Arizona Sec. of State Ken Bennett tied in with conspiracy theorist Joseph Farah

I live in Arizona where Republican lunatics run the state, supported by a lot more of their ilk that vote for them.  We have some of the stupidest laws in the country that only a demented bunch of legislators led by an even more demented governor would pass.  This includes almost every gun law in the state, anti-immigration law, SB-1070, a birther bill that at least the Gov had enough sense to veto, and a list much too long to include here.  But you get the idea.



Joseph Farah with G Gordon Liddy



It seems that Arizona Sec. of State, Ken Bennett, wasn’t happy with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio getting all the attention in demanding President Obama’s birth certificate, so he decided, prodded by the Surprise, Arizona tea party gang of (let’s see, what’s another word for lunatic, oh yes) wackos, to demand proof from Hawaii of Obama’s birth, or he would keep him off the November ballot.  I did a blog post on this back in May you can see here.

And then in a recent turn of events, local KPHO-TV investigative reporter, Morgan Lowe, ties old Kenny into a conspiracy theorist, Joseph Farah, who was the official prod of those poor souls in the Surprise TP, who promptly crawled on Kenny’s back.  Farah writes in the conservative media and is the guy who said Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh “…had ties to a Middle Eastern terrorist group and that TWA Flight 800 was brought down by missiles and that the U.S. government covered it up.”

KPHO-TV reporter Morgan Lowe

I was watching the report on KPHO with a friend who is also a staunch progressive like me and I mentioned the earlier blog post, above, and the fact that Ken Bennett had threatened to keep Barack Obama off the ballot in November.  My friend went ballistic questioning whether this idiot could actually do that.  I said yes, but felt the negative reaction, maybe even a court case, would remedy the situation.  But the impact on this voter was painfully obvious.

I explained to my friend, who is an avid voter, that this is the problem for most progressives in Arizona; they don’t get out and vote, and that is why we have fruitcakes running the state.  There is a question here of a conflict of interest since Bennett is Mitt Romney’s Arizona campaign chairman.  Morgan Lowe spoke to State Rep. Chad Campbell, a Democrat, who told him, “He is pandering to a very small fringe group of people and he's really putting their interests in front of the interests of the state of Arizona.”

Reporter Lowe sent a number of questions to Ken Bennett’s office to help clarify the Sec. of State’s positions on all these issues, which you can see in the above KPHO link.  He did not receive an answer.

U.S. Supreme Court rules on Arizona immigration law SB-1070…It’s a tie

Well, not exactly.  Although Arizona’s bungling Gov. Jan Brewer claimed victory, here’s what that win will entail.  Yes, Arizona can now require the police to determine if a person is a legal resident, if the individual is being stopped for some other violation of the law.  The cops will have to be very careful about this since the feds will be watching closely for racial profiling.  In all likelihood, if the person has no criminal record, ICE will not accept them for deportation.

And now, following the Supreme Court ruling, the feds rescinded Arizona’s 287G privileges, meaning, law enforcement cannot use the data system to verify illegal immigration, to confirm the status of people that have been stopped.  Broiling Brewer claims that she has checked and found that Arizona is the only state denied this data check. 

The reason the feds give, according to ColorLines, “…the program was not useful in states that have adopted immigration enforcement laws like SB1070.”  The feds will do the same in other states where SB-1070 type laws are in effect.

Blundering Brewer wags her finger again

So let’s look at this fiasco from a practical standpoint.  The state of Arizona has spent millions of dollars—supposedly donated money—and this comatose governor says she and the state are victorious when most of the illegal immigrants  they turn over to ICE will be released and in the process the state will most likely end up with several cases of racial profiling filed by the feds.  In other words, it is business like it was before this whole botched situation started.

It’s Arizona at its best, and the nation has once again had the opportunity to look at the state with disdain with the ridicule soon to begin.  I don’t know about you other progressives out there, but I have had enough and I hope, if we aren’t all banded together by now, the push will start soon to bring out the vote in November and get rid of as many of these conservative radicals as we can.

