Why is Don Shooter Giving Government Special Treatment?

Toby Farmer

Toby Farmer Asks Don Shooter to Explain Intentions of Immunity Bill

Republican candidate Toby Farmer is asking State Senator Don Shooter to explain his sponsorship and support of a bill that gives the state and state employees complete immunity when they commit negligent acts on state trust lands. Sen. Shooter sponsored a bizarre amendment in the Appropriations Committee last week to a state trust lands bill. The provision, which Shooter authored, condones negligent acts of the state and its employees.

Right now as written, Shooter’s proposal would give the state complete immunity in the future, for example, in tragic wildland forest fires such as the Yarnell tragedy where 19 hotshot firefighters were killed last summer in northern Arizona. Families of the victims and property owners currently have claims against the state alleging negligence.

Toby Farmer asked, “Is Don Shooter okay with families, business owners, property owners and victims not receiving fair compensation when the state is in fact negligent? Why is Don Shooter okay with property owners who have been harmed by the state’s actions having no recourse for recovery or just compensation?” Farmer continued, “The potential harmful ramifications for the rural portions of my district and the landowners in Arizona cannot be understated.”

In committee, other Republican members and individuals who testified expressed their concerns and opposition to the language. In regards to the immunity language, Republican Senator Rick Murphy stated, “I’m not sure the Constitution would permit it.” A lawyer for one of the deceased hotshots and several landowners harmed by the fire called the provision “regrettable” and an “insult to firefighters.”

Farmer continued, “Why should government have special protections when there is clear negligence that businesses and regular people do not? It’s a scary world where a government can’t be held liable for its actions.”

###

 To learn more about Toby’s campaign, visit www.FarmerAZ.com.

Robert Graham, Candidate for AZGOP Chairman, on the U.S. Constitution

Robert Graham, candidate for Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party, addresses why preserving the Constitution of the United States of America is important. In simple terms, Robert shares a story of a family visit to Pearl Harbor and the impact this visit had on him and his family. This story, like many others addresses the relevancy, importance and strength bestowed upon this nation because of the miracle we call the Constitution of the United States of America. Robert Graham will fight to defend the Constitution and the principles which made this nation great.

YouTube Preview Image

No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

From 1763-1775, the rallying cry in the colonies was:  No Taxation without Representation!

In 2012, our rallying cry should now be:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

Not only did PPACA (Obamacare) pass Congress without any mention of the word “tax”, its defenders have emphatically denied that the law’s “mandates” represent taxation.  Had the funding for the bill been presented as a tax increase, it would almost certainly have failed.

Incredibly, Chief Justice Roberts accepted the Government’s argument that the “mandate” is after all just a tax (wink, wink), and consequently the Government has the Constitutional authorization it needs to fund PPACA through taxation.  Thus the SCOTUS majority effectively rewrote the bill, “deeming” it to say something that it does not, and then declaring as Constitutional a bill that does not even exist!  I would have never believed such a thing could happen in the Supreme Court.

As noted by John Eastman, a Constitutional scholar:

  • A Constitutional tax bill must originate in the House.  The reason is that the Framers wanted tax increases to be launched only by those who would most immediately be facing re-election.  But PPACA originated in the Senate.  Strike 1.
  • A Constitutional tax must be an income, excise, or direct tax, and there are rules that must be followed for each.  Clearly the PPACA tax is neither an income nor an excise tax, so it must be a direct tax.  But Constitutionally, a direct tax must be apportioned by population.  The PPACA tax is not apportioned by population.  Strike 2.
  • Even without these explicit violations of the Constitution, by the rule of reason and good faith, Congress can vote for taxation only via legislation that explicitly calls that taxation by its proper name — a tax — in full view of the voters. Congress and PPACA did not do that. Strike 3.

How could any Justice, let alone the Chief Justice, ignore all this?  By voting as Roberts and the majority did, our own Supreme Court has aided and abetted a massive fraud on the American people.   This should be the stuff of novels, not real life.

Normally, one can seek redress for fraud through the courts.  Where does one go when the highest court in the land aids, abets, and virtually commits the fraud?

For the minority opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote:

… to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.

Right on. The entire law should have been rejected and offered back to Congress either for the trash bin or for editing and a re-vote by elected representatives in full view of We-the-People.  Has Roberts no shame at all?

Many Conservatives are so disappointed in Roberts that they are frantically concocting explanations and rationalizations for his astounding malfeasance.

One wretched contrivance argues that Roberts’ real motive was, somehow, to protect the integrity, balance, and honor of SCOTUS itself.  Really?  How does aiding and abetting a gargantuan national fraud do that?

