Letters

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 The allegations in this 28-year-old document are not true and the petition was shortly thereafter withdrawn.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:

Since taking over as director of the Arizona Department of Corrections June 13, 2003, Dora Schriro has made it very clear that she would be taking an extremely different approach to the management of inmates, parolees, and public safety in general as it relates to the corrections system. She has spent the last five years systematically eliminating any and every procedure or policy that reflected the main focus of community supervision; PUBLIC SAFETY. She has managed an opaque administration and implemented, without public realization, a “New Parole Model’ that is not quite new at all. All in all, Dora Schriro has created a parole system where offenders call the shots and Parole Officers and Parole Supervisors have absolutely no authority or ability to enforce conditions of supervision or the law.

Dora Schriro and her team of Parole Administrators have taken ownership of a so called “New Parole Model”, but what they have failed to mention is this model has been tried, tested, and proven to be a failure in one of the biggest states in the nation, California. In May 2004, California implemented their new parole model, only to discover it was an utter failure. California’s newly appointed corrections head, Mr. Hickman, hired Criminologist and UC Irvine Professor Joan Petersilia (Author of “When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry” and basher of Parole Systems Nationwide) to consult in the creation and implementation of their new parole model, but she was unable, through her blame the officers first ideology, to create a worthwhile system. She instead implemented meaningless “indeterminate sanctions” and eliminated the ability of officers to arrest or revoke a parolee. Let me reiterate, it was an utter failure. The budget driven and extremely optimistic assumptions professed by California were not met and the cost of the new parole model and it’s many worthless indeterminate sanctions, in the way of more substance abuse centers, electronic monitoring and drug treatment programs, which were already being used at the discretion of Parole Officers, did not provide a return on the millions of dollars invested. In the end the new parole model was scrapped due to its ineffectiveness after only one year.

The new philosophy and approach being pushed upon the Department of Corrections here in Arizona is simply a regurgitated version of California’s parole model which failed YEARS ago. Dora and Co. would like parole officers in Arizona to believe the new approach they are peddling is the direction ALL agencies are going, but it is not. Dora and Co. would have Parole Officers believe it is for the betterment of the citizens and their public safety to implement California’s old and failed parole model, but again it is not. They are professing that the use of their new philosophy and vision will reduce recidivism, slow down the return of parolees on technical violations, and reduce crime, but they don’t ever articulate or argue just how or by how much. The fact is California figured out years ago that the approach being taken by Director Schriro and her Parole Administrators failed to reduce prison/parole-operating costs and failed to reduce crime. The one thing it did do was reduce technical revocations, but the trade-off was an increase in new felony arrests and prison sentences for parolees, negatively effecting public safety; THE MAIN FOCUS OF PAROLE.

Dora Schriro has delivered California’s disastrous parole model here to Arizona and she has done it under the cover of darkness, without public knowledge. She appointed a Parole Administrator who despises law enforcement as much as she does and who manages an administrative staff of yes men who are afraid to make real decisions. They tell officers they are not “Law Enforcement”, only to turn around and deal faulty statistics to public officials and department employees about the great effect on “Public Safety” their policies are having. The “reforms” being pushed here in Arizona are not reforms at all. The words “Offender Reentry” actually describe offenders that are out of control who go unchecked and are ignored by parole administrators. They violate their conditions of supervision over and over again, yet they are ignored until they are arrested by local law enforcement for committing new crimes which in turn create new victims, burden the county jail systems, clog up the courts, and in the end take up prison beds anyways, except for years instead of months. This cycle negates any costs administrators believe will be saved by not arresting offenders for technical violations and it does the one thing nobody should stand for; it creates NEW VICTIMS.

