Sunday, August 30, 2009

TR would have nothing to do with today's GOP

by Allen Dennis | August 30th, 2009

If TR were alive today, he would be in the forefront of those seeking to change the status quo, just as he did in his own day. Today's Republicans bear no resemblance whatever to Theodore Roosevelt. They have no policies and no ideas except "No."

When Theodore Roosevelt died in 1919, Republican progressivism died with him. The party lurched almost immediately to the right, and, with a few notable exceptions, it has been moving farther right ever since.

Theodore Roosevelt would not recognize today's Republican Party, and it most certainly would not recognize or welcome him.

Nearly all Americans realize that we are beset by domestic crises: health care, energy, and the environment, to name just a few.

If TR were alive today, he would be in the forefront of those seeking to change the status quo, just as he did in his own day. In fact, he advocated universal health insurance in the campaign of 1912, almost a hundred years ago. Dealing with climate change and renewable energy sources? The great conservationist would be leading the charge.

Today's Republicans bear no resemblance whatever to Theodore Roosevelt. They have no policies and no ideas except "No."

Health care? Do nothing. The status quo is fine; obstruct change.

Energy? Do nothing. The status quo is fine; obstruct change.

The environment? Do nothing. The status quo is fine; obstruct change.

Large financial institutions and laissez-faire capitalism? The status quo is fine; obstruct change.

These professional obstructionists should learn a lesson from the elections of 1936. Franklin Roosevelt won re-election by an electoral vote of 523 to 8. Republicans held only 16 of 96 seats in the Senate, and only 189 of 435 seats in the House of Representatives.

American voters punished Republican obstructionists, and the party almost never recovered.

We should not be in favor of this happening again. The nation needs a strong Republican Party. However, arrogant talk show hosts, "do nothing" politicians, conspiracy theorists, and quite an assortment of philanderers, prima donnas, and egomaniacs have become the public face of the Republican Part today, and make it look like a collection of hypocritical crazies. They are a disgrace to the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.

The party must change, and change swiftly. Otherwise, 2012 will make 1936 look like a Sunday school picnic. The Republican Party is in on life support. Unless a new generation of idea and solution-oriented Republicans emerges, the Republican Party may well go the way of the Whigs. It is a sad thing to watch a major political party fall victim to its dark side.

The right-wing fringe is leading the Republican Party over a cliff to its destruction. When people actually say that President Obama does not have a valid birth certificate, and that Sarah Palin is remotely qualified to be president, can it be taken seriously about anything?

We should all hope for drastic and rapid change in the Republican Party. This country deserves a strong two-party system, where creative thinking and concern for the people are present in both. The Republican Party is on the verge of committing politicide and going down the drain of history. Will any brave Republicans step forward to rescue it? Let us hope so.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Libertarians Support Gay Agenda

Some people in the GOP are calling themselves libertarians, The American Conservative Republican (ACR) will be posting more articles on the Libertarians and how they are not conservative or Republican.

From a Libertarian Party press release.

Press Release
For Immediate Release
Monday, August 17, 2009

Libertarians press Congress on DOMA, ‘don’t’ ask, don’t tell’
Hate crimes bill opposed, cast as attempt by marriage opponents to buy LBGT votes

WASHINGTON -- America’s third largest party challenged House and Senate Democrats Monday to fully commit to the equal justice for gay and lesbian Americans by rejecting a proposed hate crimes law and repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy barring military service by “out” gays and lesbians.

“Libertarians are the only party committed to equal justice under the law, whether it is protection from violence, marriage equality or the ability of a qualified person to serve in the military,” said Cat Sumner, Libertarian National Committee gay and lesbian policy advisor. “So-called ‘hate crimes’ bills further divide America by creating different classes of victims for the same crime. Instead of dividing the gay and straight communities, we should be treating everyone equally.”

“This so-called ‘hate crimes’ bill is just an attempt by Democrat opponents of marriage equality to hold on to gay and lesbian support without actually fighting for them,” said Sumner. “The Libertarian Party is the only party in America not afraid to engage in a no-compromise fight for a country where gays and lesbians can live their lives without government-sponsored harassment. Libertarians challenge Congress to prove they are truly committed to equal justice for gays and lesbians by dropping so-called hate crimes legislation and instead repealing DOMA and ‘don't ask, don't tell.’”

Libertarians consider the hate crimes bill not just a violation of equal justice under the law, but an attempt by legislators to buy gay and lesbian support while still opposing gay marriage and military service. The original sponsor of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, then-Republican Congressman Bob Barr (GA,) has recanted his support of the bill and is seeking its repeal. He was the Libertarian presidential nominee in 2008, winning the party’s second-highest presidential vote total in its 38-year history.

The House passed a hate crimes bill, H.R. 1913, on Apr. 29. On Jul 16. the Senate attached a hate crimes amendment to a military spending bill, both of which were approved. The House bill and Senate amendment must be reconciled in committee before being sent to President Obama for his signature.

For more information on this issue, or to arrange an interview with the Libertarian Party, please call Director of Communications Donny Ferguson at 703-200-3669 (BlackBerry) or 202-333-0008, x. 225 (office,) or

The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest political party, founded in 1971 as an alternative to the two main political parties. You can find more information on the Libertarian Party by visiting The Libertarian Party proudly stands for smaller government, lower taxes and more personal freedom.

# # #

ROMNEY Will Not Seek Kennedy Seat


Former Massachusetts GOP Gov. Mitt Romney will not seek the Senate seat vacated by Ted Kennedy’s death, a Romney spokesman said Thursday.