Another rationalization argues that Roberts is cleverly giving Conservatives a “Remember-the-Alamo” loss that will so anger and energize Americans that they will throw Obama and his neo-Marxist, redistributionist entourage right out of Washington.  But if SCOTUS is politically gaming its rulings to that extent, how can we count on SCOTUS in the future?  If there is any government branch that should play it straight, surely it is SCOTUS.

The bottom line is that SCOTUS has ruled PPACA to be Constitutional by deeming the bill to be something that it is not.  The SCOTUS decision is an Orwellian absurdity and a stain on SCOTUS that will remain until long after we’re all gone.

Memo to Chief Justice Roberts: Et tu Brute?  With this betrayal and breach of the Framers’ final bulwark of protection for Constitutionally limited government, all we have have left is the ballot box.  In November, we must win a new President and Congress, and we must exercise eternal diligence thereafter.  The Left will never quit, and neither should we.

Pass the word:  No Taxation by Misrepresentation!

A Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths

As Conservatives, we all know and revere the preamble to the Founders’ Declaration of Independence, perhaps the greatest political statement in the history of mankind, attributed to Thomas Jefferson:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed –

These self-evident truths lie at the core of our Constitution and Conservatism.  They are what mathematicians and philosophers call axiomatic.  In other words, they are acknowledged to be unprovable, but they are presumed and accepted as true (hence “self-evident”), and they are the starting point for whatever follows — in this case, the remainder of the Declaration and later the Constitution itself.

So …

If these are the self-evident truths of Conservatism, what are the self-evident truths of Progressivism?  I’ve never seen them offered up or written down in concise Jeffersonian style.  Perhaps there are bits and pieces available in the writings of Karl Marx.  Perhaps from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs is an example of a Progressive* self-evident truth.  Perhaps some of our Progressive readers can enlighten us(?).

In the absence of guidance from Progressives themselves, we are left to infer the self-evident truths of Progressivism by working backwards from observations of their statements and behaviors.  That’s what I try to do in this article.

Of course, we’re not entirely without clues. For example, Progressives like Barack Obama have told us that the Constitution is fundamentally flawed because it focuses too much on what the government cannot do to us and not enough about what the government must do for us.  As Obama has put it:

… the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

This is a helpful clarification.  For over 100 years, Progressives in America have been marching to the same drummer’s beat that Obama hears.  From Obama’s statement and my amateur observations of Progressive behaviors for several decades, I offer up the following to Progressives and Conservatives alike for their comment:

Progressive Declaration
of Self-Evident Truths

We hold these Truths to be self-evident:

  1. That all people are created equal,
  2. That they are endowed by The State with certain inalienable rights,
  3. That among these are Liberty, Equality, and Social Justice,
  4. That Equality includes life-long human rights to food, shelter, clothing, education, and health care,
  5. That to pursue Equality, The State may confiscate wealth from those who have it and redistribute it among those who don’t,
  6. That to pursue Social Justice, The State may constrain Liberty and Equality for some groups as reparations for past injustices suffered by other groups.

 

What follows are my notes on how I chose these six explicit clauses to represent the self-evident truths of Progressivism:

Clause 1:
In this clause, “all people are created equal” is used to avoid the allegedly sexist “all men are created equal” in the Founders’ Declaration.  A lesser point perhaps, but I’m trying to think as a Progressive would, right from the get-go, and then stay “in character” for the discussion of the remaining five clauses.

Clause 2:
In this clause, the phrase The Statetakes the place of the wordCreatorin the Founders’ Declaration.  All mention of God or a Creator is expunged in the Progressive Declaration, thereby avoiding any dual loyalties or competition with The State.  Religion is not explicitly forbidden, but neither is it mentioned or encouraged.  It may be tolerated so long as The State feels unthreatened by it, but The State is always the final arbiter in these matters.

In a Progressive’s world, Clause 2 has significant advantages.  For example, the current conflict over Government-mandated contraceptive coverage in employer-provided health care would be instantly resolved in favor of Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and the aggrieved party named Sandra Fluke.  Similarly, all the long-running controversies over religious displays on government-owned property would be resolved quite simply — The State’s word would be final.

Most importantly, since all fundamental rights are endowed by The State, they can be limited or withdrawn by The State.  This becomes important in Clause 6.