You can see a list of progressive websites here, and I recommend that you regularly follow Arizona Progress Action for the latest on what is happening on the left.  These posts are directed primarily at Arizona’s problems with an out of touch government and are specifically for the progressive reader.  You can also get involved through the Obama/Biden website for Arizona here.  I urge you to study all these sites for the best way you can participate for the Nov. election.

And I will leave you with these statistics re. popularity ratings in the great state of Arizona.  Public Policy Polling did a recent study to determine just who was the “supremist” in the state between Obama and Brewer.  President Obama came out on top with a 45 percent favorable, compared to the state’s own governor Jan Brewer with 43 percent favorable.  Agreed, it was before the SB-1070 decision but, come on, even two points at that time are an indication Arizona is in trouble.

Will Arizona be the pulse of the Hispanic vote in November?

I raise this question because Arizona is the center of immigration reform on the state level with its first nationwide anti-immigration bill SB-1070 that is still before the U.S. Supreme Court.  Arizona v. United States was argued April 25, 2012, and the question presented was whether federal immigration laws preclude Arizona’s efforts at cooperative law enforcement and preempt the four provisions of S.B. 1070.  The high Court is expected to give its decision in June.

Arizona Federal Judge Susan Bolton blocked the most contested provisions of SB-1070 in July of 2010, shortly after the law was passed.  That is what sent the Arizona gang of autocrats gyrating to the Supremes.  There are no other officials in other states throughout the U.S. more vocal than those from Arizona, with their challenge to Judge Bolton’s decision as the centerpiece.  What the Supremes decide will have a definitive effect on Latinos in Arizona and across the country.

The villains in this whole fiasco are easily identifiable and are at the source of many of Arizona’s many problems.  These three, along with a state Republican legislature that is clearly on another planet, can also be credited for most of the ridicule that is regularly thrown at the state.  The terrible three are Gov. Jan Brewer, former state senator Russell Pearce, and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Together they resemble a very untalented Three Stooges.

Jan Brewer is laughable as perhaps the most incompetent governor to ever serve a state in this country.  Brewer is detested by most Hispanics for signing SB-1070.  Russell Pearce, the main supporter of SB-1070, was voted out as a state senator, primarily by Latinos because of racist and other extremist views.  Joe Arpaio has endeared himself to Hispanics with his regular sweeps that pick up illegals—and even legal citizens—for minor offenses of the law for ID.

NY Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer on Hispanic vote:

There are 1.8 million Latinos in Arizona in 525,000 households, just under 30 percent of the total population, with an average age of almost 26.  59 percent of this group is making more than $35,000 a year which puts them in a formidable position to determine the outcome of Arizona elections.  If they can be convinced to come to the polls.  But even some of the legal immigrants are scared to come to the polls because of the threats of Brewer, Pearce and Arpaio.

The fact that the Dream Act is still important to Hispanics is a recent protest in Phoenix, and it wasn’t against Republicans but aimed at democrats for not doing enough.  This only emphasizes what many Latino advocates have been saying of late.  It will make little difference if you get this group enthused over the November election if their concerns aren’t turned into priorities by both parties.  President Obama promised to overhaul immigration in 2008 and hasn’t fulfilled.

Another Hispanic concern is education, according to a poll from the American Federation for Children and the Hispanic Council for Reform and Education Options.  58 percent of Latinos in five battleground states want more on what the candidates will do, compared to 49 percent overall.  This parallels interests from African-Americans in the past because they wanted better educational standards for their children.  Jobs, the economy and federal deficit are also ranked high.

The NPR article above estimates that 22 million Latinos will be eligible to vote in November, with a potential voter turnout of up to 12 million.  This is a 26 percent increase over 2008 and would be a new record.  However, on Univision, the Velasquez Institute predicts that national Latino turnout this fall will be no higher than 10.5 million votes cast.  What makes all this important is the fact that President Obama was the first to win the office without the white vote majority.

