Road to Independents (3 E’s)

By Angel Garcia

ed·u·cate
to develop mentally, morally, or aesthetically especially by instruction

synonyms: teach, instruct, lesson, school, train, tutor

Question: What (Who) is an (I)independent voter?

1.) Workshops and Seminars (e.g. government 101, rundown of numbers, contacting media, hyper-partisanship and gridlock, etc.) i.e. sharing the knowledge of independence of a party structure.

2.) Informational flyers (e.g. you CAN vote in the primary, you NEED to request ticket by party, etc) i.e. Get out the vote, remind people of legal rights, etc.

en·tice/em·brace
to attract artfully or adroitly or by arousing hope or desire; to take in or include as a part, item, or element of a more inclusive whole
Synonyms: allure, beguile, lure, seduce, solicit, tempt

Question: Why should I become an (I)independent voter?

1.) Build neighborhood teams (recruit community leaders) i.e. recruitment and retention

2.) Flood the media (issue press releases identifying yourself as an independent voter, rallies and protests led by (I)independent community leaders, press conferences, etc.) i.e. Rapid response to keep (I)independents in the media; accountability

em·pow·er
to promote the self-actualization or influence of
Synonyms: accredit, certify, commission, enable, invest, qualify, vest, warrant

Question: Where do I find (I)independents?

1.) Resources (Training, fundraisers, etc.) i.e. What tools are needed to survive politically as an independent here in Arizona?

2.) Independents in office (municipal first, then ‘go for the gold’) i.e. We use a tactic that has already worked for every other group that has power grabbed in the U.S. over the last 200 + years.

3.) Gain ownership of the word (I)independent (not undecided, uneducated, lazy, or waste of time voter) i.e. The parties have gone out of their way to diminish the term independent to mean something derogatory.

*Definitions and synonyms provided by: Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/)

12 Steps to Securing Our Borders and Legal Immigration

Why is securing our borders and legal immigration needed?

A healthy and legal immigration solution will secure our borders, create a safer North American Continent and promote a stronger relationship with our contiguous neighbors.  Enforcement-only initiatives promote a situation that emulates the failed days of Prohibition, which serves only to encourage the underground labor market.  Our government needs the additional tax revenues that new immigrants generate in order to sustain the burgeoning entitlement programs baby boomers require as they continue to retire.  By developing a reasonable legal immigration plan, we create a system where immigrants share American tax burdens as they continue to contribute millions of dollars into our tax coffers.  New immigrants sharing our tax burdens will help discourage our government from increasing taxes, because under the current system these entitlement programs will drain all federal revenues within 15 years.

Our 12 point plan addresses securing our borders, fixing the  immigration system, developing a process for legal immigrants to enter, demand for labor, the D.R.E.A.M Act, sustaining international trade relationships, and employer sanctions that will assuredly be implemented by the current Congress.

How to fix a broken immigration system.

12 Steps to Securing Our Borders and Legal Immigration

Immigration Reform Efforts Currently Being Led By DeeDee Garcia Blase, Lionel Sosa and Joe Penalosa

1.       BORDER SECURITY:  The preservation of our national security must be the paramount objective of the immigration policy of the United States.  At least 5,000 additional border patrol agents should be added on the border between the United States and Mexico and an additional 10,000 border patrol agents should be assigned to duty on the North border. In addition, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should work in conjunction with the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to take appropriate measures, including the addition of drug and bomb sniffing canine units that will deter drug activities.

2.       PROCESSING APPLICATION FEES:  The creation of a path to citizenship for undocumented persons should not increase the bureaucracy in Washington or add to the already heavy burdens on the American taxpayer.  All applications for legal status by undocumented immigrants should be processed as efficiently as possible and all expenses in connection with the processing of such applications, including background checks, should be borne by the applicant in the amount of $500.00

3.       OFFENSE FINE: There is no right that we Americans hold more dearly than the privilege of calling ourselves citizens of the United States.  We do not advocate amnesty, therefore, undocumented individuals should be required to pay a fine as a civil penalty (not to exceed $1,500 per person of $5,000 per family) for entering in the country illegally and after a background check clearance has been carried out.

