Politics In AZ

Abortion: No Middle Ground!

2012-01-23T10:13:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, Roe v Wade turned 39.
Many liberals applauded it, while many conservatives assailed it. Many more people stood by, creating their own "middle ground," unwilling to stand "for" or "against" the murder of the unborn. This country is divided on the issue of "who should be given a clear, unhindered chance to live" - something incomprehensible to someone who has already been given that chance to pursue life to its fullest.

I had the chance yesterday to go out to dinner with a family - one of the family members being a three-month year old girl. She wore a pink outfit with a pink head bow - making her irresistibly cute to her beholders. She's just coming into the stage where she's continually making noises - a desperate attempt to "talk" like everyone else around her. Her smiles lit up the table - a life's allotment of rays of sunshine for all her adoring observers. She intently stared at the food around her. Her parents beamed with pride at their infant daughter. Her grandparents could not take their eyes off of her the whole night. Her great grandparents cherished every moment spent with her at that dinner.

This little girl - an infant who brought me so much joy last night - would have been considered an expendable loss just eight to ten months ago to doctors, activists, and parents alike. This little girl - who clearly has a future ahead of her - would have been killed in the womb in an instant if her parents had given the word. This little girl - quite possibly the future joy of a young man in God's future plan for her - would have been cruelly refused a chance to utter any of her squeaks or cries for attention.

I would contend that most people, themselves, are against abortion. Most people would never consider that heinous option for their family. There's something which holds them back from aborting the human beings inside of the mothers - an insatiable desire to see their sons and daughters grow from infancy to adulthood, perhaps?

Where many of these people differ from those of us who are stalwart defenders of human life is in the area of "allowing" others to dictate their own paths through this "sensitive" issue. You see: while many people are unwilling to murder their own unborn children, they are unwilling to make the connection that other unborn children are being murdered. This ambiguous rationale offered by these "both-ways" cowards leads to millions more children slaughtered in their final resting places.

These people want the abortion issue settled both ways. They know that abortion is wrong for their lives, yet they are very afraid to stand up against a party of activists, telling those killers that what they are participating in and endorsing needs to immediately stop. In the end, these people are forced to admit that they have no firm basis for "truth"; that their "truths" aren't necessarily another person's "truth"; that all "truth" is relative.

But when these people are faced with the inconvenient notions of humanism, they discover that this doctrine can have disastrous consequences. Let me explain:

Me: I want to create a law which states that all senior-age men in wheelchairs should be killed.

"Both-ways" Person: That's ridiculous! Judges and the people in this country would never support such a notion.

Me: But you've told me that even though you believe abortion is murder, another person is perfectly within his/her right to an abortion. Couldn't everyone make up their own rules based upon your definition of what is right and wrong?

"Both-ways" Person: I guess that "could" happen. It would never happen, though - people would never allow those other "horrible" things to occur.

Me: Wouldn't there be chaos if everyone applied their own decisions of what was morally right or wrong?

"Both-ways" Person: Sure thing! That's why those things would never happen.

Me: I'll bet there was a person like you who, five or ten years before Roe v Wade, decried the possibility of the "allowance" of unborn children being slaughtered by the millions.

Folks, if we don't take a stand in what we know to be the moral standard, then there is a chance that someone else's moral standard becomes the law of the land. A leader does not leave the definition of morality to blind chance. A leader defends what he knows to be true and right here and NOW.

There is only one consistent standard of morality: that is God's standard. Left to our own worldly wisdom, every single one of us would make up our own rules about what the "art" of morality should be depicted as. Don't believe me? Ask some older people who swore that abortion would never be legalized in this country.

God's standard is simple: "do not murder." He also states that every human being is made in His image. He does not give a second thought to "a woman's choice" - to God, an innocent life, is an innocent life. He alone has the ordained power to take innocent life. People arguing this issue on the side of the abortionists are really arguing against their Creator.

When it comes to abortion, we cannot pretend to sit on the fence. Those who claim to be personally against the practice - yet refuse to pass judgments on those who support abortion - are just as guilty for the murder of the innocent as they would be if they actually agreed to an abortion. Either one is for abortion or against it - in its entirety.

When it comes to abortion, there is absolutely no middle ground.

The Hypocrisy of "Mitt Romney's" Religion

2011-11-10T12:52:00.001-08:00

During last night's CSNBC GOP debate, Governor Mitt Romney brought up his church as apart of his argument defending the history of his conflicting stances on a variety of issues. He attempted to pacify fears from people that he would continue his serial flip flops by highlighting his lifetime in the LDS church and his 42 years of marriage to one woman.

No one has any doubt that Governor Romney is a man of faith and a strong family man. What Romney doubters believe is that the former Massachusetts governor will say anything and possibly do anything to become and remain elected.

No one will deny the fact that Romney has been all over the map....on just about every issue imaginable. What dieheart Romney supporters argue is that he will never again take the liberal position again on any issue; that Romney has "seen the light"; that Romney is a Reagan-like convert from liberalism to conservatism.

I most certainly hope that these Romney supporters are right about their candidate of choice - especially if Mitt Romney is, in fact, the Republican nominee for President of the United States after the primaries. However, it is nothing more than a "hope" with Romney. Everyone hopes that he'll be this dream conservative leader....even though he has no track record of being a unashamed conservative elected official.

Yet by showing this skepticism about Romney's ability to lead in a consistent manner, I have been called a "bigot," and an "extremist." I have been told that I am not ready for a Mormon to lead this country. Much of my opposition to Romney is immediately tied to his faith. It's not just me who has been attacked for my Romney revolution; many other people around the country have also experienced the same character assassinations when they point out Romney's flaws.

Romney and his supporters have been extremely sensitive about the "religion" issue, dating back to the last election cycle. They've been so sensitive about the issue that some weeks ago, when a Protestant pastor called Mormonism a cult, Romney indirectly blamed Texas Governor Rick Perry for the pastor's statement, calling on the Governor to repudiate what the pastor had stated. Perry didn't utter the words; there's no proof that Perry wrote the transcript for this pastor's introduction, and yet Romney and company were demanding that Perry take the fall for what had been said.

To me, this hyper-sensitivity by the Romney camp was outrageous. It became hypocritical to me when something else came to mind....

Remember Rick Perry's prayer meeting he had in Texas before his official Presidential candidacy was announced? Remember that he was attacked unmercifully by radical leftists for his efforts? Did Mitt Romney come to Rick Perry's aid at this time? NO, he did not. Mitt Romney was nowhere to be found when a Protestant's faith was being verbally abused, yet he so righteously requested that his faith be respected when another man of faith - not a politician, mind you - gave his perspective on the matter. Extremely hypocritical, no?

What about the LDS platform for abortion? I did some research on lds.org and came up with this: Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

If Mitt Romney wants to pull the "I've-been-of-the-same-religion-all-my-life" card, then maybe he should be explaining how he was the highest ranking LDS leader in Massachusetts around the time he uttered these words: "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country — I have since the time my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. candidate. I believe since Roe vs. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it."

How can you be loyal and submissive to a religion which condemns abortion, yet encourage and support abortion while still claiming membership in that religion? This blows my mind.

Romney stated that his commitment to his marriage and his religion proved his commitment to following through with his word on other issues. It's been established that he wasn't exactly a model of leadership for his religion - does his statement about his marriage prove his point instead?

No, I'm afraid not. Nancy Pelosi and her husband have been married almost fifty years. Harry Reid and his wife have been married over forty years. Can we trust them with the keys to the country? According to Mitt Romney's logic, you probably could. According to common sense and an extensive amount of experience, Americans know that these two could not be trusted at the helm of the United States of America.

Last but not least - Mitt Romney's judicial appointments in Massachusetts - almost half of which being Democrats; many more independents. Most Democrats don't seem to be pro-life these days - try believing that fourteen Romney-appointed Democrats are pro-life.

Yep. Neither did I.

Oh, and bear in mind that Romney appointed a liberal judge just six years ago.

Romney in 2008 was easier to stomach with no consistent conservative having a chance to win. Romney was the conservative back in 2008. Here, in 2011 leading up to the first primaries, Romney is surrounded by peers who have not flip flopped on these very, very, very important social issues. There are people in the GOP field who have not flipped on as many issues as Romney has flipped on - especially the issue of life. These people deserve a shot over Romney - a shot that they have rightly earned because they have remained consistent to their convictions and values.

Most individuals opposing Mitt Romney's candidacy have no issues with the LDS religion. Some of the political individuals I have come to respect most throughout my involvement in Arizona politics are LDS. What many people have an issue with is Mitt Romney himself - "the" Mormon - not "Mormonism."

I found this quote from the New York Times quite telling: "As a Senate candidate, Mr. Romney angered higher-ups in Salt Lake with his independent stance on abortion; he said that he was personally opposed, but favored laws allowing women to choose. But earlier as a church leader, he hewed much more closely to the official Mormon view."

That about sums up everything right there. Romney has been two different people for quite some time - even when dealing with his own religion that he vehemently defends to this day.

The record needs to be set straight once and for all. Romney and his supporters must understand that - for the most part - they are being opposed on Romney's hypocritical convictions and nothing more. Once and for all, Romney cannot be allowed to use religion - the religion that he has even shown some hypocrisy towards - to further his case for the Presidency. We cannot hope for a complete transformation of Mitt Romney. We must nominate someone who is more of a consistent conservative.

In Defense of Herman Cain

2011-11-08T23:15:00.000-08:00

Yes, I'm a Rick Perry supporter. Yes, I am a Herman Cain fan. And yes, I'm starting to hate what's happening to Mr. Cain.

No, I don't know exactly what happened during his years at the National Restaurant Association. He might have sexually harassed some woman (or women) absentmindedly or purposefully. No one will really know for sure what happened (we would think right now) - if anything happened at all.

But there are a lot of things that just do not make sense to this drama-filled narrative by the media and Cain's accusers. The story actually made some sense last week; now, it loses credibility by the hour.

The fact that this Herman Cain story is losing a sense of common sense is the exact opposite of the normal political scandal, isn't it? A story doesn't really make sense, more investigating is done into why the story doesn't make sense, and then suddenly the story makes sense - usually implicating a politician's serious involvement in some immoral or illegal ordeal. Add the word "sexual" to the left of "political scandal, and the story is ripped apart by the media and curious onlookers, each party so desperate to uncover an untold aspect of the story to gain a coveted upper edge in the industry.

However, this story made more sense at the beginning than it did now - probably because of the Cain campaign's bungling of the media relations angle. It made sense that Cain might have been involved in whatever was being alleged. Then more thought was put into the story. More thought was put into the story. Still more thought was put into the story, and suddenly the lack of facts and hard evidence made the allegations look extremely flimsy.

Let's look at some of the most recent sexual scandals in politics and see if the Cain "scandal" can be compared to any of them:

Governor Mark Sanford: He disappeared for awhile; this didn't make sense and after some tough investigative questions, it was finally discovered that there really was an extramarital affair going on behind the scenes.

Congressman Anthony Weiner: A picture on Twitter set off some initial questions. The answers just didn't make sense and after a thorough investigation, Weiner's immoral personal life was dragged out in the open.

Congressman David Wu: This story was just weird all the way around, but yet again, it took some tough investigation before the truth was discovered about Wu's improprieties.

The only similarity between these three scandals and the Cain scandal is that of "thorough investigation." In all three cases, evidence continued to build up after the initial cover-up. The evidence kept growing and growing against these men until it became impossible for them to remain in the public limelight any longer. There is no "smoking gun" with Cain's story. There is no mounting evidence. There are only women hiding behind their attorneys, seeking "justice."

And what about these women - all from the National Restaurant Association? Four women from the NRA....sounds like Cain was quite the serial harasser. If all of these claims have merit, then why aren't there claims from the other organizations or businesses Cain was apart of? After all, Herman Cain was in more places than just the NRA. If he had a pattern of sexually harassing women, wouldn't that trail be found outside of the NRA? Wouldn't that be only logical to expect?

What about the Obama ties to a couple of the women? One lived in the same complex as David Axelrod; one is a spokeswoman for the Inspector General at the IRS. Hmmmmm.

I've always thought that this story would do Cain little harm in his race for the Republican nomination. It actually helped with his fundraising. The American public is smart enough to realize that you need more than allegations to throw a Presidential candidate off of the trail, and the public realizes that Cain just might be the answer to the country's issues. While I hope Cain serves in the cabinet of a Perry administration, I'm certainly glad that his campaign doesn't seem to be thrown off too far from all these baseless allegations.

Mitt Romney's Candidacy: Conservatism's Last Stand

2011-11-05T09:15:00.000-07:00

In the interest of full disclosure, I was once a Mitt Romney supporter. In fact, the first vote I ever cast for an American candidate in our political system was for Mitt Romney back in the 2008 Arizona Presidential Preference election. Mike Huckabee was a definite "NO" due to his wildly liberal fiscal ways as the Governor of Arkansas. John McCain....well, while I have tremendous respect for his service to this country - and while I don't have as much of a problem with Senator McCain representing Arizona in the United States Congress - his inconsistent record in many issues (and I being front and center to that record for many years) led me to look elsewhere for that "perfect" candidate.

I didn't find that "perfect" candidate, yet I found a candidate who, in my opinion, had a great love for his country and wanted to see her succeed in the international community. That candidate for me was Mitt Romney back in 2008.

Sure, I knew about his inconsistencies on abortion, marriage, universal health care. I liked his vision, though. I liked Romney's belief in America's greatness.

And in a field with a void of other frontrunners with consistent conservative records and clear, unapologetic, enthusiastic support for the United States position as a world superpower, I decided to cast my ballot for the former Governor of Massachusetts. Looking back on that vote, it was a vote I would cast again; as many times as the 2008 election rolled around, I would vote for Mitt Romney. To me, he stood out because of his vision, and because his record appeared to be more conservative than the rest of the frontrunners in that race.

Enter the 2012 cycle - a plethora of candidates have been vying for the GOP nomination for months now. In the case of Mitt Romney, he's been shaping his political empire since being dealt the crushing blow in the primaries back in 2008 by Senator John McCain. In the cases of Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul, they have been making arguments for their candidacies for years. Rick Perry, Herman Cain, and Michele Bachmann have been surprise candidacies - pop-up campaigns to fill voids of all sorts in the Republican field. Rick Santorum and Jon Huntsman are on the very outside of the field, looking in at the various amounts of success and popularity each above-named candidate has received

The 2012 field is an extremely impressive grouping of candidates vying for the GOP nod to counter President Obama in the November 2012 elections - much more impressive than the slew of names Republicans trotted out in 2008. Each candidate seems to bring something of value to the drawing board (although it's a stretch to dig up some positive attributes about some of the candidates - just sayin'). No candidate is a perfect specimen of a conservative (is anyone, really?), but each one's involvement in the field gives the electorate more to think about as the states' election days come upon them.

The Republican field is SO impressive that Mitt Romney is not the epitome of conservatism anymore. The field is SO deep that suddenly Romney's convictions and vision for the USA appear to be concocted just before his first run for President. There's a LOT more to admire about other candidates, making Romney look more and more like a liberal.

I've heard two arguments that Romney supporters attempt to use when justifying their potential vote for him: He's the only candidate who can beat Obama because he will gain the support of most of the independents, and he is only viewed as a moderate because he had to compromise in liberal Massachusetts (meaning: HE REALLY WANTED TO BE A CONSERVATIVE, BUT HE WASN'T ALLOWED TO BE). Allow me to dispel these arguments....

First, I don't believe that there will be an overwhelming number of independents voting for Obama - just because they don't favor the Republican nominee. I've heard an awful lot of 2008 independent voters rue their votes for Obama. I've heard a lot of Democrats rue their votes for him. Are these people going to change their minds ("Nevermind, Obama hasn't been that bad....let's vote for him again!") once the election rolls around in November 2012?

My guess is no - independent voters will not change their minds about their negative impression of the 44th President once it's their turn to vote. They may not vote at all (if they are really dissatisfied with the GOP nominee), but I can't see the same number of independents voting for Obama in 2012 as they did in 2008.

Consider a Rasmussen Poll, conducted for months. The poll shows that an unnamed Republican (a "generic Presidential candidate") leads Obama - beyond the margin of error, too. In fact, this "generic Republican" has been beyond the margin of error for months, consistently leading Obama since late May.

What should this tell us then? Right now independents have the luxury of trying to manipulate the Republican field to ensure that a moderate of their liking is chosen for the General Election - that's why these voters are called "independents; they are neither hardcore Republican or hardcore Democrat. Independents now may say that they won't vote for a Cain, a Perry, a Palin (if she was running) because they can. It is of greater consequence to vote for Obama than it is to try to discourage voters from voting for a conservative. Does anyone really honestly think that the same independents, who were vowing to vote against Obama before, will vote for him in the ballot booth? Think that way at the peril of logical sense.

Independents are not going to be driven back to Obama en masse just because some conservative arises from the ashes of the GOP field. They may not vote at all, but I can't see them voting for our current President. Many "so-called" conservatives I know are falling for this ploy, thinking that independents will always be against a conservative choice for President. I believe that independents are mainly attempting to manipulate the GOP nominee, and they're doing a pretty good job at it, too.

Second, the argument of "Romney was forced to be moderate because he was in Massachusetts" should hold entirely NO legitimacy. In fact, that argument alone admits that Romney has no core; that for Romney, holding political office is more important for fighting for what he believes to be true. If now on the campaign trail, running for President of the United States, Romney strongly and unequivocally believes that abortion is wrong, that the sanctity of traditional marriage is something to uphold, that gun rights should be protected, that the government should stay out of matters such as health care and the environment - then why didn't his record in Massachusetts espouse the same?

If someone believes that something is right or that something is wrong, then that "something" is right or wrong regardless of what state or what campaign that person is a member of. If someone believes that God is God, then God is God in Nebraska as well as in Florida - if the person truly believes that God is God. Same thing goes for abortion, marriage, health care, and all the other tough issues Americans wrestle through on a daily basis.

No one can disprove that Romney's record in Massachusetts was - at best - a moderate record (on many issues). What Republicans try to smooth over is the reasoning behind Romney's liberal votes. They give Governor Romney too much credit when they do this. Governor Romney held liberal positions in Massachusetts simply because he (1) believed in those liberal positions or (2) he wanted office at any cost - even at the sacrifice of his core values.

America just had one of those men pass her way not four years ago. Remember him? His name is Barack Obama. Remember that his words didn't match his voting record? Remember so many people looked past his inconsistencies to justify their support of him? Remember the Republicans screaming at their television sets, trying to wake up these voters who weren't thinking through things correctly?

Now Democrats are the ones, looking at Republicans and wondering why these people would support a person who has waffled so much in his political career. Republicans in 2008 were unprepared and unwilling to treat the Barack Obama-fraud the way in which it should have been dealt with. Democrats, though, do not play by the same gentleman-like rules Republicans inexplicably use. Democrats are prepared; they are willing, and boy, do Democrats have the funds available to possibly expose the U.S.S. Romney for the wooden ship it really is underneath all of its shiny paint.

Conservatives have been given a golden chance. The public is seemingly ready to vote for this "generic" Republican - whenever he emerges from the field in the spring. Let's make sure that this Republican is the right conservative - the conservative who stands on his convictions and does not waver. Let's make sure that our party is not manipulated by voters who do not want to be associated with it. Let's make sure that our party is not defined by a moderate nominee it could put forward.

Conservatives, this could be our last stand in this nation. Let's not waste it.

Obama: Obstructionist In Chief

2011-04-07T12:43:00.000-07:00

The Republicans in the House are at it again.... hard at work, dedicated to come up with a budget solution that their constituents approve of, they have crafted a one-week, short term CR. This short term CR is no sign of weakness by John Boehner's Republicans. It cuts twelve billion dollars....for one week. The primary reasoning for the creation of this CR is to fund the U.S. troops through the end of the fiscal year.

Yet the United States Commander in Chief has boldly drawn the line in the sand when it comes to troop funding. Simply put, he won't have anything to do with troops being funded apart from the budget battle next week. He'd rather the troops serve overseas, knowing that they won't have a paycheck to send home to their families and loved ones. He doesn't mind that his troops clearly understand that their Commander in Chief is obstructing their funding process. He will veto this troop funding, short term CR if it makes it through both the House and the Senate to his desk.

I love what Speaker Boehner has done here. He has crafted a measure to shine a huge spotlight on Democrats leading up to the climax of the debate. Do Democrats want significant spending cuts? If they vote "no" to this short term CR, then they have proven that $12 Billion is too steep for them. Do Democrats want the troops to receive their pay? If they vote no on this CR, then they are against funding the troops.

A "no-vote" on the one week CR is nothing but a slap in the face to the American people and the American troops. How could anyone defend a negative vote on this? How could anyone defend a "no vote" and then announce that it's the "other side's fault" for the government shutdown?

It is the Democrats complete lack of action (last year) which has led us to this point in history. If there is a government shutdown, it will not be the fault of the Republicans; the fault will lie solely on the shoulders of the Democrats in the House and Senate and on President Obama.

President Obama may say that he is interested in serious spending cuts, but he's really not. He's not really interested in promoting a bipartisan Washington DC - he proved that last year by ramming ObamaCare through the Congress (not to mention everything else in the LameDuck session of 2010). He wants his way, and when he can't get his way, then - and only then - will he make a pseudo-effort to reach out the Republicans.

President Obama, a leader doesn't reach out to his opposition only when he is forced to. A leader always has a pulse on his opposition, ensuring that they know that they always will have a seat at the table for policy discussions - even though their side of the debate may not be enacted. A leader makes sure that members of his opposition understands that he respects them at all times, and that he values their contributions to the debate.

President Obama has done none of this. Instead, he has pompously called Congressional leaders to the White House in a whimsical attempt to show unity amongst Republicans and Democrats. He has opposed funding for the troops. He has stated his disapproval for a bill with significant one-week spending cuts. He does no more than play the game - the game of DC and Democrat politics. He is very truly the Obstructionist in Chief.

We're Headed for a Shutdown

2011-04-06T16:54:00.000-07:00

After the Democrats had all summer 2010 to prepare for a FY 2011 budget; after they had control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House.... they couldn't pass an entire budget. They showed no interest in real, significant, worthy spending cuts. They had zero intentions of starting over on health care (as the people wanted them to do). They simply wanted to get through the elections, minimizing their damages, hoping that the American people would look away from the terror that they would have otherwise placed on the budget process.

Imagine a budget where EVERYTHING and MORE is funded in the Federal government. Everything and everyone are deemed essential and necessary. Imagine no spending cuts - it's really not that hard to do when it comes to Democrats. Imagine funding ObamaCare. Imagine further allotted funds to the Environmental Protection Agency. Imagine anonymous earmarks. This, my friends, is just a small part of what the Democrats would have enacted if they had any courage in their bones to face the American people on principle.

Alas. Democrats saved the budget for another day, waiting until after the elections to do their dirty work. For FY 2011, the Federal government has had six short term continuing resolutions passed through Congress - only two passed by a Republican-controlled House of Representatives. Which of those resolutions have included significant spending cuts? You were right if you guessed the two resolutions passed by the Republican-led House.

Republicans jumped into their new role at the beginning of this year and passed a FY 2011 budget proposal out of the House of Representatives - H.R. 1, which included sixty-one billion dollars in spending cuts (including drastic cuts to ObamaCare funding). To date, the U.S. Senate still has not passed a budget - nor would they agree to H.R. 1. They are stuck in neutral - no Democrat is able to show capable and reasonable leadership in this process. Two subsequent stopgap spending measures have been passed - the first, for four billion in cuts; the second, for six billion in cuts.

There is talk about another short term continuing resolution - this one a one-week, twelve billion dollars in cuts measure. This CR would do more than fund the government for another week - it would fund the military through the end of the year. Politicians cannot play politics with the military - the men and women who give these elected officials to play "games" on Capitol Hill - and something must be done to pay the salaries of the members of our armed forces. Democrats in the Senate, however, are threatening to block the passage of this CR.

President Obama has attempted to shame Republicans into compromising with the Democrats, yet he refuses to mention that his ruling party failed to pass a budget last year when it had the open opportunity to do so. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has accused the Republicans of "procrastinating" and of "campaigning", yet no budget proposal has yet been passed out of his chamber. Democrats are the ones procrastinating and campaigning, and they are lying to the American people when they attempt to say otherwise.

I do believe that the government will "shutdown", and that the shutdown has a real potential to occur this weekend. If this happens, the American people will see the Democrats for the obstructionists they really are, and Democrat elected officials will once again pay a heavy price for this when November 2012 rolls around.

Flip-flopping to Election Day

2011-03-29T23:59:00.000-07:00

Come on, Congressman Flake.... Don't tell us that you expected Arizona voters to forget your immigration record. Remember that immigration record you maintained in Congress?

The votes against sending troops to the border?

The STRIVE Act? Remember that one, Mr. Flake? The bill you offered up with the most liberal Democrat on illegal immigration, Luis Gutierrez? (Congressman Gutierrez is from Illinois, by the way. What have we learned the past couple years about letting Democrats from Illinois have their way with the national debate?)

If "comprehensive immigration reform" was such a solid idea years ago, why isn't it good enough for this day and age, Congressman Flake? If it was so noble to take a stand a few years ago on that side of immigration, why change the principles now?

May I?

Comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) is just a mask for amnesty - that's all those words mean. Few people - especially Republicans - want you to know that they're for amnesty, so they'll dress it up in an attempt to disguise it. The "CIR" crowd will throw "border security" jargon in with their speeches, but they know that this is unattainable. They are only after the amnesty.

Enter United States Representative Jeff Flake. He has consistently supported CIR - until last week when he denounced this position. He didn't apologize for his previous record. He didn't talk about his ongoing efforts to legalize illegal aliens in the United States. He didn't mention his attempts to thwart true border security from taking place. He simply reversed course as if his earlier actions never had occurred.

Mr. Flake, if you believed that comprehensive immigration reform was the right avenue to walk on, then why change now - mere months after announcing a bid for a U.S. Senate seat? There is no credibility with that, and I do not believe that the Arizona voters will be fooled by this "change of heart" on the part of Jeff Flake.

Thankfully for conservatives who do not waffle on this issue - there are other conservatives in Arizona who do not waver on their convictions or principles when the political winds shift from cycle to cycle. These men and women are the individuals who believe in something before that belief is "cool" or even considered to be right by the majority of the electorate. I believe we might be days away from observing one of those individuals enter the Senate race, showing the voters that there is a clear alternative to Mr. Flake's flip-flopping antics.

Below are a couple instances where Congressman Flake supported amnesty back when it was seemingly alright to do so:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0311/Flake_draws_fire_immigration_flipflop.html?showall

http://www.politico.com/blogs/davidcatanese/0311/Jeff_Flakes_immigration_flip.html

Who's Running for U.S. Senate? (March 2011 Edition)

2011-03-15T12:35:00.000-07:00

3.15.2011 - U.S. Senator Mike Lee has endorsed Congressman Flake. Why are all of these individuals jumping the gun in endorsing the first candidate in the race?

