The Arizona Sentinel

July 16, 2009

Arizona Is Bankrupt, financially and politically~

Filed under: My Posts — thearizonasentinel @ 3:13 pm

Alert: You must see this video::


The state of Arizona in Bankrupt , financially and politically,.. They allowed the previous governor to drive the state into bankruptcy by allowing her to govern thru left wing, socialist agenda, including open borders, funding illegal aliens thru schooling, and medical care, not to mention the criminal cost.  Even today under a so called Republican governor, the left wing policies of the governors office and in the legislature continue in these unconstitutional policies.  They simply refuse to do the right thing.  Senator Russell Pearce for years has been trying to stop the financial drain , the illegals cause the state of Arizona.  The following article demonstrates the lack of sane leadership that exist in Arizona.  I have no confidence in the outcomes of legislation in Arizona,.  The State of Arizona, appears to be following the path of the bush/obama administration.  I suspect, money, and back door promises are playing a role here,. Arizona Politics has always been corrupt, for as long as I can remember,. some 40 years.

So Senator Pearce, keep the faith, when the state collapses under the weight of debt, and political failings,. you will know that you tried.  And history will reflect your efforts.  You are hamstrung by an overwhelming number of Arizonians looking for taxpayer funded handouts. And socialist working to increase the number of voters with those agendas.  When the Federal government moves in and takes over the governance of the state, those that oppose you will be back on the street where they belong.  






Backlash over Barto’s ‘silent protest’ of
anti-sanctuary bill

By Linda Bentley | July 15, 2009

‘You have betrayed the state of Arizona and everybody will know it by the end of the day’
PHOENIX – NumbersUSA sent out a special message to its members in Arizona asking them to “Blast state reps. that helped derail anti-sanctuary bill.”

According to Van Esser, chief of membership services for NumbersUSA, before adjourning on July 1, the Arizona House defeated HB 2280 authored by Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, aimed at cracking down on illegal alien ‘sanctuary’ laws while aiding enforcement through expansion of the state’s trespassing law.Approved earlier in the day by the Senate, the House voted 26-15 in favor of the bill, five votes short of the 31 needed for passage.

Although Democrats were expected to oppose the bill, three Republicans – Reps. John McComish, Andrew Tobin and Russell Jones, joined them, while 19 members of the House refused to vote at all.

Six of the Republicans refusing to vote, Reps. Nancy Barto, Rich Crandall, Adam Driggs, Bill Konopnicki, Lucy Mason and Doug Queland, left the building so they would not have to go on record as being against HB 2280.

The original legislation, passed by the Senate a few days earlier as SB 1175, was derailed by Driggs’s refusal to hear it in his House committee.

Pearce then placed the bill’s language in HB 2280, which had already passed the House and required only a “concurrence” vote.

Esser noted certain Republicans have fought good enforcement legislation for years, “while at the same time denying their anti-enforcement nature.”

He said it was now time to hold those Republicans accountable.

Anna Gaines, a precinct committeeperson in Barto’s Legislative District 7, sent Barto an e-mail with the subject line: “Today you walked away from any future office!”

She called Barto a disappointment and said, “Your action of walking away today will make all of us work harder to elect those who will serve us, not their own self interest.”

Gaines said she would personally work to defeat any campaign Barto might undertake and stated, “Somewhere along the line you forgot you serve us … You have betrayed the state of Arizona and everyone will know by the end of the day.”

Gaines’ two-paragraph July 1 e-mail prompted a two-page response from Barto on July 7.
Barto thanked Gaines for her e-mail “in response to my missing a key immigration vote – outlawing sanctuary cities in the state – HB 2280. I did, and for good reason.

“What is it about Sen. Russell Pearce’s 2280 that caused so many of his own party to come down on the opposite side of this bill that it failed in a majority-controlled Legislature? (all emphasis in original) Are we open borders bleeding hearts?

“Quite the opposite. Since 2006 I and others who oppose this bill voted for key legislation aimed at stopping illegal immigration in the state including two bills prohibiting sanctuary cities … employer sanctions … ending public benefits, laws requiring proof of citizenship to operate a business … stopping illegal day laborer hiring, putting … the AZ Nat’l Guard on the border and others. So, accusations that I am ‘soft on illegal immigration’ are false on their face …”

Barto continued, “I oppose HB 2289 and would have voted ‘no’ had I chosen to be present … but my absence was a silent protest in it coming to the floor in the first place.

Secondly, my duty to protect citizens’ health care decisions, promoting the AZ Healthcare Freedom Act, conflicted with final votes as I had four national TV and radio interviews later that day … so I left the Capitol at about 5 a.m. to rest and prepare for a 7:30 a.m. FOX interview.”

Barto called HB 2280 “an example of poorly conceived public policy,” claiming it removed officer discretion while elevating enforcement of federal immigration law above other crimes.

She also repeated the pro-open borders mantra that crime victims and witnesses will not report crimes out of “fear of deportation.”

As indicated by the e-mails forwarded to Sonoran News, Barto was receiving quite the backlash over her walk-out and responded to everyone with the same e-mail, further raising the ire of recipients, including Gaines.

Gaines wrote back to reiterate, “You were elected to voice our concerns, not yours, which are painted by the brush of the pro-open borders religious and business community.”

When Gaines accused Barto of being influenced by her daughter’s affiliation with the Interfaith Council and its open-borders agenda, Barto wrote back to say her daughter works with inner-city kids for a Christian ministry and was not part of Interfaith and said, “I am appalled at this accusation.”

Barto claimed she has voted for immigration reform bills vehemently opposed by Interfaith.
Her record, however, indicates otherwise.

Back in 2006, The Arizona Conservative, a conservative internet blog, announced it had withdrawn its endorsement of Barto, citing, “State legislative seats are highly contested.

