LETTERS

Send a Letter to the Editor
The opinions expressed are those of the letter writers and not necessarily those of The Arizona Conservative

Dear Editor:

Recently opponents of our state's employer sanctions law made despicable, misleading and false attacks on my husband and our family. Twenty-eight years ago, a petition for divorce was filed on my behalf. The allegations in this 28-year-old document are not true and the petition was shortly thereafter withdrawn.

The people behind this "Mesa Deserves Better" Committee are not honorable. Their only purpose is to destroy my husband's good reputation, to hurt our family and to repeal the law which prevents them from hiring individuals who are in this country illegally. I urge everyone to reject these mean-spirited people and all who are affiliated with them. It is apparent that they will go to any length and use any measure  to further their own
political agenda. 

My husband is a good man, a man of faith who taught our children and grandchildren the meaning of honor and duty to God, family and country. I hope all voters in District 18 join me in supporting my husband for State Senate and rejecting these misleading and false attacks."

LuAnne Pearce, Mesa

Dear Editor:

Once again, state transportation planners are trying to use taxpayer money to build highly expensive and ineffective transit projects, such as light rail, while avoiding real accountability and performance measures showing that such projects are wasteful.

Tonight (June 11), the Board of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) will meet at the Phoenix Convention Center West, 100 N. 3^rd Street, in meeting rooms 106 B and C, to discuss the latest Statewide Investment Strategy, which will determine, among other things, how to spend the taxpayer dollars that will be collected if the TIME Coalition is successful in duping the voters into supporting a new one-cent state sales tax.

Members of the Arizona chapter of Americans for Prosperity will be present at the meeting, and will ask the ADOT Board some very important questions:

1.  In 2002, the Legislature enacted statutes (ARS 28-503 & 504) calling for ADOT to develop a series of performance measures--including a cost per person-mile for various transportation systems. ADOT’s new Investment Strategy document shows no sign of any performance measures. Further, there is no evidence that ADOT has ever prepared any of the legally required performance measures in the six years since the law passed. If ADOT cannot be trusted to comply with a simple mandate for performance measures, why should ADOT be trusted to wisely spend an additional $40 billion that would result from the imposition of a new state sale tax?

2.  In 2004, proponents of light rail funding in Maricopa County’s Prop 400 promised that a performance audit of the first 20-mile line would be conducted before any more money was invested in expanding light rail. The first 20 miles is not even operating yet. No performance audit is feasible until it does. Yet, the new Investment Strategy has $600 million more designated for light rail. If the promises made in support of 2004’s tax increase are worthless, why should we have any confidence in the promises made in this new Investment Strategy?

3.  Rumor has it that the consultant hired to work on the long-range transportation plan was hired non-competitively and will not be finished until long after the vote on the new transportation tax has been conducted. Is there any truth to that rumor?

4.  Since the $5 million statewide transportation plan needed to justify the requested $40 billion tax increase will not be completed until next year, wouldn’t it make more sense to have the vote on the tax come after it is completed?

5.  Since this investment strategy is multimodal, what are the estimated comparative costs per person-mile for the different modes slated for funding? How much would it cost taxpayers to move one person one mile for highways, light rail, bus, and commuter rail? 

Tom Jenney, Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
(Arizona Federation of Taxpayers)
www.aztaxpayers.org

Dear Editor:

The U.S. Senate will begin debate next week on a massive new regulatory scheme known as “cap-and-trade,” a phrase the Washington Post described as a “pithy marketing gimmick.” It’s a tricky way to hide a massive energy tax hike by hiding it behind a complex regulatory scheme. The cap-and-trade bill, sponsored by Sens. Joseph Lieberman and John Warner and known as Lieberman-Warner, will increase federal revenue by $1.2 TRILLION dollars over just the first 7 years that it is in effect, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Senator McCain is leaning towards supporting this legislation. We say leaning because we firmly believe that he can still be persuaded to vote no, which makes it crucial that you weigh in against this massive tax-and-spend bill now.

Al Gore, in a little noticed 2006 interview, said that the energy tax he pushed in 1993, known as the BTU tax, was one of the leading reasons Republicans won the House in 1994. The lesson he learned was not that massive energy tax hikes are a bad idea, but rather that they have to be hidden from voters. That’s what cap-and-trade is all about.

An analysis commissioned by the American Council on Capital Formation and the National Association of Manufacturers projects the economic impact of the S. 2191 by 2020 to Arizona: 23,000 to 34,000 fewer jobs, $800 to $2,600 in lower annual disposable income per household, an annual hit to Arizona GSP of between $2.6 and $3.6 billion, and much higher energy prices — 20 percent to 67 percent higher for gasoline and 23 percent to 30 percent higher for electricity. The study also found that lower-income families — people who are least able to absorb higher energy costs — will be the hardest hit.

And what do we buy, environmentally, with this hit to the economy? Cap-and-trade is already failing to reduce emissions in Europe. And even if emissions targets are met, climate models show that the reductions would have only a miniscule impact on global temperature—less than 0.1 degrees Celsius in 100 years—and would not be detectable against the background of natural variation. That’s why leading climate alarmists have hailed a Kyoto-style cap-and-trade regime as just the first step of thirty to curb global economic activity, a recipe for permanently destroying the global economy.

Tell Senator McCain to vote NO on the cap-and-trade energy tax!

Tom Jenney, Americans for Prosperity

Dear Editor:

I realize this is old news by now but, unfortunately, emails that pervade the internet do not date their sources any more than they check their facts.

Does it concern you that idiots who wouldn’t recognize satire if it bit them on the nose have appropriated (misappropriated? – maybe not!) John Semmens’ October 27, 2007 article (http://azconservative.org/Semmens118.htm) that has Obama “explaining” his not saluting the flag; flooding the internet with it totally out of context? This is a complete disservice, not only to Mr. Obama, but to the American people and the American sense of fair play.

Clyde Snider

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

I have been reading a lot about suggested changes to the illegal alien employer sanctions law and have a number of concerns.

It appears that businesses want to maintain their anonymity while denying that same status to anyone who might want to direct the attention of those responsible for enforcing the law to possible violations.

My concerns, which have no particular weight, are about the process for offering these changes, voting on the proposed changes, the motives behind these changes and the necessity of any of these changes. 

In reading various articles about the proposed changes, it seems rather brazen that the people offering these changes may be potentially involved in the application of this law. 

It then also seems to me that this represents a very genuine potential for conflict of interest in offering and voting on the changes would potentially exempt these legislators from coverage of this law.

Owning a number of fast food restaurants, McDonalds or Burger King, places these individuals squarely in the target zone of the law as currently written. These individuals should be precluded from offering amendments and voting on any amendments presented.

By eliminating the anonymity for individuals to bring enforcement focus to a given establishment puts, I believe, all anonymous tip processes in jeopardy. Some enterprising attorney will bring up in a criminal trial that his client would not have been arrested but because of evidence located by way of an anonymous tip and clearly the Arizona Legislature has demonstrated that anonymous reporting should not be allowed.

Just recently, it was an anonymous tip that caught the Chandler rapist. Don’t put that in jeopardy through unintended consequences.

If I owned a Burger King across the street from a McDonald's, I can already make malicious reports about the McDonald's for things such as rodents in the kitchen, sexual harassment of employees, selling drugs from the drive through window, uncontained garbage in the alley and the manager's car license plate seen leaving the scene of a robbery, if I were that type of person.

And it really does not make a difference who provides the information since no action is taken directly from that information. All information has to be verified and checked against official records. 

These are not tort cases where the person making the complaint, in court, is the complaint and the business is the respondent. 

In every one of these cases the county attorney, for the State of Arizona, will be the complainant and the business will be the defendant. And I assume that the county attorney will independently obtain the evidence that they need to go forward and it will not hinge on a tipster.

If the tip goes nowhere, no one other than the person receiving the information will ever know. I do not see how that is a threat to a business.

Changing that provision would then inhibit individuals from coming forward and offering such minimal information as having seen, on more than one occasion, employees at a Mexican food restaurant, say in the area of 35^th Ave. and McDowell, arriving in vehicles with Mexican licenses plates. What difference does it make who I am? All they have to do is go park in the lot and watch

No business should be exempt. For individuals who own more than one business, the evaluation of which license or licenses are in jeopardy is simple. Under which employer ID is the payroll prepared? Are the individuals hired centrally or at the individual locations? Are there separate EIN’s for the separate locations?

The business for which the EIN was assigned and that is contained on the license/application that has hired illegal aliens is the business that is in jeopardy.

Businesses that hire individuals as independent contractors fall under a whole slew of tax laws, a number of which disallow the contracting of individuals who should appropriately be designated as employees.

The independent contractor, who pays the wages to the individual, becomes the business that is subject to the sanctions provisions of the law. Even if that individual is himself the contractor, but is subject to self-employment provisions of the various tax codes. He illegally hired himself. And all of those transactions should be reported through the required use of the 1099-Misc IRS form.

Concerning the knowingly part. Again, somewhat easy. If an employer reports wages for an individual to the appropriate government agencies and receives notices of rejection because of a mismatch of the submitted SSN and employee name; and the employer does nothing to correct the transaction; and/or continues to submit the same SSN and name without regard to the notices, the employer has demonstrated that they know the individual who they described in the transactions does not exist and should not be on the payroll. 

Additionally then, lack of action of the part of the attorney general’s office not withstanding, it would seem that the employer who does not correct the mismatch errors has effectively agreed that they have submitted fictitious/false/fraudulent documents to the agencies concerned. 

And that I believe might be considered criminal acts within the various tax codes. Further, with substantiating evidence, could possibly trigger an investigation for seizure under the provisions of RICO laws.

If the burden of proof is to be changed to the standard for criminal acts, then the law should be amended to be a criminal act. 

The "isolated, sporadic or accidental acts" defense will not cut it for the speeding cameras, running red lights, running stop signs or dumping trash and should not for this law.

Tim Richardson, McNeal

 Dear Editor:

John W. Slagle (ret) Special Agent Anti-Smuggling Unit, Tucson

Dear Editor:

When Mesa residents vote on March 11, we will need to consider Proposition 300, a referendum of the people. What is this neighborhood issue all about?

The residents of Queens Park, the only residential subdivision on Mesa’s southern border near Germann and Ellsworth Roads, live in the City of Mesa. Their children attend Queen Creek schools and they use Queen Creek water in their homes.

Until recently, neighboring farmland has contributed to the rural atmosphere, but as time goes by, those agricultural properties are being rezoned for other uses. A Mesa policy against building homes near Williams Gateway Airport (or whatever it’s called) is postured as the reasoning behind an industrial designation of neighboring land, although Queens Park is not under the airport’s take off and landing pattern.

At issue is City Ordinance No. 4763, rezoning land just across the street from these folks’ homes, from agricultural to light industrial for an office/warehouse district with no transitional park or commercial development to protect their homes from the congestion and noise of loaders and large trucks.

The residents of Queens Park gathered signatures in order to refer the zoning change to the ballot for consideration by all of Mesa’s voters, hoping that you and I will understand that it is not a good idea to place industry next to people’s homes. 

If you agree that other arrangements can be made; that this zoning ordinance should be overturned, please vote “NO” on Proposition 300. I will, and I hope you will, too

Janie Thom, Mesa

Dear Editor:

A few words about Question 1 -- Home Rule -- which appears on Mesa’s ballot for the March 11 Primary Election.

After enduring years of runaway taxation and spending, on June 3, 1980, Arizona voters overwhelmingly approved an initiative of the people, to limit local government’s expenditures. The measure provides for spending increases due to inflation, population growth and special circumstances. 

Cities may be excluded from the limitation by approving “Home Rule, which must be renewed every four years. That is why we are voting on “Question 1.”

City ballot language states: A “Yes” vote will result in continuing existing City services by maintaining local control of expenditures by Mesa residents.” Oh, really? When did Mesa’s city government ever allow the people to vote on expenditures for light rail or this year’s wallet-busting $1.2 Billion budget?  The truth is that Mesa’s government wants the blank check, which NO SPENDING LIMITATION or Home Rule, will provide, without allowing you to vote on individual expenditures.

Our city government should comply with state law.  In these trying times when many people are losing their homes to foreclosure, we don’t need to give our city a blank check to spend our hard-earned money.

Please vote “NO” on Question 1.

Janie Thom, Mesa

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

1. McCain has narcissistic personality disorder. This is common among
politicians, and several recent U.S. presidents have had it.  We need to
vet our candidates better. (Hillary and Bill have it, too.) If Mitt
Romney is smart he'll deliberately trigger an emotional meltdown in
McCain, so we can all see what the latter is made of.

2. McCain's middling stance on both immigration and same-sex "marriage"
shows a narcissistic tendency toward false compromise disguised as
reasonableness and humaneness.

3. The story of McCain's dumping of his disabled, disfigured first wife
is really shameful.

4. I have urged Romney to support the EX-gay movement and stop the
gay-egalitarian madness that has made hash out of our system of popular
government and kept many Americans from getting proper therapeutic help
for themselves or their children. Accurate information on
homosexuality/transgenderism, and on GayScam, as I call it, can be found
at www.narth.com, www.gaytostraight.org, www.peoplecanchange.com, and
www.pfox.org.

