Monday, July 30, 2012

How Do You Spell Charlatan?

K.I.R.K.   A.D.A.M.S.

A charlatan is someone who resorts to knowingly bogus means of impressing people in order to swindle their victims by selling them worthless goods or services that he knows won't deliver on their promises.


It appears Kirk Adams has sold us many a load of worthless goods. 


Load of worthless goods #1:

We've already exposed the lie that Adams "authored" the first structurally balanced budget our state has seen in five years.  Which might explain why leftist agitator, Randy Parraz, went after the Senate President Russell Pearce and not Mr. Adams considering we now know the budget bill actually came out of the Senate. Because the recall, of course, was over education and healthcare cuts and absolutely positively had NOTHING to do with illegal immigration. (wink wink)



Load of worthless goods #2:

Attempted to impress people with his choice to personally opt out of the state pension system.  We exposed the deception of this noble, yet misleading claim before.



Load of worthless goods #3:

Implying that he "authored" the reform of the state pension system.  (refer to disingenuous load of worthless goods #2)



Kirk Adams' campaign website states:

"Adams took on public-employee unions, authoring and passing a top-to-bottom reform of the state pension system to free taxpayers from ever increasing liabilities.  Demonstrating his commitment to government pension reform, he personally opted out of the elected officials retirement plan."

Really?


There was a bill sponsored by Adams and Rep. Olson which was introduced in the House back on February 15, 2011 titled HB2726.  The bill would have attempted to change the pension system by completely eliminating the Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP) for public-safety officers, eliminating the pension system for elected officials and changing the state's pension plans to a 401(k)-type systems.


Now, those actually sound like some good ideas, if not for the fact that


it was unconstitutional. 


Which is why the bill never even made it out of the House.

We know that Mr. Adams has struggled in the past with understanding the U.S. Constitution, but wouldn't  shouldn't the Speaker of the Arizona House know ahead of time if his idea would be in clear violation of the Arizona Constitution



Back in 1998, voters approved Proposition 100 which was a constitutional amendment that prohibited lawmakers from raiding any of the public-employee pension trusts in order to balance the state budget.  Of course, back in the day, the public-employee trusts had a surplus.  Prop 100 also mandated that public-employee pension benefits "shall not be diminished or impaired."



Not only was the introduced House bill unconstitutional but it was also impractical.  Adams' plan would have left the taxpayers with hundreds of millions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.  

Recognizing the problem with the House bill, the Senate President, Russell Pearce, assigned Senator Yarbrough to draft a version that would be both practical and constitutional.


On February 21, 2011,  SB1609 was introduced in the Senate with Senator Yarbrough as the Prime Sponsor followed by Senator Pearce, Senator Allen, Senator S. Pierce and Senator Bundgaard.

Adams did make a contribution with his "Adams Floor Amendment" .  This amendment was adopted and included a few ideas such as those convicted of a felony can no longer receive retirement benefits.  It also made changes to the "normal retirement age" and years of credited service as well as having employers pay into the system if they hire a retired member. 

But, an "amendment" to a bill certainly does not equate to "authoring top-to-bottom reform". (unless it's an election year and you're running for Congress)


It was the Senate bill SB1609 which was ultimately passed and signed into law by the Governor.


On April 19th, AZ Central posted an article that confirmed our findings.  It said:


"The state Senate has sent sweeping changes to Arizona's public retirement systems to Gov. Jan Brewer for her likely signature into law...The Republican-controlled Senate passed Senate Bill 1609 on a 21-9 party-line vote Monday.   'Twenty years from now when public employees are receiving their hard-earned pensions, we can look back and say we served them well,' said the bill's key sponsor, Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler."


We recall that Adams held a fundraiser earlier in the year with his special establishment friends, the Quayles.  At the event, former Vice President, Dan Quayle, said about Kirk Adams:

"He DESERVES to go to Washington!"


We're pretty sure Dan Quayle probably thinks the same thing about his carpetbagger son, Ben.


Sorry, but Washington doesn't need any more incompetent liars, deceivers, swindlers and charlatans who feel entitled to a position in the People's House.

Friday, July 27, 2012

A Dose Of Their Own Medicine

Kirk Adams and his surrogates have been out in full force in a desperate, Hail Mary attempt to tie Congressional Candidate, Matt Salmon, to ObamaCare.  The statements from the Adams camp are intended to mislead and distract from Adams' obvious lack of experience or credibility.  They know that if they put his opponent's name in the same sentence as "ObamaCare!" that it will send shivers down the spines of the oblivious electorate.  That's because they know the oblivious electorate won't take the time to check the facts that they have just been deceivingly fed.

