Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Got No Heart, Part 4

I wasn't sure if there was going to be a Part 4 to this series. I should have known to just give them time.

In Part 1 we saw how the UK government was intervening early on in the lives of children that government bureaucrats decided might become problems for society at some point in the future, with a goal of preventing those problems from ever cropping up. How early?

Predictably, by one year later, the situation was out of control with secret government courts to decide who was a fit parent. From The unnatural justice of secret family courts, August 27, 2007:

The Sunday Telegraph highlights today yet another case in which a mother has been threatened with losing her baby to local authority care. The mother had not shown any sign at all of harming her child, for her baby has not yet been born.

Understand, the child is not yet born.

Insofar as abortion rights are concerned, this is not a child, but a fetus, and may be destroyed.

But, insofar as the government being able to intervene, this is not just a child, but one that will turn out bad unless the government does something.

We also speculated whether government bureaucrats might not be getting into the baby business under cover of the public interest.

Well, in Part 2 we saw this was indeed the case:

So, local government entities were promised more money from London if they increased the number of adoptions. In turn, using excuses like "a chance [the parent] might shout at [the baby] when he was older", they started taking babies from innocent families, because babies are easier to adopt out.

In Part 3, we stopped short of actually saying that the UK government was involved in human trafficking of the babies of UK citizens, only because I produced no evidence documenting a money trail of kickbacks to government officials.

However, you can argue that it is human trafficking nonetheless.

Now, this: I reproduce in its entirety from March 19, 2012:

Instead, the primary pupils are being encouraged to play in large groups.

Educational psychologist Gaynor Sbuttoni said the policy has been used at schools in Kingston, South West London, and Surrey.

She added: "I have noticed that teachers tell children they shouldn't have a best friend and that everyone should play together.

"They are doing it because they want to save the child the pain of splitting up from their best friend. But it is natural for some children to want a best friend. If they break up, they have to feel the pain because they're learning to deal with it."

Russell Hobby, of the National Association of Head Teachers, confirmed some schools were adopting best-friend bans.

He said: "I don't think it is widespread but it is clearly happening. It seems bizarre.

I don't see how you can stop people from forming close friendships. We make and lose friends throughout our lives." The Campaign for Real Education, which wants more parental choice in state education, said the "ridiculous" policy was robbing children of their childhood.

Spokesman Chris McGovern added: "Children take things very seriously and if you tell them they can't have a best friend it can be seriously damaging to them. They need to learn about relationships."

I'm not making this up.

(See also UK Schools Ban Children From Making Best Friends, March 22, 2012.)

First, take a moment and research the UK's gun laws. Basically, you aren't supposed to have them - except certain kinds under very limited conditions.

Now, step back and put this all together.

The British people, who more than seven decades ago basically stood alone in the West to stop Hitler, were first disarmed by their own government late in the last century.

Next, secret government courts make the most important decisions about who will raise your children, and if you speak out about it, you go to prison. People no longer have a right to have families, and they do not have a right to complain about this fact or protest it.

Finally, schools are beginning to prevent children from having best friends.

The direction this is moving in is that people will be in trouble if they have close associates; relationships are intended to be casual.

This is important, because a very close friend will risk his life for you, and will help you when you are in trouble. But, when a casual acquaintance sees government goons coming after you, he will step back and let them take you. And, since your "friendships" are all shallow, you won't know whom to trust, so you can't make any effective plans to retake Britain from those who now control it.

Understand, this banning of best friends is in its infancy, but make no mistake about what will happen when this policy grows up.

The people of the United Kingdom fought off the Nazis, they were integral in winning the Cold War and defeating communism... but, the bad guys won. Children in the UK are growing up in a world every bit as bad as Hitler or Stalin ever sought to create.

And, my fellow Americans, don't think this won't happen on our side of the Atlantic.

The US government is already building its database of who your friends are...

Director of National Intelligence Gains New Powers, Expands Datamining of US Citizens

Under revised guidelines for the National Counterterrorism Center, the intelligence agency officials will be able to profile and track American citizens, suspected of no crime, for up to five years. The change represents a dramatic expansion of government surveillance and appears to violate the Privacy Act of 1974, which limits data exchanges across federal agencies and establishes legal rights for US citizens. In 2003, Congress put an end to a similar program. For more information, see EPIC - Total Information Awareness.

