by admin | Jun 22, 2020 | Uncategorized
Hypocrisy in politics in nothing new, but it does matter when it comes to taking more money out of your wallet. That brings us to the story of Pinal County Supervisor Mike Goodman.
For years Mike Goodman has pushed for tax increases in Pinal County, the largest being the $640 Million dollar tax hike in 2017. This was suppose to fund transportation projects throughout the county, except that his district does not get one penny of the revenue from the tax hike.
That’s right, Supervisor Goodman pushed for a tax increase knowing that his community would not benefit. Now his constituents are being stuck with the tax bill to improve roads for developers and other special interest groups around the county.
But it gets even worse. It turns out that while Mr. Goodman wants others to pay higher taxes that he doesn’t even pay his own!
For years Supervisor Goodman was sent notices from the IRS on back taxes owed totaling over $100,000. After refusing to pay, the IRS was forced to issue a lien on all property and income owned by Supervisor Goodman in the amount of the taxes owed plus interest and penalties.
The IRS isn’t the only entity that Supervisor Goodman has stiffed over the years. Mr. Goodman also operated MB Goodman, LLC., a business that had a poor track record of paying vendors and creditors.
His failure to pay became so problematic that one vendor, Crop Production Services Inc. was forced to take Supervisor Goodman to court for debts owed. Not surprisingly the court ruled against him, issuing a judgement against Mr. Goodman and in favor of Crop Production Services Inc. for $95,300.54.
Yet that judgement wasn’t enough, as Supervisor Goodman continued to avoid paying Crop Production Services what they were owed. They were forced to take him to court again, getting a second order issued ensuring that his wages would be garnished until full payment of his debts were made.
Supervisor Goodman doesn’t pay his taxes. He doesn’t pay his creditors. But he wants his constituents to pay more in taxes for projects that don’t even serve or benefit the community.
This type of irresponsible and hypocritical behavior should not be rewarded. Supervisor Goodman is up for reelection this year, it’s probably time for voters to pick someone new to represent them in Pinal County.
Paid for by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. Not Authorized by any Candidate or Candidate Committee.
by admin | Jun 18, 2020 | Misc, News and Updates
It is no secret that most
universities and colleges across the country are teeming with professors and
adjuncts unafraid to insert their liberal biases into their courses and
teachings. A survey
of 40 leading universities in the country found that Democrat
professors outnumber their Republican colleagues at a ratio of nearly 12 to
1. Conservatives
are a genuine minority on higher education campuses and
intellectual diversity has become nonexistent.
The result is an ideological
double standard that is destroying our colleges and universities. If you are
liberal college professor lecturing your students on the evils of capitalism or
how America is a cesspit of bigotry, your academic freedom is sacrosanct. Students
that don’t agree with this sentiment are wise to keep quiet and not rock the boat.
What happens when conservative
students and speakers don’t fall in line and decide to stand up for their
beliefs? They are discriminated
against by their professors, or are “shouted
down” and attacked for expressing the minority position on campus.
Conservative professors that refuse
to embrace the liberal Marxist worldview of their peers don’t fare much better.
Case in point: Professor Nick Damask at Scottsdale Community College.
Professor Demask teaches World
Politics at SCC and is considered an expert in the area of international
terrorism. This spring he had his
students take a quiz that included several questions about Islamic
terrorism. One student in the class
claimed that he was offended by the quiz and wrote the professor about his
complaints. Professor Damask provided a clarification of his questions and
offered to discuss the issue further with the student, but before further
discussion could occur, the student posted the quiz on social media.
The professor and the college
were excoriated by liberal pundits and the media for suggesting that there are
terrorists that self-identify with Islam. At that point SCC had a choice—treat
Professor Demask like how they would have treated every other liberal professor
and protected his academic freedom, or throw him under the ideological bus. To
no ones’ surprise, they chose the latter option.
SCC immediately voided the test results,
issued an apology from the college to the student and sent the professor a
pre-written apology letter for him to sign. To his credit Professor Damask, who
has taught at SCC for 23 years, did not apologize but instead
pursued legal representation for violations of his academic freedom.
