Tony Rivero: Cell Phone Carriers’ Back Room Deal Could Cost 10,000 Lives a Year

By Peoria City Councilman Tony Rivero

Tony Rivero

Peoria Councilman Tony Rivero

Many people would be surprised to find out that emergency dispatchers often can’t locate them if they dial 9-1-1 from a wireless phone. Earlier this year, the FCC proposed a rule to update their standards, which they estimate could save 10,000 lives a year. This proposed rule will help 9-1-1 professionals and emergency responders locate wireless callers more quickly and accurately.

While modernizing the existing FCC standards to correct these clear flaws in our current system seems like a no-brainer to law enforcement and public safety officials, the cell phone carriers are working on a backroom deal with the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO), a public safety trade association, to delay this lifesaving rule.

People call 9-1-1 because they are in desperate need of help. All too often, these individuals are in medical distress, a victim of a crime in progress, unsure of their location, or otherwise unable to communicate. The time lost as first responders try to locate callers often leads to tragic outcomes of those emergencies.  We cannot allow another insider deal to delay the FCC’s original proposed rule by years, costing thousands of additional lives.

While we have had so many technological advances in the way we communicate, our ability to find 9-1-1 callers has not kept pace.  Luckily, the technology to correct this problem exists today, and the FCC’s proposed rule outlines a realistic two-year path to location accuracy for all wireless 9-1-1 calls.

We’re accustomed to backroom Washington deals costing us taxpayer money, but the cost of thousands of lives is unacceptable.  We need to tell the FCC to stand firm and reject any carrier-backed deal that would delay or alter the provisions of this lifesaving rule as it was proposed, so our law enforcement officers and first responders can stop searching for callers and get back to saving lives.

Tony Rivero currently serves on the Peoria City Council and is a candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in Legislative District 21. Find out more about Tony at TonyRivero.com.

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

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

What’s Good for APS Is Not Necessarily Good for Arizona (or Solar)

The typewriter, the phone book and the payphone had their day, and the businesses that relied on them either got busy changing or got busy dying.

Despite claims made by Arizona Public Service, the utility thus far has not been open to options on net metering. APS has been trying to kill rooftop solar in Arizona, or at least change the rules to have this effect.

photo by Gage Skidmore

photo by Gage Skidmore

Rather than innovate or find ways to profit from solar power, APS decries the solar industry and opines that its revenue is heading downward. That’s not the solar industry’s problem. That’s not the ratepayers’ problem. That’s a problem for APS shareholders, and that must not be our state’s concern.

Instead of trying to fix the problem, APS is trying to fix the game. It’s looking to rig the system so the utility doesn’t have to pay fair market value for the excess electricity that rooftop solar customers send back to the grid. That’s the essence of “net metering.”

The bottom line is that this will impact APS’ bottom line. And what APS is saying is that it doesn’t want to make less money.

Rather than try to outlaw smartphones, Bill Gates developed the Windows phone. Phone companies provide cable TV service. Cable TV companies provide internet service. Internet-based companies are carrying television programs and movies. In the private sector, you either innovate or evaporate.

APS executives should have embraced net metering and seen the potential for profits. Now that they have missed the boat, they want to sink it. They have been around for so long and are so set in their ways that they don’t understand that what’s good for APS isn’t necessarily good for Arizona.

APS enjoys a healthy profit margin. Its profits have increased by more than 50 percent since 2008. Its long-term financial forecasts cite solar energy as competition that could impact profits. But instead of trying to figure out a long-term solution, APS is trying to convince the Arizona Corporation Commission to change the rules so its shareholders will continue to see generous dividends. That’s not capitalism; that’s cronyism, and I firmly believe those serving on the ACC will side with energy choice and ratepayers and stand against a utility that would rather change the rules than change its ways.

Indeed, APS’ efforts to crash the future of solar power in this state are the very reason I applauded the ACC for taking the first steps toward more utility competition in this state.

***

Former U.S. Rep. Barry Goldwater Jr. is chairman of the group Tell Utilities Solar Won’t Be Killed. He can be reached at dontkillsolar@gmail.com.

APS Stock Price, Profits Should Be Secondary to Arizona Solar Energy Consumer Choice

During their last earnings call, as reported in the Arizona Republic, Arizona Public Service (APS) CEO Don Brandt was asked about the financial impact rooftop solar could have on APS if solar’s popularity continued to soar.

RooftopSolarJust like the public education monopoly, the APS utility monopoly is concerned that more energy efficiency and choice, specifically more rooftop solar, is starting to eat into its profits and revenue growth.  APS clearly disclosed this to its investors when it revealed that between now and 2015, it expects its electricity sales to grow by less than 1% even though its customer base will grow 2% annually. The reason? APS customers are investing in more energy efficiency with rooftop solar being the primary technology of choice.