3.1.2011 - It's a new month, and Congressman Flake has a new endorsement: United States Senator Pat Toomey from Pennsylvania. Senator Toomey came in to the Senate with some strong conservative credentials; this endorsement along with the Ryan endorsement really inflates Flake's conservative calling cards. There should be more people entering this race - at least one or two with more established conservative credentials than Congressman Flake. Will this endorsement cause one of these conservative individuals to come out of the shadows and announce his candidacy for the Senate? We'll have to wait and see.

Last month, Arizona withstood a political bombshell with the news from Senator Jon Kyl that he would be retiring at the end of his term in 2012. Congressman Jeff Flake became the first Republican or Democrat to officially jump in the race just a few days after Senator Kyl's announcement. Scroll through my coverage of the February news here.

To Fund or Not to Fund?

2011-03-15T12:28:00.000-07:00

Today's pressing question for the United States House of Representatives: will they or will they not fund the government for another three weeks?

The three-week continuing resolution the body is taking up today cuts a little more than six billion dollars from government spending - two million dollars in cuts per week of the resolution. Democrats seem very content to allow the Republican-led House to lead in this manner, showing no sign of courageously debating the original resolution, which cut more than sixty billion dollars from the government. The sixty billion dollars in cuts also included ObamaCare defunding and the extinguishing of federal dollars towards Planned Parenthood.

Many Republicans are stepping up and calling this bluff by both Republican and Democrat leadership - Trent Franks, Mike Pence, Jim Jordan, Michele Bachmann (just to name a few of the Representatives) will be voting against the three-week resolution. No matter what the result of this vote, the games have to stop. Democrats aren't raising a stink about these short term CR's because they know that their programs (namely ObamaCare) aren't touched. We need to tackle these issues head-on - that is what's best for the American people, and that's what most Americans are demanding from their Representatives in Congress.

Congress must show their seriousness about cutting the size of government and defunding ObamaCare. A government shutdown was avoided for two weeks (with the passage of the first continuing resolution), and that should be sufficient to show that Republicans were serious about working through major issues with Democrats. Now, though, it is clear that Democrats have no intentions of cutting spending like their Republican colleagues, and Republicans need to take the lead in this area.

Shut the government down. Let Democrats worry about the consequences of their inaction.

Who's Running for the U.S. Senate?

2011-02-23T15:38:00.000-08:00

This post will keep track of several rumors and announcements on who the potential candidates will be for Jon Kyl's U.S. Senate seat. To date, only Congressman Jeff Flake has announced his candidacy. Congressman Flake does have a campaign website up and running: http://www.jeffflake.com/.

2/23/2011: An all-new Yellow Sheet Report is reporting that a source around Congressman Trent Franks expects him to definitely run for Senator Kyl's seat in 2012. The source is unidentified, so take that information as you will. If true, though, Congressman Franks is the conservative we all should be rallying around! He would beat Congressman Flake any day in a primary once voters compare resumes and voting records.

2/22/2011: A new week, a new rumor about the Arizona Senate: count former Congressman Matt Salmon in as a possible GOP opponent to Jeff Flake. I think Salmon would have more statewide appeal than Flake; he would probably garner more of the LDS vote than Flake; and initial impressions are that Salmon's definitely more conservative than Flake. I would like to see the GOP field some conservative a little more "current," but if the choice is Flake or Salmon, I'd choose Salmon any day of the week.

2/18/2011: Cross Janet Napolitano off the list of possible Democratic contenders for the U.S. Senate nomination.... at least according to her spokesman. I don't think she would have had a prayer in the General election against any Republican nominee, but our nation's homeland security is not safer as a result. The start of 2013 to get fresh, competent faces in a new administration can't come soon enough.

2/17/2011: According to Roll Call, Congressman Paul Ryan has endorsed Jeff Flake's bid for U.S. Senate. Huge endorsement for Flake.

2/16/2011: The last person to challenge Senator Kyl for election from the Democrats, Jim Pederson, is out of the running. Takes a lot of money out of the Democrats side right there - let me tell you that.

2.15.2011: All day long, news reports swirled about a possible Joe Arpaio bid for Senate. In usual Arpaio fashion, Sheriff Joe would neither confirm or deny all reports.

2.14.2011: Congressman Jeff Flake officially announces for the Senate. Another publication touches base with Congressman Trent Franks' office - he is still "exploring that option." The same piece states that Arizona Corporation Commission Chairman Gary Pierce is looking into running for the Senate as well.

2.11.2011: Twenty-four hours after news broke that Senator Kyl's seat would open up, former Congressman John Shadegg announced that he would not be running for the Senate in 2012. Congressman Trent Franks, Congressman Jeff Flake, Marilyn Quayle, Paul Babeu, and Grant Woods are again mentioned as contenders to the seat. For the Democrats, Janet Napolitano, former Congressman Harry Mitchell, Congressman Ed Pastor, and Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon are rumored about.

2.10.2011: We learn that Congressman Trent Franks is "seriously considering" a run for the Senate. Congressman Flake is already presupposed as the front runner for the GOP. J.D. Hayworth admits that he has been contacted about a run. For the Democrats, Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano are mentioned as possible contenders for the nomination.

Who's Running for CD-6?

2011-02-18T11:33:00.000-08:00

This post will keep track on the people who are close to, or have announced their candidacy for Congressman Jeff Flake's Congressional seat.

2/18/2011: Yesterday, Chuck Gray became the first individual to declare for the open-Flake Congressional seat. Early indications are that conservatives around Maricopa County are please with his candidacy.

2.16.2011. News anchor Brahm Resnik reports that former Arizona state legislator Chuck Gray will run for the GOP nomination. Gray will probably announce his candidacy on Thursday.

A Pretty Good Day for Jeff Flake

2011-02-17T15:23:00.000-08:00

Good day for Congressman Jeff Flake in the early stages of his U.S. Senate bid:

Earlier in the day, Congressman Paul Ryan endorsed Flake for Senate. Ryan, the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, has tremendous influence within the Republican Party, and his State of the Union rebuttal won him many more fans in the United States. Congressman Flake received a huge endorsement from Congressman Ryan.

Just a little while ago, the National Taxpayer's Union announced its support for Flake's Senate run. The Union touts themselves as the "oldest taxpayer group," having 362,000 members in its ranks.

So now Jeff Flake has early endorsements from Club for Growth, National Taxpayer's Union, and Congressman Paul Ryan. I'd call that a pretty good week to start off the election cycle.

Congressman Flake is not the answer for Arizona

2011-02-14T21:58:00.000-08:00

No surprise today - Congressman Jeff Flake announced that he would run for United States Senate, making himself the first Republican to throw his name into the 2012 race. Congressman Flake has been waiting for this moment for years; he has a huge war chest of more than $650,000 and an early endorsement from Club for Growth.

Arizona can do better than Jeff Flake for Senator, though. He's not the conservative choice - according to National Journal, he was the 87th-most conservative in the House of Representatives in the 2009 ratings. He's pro-amnesty on immigration (When Rahm Emanuel supports your legislation, you may want to reconsider your position on it if you're a Republican). He voted for the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" at the end of 2010. He was one of three Representatives to miss one of the most important votes in 2009: President Obama's Cap 'N Tax legislation, which narrowly passed the House by seven votes.

Congressman Flake's main issue has been the elimination of all earmarks, and in part to his efforts both the House and Senate have recently temporarily banned the use of earmarks. However, a victory for Flake now may not be a victory for him in the long run. Think about it: Flake's crusade against earmarks - the crusade that gave him most of whatever voice he had in Congress - is over - the boats have sailed back to the homeland. Instead of continuing his fight, he must now branch off into other issues - some of the issues in which he hasn't always toed the conservative line.

Congressman Flake might have the most money to commence this race. He might have the initial momentum. He might have the desire to become an United States Senator. But he's not the right man for this very important position of U.S. Senator. He does not have all of the answers to solve all of the issues in a conservative manner. Jeff Flake is not the answer for Arizona.

Senator Jon Kyl Set to Retire - What Now?

2011-02-10T14:49:00.000-08:00

For the past couple months, it's been a mystery as to the political future of one Senator Jon Kyl. Would he or wouldn't he run for his fourth term in the United States Senate? After all, he is the second-ranking Republican in the Senate. Would he really give up his leadership position for retirement?

Today we received the answer: Senator Kyl announced that he would not seek re-election to the Senate in the 2012 cycle, instead stepping aside so that another individual could take his place. News has exploded from that point with so many people popping up with their short lists of candidates to run for Senator Kyl's seat. All of the short lists are but pure speculation at this point, but Kyl's announcement is the first domino to fall in what will be many more to follow.

Who is on the GOP's short list of potential nominees for the Senate seat?

Congressman Jeff Flake: Congressman Flake is clearly the early frontrunner for the seat. This is the moment he's been preparing himself for for years. He has a large sum of cash on hand, a veteran fundraiser at his disposal, and pretty decent name identification in Maricopa County. Flake's sole issue has been the elimination of earmarks - that seems to have been his number one priority in Congress. Now that earmarks have been banned in both houses of Congress for the next two years, is this such a significant campaign platform for Flake to run on? I would think not, and that right there would cripple his campaign when he is pitted against others with more expressed convictions.

Congressman Trent Franks: Congressman Franks would be the conservative's choice for the Senate seat (more than likely). He's one of the top-five conservatives in the House of Representatives. He's the strongest social conservative Arizona has to offer, and he is a staunch defender of our national defense. He's got some name identification in northern and southern Arizona (based upon his endorsements of Sydney Hay for Congressional District One and Jesse Kelly for Congressional District Eight last election cycle) - probably more grassroots name identification that Jeff Flake has in those areas. If no other conservative "darling" enters the race, Congressman Franks would probably be looking at a solid 25%-30% Primary voting block (while Flake and some of the other moderates would do more to split the remaining votes).

Congressman Ben Quayle: I've been saying this since November 3, 2010: in my heart of hearts, I believe that Ben Quayle will seriously look at running for this seat. What does Mr. Quayle bring to the table? Money and name identification. That was enough to win him his Congressional seat; would that be enough to win his Senate seat? Again, who knows, but it's worth the speculation. One thing's for certain: if Ben Quayle announces his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, he will be able to raise a boatload of cash for the race.

Former-Congressman J.D. Hayworth: J.D.'s brightest days have probably been put behind him with his August 2010 Primary loss to Senator John McCain, making him the loser in his last two elections. Still, you never know with J.D.. Has he learned his lessons from his 2010 debacle? Can he raise enough cash? Can he establish himself as the conservative in the race? More importantly, can he reach out to the independent Republicans who make up most of the voting electorate? All of this is yet to be seen.

Former-Congressman John Shadegg: This one makes the most sense if Congressman Shadegg decides to step out of retirement. For the most part, Congressman Shadegg has been a strong conservative in Congress. He's a very smart campaigner who has always surrounded himself with bright campaign staff around him. He would more than likely be able to raise the money necessary for a Senate run in a short timeframe. I think a Shadegg candidacy definitely keeps Ben Quayle out of the race, and it might shorten the field at the onset for the GOP.

Dean Martin: He was a political star in the making before SB 1070. He will probably look to jump back into elected office in 2012. If a worthwhile House seat doesn't open up for him, could he consider a run for Senate?

Russell Pearce: Pearce is the Arizona Senate President and the architect of SB 1070. If immigration issues start heating up nationally again, look for him to, at least, test the waters for a Senate run. Former Arizona GOP Chairman Randy Pullen is pulling for this to occur, and the Arizona Republic speculated about it today.

Of course, there are most definitely other names that will probably pop up as the year goes on (perhaps Grant Woods, Jim Waring).

Now, onto the House of Representatives side of things (GOP):

Arizona's going to add one House seat in 2012. All initial signs point to this new Congressional District being carved out near the east side of Maricopa County. If Senator Kyl had not announced his future retirement, and Congressman Flake stayed in the House of Representatives, there would have been only one open seat on that side of town. That seat would have had some major competition, featuring potential candidates Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu, and Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce.

It now appears that there will be two open Congressional seats in that part of Arizona (provided that redistricting does appropriate the new Congressional district to that area, and that Flake does run for Senate), meaning less competition for both of the seats. I think Speaker Adams is a lock for one of the seats, as is Sheriff Babeu (should he decide to run for the House).

If Congressman Quayle runs for Senate, you could have another free-for-all in Congressional District Three. I think that Dean Martin and Pamela Gorman could be the early frontrunners for this seat. Should Vernon Parker decide to re-enter the race, he would be one of the early favorites as well. Jim Waring could also run for CD-3, as could former GOP nominee for Arizona Governor Len Munsil.

If Congressman Franks runs for Senate, you could see your most competitive field in Congressional District Two - a district which rivals Congressman Flake's for being the most conservative in the state. Look for Arizona House Speaker Pro-Tem Steve Montenegro to be mentioned, as will State Representative Jack Harper, State Senator Scott Bundgaard, State Senator Ron Gould (provided that Mohave Valley is not cut off from Congressional District Two after redistricting). I would like to see Sydney Hay, who has run a few times for the House up north, run for this seat - in the rare chance it is vacated. If that doesn't happen, I think that Steve Montenegro is the "shoo-in" for this district.

And who knows what will happen down in Congressional District Eight.

What if there were four Congressional seats plus a U.S. Senate seat that were open in Arizona in 2012? Not to mention a Presidential election.... There would definitely be pandemonium in Arizona - more so than usual - that's for sure.

NFLPA is mostly to blame if there's a lockout in 2011

2011-02-09T20:53:00.000-08:00

Yes, I said it. In my opinion, the NFLPA is mostly to blame if there's a lockout in 2011.

The NFLPA had it's roots in 1956. Back then, the players in the league asked the league for a $5,000 salary. $5,000 back in 1956 is around $39,000 today (taking inflation into effect). Want to know what the median salary for a NFL player is today? Around $770,000 - that would have been about $100,000 in 1956 dollars.

Is that enough perspective? Not yet..... In the late 1950s, the median income for each United States' household was just under $30,000 (in current dollars, adjusted for inflation) - very comparable with the proposed salary back then. Today, the median income for each U.S. household hovers around $50,000. As mentioned before, the median NFL income is approximately $770,000. HUGE difference between the salary of a NFL player and the average American working man or woman.

No, I don't hold it against sports players for making about fifteen times what the average American makes. The NFL owners believe that each NFL player has earned a spot on a roster for some particular reason, and that decision to pay the NFL players should be left to the NFL owners - not to bystanders who haven't earned anything.

I think it's silly, though, when reality starts to lose its footing in a particular situation - as it most clearly has here. How much more do the players want? How much more do they want the owners to hold their hands? How much more do they want to manipulate out of the owners? How much do the players (who make -on average- fifteen times the amount of money the average American makes) want to run to the fans and pathetically beg for sympathy?

Nowhere else in the world could a NFL player go to earn even close to the amount that his NFL salary would pay him. Nowhere. There hasn't ever been a league for these guys that will pay similar salaries. The NFL is the best place for them, and every NFL player who has been, or who is currently in the league should know it.

Are the NFL owners perfect in their treatment of their players? Absolutely not, and there are probably legitimate arguments by the NFLPA that should be addressed by the NFL. However, players are paid just right. It is their fault if they don't put some of their paychecks aside to pay for their future. It is the players' fault if they don't prepare themselves before football for a life after football. The players are not forced by the owners to play football. They know there are risks involved; they know of the severity of some of the risks; they voluntarily accept these risks because they sincerely love what they do.

And in all honestly, most of the owners seem to do a better job at holding up their ends of the bargains. The owners provide state-of-the-art stadiums for the players to play in; elaborate practice facilities for the players to hone their skills; use of private jets (in some cases) when emergencies may pop up. There are so many more good things the owners give to their players.

In return, what do the players give the owners? Well, a good deal of players threaten to hold out when they believe that they've outperformed their contracts, and some do hold out for a significant amount of time. Rookies will almost never sign their contracts around draft day - they want to wait until around training camp, when the coaches are pressuring the owners to get the new players into camp to learn the systems. The players expect the owners to hold up their side of the agreements that are made, yet they won't hesitate to bend their "word" when it suits them.

Oh, and the argument that the NFLPA is supposed to protect working conditions for the players should never be used when discussing the need for a new CBA. With all of the players getting injured, it's painfully obvious that the NFLPA is seriously failing in that responsibility (if that's the road they're going to argue along). The NFLPA should be advocating for two-hand touch football if they were really serious about player safety.

The NFLPA can push their arguments to the brink of a lockout - at their own peril. They have almost everything they want; they should be thanking their owners more for what they have received, not striking their owners in the back when these CBA agreements are ready for renewal.

Analysis of the State of the Union 2011

2011-01-26T08:54:00.000-08:00

Well, did he do it? Did President Obama succeed in his attempt to remake his image as a "centrist" President? Did the public buy into his rhetoric last night?

President Obama said a lot of good, inspiring things. He spoke of an America which was leaps and bounds ahead of the advances of China and Japan. He spoke of an America that not only protected the safety of its citizens within its borders, but was actively rooting out its enemies abroad. He was extremely compassionate and caring when he spoke of the Tuscon Tragedy, which took the lives of six innocent people and left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in a life-threatening condition.

He failed, though, to show the American people that he was actually listening to them when it came to ObamaCare repeal and subsequent reform. He failed to show them that the size of government would decrease; that government would have less to say when it came to intruding into the private sector. He failed to tell Americans how his administration was going to keep current energy costs down (maybe by drilling on American territory for oil), instead pontificating on a world down the line where the United States led the way with energy development. He failed to bring up the major lawsuit his administration had undertaken against Arizona - remember that one? The SB 1070 uproar of the summer?

President Obama did talk about both major parties working together in Washington - a novel concept, considering that he did nothing to foster a working relationship during the 111th Congress (except, however, when he wanted to pull a couple Republican votes for "bipartisan" cooperation). He did discuss his vision for education reform, but he also brought that up last year (nothing was done about it). He brought up contentious issues from last year such as ObamaCare, the START Treaty, and the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell - turning the State of the Union address into a mini pep rally for some of his "accomplishments."

President Obama proposed a $400 billion spending freeze on domestic spending, but he failed to mention that he pushed for a health care package worth a trillion dollars. He brought up the need for tort reform, yet he failed to apologize for inserting the right measures for reform in last year's ObamaCare legislation. He brought up the Dream Act.... only he forgot to mention the accepted title of the legislation for the American people, instead appealing to the compassionate hearts of Americans. He took full credit for the extension of the Bush tax credits - even making them sound independent of President Bush -again failing to mention that he had opposed them for years.

Probably the scariest part of the address came past the halfway point, when President Obama veered back to the Bush tax credits, complaining that the wealthy 2% of Americans were still receiving the break. His words: "It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success." How does the President expect Americans to pursue adding jobs and wealth to their businesses if they know that there is a price to pay for hitting a certain limit? If the government cannot sustain transfer payments to the bottom rung of the American population, then doesn't it think that they should scale back on those payments that it can't afford.... instead of penalizing the rich (who really do a great job at sustaining the wealth and prosperity of the country when they face few impediments)?

If President Obama was really serious about creating jobs and looking after the future of America (as were his themes throughout the address), then he would cease his unabashed assault on the rich - those people who (for the most part) have actually earned what they made. The rich don't take in transfer payments. They don't rely on welfare to sustain their way of living. They don't have children simply because they can receive more government aid with each additional member of the family.

No, the wealthiest of Americans have worked for what they have earned. They do not deserve to be "criminalized" by a President who can do it simply because he's the President. Maybe they even deserve a lower tax rate than the majority of the population. Maybe they deserve to see more people than ever actually forced to pay taxes. Maybe they should be applauded for their hard work, their efficiency, their ingenuity. Has President Obama ever thought of these ideas? I don't think so.

And with that last word, I'll wrap up my analysis of the President speech. Later on, I want to blog about Congressman Paul Ryan's rebuttal after the President's address. To say I was impressed with what Congressman Ryan had to say (and how he delivered it) is an understatement. He may have been a rising star in the Republican Party before the rebuttal; he is a star now.

State of the Union 2011 - LIVE Coverage

2011-01-25T17:53:00.000-08:00

8:13 PM - President Obama concludes his address to Congress. He said a lot of good things, made a couple jokes, and tried to inspire America. Yet his rhetoric doesn't match his actions. He is not supportive of small businesses. He does not believe in America's greatness (compared to all the other countries in the world). He does not really believe in tort reform. And he discussed education reform last year, but did little to reform it; does he really mean it? More analysis to come.

8:12 PM - Yes, President Obama - ordinary people do BIG things. Couldn't agree with you more! Now let's help the ordinary people explore their dreams without the interference of the government.

8:09 PM - Vice President Biden just loves these State of the Unions. He's all smiles, most of the time.

8:08 PM - "I know there isn't a person here who would trade places with any other nation on earth." Wise words.

8:06 PM - "No American will be forbidden from serving the country they love because of who they love." Not good. The military will suffer because of the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

8:05 PM - Gratitude goes out to the men and women who serve our country. Amen to that.

8:01 PM - 'We will not relent; we will not waver; and we will defeat you." President Obama talking about the War on Terror. I wish he meant what his rhetoric means.

7:59 PM - Really.... why the need to state that "American Muslims are apart of the American family?" Of course they are. No need to imply that there's a divide.

7:57 PM - "America's standing (in the world) has been restored." Did President Obama just bash the Bush Administration? I think so. He's onto National Security..... the way he sees it.

7:56 PM - "If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it!" Good, Mr. President! Can we all hold you to that?

7:55 PM - President Obama wants to merge different agencies of the Federal Government.

7:53 PM - President Obama wants to give Americans a more competent and efficient government. Not comforting. We all know what he means.

7:52 PM - No permanent extension for the tax credits for the wealthy.
"It's not about punishing their success; it's about promoting America's success." SOCIALISM!

7:51 PM - Call to cut costs from Medicare. Call for Tort Reform. Sadly, the President doesn't mean it. He should have addressed Tort Reform when ObamaCare was passed.

7:48 PM - Cut deficit spending by $400 billion. That's a lot of money.... just kidding. Cut the Defense budget, says Obama. NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! Cut ObamaCare - not the military!

7:46 PM - President Obama is not willing to re-fight the whole ObamaCare battle. He decides what needs to be fixed - not the people of America who sent their Representatives to Washington.

7:45 PM - Talk about "bipartisan" - President Obama states mocks the Republicans by teasing them about their attempt to repeal ObamaCare.

7:44 PM -President Obama has ordered a "review of government regulations" to see if some regulations on the books are unnecessarily hurting businesses.

7:42 PM - President Obama calls for Congress to lower the corporate tax rate. "Double exports by 2014."

7:39 PM - More money for construction work? Another call for a stimulus package? I think so! Call it what it is, President Obama.

7:38 PM - President Obama calls for better infrastructure in the United States: high speed internet, high speed rail.

7:37 PM - Call for the Dream Act. Obama calls for Congress to take on the issue of illegal immigration. Fox News pans to Senator McCain. President Obama wants this debate to start.

7:36 PM - President Obama wants to have the largest proportion of college graduates in the world by the end of the decade.

7:34 PM - President Obama calls for Congress to make permanent the tuition tax credit. Biden is clapping; Boehner isn't.

7:32 PM - South Korea recognizes teachers as "nation builders"; we should too! Uh oh. More government brainwashing over the country's kids.

7:31 PM - A call to replace "No Child Left Behind."

7:29 PM - Family is responsible for instilling a love for education, says President Obama. Couldn't agree more. Then he goes onto state that "schools share this responsibility." Guess he didn't mean what he said.

7:28 PM - "We need to win the race to educate our kids." I AGREE!

7:27 PM - No more taxpayer dollars to oil companies to pay for "tomorrow's energy."

7:24 PM - "This is our nation's Sputnik moment." President Obama wants to pursue renewable energy options to create jobs, jobs, and more jobs. How about drill here and now, President Obama?

7:23 PM - President Obama calls for more "innovation" in America to "win the future."

7:22 PM - "We need to outeducate" Americans to win the future! I agree, President Obama.

7:20 PM - President Obama is talking about jobs going overseas and how the United States needs to become more competitive. He did little to keep jobs in this country the first two years of his administration. Will that change?

7:17 PM - President Obama is taking credit for the continuation of the Bush tax credits passed back in December. What he won't say is that not too long ago, he opposed those tax credits.

7:16 PM -The economy is growing, Mr President? Have you been looking at the unemployment numbers all of 2010?

7:14 PM - President Obama calling for lawmakers to use the Tucson Tragedy to work together "tomorrow"; not simply to sit together "tonight."

7:12 PM - President Obama remembers the "empty chair" of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

7:12 PM - In a nice gesture, President Obama congratulates Speaker Boehner and the 112th Congress.

7:11 PM - Speaker Boehner introduces President Obama.

7:10 PM - Good to see a REPUBLICAN Speaker of the House behind President Obama tonight.

7:07 PM - The House chamber looks emptier than usual.

7:05 PM - President Obama is announced to the chamber.

6:51 PM - We're less than ten minutes away from the scheduled start of the State of the Union address. Stick with Politics In AZ for LIVE coverage on what President Obama speaks about throughout the hour.

Tonight's State of the Union Address

2011-01-25T11:38:00.000-08:00

President Obama will address a joint session of Congress tonight, as well as the nation, in the 2011 edition of the State of the Union. Be sure to tune into Politics In AZ for minute-by-minute commentary throughout the address.

Many pundits are forecasting that this upcoming speech will be "bipartisan," and "centrist." That's all well and good to say, being that President Obama had the most partisan State of the Union address just last year. Remember that one? The speech where he attacked the previous administration multiple times, pounced on the conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices for a decision they had recently rendered, and set forth an agenda which proved foreign to the minds and hearts of most Americans. He was so partisan in last year's speech that he can't help but be more "bipartisan" this time around.

The real moment for Republicans will come after the speech, when a Representative from Wisconsin named Paul Ryan will deliver the GOP's rebuttal. Congressman Paul Ryan is a brilliant individual, who is able to coherently articulate what he believes and stands for. He's perfect for the longterm image of the Republican Party - someone the GOP should actively attempt to build around. In fact, Congressman Ryan could very well make a successfull challenge to Wisconsin's Democratic Senator, Herb Kohl, who presumably will be running for re-election in 2012. This rebuttal by Paul Ryan may fasttrack him towards that election match-up.

Expecting a pretty bland speech - probably emotional at times due to the re-enforced memory of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. We'll see in a few hours....

The End of Rahm?

2011-01-24T11:35:00.000-08:00

Today, Rahm Emanuel was ruled ineligible for the ballot for the Chicago Mayor's post - a decision in which some are calling a "major blow" to the duration of Emanuel's campaign. I guess that Chicago has a strange rule in which a candidate for Mayor has to actually live in the city the previous year before running for Mayor - not just fit the technical definition of "resident."