(An emotional disorder is the furthest thing from freedom.)

America must address its threats, from within as well as from without. A
sound mental health policy would strengthen us enormously in every way.

Sharon Kass, Washington, D.C.

Dear Representative (Gabriellet) Giffords (Democrat, District 8),

You continue to demonstrate that from you years of experience in military and foreign affairs that you do not have a clue what is happening in the real world outside of Washington DC. Your state you have visited Iraq on two separate occasions, how long were those trips? One or two days? Did you talk to the soldiers and the many American contractors who are actually doing the work in Iraq? No you spent your time hobnobbing with the elite Washington insiders stationed in the International Zone and herd of military O5 & O6’s who are stationed at Camp Victory, most of who are also Washington insider here to get their “tickets” punched for advancement.  Did you go out to the FOB’s where the “real” soldiers are actually going out on the patrols into the neighborhoods of Baghdad, Al Anbar, Mosul, Kirkuk and Mahmudiyah? Did you talk to the Corporals, Sergeants, and Specialist who are on the front lines of this campaign? Again your answer is, “No”. The how do you to profess to know what is happening on the ground in Iraq.

You claim that this is “The President’s four and half years of military action in Iraq …” This is not the President’s military action, it is military action which was authorized by United States Congress in October 2002 under Public Law 107-243, with a 296 to 133 vote in the House and 77 to 23 vote in the Senate. That represents 68 ½% of the Congressmen and 77% of the Senator voted to authorize the use of the United States Military in Iraq. So the military actions taken in Iraq are those of the People of the United States of America as authorized by United States Congress.  Your claim there is “no a clear plan as to how long or to what extent will be engaged there.” Maybe you do not understand the plan but has been clear to me since my original deployment into Turkey in February 2003. We are at war with terrorist, our involvement with continue until they are destroyed and can inflict further attacks on American interests around the world. We will leave Iraq when the situation on the ground is stable and the Iraqi security forces are strong enough to keep their country from falling back into the control of the terrorists and they supports.

If as you claim you are so concerned the extreme costs of the battles of the WAR on TERROR then you need to take the funding for the WAR off budget and introduce a bill in Congress to pay for the military operations with War Bonds like we did during the First and Second World Wars. I am sure you would be totally surprised at the willingness of the American People to support the costs of the WAR if they knew that is where the funding is actually going and they could have a tangible return on their investments.

In your letter you made the assertion that the Iraqi government needs to be more productive. At the same time as you are slamming the Iraqi government for their lack of action, the congress of which you are currently a member made not forward progress in the requirements of the office. In the House the Defense Authorization Billed was introduced by Rep. Skelton (D-Mo) on 20 March 2007 it had 579 amendments attached most having nothing to do with the Operations of the Defense department or the War on Terror, it was passed by the House 17 May 2007  or 58 days to process through the House. The bill was then sent to Senate where Senator Reid kept if off calendar until a vote on 1 October 2007 (the day the bill was suppose to into effect by law) the beginning of fiscal year 2008. The is took from 1 October until 12 December 2007 for the Senate/House Conference Committees to work out the differences in the bill and get it passed and sent to the President. That bill still has not been authorized because when was sent to the President it has language which the Executive Branch had warned that if it remained in the bill the President would Veto, the President held true on the Veto on 28 December. So at this time the Defense Authorizations for FY 2008 remain unfunded. It is now 107 days after the date this bill needed to be completed. The lack of the ability of the US Congress to do their job is deeply apparent. This is a body of representatives who on the average make $169,300 dollars a year not including the numerous benefits which they do not have to pay, transportation on military aircraft, medical care at military facilities, free official mail, staff paid for by the taxpayers, who live in the safety of Beltway around Washington DC, who are guarded by the Capital police, and other federal agencies, yet you can’t complete your work on time.  Meanwhile your counterparts in the Iraqi government face threats to the lives on a nearly daily basis, they are attacked by the very insurgents you would allow to take of their country with mortars and rockets while they sit in session. Their average salary $120,000 they have to travel through their country under guard of special security team of highly trained guard in highly armored vehicles. They have worked to set up a government of which has only been in existence for less than 3 years. You are part of a government with over 200 years experience and the body to which you work has not done anymore that the Iraqi government. You and the other members of the US Congress has no record to stand on when you call for more action from the Iraqi government.

Finally the United States Congress does not have the authority under the US Constitution to dictate to the Pentagon or Commander in Chief on how to conduct military operations. Your role in the military is to fund the them through the Defense Authorization bill which I have shown above you have failed to do. If you feel that the War on Terror is wrong then exercise your rights as a member of Congress and do not fund the Department of Defense. Do not try to control the Department of Defense with hundreds of amendments and delays in their funding so that you Grandstand with the other members of your party (socialists). I talk about how much you have done when the truth is you have not done a DAMN thing but go to parties and take campaign contributions from Washington area lobbyists.

You and your ilk sicken me, and you can believe I am working to see that your Congressional term does not exceed your current two years.

Jack Kaltenhauser, Taxpayer, Tucson, AZ

Dear Editor:

Voters are being asked to approve multi-million-dollar developer giveaways in Mesa’s November 6 Special Election. “Waveyard” is planned to replace the Maricopa County Animal Shelter and much of Riverview Park with condos, retail and a water park. Before casting your vote, please consider:

• Riverview Park provides affordable family fun, a signature landmark.  Mesa’s foot-dragging in replacing the ball fields gives us little confidence that our popular, profitable golf course will be replaced anytime soon.

• Located at the Red Mountain and Price Freeways, Riverview Park’s 121 acres will be sold for a paltry $10 million, a “Cents-on-the-Dollar” give-away of some of Mesa’s most valuable real estate. The additional “$20 million promissory note,” is a recycled sales tax scheme which amounts to taking your wallet out of one pocket and putting it into another.

• What is to become of the pound puppies and kittens when the East Valley’s largest animal shelter goes away? 

• Will Waveyard’s admission prices be affordable?

• Are the “villas” planned for this project really more apartments for west Mesa? Why do “villas” need incentives?

• Waveyard’s arsenic-laced well water does not meet federal domestic use standards.

Wave goodbye to Waveyard by voting “No” on more developer incentives.

Janie Thom, Mesa

Dear Editor:

I understand there was a reference on KFYI Radio that I sent a letter to the governor stating that we would not go forward with the initiative if she signed the bill. Let me make it perfectly clear, as I have in testimony before several committees. Like I have said from the start, it will not be my decision alone, we had thousands of patriotic volunteers and an executive committee that would need to be consulted and make that decision. Thousands of signatures have been collected. Had it not been for our volunteers and this initiative this bill would not have been kept in tact "tough but fair" and the guv would not have signed it. Thanks to our wonderful volunteers we are where we are today on the critical piece of legislation. It is a good bill and I prefer the legislative process, however if they will not keep their promise we will give them the initiative and that they cannot change.

However, since then she did sign it, but has made statements of watering down the bill, the AZ Chamber is threatening a lawsuit to stop the initiative. I do not believe we have any choice but to continue with the initiative. I do believe it is a good bill and if allowed to work would do what we want. In fact it is a great bill with everything we wanted other than it is a two strike system, but a good two strike system.

They are the ones not willing to allow a tough but fair piece of legislation work and do the job it is intended and that is stop illegal employers and the lure of illegal aliens, this bill will downsize Arizona, reduce the burden on taxpayers, reduce crime, free up jobs for Americans, and allow a honest competitive environment to take place with decent wages for Americans to make a livable wage.

Attached is the letter to the governor. Here is the sentence the guv must be taking out of context.

In conclusion, some employers and business organizations have either refused to work with us on the bill in any meaningful way or have made demands that would render any employer sanctions meaningless. Constant repetition of the mantra "it's a federal issue" does not constitute meaningful participation in the legislative process. We made good faith efforts to address all the relevant issues brought before us. Notwithstanding all our efforts, we understand that no bill is perfect and changes may be needed as the bill is implemented. For that reason, we believe that dealing with this issue through the legislative process is preferable to the initiative process. The bill establishes a study committee consisting of legislators and employers to review the implementation of the bill.

State Representative Russell Pearce

Dear Editor:

Open Letter to Sen. Jon Kyl:

Dear Senator Kyl,

Being a resident of Arizona and a longtime customer of the Internal Revenue
Service, I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

The reason I wish to make this adjustment in my status (from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien) is due to the legislation now being debated by the Senate and for which you led and have supported.

If my understanding of the legislation’s provisions are accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a simple fine and back income taxes for three of the last five years. Additionally, I don’t even have to prove that the SSN I earned those taxes under was in fact my own. That, sir, is a 40-percent discount on my taxes! And even more if I use the borrowed SSN I recently purchased in south Phoenix. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year, so I'm excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a minor fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? If so, I promise that I’ll send a generous portion of my savings to the third world nation of your choice in the form of remittances.

Senator, since Congress began tinkering with the Alternative Tax threshold, my family’s tax burden in 2004 and 2006 nearly doubled. In fact we had to take out a homeowner's line of credit in order to meet the demands of the IRS or lose our home. The agency wasn’t very understanding of our plight. Of course, I understand that once my status has been legally changed to illegal alien, we will qualify for enhanced homeowner programs now offered through the U.S. H.U.D. as well as the Department of Interior’s Rural Ag programs.

I see from reading the legislation there’s more! As an illegal alien, my extended family could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant calculates that I could save almost $10,000 a year. As for the financial solvency of the hospital system, I understand that is guaranteed by funding from the federal government, the legislation for which I might add a note of thanks for to Senator McCain as well as to you.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status I see is in sending my daughter to college. I understand she would receive preferential treatment relative to her college admissions, as well as qualify for "in-state" tuition rates at many colleges throughout the United States. 

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and paying those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me, given that I still have college-age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative. 

Thank you for your assistance and I’m glad I voted for your re-election!

Respectfully,
Bruce A Barton
Safford, AZ

Dear Editor:

Good morning. My family and I live in Tucson. I have two school aged children, a 13-year-old girl and a 9-year-old boy. 

My boy had encountered problems with the structure of public school (little or no recess, no breaks when requested, etc.) so I began home schooling him last March. I learned about a charter school called Arizona Virtual Academy. They give you the books and
lesson plans, you teach your child. Perfect! So we signed up and began distance learning. 

My husband is a Reservist and was mobilized last January. He went to Ft. Knox, K. (not Iraq!) to train troops, as he is a drill sergeant. His mobilization is for 15 months. Near the time that I was to deliver our third child we joined my husband in Kentucky for an extended visit. We left our house empty in Tucson. Our cars are still registered in Arizona, we're still paying taxes on our house, and all State income tax will go to Arizona since it's our home of record (I'm not working in Kentucky). Do you see where this is going? The school learned that we were on a long visit here and expelled my son. I called to explain
that we're military on orders until this April. No matter. I explained all of the above -- that even the IRS considers us Arizona residents. That doesn't matter. Illegals can cross the border with their children (you know, break the law), get signed up for welfare, food stamps, and Section 8 housing, and are so welcomed by the schools that they even feed them free lunch.  The people who are funding the ludicracy are not allowed to have their children attend school.

Arizona supports its troops by expelling their children from school.  I can't wait to sell my house and leave this liberal haven!

April Barbour-Stephens, Elizabethtown, Ky.

Dear Editor:

On behalf of all of us with the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition, thank you for all you’ve done to help us in the battle to pass Proposition 107! 

On Election Night, we’re going to gather together to watch the returns – and we are very hopeful it will be a victorious, joyous celebration indeed!

Please join the Protect Marriage Arizona Coalition

Tuesday, November 7

8:00 PM

Scottsdale Hilton Pavilion

6333 N. Scottsdale Road

(Lincoln and Scottsdale Road - the Pavilion is a white tent like structure on the east side of the complex)

Cathi Herrod, Spokeswoman for Prop 107

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

I happened to find a "review" at www.azconservative.org/shortakes regarding
my letter to the AZ Daily Star. This was with regard to Coach Lute Olson
appearing on billboards, promoting a fundamentalist Christian radio station.
For some reason, I've received several responses regarding Coach Olson's
freedom of speech and my 'bashing' of Christiantity. First, please read my
letter again: "Coach Olson has every right to lend his name to this
organization or any other organization." I am a firm believer in free
speech. Thus, I submitted my letter to the AZ Daily Star and you responded.
These types of discussions are important for our citizenry and the future of
this country. Obviously, you think so, too, or your organization wouldn't
have taken the time to comment on my letter.

In my letter, I did question Mr. Olson's alignment with the policies of
Family Life Communications (FLC), Inc. As you may know, FLC is a large,
non-profit corporation with fundamentalist Christian radio stations
throughout the country. The stations run a variety of programs, including
music and political commentary by such persons as Pat Robertson.

If you go to the station's website (www.myflr.org), the 'Statement of Faith'
is quite clear regarding 'salvation only through Jesus', heterosexuality,
etc. There are numerous examples of fundamentalist, 'black and white'
thinking and literal Biblical translation.  In general, the implications are
that all non-Christian believers and gays are condenmed to 'burn in hell'.
Obviously, not all Christians agree with the current evangelical-political
movement; otherwise, all Christians would belong to such evangelical groups.

