the Cochise County, Arizona,
Individual & Property Rights Association
editor: Mike Jackson,
last edited June 29, 2017
CCIPRA exists to
oppose the forces which would take away your
rights. CCIPRA began by focusing on local gummint corruption and stupidity, but now the focus is broader. Ordinary
citizens working together can still protect themselves.
There's no record of the national popular presidential vote until 1824.
From 1824 through 2012, there were 18 times when the winner won less
than 50% of the popular vote.
From June 14
Late in the day: At last a criminal investigation begins: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/special-counsel-is-investigating-trump-for-possible-obstruction-of-justice/2017/06/14/9ce02506-5131-11e7-b064-828ba60fbb98_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory
-- and from the story: "the Supreme Court ruled during the Watergate
scandal that officials cannot use privilege to withhold evidence in
criminal prosecutions." So the attempts to assert executive
privilege, by whatever name, must come to an end. What's the
endgame here? At last, a way has come up for Trump to walk away
feeling that he's a winner: he can make the stale claim that he
is nobly resigning to save the country from partisan wrangling.
His words won't convince anybody but 1) his followers, and 2) himself.
It's now doubtful that Trump will make it to 2018, and it's certain
that nothing in his office will become him like the leaving of it.
Early in the day: Trump's enemies may fear it, and his friends may wish he would get to
it faster, but everyone can agree that based on all the evidence, Trump
wants nothing so much as to be not President, but Dictator. To
that end, Trump may use some pretext to declare a state of national
emergency, and suspend the operation of all other branches of
government. This morning's shooting at a baseball field is the
kind of excuse he needs. It would be, however, a lame
excuse. In 1954 Puerto Rican nationalists went inside the actual
House Of Representatives and started shooting, hitting five Congressmen
(who all lived). Here's a good writeup of the event:
Imagine how we would react today. What did we do in 1954?
Well, the House immediately stopped admitting tourists to the gallery
without tickets, and later tightened up security otherwise, but Speaker
Joe Martin said "I rejected the most ambitious proposal, one that
called for installation of bullet-proof glass around the front of the
galleries.... I felt that, danger or not, Americans do not want their
Congress walled off from the people by glass." If we could be
that calm after a shooting inside the actual House, when the Cold War
was at its height and initial suspicion was that the shooting was a
Communist plot, can't we still use our heads now, and not be led into
panic by leaders who profit from scaring us?
From June 13
Two parts of Sessions's testimony today are very interesting to me.
One, he refuses to talk about some conversations with the president,
but says he is not basing his refusal on executive privilege.
-- Just who, precisely, does he think he is? Nobody gets to
answer a Congressional subpoena only to the extent he wants. If
the Senate lets Sessions (and others who have done the same thing
recently) get away with this, we won't have "executive privilege,"
we'll have "privilege by friends of the Emperor."
Second, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, suh, says that some of the
questions are insulting to his honor, suh, his southron honah! In
other words, hoi polloi in Congress -- the ones who are there to
protect the people -- should know theah low social position.
-- When the argument is made that anyone is above suspicion by his
inferiors, I always go back to my 269-year old friend Jerry Bentham,
who talked in "Laudatory Personalities" about the argument that for
some officials, "so great is their integrity, so complete their
disinterestedness, so uniformly do they prefer the public advantage to
their own, that [their] high character ... is a sufficient guarantee
against any ground of alarm." Jerry notes that this argument is
always "irrelevant to the question under discussion," and would give
self-exalted persons "an absolute and universal negative upon every
measure not agreeable to their inclinations." Jerry's solution is
simple: a public job is a public trust and a public jobholder is
a public trustee, and a legislator should always "suppose the trustee
disposed to break the trust in every imaginable way for him to reap ...
any personal advantage. This is the principle on which public
institutions ought to be formed; and when it is applied to all men
indiscriminately, it is injurious to none.... [A]rguments, drawn
from the supposed virtues of men in power, are opposed to the first
principles on which all laws proceed...." Bentham's arguments are
more convincing to me than the blather of any Foghorn Leghorn who comes
down the pike claiming to be better than the rest of us.
From June 9
Trump has NOT volunteered to be questioned under oath. An ABC reporter
asked Trump if he would give his version of what Comey talked about
under oath; 100%, Trump said. Trump added that he would be glad to tell
the same to the special prosecutor. In other words, Trump has
volunteered only to tell his own version under oath -- not to submit to
any questions. Now watch Trump squirm to avoid answering questions
under oath, and watch him squirm more if a sharp trial attorney gets to
Trump HAS reverted to the speech pattern he uses when he knows he's
been caught with his pants down. Trump said "No collusion. No
obstruction. [Comey]’s a leaker." That's just like "no puppet, no
puppet, you're the puppet" when Hillary mentioned his Russian
connection during the campaign. Trump's oral tell shows him as just an
overgrown brat who panics whenever he is challenged, and repeats his
special magic words.
Trump cannot help destroying this country. He wants to loot it, and he
doesn't have what it takes to be a competent president. During the
Civil War, Lincoln found it necessary to violate one part of the
Constitution, in order to save the country. Now, has our electoral
system become a suicide pact, that we must stick to even if it ends us?
From May 28
When Hillary called Trump "Putin's puppet" his denial was "No puppet,
no puppet, you're the puppet," revealing his hysteria at hearing the
truth. He made vile promises to his base, and will now break them
whenever breaking them will put money in his pocket. His only goal is
to get richer. He didn't mean his oath of office, and if he had meant
it he couldn't carry it out; he's too stupid and crazy. Imagine four
years of his selfish insanity. Imagine a world with a broken America.
From May 26
Yes puppet, yes puppet, Trump's the puppet:
If there's a difference between Trump and the dictionary definition of traitor, I wish I could see it.
From May 16
Trump admits blabbing secret anti-ISIS information direct to Russia,
right in the Oval Office. A few responses are in order. 1, A president
has the power to de-classify secret information, but having power isn't
the same thing as being right, and Trump was a fool to blab our secrets
to Russia. 2, Trump can't understand that he's a fool. Remember his
bragging "I comprehend very well, okay, better than I think almost
anybody" back on February 8? Unable to understand his own limits, Trump
will continue being a fool. 3, To handle this particular foolishness,
the Shite House has already worked up a script. For instance, national
security adviser McMaster says Trump did not discuss intelligence
sources or methods, or reveal any non-public military operations, and
Secretary of State Tillerson says Trump did not discuss any sources or
methods of intelligence, or any military operations. They're following
the same script. 4, Their script is nonsense. If Trump tells Russia
"Here's something you don't know about ISIS," he's giving information
from which intelligence officers can deduce much more than Trump
blabbed. Anyone trained in intelligence understands how to use
information in patterns. Anyone except the president would already be
facing court-martial. 5, How well can our government function when
every day is another adventure in wasting resources coping with a
president who's a fool?
From April 20
In a debate, a clear marker that the other side can't win a fair
argument is that they refuse to state your side honestly, but instead
argue against a side you are not taking. US Attorney General Sessions
gave an example of this today, by criticizing people for
"psychoanalyzing" Trump as to his anti-Islamic position. Now,
psychoanalysis is a long process of privately digging into hidden
feelings; Trump, however, hasn't hidden his anti-Islamic feelings, he's
shouted them as loudly as he could. He's like a bully who goes around
saying "I hate redheads, and I'm going to kick the next one I see" --
then sees a redhead and kicks him to death -- then argues "Redhead?
Redhead? Who said anything about redheads? I did? Just a coincidence!"
It's been clear for a long time that Trump is a lying, cowardly bully;
it just became clear that Sessions is one too. O, for a government of
honest people again.
From April 18
Secretary of Homeland Security Kelly is quoted in a Washington Post
article today as saying that Congressmen should "shut up [and] assume
the agency is acting appropriately and following the law." My very old
pal Jerry Bentham disagrees. Jerry argues against the idea that "the
virtues or talents of the persons [in a government office supersede]
the necessity of all investigation," that "so great is their integrity,
so complete their disinterestedness, so uniformly do they prefer the
public advantage to their own, that [their] high character ... is a
sufficient guarantee against any ground of alarm." Jerry notes that
such "arguments, drawn from the supposed virtues of men in power, are
opposed to the first principles on which all laws proceed;" that the
arguments are always "irrelevant to the question" at hand; and that "If
this argument be good in any one case, it is equally good in every
other [so would] give to the persons an absolute and universal negative
upon every measure not agreeable to their inclinations." Jerry proposes
a different rule: "In every public trust ... suppose the trustee
disposed to break the trust in every imaginable way in which it would
be possible for him to reap ... any personal advantage. This is the
principle on which public institutions ought to be formed; and when it
is applied to all men indiscriminately, it is injurious to none."
Maybe, while General Kelly was enjoying his career ordering other men
about, he should have given more study to the principles of morals and
legislation in a society of free people.
From April 14
Turning to Pence, because Trump is oh so boring and easy to figure out:
Pence won't eat alone with a woman not his wife. Does he figure that he
is so attractive that any woman will jump his bones at any opportunity?
Or does he find the presence of any woman so unbearably exciting that
he will rape her if no one stops him? He will offer an excuse from the
Bible, but the Bible says lots of things, and fundamentalists ignore
whatever isn't convenient to them. What matters is what in Pence's
brain made him choose the particular excuse he chose -- woman as
universal seducer or man as universal rapist. What a theocratic creep
to have next to the presidency, in a country in which government is not
supposed to be ridden by religion.
From April 12
It's laughable to see newspapers sound mystified by Trump's change of
tactics toward Syria, Putin, etc. There's nothing hard to understand
about Trump's changes of tactics: just keep in mind that he has only
one strategy, to do whatever will benefit him most at any particular
time, and he will change tactics as needed for that one strategy.
From April 11
What we know about Trump is that he built a "bidness" career by lying,
bullying, cheating, squirming out of obligations, and dumping people
who couldn't do anything more for him. Does anybody see any
evidence that he's different as president? He's busily breaking
every promise he made to voters before the election -- now that he has
what he wanted, why should he care what he said to get it? Putin
too has done all that he could for Trump, and can't do anything more
for Trump now that investigations are closing in, so it's a good time
for Trump to dump his former puppetmaster, and find a new way to
supremacy -- which seems to be military adventures. Trump is
turning domestic government over to toadies, in and out of his family,
who will be handy for taking blame away from Trump; and in military
adventures, Trump has found a space where Congress will refuse to
supervise him. How little time it took Trump to discover this
road to becoming a Duce! A huge reaction against this American
Mussolini in the 2018 elections is probably the only hope for the
American people to save their country -- because if we try and fail in
2018, Trump will have figure out a way to block another attempt in
2020. Goodbye, American experiment in democracy.
From April 6
1, The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare
war. Congress has not in any way authorized Trump to attack the
Syrian government, so Trump just violated the Constitution by starting
a war on his own. This is a major step toward dictatorship, the
only kind of government in which Trump can survive, much less
thrive. Expect statements like this to be treated as treason,
sooner rather than later.
2, The CIA had early evidence of Putin helping out Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/us/trump-russia-cia-john-brennan.html?_r=0
-- so now it's time for Trump to declare that the CIA is a fake agency.
Imagine how much good government we could be getting if not for that
insane clown hogging the spotlight in DC?
From April 4
Donald Trump is to Putin's Russia what old Joe Kennedy, JFK's father,
wanted to be to Hitler's Germany: an appeaser and enabler -- except that
Joe was crafty and was under FDR's control, while Drumpf is crazy and
nobody can control him, not even himself.
From April 3
First the Republicans very uncivilly refused to even consider a Supreme
Court nominee by Obama, because it's the last year of his presidency --
as if he had been elected for three years, not four; and now, if the
Democrats use an existing rule to block Drumpf's nominee, the
Republicans apparently plan to change the rules so that they can ram
Gorsuch through. Evidently the Republicans have no concept that this is
a government of laws, not men. One hopes for a miracle of recovered
sense and civility in the Senate this week.
From April 2
Our main mob leader is a defendant for inciting violence -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/02/a-judge-rules-trump-may-have-incited-violence-and-trump-again-has-his-own-mouth-to-blame/
-- and he can be sued while president. What a good system of government we have, tho Herr Drumpf is trying to wreck it.
From March 31
1, My God, how long can the American people stand, how long can the
American government stand, living out the soap opera of a demented
drama queen? How much of our time can we stand being wasted trying to
cope with Trump's crazy fantasies?
2, Flynn wants immunity before testifying at a House and Senate
investigation of Trump's Russian connections. The investigators say
they want to investigate further before hearing from Flynn. If I were
Flynn, I'd move to a concrete blockhouse with heavy security while
Trump has time to figure out more ways to block his testimony.
From March 30
A proposed Constitutional amendment: that in the Senate, the Vice President have no vote, and that a bill fails when it ties.
From March 28
A contestant on The Apprentice alleges that Trump groped her the way he
bragged about on camera. Trump tweeted that her claims were "100%
fabricated and made-up ... totally false ... totally made up nonsense."
He wouldn't retract, so she sued him for defamation.
Trump isn't Constitutionally immune from a suit that has nothing to do
with his presidential duties, but his mouthpieces are spouting an
immunity argument that's failed before: that a president is immune from
a lawsuit that will distract him from his presidential duties. That
argument was tried when Paula Jones sued Bill Clinton, and the Supreme
Court rejected it then, holding that the "contention that this case ...
may place unacceptable burdens on the President that will hamper the
performance of his official duties ... finds little support [in history
or past cases ...., and] it is settled that the Judiciary may severely
burden the Executive Branch by reviewing the legality of the
President's official conduct .... It must follow that the federal
courts have power to determine the legality of the President's
unofficial conduct. The reasons for [not] requiring federal courts to
stay private actions during the President's term apply as well to ... a
stay 'in all but the most exceptional cases.'" See paragraph 2.b at
As a practical matter, Trump can't show that this case would unduly
burden him in carrying out his duties, because his performance so far
has already shown that he is lazy and negligent in his job.
This is what happens when a bragging crotchgrabber is elected to office. Paybacks are hell, eh?
From March 26
Protests all over Russia against Putin's thuggish regime -- right after
Putin meddled in our election to get his puppet elected -- imagine what
an opportunity this would be for a real president to advance freedom in
From March 25
1, In Herr Drumpf's own words, he's "not very good." When he announced
he was running for president, he said "I've watched the politicians.
I've dealt with them all my life. If you can't make a good deal with a
politician, then there's something wrong with you. You're certainly not
very good." Such self-awareness the sucker has!
2, Drumpf lost, blitz plotz, best summarized in this quote from Senator
Chuck Schumer: "the TrumpCare bill failed because of ... incompetence
and broken promises.... I have never seen an administration as
incompetent as the one occupying the White House today. They can't
write policy that actually makes sense, they can't implement the
policies they do manage to write, they can't get their stories
straight, and today we've learned that they can't close a deal, and
they can't count votes." Sweet, sweet music.
3, Now that Drumpf has lost, will he try to destroy Obamacare by,
literally, using its administrators to destroy it -- as he is doing
with the EPA, and already tried with Obamacare before he got his teeth
kicked in on Trumpcare? See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/inspector-general-trump-health_us_58d5fc2de4b03692bea63ff9
From March 24
So Herr Drumpf and Smilin' Ryan were too cowardly to put their losing
bill up for a vote -- and they dithered all day before deciding to duck
and run. So much for Drumpf's self-publicizing as a deal maker; in his
first big test, he couldn't deal himself out of a wet paper bag.
But the lying bully can make the rest of us pay for his inadequacies.
He also just backed out of trying to negotiate conditions in the
pipeline deal -- see https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-24/trump-pipeline-permits-granted-without-all-promised-conditions
-- so it
looks like little sphincterlips is going to punish the people he works
If that's how Drumpf is going to react when things go bad, it looks
like he can't survive in office long. Whatever they wanted in a
President, Drumpf's minority of voters did not want a brat having a
From March 23
As near as I can tell, here's the latest takeaway on Trump's "wire tapp" lie.