Arizona is now a hub for protest for a pro-Hispanic ‘super PAC’ aimed at Mitt Romney.  At a fundraiser in Palm Beach, FL, Romney acknowledged the possibility of losing the Latino vote.  He said, “If its {Dems. momentum} not turned around, it spells doom for us.”  In the Los Angeles Times, a new national poll, conducted for NBC News, the Wall Street Journal and Telemundo, showed him trailing the president 61% to 27% among Latinos.

The liberal super PAC began airing TV spots in Arizona on May 24, where the strategy is to characterize Mitt Romney in the same light as two of the most “reviled” politicians in the Hispanic community: Gov. Jan Brewer and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  Brewer endorsed Romney just before Arizona’s February primary, Arpaio stayed neutral having endorsed Rick Perry who quit the race.  The ad runs several weeks in English and Spanish.

Arizona is clearly evolving from red to purple with the Latino population reacting to SB-1070 and the sweeps of illegals by Sheriff Arpaio.  That’s the best sign progressives have seen in Arizona for years but the question is whether they take full advantage of the situation.  There are non-Hispanic white and black populations that must also speak out in November.  They are there.  But apparently not as passionate as conservatives.  This needs to change now.

Obama must go to the trenches to win in November

During the middle of April, a CNN poll of registered voters showed the President leading Mitt Romney by nine points if the vote was held then.  Today, a Washington Post-ABC News poll reports that they are tied at 47 percent.  The latter does show that overall, 49 percent are actually in Obama’s corner with 46 percent for Romney.  The CNN poll was conducted just 2 days after Hilary Rosen said that Ann Romney hadn’t worked a day in her life.

Other polls found that the decision by President Obama to approve gay marriage could hurt him but nowhere is this proving to be a major barrier in voting for him.  Christians say he can have the gay vote and 2010 exit polls say he received 70 percent of it.  The GOP garnered 31 percent.  With 3.5 percent of Americans identifying themselves as gay/lesbian, that is just under 11 million potential voters that must be convinced that they can expect more from a progressive.

John Boehner

President Obama political strategy:

The CNN poll says that 55 percent of women are in Obama’s corner compared to 39 percent for Romney.  With an all-out assault against the ladies by the GOP, it’s hard for me to understand how any woman could vote Republican, except maybe Ann Romney.  House Speaker John Boehner continued the rage recently by pushing a House bill that “…seriously weakens the Violence Against Women Act.”  And there’s a lot more where that came from.

Abortion, the constant push to repeal Roe v. Wade.  Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed a law recently moving the ban on abortions from 20 weeks to 18.  Many of these laws “…omit reasonable exceptions for a woman’s health or cases of rape, incest or grievous fetal impairment.”  All include criminal penalties and fines that make doctors reluctant to do an abortion.  Republican lawmakers, with the religious right on their backs, think only of re-election, not the pregnant woman.

Jan Brewer

Access to health care is also threatened as evidenced by another stupid move by Jan Brewer to eliminate funding in Arizona for Planned Parenthood.  These funds were already blocked from being used for abortions, now this dingbat has cut off care to women for care like cancer screening and family planning.  This is the only place these folks had to go.  Last year the House GOP tried to limit PP funding for birth control, cancer screening and other preventive care.

Equal Pay.  President Obama has been attempting for three years to improve on the “…1963 Equal Pay Act to enhance remedies for victims of gender-based wage discrimination…”  He wants to “…mandate that employers show that wage differences are job-related, not sex-based, and driven by business necessity.”  It is beyond me what possible difference it could make to a man that his female counterpart is making the same as him.  Unless it’s a masculinity thing.

