thousands of people protested Senate Bill 1070.

Disruption of the facility occurred after demonstrators interlocked
their arms in front of the jail’s main gate to form a daisy chain.
Sheriff’s deputies ordered the protesters to disperse. They refused and
their actions prompted a number of arrests.

After charges of obstruction against Patel were dismissed, she then
filed the lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Office that was dismissed today
claiming wrongful arrest.

The judge’s decision to dismiss was based on his belief that deputies
had probable cause to arrest Patel. Arpaio says tomorrow’s protestors
against Tent City should learn from today’s decision.

“It’s ironic that this lawsuit is dismissed the day before tomorrow’s
huge protest against Tent City,” Sheriff Arpaio says. “Protestors must
understand that while they have a right to assemble, when an order is
given by law enforcement, it must be obeyed.”

Join Our Mailing List