Many people might forget, but before taking the Chief of Staff post for President Obama in January 2009, Rahm Emanuel was a rising star in the House of Representatives - Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, three ranks below the Speaker of the House. If Rahm had not become President Obama's Chief of Staff, he very well could have made a push for the Democrats' first or second leadership posts in the House for the 112th Congress, or he might have mulled over a run to replace Senator Roland Burris in the 2010 elections.

If the decision by the Chicago-based Court of Appeals holds up, it looks like Rahm will be looking for a job this year. I doubt he will return to the White House, but I'm sure that the National Democrat Party will quickly scoop him up for some early 2012 campaign preparations. At any rate, Rahm Emanuel out of elected office is a good thing for any part of this country. Chicago residents may not be able to grasp how fortunate they are at this turn of events.

State of the Union 2011 - Coming Soon

2011-01-23T12:34:00.000-08:00

President Obama's State of the Union address is coming up on Tuesday, and the liberal media is championing his speech as a "move to the center" (taking a page from President Clinton, pre-second term re-election). This is all political posturing by the President. He only has room to move to the center because there isn't a whole lot that he can do to advance his liberal agenda without running into a Republican "brick wall."

Don't be fooled! President Obama had no intentions of moving towards the center at all last year when he had super majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, pushing through most of his liberal initiatives (the two major initiatives he didn't get through Congress were 'Cap and Tax' and the Dream Act). He got most of what he wanted; now there's no reason to jeopardize his liberal advances with harsh, liberal rhetoric. And thus, the "rumored" move to the center.

If President Obama was serious about moving to the center after the November beatdown the Democrats experienced, he would have called for a toned-down lame duck session of Congress in December; he would have defended the conservatives who were being called out by the liberals in the media who adore him; and he would be pressuring Harry Reid to bring the Republican-passed ObamaCare repeal legislation to the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Nope. He's just not that serious about moving to the center. Like many things, President Obama and the members of the liberal media are simply posturing for the Presidential election in November 2012. That is the extent of the significance of the State of the Union address on Tuesday.

The Arizona Republic also recently published an editorial, calling for all members of the Arizona Congressional delegation to sit with one another during the State of the Union address. I believe this is nothing more than a continued attempt by the liberal media to hide the large number of new Republicans in the chamber - the result of the November elections.

The article stated, "Giffords, we know, would appreciate it (all members of the Arizona delegation sitting together)." How do they know this? To the best of my knowledge, Congresswoman Giffords never called for both Republicans and Democrats to sit with one another during joint sessions of Congress. She never sat with Republicans during any address. Why is the Republic so intent on putting words she never uttered into her mouth?

What happened to Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the rest of the Tucson victims was a tragedy; however, there has not been a call for both political sides to sit with one another in recent Congressional addresses memory. It didn't occur after the 9/11 attacks. It didn't happen when Democrats were blowing out Republicans the last couple election cycles (before 2010). Why the rush now?

Democrats had no qualms about shutting Republicans out of the political debate the past couple years. Republicans should not allow them to control the debate now - even when it comes to State of the Union seating in a couple of days.

When a "Victim" becomes an "Activist"

2011-01-15T09:32:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, it happened. The first victim from last Saturday's Tucson rampage verbally assaulted Sarah Palin, slandering her with no evidence to back up his claims and accusations.

It was bound to happen. There was bound to be a hardcore liberal who was shot, who would want to lay the brunt of the blame on anyone but the shooter, Jared Loughner. As sad and unfortunate as that is, that is the state of American liberals these days.

Eric Fuller, this misguided individual, attempted to use his platform as a "victim" to show the country that Sarah Palin was one hundred percent responsible for Saturday's shootings. (He also invoked the names of John Boehner, Glenn Beck, and Sharron Angle.) He called all of these conservatives "rebels," and stated that Sarah Palin should be "incarcerated for treason."

Mr. Fuller probably wouldn't care about the consequences of his words - he proved himself to be a hardcore liberal. He wouldn't care that he would be inciting people to unnecessary anger and hared towards Governor Palin, Glenn Beck, House Speaker Boehner, and Sharron Angle. As usual, this was another liberal simply trying to advance his liberal agenda: ban guns; ban free speech; and make sure conservatives are banned too!

No additional sympathy should be shown to Mr. Fuller for what happened to him. He is no longer a victim; he has become an activist. Conservatives did not ask for this shooting to occur. We did not plant the shooter. We did not position the victims in their appropriate places. We did not intentionally sell a weapon to a mentally deranged man. In no way should Mr. Fuller attempt to insinuate these things.

No, conservatives (with Sarah Palin leading the charge) do not attack people; we attack and promote causes. Conservatives attack the liberal cause because we see how devastating it is for the country's future. Conservatives promote the free market approach because we believe that the human spirit should be allowed to reach its full potential - without many shackles from the government. Anything that a conservative has done has been to advance his or her cause - NOT to demonize the opponent. (And this goes for Sarah Palin's "crosshairs" map.)

Liberals (like Eric Fuller) rarely stick to their "causes" because they are fearful that the public will totally reject them if they revealed their true colors. And so many liberals take the road of "attacking the next famous opponent." That main opponent once was George W. Bush from 2001 to 2008. The main opponent now for liberals is Sarah Palin.

Until all sides start to assign the correct blame where it is due, these shootings will continue to intensify. More sadistic citizens like Loughner will realize that they will be able to gain more notoriety than most people within their generation with such acts; they'll set out to assassinate a public figure (Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in the Loughner case). And guess what? Victim-turned-activist Eric Fuller will have given these monsters inspiration for committing the acts of terror.

Surprise! Another Illogical Argument from the Arizona Republic!

2011-01-13T21:31:00.000-08:00

In today's Arizona Republic, columnist E.J. Montini created one of the most illogical arguments I've ever read. In his article, "Honor the dead by saving the living" Montini writes the following: Come on, Mr. Montini! Do you really expect most Arizona Republic readers to fall for the argument that the Arizona government is solely to blame for people contracting liver disease and for these people deteriorating to the point where they desperately need a transplant? Government is not God; and besides, Arizona is facing a deficit. As hard as it sounds, government cannot pay for, and should not pay for, everything. E.J., if you want to honor the dead from Saturday's shootings, you pay for a transplant or two!

"What better way to honor the dead, however, than to save the lives we can? The lives of people like Michael Allen Pennington. A life-long resident of Arizona, Pennington is a 59-year-old architect and builder, a once-vibrant taxpayer who was laid waste by liver disease and now needs of a life-saving transplant. He is one of those condemned to die by a governor and legislature who eliminated such coverage from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System."

Add Montini to the list of people who shamefully attempted to use the events of Congresswoman Giffords' shooting on Saturday to advance his own liberal agenda.

Recall Linda Lopez and Clarence Dupnik!

2011-01-13T21:00:00.000-08:00

Since the deadly rampage on Saturday, liberals around the country have been jumping all over each other in an effort to end the onward march of the Tea Party movement. The usual suspects jumped the gun: Olbermann, Matthews, Krugman - many others as well.

In my opinion, there are two main elected officials to blame for stoking this "Tea Party" hatred in the nation: Arizona State Senator Linda Lopez and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik.

Not many people caught Senator Lopez's comments; her anti-Tea Party statements were quickly brushed over by the rush of other uncivil, unintelligent anti-Tea Party comments. However, the comments still exist for all people interested in holding her accountable for what she recklessly stated.

On the other hand, Sheriff Dupnik has become a pillar of folly with his statements since the shootings occurred. He attempted to tie the political atmosphere and talk radio to the deranged shooter time after time, and he quickly became a nationalized liberal "hero" for his insistence that he was right. He doesn't have any proof to back up anything he says, but that won't stop him from insisting that anyone but the shooter was involved in Saturday's events.

Saturday should have been a day where all Americans gathered together to mourn for the victims of Jared Lougher's despicable actions. Instead, liberals made sure that they would command the attention (once again) of Americans by throwing out hateful comments directed at their political opponents. Many liberals use such a horrible situation as this for their own political advantage. They aren't in politics to serve "the people"; they're in politics to serve themselves.

Linda Lopez and Clarence Dupnik got the ball rolling with their comments against the Tea Party. They should be two of the first people who lose their political careers over this. Both Lopez and Dupnik are up for reelection in 2012; 2012 is too long to wait to oust these individuals from their elected offices. Both of them need to face recall elections as soon as possible.

This is not because of a political vendetta I have against these two people. This is solely because we need elected officials who do their jobs for the people who elected them - not people who declare "war" upon their self-appointed "enemies." Dupnik and Lopez are both blinded by their arrogant hatred for the Tea Party and all those who stand by its movement. They seek to stop the movement immediately in its tracks.

They, and all others who tried, will not succeed. What these people have done is to further unleash a sleeping giant. They have given another reminder to the members of the Tea Party that there is still much work to be done to defeat anyone who puts political ambition ahead of selfless service.

Hopefully, the Tea Party makes it its top priority to help defeat Linda Lopez and Sheriff Dupnik in 2012 (or hopefully sooner!). Words have consequences, and those two must experience their political consequences for unleashing the avalanche of hatred by others across the nation. Americans and Arizonans should demand no less.

Thoughts and Lessons from Gabrielle Giffords' Shooting

2011-01-09T08:00:00.001-08:00

What a day it was yesterday. First it was reported that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was immediately murdered at the scene of the Tucson "crime" (as if "crime" can do what happened today any justice). Then new reports circulated that she was in surgery at a local Tucson hospital, yet in critical condition.

Twitter proved to be most unhelpful (for me at least). Try getting different information from several people - all of whom think that their "source" is legitimate. It really was a roller coaster day to remember - one that will be ingrained in my memory for all time.

When any one person is murdered, it is a local tragedy. However, when an American elected official is targeted (as was the case with Congresswoman Giffords), it is a national tragedy. Such an act gnaws at the very core of freedom that gives most American citizens a sense of security. These types of actions are rarely encountered; they just don't occur on a regular basis. The average American has little clue about how to react to what has occurred.

Some thoughts about today:

- News outlets, knowing that the average citizen would be clueless as to what he or she should think about what happened and that attention spans would probably be at an all-time high, led viewers on a shameful roller coaster throughout the first few hours of this story breaking. A story was released; it was quasi-confirmed; it was retracted; it was confirmed again. This cycle continued for the greater part of the afternoon, and in my opinion, was not real journalism.

- Not one "if", "and", or "but" - ALL Federal elected officials should have armed personnel around them at all times. If a "team" of security agents for each member of Congress is considered excessive, I can understand that. However, there should be no reason why at least one agent can be assigned to each Representative or Senator. It is idiotic to allow these powerful and sought-after individuals to walk the streets of their districts and not have someone shadowing them for their own good.

- One of the first laws Congress should pass when members get back to Capitol Hill after next week is to allow all Congressional staffers to carry weapons in their District offices. District offices have little - if no - security. There are no monitors; no security officers; no scanners; no mail security precautions - all of which can be found on the Hill in DC. It's time that all of this be taken seriously - starting with the allowance for these federal employees to carry a weapon to protect their offices.

Former-Congressman J.D. Hayworth put it best on a Fox News broadcast this evening: "You cannot make sense out of a senseless action." This shooting was horrific - probably the act of one or two individuals. It was probably not the start of a bigger plot against elected officials.

A larger plot does need to unfold here, though - not a plot dug up through conspiracy theories, but a plot kindled in the hearts of all Americans. Americans need to come together - they need to start fighting for the common good of the country.

No longer can we demonize each other as "Republicans" or "Democrats." Life is too precious to be doing that. We may have our differences, and that's okay - that's what has made American great. What tears America down is when Americans attempt to tear each other down with hopes of reaching the culmination of a "powerful" position - hence the political "game."

I truly hope and pray that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords lives. I also pray that she recovers enough to resume her office as a Representative of the United States of America. But I pray more that Americans learn from this day; that we all come together, realizing that each of us has a purpose on this earth; that if each person realized that purpose, the world would be a better, more prosperous place for all human existence.

Giffords Votes Against Pelosi

2011-01-06T11:50:00.000-08:00

Expect Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords to join the Republican side of the aisle on a good number of votes in the upcoming two years - she was one of nineteen Democrats to oppose Nancy Pelosi's bid for House Minority Leader.

It's no secret that Congresswoman Giffords is the Democrats lone national star in Arizona - a fairly conservative state. It's also no secret that she is being set up to run for a more prestigious elected office in the near future. That near future could come in 2012, should Senator Jon Kyl decide to embrace voluntary retirement (which I fully expect him to do so - I would be shocked if he ran for another six-year term).

Giffords' Pelosi vote showed that she was fully capable of bucking her own party, and untying the establishment ties that all too often are wrapped around one's neck in DC. She has to prove to the people of Arizona that she will both embrace the role of a "Maverick," and that she will listen to her constituency before she votes. Look for many votes on the side of the GOP from Gabrielle Giffords in the 112th Congress. Make no mistake about it - she's prepping for a statewide run.

Repeal Vote Looms

2011-01-03T17:12:00.000-08:00

ObamaCare might meet its end in the courts at a later time, but the Republican-led 112th Congress (on the House of Representatives side) seems to making good on its election promise to do whatever is necessary to repeal the legislation. It appears that Speaker-elect Boehner will bring the "repeal" vote to the floor of the House just days after the new GOP majority is sworn in. (The first official day of the 112th Congress is this Wednesday.)

It's not enough to simply pass an ObamaCare repeal out of the House; Republicans must also adopt their own health care legislation and pass it along to the Senate - simultaneously. The American people must be left without any trace of a doubt when it comes down to which party has the better direction for the country. That is why it is imperative to have a solution to follow the repeal.

The Senate will more than likely shelve the repeal, or they will kill it in a committee or on the floor. The House of Representatives should also consider passing a different repeal resolution every month, continuing to harass the Senate until their Democratic members cave into the pressure that would come from the American people. Most Americans currently support the ObamaCare repeal, and most of these people probably would expect the Republicans to keep at the process in both years of the 112th Congress (should the Senate or the President kill any individual effort).

Republicans cannot be timid about going overboard to overhaul ObamaCare. They have let the electorate know that they are serious about listening to and serving them - not their own special interests. GOP tenacity towards ObamaCare will serve the party well for 2012, and may very well give them the same 2010 momentum needed to take back the Senate and the White House.

Say "No" to the Tolls!

2010-12-30T22:48:00.000-08:00

Immigration figures to play a large part in Arizona's State Legislature's 2011 agenda. There are rumblings that Arizona will also be discussing the possibility of whether or not to construct toll roads along some of the HOV lanes on its freeways. I believe that toll roads for Arizona carry the same economic consequences as the sales tax increase that was debated at the onset of this year: the State gains revenue from the tolls to continue to maintain its current levels of spending, putting off imperative decisions for another day. Not one Arizona conservative should defend this idea! Let me explain.

A couple of days ago, the Arizona Republic published an article on this issue, detailing initial plans and conversations that have taken place outside of the general public's knowledge. Reading this article should alarm conservatives about the fiscal responsibility of our Arizona government.

"But ADOT's public-private partnership program has been slow to evolve."

Contrary to what some people may want to believe, I doubt that any toll roads constructed in Arizona will be privatized; if they are privatized at first, it will only be for the construction of the system, or for a short duration. Who here thinks that ADOT would give up all the revenue that would be raised from toll roads? Not happening at this time in Arizona's history.

"In eight U.S. cities with HOT lanes, commuters typically pay about $2 and as much as $9 to drive at a steady, predictable speed during rush hour."

Let's meet in the middle to say that a commuter with an average drive to work pays about $5.50 for his one-way excursion. Times that by two (for the entire day's drive) and multiply that all by 230 times (roughly the yearly treks to work). This commuter now has a $2,530 tab for going to and from work - not to mention gas expenditures, vehicle upkeep, registration and license renewals. Taxes will probably not decrease simply because toll roads have been constructed. Anyone want to pick up that tab from the tolls? That would definitely take a toll on the people of Arizona.

"The money could be spent on road improvements, and analysts predicted congestion would ease by 5 percent."

So for the time being, congestion on the roads would decrease by five percent. However, according to the U.S. Census, Arizona has been the second-fastest growing state in the country (behind Nevada) the past ten years. Any congestion that could be decreased initially (due to the construction of the toll roads) would more than likely return to normal within a short time (assuming more people continue to frequent Arizona). Toll roads would not solve the problem of freeway congestion.

"Another reason for the rethinking: Conventional government transportation financing is in crisis."

This is the main reason why the toll roads will not be privatized. Arizona will see the revenue that could be easily collected from the tolls and jump at the opportunity to operate them. Most of the time, toll roads across the nation are operated to keep state spending levels consistent. At a time when many individuals in Arizona are struggling economically, why would the state continue to keep spending constant, putting off tough decisions (to cut unnecessary programs) for a later day?

Tax payers pay for the construction of the roads, and they pay for the upkeep of the roads. Why make the tax payers, who have already shelled out the funds for the roads, pay more fees to use the roads? Instead, why can't the state use the dollars they have been allocated in an efficient and a responsible manner for the freeways' upkeep.

As I already alluded to, congestion wouldn't necessarily be alleviated due to toll roads. There would be the same number of vehicles on the freeways - just more in the non-HOV lanes. There would be more congestion in those lanes - thus punishing all the commuters who could not (or chose not to) pay for the use of the toll roads. Also, there is talk of a "barrier," which would separate the HOV lane from the non-HOV lanes. These barriers would take up more space of the freeways, shortening the total width of the non-HOV lanes. There is little room to expand the freeways, nor is there sufficient patience on the part of Arizona drivers to put up with more construction on their freeways.

I hope that this "toll road" idea is a passing fad, and that it dies an immediate and final death. If Arizona legislators really care about Arizona's long term financial security and fiscal responsibility, they would set their minds on cutting both spending and programs - not by "taxing" the people of Arizona again.

The Obama Objective

2010-12-17T13:06:00.000-08:00

12/17/2010 - Remember this action by President Obama when 2012 comes around. He goes to a school to read a book to school children and is asked by one child if he would sign an autograph for him - President Obama said NO. I know if I were that child I would be devastated by the President of the United States rejecting such a request.

Insensitive? Yes. Lack of compassion? Yes. Our President's true colors coming out in the midst of young children.

12/14/2010 - November wasn't been a good month for the Obama administration. First, it was the unraveling on the Democrats' stranglehold on Congress. Then, it spiraled into a TSA fiasco and then the WikiLeaks scandal.

The TSA story popped out of nowhere when some airport travelers discovered that they were randomly selected for a mandatory advanced screening in the security checkpoint area. They could go through the body imager, which brings its own questions of health safety and privacy issues. If they refused to go through the imager, they would be subject to an evasive pat down - something that brought a loud outcry from angry travelers. President Obama was very quiet about the entire fiasco, instead letting his Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, do all of his talking for him.

The WikiLeaks story was extremely embarrassing for the U.S. government. Hundreds of thousands of top-secret documents were released by WikiLeaks without much of a peep from the Obama Administration. Not much of a peep was heard from the White House until after the documents were showcased - then the State and Justice departments started to fuss about the whole matter.

Again, President Obama was nowhere to be found - he let Secretary of State Hillary Clinton do all the talking for this one as well. One can only imagine what the reasons were for President Obama to let sensitive national security materials to be opened up for all to see without trying to use the full weight of the government to stop WikiLeaks. We'll never know.

It's undeniable, however, that under President Bush's administration, there was never such a massive security breach. It is also clear from both of the above stories, that President Obama cannot take responsibility for things that occur under his own watch. He'll always allow someone else to take the heat (as was the case for Napolitano and Clinton).

11/13/2010 - Last Saturday, President Obama escaped the United States (post-election) to travel to Asia. The reports of what the President was bringing with him were unreal; the taxpayer money going into his trip was enormous. It's been reported by numerous credible sources that the Asia trip cost 200 million dollars a day. The White House and liberal media outlets have been doing nothing else but denying those reports, but no one will give another figure for the public to chew on. Interesting.....

Included in the reported cost of the trip was the reservations of over 800 rooms in five star hotels in President Obama's first stop in India, and the transport of over two thousand people to Asia in the entourage. The security preparations for President Obama were unheard of. The American people want nothing more for their President to be secure wherever he goes, but in my opinion, the White House went over the top with this one.

President Obama's trip to Asia may have been necessary - that's not for me to judge. However, it's more than clear that his travels around the world have become nothing more than a circus event with all the people who travel with him and with all the funds which are poured into the trips. In a time when many American people are struggling to keep their jobs and maintain a comfortable level of income needed to support their families, it is absolutely insensitive for the Obama clan to rub all this in the faces of the people back home.

11/10/2010 - President Obama has done a lot in two years - a lot more than he will try to claim credit for, and far more than the American people could ever keep track of.

I'm going to do my best to keep track of what President Obama does in the upcoming two years - things he does or statements he makes that are absolutely fundamentally contrary to the American belief system. This post will be updated often - keep checking back throughout the next 23 months!

Why I don't mind "RomneyCare"

2010-12-17T12:49:00.000-08:00

One of the main strikes for conservatives against Mitt Romney for President is that he was the author of "RomneyCare" - a state-sponsored health care system for the people of Massachusetts. Romney has taken quite a bit of heat for the similarities between "RomneyCare" and "ObamaCare" - especially since the passage of ObamaCare this past spring.

Though I don't agree with the state-sponsored health care system enacted by Romney, I'm not going to hold it against him should he decide to run for the GOP nomination in 2012. Let me explain....

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

Sound familiar? It's the tenth amendment to the Constitution.

I do not believe that the U.S. government has the right to establish a state-sponsored health care system, and as a federal judge concluded on Monday, they definitely do not have the right to mandate that people purchase health care insurance. However, each individual state is fully within its right to establish their own health care system. The legislators of that state are answerable only to the people of that state - as is the Governor.

When debating whether or not there should be a National Bank in 1791, Thomas Jefferson once stated: "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That 'all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.' To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition."

Notice he did not say that the Constitution prohibited the states from setting up their own bank - he simply stated that the Federal government was, in fact, prohibited from setting one up for the "benefit" or "use" of all the states.

Enter "RomneyCare." There is nothing in "RomneyCare" that applies to any other state in the Union. Nor do I think that Governor Romney believes that it is right to enforce his "RomneyCare" ideals on all fifty states (should he be elected President). Romney was on Fox News Sunday in March of this year and had this to say about his state's health care system:
"But you know, the states were designed to be the laboratories of democracy. This is an example where people can take a good look, see what they like, what they don't like. But the idea of taking what we did and applying something entirely different to the entire nation is not the right approach."

While conservatives may not agree with "RomneyCare," they should wholeheartedly applaud Governor Romney for his active approach in finding a solution for his state. Conservatives should help Mitt Romney establish that "RomneyCare" is perfectly within its right to exist - should he be the GOP's nominee for President. Mitt Romney completely understands that what might be good enough for Massachusetts isn't good enough for the rest of the forty-nine states; he wouldn't be Obama-like in his approach to health care reform for the nation.

Where's the Action?!

2010-12-16T12:43:00.000-08:00

Five colonists dead as a result of the Boston Massacre. Less than a hundred colonists were killed as a result of the Lexington and Concord hostilities. Without all three encounters with British troops, it might be said that the American Revolution would not have had enough momentum to get it off of the ground.

The War of 1812 was kindled, in part, to the British Royal Navy impressing Americans into their service.

America did not hesitate to rush to war with Spain in the Spanish-American War after the sinking of the Maine off the coast of Cuba. Over two hundred American sailors lost their lives with that disaster, and American anger towards Spain was too much for the government to overcome (not that the U.S. government would have wanted to overcome it, but still...).

Leading up to America's involvement in World War I, the Lusitania was sunk by a German sub - over one hundred Americans were murdered. This action was one of the catalysts for America to enter the War on the side - though not officially allied with - the Entente Powers.

More than two thousand Americans lives were lost as a result of the Pearl Harbor attack by the Japanese. This unprovoked attack gave the United States all the incentive it needed to enter World War II on the side of the Allies.

Approximately 2,800 died in the attacks of September 11th, resulting in the United States militarily involving themselves in Afghanistan and Iraq in subsequent years.

The point of this all is simple: When the United States has been attacked or unnecessarily provoked, it responds to meet the threats or attacks- usually swiftly. This was seen at the start of our country's; this was seen as recently as 2003 (when the United States invaded Iraq).

With the recent murder of a Border Patrol agent by a likely illegal immigrant - adding a key event to the immigration debate - I beg to ask these questions: since America has yet again been attacked (this event being one of many at the hands of illegal immigrants), why hasn't our government taken appropriate steps to defend its citizens from harm and abuse from illegal immigrants and drug cartels? Why hasn't our government given our first responders at the border sufficient tools needed to fight these lawless invaders.

We know the faces of this enemy. It's time to go get them; time to end this mad succession of American safety and property to bandits from across the border. It's time to stop this inaction once and for all!

America has been attacked once again. In the spirit of American resolve, determination and action that has defined the United States of America all throughout its history, our government owes it to those who have given their lives in this border violence struggle to combat it with all its might. Our country's great history deserves no other chapter.

President Clinton at the White House

2010-12-14T23:58:00.000-08:00

Did anyone see the Obama/Clinton press conference at the White House late last week?

Very weird press conference, and hilarious to see how comfortable President Clinton was at the White House podium. I thought it was rude for President Obama to schedule a press conference and then walk out in the middle (about eleven minutes into it). Although the interruption was announced beforehand, it wasn't a sign of leadership that I would expect to see from my President. Presidents don't just walk out of a room and leave others (not counting those directly associated with the Administration) to be their mouthpieces.

Why I support the Tax Cut Compromise

2010-12-14T12:47:00.000-08:00

I understand some of the anti-compromise arguments offered up by some conservatives - I definitely understand them on principle. You do not want to increase the deficit; you want unemployment benefits to be curtailed and not handed out like water; you want tax cuts to be permanent, not temporary.

However, I believe that there's a time where you can take "principle" too far (enter this time with the compromise). Many pockets of conservative voices around the country are bemoaning the compromise enacted by GOP leaders and President Obama. They seem to think that the GOP has already caved ... barely a month after the historic election referendum. These people have firmly entrenched themselves around the idea that Republicans are not listening; that they are "selling their souls."

These conservatives around the country seem to forget (or ignore) that the Democrats strongly control both the Senate and the House until the end of the year. In the Senate, there are fifty-nine individuals who caucus with the Democrats; in the House, two hundred fifty-five. For Democrats to have done whatever they wanted in the Lame Duck session of Congress, they would have had to simply pry one GOP Senate vote away. That's it. Democrats were one renegade Senate vote away from enacting whatever economic policy their hearts desired.

