From: Senator Russell Pearce SenatorRussellPearce@russellpeace.com]
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2010 4:40 PM
To: McComas, Susan Delegate
Subject: A personal invitation from Senator Russell Pearce – Author of SB1070
Dear Representative McComas,
As a fellow lawmaker, I am sure you can appreciate the position we find ourselves in as Arizonans. You know what it is like to try to stand up for your constituents, the Constitution, the Rule of Law, “common sense,” but I cannot imagine you have ever dealt with the backlash we are facing. Now, with Attorney General Holder suing us on behalf of the Obama administration trying to maintain their policy of non-enforcement, ACLU, MALDET and of Mexico suing us, the nation boycotting us afraid their sanctuary/catch & release policies may also be revoked, and Mexican politicians scorning us, we are feeling a little guilty keeping all of this fun for ourselves. Large and growing committees of activists from all over this great nation (probably some from your state) have asked me to host a conference on how we arrived at this legislative success.
Reaction to the suit poured in from all sides, some of it not so nice, making it clear that this was no ordinary legal filing but rather the start of a battle that will help define the midterm elections this fall.
Not only does this lawsuit reveal the Obama administration’s contempt for immigration laws and the people of Arizona, it reveals contempt for the majority of the American people who support Arizona’s efforts.
Why do our elected leaders so easily relinquish liberty and have such little respect for the Constitution and the law?
Arizona is ground zero for stopping this “illegal” invasion. Yes they are illegal and they are invading this nation. Illegal is not a race, it is a crime. The media would have you believe I made “illegal, illegal,” however, illegal was already illegal. It is a crime to enter or remain in the U.S. in violation of federal law 8USC 1324 and 1325. States have inherent authority to enforce immigration laws and yet has failed or refused to do so. Sanctuary policies are illegal under federal law (8 USC 1644 & 1373) yet we have them all over the United States, where are the feds on cities actually violating the law, instead they sue us for enforcing the law.
It’s rare that we see a fight between a state and the federal government on an issue this highly-charged. The matter of the federal government’s authority versus that of the states is one that has hovered over the nation since this administration came into office. This lawsuit is bound to force discussion of the authority of these two entities, the federal or central government vs state governments.
Americans expect the Federal government to perform one duty above all others and that duty is to protect American citizens from harm from elements outside of the nation. The Obama administration is refusing to defend American jobs, wages, property, security, health, and lives from attacks conducted against civilians by foreign powers that are aided by traitors inside of the United States.
SB1070 simply codifies federal law into state law and removes excuses and concerns about states inherent authority to enforce these laws and removes all so called “sanctuary” policies.
Now, I know you may be at ALEC the week of August 4th, so hopefully you can extend that trip to include a visit here as well. It is possible that we will do something in conjunction with ALEC, but I believe it will be more impactful for people to come to Arizona, meet the people, talk to the clerk at the hotel desk, and really see for yourself just what all of the fuss is about. You will see that Arizonans are just like people anywhere else. We have solid conservative values. We love our Country and we believe in the fundamental right to defend ourselves and our state. If you share those values, I would love for you to come for a visit I promise you will enjoy.
We are planning a full program that will include a full discussion of the legal challenge, why we are confident in our language and how we arrived at it. You will meet some of the key people who drafted it including some of the Country’s top legal minds from the Goldwater Institute. As you may know, they are the ones heavily driving the national strategy to restore Federalism, adopted by ALEC by modifying State Constitutions. Governor Brewer, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Phoenix Law Enforcement Association Mark Spencer and possibly even Lou Ferigno will also be coming by.
We are working out the details and hope to make scholarships available for those who need them. We realize that due to tough budget times, travel budgets are the first to go, so we are seeking funding. If you are interested in coming only if scholarship money is available, please let us know so we can plan the budget. We want you here and we will do all we can to make that happen. And yes, it is hotter here in August, but it really is a dry heat. I promise that the Sonoran sunsets are among the prettiest you have ever seen. By the time the sun starts to set, the desert cools down and you are sitting by a chimney, perhaps having a diet coke, you will forget all about the daytime temps.
The dates for the Immigration / 14th Amendment Summit are as follows:
July 30th, 7 PM at the Arizona State Capitol Senate Lawn, a memorial for al those who have died at the hand of an illegal alien.
July 30th, 8:30 PM across from Arizona State Capitol Senate Lawn in Wesley Bolin Plaza a candle light vigil will be head in memory of our American military hero’s who have died in battle.
July 31st 9:30 AM to 3:00 PM Arizona State Capitol Senate building will be the Summit with workshops regarding SB1070 and the 14th Amendment.
July 31st 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM festivities on the Senate lawn and Wesley Bolin Plaza.
July 31st 6:30 PM Rally begins Arizona State Capitol Senate Lawn.
