Arizona Law Gives Business Owners Authority Over Mask Mandates – powered by ise.media
Arizona Law Gives Business Owners Authority Over Mask Mandates – powered by ise.media
Republican Arizona Secretary of State Michelle Reagan is reportedly working with legislators on a bill that would end taxpayer funding of presidential primaries in the state.
According to The Associated Press, Sec. Reagan’s elections director Eric Spencer said that ending taxpayer-funded primaries would save the state $10 million. He also argued that the legislation is necessary because independent voters are required to fund the Democratic and Republican parties’ primary contests but are not allowed to participate in them.
Spencer told The Arizona Capitol Times, “We want to return this to the political parties to run. And we believe that that’s a core function of a political party, to vet their nominees.”
The Arizona State Legislature slashed the Sec. of State’s budget by $6 million in 2015 to apply it to the upcoming presidential primary election.
The Arizona Republic’s Laurie Roberts wrote, “Adding to reasons why the GOP and Democrats don’t need party welfare? Fully a third of Arizona’s voters can’t even participate in the presidential primaries. Independents now comprise the largest and fastest growing voting bloc in the state yet they can’t vote in a presidential primary. They are, however, expected to pick up a share of the tab.”
“Inevitably, [ending taxpayer funding of primary elections] would mean there would be caucuses instead of presidential primaries in Arizona, because the parties could not afford to administer presidential primaries on their own,” said Ballot Access News’ Richard Winger, an election law expert.
In July of last year, the Truth in Media Project released a Consider This video highlighting the fact that independent voters now outnumber those who identify as Republicans and Democrats. Watch it in the below-embedded video player.
Arizona Republican Governor Doug Ducey announced on Wednesday that he has appointed politically-independent Phoenix attorney Clint Bolick to the Arizona Supreme Court.
Bolick, who co-founded the Institute for Justice and who has held the position of vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute since 2007, once mounted an unsuccessful campaign for a California General Assembly seat under the Libertarian Party’s banner in 1980.
Gov. Ducey said in a statement on the appointment, “Clint is nationally renowned and respected as a constitutional law scholar and as a champion of liberty. He brings extensive experience and expertise, an unwavering regard for the rule of law and a firm commitment to the state and citizens of Arizona. I’m confident Clint will serve impartially and honorably in this important role.”
Bolick told The Arizona Republic that he “will not shy away from very vigorously enforcing the precious liberties that are contained in the Constitution.”
Reason’s Damon Root wrote, “It’s no exaggeration to describe Clint Bolick as one of the central figures behind the rise and success of today’s libertarian legal movement. Bolick’s legal theories and litigation strategies—some of which were crafted decades ago—are used in courtrooms around the country. His training and mentoring of numerous young lawyers, meanwhile, including top litigators who now work at places like the Institute for Justice, the Goldwater Institute, and the Pacific Legal Foundation, pays dividends with every legal victory. When it comes to libertarian legal activism, Bolick’s fingerprints are everywhere.”
A video of Bolick’s swearing-in ceremony was posted to Gov. Dusey’s Twitter account on Wednesday.
Gov. Dusey’s appointment marks the first time in history that an independent has been appointed to the Arizona Supreme Court and the second time that a governor has appointed someone from a different political party. Bolick is Gov. Dusey’s first appointment to the Arizona Supreme Court since he has taken office.
According to The Washington Post, Bolick will stand for a retention election in two years, and, if he prevails, he will face continuing retention elections every six years.
Senate Bill 1445, legislation that would delay releasing identities of police officers involved in serious use-of-force incidents, passed the Arizona House of Representatives last Wednesday with a 44-13 vote. The bill has been met with opposition from residents and civil rights advocates who seek transparency from police departments.
SB 1445 would limit “the release of the name of a peace officer who is involved in a use of deadly physical force incident for 60 days.” The bill would also require departments to redact identifiers in reports that contain information regarding disciplinary actions against involved officers. The 60-day delay would not apply when a criminal investigation is completed or if state criminal procedure requires the release of information. The delay is also voided if an involved officer is arrested, charged or indicted on charges related to the incident. An officer may bypass the delay by consenting to identification in writing.
An earlier version of the bill, which passed the Arizona Senate in February 23-6, had contained a longer delay of 90 days.