Domestic violence.  The Senate tried to renew the Violence Against Women Act, designed to protect victims of domestic and sexual abuse.  But the House version omitted protections for gay, Indian, student and immigrant abuse victims.  In some cases this will make the abused stay with the abuser, ultimately resulting in more violence.  Of course this isn’t a Republican voting block so why should they care.

Romney is still seen as one who will likely change his position on issues to fit the situation with more feeling that Obama will stand up for what he believes than Romney.  Now if I was looking for someone to depend on doing what they said they would do after the election, it would be hands-down-Obama.  The president will hopefully have a more favorably stacked Congress after November so he won’t have constant GOP opposition to everything he presents.

The economy is the thing.  80 percent of Americans still think it’s bad but 54 percent feel positive about the future and 58 percent think their financial prospects will improve.  Obama has promoted tax breaks for small business, wants to end oil and gas subsidies and wants to allow the millionaire tax breaks to expire.  Romney is against the latter two, has recently touted the 100,000 jobs Bain Capital, his former company, created.  And of course, cut, cut, cut taxes.

The President has an edge on Independent voters with a differential somewhat favorable in age/income, but these numbers are hard to confirm and maintain.  My guess is still that the Hispanics will get their act together and it will be this vote that helps re-elect Barack Obama, and give the Dems. additional seats in the House and Senate in states where they have the numbers.  The question is what kind of campaign will Romney run.  On the issues or Karl Rovish??? 

Arizona competes with the Indy 500 in its race to ridicule

Laurie Roberts

Laurie Roberts, columnist for the Arizona Republic, said it best: “Aaaaaaaaand we're off to the races once again,” referring to Sec. of State Ken Bennett’s recent move to demand President Obama’s birth certificate before guaranteeing him a place on Arizona’s November election ballot.  Bennett says he is not a birther and actually thinks Obama was born in Hawaii.  What we’re talking about here is a group of crackpots called the Tea Party that have Bennett by the b*&%s.

Bennett just so happens to be the co-chairman for Mitt Romney’s Republican presidential campaign in Arizona, and Romney must be wondering now about his judgment in this matter.  Unfortunately, he’d have a hard time finding an un-looney Republican in Arizona.  On an Arizona looney scale, Bennett would come in around a 5 compared to the likes of Gov. Jan Brewer, Joe Arpaio, Russell Pearce and former county attorney Andrew Thomas.

Ken Bennett, Pres. Obama

It is so pathetic that it is hard to figure out how the average Arizonan can live with this demeaning treatment by their friends across the country, yet still elect the same group of idiots to run the state government.  Just combine an inept and clueless Gov. Brewer with a bunch of Republican legislators who are only interested in lining their pockets, re-election, and loose guns and you have inane government.  Some of you Arizona residents must be smart enough to see this.

But wait.  There’s another factor involved in the mix of idiocy and incompetency.  Ken Bennett is considering a run for governor in 2014 and in Arizona, if you want to win anything politically, you’d better have the TP fruitcakes on your side.  But interestingly, it didn’t help former state Sen. Russell Pearce when voters booted him out of office.  Russell is running again which just takes Arizona’s comical political climate to a new level that he could still find serious supporters.

Ken Bennett was asked just why he decided to raise the Obama birther issue after it had been verified so many times before.  His answer was that he was acting on behalf of a constituent.  Who was the constituent?  He couldn’t remember.  Ludicrous. 

HILARIOUS Birther Madness in Arizona: The Movie

Can you believe that these people get away with this crap?  It’s been a while since Bennett requested the certification from Hawaii and he hasn’t yet received anything, according to his office.  The last word I heard from Hawaii was that they would fulfill the request but that the Sec. of State had not proved that he needed it.  The man filled out a form he got online and sent his $5 money order, and he still couldn’t get it right?  Based on his predecessor, he’d make a great governor.