Trump wasn't wiretapped; he and his crooked friends were overheard when
they called foreigners whose lines were tapped as part of an FBI
The FBI findings were supposed to be secret, but as soon as a bigshot
Republican found out about them, he ran to Trump to warn him about what
the FBI was finding out.
When a mob is under FBI investigation, what do you call the guy who runs to tell the mob boss what the FBI knows?
From March 20
The final shot in my movie of Herr Drumpf's career: Visualize the last
scene of the movie Sunset Boulevard, with Drumpf in full drag as Gloria
Swanson, with his hair swept down alongside his cheeks. At the top of
the stairs, he says "Alright, here comes the Princess" and glides down
the steps. Near the bottom, he raises his hands and gestures through
the air, as much as the cuffs will allow. He tilts his head back like
Mussolini, imagines that the crowds cheering his arrest are cheering
him, and says "This is my life. It always will be. All those wonderful
people out there, watching me, me, me. I'm ready for my closeup."
Drumpf glides directly into the lens, saying "No puppet, no puppet,
you're the puppet." Fade to black.
From March 16
Cowardly Lyin' Trump versus cognitive dissonance. Trump lied his way
into office, and now, suddenly, his budget shows how fast he wants to
loot the country. It was always obvious to voters that Trump is a liar,
but some voters (a minority) fell for his lies because his lies
flattered them. Now that Trump's budget suddenly shows that he actually
wants to harm most voters, might Trump's minority realize with a sudden
jerk that they've been swindled? It can be a hard thing for a mob
leader when dissonance is resolved in a snap, and a mob wakes up, and
turns on him.
From March 13
1, Cowardly Lyin' Trump. In the wee hours of the
morning on March 4, Trump twittered some defamatory nonsense
culminating in "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones
during the very sacred election process.... Bad (or sick) guy!" Now
Trump is backing down from his lies, but he's too much of a coward to
do it himself. He's having his lickspittle Spicer say that Trump didn't
mean wiretaps when he said "tapp my phones," and didn't mean Obama when
he said "Bad (or sick) guy!" Now, people with guts and brains were
demanding that Trump put up or shut up with his claims about
wiretapping; doesn't Trump look awful, when it's shown so clearly that
he has no guts or brains, only blubber and blather? There are at least
three lawful ways to dump this clown; how long will Trump be allowed to
indulge his sick tantrums?
2, "Lies only says our would-be king \ Whose word no man relies on; \
He'll never say but a foolish thing, \ Nor ever do a wise one." --
thanks to John Wilmot, 2d Earl of Rochester.
From March 10
Herr Drumpf is an habitual liar and coward. Disagree with that? Then
look at the royalist wing of the Republican Party face him down on
health care. During the campaign, Drumpf promised "insurance for
everybody," and promised "I'm not going to cut Social Security [or]
Medicare or Medicaid," and promised to "expand [drug] treatment for
[the] badly addicted." But the royalist wing wants the opposite of what
Drumpf promised, and during negotiations, the royalists know they can
beat a lying coward. So Drumpf's promises are being negotiated away. By
the way, Drumpf is also a flop as a negotiator, unless he begins with
an overwhelming advantage so that he can bully the other side, but he
doesn't have the advantage here -- he has no presidential mandate at
all, because he lost by three million popular votes. So the lying,
cowardly, bully should lose bigly in these negotiations.
From March 9
Trump thinks it's okay for his minions to lie, cheat, and steal. Of
course he thinks so; those worked for him all his life. But the Office
of Government Ethics says NO -- see http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/03/09/519554307/u-s-ethics-official-to-white-house-no-these-rules-definitely-apply-to-you -- so how long before the Drumpfster tweets that requiring honesty from his minions is a plot by Obama?
From March 8
1, Herr Drumpf lied about making Mexico pay for the wall; he wants to take
the money out of the Coast Guard and TSA budgets. Drumpf is breaking
his key promise to his key base. If Drumpf's record is any guide, he'll
now 1) deny that he made any promise, 2) allege that Obama paid to fake
video showing Trump making the promise, and 3) make up another lie that
no sane person would believe. Can't we have a real president again,
instead of this greedy, lying crotchgrabber?
2, Who's against Ryan's Health Farce Bill? People who directly
give or receive health care: the AARP, American Medical
Association, American Nurses Association, American Hospital
Association. Who wants the farce? People who leech off the
medical system: insurance companies and their highest paid
suits. How can the Republicans justify ignoring the actual wishes
of patients, nurses, doctors, and hospitals? Well, congressman
Chaffetz of Utah says people should buy health care instead of a new
iPhone. But even an expensive new iPhone 7, plus the monthly
charges you'd have for any phone, costs about one tenth of $18,000, the
average family's yearly health insurance cost. Congressman
Chaffetz doesn't see the difference between spending $1800 or
$18,000. I think working people do. So, all you working
people who wanted government to understand your problems, how do you
like the jerks you voted for?
From March 7, three items about Trump, culminating with a big "Haw haw haw!"
1, Another day, another White House way to lie and steal -- today it's plagiarism
The Huffington Post reports -- at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/white-house-exxon-mobil-press-release_us_58bdd143e4b0d8c45f45ad5c?nuhgtzi6ajljo47vi
-- that Trump issued a press release that plagiarized an Exxon Mobil
press release. Exxon praised itself, Trump copied that language to
I hate plagiarism. One writer sweats and creates, a sneak steals the
credit. It's like what Lincoln hated, when he referred during the
Lincoln-Douglas debates to "the same spirit that says 'you toil and
work and earn bread, and I'll eat it.'"
White House politics pay well if you can get away with cheating, and
your political clique may still like you even after you are caught. See
these writeups from 2011: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/white-house-plagiarism/
Remember Melania Trump's plagiarism in her speech at the Republican convention. See http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/three-problems-with-the-melania-trump-plagiarism-admission
Remember Monica Crowley. Trump wanted her on the National Security
Council, but after multiple plagiarisms came out, she was gone. See https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/monica-crowley-trump-press-plagiarism/513299/
So this morning's plagiarism by the White House is nothing new. And you
can't blame Trump personally for this specific example, because he
doesn't read what they shove in front of him for a signature. But you
can blame Trump for the pattern: he doesn't insist on integrity in his
staff. How could he?--he wants lickspittles, who don't understand what
integrity means. So look for more of the same in the growing pile of
Trump's stinking corruption.
2, Right now, Trump is involved in several scandals, of which the most
important is his ties to Russia -- i.e., his selling out America in
order to make money for himself. There is some suspicion that he is
generating other scandals to try to divert attention from his Russian
ties. So watch for Trump to create another scandal by munching the
carpet as he claims that the photos are faked that show how small his
inauguration crowd was, compared to Obama's. Here's coverage of the
National Park Service photos that Trump demanded to see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/03/06/here-are-the-photos-that-show-obamas-inauguration-crowd-was-bigger-than-trumps/
3, Trump the Lying Sack. On February 27, Trump said that he had
"come up with a solution [to health care] that's really, really I think
very good," and said his plan was "fantastic" and would "be released
fairly soon." Now it turns out Trump didn't have a plan then, and
as of today he still doesn't have a plan that he can sell. It's
being ripped not just by the left but also by also by the right-wing
fanatics in Trump's own party. If you are ever tempted to forget
that Trump lies whenever he gets a temporary edge by doing so, just
remember the pickle the big stuffed sausage is in now, and go "Haw haw
From March 6
Blowhard, Coward, Stupid, Stupid, Stupid -- Trump at work
Blowhard: Remember Trump's "SEE YOU IN COURT" after his January 27
immigration ban was blocked -- by a court? After shooting off his
mouth, he never took his beef to court. Blowhard.
Coward: Trump signed his January order at a public ceremony, but he hid
to sign his March order, and he wouldn't even let his minions try to
explain why. His fears are out of control: when his minions talked to
reporters in a conference call, Trump wouldn't let the minions give
their names to the reporters, even after requiring reporters to quote
them only as "unnamed officials." Coward in panic.
Stupid: Even though the court that blocked Trump's January order
explained carefully how to write an order that satisfied the
Constitution, Trump's March order repeats some of the same violations.
Trump's minions said the new order is needed because 300 refugees in
the US are being investigated, but the minions wouldn't say whether the
refugees are from banned countries. Meanwhile, the ban is still
targeting people from countries that have never sent us terrorists.
Stupid: letting Attorney General Sessions participate in the process.
America's middle east policy is inextricably linked with our relations
with Russia. Sessions has recused himself from matters involving
Russia. Yet he vouched for the new order. Stupid.
Stupid: Trump's minions say his ban isn't anti-Moslem, because many
Moslems are NOT banned. But if I walk down the street kicking Moslems,
I'm being anti-Moslem, even though I'm not trying to kick every Moslem
in the world. Federal cases follow this reasoning, and in January the
federal court pointed the cases out to Trump's mouthpieces. It's stupid
for Trump to try this loser again.
From March 5
Good news: a way to get Drumpf -- a sad, sad thin-skinned bag of blab
-- to shut up! After blabbing drivel about wiretaps that neoNazis
invented, Drumpf wants a Congressional investigation of what he blabbed
-- and the good news is that Drumpf's pitiful tool Spicer -- a sad, sad
shell of a man -- says that until Congress investigates, Drumpf will
shut up about what he blabbed. Drumpf shutting up is better for the
country than his twitter fits. If only his shutting up would last; but
it can't. As investigations pile up evidence of Drumpf being Putin's
puppet, he's bound to explode again. Memo to the White House staff:
keep the strait jacket ready!
From March 4
Herr Drumpf sent out some strange tweets in the wee hours of Saturday morning. Before climaxing
about Arnold Schwarzenegger, Drumpf said things like "I'd bet a good
lawyer could make a great case out of the fact that President Obama was
tapping my phones in October, just prior to Election!" (4:52 a.m.) and
"How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very
sacred election process.... Bad (or sick) guy!" (5:02 a.m.; "tapp" is
how Trump spells "tap".) Of course, Drumpf didn't offer any proof, and
nobody really expects him to. Now, a president can't be sued for his
official actions, but can be sued for unofficial conduct. What is in
Drumpf's sick, frenzied "mind"?
From March 3
Press Secretary Spicer offers a foolish defense of corruption
Spicer made two foolish statements Thursday in defense of Attorney
General Sessions. Spicer said that when Sessions talked to the Russian
ambassador during Trump's campaign, "He was literally conducting
himself as a United States senator," and that Sessions didn't talk
about the campaign. Spicer was wrong twice.
Sessions wasn't on Senate business, he was on a campaign trip when he
talked to the Russian ambassador at the Republican convention. The
Senate has funds to pay senators for official travel, but Sessions
didn't use those funds, he used money from his own re-election
campaign. Sessions was campaigning, not carrying out Senatorial duties,
when he went to the convention and talked to the Russian.
When faced with the money trail, Sessions' official mouthpiece couldn't
think of an answer. This is the same mouthpiece who, after Sessions was
caught in two lies to the Senate about his Russian contacts, had the
crust to say he wasn't lying -- the old "Who you gonna believe, me or
your lying ears?" defense.
However, the mouthpiece wasn't totally whopperjawed; she did claim that
Sessions' assistants don't know what he said to the Russian. She said
that at the convention the assistants couldn't hear what was said. At
the meeting in Sessions' Senate office, the assistants don't remember
what was said, the mouthpiece said -- the old "Ya can't get a
confession outa me, copper, 'cuz I don't remember nuttin!" defense.
Sessions himself is cranking up the "I dunno" defense. On Thursday,
Sessions said he wasn't sure whether he met with the Russian ambassador
outside the meetings we know about, or whether he met with any other
Russians. Sessions is behind the eight-ball, and all signs point to
corruption, and fear of conviction.
From March 2
At 1:42 p.m. AZ time, Sessions recused himself in the broadest terms
from any investigation relating to the Trump campaign. Now the question
is, why should any Senator trust anything that Sessions said? Sessions
lied to the senate twice under oath. For that matter, Sessions
apparently lied to Trump, yet Trump has said he will stand by Sessions.
Since every word Trump says is a lie, if I were Sessions, I'd be
From March 1
New Attorney General Sessions lied his way into office. During the
campaign, Sessions campaigned hard for Trump, and advised him on
foreign policy. As a reward, Trump nominated Sessions for attorney
general. But during his confirmation hearing, Sessions lied twice when
senators asked him about Russian contacts during Trump's campaign.
Senator Franken asked Sessions what what he would do if he learned that
anyone with the Trump campaign had communicated with the Russian
government during the campaign. Sessions answered "I did not have
communications with the Russians." But he did. Now a mouthpiece for
Sessions says that Sessions didn't think that Franken's question
applied to his conversations with Russia. That's nonsense.
Senator Leahy asked Sessions in writing "Have you been in contact with
anyone connected to any part of the Russian government about the 2016
election, either before or after election day?" Leahy wrote "No." But
he had. The same mouthpiece for Sessions says that the question only
applied to some kinds of meetings. That's nonsense.
During the campaign, Sessions changed to pro-Russian politics. As
Attorney General, Sessions has been pooh-poohing any investigation of
contacts with Russia during Trump's campaign. But Sessions' lies about
contacts with Russia make it impossible for him to continue in his job.
Sessions is unfit for the office he lied his way into.
From February 28
Wonderful news! The AZ kill-free-speech bill has been killed! Here's an
email to his entire email list from Drew John, representative from
district 14 (southeast Arizona, including Tucson and Cochise County):
"Please spread the word for me that we got SB1142 stopped in the house.
A few of us had asked the speaker to not hear the bill and he listened
and announced today that the bill is dead. I would like to take the
credit but there were others besides myself that helped kill it. Please
let as many as you can know that it has been stopped and as long as I'm
in the legislature it will be stopped again. Thank you for your
From February 26
Americans are joining together locally to fight back against Trump's delusions of grandeur -- http://inthesetimes.com/article/19895/sanctuary-cities-resistance-trump
-- and it's time to stop talking about resistance and start talking
about counter-revolution. Yes, Trump is a revolutionist, yes
revolutionist, yes revolutionist, he's the revolutionist, trying to
undo 125 years of American history. Trump's revolution will not end
well for him or his cronies; how well it ends for the rest of us,
depends on how soon we stop it.
From February 25
1, All his life, Trump worked for nothing but his own profits. He lied,
cheated, and stole to make himself master of every organization he led,
loot them, and dodge his own debts. Now this amoral pinhead is in a job
which requires him to be a servant instead of a master, and to serve
Americans' interests instead of his own. He can't begin to understand
or perform his duties, and he's making a total ass of himself, and
destroying America. He and his band of wreckers must be removed. Caesar
had his Brutus, Hitler had his Generals' Plot, and Congress may profit
by learning from those examples, and removing Trump and his crew before real horror
2, The ethics complaint filed against Kellyanne Conway by fifteen law
professors from prestigious schools is online at
Here's a digest:
The below signed law professors, all of whom teach courses relating to
legal ethics, are hereby filing a disciplinary complaint against
District of Columbia bar member Kellyanne Conway under DC Rule of
Professional Conduct 8.4(c).
Rule 8.4(c) says "It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage
in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation."
We do not believe that lawyers in general should face discipline for
dishonesty or misrepresentations unless the lawyer's conduct calls into
serious question his or her "fitness for the practice of law," or shows
that the lawyer "lacks the character required for bar membership."
However, attorney Conway is Counselor to the President, so has a higher
obligation than other lawyers to avoid conduct involving dishonest,
fraud, deceit or misrepresentation. Although the DC Rules contain no
Comment specifically relating to 8.4(c), the American Bar Association's
Model Rules of Professional Conduct include "Lawyers holding public
office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other
citizens. A lawyer's abuse of public office can suggest an inability to
fulfill the professional role of lawyers." We believe it is critically
important that lawyers in public office -- especially spokespersons for
the highest levels of government -- be truthful.