Clause 3:
The Founders’ Declaration lists Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness as inalienable rights.  In the Progressive Declaration, “Life” does not appear at all.  This is another convenience for The State since abortion rights would be much easier to declare and maintain if Life were not an unalienable right.  Thus, it would no longer matter whether a fetus does or does not constitute “life”.  The State decides. Simple, no? In fact, if The State were to allow it, abortion rights might even extend to infanticide in the first 30 days of baby’s life, as proposed by some, or up to 2 years as proposed by another.  End-of-life decisions or euthanasia for the elderly or handicapped would also be much easier for The State to control.  Do you see the pattern?

Similarly, “pursuit of Happiness” in the Founders’ Declaration is replaced by “Social Justice”.  By including this phrase in the Progressive Declaration, the grand utopian Social Justice vision of Progressive luminaries like the self-avowed communist Van Jones is explicitly elevated to an unalienable right.  And what could be “happier” than that?

Clause 4:
When I wrote this clause, I was motivated in part by an email I received a few months ago from a self-declared Democrat/Socialist.  In it, he asked: “What is the purpose of government if not to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of living?” I’ve seldom heard the Progressive cause put so plainly and clearly.

Of course the constitutions of the European Union and South Africa already explicitly list “human rights” similar to those in Clause 4.  So by including that clause in the Progressive Declaration, the path is paved for modernization or outright replacement of our own Constitution, as implied by Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her recent interview in Egypt.

Of course, there is one big problem with Clause 4 — how do we achieve it?   Enter Clause 5.

Clause 5:
Clause 5 explicitly lists a principle that Progressives have implicitly followed since the beginning of the movement — that is, to achieve Clause 4, confiscate wealth from the makers and give it to the takers.

By following this principle, ostensibly out of “compassion” and “fairness”, Progressives can win the support of the takers until there are so many of them that they can out-vote, out-shout, or out-threaten the makers.  As the takers demand more and more, the makers produce less and less as they lose incentive to create new wealth only to see it confiscated.  Eventually some of them go on a de facto “strike” as the industrialists did in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged.  Soon thereafter, Progressives run out of other people’s money and resources.

There follows some combination of civil unrest, rationing, martial law, starvation, tyranny, and virtual slavery to The State. It has happened many times in many places.  WesternFreePress.com recently interviewed three direct eye witnesses (here, here, and here). Yet Progressives keep trying despite all evidence that their beloved principles simply don’t work.

In particular, in our own time, no doubt borne of compassion and fairness, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on US debt now consume all of our federal tax revenue, and our government is frantically borrowing over $4.7 billion per day to make up the shortfall for those expenses plus everything else.

Our plight is getting worse faster and faster as over 10,000 baby boomers retire every day.  And there is no way to tax or confiscate enough wealth to resolve the situation for long. This brutal truth  is shown clearly by Bill Whittle, with his usual wry humor, at this link.  Nonetheless, Progressives keep plodding along, demonizing “the rich” as the source of, as well as the solution to, our gargantuan economic woes.

Clause 5 appeals so much to base human emotions that Progressive politicians like Barack Obama exploit it to their political advantage through class-envy initiatives like the “Buffett Rule“, and “Fair Share“.  Unlike a precious few stalwarts in Congress, Obama simply refuses to confront the accounting arithmetic that is staring him in the face. He and his party perpetuate the myth that taxing the rich “just a little more” will solve the problem.  And the media never call him on it.  And the beat goes on.

Clause 6:
Clause 6 explicitly permits violation of Clauses 1 and 3 in some politically motivated circumstances in order to achieve a State-controlled version of EqualitySome current examples of Clause 6 in operation are Democrat tolerance for voter fraud, government-mandated purchase of health insurance, and Eric Holder’s infamous race-based pursuit of justice.

So …

There it is then, a Progressive Declaration of Self-Evident Truths.  But this is just a first draft.  What do you think?  Have I got it wrong?  Have I left something out?  You can enter your comments below.

Even though Progressivism has failed dismally from its very earliest days in America, it is now making a comeback thanks to the Democrat Party, hijacked by the Left after John F. Kennedy died.  It will soon swamp all of us — unless, that is, we can stop them on November 6 and begin a restoration and renewal of the principles in our original Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

In the words of Shane F. Krauser, JD,

The Constitution is the not the problem.
It is emphatically the answer.

———————————————————————————————————————-

* Footnote: I use the term “Progressive” in this article to represent the broad mass of political thought that has variously been called Progressive / Liberal / Leftist / Socialist / Collectivist / Statist / Redistributionist / Communist or some other name.  These are not all synonymous I know, and as usual, some readers will prefer to pick at the definitions of these terms rather than address the main point of this article. Suffice it to say I use “Progressive” because “Liberal” has fallen out of favor with the Left, and “Progressive” now seems to be the most broadly accepted term for those on the Left side of the political spectrum.