Responding to speculation that Romney may be interested in the seat — which he challenged Kennedy for in 1994 — Eric Fehrnstrom, a spokesman for Romney’s political action committee, told POLITICO that the former one-term governor has no interest in campaigning to replace Kennedy.

“Gov. Romney’s focus right now is on helping other Republicans run for office, and that is how he will be spending his time,” he said.

Romney’s name had been floated in state political circles and among conservative bloggers as a viable GOP candidate, but Fehrnstrom said Romney absolutely will not run.

Despite declining to run for a second term as governor in 2006 and dwindling support in the state for his landmark universal health care policy, Romney’s poll ratings in solidly Democratic Massachusetts remain respectable.

According to a Rasmussen Reports poll released the day before Kennedy’s death late Tuesday night, Romney rated second after the late nine-term senator as the most respected politician in the state.

More than one-third of those surveyed, 35 percent, said they respected Romney the most among the state’s politicians. Only 5 percent said Democratic Sen. John Kerry while 3 percent chose Deval Patrick, the state’s Democratic governor. Exactly half of those surveyed said they respected Kennedy the most.

Romney’s 1994 Senate run ranks as Kennedy’s toughest reelection challenge — the only time since Kennedy’s first election in 1962 where he was held to under 60 percent. Kennedy defeated Romney 58 percent to 41 percent.

In a statement following Kennedy’s death, Romney praised his former rival as “big-hearted” and “unforgettable.”

“The loss of Sen. Ted Kennedy is a sad event for America, and especially for Massachusetts,” Romney said. “In 1994, I joined the long list of those who ran against Ted and came up short. But he was the kind of man you could like even if he was your adversary.”

Friday, August 28, 2009

Controlling Illegal Immigration: State and Local Governments Must Do More

Controlling Illegal Immigration: State and Local Governments Must Do More

from the Heritage Foundation;

by Matt A. Mayer
Special Report #66
Executive Summary

In 1980, illegal immigration in the United States was far from the overwhelming challenge it is today. It was only after the 1986 immigration reform bill, which provided amnesty to more than three million illegal aliens, that an ever increasing surge of people entering the U.S. illegally began. As the federal government failed to address the growing crisis, state governments began to take action. As early as 1994, Californians tried to deal with the financial burden of illegal immigration by passing Proposition 187, which would have limited financial benefits for illegal aliens in California. Although stopped by a judge and a new governor, Gray Davis, unwilling to defend the people's vote, California's actions foreshadowed what was to occur across the United States 10 years later, when the federal government failed its people once again.

At the same time, political leaders in Washington, D.C., began to feel pressure to be more aggressive in enforcing existing laws to secure America's borders and to deport those here illegally. The budgets of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) skyrocketed. ICE moved from a policy of capturing and releasing illegal aliens to detaining and deporting them. The number of raids at work sites and of criminal aliens captured substantially increased. Unfortunately, having done so little for so long, ICE ran up against a basic mathematical problem: 12,000,000 illegal immigrants versus 6,000 ICE agents who were stretched thin with other pressing responsibilities.

To help overcome the numbers problem, ICE launched several programs to work with state and local law enforcement that would increase the penalties to illegal immigrants and those engaged in human trafficking. ICE launched the section 287(g) program in 2002, which deputized state and local law enforcement personnel to enforce federal immigration law. ICE also started the Criminal Alien Program (CAP), aimed at identifying criminals in state and local jails and prisons. Although good programs, the section 287(g) and CAP programs involved only a small number of jurisdictions, so their successes barely made a dent in the illegal alien population. The mathematical problem remained.

Starting in 2004, state legislatures began to assert themselves in the area of illegal immigration as the numbers problem equated to busted budgets and increasing societal burdens. Although the activity level in 2004 seems low today, at the time, the increase in bills passed that dealt with one of six aspects of illegal immigration caused a stir. By 2008, the increase in activity at the state level had jumped to 1,305 bills introduced and 209 bills passed. The primary areas of action were (1) driver's licenses and identification, (2) public benefits, (3) higher education benefits, (4) voting security, (5) criminal sanctions, and (6) employment. As states began to reclaim their historical roles and authorities under the Constitution, interest groups supportive of illegal immigration began their assaults in the courtrooms.

Constitutionally, other than in the areas of border security and visa policy, the Tenth Amendment ensures that states retain their traditional police powers to control their jurisdictions. Despite the enormous growth of the federal government from 1935 to today, states remain the "laboratories of democracy," exhibiting the flexibility to develop innovative solutions to America's toughest challenges. On interior illegal-immigration enforcement issues, states and localities are doing what they can to solve their problems.

With the onslaught of legal challenges from interest groups that drive the cost of reform ever higher, states have become more cautious in order to preserve what little that remains of their budgets after the economic downturn (and their years of big spending). States and localities have won all legal challenges that have reached federal appellate courts or state supreme courts. These legal victories should embolden states and localities to continue their push to curtail the migration of illegal aliens into their jurisdictions with tough laws against employing, housing, and aiding illegal aliens and even tougher laws criminalizing all aspects of human trafficking.

As this report highlights, states and localities can take more actions in more areas to control their jurisdictions. Congress should help them, not by passing an amnesty reform package, but by amending the statutory (not constitutional) provisions that limit the actions they can take and by increasing the legal means for foreigners to come to the United States to work. The only way to end or significantly slow illegal immigration in America is to create a mosaic of laws across the country that increase the cost of illegal immigration to a point that the supply dwindles to a trickle as the demand is filled by legal workers.

