Democratic State Senator Carlyle Begay Joins Republican Party

Begay Leaves Democratic Party Citing Better Opportunities for District’s Education, Infrastructure, Employment Issues as Member of GOPPHOENIX – This morning Chairman Robert Graham of the Arizona Republican Party enthusiastically welcomed Senator Carlyle Begay, who was elected as a Democrat to represent Arizona’s Legislative District 7 but today switched his party registration to Republican. He also joined the GOP caucus in the Arizona Senate, at an event held today at the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix. District 7 is the nation’s largest state legislative district by area and includes most of Northeastern Arizona including eight different tribal lands.

“My relationship with Senator Begay has grown over the years and I am so proud to see him join with our party so he can better serve the people of his district,” said Arizona Republican Party Chairman Robert Graham. “Republicans have proven to have a much more successful approach on the issues important to not just his district but all of Arizona, like education and economic prosperity, and I’m looking forward to working with him to improve opportunities for his community.”

Begay was appointed to the Arizona Senate in 2013 and was reelected in 2014. He released a brief video documenting his upbringing as a Navajo (or Diné) and his lifelong political journey and strong desire to better serve the constituents of his district.

SOS Michele Reagan: Grand Canyon State home to nearly 3.3 million voters

Phoenix – The latest voter registration figures have been released and according to Secretary of State Michele Reagan, the number of registered voters has grown to 3,299,906, an increase of 47,219 since the last report in July.

Of the state’s 3.29 million voters, 34% are Republicans, 28% are Democrats and 36% have either registered with independent parties or not designated a party preference.

Libertarians and members of the Green party make up a little less than one percent of the state’s total registration while the Americans Elect Party has enrolled 500 voters since joining the state’s other recognized political parties in 2011.

“I’m pleased to see the number of registered voters increase by more than forty thousand,” said Secretary Reagan.  “As the state gears up for an exciting 2016 election cycle, including a presidential election, I’m confident our registration totals will continue to grow.

“It’s important to remember, Arizona’s “open primary” provisions do not apply to the presidential preference election. In order to cast a ballot in the March 22nd election, “independents” must be registered with a political party by February 22, 2016.  Our Voting Rights Ambassadors continue to travel the state connecting with schools, clubs and civic groups to educate voters on the process and encourage citizens to participate!”

The latest voter registration figures compiled by county, congressional district and legislative district are available on Arizona.Vote, this link or by calling 1-877-THE-VOTE.

Poll: Hope and Change? The Future of America…

As we move into the next election cycle, what are your thoughts and feelings about the “health” of the Republic?

Poll: Who Should Be The Next Speaker Of The House?

Congressman Trent Franks On NAU Shooting, US House Leadership

Here is the latest video from Congressman Trent Franks on the NAU shooting. Congressman Franks also addresses why leadership in the US House is changing and what is pushing those changes in leadership. Congressman Trent Franks opposed Kevin McCarthy’s intention to seek House Speaker as a member of the House Freedom Caucus.

Franks points out that the Senate filibuster has been the elephant in the room when it comes to what is driving a change in the next Speaker of the House.

Alan Korwin: Method for Stopping Shooting Rampages Emerges

By Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman

Alan KorwinHard evidence — not doctor theories, news commentary, conjecture, hyperbole, rumor, innuendo or any other proposals — clearly shows that the only known way to actually stop spree murderers is to shoot them — or scare them into shooting themselves. Time and again society has found this works.

According to the evidence, every mass murder in recent times has been halted, in the final analysis, by shooting the murderers, or threatening to shoot them, with guns. Members of the press corps continue to debate the subject, despite the evidence. Sources speaking privately say the mediaconsciously reject this fact. In stark contrast, self-defense incidents using guns are suppressed, by news-media policy, and do not appear on the public stage.

An excellent write up about the censorship of firearms used in self defense appears here —

and here —

Multiple reports of self-defense, accomplished by shooting criminals, appear as paid space in USA Today, which otherwise censors such reports:

Although knowledgeable commentators are still debating the merits of shooting murderers, the visible evidence clearly demonstrates that shooting the perpetrators does take care of the problem. No other solutions have worked.

The only problem identified is the relative slowness of this effective remedy, due mainly to the delay in getting guns to the scene where innocent victims are assaulted. The scenes have virtually always been in supposed “gun-free zones,” with posted signs flatly rejected by the perpetrators.

