Randy Parraz Goes To D.C.

He's BACK.......

 

Sitting on a panel in Washington D.C. at the end of January. 

Flanked by leftists

John "What Good Is Reading A Bill If It's A Thousand Pages" Conyers

and Jim "The Constitution Is Wrong" McGovern.

 

 

 

Parraz's comments about his role in the Republican Primary election in August 2012:

 

"We went into the field, several weeks going door-to-door, got 540 Democrats to re-register as Independents.  We increased Independent turnout by 300% and come election night, in a Republican primary, Russell Pearce lost by double digits."

 

"If you compare what happened in this last legislative session in Arizona, there weren't any 'racial bills.'  Wonder how that happened, right?  It was toned down severely because the person that we got elected named Jerry Lewis...  He put in the new President of the Senate, by one vote, and that new President said, a Republican, 'All of these bills are going in my drawer.'  And they stayed in his drawer."

 

 

Enlightening on so many levels.

New Immigration "Tone." Or So We're Being Told.

Well, that didn't take long .  Liberals and their new-found "Republican" friends will once again, shove "immigration reform" and a guest worker program down our throats.  Our economy must be BOOMING and our unemployment rate at near 0% if we're discussing guest worker bills again.  

No?

Last week, there were 365,000 new jobless claims filed and according to the Department of Labor, there are 12.5 million unemployed U.S. citizens. Another 12 million are considered "under-employed."  There are an (extremely low) estimated 12 million illegals in the United States. (Is a guest worker program Bob Worsley's idea for creating jobs?)

Last month, Obama granted amnesty work permits to over 1.7 million illegals who will flood the workforce and compete with legal U.S. citizens for jobs.  Not only will illegals be given work permits but they will also have

"complementary access to welfare programs — will also be granted to individuals 'with a significant disability … or [who are] far, far below the national poverty level' " 

 

Spreading the wealth around.

It was almost funny to read in the AZ Central article that lewsley Republicans, Jerry Lewis and Bob Worsley, are considered "influential."  Huh?  What exactly have they even DONE that has been "influential?"  Worsley hasn't even been officially elected as a Senator yet and Lewis was nothing but a pariah for all of one session and who will more than likely lose his short-lived seat in November.  (Too bad Steve Pierce drained the Republican Victory fund to help his fellow lewsley Republican, Rich Crandall, in the primary election). We also thought it was funny that throughout the recent primary campaign, Bob Worsley was so influential that he dropped Bill Montgomery's name dozens of times when he discussed implementing a guest worker program Montgomery evidently supports.  

                                                             (Randy Parraz on left with Todd Landfried at a panel discussion)

The AZ Central article mentioned other illegal alien sympathizers like Tamar Jacoby and Todd Landfried.  For a refresher on Jeff Flake's good friend Tamar Jacoby and Randy Parraz's sidekick, Todd Landfried, visit our previous blog entries HERE and HERE.  In fact, it was Landfried who went to Utah to push for the Utah Compact back in 2010 along with Lydia Guzman from Somos America.  It is Lydia Guzman who is trying to line up discrimination cases in an effort to get the federal government to sue Arizona over SB1070's "show your papers" enforcement.

(Landfried on left, Guzman on right testifying in Utah about the Utah Compact)

Lydia Guzman with Tom Perez from the U.S. Justice Department

Just a quick reminder:


In January 2011, Jeff Flake said this:

 

 " 'Comprehensive' has gotten a bad word. But until we have a better one I'll use that. While we need to enhance border security, that's not enough. You have to have a viable mechanism to deal with the people who are here. My party hasn't come to grips with that.' He explains that his own state of Arizona passed a controversial law that allows for us to 'more easily round people up. But that's not the problem. The problem is what to do about them after we get them.' On a political level, he says the 'tone and tenor of the debate' needs to improve on the Republican side. But the substance remains the nub of the problem. He says the problem is 'more complicated' than his party would like to admit...But given the current politics, I'd like to be optimistic (about reform legislation), but I'm not."

 

 

 

A few months later in March 2011 (right before Flake announced his plans to run for the Senate) and just a month after a special meeting in the Oval Office with President Obama, he did a miraculous 180 and said this:

 

"In the past I have supported a broad approach to immigration reform - increased border security coupled with a temporary worker program. I no longer do...I've been down that road, and it is a dead end. The political realities in Washington are such that a comprehensive solution is not possible, or even desirable given the current leadership.

