John McCain Using IAF To Push Amnesty

From AZCentral.com

"He (McCain) also discussed immigration in separate sessions with the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a group of clergy and evangelical leaders from the Arizona Interfaith Network/Valley Interfaith Project and a group of Valley Hispanic civic leaders, his office said."

The Arizona Interfaith Network/Valley Interfaith Project is an affiliate of the Saul Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation.

McCain certainly isn't the first Arizona politician to work closely with the IAF.

Governor Brewer

Jeff Flake

Former State Senator Amanda Aguirre

Former State Senator Jerry Lewis

And, of course, the IAF has infiltrated our schools, "for the children."

President Obama's 2008 campaign team talks Alinsky IAF strategy.  They said, 

"Obama comes from a very particular organizing tradition.  And it was founded by this guy, Saul Alinsky, in the 1940s.  He founded an organization called the Industrial Areas Foundation that then spun off a number of different groups including a network called Gamaliel....

There's a couple of key principles in the way that the IAF organizes.  First is that you don't organize around an issue, you organize for POWER."

From the Alinsky's Rules for Radicals playbook:

5.  Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

8.  Keep the pressure on.  Never let up.

10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

11.  If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.

13.  Pick the target.  Freeze it.  Personalize it.  Polarize it.

Jeff Flake Wants More Foreign-born STEM Grads In The U.S.

 

Because, apparently, our unemployment rate is improving.

 

 

IMarch is also known as "March for immigration reform."

Who is a coalition partner of IMarch?

 

Obama's Organizing for Action.

We see Flake is fitting in nicely in Washington and living up to his namesake.

Hate To Say We Told You So

But, We Told You So.

The sequel to the 2003   2005    2007 attempt at Comprehensive Immigration Reform starring John McCain and now

SENATOR Jeff Flake.

 

You can brush up on our previous Jeff Flake posts about his amnesty stance here, here, here, and here.

Jeff Flake's remarks at an Immigration Law and Policy Conference at Georgetown University 2005
 

Flake discussed 3 key elements to ensure action on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:

1. President's active involvement
2. including businesses, labor and immigration advocates
3. Movement on the Senate side, particularly because the House is more polarized on this issue.

Immigration Reform. Here We Go....

Bipartisan group proposes Arizona immigration plan

Take a wild guess who is part of this "bipartisan" group and which Arizona delegation members approve.

We know that the Arizona Farm Bureau is one of the partners in the coalition.  We discovered the connection while researching Paul Brierley, candidate for the upcoming Maricopa County Republican Committee election on Lisa Gray's slate.  Brierley is a Director at the Farm Bureau.

 
Yes, Jeff Flake has signed on to the amnesty proposal.

Here is a link to Flake's comments at the Immigration Reform Now breakfast in 2007.  We weren't fooled over Flake's sudden change of heart on Comprehensive Immigration Reform last year.

 

 

Todd Landfried from the Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform posted recently on Facebook:

 

Todd Landfried shared a link via Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform.

December 6

When Kyl, Flake and Ed Pastor agree, you have something. If you haven't read it (like our legislative leaders apparently haven't), go to azeir.org and get a copy.

 

 

Landfried and his ilk are pimping their "SANE" plan to groups like Flake's former employer, the Cato Institute.  He posted the Cato article on Facebook and made the following comments:

 

 

Todd Landfried Did you see the AZ Republic article from today? Sen. Kyl, Senator-elect Flake and Rep. Pastor are supportive of the approach and the platform. This is pretty significant, don't you think?

 

Todd Landfried I didn't draft the plan, although I had a big hand in it. About 60 business, faith, legal, Latino, community and others helped draft it. We began in 2/12 and finished it 12/12.

 

Todd Landfried To my knowledge, all members of the delegation have been briefed. The ones I have spoken to have been very receptive and I'll point to the comments in Thursday's paper from Kyl, Flake and Pastor as the proof. Friday's AZ Republic editorial is also indicative of the response we're getting. Arizona is finally leading, in a good way.

 

 

The AZ Central article linked above states:

 



 

As Congress gears up to once again tackle the long-simmering issue of comprehensive immigration reform next year, a bipartisan Arizona group of prominent community leaders is hoping to lead the way with a four-point blueprint for fixing the nation’s broken borders and rehabilitating the state’s battered national image.

The coalition of elected officials, business leaders and civic activists wants to end Arizona’s reputation as a leader of enforcement-only measures such as the controversial Senate Bill 1070 by offering a broader solution that acknowledges the contributions of illegal immigrants and the role immigrants play in the economy.

The immigration-reform framework, unveiled Wednesday, already has been received favorably by several members of Arizona’s Capitol Hill delegation, including Republican U.S. Sen.-elect Jeff Flake, a six-term congressman poised to become a player in the coming debate, and the retiring GOP U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl....