However, it appears that the facts HAVE been shown to prove that Matt Salmon did NOT lobby to EXPAND ObamaCare.  Neither did the company for which he was employed.  You can read the facts here.

On the other hand, Kirk Adams received a $1000 donation to his Congressional campaign from the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world by revenue, GlaxoSmithKline.  GSK was also a top spender on lobbyists to influence healthcare reform.  In fact, in 2009, GSK's lobbying spending was the highest on record for the company.  A healthy $8.76 million dollars.

Also, Adams donated to the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers PAC in December 2008 and again in September of 2009.  The INSURP PAC donated to ObamaCare supporters like Barney Frank, Kirsten Gillibrand, Luis Guttierez, Steny Hoyer, Chuck Schumer and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Tough pill to swallow?

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

While We're On The Subject Of Kirk Adams' Misleading And Dishonest Statements

AZCentral posted an article back on January 21, 2011 which said:

House Speaker Kirk Adams has withdrawn from the Elected Officials' Retirement Plan, saying he does not want to benefit from Arizona's best public-pension system when he is trying to overhaul it along with three other statewide retirement programs that also are financially troubled.

"I felt compelled to remove myself from the state retirement system. I felt it was important to put my money where my mouth was," said Adams, a vocal critic of the pension systems.


Even his campaign website states:

"....he personally opted out of the elected officials retirement plan, earning him recognition from the National Taxpayers Union."

Which might sound genuinely noble when you're about to announce your plans to run for Congress.  What he is actually counting on is an ignorant electorate who doesn't know what Arizona law says about "opting out" of the state retirement system.

Here's what the law very clearly states:

A. All elected officials are members of the plan, except that a state elected official who is subject to term limits may elect not to participate in the plan. The state elected official who is subject to term limits shall make the election in writing and file the election with the board within thirty days after the state elected official assumes office. The election is effective on the first day of the state elected official's eligibility for that term of office. The election not to participate is specific for that term of office. If a state elected official who is subject to term limits fails to make an election as provided in this subsection, the state elected official is deemed to have elected to participate in the plan. The election not to participate in the plan is irrevocable and constitutes a waiver of all benefits provided by the plan for the state elected official's entire term, except for any benefits accrued by the state elected official in the plan for periods of participation prior to before being elected to an office subject to term limits or any benefits expressly provided by law.


Adams resigned three months later to run for Congress.


Let's do some math to see just how much Adams' noble generosity and leadership will save our state.

$24,000 annual salary
7% required contribution to pension plan
17.42% contribution by the state
Term eligibility starts January 2011
Adams resigns the end of April 2011 for a total of FOUR WHOLE MONTHS he did not participate in the pension plan.

Total savings for Arizona....$900.00

Wow.  That's really "putting your money where your mouth is".  Thanks Mr. Adams for your own personal sacrifice in trying to fix the state pension system.  Although, it seems a little disingenuous to announce that you would "opt out" of the pension plan knowing you would resign four months later.  Not to mention, since you had already hit the five year mark, you were already "vested" in the pension plan for the previous five years.

So, what about the other $30,000 that is still sitting in your pension? 

Political theater at its finest.

Maybe we SHOULD take a closer look at the famous "Pension Reform Bill" that Adams claims he "authored". 


We're beginning to think Kirk Adams really CAN'T be trusted.


Saturday, July 21, 2012

Where's The Bill?

Back in the '80s, Wendy's had a popular commercial that showed an old lady who looked inside her big, fluffy bun at the nearly non existent patty and asked, "Where's the BEEF?"

In recent weeks, we have been wondering the same thing about Kirk Adams' claim that "During his three years in the top leadership post...without any accounting gimmicks or debt financing—negotiated and authored the first structurally balanced budget in at least five years."

He certainly wasn't talking about the 2010 budget.  That budget, he admits, used accounting gimmicks and rollovers.  As the newly elected Speaker of the House in 2009, he touted the use of "rollovers" by claiming it was a "relatively low cost way to borrow dollars."


That doesn't sound like a "structurally balanced budget".