 

 

We imagine that if Flake is elected Senator, he will suddenly have another change of heart and go back to his desire for a guest worker program along with his fellow Senator, Juan McCain.  It will certainly be easier for them to push immigration reform and claim they are simply following the will of the "majority" (which majority, however, is the question). Given the new leadership and all...

 

 

And what about the statement from the AZ Central article by Jerry Lewis when he said,

 

(enforcement-only approach) "hasn't worked. It doesn't work. Any reform that is based on an enforcement-only platform is bound to fail."

 

Bob Worsley made similar statements during the Primary campaign.

 

Where have we seen this assertion before?

 

Ah, yes. 

 

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.

 

 

 

This particular statement contradicts what the LDS Handbook states regarding emigration to ANY country.  Also, it seems odd that this same source would essentially imply that their position trumps current law, specifically the 10th Amendment and state sovereignty. 

It would seem strange that this same source would say this about the issue of abortion :

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

And yet, the LDS church DOES have a strong opinion of opposing legislation regarding illegal immigration? 

Just so we understand, anti-abortion legislation doesn't qualify for "falling short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God" yet legislation to crack down on those who choose to disobey the law and willingly separate their families is more worthy of an opinion by the LDS church?


The LDS handbook states:

  

"Generally, members are encouraged to remain in their native lands to build up and strengthen the Church....As members remain in their homelands and work to build the Church there, great blessings will come to them personally and to the Church.

 

Experience has shown that those who emigrate often encounter language, cultural, and economic challenges, resulting in disappointment and personal and family difficulties.

 

Members who emigrate to any country should comply with applicable laws.

 

When coming to the United States or other countries on student or tourist visas, members should not expect to find jobs or obtain permanent visas after entering that country."

 

 

This would imply that members of the LDS church who emigrate to Mexico, or Belgium, or South Africa, or anywhere else in the world, should comply with the applicable immigration laws of that country.

The immigration laws of Mexico are far stricter than those in the United States.  Mexican law

"...mandates that federal, local and municipal police cooperate with federal immigration authorities in that country in the arrests of illegal immigrants.

Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals."

Notice that the laws of Mexico allow for cooperation from both local and municipal police with the federal government.  Does the LDS church feel as strongly about Mexico's state enforcement only laws as they do with U.S. state enforcement laws? 

 

In the first unnamed LDS Newsroom source, it implies that those who come to the United States are somehow immune from following the U.S. immigration laws.  It also gives the impression that states are not allowed to protect themselves for fear of being accused of "falling short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God."

Something else that falls short of the high moral standard?  An illegal who steals a 10 year old girl's identity and destroys her credit in order to take a job that should go to a LEGAL citizen.  Or another illegal who uses our country's generous resources (schools, hospitals, etc) and doesn't pay for those services but rather, forces others to pick up the tab. 

Remember this video of an immigration lawyer who teaches others how to NOT hire legal citizens:

 

"Our goal is clearly, NOT to find a qualified

and interested U.S. worker."

We suspect that we will once again see something similar to the Utah Compact paraded around Arizona very soon by radical leftists.  That is, now that the tone and tenor has shifted thanks to liberals who masquerade as Republicans and partner with Democrats, all in the spirit of compromise.

As Van Jones once said, you have to "forgo the radical pose for the radical ends."  Like Van Jones and Barack Obama, the open borders, Aztlan crowd have learned that they will attract more flies with honey than with vinegar.  It appears these infiltrators to our country have learned that they can use "faith-based" organizations to help give the illusion that they just want a new tone and an elevated conversation, when what they really want is JUSTICE.

An Election Recap: Lies, Lies and More Lies

It seemed a little apropos that an article called "Eight Words That Most Liars Use" was posted on Yahoo today.

Keep a few of these words in the back of your mind.

"Never" The big thing to look out for is when he says "never" when "no" will do. It's a sign he's overcompensating.

"That"  Like never, it depends on how he uses it. If he puts "that" in front of a noun, like "that woman" or "that money," it's a subconscious attempt for him to distance himself from the word. This is a common trick of manipulators.  (Bill Clinton used this when he said, "that woman...Monica Lewinsky")

"By the way…" Liars use phrases like this to try to minimize what they say next-but usually it's what's most important to the story. Pay extra attention to what he says afterward.