For more information about the event, go to http://standwitharizona.org/3580/
Kindest regards and in Liberty,
Senator Russell Pearce, Author of SB1070
Straight off the heels of the McChrystal-debacle, further conflict between the Obama administration and military officials appears to loom on the horizon – involving none other than newly appointed Commander of US Forces in Afghanistan, General David H. Petraeus.
Of the countless characteristics which define liberals, Democrats, and refusal to accept reality and to call a spade a spade.
Exhibit 9,999,999,999: the new White House policy to disassociate all mentions of Islam when describing terrorists.
The Washington Times’ Rowan Scarborough foresees just one tiny problem with the administration’s official policy however:
John O. Brennan, President Obama’s chief national security adviser for counterterrorism, delivered a major policy address on defining the enemy. He laid out the White House policy of detaching any reference to Islam when referring to terrorists, be it al Qaeda, the Taliban or any other group.
But Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the man tapped by Mr. Obama as the new top commander in Afghanistan, led the production of an extensive counterinsurgency manual in December 2006 that does, in fact, tell commanders of a link between Islam and extremists.
The Petraeus doctrine refers to “Islamic insurgents,” “Islamic extremists” and “Islamic subversives.” It details ties between Muslim support groups and terrorists. His co-author was Gen. James F. Amos, whom Mr. Obama has picked as the next Marine Corps commandant and Joint Chiefs of Staff member. [...]
The Petraeus counterinsurgency manual takes the position that, to understand the enemy, commanders must recognize terrorist links to Islam – its leaders in some cases, its fundraising and its infrastructure. Forces must fight “Islamic extremists,” it says, differently from the Viet Cong or followers of Saddam Hussein.
Scarborough then goes on to quote Larry Korb, a military analyst for the Center for American Progress who, predictably, full heartedly supports White House policy, resorting to the left’s one (and only) barely-counterargument – antiabortion extremists.
President Obama undoubtedly deserves much credit for appointing the highly respected General Petraeus as Stanely McChyrstal’s successor. How the philosophical divide between the White House and the Petraeus doctrine plays out is yet to be seen, but is not an innocuous case of semantics. Words matter, which is why the left takes so much pride in their mastery and monopolization of Orwellian-speak.
To say Muslims who carry out terrorist attacks in the name of their religion are “Islamic extremists,” would be no different than calling the KKK the “KKK,,” feminists “feminists,” a tall person a “tall person,” or a tree a “tree.” It might seem crazy to some folk, but most folks make it a habit of using words to distinguish one pertinent group from another.
Even James Kirchick, who is a gay, prochoice assistant editor at the New Republic, sees the absolute asininity and terrible disservice the left does bending over backwards with political-correctness and equating Islamic terrorists to the religious right.
“[I]t’s precisely because of my identity that I consider comparisons between so-called Christianists (who seek to limit my rights via the ballot box) and Islamic fundamentalists (who seek to limit my rights via decapitation) to be fatuous,” Kirchick wrote shortly after the murder of abortion doctor George Till in 2009.
“But the Christian right’s responsible reaction to the death of George Tiller should put to rest the lie that Judeo-Christian extremists are anywhere near as numerous or dangerous as those of the Muslim variety.”
If top US government officials are not willing to call terrorists who are so undeniably motivated by Islamic doctrine “Islamic terrorists,” what does it say about America and how far we have digressed as a nation and civilization?
By: Joan Neuhas Schaan
With some concern and disbelief, I have been astounded at the lack of understanding of the severity of the situation in Mexico and the possibility that it has crossed the border.
Last week, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post severely ridiculed reports from Arizona of decapitated heads found in the desert. This comment was made within a day or two of the discovery of two decapitated bodies in Chihuahua, Chihuahua, just south of El Paso, Texas.
While I cannot comment on the veracity of specific reports of headless bodies in the Arizona desert, the occurrence of headless bodies in Mexico has been epidemic. It is only a matter of time until the phenomenon is regularly encountered in the U.S.
Let me suggest the general public familiarize themselves with press reports since the first of this year. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the decapitation incidents, as many, if not most, incidents do not go reported.
* July 6, 2010: Two decapitate bodies found in Chihuahua, Chihuahua.
* Junue 30, 2010: A severed head was found on the doorstep of Ciudad Juarez mayoral candidate Hector Murguia. (Wall Street Journal)
* June 16, 2010: A police officer is found decapitated in Apodaca, Nuevo Leon. (Expresion Libre)
* June 2, 2010: Six human heads found in two Durango cities, Lerdo and Gomez Palacio. (EFE)
* May 10, 2010: Two decapitated bodies found in Cancun. (El Universal)
* May 4, 2010: Three decapitated bodies found in Costa Chica region, Guerrero. (Proceso.)