In 2011, after the budget was passed and just a few weeks before Adams announced his plans to run for Congress,  Adams went on PBS's Horizon and said this:

video

"When state revenues do not match the state expenditures, there's a problem.  So what we've done here is we've re balanced those.  This hasn't been done all at once.  This has been a three year process.  We sort of weaned the state off the first two years, then this third year, we've reached true, structural balance according to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee."


Somewhere along the way, "WE" became "ME".


Let's take a closer look at the Whoppers on Adams' campaign website. 


1. He "negotiated  the most structurally balanced budget".


Probably true.  After all, he was the Speaker of the House.  Surely there were negotiations and talks between the legislature and the Governor.


2.  Did he "author" as in ink, compose, or originate the most structurally balanced budget?

In a word, no.


On the surface, it sounds like Adams is serving up a double-double cheeseburger animal style from In-And-Out, but when you take a closer look inside, you realize it's just a bite-size Boca burger patty.  An imitation of the real thing and lacking anything remotely close to pure beef.


The fact is that after pouring over the budget bills in 2011, we were not able to find a single one to back up the claim that Adams authored the first structurally balanced budget in at least five years.



Each year in early January, the Governor submits her budget recommendations to the legislature.  One of the chambers in the legislature will then put together a budget using the Governor's recommendations as a guide. 

 

We found budget bills which were presented in the first session of 2011 and every one of them came from the Senate.  Also, every single one of them were voted on in the House under the original bill numbers that came out of the Senate.  Of those Senate budget bills, Senator Andy Biggs' name appears first.  The first name on the list is always the person who "owns" or originated the bill.  Fellow Prime Sponsors along with Senator Biggs included Senator Pearce, Senator Murphy, Senator S. Pierce and on a couple of specific bills, Senator Klein and Senator Smith.

That might explain why all of the Prime Sponsors on the Senate Budget Bills have chosen to endorse Matt Salmon for Congress.


Here is a list of all of the budget bills presented in 2011:

SB1612 - General Appropriations
SB1613- Capitol outlay
SB1614- State budget procedures
SB1615- Consolidation, state agencies
SB1616- Revenue - budget reconciliation
SB1617- K-12 education - budget reconciliation
SB1618- higher education - budget reconciliation
SB1619- health - budget reconciliation
SB1620- welfare -  budget reconciliation
SB1621- criminal justice - budget reconciliation
SB1622- general government - budget reconciliation
SB1623- regulation - budget reconciliation
SB1624 - environment - budget reconciliation

Perhaps Adams was on the Appropriations Committee where he would have been involved in discussions of the allocation of funds to the numerous government agencies, departments, and organizations?


Nope.


Rules Committee?


Yes.


Adams assigned himself to the Rules Committee starting in January 2009 and it was the only committee he served on until he resigned in April of 2011.  The Rules Committee deals with determining whether or not a bill is "constitutional and proper". The Rules attorney goes over the bill to make sure it appears to be constitutional, checks the wording, and then reports to the committee.  All this committee does is take the report of the Rules attorney and then rubber-stamp the bills. They don't typically consider the merits of the bill or get into any "MEATY" issues. 


What is interesting to note is that on the Appropriations Committee agenda, these bills were "strikers" or "strike everything".  This allowed Senator Biggs to have the bill numbers pulled and assigned to him.  Strikers allow for the deletion of the entire text of the existing bill and substitute new language.  This allowed Senator Biggs and those listed as sponsors, the ability to change, modify and edit the wording of the bills.

Based on the evidence, we have concluded that Adams did NOT author the infamous balanced budget in 2011.  As the leader of the House, he surely participated in some of the budget negotiations with the Governor.  But to take credit by claiming he authored the first structurally balanced budget the Arizona legislature had seen in 5 years is clearly misleading and unbecoming of someone trying to persuade people to trust him when he's 3000 miles away in Washington.  One has to wonder what other bills he might try to take full credit for drafting if he thinks it might serve him well or be politically expedient.  How many people will actually take the time to verify the claims? 

Sadly, not very many.

Those who DID author the first structurally balanced budget know who they are (and now we do as well).  You will notice that they aren't the ones seeking affirmation and praise for making the challenging and difficult decisions in order to put our state back on more solid, fiscal ground. 

That's the sign of a TRUE leader.


Here are statements from Republican Senators after voting for the new balanced budget.

Senator Murphy:

"The fact of the matter is, it IS a balanced solution and it's the only solution that anybody's really brought forward in a form that we can vote on....I'm proud to vote 'yes' for a solution that actually brings structural balance to our budget after a long while."