As you are more than aware, "Christianity" encompass a diversity of
Jesus-based faiths with differing opinions. Please do not be under the
impression that I am criticizing Christianity as a whole. Personally, I was
raised with strong family traditions in the American Baptist Church and the
Republican Party (back when it was truly the 'Party of Abe Lincoln'.) I
developed a strong foundation not only in spirituality/love but also in
centrist, moderate living (versus extremist); the importance of separation
of government and religion so as to protect both, and the value of living a
life that is productive for the WHOLE of society. Overall, I've spent my
life learning what it truly means to be 'diverse' and recognize that life
isn't 'black and white'. I am still on that journey.......

Regarding diversity, of course all points of view are to be included, i.e.
Coach Olson's and that of the evangelical Christian faith. However,
diversity is not only inclusion but also appreciation of and inspiration
through those who are different from ourselves and who have walked in
different shoes. Maybe you know what this means if you've had any in-depth
conversations with people who are gay, poor or of different ethnic or
religious backgrounds. Also, with respect to FLC, diversity is not false
'openess' with the agenda of proselytization or conversion....to the
evangelical Christian faith, any other faith or way of life. I think the U
of A vision statement says it best:

 UA Five-Year Strategic Plan 2006 - 2010: The University of Arizona's vision
. . .
. . .Most important to our vision are students, faculty, and staff who
represent a broad diversity of thought, background, ethnicity and
perspective who find their inspiration through their interactions with each
other . . .Their different perspectives, backgrounds, and experiences make
us stronger. . . We treat people with respect and share decision making to
create a climate that supports the success of all who learn and work here .
. .

Based on this statement, I would not say that FLC, Inc., is a particularly
diverse, or even tolerant, corporation. Wouldn't it have been great if Coach
Olson had instead sponsored a student discussion group, bringing together
students of different faiths? As I said in my letter, Coach Olson is free to
do whatever.

Although I publicly spoke out on this issue, I'm not alone here at the U of
A in my reaction. Too, I've received responses that I lack tolerance. Yes, I
am trying to be more tolerant of fundamentalism, but it's hard. Sadly, the
ugly face of fundamentalism is everywhere, from here to Iran. Your vitriolic
comments and name calling only serve as further evidence.

I guess we can all pray for each other.

Tina Trevor, University of Arizona faculty, Tucson

Dear Editor:

I am a candidate for one of the last offices that will appear on our ballot in the November 7, General Election. It is Board of Directors, Central Arizona Water Conservation District  (CAWCD), an unpaid, non-partisan position.

The CAWCD is very important to all residents of Central and Southern Arizona because it operates the Central Arizona Project, which brings water from the Colorado River to our homes, farms and businesses. The dream of such an accomplishment was long held by early Arizonans. United States Senator Carl Hayden worked in the Congress most of his life trying to bring that water to our central desert regions. U. S. Representative John Rhodes was able to find congressional support and funding to finally make the dream a reality so that in 1985, water began flowing through the Central Arizona Project Canal into our area.

As an Arizona native, I have long been an advocate of protecting our precious natural resources, especially water, which makes it possible for us to live in the desert.  It is the responsibility of concerned citizens to provide for our future.

Economic forecasters predict that Arizona will acquire approximately 138,000 new residents for each of the next several years. Planning to provide for those new residents is the key to success. If elected, I will work to provide:

q       Affordable, dependable water and power for Arizona.

q       Lower property taxes.

q       Greater water storage capacity, including new lakes.

q       Sensible conservation measures.

q       Protection of our property rights.

q       Keeping Arizona’s water for Arizona.

Arizona’s economy is strong and our future bright.  Please join me in making sure that we use our precious resources to the best advantage for all our residents. 

I appreciate your support on Election Day, November 7.

Janie Thom, Mesa

Dear Editor:

I'll tell you, the Pharisees would be impressed. John Cornyn, Texas senator and the White House's liaison on immigration in the Senate, announced this week that the 700 miles of fence that the House and Senate have passed and which the White House intends on signing is just a "symbolic gesture"!

"It's one thing to authorize. It's another thing to actually appropriate the money and do it," he said.

Who is he kidding? We all know House Republicans passed the fence because their constituents were demanding it. Americans are angrier than ever, and it's over illegal immigration and the open border. They want a physical fence and House Republicans voted to give them just that.

So let's get this straight. Is it all a sham? Did Republican senators -- with the help of a couple dozen Democrats -- vote for a fence they have no intention of building? Are House Republicans and a few senators running a 'tough on immigration' campaign -- telling voters that fence is coming thanks to Republicans leadership, knowing full well it will never be built!

(Former Mexican president) Vicente Fox has made it clear they want President Bush to veto the fence. So maybe Senator Cornyn is just telling Mexico "Not to worry, amigos, the president will sign the bill but it means nothing, just a symbolic gesture to appease the millions of Americans who are demanding it."

This duplicity is beyond belief!

Team America has put together a simple pledge a fence, enforcement, no amnesties no matter what they call them. It's the "Tancredo gold standard." We are sending it to all the candidates and asking them to sign it. We want to know in writing where they stand.

THE IMMIGRATION REFORM-NO AMNESTY PLEDGE
I, ___________________, pledge to the residents of my district, that as a candidate for public office, if elected, I will represent the will of the American people by
(1)    Supporting and voting for border security, including a physical fence along the U.S.-Mexico border; and 
(2)    Supporting and voting for tougher enforcement laws including mandatory verification of employees and authorization of local law enforcement agencies to enforce our immigration laws;
(3)    Opposing and voting against all guest worker and all amnesty programs, regardless of whether they are called amnesties, earned legalization programs, or pathways to citizenship.
By signing this pledge, I acknowledge that these actions are critical to upholding our country's national security, border security, and economic security.
Signed,
 ________________________
Candidate for Congress

We could use your help getting them to sign it. Send this pledge to your congressman or candidates or just call them and ask if they have signed it. We'll be doing the same all next week and will list the candidates who sign on our web site.

Also endorsed candidates are now on our website. We'll begin sending them contributions next week so we could sure use your help.

Bay Buchanan, President, Team America

Dear Editor:

The Primary Election will be coming up very soon as early ballots are now beginning to arrive in people’s mailboxes.

Legislative District 22 voters will be wise to retain their present representatives, Senator Thayer Verschoor and State Representatives Eddie Farnsworth and Andy Biggs.

Senator Thayer Verschoor has been a stalwart friend of the taxpayer during his two terms in the Arizona Senate. His respect for you and your pocket book is beyond compare. As Chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, he helped complete the East Valley Freeway System, making travel more convenient for all of us.

Representative Eddie Farnsworth has made great progress in curbing homeowner association abuses of Arizona residents. Rep. Farnsworth’s work to protect your property rights well-qualifies him for re-election to the Arizona House of Representatives.

Representative Andy Biggs’ leadership qualities have helped bring common sense to the Arizona House of Representatives. As House Transportation Committee Chairman, he has helped bring new dollars for freeway construction without raising taxes. His planning and direction will facilitate new transportation facilities in our growing area.

Please vote for Senator Thayer Verschoor, and Representatives Eddie Farnsworth and Andy Biggs on election day, September 12.

Janie Thom, Mesa

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

“The Arizona House deserves commendation for their efforts on behalf of the people,” said Mauro E. Mujica, Chairman of the Board of U.S. English, Inc. “As the state becomes more and more diverse, the need grows for a sensible language policy that unites all Arizonans under our common language – English. We commend Representative Pearce and his colleagues for their forward thinking effort.”

Proposition 103 will mark the second time in Arizona, and the eighth nationwide, where voters have been given the choice to make English the language of a state. Though the 1988 Arizona initiative was struck down by the state Supreme Court, the other bills remain law in Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida and Utah.

Last year, the House and Senate both passed legislation that would have made English the official language of Arizona and this Governor vetoed it. Despite the support of more than two-thirds of Arizonans according to a 2005 poll conducted by KAET-TV/Channel 8,  A follow-up survey by KAET-TV/Channel 8 found that a majority of Arizonans disagreed with the governor’s action.

“The initiative process exists so that the voters can overcome the reluctance of their political leaders on the issues that matter most,” continued Mujica. “Arizonans continue to ask that the state place its emphasis on our common language and not continue a divisive multilingual trend. The voters have a reasonable expectation that they will either be given a chance to have their voices heard, or remove the legislators who stood in the way. I look forward to quick Senate consideration and passage of this bill.

President Theodore Roosevelt once said, "We have one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the [assimilation] crucible turns our people out as Americans."

In his brilliant piece in the Rocky Mountain News, former Democratic Colorado Governor Lamm said, "A nation is much more…It is a state of mind, a shared vision, a recognition that we are all in this together. A nation needs a common language as it needs a common currency."

With competing languages, no nation on earth enjoys peace within itself. The scholar Seymour Lipset said, "The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate re histories of turmoil, tension and tragedy. Canada, Belgium Malaysia, Lebanon—all face crises of national existence which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. France faces severe difficulties with hits Islamic immigrants now numbering five million who are not assimilating.

California often referred to Mexifornia, you already have seen the cracks breaking apart a once solid educational system in that state.

Official English is not “English only.” There are 27 states that have Official English laws and not of them prohibit state agencies from communicating in another language when there is a clear reason for doing so in the public’s interest, including: protecting health and safety, assuring equality before the law, promoting tourism, teaching foreign languages, and other legitimate needs. Over 180 countries have official languages, (including Mexico).

Designating and official language simply means government must do business in that language for official purposes.

No One has an inherent right to government services in another language. There are 329 different languages in the U.S., do we print and do business in all of those languages, or do we require when you come to America, you must assimilate for many reasons, not the least is to be successful? English is one of the first steps in pursuing the American dream.

United States of America is an English-speaking nation. However, the Constitution alone cannot guarantee we will remain free. We must have common bonds and share a loyalty to the principles of the Constitution.

Immigration-propelled “multiculturalism,” which destroys our common culture, is a threat to American liberty.

• Official English promotes unity.

This long tradition of assimilation has always included the adoption of English as the common means of communication. Unfortunately, the proliferation of multilingual government sends the opposite message to non-English speakers: it is not necessary to learn English because the government will accommodate them in their native languages.

• Official English empowers immigrants.

Instead of the mixed message government sends by making it possible to file tax returns, vote, become U.S. citizens and receive a host of other services in a variety of languages, immigrants will understand that they must know English to fully participate in the process of government. Providing multilingual services creates dependence on “linguistic welfare.” Knowledge of English leads to the realization of the American dream, increased economic opportunity and the ability to become a more productive member of society.

• Official English is common sense government.

The designation of Official English will eliminate the needless duplication of government services in multiple languages. It is not the responsibility of the government to provide services in the 329 different languages spoken in the United States. It is the responsibility of each individual to either learn English or to find a friend or family member to translate. Because Official English is only a limitation on government, it does not affect the languages spoken in private businesses, religious serviced or private conversations.

Today America's linguistic unity, which enabled the melting-pot crucible to forge one nation out of millions of immigrants from all over the world, is under attack as never before. Record numbers of non-English speaking immigrants threaten to overwhelm the assimilative process. And instead of encouraging new immigrants to acquire the English fluency needed to succeed in our society,

Providence has been pleased to give us this one connected country, to one united people, speaking the same language.
— John Jay, “The Federalist Papers”

Defend our liberties and fashion into one united people the multitudes brought hither out of many kindred and tongues.
— President Thomas Jefferson

We have but one language here, and that is the English language, and we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans.
— President Theodore Roosevelt

The mission of the United States is one of benevolent assimilation.
— President William McKinley

The ultimate way to bring this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of it continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities. We have but one flag; we must also learn one language, and that language is English.
— President Theodore Roosevelt

And while you bring all countries with you, you come with the purpose of leaving all other countries behind you – bringing what is best of their spirit, but not looking over your shoulders and seeking to perpetuate what you intended to leave behind in them.
— President Woodrow Wilson

The gift of a common tongue is a priceless inheritance.
— British Prime Minister Winston Churchill

Our government promotes "diversity" by operating in ever growing numbers of foreign languages. The result is a growing underclass, which is segregated and walled off into linguistic ghettos. A century ago such immigrant ghettos were marked by extreme poverty, 80-hour workweeks and child labor. As the industrial revolution matured, immigrants discovered that language skills were the key to entering the emerging "middle class." This, coupled with mandatory public education and reduced immigration, resulted in the successful assimilation of ethnic communities into American society.

26 states have enacted laws making English their official language; often by passing citizens initiatives with vote margins as high as 9-1.

Opponents of making English the official language charge that it is "anti-immigrant," or that it is merely symbolic and therefore unnecessary. These charges are false.

Learning to speak English empowers immigrants. By more than 2-1 immigrants themselves say the U.S. should expect new immigrants to learn English and by a 9-1 margin Hispanic immigrants believe learning English is essential to succeed in the U.S.

"Official English doesn't mean "English only." None of the 26 states with official English laws prohibit government agencies from using another languages when there is a compelling public interest for doing so. These include: protecting public health and safety, assuring equality before the law, promoting tourism, teaching foreign languages, providing for national defense, and many other legitimate, common sense needs.

