Carefree voters beware
In the next few months, you may be seeing people at the post office asking you to overturn Carefree’s new “Direct Election of the Mayor” policy. The process as it stands now, allows for the candidate with the most votes to be elected mayor in the primary and not have to run again in the general election.
The contention is that if a number of candidates run for mayor it would be possible for a mayor to be elected without a 50% +1 vote majority. This is true, but then we do not require this type of percentage for our federal or state elections either. Nor is it a violation of our State or Town Codes. Please read Section 9-821.01 D of Arizona Revised Statutes at www.azleg.gov/ArizonaRevisedStatutes.asp for yourselves. It is clear that a candidate may be elected by any majority in the primary. Even the opposition admits to the legality of the wording. Since these “concerned citizens” are the same ones that opposed allowing you to directly elect your mayor, one must then question why they wish to change something that was approved by 73 percent of our citizens before it has even been employed.
So why did I write the original initiative in this way? One reason was to allow a grace period for a new mayor to learn the inner working of his position prior to holding office, or if a returning mayor, to be able to concentrate on town responsibilities rather than have to go through a second election process. However, that was not the main reason. In the eleven years that I have been a council member, I have seen the damage that PACs (political action committees) have done to Carefree’s election process. Lies, insinuations, and false allegations prevail. The sad fact is many of these PACs are not “concerned citizens.” They are a few with special interests who are looking to hold power and protect what they consider their right of privilege over the rest. These PACs pool their funds and resources to send out their hate mail against any who do not support their interests. Electing a mayor at the primary election will be a start to end election abuse. These “concerned citizens” want to manipulate elections so that if their chosen candidate does not get elected, they will get a second chance to change the people’s choice.
In a town the size of Carefree, we are not going to be seeing mayoral candidates by the dozens. Carefree citizens are intelligent, well informed voters. Whether there are two or three candidates running, I am sure our citizens will choose the most qualified candidate.
Councilman Bob Coady | Carefree
Defending Arizona’s New Law
Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law, SB1070, has generated a large amount of controversy, much of it due to a misunderstanding of its provisions. As a co-sponsor, I would like to set the record straight.
SB1070 is a comprehensive anti-illegal immigration law designed to “crack down” on illegal immigration and all the harm it causes Arizona in terms of crime and backbreaking public expenses to incarcerate, educate, medically treat and provide other services to illegal immigrants and their children.
The most frequent criticism of SB1070 is that it will empower police to challenge the legal presence of all Hispanics, legal and illegal, based solely upon their appearance. This is untrue. SB1070 only directs police officers to question someone when they have “reasonable suspicion” to believe that the person is in the U.S. illegally. This provision merely extends a half-century old U.S. Supreme Court created tool called “stop and question” to immigration offenses. To prevent racial profiling, the law states that in constructing “reasonable suspicion,” police officers “may not solely consider race, color or national origin.”
Based upon input from police chiefs and detectives, changes were made to SB1070 to correct other potential problems. Police officers are only required to make “reasonable” legal presence inquiries “when practicable,” so that officers will be free to prioritize their time. No officer will have to question an immigration suspect while a bank is being robbed down the street. Likewise, no questioning is required when it would “hinder or obstruct an investigation,” so that the police do not have to question all crime victims and witnesses about their immigration status.
Another argument made against SB1070 is that it illegally preempts federal immigration law. But we are not preempting federal law - we are incorporating and enforcing it. If anybody is preempting federal law, it’s the municipalities that have instituted “sanctuary city” policies that prohibit their police officers from even reporting illegal immigrants to federal authorities. SB1070 prohibits sanctuary city policies within Arizona.
Nor does the new law require residents to carry identification papers. This mistaken belief stems from a provision in the law that creates a presumption of legal presence, if a person presents specified forms of government issued identification. As with all law, the burden of proof rests with the police officer. If the officer’s questioning does not elevate the information level from reasonable suspicion to probable cause, the suspect walks. Failing to present identification papers is not grounds to arrest, unless the suspect admits to non-citizen status because federal law requires the carrying of such documents by non-citizens.