Senator Allen:

"This is my fourth budget I've voted on and this is the first one that IS balanced.  Where we DID try and only spend the revenues that we thought we would have and none extra because we owe that to the people."


Senator Yarbrough:

"This is my ninth budget and I have voted 'no' on several of them.  I have voted against my own leadership when they felt compelled to abandon principle and capitulate to the then Governor to pass il-advised budgets.  This budget is the closest, by far, to being TRULY balanced, to be without borrowing, and to be without gimmicks."


and finally, Senator Biggs:

"...recognize the point and purpose for what we're doing here today which is to produce a budget that's balanced, without gimmicks, borrowing or rollovers...."


video

Friday, July 20, 2012

LULAC, NCLR, NAACP, Asian American Justice Center And Obama's Stimulus

What do they all have in common?

They are promoting a national advertising campaign to promote free broadband internet access for "underserved communities" with the catchy theme, "Change Your Tomorrow".


And they're doing it with your tax dollars.

Under Obama's Reinvestment and Recovery Act , $7.2 billion was appropriated for the "Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) to expand broadband access and adoption in communities across the U.S., which will increase jobs, spur investments in technology and infrastructure, and provide long-term economic benefits."

PROJECT PARTNERS include:
The Broadband Opportunity Coalition which is comprised of the Asian American Justice Center, NAACP, National Council of La Raza, National Urban League, and League of United Latin American Citizens)

Minority Media and Telecommunications Council 
National Association of Black Owned Broadcasters 
National Black Chamber of Commerce 
More than 160 corporations and not-for-profit, housing, and community organizations


Here is an example of how our tax dollars have been shuffled around:

LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens) was given $1.5 million of which $1 million of that money was then given to the non profit organization One Economy Corporation.   The global initiative for One Economy states:

Around the world today, access to information is critical. One Global Economy’s community driven approach to international development works to extend and enhance the benefits of information and technology to those who need it most – the world’s poor.


Sounds like Van Jones and Cass Sunstein's ideas on Social Justice.  Broadband and "SOCIAL JUSTICE"

The thought of civil rights often brings to mind images of historic marches and boycotts. A generation ago, such undertakings brought attention to unequal treatment, encouraging action among those who could work to promote equality.
In the age of information, inequality doesn’t look the same as it did in the 20th century. Today’s civil rights challenges include digital inequality.

Yeah?  Is it fair that everyone doesn't have a Porsche or a beach house in the Hamptons?


Overall, One Economy has received over $51 million of our tax dollars funnelled through Obama's stimulus slush fund, Broadband USA.


Applicant One Economy Corporation
Washington, DC
Application ID 56
Contact Rey Ramsey
202-393-0051
rramsey@one-economy.com
Project title 21st Century Information and Support Ecosystem: Make It Easy Where You Are
Program BTOP
Proposed Project Area AL, CA, CO, CT, DC, FL, GA, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI, MN, MS, NC, NJ, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, SC, SD, TN, TX, VA, WA, WI, WV
Project type Sustainable Broadband Adoption
Funding Round Round 1 - Summer 2009
Grant request $ 45,527,735
Status Awarded
Grant Award $ 28,519,482
Description One Economy, the Broadband Opportunity Coalition and a diverse team of partners propose to increase adoption rates among the unserved and underserved through a comprehensive and integrated program that includes digital literacy, online content, affordable connectivity and public education that will overcome barriers to adoption and will maximize the opportunities inherent in the technology itself.



The grant requester was Rey Ramsey.  Here is his vision for leveraging technology to produce "social dividends".


And here you can view their PR advertising campaign blitz.  Our favorites are the ones titled "Homework" and "One Economy".  Obama needs to convince the American people (using their own money) that free broadband is good for everyone because for some reason, we just aren't understanding that free internet service is supposed to be a "right" and not a "privilege".


What seems to be left out of the discussion is how these low income, "underserved" households who now have free broadband will be able to afford a computer.


Oh wait.  That's why companies like Microsoft, Best Buy, Cox Cable and 160 other corporations are sponsoring the Obama "Connect to Compete" program.

Also, if you qualify for the National School Lunch Program, you can qualify for the $9.95/month internet rate.  Obama claims that not a single taxpayer dollar will be used for this program.  Really?  Is that why those who don't qualify for the National School Lunch Program pay $60/month for the same service?  Someone has to subsidize it. 