Could the Republicans have held out "on principle" until the 112th Congress was sworn in in January? Perhaps. Yet taxes would have increased on all tax-paying Americans come the beginning of the new year, and there would have been no guarantee from the Democrat-controlled Senate and Obama administration that they would again worked with the Republicans to find an acceptable solution.

Yes, the compromise proves that business is still continuing as usual inside the halls of Congress. However, make no mistake about it, it is still the Democrats' business. Republican constituents should be enthused that President Obama caved on his insistence that he would strike the "Bush tax cuts for the rich."

With the new Republican House coming into the majority in January, this Congress would be absolutely unacceptable. It would be rightly viewed as the Republicans forgoing their promises to cut spending and fight for what the American people wanted. This Congress, though, is not the perfect world that most Americans are dying to see. I am perfectly happy with the strength that the Republicans showed in forcing President Obama to the drawing board - a drawing board that he didn't really have to show up to. I am perfectly happy that for two years, there are no tax hikes (as would have occurred with the evaporation of the Bush tax cuts).

There's still a lot of work to do, and hopefully the Republicans in the 112th Congress will be up for the whole challenge (as I think they are). Until then, though, Republican constituents, do not hold this compromise against the Republicans. They did everything they could to keep your taxes from going up. Blame the Democrats for taking this issue to the eleventh hour. Blame Democrats in the House for continuing to hold this issue up. Don't make Republicans pay for this - that would be a tragedy to end the year on.

(On principle, though, Governor Mitt Romney clearly lays out his ideas on what he would have liked to see enacted - an excellent read.)

Vernon Parker for AZ GOP Chairman!

2010-12-10T15:48:00.000-08:00

During the 2010 GOP primary season, Republicans were at war with each other - over the rights to a solidly red Congressional seat. Many Republicans involved in the CD-3 race (Congressman Shadegg's seat) could not focus on the issues at hand, and they threw "mud" at every perceived misstep by certain candidates.

This was unfortunate. Though we handily won the seat in November, keeping it from Democrat hands, we missed a golden chance to unite the party in that pocket of Maricopa County. The political war games have been re-kindled with Vernon Parker's recent announcement that he would be running for the soon-to-be-vacated State GOP chairmanship.

Vernon Parker took a lot of heat during the summer primary for things that he did not necessarily bring upon himself. Before Ben Quayle was baptized by fire (starting about three to four weeks before the primary), it was Vernon Parker who was out in front - attacked by Democrats and supporters of some of the lesser-known candidates in the GOP race.

Let me go over this all one more time:

Vernon is extremely conservative. No one can disprove that - no matter how hard some within the party tried over the summer. He was even endorsed by the AZ 2010 Project and Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Vernon is not beholden to Senator John McCain - nor is he a byproduct of the Senator. Vernon is very independent and more than willing to stand by himself on any issue. He answers to no one but the people he serves.

Yet again, Vernon has had to deal with all the naysayers who have nothing better to do than attack his character and ties to other politicians. This needs to stop. Republicans need to start focusing on the issues, not following little rumor rabbit trails to try to eliminate an opponent.

Vernon Parker is the best choice for State GOP Chairman. He is well liked by many individuals on all sides of the party. He is conservative. He has increased name ID with his Congressional race. He proved that he could race a good sum of money - the main job of the chairman.

There is no one who would work with more enthusiasm at this job than Vernon Parker. He deserves this opportunity! Arizona, it's time to see what Vernon Parker can bring the state party. Make him the next state GOP chairman!

Could President Obama face a Primary?

2010-11-13T13:12:00.000-08:00

11/13/2010: President Obama's approval ratings have been hovering in the mid-40s for awhile now - a far cry from the enthusiasm that surrounded his assent to the Presidency in 2008. Assuming he runs for re-election, he will most likely return as the Democrat's nominee in 2012; however, there might be some people within the party who would take a long look at challenging him if his approval numbers continue to fall.

Hillary Clinton remains the front runner to challenge President Obama. She has the largest donor base and the largest support base out of any other potential Democrat challenger. Hillary has ruled out running in 2012 - for now.... I've thought for awhile, though, that it would be extremely difficult for President Obama to win re-election in 2012 without Hillary on the ticket. That possibility has also been ruled out by both sides - for now...

Russ Feingold and Howard Dean have been mentioned as the other possible Obama challengers in 2012.

This post will be updated throughout the next year as we eagerly wait for the 2012 campaign cycle to commence!

Thoughts on Election Night 2010: Arizona

2010-11-03T20:41:00.000-07:00

What a night it was some twenty-four hours ago! What a night it was for Arizona! What a night it was for conservatives across the nation! What a night it was for the United States of America!

Arizona's elections left few Democrats in its wake. Members of a divided party (back in 2009 over the proposed tax increase) campaigned together and supported each other. The fruits of these actions produced a straight-ticket GOP voting scheme across much of the state.

As it stands right now, Republicans gained two Congressional seats in Arizona last night, knocking off Ann Kirkpatrick and Harry Mitchell in Congressional Districts One and Five, respectively. There's still two seats in question: Ruth McClung in Congressional District Seven, and Jesse Kelly in Congressional District Eight. Jesse Kelly probably has the best chance at coming back to grab the lead after all the outstanding ballots have been accounted for.

Congressman Trent Franks and Congressman Jeff Flake again showed the Democrats that they should never bother to throw a competitive General election at them, each winning in their districts with over 65% of the vote. Ben Quayle won his General election handily (by over ten percentage points) in a race where most people with interest in it speculated just how close it could be in the end.

Governor Brewer easily won her re-election. Tom Horne comfortably defeated his Democratic opponent in the Attorney General's race. John Huppenthal became next in line for Superintendent of Schools.

Some thoughts, though, in thinking about the last night's results and about Election 2012 in Arizona:

Glen Beck pointed out on Monday's show that Ruth McClung had turned down financial aid from the Republican establishment, in part, because she did not want to become beholden to them for anything. I understand Ruth's sentiments; however, in today's political system, money wins votes. Candidates need to get their message across to as many of the voters in their district as possible. If Ruth McClung does, in fact, lose this race, it won't be from a lack of effort; rather it will be because she just couldn't match the slew of funds that came pouring in to save Congressman Raul Grijalva from a humiliating defeat. That's unfortunate.
Ben Quayle wasn't supposed to win his Primary election in Congressional District Three in August, yet there he was, at the top, after all the ballots had been counted. His General election was regarded to be "closer than it should be" - this due to his Democrat opponent's tireless attacks on Ben's past history in his personal life; yet Quayle blew Jon Hulburd away by almost twelve percentage points, capturing more than fifty percent of the district's vote in the process. Though I have concerns about his stance on telling the truth when it matters, I have little doubt (unlike some other individuals) that he will be a staunch conservative vote in the United States House of Representatives. For everything he endured (and don't let anyone tell you that anyone but himself brought momentary troubles upon his campaign), he showed resiliency; he showed that he could, in time, reach John McCain status - a longtime politician who is the face of Arizona politics.
Speaking of rising stars in Arizona (and Quayle jumped to the front of that list last night), there were some other state legislators who could soon be due for promotions. Speaker of the House Kirk Adams comes first to my mind. Speaker Adams will be termed out of the House in 2012, and he will need another seat to jump to. The easiest solution would be to work out a swap with the district's State Senator, Rich Crandall, but let's think outside of the box: would Kirk Adams ever challenge Congressman Jeff Flake for the party's U.S. House nomination? If anything, it's going to be interesting to see what Speaker Adams does with the next step of his career. Representative Steve Montenegro is the other rising Arizona star who comes to my mind. Steve is a close friend of mine. His character and passion for serving his Creator and country is second to none. When he addresses a crowd, people walk away inspired, blown away by his enthusiasm. Steve pulled in more votes yesterday than his district running mate, Jerry Weiers, who has years more name recognition in the area. He's ready for a step up in 2012, I think. Will he run for State Senator? We'll see how everything shakes out.
What will Senator Jon Kyl do in 2012 when re-election time comes upon him? If he runs, he will win handily, and this conversation is moot. However, there are so many scenarios if he decides to call it a career, giving his successor the best possible chance at success in what will more than likely be a GOP year.

Congressman Jeff Flake could run for the Senate seat. Flake has amassed a huge war chest over the years, and could definitely raise more if he took this step. IF Congressman Flake runs for U.S. Senate, that would open up the door for Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams to run for Congress in a safer than safe GOP district.
Ben Quayle would definitely take a long look at this opportunity. With his name ID, popularity amongst the young people, and ability to raise loads of cash, he would definitely be one of the favorites in the Primary in no time. IF Quayle ran for this Senate seat, Dean Martin, Jim Waring, and Vernon Parker would probably look to keep Quayle's Congressional seat in GOP control.
IF Quayle does not run, look for Dean Martin to run for U.S. Senate. Dean, from all accounts, is a well-liked individual, and a candidate who was in line to defeat Governor Brewer and Terry Goddard in a world without S.B. 1070. He's not done with his political career in the least bit.
I would think that J.D. Hayworth would make one last attempt at public service. Maybe he bites at this opportunity.
I've also heard that Congressman John Shadegg might consider running to succeed Senator Kyl. Look for Secretary of State Ken Bennett's name to be mentioned as well.

A Colbert Mockery

2010-09-24T16:55:00.000-07:00

Today, I became infuriated.

ObamaCare had made me on edge. Czars had me concerned. Democrats had me depressed all around. But I haven't felt fury like I did today when I watched comedian Stephen Colbert make an absolute mockery of Congress.

In the rare case you haven't watched his remarks before the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, you should immediately. Of course you'll laugh - the entire speech was laugh-out-loud material to the nth degree. That's what was infuriating about it all.

Americans are struggling everyday to keep their jobs. Many continue to lose their jobs, or their income levels are slashed in an effort to minimize costs in this economy. And Democrats feel they have the wiggle room to fool around with comedians during hearings? Did we miss the insertion of "Democrats' Playtime - Friday mornings, on Capitol Hill" into the Congressional Record?

It's incomprehensible to me that the Democrats have so little respect for the American people and for the integrity of the offices they were elected to. Today's Colbert "performance" shows that this Congress is officially out of hand. It's time to get terrified as an American citizen when the Speaker of the House calls these kind of antics (by Colbert) "great."

It's time to turn the pressure up on these guys now more than ever. It's time to register all the voters we can; make all the phone calls we can; walk all the neighborhoods we can find. November 2s coming soon, and we need to change out these self-serving Democratic legislators who think that they can do whatever they want to - just because they can.

We, the American people, have the chance to elect new blood into Congress - men and women across the country who will have the utmost respect for we the people, for the rich and great history of this country, and for the offices they hold. Nancy Pelosi, Zoe Lofgren (the California Representative who invited Colbert to "testify"), and the rest of the Democrat delegation need to hear this message loud and clear come November. If the American people do not get it right come November; if they do not feel a need to send the strongest message possible to the failed policies and goings-on on DC, then we may never get another chance like the present again.

"Take Back the 20" and the RNC

2010-09-23T12:39:00.000-07:00

Today was a significant step in the political life of Sarah Palin. She launched her own website, http://www.takebackthe20.com/, dedicated to taking back 20 "McCain" House seats now held by Democrats (Democrats who voted for ObamaCare). She also received a pledge from the Republican National Committee for $257,037.70 to pay off her legal debts, which she incurred while still the Governor of Alaska, in exchange for fundraising duties in the coming months.

It will be interesting to see how many of the 20 candidates Palin endorses on the website actually pull out wins in November. If she can pull out fourteen, fifteen or more - that's a pretty good ratio for her; the more wins she receives, the brighter her star will become for 2012. Interesting enough, Governor Palin endorsed GOP nominee for AZ-08, Jesse Kelly, who before his Primary victory over Jonathan Paton had some choice words for her involvement in political races around the country.

The RNC relationship with Palin is another story altogether. They didn't publicly turn to Gingrich, Romney, Huckabee or any other potential 2012 nominee for fundraising; they recognize Palin's national draw amongst conservatives, and they realize that her draw will make them successful in the long term. They would be foolish not to lean on Palin for assistance as her popularity soars with the American electorate.

Watch those twenty House seats. If Palin's influence proves lethal to the Democrats in most of those races, it might make too much sense to crown her the 2012 Presidential nominee right then and there. However, primaries aren't in existence for nothing. It will definitely be interesting to see what happens in the next year!

Democrats' Demise

2010-09-21T09:24:00.000-07:00

Either modern-day politicians aren't that smart, or they only have self interests to serve. Since the Democrats have been fully in control of the Federal Government for the past year and a half, the spotlight is on them for the working out of this theory. Republicans had better prove in the coming years that they have the best interests at heart of the people they serve, or they will find themselves facing the same public wrath that the Democrats are now experiencing.

Democrats didn't get America's loud-and-clear "NO" message with the car bailouts, or the stimulus package, or the waffling on the Afghanistan war strategy, or ObamaCare, or Cap and Tax. For some reason, Democrats are looking to invoke more"no's" from their constituency by pushing for the passage of the Dream Act (backdoor amnesty) and a final repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the U.S. Military. Democrats call Republicans "The Party of No"; they are proving that they are the party of "We don't care."

To prove my points, here's a list of Scott Rasmussen's polls, which seem to accurately grasp the heartbeat of America:

In early 2009, 64% of Americans opposed additional car bailouts.
A poll in August 2010 showed that almost 40% of Americans thought that the stimulus package hurt the economy, while approximately 20% thought there was no impact to the economy. (The first number will almost surely go up in the coming months, as more Americans observe possible rising unemployment figures and the economy just not recovering.)
Only a few months after President Obama finally came forward with his Afghanistan war strategy, only 21% of American thought that the Afghanistan War would get better.
61% of Americans support the repeal of ObamaCare - surprise, surprise!
In the immediate aftermath of the House of Representative's passage of the Cap and Trade legislation in summer 2009, 56% of Americans stated that they did not want to be taxed more in the interest of "global warming."

Satisfied? Democrats are continually showing that they won't get the messages Americans are shouting to them day after day. Americans have seen what big government policies do to their country, and we don't want any more of the policies in existence!

November 2's going to be a fun day for conservatives all around the country!

Sarah Palin's March Towards 2012

2010-09-17T14:38:00.000-07:00

Can anyone stop the political rise of Sarah Palin? That is the question that American politicians continue to ask - whether overtly or covertly - when observing her political dealings throughout the 2010 election season.

Without the intuition of Senator John McCain in the 2008 Presidential race, Sarah Palin probably would have ended up as "nothing more" than an United States Senator from Alaska. Now, she might be a year and a half away from becoming the Republicans' nominee for President of the United States. Since resigning her position as Alaska's governor in the summer of 2009, Palin has inserted herself as a force to be reckoned with - both outside and inside the Republican party.

Sarah Palin hasn't missed a chance to go after President Obama's White House, or the media, or other Democrat leaders attempting to take shots at her. She has also ensured that she won't be known as a follower of the "good ole boys" of the Republican party, endorsing several prominent Tea Party members of the GOP. Palin has endorsed forty-three statewide and Congressional candidates this year (pre-primaries); twenty-three have been tea party candidates, and nineteen of them have won (compared to her ratio of twelve out of twenty endorsed "establishment" victors). Point being: she's made a difference in the GOP (and nation) by starting to carve out a niche for herself.

Ever since the 2008 election, President Obama has made it a point to attack Sarah Palin, showing that Democrats do not view her to be a slouch. Remember then-Senator Obama's reference to "lipstick on a pig" during the Presidential campaign. Or remember back in February when White House Press Secretary mocked Palin by showing notes written down on his hand during a Press Briefing. And then there were the statements today by Gibbs, not attacking Sarah Palin, but mysteriously crowning her the Republican Party's leader.

Many Democrats seem to want her as the Republicans' leader in 2012 because they expect the American people to see her as a far-right extremist. They seem to forget rather easily that their party's leader is about as far-left as a liberal can be. The American people proved in 2008 that they can be swooned by "the next big thing" (even though the "next big thing" may be on the far right or left of a political party) - although in 2008, they were swooned for all the wrong reasons as we're finding out as the days and months of Obama's Presidency drags on. I think that the same 2008 phenomenon can occur in 2012 - where the American people will again show a desire to be "swooned" by a "novelty" - but this time (in the case of a Palin nomination) for all the right reasons. Yes, I want Sarah Palin as the GOP's nominee in 2012!

Christine O'Donnell's Senate win could have been a landmark day for Sarah Palin in her possible climb to a run for the GOP Presidential nomination. She climbed out on a limb to endorse O'Donnell, bucking the trend set by the GOP elite in supporting the liberal Mike Castle. O'Donnell is definitely a long shot to win the Delaware U.S. Senate seat as she was in the Primary(though no one can deny that she does, in fact, have a shot to win), yet Palin's endorsement may have pushed O'Donnell over the top by inspiring more conservative voters to come out and vote for her. This election may have finally proved to every Republican in the country that Sarah Palin is about the business of principled convictions; that Sarah Palin won't endorse a liberal Republican simply to gain a flawed majority in Congress.

Sarah Palin is not afraid to take the hits on her character or policies. That attitude, to a large degree, is missing in Republican circles these days. Democrats continuously attack Republicans, and the Republicans slink away, unwilling to defend themselves and their policies in an efficient and a decisive manner in front of the American people. Palin appears to live for these moments - the opportunities to do or say what is right, and then stand toe to toe against the people to seek to tear down what she is doing or saying. I think she is the voice that the GOP has been looking for for some time.

In the interest of full disclosure, no, Sarah Palin was not ready to lead a country in 2009 if "President" McCain passed away - she was very raw and unprepared to "perfectly" grasp the issues in such a short window of time. However, that was of no fault of her own; she hadn't been planning on the national attention she was going to receive in 2008. Rather, she was focused on leading her state as best as she knew how. Palin now, though, has been extremely diligent to surround herself with as much knowledge about different issues surrounding leading the United States of America. I have a feeling that if she runs in 2012, the American electorate will be impressed with what they hear from a revitalized Palin.

Also, remember this - leaders are born for specific purposes and positions - ordained for them by their Creator before the beginning of time. They only seem to flourish where God has ordained them to be placed, and they probably will look unprepared and foolish everywhere else. The media can glory in the fact that they made Governor Palin stumble in a couple of 2008 interviews, but that just proves all the more that they don't have the best interests of the American people at heart. If they were really doing their job - even now - they would admit and report that Sarah Palin was loved by her constituency in Alaska and doing whatever she could to turn their government back into their hands. Sarah Palin may stumble from time to time with a slimy liberal reporter, but once she's in an executive position, she does great things - things that this country could sure use in the upcoming years.

Sarah Palin is exactly what the GOP and this country needs in 2012. She's a fresh, strong, level-headed voice, who's not at all afraid to do the difficult thing if it's best for the country. She could care less about party ties if allegiance to party would disregard what would be best for the electorate. Tea Party Republicans love Palin; it's time for others in the Republican Party to rally around her and solidify her place as the party's leader going into 2012. The United States of America would be better off for it - that's for sure!

Ben Quayle's Candidacy

2010-09-09T11:45:00.000-07:00

I really wish I could get behind Ben Quayle's candidacy for Congress - I really do. As a fellow Republican, I would have wanted to support him and to help ensure that he replaced Congressman John Shadegg as the next United States' Representative of Arizona's Third Congressional District. After all, that's only right amongst Republicans.

However, Mr. Quayle proved that not only would he not own up to "something" he engaged in on a scandalous website some years ago, he would change his story multiple times and then falsely blame his closest competitors for leaking the damming story. He also proved that he was not beneath running a dirty smear campaign in the last month of the election - especially with his printed lies about Vernon Parker. He has steamrolled over these events, tried to hide them, and turn the heads of the constituency back to the "issues."

Voters missed a grand opportunity to elect someone to the seat with experience and established conservative credentials. I was strongly supporting Vernon Parker, but there were others that would have satisfied the criteria. Ben Quayle is still a relative unknown; he does not have a track record which proves that he would be an asset for the Republican Party.

The only time Ben Quayle did anything significant to challenge President Obama was when he filmed a campaign commercial, calling Obama "the worst President in history" (filmed in his dad's house, no less)- that's it! And unlike his latest radio ad incorrectly implies, Ben Quayle has not always been in favor of a Constitutional amendment protecting marriage.

Ben Quayle could very well become the next Congressman of AZ-03, but I would like him to show that he has integrity; that he is willing to tell the truth; and that he is willing to admit when he has made a mistake in his life - the first time and only one time. Is that too much to ask?

A Ben Quayle with integrity is what the constituents of AZ-03 would be proud of - someone who will fight for conservative issues for all the right reasons. A Ben Quayle without integrity is still someone who is an unknown - an unknown who may cause some people to think twice about voting for him. All Ben Quayle has to do is to own up to his Primary mistakes (changing his website story multiple times and falsely smearing his opponents to gain an edge) and I would be all over his candidacy and do what I could to help him win in the General election.

Ben Quayle, please start doing the right thing. You still have time to gain the respect of many people - even if you might very well be the front runner for the House seat.

A Tale of Two Religions

2010-09-09T10:50:00.000-07:00

First of all, President Obama seems to take the side of Muslims an awful lot, doesn't he? In two recent events, President Obama supported the Muslims who wanted to construct a Ground Zero mosque, and he condemned the Florida pastor's plan to burn copies of the Quran. Before President Obama goes any further in denouncing the Florida pastor's Quran burning event, he should take a longer look at his promotion of the Muslims' "right" to build a mosque near Ground Zero.

Second, both events show an insensitivity by both parties (the Florida pastor and the Ground Zero Muslims) to a religion and a respectful remembrance of a tragic event, respectively. Yes, the Ground Zero Muslims have every Constitutional right to build a mosque wherever they receive permission; and yes, the Florida pastor has every Constitutional right to burn copies of Qurans. However, both parties should have a sense of responsibility to do the right, logical, and sensible thing.

In the Ground Zero case, the Muslims there should strongly consider the feelings of the families of the 9/11 victims before they construct their mosque in the shadows of Ground Zero. Although these Muslims are not connected to the Islamic radicals who heinously murdered almost three thousand people on September 11, they should realize that there is a certain stigma that might follow them with the families and friends of the victims because of their religious associations. Whether or not this stigma is justified, these Ground Zero Muslim leaders should have more compassion on the families and friends of the attacks for what they endured nine years ago and work towards creating a trusting relationship between the two parties.

There are already two mosques within twelve blocks of Ground Zero. Muslims in the area might be a little inconvenienced by having to find another location for a mosque, but at least they will have shown the world that they are willing to do the right thing for 9/11 survivors.

In the case of the Florida pastor (Terry Jones), I don't know what his true motive might be, but I will not say that I think it is God-ordained. I feel that his decision to hold a Quran-burning event is nothing more than a ploy to draw worldwide attention to himself. He should be more sensitive to another person's religion, and not attempt to exploit it just because he can do so. All Pastor Terry Jones has done is unnecessarily inflamed Muslims around the world.

And his actions are so deplorable because he calls himself a Christian, yet he does not correctly illustrate the message of Christianity. Sure, he and I would both agree that we serve the one, true God, and that the god of Islam is not that one, true God. Point is - there are other ways to spread that message; inflaming an entire religious community does nothing to spread the message of a loving, yet just Christian God. In fact, it augments the possibility of more jihad against our troops abroad, or even against our own country by radical Muslims.

What Pastor Jones needs to admit is that Muslims have perfect right to peacefully worship their god - just as much right as he does to worship his. He may not think they're right in what they believe, but he definitely should not take matters into his own hands (like he is doing).

Also, before Muslims decry the burning of a Quran, they should strongly re-consider their plans to build a mosque near Ground Zero. There are other places to build a mosque - other places where a mosque would not incite so much anger from those who lost loved ones in that place.

A lot would be solved in this world if people treated each other how they (themselves) would like to be treated. No less in this case where a Florida pastor and a New York Imam have a chance to show that their religions will not trample on the feelings and beliefs of other people who are in the picture. Let's hope that the right thing is done by all involved!

Politics In AZ's Voting List

2010-08-20T18:35:00.000-07:00

Here's a recap of the Republican candidates that Politics In AZ will be voting for in Tuesday's Primary election (I vote in CD-2 and LD-4):

Governor: Jan Brewer

U.S. Senator: John McCain

U.S. Representative: Trent Franks

Secretary of State: Ken Bennett

Attorney General: Andrew Thomas

Superintendent of Public Instruction: John Huppenthal

Arizona Corporation Commission: Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns

Maricopa County Attorney: Bill Montgomery

AZ Legislature: To be honest, the only state legislator I'm settled with is Representative Judy Burges. I am still thinking about the other Representative slot and also the State Senator slot. Perhaps more to come with this by Monday.

United States Senator

2010-08-20T13:30:00.000-07:00

After months of internal deliberations on the candidate who should receive my vote and support for United States Senate, I have decided to vote for Senator John McCain in Tuesday's Primary election.

My vote for Senator McCain is not a total indictment against J.D. Hayworth. Rather, I don't think that J.D. appealed to a wide range of support amongst voters in Arizona; he was zoned in on the Tea Party groups for much of his campaign. I don't know whether or not this was his decision, or if this was the only avenue which opened up to him. This, to me, shows a fundamental flaw for a potential U.S. Senator. J.D. didn't give me anything during his campaign that made me say, "YES! I want to see a Senator J.D. Hayworth!"

A United States Senator needs to be respected, and needs to work with a wide range of people. The fact that J.D. hasn't been able to draw support from a range of Republican voters may show that they see that he would not garner the respect of his Senate colleagues - the respect that Senator McCain seems to have due to his seniority. Simply put, J.D. Hayworth did not do enough to prove to voters why they should trust him in the company of other United States Senators at this time.

Not to let Senator McCain off the hook - I'm not satisfied with how he has conducted himself over the past decade. He has been suspect on some conservative issues; he is notoriously stubborn, and he infuriated many national conservatives by running a seemingly lackluster Presidential campaign in 2008. However, at the least, J.D. Hayworth forced Senator McCain to take a long look inside of himself and to push himself further to the right.

I really want to believe Senator McCain when he says that he will fight for conservative principles - most importantly in securing our borders and opposing amnesty. I think that our country owes John McCain more than we can ever re-pay him for his well-published service in the Navy. We, as a Nation, are better off with Senator McCain continuing to strengthen his legacy by continuing the fight against the forces of liberalism. Senator McCain cannot continue to be a half-hearted Conservative (as he undeniably has been during the last decade); he has to take on the whole cause.

Senator McCain has promised to do everything he can to secure the borders, and he is on the record as saying that he opposes amnesty. He is a strong voice against ObamaCare and against earmarks and higher taxes. While maybe not the complete conservative that J.D. Hayworth proved himself to be, Senator McCain has the experience in the Senate which gives him great respect amongst his colleagues. He efficiently opposes President Obama's far-left agenda.