Dora and her Parole Administrators are not interested in REAL reform or a worthwhile change in philosophy; they are only interested in pimping the perception that their failed ideas create successful parolees and reduce recidivism. The sad fact is anyone can skew the numbers and alter the definitions in order to prove success. What is success? Is it simply completing the term of parole or is it completing parole and abstaining from new criminal or drug activity? Nobody knows what success is according to Dora and Co., which is how they are able to create “promising” percentages and tout their system as moving in the right direction. The general public may take issue with the fact that Dora and Company have forced officers to stop arresting for technical violations, instead ordering them to refer offenders to “treatment” and place them on electronic monitoring, even after multiple violations have already occurred. This of course does not eliminate the violating, but it does effectively cut the amount of offenders being returned to prison for failing to abide by the very SIMPLEST of conditions that those of us in society abide by every single day (How hard is it to report when asked or abstain from criminal and drug activity). This gives the appearance that their model is working because numbers don’t lie, RIGHT? Offenders who should be violated and revoked are not and in the long run they commit new crimes, get arrested by local law enforcement and return to prison having beat the parole system undeterred, ready to go at it again. This philosophy is a backwards approach to community supervision as it operates under the assumption that not violating an offender will convince them to do and be better. This of course is only possible in a "Parallel Universe."

If Dora and Company were interested in a truly capable parole model they could simply look to Maryland and their Proactive Community Supervision Model or Colorado and their no nonsense model of holding offenders accountable. In Maryland, they actively supervise offenders in the community through home, work, and other collateral contacts, making very minimal contacts in the office environment. They ACTIVELY pursue offenders that abscond and they deal swift and just punishment when offenders violate the conditions of their parole, as they have shown that a failure to affect true and meaningful sanctions does nothing to deter future violations. They operate under the assumption that only a swift and true sanction can modify the behavior of a parolee forcing them to comply with their conditions. They use the team approach in their field offices, assigning supervisors to their own small team of officers so they can interact more productively and make decisions more autonomously. These techniques combined with progressive sanctions, which include arrest whenever necessary, create true reform and a system in which officers still have the ability to positively affect public safety by incarcerating offenders that refuse to become stable, contributing, law abiding members of society. Isn't the idea of technical violations that they are precursors to an offender falling back into criminal activity? If an offender can't abide by simple conditions of parole, can they be trusted to stay away from drug activity and to not commit any more crimes? The answer is NO.

In the end the only concern of Dora and Company is statistics, but not the kind that reflect the actualities of parole, they are only interested in statistics that show their method of ignoring offender violations creates success. The sad fact is any agency that uses such a method would see a sharp decrease in violators returning to prison, as did California, but the detrimental effect on public safety is absolutely not worth it. Dora and Co. should release the longitudinal statistics showing how many offenders who have “successfully’ completed parole (due to not being violated when they should have) have been arrested for new crimes. This we will never see because it does not lend to the propaganda they are peddling. What happened to holding offenders accountable for their choices and their actions? That is of course what the criminal justice system is about isn’t it? Apparently in Dora’s parallel universe accountability means being released from prison, and thereby already being cut a break, after serving only 85% of their time, then being able to freely violate their community supervision without recourse until they fall off of the rolls; labeled a success story. I wonder how the general public would feel if they knew their public safety was being placed in jeopardy daily, through ineffective supervision of offenders due to a systemic social services mentality that presents itself through the restriction of Parole Officers authority and ability to do their jobs. Like it or not, Parole Officers are HYBRID law enforcement officers; operating as brokers of services and treatment, while at the same time operating as enforcers. It is why most people enter the field, as it provides an avenue to both help and enforce.

If Dora and Co. desire to make the Department of Corrections a social services agency, they will have better success placing parolees under the supervision of DES or CPS where they do not make arrests, write warrants, or revoke parolees. Parole is no place for leaders that detest and despise law enforcement or refuse to reconcile the fact that a Parole Officer is a part of the law enforcement community.

The state of our state parole system is not good. Parole Officers and supervisors are in desperate need for the help of every single citizen, law enforcement official, and county attorney to stand against the blatant negligence being exhibited by Parole Administrators on a daily basis through the refusal to approve arrests and the refusal to acknowledge parolee violations. The time has come to put a stop to this madness before another citizen is victimized by a parolee who was allowed to remain at large due to ineffective and dangerous parole policies.