State Rep. Russell Pearce, Mesa

Dear Editor:

Like many other Arizona politicians, Governor Napolitano is a Janet come lately in addressing the problems facing Arizona that are caused by illegal immigration and a unsecured border.

 

Clearly, the popularity of Proposition 200 has motivated many politicians, including Napolitano, to stop ignoring the issue and get on board the illegal immigration bandwagon.

 

Governor Napolitano and presidential want-to-be, Senator John McCain, certainly want to down-play their strong opposition to passage of Prop. 200. Many Republican politicians, who wouldn't touch the illegal immigration issue before passage of Proposition 200, are now championing the issue. These Janet and Johnny come lately's, should campaign for office with the slogan, "Politics before principle."

 

One elected official didn't just give lip service to the illegal immigration issue, he lead the fight for passage of Proposition 200 before it was popular to do so. Regardless of whether you agree with him on any given issue or not, he has always fought for what he has felt was in the best interest of the people of Arizona. I'm referring to Arizona Representative Russell Pearce, a man who puts "principle before politics."   

 

Russell Pearce is a true principled conservative leader and the one thing that is still missing among the candidates for the office of governor in the Republican primary is a truly principled conservative leader to challenge Janet Napolitano in 2006. Therefore, as a citizen of Arizona, I call upon the Honorable Russell Pearce to enter the GOP primary for governor. The people of Arizona need his principled leadership now.

 

Bob Haran, Phoenix

Dear Editor:

The Republican party should throw McCain out.

My feelings towards U.S. Senator John McCain is that I'll vote for the Democrat Again if the Republicans don't get rid of him.

Tom Helgerson, Phoenix

Dear Editor:

On Monday, August 29, 2006, the Mesa City Council will consider item number 8N, the purchase of property located at 221 W. Vine, Mesa, Arizona, from Mr. and Mrs. Luz Martinez. Purchase price: $88,000. Mr. Martinez's appraisal; $100,000.

On March 9, 2004, the good people of Mesa approved Proposition 105, a measure amending the Mesa City Charter to limit the ability of the City of Mesa to dispose of property taken for a non-public purpose using eminent domain.

Now, the city seems to have found an alternative method of acquiring property from unwilling sellers.

The Process goes something like this: When properties in a desired area are for sale, the city buys those they want. The remaining property owners begin to have un-announced visits from the Code Compliance officers, who enter the property without the knowledge or consent of the owner and begin taking pictures. After many visits, criminal charges are then leveled against the hapless property owner, who may not be able to afford changes to satisfy the city's demands. Then the city offers to buy the property, presumably in exchange for dropping the charges. The property owner's option to sell to someone else is then countered by city staff with the promise they will not be able to drop criminal charges if someone else buys the property.

That is the process that has evolved in regard to the 221 W. Vine property.

If this information interests (or infuriates) you, please share it with your friends. Interested persons may contact their council members by e-mail at: council@cityofmesa.org, by Telephone: 480.644.3000 or attend the meeting in person. It will be held in the Upper Level Council Chambers, 57 E. First Street, beginning at 5:45 p.m. You may register your support or opposition to this measure by filling out a blue card and/or speaking at the meeting.

Janie Thom, Mesa City Councilwoman

Dear Editor:

(The following letter was sent by State Rep. Trish Groe to Governor Janet Napolitano regarding a recent controversy.)

The Honorable Governor Janet Napolitano                                           August 17, 2005

Governor of Arizona

Dear Governor Napolitano,

Recently, much controversy has been raised regarding the questionable use of taxpayer resources to place billboards, with a not-too-subtle bit of self-promotion, around the state. In addition, using the public school system, you are sending home letters emblazoned with your picture to parents promoting yourself and your political agenda.

It is important to ensure that your actions and that of your staff adhere to both the letter and spirit of Arizona’s laws which prohibit using state resources for campaign purposes.

To better address questions that have been raised about the $150,000 in taxpayer money spent on billboards and to further promote accountability and transparency in government, I ask that you release all memos, emails, notes of meetings, correspondence and any other documentation from your administration and the Arizona Office of Tourism relating to this matter.

In addition, I call on you to release the same information in regards to your “Welcome Back to School” message sent to school districts to be distributed to children throughout the state. Time is of the essence.

Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter.

Respectfully,

Rep. Trish Groe, Legislative District 3

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Don Goldwater, who aspires to be the Republican nominee for governor,  doesn't seem to understand the meaning of pro-life.

 

Mr. Goldwater told The Arizona Conservative that his "Views are pretty straight forward," and that, " I am pro-life with a few exceptions," but those exceptions give evidence to his true position on abortion.

 

His exceptions in his own words are "An abortion can only be considered in cases of rape or incest and only before viability of the fetus, the only other exception would be in the case of mortal danger to the mother."

 

I think Mr. Goldwater's exceptions would be of mortal danger to the unborn child.

 

The fetus is a  human being deserving of life regardless of whom the father is or how conceived. To allow abortions in cases of rape or incest is to punish the unborn child for the crimes of the father and is not a pro-life position but the position of pro-death.

 

In the very rare case of mortal danger to the mother, that is a life for a life decision and should be made by the mother. Therefore, any exception beyond the life of the mother is a pro-abortion position, and therefore Don Goldwater's exceptions makes his position on the issue pro-abortion.

 

What Don Goldwater is trying to do is to take a compromise position on abortion, to straddle the issue. Unfortunately for Mr. Goldwater, there is no compromise position on abortion. The fetus is either an alive human being or it is not. A candidate for public office is either pro-life or he is not, there is no middle position on this issue.

 

Before someone takes a position on abortion they should study the words of The Declaration of Independence, which states that "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," the first of which is the right to life.

 

God gave us the right to life, not government and no one, born or unborn, should be deprived of life without the due process of law. Abortion is a violation of that right and is just simply wrong.

 

Just as slavery was a question of right and wrong, so too, the issue of abortion and just as the institution of slavery was abolished so too must the institution of abortion be abolished.

 

Bob Haran, President, North Valley Republican Assembly, Phoenix

Dear Editor:

Dennis Durband and Bruce Barton, Re: Censorship of Senator John McCain. Illegal Immigration issues for those of us who have tried to enforce the laws of this nation, despite

political apathy for decades are well aware of the problems, past and present.

 

Guest workers, Special Agricultural Workers under the 1986 IRCA Amnesty is well known for a "fraud filled" political fiasco with extensions well into 2000. Interior Investigators averaged two or three per state for fraud cases. Employer Sanctions enforcement was never a priority in Congress, nor additional personnel on the Border. 2.7 million illegal aliens were now legal and the secondary invasion never ceased from 1987 to 2005. Threat assessments, Intelligence Reports from the field, Sector to Sector never seemed to make a difference in D.C. The Office of the Inspector General reported wide spread "fraudulent admissions" in the first Amnesty which "fell on deaf ears". Human Trafficking, Narcotics smuggling increased Organized Crime cadres for Anti-Smuggling Units, nationwide.

 

A vast majority of both Military and Law Enforcement are conservative by nature of their duties, not politics. Being liberal in all thoughts and actions, where no person really intends to harm another and the world is just "rainbows" where everyone does their own thing" is not reality. In the real world, it will get a person "killed". Illegal Aliens are not all the harmless people in the world, using false names to just obtain a job, per politicians and welcome.

 

The undercurrent of illegal aliens from any country to any other country of the world are unknown factors, hence strict enforcement of Immigration Laws are required even in Mexico.

 

Criminal elements of society, border bandits, wanted felons, murderers, rapists, burglars,

armed illegal aliens guarding or transporting contraband shipments would compile a massive list. Since 1995, over two hundred Mexican military incursions have taken place on our Border in the Southwest, an international incident and very serious, many in Arizona.

 

From 2002 to 2004, when people in Southern Arizona needed representation from Cochise County West, the only person that was here for the people was Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Events from the international incident, murder of Park Ranger Eggle in August, 2002 assisting U.S. Border Patrol  to other serious incidents reported by local authorities, as well as citizens was of no importance to Arizona elected leaders or U.S. Senators, Representatives.

 

Many citizens including myself, core Conservatives wrote Mr. McCain on the issues and received SF, Standard form replies on illegal immigration issues which is typical from

either political party if the person is not within a constituent district. Years ago McCain had the right idea with "pork barrel spending" citizens against government waste and supported Veterans who in turn were there for the Senator, Nam era Vets who remembered turbulent times 1960-1973 and his service POW status, always respected J.M. 

 

Despite his push for another Amnesty, the recent liberal slam against G.I.s at GITMO

unanswered by Senator McCain in the halls of Congress was a great disappointment.

Of all people elected as Senators, the man knows without a doubt that allegations of prisoner misuse in Cuba is "complete Bullcrap", yet silence from Mr. McCain. When I heard Senator Durbin's statement of atrocities committed by our troops, I enjoyed a "good laugh".

 

In the late sixties, U.S. Navy flight crews were required to complete a simulated POW escape and evasion course prior to deployment. Prior to a political correct era, the training was not a "cakewalk". Crews lived "off the land" as best they could, without food,survival skills and a K-bar as the only tool. Captured, set up in a simulated POW Camp with Marine Guards wearing NVA uniforms, enclosed perimeter, there was little quarter or mercy.

 

Reality training. When questioned by the interrogator, elbows were bound behind the back by ropes, a very painful situation with elbows touching. Striped naked and placed in bamboo cages suspended above the ground was routine. The box was also a method used by the NVA to torture POWs, against the Geneva Convention rules of Conduct. A POW simulated was placed in a metal box smaller than his physical size would allow, below ground and would remain there, with occasional water. Food, standard rice, fish-heads. Physical slaps, to a "butt stroke from an AK-47 to the stomach was SOP training for the Military. Definitely the mind set was "never be captured" in Viet Nam if escape and evasion was possible. There were no rules of conduct from enemy forces.

 

 Captain McCain knows the world of a captured POW as well as the torture from the NVA, why the silence on GITMO and no support for our troops guarding some very dangerous people? Unclassified reports from the DOD are available to the general public re: GITMO and prisoners. An enemy combatant terrorist who was too hot or too cold in custody was a terrible situation per Democrats or why a subject was shackled in chains. There is no common sense, it seems.

 

 Why is a dangerous prisoner in Maximum Security who has committed homicide time and again within prison walls chained and all precautions taken? Disrespect of the Koran is a big issue with liberals.

 

Those same people should try carrying a few Christian Bibles into Arabia and see how fast the contraband material is confiscated in a Muslim society.  Rock Music reported as intolerable depends on the person and the time. At GITMO, Military Police allow silence

during normal prayer sessions of Moslims several times per day. Perhaps Country Music

or Classical is preferred. The food presented to prisoners seems to be skillfully prepared compared to the daily diet of Maricopa County, Arizona inmates who are doing time with the Sheriff's Department, people who are not Terrorists but minor and major lawbreakers.

 

Incarceration should not be a social club at taxpayer expense but a means to protect all citizens from very dangerous people where life has no meaning other than the ultimate goal

of 'killing as many innocent people as possible". The " clueless" will never understand the

drive of insurgents to murder, taking their own lives in the process to criminal elements of society who will also kill, yet not suicidal in their actions, strictly business whoever gets in their way. Perhaps national Sovereignty, a principal of the GOP is lost but in a time when

illegal immigration is condoned by the President, and in Arizona by elected officials, the will of the majority is a constant battle to force leaders to do their job, not their own agendas or personal beliefs, foreign interests always first. Never in decades in the GOP have I seen total disregard for a majority vote and will of the people as the State of Arizona, Governors to U.S. Senators, Representatives. Both parties appear to represent the politics of President Fox of Mexico and nationals, not U.S. citizens and lawfully admitted resident aliens that pay the bills in this state. The GOP is filled with RINOs, Republican in Name Only. As a common courtesy, if they prefer to be Liberals with Ted Kennedy ideals, the author of the 1965 INA proviso nonsense, they should become a liberal Socialist Democrat, an honest revelation rare in politics. Respect would at least be there from core base conservatives for integrity.

 

God Bless our troops. If for a moment all could walk in their boots for a brief period of time in combat situations, they might begin to understand a situation that is not politics but daily survival under harsh and hostile conditions.

 

John W. Slagle (Ret) Special Agent, Anti-Smuggling USBP

Three Points, Arizona

 

Dear Editor:

First, I am not a Conservative. I'm a Centrist leaning liberal. I could not agree more with the Minutemen. We MUST close our Southern Border. I live in an area called North County San Diego. I'm sick and tired of illegals and their illegal behavior. I keep asking when is illegal illegal? Coming across the border is illegal. We let so many illegals coming from the South get through. Once they arrive, they drive illegally, don't have insurance, dump trash, live in substandard housing, which is illegal, don't pay taxes, misuse the welfare system, the Social Security system, overload our school system and it goes on
and on. California's huge deficit is not being helped by the costs involved with illegals. But, I don't have to tell you.

