President Obama’s immigration speech

“After two years of waiting, I am glad the White House has chosen to focus on immigration. But I remain skeptical. It would be a shame if this effort is more about locking down votes in 2012 than securing our nation’s border today.

“First, the President should have come to the Arizona border, where I have invited him repeatedly. He should have spoken to our ranchers, who live with drug-runners and human-smugglers crossing their lands. He should have met with our law enforcement officers, who are frequently outgunned by the heavily-armed cartels. Nearly half of our nation’s border apprehensions occur in Arizona. Our state remains America’s gateway for illegal immigration, and we continue to bear the brunt of the federal government’s failure on this issue. If the President felt confident in declaring the border secure, he should have come to tell the people of Arizona face-to-face.

“Everyone can agree our immigration system is broken. Any reasonable fix will require the good-faith efforts of state leaders, members of Congress, local officials, the business community and the White House. But the people of America won’t be fooled again. They know that any talk of a path to citizenship is simply amnesty by another name. And they’re smart enough to recognize a political ploy when they see it.

“I’m afraid today’s announcement [May 11] is simply more of the ‘promise something, do nothing, blame someone’ political spin we’ve become accustomed to hearing from Washington. That would be a shame.”

Governor Jan Brewer

Obama Thinks Border Security is a Joke

PHOENIX – President Obama gave his remarks on comprehensive immigration reform in El Paso, TX, claiming victory in the fight to secure our border. The Arizona Cattlemen’s Association is outraged by his comments mocking the border security issue. Referring to the work on the border the President says, “You know, they said we needed to triple the Border Patrol. Or now they’re going to say we need to quadruple the Border Patrol. Or they’ll want a higher fence. Maybe they’ll need a moat. Maybe they want alligators in the moat. They’ll never be satisfied.”

The President fails to understand that border security is not a partisan political issue.  This is an issue about the people who live along our southern border and are not safe. This is no laughing matter! Southern Arizona rancher Dan Bell says, “My family has ranched on the border for several years and we have seen quite a few changes and have seen an increased presence in Border Patrol, but we are far from securing the border and I can tell you the fence is not done!”

The people in rural Arizona between the legal ports of entry see the evidence of our “secure border” as groups of 30 and 40 people make their way past ranch homes. “It is the rural remote regions of the border that remains an open door to anyone who wants to bring anything into the United States,” declares Gary Thrasher, DVM in Hereford, AZ. 

Border Security is not a political pawn and should not be one for this administration or any politician. This issue affects Americans in the rural part of the region and our porous border has changed the lives of ranchers from California to Texas forever. 

“I have personally spent a tremendous amount of time on the border in Arizona and what the President described today is nothing of what I have seen,” stated Patrick Bray, Executive Vice President for the Arizona Cattle Growers’ Association.  “We welcome the opportunity to visit with the President and Secretary Napolitano here on our southern border, but we will not stand idle, allowing our highest elected officials to mock the situation that Arizona faces.”

If we are to cut the political posturing and put politics aside, we must secure our southern border.  Mr. President, we expect the federal government to do their job so that every American citizen can live in peace.

Arizona Cattlemen’s Association


In 2008, Sonoran News published the following limerick I submitted:

Barack is feeling the pain
In matters concerning his name:
Blames his pappy and mama
For the rhyme with "Osama"
And the middle name of "Hussein."

Recently, PMSNBC reporter Kelly O'Donnell breathlessly texted to her gaggle, "Obama shot to death!" Since then, there has been an epidemic of foot-in-mouth reporting in U.S. media circles, most of these, incidentally, of Obamista tendencies. Reporters, especially on radio and television, seem unable to untangle their tongues. Therefore, here goes the follow-up limerick:

In a week of such intense drama,
Reports came on the death of Osama.
There have been serious torts
In the media's reports:
Half the news-sites pronounced it "Obama!"

J-P. A. Maldonado | Phoenix


Homosexuality and abuse

Richard Fitzgibbons, the prestigious American psychiatrist, openly questions the results of research on sexual abuse carried out by the clergy, where nearly 80 percent of the victims were underage males who had been subject to homosexual practices as it dissociates homosexuality from abuse. He questions the choice of these investigators as they do not relate “the homosexuality of the abusers and their crimes when it is clearly proved that the main cause of the crisis was the homosexual abuse of males.”

“When an adult is involved in a male homosexual practice he clearly has a problem in the homosexuality area,” he stated. As well, Bill Donohue, Chairman of the Catholic League for Religious Freedom pointed out, “Given that 100 percent of the abusers were men, we conclude it is a homosexuality issue, not a paedophilia or heterosexuality issue.” The choice of exclusively heterosexual seminarians would have avoided the biggest scandal that the Catholic Church has had to face in the whole of its history.

Clara Jimenez | Murcia, Spain



Great slide show of the installation of the bull wheel and cam shaft at the museum.

Reg Monachino | Cave Creek

Editor note: Linda Bentley took approximately 240 photographs. Rachel Karls-Gomes selected the photos and created the slide show.