 

 

Supporters of the plan say the state’s enforcement-only approach has created the impression outside the state that Arizona is hostile toward immigrants and Latinos and, as a result, has hurt the state’s economy by driving away tourists, conventions and business development.

“What we hope to do through leadership organizations, through individuals throughout the state and through our own elected leaders is to mitigate the damage that has been done to our state,” said Denise Resnik, co-founder of the Real Arizona Coalition, which is made up of 40 businesses groups, religious organizations, and minority- and immigrant-advocacy groups.

 

 

Flake applauded the work of the coalition, which he described as broader-based than groups that offered proposals in the past. He said he appreciated the inclusion of language calling for operational control of the U.S.-Mexico border.

“I looked at that a while ago, and it looks very good, frankly,” Flake told The Arizona Republic on Wednesday. “I think we have recognition everywhere that we need to have operational control at the border. Those that I’ve been talking to here in Washington, on all sides, recognize that needs to take place. That’s a change — that hasn’t been the case in years prior.”

He looked at it "a while ago?"  Why didn't Flake ever bring up his approval of the plan before...I don't know...the ELECTION?  


We've discussed THE REAL ARIZONA COALITION before. The coalition consists of groups like:

• Anti-Defamation League
• Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform  (Spokesman is Todd Landfried.  See photo of Flake speaking at one of their events above)
• Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• Arizona Latino Research Enterprise
• Board of Rabbis of Greater Phoenix
• Catholic Healthcare West
• Cesar Chavez Institute
• Chicanos Por La Causa
• eLatina Voices
• Exito, Inc.
• Friendly House 
• Greater Phoenix Convention & Visitors Bureau
• Greater Phoenix Economic Council
• Greater Phoenix Leadership
• Greater Phoenix Urban League
• Native American Connections
• One Arizona Interfaith Leaders  (Affiliate of Alinsky's IAF)
• Schaller Anderson, an AETNA Company (Medicaid Health Management)
• Southern Arizona Leadership Council
• St. Luke’s Health Initiatives
• Sundt Corp, Inc.
• Tucson Chamber of Commerce
• Tucson Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• Tucson Regional Economical Opportunities 
• Valle del Sol

Since May 2011 TRAC has sponsored Arizona Immigration Solutions Conferences held around the state along with the group Arizona Employers For Immigration Reform (Todd Landfried).  Topics of discussion include:

• The economic impacts of the Legal Arizona Workers Act, S.B. 1070 and other immigration policies on Arizona
• Find out about the Utah Compact
• Discover how other states have learned from Arizona's actions
• Discuss other solutions to the immigration problem
• Meet national leaders concerned about fixing the immigration problem

It is an attempt to "change the tone of the immigration debate."  According to the co-founder, James E Garcia,

“We can’t create an environment that (portrays) immigrants as the enemy or somehow a net drain on our economy.  We should understand them for what they overwhelmingly are: people, families and individuals who come to this country with the intent of helping build up this country. And if you look at the facts, that has ultimately been borne out...We certainly offer a moderate voice to the debate, but it is a voice that is motivated by the idea that immigrants should be treated with respect and they are a necessary part of our economy and society.”

 On December 7th, the LA Times reported:

 

"As soon as the confrontation over fiscal policy winds down, the  Obama administration will begin an all-out drive for comprehensive immigration reform, including seeking a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants, according to officials briefed on the plans....

 

Senior White House advisors plan to launch a social media blitz in January, and expect to tap the same organizations and unions that helped get a record number of Latino voters to reelect the president.
Cabinet secretaries are preparing to make the case for how changes in immigration laws could benefit businesses, education, healthcare and public safety...

 'The president can't guarantee us the outcome but he can guarantee us the fight,' said Eliseo Medina, secretary-treasurer of the Service Employees International Union...'We expect a strong fight.' "

 

 

Gird your loins. 

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.

Kirk Adams Wants To Keep Playing The Lying Game.

Here we go again. 


Matt Salmon's wife, Nancy, sent out a statement the other day refuting the false and deceptive claims from Kirk Adams and his surrogates.

Today, because Adams doesn't ever have an original thought of his own, Adams' wife sent out a rebuttal.

Once again, they are the same tired, desperate, over-used lies.  How many times does a CEO of the company they are claiming Salmon lobbied on behalf of, have to come out and say that Salmon did NOT lobby for them?

We won't even give them the satisfaction of yet another response to those false accusations.


We will, however, point out a few interesting statements made by Adams' wife, JaNae.

1.  Gilbert Watch's "tone and tenor....would make many blush if they read some of its mean spirited claims". 

And then she claims that blogs such as the politcomafioso is "objective and researched"?  Just take a look at who the politicomafioso endorses and it is pretty clear how "objective and researched" he is.

We think it is interesting to point out that someone else likes to use the words "tone and tenor" a lot.  His name is Jeff Flake.