The bottom line is that the Bush administration dropped the ball on border security and internal immigration enforcement and the Obama administration cannot even find it. The primary responsibility of government is to protect its citizens and illegal immigration poses a growing threat to safety. Until such time as the federal government secures the border and adequately enforces immigration laws internally, Arizona will have no choice but to protect its citizens.
State Representative John Kavanagh is a Republican representing District 8 (Scottsdale, Fountain Hills and Rio Verde). He is also chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
Correct me if I'm wrong ...
It seems to me that when when the southern Arizona rancher Robert Krentz was murdered we did not hear a peep from "teleprompter guy" B. Hussein Obama. Not a peep, not a word, not a "this will not stand," no warning, zero, zip, nada, no "no mas."
But with the signing of 1070 and the pending crackdown on ILLEGAL folks inside OUR country, up he pops to once again to run off at the mouth and interfere in Arizona legislation that would not be needed if he and the dumb ass he selected as Homeland "Security" Secretary would have done their job and SEALED the border.
Then again Robert Krentz was a white rancher and not a black Harvard professor.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm ... post racial my backside.
Tom Carbone | E-mail
The devil is in the details!
Has anyone read the actual ballot language for the proposed "temporary' 1 percent state sales tax increase? Probably not!
Does the 1 percent sales tax ballot contain any "non-supplanting" language? Definitely not! That means that the state (executive or legislature), if it so chooses, can cut existing funding for, say, education programs and use the 1 percent sales tax monies to make up the difference. As the money comes in via the new incremental sales taxes, a similar amount might be deducted from normal, say, education program funding and diverted to other priority state programs. Thus, neither a gain nor a loss!
This non-inclusion of "non-supplanting" ballot language is typical of many tax-raising ballots and affords great flexibility to the political entity (school district, municipality, county, state) seeking such taxing authority. Thus, the political entity (school district, etc.) can use any newly authorized taxes to supplant (or replace) normal funding for these programs rather than using these monies to supplement (or add on) these programs.
Could this have been the case with CCUSD when they obtained taxpayer approval for funding in 2005 via the K-3 override? One wonders! Other than the staffing of Horseshoe Trails, CCUSD elementary schools only gained a net of six supplemental teachers in the period from 2005 up to the recent K-3 override election campaigns. Yet, in the recent K-3 election campaigns, CCUSD administrators claimed that they would lose about 15 teachers if the override was not passed.
Where did these extra 9-10 teachers come from? Were they supplanted teachers or were they supplemental teachers? Or, did CCUSD make an arithmetic mistake in its communications to the public? One wonders!
Remember, read the ballot before you vote!
Will Wreight | Phoenix
What I do not hear is reasonable debate
I hear much emotional debate regarding the crisis in illegal immigration. What I do not hear is reasonable debate. For example:
There are fifteen million refugees each year who are fleeing their home countries to avoid death or bodily harm like circumcision of young girls. Many are in hiding in their home countries while awaiting clearance to immigrate to the US legally. Our just laws give priority to these people over those who simply wish to come here for a better economic opportunity. Yet no one speaks about their plight, even though their stories are infinitely more emotional than those who believe they have some God-given right to push these people aside and crash to the head of the line for the scarce jobs, housing, education and medical care we have to offer.
History has taught us that no border can be completely sealed and that guest workers do not return home after their work visas expire. And yet neither the proponents of a closed border or those advocating another guest worker program address how they propose to find and punish those who overstay their legal stay. There are thousands upon thousands of people who have had their day in court and been ordered to leave the United States but remain here. How are we to find and identify them and those who are bound to defy the closed border and guest-worker visas in the future? If the new law in Arizona is unacceptable, why is no one offering a workable alternative? It is time we had a reasonable debate about how any new immigration laws are going to be enforced. If we cannot enforce a law, why have a law in the first place?