Ms. Conway's misconduct under DC Rule 8.4(c) is as follows:
-- On several occasions, including an interview on MSNBC in early
February, 2017, Ms. Conway referred to the "Bowling Green Massacre" to
justify President Donald Trump's executive order banning immigrants
from seven overwhelmingly Muslim countries. Not only was there no
"massacre," but Ms. Conway knew there was no massacre. She claimed it
was a slip of the tongue, and apologized, but her actual words belie
her having misspoken: "I bet it's brand-new information to people that
... two Iraqis came here to this country, were radicalized, and were
the masterminds behind the Bowling Green Massacre. Most people don't
know that because it didn't get covered." She also cited the
nonexistent massacre to media outlets at least two more times.
-- Compounding this false statement, in that same MSNBC interview Ms.
Conway also made a false statement that President Barack Obama had
"banned" Iraqi refugees from coming into the United States for six
months following the "Bowling Green Massacre." However, President Obama
did not impose a formal six-month ban on Iraqi refugees; he ordered
enhanced screening procedures following what actually happened in
Bowling Green -- the arrest and prosecution of two Iraqis for
attempting to send weapons and money to al-Qaeda in Iraq.
-- This was not the first time that Ms. Conway engaged in conduct
involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation." On January
22, 2017, on NBC's Meet the Press, Ms. Conway said that the White House
had put forth "alternative facts" to what the news media reported about
the size of Mr. Trump's inauguration crowd. She made this assertion the
day after Mr. Trump and White House press secretary Sean Spicer accused
the news media of reporting falsehoods about the inauguration and Mr.
Trump's relationship with intelligence agencies. As many prominent
commentators have said, the phrase "alternative facts" is especially
dangerous when offered by the President's counselor. Moreover,
"alternative facts" are not facts, they are lies.
-- Ms. Conway misused her position to endorse Ivanka Trump products on
February 9, 2017 in an interview on Fox News from the White House
briefing room, with the White House insignia visible behind her. While
this conduct does not fall within DC Rule 8.4, it is a clear violation
of government ethics rules, about which a lawyer and member of the Bar
should surely know. Federal rules on conflicts of interest specifically
prohibit using public office "for the endorsement of any product,
service or enterprise, or for the private gain of friends, relatives or
persons with whom the employee is affiliated in a nongovernmental
capacity." The government’s chief ethics watchdog denounced Conway's
conduct in a letter to the White House.
We do not file this complaint lightly. In addition to being a member of
the DC Bar, Ms. Conway is a graduate of the George Washington
University Law School, one of the District's premier law schools. We
believe that, at one time, Ms. Conway understood her ethical
responsibilities as a lawyer and abided by them. But she is currently
acting in a way that brings shame upon the legal profession.
If Ms. Conway were not a lawyer and was "only" engaging in politics,
there would be few limits on her conduct outside of the political
process itself. She could say and do what she wished and still call
herself a politician. But she is a lawyer. And her conduct, clearly
intentionally violative of the rules that regulate her professional
status, cries out for sanctioning by the DC Bar.
From February 24
1, Stephen Bannon says that Drumpf's goal is "deconstruction of the
administrative state." Bannon seems to be Drumpf's version of Hitler's
Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels, and
any version of Goebbels is as serious as death. So, this
"deconstruction," what will it involve? It'll mean ending any
government regulation of big business. Repeal the Sherman Antitrust
Act, the Pure Food And Drug Act, the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal
Trade Commission Act, and a bunch of other Progressive-era laws
designed to restrain corruption in the use of big money. Dump the
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Securities And Exchange
Commission, Social Security, food stamps, the Federal Housing
Administration, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and everything else
created during the Great Depression to protect Americans from the
failures of big business. Repeal the Civil Rights Act and dump the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which aim to protect Americans
from unfair treatment. Repeal every government intrusion into big
business doing whatever it wants -- dump over 125 years of improving
our representative government, during 9 Democratic and 15 Republican
presidents -- abandon our history, because Bannon has a bright idea!
Bannon wants a revolution. The American Revolution was different from
Bannon's dream; our revolution happened when people who liked their
accustomed liberties resisted a monomaniacal king. Bannon wants to
impose his bright idea by having a revolution like the English
(theocracy ending with the restoration of monarchy after 25 years of
national misery), the French (Napoleonic tyranny ending in national
disaster after 25 years), or the Russian (tyranny beginning with Lenin,
ending after 70 years). Bannon says "Lenin wanted to destroy the state,
and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and
destroy all of today’s establishment." Is Bannon's bright idea worth
more than 125 years of the American experience?
2, Mazel tov to Herr Reichspraesident Drumpf for blocking the best
media from his daily briefings of lies. If Drumpf will just keep it up,
only his favorite media -- the Volkischer Beobachter, the Sturmer, the
Angriff -- will have direct access to his lickspittles' ravings, and
the truth-telling American media -- like the New York Times, Washington
Post, Los Angeles Times, CNN -- will be able to ignore Trump's daily
spoutings from the dreckloch that passes for his mouth. Then the rest
of us will be able to tell the Nazis by what they read.
From February 18
Congress is away, and Herr Drumpf is playing. Drumpf said yesterday
that the media "is" "the enemy of the American people." That's what you
expect to hear from a weak, cowardly, bullying, lying, cheating,
vindictive, narcissistic, crazy, oafish Russian puppet who wants to be
dictator. Thomas Jefferson, Hyperion to Drumpf's satyr, said that
between government without newspapers, or newspapers without
government, he would instantly choose the latter. Go with Jefferson,
and hope that Drumpf doesn't declare a martial-law dictatorship while
Congress is away.
From February 17
The AP has found a draft memo that's been circulating, about using the
National Guard as a police force to round up illegal immigrants.
Trump's tool Sean Spicer says "100% false. There is no effort to use
the National Guard to round up." Spicer was using weasel words: he
didn't deny that the plans existed, he merely said there is no present
implementation of the plans -- not ruling out future implementation.
Worse, Spicer lies constantly, so it's safest to take any statement
from him as a lie -- meaning it's safest to conclude that Trump plans
to use the National Guard as a national police force. That's the kind
of completely unAmerican action you expect from Trump. It has long
since been clear that he is completely insane, a lunatic who believes
that everything in the world revolves around him, and does not believe
anything that doesn't flatter him. Nut job Trump is endangering us all.
Why has the impeachment, or cabinet coup, not begun?
UPDATE The above part of this post came this morning. After spending
all morning saying the report was 100% false and that no such plan
existed, the White House changed its mind and admitted in the afternoon
that the plan did exist. So this site was right about the White House
lying, and Trump planning to use the National Guard as a national
police force. Lies, lies, lies, that's all you can expect from Trump
and his lickspittles. Trump is a weak, cowardly, bullying, lying,
cheating, vindictive, narcissistic, crazy, oafish lout. The country
cannot survive with such a rotten piece of meat in the Presidency.
From February 15
America has six big problems right now. We could fix three by doing
away with the Electoral College, and requiring a Presidential candidate
to fully provide tax records before nomination, and fully divest all
businesses before inauguration. Constitutional amendments could do that
job. The next two problems are tougher. Trump strongly appears to be
Putin's puppet and to be insane, so that he is not carrying out his
Presidential oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." As to puppetry, the Constitution says a President
can be fired for "Treason," including giving "Aid and Comfort" to
America's enemies. As Putin's puppet, Trump's goal is precisely to
give aid and comfort to an enemy of the United States. As to insanity,
Trump's maniacal solipsism makes it impossible for him to form a stable
government; look at the chaos he has created in only three weeks in
office. Trump must go. The last of the six problems is that some
Republicans are obstructing any investigation of Trump, merely because
he is a member of their party. That's appalling. Every Congressman and
Senator takes an oath to "support and defend the Constitution" -- not
to support and defend fellow party members from the Constitution. If
they won't obey their own oath, they too must be removed from office.
From February 14
You show Trump to be a liar, he just repeats the lie. Here's a lie that
Trump keeps repeating: that he was a big-time winner in the Electoral
College. That would be a compensation for being a big-time loser in the
popular vote. But it's a lie. Of our 58 Presidential elections, Trump's
electoral margin is near the bottom. Only 12 people won with less of an
electoral margin than Trump. Here are the people who did better than
Trump in the Electoral College, starting with Washington and coming
forward: George Washington twice, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison
twice, James Monroe twice, Andrew Jackson twice, Martin Van Buren,
William Henry Harrison, James K. Polk, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan,
Abraham Lincoln twice, Ulysses Grant, James A. Garfield, Benjamin
Harrison, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley twice, Teddy Roosevelt,
William Howard Taft, Woodrow Wilson, Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge,
Herbert Hoover, Franklin D. Roosevelt four times, Harry Truman, Dwight
Eisenhower twice, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan twice,
George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton twice, Barack Obama twice. Compared to
those people, Trump is a loser. A normal person would get over it.
Expect Trump to keep lying. If only everyone in the room would shout
"Liar!" when he does it.
From February 9
The appeals court has ruled against Trump, and in favor of Americanism,
and kept Trump's anti-Muslim immigration order on hold. The opinion is
here -- http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/02/09/17-35105.pdf --
and includes some points which ought to make Trump realize that the
Presidency is not a dictatorship. Here are four points; the opinion
makes for wonderful reading.
1, The Court reminds Trump that this is a 3-branch government: "the
Government has taken the position that the President’s decisions about
immigration policy ... are unreviewable [and] that it violates
separation of powers for the judiciary to entertain a constitutional
challenge to executive actions such as this one. There is no precedent
to support this claimed unreviewability, which runs contrary to the
fundamental structure of our constitutional democracy.... [I]t is
beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to
adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action."
2, The Court notes that Trump's sloppy work cannot be cured by his
minions, especially not if their own work is sloppy: "The Government
has argued that ... the States’ challenge to [the order as to] to
lawful permanent residents is moot because several days after the
Executive Order was issued, White House counsel ... issued
'(a)uthoritative (g)uidance' stating that [the order does] not apply to
lawful permanent residents. At this point, however, we cannot rely upon
the Government’s contention .... The Government has offered no
authority establishing that the White House counsel is empowered to
issue an amended order superseding the Executive Order .... Nor has the
Government established that ... counsel’s interpretation of the
Executive Order is binding on all executive branch officials
responsible for enforcing the Executive Order."
3, The Court hangs Trump by his own tongue: "The States argue that the
Executive Order violates the Establishment and Equal Protection Clauses
because it was intended to disfavor Muslims. In support of this
argument, the States have offered evidence of numerous statements by
the President about his intent to implement a 'Muslim ban' as well as
evidence they claim suggests that the Executive Order was intended to
be that ban ...."
4, The Court doesn't let Trump substitute repetition for evidence:
"Despite the district court’s and our own repeated invitations
... [T]he Government has pointed to no evidence that any alien
from any of the countries named in the Order has perpetrated a
terrorist attack in the United States.... By contrast, the States have
offered ample evidence that if the Executive Order were reinstated even
temporarily, it would substantially injure the States and multiple
'other parties interested in the proceeding.'"
From February 8
1, Showing his insanity, Drumpf says "I understand things. I
comprehend very well, OK? Better than, I think, almost anybody." We all
know he's stupid, and now he couldn't make it clearer that he is too
stupid to realize that he's stupid, and too sick to realize that he's
sick. Check out anosognosia. Our baby president has got it. Unfit for
2, At his swearing in, Herr Reichspraesident Drumpf promised to
"faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and
... to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the
Constitution of the United States." But he has remained a liar, cheat
and thief since then, making it impossible for him to faithfully do
anything; and his attacks on the judicial branch show that he has no
regard for the Constitution, unless it grants power to him personally.
Impeach him already -- what are we waiting for, him to start World War
III in a twitter fit already?
From February 4
1, Herr Reichspraesident Drumpf has called a federal judge -- the judge
who, using powers granted by the Constitution, blocked Drumpf's racist
immigration order -- a "so-called judge." Drumpf used to read Hitler's
speeches before going to sleep. When the original Hitler said anything
was "so-called," it meant he was about to use his dictatorial powers to
attack it. The original Hitler's ways seem to have soaked in to Drumpf.
So expect a Drumpf campaign against the legitimacy and independence of
the judicial branch. In fact, I wonder how long it will take Drumpf to
use his emergency powers to dissolve Congress, just as the original
Hitler dissolved his Reichstag. How long will it take Drumpf's
Republican minions in Congress to wake up and defend us against this
2, The Drumpf Republicans are striking every limitation they can on the
actions of giant businesses. So expect your investment adviser,
if you have one, to churn your account to drive up his fees.
Expect your home lender, if you don't already own your home, to swindle
you with fake foreclosures. Expect giant businesses to pay giant
salaries to top executives, then collapse from incompetent management,
then get Congress to hold them up with your tax dollars because they
are "too big to fail" -- failure is for the small, by which Congress
means you. Expect social programs to dry up because your tax
dollars go to support big business. Expect another financial
crash as soon as the vultures can arrange it. Study up on what a
financial crash means to everyone who doesn't have a fortune.
Then, if you're in the minority who voted for Trump, ask yourself if
you would do it again.
From February 2
Chaos Theory says in part that natural systems with a variety of
predator and prey critters, whose populations may go up and down, may
have several different generally stable populations of each kind of
critter, and may flip between different states in a chaotic manner. One
classic example is foxes and rabbits. Donald Trump seems to switch his
moods between fox and rabbit. In fox mode, he feels like master of the
world, and feels that everyone should focus on him and praise him. In
rabbit mode, he cringes from the world, and he whines that people
ignore or criticize him, and he lashes out at the world. When he flips
into fox mode, he is at first satisfied with the mere fact that people
are focusing on him. But soon he notices that people express
unhappiness with what they see when they focus on him, and he flips
into rabbit mode. At all times, he is in an intense emotional state;
his intellect never rules. There is no telling when he will flip
between fox, a predator who abuses the world but is not an existential
risk, and rabbit, a prey who feels abused by the world and may start a
war just to get even. A president whose stability is chaotic is not a
wise choice for human survival.
From January 28
When Napoleon escaped from Elba to seize power again, newspaper
headlines changed their tone about him during the 13 days it took him
to march to Paris: he went, in order, from cannibal to ogre, tiger,
monster, tyrant, usurper, Bonaparte, Napoleon, Emperor, and finally
Imperial And Royal Majesty. Then came his final defeat and humiliation at Waterloo. That was 1815. Now,
Trump's immigration order is illegal and will be nullified by any court
which follows federal law, but worse, his order is senseless, vile, and
vicious -- the work of someone who cares for nothing but getting
personal attention by abusing power. On the list of terms applied to
Napoleon, where is Trump now, and is his never-ending squalling wearing
out resistance to his illegitimacy?
From January 26
Mexico's President Nieto won't be bullied by Carpetmuncher Trump. The
Carpetmuncher wants a useless, stupid border wall, and he promised that
he would make Mexico pay for it. This morning Trump was reminded that
other people exist in the world. Nieto just tweeted "Esta mañana hemos
informado a la Casa Blanca que no asistiré a la reunión de trabajo
programada para el próximo martes con el @POTUS." At a face-to-face
meeting in August 2016, Nieto told Trump that Mexico would not pay for
the wall; later Trump lied about the meeting and Nieto exposed the
lies. Nieto wouldn't be bullied in 2016 and he's not being bullied now.
Nieto es un hombre; Trump is a weak, cowardly bag of blubber and blab,
who belongs in an asylum.