"But" Liars usually try to downplay what they say with this word, so pay attention when he says something like, "I know this is going to sound strange, but…" or "I know you think I'm lying, but…"



Remember when those who pushed for the recall of Russell Pearce admitted that they focused their efforts on Mormon Republicans?

'The strategy that we’re using is we believe that in order to have a fully effective recall Russell Pearce effort, the change is going to have to come from within,' Blasé said. 'And that’s from within the Mormon community in Mesa...Key to that is having Mormons convince other members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.' 

Once the recall election was over, Jerry Lewis' campaign manager openly admitted their strategy.
 

As the final results of the Nov. 8 recall election became clear, Tyler Montague, an integral campaign insider for Lewis, revealed how vital early support was among members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

“Yes. I can finally say it. From the beginning, we went to stake presidents and bishops to get their support,” Montague said of high-ranking Mormon members.
“I heard someone call it the ‘Mormon Fall,’ and I think that totally fits,” he said,

comparing the recall election to the mass protests in North Africa

and the Middle East known as the “Arab Spring.”

Their approach: Offer a simple choice to the most influential Mormons in Mesa.

We said, ‘Here’s what the Mormon Church says about immigration, and here’s what Russell Pearce says about it. Where do you come down?’” Montague said.

Fast forward to the primary election last week.  Bob Worsley's campaign manager, Ryan Anderson, admitted :

Anderson attributes part of the trend to the politically active, close-knit Mormon community in Mesa. Once a candidate has been chosen by community leaders, Anderson said, that decision ripples through the church and social networks.

Bob Worsley spoke at the Red Mountain TEA Party on the eve of the primary election.  One of the questions he was asked was whether he had ever met the leftist agitator, Randy Parraz.

Worsley, with rehearsed confidence, looked the moderator in the eyes and said,

"I have NEVER met Randy Parraz.....I don't associate with those radicals. 

I'm a Conservative."

 

The follow-up question should have been, "Has anyone from your CAMPAIGN ever met or spoken with Randy Parraz?" 


We know that the Lewis camp was involved with Parraz.

(Parraz seen with Mike Wright who donated $200 to Worsley's campaign and donated to Jerry Lewis.  He was also in strategy meetings with Parraz during the recall effort.)

Lewis:  "First, let me thank the Wright family for their generous support and for allowing us to host this event here."

(Anson Clarkson was Jerry Lewis' campaign manager. 

His mom can be seen in the video above at Parraz's headquarters)

Another question posed to Worsley at the TEA Party meeting was about his ad which painted Russell Pearce as a "One Note" candidate.  Worsley was asked that given Pearce's REAL record on a variety of issues, did he stand by the accusation.  Worsley responded,

 

I did not say Russell Pearce is a 'one note candidate'.  The commercial is literally a person playing the piano with an overabundance of focus on immigration....I know that Russell Pearce's campaign has said that I was insinuating that, but I do believe that we have spent too much time focusing at the state level on enforcement only when that is NOT a solution that will work.

It seemed odd that Worsley was so quick to focus on the words "one note" from the ad and deny that he ever implied that Pearce was a "one note candidate", especially when his own campaign site on Youtube shows the ad's title as  "One Note/ Bob Worsley: strong on all the issues."  He even Tweeted:

Bob Worsley‏@bob_worsley

New campaign commercial. Is Mesa ready to move on from "One Note" politics?http://tinyurl.com/cg74f38

We know who gave Worsley's campaign the idea for his ad.


Randy Parraz.

May 18, 2012

" 'It seems they haven't heard the political message', said Randy Parraz, an organizer of a recall effort that led to Pearce's ouster from the Legislature in November, adding that rank-and-file Arizonans are more concerned about jobs and education than illegal immigration.

'They are still playing that one note.' "

Worsley's ad was posted two months later in July.


We know that if anyone was a "one note candidate" it was actually Bob Worsley since immigration is the one issue that he seemed to have a problem with when it came to Russell Pearce.  Even on election night, Worsley still wanted to drive that point home.

....and frankly, it will be easier to solve immigration based on a lot of things he has done because we can now see that a state enforcement only law like SB1070, does NOT work. 