Brewer finger wagging on another issue



Gov. Brewer, in one of her few lucid moments, vetoed legislation last year that would have required presidential candidates to confirm that they are a “natural-born citizen.”  She didn’t want to give the Sec. of State—that would be Ken Bennett—the authority to decide a candidate’s eligibility.  Brewer probably had more delusions of doing this herself.  But now we have to decide whether Bennett did what he did for the TPers or is he just pissed at the Gov?   

Laurie Roberts confirmed that Kenny-boy had not asked the other candidates, including his close pal, Mitt Romney, for their verification of citizenship.  But in President Obama’s case she laments: “So if the state of Hawaii decides that the state of Arizona is certifiably insane and refuses to comply, will Bennett refuse to put the president of the United States on Arizona's ballot?

“That’s possible,” Bennett said.

Roberts adds, “Yes, because it's been 10 minutes or so since we were a finger-wagging, militia-loving, gun-toting, sovereignty-seeking circus sideshow on the national landscape.”  God, don’t you love this woman?

And it’s off to the races again!

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer carries questionable baggage in barring Planned Parenthood funding

Continuing to worship at the altar of Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, her conservative supporters in the legislature and her like constituents have once again given her the impetus to dump on those in need, turning them out to fend for themselves.  Arizona already bars tax dollars for abortion, but backers, including the Susan B. Anthony List group, say the law is needed to prevent indirect monies from reaching these organizations.



Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer,
still at her best 

Forbes magazine accuses Brewer of “Slipping Back into the Dark Ages.”  What Forbes may not realize is that the country’s worst governor entered the dark ages when she first got into politics and has just continued to unravel since then.  The magazine called her a woman governor playing God with women’s rights.  And this was all in the headline.  What Forbes and most of the other articles about this issue don’t mention is Brewer’s family connection which I cover later. 

Planned Parenthood does provide abortion funds but they do much more for the needy including: providing cancer screenings, birth control, plus regular wellness exams for women.  Only 10 percent of females seek abortion services from Planned Parenthood of Arizona.  But Jan Brewer’s bill shuts out the other 90% that need regular healthcare.  This all stems from ideology originating with the domination of conservatives including the religious right, and the Tea Party.

See a video on Arizona's new law:

As the Republican Party has added seats in state legislatures across the country, in many cases led by TPers, the strength to pass laws like Arizona’s has become more prevalent.  What these ideologues don’t understand—or maybe they do and just don’t care—is that this kind of legislation only delays the inevitable which is the fact that these folks eventually end up in the emergency room at taxpayer expense.  But common sense has never been a staple in Arizona politics.



Planned Parenthood protestor

Planned Parenthood says this is just “bad health policy, bad fiscal policy, and bad politics.”  But it is the GOP way and it is an election year.  PP recounts that “Court decisions in Indiana, Kansas, and now North Carolina have made it abundantly clear that it is unacceptable for states to pass laws that prevent women from going to their trusted health care provider to get primary and preventive care.”  We’re not talking abortions, just plain healthcare.

Laws similar to Arizona’s have already been signed in Texas, Tennessee, Vermont, Indiana, and Kansas and are under consideration in New Hampshire.  Many are already being disputed.  And the statistics do support Planned Parenthood.  Forbes reports: “…fully 42% of abortions are requested by women below the poverty level; 61% of women seeking abortions already have at least one child; and 1/2 of the pregnancies in the United States are unintentional.”

Co-PP’s founder, Margaret Sanger, says, “They live and die on the fringes of society, in pockets of dire poverty and inner city tenements, even in an ultra-rich country like ours.  Yet they might as well not exist as far as politicians, and commentators are concerned.”  No doubt she means the conservative talk-radio circuit.  Another point is made that Arizona’s and other states’ budget deficits might be solved by releasing this financial burden on families.

But Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer has a deeper, more covert interest in Arizona’s “Whole Woman’s Health Funding Priority Act.”  Almost sounds wholesome, doesn’t it?  The only site that had the guts to report this aspect of the story was Jezebel.com, saying in its headline, “Governor Who Cut Funding for Sexual Assault Victims Has Son Who Was Charged With Sexual Assault.”  Brewer’s new law won’t help the victim but it will help her son.