Jack C. McVickers | Scottsdale
Hi all in Carefree
I agree in total with your new rules for illegal immigrants in Arizona. I have visited Carefree twice in the last five years to see my cousin and seeing the results, I wish our gutless government in Australia would do something similar. Deport the boat people; send them back where they come from!!! Please send Sheriff Joe out here as well – he is my kind of Law Officer.
Errol S. Nilson | Kirra Beach, Qld. Australia
What, me worry?
With all of the constitutional questions that have arisen since November 2008, a check of the document itself yields some interesting, even startling facts. Nowhere could be found a guarantee of government sponsored health care, no right to abort your unborn child, no assurance of equal outcome, free food, housing or transportation.
What could be found enumerated in that clear, concise document were the God given freedoms of expression, religion, speech, of life, liberty and property unencumbered by the mandates of government. We hold the right to self protection secured by the 2nd Amendment, and protection from unreasonable search and seizure is there as well.
Oddly, there is no mention of government ownership of banks, auto manufactures, brokerage houses, railroads or insurance companies. Omissions that do not impress the likes of Harry Reed and Nancy Pelosi. What may impress them is the provision that allows "We the People" to vote they and their socialist comrades out; freeing them from the burdens of public service.
In accordance with that revered document we are compelled to endure another two and one half years of our jug-eared chief executive espousing Marxist rhetoric and subverting the constitution – immune from the wrath of the ballot – grinning, as if to say, "What, me worry?" Perhaps not till 2012 Mr. President.
Randy Edwards | Cave Creek
Bring a chicken to the doctor
The Republicans have settled on a political strategy for this year's elections to run on "Repeal and Replace" the health care reform that Obama just signed. But what would they replace it with? Up until this last week no Republican has said anything specific until Nevada Republican senate candidate Sue Lowden came up with the Republican plan. Her plan – bring a chicken to the doctor.
I'm thinking that the Republicans better come up with something better than "bring a chicken to the doctor" if they hope to gain seats in Congress this year. Hey, call me an intellectual elitist but I don't see the chicken idea as the winning argument.
Marc Perkel | Gilroy, California
The real war
Mexico could easily be one of the biggest money magnets in the world. Long beautiful coasts and perfect climate for growing premium cigar tobaccos could draw an unimaginable amount of cash from the wealthy of the world. But instead the people of Mexico have allowed a corrupt government and drug cartels to form and flourish.
Rather than fix their country, millions upon millions turn away from the problem they enabled and squat in the USA. Their defenders say 90 percent of them are good people, but even if that is true that would mean 10 percent of those millions of people are bad people.
The rise in gangs, plus drug related murders and kidnappings demonstrate this. Americans should be demanding our borders be enforced, as does every other country. But instead, political correctness paralyses people from enforcing our laws with what they view as a specific race. Political correctness is possibly THE biggest threat to America.
G. Kurth | Phoenix
Fresh off border visit Dr. Chris Salvino signs Border Wall and
Anti-Amnesty Pledge; challenges opponents to sign
Dr. Chris Salvino, fresh off a recent visit to the border, today challenged his fellow candidates to join him and sign the Salvino Border Wall Pledge. In a letter to his fellow candidates Salvino urged them to sign his pledge and Salvino vowed to get the Congress moving on this issue.
“Sadly Barack Obama’s response to Arizona’s illegal immigration crisis is to threaten lawsuits against Arizona, and then work with liberal Senators to pass amnesty for illegals.
It’s sickening. We need to secure our border and that’s why I have authored this pledge, and I challenge each of my opponents to sign it,” said Dr. Chris Salvino.
The Salvino Border Wall and Anti-Amnesty Pledge reads:
“Whereas I am a candidate for the United States House of Representatives from Arizona’s Fifth District, I do hereby affirm and swear that if elected to serve the people in Congress, I will work to pass by sponsoring or co-sponsoring legislation to fully fund and implement a physical wall along our southern border and will work to oppose any legislation which allows for amnesty for illegal aliens.