U.S. Supreme Court Supports Arizona Law on Illegal Immigration Court Backs “Fair and Legal Employment Act”

(PHOENIX, State Capitol) – The U.S. Supreme Court this morning upheld an Arizona law that penalizes companies for knowingly hiring illegal aliens and requires firms to use the E-verify system.

The law came out of HB 2779, the Fair and Legal Employment Act, sponsored in 2007 by then-Rep. Russell Pearce, now Senate President.

“Arizona was the first state in the country to enact legislation to prevent illegal aliens from working. Now, the highest court in the land has given its legal authority to this law. Arizonans should be proud,” says Pres. Pearce.

Then-Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law, but that was only because of the threat of a tougher initiative going to the ballot. “Make no mistake, Gov. Napolitano did NOT support this legislation, and serving in the Obama administration, she has been fighting us all along the way. Now that a huge majority of Arizonans are behind this, she is trying to rewrite history, and suggest she is a strong supporter. We know the truth,” says Pres. Pearce.

In his ruling for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts said the employer sanctions law “falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states.”

“That is an important statement. That sends a pretty clear signal to me that we are headed for U.S. Supreme Court support for SB 1070, as well,” says Pearce. “This is a huge victory for America and the American worker. It is a defeat for the open-borders, profits-over-patriotism crowd. It is a death penalty for employers who continue to hire illegals and displace American workers.”

The office of Russell Pearce, Senate President


Recently I wrote a letter to Tom Morrissey, Chairman, Arizona GOP

Part of the contents follows:
“I do not know who began the rumor, but it is false that I have considered resigning as an elected LD7 or State GOP committeeman.

Despite strong opposition from Carefree Mayor Schwan, I was successful in getting both Prop. 422 (2/3 council vote to pass a Carefree local property tax) and Prop. 423 (requires voter approval for a new property tax or an increase in a property tax) enacted by Carefree voters. Subsequently, feeling I had accomplished as much as I was likely to, I did withdraw as a candidate in the May 2011 election for Carefree town council. I hope there is no confusion. I have not considered and do not plan to resign as a LD7 or State GOP committeeman.”

Chairman Morrissey’s note in reply included:
“Glad that you are staying on as a Committeeman. Rumors can be very deceiving and often damaging.

Republicans must stand together and focus on what we come upon and not what causes us to disagree.”

I urge the incoming Carefree town council to stand together and listen to the message from voters that “tax and spend” is not the way to move Carefree forward.

Jim Peirce | Arizona GOP State Committeeman


Small Business Health Relief Act

The American health-care system needs genuine reform. Unfortunately, its biggest problems and inefficiencies – such as the rising cost of health care – were not addressed, and were even exacerbated by President Obama’s health plan.

Although I remain firmly committed to full repeal of the deeply-flawed and damaging ObamaCare, the reality is that President Obama will never allow that to happen as long as he’s in office.  That is why I have recently introduced the Small Business Health Relief Act, which will repeal some of the onerous and damaging mandates in ObamaCare until the Supreme Court invalidates the law, or Congress and a willing president allow us to repeal it.

One such provision imposes a new fee on health insurers to help pay for ObamaCare.  The Small Business Health Relief Act would lower health insurance premiums for all Americans by eliminating that pass-through fee.  The non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation confirms: “We expect a very large portion of the insurance industry fee to be passed forward to purchasers of insurance in the form of higher premiums.”  We need to lower premiums, not cause them to go up.  So, my bill repeals this provision.  JCT estimates that repeal of the fee will lower premiums for the average family by $350-$400 in 2016 alone.

ObamaCare is also rife with taxes and other expenses on businesses at a time when unemployment continues to hover around nine percent.  In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has referred to ObamaCare’s employer mandate – a central piece of the law – as a “job killer,” because it “would force struggling employers to spend money they don't have, reduce flexibility and choice, and raise employer costs in an economy that is already shedding jobs.”  We should avoid any policy that is a “job killer,” and, instead, focus on policies to stimulate job creation.  This is why I have included repeal of the job-killing employer mandate in the Small Business Health Relief Act.

ObamaCare hurts job creation in other ways.  For example, it also dictates how much coverage small businesses must provide and individuals must purchase.  But many small businesses and people operating and living in the real world simply cannot afford to shoulder the cost for the generous levels of coverage that Washington deems necessary.  The Small Business Health Relief Act has a set of other provisions that will lighten the burden of health-related costs on small business.

Finally, the bill ensures that high deductible plans coupled with health savings accounts (HSAs) continue to play a prominent role in the coverage options available to individuals and small businesses.  A recent article by Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels stated that Indiana was able to save $20 million in 2010 alone because of the state offered an HSA option to its employees.  The more than 70 percent of state workers who chose the HSA option ran up only $65 in cost for every $100 incurred by their colleagues under the old coverage.  If Indiana has such great success with this consumer-directed coverage option, then small businesses and individuals can too – and Congress should not get in the way.

My goal is to provide some breathing room to small businesses and American families while we wait for our chance to fully repeal the deeply-flawed ObamaCare.  I believe the Small Business Relief Act takes an important step towards the goal of full repeal.

