West Mesa CDC - What Is It Doing?

One of the organizations established by Dave Richins, a sitting City of Mesa council member, is the West Mesa Community Development Corporation (WMCDC). The WMCDC is an offshoot of Mesa Grande Community Alliance which is made up of neighbors in far Northwest corner of Mesa Arizona.

The Mesa Grande Community Alliance was originally established to create a collaborative visions which would go beyond what one party could do in dealing with issues in West Mesa. The organization had no funding and the City of Mesa would not just hand over funds to them. They created along with Dave Richins a community development corporation which could apply for tax payer funds to promote and do projects in West Mesa. Dave Richins was the first executive director for WMCDC and was compensated nicely to the tune $85,000 during his last year as director, that was before he ran and won a seat on the Mesa City Council.

Dave Richins for the most part did a great job running the CDC and when he left, it was in good shape. It was renting space from Banner Hospital for a $1.00 and then re-renting space it didn't need to others and covering it's operating cost. However the new executive director, the board of the CDC brought in, Jo Ellen McNamara, ran the organization into the ground. She didn't file timely reports, ran off the tenants, and almost cost the organization funding, besides turning off residents. The board of directors realized what was going on but did nothing to fix the problems.

It's OK To Be Racist In West Mesa Now!

Mesa Junior High is closing at the end of the school years and it seems the only ones who care are West Mesa residents. Not because their students go their, but because of what it will do to test scores and the quality of education.

Didn't this group of people just out Russell Pearce because he was to harsh on illegal immigration and the Hispanic people?

Some of Russell Pearce's biggest critics the Montague family and the Wright family are now the ones saying wait a minute, we don't want to dump these students into Kino Junior High and Carson Junior High, they will bring down the test scores and the neighborhoods

Here is a portion of an email from a Montague family member sent the neighbors and school board members.

Parents/Neighbors,

As many of you are aware, Mesa Public Schools is currently in the process of making changes to the boundaries to all of the junior highs that boarder Mesa and Brimhall due to their closure at the end of the school year. (To see the current proposal click here.) According to the numbers that are being provided, the AIMS scores for Kino will drop by roughly 4%. (Click here to see attendance numbers and AIMS percentages.) Like many of you, my wife and I chose to purchase our home where we did based on the neighborhood and the schools to which my kids will be attending now and in the future. This is because the neighborhood school is a direct reflection on the neighborhood itself.......

On Tuesday night December 6th, Stephanie Wright had this to say:

If a school is performing and doing well, the neighborhood is vibrant. It has a detrimental effect if you take the strength of one school and start piecemealing it out.

Ms. Wright also suggested that the district look at other option  which wouldn't hurt the other West Mesa students.

This very racist, especially from people who just weeks ago called for a kinder, gentler approach to dealing with the Hispanic people when they voted Jerry Lewis to be their new Senator

I guess it's OK to be racist in West Mesa NOW!

The Mesa Compact - Is it Coming

Is there a Mesa Compact on the horizon in Mesa's the near future? Maybe so given the Mesa's Council meeting last night. I appears that there are four votes needed to pass such a measure on the council, they are: Dave Richins, Alex Finter, Dina Higgins and Dennis Kavanaugh.

Last night at the Mesa City Council meeting Randy Parraz fresh off his victory over Russell Pearce presented in-conjunction with East Valley Patriots for American Values (play on words) presented a new proposed revised Mesa Compact. The faith based group as they claim want to change the tone of discussion on the issue of immigration.

They want to make it more friendly and less harsh of a discussion. This sounds vaguely familiar to Randy Parraz and his cohort Jerry Lewis in the recall election. As we remember it was this very same discussion that ripped through Mesa during the heated debate between the Jerry Lewis (1964 Alabama) supporters and  Russell Pearce (American Patriot) supporters. One group wanting the enforcement of laws and the other the turning of cheek, like Christ did.

It was also during this debate that Randy Parraz and his supporters went out of their way to to defame anybody who supported Russell Pearce or who even wanted to run in the election. It was Randy Parraz, Michael Wright and Tom Rayn basically who sought to take away people first amendment right of free speech by filing bogus lawsuits.

So as this debate goes forward and people come forward in support of or opposition to a Mesa Compact if Randy Parraz will bully any council member who doesn't support the compact.