From January 15
Reince Priebus, lying lickspittle of lying coward Donald Trump, went on
ABC on January 15 and lied that Trump had for over two years accepted
that President Obama is a citizen. The host pointed out the truth, that
Trump had much more recently kept on claiming that Obama was not a
citizen. Then Priebus dodged his lie, and said that the real issue was
that Trump had won in an "electoral landslide." Actually, Trump scores
in the bottom 20% of electoral votes -- call it a D, not the A that
Trump and his lickspittles keep pimping. Then Priebus added that
Democrats lost the election -- although they won the popular vote by
almost 3 million, about 4.5% more than Trump. Just as you would expect,
lying coward Trump and his lickspittles don't mention that until Trump
won this electoral vote, he opposed the electoral college system. Why
should people be emphatic about this? Because Trump's lickspittles keep
repeating his lies, and the only way I can think of to make them stop
is to cut off the source: when Trump sends out his minions to lie,
people should make fun of Trump, ridicule him, insult him -- all the
things that lily-livered, tiny-handed loser loses sleep over. Happy
tweets to the lying coward.
I don't think a revolution will start because of any ideology. I think
Trump will issue an intolerably unAmerican order that exceeds his
authority; decent people will simply refuse to go along; Trump will
send out his goons; people will actively resist; the armed forces will
refuse to back up Trump's goons; and the federal government will split
between people loyal to the Constitution, and people loyal to Herr
If Trump acts like a bastard all the time, why is he unhappy when people don't think he's legitimate?
And if he's a germophobe, why does he brag about grabbing women by the pussy?
From January 14
One: "Look here," Trump lied. A lawyer points out in this article --
http://loweringthebar.net/2017/01/about-those-folders.html -- that none
of the folders on Trump's press conference table had any labels on them
(no lawyer keeps papers in unlabeled folders), that no writing was
visible on any paper that was visible (and nobody was given even a
brief glance of any of the papers), and that no papers were stapled
together (no lawyer lets the pages of documents lie around
loose). So Trump was putting on a phony show. My
conclusion: Trump was a liar and coward, as always.
Two: Trump says John Lewis is all talk, no action. Does Trump
know how many times Lewis put his body, even his life, on the line to
bring real democracy to America? As a philosophical matter, I might put
Trump's massive ignorance as a separate defining quality, but I think
his ignorance is just part of his cowardice, fear of admitting the
existence of anything in the world except himself, his own ego, and his
own tantrums. Trump is a bratty baby. John Lewis is a hero. Period.
From January 6
After all his squirming, Trump is pinned down as Putin's puppet,
hand-picked, and all Trump can do is deny the obvious. Trump continues
as he always has: bold at making promises but a failure at carrying
them out, afraid to admit the truth, afraid to stand up to it, a weak
From December 24
Right now, Trump's mob still loves him, even though his broken promises
to them are beginning to break the spell. His whole mob will turn on
him after they realize that he's a humiliation and degradation to them
too, but meanwhile, the best description of his mob that I've seen
comes from Ford Madox Ford's "Some Do Not," near the end of chapter 4,
where the lead character wonders "why it was that humanity that was
next to always agreeable in its units was, as a mass, a phenomenon so
hideous. You look at a dozen men, each of them not by any means
detestable and not uninteresting ... you formed them into a Government
or a club, and at once, with oppressions, inaccuracies, gossip,
backbiting, lying, corruption, and vileness, you had the combination of
wolf, tiger, weasel, and louse-covered ape that was human society."
Right now only people not hypnotized by Trump see that he's merely a
louse-covered ape, but someday, after his mob falls apart, its members
will wonder what they ever saw in the louse-covered ape.
From December 15
50 years ago, this film accurately portrayed how we'd feel after Trump sold out the country: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvuM3DjvYf0
From December 14
late in the day: Now it comes out that Vladimir Putin
personally worked on hacking and releasing emails -- as Trump asked! --
to defeat Clinton. Trump has major business connections (which he's
been refusing to admit) with Russia, and Trump's top-level appointments
favor Russia and include more pals of Putin. Based on the evidence,
America just got sold out by American quislings.
early in the day: How long before the Republicans who ran against Trump in the primaries
figure out that the Russians may have helped Trump against them, too?
And what will the non-Russian candidates do then -- will they go public
and insist on honesty (this little bit, at least) or will they keep the
info private and use it to blackmail Trump?
From December 11
Never mind what Herr Drumpf wants to talk about. Whether Drumpf brings
it up or not, the main thing to remember is that he is weak and
cowardly. Who but a weak coward would need people to tell him that he's
wonderful and to insulate him from reality? Whenever Drumpf says
anything, the response should open and close by reminding him that he
is a weak coward. And when a Trump defender argues about
something that Trump has brought up, i.e. something that Trump wants
people to be talking about, it might be helpful to ask the Trump
supporter why he is standing up for a cowardly weakling. Trump's
every utterance and appearance should be received by statements about
his being a weak coward. You can't argue facts with members of a
mob -- but you can make them abandon their leader if you make him into
a laughingstock. Likewise, whenever Bannon is mentioned as
Trump's aide, calling him Fascist Bannon or White Supremacist Bannon
would keep things real. Likewise, Trump himself could always be
mentioned as "Weak Coward President-Elect Trump." Make him eat what he
From December 3
Isn't Trump committing federal felonies with his foreign policy
contacts? The Logan Act says "Any citizen of the United States,
wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States,
directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or
intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent
thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any
foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to
any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the
measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than three years, or both." Do you suppose Trump
cares about committing felonies if he thinks he can get away with it?
From December 1
For 50,000 years, most human ways of living looked much like modern
life in non-industrial villages. Only in the last 1/3 of 1000
years did modern ways of thinking lead to industrial cultures based on
math and science. What took us so long to develop math and
My tentative answer is that math and science are hard, and that village
life is easy if you go along but hostile if you don't. You do
whatever the people of your class and village do. Any questions
you may have are answered by tribal lore. You can't think for
yourself, because you don't have math and science to help you
think. And if you challenge tribal lore, you become a
troublemaker to be shunned or killed. So you go along in torpor,
as fat, dumb, and happy as your village allows -- and math and science
don't have a chance.
Math and science began to flourish in Western Europe in the
Enlightenment a few hundred years ago. This was a fluke; the
roots of math and science had appeared in other cultures from time to
time, but had always been stamped out. Not this time.
But village life remains possible for people who want the benefits of
math and science, but don't want to, or are too stupid to, understand
math & science. So we have religious fundamentalists, and
racists, and science deniers, and people who can't see beyond their
village, and internet trolls passing around lies -- in short, the Trump
The Republican Party's "Southern Strategy," based on appealing to
fundamentalism, racism, and ignorance, began 50 years ago. With
Trump, that strategy has gone as far as it can within the party.
Will the Trump movement wreck the country before it's stopped?
There'll be no predictions here.
From November 28
Hitliar. The Carpet Gobbler, who in 2012 opposed the electoral college,
and before this election wouldn't say whether he would abide by the
results, then after this election said he would abide by the results
because he got more electoral votes even though he lost the popular
vote, now says that the only reason Hillary got more popular votes was
that 3 million illegal votes for her were counted. He offers no
evidence, only a naked lie. Nobody, even Hitler, ever offered so many
big lies so often as the Carpet Gobbler. Liar. Hitliar. Crazy Hitliar.
From November 24
It turns out that the Trump encampment says it wasn't Trump who made
the cowardly decision to dodge the NYTimes meeting. The
encampment says that Trump's chief of staff cancelled the meeting
because, basically, he thought Trump was too stupid to handle
questions, and that when Trump found out he had been lied to, he
reinstated the meeting. That may be the way it happened, but one
has to wonder why Trump would keep around a chief of staff whose lies
lead to public embarrassment for Trump. There should have been a
flurry of documents and meetings to back up the "Trump's not a coward,
he's only a dummy" flackery, and until they are released, I won't
believe a word of it, any more than I believe anything else the Carpet
Gobbler's bunch of lickspittles says.
Trump's takeover strategy is becoming clearer every day: just
keep changing positions until nobody knows what you think, and nobody
can predict what you will do. This strategy guarantees you lots
of press, and the press won't be attacking your fascism, it'll be
trying to keep up with your flamboyance. It's like Trump's hair;
the ridiculous combover gets the attention, not the receding hairline
and growing baldness beneath.
From November 22: More about "Tepichfresser" -- "Carpet Gobbler" -- Trump and our free American press
Here is what a mainstream news source used to post after the end of
every article about Tepichfresser Trump: "Donald Trump regularly
incites political violence and is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe,
racist, misogynist and birther who has repeatedly pledged to ban all
Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering
the U.S." They stopped printing that after the election.
Too bad, because all of that behavior, plus cowardice, kept up after
the election. After the Tepichfresser's behavior at a November 21
meeting with the electronic media -- he got them to come by saying they
could ask questions, then he spent all of his time in a hysterical rant
about being mean to him (i.e., about accurate reporting) -- he
cancelled a meeting he had set with the NYTimes for November 22, where
he was supposed to answer questions. He changed his conditions
for the meeting at the last moment, then lied and said the Times had
changed its conditions. So as to a free press, the Tepichfresser
hates it, is a coward about facing it, and lies about ducking it.
About the word "Tepichfresser:" it literally means "carpet
chewer," but not just any chewing, chewing in a uncontrolled
frenzy. English doesn't have a single word for "fresser," but I
think that as applied to Trump, a better word would be "gobbler."
Yes, think of Trump as a Carpet Gobbler. That's accurate and
true. Any reason not to call Trump a Carpet Gobbler, except that
the Carpet Gobbler hates accuracy and truth?
From November 21
Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances." The president-elect has previously shown that
he does not appreciate freedom of religion or assembly, and on November
21 he summoned media figures to his office and raged against freedom of
the press. He is not in power yet, and today's meeting was his
Tepichfresser moment. He has gone mad with the anticipation of power,
and if two months from now he is sworn in and swears to uphold the
Constitution, we all know he will be lying.
From November 15
The riot has begun among the Trump gang. Some of the goons are
dropping away, perhaps disgusted by what they see the rest of the pack
doing, but their conscience has struck too late: the hardcore
Trump hyenas are ripping at the flesh of Constitutional government, and
gnashing on the bones. "Drain the swamp," Trump said, when what
he meant to do was put Swamp Thing -- Breitbart's Steve Bannon -- in
charge of the hyenas' feast. Brain-rotted zombies like Giuliani
and Holton will grab for bloody scraps. How much of this can the
government stand before it falls apart? I don't know, but you
might read "It Can't Happen Here," a novel from 1935 by Sinclair Lewis,
to help prepare you for what's coming.
And on the comfortable academic subject of books, could Trump have been
defeated if the opposition had believed what Trump said about his
followers being a "movement," and had tried to understand it better by
reading books like Gustave Le Bon's "The Crowd" and Eric Hoffer's "The
True Believer"? Those masterworks might help us cope with the
remnants of Trump's mob as Trump himself sinks into the swamp,
splashing away loudly but uselessly.
From November 13
An AV sandwich:
-- 1, SNL's cold open this week, of "Hillary"
singing "Hallelujah," including its lines "I did my best, it wasn’t much
/ I couldn’t feel, so I tried to touch / I’ve told the truth, I didn’t
come to fool you / And even though it all went wrong / I’ll stand before
the Lord of Song / With nothing on my tongue but hallelujah," followed
by "Hillary" turning to the audience and saying “I’m not giving up and
neither should you.” At
-- 2, rules for surviving under an autocrat like Trump, at
-- 3, A song from 1985, performed in 2009, ELO's "Hold On Tight To Your Dreams," at
From November 12
Visualize the dropped jaws of Trump's supporters as he
breaks campaign promise after campaign promise that he made to them;
that's already started. Visualize the White House run by the
delusional mediocrities that Trump is already choosing for his
administration; look at his early choices. Visualize the mean and hungry faces
of every major Republican whom Trump mortally insulted during the campaign; they hate him. Visualize Trump being caught in perjury in his upcoming fraud trial. Now
visualize Trump's impeachment, conviction, and removal from
office. Republican Congressmen and Senators have extra reason to
impeach Trump: whatever Trump has an influence on, he will damage,
including chances of re-election of Republicans in 2018. Outside
of politics, there will be good cause to impeach Trump. The
grounds for impeachment are "high crimes and misdemeanors," a
Constitutional phrase so vague that for once Wikipedia is as good a
place as any to begin research. Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors
and start with the list of examples of impeachable conduct, including
"perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of
assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, [and] conduct
unbecoming." At Trump's upcoming trial for fraud, it should
become apparent that he has committed perjury; and isn't the rest of
that list pretty much the way Trump brags about operating?
There'll be a big Republican payoff for removing Trump as
president: Pence will be much more amenable to the establishment
Republican way of doing things, and the Republican party will get to
say, "Look how virtuous we are, we made the system work." Watch
for the sharp knives to come out.
From November 11
media are full of articles about how, or whether, Trump will carry out
the promises that got him elected. Well, obviously he won't. To get
elected, he had to influence one constituency; since he's elected, his
constituency is totally different. Now, Trump's business record
consists of greed and swindling: his getting what he wants out of
deals, then not giving the other party what it bargained for. That's
why so many people sued him for unpaid bills. Trump is not likely to
change now. He will be as crooked as he must in order to squeeze more
money out of the damage he causes. To see what crooked path Trump will
follow, consider who his new constituents are: Washington insiders with
power. He'll try to make deals with them, with no thought for the
people who elected him. Look at the appointments he's floating -- the
biggest mess of ignorant and evil insiders you ever saw. Just as Hitler
(yes, the comparison is good; the people who complain when you "play
the Hitler card" are the people who are acting like Hitler and want
that fact suppressed) -- just as Hitler ruined Germany with his band of
incompetent Nazi party appointees, so Trump is bent on ruining America,
as long as he can make money out of the wreckage.
From November 10
Department of Forlorn Hopes: It's well known that in about 20 states
there's no law, and in about 30 states there's no law with teeth,
prohibiting "electors," the members of the electoral college that
actually chooses a president, from not voting as their state did. For
instance, one of the electors (from Washington state, I think) said he
wouldn't vote for Hillary no matter how his state went. So electors
could still make Hillary president. Now, Hillary actually won the popular
vote, making her the 5th case in history where the winner of the
popular vote didn't get to be president. And Trump is showing early on
that he intends to act abominably in office. He will tear down
environmental protections, by abolishing regulations and by appointing
people who don't believe in the science behind regulations. This kind
of thing doesn't affect only the US population in the present; it
affects everyone, forever. Trump could be the man who greases the track
for runaway global warming. So, the forlorn hope, let's hope for some
"buyer's remorse" and pressure on electors to do the sane thing, and
protect the country and the world at the same time, by not giving Trump
the election he didn't win.
From November 9, the day after the election:
Can we not do polls anymore? They don't work. If they could be
tweaked into working, that would have happened by now. So, no more
polls, okay? That will make us listen to what candidates say, instead
of meaningless static about what other people think about what
2, Can we not do mouthpieces from candidates
anymore? Most of the time they are only giving spin on polls, to affect
upcoming polls -- though we know that polls are meaningless. And all
the spin is lies. How about just reporting what candidates say and do,
instead of wasting time on what their lickspittles say?
From November 8, 2016, before the returns started coming in:
Americans respect the results of presidential elections
. 1824, John Quincy Adams, 30.92%
. 1844, James Polk, 49.54
. 1848, Zachary Taylor, 47.28
. 1856, James Buchanan, 45.29
. 1860, Abraham Lincoln, 39.65
. 1876, Rutherford Hayes, 47.92
. 1880, James Garfield, 48.31
. 1884, Grover Cleveland, 48.85
. 1888, Benjamin Harrison, 47.80
. 1892, Grover Cleveland, 46.02
. 1912, Woodrow Wilson, 41.84
. 1916, Woodrow Wilson, 49.24
. 1948, Harry Truman, 49.55
. 1960, John Kennedy, 49.72
. 1968, Richard Nixon, 43.42
. 1992, William Clinton, 43.01
. 1996, William Clinton, 49.23
. 2000, George Bush, 47.87
Since 2000, there have been three elections, 12 years, without a
minority winner. But a string of 12 years doesn't indicate a permanent
trend. There have been previous strings of 16 years, 20 years (twice),
24 years, and 32 years, before electing a minority president. Of those
18 times, there were 4 times when the winner didn't just have less than
half the popular vote, he actually had fewer votes than the loser:
. 1824, John Quincy Adams, 30.92%
. 1876, Rutherford Hayes, 47.92
. 1888, Benjamin Harrison, 47.80
. 2000, George Bush, 47.87
There have been political games played about "mandates." For instance,
in 2004, Bush got 50.73% of the popular vote (with a total turnout of
55.27% of possible voters), and Republicans said that was a mandate; but
in 2008, Obama got 52.93% of the popular vote (with a total turnout of
58.23% of possible voters), and Republicans said that was NOT a mandate.