Politics In AZ supports Senator John McCain for re-election, but will be observing his actions in the Senate over his next term (should he win the next two elections) to make sure that he is the consistent conservative voice that he has promised to be during this campaign stretch.

Arizona Governor

2010-08-19T15:13:00.000-07:00

S.B. 1070 changed a lot of things in the political world.

It brought national attention to Arizona.

It caused the Obama administration to bow to the far-left liberal base (in suing Arizona), giving the Republicans a major card to play against Democrats in the upcoming November elections.

It spread the spirit of true illegal immigration enforcement to other states.

It knocked two Republicans out of the Arizona GOP Gubernatorial Primary.

It effectively signed, sealed, and delivered a re-election victory to Governor Jan Brewer.

It's difficult to remember, but before S.B. 1070, Jan Brewer was pushing through Proposition 100 (a one-cent sales tax increase), which was perceived to be extremely unpopular amongst conservatives in the state. At one time (months ago), due to Governor Brewer's insistence for a sales tax increase, State Treasurer Dean Martin was considered to be the best GOP nominee to take on the Democrat front runner, Terry Goddard.

To Brewer's defense, she did inherit a large budget deficit from her predecessor, who fled the state at an opportune moment to take a position in President Obama's deficit. Not only was there a huge budget deficit, but there was an unwillingness from state agencies to put up with the massive budget cuts that would have been needed to close that deficit. Brewer needed to do something to quickly resolve the budget crisis that Arizona faced.

Unfortunately, Governor Brewer and her staff came across as too dictatorial to many of the conservatives in the Arizona Legislature, who banded together to oppose any tax increase proposals coming out of the ninth floor. It even appeared to me at one point that the infighting in the Arizona Republican Party might cost them dearly in the 2010 elections, and I felt that Governor Brewer was mostly to blame for the public perception of "Republican incompetence."

Then S.B. 1070 happened, and Governor Brewer became the media-appointed spokeswoman for the Arizona GOP. To her credit, she has been a wonderful voice for Arizona, and her leadership abilities have shined in the midst of the Obama administration's inept handling of the entire situation. Governor Brewer had her tax increase passed overwhelmingly by the voters, and little opposition was raised - a stark contrast to what might have occurred in a world without S.B. 1070.

Jan Brewer made a decision (in signing S.B. 1070) that may have paid major political dividends for her, but she has proven that she will do the dirty work for Arizona, fighting the forces of liberalism who dare to tell the leaders of our state that we have right to do what is in our best interests. She is also an extremely strong social conservative. However, Governor Brewer must still earn the trust of conservatives by promoting a small government agenda. She's made the tough decisions on illegal immigration; she must make more of the difficult decisions when attempting to balance the budget in the future.

Although the choice was made extremely easy by Dean Martin's and Buz Mills' departures from the Primary race, Politics In AZ strongly supports Governor Jan Brewer for Governor in Tuesday's election. Arizona is very fortunate to have her in place as the Governor of our great state!

(For more information about Governor Jan Brewer, please visit her website, http://www.janbrewer.com/.)

Arizona Corporation Commission

2010-08-18T14:23:00.000-07:00

Republicans can select two of the three Arizona Corporation Commission candidates to fill out their primary ballot. Politics in AZ highly recommends Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns.

Both Gary and Brenda have experience in the Arizona Legislature, and they are both proven conservative leaders. Gary is currently a member of the Corporation Commission. Brenda has complied more endorsements of conservative elected officials in this state than I can count - she is definitely respected as a conservative voice in Arizona.

One reason not to vote for their opponent in this GOP Primary - In 2006, Barry Wong was appointed by then-Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to fill an empty seat on the commission, which begs the question in my mind: 'Why did the liberal Napolitano feel comfortable enough to appoint Wong to the position?' This former arrangement is definitely suspect enough in my mind to question whether or not Barry Wong could ever be a top-notch conservative for the Commission.

This Tuesday, please vote for Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns for the Arizona Corporation Commission.

(For more information on both Gary Pierce and Brenda Burns, please visit www.garypierceforarizona.com and www.brendaburns2010.com)

Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction

2010-08-17T16:23:00.000-07:00

My choice for Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction: John Huppenthal.

John is endorsed by Congressman Trent Franks, former Florida governor Jeb Bush, former GOP Gubernatorial nominee Len Munsil, and Arizona Right to Life. He has a strong track record in the Arizona Legislature, and few individuals have been as pro-active as he has during his eighteen years in serving the state.

John Huppenthal seems to have a plan for how to direct the schools in Arizona - a well thought-out, conservative plan. He's a staunch advocate for increased parental choice, for home schooling rights, and for promoting more of an awareness of the great history of our country.

John has proven throughout his career that he doesn't simply talk; he follows his rhetoric to fruition as best he can. His record shows that he is unafraid to make the tough decisions. It also helps that he hasn't been part of the problem in this state's school system (as has one of his closest competitors, Margaret Dugan, who currently is serving as the Deputy Superintendent of Schools). He's a fresh voice with solid ideas that can definitely work if given a chance to be implemented.

The Arizona school system is one of the worst in the country. We need change in the worst way for the sake of our future generations who are now in (and will be in) the system. John Huppenthal is the right person for the position. He will bring his extensive experience to the job to correct the problems our schools cannot seem to shake.

Voters of Arizona, vote for John Huppenthal for Arizona Superintendent of Schools!

(For more information on John Huppenthal, please visit his campaign website, http://www.johnhuppenthal.com/)

The Arpaio Team: Attorney General and Maricopa County Attorney

2010-08-16T15:02:00.000-07:00

Sheriff Joe Arpaio needs our help in this upcoming Primary election! The Obama-Napolitano-Holder-led Federal Government is closing in on their witch hunt against him, and he shouldn't have to fight with politically correct, liberal leaning Arizona politicians, who should instead be responsible for leading the fights Arpaio takes on himself.

For the sake of honesty - yes, Sheriff Arpaio enjoys the spotlight; yet I think he is as vocal and as active as he is because he truly enjoys the frenzied liberal responses when he does the jobs he was elected to do. Regardless of what some people may think of Sheriff Arpaio as a politician, he is a sincere individual, who desires nothing more than what's best for Arizona and for the United States of America. We need more "Sheriff Joes" (especially as Arizona moves forward in its fight to enforce its own borders), and for the most part, whoever Joe Arpaio wants in political office to help him enforce the laws, conservatives should want in office also.

Enter two men to the rescue: Attorney General candidate Andrew Thomas and Maricopa County Attorney candidate Bill Montgomery. Andrew Thomas was most recently Maricopa County's Attorney, and Bill Montgomery was the 2006 Republican nominee for Arizona Attorney General (he was beaten by Terry Goddard). Both candidates are strongly endorsed by Sheriff Arpaio in their Primary elections.

Thomas and Montgomery have proven track records which show that they will stand up to corruption, crime, and illegal immigration - and the many liberals who tag along, dragging their feet to oppose the enforcement such laws.

Andrew Thomas has received a lot of heat for his investigations and prosecutions of Maricopa County officials. He has not been charged with any wrongdoing - and if he is at anytime, I'd expect the investigators to pick up on some small technicalities (which, of course, may be grossly exaggerated in an attempt to tarnish his reputation). Thomas is hated by liberals, but one thing is for certain: he will look after the interests of the Arizona citizens should he become elected Attorney General.

Bill Montgomery is a graduate of West Point. He is extremely intelligent, and those who speak with him can immediately tell that he has deep purpose and conviction for what he does.

Voters of Maricopa County, please vote for Bill Montgomery for County Attorney- someone who will stand with Sheriff Arpaio in the fight for your interests!

Voters of Arizona, please vote for Andrew Thomas for Attorney General. Andrew Thomas will take his fight of crime, corruption, and illegal immigration to a statewide level for the betterment of Arizona as a whole.

(Visit www.thomasforarizona.com and www.montgomery2010.com for more information on Andrew Thomas and Bill Montgomery.)

Arizona's Third Congressional District

2010-08-13T11:40:00.000-07:00

Little surprise where Politics In AZ is leaning in the race to gain the GOP nomination to replace Congressman John Shadegg in the United States House of Representatives: Vernon Parker's our man here!

Vernon Parker deserves the nomination because of a variety of issues - the first being his intriguing life story. Vernon was raised in an impoverished neighborhood, yet with the help of his faith, Grandmother, and his personal rallying cry ("I CAN!"), he made it to Georgetown Law School; he made it to President George H. W. Bush's administration, where he served as a Special Assistant to the Commander in Chief; he made it to President George W. Bush's administration, where he served as an Assistant Secretary to the Department of Agriculture; and he made it as the Mayor of Paradise Valley, where he cut spending by nearly 30%. Vernon Parker uses his captivating life story and rise to prominence to empower other individuals who may be in the same state of being that he once was in. He was given much by this country, and out of gratitude and appreciation for it, he has done nothing but fight for the conservative principles which do allow someone to reach their full potential.

Vernon Parker deserves the nomination because of his faith - and the moral compass his faith has, and continues to provide him. Little known about Mr. Parker is that he was a pastor of a non-denominational Paradise Valley church for two years. He is extremely pro-life and pro-traditional marriage.

Vernon Parker deserves the nomination because of his integrity. He proved that he was a man of his word with the way in which he handled the end of his first and only term as Mayor of Paradise Valley. Mayor Parker had promised his Paradise Valley constituents that he would only serve one term as their Mayor; and true to his word, after his term had come to an end, he resisted the call of many to serve again. Though many would attempt to assassinate his character, Vernon has garnered the support of many conservative elected officials and of a former U.S. attorney, who all highly endorse his integrity and conservative credentials.

Out of all the candidates running for the GOP nomination for this House seat, Vernon stands ahead of the group because of his wide range of experience, his commitment to excellence and morality, and his enthusiastic grasp of the true American dream. He is running to help restore faith in the promise of America. AZ-03 voters should look no further than Vernon Parker when considering whom to vote for in this hotly contested primary. He's the right man for the job!

(Visit www.parker2010.com for more information on Vernon Parker)

Arizona's First Congressional District

2010-08-12T17:29:00.000-07:00

Ann Kirkpatrick needs to be retired from Congress - like now!

She votes with the Democrat party - 87% of the time.

She voted for ObamaCare.

The constituents of Arizona's First Congressional District deserve someone who will listen to them; someone who will fight for their liberties and for a better future for them and their loved ones.

That someone is Sydney Hay.

Sydney is accused of being a lifetime lobbyist - a woman with her eyes selfishly on a Congressional seat. However, the only selfish bone in Sydney's body is the one that desires a better America for her grandchildren and their children.

People who make these accusations against Sydney don't know her - nor do they want to seem to want to get to know her. Many who do meet her are charmed by her sincerity, and they are engaged by her passion for conservative issues. There are few in this state who hold fast to conservative beliefs, and who also fight as hard as she has for the existence of those conservative beliefs.

Sydney Hay is pro-life, pro-family, pro-military, pro-small government, and pro-America. She has worked for years to advance the beliefs that she holds so dearly, and another defender of conservatism, Congressman Trent Franks, has endorsed her in her run for Congress.

Voters in AZ-01, please cast your ballot for Sydney Hay when voting for the Republican nominee to take on Congresswoman Kirkpatrick. She's the right woman to represent you!

(Visit http://www.sydneyhayforcongress.com/ for more information on Sydney Hay.)

Arizona's Second Congressional District

2010-08-11T13:56:00.000-07:00

It is only right that I start my endorsements off with Congressman Trent Franks for Arizona's Second Congressional District - a man of integrity, vision, and conviction.

Congressman Franks is one of the most principled men to hold elected office in this country in this day and age. He is a God-honoring individual with a strong, unwavering moral compass. He loves the United States of America. He defends the unborn, and opposes religious tyranny abroad. On top of all of this, he is one of the top conservatives in the country.

Congressman Franks votes according to the principles he has held for years, and his constituents can be assured that he cannot be easily swayed - if even at all. He is a staunch advocate of missile defense for the USA, and of our military. He effectively and actively opposes President Obama's radical agenda - and will continue to do so as long as President Obama occupies the White House.

One of Congressman Franks' greatest joys in life is his family. He does not need Washington DC; he only serves as a Congressman because he wants to provide a better future for his two young children - and for the millions of other children populating the country.

No constituent interacting with Congressman Franks will ever feel that he is inferior to Congressman Franks, or that Congressman Franks doesn't care about him. Congressman Franks has a servants heart - he is not in Congress for himself - and most of his constituency knows this to be one hundred percent truthful.

Republicans in Arizona's Second Congressional District need not look any further when voting for a true conservative to represent them in DC. They already have one of the best - let's return Congressman Trent Franks to Washington DC so that he can continue to fight against the spread of socialism and secure a better future for generations to come.

AZ Prepares to Vote

2010-08-11T13:52:00.000-07:00

Arizona's primary is fast approaching! In the upcoming week, Politics In AZ will share its endorsements of several of the candidates running for elected offices. Stay tuned!

Momentum Builds for Vernon Parker!

2010-08-09T16:04:00.000-07:00

Vernon Parker's lifetime conservative credentials just earned him high praise from one of the most conservative elected officials in the country: Congressman Trent Franks. Congressman Franks disclosed his thoughts of Vernon Parker as follows below:

"Vernon Parker's life story of victory over poverty and hopelessness inspires my heart. I wish everyone could hear it. It has made him a valiant over comer and man of abiding Christian faith who always remembers the helpless, whether they live in the dawn of life, the shadows of life or the twilight of life."

Ben Quayle Couldn't Say 'I Do'

2010-08-06T14:31:00.000-07:00

With all of the recent court decisions on the sanctity of marriage, it is becoming increasingly necessary for conservatives to lay the groundwork for a Constitutional amendment on marriage - once and for all defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman. It's incredibly sad that we as a society have reached this point in morality, but what's important is that men and women around the country support a Constitutional amendment to put these activist judges and groups in their places.

Believe it or not, Congressional candidate Ben Quayle could not decide whether or not he supported such a Constitutional amendment ..... just two months ago. When given the opportunity to check a support or oppose box on the Center for Arizona Policy voter guide questionnaire, Quayle instead left the boxes blank, opting to write his rational for the action in some empty space. Mr. Quayle stated that he believed that the Defense of Marriage Act was sufficient to protect marriages, and in his opinion, Constitutional amendments to defend marriage were not correct applications.

Does this mean that Ben Quayle is not conservative because he refused to support - or oppose - a Constitutional marriage amendment? That would be stretching things, but it does raise some questions as to whether or not Mr. Quayle could take a principled and courageous stand in Congress.

Around the time the Vernon Parker campaign pointed out Quayle's lack of conviction on this issue, Quayle sent out a press release calling for a Constitutional amendment to define and defend true marriage. Problem is, he left out the fact that he previously could not say he supported the amendment in the first place. This appears to be nothing more than additional misleading tactics enacted by Ben Quayle.

While Ben Quayle does not appear ready to give yes or no answers to some of the toughest issues of our day, Vernon Parker is - and has been - standing firm on his conservative principles for years. Vernon opposed Governor Brewer's proposed tax increase earlier this year so he started a campaign committee in an attempt to stop the sales tax increase in its path. When most of the candidates for Congress in this race jumped on other politicians' anti-illegal immigration bandwagons, Vernon came up with his own plan -a plan that showed that Vernon Parker could think for himself. And now, with the recent Prop 8 ruling in California, Vernon was one of the first to come out and condemn what had occurred.

Constituents of Arizona's Congressional District Three need a Representative who knows what he believes, and who is willing and committed to act decisively on that which he believes. Vernon Parker has shown that he walks his rhetoric. Ben Quayle has yet to show the constituency that he can do the same.

BabyGate

2010-08-04T15:13:00.000-07:00

Political scandals occur in all sorts of shapes, sizes, and magnitudes. There is nothing that can frustrate a campaign more than some slip of words or actions, or a revelation of previously-hidden baggage in a candidate's past.

Enter a candidate for the GOP nomination in Arizona's Third Congressional District Ben Quayle, who is receiving some flack for a campaign flier he mailed out to voters. The flier shows Mr. Quayle, age 33, interacting with two girls. Since there are no other adults in the background, one might reasonably assume that the two (cuter than cute) girls are the offspring of Ben Quayle. Furthermore, Quayle's statement on the bottom of the flyer includes, "Tiffany and I..... are going to raise our family here." However, there are no Ben Quayle children.....

If this is not an intentionally misleading campaign flyer, it definitely shows the lack of political maturity of Ben Quayle. With other candidates in the race who have a surplus of earned conservative credentials, voters should not simply look for the new and young face to represent them in DC - as has seemed to occur with Ben Quayle's rise to the top of the AZ CD 3 race.

Quayle has taken some heat for his flyer from numerous media sources - and even his campaign has admitted everything wasn't on the up and up when dealing with the truth of the matter. According to a Arizona Capitol Times report, a Quayle campaign spokeswoman disclosed that her campaign wasn't initially accurate about the identity of the children in the picture. The Politico and Hardball's Chris Matthews also picked up on the Quayle blooper.

This story is taking flight quickly, and Ben Quayle isn't helping to quench the fires with his evasive tactics. Republicans need someone who is both experienced and trustworthy to replace the retiring John Shadegg. Ben Quayle has yet to prove that he is ready or committed to represent hundreds of thousands of constituents in the upcoming years.

Quayle's BabyGate is a prime reason why voters need to take a look at what the candidates in this race have done - not what they have said in the past or present - to make their informed decision about whom to vote for. Out of all the candidates running for Arizona's Third Congressional District, only one candidate has all of the tools to maintain an experienced conservative presence that would make Congressman Shadegg proud: Vernon Parker. Vernon continues to surge in the election because more and more voters realize the importance of putting him into office.

Politics As Usual in CD3

2010-07-08T15:31:00.000-07:00

Politics can be downright dirty sometimes, and unfortunately, malicious claims of peoples' soiled characters can harm, disrupt, or bog down solid campaigns. Hearsay runs rampant in the media, and many uninformed voters simply take into account what they may read in a newspaper or on a blog without doing their due diligence.

A few sources have been attempting to drag Arizona's Third Congressional District's Republican candidate Vernon Parker through the mud. People are trying to say that Vernon is not conservative, yet they can't come up with evidence to back their claims. People are trying to say that Vernon is milking the story of his past, yet they don't dare print his biography alongside their claims.

Vernon is as conservative as a candidate (with a political history) comes in this race. He has overcome great odds in his life to arrive at this opportunity in his life - he should have been sucked into a life of crime and drugs along with many in his California neighborhood. However, he's here, running for House of Representatives. That alone - his journey - should intrigue voters into learning more about him.

People need to stop playing political games with other peoples' lives and careers. Vernon Parker has much to show the voters of CD3 through his resilience and conservative principles. I hope the voters don't have to sift through more mud, though. That would be an absolute shame.

S.B. 1070 Lawsuit Analysis, Part 2

2010-07-08T14:49:00.000-07:00

The Fed's lawsuit against Arizona continues to show hypocrisy:

"And even in pursuing attrition, S.B. 1070 disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources..... If allowed to go into effect, S.B. 1070’s mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives. For example, it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority."

Reading this section would lead one to assume that the Federal government had every immigration issue under control, and that Arizona was messing up the works. A careful balance is spoken of here, giving the Federal government credit for orchestrating a perfect immigration system.

The Feds do not speak of reality. Arizona is becoming overrun with illegal immigrants - as are many other states - and the Federal government testifies that they have everything under control? No, they do not!

The most interesting aspect of this whole section of the brief is the Federal governments' complaint that resources will be diverted, acknowledging that there is only so much that they can come up with (or rather - only so much that they want to come up with). This definitely wasn't the case with ObamaCare some months ago - coming up with thousands of new IRS agents, creation of new departments.... When it comes to re-making the United States of America into a socialist brand, the Democrat-led Federal government is all in favor of "diverting" or creating resources to advance their agendas. But diverting resources is absolutely unacceptable when it comes to enforcing laws currently on the books.

S.B. 1070 Lawsuit Analysis

2010-07-08T13:41:00.000-07:00

As a citizen of the United States of America, living in the great state of Arizona, I think I have more perspective as to the problems our state faces due to illegal immigration than most (many who live outside of the state). I do not get it when the federal government uses an "Us v Them" argument, making Arizona its sworn enemy when talking about S.B. 1070. Demonizing Arizona is all the Justice Department seems to accomplish in its lawsuit brief, and it makes me extremely upset - yet resolved to keep pushing for what is right.

Towards the beginning of the Feds brief (which had more pages than S.B. 1070 - and it repeated different issues multiple times), the following was stated: "S.B. 1070 pursues only one goal – 'attrition' – and ignores the many other objectives that Congress has established for the federal immigration system."

Websters Dictionary defines attrition as "the act of wearing or grinding down by friction." The Justice Department got down to the cold, hard truth of S.B. 1070, though they played it in a very cold manner. By reading the above sentence, you would legitimately think that, (1) there should have been other (more important) goals that S.B. 1070 pursued and (2) the Federal government has no interest in enforcing existing immigration laws.

Arizona is serious about doing its best to remove illegal immigrants; at the least, to make it extremely uncomfortable for illegal immigrants to stay in Arizona. Enforcing the federal laws on the books automatically makes it impossible for illegal immigrants to remain as comfortable as they have been, whether the state enforces the laws or the feds enforce the laws. The friction is the same both ways. Thus Arizona's goal of attrition should be applauded by the federal government - Arizona is attempting to fall in line with federal laws! Yet the connotation of the sentence uncovers the exact opposite approach: the Feds are very unhappy with Arizona's sole goal.

The second section of the sentence shows exactly where the Feds stand on enforcing current immigration laws: they don't want to enforce the laws that are already on the books. Why else would they cry out that Arizona was ignoring the other objectives that Congress was pursuing (or had pursued)? Answer: because Arizona's objective of enforcing existing immigration laws is not acceptable to the Federal government; Arizona's approach will not be tolerated.

The two parts of the sentence fit very well together. The Justice Department accurately (I think) depicts the goal of S.B. 1070. In the same breath, though, the Feds bluntly state that current immigration laws need not be adhered to; that the Federal government has additional designs for the illegal immigration system. Because the Federal government does not want Arizona anywhere near the legitimate enforcement of immigration laws (and they won't do everything that is necessary to enforce the laws), they are not doing their job - enough said!

S.B. 1070 Challenged!

2010-07-07T14:56:00.000-07:00

Arizona's own S.B. 1070 has been challenged - finally - although what a pitiful brief it was.

Can someone please explain why the Assistant Attorney General's name was on the bottom of the brief, yet not the name of Attorney General Eric Holder? I think I can. This is a huge lawsuit for the Obama administration. If a court overturns S.B. 1070, Obama and Holder get the praise, and no state will probably dare challenge them on immigration again. However, if the court sides with Arizona (which there is a fair possibility that it will), the Obama administration will look terribly foolish and incredibly incompetent. They'll be looking for someone to take the heat, and rather it be Assistant General Tony West than Eric Holder.

I want to touch on more of the points of the Justice Department's lawsuit later, but I thought that it was also thoughtless of the Obama administration to ask the court for "costs in this action" and any other relief. Arizona has been facing a huge deficit, largely in part because of the incompetence of the current Homeland Security Secretary while she was Arizona's governor for six years (incompetence sure does run in the administration), and the Federal government should never even consider laying more of a burden upon our state.

Here's the Fed's best argument in the lawsuit (at least I think): "And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries." The Federal government, in my opinion, does not have a legitimate point in its message that Arizona is usurping its jurisdiction in this matter of immigration enforcement. Yet by playing the national security card, the Feds might - at the least - ensure that the law's execution is stayed by alerting the courts that there might be some classified national security interests at risk by the implementation of S.B. 1070. The public never learns of these national security interests, and the Obama administration gets away with halting a beneficial law for seemingly pure reasons.

More analysis to come....

My Platform, Part 1

2010-07-05T21:23:00.000-07:00

I've made it no secret over the past ten plus years of my life that I have been incredibly interested in running for public office later on. Politics has always intrigued me, and I've had such a strong desire over the years to make a difference in this country - a difference for good. Though I don't know exactly what God has in store for me, I think that by starting to formulate my "platform" would be beneficial for me (at least so that I can look back years from now and see where I've come from).

I believe that this country's success and fortune in the world depends on the emphasis with which we place on our morality levels. As we degrade the value of good morals, our standing in the world decreases - we are no different than many other countries.

John Adams once stated the following: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." For the United States of America to continue to be recognized as the greatest country in the world - "a city upon a hill" - the country (collectively) must turn its sights back on the Creator and aspects of morality which truly set us apart from other countries.

This is where the structure of the family becomes so critical to a country's survival. Families provide the structure for a country. If families disintegrate, so will the country. We are seeing this today in the United States.

Families need to be encouraged to stay together - this is so important for the rearing of future generations. That is why it makes sense to me to offer some sort of a state tax credit to couples based on the number of years they have been married. The tax credit would kick in after the first ten years of marriage, and it would be applicable each year thereafter. This proposal accomplishes two things: promotes smaller government and encourages long tenures of marriages.

Illegal immigration is a huge problem facing our country - and especially Arizona. Comprehensive reform has been thrown around for years, which always seems to include the dirty little secret of amnesty for illegals currently in the United States. Amnesty must not occur - the rule of law must be adhered to; yet there cannot be a ruthless round-up of illegal families.

Every illegal individual must leave the country - whether voluntarily or coercively. However, I believe that compassion and common sense must be on display by the American government enforcing the laws that once were extremely lax and tempting for desperate fathers and mothers to break at any cost.

Families - if they give themselves up for deportation voluntarily and no one has a criminal or terrorist background - should be deported back to their country, yet their cases should be prioritized, and they should be allowed to enter back into the country as soon as possible. Fine should be assessed and paid before re-entry.

Individuals who have entered the United States illegally - if they give themselves up for deportation voluntarily and no one has a criminal or terrorist background - should be deported back to their country. These individuals' cases should not necessarily be expedited, but they should be given every opportunity to apply for entry into the country.

If any illegal immigrant is caught inside of the United States without first taking the initiative to turn himself (or herself) to the authorities, he or she should be deported from the country and never again be given the chance to re-enter.

My plan is not amnesty. Rather, it shows others that laws in the United States will be enforced, yet compassion towards those who have roots in the country will be extended - provided these people (families) are assets to the United States, not liabilities. All of these people should be fined and sent back to their home countries to punish them for breaking laws, and to have them feel a deeper appreciation and longing for the United States of America.

Independence Day Manifesto

2010-07-04T08:56:00.000-07:00

On this Independence Day, we – citizens of the greatest country in the world, the United States of America – remember our country’s heritage - our undeniable God-ordained place in this world. The United States is the greatest nation in the world, yet there are those who would seek to deny us that right; those that would like nothing more than to blot out our past from the history books. To these people, the United States is but a pawn in the hands of the ruthless world community – a community that (collectively) does not share the values and beliefs that established the Constitution and government of the United States of America.