If you watch TV, you may have heard of Florin Krasniki. He entered the U.S. illegally by crossing the Mexican border. He was not Mexican. He has become naturalized, but has bought and exported enough arms to outfit an army in his home country, Kosovo. Others besides Mexicans come across that border and that includes the possibility of some
pretty dangerous people.

What I need is to know how to contact someone in California, preferably in my area who might be starting a similar organization here. If anyone in your group can help me, I'd appreciate it. If it's uncomfortable to give me names, then could you give my email address to someone in CA who could help.

Sharon Mackey, San Diego

Dear Editor:

Has anyone considered a recall effort against McCain since he clearly no longer represents the views of most AZ Republicans? I believe the time is now to strike a blow against McCain with the additional possibility of damaging any hopes he may harbor about winning the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008.

Ditto for Kolbe although that's another letter unto itself.

Kevin Black

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Several weeks ago, The Arizona Republic reported the terms of the deal struck between the Legislature and Gov. Janet Napolitano over the budget.

The Legislature agreed to many of the governor's personal demands, including all-day kindergarten expansion and funding for the downtown medical school.

In exchange, the governor agreed to sign a bill creating corporate tuition tax credits. These credits would allow poor children to attend private schools on scholarship.

That was the deal. Each side got something they wanted and agreed to something they disliked.

On Friday, the governor reneged on the deal by vetoing the corporate tuition tax credit bill with the claim that the bill was not exactly as she remembered the agreement. This, even though her staff reviewed, made changes to, and ultimately approved the amendments to the bill.

In fact, the governor's staff reviewed the amendments as many as six times prior to passage by the House and Senate. And while she vetoed the bills she disliked, the governor did not veto the bills passed by the Legislature that she favored.

If the governor truly felt that the bills presented to her did not accurately reflect the agreement she entered into, she could and should have vetoed all the bills.

Instead she conveniently signed all the bills she favored and vetoed the one she did not.

By this act of perfidy she brought shame upon herself and her office, and has made the work of the state exponentially more difficult.

Steve Tully, Phoenix, State Representative

Dear Editor:

Late Friday afternoon, the governor vetoed a measure that would help poor and middle class children receive a quality education via corporate tuition tax breaks. The measure was part of a compromise in early May between the governor and Republican legislators on key educational issues. In return for the governor’s support of this pro-education measure, Republicans agreed to her demands to spend more money on all-day kindergarten and the University of Arizona medical school. 

Despite the apparent agreement, Janet Napolitano vetoed the corporate tuition tax breaks bill, while signing all-day K and the medical school bills. She claimed there never was an official deal. 

“This smacks of pure Clintonism,” said Chad Kirkpatrick, president of the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers. “Instead of arguing what the definition of ‘is’ is, Napolitano is arguing what the definition of ‘deal’ is.”

The typically mild-mannered House Speaker Jim Weiers put it bluntly: “The governor lied to me.”

Senate Finance Chairman Dean Martin also had choice words on the veto. “It’s either her way or the Piestewa Peak Parkway. This is what you get with a trial lawyer as Governor; they will always find a way to weasel out of any agreement that does not serve their special interests.” 

Representative Russell Pearce summed up the feelings of many moderate and conservative legislators. “Governor Napolitano apparently does not know the meaning of ‘Contract’ or ‘I promise.’ Apparently her word is not her bond and any future negotiations will be very difficult when you have to negotiate with someone you cannot trust to be honest in their dealings.” 

“Governor Napolitano agreed to this budget that had her top priorities in it (which we had to swallow very hard), and this budget had a couple of very important issues for the Majority in the legislature that she agreed to.” 

Tom Jenney, Phoenix

Dear Editor:

Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain stood before the cameras last week and announced their new immigration reform bill. They made quite a show of reiterating again and again to the media that the Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act (SAOIA) is not amnesty. It reminded me of a quote from Shakespeare's Hamlet: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

In order to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, I read SAOIA during the weekend. In Title VII of the act, I found the following:

• Undocumented immigrants in the U.S. on date of introduction can register for a temporary visa (H-5B), valid for six years.

• Applicants have to show work history, clean criminal record, and that they are not a security problem to be eligible for a temporary visa.

• They will receive work and travel authorization.

• Their spouses and children are also eligible.

• In order to qualify for permanent status, workers will have to meet a future work requirement, clear additional security/background checks, pay substantial fines and application fees ($2,000 or more per adult) as well as back taxes, and meet English/civics requirements.

As stated by McCain, this is now to be known by the word "earned." This, of course, reminded me of another famous Shakespeare quote from Romeo and Juliet (I knew those literature classes at Camelback High School would come in handy some day):

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose

By any other word would smell as sweet."

The proposed temporary visa H-5B is specifically for "undocumented immigrants" (a k a illegal aliens under U.S. law) living in the United States at the time of introduction, and provides them and their families who are here illegally a path to permanent status (a k a citizenship). To summarize in the famous words of the late Sen. Joseph McCarthy, "If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck."

The SAOIA is a slap in the face of the law-abiding citizens of this country who believe in the rule of law and those immigrants who have entered legally, waiting their turn, to obtain their hard-earned green card.

But now it seems that is no longer the case, for the new definition of "hard-earned" is amnesty. To paraphrase the words of a small boy looking up at Shoeless Joe Jackson, "Say it ain't so, John."  

Randy Pullen, Phoenix

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

The Scottsdale Republic recently reported that "State Rep. Colette Rosati claimed ignorance as her ultimate defense to an Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission report, which recommended that she be fined $20,000 for campaign violations."

I don't fault Representative Rosati for being "ignorant", but I do have to ask, why would a real "Conservative" take a government handout like Clean Elections in the first place? Had Rosati raised money the "old fashioned"

way she wouldn't be faced with a $20,000 fine, nor would Representative David Burnell Smith be forced to return his entire 2004 Clean Elections funding and be asked to vacate his office.

For what it's worth, it seems to me that these "conservatives" who take taxpayer financed campaign funding aren't really that much different than the welfare recipients who get hooked on handouts.

Mike Triggs, Scottsdale Republican

Dear Editor:

I attended the recent GOP District 7 meeting and heard what State Rep. David Smith had to say on his behalf. Listening to him in person seems to be the only way one can know the whole story of Clean Elections' battle against him.

All I have seen reported in the papers about the review are only the side of the matter from the accusers' point of view. Does the media not have the responsibility of giving coverage to David's defensive points too? This one-sided reporting is not helpful to democracy and fairness.

Calling him "defiant" and "lawbreaker" and that he will fight his case without mentioning that he claims he did not overspend is just not clean. Why are his defensive arguments not brought to light? Labeling him as "lawbreaker" especially while the process was still in progress is just absurd.

I heard David mention that he has not overspent -- as accused. He also said what he has repeatedly said before that there had been an overpayment to someone who returned the money. David says that this money was turned over to the Clean Elections Commission and they have collected the money. I was sitting in the same meeting as the news reporter and yet this was not reported. The paper also reported comments by the losing Democrat candidate of the general elections. I did not see that candidate at the meeting.

Ironically, the paper also reports that someone from Clean Elections also said that Clean Elections has $16 million available to fight David Smith. Now, Clean Elections not only has the money returned by David Smith, but now it is going to waste $16 million on this one-sided reported case. Is this really "Clean Elections"?

The voters as well as the taxpayers need to know all the angles and sides of the matter. So far it has seemed to be an unclean selection of lynching of David Smith. We the people need to know the whole story and David Smith has the right to defend himself.

Defending oneself as innocent in the United States cannot be regarded as defiant.

Since some folks have told me that their letters on this matter are not being printed. I am sending this to more than Arizona Republic.

Mudassir Khan, Scottsdale

Dear Editor:

On May 17, 2005, Mesa residents are being asked to go to the polls in order to approve or turn down the largest corporate welfare package -- $84 million -- ever presented to its voters by an East Valley City. My thanks go to Valley business owners and concerned citizens, who did the work necessary to refer Propositions 300, 301 and 302 to the ballot. Without their vigilance, this incentive-laden boondoggle would have taken on a life of its own without our having a chance to vote on it.

I would like to address some of the benefits Riverview at Dobson supporters claim this project will bring to Mesa. They represent some of the reasons I did not support one of the project’s development agreements when they came before the Mesa City Council.

5,000 NEW JOBS IN MESA – Having lost 11,000 good-paying jobs in Mesa over the last five years, that sounds very nice! However, the Riverview development will bring low-wage retail jobs. Without the location of a major manufacturing employer such as Airbus or Ford Motor Company, this project will bring approximately half the jobs its supporters suggest. Any major office complex or a relocated Wal Mart will transfer workers from other places in Mesa and cannibalize sales taxes now contributing to the city treasury. 

$170 MILLION IN NEW SALES TAX REVENUE – Supporters claim this amount will be collected and benefit Mesa for 30 years. Actually, $84 million of that amount will be given to the developers, De Rito Partners and Kimco Development, rather than the Mesa General Fund, while more knowledgeable people estimate it would take 68 years to collect the balance. How many shopping centers last 68? How old was Tri City Mall when it closed?

IF WE DON’T BUILD RIVERVIEW, APARTMENTS WILL BE BUILT THERE – Because most of the project is slated to be located on leased land, there is nearly NO POSSIBILITY that apartments will be built there. Lenders hesitate to finance residential construction on leased property.

TEMPE MARKETPLACE WANTS TO STOP THIS PROJECT – The developers of this nearby project say their tenants have committed to locating there. They could care less whether the Mesa project is built, while Riverview at Dobson developers admit they have no stores or restaurants under contract.

GILBERT LEGISLATORS ARE “STICKING THEIR NOSES IN MESA’S BUSINESS BY OPPOSING RIVERVIEW AT DOBSON – Legislative District 22 State Senator Thayer Verschoor and Arizona House of Representatives Members Eddie Farnsworth and Andy Biggs represent 30 percent of Mesa in the Arizona Legislature.  These knowledgeable businessmen recognize corporate welfare and oppose Riverview at Dobson for solid financial reasons.0

The Arizona Republic and East Valley Tribune have held forums in order to help people become informed about this issue. Please watch the rebroadcasts on Cable Channel 11, and decide for yourself what makes sense. 

I hope you will join me in voting “NO” on Propositions 300, 301 and 302 on Election Day, May 17.

Janie Thom, Mesa City Council

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

I look forward to the columns by Carol Turoff. Her conservative vantage point and fine writing style make her columns a must read.

Thanks for providing this alternative to the mostly liberal female columnists carried in the local daily.

Dear Editor:

Terrific! Is there any way this piece (Guatemala Publishes Guide to Help its Citizens Enter Mexico; Fox Calls for Temporary Worker Program) could land on the desks of GWB and Vicente Fox? Fox would create an international incident.

It's only a one-way street with him.

Just this morning, I read an article by William McKenzie in the Dallas Morning News (pro-illegal) wherein he is positive that Fox is going to control the border. After all, he just repaid part of the water debt owed Texas. Yeah -- 10 years late. And pigs fly!

Thanks for starting my day with a laugh.

June Venable, Texas

Dear Editor:

How could it be clearer? David Burnell Smith exceeded his Primary Spending limit by 17 percent and the Clean Elections law states that an elected official who spends more than 10 percent beyond state limits for a publicly funded candidate "must forfeit" the office.

Smith is no political novice. He is an attorney and he knew the rules when he signed up for taxpayer funding for his campaign.

The Arizona Conservative can refer to the Clean Elections Commission as the "Gestapo" if you choose. But the commission members are unanimously enforcing the Arizona Clean Elections law as it is written.

Smith should resign, pony up the $10,000 fine, repay every cent of his taxpayer funding for his campaign and move on with his law practice representing drunk drivers, traffic violators, white collar criminals and medical malpractice plaintiffs.

Mike Triggs, Scottsdale

Dear Editor:

On May 17, Mesa voters will be able to vote on three measures, Propositions 300, 301 and 302. These Propositions refer to zoning and a general plan amendment for the “Riverview at Dobson” project, the proposed Bass Pro Outdoor World, a Wal-Mart Super Center, movie theaters and other development along Dobson Road at the Red Mountain Freeway.

At issue is approximately $80 million in Mesa sales taxes, slated for delivery to De Rito Partners and Kimco Development as incentives for building the project. 

In order to somewhat clear the air, here are a few facts voters should know before casting their ballots. Voting “No” will not allow the project to be built at the proposed location at this time. A “Yes” vote allows it to go forward.

1. If approved, wealthy developers, not Bass Pro, get $80 million Mesa tax dollars.  That’s a huge slush fund.    

2. The developers call Bass Pro, “a vacation destination.” Truthfully, it will be larger than a Safeway, but smaller than a Wal-Mart. We are definitely not expecting a theme park such as Disneyland in this transaction.

3. It is difficult to find out who will own the Bass Pro building, even though Mesa taxpayers will be expected to pay for it.
4. The same developers who plan to bring a Bass Pro to Mesa are taking Mesa’s auto dealers to Chandler, where they plan to receive millions of dollars for         locating them there.

Northwest Mesa residents deserve to have a quality development near their neighborhoods, which will provide convenient shopping, fine dining and entertainment for their families. It is not necessary to “give away the farm” in order to accomplish that goal. The developers who propose to build those amenities are financially able to do so with their own money. There should be no need to spend Mesa citizens’ tax dollars incentivising this project.