President Barack Hussein Obama, whose middle name is not supposed to be used, went on national TV, twice in the past week, to propose other solutions, which he announced as “politicized.” He promised to “continue talking.”

Further analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, has determined that background checks, or newly proposed additional background checks, recommended by Mr. Obama and others, would be pointless for people who already own guns, since they already own guns. The best estimates indicate this is about 100 million armed Americans.

And in other analysis conducted by The Uninvited Ombudsman, waiting periods have no meaning whatsoever for Americans who already own guns, when they go shopping for guns, since they already own guns. That is also 100 million Americans.

Waiting periods have one additional drawback overlooked in mainstream reports. They require the public to trust psychotic individuals who wait five days to get their first gun, to remain calm for the balance of their lives. Somehow, the five-day waiting period doesn’t seem like a long enough “cooling off” period, but this has not made it into nightly “news” reports, or the President’s commentaries, for reasons that were unclear at press time.

The murderer in Oregon who sparked the recent repetitive debates owned more than a dozen guns, according to early reports, all legally acquired. While Hillary, Mr. Obama and others are still calling for more background checks, they have apparently failed to notice these obvious errors in their plan.

Only new, or “virgin” gun buyers would be affected, most of whom would pass checks anyway, according to leading experts and past experience. The point of adding even more checks, when current checks are not used to take criminals off the streets, was not clear as this report was prepped for release.

“News” commentators have also failed to make this connection, so far, and have repeated the calls from politicians on both sides of the aisle, who are discussing background checks and waiting periods.

The role of ultra-violent body-rending video games, horrific grizzly blood and all gore movies on nightly TV and a debasement of popular American culture at every level has not figured prominently into the president’s prolific pronouncements.

The public — not some famous vilified “the gun lobby” — rises up loudly to condemn the assault on their fundamental civil and human rights. This is the same 100 million armed Americans mentioned earlier. Some reports suggest it is “only” 80 million armed Americans. The NRA, often cited as “the gun lobby,” has only 5 million members.

Counter-Intuitive Man Says:

Referring to murderers as “gun men” is offensive to men, a violation of journalism ethics, due to its biased and prejudicial nature, and sexist.

Calling murderers “gun men” is virtually propaganda against men and firearms.

It denigrates men, it is derogatory, defamatory and it is discriminatory.

What would media and pundits say if a woman was the criminal perpetrator?

The correct terms include murderer, killer, villain, criminal, assailant and perpetrator, without gratuitously singling out gender.

By using the propaganda term “gun man,” the media vilifies a tool they frequently demonstrate hatred for, along with men, which agenda-driven political groups seek to demean or belittle. That’s simply wrong, and unethical.

Murderers should be called murderers, not gun men. This would help remove the glorification many mass murderers seek, which encourages others to copy their behavior.

By encouraging such behavior, the media shares responsibility for these acts, according to leading national experts, who are speaking out against such behavior in increasing numbers.

Alan Korwin
The Uninvited Ombudsman
Author of ten books on gun law
Publisher, Bloomfield Press

P.S. My previous request to the President, to have him call me for common-sense solutions he is not getting from his side of the aisle, has gone unanswered so far. I patiently await. The ideas coming from the TV set are so off base it is hard to imagine they are actually on the air. Has anyone considered education in the schools yet? Schools are currently an empty hole of ignorance on the subject.

Don’t Embrace Big Federal Government, Support the Compact for a Balanced Budget

By Nick Dranias

Yes, it’s true. The handful of folks who still oppose states organizing behind the Compact for a Balanced Budget to advance and ratify a powerful federal Balanced Budget Amendment embrace big federal government. Of course, they may not mean to do so. But the truth is that by hugging and holding the political status quo, the Balanced Budget Amendment fear-mongers are in a death embrace with the things they claim they oppose.

Why is that? Simply put, we no longer enjoy the form of federal government the Founders originally created. This is because the Constitution as it currently exists has three fatal flaws, which will inexorably lead to tyranny unless they are fixed with a constitutional amendment.

The first is the federal government’s unlimited borrowing capacity. This enables politicians to promise at no immediate cost anything it takes to get elected. That’s like handing liquor and car keys to a teenager. It guarantees a system crash propelled by mindless spending.