See the border pledge.
Dr. Chris Salvino is seeking the Republican nomination for Congress from Arizona’s Fifth Congressional District. He is currently a trauma surgeon working at Banner Good Samaritan in Phoenix and is a retired Lt. Colonel and F-16 flight surgeon.
Senator McCain's border enforcement
Local 2544 is the largest Border Patrol local in the United States. We represent nearly 3,000 Border Patrol agents in the Tucson Border Patrol Sector. We police the busiest corridor in the nation, with apprehensions of illegal aliens and drugs equaling that of all the other Border Patrol Sectors combined.
Senator John McCain announced a Border Security Plan today. Senator McCain is currently in a statistical dead heat with former House Representative JD Hayworth. Senator McCain, out of apparent frustration, is turning to border security issues to bolster his campaign. Senator McCain has been on the wrong side of border issues for many years. One must ask why he is now portraying himself as a "get tough" politician on border enforcement. McCain has represented Arizona in the Senate since 1987.
Senator McCain had the opportunity to consult with the men and women who are experts in protecting our borders before releasing his plan, but he failed to do so. JD Hayworth, on the other hand, has reached out to law enforcement statewide in order to gain a better understanding of the needs and difficulties law enforcement professionals face. After reviewing Senator McCain's plan, Mr. Hayworth immediately consulted border experts in an effort to ascertain its feasibility. Mr. Hayworth is committed to working with the men and women of the United States Border Patrol in finding real solutions to border issues that affect Arizonans.
Senator McCain's record indicates he will vote against meaningful pro-enforcement legislation when push comes to shove. We want a representative who will fight for legislation that will help us in our mission to protect our borders when it really counts. Senator McCain's campaign promises are like a mirage. He wants you to think that the blue color you see on the horizon is water, when it's really just hot air that looks like water. We've had enough hot air from Senator McCain for far too many years. We want a representative who will fight to keep the citizens of Arizona safe. We have had enough of representatives who say one thing on the campaign trail and do the opposite after the campaign is over. Senator McCain has aligned himself with people such as former Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a vehement anti-Border Patrol activist. Facts are hard things to ignore, even in "campaign mode."
When it comes to border issues, we trust the man who searches for solutions amongst those who know. JD Hayworth is the candidate who is willing to tackle and solve the issues Arizona faces with illegal immigration and border violence. Senator McCain has had years to do something, yet he has failed us time after time. We strongly urge you to ignore Senator McCain's campaign rhetoric.
For more information, please visit this website.
National Border Patrol Council Local 2544 | Oro Valley
Immigration Nazis on the Tohono O’Odham Reservation in Arizona
My wife and I live in Scottsdale. Our son is a freshman engineering student at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Therefore, according to the echo chambers of the national media, the White House, and the rest of the liberal intelligentsia, we are cretins and racists who dislike brown people and want to subject Mexican-Americans to Nazi-like racial profiling and discrimination.
Judging by the news coverage, virtually no one in the echo chambers has actually read Arizona’s new immigration law or driven or walked in the Sonoran desert. Well, that’s not entirely true. Every summer, pasty-faced tourists from New York and similar environs walk into the desert without carrying water and a compass, turn beet red in five minutes, get disoriented, and keel over from heat stroke.
The echoers are right, though, about Gestapo tactics in the desert. In fact, my family and I recently encountered such tactics on a visit to Kitt Peak, which is 56 miles southwest of Tucson on the Tohono O’Odham Indian Reservation and is an astrophysics wonderland with its scores of solar and celestial telescopes. Mexico can be seen by the naked eye from the 6,875 ft. peak.
On the way back to Tucson on State Route 86 in the middle of the reservation, we were driving behind two behemoth motor homes from Minnesota. One of them had an incongruity hooked up behind it: a Prius. For no apparent reason, the behemoths began slowing. Wondering why, I pulled into the passing lane and peered around them. Ahead was the reason: a roadblock of police cars and armed, uniformed officers with a German shepherd.