Saturday, March 24, 2012

Updating Blog

In the sidebar I have quite a selection of links. My section on "News and Analysis" became over three hundred links.

I am currently in the process of reorganizing and updating links, as well as working on other issues. One aspect of this is to break the "News and Analysis" section down into more manageable chunks, while moving some links from there to other widgets that are more appropriate.

As this is ongoing, some links are unavailable. Please excuse any inconvenience, and please feel free to leave any suggestions for links.


Thursday, March 15, 2012

Bogey Dope, Part 3

We continue from Part 1 and Part 2 considering the race for the special election in Arizona's CD8, which will lead into the race in the newly-redistricted CD2.

First, let's back up to March 6, and consider an article entitled Pima Dems try to keep Green off the CD8 ballot.

Pima County Democratic operatives are working to eliminate all competition in the race for CD8. having shamed all other democrats from challenging Ron Barber, they are now challenging a Dem running as a Green. They are suing to keep the Green Party candidate, Charles Manolakis, off the ballot.

According to the Yellow Sheet, Bill Risner, Tucson attorney and Democrat activist, filed a lawsuit Friday on behalf of Luke Knipe to have Manolakis, who they claim is a registered Democrat, removed from the ballot. The lawsuit includes a request for a temporary restraining order to prevent Manolakis's name from being printed on the ballot. Pima County Superior Court Judge Sarah Simmons was first assigned the case, but, finding a conflict of interest, Simmons transferred the case to the Mohave County Superior Court.

While it appears that the restraining order may have been issued, the ballots have already been printed, the Yellow Sheet reports, and overseas ballots have already been mailed.

Pima County Democratic Chair Jeff Rogers, who is not known for his tolerance of primary challengers, told the Yellow Sheet that, "It is a known fact that in an election, a Green Party candidate can siphon off enough votes to tip the election toward a GOP candidate."

The matter is scheduled for court on March 12, at 1:30 p.m.

At least Chairman Rogers is out in the open about the fact that he wants to eliminate any choices other than the Democrats. His clear agenda is to polarize the election on the Democrat side.

And, this strategy makes sense. If the Republican candidates should harbor any divisiveness or bitterness after the primary - keeping in mind only one of them can win - then that could have an impact in the special election. If all the Democrats support their candidate, Ron Barber, and if the Republicans are a little divided, this could cause the Democrats to win in a district where the Republicans have an advantage in registration, and in an election where the Republicans, who are generally more inveterate as voters, can be expected to turn out in greater proportion.

But, offer the Democrats an option, which a Green Party candidate would be, and that works against the D's.

I guess when it comes to a democratic election, not all Democrats are pro-choice. :)

Ultimately, this was decided in favor of Manolakis. From Green Party congressional candidate remains on ballot, March 12, 2012:

TUCSON, AZ (Tucson News Now) - A Pima Superior Court judge threw out a challenge Monday to Green Party candidate Charlie Manolakis' position on the ballot for the special election to replace former U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.


Manolakis, a 72-year-old former teacher who has lived in Arizona since 1974, turned in petition signatures to run for the Green Party nomination. His position on ballot was challenged in civil court on grounds he was not a member of the party.

Manolakis said he registered with the Green Party in Pima County on Feb. 23. He said he formerly was registered as a Democrat.

The former Boston resident is the only Green Party candidate who qualified for the race.

The plaintiff in the case was Tucson political blogger Luke Knipe.

The Pima, Santa Cruz, Cochise and Pinal boards of supervisors were also listed as defendants.

Judge Lee F. Jantzen dismissed the action.

But let's not lose sight of the underlying issue: the Pima County Democratic Party sees no advantage in being truly democratic. :)

For more on what's happening on the D side, Tom Danehy at Tucson Weekly had this to say:

The rumors had been swirling for weeks, and that's why I was dismayed that when Gabrielle Giffords announced she was stepping down, her hand-picked successor wasn't standing next to her (and being introduced as such). A big-name local Dem told me, "(That person, whoever it was to be) should have been at Gabby's side, maybe at the Food Bank, handing out food to people. You just can't blow a photo opportunity like that."