That was the worst game about "mandates" until the 2016 election, when Trump
got something like 47.8% of the popular vote, and Paul Ryan started calling that minority a mandate.
There has never been a
chaotic transition of power, that I know of. In 2000, when Bush won
only because the Supreme Court ordered a stop of vote counting, his
opponent Al Gore went out of his way to state that he respected the
Supreme Court decision. And in 1960, when Nixon emphatically stated in
private discussions that Kennedy had stolen the election, Nixon's public
face was to honor the results. The one time the country fell
apart after an election was 1860, when Lincoln got only 39.65% of the
popular vote. The failure to respect the results led to the Civil War
-- but if the North hadn't respected the results, we wouldn't have got
Lincoln for a president, without whom the war could not have been won.
So the 1860 election does not support a conclusion that minority-vote
presidents shouldn't be acknowledged.
Conclusion: Americans accept the result of presidential elections.
From November 5, 2016, three days before the election:
For Trump, fear isn't the message, it's the medium. He just wants to be
elected. Nobody calmly comparing Trump to Clinton on the merits could
choose Trump. Therefore, to win, Trump must rely on voters who aren't
thinking. The best way to eliminate thought is to induce panic, in
Trump's case by pushing fear as loudly as possible -- a job which is
made easier by the right-wing echo chamber of the internet. Never,
before the internet, has inducing panic been so easy, not since Pan made
his big noises 2500 years ago. So here comes Trump, as loud and
goatish as Pan. If panic can win elections, Trump will win. If Trump
doesn't win, what will we do with our citizens that Trump and the
alt-right will still be working up into a panic?
A valuable dissent from a horrible decision
In a US Supreme Court case decided on June 20, 2016,
Justice Sotomayor wrote a fine dissent. Dissents don't state the
law, they state why a minority of justices think the majority was wrong
about the law in deciding a case. Sotomayor's dissent says "this
case tells everyone, white and black, guilty and innocent, that an
officer can verify your legal status at any time. It says that your
body is subject to invasion while courts excuse the violation of your
rights. It implies that you are not a citizen of a democracy but the
subject of a carceral state, just waiting to be cataloged."
Clearly the case is worth thinking about. The case is Utah v. Strieff, and here's a little about it.
A narcotics officer got an anonymous tip that drug sales were going on
at a house. Over a week of surveillance, he saw lots of people go in
and out of the house, and suspected that the tip was correct. At a
nearby parking lot, he stopped a man who had just left the house,
identified himself, and asked the man what he was doing there. A radio
call found that the man had an outstanding traffic warrant. The cop
arrested the man on that warrant, searched him right there, and found
drugs and paraphernalia on him. The man moved to exclude those items
from trial, on the ground that the initial stop was unlawful. Lower
state courts let the evidence in, but the state supreme court reversed
that and kept it out. The US Supreme Court reversed the state supreme
court and let the evidence in.
The Supreme Court found a
"loophole" in a famous case from 41 years ago, Brown v. Illinois. A
pair of cops arrested a man illegally as part of investigating a murder.
They read him his Miranda rights after he was in an interrogation
room. He made a voluntary confession, without any threats or muscle by
the police. At trial, he moved to keep his confession out of evidence,
on the ground that his arrest and interrogation were illegal. The Court
said that the main point was whether a confession was voluntary, and
that being Mirandized did not prove a confession was voluntary. The
Court found the confession inadmissible at trial.
In the Brown
case, the Court talked about "attenuating factors" which might soften
the effect of an illegal arrest, but didn't do so in that case. In
Monday's Strieff case, the Court's majority (5-3) found "attenuating
factors" so big that the illegality of the arrest did not matter. The
majority found that the officer's initial stop was illegal, but his
discovering an outstanding traffic warrant, entirely unrelated to the
stop, "broke the causal chain" between the stop and the discovery of
evidence, so the evidence could come in at trial.
also noted that the officer's stop was not random, but was part of the
investigation of a suspected drug house, and the opinion also notes that
if police made a practice of such stops in "dragnet" fashion, the
outcome might be different.
The above has been in legal language,
simplified but still dry. But Justice Sotomayor wrote an eloquent
dissent, which includes "This case allows the police to stop you on the
street, demand your identification, and check it for outstanding traffic
warrants -- even if you are doing nothing wrong. If the officer
discovers a warrant for a fine you forgot to pay, courts will now excuse
his illegal stop and will admit into evidence anything he happens to
find by searching you after arresting you on the warrant. Because the
Fourth Amendment should prohibit, not permit, such misconduct, I
If you want to read for yourself, here's a link to the Court's opinion -- http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-1373_83i7.pdf -- and here's a link to an article about the case, emphasizing Sotomayor's dissent: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/f1f7d0d2-36f9-11e6-8f7c-d4…
Why give ignorant, racist, and hate-filled candidates an edge in presidential races?
An issue with local ramifications, tho at first glance it looks
national: the setting of early primaries in all of the old Confederate
states. Those states, which have never stopped resenting being
beaten soundly in their fight for white supremacy in the Civil War, can
give an ignorant, racist, and hate-filled candidate a lot of "momentum"
for later primaries. Imagine how much different the present
presidential race would be if primaries in northern states had taken
place early enough to prevent old rebel states from setting the tone of
the election. Just before the Arizona primary, I heard a lot of people
in Cochise County quite emboldened by how well their candidate was
doing in our one-sided primary system. If we set primaries so that at
any time a fair sample of the nation had voted in them, then ignorant,
racist, and hate-filled candidates wouldn't get a gift of momentum.
As the election season speeds up, let's think about fascism.
On the subject of fascism, it's interesting to read a piece
written in the middle of World War II by the then-Vice President. Here
are a few parts: "A fascist is one whose lust for money or power is
combined with such an intensity of intolerance toward those of other
races, parties, classes, religions, cultures, regions or nations as to
make him ruthless in his use of deceit or violence to attain his
ends.... The symptoms of fascist thinking ... always and everywhere can
be identified by their appeal to prejudice and by the desire to play
upon the fears and vanities of different groups in order to gain
power.... American fascists ... claim to be super-patriots, but they
would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution." The whole
piece is at this link:
I would add that a major feature of a fascist ruling class is
ignoring written laws for itself, while enforcing laws harshly against
ordinary citizens, and using thuggery on them when they complain -- or
sometimes, just for fun, when they don't.
CCIPRA will have very few new local stories for a while. It's a health thing.
However, there are plenty of other groups and people to keep up the
fight against irresponsible wasters of land and water, in Cochise
County and elsewhere in Arizona:
-- In Apache County, ACIPRA, CCIPRA's cousin, is very
active. See its Facebook page here.
-- In Cochise County, David Morgan works hard to stay on top of our
secretive and slippery government. His Facebook
page is here, and here is his email.
-- Another valuable source of local info is Chuck Alton, at websites
-- Also see the invaluable work of Paul Lotsof, at websites including this.
-- And Cochise County has strong, smart, tough individual fighters for
our communities. I won't list their names here, because I'd be
bound to leave out people who deserve to be named, but you will see
their names in the writeups starting with Current Events below.
Some of the information on this page is designed to stay current for years without maintenance. For instance, the most important step in dealing with
Cochise County's government is to know who your Supervisor is, and what
the Supes will be meeting about soon. You can see the
and their districts by following the "Interactive Map Of Districts"
link on this
page, and you can see the month's scheduled meetings via this
page. For more basic info, go to the quick guide to local government at the bottom of this site. Other parts of this site, with more ephemeral information, with links underlined
and blue and new items or major rewrites in red,
-- current events are here
including County dead
tree media keep attacking
citizen right to see public records, but citizens keep fighting the
good fight, hard / Conflict
of interest, Vigneto promoter shouldn't go off script, special thanks
to Anna Lands, Tricia Gerrodette, and Paul Lotsof /Saying Ni! to the Constitution /Stubborn
ignorance by Cochise County Supervisors
-- lagniappe is here including Sanctuary cities, Constitutional sheriffs, and the Constitution-free
border zone /Lawsuits about extending our Constitution into Mexico are sure to go
to the Supreme Court /The Danish cartoons that fundamentalist Moslems kill for /Plagiarism: Don't Do It! /Southrons being more disgusting than usual
-- long-time substantial
issues are here including Dump the
county Building Code /Should
every county have five Supervisors?
County attorney's office keeps attacking citizens' right to see public records,
First, an update from December 16; then, the story as it stood in September.
but citizens keep fighting back hard
FROM DECEMBER 16: Deputy county attorney Britt Hanson is again
trying to make the public pay more to see public records. (By the
way, if you take your own camera and make your own photos of whatever
the County produces when you request to see public records, the County
can't charge you a thing -- not one red cent.)
Hanson's proposal went to the Board Of Supervisors at the regular
meeting on December 15, but the Supes promptly voted to table the
proposal until their first January meeting. The Supes, I believe,
understand what a hot potato Hanson had tossed to them. If the Supes hadn't understood, several citizens informed them.
I'll give my own contribution first, but mine was by no means the most
important input. After my input, I'll give two others, both of
which are remarkable. I'm not informed of everything anybody
says, and I apologize to anyone whose contribution I missed.
MY CONTRIBUTION: I emailed a writeup much like the following to
several people in and out of government at the county and state level.
1. A proposal is set to come before the Cochise County
Supervisors' meeting at 10 a.m. this coming Tuesday "to charge
costs of providing copies and electronic media in response to
public records requests." The proposal is Item 8 on the County
agenda posted at
and journalist David Morgan has also posted it online at
and posted the financial calculations used in the proposal at
2. The County may not legally do what the proposal proposes. The
law is stated plainly in the Arizona Attorney General's December
2013 Opinion entitled "Charging Copying Fees Under Arizona's
Public Records Law." The Opinion is at
All quotations in this writeup are from the Opinion.
3. The county may not charge a fee merely for inspecting public
records. The Attorney General says "Although a public body may
charge a fee to copy and mail public records when that action is
requested, the statute does not expressly permit charging a fee
when the requesting party wants merely to inspect public records,"
If, for whatever reason, the
public body must make a copy of a public record to properly
provide the record to the requesting party for inspection, then
charging a copying fee is not appropriate," and "Arizona's public records law ... does not
condition the right to inspect records on the payment of a fee
either. A public body in Arizona therefore cannot charge copying
fees to recoup the cost of copies made internally to allow a
member of the public to inspect the records."
4. The County may not charge a person who photographs what the County provides. The Attorney
General says "In the event that a member of the public seeks to
inspect public records and make copies using his or her own
personal device, Arizona's public records law does not allow a
public body to charge a fee."
5. If the County can't charge a person merely for inspecting
records, and can't force a person to pay fees if the County
decides on its own to make copies, and can't charge a person for
making her own photographs of items, then what can the County
charge for? The Attorney General says "Arizona's public records
law allows a public body to impose copying fees ... to offset
copying costs only when a requesting party asks the public body to
furnish copies of records." The present proposal would charge
fees which the law does not allow.
6. To sum up, any person can examine public records free, and the
proposal is an ill-considered slap in the face to anyone who wants
NEXT, I have to thank David Morgan for first alerting me to the
problem. His work deserves the attention and praise it gets.
CHUCK ALTON'S CONTRIBUTION: Here's an editorial which Chuck posted and sent around:
START OF EDITORIAL
there is no excuse for public records to cost anyone much of
anything. And accessing those records should be as easy as
logging on to a web page.
records are just that, records that document the activity of
the pubic’s government, which of course, the public
finances. The public pays for the activities of its
government through taxes, and the government is required by
law to document and maintain archives of those documents,
and finally, to provide such information as may be requested
by anyone in a reasonable time frame at nominal cost to the
Civil Deputy County Attorney Britt Hanson has a fixation,
about to be publicly exercised for a second time this year
before the County Board of County Supervisors (BOS) Tuesday,
December 15 at the regular BOS meeting. (Agenda item: Adopt
Ordinance 48-15 amending fee schedules to provide for a
standardized cost of copying and electronic media for
purposes of public records requests.)
is blaming requestors of large amounts of information for
somehow costing the County money it doesn’t have. He
complains that it is especially painful when large amounts
of information are requested, gathered by a government
employee, scrutinized by an attorney for necessary
redaction, and then upon review, the requestor decides not
to take any of the documents.
this Tuesday, Mr. Hanson will ask the BOS to approve a
scheme whereby a requestor is liable for as much as 55 cents
per page of documents requested, and rates for scanned
documents set at one page scanned per minute! We can be sure
that there is much more to this move than money, though.
Clearly, this rate scheme, cleverly disguised as an
emergency austerity plan, is designed to reduce the number
and kind of requests made in Cochise County for public
information relative to the activities of our government.
Last time Hanson raised the issue at a work session in the
summer time, all three BOS members, in the presence of
reporters from numerous local publications, said they would
be happy to talk more about “transparency”, another obvious
code word, but not about charging for the time it takes to
gather public information, which circumvents the letter of
the law that prohibits charging for an employee’s time .
Perhaps the Supervisors were thinking, Britt, we’re already
paying people to do the work, so what’s the problem?
could they have been thinking, what if we had our public
records on line giving the public immediate access
electronically saving a lot of employee time, paper, and
wear and tear on our machines?
they have been wondering if Hanson had noticed that the FBI,
upon receiving a request under the Freedom Of Information
Act, automatically assumes there must be others who will be
interested in this same information, so they make sure the
information is posted on line to make it easy to get to,
and, so they don’t have to handle this request again.
TUESDAY’S MEETING OR WRITE A LETTER
Hanson is not only not thinking outside the box to find a
win-win solution to cost cutting, it doesn’t look too much
like he’s thinking inside the box either. Or is this second
request another sinister attempt to keep information out of
the hands of low income local residents who may not like
what they learn from it?
consult the Clerk of the City of Los Angeles and find out
how they did it… putting all those millions of records on
line so people could access it for free. Or does that run
the danger of creating just a little too much transparency
Mr Hanson is also the Bisbee City Attorney, so whatever is
implemented for the County is likely to be put into place in
Bisbee. We’ve seen that duplication of Hanson inspired heavy
handedness cross over to Bisbee administration already this
year, like banning County and City public employees from
participating in the Homeless Task Force in Bisbee. And how
did that come about? Members of a subcommittee asked too
many questions about County policy. See a trend here?
END OF EDITORIAL
JAN WILSON'S CONTRIBUTION: I don't know Ms. Wilson from Adam, but
I'm glad she exists. When the Sierra Vista Herald ran its article
about tabling consideration of Hanson's proposal, the article reported
some statements by Jan Wilson at the meeting. To quote the
are supposed to work for us,
to satisfy our concerns.' ... Her comments criticized the county
for its handling of public records .... 'What do I know? I
know that Phoenix charges 20 cents for copies and I know the federal
government makes it as easy as going online for lots of their
records.' She said county employees are there to serve the public
and the records are the property of the public. 'This isn't
supposed to be something that's done to make a profit.'" Simply,
hooray for Jan Wilson and I wish there were more like her.