According to the Advisor of the Broadband Task Force, Jordan Usdan,
  • An unprecedented coalition of nonprofit and grassroots organization have committed to help spread the word about Connect to Compete. These include: America’s Promise Alliance; Digital Promise; Opportunity Nation; United Way Worldwide; Boys and Girls Club; Connected Nation; Goodwill; CFY; 4H; members of the Broadband Opportunity Coalition: The Asian American Justice Center, National Council of La Raza (NCLR), League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), National Urban League, One Economy, National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP); the Minority and Media Telecommunications Council (MMTC) and the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

So, what DO you call $7.2 billion dollars of "stimulus money" used to expand broadband access and adoption in communities across the U.S.?

Spreading the wealth around...

Monday, July 16, 2012

Mesa United Way Gives To The UU's Social Action Agenda?

Our last entry discussed the Unitarian Universalists.  We wanted to familiarize you with this group before we drew the connection between the UU and the Mesa United Way.


The UU's "social action" states:

The Mission of the Social Action Ministry is to disseminate information, promote participation by the congregation in local and worldwide projects, and endorse political involvement, in accordance with UU principles.


The Valley UU Congregation's specific "social action" is to fund the "non profit" Paz de Cristo in Mesa, AZ.

Social Action Ministry Description
  • Provides volunteer opportunities to help in the local community by serving meals to homeless individuals and families at the VUU focus charity Paz de Cristo.
  • Collects toiletries* to be distributed to homeless men and women at Paz de Cristo through Shoebox Ministry; for more information visit: www.shoeboxministry.org.
  • Sets aside “Share the Plate” collections received on the first Sunday of every month; “Five Percent Fundraisers” (which earmark 5% of all money collected at congregational events); and amounts raised at a special “Souper Bowl” collection on Super Bowl Sunday. All receipts are donated to Paz de Cristo
  • Collects foodstuffs and other items* to help Paz de Cristo restock its shelves through the VUU Donation of the Month program.
  • Promotes direct contribution checks to Paz de Cristo, a 501(c)(3) organization that qualifies for an Arizona State Tax Credit.

Paz de Cristo also receives funding from the Mesa United Way.  According to the 2011 Form 990, the Mesa United Way donated over $18,000 to Paz de Cristo.


One of the pastors for the UU said in a sermon in April 2010 regarding the recent passage of SB1070,


"We can and must resist this unjust law. We can resist by refusing to use the word "illegal" because it dehumanizes and covers over the human lives behind the rhetoric...We can resist by abstaining from reporting on our friends and neighbors. We can resist by actively calling on the federal government to step up to their responsibility and to do the politically unpopular work of passing Comprehensive Immigration Reform... And, we can resist publicly by standing and witnessing our disagreement with this legislation."

To be clear, we are not criticizing the desire of groups to help those in need.  We are questioning donations going to a group who caters to facilitating illegal behavior.
It is mindboggling to discover how this radical and admittedly liberal "thinking person's religion" with their Godless ideologies have not only been able to incorporate themselves into the fabric of our every day society, but they have managed to sucker other organizations to fund them.

We hope that those who serve on the board of the Mesa United Way, including Kirk Adams and Bob Worsley, will take a closer look at who they are giving grant money to and perhaps do a little vetting first.  We aren't sure that Alinsky associated groups who preach anti-Christian hate and promote illegal behavior is where donors intended for their money to be spent.

Sunday, July 15, 2012

Mesa Education Association Scrubs Meet And Greet Invite With Worsley

We posted back in May about a Meet And Greet invitation that was posted on the Mesa Education Association's Facebook page. 




Join friends and neighbors to meet the candidate Bob Worsley...Republican candidate for AZ State Senate in new LD25. Monday, May 14 6:30 PM 4240 E. Hope St. Mesa, AZ 85205 RSVP to Linda Somo at Lsomo@cox.net. Refreshments provided.


We also pointed out that the MEA is an affiliate of Saul Alinksy's Industrial Areas Foundation.  The IAF is the same organization that trained Barack Obama in Chicago and Randy Parraz, the Russell Pearce obsessed agitator, in Dallas.

We discovered that sometime in the month of June, the meet and greet announcement was deleted from the MEA page.

This isn't the first time that Worsley's associations and leanings have been scrubbed from the internet. 

What are you trying to hide One-Note Worsley?

Friday, July 13, 2012

John Leguizamo. We Almost Feel Sorry For Him

The actor, John Leguizamo, was on Piers Morgan's show yesterday promoting his new Ice Age sequel.