And yet they did. Memo to Pima County Democratic Party Chairman Jeff Rogers: What the hell, dude?! I'm still upset at Rogers for taking sides in a Democratic primary election. (He sided with Regina Romero over a Democratic challenger in last year's City Council elections.)

That was a monster no-no, and I've never heard a reasonable explanation from anyone as to why he would do that. That blunder was unforgivable; allowing the Republicans to take Giffords' seat would border on criminally negligent.

Having Giffords' longtime assistant Ron Barber enter the race soothed some people's nerves, especially considering a couple of the possibilities that had been bandied about prior to his announcement. There was the woman who would have had to change parties (!) in order to run in the Democratic primary, and another person absolutely awash in the malodorous essence of Rio Nuevo. By comparison, Barber is a veritable People's Choice.

Still, I wonder about the timing of it all. If he was going to run all along, why not announce it at a more-advantageous time? And if he doesn't want to run in November, then when are we going to find out who is?

I don't know Ron Barber; he seems like a decent guy. Nevertheless, what exactly are his qualifications, other than that he worked for Giffords, and God help me, he got shot? I've always voted for her, and I've been shot, too, but nobody asked me to run. I just hope he's tough enough, because the Republicans, who have always considered Giffords to be a squatter, are going to throw the kitchen sink at him.

Barber's entry in the race did clear things up on the Democratic side. Matt Heinz, who had been in the race, dropped out, leaving the Democratic nomination to Barber. On the other side, the Republican primary should be an absolute bloodbath. I can't wait.

I wonder if it is going to be "an absolute bloodbath" on the Republican side.

In any case, could it be anywhere near as bad as it has long been among the Democrats?

We consider excerpts from Guest Opinion: Is Jeff Rogers Abusing His Office? by Rob Ferrier, January 27, 2012:

While the Pima County Democratic Party might not have a face, it certainly has a voice. I am writing of course of Jeff Rogers, the twice-elected Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party.

The duties of Chair are as follows:

The County Chair shall preside at all meetings; make appointments to committees; make temporary appointments to offices which have been vacated... and generally do all and everything necessary to aid in the election of Democratic candidates, and to promote successful organization and operation of the Pima County Democratic Committee.

In sum, the Chair is to administrate the Party, raise money and groom potential candidates. The Chair is also a member of the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is allowed and authorized to express policy position on issues of local, state, and national import. Nowhere, however, in the bylaws, is the Chair authorized to decide who is, and who is not, Democrat enough for the Party's taste. Nowhere in the bylaws do the words "Chair" and "duly appointed demagogue" appear within the same sentence.

Yet in 2011, the Pima County Democratic Party, seemingly at Mr. Rogers' direction, but voted on by the Executive Committee, spent almost $9,000.00 to fund a campaign against Joe Flores in the Ward 1 City Council, primary election. In other words, Jeff Rogers, as the head of the Pima County Democratic Party, picked one Democrat over another during a party primary. While, as the Party was quick to point out, this action is not strictly prohibited, it is undeniably unusual.

Apparently, the Pima County Democratic Party boss, Chairman Rogers, has been "administrating" his party by moving against Democrats that he disagrees with, using party money in the primary.

No wonder no Democrats want to challenge Barber in the primary. They would have enough of a fight on their hands battling a Democrat machine trying to sink them.

After more commentary, including more examples of Chairman Rogers undermining Democrat candidates in primaries, Mr. Ferrier concludes:

He does not have the right, however, to tell me, or anyone else, what we are allowed to think or believe as Democrats. And he does not have the right to tell his fellow Democrats that they are not welcome in my Party.

The Democratic Party does not belong to Mr. Rogers. While it is to his credit that he agreed to serve it, neither I, nor the vast majority of the rank and file asked him to define the contours of its policy, nor granted him the right to use it as his bully pulpit. And it is high past time that when he chooses to express his personal views that he identify himself as Jeff Rogers, local gadfly, and not Jeff Rogers, Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party. Because I, for one, am sick and tired of others assuming that Mr. Rogers speaks for me.