STORY AS IT STOOD IN SEPTEMBER. Deputy attorney Hanson had just
again accused the public of abusing its right to see government
documents. Here's the writeup dated September 25:
I have to admire, for persistence at least, our local newspaper chain's
repetition, in different papers, most recently in the Willcox Range
News on September 2, of the news story promoting the accusations from
deputy county attorney Britt Hanson that the public is abusing the
Public Records Law. The story tries to make Hanson look
good, by means including leaving out what he actually said when
he tried to get the County Supervisors to go along with his scheme to
increase the secrecy of local government. When the story first
ran at this link,
it quoted Hanson thus: "I am sure that those members of the
public who frequently make requests will howl ... [especially] the
self-appointed watchdogs ...." But in the later versions,
Hanson's inflammatory language has been reported as merely "Hanson said
he knew the proposal -- which supervisors decided not to endorse --
would stir a public outcry." Hanson's insult to citizen watchdogs
having backfired on him, the dead-tree media are backing away from
reporting what he actually said.
The newspaper stories strongly imply that Hanson's proposition is
sensible. Actually, his proposition was idiotic. Arizona
has strongly favored open access to public records since 1901. Ideas like Hanson's were rejected by the legislature in 2014 (see this article) and in 2015 (see this article).
Existing laws already protect local governments from actual abuse of the
Hanson's complaint about records requests flubbed the facts.
Hanson did not provide
numbers to back up his complaining. He used
innuendo to attack three attorneys: Nancy Bourke, whose
bitter divorce proceedings against one of Hanson's co-workers led the
co-worker to sue -- and lose -- to prevent release of public records
him; an unnamed attorney for reporter Beau Hodai; and an unnamed
attorney doing research for a scholarly article. Hanson also
complained about citizens who "watchdog" local government; but Hanson
didn't mention how often citizen
watchdogs have uncovered incompetence and malice in local
gummint. The real story is the ineptness of the County Attorney's
Office, but the local paper has been ignoring that story for ten years,
and will probably continue in that failure of reporting.
Finally, Hanson acted carelessly in inviting old coals to be raked up. For
instance, just about the first thing that Hanson's new boss did was
issue a subpoena which violated state law. The violation was
obvious; the subpoena cited the very statute that said such a subpoena
was improper. But Hanson's boss has never, to my knowledge,
explained why he signed an illegal subpoena. Did he not notice
that it cited a particular statute? Did he see the citation, but
ignore what the statute said? In my opinion, it makes a lot more
sense for the County to confess its errors and try to do better in the
future, than to let a minion continue the old office policy of trying to prevent
incompetent or malicious acts from being exposed.
As a sidelight on keeping government secret from the people who pay for it, thanks to Tricia Gerrodette for sending this link to a Sierra Vista Herald article which reports that "Sierra Vista Mayor Rick Mueller took the opportunity to
thank [state senator David] Gowan for his part in reforming the state's Military Affairs
Commission, which ... created a public records
exemption for Base Realignment and Closure discussions ... 'so that, should we get into a serious BRAC,
we're not having to share all of our discussions with those who are
fighting with us to try to take missions from the fort'." Isn't
that cozy? Conversations about the number of troops
stationed at Fort Huachuca are now secret from anyone who disagrees
with the present in-group. An in-group which cuts itself off from
differing opinions is cutting its own throat.
In Cochise County, to combat the overfed suits working for
counties and state agencies who work nonstop to set up walls behind
which citizens cannot see, two journalists are now at the forefront of
the fight for citizens' rights. At this link
you can see the latest filing in a lawsuit brought by Beau Hodai (you
remember he was mentioned above, as a person that our inept County
Attorney's Office wishes would go away). The filing was written
by the ACLU -- an organization I'm proud to be a life member of.
And here are excerpts from a newsletter from by David Morgan, whose
Facebook group "Cochise County Courts, Crime, Justice & Jail
Reports" has lots of hot and important news that local dead tree media
are afraid of:
. "Sierra Vista ... has a copy of an FBI report on the
investigations done by Cochise County Sheriffs Office and Sierra Vista
Police Department on an officer involved [in a] fatal shooting (April
2013) of an unarmed civilian, Lauro Avechuco.... The SVPD officer, Justin Dannels, is the (now) 26-yr old
son of Sheriff Mark Dannels.... The report is likely no more than 15-20 pages, and probably already in electronic (.pdf) form.
. "The City's stated position (in writing) is that
because they did not create the report, they are under no obligation to
produce a copy.... Arizona case law has established that
documents that are acquired in the course of an AZ govt agency's lawful
operations are public documents, regardless of source/creator, unless
by some specific law or decree they are declared to be not subject to
public release. I suspect that Sierra Vista City Attorney Nathan
Williams will concede that point without the necessity of a Special
Action .... If he invites me to go to court for a determination,
after having been reminded of the law and case law, the City will
likely lose in Superior Court and [an] award of attorneys fees should
. "There is a lot of public records law litigation to be done,
especially (my guess) in counties that have no strong local
media.... Special Actions are regularly heard by Superior Courts
within 30-45 days of the initial filings.... AZ law allows for
criminal penalties ... for persons who 'tamper with' public records,
and the legal definition of 'tampering' includes 'impairs the
availability of.' But, as you might guess, the County ... is not
very interested [in] prosecuting local government employees who are
just doing what they've been instructed to do, as has been done for
decades. So, well-publicized legal actions that result in
payments of attorneys fees (and delivery of requested documents) is one
of the best tools available to convince local officials and employees
of the importance of compliance with Arizona Public Records law."
Conflict of interest, Vigneto promoter shouldn't go off script,
special thanks to Anna Lands, Tricia Gerrodette, and Paul Lotsof
The heat is on some Arizona Corporation Commissioners for conflicts of
interest; that is, for earning money from groups they are
regulating. So, will some County officials, such as the Supervisors and the County
Attorney's office, keep pretending not to know about County Supervisor
Pat "Doublepay" Call's conflict of interest on water issues? Doublepay Pat makes $75,833 for one
year's work, halftime, for The Cochise Water Project -- whose programs
Call gets to vote for at Supervisor meetings. But stories about conflicts of interest by
County officials (see this wrapup)
are rarely or never discussed by any of the local dead-tree
newspapers. A British
publication reports, in the article headlined "Peter Oborne blows the
the Telegraph," that a newspaper "commits 'a form of fraud on its
suppressing or downplaying stories, such as [a] tax avoidance
scandal." See the story here.
While Doublepay Pat keeps raking in the big bucks for focusing on the San Pedro near Fort Huachuca, the promoters
of the Villages at Vigneto, up north near Benson, keep presenting
their promotion everywhere they can, but when the promoters dare to go
off script, they don't sound so shiny. The newspaper story at this link reports that at a Benson city council meeting "Paul
Lotsof, manager of CAVE 97.7 radio in Benson, [mentioned an] Oregon ...
a lawsuit against Reinbold and other defendants in a $50 million bond
deal.... The case ...dragged on for 10 years .... Reinbold
[responded] 'Oregon courts have ruled in my favor.... These cases
are settled and dismissed. There is nothing there,' [and added] that if
Lotsof had spent time learning about the case, then he would have
uncovered much more about its history .... 'On that front, that
issue is closed and we have successfully moved forward and past that
point'." Reinbold's hot-seat response poked some holes in the
slick picture that his promotional material paints.
-- That the case lasted ten years implies that some conduct created reasonable cause for litigation.
-- That the case was settled indicates that after all preliminary
rulings, some issues remained which would have been tried if they had
not been settled.
-- That Reinbold has "successfully moved forward and past" the point of
settlement implies that the settlement was a setback which had to be
-- Reinbold implied that Lotsof had not spent time learning about the
case. Actually, before Lotsof mentioned the case, he went to
Oregon to learn about it. Reinbold may be surprised at further
questions Lotsof may ask -- and Reinbold, having claimed that Lotsof is
ignorant, will be in no position to refuse to answer when Lotsof shows
what he knows.
-- There are plenty of people in Cochise County who may not want us
made into more of a bedroom suburb for Tucson, and who may not be
pushovers for Reinbold's slick pitch -- especially when they see how
Reinbold digs holes for himself when he goes off script.
Special thanks to Anna Lands, Tricia Gerrodette, and Paul Lotsof for
presenting the issue at the city council meeting. It takes
courage to stand up to a hostile crowd.
Meanwhile, people far away from Sierra Vista are working on their local water problems. The Arizona Department of Water
Resources says that in the Willcox Basin, groundwater levels are
declining at least 2' per year, and sometimes over 5'. Thanks to the Pearce/Sunsites Chamber Of Commerce for passing on the
December 2014 ADWR Well Report; I've posted it online here --
and its scariest page, showing the water level
dropping 300' in 60 years, is on this page.
That kind of drop in the water level can make water too expensive to
reach for many people, but 14 new
agricultural wells have recently been permitted.
The recent problems with Bowie's wells actually drying up are a
spectacular example of what'll happen in the northeast part of the
county, for everyplace except large farms.
There's been no word that any of the surrounding wells for agriculture
-- deep, private wells -- have stopped working. Expect to see all
the rationalizations in the world about how a water shortage could
never, never occur in Willcox, or Sunsites, or Benson -- even though
everybody in those parts could see the situation coming. An email
dated July 20 from Murray McClelland included:
. "Since the Pearce/Sunsites Chamber of Commerce hosted a
Community Meeting on September 23, 2014 ... ADWR has issued
approximately an additional 80 new Ag Well Permissions while another
approximately 15 additional Domestic Wells have run dry bringing the
total [of dry wells] close to 35, leaving families, pets and children
without water. There were 4 wells that went dry in one week in
Richland alone approximately 3 weeks ago. Several families
protested 3 new Ag Wells on Dragoon Rd at the September 23rd meeting,
clearly stating to our Legislatures and ADWR that after 8 years of
drought, their Domestic Wells were in perilous dangers of going dry
once the new Ag Wells became operational.
. "It seems to me that the playing field needs to be
leveled.... For more information ... reply to [firstname.lastname@example.org] and [Murray] will give
you chapter and verse." I don't know if Murray's suggestion is the best possible one in the
whole world, but almost anything has got to be better than drying up
Sanctimoniously saying Ni! to the Constitution
A local paper says that seven preachers in or around Benson will
refuse to perform same-sex weddings. But the preachers are grousing
about a phony issue, since the Supreme Court says ministers are NOT
perform same-sex weddings. Disgracefully, the ministers are
repeating many of the arguments that were used 50
years ago to justify discrimination against black people -- arguments
that are now as offensive, and worn out, as the swastika or the
confederate battle flag. Also, the ministers say that people
should disobey the Constitution. Since the
preachers reject the Constitution, perhaps they'll stop taking
advantage of the tax exemption they get from laws passed under the Constitution.
Meanwhile, that clerk who is disobeying the
-- and finally got sent to the clink for contempt -- says she is doing
so "under God's authority." But her god
didn't put her in that job, the laws did -- and when sworn in, she
personally swore to her god to obey the Constitution. By
disobeying the Constitution, she's breaking her personal promise to her
Her position is confused in another way too; apparently she's been
married four times (twice to her present husband). Some parts of
the Bible call such a woman an adultress -- but the clerk apparently
doesn't care about her own disobedience of those parts of the Bible,
she only wants to make other people obey parts of the Bible that don't
apply to her. And the question has arisen, did she appoint her
son as a deputy clerk, an act of apparent nepotism, in obedience to the
Fundamentalists are bound to be intellectually dishonest, of
course. They claim to enforce Biblical standards, but actually
they ignore any Biblical standards that don't fit their ideas -- which
only go back about a hundred years. A good example of this is the
billboard placed in the clerk's home town that says "the fact that you
can't sell your daughter for three goats and a cow means we've already
redefined marriage" from what ancient goatherders meant. For the
news story, see this link.
Meanwhile, some Republican fundamentalists rushed to give their base the red meat it wants. Here are some quotes from this article in the New York Times, followed by comments by yrs trly:
-- "Senator Ted Cruz of Texas ... called on 'every Believer, every
Constitutionalist, every lover of liberty to stand with Kim
Davis.'" Explain, ya idjit, how somebody who has sworn to God to
obey the Constitution is serving God by breaking her personal promise
-- "Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky told CNN, 'I think it’s absurd to put
someone in jail for exercising their religious liberty.'"
Explain, ya idjit, how the clerk's own religious liberty includes
making other grownups follow her religion. Don't they have
liberty of religion -- their own religion, not hers?
-- "Former Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas said ... 'We must end the
criminalization of Christianity!'" Explain, ya idjit, what
criminal law you think is involved in the case, and how it
criminalizes Christianity by not letting you force your cult on your neighbor.
-- "Rick Santorum ... called for passage of federal and state laws to
shield people in similar positions." Explain, ya idjit, why laws
should shield people who refuse to do the job they've sworn to do.
"Bobby Jindal ... linked the case ... to the cases of florists and
bakers who [refuse] their services for gay
weddings." Explain, ya idjit, whether you understand that
florists and bakers aren't on the public payroll, and why this
fundamentalist bigot chose to take public money but not do the job
she's paid for. (On the other hand, I have to give props to
Jindal for describing Donald Trump as a raving narcissist. Right
by Cochise County Supervisors
A Board Of Supervisors has strong jaws and sharp teeth.
A BOS can
require any elected county officer to report under oath about anything
connected with his job, and post a performance bond; and if the
officer won't make the report or post the bond, the BOS can fire him
and appoint a replacement.
But in Cochise County, those jaws have turned into jowls, those teeth
the denture glass, and the BOS gums along to "duh dumb, duh dumb, dumb
dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb." Our Supervisors won't supervise
Part of the problem is built into some of the Supervisors. One
Supervisor, Pat Call, is in
thrall to people who want to build giant house tracts. Another
Supervisor, Ann English, has a do-nothing and learn-nothing
reputation. Call and English take full pay regardless.
ridicule such well-paid public disservice, and if Call and English
don't like being ridiculed, they should start
representing taxpaying citizens, and stop representing special
interests or their own vanity. There's an old saying, "Every
saint has a past, every sinner has a
future." Why, oh why, do our County Supervisors insist on
wallowing in political sin, and refuse to lift their snouts out of the
muck and trot toward a better future? I've been to lots
of BOS meetings, and a lot of
times they looked like this
tv show, where overpaid talent doesn't know anything about the
Another part of the problem is resistance to being supervised, even by
county officers who should know that being supervised is part of the
job. On January 20, 2015, I emailed open letters
to two County
employees: Sheriff Dannels and County Attorney McIntyre.
Both letters are posted here.
Here's a discussion of them.
The letter to Sheriff Dannels asked if he acknowledged that he is
subject to ARS
-- that is, if he acknowledges that the County Supervisors can
supervise his department. It seems strange to ask a public
officer if he acknowledges state law, but I was following up a hearsay
allegation that Dannels emphatically said the Supervisors
had no authority over his office except for the budget.
On January 21, Dannels' office mailed a response. One word --
"Yes" or "No" -- would have
sufficed. I got a 446-word gas leak, consisting of two paragraphs
from the Sheriff's homepage here and the "To
All" paragraph from this
page, which said nice things about motherhood and apple pie, but
didn't come anywhere near to answering my question. I
tried three more times (January 21, January 22, and February 13) to
get an answer, but all I got was "Per Sheriff
Dannels, the answer to the first question was previously
What to conclude? Well, anyone willing to answer Yes
would do so; Sheriff Dannels won't do so; therefore, his answer must be
No, he doesn't acknowledge that he's
subject to ARS 11-253. That's
worrisome, and some "dog whistle" language in his 446 words
engenders more worries. The "dog whistle" is his saying
"constitutionally elected office." That echoes the
"constitutional sheriff" movement, which is pseudo-legal gobbledygook
to let crazy sheriffs feel good about seceding from the Union.
When I see our sheriff anywhere near that path, I want our Supervisors
to step in and prevent the County from starting down a long, expensive,
and embarrassing path of litigation.
I think there's an obvious lesson here for elected
you insult citizens and lose votes when you dodge questions, especially
when you pretend not to be dodging. But if you answer questions
in a plain and forthright way, while you may lose some votes on a
particular issue, you
will gain votes for being honest in general. As to Sheriff
Dannels in particular, I think everyone in
Cochise County wants him to be so good that we vote for him another
five or ten times. So when he gets off-track a little, as he did
with answering my question, we want to see him get back on track.