The fires of innovation are beginning to burn brightly in the individual states--which must be free to solve yet another of America's most complex problems. It is time for Washington, D.C., to stop watching the fire from afar and do all that it can to help the states.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Court Orders Home-Schooled Girl into Public School

Court Orders Home-Schooled Girl into Public School

From Focus on the Family,
The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has asked a New Hampshire court to reconsider its decision to order a 10-year-old home-schooled girl into public school.

"Parents have a fundamental right to make educational choices for their children," said ADF-allied attorney John Anthony Simmons. "In this case, the court is illegitimately altering a method of education that the court itself admits is working."

The parents of the girl are divorced, and the mother has been home-schooling her. In the process of renegotiating the terms of a parenting plan for the girl, the guardian ad litem concluded that the girl "appeared to reflect her mother's rigidity on questions of faith" and that the girl's interests "would be best served by exposure to a public school setting."

Judge Lucinda V. Sadler approved the recommendation and issued the order July 14.

"The New Hampshire Supreme Court itself has specifically declared, 'Home education is an enduring American tradition and right,' " said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Mike Johnson. "There is clearly and without question no legitimate legal basis for the court's decision, and we trust it will reconsider its conclusions."

Mike Donnelly, staff attorney at the Home School Legal Defense Association, agreed this is "not the place for the courts to be inserting themselves."

Sen. Barbara Leff named president pro tempore

Sen. Barbara Leff named president pro tempore

(STATE CAPITOL, PHOENIX) – Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, announced today he is rounding out his leadership team with the appointment of veteran lawmaker Sen. Barbara Leff, R-Paradise Valley, as president pro tempore.

“Sen. Leff has already established herself as a strong voice of fairness, cooperation and communication,” Burns said. “Her no-nonsense, practical approach will be a vital part of the leadership team, as will her energy and commitment to helping to lead our state to a brighter future.”

“I am pleased to accept President Burns’ appointment as president pro tempore of the Arizona Senate, Leff said. “I am looking forward to being a member of a leadership team that will work to find ways to guide the state through these very challenging economic times.”

Leff has served in the Legislature for 13 years. She was in the House for three terms and is currently in her fourth term in the Senate. As president pro tempore, Leff will continue to chair the Senate Commerce and Economic Development Committee and also will remain a member of the Health and Finance committees.


For more information, contact:

Laura Devany, Communications Advisor

Arizona Senate Republican Caucus

Office: (602) 926-3972, e-mail:

How Reagan Closed Budget Gap

Many people who calls themselves Reagan Conservatives forget that before Ronald Reagan was elected as President of the United States in 1980, he was governor of California from 1967-75.

Reagan's election as governor in 1966 was his first public office. During the 1964 presidential campaign he served as cochairman of California Republicans for Goldwater.

After defeating incumbent Democrat Governor Pat Brown with 58 percent of the vote, Governor Reagan went on to establish a conservative record in restricting the size and cost of state government.

Just as Republican Arizona Governor Jan Brewer inherited a huge budget deficit from Democrat Governor Janet Napolitano, Republican California Governor Ronald Reagan inherited a huge budget deficit from Democrat California Governor Pat Brown.

What did Reagan do, how did he handle the budget disaster he inherited from his Democrat predecessor. Reagan immediately ordered a hiring freeze of new state employees and then cut the state budget across the board by 10 percent.

The father of Reaganomics did something else that may come as a shock to the blind followers of Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform. Working with a cooperative state legislature, Reagan was able to obtain an increase of the state income tax together with welfare reform legislation that striped the less needy from the rolls and increased benefits for those that met higher eligibility requirements. By cutting expenses and increasing revenue, Reagan was able to close the budget deficit he inherited from his Democrat predecessor.

Fast forward 40 years and doesn't that sound familiar? Isn't that the same as what Conservative Republican Governor Jan Brewer is trying to do to solve Arizona's budget problem, cut expenses and increase revenue? It seems that the only difference between what Reagan did and what Brewer is advocating is instead of raising the income tax, Arizona will cut the income tax to stimulate spending and temporarily increase the sales tax by one penny to increase revenue to help close the gap. .

There is one important difference between Reagan and Brewer however, Reagan didn't have uncooperative state senators like Pamela Gorman and Ron Gould obstructing solving his budget crisis, Brewer and Arizona does.

Bob Haran,
American Conservative Republican

Sanford Rejects Call to Resign

From the Associated Press;

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford rebuffed his lieutenant governor's call to resign Wednesday, saying he will not be "railroaded" out of office and plans to finish the last 16 months of his term.
Sanford returned from a nearly weeklong disappearance in June to admit an affair with an Argentine woman, a revelation that led to questions about the legality of his travel on state, private and commercial planes.

At a news conference hours after Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer called for him to step down, Sanford said the people of South Carolina want to move past the scandals.

"I'm not going to be railroaded out of this office by political opponents or folks who were never fans of mine in the first place," Sanford said. "A lot of what is going on now is pure politics, plain and simple."

Bauer and Sanford are Republicans who have served together for two terms but were elected separately and have never been friends.

Some Republicans have been reluctant to seek Sanford's resignation or impeachment because they do not want to give Bauer what would amount to a long-term tryout for the job.

If Sanford steps down before his term ends in January 2011, Bauer said he will promise not to run in 2010, so that is not an issue.

Bauer considered making the same offer in June but never officially did.

"The serious misconduct that has been revealed along with lingering questions and continuing distractions make it virtually impossible for our state to solve the critical problems we're facing without a change in leadership," he said Wednesday.

House Republicans are expected to discuss this week what it would take to impeach Sanford.

The House is expected to launch impeachment proceedings when lawmakers return for their regular session in January, though they could also hold a special session before then.

Any House member can make the proposal.

Wednesday, August 26, 2009

For Reference: Senator Gorman's response to E-Mail hit piece.