According to The Phoenix New Times, SB 1445 sponsor Arizona state Senator Steve Smith said that the bill was introduced to prevent a “whimsical mob” from “roaming the streets looking for blood.” Opponents of the bill have pointed out that no Arizona officers involved in deadly use-of-force incidents have recently been injured as a result of public identification.
Supporters of SB 1445 call the 60-day delay a “cooling-off period” for the public. Former Phoenix police officer and Arizona Police Association executive director Levi Bolton said the bill will protect the welfare of police officers who are not suspects. “You still get the ‘when,’ the ‘where’ and the ‘how’ if we know it — you just don’t get the ‘who,'” Bolton said.
ACLU of Arizona executive director Alessandra Soler said that providing the names of officers involved in serious or fatal use-of-force incidents helps public trust in police departments, and passing this legislation would be harmful to oversight. “Police officers have an extraordinary power because they can detain, search, arrest and have the ability to shoot to kill,” she said. “That is when the transparency and accountability needs to be the strongest.”
“We need to be building trust and confidence between a community and police who protect it,” said Jeremy Helfgot, commissioner for the city of Phoenix Commission on Human Relations. “This is the Arizona Legislature inserting itself into that process and widening the gap, rather than making an effort of closing it.”
The bill is also opposed by the Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police because police chiefs would no longer have the ability to use discretion when releasing names.
The ACLU of Arizona is hosting a rally scheduled for Tuesday, March 24th at 4:00 p.m. outside of the Arizona Executive Tower. Members of the Maricopa County branch of the NAACP, the Greater Phoenix Urban League and the Puente Human Rights Movement will reportedly be present at the rally in an effort to encourage Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey to veto the bill.
Legislation has been approved by the Oklahoma House committee which would allow terminally ill patients to have access to experimental medications which are not yet available to the public.
Rep. Richard Morrissette (D) is the author of the Oklahoma version of the Right to Try bill. Morrissette has said, according to the AP, this bill can give new hope to terminally ill patients “that one of these experimental drugs will hit the mark.”
The House Public Health Committee voted 10-0 on Tuesday in favor of pushing the bill forward for consideration by the full House. A number of other states, such as Arizona, Colorado, and Louisiana already have similar bills in place.
The Daily Journal reports the U.S. Food and Drug Administration already allows terminally ill patients to seek to undergo experimental medications. However, it usually takes hundreds of hours to complete the paperwork and for the paperwork to make its way through the proper government channels before it is approved. Many terminally ill patients die while waiting to receive government approval to undergo these new medical treatments.
Christina Sandefur is an attorney for the Goldwater Institute, a conservative public policy group, and she said, “These are people whose days, hours, even minutes may be numbered.”
There would be some requirements when it comes to receiving the experimental medications even if the bill were to pass.
One requirement is a terminally ill patients doctor must approve of the usage of the medication before moving forward. The patient in question would also have to acknowledge the medication they would be receiving poses potential risks o their health and well-being. The company who develops the drug must also be willing to make the medication available to the patient.
The bill would also allow pharmaceutical companies to deploy experimental treatment devices in the same manner as the experimental medications.
The full bill can be read here.
On Thursday, Arizona became the first state to enact a law that requires high school students to pass a U.S. citizenship test on civics, in order to graduate.
According to KPHO Phoenix, the bill was approved in a “swift action by the Arizona Legislature,” which comes as states around the country “take up similar measures.”
NBC News reported that law “requires high school students to correctly answer 60 of 100 questions on the civics portion of the U.S. citizenship test,” and that the test is “being pushed nationally” by the Joe Foss Institute, which has “set a goal of having all 50 states adopt it by 2017, the 230th anniversary of the U.S. Constitution.”
According to the Associated Press, the Foss Institute, which has the motto “Patriotism Matters,” created a civics institute to “promote the test to state legislatures,” with the hope that students would be “better prepared to be engaged citizens,” when they increased their understanding of government.
Republican Governor of Arizona, Doug Ducey, who is in favor of the bill, released a statement on Monday, urging Congress to pass the bill.
“These are our children, and not long from now, it will be time for them to vote on who sits in your chairs and who stands at this podium,” Ducey said.
According to NBC News, Senator David Bradley was the only Democrat on the education committee who opposed the bill, and he claimed that passing the legislation would “do nothing to make good citizens,” and would just be an extra cost to the state.