Brandon Mathews, Mesa

Dear Editor:

I am most upset by McCain's apparent Republican nomination. The only difference I see between John McCain and the two liberal Democrats is his Iraq War record and 2nd Admendment. Otherwise they are in lock step. I am thinking of joining the Conservative Party. I believe it is time to have a 3rd party. Please, visit my website: www:conservativesagainstjohnmccain.com. We are outside John McCain's office on 16th. Street every Saturday morning.

Bob Kuhn, Arizona

Dear Editor:

I am responding to the short story on your web page concerning Rep. Reagan's score.

First, I am surprised that you didn't just use our feedback form or contact us directly to explain the score. Putting it on your web page without checking with us appears to be more sensationalism than accurate reporting to fellow conservatives.

Although we are not yet reporting by category, it is obvious from our web site that we do categorize every bill. Looking at Rep. Reagan's scores by category shows us this:

body	member_id	member_name	ld	party	category	score	base	pct
H	47	Michele Reagan	8	R	Govt Admin	10	10	100.0
H	47	Michele Reagan	8	R	Gun Rights	55	55	100.0
H	47	Michele Reagan	8	R	Illegal Aliens	32	52	61.5
H	47	Michele Reagan	8	R	K-12 Ed	40	40	100.0
H	47	Michele Reagan	8	R	Pro-Life	0	20	0.0
H	47	Michele Reagan	8	R	Public Safety	30	30	100.0
H	47	Michele Reagan	8	R	Taxes	103	109	94.5

Clearly, as you pointed out, she is weak on the Pro-Life issue. However, so far, she is doing fairly well on taxes even though she is actually below a large number of other representatives.

There are a few other things that you need to understand.

These are not ratings for the entire legislative session. They are ratings for just what has occurred so far. We will be updating the ratings on a weekly basis.
Other ratings you are accustomed to seeing are based on an entire legislative session rather than showing progress throughout the session.
So far, there has been relatively little activity compared to the activity we expect in the entire session. To use a baseball analogy, this is just the 1st or 2nd inning. You can't depend on the score at this point to tell you what the final outcome will be.
As you can see from the categories, we are trying to evaluate legislators on a variety of issues which means that higher scores in areas not related to taxes and life can offset bad scores in those important categories. The reason we have categories is to allow people with specific interests to look at scores in those particular areas. We decided to start off with just summary scores to avoid overwhelming people with too much detailed information at once.
As opposed to scores calculated AFTER the session, our scores are designed to coach as well as evaluate legislators. Our goal is to get all Republican legislators to vote as (Ronald) Reagan Republicans. If someone who previously didn't vote that way starts to do it, then we are making a positive contribution to public policy, and legislator scores, based on their sponsorships and votes, will reflect how they are doing in this session rather than how they have done in previous sessions.

I hope this explains "what gives with the Pachyderms."

Feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions or concerns. I am Chairman of the Pachyderm Coalition Policy Committee.

Howard Levine, Cave Creek

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:

Thanks, Dennis, for excellent points covered in your letter on Arizona Conservative.

As a conservative from the Viet Nam era, I've always believed in the core principals, ideals of the GOP which appears to be forgotten by politicians. On the issues of illegal immigration, crime and stealth amnesty, Presidential hopeful McCain is not popular with retired as well as active duty U.S. Border Patrol Agents, local 2544, who face an impossible task daily. Due to politics spanning decades, past presidents, liberals to so called conservatives have created a welcome mat, safe haven for illegal aliens from all nations including suspected terrorist factions. Listed below are a few reasons I cannot vote for John McCain and why I am now a registered Independent seeking a leader

whose best interests are for this nation, the U.S. Constitution and its citizens.

2003- Sen. McCain was a co-sponsor of S. 1645, the AgJOBS amnesty.

2003- Sen. McCain was a co-sponsor the S. 1461 amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

2005- Sen. McCain and Sen. Kennedy introduced S.1033, the McCain-Kennedy Amnesty for virtually all illegal aliens, co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman.

2005- Sen. McCain was a co-sponsor of S. 239, the AgJOBS amnesty.