The e-mail in question was made to appear as if it was sent by District 6, it was not and was never authorized by the District Executive Committee, of which I'm a member. Thou I'm opposed to Senator Gorman's position on this issue, I'm also opposed to the use of trickery to make a communication to anyone appear as if it was sent by someone else.

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Yesterday, an e-mail reply was sent to all LD-6 PC's, here is Sen. Gorman's Statement:

In a surreal turn of events, I have been invited to respond to a "hit piece" my own Republican district leadership has used the internal email list to help circulate misinformation to my fellow Precinct Committeemen. This email was designed to get PC's to call and lobby me to vote for a tax increase. In this alternate reality where voting "yes" on a property tax repeal is reported to be voting "no" and stopping a tax increase is reported to be voting against an entire budget, I hardly know where to start to explain...

First, I think a little background is important to understand. For those who were not aware, the "budget" is really a series of bills that move through the system (usually, but not necessarily, together one after the other). The main bill contains the numbers for funding levels and is referred to as the "feed” bill internally. The balance of the budget bills are filled with policy instructions on how the money in the feed bill is to be spent and reforms to be carried out to create savings. Internally, we refer to these companion bills as "BRB's" (pronounced Burbs- stands for Budget Reconciliation Bills).

The tax referral demanded by the governor was always in a
separate bill that was not a regular BRB or the feed bill. It's connection to the actual budget is one of Governor Brewer's invention, but there is no logical connection because the revenue which the tax increase will produce is not affecting the Fiscal Year 2010 budget for planning purposes. It is a stand-alone bill, with only a connection in terms of the psychology of Brewers continued commitment to a tax increase.

One of those budget bills (SB1025) I caused to be amended in a "sit cow" (this means the bill was run through Committee of the Whole an additional time to further amend it). This amendment put the $250 million property tax repeal directly into the budget "BRB" bill, in order to save it from the certain death it faced if left combined with a tax increase bill. I voted FOR this bill and have voted for ALL of the budget bills in every budget all session...
Those that tell you otherwise are trying to invent reality
by playing with words. I did, however, cast a NO vote for the tax increase bill. I make no excuses for voting against a tax increase and to be honest, I don't think I should have to.

You have also possibly heard of the late-entry new idea the tax increase crowd came up with designed to encourage conservatives to become complicit in the sales tax increase's passage. What you haven't heard is the "rest of the story" and, I presume, why Sam Crump, Andy Biggs, Ron Gould, and I all refused to support this trade off. Trust me, it was no "deal" that anyone should take. Unfortunately, several otherwise smart folks have failed to see this from all angles and jumped on board early in a very public way and now that the details are surfacing, their names and logos are being used to suggest they support a tax increase bait and switch scheme of sorts. Here's the basic outline...

In return for getting out of the way of a sales tax increase by throwing our vote onto the referral bill (which we all feel has a very strong chance of passing) there was a DELAYED cut to corporate and personal income taxes offered (the lion's share in terms of percentage being corporate tax cuts).

Here's one BIG problem with this: The delayed cuts would not be scheduled to kick in until 2011. And, until those revenue changes begin to affect the general fund, ALL of our legal advisors have unanimously advised the legislature that these cuts will not be protected by Prop 108 (Prop 108 requires a 2/3 vote for a tax increase to be passed). This means that in a few months we will have a perfect storm of events that will almost certainly crush any hopes we have that those cuts would ever go into effect and begin to “pay back” the billions of dollars the sales tax increase will take from Arizona families. Here is a sketch of what I mean: We will have this same governor (who insists we need more revenue and less cuts to spending), the same legislators (who could not muster the courage to make necessary cuts in a non-election year), at least a $2 billion revenue shortfall, no more federal bailout money coming in, and the looming "potential" of reduced revenue to the tune of $400 million from these "future" cuts. The drop in revenue from the cuts will be seen as a problem that needs to be rectified by repealing them or delaying them with a simply majority vote before they go into effect. No one really doubts that there will be a huge effort to delay or outright repeal those cuts before they ever see the light of day. So, essentially, this is a Popeye cartoon situation where you are told "Give me a burger today and I will pay you on Tuesday." In a word, the cuts are but a fantasy. And, it takes only 12 Democrats (all of whom are against the cuts enacting) and 4 Republicans (I can name 5 of them who would vote to delay or repeal them) to do away with the sweetened part of the pot and leave only the tax increase standing. Some of the folks buying into the “fantasy” do it because they are not well versed in our process, others don’t understand the political dynamics of the personalities currently in public office. Those of us who do are not being fooled. There are others out there (possibly including the authors of the cowardly anonymous YouTube video) who understand this full and well and it is actually part of their overall plan to get more revenue through a tax hike now, knowing they will never lose future revenues to the tax cuts because they will never come to fruition.

Additionally, there is the very real economic issue to contend with in regard to the tax increase itself. When you want to turn an economy around, you try to stimulate it by giving folks money to go out and
spend in the community. By pulling a billion dollars in spending capacity out of the hands of Arizonans, you will be doing the OPPOSITE of stimulating the economy.
You will, in effect, slow it down and prolong the recession and at the same time cripple Arizona families who are desperately just trying to hang on in this economy. They estimate the average family will pay the government an extra $400 if this sales tax passes. Think about it. How many groceries can you buy for $400? Car payment? School fees and books? What will those families choose to live without once they are sending that money to the state instead of infusing the same dollars into our economy? Tax increases are bad. Tax increases during a recession are irresponsible. A tax increase to cover over-spending is un-Republican.