If you want to express your opinions to the council members you can do so at these emails:

Mayor Scott Smith
mayor.smith@Mesaaz.gov

Dave Richens**
District1@mesaaz.gov

Alex Finter**
councilmember.finter@Mesaaz.gov

Dennis Kavanaugh**
District3@mesaaz.gov

Christopher Glover
councilmember.glover@Mesaaz.gov

Dina Higgins**
councilmember.higgins@Mesaaz.gov

Vice Mayor - Scott Somers
councilmember.somers@Mesaaz.gov

Federalist Papers 1

It has been frequently remarked, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not, of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend, for their political constitutions, on accident and force

U.S. Constitution & Sharia Law

The U. S. Constitution and Sharia Law

Throughout the history of this world there really have only been two kinds of law. We have given these systems of law very descriptive and easy names to remember. They are Rulers' Law and People's Law. Every legal system can fit under one of these two broad banners. Under Ruler's Law, the king or dictator makes the law. Under People's Law, the people make or accept the law by which they live. It is interesting that some of the most dominant kinds of legal systems have come about when it is claimed to emanate from God. Under Ruler's Law, if the ruler can make the people believe he has a divine right to rule, he can persuade the people to do about anything and the use of force becomes acceptable to many people if done in the name of God. Under People's Law, as was the case in Ancient Israel, when the people accepted Jehovah as their King and accepted His laws as their laws, it had a powerful persuasiveness to right actions. The major differe nce was that there was no use of force. Not even God would force a leader or laws on a people they did not willingly accept, because He respects the agency of man. Religion has been a powerful force throughout history in either types of law.

In following the example of Ancient Israel, America's Founders set forth laws based on the laws of nature and of nature's God. It has catapulted the United States to an unmatched position as the most prosperous and freest nation on earth.

Now we are faced with the same kind of threat that has been seen in the past-a system of compulsory laws which has the use of force at its very core and which claims to emanate from God. It is called Sharia Law.

In 2010, an exhaustive study was published by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as Shariah. The study was designed to provide a "second opinion" on the official assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government, which assessments included co-existence, accommodation, and even submission. By permission, much of the following is taken from this study.

What is Sharia?

The Arabic word "shariah," according to one modern English-language student textbook on Islam, "literally means a straight path (Quran 45:18) or an endless supply of water. It is the term used to describe the rules of the lifestyle ordained by Allah. In more practical terms, shariah includes all the do's and don'ts of Islam." In other words, shariah is held by mainstream Islamic authorities - not to be confused with "radical," "extremist" or "political" elements said to operate at the fringes of Islam - to be the perfect expression of divine will and justice and thus is the supreme law that must comprehensively govern all aspects of Muslims' lives, irrespective of when or where they live. Shariah is characterized as a "complete way of life" (social, cultural, military, religious, and political), governed from cradle to grave by Islamic law.

While there are a few additional sources for sharia, the most notable and authoritative is the Quran. In Islamic parlance, the Quran is considered to be the uncreated word of Allah. According to Muslim belief, it has existed since the beginning of time and was revealed by the Archangel Gabriel in the 7th Century to the Prophet Mohammed in the Arabic language of his homeland. It is interesting to note that the verses in the Quran are not compiled in chronological order of revelations but are organized from longest to shortest. This presents confusion in trying to read the Quran. Also, there is really no central authority to clarify or interpret the versus, so many are left to their own understanding of the writings.

While many, many millions of Muslims around the world do not practice their faith in a manner consistent with shariah, those who do practice shariah have grounds for arguing that their version of Islam is the authoritative one because of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation-which holds that the later verses supersedes or abrogates the earlier ones. As a result, the later verses become much more violent and forceful in relation to non-Muslims. For example:

"Fight and slay the unbelievers wherever ye find them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war. But if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them; for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (Q 9:5)

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book [meaning Christians and Jews], until they pay the jizya [taxes on non-Muslims] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Q 9:29)

Shariah is Anti-Constitutional

Whether pursued through the violent form of jihad (holy war) or stealthier practices that shariah Islamists often refer to as "dawa" (the "call to Islam"), shariah rejects fundamental premises of American society and values:

1. the bedrock proposition that the governed have a right to make law for themselves;
2. the democratic republic governed by the Constitution;
3. freedom of conscience; individual liberty
4. freedom of expression (including the liberty to analyze and criticize shariah);
5. economic liberty (including private property);
6. equal treatment under the law (including that of men and women, and of Muslims and non-Muslims);
7. freedom from cruel and unusual punishments; an unequivocal condemnation of terrorism (i.e., one that is based on a common sense meaning of the term and does not rationalize barbarity as legitimate "resistance"); and
8. an abiding commitment to deflate and resolve political controversies by the ordinary mechanisms of our democratic republic, not wanton violence. The subversion campaign known as "civilization jihad" must not be confused with, or tolerated as, a constitutionally protected form of religious practice. Its ambitions transcend what American law recognizes as the sacrosanct realm of private conscience and belief. It seeks to supplant our Constitution with its own totalitarian framework.

America's Founders and Islam

America's earliest presidents best understood these founding principles. They were not only deeply involved with their formal adoption, but they were professionally competent in explaining them. When confronted with an Islamic threat, they took the effort to consult primary sources and to conduct competent analysis of that threat.

In 1786, Thomas Jefferson, ambassador to France, and John Adams, ambassador to England, met with the emissary of the Islamic potentates of Tripoli to Britain, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, regarding the demands for tribute being made at the time by the so-called Barbary Pirates.

Afterwards, Jefferson and Adams sent a four-page report to the Congress describing this meeting. The relevant portion of their report reads:

"We took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the Grounds of their pretentions to make war upon Nations who had done them no Injury, and observed that we considered all mankind as our friends who had done us no wrong, nor had given us any provocation.

"The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of their prophet, that it was written in their Qur'an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise."

John Adams' son and our sixth president, John Quincy Adams, whose formative years coincided with the founding of the republic, offers further insights into the early presidents' views on this subject. Like many Americans, he took an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. And, when faced with an Islamic enemy, he understood his obligation to be educated on the factual aspects of the principles, doctrines, objectives, jurisprudence and theology of shariah that comprised his enemy's threat doctrine.

John Quincy Adams' 136-page series of essays on Islam displayed a clear understanding of the threat facing America then - and now, especially from the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad and dhimmitude. Regarding these two topics, Adams states:

"...[Mohammed] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind.... The precept of the Quran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that [Mohammed] is the prophet of God.

"The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute. As the essential principle of [Mohammed's] faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.

"The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

"This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels is in just accordance with the precepts of the Quran. The document [the Quran] does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them - the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions.

"The fundamental doctrine of the Christian religion is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of Christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike - all acknowledge its obligations; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of Christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war - it has softened the features of slavery - it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of Christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse."

In conclusion, it is clear from the writings of several of our earliest presidents, as well as the texts of the nation's founding documents, that American principles are not at odds with - and imperiled by - some "radical" or "extreme" version of Islam. Rather, it is the mainstream doctrine of shariah that constitutes the threat to the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines. That incompatibility has several practical implications: For one thing, the shariah legal code cannot be insinuated into America - even through stealthy means or democratic processes - without violating the Constitution's Article VI Supremacy Clause, which requires that the Constitution "shall be the supreme Law of the land."

Even more reprehensible is the willingness of some among America's elites, and it would appear even a subset of its elected leaders, to accede to these groups' increasingly insistent contention that shariah is compatible with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, based on shariah's tenets, its core attributes - especially its intolerance of other faiths and disfavored populations and its bid for supremacy over all other legal or political systems, there can be no confusion on this score: As the Framers fully understood, shariah is an enemy of the United States Constitution. The two are incompatible.

Sincerely,

Earl Taylor, Jr.

Source: Guandolo, John; Gaffney, Frank; Lopez, Clare; McCarthy, Andrew; Cooper, Henry; Brim, Christine; Del Rosso, Michael; Coughlin, Stephen; Woolsey, Jim; Boykin, William (2010-09-22). Shariah: The Threat to America. Center for Security Policy Press. Kindle Edition.

Please note: Printed and mailed copies of our newsletter are sent monthly as a Thank You to our regular donors. For others of you who wish to get a free electronic copy of our newsletters, please go to our website, www.nccs.net , and share with us your email address. You will receive the newsletter via email.