I was born and raised Republican. I chose to be a Democrat. Through the years, I participated in Young Democrats, I volunteered for candidates and once, and only once, allowed myself to be dragooned as a Precinct Committeeman. I admired, and still admire, FDR, Truman, JFK and RFK. I voted for Bill Clinton twice despite my personal distaste for his prurient habits. I have long accepted that the blessing of American privilege comes hand in glove with the responsibility of public service. And I embraced the Democratic Party because, fundamentally as a liberal leaning fellow, I believed in a few core ideals.

First, government is and should be, a force for good. Second, all people, regardless of where they came, what they believed, or what the color of their skin, deserved a fair shake from government. And most of all, I joined the Democratic Party because the Party shared those ideals. Within the Party, I am free to think what I want, and to believe what I want. And to know, to coin a phrase, that while my fellow Democrats might not like what I say, they will die for my right to say it. Above all else, we stand and fall together. We are the Great Coalition. The Big Tent. Come one. Come all.

I have friends within the Party that are pro-life. That are gun nuts. That are against gay marriage. That wish to build a wall across the Mexican Border. That dream of the day the death penalty is free from the shackles of due process. I share none of these views. But I would never question their right to belong to my party. And I would never, ever question their right to vote their conscience or to speak their mind. As far as I know, there is no litmus test to be a Democrat.

Except, apparently, in Pima County.

There was a time in this country when the two major parties served the interests of the country as they best saw fit. You might disagree with Truman or Eisenhower, but you could feel comfortable that either one of them was trying to do some good for America.

This has changed.

The "Democratic" Party, as an institution, was infiltrated and has largely been taken over by those who seek power for their own ends.

This infiltration is on the part of "Leftist" radicals. Their strategy has been to promote a plethora of issues, but their goal is their own power.

Lenin promised Russians "peace, land, bread", but in the end, it was about the Bolsheviks gaining and keeping power at the expense of the Russian people.

The same is true today in America.

There are a great many decent people who are Democrats, but increasingly, they are being sold out by their leadership.

To be sure, I disagree with many of these Democrats; with some of them, I disagree on nearly everything.

But, I recognize that they have opinions that they have formed, they have courses of action that they wish to implement, and, they have intentions that are good.

They have been sold out.

In Russia, after the Soviet Union was formed and Lenin died, Stalin had to purge his internal enemies, foremost among them being Trotsky who, after having worked to overthrow capitalism beginning in Russia, found himself fleeing to the capitalist world for safety.

And, we see this today in "Democratic" politics: too often, dissent gets crushed and internal enemies are the first casualties. Many Democrats become disgusted, and switch to the Republican Party. Despite all the desperate rhetoric from the Left, it is the Republican tent that is broad and inclusive, generally civil, where dissent is tolerated and often encouraged, where differences of opinion are respected as being American, and where our disagreements make us stronger by burning away lies in the crucible of freethinking debate.

(Source for last two images.)

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

What is Constant

First, some old news... which often is the best news. :)

Excerpts from Supreme Court declines Pledge of Allegiance case, dated October 5, 2009:

A Florida teenager has lost his bid to have the US Supreme Court decide whether students in public schools have a First Amendment right to refuse to stand and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance.

The underlying lawsuit did not challenge the content of the Pledge. Instead, at issue was a Florida law that requires all public-school students, Grades K-12, to stand and repeat the Pledge, unless excused in writing by a parent.


On Monday, the Supreme Court announced that it would not hear the case. No reason for the decision was offered.

In seeking high-court review of the case, called Frazier v. Smith, Mr. Frazier's lawyers had asked the justices to decide whether he and other students have a constitutional right to refuse to be compelled by the government to repeat the Pledge of Allegiance.

To resolve the case, the justices would have had to clarify a landmark 1943 ruling in which the high court declared schoolchildren in West Virginia may not be required to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance.

The issue in the Frazier case was whether the First Amendment right established in the West Virginia decision belongs to the children alone or instead extends to the children through their parents.

A federal judge in Florida agreed that the right belongs to the students and struck down the Florida law. But a federal appeals-court panel later upheld the law on grounds that the First Amendment right belongs to parents of school-age children – not the children themselves.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida took up Frazier's case. In a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, ACLU lawyer Randall Marshall quoted from the 1943 West Virginia decision.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

Florida Solicitor General Scott Makar urged the high court to refuse to hear the case. "The state, of course, recognizes that minors have constitutional rights, albeit more limited ones than adults, especially in the area of education," Mr. Makar wrote in his brief to the court. "The state's clear legal position is simply that minors' rights must be balanced against those of their parents and the interests of the government in the education context."