Incidentally, the polling supports this sales tax passing even BEFORE the multi-million dollars in special interest money come pouring in to support a slick ad campaign to make sure it passes. Remember Prop 400? Same crew running this show, but this time they will have even more support from Teacher's Unions, Firefighter's Unions, Hospital Associations, etc. To those that find solace in saying "I will vote to push it forward, but will vote against it at the polls," I think a reality check is in order. It will be like David and Goliath. Heck, look at the professionally produced hit ad they did on me already just to get my ONE vote!

You also have heard a lot about the $250 million property tax permanent repeal.
This is an effort, which I have always supported. It is doing away with the only property tax on your tax bill that comes to the state. We tried to repeal it when times were good, but could only get it suspended under Napolitano. As such, it will come back online next year without action by the legislature and the governor to make it permanent. I have now voted in support of this 3 times. It was my stubborn persistence that got it put into this BRB on the day we voted the budget out of the Senate last Wednesday. It was vetoed twice before (once by Napolitano and once by Brewer) but is now part of the budget bill SB1025 on its way to the governor again. I am hopeful she will hear from all of you and choose to sign it into law, once and for all. While it only represents on average $67 for homeowners, every little bit helps. For business, it is a much larger hit should this tax come back automatically.

Now that you have the background, let me state some basic facts.

1. The proposal is a likely sales tax hike in exchange for"slim chance" tax cuts - but it is still a net tax increase for nearly everyone in our district at least in the next few years.I can’t support hitting the citizens of our district with a tax
increase - both because that is what I promised you andbecause too many Arizonans can't afford it in this recession, which will only be longer and harsher if the sales tax is increased.

2. As much as I believe in cutting corporate taxes to someday entice business to move to our state once the global recession has passed and businesses begin expanding again, the price here – an immediate tax increase on taxpayers- is too much to ask in exchange for a shot-in-the-dark chance at getting those future tax cuts.

3. I believe the tax hike will pass. And, due to the current political situation at the capitol and the economic situation in the state, the tax cuts will never see the light of day.

4. A majority of members, when faced with cutting spending or getting rid of tax cuts would choose ditching the tax cuts to retain that revenue for continued over-spending. Even today, many would rather choose higher taxes over
making the cuts necessary to balance the budget.

4. I have voted FOR the property tax repeal 3 times but the governor vetoed it, presumably holding it hostage in order to extort support for higher taxes. I am not willing to trade a tax hike, that if passes would cost the average family $400 a year, in exchange for a property tax break of $67 (on average) per family. So, I hope Governor Brewer will sign the bill and cease holding that issue in jeopardy as part of a tax hike plan.

5. I have been a consistent and vocal supporter of real tax cuts
for Arizona and no one has stood more firmly in opposition to higher taxes.

6. I did vote FOR the Republican budget, which included the $250 million property tax repeal. I voted AGAINST a $1 billion tax increase.

7. I am very disappointed that paid political operatives have been
allowed to hijack the LD6 email list to encourage you to lobby me
armed with half-truths and, in some cases, patently false information. I not only
welcome, but encourage you to get the facts about the tax plan and remember
that the majority of the LD6 delegation is on record opposing it.

8. Good well-meaning people with very similar ideas will still sometimes disagree. Everyone has their reasons and professional/personal priorities when determining how they will vote. There has been an enormous amount of pressure applied from all sides on this. While I wish my colleagues would use the power of their vote to prevent this harmful tax increase from going to the ballot at their hand, I do not judge.


Senator Pamela Gorman (R)
Legislative District 6

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

America Unhinged

By Helaine Chersonsky

I love this country; My generation grew up loving this country. We were born as the Second World War got under way and grew up during the fairly innocent fifties and the turbulent sixties.

In the past five or six years, I have reflected upon the times that have now come upon us. One impression was about the time G. W. Bush ran for his second term as president in 2004. I drove cross-country from Arizona to Massachusetts for a short-time unsuitable job. I began the drive to Massachusetts in September, just as the maples were beginning their annual dress-up event of orange, gold, and russet. I frankly and unabashedly admit to praying for President Bush’s victory in the presidential race. I prayed through every state from Texas through Pennsylvania and up into the Pocono Mountains of New York. Even though my life was turbulent and unsettled at that time, there was a sense of peace throughout our fair country.

I wrote the following paragraph in December 2008, before President Obama took office. “All is calm, all is bright says the hymn “Silent Night.” That is what it feels like in the leeward calm before storm Barack Obama takes office. It’s a little unreal, sort of like ostriches with their heads in the sand, pretending as if disaster is NOT around the corner, although the daily newspapers, especially the Wall Street Journal, talk about the financial crisis. But the New York Times has ramped down its coverage of the financial debacle on Wall Street in preparation for the “mighty Obama” taking office. It would seem that only the Wall Street Journal now covers financial matters, now that the New York Times and other newspapers have done their good work in jettisoning capitalism and freedom.

Flash forward to August 2009, with a return to turbulence, almost akin within the last six months, to the “Summer of Love and Drugs” of the 1960’s and the war protests of the sixties. Only this time, the protestors are not being whipped into shape and funded by the Left; now hard-working American workers and patriots are taking their time to go to the town halls, to the state capitals and to their Congressmen and women. And they are being met with ridicule, assaults and invective; this is straight out of the Left's playbook, where the primary purpose of verbal attack is to accuse someone of what you, in fact, are doing in order to deflect awareness of what and who is really causing the problem.

There may be a connection to the current situation in America where there is growing unease and a sense of lawlessness, sometimes perpetrated by illegal immigrants who have violated the simple rule of law by coming across the border without documents; sometimes by American citizens. In America, it seems to me that there is a growing malaise involving the sense of the loss of control of our country by its citizens and constituencies and growing lack of application of the rule of law throughout American society; and the loss of the application of Constitutionality to court decisions.