Ronald Brewer “…broke into a woman’s apartment, slapped her several times, and committed sex acts on her.”  And although the man had been functioning as a normal human being prior to the attack, his mother, the Governor, had him committed because she said the trauma had deteriorated his health.  At the same time she had the case’s records sealed by the court.

The question is whether she put the guy away to help him or was it because she didn’t want Ronald to embarrass her during her administration?  She needn’t have worried, Brewer has done nothing but embarrass herself since becoming Governor.

Forbes had an interesting statement at the end of their article.  It read: “It is reprehensible enough when governments like the Chinese enforce a rule of no more than one child per family.  How is it any different when a government insists that we cannot limit the size of it?”  The anti-abortion people should take note of this.  But Jan Brewer wouldn’t have a clue what they are talking about.

The real downside of the Supreme Court and Arizona’s anti-immigration law

Are we sure why many of us disagree with Arizona’s case on illegal immigration in the Supreme Court?  After 40 years that brought 12 million Mexican immigrants into the U.S., more than half illegally, many have decided to shut their own door to the border and stay in Mexico.  A report by the Pew Hispanic Center says more illegals returned South of the Border in 2010 and 2011 than entered the U.S.  But Ariz. Gov. Jan Brewer and Russell Pearce want them all out.



Russell Pearce with Jan Brewer



Russell Pearce is the author of Arizona’s anti-immigration law, SB-1070 and the former state Senator who was removed from office because of his radical views on immigration.  Yet he, along with Brewer, was in Washington last week pushing the Supremes.  It might have done some good, along with the fact that many of the Justices, including the liberal ones, don’t completely agree with the feds’ case.  It’s the old “States Rights” issue raising its head again.

The case is not a test of the legality of racial profiling in Arizona but rather a challenge to the federal government which says SB-1070 is unconstitutional because it preempts federal law.  In a Salon article there is a list of the four provisions for preemptive concern as outlined by Lyle Denniston of the SCOTUS blog.  They are:

1. individual’s legal right to be in the U.S., if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” of illegality.  If arrested, the individual cannot be released until his legal status is verified by the federal government.  That is the law’s Section 2(B).

2. A provision making it a crime under state law for an individual to intentionally fail to obtain and carry legal immigrant papers with him while in Arizona (Section 3). 

3. A provision making it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job, publicly solicit a job, or actually work in AZ (Section 5[C]). 

4. And, a provision that allows police to arrest without a warrant any person for whom the officer has “probable cause to believe” that the individual has committed any crime, anywhere, that would make that individual subject to being deported (Section 6). 



Hispanic Supreme Court Justice
Sonia Sotomayor



An editorial in the Phoenix Arizona Republic said, “This case is not about civil rights. It's about state vs. federal power. Chief Justice John Roberts made that clear as arguments began. Civil-rights questions are the subject of other lawsuits. ‘So this is not a case about ethnic profiling,’ Roberts said.”  That was followed by the following from the paper:

“Yet those are the deeply troubling aspects of SB 1070. The law put a shadow of suspicion over all Latinos, created painful divisions in our state and gave Arizona an ugly reputation.”

The implication is that many of us progressives disagree with the law, as well as those copy-cats in other states, due to their violation of civil rights.  It is a known fact that law enforcement in Arizona was stopping individuals simply based on the color of their skin, for minor violations, arresting many, some legal residents.  The feds have initiated a program of rounding up illegals but they are only interested in the ones with criminal records, turning minor offenders loose.

Fareed Zacaria of CNN wonders if Mexicans are “giving up on U.S?  He cites the delicate economy here and how NAFTA has made Mexico more competitive.  Some of their exports are even cheaper than China’s.  Zacaria thinks we are losing our “allure.”  He refers to our demographic advantage that is shrinking due to an older median age, which produces less needed young workers.  That had been satisfied to some degree by legal and illegal immigrants entering the U.S.