As the history of this country has been thrown aside or inaccurately portrayed, morality has accelerated its decline on our cultures. What was wrong is now right. What was right is now wrong. A realization of a Higher Power is missing in this country. Men and women answer to no one - but themselves.

And this was never meant to be. Our own Declaration of Independence clearly states that it was the sole work of a Creator of the world that endowed us with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Government was instituted to protect its citizens, yet government (largely through the school systems) usurps the role of the Creator by pretending to own more and more of our rights.

The 1780 Massachusetts Bill of Rights had the following: "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe." Whether or not all men and women aspire to follow the same religion, each one should actively seek to answer to a higher power; each individual should know where his rights come from and where right and wrong stem from. This is our heritage. This made the United States of America what it was so long ago. To forgo this, would mean to sever the bonds that hold our country intact (and our country is definitely not as intact as it once was).

Many people would agree that something is fundamentally flawed in this country - most of these individuals probably couldn't put their finger on the real problem, nor the solution. The solution is simple: government needs to start to be honest with its citizens, taking the lead on promoting studies (again – especially in schools) which teach to the greatness (the strengths) of America – what America did right, mixed with the negative lessons which led to increased greatness. The government needs to portray the United States of America as a Christian nation. Any other characterization directly degrades the heritage of our great country.

Our great country may have already been pushed past the crossroads. Many citizens have just accepted that government is in control over much of their lives. There is hope, though, for the United States! We just need to start now with the revival.

Americans need to be assured that there has been no greater country in the world than theirs, and that such success and fortune has been owed to a Creator of the world. While government is not responsible for changing the minds of many of its complacent citizens, it can do its part – as the fledgling American government in the late 1700s did its part. The Independence Day of 1776 cannot be(and it will not be) in vain.

The Alienator

2010-07-01T11:25:00.000-07:00

Earlier this morning, President Obama delivered an immigration speech, in which he called for comprehensive reform and shrugged off the necessity of securing our nation's borders. He also attacked Arizona and attempted to hijack the momentum that SB 1070 has been creating in other parts of the country. President Obama is proving once again that he is most concerned with alienating certain factions - in this case, Arizona - rather than uniting the country (as he pontificated on in his 2008 November victory speech - "Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long").

From Obama's speech: "In recent days, the issue of immigration has become once more a source of fresh contention in our country, with the passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America. ...Others have protested and launched boycotts of the state."

For the President of the United States of America to address the issue of Arizona boycotts and not condemn the acts of tantrums around the country is absolutely appalling. There is no possible way that the Nation should think - even for a second - that President Obama is supportive or indifferent to the boycotts. Think of it this way: boycotts could have the potential to drag down Arizona's economy. Why would the President support such acts?

From Obama's speech:

"The result is an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a
better life for themselves and their children. Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble. But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules."

Poor illegal immigrants, right? That's the connotation of this section of the speech. Very misleading, though. Here's why.....

Many illegal immigrants collect welfare, compounding the issues for legal Americans who are working hard to support themselves and their families. They don't have a track record of saving; many illegal immigrants send their cash back to Mexico. And contrary to President Obama's claim, many illegal immigrants do not stay out of trouble; they tend to terrorize law enforcement by augmenting the crime rates.

President Obama, the "friend and protector" to illegal immigrants also came down on "unscrupulous businesses," blasting the lifeblood of the American economy. "It's THEIR fault," said the President. This claim might be plausible in some circumstances, but to insinuate that businesses across the board are setting traps for immigrants is wrong and downright shameful!

From Obama's Speech: "Into this breach, states like Arizona have decided to take matters into their own hands. Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable. But it is also ill conceived. And it’s not just that the law Arizona passed is divisive -– although it has fanned the flames of an already contentious debate. Laws like Arizona’s put huge pressures on local law enforcement to enforce rules that ultimately are unenforceable. It puts pressure on already hard-strapped state and local budgets. It makes it difficult for people here illegally to report crimes -– driving a wedge between communities and law enforcement, making our streets more dangerous and the jobs of our police officers more difficult."

With all due respect to the President, there he goes again - micro-managing law enforcement - and now he's moving onto the states. In this section of the speech, President Obama deliberately set up a flaming neon sign next to Arizona - a warning sign to let all other states know that like actions would not be tolerated by his administration.

Ill-conceived, divisive, unenforceable, dangerous - President Obama launched an all-out, frontal assault today on S.B. 1070 - an assault that withheld no punches. No apology was given to Arizona for the lack of federal support in this area. No words of encouragement that the federal government finally understood where Arizona stood, and that the Feds were finally ready to cooperate to fix the massive problem that Arizona is faced with.

No. The President was not in a cooperating mood today. It is his way, or no way (and he probably doesn't think it would be so bad if nothing changed).

Mr. President, it's dangerous in Arizona pre-S.B. 1070 - and it's getting worse. S.B. 1070 is not dangerous; your rhetoric, your handicapping of our border agencies, and your lack of efficient action are all dangerous for Arizona.

President Obama's speech took another turn for the worst with the following: "But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work."

President Obama is not interested in securing our nation's borders, and unlike his predecessors (who also did not do their share in securing the borders), he is unabashed in his arrogance for leaving them open, unsecured, wild and dangerous. Of course fences and border patrols won't solve the entire problem, but it will solve a huge part of it! Why must President Obama join the liberal chant that "there is a perfect way"?

Few solutions were offered up in Obama's immigration speech. Many attacks were leveled - and Arizona took the brunt of the fire.

However, while President Obama called SB 1070 divisive, it is only him who is being divisive. Instead of working with Arizona - where Arizona needs to be assisted - President Obama is alienating people of Arizona. At the same time this is going on, Arizona continues to bleed, and President Obama plays with his political capital. Our President is truly earning the nickname of "The Alienator."

What Could Have Been.......

2010-06-16T13:29:00.000-07:00

A J.D. Hayworth August loss by no means ends his political career. Look no further to 2012 when Senator Jon Kyl will have to decide whether or not to run for re-election.

However, I can't help think about the different relationship that could have been forged between John McCain and Hayworth.

What if J.D. had come back to radio after his loss in 2006 and avoided hammering John McCain so many times?
What if J.D. had still held to and discussed his convictions about certain issues, yet had left Senator McCain out of his line of fire?
What if this had happened and a working relationship had been established between the two, allowing J.D. to pursue higher offices - with the endorsement of Senator McCain?
If this had happened, could J.D. have become one of the most invincible politicians in Arizona, keeping his conservative base plus adding John McCain's group of followers?

J.D. Hayworth was perfectly within his right to augment the degree of disagreement between himself and Senator John McCain. I do think that he could have had more of a long term view on his political future (avoided clashing with Senator McCain) while continuing to portray himself as a real conservative.

"We Can!"

2010-06-16T10:59:00.000-07:00

I observed Vernon Parker speak at a Rotary club meeting this morning, and borrowing from the words of a visitor there, "came away with another side of Vernon."

Mr. Parker is not the most polished statesman in Arizona, nor does he try to be a renowned statesman. If a constituent were to expect to see the image of an polarizing man on a stage, he would be sorely disappointed. There may be times when Vernon Parker commands a stage, but most of the time he'll probably just seem like your longtime friend - someone who wants to fight the political battles for your family's long term security.

At his most captivating moments, Vernon is soft spoken, reflective of his past; optimistic and resolved to continue to rise through the American dream. People listen because of the sincerity in which he releases his rhetoric, not because of the inflexions and tones of his voice. Vernon Parker means what he says. He knows why he is running for Congress. He desires to make things better for his future constituents.

At this meeting, Vernon shared the story of his past. (For those who have not heard him talk about the past he came from, please take the time to seek him out and listen to him expound on his history.) Lots of people come from broken families, broken neighborhoods; not everyone rises from the shadows of darkness to grasp his full potential - which is what Vernon has done in his life. Mr. Parker spoke about the love he was shown by his grandmother in raising him through his early childhood and teenage years. He shared some of the lessons he learned from his family, including the phrase that he was taught from a young age: "We can!" (Vernon continues to carry that phrase wherever he goes - wherever life takes him.)

His believe that "he can" has lead to the conviction that "America can!" He does not accept the notion created by those currently in power that America's best days are behind us. Rather, he continually states that if leaders in DC create a business-friendly America, pursue more energy-dependent possibilities, and secure our borders, the United States of American will be greater than it has ever been - once again a city shining on the hill for all the world to see and admire.

Also disclosed at the meeting was the history behind the close relationship between Mr. Parker and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Both individuals share a concern for young people, and that concern has brought them together over the years. Little known about the Sheriff, he previously started an accredited high school for teenage prisoners. Vernon Parker has delivered commencement addresses for the graduates of the program, leading to the bond shared between the two men.

I came away from the meeting with even more respect for Mr. Parker than before. He gets the fact that politics affects the average human being, and he wants to make a difference in more lives. He's running because he wants to pass his grandmother's message to more people: "We can!"

Vernon Parker for Congress!

2010-06-14T15:27:00.000-07:00

Ten GOP candidates have officially filed their required number of signatures for Arizona's third Congressional District - the district that has been left open by retiring Representative John Shadegg. The district leans towards the Republicans, and (in a Republican year) it's pretty safe to say that the Republican coming out of the GOP primary will also come out ahead in the November's General election.

I was supporting Vernon Parker when he was exploring the run for Governor; I see no reason not to support him for Congress now. Simply put, he's the most qualified candidate to warrant a constituent's vote in CD 3. Mr. Parker has experience in DC (He's served in both the 41st and 43rd Presidents' administrations); he has experience as a leader (he was the mayor of Paradise Valley for two years); he has the ability to connect with and to electrify supporters on a level which few running for elected office can do (he was once the pastor of a Paradise Valley church). Can any other CD 3 candidates boast of all the same qualifications? I don't think so.

Vernon Parker is extremely confident in the conservative convictions he holds. He is endorsed by Maricopa County's Sheriff Joe Arpaio, which gives voters all the information they need to know about his stance on illegal immigration. He is pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-military (dare I go on?).

Granted, there are some in this race who may sincerely believe in all of the same conservative principles that Vernon holds to. There are definitely those who claim that they are just as conservative as Vernon. However, no one else in the race is more conservative, more qualified, or more experienced than Vernon Parker for the job as Congressman.

Congressional District 3 constituents: please go to http://www.parker2010.com/ to learn more about Vernon Parker. He needs your support. He needs your vote. He needs to become the next Congressman of CD 3!

McCain v Hayworth: The Drama Rages On

2010-06-14T12:37:00.000-07:00

To be perfectly honest, I'm not exactly sure which GOP Senate candidate for Arizona will get my vote this August. I'm not enthralled with J.D. Hayworth, and I continue to hold my breath with Senator McCain.

The Hayworth camp is doing its best to portray John McCain as a liberal in a Republican's suit. And while Senator McCain has deserved somewhat of the liberal aura around him because of some of the legislation he has supported over the years, he is more conservative than some Hayworth supporters would ever admit. It is not the end of the world for conservatives if John McCain wins re-election.

Senator McCain supported amnesty. He sponsored McCain/Feingold - parts of which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down. He voted in favor of the TARP bailouts. The list of John McCain liberal actions continues....

However, then-Congressman J.D. Hayworth had a pro-earmark tendency - not to mention he has been rumored to have a oversized ego when dealing with other people.

All the above being said, there are pros and cons to both candidates - pros and cons that both sides should take a look at. J.D. is not a conservative darling, nor is Senator McCain a champion for conservatism. I would speculate that J.D. Hayworth's previous record in Congress proves that he has been more conservative than John McCain - but not by as the exaggerated margin that many people are spreading around.

Based on past votes and statements, there is no debate that J.D. Hayworth is the immigration expert of the two. He has committed himself to securing our nation's borders for years - a cause that Senator McCain has only just started to take up. I really hope that Senator McCain really means what he is now saying about border security; but unfortunately it is an election year, and the electorate will have to wait until 2011 to see if he will follow through with his current rhetoric. I have no doubt that Hayworth will do whatever he can to defend the borders.

Senator McCain has been criticized for his TARP vote in 2008 - much criticism has been thrown on his vote by J.D. Hayworth. However, J.D. was not in Congress for the votes - it is much easier to sit on the sidelines and say that you wouldn't have voted for a certain piece of legislation (think back to then-Senator Barack Obama's argument that he wouldn't have voted for the Iraq War); it's another matter to sit through the drama that ensued on the House and Senate floors, and to put a vote where the rhetoric is. Maybe J.D. (in Congress in 2008) would have voted against the TARP bailouts like he stated, but no one really knows for sure.

Both Senator McCain and J.D. Hayworth have a great love for this country, and they are avid supporters of freedom and of the military. There is no need to fear about being short-changed with national security if either one of the candidates captures the GOP nomination.

All the issues aside, Senator McCain does have valuable experience and status in the Senate. You can't simply replace that on a whim, nor should you want to discard his seniority without thinking hard about it. He is a strong voice of opposition against President Obama's agenda - a voice that is respected by many around him.

I think it's really sad, though, that Senator McCain is the subject of much hatred from many in Arizona who have discarded his service and sufferings for this country. Senator McCain is a United States hero who deserves full respect for his past sacrifices. He's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination - there is no such thing as a perfect politician. Senator McCain has also earned the right to have a strong political structure in this state based on the number of years he has spent in this state.

McCain seems to hold a strong lead in the polls against Hayworth, and I have a suspicion that that lead will hold up. Like I said before, Senator McCain is not the worst that could happen to Arizona. I hope that both candidates are willing to support each other once this race comes to a close in August. The GOP desperately needs a shot of unity.

"Shut It Down"

2010-05-25T11:04:00.000-07:00

In my opinion, 24 is the best tv show to hit American households. Unfortunately, it ended last night with the airing of the last two episodes of the eighth season.

The final minutes of the finale were both incredibly heartwarming and moving. Jack Bauer was forced to accept (yet again) the fact that he would be a fugitive from both the American and Russian governments, and CTU operative Chloe O'Brian tearfully said goodbye to the friend and hero she had come to love and respect for many previous years. In the end, good conquered evil; yet good was left unrecognized by those in power because of conflicting agendas and political correctness.

Jack Bauer and America came a long way since season one. In that season, Jack was married (his wife was murdered by a rogue CTU agent in that season) and had a daughter, Kim. In the eighth season, Kim is married and has a daughter - the love of Jack's life at the beginning of season eight - the granddaughter he thought he would love and nurture for many years to come. Twenty four hours later, that dream would be brutally vanquished.

24 showed in each season that the United States is a force for good in the world, and that because of this, enemies of the U.S. desire nothing else than to destroy American property and citizens. 24 also showed that when politicians become entangled with political correctness when it comes to terrorists, almost nothing beneficial can come out of it. Jack Bauer obtained much of his information through the use of torture. Whether or not people agreed with the methods, they could not deny this point: when the right terrorist was tortured, he usually released useful information.

24 displayed some of the complexity of the United States government and of different U.S. law enforcement agencies around the country. We got a long look at CTU (Counter Terrorism Unit - fictional, yet an applicable interpretation of some of the work performed by agencies with similar purposes), and a quick glance at the FBI (in season 7). 24 viewers learned about the 'chain of command' inside the law enforcement circles, and most importantly, we learned that the President's job isn't so cut and dry. There are 'grey areas'; there are decisions that are gut wrenching to mull over; there is not a playbook for how each problem can be eliminated in real time.

24 also showed human nature at its finest and at its lowest. At its finest was the people working to keep America safe; at its lowest was the terrorists, intent on destroying American lives. 24 showed how uncertain each day might be for each person, and how drastically life could change in a matter of hours (Season 1: David and Sherry Palmer; Seasons 4-6: Jack and Audrey Raines; Season 8: Jack and his daughter's family).

24 gave us a glimpse of true leadership in the face of fierce opposition. No better example of this was in season 4, when President David Palmer came back from retirement to assume the Commander in Chief duties at the request of the fledgling Logan administration, masterfully weaving his way through the nuclear crisis the country was facing at that time. 24 hammered away at the theory that law enforcement agencies operate best when they are not handcuffed with leaders who follow each letter of the law in the books; much progress was made when CTU (or FBI) higher-ups allowed their agents to work outside of the rigid rules of the agencies, yet still inside the law.

24 set into motion a true friendship between Jack and Chloe O'Brian. Chloe enters the 24 scene back in the third season, and she plays vitals roles in all the seasons she appears in. At the start of the professional relationship, Chloe is too socially awkward; but as time goes on, she and Jack develop a mutual trust that each one has each other's back at anytime. Chloe saves Jack's life in the eighth season by convincing him to refrain from executing the Russian President. What Chloe and Jack displayed in the final episode signifies what a true friendship really entails: mutual trust for one another combined with a deep and unshakable respect for everything the other person is and stands for.

In short, 24 took the extreme and made it believable.

00:00:03

It captured a snapshot of humanity in a realistic fashion.

00:00:02

It provided us with a hero who loved the United States of America much more than his own life and comfort.

00:00:01

In the last words of Chloe O'Brian: "Shut it down."

00:00:00

Questions and Answers You Need To Know About S.B. 1070

2010-05-05T17:22:00.000-07:00

Rhetorical questions about S.B. 1070....

1) Does SB 1070 create new laws of radical nature?

No. SB 1070 seems to go overboard to point out that many of the provisions in this bill simply enforce existing Federal law. If opponents want to water down SB 1070, change the federal laws. This bill gives Arizona very little to stand on if the Federal government instituted federal statute changes to give more rights and freedoms to illegal immigrants.

2) Does SB 1070 provide an avenue for racial profiling?

No. Again SB 1070 goes overboard in ensuring that the law enforcement officers know that they are not to use racial profiling (if they were even thinking about that already) in their dealings with individuals.

3) Does SB 1070 disrespect the Federal government in anyway?

No. Much of SB 1070 mirrors federal law on immigration, and it goes out of its way to state that Arizona's enforcement of illegal immigration is now tied to federal statutes. Again, if federal statutes about illegal immigration change in scope, SB 1070 immediately loses its teeth.

4) Does SB 1070 target any group, race, ethnicity?

Yes! Illegal immigrants! SB 1070 is very direct in that it is unmistakably targeting the illegal aliens who are in Arizona. There is no race or ethnicity group mentioned in SB 1070; that's right - no mention of "Hispanic," "Mexican," or "Latino" in the bill. People are paranoid, and mislead (or are attempting to be misleading) if they attempt to state that SB 1070 racist or attacks Hispanics in an unconstitutional manner.

5) Can someone oppose SB 1070, while opposing illegal immigration?

Very unlikely. SB 1070 is not a band-aid on Arizona's illegal immigration problem; it may very well be the solution to the problem. If someone wants to correct the illegal immigration problem in Arizona, he or she should support law enforcement's increased efforts to identify and detect who is legally and illegally within the United States of America. There may be other steps we can take, but SB 1070 goes a long way to correct a problem that should have been dealt with long ago.

As I've stated before, if someone has a counter argument to any of this, bring it forward. Prove that what I'm saying is totally off base.

The Sports' World Weighs In On S.B. 1070

2010-05-05T14:23:00.000-07:00

The media is continuing to hammer away at the reasonable Arizona immigration bill, and in the past week, they’ve gained a friend – the sports’ world.

Many foreign-born athletes play professionally in the United States. However, to the best of my knowledge, all such athletes take great pains to ensure that they are in compliance with the U.S. immigration laws. It is generally frowned upon for a professional athlete to have lied about his age, real name, or prior history.

That’s why it is so difficult to understand why there has been a loud outcry by many in the sports’ community against Arizona and its commitment to enforce Federal immigration laws. Two examples show that the sports world definitely does not understand what S.B. 1070 truly states.

The first example comes from the statement of the Major League Baseball Players’ Association’s Executive Director, Michael Weiner. Mr. Weiner writes the following: “Each of them (players or members of their families) must be ready to prove, at anytime, his identity and the legality of his being in Arizona to any state or local official with suspicion of his immigration status. This law also may affect players who are U.S. citizens but are suspected by law enforcement of being of foreign descent."

Mr. Weiner’s expressed sentiments are simply not true and are grossly misleading. There is nothing in SB 1070 that invites law enforcement officers to randomly stop people who appear to be of foreign descent and demand that they prove their legality within the United States of America. On the contrary, SB 1070 expressly states that before a “reasonable attempt” is made to “determine the immigration status of the person,” lawful contact had to have been made – FIRST. (This phrasing was changed to “stop, detention or arrest.”)

There is no plausibility to the paranoia created that because of SB 1070, law enforcement officers are suspecting every individual who appear to be foreign born. This is also an extreme exaggeration, and it is also a serious mischaracterization of the character of most law enforcement officers (as has been recently discussed on this blog).

Mr. Weiner, unless any of the athletes in your union violate any city, county, state or federal laws while they are in Arizona (or give the appearance that they may be violating a law), law enforcement officers will have no reason to stop them. And (worst case scenario) if any athletes are pulled over for infractions of the law, it is not unconstitutional for officers to make sure that they are in the country legally and that their identity checks out with who they say they are.

The second example was provided by the owner of the Phoenix Suns, Robert Sarver. The Suns, in the second round of the NBA playoffs, have decided (under Mr. Sarver’s leadership) that their players will wear their “Los Suns” uniforms for tonight’s match-up against the San Antonio Spurs. Yesterday, Sarver released a statement, saying, “However intended (SB 1070), the result of passing this law is that our basic principles of equal rights and protection under the law are being called into question.”

The net deduction from this decision is that the Suns are implying that Hispanics will be most affected by SB 1070 – not only that but they may be singled out. Again, Mr. Sarver is dead wrong when he questions whether or not everyone in Arizona will have “equal rights and protection under the law), and the Suns are wrong for taking the lead for the sports world in their attempts to show the nation that SB 1070 is unconstitutional and racist in its core.

Athletes should continue to play the games that everyone appreciates, not try to play games with their biases about a particular political ideology. SB 1070 does not harm any professional athletes, nor will it if they continue to follow the law. Also, a particular ethnicity group does not need a sympathy party by anyone. Illegal immigrants are singled out by SB 1070 – not Americans, not Hispanics.

Prove me wrong, MLBPA and Robert Sarver, if you think otherwise.

The Liberal Name-Calling Continues

2010-04-27T10:33:00.000-07:00

Out of controversial issues, liberals' true colors are shown. Pass a controversial liberal issue, and Democrats largely will shy away from defending their positions. Pass a controversial conservative issue, and Democrats will attack the opposition's character like there's no tomorrow.

Arizona Representative Steve Montenegro has taken a lot of heat since the bill was signed into law last week. Steve, a Hispanic Republican in his first term in the legislature, voted for the passage of the bill as his conservative principles would demand; yet he has generated such an outcry against him as liberals question who he really is.

The leader of the movement against Steve seems to be a liberal blogger from the Phoenix New Times, Stephen Lemons. Mr. Lemons authored a blog piece last month, demonizing Steve for his position on this issue of illegal immigration. Take, for example, this excerpt from the blog: "Montenegro, on the other hand, is nominally Hispanic in the way that Alan Keyes is nominally black. Montenegro's fellow GOP representatives delight in Montenegro's presence because he votes their way and thereby gives them cover for their bigoted legislation." Is there anything respectful inside of those statements? Anything constructive? "Bigoted?" I'm not making this up.

Recently, a statement denouncing Steve was posted on Facebook. Jonathan Ybarra wrote, "Don't forget about this guy........ What a weasel, Steve Montenegro, a fellow latino from El Salvador who sold his people out............. Don't forget his vote for racial profiling."

All this (and more) being said, Steve has now received multiple death threats for his so-called betrayal of fellow Hispanics. When will this downward spiral stop?

Steve Montenegro is a quality conservative who has relied on his moral convictions to entrench himself in the fight for a smaller, yet more protective government. He has stood against taxes and now he has seized the opportunity to join other courageous legislators in doing what the federal government abstains from doing: securing our borders. No matter what else Steve faces from the unruly opposition, I am confident that he will continue to stand for what he believes is right, and as a result, what he believes is right for Arizona.

A Tall Tale About Arizona S. B. 1070

2010-04-26T22:13:00.000-07:00

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION!

And so the liberals scream, whine, and throw their tantrums about the new piece of legislation that came out of Arizona's legislature. S.B. 1070 has generated a lot of attention - both in Arizona and at the national level - maybe more so than some of the legislators figured would occur.

In his famous pamphlet Common Sense, Thomas Paine reflected on the necessity and purpose of government, stating the following:

"Wherefore, security being the true design and end of
government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

The security that government provides to its citizens (pointing to the U.S. government) is necessary because individual people cannot carry it out as a whole. Government providing needed safety and security is good, not bad - as long as the government has no ulterior motives in clamping down on security measures.

One of the main attacks being thrown around in this illegal immigration debate is that law enforcement officers now have carte blanche to pursue Hispanics, or that law enforcement officers have more violent criminals to hunt down than the law breakers illegal immigrants are. It is a despicable shame that people think so poorly about the ethics and responsibilities of the men and women who keep us safe day and night. Most of them (to avoid the liberal "gotcha" that there might be a few rogues in existence) uphold their sworn duty to uphold the law - and nothing but the law. Law enforcement officers do not set out to trap a certain group of people "just because."

And for those people who seek to tell law enforcement which important issues their officers should be involved in - only law enforcement can clearly decide which of their agendas is most advantageous for the security of the people on the ground. No one else should be attempting to poke their noses into law enforcement's business for political gain (as has been done in the past week with the debate over S. B. 1070).

I spoke with a Maricopa County Sheriff's Deputy over the weekend about the process of a traffic stop. He told me that no Deputy would pull someone over on the road without a violation occurring in the first place. He also told me that if the driver could produce his license (and less importantly, insurance and registration) there would be almost no need for further questioning (provided that there was nothing in the driver's backround which would generate additional questions). If the driver did not have his license, the Deputy would notice how fluently English was spoken or make sure that the driver had an actual address for a place of residence. If the driver did not speak English that well, or if he did gave his place of address as "59th Avenue and Peoria," that would constitute reasonable suspicion in the Deputy's mind that the driver's backround needed to be examined further.

Slandering of our law enforcement officers needs to stop! There may be valid points used when opposing illegal immigration enforcement, but one point that should not be used is that law enforcement officers push the bounds of their duties when simply doing their jobs. It's not right; it's not true; and it's not informed. It also proves that many people fail to understand what life would really be like if (as Thomas Paine put it) government was not allowed to ensure the security of its citizens.

Terry Goddard's Last Stand

2010-03-25T11:00:00.000-07:00

With the political wind shifting the Republicans' direction in 2010, one might expect Democrats seeking re-election, or seeking election to new offices to act halfway conservative manner. Yet that was not the case for many Senate and House Democrats who voted for "ObamaCare" the past few months; nor was it the case for many House Democrats in the "Cap-N-Tax" vote last summer; nor is it the case for Arizona's Attorney General, Terry Goddard, whose office has announced that it will not file a lawsuit on Arizona's behalf to fight the health care legislation recently passed by Congress.