2005- Sen. McCain voted against providing funding for additional Border Patrol and ICE agents by voting against the Byrd Amendment to H.R. 1268.

2006- Sen. McCain voted against extending the border fence in the Sessions Amendment (2) to H.R. 5441.

2006- Sen. McCain voted to prevent the border fence from being built by voting in favor of the Managera Amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.

2006- Sen. McCain voted to allow illegal aliens to receive Social Security by voting to table the Ensign Amendment to S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.

2006- Sen. McCain voted against funding additional immigration investigators by voting against the Sessions Amendment (1) to H.R. 5441.

2006- Sen. McCain voted in favor of S. 2611, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. This bill would have awarded amnesty to 10.2 million illegal aliens.

2007 Sen. McCain was heavily involved in the backroom negotiations of S. 1348 with Sen. Kennedy and Pres. Bush this was an amnesty (permanent residency & path to citizenship) for more than 10 million illegal aliens.

2007 Sen. McCain cast several votes to protect the amnesty in S. 1639 and to move the amnesty toward a vote.

2007- Sen. McCain is a co-sponsor of S. 774, the DREAM Act. The bill would grant in-state tuition and amnesty to more than a million illegal aliens under the age of 30.

2007- Sen. McCain is a co-sponsor of S. 340, the Agricultural Job Opportunities, Benefits, and Security Act of 2007 (AgJOBS). This bill would grant amnesty to millions of illegal agricultural workers.

* In 1986, 2.7 million Special Agricultural Workers were granted Amnesty, IRCA with a fraud filled program that continued with extensions for millions more well into the year 2000. Illegal immigration from foreign nations never ceased but actually increased by millions yearly.

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:

Re: Arizona’s Most Conservative City Welcomes Cultural Rot with Legs Spread Open Wide:

Let's see, Eastern Arizona's [Community College] last drama production was... Diary of Anne Frank and the last musical I recall was The Messiah by Handel (yes, this is a public institution)... as usual, everyone in the community enjoyed both productions.

Oh, that's right... we live in rural Arizona. We're not as sophisticated as Maricopa County ... and they wonder why we want to keep local control over our local college.

Questions: Was the production protested? Were there angry letters in the newspaper? How well attended was the production? Did the drama instructor get the clear message that they'd better dust off their resume? Had that happened here, you can count on the fact that the instructor would be gone by 5 p.m.

Bruce Barton, Safford

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:

I am writing concerning some letters posted on your blog by a David Diego Martinez de Lopez and his stance on fuels. I am new to the Arizona political scene and am using the blogosphere to try and catch the pulse of the area and the views of those truly concerned but I am finding your site a little hard to swallow. The rants by this poster seem to be the exact reason why the GOP could very possibly not control any of the Legislative or Executive powers by next years end. Why are alternative fuels and earth-friendly items always bashed so hard by my fellow Republicans? Who cares if the global warming is a naturally occurring trend in cycles? Other countries in Europe have gone on to make a large amount of money and employ a great deal of people by implementing greener policies, but in spite of this my fellow Republicans would rather keep our fuel usage as it always is and just drill more holes. Why do we seem intent on keeping 9 CEO's of oil companies rich at the expense of 300 million Americans? Why are we giving power to the Middle East by steadily relying on the only thing in their grasp that makes us have to listen to them? It doesn't matter how much you drill, you are still putting money in the pockets of people who hate us at the end of the day, but my fellow Republicans would rather stay stiff-lipped on the subject and hold their ground. That's why we will all be sitting in a Blue country at the end of next year if we don't start opening our eyes a little.

Derek Tidball, Sierra Vista

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:

Without a doubt, the current political push for amnesty--instant Z visa classifications for more than 20 million illegal aliens, including a 24-hour background check--defies logic and basic common sense.

As the Senate tried to fast-track the McCain-Kennedy Comprehensive Immigration Bill, the telephone calls from angry constituents in Arizona and nationwide poured in, but not all calls are created equal. At Senator John Kyl 's office, calls to the Spanish speaking line--pro-amnesty advocates--were given priority over English-speaking opponents who were effectively censured. I couldn't talk to an aide in English, but had no problem speaking Spanish on the pro side of the issue, at a different telephone number.