The second is unlimited direct taxation authority courtesy of the 16th Amendment. This empowers politicians to make 49% of the nation pay for anything the 51% want; and also to impose complete economic destruction on political enemies and disfavored policy ideas. If this flaw persists, what the IRS did to conservative groups two years ago is just a small taste of what the future holds.

The third is the unlimited concentration of power over national policy making in Washington, DC courtesy of the 17th Amendment. This amendment removed the states from a position of control over the U.S. Senate. It has enabled the federal government to ratify treaties and laws, as well as populate the federal judiciary and federal agencies, without any respect for state sovereignty. And it allows a growing distant political class in Washington, DC to easily leverage overwhelming national power to crush dissent and policy diversity in the heartland.

These three flaws will cause the federal government to gradually accumulate and centralize all political power over time. Over time, these three flaws will make it impossible for limited government and freedom-oriented elected officials to outcompete elected officials who favor big federal government for votes. Consequently, hugging and holding this fatally flawed system is doomed to produce the opposite of freedom. To mix metaphors, voting people in or out of the federal government under these conditions is like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Only a constitutional amendment can fix the three fatal flaws of the Constitution as it currently exists. Nothing else will.

But it is irrational to expect two-thirds of each house of Congress to propose the necessary reform. The numbers did not add up in the 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s, and they just do not add up today. Instead, especially after the last election, there is a much more plausible pathway; that pathway involves organizing three-fourths of the states and simple majorities of Congress behind the necessary reform amendment in a targeted fashion. It means supporting the Compact for a Balanced Budget.

Simply put, the Balanced Budget Amendment advanced by the Compact for a Balanced Budget gives us the best shot of addressing each of the Constitution’s three fatal flaws with fundamental reforms.

To fix the flaw of unlimited federal borrowing capacity, the Amendment imposes an initially-fixed constitutional limit on available borrowing capacity. This limit gives the federal government an additional 5% in borrowing capacity above the outstanding federal debt upon ratification. This 5% cushion allows for a 1 to 2 year transitional period to responsible budgeting and fiscal planning. And there is no doubt the amendment will focus the mind during that transitional period. This is because the debt limit is coupled to a mandatory spending impoundment requirement that kicks-in when 98% of the debt limit is reached. Spending will be limited to available tax and fee cash flow if the debt limit is hit. There is no exception except for the referendum process described below. This one reform guarantees that Washington politicians will immediately lose the ability to promise anything at no immediate cost to get elected.

To fix the flaw of the unlimited centralization of national policy making in Washington, the Amendment empowers a majority of state legislatures to veto any increase in the federal government’s constitutionally-fixed borrowing capacity. To get any additional borrowing capacity above the initial constitutional baseline, simple majorities of Congress will have to refer-out a measure proposing the increase. The proposal will be deemed denied unless it is approved by at least twenty-six state legislatures within 60 days of the referral. With the federal government borrowing nearly half of discretionary spending, this referendum process divides power over national policy making between the states and the federal government in a big way.

Finally, to fix the flaw of unlimited federal taxation authority, the Amendment imposes a tax limit requiring two-thirds of each house of Congress to approve any new or increased income or sales tax. The current constitutional rule allowing for tax increases with simple majorities will be restricted to measures that would completely replace the income tax with a consumption sales tax, eliminate tax loopholes, or impose new or increased tariffs and fees. The reform will divert the pressure for new revenue to the places where special interest pushback will be the strongest, further ensuring that deficits are closed by spending reductions first.

National polling shows that each one of these policy fixes are supported by supermajorities of the American people. With Alaska and Georgia already on board, and at least ten states looking to join the Compact this session, the Compact for a Balanced Budget is an eminently plausible route to the reforms we need to save and restore the Republic.

Indeed, with demographic change threatening the supermajorities needed to get the job done, the Compact for a Balanced Budget may be our last best shot at preventing the federal tyranny that will otherwise inevitably result from the Constitution’s three fatal flaws of unlimited debt, unlimited taxation, and unlimited centralization of power in Washington.

Nick Dranias is President and Executive Director of the Compact for America Educational Foundation. Please visit their website at

Thanksgiving Story: The Pilgrims, Collectivism, and Free Markets

pilgrims-300x215The story of the Mayflower, the Pilgrims, and Thanksgiving is widely taught in all our schools. What is seldom taught, however, is what those Pilgrims learned, at great pain, about Collectivism versus Free Markets.