Attorney General Goddard is in a tough position right now. If he, a Democrat, opposes ObamaCare, there is an almost-certain possibility that national Democrats ostracize him as he would try to gain a more significant political standing. On the other hand, if he takes a supportive stand with the President and does nothing to oppose the legislation, he might be seen as part of the dramatic problem with the current political situation, and thus feel the wrath of voters in November.

Terry Goddard has taken a stand. He will not join other states in filing lawsuits which attempt to take down the massive government takeover of our country's health care system, saying instead, "These lawsuits will be considered in federal court with or without Arizona's participation." The entire press release by the Attorney General's office shows that Terry Goddard has no backbone, excusing away his inaction on the lawsuits with a claim that his suit will not make a difference.

Terry Goddard should be warned that his decision, while it may be politically correct, is not the decision that many Arizonians were hoping to hear. He should also be ready to accept the consequences which might come with such a decision: facing the voters' wrath when he is matched up against the GOP candidate in November's Gubernatorial election.

Congressman Trent Franks to hold a town hall next month

2010-03-25T10:01:00.000-07:00

On April 9, Arizona Congressman Trent Franks will host a town hall at the Community Church of Joy in Glendale. The town hall will commense at 7 PM, and it will run for approximately two hours.

Come out to this town hall to engage in the questions that many constituents have the opportunity to ask Congressman Franks. Congressman Franks is one of the most conservative U.S. Representatives in the country, and he is fast-approaching his fourth re-election date in November.

How did the Arizona Delegation Vote on H.R. 3590?

2010-03-23T14:46:00.000-07:00

Congressional District I: Ann Kirkpatrick - YES
Congresswoman Kirkpatrick's staff informed me that she voted "yes" for universal health care because of the following reasons:
1. The legislation does away with pre-existing conditions.
2. The legislation ensures that all children have health insurance.
3. The legislation reduces the costs of pharmaceuticals for the majority of the elderly.

Congressional District II: Trent Franks - NO
Congressman Franks opposed the legislation because of its cost and because of its allowance for funding of abortions.

Congressional District III: John Shadegg - NO
John Shadegg's office was the most helpful, and the staffer who answered the phone was definitely the most knowledgable of all staffers I spoke with on Monday. I was told that Congressman Shadegg voted against the legislation because of the following reasons:
1. He had not supported the Democrats health care reform efforts at any point.
2. He had introduced his own legislation to reform health care.
3. He opposed the idividual mandates which had been inserted into the bill.
4. He opposed the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans.
5. He disliked the length of the bill (over 2000 pages)

Congressional District IV: Ed Pastor - YES
This was the most interesting phone call of the day. I called Congressman Pastor's office and was told that the staff was not furnished with any reasons as to why the Congressman voted for the legislation. Under no circumstances would the woman who answered the phone let me know why Congressman Pastor supported ObamaCare. (Note to any constituent - the District Office always should know why its member voted for a piece of major legislation.) Later, I had someone call back and finally obtain his reasoning. Congressman Pastor voted for the legislation because of the increased coverage for Americans and because it would help to correct our country's gigantic deficit.

Congressional District V: Harry Mitchell - YES
Congressman Mitchell's office told me that the Congressman voted for the legislation because reform was needed to help Arizona families who are hurting from health care costs. When I asked the staffer how many families they thought were hurting because of health care costs (a legitimate question because of the primary reason given), no answer was given to me.

Congressional District VI: Jeff Flake - NO
Congressman Flake voted against ObamaCare because he had always been against the legislation and because it provided no accountability.

Congressional District VII: Raul Grijalva - YES
Congressman Grijalva voted "yes" because he thought that coverage would be improved for 360,000 residents in his district - the number of people unisured or under-insured. The staffer on the phone could not give me the other number - the number of people who are insured in the district, proof of biased statistics taking.

Congressional District VIII: Gabrielle Giffords - YES
Before I relay the comments from Congresswoman Giffords' office, I want to state that most -if not all - Republicans do not condone the acts of vandalism which occured at the Congresswoman's Tucson district office yesterday. Americans have a right to protest - peacefully - not to destroy property, or violate anyone's sense of safety. The staffer I spoke with at Congresswoman Giffords' office read a prepared statement by the Congresswoman, which I shall link to here.

Census 2010

2010-03-23T14:41:00.001-07:00

For those who have questions about the 2010 Census, call your U.S. Representative's office.

For those who want to know how many questions you have to answer on the Census, the answer is "all of them."

Pelosi Power

2010-03-23T14:25:00.000-07:00

With President Obama's signature, health care "reform" became the newest "law of the land." President Obama has claimed victory - a victory which now lifts him into another level of United States' Presidents - Presidents who have contributed to fundamental changes to the structure of the United States of America.

Make no mistake about this - H.R. 3590 (the House version of the Senate bill which was approved by the House of Representatives on Sunday night by a 219-212 vote) moves the United States from the path to socialism to socialism itself. There is probably no turning back from what was enacted by the Congress. There is too much "government" created; too many agencies given life; too much funding that is released for who-knows-what.

One of the main problems (that I see) with the just-completed marathon is that the current Speaker of the House is in one of the safer Congressional districts in the entire country. For the past nine elections cycles, Nancy Pelosi has garnered an approximate average of eighty-two percentage points for each of her elections. The previous Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, captured his last ten elections with an approximate average of seventy percentage points. Case-in-point - nowadays the Speakers of the United States House of Representatives hail from impenetrable districts - they can do whatever their heart desires - even if it means that more vulnerable followers are hung out to dry because of some of the controversial issues which are pushed by the leaders.

Every elected official has a duty to represent the will of his constituents, and because of this, every politician has a responsibility to vote based on principle - not party pressure. Yet party pressure can be too strong (as it seemed to be with this health care fight), and having a secure Speaker of the House does not help members make their decisions independent of whatever else is going on. Speakers of the House should be active in pushing their agendas through Congress, but they should be just as fearful as the rest of their colleagues as to the reaction and backlash of the American people to what comes out of the United States Congress. The vote of the Speaker of the House should have the same consequences as the votes of the rest of the 434 members of Congress.

Speaker Pelosi had too much power in the Democrats' push for health care overhaul. The power proved to be downright dangerous for the country, as a politician in a radical district jeopardized the careers of many of her colleagues by ramming through a despicable piece of legislation that most Americans opposed. The position of Speaker of the House should be filled with a House member who represents a competitive Congressional district - a Congressional district that will penalize its Representative if he or she pushes for something that is outside of mainstream America.

Senator McCain Passes the Blame

2010-02-23T08:30:00.000-08:00

The election battle between Senator John McCain and former Congressman J.D. Hayworth commenced last week, and already Senator McCain is recanting previously-held views. In radio commercials aired for the past month, John McCain had been attacking Congressman Hayworth's fiscal record; J.D. came back with some well-placed arguments of his own, fending off McCain claims about his own record, and tying McCain to the "Bailouts" of 2008.

Senator McCain then attempted to pass the stigma attached to his 2008 vote entirely on the Bush administration, stating (in a recent interview with the Arizona Republic), "The action they (the Bush administration) took, I don't agree with." Excuse me. That was a "700 billion dollar vote," and now (a year and a half later) we're learning that he had grave reservations on a package of great magnitude.

There's more, though - on the campaign trail in 2008, Senator McCain had desired nothing less than for the bailout package to pass - and pass as quickly as possible. Remember, he had suspended his campaign to fly back to Washington in a desperate attempt to take credit for the solution of the crisis. Also, in a fall-2008 interview with National Public Radio, Senator McCain was given many chances to express his bailout fears. On the contrary, the transcript of his interview with Steve Inskeep clearly shows that McCain was trying to lead the charge for this package's passage. He called the package "vital," and he stated the following when asked if he had any concerns about the government interference aspect of the bailout: "I also believe that this measure needs to be taken and it needs to be taken as quickly as possible."

McCain's comments and actions during the home stretch of the Presidential campaign show that he was fully behind President Bush's administration's bailout package. He had a chance back then to take a stand against the legislation; a chance to show American voters that he did not consider the bailouts to be the right solution for the country. However, he did not take these steps, and he should not be politically posturing right now for the August primaries.

If Senator McCain truly voted for the bailouts on principle back in 2008, he should stand by his decision today. If he did not know all of the details in 2008, he should then take full responsibility for his vote - it was his vote, not President Bush's vote. By trying to throw the spotlight off of himself, and to separate himself from blame and involvement in the 2008 proceedings, John McCain is showing an unfortunate side of himself that does not display true leadership. In fact, Senator McCain's words today may demonstrate to some people that his campaign suspension (and everything else which followed at that time) was based on emotional whims, or even worse, Presidential posturing of the first degree.

There are pros and cons to both candidates in the race for McCain's Senate seat. This election could come down to whether or not a candidate comes across as more genuine, more honest, more truthful than his opponent in the eyes of Arizona voters. Senator McCain did not take advantage of an opportunity to accept responsibility for something he thought was right to do, or something that he thought was a past mistake. Instead he passed the blame - a trait that consumes many politicians. For the country's, and Arizona's, sake, we have to hope that if he continues as Senator for another term, he shows true leadership - even when it may be a political nightmare to do so.

Thanks, Kurt Warner!

2010-01-29T22:23:00.001-08:00

Today, Kurt Warner held a press conference to announce that he had retired from the National Football League. He will be missed by me, an Arizona Cardinals fan, because of his ability to make each football game exciting and meaningful. However, he will be mostly missed (in hindsight) because of his dedication to his faith and principles.

Many times in the public limelight (whether politics, or sports, or another sector) men and women betray our trust in them; some individuals seem to live such glamorous, perfect lives, only to see it come crashing down in an instant. Kurt Warner was far above such reproaches. You could always look at him and know that he would adhere to his morals and provide a pure-like model for all human beings to emulate. He was respectful and loving to his family, and he truly lived what he believed.We definitely need more individuals like Warner in today's environment.

We need "Warners" in politics. We need "Warners" in sports. We need "Warners" in businesses. Most importantly, we need "Warners" in families - the foundation or launching pad to any other position in life. It was an honor to witness the story of Kurt Warner lived out and completed with my home team.

Kurt, thanks for the memories. Thank you for being such an example to millions of others who watched you all of these years.

State of the Union Debrief

2010-01-27T21:25:00.000-08:00

Where does one start in re-capping President Obama's State of the Union address? It wasn't one of his best speeches - it was uninspiring and quite boring at times, but it was well-delivered nevertheless. For conservatives on the other hand, it was nauseating - and for good reason, too. President Obama delivered outright falsehoods, partisan jabs, and socialist rhetoric the entire night, setting the stage for another year of "more of the same."

Health care reform (as authored by the Democrats) was given a resounding NO by Americans in Massachusetts (in last week's election), and many polls show around the country that most Americans are opposed to the Democrats' lofty socialistic goals. Yet, the President did not attempt to slide back to the center of the issues as Americans desire to him to do, nor did he admit of his many missteps over the past year. Instead, President Obama explained his administration's controversial agenda as a necessary and unfortunate byproduct of George W. Bush - over and over again. Much of the problems today (if you listened to Obama) were a direct result of the "inept" President whom Obama succeeded.

There were two major themes that I picked up out of tonight's speech. The first was, "We need to do things my way." The second was, "If you're unhappy with what I'm doing, blame Bush - I'm cleaning up for him." Both themes were continually misused.

President Obama is worthy of our respect. He is the holder of the highest office in the land, voted in by the majority of Americans. However, he is out of touch with the country. By refusing to accurately address the rising tide of dissatisfied sentiments by many Americans, he is placing himself on a self-realized level of political invincibility - a level no man or woman should seek. As a result, we observe a man who desires nothing more than to take the United States on a journey to the land of his bloated and misguided ideas. January 2011 can't get here any sooner.

State of the Union 2010 (LIVE Coverage)

2010-01-27T18:54:00.000-08:00

8:20: Finally, this address comes to an end. It was fairly bland, and it was extremely partisan. More analysis will follow this week.

8:19: "I won't quit!"

8:16: President Obama is pleading with Congress and the American people to re-embrace his "Change." His change is "needed." His change is "hard." But he "can't do it alone." He should start acting so humble outside of the State of the Union address.

8:14: Now Obama's attempting to unite the country by discussing "values." He's indirectly attacking Republican legislators and talk show hosts alike.

8:12: President Obama will work with Congress to repeal the :Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the military. I can't wait until his term is up.

8:08: WHAT A LIE! President Obama stated that he is embracing Ronald Reagan's vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan was responsible for building up our arsenal - not decreasing the supply.

8:04: President Obama is trying to take credit for being "re-making" War on Terror policies. I don't feel safe at all.

8:02: Obama's challenging the Republicans to stop being the "party of NO." They can't wait until this is over. This is getting old.

7:59: Time to get along - "What frustrates the American people is that every day is Election Day in DC." President Obama is taking no blame for being divisive - it's everybody elses fault.

7:58: The forgotten line of "earmark reform" has been brought up. A little too late - Democrats have had a field day with earmarks this past year.

7:56: Obama lied when he stated that his administration has excluded lobbyists. Does this man have a soul?

7:55: Another overt swipe at Bush. This is absolutely pathetic.

7:54: Obama's budgeting freeze won't take effect until next year. He's got to spend the $15 billion this year. That's right. He only wants to freeze $15 billion.

7:52: What a joke! President Obama stated that he would start going through the budget "line by line" to ensure that there is a balanced budget. THERE IS NO LINE BY LINE VETO POWER THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR THE PRESIDENT. Big "whoops."

7:50: In commenting about the deficit, President Obama swiped the previous administration....... again. I think that's the third direct time he's blasted President Bush. This has become a political rally.

7:47: If anyone has another plan for health care reform, let me know." What a lie. Republicans have introduced deficit-friendly bills, yet the packages have been shelved by the Democrats. President Obama, stop posturing. It's not working. You do not want to listen.

7:46: President Obama took the blame for not explaining the health care bill to Americans. It was explained. The American people rejected it. Enough said.

7:43: HEALTH CARE REFORM!!!!!!!!!! "It wasn't for my political success; it was for all the people."

7:41: All student loan debt will be "forgiven" after twenty years. Wow! Unbelievable...... Banks will probably be required to give out loans to many students who have no business in college, and the money will probably never be returned.

7:39: Now we're off to school reform.

7:35: President Obama wants Cap N Tax passed through the Senate. He's now discrediting those who doubt the effects of "climate change," instead talking about incentives for leading the world in climate change reform.

7:32: President Obama desires "serious financial reform." SEIZE THE BANKS! (so his policy dictates)

7:29: "We can't afford another economic expansion like the one of the last decade." What was health care reform ($1 trillion) then?

7:25: President Obama is saying some of the right things about "small businesses," but his policies are the exact opposite of his rhetoric.

7:21: President Obama is taking credit for two million additional Americans being employed due to his enacted "Recovery Act." Come again? Show the proof of all those created jobs!

7:19: Democrats are now warming to President Obama's speech as he is talking about "stabilizing the financial system." What stabilizing?

7:18: A reference to the "last administration."

7:16: President Obama has "never been as hopeful in America as he is tonight."

7:13: In recapping the financial events of the past year, President Obama mentioned that one in ten Americans "still" are without a job in the aftermath of the devastating recession. President Obama, that number grew during your first year; it did not remain constant under your watch.

7:10: President Obama commences his address.

7:09: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi introduces the President.

7:08: Something that will probably be posted on DrudgeReport soon: President Obama bowed to Nancy Pelosi.

7:06: President Obama doesn't mind that this coverage is on C-SPAN. does he?

7:05: President Obama is announced to Congress.

7:03: Fox commentators are talking about President Obama's "dwindling political capital."

6:59 PM: About 90 seconds away from President Obama's entry.

Tonight is the State of the Union, and Politics in AZ will be providing live coverage throughout President Obama's address to Congress and the nation. Stay with us for analysis on many of the points the President presents.

The 'Obama Doctrine' Revoked.....by Obama?

2010-01-26T09:55:00.000-08:00

Back in September 2009, President Obama took to the United Nations' podium and stated the following:

"We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation -- one that recognizes the rights and
responsibilities of all nations."

Since taking the Presidency, Barack Obama has felt the need to re-shape the United States' image in the world. He took it upon himself to humble the United States of America, and assure other countries that the U.S. would be engaging in fewer missions around the world to bring freedom to dictator-led regimes. Yet, although President Obama has talked about "international cooperation," many other countries have done nothing more than yawn at his vision.

Take the circumstances in Haiti, for example. The United States government has committed 100 million dollars to the strickened country. The next closest government donations? How about the United Nations and United Kingdom at 10 million dollars apiece (at least that's what I could find). China's contribution: 1 million dollars - one percent of the U.S. contribution.

If President Obama really desired to coach the world on their "responsibilities," he would have shown some leadership skills with the Haiti contributions (and no, leadership does not primarily demand that money be thrown at every problem in the world). There's something amiss with the amount of funds that the U.S. government has committed to the Haiti disaster - more so because of the "play nice," "no show-off," "no bully" mentality that the Obama administration has taken great pains to drill into the world.

The world set a "responsibility" cap to Haiti at $10 million. According to President Obama's own doctrine, the United States should not have taken the lead on these efforts, let alone contribute ten times the amount of any one country.

Political Bulletin for Arizona

2010-01-26T08:07:00.000-08:00

Nationally, 2010 is shaping up to be a decent year for the GOP. Will the national trend hold for Arizona politics?

Arizona's incumbent governor, Jan Brewer is facing a primary challenge from Treasurer Dean Martin. The victor in that election will oppose likely Democratic candidate Terry Goddard. I remember being at a house party in the summer of 2006 with gubernatorial and Attorney General candidates Len Munsil and Bill Montgomery, respectively. In Montgomery's opening address to the gathering, he pointed out that his incumbent opponent thought that "AG" stood for "Almost Governor." It's been a forgone conclusion that Goddard would be the Democratic nominee sooner, rather than later. The only question that remains to be answered is the identity of his Republican opponent.

Congressional District Three tumbled into a "free-for-all stage" when Congressman John Shadegg recently announced his upcoming retirement at the end of his current term. Congressman Shadegg had a stranglehold on the district for over a decade, and his conservative voice in DC will be sorely missed. Many Republican candidates have already thrown their names into the race, including state legislators Sam Crump (former prospective Attorney General candidate), Pamela Gorman, and Jim Waring. Paradise Valley Mayor Vernon Parker has also declared for the race, shutting down his gubernatorial exploratory committee. There might be other individuals who decide to enter the race, which promises to give the people in that district a lot to follow.

We could not mention Arizona politics in 2010 without discussing the looming battle between U.S. Senator John McCain and former Congressman J.D. Hayworth. Congressman Hayworth has not announced his candidacy, but Senator McCain is taking nothing for granted, running political commercials on the air which promote his candidacy, and also attack Hayworth. Governor Sarah Palin will also make a trip down to the valley in March to campaign for a couple days with McCain. This race gives every indication that it will trump all others in the state, and it should provide entertaining political theatre for months to come.

Congressional Democrats are scrambling in Districts One, Three, and Five. Congressman Harry Mitchell and Congresswomen Ann Kirpatrick and Gabrielle Giffords have voted (for the most part) with President Obama's agenda, and voter unrest is starting to seep through the cracks. Will that be enough to for a Republican to push them to the edge of defeat? We shall find out.

The "People's Seat" Once Again?

2010-01-19T08:19:00.000-08:00

Make no mistake about it - a Scott Brown election victory tonight means one thing: Democrats do not have a mandate to turn the United States of America into a complete socialistic mess. A slim Martha Coakley victory tonight also means just one thing: Democrats had better watch their backs in the November 2010 elections. Anything less than an overwhelming Coakley victory immediately presents ominous signs for the Democrats in power.

Democrats will attempt to brush away a disaster or near-miss after tonight's results are released. The facts couldn't point to anything more opposite than what the portrayal will attempt to prove. Whatever occurs tonight in Massachusetts, a "Blue State" should have protected its own - not made Democrat candidates vulnerable. The national attention that this race garnered sends a chilling message to Democrats in Washington about their futures in politics - there will be little offensive campaigning undertaken in "Red States" in 2010. Too much is at stake for the Democrats, and I suspect that they will expend most of their remaining political capital trying to shelter "Blue State Democrats" in the near future.

Martha Coakley's repeated blunders on the campaign trail show Massachusetts voters and other Americans alike that she will assimilate just fine into the Democrats' machine in DC. She does not seem interested in what is beneficial for Massachusetts; she has definitely failed to connect with many of the likely voters because of her gaffes throughout this month. She has simply proven that she will step in line with the Democrats' agenda, and that she will support President Obama in almost every issue.

Scott Brown, on the other hand, is taking Massachusetts by storm. He has capitalized on his debate line that he is running for "the people's seat," and for many Massachusetts' citizens, excitement is brewing: for the first time in decades, their vote for United States' Senator matters. If he wins, the GOP will have gained a strong voice for the party, already experienced with the pressure that national attention delivers.

A few weeks ago, this race was in Coakley's court. A few days ago, this race was deemed a toss-up. Now, on January 19, 2010 - Election Day in Massachusetts, Scott Brown undeniably has all of the momentum. Miracles can happen. Will tonight uncover yet another miracle in God's perfect scheme for the United States of America?

Eyes on Massachusetts

2010-01-10T05:40:00.000-08:00

The former "Lion of the Senate" is about to roll over in his grave. Republicans are waiting with nervous excitement. Democrats have great apprehension.

January 19 - a new U.S. Senator will be selected by Massachusetts voters to replace the late Ted Kennedy. Scott Brown is the Republican candidate. Martha Coakley is the Democrat candidate. A couple months ago, the Democratic candidate might have walked away with a strong victory on Election Day. There's, however, more to this story.

Recently, Scott Brown closed to within 9 points of Coakley. A new poll out shows him one point up on her. This is huge for Republicans, but it is even more significant for Americans. With a Brown election, health care "reform" would be stopped dead in it's track, and Cap 'N Tax would be sent to its grave (theoretically, of course - you never know until some Republicans cast their votes).

American voters are realizing in droves that it was a dangerous mistake to give Democrats complete and unfettered access to government. The new poll (referenced above) shows that independents are breaking to Brown by about twice the margin of Coakley. If a Republican can pull off the stunner here in Massachusetts, look for mass hysteria amongst Democratic ranks in Washington DC. An upset victory would be a brutal, yet simple, message from voters (to the elected Democrats in Washington): "Get your hands out of our wallets and freedoms."

Vernon Parker for Republican Governor!

2010-01-08T13:53:00.000-08:00

This past Tuesday, Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts called Vernon Parker (current Mayor of Paradise Valley) the "most intriguing candidate running for governor." Roberts' article was extremely well-written, and it did justice to Mayor Parker's past and rise to prominence.

I've had the privilege of meeting and working with Vernon Parker. In 2006, I was a lowly intern for Len Munsil's gubernatorial campaign, and Mr. Parker was the campaign's spokesman. He made a point to talk to me every chance he had (there weren't a lot of chances because he was rarely in the campaign offices), and he made me feel extremely welcome in his presence. While that isn't a sufficient qualification for candidacy for Governor of the state of Arizona, it definitely will pay dividends on the campaign trail for Vernon Parker. I suspect that many of the people he meets on a daily basis will be captured by his engaging personality.

Arizona needs a Governor who displays conservative principles through all the issues facing our great state. While Governor Jan Brewer has many conservative stands that should be applauded, she is single-handedly destroying the credibility of the Republican-led legislature - quite possibly putting state government up for grabs in the next election. Vernon Parker would provide solid conservative leadership, and I think that the relationship between the Governor's office and legislature would become more fluent under a Parker administration.

Politics In AZ is supporting Vernon Parker for Governor of Arizona. Please do the same, and also visit Mayor Parker's website - http://www.parker2010.com/ - for additional campaign details.

"Captain" Ben Nelson, Nebraska Senator

2010-01-07T21:58:00.000-08:00

Senator Ben Nelson sold his health care vote to the Democratic leadership for a pile of funds for his state (Nebraska). This week, he morphed into Captain Jack Sparrow of Disney's "Pirates of the Caribbean," calling out the focus of the Democrats in Washington DC. He said the following in an interview with a Nebraska newspaper: “I think it was a mistake to take health care on as opposed to continuing to spend the time on the economy.” This statement by Nelson was an attempt to placate the constituency back home, and to try to distance himself from any fallout that might occur from a possible health "reform" passage.

Jack Sparrow was able to twist his way into every camp he came across in his journeys in the three "Pirates" films. He would say one thing to get to one place; then he would change sides, promising something else (and the process continued on). Captain Sparrow always had an end goal in sight, though; there was a meaning to his madness.

How is Ben Nelson like Jack Sparrow? Senator Nelson sat in the middle of the debate up until the last days before the Senate vote on health care "reform." It was a dangerous proposition to support the Democrats' side without first showing grave reservations and holding out for federal funds for his state - in his eyes, funds that would earn him brownie points in the eyes of his constituency. He took a political hit for his vote to help move the package through the Senate, and now he is in hot pursuit of the key to changing public sentiments, which are not entirely favorable towards him. He'll play both sides up until - and through - the final passage of the bill.

Like viewers can observe the conniving Jack Sparrow work out his plans, voters should be able to see through Senator Nelson's words and actions in the health "reform" debate. At this rate for Senator Nelson, it will only be a matter of time before a political "Davy Jones" catches up with him to send him to his past-due retirement.

The Democrats' White Flag Has Appeared

2010-01-05T22:33:00.000-08:00

Three key Democrats will not be holding their elected offices in January 2011: two U.S. Senators and Colorado's Governor. One of the Senators? Chris Dodd, who had been elected five times previously to his seat.

Dodd was facing a humiliating defeat in the 2010 elections. I'm sure the Democratic party will attempt to laud his achievements in the Senate over the past thirty years, and to paint the picture of an old, tired Senator, who just wanted to return home. We know better, though.

Democrats will be suffering many political losses in 2010 - that is known by numerous polls that have been taken throughout the past months, and by the elections in New Jersey and Virginia a few months ago (not to mention the near-miss in New York's LD-23). It would be detrimental for the Democratic party if mounting losses through the 2010 elections were to be placed at the feet of President Barack Obama. The solution is simple: minimize public perception of Obama's impact on the upcoming elections by forcing (yes - forcing) vulnerable officials to take a early, unplanned retirement from public office. In the end, less Democrat incumbents are defeated by Republican rising stars, and the public chalks up Republican gains to the "open market" (politically speaking). I don't think for a second that these retirements stemmed solely from autonomous decisions of Senator Dodd, Senator Norgan (North Dakota), and Governor Ritter. I think there was internal pressure from the National Democratic Party which led to the announcements.

