Tucson Sammy

I am amazed, though I suppose I should not be, that the story of Missouri prosecutors and sheriffs using their positions to advance the Obama campaign has had so little coverage outside the blogosphere. This is the most significant story regarding Obama, and his campaign, to date.

Youtube video of original news broadcast – click to watch!

Who would have thought that, in our lifetime, would openly take sides in a campaign as public officials?

Imagine if Governor Napolitano was up for re-election, and the head of the Arizona National Guard said, “We, and the people of Arizona, want this campaign to be about issues. If we see anyone lying about Governor Napolitano, or engaging in personal attacks, we’ll do what we can to prevent that – whether the attacks come from the a campaign, or 527’s. We are deploying assets to Phoenix, Tucson, and Flagstaff to make sure these lies and personal attacks do not go unanswered.”

I would hope that we would all say, “How dare you! How dare you take sides in a political campaign as members of the military! How dare you engage in intimidation of those whom your are supposed to be serving! And who the heck is the National Guard to judge the veracity of campaign commercials!”

Why are these questions not being asked of those prosecutors and sheriffs in Missouri?
According to the news report, they were recruited by the Obama campaign. What do you suppose these whores were promised – a staff position at the White House? A lawyer job at the Department of Justice? Maybe some cushy regional FEMA Director position?

The important thing, at this point, is the realization that an Obama administration will differ little from the thug machine politics of Chicago, where Obama learned the trade. Treat him like any other politician – do not listen to what he says, look at what he does.

Unity? Liberty? Prosperity? – not things we are likely to see in an Obama administration. Think about that when you vote.

Gee, do you think that these “Truth Squad” folks will adopt uniforms? If they do, will they be black like SWAT teams, or maybe just brown shirts like AmeriCorp?

Let us say that you vote very election. You consider it a civic duty. During this election cycle, you have been paying more attention, and want to become more involved by helping your favorite candidate financially.

Nice idea, but don’t bother because you can’t.

“Can’t what, send him a check?” you might ask.

“No,” I would reply, “you can’t help him.”

“How does that work?” you say.

Here’s how: say you want to give a hundred bucks to your guy in your local legislative district. Well, if he has met the arbitrary limit set by the state, the state will give a hundred bucks to each of the competing candidates, thereby neutralizing your help… you know, to make it fair.

“But my guy is not participating in Clean Elections!” you add.

“Yeah, that’s why he can raise the extra money, but his participating opponents get the match. Like it or not, everyone participates, though not everyone signs up,” I explain with a sigh.

At this point you shake your fist and scream, “What the heck is fair about denying me the ability to help my candidate!?!”

Welcome to the whacky world of “Arizona Clean Elections.” That’s right, the act that was designed to increase political participation, increase the number of candidates, and reduce the incumbent re-election rate, actually does none of those things. In fact, it often makes matters worse.

It is an atrociously bad law. Not only does it fail to fulfill the promises of its creators, it also removes an important tool with which the people influence their elected representatives.

There are three ways with which we, the people, do that – voting, campaign financing, and petitioning (letters, phone calls, etc.). The vote is clearly the most powerful. With it, we can “throw the bums out.” Campaign financing is next, it relates to the vote so it is right up there in significance. Once the critter is in there, we can communicate praise or displeasure, the old carrot and stick, which might spook him during and election year.

Arizona Clean Elections removes direct constituent influence over campaign financing. That means that the candidate gets the money, the “mother’s milk of politics”, not by pleasing his constituents, but by pleasing the some state employed bureaucrat.

Look, I know that at this point, you figure the political game is rigged, and you want to forget about it and go back to playing Halo or Grand Theft Auto, but don’t. There is hope.

Clint Bollick, up there at the Goldwater Institute, has filed suit on behalf of an angry mob of candidates who are getting hosed by this thing. He’s arguing that preventing people from supporting their candidates interferes with their free speech rights.

Now here’s the best part: there is United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) case law that supports the claim! The case is Davis vs. F.E.C., you can look it up. It should be a slam-dunk for Clint.

“But why,” you ask, “if it doesn’t work and creates problems, don’t they just repeal the bad law?”