After Professor Damask decided to
fight back the Maricopa County Community College Board opened up an
investigation to determine if SCC handled the situation properly. Nearly a
month later the interim Chancellor of Maricopa Community Colleges published his
findings and determined that administrators
acted inappropriately, and that the school violated the professor’s
academic freedom.
Though Professor Damask was vindicated, in many respects it is a hollow victory. His reputation has been permanently damaged, which shows that college leadership can’t be trusted to provide due process or protect individuals with different beliefs than their own.
This freezing of any divergent
speech on campus is a double-edged sword. If serious steps are not taken to address this
issue it won’t take long before conservatives start playing thought police on
campus and engage in their own guerilla tactics to point out every liberally
slanted lesson they deem offensive.
by admin | Jun 11, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates
An interesting revelation came to
light earlier this month that has added fuel to the fire over the debate to
implement universal vote by mail in Arizona.
Several weeks ago news broke that
a complaint
had been filed with Attorney General Mark Brnovich outlining possible
felony voter fraud by the son of Democrat State Representative Mitzi Epstein. According
to the complaint, 29-year-old Daniel Epstein has lived in New York since at
least 2017. An extensive online paper
trail of Facebook posts and employment information indicate that he moved to
the Empire State to attend New York University and, after graduating from NYU
two years ago, continued to live and work there as an actor.
Yet living 3,000 miles away has
not stopped him from voting in multiple Arizona elections by mail from his
parent’s home, including the most recent Tempe city council race in March. How
these mail-in ballots were cast is uncertain, which is why a deeper probe into
the matter is warranted.
Usually very outspoken and active
on social media, Rep. Epstein has yet to comment on these allegations. She
likely understands the gravity of the situation and had to be aware of Daniel’s
voting patterns since the ballots were sent to her home. Ultimately, she will have to explain why her
29-year old son who has been working as an actor in New York for years is still
casting ballots in Arizona elections.
Also affected by this complaint
is the narrative being pushed by media
outlets, liberal
pundits and Democrat
leaders wanting to use Covid-19 as an excuse to implement universal vote by
mail. For over two months Republicans have been relentlessly attacked for
opposing this plan for the 2020 election. Opposition was tantamount to wanting
people to die from Coronavirus, and concerns of voter fraud were scoffed at as
unfounded “conspiracy theories.”
Yet ample research and evidence
prior to this complaint already showed that mail in voting was susceptible to
fraud. According the bi-partisan
commission on Federal Election Reform chaired by Jimmy Carter, the findings
concluded that absentee ballots remain “the largest source of potential voter
fraud” in the electoral process. The New
York Times reported
in 2012 that there was a bi-partisan consensus that all votes cast by mail
are “less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely
to be contested than votes cast in a voting booth.”
Here in Arizona it is easy to see
how our Permanent Early Voter List (PEVL) system can be abused. Since the list
is Permanent, voters stay on the rolls long after they are ineligible
to vote. There are numerous
examples of people finding ballots in interesting locations or receiving
ballots from voters that have moved away or have even died.
The only safeguard in the
election process prior to an early ballot being counted is an examination of
the signature on the front of the envelope. Poll workers do their best to
verify the authenticity of the signature but this process becomes an impossible
task when hundreds
of thousands of early ballots are dumped in their laps on election day.
Arizona needs election reform,
but not the type for which our political class has yearned. Though we should
maintain our vote by mail system (which is one of the most accessible in the
nation for voters), policymakers need to take a closer look at cleaning up our
voter rolls and addressing the problem of stacks of early ballots being dropped
off on election day. The latter issue has turned into a nightmare for election
officials, has led to mistakes by overworked poll workers and delayed results
for weeks after polls had closed.
These fixes are long overdue and
should take precedent over attempts to make it easier to game our election
system.
by admin | May 21, 2020 | News and Updates
Yesterday, in a very ironic twist
of events, Democrats in House Judiciary argued against the very platform they
purport to stand for.
Criminal justice reform.
In an astonishing display of
intellectual dishonesty, Democrat members attacked legislation
that reforms the state’s civil asset forfeiture laws that would require the
government obtain a criminal conviction prior to forfeiting an individual’s
property. Not only is this one of the
most important areas of criminal justice, it is an effort for which democrats
themselves have advocated and voted. In fact, just three years ago when more
modest reforms were being proposed, many democrats stated they would like to
see the legislation go further to include a criminal conviction.