4.       REGISTRATION: Upon enactment, undocumented persons must register with the DHS for background check, and wait until the border is certified as “secure” by DHS in order to trigger legalization. Persons should be given the opportunity to remain in the United States as residents with a temporary legal status

5.       REGULARIZATION PROCESS: Upon certification, undocumented immigrants who satisfy the requirements for temporary legal status with moral character and no criminal record will enter into a six year program before becoming citizens of the United States.  No participants in the program shall be entitled to receive any federal government assistance while they are in the program which will consist of three phases.

6.       PAYING BACK TAXES: Undocumented immigrants must apply for a Social Security Number from the IRS and pay any income taxes owed.  We recognize that undocumented immigrants contribute to the system by paying state and federal sales, use and excise taxes.

7.       ASSIMILATION AND MANDATORY ENGLISH EDUCATION: Undocumented immigrants who are qualified to enter the Regularization Process shall be required to take courses in English and Civics as a condition to obtain a certificate of completion for citizenship.  The hours of study should be twice the amount to what the Reagan Administration had proposed as part of immigration legislation championed by the President in the 1980s.

8.      D.R.E.A.M. ACT and H-1 Visas:   Republicans who support H-1 Visas may as well support the DREAM Act. Republicans are increasing their support for H-1 visas because corporate lobbyists wish to reduce bureaucratic government.  Since the DREAM Act covers both students and immigrants who want to enlist our military, then the Act should be a win-win solution for our Nation.

9.       FUTURE FLOW LOW SKILLED GUEST WORKER PROGRAM:  The adoption of a guest worker program would permit individuals registering with DHS to legally enter into the United States to work in states whose governors, or other legally authorized persons, certify that demand for labor cannot be satisfied by existing populations of legal residents will strengthen the economy.  The number of workers admitted to such a program would depend on the demand levels identified by the States, and can suspend the program in the event that the national unemployment rate exceeds certain levels.

10.   JOBS, ECONOMY & LABOR MARKET:  Immigrants Move In, Americans Move Up.  According to the CATO Institute, “Multiple causes lie behind the shrinking of the underclass in the past 15 years. The single biggest factor is probably economic growth. Despite the current recession, the U.S. economy enjoyed healthy growth during most of the period, lifting median household incomes and real compensation earned by U.S. workers, which ushered millions of families into the middle class and beyond. Welfare reform in the 1990s, and rising levels of education, may also be contributing factors. Another factor may be immigration itself. The arrival of low-skilled, foreign-born workers in the labor force increases the incentives for younger native-born Americans to stay in school and for older workers to upgrade their skills…..”

11.    TARGETING CIRCUMVENTING CRIMINALS (TCC) / E-VERIFICATION: Although cooperation between state and federal law enforcement officers is essential to the protection of our borders, Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) has not provided a proper framework for the establishment of cooperation between state and federal law enforcement officers, this despite the fact that the costs of the administration of the 287(g) program sky-rocketed from $5 million in 2006 to $55 million in 2010. According to a report by DHS, the 287(g) enactment does not require sufficient focus on the identification and deportation of that small percentage of undocumented immigrants guilty of violent criminal offenses.   The ineffectiveness of the 287(g) program has resulted in an epidemic of states seeking to usurp federal authority by taking immigration matters into their own hands and adopting misguided legislation, most notably in Arizona, that unfairly scapegoat immigrants.  We need to get smart and concentrate on training and supervision that will focus on circumventing criminals that wish to do us real harm. Congress should consider replacing most of 287(g) resources with a national E-verification program that will discourage future illegal immigration only “after” Congress passes a reasonable immigration solution where the Electronic employment eligibility verification would not immerse America’s workers and business in burdensome bureaucracy and avoid eroding the freedoms of the American citizen.

12.   (OPTIONAL) FREER TRADE RELATIONS FOR SAFER NORTH AMERICAN CONTINENT: The United States should continue honoring trade agreements, such as NAFTA, so that we do not undermine the stability of the economies and our relationships with our neighbors.

Conclusion

Despite what opponents to legal immigration say, benefits would include secured borders,  better military qualified readiness, furthered assimilation by immigrants that demonstrates their loyalty to America, shared tax burdens and increased revenues to the tax base for state, federal, and local governments, and our labor market needs will be maintained especially with the baby boomers retiring.

Rumors are being circulated with regard to independent candidate Mike Stauffer for Maricopa County Sheriff that seems to be stemming from false

assumptions.  We know that Stauffer will pull moderate Republican votes as well as Independent voters. Paul Penzone will more than like pull Democratic votes. We also know that independent voters lean conservative in our state, which is why Mike Stauffer is a strong conservative candidate. Stauffer left the Republican Party after being a long life GOPer.