People donate a lot of time, money and support to elect candidates. The citizens of this state deserve legislators who will actually vote on bills. In this past legislative session, Barto merely voted ‘present’ on a number of bills. This is unacceptable.”

During the 2006 legislative session, Barto voted “present” on House Bill 2577 (illegal aliens; employment; verification) and failed to vote during the third reading.

Barto refused to vote on HB2580 (illegal aliens; serious felonies; bail).

Barto voted “present” on Feb. 6 on HB 2582 but then refused to vote on March 9, while finally voting “yea” a few days later.

She voted “present” on HB 2837, an anti-sanctuary bill, later voting against it.

Initially Barto voted “present” on another bill, dealing with illegal aliens and trespassing, but later voted against it.

In conclusion, The Arizona Conservative stated, “Arizona has a shameful history of legislators – gutless wonders – hiding in bathrooms, hiding under desks and refusing to cast votes. It will be a shame if Barto, or any other elected official, is selected to serve the voters and refuses to vote on bills again. We do not elect people to office to sit on their hands.”

Since then, voting “present” and not voting has become the hallmark of Barto’s legislative career as she considers a run for the Senate.

Photo by Linda Bentley





Allen V. Soetoro assured standing in FOIA Claim

Filed under: My Posts — thearizonasentinel @ 2:00 pm
 We are going to be adding any updates to this post below this post so look for updates after reading the following post:   Things are happening at a rapid place,  As we move closer to a resolution of the fraud perpetrated on the American People,.  The blow back will begin from the administration thru its talking heads ..

Allen v. Soetoro assured standing in FOIA claim

By Linda Bentley | July 15, 2009

FOIA’s basic purpose – opening agency action to the light of public scrutiny
TUCSON – On July 6, Kenneth Allen, a Tucson resident, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona against Barry Soetoro, aka Barrack H. Obama, aka Barry Obama; Attorney General Eric Holder; Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano; and Does 1-49.

The action was filed pursuant to Allen’s Feb. 9, 2009 Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking immediate processing and release of agency records with regard to Barry Soetoro, Stanley Ann Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro and all known and unknown aliases.

Allen brought the complaint on his own behalf after defendants blatantly refused to produce the yet-to-be-released documents in a timely manner.

According to the complaint, on Monday, Jan. 26, 2009, his first day in office, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13490-Ethics Commitments, which stated only the Attorney General (Eric Holder) and Counsel to the President (Gregory Craig) are able to review presidential records requests and determine whether or not they can be made public.

On his Illinois State Bar application where it asked for other names used by the applicant, Obama stated, “none.”

Allen states, “Because … Barack Obama denies he was ever called Barry Soetoro it shouldn’t be a problem with transparency when it comes to producing the requested records … And because Barry Soetoro is not a citizen, as defined by the law, he isn’t protected by the FOIA.”

According to Allen, Indonesia has not allowed dual citizenship since 1945 and, therefore, Soetoro’s mother Stanley Ann Soetoro would have been required to relinquish her son’s American citizenship and any other citizenship he might have held, in order for him to become an Indonesian citizen, which school records confirm he became.

So, Allen modified his request to ask for an original copy of the immigration records pertaining to Barry Soetoro, circa 1971, when he returned to Hawaii, along with documents indicating whether or not Soetoro is still an Indonesian citizen. If not, Allen asked for documentation as to when he became a naturalized citizen.

Allen requested copies of Soetoro’s passports for the years 1979 through 1982, including his Indonesian passport for the years 1979 through 1982, a copy of his passport and documented history of travel to Pakistan and nationality contained therein for the years 1981 and 1982.

He also requested a copy of Stanley Ann Soetoro’s (Dunham and Obama) passport and travel history for the years 1959 through 1987 along with the same for Lolo Soetoro, citing the requests were not subject to 6 CFR § 5.21(f), which requires permission from the individual, because both subjects are deceased.

Citing the Privacy Act’s laudable goals of protecting sensitive information, Allen said it only protects U.S. citizens and permanent resident aliens and “does not apply not foreigners, unions, collective associations or corporations.”

Allen asserts Barry Soetoro is neither a citizen of the United States nor an alien with permanent residence and said “… we know Barry Soetoro was an Indonesian citizen at the age of 7 and that he had ties in Hawaii,” noting Soetoro would have had to have gone through immigration and customs at some point between 1961 and 2009.”

The information requested by Allen could prove Soetoro is in violation of a number of laws under the Immigration and Nationality Act, including falsely claiming citizenship.

Allen said the information sought would undeniably shed light on the DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services conduct concerning its Indonesian and foreign repatriation policy.

Considering the fact Napolitano believes veterans, Second Amendment and pro-life supporters should be considered terrorists, Allen said she shouldn’t have any problem with the release of information revealing the source of the facts underlying an aspect of the nation’s immigration policy as it pertains to Barry Soetoro, Stanley Ann Soetoro and Lolo Soetoro.

He said it would further the FOIA’s basic purpose of opening agency action to the light of public scrutiny by informing the public against whom the government enforced its policy of repatriation and upon whom the DHS relied in evaluating and deciding to continue that policy, rather than denying Allen’s request for records concerning Barry Soetoro and his connection to Barack H. Obama.

Allen believes any information that may exist with respect to Barry Soetoro should be released in the interest of national security and, because his complaint is over a FOIA request, there can be no question of standing.

For requested relief, Allen is asking the court to order defendants to immediately process his FOIA requests, disclose the requested records in an expedited manner and find the defendants’ action in violation of the FOIA.



Performance you need and the value you want! Check out great laptop deals from Dell!

Blog at

A Lawman Speaks for Liberty

Border and National Security, Private Property rights, Removing Federal agencies from the states,American Energy Policy, Constitutional Conservative