And if we don't tell him what we want, we can't complain if he doesn't
My other January 21 email was to County Attorney Brian McIntyre.
His system instantly replied "sender denied," and he has never answered
my email -- I guess my taxes don't contribute to his salary. I
emailed McIntyre because he signed an illegal subpoena to get a
journalist's emails, supposedly in an investigation. The
subpoena's two pages are here and here. The subpoena cites a law
which says a subpoena may NOT be used to get emails. Did McIntyre
read what he signed? Citizens need to know if their County
Attorney intends to follow the law. My email to McIntyre
suggested that the County could avoid spending huge amounts of time and
money if he would simply withdraw the illegal subpoena. But
McIntyre clammed up.
McIntyre inherited a dysfunctional
predecessor Ed Rheinheimer, and the Supervisors languidly accepted bad
legal work. For instance, a
once told the BOS that they had been violating an important law
for eight years, but he wasn't losing sleep over it -- after which the
Supervisors kept on disobeying the law while they
tried to get the legislature to change it; and when that effort
failed, they didn't start obeying the law for over a year. That
thing gave both the CAO
and the BOS a bad name. Now, McIntyre has missed a chance to
improve the department's reputation by clearing up his "illegal
scandal, and the BOS seems to be coddling him the same way it babied
David Morgan, the journalist whose emails were subpoenaed,
sent a Public Records Request to the County for documents from the
A deputy attorney answered "there are no available
public records responsive to your request." That's playing with
words, and it violates the Public Records Law. A recent case says
"reports of ongoing police investigations are not generally
exempt from our public records law, [so] it was incumbent upon [a
attorney] to specifically demonstrate how production of the documents
would violate rights of privacy or confidentiality, or would be
'detrimental to the best interests of the state.'" You can see
the case here
and you can see the Public Records Law here.
Remember that ARS
11-253 lets County
Supervisors supervise other elected officers. When a
Supervisor asked McIntyre about that, the answer ignored ARS 11-253,
and merely asserted that ARS 11-251
doesn't let Supervisors supervise other elected officers. Wrong;
11-251 says a BOS's first power is to "Supervise the
of all county officers and officers of all districts and other
subdivisions of the county charged with assessing, collecting,
safekeeping, managing or disbursing the public revenues, see that such
officers faithfully perform their duties and direct prosecutions for
delinquencies, and, when necessary, require the officers to renew their
official bonds, make reports and present their books and accounts for
I've heard a Supervisor argue that ARS 11-251 only lets a BOS
check county officers' finance records. That's nonsense; just
statute lets the BOS
do one thing, it doesn't prohibit them from doing anything else.
And the Arizona Supreme
Court has affirmed that a BOS's "powers include supervising county
officers ... levying taxes ... maintaining and
controlling public roads, ferries and bridges ...
providing for county hospitals ... erecting jails and
courthouses ... '[making] and enforc[ing] all local,
police, sanitary and other regulations not in conflict with general
law' ... purchasing real property ...
[and] to '[d]irect and control the prosecution and defense of all
actions to which the county is a party, and compromise them....
the board of supervisors has general
supervisory powers and policy-making responsibility for the county;"
see the Falcon case here.
The answer also misread the leading Arizona case, Hounshell,
which says "the legislature has, in some limited circumstances,
specifically granted the county boards of supervisors the authority to
supervise and/or discipline county officers.... the Arizona
legislature knows how to expressly grant a board of supervisors the
power to supervise and impose discipline when it wishes to do
so." In Santa Cruz County in 2005, the BOS ordered
school superintendent Robert Canchola to post bond.
I've also heard a Supervisor argue that a Board can
elected county officer, but not an employee hired by an officer.
So what? When a county officer does a lousy job of running
his department, the BOS can fire him. But I've never seen the CAO
remind a Supervisor that if he "neglects or refuses
to perform any duty imposed on him without just cause, or who wilfully
violates any law ... relating to the office of supervisor,
or fraudulently or corruptly performs any duty imposed upon him by law,
or wilfully, fraudulently or corruptly attempts to perform an act as
supervisor unauthorized by law," then besides other penalties, he
"shall forfeit to the county five hundred dollars
for every such act ... and is
further liable on his official bond to any person injured thereby for
all damages sustained." See ARS
11-223. Nor have I seen the CAO mention the law -- ARS 38-341
to 38-345, available via this
-- that lets a grand jury take the initiative and accuse county
officers of "wilful or corrupt
misconduct in office."
McIntyre is off to a bad start in another way, too. He
just lost an appeal in a case he should never have pursued.
Arizona law lets a person with a debilitating medical condition use
medical marijuana, but a person on probation was forbidden to use
medical marijuana. McIntyre preferred to see the probationer in
constant pain, rather than take medicine that state law specifically
allows -- and in that bad cause, McIntyre made bad legal arguments,
which you can read in the case at this
McIntyre's work here, added to his stonewalling about his issuance of
an illegal subpoena, and violating the law in the mock "search" for a
new County Administrator, make us wonder if the Supervisors made a bad
choice in picking this unelected
-- Ann English, for instance -- seem to want to be misled
I have years of reasons for using Ann English as my exemplar of
laziness, ignorance, and contempt for the public. My experience
is well summarized in this
cartoon, and this one
For example, here
are emails about the County Attorney's illegal subpoena.
I made them extra-clear for English: "Here, Ann, just for
state law lets you supervise and even fire elected county
officers / The Board can haul any elected county officer
in, put him
under oath, question him about anything related to his job, make him
put up a bond, and fire him if he won't. That's ARS 11-253, which
gives a Board sharp teeth when it supervises other County
officers. Here's a link to 11-253(A):
It says: 'The board may require any county officer
to make reports under oath on any matter connected with the duties of
his office, and may require the officer to give such bonds or further
bonds as may be necessary for the faithful performance of his
respective duties. An officer who neglects or refuses to make the
report, or to give the bond within ten days after being so required,
may be removed from office by the board and the office declared
vacant. The board may then fill the vacancy.'"
No answer, no apparent change in English's position, so no doing the
tough part of her job. On the bright side, she once ran a contest
for a new County flag! That solved our problems, all right.
To return to the top of this site, click here.
Lawsuits about extending our Constitution into Mexico are certain to go to the Supreme Court
A while back a federal court in Texas ruled that American
Constitutional rights do not extend to Mexicans in Mexico; now an
Arizona federal court says Constitutional
rights do extend to Mexicans in Mexico.
Common sense says that America has its
constitution, and Mexico has
a constitution, and each constitution applies inside its own country's
boundary. (Actually, common sense now says that "Mexico" is a
failed state, but that's a different discussion.) If America's
constitution extends into Mexico, does Mexico's constitution extend
into America? If so, I'll have to start studying up on my Mexican
rights, and suing for them in American courts. And, as of July
14, after the escape of "El Chapo," it's become very obvious -- follow this link
-- how the Mexican "government" strictly
refuses to extend any American influence into Mexico, when it suits the
central "government's" purposes.
The cases are about
Border Patrol agents shooting south across the border, and killing
people. As everybody along the border knows, the Border Patrol
already has too much power over Americans. The BP can enter
your property without a warrant, except for your main residence.
And the BP can stop and question all drivers for no reason. The
result is often called the "Constitution-free zone" along our southern
border; here is an ACLU writeup about it. So it was funny to see an article, at this link,
quote an ACLU officer as saying "The court adopted a common-sense
approach and correctly held that there can be no constitution-free zone
on the border." Now, I'm a life member of the ACLU, and proud of
it, but it gets harder.
If the ACLU wants to start fighting the existence of a
constitution-free zone on the border, how about also fighting for the rights
of the 200 million Americans who live in the zone where the Border
Patrol says it can override the Fourth Amendment? The ACLU
doesn't (unfortunately) have infinite resources, and to the extent that
the ACLU is using its limited resources to fight for Fourth Amendment
rights of Mexicans in Mexico, but not using its resources to fight for
the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans inside America, the ACLU's
priorities are out of whack.
The conflicting cases are certain to go the (American) Supreme
Court, and perhaps then the ACLU can litigate the entire subject of
where the Fourth Amendment is supposed to apply.
Sanctuary cities, constitutional sheriffs, and the Constitution-free border zone
I see petitions that oppose "sanctuary cities," which defy
federal immigration law. I hope those petitions succeed.
And because I want federal law applied uniformly everywhere, I also
oppose the "constitutional sheriff" movement, which, despite its name,
defies the Constitution. The Constitution ought to apply
to everyone in Amercia -- to sanctuary
cities, to "constitutional sheriffs," and to the 100-mile-deep border
zone where the feds ignore the Fourth Amendment. Opposing only
one of these violations of the Constitution is impossible to justify.
are some Danish cartoons of Mohammed
that fundamentalist Moslems kill people for. I think
American with a website should post them, because the only argument
that has a chance of working with those people is to prove to them that
killing achieves the opposite of what they want. Here's my
Click on the image you get, and it will expand to full size.
Americans have free
speech, with as few limits as possible. The recent creation of categories like "hate speech" and "hate
crimes" is stupid; our basic rule is to
punish acts, not words or thoughts. If we let anyone scare us into giving up free speech, we
lose. A superb column about weak-brained reporting by America's press is at this link. And while America sinks into fear, Norway sticks to free speech; see this link.
Plagiarism: Don't Do It
An Arizona history prof was
academically demoted, and lost a contract worth $268K, after two
incidents of plagiarism. Here's a link to the story.
I have a page about local
is an article with example after example of Tea Party poser
Allen West getting caught with his plagiarizing pants down.
Remember, plagiarism is both theft and fraud -- stealing other people's
work, and lying about your stealing. If you had West to tea, his
first lie would be "hello," and you
would count your spoons after he left. Why take him, or any
plagiarist, seriously in
Southrons being more disgusting than usual
In 1789, the Constitution said "Congress shall make no law respecting
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof." The state can't make you follow your neighbor's
religion, nor make your neighbor follow yours. Easy.
In 1858, Abraham Lincoln called slavery the "spirit that says, you toil
and work and earn bread and I'll eat it.... whether from the mouth of a
king ... or from one race of men as an apology for enslaving another
race, it is the same tyrannical principle." Lincoln understood
the Southron sense of entitlement.
In 1883, Mark Twain wrote about Southrons' love affair "with decayed
and swinish forms of religion; with decayed and degraded systems of
government; with the sillinesses and emptinesses ... of a brainless and
worthless long-vanished society.... but in our South they flourish
pretty forcefully still." Eye witness.
In 1917, H. L. Mencken wrote that Virginia politics "are cheap,
ignorant, parochial, idiotic ... a Washington or a Jefferson, dumped
there by some act of God, would be denounced as a scoundrel and jailed
overnight." And Virginia was a bright spot compared to places
like Georgia, "little removed from savagery.... the home of the
cotton-mill sweat[shop], of the Methodist parson turned Savonarola and
of the lynching bee." Eye witness.
In 1956, after the Supreme Court outlawed racial segregation in public
schools, many Southron politicians signed a "Manifesto" attacking "the
Supreme Court's encroachment on the rights reserved to the States and
to the people, contrary to established law, and to the
Constitution." Southron entitlement again.
Now, in 2015, most Americans are moving ahead. Many evangelicals
have abandoned racism, and some are ending gay-bashing. Last week
many Americans protested a racist murder in South Carolina, and
celebrated the Supreme Court's allowing gay marriage everywhere.
The best of the local Christians forgave the killer, and the best
Americans everywhere showed revulsion at Southrons' sick racism and
fascination with the sex lives of others.
But the worst Southrons, even some candidates for president, are
fanatically clinging to their sense of entitlement, and promising to
disobey the Supreme Court about gay marriage. Louisiana's Jindal
said the decision "tramples on states' rights," and Arkansas's Huckabee
said "I will not acquiesce to an imperial court" -- as Southrons shout
every time common decency is imposed on them. Oh, shut it.
How can local citizen journalists better replace dead tree media?
For citizen journalists, here's
a link to the newest online Arizona Reporter's Handbook On Media
Law -- FREE! -- which covers --
-- Access to the news, including media access to court proceedings,
public records, governmental meetings and facilities, and private
-- Interference with the news gathering process, such as subpoenas,
search warrants and gag orders;
-- Limitations on the content of communications, including prior
restraints and the laws of defamation and privacy;
-- Promises of confidentiality to sources; and
-- Copyright and trademark law.
This has already been a bad year for public access to information in
Arizona. I wonder what politicians would do if citizens
started exercising their own rights to information, instead of relying
on dead trees like the SV Herald. Using the FREE
Handbook On Media Law is a good way to scare the backroom gangs.
Here's a page that can give you some very interesting, very
customizable maps of the states, ranked on scales that you
hand-pick. It's amazing what you can learn if you play with all
the choices on this page.
The site leans toward conservatism, but it lets you learn what's what,
state by state, even if you don't like their slant in presenting it.
A map of America's loud & quiet areas, with the louder areas
brighter, is here.
shows how many men in their "prime age" are not working. In a
big census tract east of Bisbee and north of
Douglas, there are 5010 men between 25 and 54, and 94% (!) of them are
not working. I asked Cochise
County demographics guru Robert Carrerira, the Director of the Center
For Economic Research at Cochise College, what he thought. He
answered that "'not working' ... is a broad category. Counted in
this number would be
proprietors of business, to include farms. I suspect the large
number of independent farmers/ranchers and independent business owners
would be heavily influencing the numbers (since they're not counted as
'working' because they're not technically 'employees'). Could
also be considerable undocumented work. Also, census margins of
error are calculated at only 90% confidence so could be some
statistical errors, as well." Thanks a lot to Carreira for his
input, which does a lot to explain a number which simply cannot be
Other maps I've posted include
people around the country support Democrats
the people living in each state were born
hard it is to live in each county in the US
Heading Off Prejudice
surprise us with their goodness
Every day, people we may be predisposed to think badly of will
astound us with their goodness. For instance, this
from Norway about Moslems protecting Jews, headlined "More Than A
Thousand Muslims Form Human Shield Around Norwegian Synagogue After
Copenhagen Attacks". And from America, this
entitled "Millennial Evangelicals push for full inclusion of LGBT
Christians" -- not all Evangelicals, but a movement. It's very
hard for most people to change their beliefs about the world, no matter
how much the world changes. But modifying our old beliefs by
incorporating new information is worth the effort: it makes life
easier, and keeps us from fighting in already-lost crusades. One
could say that modifying our beliefs by incorporating new information
is being precisely opposite to ISIS.
The lynching belt
A scholar writes about decades of lynchings of Mexican-Americans
I do not know how the scars from this kind of thing can ever heal,
except by realizing that the world isn't "Us v. Them," it's "Some of us
v. Others of us."
The lynching belt
The "lynching belt" of the old south is chock full of monuments to
Southrons, but a new group, the
Equal Justice Initiative, wants to put up memorials to some black folk
lynched by Southrons. On this
of the EJI website, you can read about "3959 racial terror lynchings of
African Americans in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, and Virginia between 1877 and 1950.... African Americans
who were never accused of any crime were tortured and murdered in front
of picnicking spectators (including elected officials and prominent
citizens) for bumping into a white person, or wearing their military
uniforms after World War I, or not using the appropriate title when
addressing a white person. People who participated in lynchings
were celebrated and acted with impunity.... No prominent public
memorial or monument commemorates the thousands of African Americans
who were lynched in America.... 'We cannot heal the deep wounds
inflicted during the era of racial terrorism until we tell the truth
about it,' said EJI Director Bryan Stevenson."
Some white folks say that black folk were content until liberal
Democrats got them all riled up. Clearly, that
viewpoint is not susceptible to disproof by mere facts. But I
hope that viewpoint will disappear naturally, if only because of the
growth of interracial marriage.
As old racists die off, and more family trees include somebody killed
for "living while black," families will probably not accept that it
was right to lynch great-great-grandfather for living while dark.