Furthermore, I was informed by Stauffer campaign:

“….that the “no activity” page was mistakenly included in their online finance filing. It is obviously an error since the rest of the report shows activity. A biased reporter ran with a story based on assumptions instead of real research.”

I repeat: Independent candidate Mike Stauffer is fully in the race despite rumors circulating out there.

See below campaign update from independent conservative Mike Stauffer where he really punches Brahm Resnik back on the false assumption:

IMPORTANT CAMPAIGN ANNOUNCEMENT: Brahm Resnik of Ch 12 and azcentral.com is evidently attempting to manipulate the election for Maricopa County Sheriff. Mr. Resnick tweeted today that Stauffer is no longer campaigning. This is NOT true in any way. Mike Stauffer is following through to Tuesday!

Lastly, here is a quiz.  Who would you vote for?

(Independent candidate) Mike Stauffer for Maricopa County Sheriff

Republican moderate voters are voting for independent conservative Mike Stauffer for Maricopa County Sheriff.

Stauffer, a 29-year police veteran believes in providing professional law enforcement and public safety services to all Maricopa County residents. Mike is guided by the Constitutional principles of due process and equality under the law as originally intended by the Founding Fathers.

Mike is concerned with the current state of law enforcement in Maricopa County. The constant string of lawsuits and lack of cooperation on the part of the Sheriff’s Office with other law enforcement agencies has seriously degraded the quality of public safety in the county. The current command staff has turned away from crime prevention and suppression in favor of political grandstanding and expansion of power.

Mike pledges to work to improve inter-agency communication and cooperation between all law enforcement in Maricopa County on all levels.

“The “go it alone,” “rule through fear and intimidation” attitude of the current administration is inappropriate in dealing with today’s public safety issues. What is needed is strong cooperation and mutual respect between law enforcement leadership and personnel in Maricopa County. This new relationship will strengthen our ability to insure the safety and quality of life for all residents of Maricopa County. We will work together with all local, state and federal law enforcement and homeland security agencies to make this our top priority.”

Since 1983, Mike has been a member of the law enforcement community. He began his career with the NYPD as an Auxiliary Police Officer, while earning his undergraduate degree in Government & Politics at St. John’s University. Upon graduation, he went on to a full time career with NYPD. Mike was a patrol officer in Manhattan and Brooklyn. He also served as one of the first canine handlers in the NYPD’s Canine Unit. Mike also worked in the elite Narcotics Division in Manhattan as a narcotics investigator.

Mike came to Maricopa County in 1991 and joined the Scottsdale Police Department. Mike has served as a patrol officer and patrol sergeant. He has served as the department’s Staff Lieutenant, supervising the Internal Affairs Unit, the Public Information and Media Office, and the Budget Office. Mike’s current assignment is serving as a Watch Commander in the Patrol Division in Scottsdale’s Downtown District.

In addition to serving the community in crime prevention Mike is an online instructor for the Criminal Justice program at the University of Phoenix. Mike is an instructor of Constitutional Law at the Arizona Law Enforcement Academy.

Mike has been married to his wife, Grace, for 27 years. He is the proud father of three successful young adults.

“What is needed is strong cooperation and mutual respect between law enforcement leadership and personnel in Maricopa County.”

Republicans who used to support Joe Arpaio are now getting behind Mike Stauffer for Sheriff

Prop. 121 May Nudge the Nation

Deep discontent is driving the YES vote for Proposition 121, the Top-two Primary.  Its two-step process, long used by Arizona voters in

local non-partisan elections, lets all voters, regardless of party, vote in a single primary election. Voters narrow the list to the top

two, who competes in the general election.  Voters, not political parties, control access to the general election ballot.

A survey of 1,065 Arizona voters by 8Sages.com found that if the election were held today, Proposition 121 would win by 14 points.

Independents, independent-minded Democrats and Republicans are giving the initiative a resounding lead (by 24, 29, and 15 points,

respectively).  Even strong Republicans favor it by 3 points, and it trails by one point among committed Democrats.

Why such broad-based support?