I applaud the American citizens who are voicing their disapproval of Obamacare and Congresscare at Town Hall meetings. It is well past the time when American citizens who have previously disengaged from the political process begin to make their voices heard.

American government seems to have gone off the train tracks of the American Constitution, and many Americans are increasingly concerned. I remember the long lines of cars waiting for gas and the American hostages held in Iran during the “misery index” of Jimmy Carter’s presidency That is when bells started to ring about the current political situation in America. Who would take advantage of a chaotic society? Who would use a “crisis” of confidence in government to bail out big businesses, insurance companies such as AIG and to nationalize the three major American auto makers? Who is “stimulating” the economy by giving billions of American tax dollars to banks in the TARP payout? Is this helping or hurting American society? Do you trust the current government to act with the best interests of its citizens in mind? And why are we alienating our traditional allies such as Britain, Israel, Honduras in favor of dictatorships such as Iran, Russia and Venezuela. Or does anyone not see that these are dictatorships?

As I typed the last pages of a script my son has written, several sentences stood out in my mind. To me, it is a call for our generation; the generation that has enjoyed the fruits of both war and peace waged by the last, the “greatest generation.”

“It is time for us to let go of any petty differences that hold us back. We have a common purpose; we need to work for it.” We, who have been given so much need to make our sacrifices for our amazing country. America is a land propelled by individuals. Let us, as individuals, make our voices and our thoughts known.
These are just questions I pose to Americans everywhere in our society. I am profoundly troubled by “government” spokespersons who speak out of both sides of their mouth and who cannot be trusted to tell the truth about anything because of their agenda. It’s time for the truth to be heard throughout America. The New Testament says, “Ye shall know the Truth and the truth will make you free.” First, find the Truth in your heart and welcome it.

Monday, August 17, 2009

What WE Did During WOODSTOCK

Infantryman Cyril "Rick" Rescorla, whose photo graced the cover of "We Were Soldiers Once . . . And Young," on patrol in Vietnam in 1965. He survived the war -- and was Morgan Stanley Dean Witter's security chief when he died in the Twin Towers on 9/11.

As the nation marks the 40th anniversary of Woodstock it should be remembered that not everyone from that generation was at the party. During the summer of love in 1969, I was a young 17 year old U.S. Marine aboard a U.S. Navy ship call the USS York County (LST 1175) on rapid response duty in the Mediterranean Sea with the First Battalion of the Sixth Marines assigned to the U.S. Sixth Fleet, other young Marines, soldiers, sailors and airman also missed Woodstock, they were in a place called Vietnam. In April of 1970, at the age of 18, I had the privilege of serving in Vietnam also, with the best of the Woodstock generation.

Unfortunately, not all of us survived the Woodstock generation.

What follows is from the August 2009 Issue of the VFW magazine.
August 17, 2009

NEWSWEEK described them as "a youthful, long-haired army, almost as large as the US force in Vietnam." One promoter saw what happened near Bethel (nearly 40 miles from Woodstock), NY, as an opportunity to "showcase" the drug culture as a "beautiful phenomenon."

The newsmagazine wrote of "wounded hippies" sent to impromptu hospital tents. Some 400,000 of the "nation's affluent white young" attended the "electric pot dream." One sympathetic chronicler recently described them as "a veritable army of hippies and freaks."

Time gushed with admiration for the tribal gathering, declaring: "It may well rank as one of the significant political and sociological events of the age." It deplored the three deaths there -- "one from an overdose of drugs [heroin] and hundreds of youths freaked out on bad trips caused by low-grade LSD." Yet attendees exhibited a "mystical feeling for themselves as a special group," according to the magazine's glowing essay.

The same tribute mentioned the "meaningless war in the jungles of Southeast Asia" and quoted a commentator who said the young needed "more opportunities for authentic service."

Meanwhile, 8,429 miles around the other side of the world, 514,000 mostly young Americans were authentically serving the country that had raised them to place society over self. The casualties they sustained over those four days were genuine, yet none of the elite media outlets were praising their selflessness.

So, 40 years later, let's finally look at those 109 Americans who sacrificed their lives in Vietnam on August. 15, 16, 17 and 18, 1969.

They mirrored the population of the time. A full 92 percent were white (seven of whom had Spanish surnames), and 8 percent black. Some 67 percent were Protestants, 28 percent Catholic. A disproportionate number -- more than one-third -- hailed from the South. More than two-thirds were single, nearly one-third married. Not surprising, the vast majority (91 percent) were under the age of 30, with 78 percent between the ages of 18 and 22.

Overwhelmingly (87 percent), they were in the Army. Marines and airmen accounted for 8 percent and 4 percent of the deaths, respectively, with sailors sustaining 1 percent. Again, not unexpectedly, two-thirds were infantrymen. That same proportion was lower-ranking enlisted men. Enemy action claimed 84 percent of their lives, non hostile causes 16 percent. The preponderance (56 percent) had volunteered, while 43 percent had been drafted. One was in the National Guard.

Of the four days, Aug. 18 (the last day of "peace and love" in the Catskills when the 50,000 diehards departed after the final act) was the worst for the men in Vietnam. Thirty-five of them died on that one miserable day.

Many perished in the Battle of Hiep Duc, fighting with the hard-luck Americal Division in the Que Son Mountains. In fact, 37 percent of all GIs lost in this period came from this one unit.

So when you hear talk of the glories of Woodstock -- the so-called "defining event of a generation" -- keep in mind those 109 GIs who served nobly yet are never lauded by the illustrious spokesmen for the "Sixties Generation.