Steve Yarbrough, the Republican Senate Majority Leader, who is in favor of the bill, said that while requiring students to pass the civics test is not a “silver bullet,” it is a “small step forward.”
“I think we need to encourage the people of America to become more aware of the values of America,” said Yarbrough. “How can we expect them to protect the principles on which this country was founded, if we are not preparing them for that task right now?”
Many young immigrants in Arizona are enjoying their new level of protection from deportation under President Obama by putting in requests for driver’s licenses and identification cards on Monday.
According to the AP, young immigrants waited patiently outside of various Motor Vehicle Division offices throughout the state, and when the doors opened, a cheer from the crowd went up. Reporters interviewed some young people who said they were excited to get their licenses and drive legally without the fear of getting pulled over.
Over the next few weeks, state officials have said they are expecting many more young immigrants to apply for licenses and ID cards.
This is a shift from Gov. Jan Brewer’s policy which initially denied licenses to an estimated 20,000 immigrants. On Dec. 18 though, according to FOX News, U.S. District Judge David Campbell barred the state from enforcing Brewer’s policy.
Attorneys for Brewer have said the move to deny licenses to immigrants was based on liability concerns, as well as making sure immigrant license holders do not improperly access public benefit programs.
Brewer has since asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.
The transportation officials have said they will begin work immediately on processing the applications for licenses and IDs for eligible immigrants. Those who are eligible for licenses and IDs are immigrants younger than 30 who came to the U.S. before they were 16, who have lived in the U.S. for at least five consecutive years, who are enrolled in or graduated from high school or an equivalent program, or those immigrants who have, or are, serving in the military.
An execution in Arizona has been put on hold by a federal appeals court after the court said the man sentenced to death has a right to know what drugs will be used in the cocktail used to carryout his execution.
Joseph Wood was convicted of the 1989 shooting and deaths of his ex-girlfriend, Debra Dietz, as well as her father Eugene. Wood was sentenced to death in 1991 and was scheduled to be put to death this Wednesday, but a three-judge panel in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this past Saturday Wood was entitled to more information regarding the drugs which would put him to death.
The ruling states, according to the Washington Post, “Information concerning execution protocol is not only of general interest to the public, it is important for consideration by the courts. … We, and the public, cannot meaningfully evaluate execution protocol cloaked in secrecy.”
“Today the court has made a well-reasoned ruling,” said Wood’s lawyer Dale Baich, according to the BBC, after hearing the verdict, “affirming the core First Amendment principles regarding the public’s right to know, which aid all parts of our democratic government.”
This ruling was brought about after Wood, along with five other death row inmates, sued the state of Arizona for not providing adequate information on the drug cocktail to be used in their executions. The secrecy surrounding the drugs used in botched Ohio and Oklahoma executions is the central issue at hand, and the six inmates say the secrecy surrounding the drugs violates their constitutional rights.
Dissenting judge on the appeals court, Judge Jay S. Bybee, said in a statement according to the NY Times, the court had expanded the right of access under the First Amendment in order to “bar the state from lawfully imposing the death penalty.”
PHOENIX, February 24, 2014– Today, the Arizona State Senate passed a bill that would legalize gold and silver as legal tender, moving the legislation on to the House for consideration.
If passed into law, Arizona could become the second state to recognize gold and silver as legal tender authorized for payments of debts and taxes.
SB1096 passed by a vote of 18-12
A similar bill was introduced last year. The bill passed both the House and Senate and made it to the Governor’s desk – where Jan Brewer ultimately vetoed it. It’s important to note that SB1096 is not a mandate, but simply would allow the people in Arizona to exchange goods and services, for gold or silver, without additional fines and taxes. [READ BILL TEXT HERE]
The Arizona House will now take up the bill, where it will need to be passed to make it back to the governor’s desk. Supporters say that a full year of pressure and outreach makes passage and a signature, while still difficult, more likely.
You can follow bill’s progress at TenthAmendmentCenter.com
PHOENIX, February 3, 2014– The campaign to stop federal violations of the Second Amendment at the state and local level got two big boosts late last week with the introduction of the Second Amendment Preservation Act in Arizona and an important endorsement for a similar bill pending in Florida.