The survey shows the dominant theme this election is unhappy voters. They are displeased with the president’s performance and may even vote

him out of office.  But before Republicans dust off their dancingshoes, they should consider that a majority also would vote Governor Jan

Brewer out of office if she were on the ballot. Hard data on discontent is evident in voter self-identification.

Without any reregistration campaign, voters are quietly abandoning all political parties. Democrats have been losing registration since the

1940s, Republicans since the mid-1980s.

Proposition 121 sends a constructive, positive message. It strengthens the consent of the governed.  It increases the pool of voices that hold

politicians accountable. Americans are good at this.  Since our founding, we have expanded the franchise – from landed white men, to

landless white men, black men, women, Native Americans, and then young people who were eligible to serve, but not vote for their country.

Proposition 121 might be the tipping point to change the national picture. Its critics know it.  Undisclosed California sources have

pumped almost half a million dollars into Arizona to oppose Proposition 121. The money was funneled into the Americans for Responsible

Leadership, chaired by Robert Graham a candidate for the Republican State Party Chair.  Once more Arizona is on the cusp of nudging the

nation.

Open primary elections is changing the marketplace, increasing competition between candidates, even if they are in the same party.

Washington State and California have embraced Proposition 121-like voting systems.  Ballotpedia.com ranks California’s 2012 legislative

elections the most competitive in the country.  This year, for the first time in US history, 66 US Senators and

Representatives  - 12% of the Congress – must answer to all the people who elected them in California andWashington State.

Add Arizona’s 2 Senators and 9 Representatives to California and Washington State in 2014, then 77 members of Congress will be voter,

not party, nominated.   When my friend and legislative colleague Bill Konopnicki and I wrote the first draft of this initiative, we called it

the “Sweet Seventy-seven.”  We imagined our Western Congressmen who must appeal to all the voters in their states to get on the general

ballot and be elected.  They might less focused on partisan loyalty and more on our shared regional interests.  Proposition 121 offers a better

way to express the consent of the governed.

Ted Downing, former two-term state legislator who leads the Arizona

Independent Voting Project

VOTE YES Prop 121 – Voto SI en Proposicion 121.

Breaking: Independent Michael Bloomberg endorsed President Obama for re-election

by Dee Dee Garcia Blase

The mayor Michael Bloomberg, an Independent, did not endorse a candidate in the 2008 election but he has endorsed President Barack Obama for re-election this year.

Apparently the Hurricane speedy government response had a bit of influence with regard to his endorsement of Obama.

The New York Times wrote:

Mr. Bloomberg, a political independent in his third term leading New York City, has been sharply critical of both Mr. Obama, a Democrat, and Mitt Romney, the president’s Republican rival, saying that both men have failed to candidly confront the problems afflicting the nation. But he said he had decided over the past several days that Mr. Obama was the best candidate to tackle the global climate change that the mayor believes contributed to the violent storm, which took the lives of at least 38 New Yorkers and caused billions of dollars in damage.

The WAPOST wrote:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed President Obama on Thursday, citing climate change as the primary factor and Hurricane Sandy as the event that impelled him to make a choice. 

“The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast — in lost lives, lost homes and lost business — brought the stakes of next Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief,” the political independent writes in an op-ed on Bloomberg View, part of his media empire. “Our climate is changing. … We need leadership from the White House.” Obama, he says, “has taken major steps to reduce our carbon consumption.”

The HuffPo wrote:

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg endorsed President Barack Obama for re-election on Thursday, Bloomberg TV reported and The Huffington Post confirmed.

The mayor, an Independent, did not endorse a candidate in the 2008 election and hadn’t seem poised to do so this time around as well.

…

“The devastation that Hurricane Sandy brought to New York City and much of the Northeast – in lost lives, lost homes and lost business – brought the stakes of Tuesday’s presidential election into sharp relief,” he said.   FULL STORY HERE>>>

"The Top Two Arizona Open Primary via prop 121 is similar to California's -- except Arizona's proposition is better. I am in
support of Arizona's prop 121 because I firmly believe in taking power away from the two major Party system. The fringe groups are destroying the unity fabric of our Nation, and the Top Two will give the power back to where it belongs -- the reasonable average and ordinary hard working American.

Oh how we reminisce of the days that go back to bipartisanship via Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill!

There is hope because bipartisanship is still alive via (R) Senator Chuck Hagel and (D) Bob Kerrey in Nebraska!