Randy Parraz's strategy was to shift his focus of attacking Pearce over SB1070 which still enjoys a 65% approval rating and instead, pretend that he cared about other issues like education and healthcare. 


At the TEA Party meeting, Worsley went through a list of things that Pearce did that was good for the state, but then admitted that his only reason for challenging him was because he felt that Russell Pearce had been in the legislature too long and we needed a "fresh voice".  (Where have we heard THAT phrase before?) 

Again, it was an attempt to deflect from the real reason why Worsley chose to run.  We know this because if Worsley truly had an issue with the 11 years that Pearce was in the legislature, why is it he didn't have a problem with Stan Turley's 22 years?  Or Jon Kyl's 25 years?  Or John McCain's 29 years and counting?  Or Jeff Flake's 12 years and who is on track to follow the same path as his predecessors should he be elected to the Senate?  After all, Worsley had no problem accepting their endorsements. 


The biggest lie of all?


One of Worsley's campaign mailers stated, "Arizona needs a Conservative."

- Bob Worsley, a deeply Conservative fellow Mormon

- Bob Worsley, a solid Conservative

- Bob Worsley is a solid Conservative (endorsement from Jon Kyl)



It wasn't until AFTER the election that we saw the truth from the media and Worsley's own campaign that he was no Conservative, but rather, a "centrist" or "moderate."

- Worlsey was recruited by more moderate Republicans...Worsley campaigned as a more moderate Republican

- Both Mr. Crandall and Mr. Worsley are seen as moderate conservatives

- Primary Puts Arizona Senate On A More Centrist Path

The Arizona Legislature appears to be continuing its shift away from the "tea party"

Senate that took office following the 2010 election

 

" America will never be destroyed from outside.

If we falter and lose our freedoms,

it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

Abraham Lincoln



Obama's $465 Workers Permit Amnesty And The Jobs Scam

In 2009, the Department of Homeland Security issued 1,130,818 new Green Cards to foreign nationals, allowing them to work legally in this country. That number represents the fourth highest number of cards issued in one year.

The top four recipient nations:

-Mexico…164,920

-China… 64,238

-Philippines…60,029

-India…57,304


In Feb. 2009, the financial institution Merrill Lynch announced that the nation’s actual unemployment rate had reached 13.9 percent. A year later, that number had risen to 17.3 percent.

Now in 2012, we can only imagine how many more work permits will be handed out now that Obama has allowed those who entered our country illegally to have the opportunity to obtain one for the low cost of $465.00.


Obama's new arbitrary rule affects illegals under the age of 30.  Which begs the question:  What effect will this have on our unemployment rate especially for teens and those just graduating from college?  Because according to the AP,

Internal documents...estimate that

more than 1 million applicants are

expected in the policy’s first year.

Then we found this interesting piece of information.

On May 17, 2007, the Cohen & Grisgsby Law Firm held their 7th Annual Immigration Law Update Conference.  The video essentially teaches employers how to steal jobs away from Americans.

The first step is to satisfy the Department of Labor's PERM (Permanent Labor Certification) process by advertising often fake ad postings in newspapers or online to "demonstrate that no qualified Americans are available" in order to help secure green cards for H-1b workers.

In reference to WHERE to advertise, the speaker admits,

Because our goal here, of course, is to meet the requirements, number one.  But also do so as inexpensively as possible, keeping in mind our goal.  Our goal is clearly NOT to find a qualified and interested U.S. worker...

He continues,

We are complying with the law fully.  But, our objective is to get this person a green card and to get through the labor certification process.  So, certainly we are not going to try to find a place where the applicants are going to be the most numerous.  We're going to try and find a place again, where we're complying with the law.  And hoping, and likely not to find qualified and interested worker applicants.

Now what to do with those pesky resumes they DO receive?

  

Unfortunately, those employers are required to go through the resumes of U.S. applicants.

What exactly is the employers obligation?


1.  Review all of the resumes they receive.

2.  HR uses a chart that they show to the DOL with a list of the minimum requirements.  Applicants that do not meet all of the requirements are summarily disqualified.

3.  Focus on the ones who might be more qualified.

4.  Ask hiring manager to go over qualifications with the applicant and schedule an interview.

5.  Find a legal basis to disqualify applicant.

In most cases, that doesn't

seem to be a problem.