We watched the train wreck and couldn't help but feel sorry for him.  It's the reason he has landed in our "Patronizing People We Refuse To Patron" list. 

See for yourself.

video

Thursday, July 12, 2012

Unitarian Universalists General Assembly

The Unitarian Universalists held a General Assembly in Phoenix last month.  They made headlines when the group decided to take the opportunity to lead a protest outside of Tent City.


You might recognize their signs.  We've seen them before. 

"Standing on the side of LOVE"










Who are the Unitarian Universalists?

Faith-based community organizing draws its inspiration from the 1940s movement led by activist Saul Alinsky, who organized residents of the old Chicago stockyards neighborhood made famous by Upton Sinclair's novel The Jungle. Alinsky died in 1972, but his idea of uniting neighborhood and community organizations, labor unions, and churches in a fight for social justice, keeps spreading. Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation now includes some 50 interfaith and interracial organizations from New York City to Los Angeles. Other umbrella groups work at the community level.

Within the UU, there is an Arizona Immigration Ministry whose Partners include groups such as:

The Arizona Advocacy Network
Arizona Worker Rights Center/Centro de Derechos Laborales de Arizona- Arizona Interfaith Alliance for Worker Justice
Border Action Network (remember BAN?  They received grant money from Rep. Russ Jones' Arizona Community Foundation Latinos Unidos Initiative. The leader of BAN, Jennifer Allen, is frequently seen protesting alongside Randy Parraz)
Humane Borders
Border Angels
Mi Familia Vota
National Council of La Raza
National Day Labor Organizing Network (NDLON)
Puente Human Rights Movement (this is the group who initiated boycotts on Arizona and organized protests)
Somos America (Lydia Guzman is the VP of Somos America.  Guzman has helped Tom Perez from the DOJ with the lawsuit against Arizona and SB1070)


Is it a coincidence that many of the groups listed above were the same ones that participated in a recent Arizona Emerging Latino Vote Conference whose panel members included Jerry Lewis?  But, remember, Lewis doesn't associate with "Saul Alinsky".  (wink wink)


Some of the teachings and lectures of the Unitarian Universalists include:

Bending Toward Justice: Race, Immigration and Religious Education: Learning to live comfortably and fairly with diversity begins in children’s early years. So, too, does the damage of racism and other “isms” to healthy development. Author/educator/activist Louise Derman Sparks explores ways to foster children’s positive identity and awaken empathy, critical thinking and life-long ability to stand against injustice.

Confronting Arizonification In Our Own Backyard: According to local organizers, “The best way to support Arizona is by challenging Arizona-style policies where you live.” While SB 1070 made the state a symbol of intolerance, similar immigration policies have spread to every corner of the country. Learn how your town may face Arizonification and how you can work to stop it.

Immigration & Environmental Justice: Environmental degradation (polluted air, land, and water; ocean acidification; severe storms and droughts; massive extinctions; melting glaciers) disproportionally impacts disadvantages communities and contributes to migration and injustice. Find out how your congregation and state advocacy network may work with environmental justice organizations and coalitions addressing these issues.

In their most recent assembly here in Phoenix last month, one of the issues presented was the "Doctrine of Discovery".  It is a blatant attack on the Christian religion.

Our Partners have requested that we learn about the Doctrine of Discovery, and that the General Assembly pass a resolution requesting President Obama remove it from our international policy.

Indigenous Peoples and Nations want religious movements to repudiate the Doctrine of Christian Discovery and to pressure our government to implement the United Nations (UN) Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (PDF).


The UU claims:


The DOD (Doctrine of Discovery) is also foundational in the ways in which our nation's policies on migration and immigration are formed and enforced. Preventing indigenous peoples from crossing the U.S.-Mexico border to inhabit lands that are historically theirs is justified in U.S. law by the DOD.


One of the events at last month's General Assembly included a panel discussion.  On the panel were Julie Erfle, Todd Landfried, Lydia Guzman, Daniel Montelongo and Carlos Garcia.



Videos of the conference can be found here.

One of the videos references the Interfaith Immigration Coalition.

The IIC preaches:
Faith advocates and allies can join together to create teams across the country to call on and ask their local officials to not honor ICE detainer requests.