Their public objections to the
bill teetered on the bizarre. They
claimed because the bill prohibits the Attorney General from funding employees
with RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) funds that would
force government to cut other areas of government such as public defenders. A clear demonstration as to why a built-in
profit motive is grossly immoral. They
also argued that the bill would eliminate law enforcement’s ability to seize
assets of criminals and therefore hurt victims of crime. A patently false statement that would have
been easily dispelled had any of the Democrats bothered to read the actual
bill. Perhaps the most strange argument
was that under current law, advocates of the bill could simply file a “1487” a
mechanism in state law that allows a lawmaker to request an Attorney General
opinion as to whether a local county or city is breaking the law and then withhold
state shared revenues if they were found in violation. The most blatantly obvious problem with this –
law enforcement isn’t breaking the law.
They can lawfully seize and forfeit an individual’s property
without even charging them with a crime.
That is in fact the reason for the bill in the first place.
Their arguments had themselves
turned in knots.
This new-found alliance between
democrats and prosecutors has them abandoning the people they claim to advocate
for the most – minorities and the impoverished.
Afterall, their philosophic truth council the ACLU
has been stalwart advocates for the overhaul of the forfeiture system both in
Arizona and around the country, in part because the backward laws
disproportionally harm minority and low income populations. Considering how instrumental the ACLU was in
passing Arizona’s 2017 reforms, it is curious they didn’t have more sway with
House Democrats this time around.
It is quite clear that the discussion of SB1556 has eroded into the politics of personality. House Judiciary Democrats being happy to sell out completely on their principles of criminal justice reform and defending the most vulnerable persons in the system to stick it to a bill sponsor they don’t like. Or perhaps they have flip flopped on the issue because in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, they now support taking people’s property without due process.
Considering we are living in a
time when many Americans and Arizonans are concerned with government overreach
and oppression, it is unconscionable that lawmakers would consider protecting a
system of legalized government theft.
Hopefully, House Democrats will remember who they represent and vote YES
today on SB1556.
by admin | May 19, 2020 | News and Updates
This week the Arizona Legislature
lurched back into action, coming together for the first time since March to
pass a slate of bills before calling it quits. Normally more action (and bills)
at the legislature means bad news for taxpayers, but this time there was a very
good reason to have lawmakers come back: Covid-19 liability.
After Governor Ducey correctly
decided to end the shutdown earlier this month, businesses have been eager to
reopen, yet are uneasy on how to do it right.
Businesses are very concerned that even with their best efforts to
implement policies and procedures that keep employees and customers safe from
Covid-19, they are vulnerable to sue-happy trial attorneys and opportunists
looking to make a buck on class action lawsuits.
If the state is to recover
economically as quickly as possible, the legislature must pass legislation that
limits the liability exposure for businesses.
Current tort law in Arizona entitles an injured party to damages if they
can find the other party was simply negligent in their duties by a preponderance
of the evidence, a fairly low evidentiary standard.
Proposed legislation currently
being crafted by Senator Eddie Farnsworth and Representative John Kavanagh
would likely raise this bar to require a business or non-profit was grossly
negligent by clear and convincing evidence.
This change would only be applied to suits directly related to the
Governor’s Executive Order addressing COVID-19.
Additionally, many Arizona businesses
took exception to Ducey’s forceful approach to enforcement, threatening fines
and revocation of licenses for violations of his Executive Orders. Any bill that moves forward should either
remove or significantly limit the draconian (and often unconstitutional) danger
of excessive fines or punishment.
Businesses will undoubtedly do
what they can to follow recommended safety guidelines for employees and
customers. But if they must contend with
the looming anxiety of being sued for a fortune without adequate protections
under the law or of having their right to operate their business legally at
all, our economy will suffer.
Starting and running a business
is inherently risky. Individuals stake
their livelihoods on a concept they hope and believe will be successful in the
open market. The risk and uncertainty
created around COVID-19 has the ability to cripple our job creators. After the forced closures of thousands of
businesses in Arizona, many of them will not reopen. For the ones that do step into this brave new
world, they must have assurances that a slew of lawsuits or a government
crack-down won’t force them to close their doors again, this time for
good.
Recent Comments