Frankly, how APS addresses this with investors is no concern of mine. And neither should it concern the Arizona Corporation Commission.  A more innovative future with more energy choices for Arizona consumers should not and must not be dictated by the utility’s bottom line. By that same logic, we would have harnessed the Internet because of the challenge it posed to newspapers and many other technologies.

I would think by now that any astute energy consumer would recognize that APS’s sudden concern about the proliferation of rooftop solar in Arizona has nothing to do with empathy for Arizona ratepayers.  It has everything to do with curbing a disruptive technology growing quickly in their existing marketplace. As one pollster has opined, allowing APS to do this would be “political malpractice.”

But there appears to be a far greater threat to APS’ stock price (PNW) on the horizon and that, fortunately for consumers, is a healthy competitive change.  Because of their blatantly naked attempts to kill independent solar in Arizona, along with other reasons, the Arizona Corporation Commission is rightfully looking at opening up more utility competition in Arizona.  In fact, they took the first step down this path last week. Kudos to Chairman Bob Stump and Commissioners Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, Susan Bitter Smith and Bob Burns for their actions. Clearly, APS’ effort to thwart more solar choice in Arizona is exactly why we need more competition in Arizona.

Choice and competition – these are concepts all conservatives can rally behind.  And it is one all Wall Street stock investors will surely be watching.  The bottom line for consumers is we simply cannot have a better energy future in Arizona if the primary focus is on APS profits rather than innovation and competition that always best serves the marketplace.

Report: Schools Must Keep Up With Shift Toward Digital Learning

Goldwater Institute
News Release

PHOENIX — Picture a typical public school classroom: Rows of students facing a blackboard, with a teacher lecturing. It’s the same scene in 2011 as it was in 1911 – and, in a world of laptop computers, smartphones and iPads, it’s wildly out of date and ineffective. But that is changing.

In A Custom Education for Every Child: The Promise of Online Learning and Education Savings Accounts, Goldwater Institute Senior Fellow Dan Lips examines how technology can be combined with the newly created Education Savings Accounts to help parents create education solutions that challenge their children and help them prepare for the real world.

In 2011, the Arizona legislature adopted Education Savings Accounts, which give special-needs K-12 students state money for educational services tailored to their individual needs. The report calls on Arizona lawmakers to expand the savings accounts program to all Arizona students, and for legislatures across the country to adopt Education Savings Accounts for all students.

“By 2020, online learning is expected to rise dramatically, with about half of all high school instruction taking place online,” said Goldwater Institute Education Director Jonathan Butcher. “Schools must keep pace, and implementing and expanding Education Savings Accounts is one way to open these tools up to all students.”

Butcher added that the growth of online learning solutions changes the discussion of choice in education – the conversation moves from choosing a school to choosing individual services that specifically meet a student’s needs.

The breadth of digital learning programs extends from full-time online virtual schools to occasional online instruction that supplements a student’s traditional coursework. The benefits include improved academic achievement and a better overall learning experience for students.

One Arizona school is leading the way. In 2011, Carpe Diem Academy in Yuma was named one of the best high schools in the nation by U.S. News and World Report. Carpe Diem uses a “blended-learning” approach in which students receive half of their instruction from a computer-based learning program and half from a traditional teacher-classroom environment.

Click here to read A Custom Education for Every Child: The Promise of Online Learning and Education Savings Accounts.

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog that develops innovative, principled solutions to issues facing the states.

Speaker Tobin Calls for Cyber Terrorists to be Held Accountable

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 24, 2011
CONTACT: Daniel Scarpinato

STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX (June 24, 2011) – Speaker Andy Tobin released the following statement in response to the hacking group LulzSec breaking into the Arizona Department of Public Safety’s computers on Thursday and downloading hundreds of files:

“I am outraged to learn that a group of international hackers have illegally stolen and released hundreds of law enforcement files from the Department of Public Safety. Even more outrageous is that they have done this in response to the Legislature and Governor’s efforts to secure our border and protect Arizona citizens by passing SB1070. Instead, this extremist group has now put hundreds of Arizona’s finest in danger. These cyber terrorists should be prosecuted to the full extent possible. Their actions have compromised the safety of our brave law enforcement officers and their families. Therefore, we will be looking at whether additional policy is needed to fully hold them accountable in the event the release of this information results in harm to any of our public safety officers or their families.”

Follow the Speaker on Twitter: @Andy_Tobin

Terrorists or Patriots?

Homeland Security calls them “domestic terrorists”.

‘Sovereign Citizen’ anti-government movement on the rise

Posted on 05.16.11 By Eric W. Dolan

CBS correspondent Byron Pitts reported on a group of Americans calling themselves “sovereign citizens” who don’t pay taxes, carry a driver’s license or hold a Social Security card. There are an estimated 300,000 sovereign citizens in the United States and some in the movement have grown increasingly violent.

“What’s driving people to it is they’re beginning to understand that the government has moved away from fundamental principles that this nation was built on,” sovereign citizen Alfred Adask told 60 Minutes. “Where are the limits in limited government? The sovereignty movement is attempting to rediscover those limits and reassert them.”