Not a problem?  Just ask the 8.3% who are unemployed if they have a problem with this scam.

Or is this just another way that Progressives "spread the wealth around"?

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.

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. 

Pizza, Por Favor?

Pizza Patron

Dallas Pizza Chain Giving Free Pizza For Ordering In Spanish

A local pizza chain that made waves in 2007 for accepting Mexican Pesos for payment has come up with a new way to generate some buzz for itself, offering free pizza to anyone who orders in Spanish.  Dallas-based Pizza Patron will be offering free pizza on June 5 from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to anyone who places their order in Spanish.

The promotion was announced in a company press release as a way to honor the “positive force of change immigrants have made in communities throughout America.”

Ah, yes.  Jason LeVecke, owner of the Pizza Patron and Carl's Jr. franchises.  Friend of Steve Chucri and other open borders groups.  Donor to Jeff Flake, his brother in law, Kevin Gibbons, and Kirk Adams.

We've discussed LeVecke before.

Jason LeVecke is the grandson of Carl Karcher, founder of Carl's Jr. restaurants. You may have recognized his name from the previously discussed Arizona Marcha website. Along with Jeff Flake, (who LeVecke donated $4600 to his 2008 campaign) LeVecke was also a speaker at the Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform forum on May 30, 2007. You can listen to his arguments for supporting amnesty (aka- "comprehensive immigration reform") here. He encouraged those in attendance to call or email their federal state representatives and tell them "you want comprehensive immigration reform but not with employer sanctions". He also encouraged them to become supporters of AZEIR.

The current spokesman for AZEIR is Todd Landfried. 

LeVecke is another "Republican" who has testified and fought against E-Verify in 2007/2008. As the owner of over 150 fast food restaurants, one might guess that not being able to hire illegals at low wages probably affects his bottom line.

Not only did he fight against the employer sanctions law enacted in 2008 but he also actively campaigned against Russell Pearce.

In more ways than one.

1. LeVecke was behind the PAC Wake up Arizona! which was organized alongside Mac Magruder (owner of McDonalds franchises in Arizona) to fight the newly enacted employer sanctions laws. LeVecke's group MJKL alone donated $9500 along with Wake Up Arizona's over $38k contribution to a PAC called Stop Illegal Hiring which was set up to help pass the proposed "Stop Illegal Hiring Act" or prop 202 back in 2008. Its name is intended to confuse. It was actually a law which would lessen the already enacted employer sanctions laws and required Arizona to wait until the Federal Government took action first against an employer before the state would be allowed to do anything. Prop 202 failed at the ballot box. Because Wake up Arizona is a 501 (c)6, they are not required to file campaign finance reports.

Wake Up Arizona was also a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed against the State of Arizona (Napolitano, Goddard and Garriott) in an effort to stop the employer sanctions law. Other plaintiffs included:

Chicanos Por La Causa, Somos America, Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform (AZEIR), Chamber of Commerce of the US, Arizona Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association (Steve Chucri), Associated Minority Contractors of America, Arizona Roofing Contractors' Association, Arizona Landscape Contractors' Association and Arizona Contractors Association.


2. He also contributed to other PACs who would then fund Pearce's challenger, Kevin Gibbons (Jeff Flake's brother in law). Sound like a familiar strategy?

LeVecke donated to the Mesa Deserves Better PAC which exclusively donated for the purpose of "advocating defeat against Pearce".

Other political contributions which LeVecke made went to:
Kirk Adams
Rich Crandall
Kyrsten Sinema 
Phil Lopes (outspoken former progressive member of the state legislature)

In June 2009, LeVecke attended an ImmigrationWorks USA Conference in Washington DC to speak about immigration. In his speech he said,

They will tell you it is entirely appropriate for states and local government

to enforce national immigration laws. If it was intended that states enforce

national immigration laws then why is it states do not have the

right to issue visas, or allow more people in legally, or institute their own

guest worker programs? If we continue down this path of states and local governments passing immigration laws and getting involved in enforcement, we will have a patchwork of different laws across this country making it

impossible for multi state employers to manage.

That certainly sounds familiar. 

"President Obama says it would be chaotic for states to create their own immigration policies...."