For many years, like all citizens, I have sought honest political leaders who actually represent their districts, constituents and address the concerns of the majority. It's rare to find anyone worthy of support in either party who keeps their promises to voters after an election and, "come hell or high water," are there for the best interests of the nation and the people who pay the bills.

Wars are created by politicians, not the military that serve as protectors, guardians of this country. A military oath to defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic, is honored long after service has ended. Most Americans have forgotten why a military force is necessary.

I received an email from LTC Allen West, currently serving in Afghanistan, who is running for Congress in Florida's 22nd Congressional District, GOP. As a veteran, and former federal agent, my priorities in the election of any official for public office are leadership, devotion to duty, experience, principled conduct and loyalty to the nation and to us, the taxpayers .

On border issues stateside, Col. West stated that "having been on the border here between Afghanistan and Pakistan at the crossing point of Spin Boldac, I can understand the issue. ''The first thing that has to be addressed in this is border security; we must stem the flow. Then simply enforce our laws. We must find the over 600K illegals who have skipped hearings and those who are wanted felons. I also want any illegal who completes their prison sentence to be immediately extradited back to their country of origin.

'' There truly can be no bill on this until we get a handle on the internal issue. And no, I do not support any amnesty plan, not until we secure and enforce. That also means reevaluation of visa waiver travel programs and the student visa program."

I respected Allen West as a military commander long before he sought political office. Words that portray the man are short and to the point. Col. West once stated, "There are rules and regulations and there's protecting your soldiers. I just felt I'd never have to write a letter of condolence home to a rule and regulation." If politicians nationwide had the same respect for their voters as Col. West has for his troops, there would be no public outcry because there would be trust. Col. West's soldiers trusted him to protect them. In Congress, the country can trust him to do the same.

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

Dear Editor:

McCain and Kyl sold out AZ long ago---they are neither Conservative or Constitutionalists. Neither of these two show any knowledge of our Constitution or Bill of Rights. From all appearance they are owned by the plutocrats and care not for America or we the people. We should have sent them back long ago to whatever rock they crawled out from under. I urge we not wait 'til the next election----let's start a recalleffort and send both down the road!...and the sooner the better!

Gary Christensen

Dear Editor:

This article is more about the political process than politicians, because there are many good politicians who are interested in the people.

Let's say a holy father has served for 30 years and had done many beautiful works. Almost in line for sainthood. Then he deliberately murders a church worker. Is he to be forgiven because of his good works? Closer to home, should the background and good works of the priest who molested boys be taken into consideration and forgive those with a good past?

If you go to http://www.azconservative.org/Haney_Herrod.htm you can read defense of Senator Kyl and Republican party problems. In the article it is stated, "Members of the party continue to squabble amongst each other, and some continue to undermine Arizona GOP Chairman Randy Pullen. Uncivil war is in full swing within a party beset by rebellion." Ask yourself, why? The article notes, "Nathan Sproul, former executive director of the Arizona Republican Party, initiated auto-dialer phone messages critical of Pullen. " What does he know? He has so many stupid ideas that looks like he is trying to ruin the party. Again, why? And, "Gordon James wrote a letter to the Arizona Repugnant this week to criticize Pullen for dividing the party." And, you can readily see that this is sour grapes because his wife lost to Randy, and it appears that he is one who is trying to divide the party. Then we go to Carthi Herrod, and Trent Franks letters. Trent Franks public endorsed Lisa James for state chair, He was rebuffed and now looks like he is trying to sullen the party. Rob Haney, who certainly represents the values of the party more than all of them put together, came to the defense of Pullen.

Then, there are posted in the article two letters, one by Cathi Herrod, emotionally defending her friendship with Kyl regardless of his actions, and followed by a letter written by Rob Haney telling it like it is. The article is a must read.