It will be a good idea for Mesa voters to consider this issue carefully before voting May 17.

Janie Thom, City Council Member, Mesa

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

I am a recently retired Police Commander with the Mesa Police Department and a proud resident of the Gilbert area (small County Island.) I am compelled to speak out about Mayor Berman’s outright falsehoods regarding the safety of this fine community.

In a recent mail piece attacking Cynthia Dunham, Mr. Berman asserts that Gilbert's violent crime rate is at its lowest in 10 years. This is simply not true. In statistics recently released by the Gilbert Police Department, and reported to the Mayor and Town Council by the town manager, Gilbert has shown a shocking 44 percent increase in reported felony crimes since Cynthia Dunham’s last year in office (2001.)  Additionally, arrest rates on these reported felony crimes is 8 percent lower under Mayor Berman than when Cynthia was Mayor. The statistic which concerns me the most is the 8 ½ minute average response time to violent crimes in progress currently being reported. These times are unacceptable and are double the nationally accepted standard of 2-4 minutes.

I know from personal conversations with Gilbert officers and firefighters they are valiantly working overtime trying to keep up with these demands for service. They have had very little support from our current mayor. That's why they have taken the extraordinary measure of endorsing his challenger, Cynthia Dunham. They know she is right on with public safety issues. Their very public endorsements are telling all of us they too are concern and desire new leadership in Gilbert.

It took courage for Ms. Dunham to step up and make a bold campaign stand on crime, because she had to risk alienating and offending the very police officers and firefighters who are putting their lives on the line to stem the tide. However, my personal experience of working with her is that she is a woman of absolute integrity and courage. And the police and firefighters have responded to her tough stand by endorsing her!

When I see that Gilbert's own Chamber of Commerce, and all of the youth sports groups are endorsing Cynthia, it shows me there is a massive movement afoot to restore Gilbert to the peaceful and safe community it was under her administration. Public Safety affects all people in Gilbert.

I sincerely ask all voters to seek out the “facts” about crime in Gilbert (ask for the records as I did) so you can make an informed decision on Election Day. I’m confident those facts will lead you to support Cynthia Dunham as I do.

Dan Saban, Gilbert

Dear Editor:

 

I consider it an abuse of judicial power for an unelected federal judge to order an elected state legislature to appropriate taxpayer money for any purpose.

 

If Judge Collins would review American History he would come across the American principle of, "No taxation without representation." The founders of this great republic made sure that King George III of England understood that principle. Now is the time to educate our judicial branch of the principle of "No taxation without representation."

 

The legislative branch of government represents the people and the people have granted the legislature power to make the laws we live under and to decide how to spend our tax dollars. This is called government by the consent of the governed. The judicial branch has the authority to interpret the law but not to make law or to decide to how to spend our tax dollars. If we don't like how our elected representatives are spending our money we can vote them out of office and choose someone else to represent our interests. Federal judges are appointed for life so we can't vote them out of office, therefore, they should not be making spending decisions with our tax dollars. Therefore, Judge Collins should keep his judicial orders off our tax dollars because that is abuse of judicial power.

 

Tim Hogan of Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest must fancy himself a modern day Robin Hood, stealing our tax dollars and giving to the less fortunate. When Mr. Hogan demands that the legislature appropriate $210 million in taxpayer money for English-learners or he will have the court withhold $400 million in taxpayer federal highway funds, that's just plain extortion.

 

The Arizona Legislature should do its duty and represent the people of Arizona by standing up to Judge Collins and this abuse of judicial power.

 

The citizens of Arizona should do their duty as Americans and vote out of office any member of the legislature who surrenders to Mr. Hogan's extortion or Judge Collins judicial activism.

Bob Haran, Phoenix

Dear Editor:

Quite a few people have been following the activities of an ad hoc committee appointed by Mesa Mayor Keno Hawker nearly a year ago. The committee, Mesa 2025:  Financing the Future, was tasked with finding adequate financing for the needs of city government in Mesa from now until the city reaches build-out with approximately 650,000 residents by the year 2025.

Members of the committee come from all walks of life and experience. Several members are veteran committee members, having served on other boards and commissions in the City of Mesa. Some committee members had never participated in government or been members of committees. Many fine individuals served, including Hon. Mark Killian, former speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives. 

Under Councilmember Kyle Jones’ leadership as chairman, the committee took several tours, studied Mesa budgets from the past to present, studied financing in other cities, bonding, taxes, revenue shared by governmental entities, and generally looked at what it will take to build and maintain the infrastructure our city will need when all the houses have been built, when all the schools are full of children, when all the industry we expect to see, has located in Mesa. New water treatment facilities, wastewater treatment facilities, roads, sewer lines, police and fire stations, court buildings and parking structures are some of the items studied for future need. The committee studied the costs associated with those needs and how funding may be found to provide for them.

On February 9, 2005, the committee held a public hearing so that Mesa residents could offer their suggestions to the committee. It was interesting to note that many of the speakers are members of other city advisory committees, while some are employed by local tax-supported, non-profit agencies. Some of the people voiced concerns about rising taxes and utility rates, indicating they are not able to afford to share more of their income with government. Others supported a city property tax while a number of people expressed concerns about wasteful spending and the need to cut costs before new taxes are considered.

The committee will submit a report to the Mesa City Council sometime soon. The Council will consider any suggestions therein and may adopt those felt to be most beneficial. New taxes must be approved by a vote of the people, so everyone needs to be aware something may be brought to the ballot in the future.

In the year 2000, voters approved a citizen’s initiative to amend the Mesa City Charter, outlawing a real estate or personal property tax in Mesa. While government tends to want to expand its power and scope at taxpayer expense, it will be well reminded that those who pay the bills need to be heard as well. With increased population, Mesa will have more people sharing the burden of governmental expenses, so new taxes should not necessarily be needed if the city is administered economically.

I would like to urge Mesa residents to please stay informed about this issue. Mesa City Council meetings are usually held on the first and third Mondays of the month and begin at 5:45 p.m., with a study session beforehand at approximately 4 p.m. The meetings are televised on cable Channel 11. The public is invited to attend all regular meetings.  Interested persons may also speak at council meetings after filling out a blue card found at the back of the room and giving it to the city clerk.  

If anyone has any questions or needs assistance with a problem, please be sure to contact me. I will be glad to try to help any way I can.

Janie Thom, Mesa City Council member

Dear Editor:

The other day I received some campaign material from Cynthia Dunham, who is running for mayor in Gilbert. Her literature says that she will be a “family safe” Mayor. Ms. Dunham was the mayor before Mayor Berman, so she has a record to look at.

While I think Cynthia is a nice lady, I do not believe her to be mayoral material. Her idea of “family safe” is to take away our freedoms to choose for ourselves. For example, some of her last acts as mayor were to mandate pool fences for all pools and helmets for all bicyclers, failure to comply gave you a heavy fine and a jail sentence, yes both. That takes away my freedom to do what I feel is best in my yard. She has no right on my property. She also has no right to tell me I have to wear a helmet when biking, both are unconstitutional. 

She also enjoyed spending our tax dollars on education, apparently feeling that more money would automatically fix our school problems. She seemed to have the idea that throwing more money at any problem would fix it. She, however, did not encourage industry to help with our taxes. She took 22 trips at city expense in two years, including an overnight to Phoenix, while Mayor Berman took four trips in four years.

In my estimation, and apparently in yours as well, our incumbent Mayor, Steve Berman has done more for Gilbert in his four years than our previous Mayor. According to the paper, his approval rating, from you the voter, is 96 percent. Gilbert is a better place to live now, than in past years. Mayor Berman has brought industry to Gilbert and has rescinded many of the laws passed by Mayor Dunham that removed our freedoms. Thank you Mayor Berman.

Please get out and vote on March 8^th, or before at the City complex at Warner and Gilbert Roads. Re-elect  Steve Berman and please re-elect Dave Petersen for city council.

Barbara Worman, Gilbert                                                                         

Dear Editor:

Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s latest scam regarding unconstitutional fingerprinting is just another example of his tough-on-crime disregard for the law.

 

When he first ran for office, Arpaio campaigned on the concept that his tough-on-crime policies would reduce recidivism, but it remained at 70 percent. The real reason our popular demagogue continues to use this failed concept, in blatant disregard for civil and human rights, is because it is a successful scare technique that gets him re-elected by those who are duped by his con artistry. The states that use it the most actually have the highest crime rates. Arizona is number three in the nation.

 

Citizens should be repeatedly reminded that they, ironically, are paying big time for the abuse, exasperated by the lack of sufficient rehabilitation, which makes county inmates angry enough to commit violent felonies against them. 

 

Programs should be set up in the county jail, and continued as a condition of probation, that require inmates to start and finish learning job skills. They should become productive tax paying citizens.  A rational sheriff, with the advice of the superintendent of public education, should become the educator of last resort for drop-outs.

 

Let’s recall Joe and elect Dan Saban ASAP!

 

Rich Rosen, Tempe

Dear Editor:

The recent approval by the House of Representatives in Washington on the REAL ID Act is a step in the right direction. Homeland Security Committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) stated that per the 911 Commission report that, "There is evidence that terrorists used human smugglers to sneak across borders and it is elemental to border security to know who is coming into the country."  Mr. Cox also stated that, "Border agents have reported an increased number of individuals from countries of national security interest -- countries known to harbor terrorists -- who have been smuggled recently across our borders." "In 2004, border patrol agents arrested over 650 suspected terrorists from countries of national security interest trying to cross the southern border."  

 

As a former U.S. Special Agent, Anti-Smuggling Unit in Arizona and nationwide, I have worked organized human and narcotics smuggling organizations most of my thirty-year career. For a price, depending on nationality, human traffickers will ensure delivery of anyone into the United States. Fees can be as low as $1,500 per illegal alien to $30,000 up for Chinese to Mid-Eastern nationalities. Identities, AKAs, are easily accomplished with state-issued driver's under any name the bearer cares to be at the time. Contraband smugglers will also smuggle anything into the United States for a price and use various identities courtesy of a politically correct society.

 

The vast majority of undercover, deep cover operatives also utilize false identities to infiltrate and gain prosecutable evidence in organized crime cadres. In a letter to Congressman Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), I mentioned a few of the undercover identity cards I have used as an agent of the U.S. Government. The name was false and all AKA's were known to the U.S. Case Attorney and HQ Investigations in D.C. Several valid driver's licenses under an assumed name allowed false photo identification cards in a wide spectrum of occupations. Just to name a few are International Driving Permits, UN,  Aircraft Pilot ID, Security Consultant, Private Investigator, International News Service, Press Credentials to personal identification cards with false social security numbers and address. The supply of false documents available for any criminal element has always been a thriving business. Very few illegal aliens arrested over many decades ever provided their correct names upon initial arrest, nor their correct address and most times, country of origin if they were OTM, other than Mexican.

 

Desert Invasion -- U.S. website presents the photos of trash measured by tonnage that

stretches from Cochise, the Tohono Indian Nation West to Organ Pipe Cactus National Park. Rural citizens regularly find discarded passports, birth certificates to items linking place of origin. Any illegal alien entering in violation of 8 USC 1325, from any nation does not need a true identity which is apparent on the smuggling trails, load-up areas of Southern Arizona.

 

In 2004, Tucson Sector Border Patrol arrested 588,000 illegal aliens, 14,506 that had criminal records, prior deports to wanted felons, murderers, rapists to child molesters, plus 400 tons of narcotics contraband. Only one of every five illegal entrants is arrested. Congress uses the same tired old number of nine million illegal aliens in the United States. Twenty to 30 million is a more conservative estimate with staggering numbers crossing each day.

 

Politicians from both parties "wave the green flag" that the entire world can enter this nation illegally, obtain social services, driver's licenses under any name and try their best to prevent effective law enforcement. These same elected officials then say, the problem is out of control and we'll just legalize everyone. The Immigration Reform Act of 1986, 2.7 million were granted Special Agricultural Worker Status under 70 percent fraudulent admissions with insufficient investigators to enforce employer sanctions. From 1987 to the present, illegal immigration has increased each year, despite legal admissions for H class

Agricultural Visas. Policy extensions from the original one-time only amnesty in 1986 has continued well into 2004, which are too lengthy to list. National security concerns should also be a priority beyond political pandering in Arizona. Most people have forgotten that four of the Islamic extremists " hijacking planes" on 9/11 were from this state. Boarding passes were obtained with valid state driver's licenses as photo IDs.

 

I support Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), Southern Arizona's adopted representative 100 percent. Mr. (State Rep. Russell) Pearce, Mr.(former State Rep. Randy) Graf and Mr. (Congressman J.D. Hayworth)  are also very aware of the issues in this state and constituents, a rare and honorable trait in a transformed GOP that is more liberal than conservative regarding national security, sovereignty.