Jerry Lewis:  "We cannot be the federal government's agents in doing the job that they have to do."

Chuck Schumer:  If the Supreme Court upholds the Arizona law, Schumer said, he will introduce legislation to bar Arizona and other states from enforcing immigration law without the direct consent and supervision of the federal government.

Jeff Flake:  "The federal government puts local officials, whether they are law enforcement, city council or the mayor's office, in a horrible position, having them choose between setting up a day labor center so you deal with local concerns about property values and whatever else, or trying to enforce federal immigration law when you don't have the training and resources, and in some cases, the authority to do so. It's really a difficult problem and I don't think it's going to be solved in a piecemeal fashion. That's why I advocated a comprehensive approach."

Lisa Navarrete, spokeswoman for the advocacy group National Council of La Raza, says "For people to get offended or upset at this seems a little bit silly. It doesn't preclude anybody. Anyone can say, 'por favor.'"

La Raza?  "The RACE".  Telling US not to be offended?

It's not the words 'por favor' that is offensive.  It's the deep-seeded intention behind it that is the problem. 

Voter ID Discriminates Against Who Again?

Some cities allow non-citizens to vote in local elections like school boards, mayors or city councils. 

This is a slippery slope. 

Those who are not citizens are using the argument "Non citizens hold down jobs, pay taxes, own businesses, volunteer in the community and serve in the military, and it's only fair they be allowed to vote."

Non citizens?  Notice the lack of clarity in the statement.  It is against the law for an illegal non citizen to hold down a job, own a business and even serve in the military.

As a side-note:  We have noticed that AZ Central recently has started referring to illegals as "Mexican Nationals" instead of their usual "undocumented immigrant".  "Mexican National" is probably the latest approved focus group term meant to distract from a person's implied status and blur the line between legal and illegal.  Look to see more of this term used going forward.

Fair?

Alexander Hamilton said,

...voting at elections is one of the most important rights...and in a republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law.

We have seen a wave of cries to push for easier access to the ballot box and to allow ALL of those who are in our country, including non-citizens, the opportunity to vote in our Country's elections. 

This is the same line of thinking as our often mentioned friend, Jason LeVecke, when he stated,

Immigrants are among the most conservative, family-value oriented freedom-loving folks in our society.  The great crime, in my opinion, is they can't vote because if they could, we'd have an even better country.

LEGAL, NATURALIZED citizens CAN vote in our elections.  However, Mr. LeVecke obviously is referring to those either in the country illegally or those here as residents but not citizens.


Washington said to Alexander Hamilton,

If a foreign power can tell America 'what we shall do, and what we shall not do', we have Independence yet to seek, and have contended hitherto for very little.

We have now seen attacks on those states who have dared to introduce laws that would require proof of who you are in order to vote so as to not disenfranchise the vote of others.  We can thank groups like ACORN for the need to bring integrity back to our sacred voting system.

Their logic?

Voter ID is discriminatory.

Here is an example of the logic explained:

...(Texas) found that 600,000-800,000 REGISTERED voters didn't have the required ID and those were disproportionately Hispanic. 

(There are approximately 1.7 million illegals in the state of Texas.  The US Department of Justice estimates that 175,000 and 304,000 registered Latino Texas voters lack driver's licenses or other state-issued IDs.)  

Moreover, getting that FREE ID would be very difficult.  There's a cost to getting the ID and the supporting documents such as a birth certificate.  It costs $22.00. 

 That's a poll tax. 

Ari Berman is a writer for THE NATION, a left-wing propaganda online magazine.  He also wrote a piece for Rolling Stone where he claimed,

Just as Dixiecrats once used poll taxes and literacy tests to bar black Southerners from voting, a new crop of GOP governors and state legislators has passed a series of seemingly disconnected measures that could prevent millions of students, minorities, immigrants, ex-convicts and the elderly from casting ballots.

Seems some ex-cons have been charged with committing voter fraud in 2008.

RICHMOND, Va. --

A Richmond grand jury indicted 10 convicted felons on charges of election fraud for allegedly lying on voter registration forms during the 2008 presidential election campaign.