My friend, you have much to learn about politics. Remember, things are not always as they appear. Perhaps it never was about increased participation, more candidates, and all that crap. Maybe it has always been about control, about shifting power from the people to the state.

If that is the case, then it appears to be working just fine.

Let me start by saying that San Tan Flat is in no way connected with Tortilla Flat. There are no tee shirts that say, “Where the Hell is San Tan Flat?” Although new to Arizona, San Tan Flat has enjoyed a level of publicity unknown to Tortilla Flat.

Our story begins with a father and son, Dale and Spencer Bell. Dale has operated successful restaurants in both South Dakota and Wyoming. He and his son, Spencer, opened their new venture in Pinal County, Arizona, on the flats next to the San Tan Mountains – hence the name.

After three years of jumping through hoops, they finally opened on 2005 with Pinal County’s blessing. Shortly thereafter, Pinal County began to harass them mercilessly. They made them remove one of their two signs, reduced their road access from four entrances to one, and they made them build a bigger parking lot. They also sent deputies out at night to measure decibel levels.

This sort of behavior usually indicates that some well-connected turgid member of the community wants him out of Dodge. In the older frontier times, they usually just sent the Sheriff around to tell him, “Be out of town by sundown.” These are less direct, less honest, weenie times.

Dale complied with all the harassing demands, until they turned their sights on his customers. They claimed it was illegal for them to dance to the music in the courtyard. They cited an ordinance from 1962 that required “dance halls, penny arcades, and bowling alleys” to be in fully enclosed structures. San Tan Flat is a restaurant bar. As Dale said to me, “I’ve never seen a penny arcade in my lifetime, I’ve never been able to put a penny in a machine and have it do anything, I don’t know how old you are, but I’m an old guy…this thing is pretty obsolete even in its language.” With the help of the Arizona chapter of the Institute for Justice, Dale went to court.

The Pinal County attorneys stated, at four separate times during the initial hearing, that the supervisors thought the outdoor stage at the Country Western Saloon and Steakhouse would be used for “mimes, puppet shows, poetry readings, and art displays.” Why, of course! Any cowboy worth his salt needs a little miming, and poetry read to him every now and again. Those dang Bell Boys deceived us!

Dale has determined that upstanding member of the community Pinal County Supervisor Sandy Smith is directing the attacks against him. It is her appointee, the Pinal County Sheriff, who sends his deputies out three times a night to test the decibel levels. So far, they have had no luck.

I asked Dale why Sandy Smith was trying to make his life miserable. He answered, “Why is she doing it? Possibly petty jealousy over the success of the business, possibly because we did not grovel, or kiss her butt, which is apparently what she was expecting us to do after we were open and permitted.” He had some other ideas that involved millionaire developers, but it’s all just speculation.

The silver lining to this dark cloud is that the longer it drags on, the more support the Bells get – from George Will, who wrote of their plight in his Washington Post column, to Dale and Spencer’s customers. Dale said of his customers, “They don’t say they like it, they say they love it!”

The significance of this case lies not so much in the fact that the petty commissars of Pinal County are being exposed; rather it verifies what we in the freedom movement have come to realize over the past few years.

Traditionally, it was government at the federal level that sent edicts from far away for the great unwashed, doing away with federalism, and exceeding its limited jurisdiction in a rather tyrannical way. It seemed to make sense that when people are reduced to numbers and formulas, they would be treated like them. Now we see those close to us, here at home, behaving in similar fashion. Whether they use eminent domain, civil forfeiture, or “Smart Growth” central planning, our locals have a lust to control people, and property that they do not own.

As the bizarre case of San Tan Flat exemplifies, it is not the remoteness of the power that is corrupting. It is the power itself.

 Bizarre Case of San Tan Flat [5:48] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I’m just a little curious. Does anyone else find the objections to SB 1214, the legislation that would exempt CCW permit holders from the weapons bans on state college campuses, a bit creepy? I mean, what does it say about how the people who make those objections see other people?

The fascinating thing about SB 1214 is that it removes any reasonable objection to the presence of guns on government campuses by making it a privilege available only to CCW permit holders; in other words, only to those who are twenty-one and older, have had background checks, education in the law regarding the use of deadly force, training in safe firearm handling and maintenance, and have had demonstrated competency at the shooting range.