Video

Do you believe these Americans are terrorists?

Let’s put it in spiritual context.

What if you refuse
the Mark of the Beast?

If you refuse to get the mark of the beast you will not be allowed to buy anything or to sell anything. You will not get paid for your work. You will not be able to buy food, medicine, water, fuel, clothes or anything at all. You will be cut off from support and most likely you will be killed.

more

Maybe we’re not to the point yet where the government (or others) is going out to murder the mark refusniks, but we’re getting closer with our government now labelling them ‘domestic terrorists’ and our states requiring law abiding citizens to carry papers.

1/3 of the saints shall be mislead.  These are perfected saints who truly believed they were saved but accepted the mark.

The beast comes onshore from offshore.

While AZ may not have RFID yet, we do have a magnetic strip and the (international ICAO) biometrics standards in our photo.

At what point will you stand up and say ENOUGH?

http://axiomamuse.wordpress.com/2009/06/28/deweese-cuts-to-the-chase-total-surveillance-society/

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom191.htm

http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2010/11/daedalus-shrugged-mounting-resistance.html

Do you know these words?

“when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government”

Teaparty, y’all!

Massachusetts Miracle

The Insurgency has begun!

Something tells me we are going to see a lot more of these!

YouTube Preview Image

(H/T to NobleThinking.com!)

Net neutrality regulation violates First Amendment

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

The Federal Communications Commission wants to force network service providers–the companies that own and operate the wires, routers and computers that keep the Internet humming–to transmit streaming audio, video and anything else on terms the FCC deems “neutral” regardless of how much bandwidth the data consumes. Network providers say the regulation will eliminate their ability to manage network traffic and effectively clog up the Internet. They argue that such “net neutrality” will deter and destroy private sector investment in the Internet.

But there’s something more important than that at stake. It’s the First Amendment.
 
In Comcast Cablevision v. Broward County, Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks struck down a county ordinance that forced a cable company to give its competitors equal access to its communication infrastructure. Much like advocates of net neutrality argue today, the county government argued that its “open access” ordinance did not offend the First Amendment because it ensured the transmission of more, rather than less, information by more companies. Judge Middlebrooks rejected that argument, ruling that the First Amendment prohibits government from forcing owners of communication infrastructure to transmit information against their will. He also held that government has no power to force the distribution–or “circulation”–of information because “[l]iberty of circulating is not confined to newspapers and periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets, but also to delivery of information by means of fiber optics, microprocessors and cable.”
 
Net neutrality should suffer the same fate. Forcing network service providers to transmit information “neutrally” is actually worse than forcing “open access” on cable companies. Because unlike cable companies, network service providers typically do not enjoy government monopoly franchises. For this reason, net neutrality is even more like forcing a printer to publish books, newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets on the government’s terms. And when it comes to government seizing command and control over freedom of the press, the First Amendment is anything but neutral.

Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

Both Sides Now

… the US government has intensified its crackdown on political dissidents opposing corporate globalization, and it is using the same intimidating and probably unconstitutional tactics against demonstrators at the presidential inauguration. (The Nation Magazine, January 19, 2001)

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/10371

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Dissent/Crackdown_Dissent.html

The Canada Free Press is citing one FBI source who is strongly suggesting that those who attended the recent Tea Party may now be semi-celebrities on law enforcement surveillance video tapes.

The second citation provided above is the other side’s story of protest surveillance, those who have been protesting the World Bank, the IMF for years now.  I liked the second story particularly because it was written at the dawn of the second Bush administration.

Keep in mind, Janet Reno was Janet Napolitano’s mentor when Nappy served in the US Justice Department.  Their relationship is well documented.  So we have an idea of what to expect under Nappy’s reign at Homeland Security.  I know for a fact that the MMCDC was infiltrated by the SPLC who provided information on the Border Watch to a government agency.  Yeah, the old folks in lawn chairs sitting on the border in 2004 were the subject of government surveillance.

My point is, rather than sniping at each other as in the cartoon Spy versus Spy, both sides of the political spectrum should be carefully looking at the emergence of a very paranoid centralized government with legal powers not seen in North America since before the founding of our country.

Perhaps those “hidden hands of power” have perfected the illusion of Republican versus Democrat to the point that most Americans view their governance as yet another sporting event.

Could it be that, as the title of Larry Elder’s book suggests, there’s only a dimes worth of difference between either major political party?  Rather, those holding power have utilized the dialectic to herd an inattentive populace into fascism with a happy face?

Perhaps this is what’s behind the government’s paranoia; the people might wake up.  Consider that since at least the Jimmy Carter Administration, fear has been the means of motivation behind many calls for “Change”.

Maybe both sides now should look at their common ground, step out of the sporting event dialectic and as Toto did in the Wizard of Oz, pull back the curtain behind which our nation’s leaders are hiding.