But, we have brought all this on ourselves. Politician have been given carte blanche in this state to do whatever they want and if they can BS the voters at next election they can keep doing what they want. And, incumbents are almost a sho-in regardless of their actions. The party has almost been destroyed by people like Nathan Sproul who believe that we MUST SUPPORT THE ELECTED! And, that has been the case for years and years. The elected can do no wrong and past state chairs have done the bidding of the congressional delegation. (i.e., Bob Fannin refusing to support Prop 200 because the congressional delegation was against it.)

Now we have a chair who has listened to the members. How in the world does that cause rebellion in the party? Because Pullen didn't do the bidding of Sproul, or James, or Herrod, or a few more noted, is that the party splitting? The party bylaws state that the state chairman shall be the recognized leader of the party, but it goes on to state that in cooperation with county chairmen coordinate state wide party activities. If/when this happens, it won't appear to be so much of a one man show. The counties would be free to come to a consensus of opinion and everybody could stop blaming Randy Pullen for everything and this talk about a split in the party would be put to rest.

That means that if the party with the counties and legislative districts would keep an eye on the elected, and the precinct committeemen would act to promote Republican principles in their precinct, we would have a more representative government. But, as noted we've done little of that.

Jim Ehl, Sierra Vista

Dear Editor:

John McCain was elected/hired by the people of Arizona to represent our state in the United States Senate. Not only has he not been representing the interest of the people of Arizona, he hasn't been showing up for work half the time. What employer would keep an employee that was not showing up for work half the time?

The excuse that the Senator's spokesperson gave for his absenteeism, that the Senator "hasn't missed a single vote where his would have been the determining one," is unacceptable. A senator's vote is also his record of where he stands and an indicator of how he will act on certain issues in the future. By not voting half the time, McCain has concealed his real position on many issues from the people. He can easily say as a candidate that he is for or against this or that, but the people only have half a record of his votes to know for sure where he really stands.

McCain probably doesn't want too many recorded votes because Republican primary voters will discover where he really stands. However, voters can certainly get an idea of who the real John McCain is by how he voted when he did show up for work.

Fiscal conservatives might be interested to know that McCain voted against approving President Bush's tax cuts, which resulted in a tie vote in the Senate and only passed because the Vice President broke the tie.

McCain voted with the Democrats to ban drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Social conservatives can learn a lot about how McCain operates by his vote in the Senate against a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage while he was telling Arizona voters he was opposed to gay marriage.

Anyone that cares about American jobs should remember that McCain was a strong supporter of and voted for NAFTA.

McCain supported allowing unsafe Mexican trucks to operate in the United States.

Along with former Congressman Jim Kolbe, John McCain sponsored a guest worker law that would have allowed a six year guest worker visa along with rewarding those in the United States illegally with amnesty and a three year visa.

Can anyone forget his attack on the First Amendment, McCain/Feingold?

When McCain was not missing votes in Congress or traveling around the country pandering for support for his presidential ambition, he would occasionally visit the state he was elected to represent, Arizona, and lend his vociferous opposition to things like Proposition 200, that was overwhelmingly approved by the voters and required proof of citizenship to vote.

The United States is a republic of 50 states, each entitled to two senators in congress, Arizona is being short changed, we only have, one and a half, senators representing our state and that half a senator is more concerned with gaining the White House then representing the people of Arizona.

As a citizen of Arizona, I agree with Russell Pearce, it would be in the best interest of the people of Arizona for John McCain to resign from the U.S. Senate and be replaced with a full time Senator.

As for the concern with Janet Napolitano selecting a replacement for McCain. She would have to choose a Republican and she would be hard pressed to find a Republican of lesser quality then John McCain.

Bob Haran, Vietnam Veteran against McCain and Amnesty

Dear Editor:

As we approach the May 15th General Election, I would like to remind Gilbert voters who have early ballots to mark and mail them at least a week before the election or plan to drop them off at the polls on Election Day.

There is only one office on the ballot, but it is very important to make a good decision when casting your vote for town councilman. The people who like to raise their own salaries while denying you the opportunity to vote on huge incentives for auto dealers are well represented in Gilbert government.