This story stands as perhaps the clearest and starkest-ever before-and-after comparison between those two rival systems for human interaction and governance.

Read the full article at this link.

Mark Levin, Kelli Ward, Article V, and the Mt. Vernon Conference

LevinWardOn Mark Levin’s January 13 radio show, Levin spoke briefly to Dr. Kelli Ward, Arizona State Senator from LD5. Along with Arizona State Rep. Kelly Townsend (LD16), Ward was part of the Dec 7, 2013 Mt. Vernon Conference where the stage was set for a Convention of States (COS) to propose amendments to the US Constitution.

Convention of States and the Compact for America (CFA) project seek to use Article V of the US Constitution, as intended by the Framers, to rein in our runaway federal government. While they are separately run projects, COS and CFA are complementary and implicitly allied, as discussed here.

It is still a surprise to most Americans to learn that our own state legislatures can amend the Constitution without the permission or approval of Congress, the President, or the Supreme Court. Details may be found in the links at the bottom of this article.

COS, CFA, and other Article V initiatives got a big boost with the August 13 publication of Mark Levin’s book, The Liberty AmendmentsIt is one of the few books I read cover-to-cover last year, and I recommend it highly.

Godspeed to Arizona’s two “Kellies”, Ward and Townsend, and all other state legislators across our country who are awakening to the power of Article V to restore our republic.

See/hear Levin and Ward, and read the rest of the article at this link.

Reflecting on the District 4 Council Race

By: Paul Bentz, reposted from HighGround blog

I’ve often said that the best part about campaigns is that they actually end and you know if you won or if you lost.  Needless to say, it’s also the worst thing about campaigns – particularly when you come up on the losing end.  Such is the case of Justin Johnson for Phoenix City Council.

First, let me say, Justin Johnson was the hardest working candidate that I have ever worked with.  He was the first one up in the morning and the last one out at night.  He was willing to talk to anyone and meet with whoever wanted to meet with him.  His willingness and dedication to knocking on doors, making phone calls, raising money is amazing.  He (and his entire family for that matter) has an uncanny special talent for hard work.  When he started the race, he had 6% support and he ended up earning first place in the August election.

Our internal polling had the Johnson campaign up by high single digits going into August.  The final tally, however, was much closer, and foretold of things to come.  What we found were several hundred West Phoenix voters who fell outside of the traditional participation model had made the run off much closer than anticipated.  

We adjusted our model accordingly and expanded the universe.  Once again, polling showed a lead for Johnson – confirmed not only by our internal polling, but also in the Lake Research Polling for the Independent Expenditure formed to bolster Pastor and attack Johnson.

We knew the run-off was going to be difficult – Congressman Pastor has deep roots in the community, extensive fundraising capabilities, and is probably the most liked official in all of Democrat politics.  The Democratic establishment lined up in uniform support for the Pastor campaign and went to work attacking his Johnson’s Democrat credentials (and you thought it only happened amongst Republicans).  As the Lake Research Polling suggested, the “IE needed to define her opponent quickly and aggressively.”  That they did.  The IE spent hundreds of thousands on mailers attacking Justin’s character and falsely aligning him with tea party interests.  

Despite all of that, Johnson still held a narrow lead.  

In the end, it came down to ballot collection.  As returns came in, a similar trend emerged that was reminiscent of the run off. Another massive increase in early ballots (over and above August turnout) was seen from West Phoenix precincts – 311% participation from Holmes, 167% participation from Culver/Marivue, 146% participation from Acuna/Lynwood/Riverside, 142% from Granda/Madrid and 162% participation in Hayden High/Isaac/Lewis.    

To their credit, Johnson’s campaign took on the herculean task of trying to counteract that flood of ballots all the way to the end aggressively generating returns of their own.  They spent every moment turning out their voters and reminding their supporters to vote.  Their efforts are why turnout is up across the board from August.

IEs on both sides made things messy and certainly made it a much closer election.  However, in the end, with 30 days of early voting, the results may not come down to mailers, endorsements, or even party ideology.

As we have seen more and more in close election contests, the daily grind of strategic ballot collection (particularly in low efficacy partisan targeted areas) can spell the difference between a win and a loss. Independent voters still tend not to participate at anywhere near the levels of partisan voters, and most seem turned off by the entire process.

Paul Bentz is Vice President of Accounts & Strategy with HighGround Public Affairs Consultants.