Did JaNae think it was funny when her husband's campaign manager, Chad Heywood, said "DUDE, you have no clue how many older ladies just mailed Kirk Adams their panties ... mail box was full today," 


How about when an Adams/Flake/Worsley supporter (who incidentally, attempted to run for a Vice-Chair position in the Arizona Republican Party this last year) thought it was appropriate to write rude and juvenile comments on his ballot before posting it on Facebook? (In the same Facebook group where the campaign manager made the rude comment above).


What was that about "tone and tenor" again?


2.  "The site also claims SkyMall Founder Bob Worsley is owned by the left". 

What would you call it when radical leftist, Randy Parraz, spends $22,000 on Worsley's behalf which is more than what Worsley has raised for his campaign outside of his personal $50,000 loan?

So, yes, famed "I-ran-SkyMall-into-the-ground" founder Bob Worsley IS owned by the left.


3.  "former LDS leader Jerry Lewis is a liberal."

Certainly Ms. Adams isn't using the LDS church in a political campaign?  Implying that Lewis is a "former LDS leader" in a political statement is not only inappropriate but it is irresponsible.  Of course, we heard throughout the recall that it was Russell Pearce who used the LDS church (although we never once saw any evidence to prove that claim).  We do know that Jerry Lewis and his supporters DID.  We also know that Bob Worsley and his surrogates have been using the LDS church during the campaign as well.

Like here.

Here.

Here.

If/when we see Jerry Lewis

A-  campaign on behalf of a fellow "Republican" (and not a "lewsley" Republican)
B-  decides not to have liberal Democrats on his "endorsements" list
C-  stops showing up at the bottom of the Republican list for his voting record

MAYBE we'll change our mind about the "former LDS leader" being a liberal.













4.  "Jeff Flake is a fake conservative."

-Jeff Flake may be fiscally conservative, but then again, so was Bill Clinton and 52 Democrats in the House.
-Jeff Flake conveniently missed the vote on "Cap and Trade" and then responded by offering his own "Cap and Trade" bill. 
-Jeff Flake's Libertarian view of open borders results in his working with Democrats and Leftist think-tanks on Comprehensive Immigration legislation. 
-Jeff Flake first ran on the platform that he would term limit himself to three terms yet is still running 12 years later.  


That would mean that he is a fake Conservative. 


We can keep playing this game if you would like Mr. Adams.  In the meantime, the voters STILL don't know anything about you other than the fact that you are endorsed by the establishment, take credit for things you didn't do and like to play lame Jr. High games.

Not exactly the qualities of what we need in Washington.

One-Note Worsley's Latest Mark Up

Mr. Worsley seems to put a 100% mark up on just about

every st8ment he makes these days.  Anything for a vote.

Take this one for example.  On his Facebook page he st8ed: 

We conservatives believe that less government or smaller government is one of the basic planks of our Republic. My favorite State Senator Stan Turley has been gracious to spend several hours with me tutoring me on State Government. 

Tutoring?  Well, what should we expect from someone who has never even so much as signed up to be a Precinct Committeeman until this year?  And he's getting tutoring help from Stan Turley?  We suspect that many on Worsley's campaign weren't even BORN during Turley's 22 year legislative career.

Were they also aware that Mr. Turley admits he started out as a Democrat before running as a Republican? 

Pg 14:

As a matter of fact, I was a Democrat I guess to start
but I kind of turned Republican.

Yeah I changed. It wasn’t any big deal to change.  Republicans just didn’t run much. You had Democrats running against each other for office but you didn’t have Republicans run so really your election would be in the primary to decide who the Democrat was going to be that ran. So then I changed and I don’t remember exactly when or why. I just changed.

Worsley continues:

Stan told me that he introduced just 15 Bills TOTAL in 22 years at the Capitol (CAP Water Allocation, No Smoking in Restaurants were 2 notable laws of the 15). My opponent has introduced 1,000 Bills in 11 years!! Each bill costs $1K just to introduce... cool $ Million wasted. Last session there were over 1,600 new bills proposed at the Capitol... A RECORD. Where did the smaller government idea get lost in the decade between Stan and my opponent? 

Mr. Turley st8ed about his time in the legislature:

pg 15:

...you had the sixty-three day sessions... you got paid $200 a week for nine weeks and you went home. You didn’t have to mess around with constituents like they do now. You’d have a few things and then you tried to do a few things to help people...but I've always looked at the legislature as an opportunity for public service, that is, should never become a job.  It just should not become a job, a lifetime job that somebody would try to get and just stay there.  Even though I stayed for twenty-two years..."Well gee, I got to...".  Oh I got involved but I didn't really sponsor a lot of stuff.  I'm just kind of a status quo...."

Where to start?