It may not be surprising to learn that affiliates of the IIC include:

United Universalists

NETWORK (Catholic social justice lobby)
PICO (Alinsky organization)
Islamic Information Center  ("Islam literally means to submit to the will of ALLAH (God)")


Muslim Public Affairs Committee (goal is to shape public policy and opinion by promoting Islamic values)

Soujourners  (Obama’s spiritual advisor, Jim Wallis is the CEO)

The UU President weighed in on the recent SCOTUS ruling over ObamaTax:

"Today, I am proud to say that we and our allies in social justice have been heard. Health care is not a luxury; it is a fundamental human right. And while we celebrate today's decision, we also will continue to advocate for this fundamental human right until it is available to all who seek it."


And the SCOTUS ruling over SB1070:


...we applaud the Supreme Court's decision to strike down several portions of SB1070, a law we have held as immoral and unjustifiable since its inception. It is heartening to see this unjust law begin to crumble, and for the Supreme Court’s decision, we are thankful.  However, I am deeply disappointed that the Court has chosen to uphold the 'check your papers' portion of SB1070. This is not in keeping with our country’s long tradition of striving for justice for all, nor does it reflect our collective moral obligation to protect and support vulnerable populations among us, including migrants and people of color. The thinly veiled racism inherent in SB1070 continues as long as this section of the law stands.


Sunday, July 8, 2012

Just How Supportive WAS Kirk Adams Of SB1070?

The week that the Supreme Court was hearing oral arguments on SB1070, Kirk Adams participated on a panel at the Heritage Foundation.  His statements at this meeting didn't exactly paint the picture of someone who whole-heartedly supported SB1070.  It doesn't even give the illusion that he supported the author of the bill who we know to be Russell Pearce. 

But, Adams sure likes to use SB1070 when it is politically expedient. 

You can view his complete remarks here.

Adams first talks about SB1070 and then makes the claim:

"Not to be outdone, there are a few proponents of SB1070 who have oversold the bill for what it actually does.  Pretending that this bill will actually secure the border.  And that some have used ensuing controversy in order to bolster their political careers...  all of which brings me to a comment I made to my Chief of Staff just a few moments before walking out onto the floor to pass this bill.  'The worst thing about this bill', I said, 'is not what is IN the bill, but what the opponents and some proponents will say is in the bill'.....Now the bill passed the state senate in February 2010 and came to the house, where using the power of the Speakership, I held it.  I held it because the bill was destined for the same fate as its previous version the year before, which died on the floor of the house.   And while in the house, we agree with the INTENT of the bill, we felt that some of the language was inarticulate and key protections were missing, and we wanted to be absolutely certain that racial profiling was clearly, and on multiple occasions, prohibited in the plain language of the bill.  For 2 months, the house worked on the amendment.  Initially, the sponsor would not agree to the changes.  But, after a legislative maneuver, the bill was reassigned back to the original committee, and to his credit, he did agree to eventual changes. 


Now here are the key provisions... the house made to 1070.  We inserted officer discretion.  That they would ask these questions only when reasonable and practical.  We made sure that protections for faith based groups and community organizations who provide humanitarian aide to immigrants... We wanted to be sure that the bill was focusing on the real bad guys, the smugglers.  We included a prohibition in asking immigration status if a determination would hinder an investigation or obstruct an investigation of another crime.  This was intended to protect witnesses and victims of crime.  And on numerous occasions, we inserted language to specifically prohibit racial profiling.  Language that we believe goes above and beyond the underlying federal law upon which 1070 is based.


A question was then posed to Adams,

"It sounds like you spent a lot of time worrying about the civil rights challenges to the case....."

He responded,

"To put this in further context, SB1070 came after the 2007 passed the employer sanctions legislation.  The decisions of the lower courts and the way that worked its way through the process, served as a bit of a guide for us in drafting 1070.  We did pay close attention to these preemption issues and believe that we have appropriately threaded that needle with the legislation.  The way we did this, when the bill got to the house is essentially, I assigned a committee of 3, an informal committee to review the legislation.  So, we had an immigration attorney, another attorney, and a representative from a border community in Yuma Arizona."

(It is probably safe to assume that the representative from Yuma was Rep. Russ Jones.  The Rep who "struggled mightily" to vote for SB1070.  We covered Rep. Jones previously.)

Adams continued...

"There was significant concerns within the house caucus originally about the preemption issue and specifically about the civil rights issue.  But, 2 months working on that amendment and agreement by the sponsor, eventually led to a final amendment which was dubbed the "Biggs amendment", named after one of the attorneys familiar with immigration law that worked on this issue.  And so all of those issues were thoroughly vetted.  And this is, I suppose, one of the characterizations of the Arizona state legislature that I think needs to be corrected.  This was not a bill that was rapidly rushed...this was perhaps the most vetted piece of legislation that I had seen in my time at the state legislature.  To make sure that we were not only 'legally' right, but that we were doing the 'right thing'."