Along with eight other sponsors, Arizona state Senator Kelli Ward introduced the Second Amendment Preservation Act in the Grand Canyon State. SB1294 prohibits the state from enforcing “any federal act, law, order, rule or regulation that relates to a personal firearm, firearm accessory or ammunition within the limits of this state.”
“We’ve sat back and allowed the federal government to trample the Constitution long enough,” Ward said. “We’re going to pass this bill and stop the state of Arizona from helping the feds violate your rights.”
The legislation rests on a well-established legal principle known as the anti-commandeering doctrine. Simply put, the federal government cannot “commandeer” or coerce states into implementing or enforcing federal acts or regulations – constitutional or not. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests primarily on four Supreme Court cases dating back to 1842. The 1997 case, Printz v. US, serves as the modern cornerstone.
“We held in New York that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policy making is involved, and no case by case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of dual sovereignty.”
Such a tactic is an extremely effective way to stop a federal government busting at the seams. Even the National Governors Association admitted this recently when it sent out a press release noting that “States are partners with the federal government in implementing most federal programs.” That means states can create impediments to enforcing and implementing “most federal programs,” including those which impose upon the right to keep and bear arms.
James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution,” advised this very tactic. Madison supplied the blueprint for resisting federal power in Federalist 46. He outlined several steps that states can take to effective stop “an unwarrantable measure,” or “even a warrantable measure” of the federal government. Anticipating the anti-commandeering doctrine, Madison called for “refusal to cooperate with officers of the Union” as a method of resistance.
Judge Andrew Napolitano last year urged states to introduce and pass this type of legislation specifically, saying that a single state passing such a law would make federal gun laws “nearly impossible to enforce.”
It’s quite simple; you cannot say you support the Second Amendment and oppose this bill.
Arizona Tenth Amendment Center state chapter coordinator Adam Henriksen agreed.
“Guns and Ammo magazine ranked Arizona number one for gun rights, giving our state a score of 49 out of a possible 50 points. Our legislators know that we won’t let our rights be trampled on,” he said.
Last week, Rep. Dane Eagle (R-Cape Coral) introduced HB733 in the Florida House. Similar to the Arizona bill, it would also bar the state from assisting federal agents in the enforcement of federal firearms laws and from providing material support of any kind to federal agents in the enforcement of these laws.
On Friday, HB733 picked up the endorsement of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association. Sheriff Richard Mack founded CSPOA, and he was one of the plaintiffs in the Printz case.
Mack said his organization supports the Florida Second Amendment Preservation Act, and would like to see every state take this path.
“This bill is one more needed action in the growing movement to return the powers not expressly given to the federal government back to the States and the People, according to the Constitution. We are in league with this legislation, and we encourage every state to enact similar laws”, said Sheriff Richard Mack (Ret.), founder of the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association (cspoa.org). CSPOA is in the process of communicating it’s support to legislatures around the country, according to Rick Dalton, CSPOA legislative liaison. “Our members are on the front lines and this kind of law will aid us in standing firm in defense of the rights of the people we serve”, said Sheriff Mack.
CSPOA just held a conference last week where all those present signed a resolution putting the federal government on notice that lawless and unconstitutional federal activities will not be tolerated where its members have jurisdiction, and such activities will be treated as criminal acts.
Florida Tenth Amendment Center state coordinator Andrew Nappi considered this a major step forward.
“This is a substantial attempt to push back against federal actions violating the Second Amendment. Representative Eagle has set an example for others who say they support the Second Amendment, but stop short of taking action.” said Nappi. “But as the CSPOA resolution makes clear, the time for inaction is over.”
By Michael Lotfi,
Sen. Kelli Ward announced Monday that she plans to introduce the Fourth Amendment Protection Act to stop her state from supporting the NSA in its unconstitutional spying.
“While media attention is focused on a possible effort to shut off water to the NSA data center in Utah, I’m introducing the Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act to back our neighbors up,” she said. “Just in case the NSA gets any ideas about moving south, I want them to know the NSA isn’t welcome in Arizona unless it follows the Constitution.”
Based on model legislation drafted by the OffNow coalition, the Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act blocks state support for the NSA through four provisions.
Ward called stopping unconstitutional snooping a national security issue.
“I believe the number one priority for national security is defending and protecting the Constitution. Without that, the rest becomes irrelevant. There is no question that the NSA program, as it is now being run, violates the Fourth Amendment. This is a way to stop it.”