 

John W. Slagle, Three Points, Arizona

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

In response to Nick Fletcher's letter concerning what to call people who perform abortions. I do agree that "butcher" would be an insult to butchers everywhere. However, those that perform abortions should not be permitted  to  refer to themselves as a "doctor." Graduates of medical school, take the Oath of Hippocrates. That oath has guided the practice of medicine for over 2000 years.  It is not a very long Oath but it is an Oath all the same. Just as our military men take an oath to defend our country and elected officials take an oath to support and defend the constitution, doctors take an oath to do no harm. The Oath of Hippocrates specifically  prohibits  the performance of abortions.

 

The first two sentences of the second paragraph of the Oath of Hippocrates states as follows.

 

 "The regimen I adopt shall be for the benefit of my patients according to my ability and judgment, and not for their hurt or for any wrong.  I will give no deadly drug to any, though it be asked of me, nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid a women to procure abortions."

 

Dear Editor:

You say that "it is not in Arizona's best interests to implement radical homosexual public policy that is harmful to communities and citizens."

There are already many same-sex couples living amongst us. What would be the harm in having state sanctioned civil unions that would permit them to have the same benefits that I have? Unless one is a homophobe, I just don't see how one can describe an effort to permit same-sex couples to enjoy the same benefits that I do as "radical."

In fact, I am beginning to think that the real homosexual agenda is being pushed by those who want to put bigotry into both the Arizona Constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

Although I have held Republican values on fiscal issues for most of my life, I have never subscribed to the Strom Thurmond racial bigotry and will not subscribe to the more recent homophobe bigotry being pushed by so-called Republicans. Bigotry has no place in the US Constitution. America should be a country in which all persons, no matter what color or sexual persuasion will enjoy the same benefits.

Alan Roehl, Arizona

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Please forward this on to others who may be interested in helping. 

 Thank you for your consideration.

 

Laura & Bob Knaperek and family, Tempe

Dear Editor:

I just read your column in the Arizona Conservative, "Duplicitous Dubya Disappoints Daily." In a word, it was outstanding.

 

I don't see anything Republican about Arlen Specter, he shouldn't be allowed to use the GOP label, he is beyond RINO, he is a liberal. I wonder if the Democratic Party has gone so far to the left that someone like Specter ends up in our tent. Maybe they have if they nominated a traitor like, John Kerry, he is really Jane Fonda in pants. It would have been the greatest insult to Vietnam veterans if he was elected President of the United States. I too voted for Bush or should I say against Kerry.

 

I have also taken notice of the big lie propaganda technique used by the open border advocates. I think they want us to keep repeating to ourselves, over and over again,  that there is no immigration problem, and maybe some day we will believe it.  One person can solve this violation of our national sovereignty and that one person is George W. Bush.

 

I am happy that someone said what had to be said about Bush. You put principle before politics and country before party loyalty.

 

May God bless you.

Bob Haran, Phoenix

Dear Editor:

"We voted for him and encouraged others to do the same. We sent him money, hammered campaign signs on busy streets and made calls on his behalf. Our family cars display "W in ‘04" and "I Stand With President George W. Bush" stickers in the rear windows. These credentials are put forth to give credence to my growing ire. George W. Bush is losing me...."

 

Well, Carol Turoff ("Duplicitous Dubya Disappoints Daily") should have remembered that -- "the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree"-- and that -- history repeats, first as tragedy, next as farce -- and that -- the Bush family IS NOT Conservative. (They only pretend to be in order to snooker stupid Republicans into voting for them at election time). 

 

I was a "Young Republican for Reagan" when the Gipper ran for the office of Governor of California, way back when you had to be 21 in order to vote (I was a teenager then.) I continued to support Republicans, blindly, until after George H. W. Bush betrayed my State by not enforcing the employer sanctions provisions against hiring illegal aliens that were contained in the Simpson-Mazzoli Bill. Instead of throwing criminal employers in jail, King George I saw to it that only the amnesty portion of the bill went into effect, completely ignoring the vast majority of the bill which was designed to stop the flow of illegal aliens by sanctioning their employers. 

 

Then King George I made a pact with Teddy Kennedy against the Citizens of these United States and signed Teddy's 1990 "immigration reform bill" which was designed to allow known terrorists and those associated with terrorist organizations and groups to immigrate to the USA. This abortion was perpetrated on We the People because one of the Kennedy Clan girls had a lover who belonged to the IRA and was a terrorist who would not otherwise be allowed to enter this country. See what that got us? Does 9/11 ring a bell? "Poppy" was a traitor while he was in office and "the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree" now, does it?

 

And what is this whine about Bush judicial appointees getting blocked?  Be careful what you wish for -- you just might get it!  King George I appointed two Supremes, one was Conservative, the other Liberal -- that is 50 percent good and 50 percent bad. King George II, while Governor of Texas, had an even worse record of appointing Conservative judges to the Texas Supreme Court -- 20 percent good and 80 percent bad.  Not to mention the fact that it was a King George II appointee that tried to hold up Arizona's Prop. 200 and violate the honest will of the Citizens of Arizona. Shall I also point out King George II's pick to head the Justice Department? You remember Al Gonzales, the card-carrying Razista, the guy that vetted Bernie Kerik to head the Department of Homeland Security -- complete with illegal alien nanny and no Social Security withholdings? What is the likelihood that Gonzales will be throwing the book at illegal alien employers when he takes over at Justice?

 

As to the "good-hearted people" who are just here to "do the jobs Americans won't do" -- King George II is quite familiar with these folks, one of them raised him. Evidently, raising children was one of those jobs his American mother refused to do. So, naturally, King George II is fonder of Mexicans than he is of Americans, having been raised by a Mexican woman who sent her money home and must have worked like a dog in order to satisfy slave-driver Barbara Bush. That is where King George II's compassion for Mexicans comes from -- he was abandoned by his American mother and raised by a Mexican woman, whom he loved dearly. So, King George II will ALWAYS put the welfare of Mexicans before the welfare of Americans, he is at heart a Mexican NOT an American, thanks to his AWOL mother, Barbara.

 

So, unless and until, the Republican Party comes to its senses, impeaches and removes King George II from office for treason against the United States (see Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution) we will watch as our nation is destroyed. First will come the virtual elimination of our border with Mexico. Next will come the FTAA and a EU-style combining of the entire Western Hemisphere into one gigantic superstate with no borders and the free flow of BOTH goods and labor. We the People of these United States and our Constitution will be thrown on the trash heap of history, courtesy of King George II and the Republican Party.

 

A Paleo-Conservative, and proud of it!

 

Mrs. Janet Conroy, Lost Angeles, Mexifornia de Aztlan (Invader occupied California, USA)

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

With recent approval of a development agreement between De Rito/Kimco Riverview, LLC and the City of Mesa, the city council has committed tax dollars to build a Bass Pro Shop Outdoor World, a big box store and three auto dealers at Dobson Road and the Red Mountain Freeway. The price tag, including $25 million interest, will be approximately $80 million.

What is Bass Pro, and why do people want one in Mesa? Bass Pro, with only about a dozen stores open in the country, is often referred to as a vacation destination. Their stores are unique, selling every kind of hunting, fishing and outdoor sporting gear imaginable. The recent opening of a Bass Pro in Las Vegas is the firm’s first venture west of the Rocky Mountains. It sounds great to have one of these stores located in Mesa, as long as we are guaranteed there won’t be a bunch of them built around the valley to compete with Mesa’s store. The final development agreement carries a provision that there will not be another store built within 30 miles of Mesa’s Bass Pro, allowing Bass Pro to locate more stores in Phoenix, Glendale, Avondale, Tucson, Flagstaff, or wherever else in Arizona they wish, in order to compete with our Mesa store. A McDonald’s franchisee enjoys better protection from encroaching competition than Mesa does in this deal.

Bass Pro, described as a vacation destination, will not be the size of a theme park like Disneyland or Sea World. At a projected size of 150,000 to 185,000 square feet, Bass Pro will be larger than a Safeway, but smaller than a Wal-Mart store, barely qualifying for the description, “Big Box Retailer."

Who will own this enormously expensive store once it is finished? That is a question I have asked many times. The developers who will be paid by the City of Mesa to build the store have been unable to supply the answer to this $80 million question. I think most people will agree that if Mesa tax dollars are committed to this project’s construction, Mesa should at least own it.

Proposition 104, approved by Mesa voters last March, provides that any city-owned or financed facility costing $1.5 million or more, must gain voter approval before being built.  This would include entertainment facilities, sports complexes and multi-purpose facilities, all of which describe Bass Pro Shops Outdoor World, which calls itself an entertainment destination.

A group of local citizens has referred zoning for this project to the ballot for voter consideration next May. 

If you have further questions, please contact me.  

Janie Thom, Council Member, City of Mesa,  councilmember.thom@cityofmesa.org

Dear Editor:

Tomorrow, we arrive at a critical crossroads as we consider who we elect to represent and lead us at the local, state and national levels. Tomorrow's election will be the most important election in our lives not because our national security depends on it but because our cultural security depends on it.

There is a major difference between President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry on the protection of innocent human life. President Bush has been the most pro-life President this nation has ever had while Senator Kerry has been one of the most pro-abortion Senators in the U.S. Senate. Each man has demonstrated with their actions, how they will defend or not defend innocent human life.

The future of the pro-life movement hangs in the balance as Americans select the next President. Whoever wins the Presidency will nominate three to four candidates to the United State Supreme Court. These candidates, if approved, could sit on the bench for 15-25 years!

President Bush has pledged to nominate judges who will uphold the U.S. Constitution and protect innocent human life. John Kerry has pledged to nominate judges who must first pass a "litmus test" supporting abortion. The choice is extremely clear. If we elect Bush, we will continue the move to overturn Roe v Wade and to protect our culture. If we elect Senator Kerry, we will see a continued assault on the unborn and families. We could even see Senator Hillary Clinton nominated to Supreme Court Chief Justice!

This election is critical to our culture, our families and the future of our country.

As you go to the polls tomorrow, we ask you to cast your vote for President Bush.

We also ask you to vote for our fine pro-life candidates running for Congress, the legislature and county offices. They too need your vote!

If you have any questions of who to vote for, our website (www.AZLIFEPAC.org)  provides a list of candidates for you to preview, print and take to the polls. You can also contact our office at (602) 285-0063 for more information.

Tomorrow, please remember to vote. Our future depends on it.

Arizona Right to Life Political Action Committee

Dear Editor:

Thank you so much for posting information on judges! My wife and I went to fill out our ballots over the weekend, and came to a grinding halt when we got to judges. On a whim I figured I would check your website and bingo, you had everything we needed. Thanks again.

Ian Calkins

Dear Editor:

Regarding "Prop. 200 less than worthless to Arizona" (My Turn, Opinions, Sunday):

Sen. John McCain complains that Proposition 200 will both do nothing and be some sort of a Greek tragedy all at the same time. He can't have it both ways!

McCain and his ilk are simply dead wrong on Proposition 200. It was never meant to stop illegal immigration. It was designed to protect taxpayers by mitigating the fraud resulting from this problem. By having to prove eligibility you can begin to transition from an honor system to actually enforcing state laws, thus reducing the financial burden on taxpayers while protecting the integrity of our electoral system.

Enforcing existing laws has always been the intent of this initiative. Backers would like to see federal immigration laws enforced. However, the only laws that can be affected in the initiative process are those governed by the state.

The system needs reform because political correctness is getting in the way of law enforcement. McCain's obfuscation of changing the immigration status of the "undocumented" to "guests" has never stopped a single person from crossing our border and never will. Allowing "temporary workers" to stay permanently does not even begin to address the problem. It is a historical fact that worker visas and amnesties perpetuate migration because they serve to reward those who break the law.

That's the real tragedy here, not Proposition 200.

Rusty Childress, Phoenix

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Before you jump to conclusions read this. and have a great day! Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17 percent  premium increase -- the biggest in history"? That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.

I found it so amazing that I did some  homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17 percent increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by  the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted  into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during  the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration.
    
Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American  people. Don't be duped by his mendacity

Robert J. Seals, Chandler

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

You've got it wrong (Outrage of the Week: Clean Elections Wasting $800,000 of Your Money on Frivolous Television Advertising). The real"Outrage" of the campaign season is conservative "CLEAN" candidates like Colette Rosati and David Burnell Smith using taxpayer "CLEAN" dollars to throw mud at their primary opponents. I guess that when you don't have anything positive to say about yourself it always works to play dirty with "CLEAN" money.

Mike Triggs, Scottsdale

Dear Editor:

That local Prop. 200 opponents admit defeat and need outside help is a victory for Prop 200. At a February 19 debate, Alfredo Gutierrez, Ben Miranda and Alfonso Munoz Salazar presented  nothing but emotional rhetoric; no facts and no numbers. They used their old shop-worn tactic of "If you have no facts and all else fails, intimidate and silence the opposition by shouting 'racist.'" .

 

They claim they'll avoid "racial overtones?" They're "leaving emotions out of it?" Only because it's clear that that their old "strategy" fell flat on its face, as happened at the February debate.  

 

So they're using a "new" old strategy--bring in deep-pocket groups from out of town to outspend your opposition.

 

Arizonans angry about at paying costs of illegal immigration, take heart!  Our opposition is even angrier. They're furious that illegal aliens' dollar costs to taxpayers have been made public (as if it were a secret). They hate that their old tactics ("you're just a racist/xenophobe/hate-monger/anti-immigrant") don't work any longer. 