Again, what happened to Adams' campaign claims that he was a big proponent of SB1070? 

If he was such a staunch supporter of SB1070, why the subtle digs on Pearce who was the ACTUAL author of SB1070 and on Governor Brewer for signing the legislation? 

Adams' comments sound like they are intended to lead us to believe that he should be given credit for drafting and ultimately passing SB1070.  On his own campaign site, he makes the claim "Talk about securing our border is popular during election time, but I have an actual record of accomplishment.  As Speaker of the House, I passed SB 1070."  The same bill that he admits he "held" and then proceeded to put together a committee which then spent months "fixing" portions of the bill he didn't like?  The same bill that he claimed proponents "oversold" and "pretended to secure the border"?  THAT bill?  Darn "political rhetoric".  

And why would Adams make sure to protect the "faith-based" and humanitarian groups who cater to and encourage illegal behavior?  Is that the kind of person we want representing us in DC?  Someone who would allow aiding and abetting of illegals by specific groups at the expense of LEGAL citizens?

Or someone who talks out of both sides of his mouth when it politically behooves them?

No thanks.

Friday, July 6, 2012

Boost Employment. Deport An Illegal

If I were an unemployed LEGAL citizen in this country, I wouldn't be too happy with the recent developments from the Obama administration.  First, we had the Obama Executive Order which will hand out work permits to illegals under 30.  Next, we had the Supreme Court ruling this week that struck down the provision of SB1070 which made it unlawful for illegals to knowingly apply for, solicit, or do work in Arizona.  Then, within hours of the Supreme Court ruling, Arizona's own Janet Napolitano and the Obama administration gave the finger to Arizona when they announced that they would halt the 287(g) program completely .  This announcement essentially neuters Arizona from turning in those who are working illegally.


Remember how we heard the claims, ad nauseum, that illegals are simply doing the jobs that Americans either won't or refuse to do.

Unfortunately for them, we know it is just a ploy used to excuse illegal behavior.

Here's an example of how desperate LEGAL citizens are when it comes to finding a job at Pei Weis.  Right after Sheriff Arpaio raided the restaurant and arrested the illegals who were working there.


Well, now illegals can safely apply for those Pei Weis jobs again using fake or stolen IDs knowing the Obama administration will sit on their hands and do absolutely nothing. 



Wednesday, July 4, 2012

Happy 236th Birthday!


In light of the recent turn our country seems to have made, we felt it best to reflect on the words of our great Founders.


Posterity!  You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom!  I hope you will make good use of it!  If you do not, I shall repent it in heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it!

- John Adams  1777


.
It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope.  We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth...and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts.  Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty?  Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?  For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

- Patrick Henry   1775


Guard against the postures of pretended patriotism.

- George Washington  1796



HAPPY BIRTHDAY AMERICA!

We vow to preserve her light and beacon 
for another 200 years.

Monday, July 2, 2012

More Worsley Help From Radical Leftists!

Can you even imagine what the Worsley crowd would be saying if Russell Pearce were to receive campaign help from radical leftists?



Members of the group that spent $141,000 helping Jerry Lewis get elected have filed paperwork for a new PAC this week called Moving Mesa Forward.

The Arizona Captiol Times says,

Moving Mesa Forward filed its paperwork with the Secretary of State Wednesday, signaling its intention to spend money against Pearce, who is pitted against businessman Bob Worsley in the Republican primary.





The campaign committee is chaired by Chad Snow, who is also chairman of Citizens for a Better Arizona, the organization that spearheaded the successful recall against Pearce.

Randy Parraz, co-founder of Citizens for a Better Arizona, said the campaign committee will reach out to independents in Legislative District 25 and urge them to support Worsley.


“So we’re going to do some education (and) we’re going to do some voter persuasion,” Parraz said.
“Too many people invested too much in the recall to just walk away,” Parraz said.

We realize the State Republican platform doesn't say a candidate can't receive thousands of dollars in campaign donations from someone in another party.  Therefore, Worsley is perfectly welcome to accept donations from Progressive leftists.  The Republican platform only states that someone in an elected office can't endorse a candidate from another party. 

Unless, of course, you're Jerry Lewis.