Yet, the objections remain. There exists a blind faith belief in “Gun Free Zones.” Guns remain objects of fear and disgust. You know that their argument is lost when they fall back to politically correct “yes men” – in this case, police chiefs and college presidents. Now, it is true that while the jobs of the chiefs and presidents are primarily administrative, they are also largely political, and they are occasionally called upon to give pious politically correct proclamations.

I have said this before, but it still bothers me. Why does the same state that issues the permits, reject the authority of the permits when it comes to state property? Clearly, the state does not believe in its own permit system.

Actually, though, there is a dirty little secret. Here’s how you can have fun with it: ask a gun-hating friend, “Do you think campuses should be Gun Free Zones?” He’ll say, “Of course!” You say, “Did you know that the campus police carry guns?” He’ll say, “Well, yeah, but that’s different.” You’ll say, “Why?” He’ll give you a weird look and say, “C’mon, law enforcement officers are educated in the law regarding the use of lethal force, they’ve had background checks, they have training in weapons handling, and they have to demonstrate competency at the range! That’s what makes it safe for them to be armed.” He’ll give you an even stranger look because he won’t know why you’re laughing. Before you loose his attention, ask, “Would you support requiring cops to check their weapons before entering campus to maintain the integrity of the Gun Free Zone, or are you rethinking the whole idea?” At this point he will probably try to avoid the point by changing the subject, and even get a little angry.

Feel free to keep him going as long as you can. You will not change his mind – it is like a religion – but it can be entertaining.

So, the dirty little secret is that neither side really wants Gun Free Zones. Those who dislike and fear guns want exemptions for trained and authorized government agents only, while supporters of the bill want exemptions for trained and authorized civilians too.

Alas, I must apologize. I kept describing the people who object to SB 1214 as fearing and disliking guns. This obviously is untrue, since they are quite comfortable around guns that hang from the utility belts of policemen. The difference is not the guns, but the bearers. These folks do not fear and dislike guns, they fear and dislike other people, and are calmed by an overpowering government. That’s creepy.

The following is from the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM):

Court Strikes Down State Law Prohibiting Workplace Gun Policies

This decision “gives Oklahoma employers relief from the ‘Catch-22’ position of having to choose between violating state or federal law,” Julie Elgar, SHRM’s Georgia state legislative director and an attorney at Ford and Harrison LLP in Atlanta told SHRM Online in an Oct. 23 interview. It also gives employers in states with similar laws a weapon to challenge the laws, she said. And, in states in which the legislature has fought over but ultimately failed to pass such laws, employers have legal ammunition when the issue comes up again, as it is likely to do in Georgia. “It’s a strong weapon to have in your arsenal,” Elgar noted.

Comment: This is the sort of thing that makes my head explode. A business is private property. There used to be rights associated with private property. Were that still the case, the business owner would develop a policy appropriate for his business, implement it, and shazaam!, resolution! Instead, the business owner, who has the biggest stake in the outcome, must sit on the sideline while state legislatures and feral… sorry, federal courts duke it out. I suppose if one is to be a slave, it’s nice to have competing masters fight over you.

Our Great and Wonderful Council is back at it. They’re considering some form of cell phone ban – in cars for now.

The impetus is typical – Phoenix is doing it. We tend to have a condescending attitude toward our neighbor to the north, yet we continue to copy their bad ideas (the “light rail” effort comes to mind).

Ibarra, Scott, West, and Uncle Bob Walkup all want to see something done either at the municipal or state level. Speaking of the state level, Mr. Light Rail himself, Steve Farley, has been working on it – unsuccessfully so far.

The merits of multi-tasking in one’s car are really not the important issue. The important issue is what this effort says about how you are viewed by your elected officials. Are you an adult with adult judgment, or are you a child who will wreak all kinds of havoc without big brother’s watchful eye upon you? It used to be that laws would help us defend ourselves against force and fraud. Now they seemed to be there to micromanage our lives for our own good. Don’t eat that! Don’t discard that piece of plastic! You can have this kind of car. Keep your hands on the wheel and stare forward! Don’t think that thought or you’re a hate criminal! That’s better… good boy!