 

They chafe that immigration is an openly-discussed political issue, that voters question candidates on immigration and consider a candidate's position on immigration when they vote.  

 

Dear Editor:

I would like to put in my two cents worth. Please weigh the facts before deciding who you support for Maricopa County Assessor.

 

I am supporting Maricopa County Assessor Kevin Ross.

 

The last time I looked, this was still the United States of America, a free country (or nearly so)  where a person is innocent until proven guilty. That is how the United States Constitution views the accused.  I believe it is incumbent upon us as Americans to do the same.

 

I have heard that Keith Russell, Kevin Ross's challenger, claims to not only be a conservative, but that he is a Precinct Committeeman in my Legislative District 19. Because I am an active LD 19 PC, it seems a little funny that I have never met Keith Russell. Furthermore, I have been very active in many conservative endeavors such as campaigns for conservative candidates, petition drives for the many initiatives and referendums we have put on the ballot in Mesa, most of them successfully passed by the voters and other conservative causes. In all those years, Keith Russell has never supported one conservative cause that I know about. He never helped with a petition, he never pounded a sign post, made a phone call or passed out a flyer. I don't know of one dollar he ever donated to a conservative candidate or cause.

 

Kevin Ross, on the other hand, has endorsed conservative candidates for me, I have put signs in his yard, he pounded stakes himself and put up signs for conservative candidates -- not just for himself. Kevin sponsored legislation to freeze property values for the low-income elderly folks, approved by the state's voters. He also promoted legislation to require that all cities  disclose their real estate holdings. He has been an invaluable ally of mine in revealing Mesa's vast real estate holdings -- 1,217 separate parcels when Kevin did his title search. When government owns property -- and all cities do -- the property doesn't generate property taxes. But if the Assessor and Treasurer don't know government owns a property, if taxes become delinquent on city-owned parcels and tax certificates are sold on those properties, eventually the county has to repay the certificates, plus interest. This is a huge cost and pain in the neck for all county taxpayers. Kevin is trying to correct this problem. I appreciate his work.

 

Kevin and Lisa Ross are regular attendees at their Legislative District 22 meetings, as they were when it was District 30. I know, because I attend LD 22 meetings as my City Council District lies within the boundaries.

 

Kevin and Lisa Ross were for years members of our Republican Assembly group. How do I know? I am an ARA member, many of the meetings were held at my home. Kevin has gone to many of the Maricopa County Legislative Districts as well as service clubs, youth groups, etc. to give talks about a variety of topics including Americanism. Sometimes he talks about taxes and how different types of taxes affect the economy.

 

He has done an excellent job as a conservative Republican.  He has been an excellent and fair county assessor.

 

I hope you will join me in supporting Kevin Ross for Maricopa County Assessor.

 

Janie Thom, Mesa City Councilwoman

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

Human cloning. Human genetic engineering. Public officials giving away taxpayer-funded property ... potentially for public gain. No public disclosure. This is the darker side of prop 102.

 

The "gift clause" of Arizona's Constitution prohibits public officials from giving away property paid for with taxpayer money or using taxpayer money to own, buy or control private companies. Under current law, products or patents from taxpayer-funded research must be sold or licensed, and the proceeds returned to the public.  Prop 102 eliminates these restrictions.

 

Taxpayers should vote "no" on prop 102.

 

Public officials could create, buy, trade, and control private companies with taxpayer property. Legislation passed with prop 102 (not shown on the ballot) ordered the books sealed on these new tech companies. Financial, technical and other information normally available are closed. We won't know which public official or their cronies are profiteering from taxpayer-funded research!

 

"Tech transfer" is a misnomer; technology would not be transferred to the private sector. After prop 102, the most valuable discoveries would never be sold, but "gifted,” without a public bid or auction, to companies controlled by public officials (or their cronies).

 

Prop 102 allows the 1997 presidential executive order prohibiting federal funding of human cloning to be ignored.  Public officials can create subsidiary private companies, supported by the profits of taxpayer research, to bypass the human cloning ban.

 

ASU is training the nation's first genomics lawyers to defend cloning, genetic engineering and in-vitro fertilization cases. What types of research are they conducting that require a school full of lawyers to protect them?

 

Prevent public officials from "gifting" taxpayer-funded technology. Prevent government from taking over private business. There's no need to amend the gift clause in our constitution. Vote no on prop 102.  

 

Rob Haney, Paradise Valley

Dear Editor:

Three strikes and he's out!

Yesterday Bush signed the Social Security Treaty with Mexico - this guarentees that any Mexican national who can prove they worked in the U.S. for 5 years is entitled to draw Social Security benefits.

Only two weeks ago Bush agreed to allow UN observers to monitor U.S. elections.

Only a couple of months ago, Bush caved in and allowed U.S. military personnel to be subjected to the International Criminal Court.

Do you hear anything in the press about any of this?

And next year Bush will sign with consent of the Senate the Free Trade Area of the Americas Treaty.

"Amerika" will soon replace America as just another place in the global village -- by 2008 when we may have our first woman President what will be?

Bruce Barton, Safford

Dear Editor:

Dear Editor:

It appears that the District 18 Senate race is turning ugly thanks to a
flyer sent out by Mary Jo Vecchiarelli that would have one believe that Karen Johnson is a tax and spend liberal. Karen is the most consistent legislator in the House to be praised for her stand on No taxes and voted EVERY year as a "Friend of the Taxpayer" by the Arizon Federation of Taxpayers.

Vecchiarelli/Hawker not only indicates that Karen voted to raise taxes, the two bills she cites do not deal with taxes, (I looked them up), she also indicates that Rep. Johnson is responsible for the budget deficit. I don't understand how Rep. Johnson was voted # 1 "Friend of the Taxpayer" by The Arizona Federation of Taxpayers if she voted to raise  any type of tax. This just simply is not true, and just because Mary Jo says so doesn't mean it is so. Unfortunately, truth in advertising doesn't extend to politics, but if we can't trust Mary Jo to be honest in her campaign how can we trust her
to be honest on the Senate floor. I will vote for Karen Johnson because of her integrity, dedication to family values, and support for the taxpayer and I urge others to do the same.

Reed Flake, District 18 Republican Executive Committee, Mesa

Dear Editor:

As a registered Republican I have been disenchanted with the following: First the Mayoral election in Tempe where Mayor Hallman referenced Mr. Cahill continually in a negative light vs his own capabilities (eg. dirty politics), President Bush is utilizing  the same game plan telling us how terrible Mr. Kerry is, and finally I today have seen large signs in Tempe telling me to get Slade Mead out off office. If one cannot say something positive and has to depend on the negatives of his/her opponent then this leaves me to the only conclusion logically, again dirty politics. I do not believe Senator Goldwater would approve. I thought I was a Conservative, but I am no longer sure of that either. Our government must
supply services, therefor taxation is a necessary reality. I see where Mr. Thompson and Mrs. Knaparek are involved in the same game, although out of my district. 

Jerome Pies, Tempe

Dear Editor:

Trouble may be in store for District 4 constituents if Susan Burke is chosen as the Republican candidate in next month's primary election. Seems the woman cannot get her act together in regards to campaign finance laws as well as other state laws regulating her political activities. In fact, the Arizona Attorney General's office has been notified by the Arizona Secretary of State that there is "reasonable cause" to warrant further investigation into Burke's campaign misdeeds. Commenting on her offenses, Burke claims "the issue 'is not any big deal at all.'" No big deal? Burke is brazenly flippant over not following several laws designed to regulate her activities. She is either ignorant to what is required of her in order to run for state senate or simply doesn't care to follow those requirements. This demonstrates quite well the type of senator she'll be: bad. 

District 4 deserves a senator who takes their role of representing those of us who live, work, and play in Surprise and surrounding areas very seriously and should never, ever consider anyone with such a lackadaisical attitude towards their unethical and illegal behavior as Burke. This is exactly why District 4 small business owners and residents overwhelmingly support reelecting Jack Harper as their senator. Principled with strong family values, Jack is a local favorite who continues to give back so much to the community that he loves and represents. Jack's all-out effort on the senate floor and his proven support of building a brighter future for us all demonstrates quite well the type of senator he is: great.

David McGrew, Surprise

Dear Editor:

The East Valley Republican Assembly supports the Mesa Stop Exploiting Taxpayers Initiative. Year after year, the Mesa City Council and staff have increased the tax they add to utility bills in Mesa. If approved by the voters, this Initiative will require that the City Council justify future proposed increases and allow the residents of Mesa to vote on such proposals.   Mesa residents now pay on average about a 50% premium on their utility bills. That is, to the cost of actually providing utilities, the Mesa City Council and staff add about another 50% to the bill. We are told that in 2005, this added tax is projected to increase to about 70%. We believe that the Stop Exploiting Taxpayers Initiative should be approved for three reasons. First, the Mesa City Council and staff have not acknowledged that this added charge placed on utility bills is a tax.  It has been called a "surcharge", a "premium," a "revenue source", a "profit" -- anything to avoid the fact that each year they are increasing taxes on Mesa residents. These misleading representations by the Mesa City Council and Staff should be stopped. Secondly, The Mesa City Council and staff continue to avoid a serious examination of whether increased government expenditures are necessary. For example, soon after the most recent elections in Mesa, the City Council approved pay raises for scores of management personnel who already earn over $100,000 per year. No serious examination of whether these raises were necessary to retain essential personnel preceded these pay increases.     Third, increased taxes are having a devastating impact on many of our Mesa seniors and others on fixed incomes-and the situation is projected to worsen. Seniors who have lived here most of their lives are seeing their lives devastated by higher taxes. Some have found it necessary to sell their homes and leave Mesa because they can no longer afford to live here. Arguments voiced by the opposition to the Initiative include the idea that a property tax will now need to be imposed in Mesa. This specious argument omits the fact that the Mesa City charter requires a vote of people of Mesa before a property tax can be imposed. We trust the people of Mesa to reject such an imposition and instead require fiscal discipline on the part of elected officials and say the squandering is over. It has also been argued that the City bond rating will be adversely affected. To the contrary, pressure on Mesa's bond rating comes not from fiscal discipline,  but from excessive bonding and lack of fiscal discipline.   Virginia Archer, President, East Valley Republican Assembly, Mesa

Dear Editor:

(Response to letter, below, from State Senator Carolyn Allen)

I read your reply to The Arizona Conservative and while your angst is understandable regarding the personal aspects of recent attacks on yourself; your grasp of the facts are not. You state, "...  are very concerned we will go the way of California and lose the state to democrats, which occurred after a similar initiative went on their ballot. ...  This initiation could kill us in Arizona if PAN passes. An intense Hispanic registration and big Hispanic vote in November could swing Arizona to the Democratic column." (a representative letter from an American of Hispanic descent is quoted at the end of this letter in case you wish to explore the truth that follows -- and I've included her email address too should you wish to learn more). And by the way, "Democrats" is a proper noun and requires capitalization.

Are you serious? In case you haven't noticed, California elected a Republican governor. In case you didn't read the fine print, Prop. 187 was heavily supported by the state's Americans of Hispanic descent. In case you missed the ASU poll on PAN, support among Arizona's Hispanic population is over 40 percent. These are facts not opinions -- maybe it would be wise of you to read the fine print some time.

I for one consider Arizona already lost to the Democrats. In case you haven't noticed, we hold the state Senate by four seats. In case you haven't noticed, the Democrats hold the governor's office. If you were really a Republican, you might have noticed these details. In case you missed it, we have the Democratic governor's budget now in place -- and her stupid "All Day K"!!

What difference does it make if we lose Arizona to the Democrats if we ultimately lose the state to millions of welfare-seeking illegal aliens? 

How long can out state finance handle the continued onslaught of non-residents on its social services rolls? You obviously have bought into the rhetoric of the radical reconquistas regarding this initiative -- which will pass this November, I can promise you.

As for a big Hispanic swing to the Democrats? Are you nuts?  They're already doing that! There is no way in hell that GW Bush will carry the Hispanic vote in the fist place! What a pipe dream of Karl Rove! In case you've missed the polling data, Hispanics are 60 percent more likely to vote Democratic then Republican -- that is, if they bother to vote in the first place.

Don't you see the silver lining to Prop. 200? When it passes, the governor will use the courts to kill it -- just like Gray Davis in California with Prop 187 -- and when she does it will be the beginning of the end of her political career, too.

Prop. 200 is about only two issues: Legal Voting & State sponsored social benefits to legal residents of Arizona -- remember us? The taxpayers??? Oh, I forgot, you don't remember who pays the bills, do you?

There is absolutely nothing about ethnicity or race or immigration what-so-ever in Prop. 200. You've just bought into the Democratic rhetoric and Karl Rove's fears. Tell me, do you really think Karl Rove has ever had a meal or conversation with a regular working class American of Hispanic descent? For that matter, have you?

Next time, Ms. Allen --  try thinking and getting the facts -- it makes a world of difference.

B.A. Barton, Safford

Dear Editor:

If you are going to send out information about me, best you get it accurate. For example, you state that I support radical homosexual rights? Who are these homosex