Other than the flora and topography, it could have been a scene out of the Third Reich.
The officers asked the motor home occupants a few questions and sent them on their way. The same with us. Looking for illegal immigrants, the officers were using racial profiling to ascertain that motor homes with Minn. license plates driven by flabby, Swedish-looking drivers were not stuffed with illegal Mexican aliens. Likewise, they ascertained that my olive skin, my wife’s natural blonde hair, our son’s frame of six feet-two inches, our command of English, and our Toyota Corolla with Arizona plates indicated that we did not fit the profile of illegal Mexican aliens.
Were the officers from the Arizona State Police? No. From the Pima County Sheriff’s Department? No. From the Tohono O’Odham Police? No. They were Federal Border Patrol agents. In other words, their bosses were Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and President Barack Obama, both of whom have railed against Arizona’s new law, which essentially mirrors federal law except that it doesn’t allow roadblocks and racial profiling.
Janet’s and Barack’s awful hypocrisy, double standards, and racial pot-stirring are not as awful as the hypocrisy, double standards, and racial pot-stirring of Mexican President Felipe Calderon, who has accused Arizona of opening the door "to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement." This from a guy who heads a nation that has some of the most restrictive, intolerant, race-based immigration laws in the world.
Now we Arizonans have to endure Rev. Al Sharpton coming to the state and stirring the racial pot. This from a guy who concocted a story about whites smearing feces on Tawana Brawley and raping her because she was black, and whose anti-Semitic rhetoric resulted in attacks against Jewish merchants in New York City. Hey, Al, have you thought about taking a walk in the desert without water and a compass?
The big mistake of the Republican state legislature was to not anticipate the reaction of the echo chamber. They should have named the law, “The Law to Support Existing Federal Law but without Roadblocks and Racial Profiling.” Or even better: “The Law to Support Janet and Barack but without Their Roadblocks and Racial Profiling.”
That wouldn’t have silenced the occupants of the national echo chamber, but it might have made them think before making fools of themselves.
Craig J. Cantoni | Scottsdale
A bag with holes
The federal government is currently spending money at $53,000 per second.
Interest on the national debt is $30 billion MONTHLY.
From all appearances, it looks to me like the government is putting our money “into a bag with holes.”
Arden Druce | Camp Verde
All in harm’s way
The instability of the world today leaves no margin for nuclear Terrorism.
We must move beyond talks towards serious sanctions to prevent Iran from moving from the threat of nuclear terrorism to the act.
Our safety as a whole depends on it. If Iran acts on these threats, as we know from history, the effects could not be contained and would have ramifications on us all.
God help us.
Will and Sylvie Vogelgesang | Goodyear
"What’s shakin’ Shakira?"
What business is it of a Middle-Eastern, bleached blonde, singer of Colombian citizenship what we do in Arizona? Her only ostensible value is to cause tumescence in Latinos (and Phoenix Mayor "Phail" Gordon, apparently) through the rolling and shaking of her rather abundant hips. That hardly qualifies her to pass judgment on the laws passed in the Grand Canyon State. So, Shakey Baby, get your fat arse out of our state and go back to electronically servicing Latino teenage boys!
C.O. Jones | Phoenix
Rep. Raul Grijalva is a self hating "American!"
Is it any surprise that the same person who joined my Congressman Chris Carney to take away my God given Constitutional rights and fine and arrest me if I don't have the kind of health insurance King Obama wants, would call for a boycott of his own state? Rep. Raul Grijalva has really done the voters a service in demonstrating, beyond a doubt, that his oath to support our nation was worthless. God bless the good people of Arizona for showing the rest of nation the steps we must take to survive. Hopefully Rep. Raul Grijalva and my Rep. Chris Carney will be history in November.
Joseph DuPont | Towanda, Pennsylvania