Who Supported Jerry Lewis In Recall

The Jerry Lewis has posted his post elections campaign reports and it is interesting to see who supported him with campaign donations. Here is a link a the Arizona SOS office for the Lewis campaign reports.

Follow the Money they say!


Noted people in Mesa and Phoenix.

• Stephen West, Attorney, Udall Shumway & Lyons
• Stephanie Wright, Realtor, Board directors West Mesa CDC
• Tom Cattey, drop out candidate for LD 18
• Tom Irvine, Attorney, election laws
• Don Stapley, Maricopa County Board of Supervisor, sitting supervisor
• Tom Wright
• Andy Stewart, Mormon Bishop
• Terry Benelli, Executive Dir. of Mesa Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation.
• John Linton & Mila Linton, former Mormon stake councilor, and owner of Milnos Piano
• Frank Bennett, Bennett Realty and Property Management
• Chad Coons, Farnsworth family and businesses
• Clint Smith, Mormon Stake President

Businesses

• Larry John Wright advertising - 231 N. Alma School
• Wright House - reception hall - University
• Sign King of Arizona - 325 S. Westwood
• Americopy - 856 E. Main Street
• David Johnson - Chief of Staff, Maricopa County Communications
• Steven Peterson - Mesa Public School Board Member
• Anson Clarkson - Staff Congressman Jeff Flakes office

Remind you, this is just post election. To look at Pre Election click here.

Mesa's Open and Closed Door Shenanigans

In a court case between Angle Tattoo and the City of Mesa, which has been going on since 2009,  the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled against the City of Mesa, saying that just because a business could give a "Negative Perception", doesn't mean that the city can stop it from doing business.

The Mesa City Council got caught in a lie, that is except Mayor Smith who voted to allow the tattoo parlor to go in. and that lie brings a shadow of transparency over the city council. There actions now have wide ranging consequences for Mesa and other communities because the court ruled that a tattoo is protected free speech.

The council lead by Dennis Kavanaugh, a lawyer, in this lie pushed to have a tattoo parlor banded from opening up in a strip mall near the Dobson Ranch community. The council used the community as their scape goat instead of expressing their true distaste of the shop owner.

Ryan Coleman, has a criminal past, which he serve his time and is now a freeman. Because a served time doesn't give government the right to hinder him or anyone else for that matter in making a living. The city in this instance instead of protecting Mr. Coleman's right to operate a business tried to take away that right. They were more concerned with the public perception than protecting rights.

The council is wrong, they lied to the voters of Mesa. In the past we have had behind closed doors issues like this before with, Bailey's Brake, parking garages for a $1.00, over budget art centers, former Mayor Keno Harker's land deal to expand his property just to name a few.

I thought this council was above this, guess I was wrong.

Kirk Adams & The Dirt, Can He Stay Clean?

The voter in Mesa just finished one of the dirties elections in Mesa's history between Jerry Lewis & Russell Pearce. It was dirtier than the election with Kevin Gibbons. Kevin Gibbons made the first allegations of spousal abuse, and the problems at MDV. That campaign was run by Nathan Sproul, a long time advocate and supporter of Kirk Adams, Jeff Flake and John McCain.

If you remember many of the people supplying Kevin Gibbons with information also worked for Jeff Flake and had close ties to John McCain. In fact it was Jeff Flakes right hand man Mike Haller, who spent his time at the court house looking up the case information on the wife beating charges, which later Russell's wife withdrawn and claimed never happened.

During that election; Kirk Adams, Beth Coons, Liana Clarkson, Don Stapley and those who supported Jerry Lewis in the recall election, also supported Kevin Gibbons. These people also help Randy Parraz, Chad Snow, Michael Wright and Citizen's for a Better Arizona in the recall election. They are also the same ones who used the Mormon leadership to start rumors in the LDS Community about Russell Pearce. Which Tyler Montague now admits they did.

During the recall election both Rich Crandall and Kirk Adams came out in support of Jerry Lewis. Kirk Adams went so far as to wright a letter to the paper and renounce the attacks on Jerry Lewis, while not standing up to the attacks against Russell Pearce, Matt Tolman, Chuck Coughlin, Olivia Cortez, Bruce Ross, and other Pearce supporters.