Friday, August 14, 2009

GOP - Giffords Out of Touch with Voters

From the Arizona Republican Party

Friday, August 14, 2009

As pressure mounts on members of congress to reveal how they will vote on health care reform, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords appears to be unraveling at the seams. In two incomprehensible yet telling events, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and her staff have demonstrated their contempt towards the 8th congressional district by canceling events or accusing those concerned with the direction of healthcare reform of racism.

According to published reports, Gifford's staff recent accused community organizers of “manipulation and racism to spread their message.” In response, local citizens advocating against a government takeover of healthcare say “Giffords is lying” and they “have no intention of hurting her. And they're not racists.” If that wasn't enough, Congresswoman Giffords bagged an event in Sahuarita/Green Valley refusing access to their duly elected representative.

Augustus Shaw, 1st Vice Chair of the AZGOP and a founding member of the Coalition of Arizona African American Republicans said “Organizing a diverse group of Arizonans to make their opinions known about healthcare reform is not manipulative or racist, it’s the cornerstone of our American form of Democracy, a concept the staff of Rep. Giffords apparently no longer believes in.”

“Resorting to outlandish claims and name calling clearly shows Congresswoman Giffords is losing touch with her constituents and reality,” said Chairman Randy Pullen. “Her feeble attempt to blame her own voters for their frustration with a potential government takeover or healthcare is bordering on insane. All people want is an open and transparent process that takes their concerns into account. Canceling events, skipping out on advertised ‘Town Halls or limiting access where only a few can speak their mind is absurd. People want to hear what she has to say and have their own voices heard. It’s really that simple, and yet she doesn't seem to get it.”

Wall Street Journal Supports Brewer on Budget

From the Wall Street Journal 8/11/09

Arizona’s Budget Breakthrough

An alternative to California’s tax and spend model.
Perhaps states are starting to learn the right fiscal lessons from the red-ink blowouts in high-tax California and New York. Today, the legislature in Arizona will vote on a tax reform designed to entice more employers and high-income taxpayers to the state. Sponsored by Republican Governor Jan Brewer, the plan would cut state property taxes, the corporate tax and personal income taxes, in exchange for a temporary rise in the sales tax.

Most economic studies agree that states have more jobs and higher income growth when they tax consumption rather than savings, investment and business profits. This explains why most of the nine states with no income tax at all—such as Texas, Florida and Tennessee—have been economic high-flyers in recent decades.

Ms. Brewer’s proposal reflects this economic logic. Effective January 1, 2011, her plan would reduce the state’s corporate income tax rate to 4.86% from 6.97%, which would be one of the largest business tax cuts in the nation in recent years. The proposal also cuts all personal income tax rates by 6.6%, thus lowering the top marginal rate to 4.24% from 4.54%. A hated statewide tax on commercial and residential property would also be abolished.

Arizona has been hit especially hard by the housing slump, and its budget woes were compounded thanks to former Governor Janet Napolitano’s spending spree before she joined the Obama cabinet. On her watch the budget grew by more than 50% in five years—to $10.2 billion from $6.5 billion in 2004. The state now has a $1 billion budget gap, and to close it the legislature will also vote on a one percentage point increase in the sales tax to 6.6% in 2010 and 2011; in the third year the sales tax would fall to 6.1%, and in the fourth year would revert to its current 5.6% rate.

We’d rather see the legislature cut more spending than raise the sales tax, but on the other hand the sales tax would only take effect if it is approved on the November ballot. The political class is giving voters a say in the matter. The sales tax increase also has the advantage of a built-in expiration date, while the tax cuts are permanent.

Democratic opponents are calling this a tax giveaway to big business. But lawmakers needn’t apologize for trying to retain Arizona’s status as a business-friendly state—particularly when jobs are so scarce. Small employers also benefit from the lower property tax rates and the personal income tax reductions. Lower tax payments will enable them to reinvest more in their enterprises.

The opponents should consult a new study of state business taxes by former U.S. Treasury economist Robert Carroll for the Tax Foundation. He examined 50 states and found that states with lower corporate tax rates have higher wage gains and more productivity over time. This tax cut sounds like a high-return investment.

Republicans control both houses of the Arizona legislature, and as we went to press the main obstacle to passing the reform was the Arizona Senate’s anti tax conservatives. They oppose the higher sales tax. These Republicans should look to one of the triumphs of the Reagan Presidency, the 1986 tax reform, which broadened the tax base but substantially lowered tax rates and thus sustained the 1980's expansion.

Arizona has the chance to be the anti-California, closing the budget deficit by growing the economy, not by raising taxes. We hope legislators don’t blow it, because the U.S. desperately needs an alternative to the tax, spend and tax again philosophy of Sacramento and Albany.

Thursday, August 13, 2009

Obama and Planned Parenthood in Bed Together.

Washington, DC ( -- The president of the nation's largest abortion business attended what she called a "special meeting" at the White House yesterday on health care reform. This is the second time the Obama administration gave special privileges to Planned Parenthood.
As the mainstream media denies abortion funding is in the health care bills Congress is considering, Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards appears to have special access to the White House to make sure it is included.

In a note she posted on Facebook, Richards reveals more about the meeting and the Obama administration's strategy for getting the pro-abortion bill approved.

"Yesterday I attended a special meeting at the White House to discuss women and health insurance reform," Richards writes.

"The basic message was that we've got to remind folks why we became so dedicated to reforming the health care system — or more particularly, the health insurance system — in the first place," she continues.