1.  Mr. Turley sponsored a bill that banned smoking in restaurants?  We thought the smoking ban in restaurants didn't happen until 2006 with the passage of Prop 201.  Unless elevators are the same as restaurants? 

According to Mr. Turley, one of the good things he did while in the legislature was the Groundwater Act of '82.  And then he said:  (pg 25)

Well, we did another.  We did outlaw smoking in elevators.  It took us four years...We were laughed off the floor.  It took us four years to outlaw smoking in elevators.  Mr. Pratt and I sponsored that bill....now you're outlawed in the whole town.

(We're not sure that smoking ban laws would be considered conservative or "small government" when you impose regulations on local businesses and tell them what they can and can't do.  Especially when Prop 201 was supported by groups such as NOW and the Sierra Club.  He sounds more like a Progressive.  You have to start out small by banning smoking in elevators knowing eventually it will be "outlawed in the whole town".)

2.  If Mr. Turley feels that public service shouldn't be a lifetime job, why would he endorse Jeff Flake and Kirk Adams?

3.  We also have to wonder why the Worsley and Adams campaign aren't pointing out the public pension that Mr. Turley has enjoyed since his 22 year career in the legislature.  Afterall, they love to criticize Russell Pearce for daring to draw from his MCSO pension. 

4.  We thought it was interesting to read that the reason Mr. Turley "didn't really sponsor a lot of stuff" wasn't because he was being fiscally responsible as the Worsley campaign would like us to believe.  No, in fact, Mr. Turley admits to being "status quo".

He also admits  (pg 42-43)

I think it's too bad when one party is in too long and the Republicans for example in Arizona now have had the House and the legislature for too long.  They had it now since....1967 and they have got it by quite a majority.  I think it would be better if it was either evener,  or in the Senate they have gone back and forth a few times.

When you have a real right wing and a real left wing if you're going to get a solution.... are not going to be in either perimeter.  They are going to be shaken kind of toward the center someway.  If you're going to have a solution, a partial solution, it's usually not going to be an extreme position.  And I see where you have a Republican Senator from Oklahoma just got elected to go to the United States Senate.  And here's a guy that has some very extreme positions. 

 I don't know how he even got elected.

He was referring to Senator Tom Coburn.  Those darn fiscal and social conservatives.

(With views like these, it isn't hard to see why he would endorse Jeff Flake, Kirk Adams and Bob Worsley)

Let's go back to Mr. Worsley's claim:

My opponent has introduced 1,000 Bills in 11 years!! 

Last session there were over 1,600 new bills

proposed at the Capitol...

 A RECORD.

First of all, Senator Pearce wasn't there in the last session.  Therefore, the "1600 new bills" proposed have absolutely NOTHING to do with Mr. Pearce.  (Perhaps more tutoring on what constitutes a "session" might be in order?  Also, by our count, there were actually 1450 bills introduced not counting resolutions.  900 in the House and 550 in the Senate.) 

Now let's take a look at the ACTUAL number of bills that Russell Pearce introduced as a Prime Sponsor (P*) during his 11 years in the legislature.  (As we have learned from our research trying to find the infamous Adams budget and pension bills, the person listed as the Prime Prime Sponsor indicated by P* is the one responsible for introducing the bill.  Again, maybe more tutoring on the bill making process might be in order?)

Total number of bills Pearce introduced:  339

Of those bills, 69 were "technical corrections"

Another 26 were in reference to budget bills 

(see, when you actually AUTHOR a budget, your name appears as a Prime Sponsor)

In the first session of 2011, there were a total of 1400 bills introduced in both the House and the Senate, not including the various resolutions. Russell Pearce was the Prime Sponsor (P*) on 14 of them and nine of those were "technical corrections". On the list of bills where Pearce is listed as a Prime Sponsor (P), 14 are HOUSE bills.  Another 13 of the (P) bills listed are budget reconciliation bills.  Because, remember, contrary to what Mr. Adams claims, the budget bills in 2011 came from the SENATE.  Does Mr. Worsley have a problem with the six death resolution bills Mr. Pearce was a (P) sponsor for the victims of the tragic shooting in Tucson involving Gabby Giffords?  


The reality is that Mr. Pearce was one of the legislators who introduced the LEAST number of bills in the first session of 2011.

Throughout his 11 years in the legislature, Senator Pearce introduced multiple pieces of legislation concerning concealed carry, strengthening school choice, military family relief, taxpayer bill of rights, multiple abortion bills (partial birth abortion bans and parental consent), protecting the secret ballot and protecting marriage.  Just to name a few.

 

The only sour note we hear is coming from the Worsley campaign when they attempt to saddle Mr. Pearce with only introducing illegal immigration bills.

As one can see from the other bills listed above, Mr. Pearce was far from a "one note" legislator but rather, he was "instrumental" in showing true leadership and strength when it came to the best interests of the state.