* April 12, 2010: Dismembered body found in Cuernavaca. (El Universal)
* April 11, 2010: Decapitated body found on Morelos highway between Cuernavaca and Acapulco. (El Universal)
* April 9, 2010: Report on December 2009 Reynosa dismemberment. (The Washington Times)
* April 3, 2010: Decapitated body of a female found in Chihuahua, Chihuahua. (El Diario Chihuahua.) Spring 2010: Police Chief of Aguascalientes, Nuevo Leon found decapitated.
* March 25, 2010: Decapitation victim found at shopping center in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua. (El Agora de Chihuahua)
* March 22, 2010: Two dismembered bodies found in Acapulco. (Reforma)
* March 10, 2010: Police find five heads in ice coolers in Guadalajara, Jalisco. (BBC News)
* Janaury 28, 2010: A head is found in an ice cooler in Quiroga, Michoacan.
* January 25, 2010: Decapitated head found on grave in Altamira, Tamaulipas. (El Universal)
Read more here.
Yup … the porkers are stirring. Look! There they are approaching the taxpayer trough yet again. After all … an election is on the horizon. This election, though, is a bit different for Democrats. They definitely don’t want to go to their home districts and run on a national agenda. Their survival may well depend on separating themselves from Obama’s big-government movement. So … tout the pork! Democrats are going into their home districts and saying “Look at this sidewalk? Look at this pedestrian bridge! Look at this new community center! I did these things for you! Don’t you want to send me back to Washington?”
The problem here is that these politicians and their constitutions just can’t see a pedestrian bridge or a weasel crossing under a road in some national park as being so expensive that it really had anything at all to do with our increasing debt. Maybe the politicians know better .. but the voters may not.
Are you one of those Americans who suffer from thousands of dollars of credit card debt? Think about this now … you have an $8,000 balance on your credit card and really nothing to show for it. You can’t point to any one large purchase that created this burdensome debt load. If you check your statements you’ll see that you created that debt bit-by-bit. There’s a $40 fill-up at the gas station here, $35 in groceries there. Then you charge some movie theatre tickets and the next day it’s $4.60 at Starbucks. None of these expenditures are going to bury you … but time goes by, the charges add up, and suddenly you’re sitting there trying to figure out how you got in this situation.
Same thing for government and our national debt. That pedestrian sky bridge in El Paso, or that new composting restroom in a Madison, Wisconsin park aren’t exactly going to break the bank. But you get 435 members of the House, toss in 100 Senators … every one of them trying to impress the local voters with these pork items … and suddenly things are out of control.
I have something that could lead to a fix. I’ve been proposing this for years. I actually managed to have something like this introduced as legislation in the Georgia General Assembly about 10 years ago .. and it went nowhere. I just call it the “Taxpayer’s Addendum.”
How does it work? Well, let’s apply it to congressional pork. I would propose that every single time a lawmaker proposes an earmark as part of an appropriations bill in Washington the request must be in writing and the Taxpayer’s Addendum should be added to the request. Here’s how it might read:
“I, ___ (politician’s name) ________ do hereby swear and affirm that it is my considered position and belief that it is more important for the government to spend the necessary sums for the completion of the project outlined herein than it would be for the person who actually worked for and earned these funds to be permitted to retain those funds for the payment of their person expenses; including expenses related to basic necessities of life such as food, transportation, shelter, clothing and healthcare.”
How many of these politicians do you think would be willing to actually walk up to a wage earner and physically take the money out of that person’s pocket to pay for some of this pork? Yeah … the number would be somewhere near zero I suspect.
HELENA, MONTANA — An overflow crowd jammed the Helena school board meeting Tuesday night to voice their concerns — and support — about a proposal to extend sex education to children as young as kindergarten age.
According to the 62-page draft proposal, beginning in kindergarten, school nurses will teach students proper terms such as “nipple, breast, penis, scrotum and uterus.” Once they are promoted to first grade, children will learn that sexual relations could happen between two men or two women. By the time students are 10 years old, instruction will include the various ways people can have intercourse, be it vaginally, orally or through “anal penetration,” according to the proposal.
“As educators and as parents and as communities, we need to be more proactive in helping inform our students at an appropriate age what the risk factors are associated with their own behaviors so that they can make better decisions about their well-being,” Dr. Bruce Messinger, the Superintendent of Helena Public Schools, told Fox News.
The Montana Family Foundation is fighting the proposed changes, telling Fox News its biggest concern is teaching graphic sexual detail to kids who are not emotionally able to process or comprehend it. If the changes pass, kids as young as 5 will begin to learn medically accurate names for a number of both male and female “private parts.”
“The problem is they think it would be age appropriate to teach different sexual positions and different sexual variations to 10 year olds,” said Jeff Laszloffy of the Montana Family Foundation.
Messinger said parents will be able to have their kids opt-out, but Laszloffy said teachers want to have the same option.
“I think the reason it is such a concern is it tramples parental rights, it places government squarely between parents and their children,” Laszloffy said.
Read more here.