Illegals are scared to death in states with stringent immigration laws, afraid to leave home without the proper papers.  The issue has also caused a drop in citizens from Latino communities reporting crime, a reaction which has become a major problem for law enforcement.  But, again, this case is not about civil rights.  But it is for those who believe in human rights, so the question is what to do.  The Democrats plan to force a vote in Congress to invalidate Arizona’s SB-1070.

Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York has announced his intention of bringing up his “fallback legislation” in the Senate if SCOTUS upholds the law  which probably has little chance of passing there or in the GOP House.  But it would certainly make points with the Hispanic community and act as the prelude to what the Dems might accomplish in November with Obama winning re-election and an increase in numbers in both the House and Senate.

Romney label by Arizona’s Russell Pearce could be damaging

Russell Pearce & AZ Gov. Jan Brewer

You remember Russell Pearce.  Arizona’s resident bigoted and racist state senator until the people of his district threw him out of office in disgrace recently for his extremist views.  Pals with the state’s best known racist and neo-Nazi, J.T. ready.  Pseudo-author of Arizona’s famous anti-immigration law.  Yes, this is the one, and now he has another notch on his gun.  He has placed GOP presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, in his despicable category.

Russell Pearce said that he and Romney have “identical” views on immigration.  For some, most specifically Hispanics, that is the kiss of death for the candidate.  Democrats have already jumped on the bandwagon to make Romney look like an extremist in his quest to unseat President Obama.  Although I am firmly behind the President, I’m not sure Mitt Romney is that much of a fanatic, although he may eventually have to be in order to enlist Tea Party support.

Romney’s campaign website “outlines an immigration policy that calls for securing the border by completing a high-tech fence and hiring border patrol agents. He also said he supports E-Verify and opposes ‘magnets’ for illegal immigration, such as amnesty programs and in-state tuition for people in this country illegally,” according to Cronkite News. 

But Pearce does claim that “…much of his {Romney’s} policy was modeled – by people who I’ve worked with – after my legislation.”



Mitt Romney on immigration



U.S. representatives Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson, along with Charlie Gonzalez of Texas and Xavier Becerra of California comment that “Romney has allied himself with Pearce, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, former California Gov. Pete Wilson and other backers of stringent laws against undocumented immigrants.”  This is all followed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s endorsement of Romney back in February that just adds fuel to the anti-immigration fire.

Looking at President Obama’s position on immigration reform, there appears to be no change from his State of the Union speech in 2011 and 2012.  But there are also no bold moves to advance an aggressive agenda on the issue.  Lots of talk and no action.  This is what the Hispanic community is looking at, plus the fact that Obama is setting records on deportation.  However, the one real plus in the president’s corner is the mud-slinging against Hispanics by the GOP.

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich makes Obama's case:

Here are the President’s remarks on immigration in 2011:

Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us.

It makes no sense.

Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. And I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult. I know it will take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who could be staffing our research labs or starting a new business, who could be further enriching this nation.

And then in 2012:

Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn't make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.



Barack Obama speaking to latinos



Very similar, but in 2012 condescending to the fact that the upcoming election will prevent real reform while making another pitch for the Dream Act.  Giving in to election year realities is expected these days but there is no excuse for the fact that nothing was started in the last 3-plus years.  A real shocker would be for Obama to propose and push his immigration plan right up to November showing the forcefulness he needs to exhibit, in the process locking the Hispanic vote.

Hind-sight is always 20/20, but I have always thought the President should have tackled immigration reform before health care, but, then, that is probably the reason I am not a White House advisor.

The ALEC conspiracy broadens

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been called a “bill churning mill” primarily due to the fact that, of the nearly 1,000 bills it presents to state lawmakers each year, 20 percent become law.  Some of them verbatim, right out of ALEC’s factory.  Marvin Meadors writing for the Huff Post likens it to the “evil law firm” in the movie The Devil’s Advocate, a 1997 film in which a lawyer finds out his new boss is Lucifer himself.