In a friend-of-the court brief, two advocacy groups, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Public Good, said the appeals-court opinion in the Frazier case is a departure from a long and unbroken line of decisions.

"In upholding a Florida statute that limits students' clearly established right to abstain from reciting the pledge of allegiance in school, the court of appeals created a new parental right to control the exercise of their children's conscience," Seth Mermin wrote in the brief.

So, the government position is that children can be required to stand and recite the Pledge unless their parent/guardian requests in writing that they be excused.

This isn't good enough.

The Left - how else should I describe them? - wants it to be an individual student right to exercise their conscience.

What if a student feels that, as a matter of conscience, he shouldn't be compelled to go to school at all? Does he need someone's permission?

What's at issue here is whether children are children, and whether adults can set any rules at all for them.

Because, if you decide that children have individual rights the same as adults, then

1) Pedophilia will no longer be a crime; it will be open season on kids of any age for any purpose.
2) Children will need to vote. Presidential elections will be decided in favor of whoever promises the most toys. (That's kind of what we have now.)
3) Children will need career opportunities. No more child labor laws. Career opportunities will have to include anything that can help them get ahead. That will include the military; specifically, that will include combat.

Well, perhaps I am taking this too far.

We all know it will never get that far. ;)

Let's focus on one key quote:

The American Civil Liberties Union of Florida took up Frazier's case. In a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear the appeal, ACLU lawyer Randall Marshall quoted from the 1943 West Virginia decision.

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

I love it when the Left makes a stand on principle. :)

From Sandra Fluke: Slurs won't silence women, dated March 14, 2012:

Editor's note: Sandra Fluke is a third-year law student at Georgetown University Law Center and has served as president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice.


Most recently, certain political commentators have started spreading misinformation about the underlying government regulation we are discussing. To be clear, through programs such as Medicaid, the government already does and should fund contraception coverage for the poorest women in our country.

But, despite the misinformation being spread, the regulation under discussion has absolutely nothing to do with government funding: It is all about the insurance policies provided by private employers and universities that are financed by individual workers, students and their families -- not taxpayers.

Georgetown is the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.

Established in 1789, Georgetown is the nation's oldest Catholic and Jesuit university. Drawing upon this legacy, we provide students with a world-class learning experience focused on educating the whole person through exposure to different faiths, cultures and beliefs. With our Jesuit values and location in Washington, D.C., Georgetown offers students a distinct opportunity to learn, experience and understand more about the world.

Ms. Fluke clarifies that the topic at hand is the private sector, not the government.

Why does the private sector have to compromise on its core beliefs?

Where is the private sector's right to exercise its conscience without permission from the government? (A principle upon which this country was founded...)

Or, suppose it is a basic economic issue - suppose the insurance company does not cover a certain type of product or service because the company has made the business decision to target a certain part of the market. Suppose the company merely wants to try to keep costs down.

What the Left is trying to do here is force its beliefs on everyone. The Left wants to take the big hammer of government and use it to bludgeon all dissent.

When this goal can be supported by making a plea for freedom, that is what they do - such as when the Left supports a kid's desire to not say the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the country that is paying for his education, without having to have a letter from his parent on file.

When this goal can be supported by taking away freedom, that is what they do - such as compelling a business to offer a certain product or service, regardless of economic considerations, and regardless of whether offering that product or service goes against the core beliefs of the founders of that business.

What is constant here is the desire to destroy what is right about this country.

When I say the Pledge, I gladly do so, knowing I am pledging allegiance to a flag and to a nation which is represented by that flag, a nation where Jesuits can be Jesuits and Catholics can be Catholics, and I can agree or disagree with them, as I see fit.

The Left is against this. The Left wants to bludgeon Catholics into being less Catholic, the Left wants to bludgeon the business sector into being less businesslike, and the Left wants to bludgeon anyone who would dare to be American into being less American.

To be sure, there are people on the "Left" who really believe they are working for freedom. But, they need to understand that their movement was long ago hijacked by those who seek to destroy this country... just as those who truly wanted "Peace, Land, Bread" had their movement hijacked nearly a century ago in Russia.