Richards says the government-run health care system is needed because of rising health care costs and appears to indicate more women are visiting Planned Parenthood centers for abortions.

"In fact given the unemployment rate and widespread loss of insurance coverage, at Planned Parenthood we are seeing so many more women," she writes.

Richards also attacks the pro-life advocates and others who have been participating in the health care town hall meetings held by members of Congress.

She says abortion advocates are "watching with incredulity the screaming people at congressional forums who seem to believe that the White House is somehow plotting to create a socialist state."

Richards says the Obama administration "appreciate[s] all the mighty Planned Parenthood supporters speaking up for reform in the states."

Planned Parenthood's special relationship with the Obama administration became apparent when Richards was invited to a White House-sponsored health care summit that left out any pro-life organizations.

Richards' abortion business made the invitation list as did groups that advocate abortion like the Human Rights Campaign, National Council of La Raza and others.

The Obama-Planned Parenthood love-fest continued in July when Tina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, spoke to more than 400 pro-abortion activists at the 2009 Planned Parenthood Organizing and Policy Summit.

Tchen is the former vice president of the National Organization for Women, a prominent pro-abortion organization, whom Obama selected as executive director of the White House Council on Women and Girls.

During the event, Tchen told the Planned Parenthood activists that if they want abortion as a part of the health care restructuring plan Congress is considering, they need to "bring it" -- and up their lobbying efforts.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

Pullen Says Obama Presidency; Broken Promises, Rampant Spending, Chicago-style Politics

From Matt Roberts,
Arizona Republican Party

Broken promises, rampant government spending, and Chicago-style politics have marred the first 200 days of the Obama Presidency according to Arizona Republican Party Chairman Randy Pullen. After examining the achievements of President Obama’s first six months in office, Chairman Pullen has concluded that the soaring rhetoric didn't produce the results Americans so sorely need during this time of economic turmoil.

As unemployment continues to rise and the President’s approval ratings decline, many are taking inventory of the progress made by the Obama Administration and have been disappointed with results. Nationwide polling from respected organizations like the Wall Street Journal, Gallup and CNN have shown President Obama’s polling numbers deteriorate the more Americans learn about him and his political agenda.

“President Obama campaigned on a platform of hope for a better tomorrow,” said Chairman Pullen. “If government spending was the answer to the problems Americans are experiencing right now he certainly has made his best effort to solve the crisis. But we know that burdening future generations with debt is as wrong as it is ineffective in dealing with the today’s economy. But the President seems to think otherwise.”

“During the Democrat President’s first 200 days, he has seemingly made it his mission to spend us into oblivion and Americans are beginning to see the President for what he is. Another big-government, big-spending liberal who thinks that all of our problems can be solved with government intervention,” the Chairman said.

“The President and his administration even found time to bully the state of Arizona and try to intimidate our Senators Kyl and McCain by threatening to withhold stimulus dollars,” the Chairman continued. “That type politics may work for Chicago community organizers, but it is offensive from the President of the United States.”

“I do have to say that President Obama was successful in one thing, motivating our grassroots and improving Republican fundraising,” said Pullen. “People are rightfully concerned with the spending spree that our Democrat President is leading us on. Many feel that under the President’s leadership our country is gotten seriously off track and they need to do something about it. Whether that be taking part in grassroots activism or contributing to our efforts to fight a plan to institute a government-run healthcare system.”

“So far Democrats have shown that they are part of the problem not the solution. The Republican Party will capitalize on that reality and show that the Party of ideas is alive and well in Arizona, and around the country,” the Chairman concluded.

Monday, August 3, 2009

The AZ Republic Wants Supreme's To Decide AZ Sanctions Law.

The largest newspaper in Arizona, "The Arizona Republic," has decided that the federal district court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals were wrong when they decided that the Arizona Employer Sanctions Law was legal and, as the title of today's editorial says, "Only High Court Can Bring Clarity On Sanctions."

For those who may not be aware, knowingly hiring undocumented workers is illegal. We don't know what part of illegal the Republic doesn't understand, but it is clear to us they are opposed to any sanctions against greedy employers who profit from knowingly hiring undocumented (illegal alien) workers.

Some Arizona business interest, specifically the group know as the "Wake Up Arizona Coalition," headed by McDonald's franchise owner and fat cat campaign contributor, Mac Magruder, have done everything they could to obstruct enactment and enforcement of sanctions against employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.

The Republic claims that the Arizona sanctions law, which has never been used against an employer, "was more about making a statement than making good public policy."

Sometimes making a statement like, "if we catch you knowingly hiring undocumented workers, we will take away your license to do business in Arizona," is good public policy.

The Republic editorial said, "due to widespread frustration over the failure of Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform, Arizona's law has been copied across the country." Members of Congress know that the American people are strongly opposed to amnesty for those in our country illegal, therefore, they use the more positive sounding phrase, comprehensive immigration reform, but it is still just code for amnesty.

The editorial goes on to say, "Let us be clear: We support changes to the federal immigration laws that establish tough enforcement sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers." Maybe the editorial should have added the words, "as long as the law is not enforced."

For the Republic's information, federal immigration law already has tough enforcement sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers. The primary cause of the massive illegal immigration problem in the United States has been the none-enforcement of sanctions against employers who hire undocumented workers. We don't need any more immigration laws from Congress or dictated by the Supreme Court, we just need to have the laws we already have enforced.

Entering or staying in the United States without our government's permission is illegal. Hiring people who are in the United States illegally is also illegal. Attempting to obstruct enforcement of employer sanctions by court action, editorials or, with large campaign contributions to members of congress, is detrimental to the welfare of the nation and the American people and selfish.

Bob Haran,
American Conservative Republican