1.  Photo ID is equated to a POLL TAX?

By that logic, why aren't these same people claiming that the money someone would pay to become a naturalized citizen would ALSO be classified as a poll tax?  After all, one of the privileges of being a naturalized citizen is the right to vote.  Which brings us to the point...doesn't someone receive a certificate of naturalization when they go through the legal citizenship process?  Isn't this one of the forms of acceptable GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID that these states are daring to require?  

2.  Why not complain about the cost of obtaining a copy of your birth certificate to the government entity that is charging for the service and ultimately, "disenfranchising" the people?  According to the US Government , your birth certificate may be required when applying for a job.  (Except, evidently, for the job of President of the United States.)  A birth certificate in many cases is required in order to obtain or renew a driver’s license.  In Arizona, one can receive a State issued ID for $12.00.  Do these same people feel inconvenienced when they have to show a government issued photo ID (or ANY kind of photo ID) in order to get on an airplane?  Or cash a check?  Or buy alcohol?  Or get in to a rated R movie?  Obama's own state of Illinois requires a GOVERNMENT ISSUED photo ID in order to buy drain cleaner.  But, showing an ID to vote is off limits?

4.  Is even FREE ID not acceptable?  Somehow, I would imagine that if we held the person's hand, personally drove them to the government office to get their FREE ID, that would not be acceptable enough.  Why?  Because they don't have anything to document that they are in the country legally?  That's really the meat of the matter.  It's not the dollar value.  It's not even the time that it takes to get to a government office to obtain the ID.  It's about taking advantage of and disregarding our country's laws. 

Texas is one of the four majority minority states in the Country.  Hispanics in particular are a growing political force and what this ID does is that it suppresses the turnout of those minority voters and it tries to make sure that white Republicans rule the state even though Texas is increasingly diverse and  increasingly minority.

WHITE REPUBLICANS RULE THE STATE?!?!?

What an insult to those NON WHITE Republicans in the state.

Who are the ones being racist again? 

Ari continues...

One rather humorous aspect of the new law that is disturbing is that in Texas, according to the voter ID law, you can vote with a handgun permit, but you can't vote with a student ID.

If you look at who owns guns in Texas, they are more likely to be Republican.  If you look at students in Texas, they are more likely to be Democrat or progressive in origin.  So this voter law is really about making sure Texas stays Republican for the next decade.

Student IDs aren't acceptable proof of citizenship thanks to the DREAM ACT activists for reminding us that they are not here legally but still want to reap the benefits of LEGAL citizens.  Just ask Daniel. Rodriguez.  He admitted at a Saul Alinsky IAF affiliate (Phoenix First Congregational United Church of Christ) that he is an illegal citizen and wants the benefits of in state tuition at ASU.  Rodriguez is also organizing a MoveOn.org sponsored Occupy training meeting on April 14th called Moving Together with the 99% and Immigration. 

So here's the logic:

If you are a Republican in Texas = gun toting nut job. 

If you are a Democrat in Texas = intellectually educated and smarter than gun toting nut jobs.

I would LOVE to see where he came up with his statistics.

Here are OUR statistics:

You can view the state-wide Texas election results for the 2010 General election here. The majority of races were won by Republicans (by 65-85%).

University of Austin:

Asian  17%

Hispanic  16%

White  58%

Austin, TX Ethnicity:

Asian   4.7%

Hispanic  30.5%

White   65.4%

Texas A&M

Asian  3.5%

Hispanic  11%

White  80%

College Station, TX Ethnicity:

Asian  7.3%

Hispanic  10%

White  80.5%

Texas A&M

In the 2008 semester, Texas A&M was the seventh largest American university with an enrollment of 48,039 students. Texas residents account for 86% of the student population, and 28.9% are either of international origin or members of ethnic minority groups.
Although Texas A&M is a secular institution, its student body has a reputation for being religious and CONSERVATIVE.

University of Houston:
Asian  20.5%
Hispanic  20.8%
White   36%

Houston, TX Ethnicity
Asian  5%
Hispanic  37%
White   49%

Non resident aliens for the state schools comprised of about 1.5 - 5% of the enrollment.  So, a large majority of students were in-state.

How does one come to the conclusion that voting age students in Texas are predominately Democrats and progressive?
Again, The majority of races in Texas were won by Republicans (by 65-85%).

An inconvenient truth:
Poll: More than half of Texas registered voters support Arizona-style immigration legislation

And another.

Paging Al Gore.....