Ms. Fluke, I am not questioning your integrity, I am not questioning your motives, and I am not making slurs about you.

But, I am questioning the wisdom of the position that you have gone out of your way to advocate publicly.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Bogey Dope, Part 2

Prior to reading this, you may wish to be familiar with the contents of my last post, which was Part 1 of this series.

The race for the Congressional seat vacated by Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona's 8th Congressional District is ongoing. For many people in the country, it is not even a blip on their radar scopes, and for a few, it is only that. For a very few, however, it is one of the most important things happening right now.

The current race is to replace Congresswoman Giffords, but there will be a follow-on battle for the seat for the redistricted 2nd Congressional District in the regularly scheduled elections in November. The current CD 8, and the redistricted CD 2, are both located in the southeast corner of Arizona, along the border with Mexico, and including all of Cochise County. The current CD 8 includes the eastern and northern parts of Santa Cruz County, as well as eastern parts of Pima County and a part of Pinal County. The redistricted CD 2 will include only the eastern part of Pima County, in addition to Cochise County. Part of the issue in the CD 8 race to replace Giffords is the question of whether the newly-elected Representative will simply hold the place until the new Congress is seated in January, or whether there will be continuity, with the newly-elected Representative continuing on as the CD 2 Representative in January. This will be decided by whether the same candidate registers for and wins both this special election and the regular election in November.

As the campaign progresses - and early voting in the primary of this special election starts March 22 - we are going to hear from the candidates as they address potential voters and debate each other. I link to some Arizona news sources in the sidebar, which will give you good information as you follow the election. One key link is the Arizona Daily Star's elections page. Regarding upcoming primary debates, we are informed in GOP candidates in CD8 to appear at many events of the currently-scheduled debates:

• On March 14, the SaddleBrooke Republican Club is hosting a candidate panel discussion at 4:15 p.m. at the Mountain View Country Club. Seating is limited.

• The next day, the Sabino High School Republicans are hosting a 90-minute debate at 6:30 p.m. at Sabino High School, 5000 N. Bowes Road.

• On March 26, the Pima County Young Republican Club and Legislative District 26 Republican Party are co-sponsoring a debate that starts at 7 p.m. at Canyon Del Oro High School, 25 W. Calle Concordia, Oro Valley.

• On March 29, the Southern Arizona Chamber Alliance, which includes eight chambers of commerce, will host a candidate mixer from 5:30 to 7 p.m. at El Charro, 6310 E. Broadway.

• On April 12, the candidates meet in Green Valley in what figures to be the final debate. It starts at 6:30 p.m. at Madera Clubhouse, 2055 E. Quail Crossing Blvd., hosted by the Republican Club of Green Valley-Sahuarita and the Quail Creek Republican Club and Tea Party of Green Valley.

The winner of the GOP primary will face Democrat Ron Barber (Giffords' district manager) and Green Party candidate Charlie Manolakis in the special general election on June 12th.

I am interested in the special election in general, but especially in the candidacy of retired Colonel Martha McSally - the reasons for this interest will become apparent.

One aspect of McSally's campaign was an internet chat with the public. (Other GOP Candidates have also had similar chats: Dave Sitton's transcript is from February 24, Frank Antenori's transcript is from February 29, and John Lervold's transcript is from March 2.) In the chat, McSally asked people to call her Martha, rather than refer to her as Col. McSally or call her "ma'am".

A comment: People will call you "Colonel McSally" out of respect and appreciation for your service to our country. They will call you "ma'am" for the same reason, and out of respect for the office you seek, even though many of those who hold elected office in Washington DC (and elsewhere in this country) bring the office into disrepute through their actions. Finally, people will also call you "Martha" out of warmth and a genuine desire to see you do well, even if they support another candidate in this particular race. Expect some people to refer to you in all three manners, depending on the circumstances - as I am about to do. :)

Local concerns will be significant in any Congressional election. However, for a piece of Arizona along the border with Mexico, many local concerns are national issues.

For example, campaigning in Sierra Vista this past weekend, McSally addressed a variety of these issues. From McSally aims for spot vacated by Giffords, dated March 11:

Calling the federal government atmosphere toxic, McSally said the American public want new leadership and ideas.