Kirk Adams releases new video: Constitution USA

Kirk Adams and his supporters recently attended the largest Constitution Week celebration in the entire country – which is located right in the heart of his prospect district. Kirk had a great time interacting with voters and answering their questions. To learn more about the campaign go to: www.kirkadams2012.com.

YouTube Preview Image

Educational Seminar on The Constitution with Shane Krauser


Arizona Mainstream Project

Presents

 Constitution I: How To Argue The Constitution And Win Every Time

Shane Krauser is the Director of the American Academy of Constitutional Education, an adjunct professor of constitutional and criminal law, the Chief Instructor of K-Force Vanguard (a firearms training institute), and a practicing attorney in the Phoenix area. Shane has spoken all over the State of Arizona at various venues on a number of constitutional issues. He has spoken at political rallies, addressed large audiences at the Tea Party’s national summit, guided expert panels with various political figures, appeared on the radio, and educated audiences of all sizes and demographics. He brings a wealth of knowledge to any forum, and that knowledge will inspire you. His experiences will captivate you.

 Part 1: (4 Hours)

“Does it Feel Good to be King?” Rights, privileges, and principles of sovereignty and why we are a republic and not a democracy.

“To Try Men’s Souls.” Historical influences overview and the structure and outlay of the Constitution.

Part 2: (4 Hours)

“Who Wins: Public Safety or Individual Rights?” The various amendments and their protections.

“How to Argue the Constitution and Win Every Time:” Debating constitutional issues by eliminating emotion, arguing facts, and understanding the Constitution.

 

Date: Saturday, July 23 and July 30 (8 hour course divided into two 4-hour sessions)
Time: 9:00 am – 1:00 pm 
Location: Franciscan Renewal Center, The Saint Barbara Room
Address: 5802 E. Lincoln Drive, Scottsdale

Refreshments will be served

Cost: $40 per person or $70 per couple

THERE ARE ONLY A FEW MORE SEATS LEFT

CALL HONEY AT 808-283-3661 IF INTERESTED IN ATTENDING

 

Beauchamp Endorsed by National Border Patrol Council

BEAUCHAMP ENDORSED BY NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL

Bradley Beauchamp, candidate for Congress is Arizona’s First Congressional District, has officially been endorsed by the National Border Patrol Council’s largest sector, Local 2544. Along with their endorsement of Mr. Beauchamp, the Border Patrol Council endorsed Bradley’s plan to secure our border.  This endorsement puts the Border Patrol on a long list of Arizona law enforcement leaders that are supporting Beauchamp, such as Mohave County Sheriff Sheahan and Yavapai County Sheriff Waugh.

On Tuesday, Brandon Judd, President of the National Border Patrol Council’s Local 2544, sent an official letter of endorsement to the Beauchamp for Congress campaign. President Judd wrote, “On behalf of the nearly 3,000 rank and file men and women of the U.S. Border Patrol in the Tucson Sector, it is my pleasure to endorse you in the Republican Primary for Congressional District 1 in the U.S. House of Representatives. Your no-nonsense approach and belief that our nation was founded on checks and balances afforded in our Great Constitution will be a refreshing change in a political climate controlled by special interests and the interests of self-serving politicians.  We hope you will accept our endorsement and our best wishes in your primary campaign.  We are confident you will win the primary and we look forward to working with you in the future.”

Bradley Beauchamp was proud to have the endorsement, saying, “I am honored to be endorsed by the brave men and women who do all they can to protect our borders.  In Congress, I will work tirelessly to make sure these great patriots have all the tools necessary to keep our southern border safe and secure.”

A copy of the letter can be found HERE, and a copy of Beauchamp’s plan to secure our border can be viewed HERE.

Bradley Beauchamp was born and raised in Arizona. He worked his way up from washing dishes in a café and laboring in a turquoise mine to becoming a schoolteacher, successful attorney and most importantly, a defender of the Constitution.

Bradley Beauchamp graduated from Northern Arizona University and began teaching government and civics in Globe, Arizona. After several years in the classroom, and desiring to study the Constitution more in depth, he was accepted into the Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Upon graduating, he returned to Globe to practice law in the small towns and rural communities of Arizona. He is endorsed by many Republican leaders in Arizona’s First Congressional District, including Andy Tobin, Steve Waugh, Charles Christensen, Bobbi Peterson, John Rhodes, Terri Kibler, and Rick Fernau.

For more information, please visit www.bradleybeauchamp.com.