I can see how the Koch brothers, David and Charles, would be considered the devil reincarnated by consumers because everything these two concoct ends up flying in the face of the average American citizen.  Things like the “stand your ground” laws (Castle Doctrine), voter id laws, voucher programs for private schools that dilute public education, anti environmental bills, anti-immigration legislation, anti-worker laws, and the list goes on.

But the Koch brothers aren’t in this alone; their cronies are some of the largest corporations in the U.S., all of which depend on the very consumers ALEC laws are designed to oppose.  Companies like Wal-Mart, Kraft, State Farm, Exxon/Mobil, Verizon, AT&T, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, not to mention Koch Industries and there are more.  These back-stabbers are joined by over 2,000 of your state legislators who pretty much do just what ALEC tells them to.

And then there is the National Rifle Assn., which brought the “stand your ground” law to ALEC, who along with the NRA got it passed in Florida in 2005, which then went on to another twenty-something states.  It is the basis on which George Zimmerman shot and killed black teen ager Trayvon Martin in Florida recently, and the possible answer to why justifiable homicides are increasing at an alarming rate in the states that have passed this law.    

ALEC was actually founded by conservative Paul Weyrich, also the founder of the Heritage Foundation to defy liberal think tanks.  He was one of the earliest to marry conservatives to evangelicals, joining Jerry Falwell to found the Moral Majority.  Weyrich actually said: “I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people.”  He continues, “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

His underlying meaning, above, becomes quite clear when you consider the voter-id laws that ALEC is proposing under the guise of stopping voter fraud that are actually meant to discourage voting by the poor and ethnic minorities. 

But there is probably nothing more profound in ALEC’s privatization efforts than its crusade to turn America’s prisons into private enterprise.  Its model legislation has been responsible for an explosion in prison population.  Laws like “three strikes,” mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and “truth in sentencing” that does away with or limits parole.  As crime fell dramatically in the 1990s, the prison population grew by a half-million inmates, as just one example.     



Gov. Brewer fills private prisons



And where do we go for the most glaring examples of ALEC’s privatization of prisons?  Why Arizona of course.  I did a post on this in February, “Private prisons another example of big business exploiting states,” which related the conspiracy going on between Gov. Jan Brewer’s office, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Republican state legislators to bring in companies like Corrections Corp. of America (CCA), and guarantee to keep their cells filled for profit.

But there is a darker side that the state doesn’t talk about because it completely refutes Arizona’s original reason for going this route.  It was to save money, which it hasn’t.  A report released in February reveals that the state overpaid its private prisons by $10 million between 2008 and 2010.  And what they received in return was unacceptable including malfunctioning alarm systems, fences with holes in them, inept staffs plus other problems.

In total there were 157 serious security failings across five facilities.  There were some 28 riots, a figure that cannot be confirmed since the prison administration attempted to hide the evidence.  And just this past Tuesday, Arizona’s Dept. of Corrections awarded a $349 million three-year contract to privatize health care for inmates, costing $5 million more than the state paid in 2011.

These are your tax-paying dollars folks, and ALEC makes the U.S. Congress’ pork barrel politics look like kids stuff.  The question is not if, but rather when, ALEC will come up with a new state program to privatize.  How about parks?  Now that’s a possibility.  Fence them all in and charge admission.  But the state must find ways to force more people into the parks for maximum profit of let’s say a company like “Private Parks of America.”

Absurd?  Not at all.  And if progressives don’t get busy on both the national and state levels and dump these conservative lawmakers that worship big business, this country is in for a shock some day when corporations will occupy the White House and the Congress, not individuals.

BREAKING NEWS: Just announced that Coca Cola and Pepsico have severed their ties with ALEC due to pressure from special interest groups.  More on this later.