"The toxicity in the political sphere has a lot of people turned off," she said.

The United States is at a crossroads and there is a need to have people in Washington, D.C., who can pull the country out of the crisis, McSally said.

"The federal government is a little out of control. We need to rein the federal government in," she said.

"The federal government is a little out of control."

Colonel McSally, do you have a knack for understatement, or is there a "buzzer" between the clue bird on your shoulder and your ear? :)

You also mention "toxicity".

Also, in another article entitled CD8 candidate McSally says porous borders are national security threat, dated February 28 and referencing that chat, your views are described thusly (links from the excerpt have been reproduced):

Former Air Force fighter pilot Martha McSally said the country's porous borders are a national security threat that need to be met with an intelligence-driven strategy.

During a 1 1/2 hour online chat Tuesday on the Arizona Daily Star's website, www.azstarnet.com, the Republican candidate in the special election to complete Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' Congressional term also said it's vital to work with Mexico to address the root causes of the trans-national criminal organizations.

"Our porous borders are a national security threat that impacts this community more than any other in the nation," McSally wrote. "We need to have the political will to secure the border with available technology. I have been in leadership positions for critical security operations all over the world and believe we need to execute intelligence driven operations to thwart the transnational criminal organizations."

Some very astute comments, and these issues are interrelated.

If you recall from your history, decades ago, both New York and Chicago were major centers for organized crime. When we elected a President from New York, FDR, pressure was put on federal authorities and on authorities from New York state to clean up New York City; some progress was made.

However, in Illinois, the situation has been very different. In Chicago, organized crime essentially took over the city, and went on to take over the state.

Our current President is far from being an honest man; the guy we have in the White House now is a frontman and a puppet for organized crime, specifically for factions from Chicago.

Of course, organized crime is not constrained by jurisdictional boundaries; increasingly, with global trade and global communications, organized crime has developed global assets and global interests, and much of it is becoming very transnational in nature.

Why is the Obama Administration involved in a dubious plan to let firearms get purchased by straw buyers and move across the border into Mexico into the hands of drug cartels?

In Mexico, the military-grade weapons that the cartels use - fully-automatic weapons, grenades, rocket-launchers - are not being supplied by gun dealers on the US side of the border. Let's get real. On the US side of the border, most of these weapons are illegal for civilians to have, while some of them can only be owned with special licensing. They are not getting sold by respectable gun dealers to relatively unknown clients.

The military-grade weapons in the hands of the cartels are procured the same way the drugs that they traffic are procured: illegally, on the international black market. To be sure, many military and law enforcement personnel work for the cartels, stealing weapons from the Mexican government, or deserting and taking their weapons with them. But, much of this weaponry makes its way in from China, from former Eastern Block countries, from various dealers in Africa, Asia and Europe.

So, why is the Obama Administration helping arm the cartels?

One superficial answer is that by allowing weapons to walk across the border, the Obama Administration creates evidence to support the ridiculous liberal claim that US weapons fuel the violence.

But, scratch the surface a little deeper.

Another answer - less superficial - is that some of the Mexican cartels are so powerful, so well-organized, so well-trained, that we run the risk of them taking over the country. If we support the rivals and maintain a balance of power, we perpetuate the violence, but we also perpetuate a corrupt Mexican government from falling to a cartel in a blatant example of what is known as "state capture". Do an internet search on that expression, and see what you come up with.

But, let's dig down further.

The Obama Administration is backed by organized crime which obviously has ties to certain Mexican organized crime interests, and thus backs them against their rivals.

The real reason for the Fast and Furious scandal is blatant Chicago-style corruption.

Not everyone knows the real reason; different people support, or at least tolerate, the Fast and Furious scandal for different reasons. It just so happens that those different reasons provide different levels of cover stories, and different motivations for people who might otherwise have nothing to do with the operation.

Martha, you need to understand that the transnational organized crime activities, which you decry and which threaten your district and this country, have ties all the way to Washington. For example, should you win the election, you will be in Congress with a colleague named Henry Waxman, a Democrat from California's 30th District.