Many, if not all of the people who supported Jerry Lewis and Kevin Gibbons are also supporting Kirk Adams in his bid for Jeff Flake's seat against Matt Salmon.

Matt Salmon is currently up 30 points on Kirk Adams. That is a big lead for Kirk to overcome if he is going to run a nice clean election as he says he is going to do. The fact of the matter though is that negative attacks on your opponents do work and that is why you saw so many of then against Russell Pearce and so few against Jerry Lewis.

Kirk Adams has already done a negative push poll attempting to sway voters.

Kirk financial reports reveal that he has spent about $10,000 on opponent research. What that indicates is Kirk has probably hired a private investigator to see what they can dig up on Matt Salmon. My guess is that they will probably not find very much given the fact that Matt Salmon has already served once in the house and ran for governor, any dirty laundry Matt has, if any has already been aired.

Kirk on the other hand hasn't run for such a high profile office before and their are probably a few things he would not like to have revealed much like his lobbing efforts prior to running for office.

The question, is Kirk Adams going to stay out of the gutter and run a clean election as he called for during the recall or is he willing to allow his friends to run freely in the gutter? I think we will see the real Kirk Adams come out after the first of the year. Personally I hope it is for the better and not worst.

Jerry Lewis & The Talking Hand

Alexander Hamilton Founding Father Quote

"The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of the consent of the people. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legislative authority."

- Alexander Hamilton

Benjamin Franklin Founding Father Quote

"Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters."

- Benjamin Franklin

28 Principles of Freedom

Principle 1 - The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law.

Principle 2 - A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.

Principle 3 - The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders.

Principle 4 - Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.

Principle 5 - All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible .

Principle 6 - All mankind were created equal.

Principle 7 - The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not provide equal things.

Principle 8 - Mankind are endowed by God with certain unalienable rights.

Principle 9 - To protect human rights, God has revealed a code of divine law.

Principle 10 - The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.

Principle 11 - The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.

Principle 12 - The United States of America shall be a republic.

Principle 13 - A Constitution should protect the people from the frailties of their rulers.

Principle 14 - Life and liberty are secure only so long as the rights of property are secure .

Principle 15 - The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.

Principle 16 - The government should be separated into three branches .

Principle 17 - A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power by the different branches of government.

Principle 18 - The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written Constitution.

Principle 19 - Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.

Principle 20 - Efficiency and dispatch require that the government operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.

Principle 21 - Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.

Principle 22 - A free people should be governed by law and not by the whims of men.

Principle 23 - A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.

Principle 24 - A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.

Principle 25 - "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none."

Principle 26 - The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore the government should foster and protect its integrity.

Principle 27 - The burden of debt is as destructive to human freedom as subjugation by conquest.

Principle 28 - The United States has a manifest destiny to eventually become a glorious example of God's law under a restored Constitution that will inspire the entire human race.

 As we look at the actions of Government, we should be asking ourselves if any of these tenants of freedom are being violated. If they are then that should raise a red flag and a warning call should go out.

John Adams Founding Father & President

"Posterity, you will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."

  - John Adams, founding father and President of the United States.

Cardon vs Flake for Senate

There is a political newcomer on the seen in Mesa Arizona when it comes to running for office and that name is Will Cardon.Will Cardon and Jeff Flake are running for the seat being vacated by Jon Kyle. They both want to be your next Senator back in Washington DC.

There are some differences.

Jeff Flake has been the man of choice for many years but over the last few years he has found himself more and more out of line with the state and county Republican parties much like John McCain. The reason is that many people don't see Flake as doing much for the State of Arizona. He is off pushing a relationship with Cuba, or out there promoting carbon credits, and pushing comprehensive immigration reform in stead of securing the border between Arizona and Mexico (seen by many as amnesty), which he and McCain have flip flopped on now.

Jeff Flake ran for the seat that was vacated by Matt Salmon and much like Matt, Jeff promised to term limit himself, which promise he broke to the voters who put him in after 4 terms came up.