For me, education on
current issues --
-- includes daily reading of these two legal websites, and
following their links:
Here's a new site that looks promising, as of 2/12/15: click on this link.
If you are bombarded with the kind of emails that appeal to prejudice,
and finish by telling you "if you agree, pass it on" -- but never
asking for negative feedback -- some ways to fact-check them are at
The world is more
interesting than lies about it
All kinds of mass emailings purport to !expose! lies by the mass
media. Usually, the exposure is the lie. For instance, on
2/18/15 I got an email purporting to expose lies about the Social
Security system. It turned out that the email was a mass of lies
that was first detected back in 2005. That's an example of the
"hall of mirrors" effect of the internet; entertaining lies to the
gullible never stop circulating. There's an old saying (ascribed
variety of scientists)
that "the universe is not only stranger than we imagine, it's stranger
than we CAN imagine." The world itself is more interesting than
even the most entertaining lie about it. So I've
never understood why people don't do their own fact-checking, to learn
things more entertaining than lies.
a bunch of new essays plus old essays I wrote for Charles Tidd's
lamented Sunsites Sun website.
To return to the top of this page, go here .
Some of these discussions, especially if they're very old, may have
links to subsidiary pages that I've taken down. If you want to
see a page and I've already taken it down, email me and I'll put it
back up for you.
Dump the County
bureaucrats and the County Building Code
a Dilbert cartoonthat
is especially applicable to the bureaucrats who
administer the County's excrescential Building Code. More Dilbert
cartoons point out, as if by magic, flaws with Cochise County
and here and
here; here's a
cartoon about our bloated Planning Department (under whatever
"friendlier" name it's cooked up now); and here
a Savage Chickens cartoon showing how silly Sierra Vista-style
regulations look to people who live on a few acres of their own.
Objective reasons to
dump the Code
The Sierra Vista Herald recently ran this
editorial concluding "Get ready to see fewer county employees
providing fewer county services." I violated the commandments of
religion to email in this comment to the editorial: "Good -- and
place to start is at the Planning Department, by repealing the Building
Code. It wasn't passed until just over 10 years ago; we got along
without it until then, and we can get along fine without it
was passed as a way for the County to leech money off of a housing boom
in an expanding economy. It never made money, the idea of a
boom is a joke, and the economy is shrinking. It was never
administered properly or competently, from the Supervisors down to
inspectors who acted like thugs in rural areas, so the Code's "needless
nannyism" generated dislike among people in rural areas. Getting
of the Building Code's salaried drones has always been a good
Why wait? Just do it now." Here's an expansion of those
The Code was pushed through in 2004 by a small clique of County
officials led by Pat Call, the Supervisor from Sierra Vista. The
county had got along fine without it. Call's main helpers were
James Vlahovich, at that time boss of the Planning Department (the
Department's name keeps changing to something that sounds friendlier; I
just call it by its original name), and a Department employee who's
The clique, using two years of data, predicted a real estate boom from
Sierra Vista to Benson. But the real estate market collapsed soon
after the Code was passed. County population continues to
is Robert Carreira's latest piece about County population.
The clique made false promises to get the Code passed. They
promised evaluations of the Code's delivery of benefits (increased home
safety, lower home insurance rates, and so on) and promised that the
Code would make money for the County. The evaluations have never
happened (Supervisor Searle, whose district includes Benson, even told
me after the Code took effect that the evaluations never would happen),
the promised benefits haven't happened, and the Code has always been a
money-losing drag on the County budget.
Also, the Code has been administered poorly by the Planning Department,
from thuggish inspectors on the ground, to incompetent and dishonest
administration at the top. The Code has been used to suppress
small businesses in rural areas. The Code has made County
officials into criminals: the Supervisors knowingly violated
state law for almost 10 years rather than obey state law and form an
advisory board, and the County Attorney's Office knew and didn't
care. A lawyer might well decide to sue the County, and demand a
refund of all fines and fees that county residents paid during the ten
years before the County followed the applicable state law.
No wonder ordinary citizens -- not big builders or people whose job
depends on big housing projects -- have always been unhappy with the
The Code should be repealed, but County functionaries love their tiny
empires, paid for by squeezing more money out of ordinary citizens who
need neither the Code nor the empire builders.
A handy site from 2009 for background info is here, some
more recent history is here,
and here's an eloquent email from 2014, to all three Supervisors from
excellent citizen Will Jakobek:
. "soon, you will go through the formality of ... transferring
more money from citizens to county government. You will increase
Building Code fees. It won't take much time, because the
fact-finding that is needed to make an informed decision won't be
done. You won't adequately represent your constituents. You
draw a paycheck regardless....
. "Lately, inflation has been negligible, demands for services
could not have increased, and a fee increase won't very much
affect the deficit that administering the Building Code causes.
How many millions is it behind being self sustaining? I've
previously addressed the inadvisability of maintaining a
department like this on the backs of the county taxpayers, and I know
you are tired of my insistence that the Code should be eradicated as
just one more bad idea....
. "Here's a true story. I was in the permit line, waiting
to talk with the official at the window.... A lanky, hard man
laid out his plans for a pole barn, nothing exciting, just a place to
store his bales so his hard work would not lose value. A few
phone calls, and the rep airily quoted him a permit cost: about
half of his building labor and materials cost. Imagine
that. Two years earlier, he could have built that pole barn with
less interference and at 2/3 of the cost. He looked shocked at
first, then he turned away shaking his head in disgust. His wife
at his side looked sad, took his arm, and they walked away.
. "Then more things happened, invisibly. The man didn't buy
materials or hire help to build a pole barn. He didn't buy more
fuel and plow up more ground, or use more electricity to run the pump
to water a thirsty patch of alfalfa. Seeds were not bought and
fertilizer didn't get applied, so suppliers made no money. No
crop was ever harvested, so no profits were ever made, that would
have been spent on shoes, or groceries, or dental work.... The
foolish cost of a permit found many silent ways into everyone's
pockets. And less taxes were paid.
. "County government has bean counters who could calculate the
damages produced by this permit requirement.... Why not do the
right thing and shut down this money sucking valueless entity? ...
. "Soon we'll be a one horse county, beholden to Fort Huachuca,
which already pretty much calls the tune. You will have driven
every other industry out. But nobody will blame you in the end
... because nobody will remember you. And it will cost you
nothing to accomplish this."
county have 5 Supervisors?
Concurrent Resolution 2032, at this
(thanks to a friend for emailing it), is about making every county have
five Supervisors and ten Planning & Zoning Commissioners. If
the Resolution passes, citizens can vote on this in the 2016 general
election. Supervisors would have a
two-consecutive-term limit, plus a little allowance for
(One question about timing: Resolution paragraph 1 section
6 says "a county that is governed by an existing board of
supervisors consisting of three members shall elect two additional
supervisors at the 2016 general election" -- but what if the election
went against switching to five supervisors?)
Right now, seven of Arizona's fifteen counties have three
Supervisors: Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham,
Greenlee, La Paz, and Santa Cruz counties. For those counties,
the law would double the taxpayer burden for
paying supervisors. In 3-Supe counties, each supe now makes $63,800
a year, plus benefits. In 5-Supe counties, the pay is $76,600
plus benefits. So the total burden on the taxpayers would double,
from $191,400 to $383,000, plus benefits. In Cochise County,
the pay is already too much: the Supes are half-time employees,
who have two general meetings a month
Also, instead of the present practice of each supervisor naming three
Planning & Zoning
Commissioners, each supervisor would name two. If all ten
Commissioners attended a meeting,
passing an item would require 6 votes out of 10, not 5 out of 9, as is
presently the case. I have no problem with that.
However, the law would also do away with the requirement that a
majority of Commissioners live outside of cities -- that is, live
inside areas regulated by the Commission. Under present law, each
may appoint only one Commissioner who resides in an "incorporated
municipality" -- a city, but the
proposed law would let every Commissioner live in a city. It
seems to me that there should be a limit to city residents on the
Commission. The limit for each Supervisor could be "only one
commissioner from a city" or "no commissioner from a
city." I'd prefer "no commissioner from a city," because P&Z
Commissions only have jurisdiction outside of cities, and I think
Commissioners should live in the areas affected by their vote.
The Resolution also weakens the Open Meeting Law. The OML allows
less than a quorum of Supervisors to discuss public business outside of
a public meeting. In a 3-Supe county, this means that two Supes
can never discuss public business in private. But in a 5-Supe
county, two Supes can discuss public business in private. So
converting 3-Supe counties to 5-Supe counties would weaken the OML in
those counties. This problem could be solved with legislation
that did not let less than a quorum of a public body discuss public
business in private. Getting rid of the "less than a quorum"
loophole might be a good change to the OML anyway.
As to Cochise County in particular, if the voters approve the
Resolution, we would likely have four
Republican supervisors and one Democrat. Sierra Vista would
probably be split into two safe Republican districts (that's my guess;
I've heard three), leaving Benson, Willcox, Tombstone, Bisbee, and
Douglas to be distributed in two or three districts. My
for honest, competent public servants, but neither party has lately set
a good example on that scale, so even though I'm a lifelong FDR
Democrat, I can't get very excited about a Democratic supervisor being
outnumbered 4-1. Besides, the lone Democratic supervisor is
already outnumbered 2-1.
I'd be happy to see a term limit placed on supervisors. I'm sure
there'll be people who approve the
Resolution just to get the term limit. As to me, even though I
have a very low opinion of some of our present public "servants," I
don't think it's a good idea to re-shape our government just to get rid
of people whom I consider bad apples; my motivation is just, I like
There's another major part to the Resolution, Section 5, about the
board of directors of a regional public transportation authority.
The change seems to be a minor matter, but I'm open to being educated.
In fact, I'd like to hear from anybody with opinions about this
Resolution. It's hard to argue that the people should not be
allowed to vote for themselves on a matter like this -- but by the same
token, it's hard to argue that if the people of a county are happy with
three supervisors, a state law should override local wishes.
Whose business is it how many supervisors a county has, except the
of that county?
To return to the top of this site, click here.
QUICK GUIDE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT
The Cochise County gummint homepage is here and local gummint has several
pages on Facebook. If you want the
local government to mail you notices of many (but not all) public
meetings, go here.
1, Here's a little about local ordinances. To see state law, drop
down the page a little.
a, the Board Of Supervisors. Cochise County has 3 supervisors,
each representing a separate district. The Supes hire a County
Administrator to handle administrative matters. You can see the
and their districts by following the "Interactive Map Of Districts"
link, on this
page and you can see the month's scheduled meetings via this
THAT CALENDAR IS THE MOST
IMPORTANT PAGE IN ORDER TO PROTECT YOURSELF!
The Supes have the final word about most matters of County government
(because even if a county official is elected to be the head of some
other department, the Supes set most departmental budgets -- pay the
piper, call the tune!), and the Supes tend to favor big money from
outside the county, at the expense of the quality of life for people
who already live here. However, citizen action, by lawsuit or
referendum, has undone some of the things that the Supes have approved,
such as the giant Smith Ranch project near Benson, the Bachmann Springs
project near Tombstone, a tax district to support a golf course in
Sunsites, and the huge Tribute house tract near Sierra Vista.
Citizens have worked hard, and are still working, to keep the Supes
from selling the county out.
b, the Planning & Zoning Commission. Each Supervisor appoints
three members; they're volunteers whose job is to make recommendations
to the Supes when people request zoning variances, when the Planning
Department (see section iii below) wants changes to County codes, and
so on. The Commission members are listed here
and the Commission's meeting information, agendas and minutes, are
available by following the links on this page.
c, the Planning Department (whose name changes every now and then, for
public relations purposes). Its employees are paid, and their job
is to advise the Supervisors and the Planning & Zoning
Commission. The Department is there to help the Commission, not
the other way around, though the arrangement of the County's website
implies the opposite. The Department tends to be under the thumb
of the "sell out the citizens" faction on the Board Of
Supervisors. The Department's page is here.
Much of the work of the Department is about variances from zoning
requirements. The zoning ordinances were massively changed in
2013; see this
document, and Arizona's Commerce Department puts out a "Planning
& Zoning Handbook" whose Chapter 8 concerns zoning; see this
document. Variances are discussed in section 4 of chapter
8. I've been to
many county Planning Department meetings, but have never heard that
The Department also spends a lot of time administering the county
building code -- which ought to be dumped. Here's a basic writeup
from 2009 and here's an update
d, The County Attorney's Office (CAO) gives advice to the Supervisors
and other public officials who ask for it. The advice is supposed
to be legal, but during the reign of Ed Rheinheimer as elected County
Attorney, CAO attorneys got into the bad habit of sticking politics
into their advice. I think that tainted the reputation of anyone
working for Rheinheimer. Rheinheimer resigned just after serving
half his latest term, so the Supes got to pick his successor (instead
of the public getting to vote). His successor is Brian
McIntyre. He has a chance to rebuild our disgraced CAO, if only
he would take it.
e, Meetings of public bodies in Cochise County generally have three
kinds of items to vote on: Consent, Action, and Public Hearing
items. Consent items are supposed to be so noncontroversial that
nobody, including Supervisors or Commissioners, needs to discuss them
before approving them. At Action items, Supervisors or
Commissioners may speak, but not members of the public. During
Public Hearing items, members of the public may speak. However,
no matter what the agenda of a meeting says, our Supervisors or
Commissioners often move a Consent item to the Action item so that they
can talk about it, or move an Action item to the Public Hearing even
though the general public didn't come to the meeting because the agenda
said they wouldn't be allowed to speak. Such actions may be
violations of the Open Meeting Law, and in any case they obviously tend
to chill the free speech rights of citizens, but local gummint will
pull such stunts if they think they can get away with it.
Citizens can protect themselves only by watching public officials
f, County meetings also generally include a Call To the Public
a link about speaking at a C2P. There are always people on
public bodies who are so unAmericanly anal
that they will interrupt and try to muzzle any citizen who uses a C2P
to criticize a member of the body. Well, the law says citizens
can use the C2P to criticize board members. Read the Open Meeting
Law, discussed in Section 2.c a few inches below, and you'll see that a
board member who objects to being criticized during a C2P has the right
to answer the criticism -- after the speaker has finished. Of
course, tantrums are disfavored, and if you commit slander you may have
to answer for it outside the meeting, but in a C2P, honest criticism is
allowed, and no petty bully has the right to stop you from merely
criticizing a board member.
g, Obviously there's more to County government, and I'll be adding
h, No matter what's on this site, you should dig dig dig into all the
original material you can find. If you think I might have some
old material you need, you can email me at email@example.com
2, State laws affect local gummint too. You can see every state
are the general laws governing counties, but other state laws can
affect county government too, of course.
b, Arizona's Attorney General, and Ombudsman, publish an incredible
amount of good solid guidance about state laws. You can access it
all by going through the Ombudsman's page here.
c, The Open Meeting Law, or OML, is the single most important
protection for Arizona citizens who want honest government. It
begins at ARS 38-431 in this
set of statutes.
Little, or petty, bureaucrats, hate the OML. Cochise County
gummint has been incredibly resistant to the OML. For instance,
it took a huge amount of work just to get the Supervisors to post
minutes of all their public meetings, including work sessions.
But hard work in this area can pay off. I hope you will love the
OML and make it your own.
d, Another important protection you have is the Public Records Law, the
PRL. You have the right to see every public record, and if you
can't afford to pay for copies, you can take your own photos of
documents (the County tried to charge for taking your own photos, but
they backed down on that one pretty fast!) You have the right to
see more than paper records, you also have the right to see electronic
records, like email and files on computers, including "metadata."
Added on May 10, 2015: Amazingly, an employee in the Attorney
General's office itself refused to let reporters take their own photos
of public records! The employee, one Terry Harrison, wouldn't
follow the law until the reporters phoned their attorney, who
presumably phoned the Attorney General, who presumably used appropriate
language to make Harrison stop embarrassing his employer. See the
To return to the top of this site, click here.