Tuesday July 7, 2015
Jump to content
Seems to me that the story here should be the stores that won't allow the collection boxes, not just whining about how badly the Food Bank is doing. Food Banks ALWAYS need more food.
Why doesn't the reporter name the stores specifically? Is it all three, or just WalMart, just Safeway, or just Basha's? Have the managers been asked about this policy change? If so, what was their response? Have they gone to bat for the communities that support them, or did they just hide behind the "new corporate policy" excuse?
And if the managers weren't questioned, why not? I mean, The Roundup is the only game in town, so it couldn't possibly be because these stores are major advertisers, could it?
Pat... how would you market a home with this in its view?
by Michael Alexander
Last week, Hondurans... this week, wolves. A government of the people, by the people, and for the people should not allow for tyranny by bureaucratic agencies. We need to consider all remedies. And soon. While we're still allowed. http://conventionofstates.com/
Rather than close off Fossil Creek to visitors from the Rim Country, the feds (U.S. Forest Service) should turn management of the entire area over to the Arizona State Parks system. All one has to do is take a look at how well the state has managed Tonto Natural Bridge to see that they understand the economic principal of a return on an investment, whereas the federal government just understands politics... and only the "correct" ones, at that.
(4 of 4)
Between now and the next legislative session, we will undoubtedly run across – actually we should actively seek out – those regular folks, initiates who understand and agree that what we currently have is a "runaway government" and that something needs to be done, but they've only heard the negative misrepresentations of an Article V remedy. We should tactfully suggest that they take a moment to read the plain language of A5, explaining that it specifically and deliberately assigns the power to propose amendments to the constitution equally to both Congress and to the States, and that it was purposefully added as a safeguard in the event of Congress' refusal or failure to act. We should tell them that it’s only 143 words, and warn them ahead of time that it won’t tell them word-for-word, step-by-step how to do it… the Framers, as in so many other fundamental matters, didn’t believe that they had to spell it out for us. What it will tell them, however, in no uncertain terms, is that it CAN be done, and they'll already know that it should.
Once they understand the original intent of those words, all anyone needs from that point on to go forward is the courage and the trust that our Founders had in the American people, without neither of which, no one deserves to consider themselves a Constitutional Conservative.
PS: I'm including pertinent links below in the event others may want to inform themselves... in either case, these issues are NOT going away!
A5 - http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
CSG COS - http://conventionofstates.com/
CFA BBA - http://www.compactforamerica.org/
Local Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/arizonaconventionofstates/
(3 of 4)
I am further advised that Biggs just barely won the Senate presidency this last term by one vote. It appears hopeful that his alliance with the anti-Fivers against the will of the majority of the people of Arizona – as evidenced by the legislation’s passage in the House – will at the very least make him less competitive against a more constitutionally devoted opponent if he vies for the presidency again in the next legislative session.
Many of us are taking the position that any leader whose reasoning on this particular issue has been clouded by fear should not be allowed to continue preventing Arizona from taking her rightful place in the fight to return this nation to the ideals envisioned by our Founders.
So, in the short term, we've decided that we must strive to remind those who have adopted that decades-old "runaway" paranoia that many great conservative thinkers and leaders have recently re-examined the issue and joined us in support of one or both of these popular conservative movements for an Article V Convention... people like Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, George Will, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Mike Church, David Barton, Mike Lee, Rand Paul, Sarah Palin and Alan West, among others.
(2 of 4)
Most are quietly licking their wounds, trying to rationalize the irrational. And some are asking some pretty hard questions. Unfortunately, right now, today, there are few answers. There are, however, some undeniable truths that do help us understand some of the underlying dynamics at work behind the defeat, and those discoveries will inform us in the run-up to and during the next legislative session.
We’ve decided that we have to adopt a new attitude. As cynical as it may sound, the fact of the matter is that politics, to those who live it day-in and day-out, is a game. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. Then you suit up and get ready to play again.
Among other disclosures and revelations, I have been advised that Andy Biggs objects to any and all A5 movements out of fear of a “runaway convention,” that same time-worn and thoroughly debunked argument that has been advanced by the Eagle Forum and the John Birch Society for at least the last two decades. Despite substantial and comprehensive safeguards built into the new legislation, Biggs remained intractable. We've learned that fear, and not wanting to abandon a long-held posiition, can do terrible things to otherwise competent people.
(1 of 4)
I rec'd your inquiry, and really appreciate your interest. I'm sorry for the delayed response... we had to take a run up to Colorado, plus we needed a bit of a break. Here’s a brief update on Arizona’s effort to pass Article V legislation this session:
There were two bills up for consideration - HB2305 was the Goldwater Institute’s Balanced Budget Amendment, and SCR1016 was the broader Convention of States application by Citizens for Self-Governance. Both bills passed through all their respective committee hurdles and passed floor votes in the House, the latter doing so twice.
Unfortunately, they both died an inglorious procedural death in the Senate because Andy Biggs (R), the President of the Senate, exercised his pocket veto power and refused to allow either bill to come to the floor for a final vote before the legislature adjourned for the year, despite considerable pressure brought by sponsors and supporters.
So, we lost.
Knowing full well that in Ted Paulk's response to Pete Aleshire's article, "Pending Bills Could Undo Local Officials’ Budget Plans" (Apr 4), his question as to how State Senator Chester Crandell and State Representative Brenda Barton keep getting re-elected was rhetorical, I simply cannot ignore his implication that the bills he mentioned, which both the senator and the representative support, do not enjoy enormous public backing.
SB 1227, the Energy Efficient Standards legislation, takes nothing away from anyone. To the contrary, it returns to the home owner / builder the choice of which features to include in the home, without piling on any additional unfunded local government mandates. Decreased construction costs translate into lower purchase prices, and I'll vote for that every time!
HB 2517, the bill clarifying Firearms Preemption Penalties, simply extends the respect and presumption of innocence that all legally-permitted, gun-owning American citizens deserve. If a local elected public official is afraid of an armed citizen for no other reason than the fact that he is armed, that citizen should not be deprived of his rights nor bear any costs whatsoever in deference to that official's fear. And possibly, that official should run from office rather than for it. That's another yes vote in my book!
And lastly, HB 2448, the Property Rights bill, puts local government on notice that if a regulation can be shown to be arbitrary, burdensome, and has negatively impacted the market value of a property, the town can be held liable for the loss. If a lawmaker, like the two mentioned above, approaches his job with the understanding that the actions he takes have real consequences to his constituents, then there, Mr. Paulk, is someone who has my vote!
We've tried voting.
We've tried leaving the box blank.
Maybe it's time we tried something else.
There is a Solution as big as the Problem - An Article V Convention of States
Last login: Sunday, May 17, 2015