If you will remember it was Jeff Flakes brother Kevin Gibbons who ran one of the dirties campaign we had seen against Russell Pearce up until this recall election; which now will have to be remember as the dirties campaigns in the states history. Not only did they Jerry Lewis and Flake supporters go after Russell Pearce but anybody who supported Russell. Jeff will claim that he had no part in the attacks on Russell, much like Kirk Adams, but it's common knowledge that Russell and Jeff don't get along and see eye to eye.

On the other hand.

Will Cardon's family has been around for sometime and has a very good reputation in the community. The Cardon family put of $10 million for the Phoenix Children's Hospital at Southern and Higley. The Family was one of the major contributors who fought gambling in Arizona, and major contributor in defining marriage between a man and a women.

Unlike Jeff Flake who is a politician, Will is a business man. He has created jobs and built businesses and he understanding of what it takes to bring jobs to Arizona.

What we need in Washington D.C. is not more politician handing out money but business people who understand our struggles, who have created jobs, people who have not tied themselves to the political establishment.

From sources I understand that Jeff Flake financial committee is falling apart. That alone had ought to tell you something. I think we will be hearing more about this in the coming weeks.

Jerry Lewis Undoing Immigration Reforms In Mesa

The winner of the recall race sponsored by Randy Parraz and the Progressive Democrats of Arizona, Jerry Lewis is intent on reversing the role of Arizona and Russell Pearce, and the role they have played in bringing the immigration debate to the forefront of the American people. Russell Pearce has done more to jump start meaningful conversation  on reforms and enforcement of immigration than any other individual.

In a story printed in the Arizona Republic, Jerry Lewis has indicated that he is intent on reversing the dismal image that Arizona has on a national level because of the passage of SB1070. In a debate between Senator Pearce and Jerry Lewis, Lewis called Arizona something akin to 1964 Alabama. When he said that, he got an unwelcome response from those in attendance and Pearce supporters picked up on that and carried it through the rest of the recall election.

On a side note: I think that was a stupid mistake on Lewis's part to make a comment like that. I think it is something that is going to follow him from this point on, just like his lies about using the LDS church leadership because of their positions.

One way that Lewis intends to do this is by embracing the Utah Compact and it's values. Lewis has also said, "We definitely need to allow those people (illegals) that are here, whose only crime is to be in our country without documentation, a pathway to square themselves with the law,"

The problem is the Utah Compact isn't endorsed by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, both of which Lewis and Pearce are members. The use of the church was a point of contention in the LDS community during the election. Both sided argued that the church had or had not take a position on immigration because no official statement was made by the First Presidency, President or Profit of the church, who is the only individual who speaks for the church as a whole. While the LDS church favors a compassionate approach to immigration, it has not taken a position one way or another on enforcement of immigration.

In fact it appears that Utah Compact was written by very liberal, open border organizations and individuals.Former Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson published a article titled Who Wrote the Utah Compact. In it she does a very good job of outlining how the Utah Compact came to be.

In any case it is going to be interesting to see if Jerry Lewis and listening approach to all sides is going to be able to reverse the dismal 1964 Alabama image that he says Arizona has. Time is going to tell. Take our poll on the side and tell us do you believe Arizona has the image Jerry Lewis says it does.

Dedication to America

That generation of resolute Americans
whom we call the Founding Fathers.
The created the first free people
to survive as a nation in modern times.
They wrote a new kind of Constitution
which is now the oldest in existence.
They built a new kind of commonwealth
designed as a model for the whole human race.
They believed it was thoroughly possible
to create a new kind of civilization,
giving freedom, equality, and justice to all.
Their first design for a free-people nation
was to encompass all North America,
accommodating, as John Adams said,
two to three hundred million free men.
They created a new cultural climate
that gave wind to the human spitit.
They encouraged exploration to reveal
the scientific secrets of the universe.
They built a free-enterprise culture
to encourage industry and prosperity.
They gave humanity the needed ingredients
for a gigantic 5,000-year leap.

Taken from "A Miracle That Changed the World" by W. Cleon Skousen

Greedy Mesa Unions & City Staff

Greedy City of Mesa Unions and staff what their hands on $5,000,000 that the city has been able to save, the Arizona Republic is reporting.

While the rest of Mesa residents suffer to stay afloat, pay their bills and keep food on the table, those who work for the city want to eat stake while the rest of us eat beans.