It is time for a new voice to represent Gilbert families and businesses. The best person to fill the bill is Dwayne Farnsworth.

A five-generation Arizona native whose roots in Gilbert go back decades, Mr. Farnsworth has the experience, integrity and vision so vitally needed to bring principled decisions to local government. As a tax attorney specializing in representation of individuals and small businesses, he understands the critical financial issues before the council. His first priority is to provide first-class police and fire protection to our community, along with safe streets, pure water and other needed city services.

You will be proud of Dwayne Farnsworth’s service to Gilbert. Please vote for him on May 15.

Janie Thom, Higley

Dear Editor:

President Bush visited Yuma again to promote immigration fixes, and doesn't envision amnesty for the estimated 11-12 million illegals here. On TV he said, "Apprehensions are down 30 percent," calling that, "pretty good progress."

But a reduction in captures isn't a reduction in immigrants -- it's just a reduction in captures. Instead of catching one out of two, as Border Patrol has claimed for years, doesn't this imply it's only getting 0.7 for every two, increasing the illegal entrants? How illegals might be improving entry rates wasn't considered.

Reporters have claimed 11-12 million illegals here since at least 2002. The Border Patrol though claims it catches one million annually at the one-out-of-two rate. A simple investigative tool called a "calculator" confirms this means another million illegals gain entry every year. That equals 16 million illegals here. I keep showing this evidence to reporters, but no correction is made and the illogical 11-12 million figure remains standard on networks, cables, radios, newspapers and magazines. No wonder y'all have trust issues.

Critics charge that reporters are incapable of doing math. Less than 11 million reporters deny the charge.

Alan Korwin, author, The Arizona Gun Owner's Guide

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:

Good job on the local media bias "brick" awards! This should be a yearly event kind of like the Emmy's, although actually having to do with the real world for a change.

The only problem might be, with Channels 15 and 12 and the Repulsive doing their usual things, there might not be enough bricks in the world to go around! You may have to resort to adobe.

Keep up the good work, and may John Kerry keep talking.

Todd Ellis

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:

It's now crystal clear that Carolyn Allen's modus operandi for this year's District 8 State Senate campaign is endorsements, endorsements, endorsements. Never mind that many of them are apparently misquotes or outright fabrications. For instance, Allen's claim during a recent public debate that Speaker of the House Weiers was supporting her campaign. Weiers has since said that he has not, nor will he, endorse the candidacy of Senator Allen. Furthermore, those that are true endorsements of Allen should give real District 8 Republicans pause for thought, serious concern, and a deep yearning to see Colette Rosati defeat her. A prime example is Phoenix Democratic Mayor Gordon's recent strong endorsement of Allen : http://www.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/08/07/daily18.html?f=et73&hbx=e_du . Wow, that should really warm the hearts of Valley Republicans and win over a lot of conservatives!

Who's next on Allen's buddy list -- Hillary Clinton?

Of course liberal Democrats want Allen re-elected. She's one of Napolitano's strongest allies in the Senate! Also, Allen's continued presence and role in the Senate is critical for Arizona's pro-abortionists and their agenda. She's one of their leaders.

During the last election cycle, Allen used her local liberal media friendships to her advantage, having fellow WISH Lister and pro-abortion activist, ABC15's news anchor Katie Raml, spearhead a series of campaign rallies and fundraisers. http://www.arizonawishlist.org/100403flyer.htm

That strategy worked pretty well until Raml and her station ABC15 got busted by the media ethics watchdogs at Columbia University's School of Journalism. http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/4/dartslaurels.asp (Perhaps the worst part of that episode for the rest of us was that Columbia U. actually referred to Raml and The WISH List as being affiliated with the "Republican Party" rather than the liberal RINO Party. Yuck!)

This time around, it appears that Senator Allen has decided instead to flood the media and District 8 voters with vaguely-worded or completely bogus conservative Republican endorsements and self-congratulations, meanwhile avoiding a discussion of the real issues confronting the district.

Is Carolyn Allen running scared this year?

Todd Ellis

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, t