Tequila Party Movement (Woman-led Latin Organization) Endorses Senate Candidate Bob Kerrey for U.S. Senate — Applauds (R) Senator Chuck Hagel’s Bipartisanship!

The Tequila Party (based out of Arizona and Nebraska)  is the Latina-led counter movement of the extreme Tea Party movement.  The Tea Party wants nothing to do with bipartisanship — in fact, they comprise of a bunch of obstructionists.

 

November 2, 2012

Contact: Shirl Mora James, Lead Co-President also Civil Rights Lawyer

For Immediate Release

Lincoln, Nebraska — National Tequila Party co-lead President, Shirl Mora James and Nebraska Tequila Party member, Toni Leija Wilson met with both Chuck Hagel (R) and U.S. Senate candidate Bob Kerrey (D).  Senator Kerrey informed Shirl that he supports true family values including our Nebraskan mixed-status families.  Moreover, Candidate Bob Kerry also supports all our children including DREAMERS and the DREAM Act that will fully embrace them into taxpaying citizens.  Finally, senate candidate Bob Kerry promised to continue the good work that Senator Chuck Hagel (R) and Senator John McCain (R) once championed, i.e., Comprehension Immigration Reform.  Therefore, we strongly urge all fair-minded Nebraskans, especially Hispanics and their allies to vote for our next U.S. Senator from the great state of Nebraska, Bob Kerry.

(ABOVE) Lead Co-President Shirl Mora James with (R) Senator Chuck Hagel and (D) Candidate Bob Kerrey.

###

More from Brenda Sperduti:  

Anti Prop 121 Propaganda No Tiene Merito Dicen Expertos

By Brenda Sperduti on 11/01/2012 in arizona, Primarias Abiertas  

For the first time in Arizona history, independent voters have become 2nd largest voting bloc surpassing the Democrats.[/caption] It is a mistake for people to ignore the independent vote in Arizona that is now the 2nd largest voting bloc regarding Maricopa County Sheriff race. Several people are forgetting the John McCain "maverick" factor and also forgot how approximately 200,000 independent votes carried the Senator. Ever wonder why the corrupt Sheriff Joe Arpaio is not attacking independent candidate Mike Stauffer for Sheriff and independent voters of Maricopa County? Indeed Mike Stauffer for sheriff is looking better and better as both the Republican and Democratic candidates go negative against each other. Arpaio NEEDS the independent conservative vote in order to survive. More importantly, if Arpaio attacks independent candidate Mike Stauffer for sheriff -- then he will have legitimatized him, and he is too cunning and wise to do that. The only folks attacking Mike Stauffer are Paul Penzone supporters and they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Additionally, it was not smart for Ann Wallack (supports Penzone) to call independent voters "ignorant" either.

Unfortunately the political novices have no idea that independent voters now make up the 2nd largest voting bloc in Arizona and in Maricopa County surpassing Democratic voter registrations for the first time in Arizona history. More importantly, independent voters become independent voters because we are sick and tired of partisanship gridlock. Period. Libertarians, Libertarian-Republicans, and Independent voters who support Mike Stauffer for Maricopa County Sheriff believe that the Sheriff Office should NOT be partisan. In fact, professionalism needs to be restored at the MCSO. Who in their right mind would attack key independent voters when they are a surging voter bloc of people sick of negative ads from both the Republican and Democratic Party? According to ABC News:

Independent voters are an increasingly important voting bloc. They have outnumbered both Democrats and Republicans continuously for the past two and a half years, by far the longest period in which they’ve done so in ABC News-Washington Post polls dating back to 1981. Gallup’s recent poll bears mixed news for the two parties. While the gap between those who identified as Democrats and those who said they were Republicans widened to 4 percent, more independents appeared to lean toward the Republican Party than to the Democratic Party and the split between the two was equal. “Increased independent identification is not uncommon in the year before a presidential election year, but the sluggish economy, record levels of distrust in government and unfavorable views of both parties helped to create an environment that fostered political independence more than in any other pre-election year,” Gallup stated.

Here is a breakdown of the demographics in Maricopa County, and it also supports why I believe Mike Stauffer is going to hurt Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the Maricopa County Sheriff race.   [caption id="attachment_2151" align="aligncenter" width="813"] Maricopa County Sheriff Office Demographics between 2008 and 2012 in key Arpaio race.[/caption]