It is not right for city employees to be getting raises on the backs of taxpayer when the rest of us are suffering. To give them a pay raise is a slap in the face to Mesa residents. If their is a saving it should go back those of use who pay taxes or go to pay down the bonds Mesa has.

Call your councilman and tell him not to spend the money but to give it back to the taxpayer.

Mesa Inside Out - Advertising

Picture is worth a 1,000 words

Russell Pearces Final Remarks

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 10, 2011
CONTACT: Mike Philipsen

By Senate President, Russell Pearce

I’d be lying if I said I was not extremely disappointed by being voted out in a recall election. It has been an honor to serve the people of Arizona in the legislature for the last decade and I am sad to go under these circumstances.

There is still much to be done, even though we lead the nation in many areas, such as economic recovery, safer neighborhoods, job creation, quality education, 2nd Amendment freedom, lower taxes, less regulation, defense of the unborn, protection of property rights, and yes, a return to the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers. We have changed the national debate in a good way. More than 34 states are modeling legislation after Arizona. WOW, who would have ever thought we could have had that kind of an impact? I am deeply grateful for this opportunity to serve and to have made a difference.

The World War II pilots had a saying; “If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target,” Well apparently I’ve been over the target for some time.

The left have said terrible things, the media have manufactured their own truth and with NO basis in truth at all and others an extreme spin on the truth. It is sad and hurtful. Like I tease, if I believed half of what the media said, I wouldn’t vote for me. I have never broken my promises, I have been faithful to my Oath of Office, and I have done nothing immoral, illegal or dishonest and will continue to do what I believe is right and good for this Constitutional Republic. If the price for keeping promises is a recall, so be it. The left will continue to attack these moral values and the rule of law. I proudly take the arrows of the left and consider it a badge of honor.

One state senate race would not be national news were it not for the fact that for the last several years, I have led the successful battle against illegal immigration on the state, local and national level, most notably by authoring Arizona’s SB 1070. It has made a difference here and nationally.

Statement by Phoenix Law Enforcement Association: “Since SB1070, Phoenix has experienced a 30-year low crime rate. 600 police vacancies, budget cuts, and old policing strategies didn’t bring about these falling crime rates. SB1070 did. When hard-working rank-and-file Phoenix Police Officers were given access to the tool of SB1070, the deterrence factor this legislation brought about was clearly instrumental in our unprecedented drop in crime. And all of this without a single civil rights, racial profiling, or biased policing complaint. To ignore the positive impact of SB1070 in the City of Phoenix is to ignore the huge elephant in the middle of the room.”

My critics claim that my defeat shows the voters oppose immigration control. Libertarian open border advocate Tamar Jacoby wrote, “Demagoguing immigrants looks like a sure vote-getter. But as Russell Pearce just proved, it’s not.” The pro-amnesty lobbying organization America’s Voice wrote: “The people of Mesa have spoken — and they have sent a message to Arizona and the nation: Anti-immigrant extremism doesn’t work”

I will not retreat from this fight, and the movement that I helped create is going strong.

Pretty much all political observers acknowledge that I would have not lost the race in a normal election. In 2010, at the height of the controversy over SB 1070, with high turn-out, I was elected with nearly two thirds of the vote. What made this race different?

In a recall election, there is no primary. So my opponents put up Jerry Lewis, by design a nominal Republican, against me. In a normal election, he would have had no chance in the primary getting the Republican nod and with a registration edge to GOP voters in my district; I would have won easily against the Democrat in the General Election. They knew that. However, the Democrats did not put up a candidate, they endorsed the Republican. Instead, the Democrat party and left wing groups like the SEIU and MoveOn.org all supported Lewis.

Additionally, there was a prolonged smear campaign against me for accepting (with dozens of other legislators) free college football tickets that loomed over the campaign. These attacks are groundless and I did nothing illegal or unethical and I followed legal councils advice. However, the main point is that this had nothing to do with my positions on illegal immigration. In fact my opponent barely discussed the issue.

Combine all these factors with the low turnout in a special election, and it is hard to see my defeat as a referendum on SB 1070.

While I am sad to have to leave office, I can look at the progress Arizona has made on the illegal immigration issue with pride.