A few years back, when the Sibel Edmonds scandal was not breaking, Waxman promised that, if the Democrats could regain control of the House, Waxman would make sure that the Sibel Edmonds case got some attention because, after all, it was an example of how Republican President George W. Bush's Administration was abusing "state secrets privelege" for nefarious purposes.

Many people naively trusted a Democrat to break a scandal that would make the Republicans look dirty. After all, Waxman had been behind the 2004 report by the Committee on Government Reform Minority Office catching the Bush Administration with all their misleading information on Iraq. Later, in 2006, about the time Waxman was offering these hearings into the Sibel Edmonds case in the event the Democrats retook Congress, he received the Good Government Award from the Project On Government Oversight for his contributions to transparency and oversight.

Of course, what really happened was that Waxman cut his own deal with the Turkish Deep State, which was a key player in the Sibel Edmonds case. Waxman suddenly became intimate with the Turkish lobby, and the Sibel Edmonds case, which dealt with infiltration by Turkish organized crime into Congress and the FBI, was tabled.

This is not surprising.

The guy listed right above Congressman Waxman at POGO's award page is war hero and Arizona Senator John McCain. McCain also got an award, but his connections to ethnic Albanian organized crime remain relatively unknown and uninvestigated.

You see, these guys will gladly have an investigation that makes them look good, and that makes the other party look bad, but since transnational organized crime corrupts both parties, and corrupts both elected and appointed officials, transnational organized crime is not something that will get seriously investigated.

Besides which, investigating transnational organized crime can be hazardous to one's health. In Mexico, officials are presented with the choice of plata o plomo: "silver or lead" - in other words, take payments and be corrupt, or take a bullet.

This is part of why there is the toxicity that you mention.

To be sure, the left is hypocritical - any means are justified by their ends, which is their own power. The left doesn't care about the environment, or immigrants, or women's rights or reproductive choice or anything else, crap or not. The left wants its own power for its own purposes.

Consequently, when Congresswoman Giffords was shot on that terrible day, and when so many people were killed or hurt, the left saw an opportunity to silence its opposition by blaming "rhetoric". The left does not back down from its calls, whether real or figurative, for violence.

Similarly, when Rush Limbaugh made a comment about Sandra Fluke, and then sincerely apologized, the matter did not end. However, the left says whatever it wants about conservative political leaders and conservative commentators, and that is okay.

So, the toxicity is deliberate - it was designed by those who seek to destroy this country.

But, again, scratch the surface, and it is backed up by professional thugs.

Martha, in the internet chat, you wrote:

I pledged an oath as an officer to support and defend the Constitution and I have shown that I take that oath seriously, even when doing so endangered my career.

I do not doubt your willingness to risk your career, nor do I doubt your willingness to risk your life.

But, understand what you are up against.

To properly address border security and the Fast and Furious scandal, we need real investigations.

These will connect drug cartels to serving and past Presidents, these will connect trafficking in nuclear secrets to foreign intelligence services and to serving and past government officials, these will connect the trafficking of women for forced prostitution to Washington lobby groups and to officials from your own state.

To keep this from happening, these people will pick up a phone and make a call. The result can be anything from an IRS audit of your taxes, to a suddenly-appearing record that you are in collections due to a debt for $100,000 for internet gambling (no one cares if you have ever done that or not - a debt can still magically appear), to people close to you suddenly becoming victims of street crime or getting addicted to drugs.

As a newly-elected Representative in Congress, you will be told what to do and how to get along. If you play ball, then you will be on C-Span, and so on. Asking questions about dirty government officials, including guys sitting across the aisle from you, and including one Senator from your state who is connected to ethnic Albanian organized crime, and another who made Sibel Edmonds' Dirty Dozen list (NSWBC Letter to Senator Kyl)... well, this may not endear you to the establishment. :)

Thankfully, this country has never had a shortage of people willing to give their lives in its defense - especially when those people know they will be remembered as heroes.

The problem is a shortage of people willing to live for this country, even though they will slandered and libeled, and attacked (legally and otherwise), and painted as criminals by the people who themselves are criminals but who happen to have the protection of a facade of respectability.

If you do not understand that this is what you are up against, and then, if you are not ready to face it, then you are just another candidate for political office.

This is part of the reason why I am following your campaign, ma'am. I wonder if perhaps you are the right candidate to bring this whole topic to light...