Arizona becomes the first state to officially consider the Fourth Amendment Protection Act. Tenth Amendment Center communications director Mike Maharrey says he expects at least four other states to take up the bill early in the 2014 session.
While the NSA does not currently operate a data or “threat operations” center in Arizona, Maharrey said states around the country need to pass similar legislation to make NSA expansion more difficult.
“We know the NSA is aggressively expanding its physical locations, not just in Utah, but in Texas, Hawaii and other states too,” he said. “Since the NSA isn’t transparent about its plans, it’s essential to not only address where it is today, but work to get the rest of the country to say, ‘You’re not welcome here either!’”
Two Arizona state universities have partnerships with the NSA. The Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act would address the status of Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, Tucson, as NSA “Centers of Academic Excellence.”
Maharrey said he was thrilled with Ward’s decision to introduce the legislation, noting the OffNow coalition strategy was always multi-state.
“Right now, all the talk is all about denying water to the NSA facility in Utah. That’s important, but we hope every state will stand up and say, ‘No!’ to the NSA,” he said. “In Federalist 46, James Madison told us a single state resisting an unwarrantable act could create ‘serious impediments.’ But when several states work in union, he said it would ‘create obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.’ Arizona is an important piece of the obstruction puzzle.”
Truth in Media: Government Program to Control Religious Thought?
Is the U.S. Government working on a program to…well…program the way you view religion?
A whistleblower who has worked on that program says yes and he wants you to know exactly what has been going on.
The first step towards truth is to be informed.
If I told you that the Defense Department was using taxpayer dollars to learn how to influence people with religious beliefs in order to control those beliefs, would it really surprise you?
Would you think that I am a tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist?
Would you care if I told you that the program was aimed at controlling fundamentalist Muslims?
How about fundamentalist Christians?
Here’s the backstory. In 2012, Arizona State Universityʼs Center for Strategic Communication or CSC was awarded a $6.1 million dollar research grant by DARPA or the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
The goal of the project according to ASUʼs website is to “study the neurobiology of narrative comprehension, validate narrative theories and explore the connection between narrative and persuasion.”
A lot of technical talk there, so lets dig into the details.
The CSC program is actually about creating narratives. Using effective communication, largely video, to control the thought process of groups of people. And ultimately to be able to trigger narratives through magnetic stimulation. At its core, the program is focused on how to win the narrative against Muslim extremism. It’s a fairly interesting concept.
According to documents leaked to us, this project integrates insights from three mutually-informing theoretical terrains.
In short, the goal of the program is to combat and change religious narratives because of their role in “extremist behavior.” The whistleblower who revealed this program to us, worked for several years on the program. They asked not to be identified.
Ben: What were you told about the proposal as you began working through it?
Whistleblower: Yeah, I thought that it was benign. They told me it was about trying to figure outwhat parts of the brain are affected by narrative persuasion. Just to figure it out just for academic reasons. So we looked at narrative transportation which is basically how an individual is transported into a narrative, how they understand it…kind of like when you read a good book you get really enthralled with it.
At its core, the program attempts to map the brain to determine which portions of the brain allow you to accept a narrative presented to you. It’s called narrative theory.
Mapping this network will lead to a fuller understanding of the influence narrative has on memory, emotion, theory of mind, identity and persuasion, which in turn influence the decision to engage in political violence or join violent groups or support groups ideologically or financially.
You see, the project is focused on the belief that the reason Muslims in the Middle East are swayed to religious violence is not because of the reality of what is going on around them per se, but because they are believing a local or a regional narrative.
Ben: The local and regional narrative then is that the brain automatically assumes things because of a narrative we’ve been taught since our childhood, is that it?
Whistleblower: Right yeah that’s true. We call those master narratives. So in America we have this “rags to riches” master narrative where if you work really hard you can become successful and make a ton of money. So in the Middle East, they always use the example of the Pharaoh. That’s the master narrative that’s in the Qur’an, where there’s this corrupt leader that, you know, is really bad for society. And they use the example of Sadat who was assassinated. When
the assassin killed him, he said, “I have killed the Pharaoh, I have killed the Pharaoh.” So they assume that he was relying upon this Islamic master narrative to fuel his actions.
So how does the program change this? Again a lot of technical speak here so stay with me. But it’s broken into three phases.