U.S. Senator Jon Kyl | Senate Republican Whip  | Senate Finance and Judiciary committees |

Stauffer vs. Sheriff

Is it wrong for a Scottsdale Police Commander with authority over the bar district to run for Sheriff's office at the same time? Scottsdale Police Lieutenant Mike Stauffer may be the most conflicted officer in Arizona Law enforcement today. His watch is over Scottsdale's notorious Entertainment District. Citizens and business owners in Scottsdale are going crazy with lack of law enforcement in the area. Lieutenant Stauffer commands officers who work the bar district, and some may work for the bars off-duty as private security. Lieutenant Stauffer and the Scottsdale Police Officers are sworn to serve and protect the people who actually live and work in downtown Scottsdale. Recently, the perception that police are protecting the offending bars while outright harassing the complaining residents and business owners’ is spilling out even into Scottsdale City Council meetings, community meetings and have resulted in at least one formal complaint with the Scottsdale Police Department. I know from personal experience.

A police officer is a police officer twenty-four hours a day. Lieutenant Stauffer say's he only campaigns while not in uniform (he probably still carries his badge and gun in Scottsdale while not on the clock and could respond to law enforcement issues). Let me introduce you to the tooth fairy. There is probably no geographical area in Maricopa County more fertile with potential campaign contributions than Scottsdale's Entertainment District. Does this wannabe sheriff have any problem with the ethical questions raised here? An even bigger question: Why does the Scottsdale Police Chief, and the City Manger tolerate such a blatant conflict of interest? While holding a paid position in one agency, Lieutenant Stauffer is clearly capitalizing on the leverage he gets while working for that agency, while campaigning for another agency, both on and off the clock. Perhaps if you received your ethics training from the New York City Police Department you may not think this is a problem.

Bill Crawford | Scottsdale


Obama's speech on Libya raises anxieties of the world

In reference to:
(i)- Obama's address - clear indication that leadership of free world slipping out of hands of USA.
(ii)- Obama should have dealt non-violent v/s violent uprising and detailed-pragmatic-effective policy for democratizing the world.
(iii)- USA not understanding that fundamentalism/fanaticism,  bound to rise with unbridled democracy in Muslim world.
(iv)- USA has no choice than to commission its religion, the Christianity in competition, if  Americans are really serious about spreading democracy in developing world.

No body sympathizes with Gaddafi and no body takes exception to U.S. timely action in the interest of protecting the civilians in Libya.

But if there is one thing that is evident from Obama's Monday address to nation regarding U.S. involvement in Libyan crises, it is that USA thinks that high-sounding words are alternative to well-defined-policy-based actions.

It is amazing that Obama did not enlighten that:
(1)- what is and what will be US policy regarding non-violent uprising for democracy as presently in Tunisia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia  (or earlier in Myanmar, Tiananmen Square in China) etc. on onside and armed uprising for democracy in Libya, Yemen, Syria, Bahrain, Jordan etc on other side.
Confusion of Obama in this regard was evident from his repeated mention of helping the opposition (armed rebels), though UN mandate talks about merely the enforcement of no fly zone and protecting the civilians.
To what extent this intentional lack of clarity of USA (regarding unqualified help to both, the nonviolent and armed agitations fordemocracy) will destabilize the whole of Afro – Arab world and which will be a serious threat to world peace – is simply missing from the calculations of the policy makers at Whitehouse.
(2)- what is and what will be US policy regarding democratic uprising in various countries of the world. How can USA justify its armed intervention in any country allegedly in favor of democracy without formulating a well defined policy which USA/UN will follow in case demand for democracy is raised in various countries having different types of rule – for example autocracy, military rule, monarchies, communism etc.
(3)- what is and what will be U.S. policy regarding countering the forces of fundamentalism/fanaticism which are bound to gain ascendancy with installation of democracy in developing world especially in Muslim world (if democracy at all comes in all these countries, the 22 member countries of Arab League).

The anxieties of the world have increased after Obama's Monday address because:
(A)- USA has shown during this Libya crises that the leadership of 'free world' has slipped out of USA without any other leadership taking its place. The way USA did all the solid and dirty job (dropping more than 112 cruse missiles which change the war scenario in Libya), USA has been trying to prove to the world that it has nothing to do with initiative in Libya because NATO and Arab League are allegedly in the lead. Such lack of courage to face the consequences of action, is hardly a trait of any leader worth the name.
(B)- The lack of well defined policy, as mentioned above, have convinced the rest of the mankind especially developing world that they are going to face petroleum crises in near future (due to inconsistent and half-hearted policies of USA in this crises in the region which produces most of the oil for the oil importing developing countries) and which will make the lives of these poor countries further miserable.

Therefore if USA is really serious about resolving not only on-gong crises in Arab world but also the likely democratic uprising in rest of the world, then whether Americans like it or not but (as I mentioned in my earlier letters) the USA in addition to formulate well defined policy, as mentioned above, will have to also mobilize its religion, the Christianity to go out in developing world through its missionary activities of health & education so that its presence (after making OP1 of ICCPR at UN mandatory) may counter through competition, the forces of fundamentalism and fanaticism in developing and especially Muslim world.

Yours truly

Hem Raj Jain | Author of "Betrayal of Americanism"