The Democrats have already waved the white flag for 2010. Net gains will belong to the Republicans (in theory). However, while 2010 is a huge political year, 2012 is even more monumental. Democrats are already looking ahead to that election year, and they are trying to do everything they can to assist their incumbent President capture his second term - even if that means that veteran Democrats are sacrificed in the meantime.

Thoughts from Fall and Winter 2009

2009-12-18T15:11:00.000-08:00

The school semester is over, and my mind has been freed up to blog once again. A lot has happened over the past couple months. I'd like to briefly share my thoughts on some of the events that have occurred in the political world.

1. On December 1st, I stood in a line outside of a Tempe Costco to meet Governor Sarah Palin - for six hours! It was extremely cold outside, and I needed two jackets and a blanket to keep me sane for a few hours I was in line. However, meeting Governor Palin was more than worth the wait. After speaking to Governor Palin, I came away with a couple of observations: first, she is genuine; second, she is a legitimate politician - she knows how to effectively work a crowd or gathering of people. It was a privilege to meet Governor Palin, and I look forward to her next political move.

2. Can we stop the madness of health care "reform"? I don't think so - although I definitely hope the Democratic proposals (entitled "ObamaCare") can be curtailed. The majority of people in the United States do not want ObamaCare to be enacted, yet the measure passed the House last month, and as this is being written, is one vote away from passage in the Senate (although the Senate's version is watered down for the moment). Democrats do not care about what is beneficial for the direction of this country, nor do they seem to care about their political futures. Because of the Democrats' cavalier attitudes opposing the voices of many constituents, I do believe that some potent form of ObamaCare will be given life by Congress sometime next year.

Will the country make the Democrats pay for their inept handling of budget strings? In less than a year, the entire country shall discover the answer to that question. I do fear that Americans are returning to their passive ways. This is what President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Leader Reid are praying for - they yearn for the American people to continue to demonstrate that they will not be "too" upset over what is going on in Washington DC. If this is the case in November 2010, Republicans voters might be evenly matched up with Democrat voters, and there will not be a necessary overhaul of the government - an overhaul we so desperately need.

3. President Obama recently went in front of the American people to announce his Afghanistan contingency plan - this plan had been brewing in the White House for months before its completion. I'm very skeptical of the effectiveness of the plan. President Obama probably should have relied more on his General's input towards the start of this process. President Obama should have ceased his political posturing in the months leading up to his address to the nation. This was a decision which had consequences for Middle East stability and United States' security - this should not have been given an arena in which President Obama comfortably took his time and continued to inform the Americans that he was trying to make the right call. The right call could have been made quietly and with far-less fanfare.

America's Sovereignty Chipped Away by a Nobel Peace Prize Award

2009-10-09T16:46:00.000-07:00

I certainly wasn't expecting to receive the breaking news this morning: Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize winner. What has he done to deserve this "so-called" honor? I'll take it one step further - what will he do to ever justify the "so-called" honor he received? Whatever the case, President Obama was ushered into a "so-called" illustrious group of United Nations' supporters and communists.

President Obama hasn't been in office for more than nine months. If he wasn't already, he is now a full-fledged captive of the world because of this award. He now has to find a way to move enemies of the U.S. out of Guantanamo Bay, and onto U.S. soil. He now has to find a way to further distance himself from the Iraqis, and he must rethink his increasing engagement in Afghanistan - two operations which are extremely vital for U.S. security, but can be discarded at the beckon of "world peace."

This "so-called" achievement also means that President Obama will continue to fashion the social and economic structure of the country in his socialist manner. What policies the United Nations supports will become grounded staples of the Obama Administration. The will of the American people has effectively been doomed to become extinct in the 111th Congress - all because President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize.

This is the case because President Obama really did not do much of anything to receive this award, and as a result, he will be under enormous pressure (both from himself and the world) to earn it. He will bend over backwards to demonstrate to the world's community that he is, in fact, worthy of the great "honor," and that he will do everything possible to conform America's ideals and policies with those of other countries.

Obama's "City In a Valley" Policy Comes Back to Embarrass Him

2009-10-02T13:50:00.000-07:00

Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair delivered. So did the former President of Russia, Vladimir Putin. They helped secure Olympic bids for their country in previous years. However, even with all the hype, and with the reported 1.2 million dollars it cost the taxpayers, President Obama's trip to Denmark could not snag the coveted 2016 Olympic slot for Chicago. Finally, his policies are coming back to hurt him.

How does the leader of the United States of America expect to see his country in a prime position when he has spent countless days and hours apologizing for America's previous actions in the world? How does this leader convince the world that for this one time the United States is special and deserving of a great honor when he has continuously implied that his country will no longer be the world's "bully," and that other countries may now take their "rightful" position above the United States of America?

President Obama cannot have it both ways. He cannot strive for world equality, driving the United States into the coarse dirt of world humiliation. and at the same time revert back to the ideal ambassador for the country he was elected to serve. One can only imagine what this decision would have been if, for the past nine months, this country had been portrayed as the greatest and freest country in the world.

The "Enemy of Humanity"

2009-09-29T08:51:00.000-07:00

Add Congressman Trent Franks to the growing list of Congressmen who are boisterously voicing their disapproval towards the policies of President Barack Obama. In a speech given Saturday at the How to Take Back America conference, Congressman Franks spoke out against the President's decision to send taxpayer funds overseas to fund abortions, calling Obama an "enemy of humanity" for his unabashed support of abortion.

Unlike the partisan and devious verbal swipes which were uttered by Democrats at President George W. Bush, Congressman Franks' comments - along with other Republican members who have spoken out against President Obama - were calculated and confined to specific policy - not an attack on the man himself. There are few in this world who have a stronger disgust and realization of the heinousness of abortion than Congressman Franks. He was speaking purely with conviction in this speech, and that, I believe, is definitely what more Americans desire to hear from their elected officials.

Congressman Trent Franks boldly took his stand against the immoral acts of the administration. He stated what he knew to be right, and in doing so, he may have just elevated his fight for the unborn to a whole new level. The truth was laid out, and there is no debating that those who support abortion are indisputable enemies of innocent humanity - innocent humanity that was destroyed with their stamp of approval.

One thing's for certain, though - there is no way that Congressman Franks receives another invitation to a White House Super Bowl party.

The New United States - By Barack Obama

2009-09-24T12:50:00.000-07:00

Two days ago (September 23), President Obama took to the United Nations' podium for the first time in his Presidency and did what he has done for the last nine months - he apologized for America's involvement in world events - events which he indirectly linked President Bush's eight years in office. It is becoming increasingly upsetting and distressing to listen to the words of the man who holds the highest office in the land - an office which I have great respect for. It is time for President Obama to realize that he is, in fact, the President of the United States of America. If he wants to spread his ideas of globalization, he should run for a leadership position within the United Nations - he would fit right in with many of the leaders who are apart of that institution.

Consider what our President stated towards the beginning of his speech:

I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.

Sure, it can be said that there have been misperceptions and misinformation about the United States. Sure, there have been some in the world who believe that America is just a big bully who should be put in its place once and for all - I get this. That part is fact. However, I just cannot understand why our President would fuel the flames of these arguments. I cannot understand why our President would not condemn these mindsets of others around the world. Who does he serve? The world, or the people of the United States of America - the greatest nation that has ever existed in the world.

President Obama played into the arguments of the countries that vehemently hate the United States in at least two ways - just in the short statements I posted above. First, he verbally leveled the former President of the United States - a shameful and cowardly act. And second, he affirmed the ever-present claim that the United States acted unilaterally in pursuing the War on Terror (among other things) - a false charge. President Bush may have acted without an approval stamp from a corrupt institution people call the United Nations, but he carried into war, a sizable coalition of countries. He most certainly did not act unilaterally.

And President Obama neared the end of his speech with these statements:

We have reached a pivotal moment. The United States stands ready to begin a new chapter of international cooperation -- one that recognizes the rights and responsibilities of all nations.

The new United States - then what did all our brave men and women fight and die for over the past two hundred years? What are our soldiers who are currently in action fighting for? And how dare President Obama assume that he has the right and authority to re-create the United States and give it a new identity.

I said it before, and I'll say it again - if President Obama desires to become a leader of nationS, then he should campaign for a post in the United Nations. However, by attempting to transform our country into a new creation, he is asking for a revolt - a revolt that will happen, not by guns and violence, but by the the power of the voters of this country.

Bring It On!

2009-09-15T09:49:00.000-07:00

The Democrats, having an insatiable desire to wipe Republicans and their policies out of Washington DC, have decided to move ahead with a disciplinary measure against Congressman Joe Wilson. According to Fox News, the House of Representatives will pass a 'resolution of disapproval' today. In my opinion, this is absolutely shameful behavior by the Democrats in Congress, and they ought to be extremely careful when dealing with disciplining anyone from the other party.

Joe Wilson already apologized for his rash comment of "you lie," uttered in Congress the night President Obama gave his health care speech. President Obama accepted the apology - the matter should have been closed.

In fact, Democrats are the last group in the United States who should be pointing fingers at such a statement that Joe Wilson made. Consider that they put partisan politics ahead of their country in insulting President Bush in just about every way imaginable (including, by the way, calling him a liar). Consider that President Obama's administration referred to Conservatives as "right wing extremists." Consider that President Obama made a foolish judgement about a situation which came up with a professor and a police officer, and then he did not own up to his mistake and apologize.

Still consider that in the very speech where Congressman Wilson shouted, "You lie," President Obama had just finished insulting and maligning the character, policies, and intentions of the GOP. But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned. Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.
While I definitely cannot condone Congressman Wilson's interruption of President Obama's speech, I definitely cannot disapprove of it either. If President Obama is not lying about the facts of his health care proposals (in other words, if he has no clue about what he is talking about), he is being extremely misleading to the American people. Joe Wilson has every right to call President Obama out on this - more elected officials should do the same - but I think that the statement should have been made independent from a speech which the President of the United States (or anyone for that matter) was engaged in. If Congressman Wilson had gone on Fox News after the speech and had adamantly claimed that President Obama had lied, Democrats would have had little ammunition to fire back at him.

However, lest we forget, there were at least two State of the Unions where President Bush received a chorus of boos and negative reactions from the Democrats. President Obama has received a "you lie" from one person - hardly something to get riled up over. Did the Democrats apologize for their disrespectful behavior during Bush's speeches? I don't think so.

Yet, even though the Democrats are doing their mighty best to shame Congressman Wilson into the next millennium, many in America are applauding Representative Wilson's bold efforts to speak the truth about the Democrats health care plans. According to the Politico, it has been reported that Congressman Wilson has raised around one million dollars since his statement in Congress last week.

We definitely need more people like Congressman Wilson. We need these people to continue to fight for what America truly stands for - that is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all Americans. President Obama's health care proposals do not match the ideals of Americans, no matter how much he says it is so. Republicans need to follow the lead of Representative Wilson, and respectfully, truthfully, and confidently ensure that the administration does not get away with lies.

In Memory of September 11, 2001

2009-09-11T14:23:00.000-07:00

9.11.2009: May we never forget what happened on this date eight years ago. But more importantly, may we never forget the resolve that Americans showed in rallying behind the cause of freedom on that day back in 2001, and in the subsequent days following the attacks.

Do you remember where you were on September 11, 2001? I can visualize just about every step I took on that day. My day woke me up around 8:30 AM (MST) and told my brother and I that our country had been attacked. He told us that the twin towers in New York had been struck by airliners, the Pentagon had been hit, and another plane had gone down in Pennsylvania.

I quickly dressed and rushed downstairs to watch nonstop coverage of the terrorist attacks on TV. I believe that 9/11/01 was the first day I had ever heard of Osama bin Laden, and of al Qaeda. I had been barely aware of the existence of the twin towers. Now Bin Laden and his gang were more than alive and real in my mind, and I feared for my country and for the future security of all within it.

I observed television footage of enemies of the United States dancing in the street, rejoicing in the loss of precious human life which occurred in New York, in Washington DC, and in Pennsylvania. Many reports of President George W. Bush's whereabouts came into circulation. No one seemed to know just who was responding to this major crisis. Everyone was in shock.

My mom took me and my brothers to our writing classes at a friend's house that afternoon. The mood of all the students and teachers was very somber and reflective. I sat in my classroom talking with two classmates about what had happened. We were young (seventh grade), and we did not have the world view to put the morning's events in perspective. I'll speak for my mindset - I was scared. I was deathly afraid.

After going home from the class, I couldn't take my eyes off the TV - a continuing staple of my day. Time after time, I observed the planes crashing into their unsuspecting targets. Time after time, I listened to interviews of public officials, fire chiefs, and police chiefs giving periodic updates to the public who were all waiting with bated breath to hear the latest news. Time after time, my eyes seemed to penetrate through the glass screen in front of me.

While the night definitely didn't bring closure to the situation, it definitely brought a sense of calmness back into my life. Once my dad came home from work, I was extremely relieved that my family was back together. Also, I took great comfort in the words of President George W. Bush - words which were delivered confidently and decisively. I'd like to share a few lines from the speech - statements which brought a sense of comfort back to my life:

(President Bush made these statements at the beginning of his address to the nation.) Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve.
(And he made these statements at the end of his speech.) Tonight, I ask for your prayers for all those who grieve, for the children whose worlds have been shattered, for all whose sense of safety and security has been threatened. And I pray they will be comforted by a Power greater than any of us, spoken through the ages in Psalm 23:
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil for you are with me.
This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve for justice and peace. America has stood down enemies before, and we will do so this time. None of us will ever forget this day, yet we go forward to defend freedom and all that is good and just in our world.
In a short span - less than twenty-four hours - my world had been changed. I was now aware of a greater evil than I could have ever imagined. I was now aware of terrorism. I was now aware of what I thought was fear itself.

It took weeks - months - to get through the initial trauma going through my head. My heart bled for all the wives, husbands, mothers, fathers, and children who had been lost to their loved ones on that fateful day of September 11. I watched proudly when our political leaders came together, united in the face of those terrorists who were still plotting to destroy America. And I came, more and more, to admire the man I called "my President."

I truly believe that God raises up leaders. Sometimes a leader is raised up to solve an economic mess. Some may be raised up to create an economic mess. And still some may be raised up to stand stalwart and resolute in the face of danger to their country; to meet that danger head-on; to protect and defend their citizens with everything that God has given them.

I believe that President Bush was that man - raised up by God to lead our country out of the depths of the horrible atrocities we had all witnessed. Whatever you may think of him; whatever you may think of any of his policies (domestic or security), he used every tool at his disposal to keep this country safe throughout the remaining tenure of his Presidency.

Sure there was plenty of fear and anger on September 11, 2001. But now, eight years removed from the horrific events of that day, I prefer to reflect on the amazing resolve which Americans collectively showed to the world following the attacks. That resolve should never be forgotten; it should never be laid aside; it should never be compromised for the sake of partisan politics.

For we are Americans.

Government-Controlled Health Care Myths

2009-08-27T11:55:00.000-07:00

For all of you, championing President Obama's life saving health reform package, I ask you these questions:

When has universal health care (government-controlled health care) EVER in the history of the world worked effectively and efficiently?

When has government-controlled health care ever provided quality care to the citizens?

When has government-controlled health care ever remained solvent, equitable, and sustainable?
What United States' government-controlled agency has ever worked efficiently and effectively (besides anything associated with the government's defense of its citizens)?

I already have the answers.

For question number one: never.

For question number two: maybe at the commencement of the government system, as remnants of the private system remain, but after a while, little quality remains in the health care industry.

For question number three: it takes a while, but once the quality of care rapidly decreases, and the taxes to sustain the system continue to choke every last dollar out of citizens, the system becomes equitable no longer, and becomes pegged for an unsustainable future.

For question number four: Let's see... The postal service? Hanging on for dear life. Medicare? Almost broke. Social Security? Also almost out of money. The Veterans Administration? Extremely inefficient.

There is no successful model of a government-controlled health care system in the history of the world, and it is ludicrous to believe that the United States can become the first country to shape a successful system; or that the United States is "just different." It is also a losing cause to bring up individual success stories of different aspects of other countries universal health care systems. As a whole, universal health care is a disaster. It is a disaster simply because the government overreaches and absolutely ruins an industry which it has no business being in in the first place.

And for any senior citizens or invalid citizens of the United States who have a misguided view that ObamaCare is looking out for them - government-controlled health care primarily focuses on the people who can pay back into the system - that is the people who can consistently pay their taxes. Government-controlled "anything" is socialism - there is no way around it. Socialism does not place a priority on the elderly or infirmed individuals - these people get the leftovers of care (IF there are any leftovers).

I know we need reform within the health care industry. However, as I have stated before, "the care is always available; the insurance may not be. In countries where universal health care is provided by the government, the order is reversed: the care is available sometimes – maybe – though there is always a right (in theory) to coverage." I'd rather work with what we have now, than to set sail in a leaky boat that has seen many rough waters in its past.

The Health Care Debate is NOT Over!

2009-08-16T22:11:00.000-07:00

Well, President Obama's health care dream, - a public option - slipped away from him - like many of the other policy initiatives generated by his administration. To name just a few of these seemingly-failed directives from the White House, "Right-wing extremists"; "We are a nation of cowards"; experimentation with a police state; and now this radical idea of implementing a full-fledged socialized medicine system.

As more and more of these ideas continue to be floated out into the public arena, it becomes clearer that President Obama is not allowing failed policies, nor even just accidental misrepresentations to escape his watchful eyes, but everything that has originated from the Oval Office has been part of calculated steps towards laying the groundwork of radicalizing the United States of America. I am waiting for the infamous cap and tax bill to be restructured any time now, as that piece of legislation was met with grave reservations by the American people.

The American people must not rest just because the Obama administration appears to be backing off of their grand idea of a public option for health care. They must realize this ploy for what it is worth: a building of a socialistic foundation. The policies of this President must be curbed.

President Obama has already shown in the first seven months of his term that he could care less about what the American people are calling for. However, the members of the House of Representatives, and to a lesser extent, the members of the United States Senate have placed increasingly wary eyes upon the irate people who are responsible for their elections. They are watching you. Now go out and continue to let them know what they should, or should not be supporting.

Stop Attacking the Insurance Companies!

2009-08-14T17:19:00.000-07:00

This post is probably going to make a lot of people feel like upchucking their latest meal. But what is about to be written has to be stated, loud and clear: the health care debate going on in this country stems from one fundamental question - "Is health care (coverage) a right?"

The debate on whether or not health care coverage is a right or not is camouflaged behind manufactured talking points dealing with how insurance companies are just wicked witches from the north, south, east, and west. (You can't trust those devils, but you can trust the government to fight back on your behalf.) Today in Montana, President Obama couldn't have put the argument any better:

Most of us have insurance. And most of us think, you know, knock on wood, that we're going to stay healthy. But we're no different than Katie and other ordinary Americans, no different than anybody else. We are held hostage at any given moment by health insurance companies that deny coverage, or drop coverage, or charge fees that people can't afford at a time when they desperately need care. It's wrong. It's bankrupting families, it's bankrupting businesses. And we are going to fix it when we pass health insurance reform this year. We are going to fix it.

But the real fact is this: insurance companies do not owe people any favors outside of what each company is paid to provide. And this goes deeper - insurance companies are not obligated to go above and beyond what has already been agreed upon by their representative and each person. Insurance companies should not be required to lower their premiums for coverage. Insurance companies have perfect right to deny someone coverage, or to drop an individual from coverage when a condition or treatment appears outside of the terms of the original agreement.

Does it seem fair? To some, no. But instead of seething at the evil profit huggers, people should focus their energy towards the comprehension that having health insurance (for anything) is a benefit in this life - not a right. Health insurance is not a necessity; it is extremely convenient to have at difficult stages of one's life.

The angle that most "health care reform" proponents gloss over often is the truth that many covered people can always shop around for improved coverage. It's a legitimate option. If a man is not satisfied with his employer-based insurance, he can probably drop his existing coverage and pick up a new option, or he can quit his job and find a plan that offers his dream insurance package. These "options" should be encouraged and nurtured - but within the private market.

The private market should be exhorted to open up more competition so that people have more room to compare available coverages and find the one that suits them and their families. Others who may not be able to afford premiums should work towards the goal of being able to purchase a plan, or make necessary sacrifices in their lives to immediately afford their highlighted premium. When people illegitimately attack insurance companies, they are really saying "I won't do what I must do, and someone must now carry the load for me." That's just not the American way.

Health care coverage is not a right. It is a responsibility of the people to obtain.

Congressman Trent Franks Announces His Town Hall Date

2009-08-13T15:38:00.000-07:00

Congressman Trent Franks will be hosting a public town hall on Tuesday, August 25, at 5 PM. The town hall will be held at the Community Church of Joy in Glendale.

Congressman Franks is one of the most conservative elected officials in the country, and he knows who he serves: the people of the second Congressional district of Arizona. He is not afraid of any question, and usually he is on the correct side of issues in the eyes of many who listen to him. He answers his questioners with authority, respect, and conviction.

I invite you to come out to the town hall to hear what Congressman Franks has to say. He is staunchly fighting for conservative values, and he needs your support and insight.

Dear Rahm...

2009-08-05T14:46:00.000-07:00

FINALLY! We have witnessed the arrival of a Republican who effectively and efficiently struck back at the Obama administration's acts of intimidation - allegedly (in this instance), White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel's part. Yesterday, the ranking GOP member on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Darrell Issa, sent a letter to Rahm Emmanuel, essentially reminding him of his place within the framework of the United States government.

Congressman Issa's letter will probably draw smirks from the eyes of its beholders, yet the action was a step in the right direction - a direction in which the Republicans diligently pass along messages from the American people: "Do not think that you (Congress and the White House) can get away with everything." One man's actions is a start - now we need more of our elected officials to jump on board and demand that President Obama and his comrades respect the opinions of others, and adhere to their Constitutional duties.

The Start of a "National Civilian Militia"?

2009-07-30T11:30:00.000-07:00

Tonight will mark the most hyped White House beer meeting in recent memory. The "teacher," President Barack Obama, will assemble his "pupils," Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr and Sergeant James Crowley, to prove to the country that his racial profiling comments last week were, in fact, legitimate. Yet in the case of President Obama's prime-time news conference last Wednesday - his statements regarding Gates' disorderly conduct arrest demanded an apology for a gross misrepresentation of the situation and a monumental collapse in judgement. Yet no apology has come from the man who occupies the highest office in the land.

However, what's at stake here are the last-remaining pillars which separate the federal government from state jurisdictions. President Obama's words, which were not publicly retracted through an apology, served as a vicious warning for all police departments around the country. The President of the United States - in theory, the most powerful man in the world - condemned a local operation based on his own interpretation of the shady facts given at the time; he sided with the man accused (at the time) of wrongdoing, instead of police officers who daily put their lives on the line, attempting to support the rights of the people around them.

As a result, the effect of the message of Obama's words is simple: "either you're (the police) with me, or you're against me!" If an apology is not issued by the Commander in Chief, his words will have served for the foundation of a "national civilian militia" (the phrase Obama used during his 2008 campaign). If an apology is not forced from Obama, he might find it easier to interfere in police affairs, thus instituting his policies in already-existing departments; or the police might do whatever they can to oppose his "guidance," giving him an avenue to create his own private "militia."

It is imperative for the existence of freedom in the United States of America that President Obama be held to account for the full weight of his comments last Wednesday. Words have consequences - let's hope the consequences fall solely on President Obama, and not on the future liberties of the American people.

The Real Sotomayor

2009-07-18T22:00:00.000-07:00

It is almost a foregone conclusion that Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed by the United States Senate - probably by a sizable margin. There will be some Republican votes cast for Sotomayor's confirmation - votes cast, in part, to prove to the Democrats that the Republicans truly are in the bipartisan frame of mind. It's unfortunate that her confirmation is almost-certain and imminent. Sonia Sotomayor has not been accurately portraying her ideals in the recently-completed Senate hearings, and her previously espoused beliefs are more than dangerous to the survival of the Constitution.

Many people on both side of the political aisle have been alarmed by Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments, given in 2002. When cross-examined by Republican Senators a couple days ago about this well-published statement, Sotomayor countered with the following:

"I was trying to inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system because different life experiences and backgrounds always do,” she said. “I don’t think there is a quarrel with that in our society. I was also trying to inspire them to believe they could become anything they wanted to become just as I had. ... To give everyone assurances I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.”

It was a nice scripted answer by Sotomayor. She was definitely prepared for the question, and she attempted to smooth it over by distancing herself as much as she could from her previously stated positions. However, what has not been addressed as much as it should be is the fact that the "wise Latina" remark was nestled into an entire speech devoted to paving the way for future Latino and women domination in both the political and judicial systems.

Don't get me wrong - I am not advocating any sort of discriminatory policy when it comes to electing our leaders or seating our judges - as Sotomayor clearly sought to do so in her 2002 speech. A person who is qualified to serve in whatever open position he or she seeks, should receive the appointment. Gender or race should not be raised - ever! Unfortunately, both gender and race have been raised as issues in the past (even continuing somewhat to this day), but that does not give people the right to use those two issues as leverage for proving their points.

Sotomayor's 2002 speech started out bemoaning the (as she put it) "struggle to get us (Latinos and women) where we are and where we need to go." It merged into a discussion of "what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench" The foundation of her arguments stemmed from archived discussions with one judges who had previously served with her on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, which Sotomayor laid out in a section of the speech:

"Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably gain people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then"as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically" but instead of 'acting intuitively.' ... While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. ... I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both adversity of experiences and of thought."

Of course women and men are different. Of course different experiences may be encountered by people across different races. However, the law is the law; it does not function properly when judges put their spin on what they "feel" the law means to them. Who one is and where they've come from should be celebrated, remembered, and appreciated - when that person does not have the law in his hand. The law is for all people- covering all races and genders. It is not meant to be molded to show favoritism towards a particular sex or race.

Sotomayor's conclusion from her disagreement with Judge Cederbaum's thoughts on this issue is fatally flawed. She is doing a disservice to the law and society by even suggesting that experience and one's gender and race holds weight in the court of law. She is interpreting the law in the way she deems necessary - not in a way which protects and defends the rights established by our Constitution.

And what final conclusion did Sonia Sotomayor reach in this speech? She closed with the following statements:

"There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this onference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making."

In short, Sonia Sotomayor's career goal is to pave the way for Latinos (along with other "people of color") and women to have exclusive access to the law - not to interpret it how it was written - but to dismantle it, and to reconstruct it so that the law of the United States reflects the changing landscape of the land. This mindset should be deemed dangerous by every American who appreciates their heritage and history; by all of the Senators, who should strive to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States whenever they receive an opportunity to directly influence future judgements by the highest court in the land; by the President of the United States, Barack Obama, who should have already taken into account his sworn oath to protect and defend the Constitution.