In 2004, I authored and put Prop 200, The Protect Arizona Now Act on the ballot. Compared to SB 1070, it was an incredibly modest bill that merely restricted public benefits to illegal aliens and protected against voting fraud. Nonetheless, virtually every politician in the state opposed the measure, and we were outspent 3-1. Still, the voters of Arizona passed it overwhelmingly.

In 2007, I introduced the Legal Arizona Workers Act to require that all employers in the State use E-Verify to ensure they do not hire illegal immigrants. After building enormous grassroots support across the state, the bill passed and then Democratic Governor Janet Napolitano signed it. This past May, the Supreme Court upheld it; states rights to mandate E-Verify for employers.

More than a dozen states passed E-Verify laws, and without having to worry about expensive litigation, we can expect even more to follow suit next year.

In 2010, I introduced SB 1070. John McCain and Jeff Flake both opposed Prop 200 and both have been prime sponsors of amnesty, I knew where the people of Arizona stood and began to champion SB 1070. Now, most of our Republican congressman and both US Senators at least give lip service to supporting SB 1070. More importantly, polls still show that Arizona voters support the law by a 2-1 margin.

This past year, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia all passed bills modeled after SB 1070.

There is no doubt that movement against illegal immigration on the state level has become bigger than me, and bigger than Arizona.

I have not decided whether or not I will run for the State Senate or another office in the future. However, I am confident that legislators and activists in Arizona and across the country will continue to pass laws to fight illegal immigration. I will do everything I can as a private citizen to assist them.

Is The Republican GOP Ready For Jerry Lewis

The paper says that Jerry Lewis aims for peace with GOP colleagues. The question is, is that really going to happen?

The question we should be asking is how willing are they going to be to work with an individual who was seen as a sham candidate for Progressive Democrats, unions and open border crowd who ran in what most of them believe to be inappropriate use of the recall process.

Now there will be those such as Rich Crandall who missed 254 votes out of 384 votes in 2009 while serving in the legislature, who faced a possible recall election that didn't go anywhere. Then in 2010 was well on his way out of office until he had a private conversation with James Molina, who then dropped out of the race.

According to Anson Clarkson, Lewis campaign manager, Lewis would like to sitting on committees associated with budget and education. That may be questionable given the problems that Lewis had with Sequoia Schools and the accounting problems that went on their.

What ever the case may be it looks like Lewis time will be limited in the Senate to just one short year given that where he currently lives will be in a new legislative district with Tempe.

So for his one year in office I wish him the best of luck, he will need it.

During the recall election here in Mesa, there was a lot of going back and fourth between the members of the LDS community, in so much that it was said you could feel the tension in the air during their meetings. One of the things that we heard a lot about was the involvement of the LDS church in this election. That intervention wasn't necessarily from Salt Lake City but from here on a local level.

It was rumored that Jerry Lewis and his close supporters had gone and talked with stake presidents and bishops about supporting Lewis. This was done in order to influence the members of their wards. Well the truth now comes out that, that is exactly what they did even though at the time Jerry Lewis completely denied it. What kind of Mormons are these people, that if one day they will lie about it and the next day they will admit to it? 


Now that it has been admitted to by Jerry Lewis and Tyler Montague what other lies have they told people? I guess we will just have to wait and see.

Anonymous Free Speech

We found this at Sonoran Alliance, it expresses our views on anonymous free speech.

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

As often happens during election season, the media has been up in arms about “secret funds” being spent by independent groups on messages meant to support or oppose candidates.

They should get a grip. The First Amendment enshrines freedom of speech, not witch-hunts led by the political establishment under the banner of “transparency.”

Our nation was founded on anonymous free speech by independent groups. Under pseudonyms, the Founders deliberately hid their identities as they engaged in coordinated advocacy of the ratification of the Constitution in 85 pamphlets. The pamphlets were crucial to rebutting the arguments of those who opposed the Constitution.

Without anonymity, the arguments advanced by the Founders could have been evaded with ad hominem attacks. Anonymity forced the opposition to grapple with ideas on their merits. This resulted in a better debate, which the Founders won on the strength of their ideas.

The marketplace of ideas is enhanced, not diminished, by the freedom to engage in anonymous speech. Broadside government attacks on anonymous speech threaten to suppress the marketplace of ideas, which ultimately threatens the media as much as any independent group.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.