A whole new world...

Arizona Republic editors have asked for comments from ordinary people who want to own guns. Why would anyone, other than hunters among us, want a gun around the house?

If we lived today as we did when I was a boy, we could leave our home unlocked and the car with the keys hanging n the ignition. We could walk to school, we played at the park and came home at dark – dirty and hungry. Our families gathered at little celebrations at home, church, or the dance hall where there was live music.

Since then, things have changed a bit some may agree. Today, there could be 50 million guns in homes, 99%+ owned by people who feel that their lives are threatened, as well as their stuff.

The words: car-jacking, home invasion, drive-by shooting, mass murder, Jihadist – had not been coined. Our "News” today coming from everywhere, tells of endless theft, murder, mayhem and sex crimes involving women and children as helpless victims.

When 911 tapes are aired, one realizes that our law-people (bless them) are stretched thin and rarely able to respond in time. So, we are left to our own devices and must choose if we don't care for the idea of surrender to whatever the assailant has in store.

Rather than death by gun shot or arson in a duct tape suit, I would think of a clumsy bit of self help – I need to buy my own gun. Or maybe two Rottweilers trained to kill? Better? Nah.

What to do? React as our US Government has? Downsize the military and get rid of the experienced Pentagon people, except for some wimps? Nah.

When a Jihadist shoots some nice innocent people, the first thought is “confiscate all the guns”. Is that great or what? Never waste a calamity. Don't suggest removing the threats the homeowner faces – that's unaffordable, like healthcare.


John P. Brebner

Carefree's Future Matters

Houses, more lighting, turn lanes and more...

Friends of Carefree, the Council held another Executive session on November 1st, but no details were made available. The regular monthly Town Council meeting was also held on December 1st.

Town Council Meeting, December 1, 2015, 5 p.m.

General observation – It was essentially a full house for this meeting.

Items 1 – 5, Consent Agenda: All items were related to routine town business (meeting minutes, bills, financial reports, event permit(s), etc.). Approved 7 – 0.

Item 6, Call to the Public: Jim Van Allen, in reference to 28 additional Town Center faux LED Gas Lamps to be discussed later in the agenda, asked the council not to approve projects on a piecemeal basis when only part of the total costs are disclosed. He said we won’t find out the real cost until the project is done. This also applies to another agenda item requesting funds to construct turn lanes in support of the already approved and planned Gateways. He cited, as a very recent example, the total cost of the fireplace project which turned out to be more than double the approved amount. [More on these topics later in the newsletter.]

Item 7, Current Events: None mentioned.

Item 8, Christmas Festival Status Report, Jo Gemmill: Ms. Gemmill delivered a comprehensive report on the festival, complementing the team of dedicated volunteers which grows each year. Additional sponsors this year include The Boulders and Easy Street Development. Work on this 8th edition of the Carefree Christmas festival actually began in March and continued to build in intensity throughout the year, culminating with the ever-evolving spectacle. One volunteer in particular, Lyn Hitchon, handled the difficult job of seeking door-to-door donations from merchants, while others have coordinated with staff and outside help or selected new decorations. For the first time, this year the festival will feature a ‘Preview Night’ on December 3rd so that residents and local neighbors can enjoy the upcoming event before the estimated 20,000 visitors come to town. Images magazine featured a 4 page article on the festival. Ms. Gemmill received a round of well-deserved applause.

Item 9, Keystone Homes ‘Eastwood’ – General Plan & Zoning Changes: Since there had been many requests to speak on this topic the Mayor outlined a phased format which would be followed for the remainder of discussion on this topic. There was a detailed presentation by the town planner and then a brief presentation by the builder. Public comment followed. At the time this newsletter was drafted there was no recording of the meeting available although it was online later. If correct spelling of names can be determined from that recording a revision to this newsletter will be posted on our website at a later date. We’ll do our best to provide just a short overview of key points and public comments before the council vote. It appeared there were two comments in favor of the project and all the rest were opposed.

Because of numerous objections from the public during the Planning & Zoning hearing on this project, as well as letters to the council from neighbors and the SkyRanch at Carefree HOA, the builder had requested a continuance prior to the November council meeting. Since that time the builder held meetings with town staff and representatives from the HOA Board to arrive at a compromise on a set of issues.

Public comment centered predominantly on the proposed high density development in an area generally zoned for Low Density Residential (R-43, 1 acre lots), at one of the 3 roadway corridors into Carefree. The proposed 39 Eastwood lot sizes will be 5,000 to 8,000 sf which will yield essentially 4 homes per acre although the proposed rezoning request would permit even higher density. A few folks mentioned that there was little concern for protecting/maintaining open space. The lack of sidewalks in the plan was mentioned twice.

Sky Ranch resident Robert Schenkel provided a summary of the 5 page detailed letter of objection he sent to Council. He argued that the town was about to violate its own zoning regulation (Section 3.06) that a Residential Unit Plan of Development (RUPD) must have a minimum size of 10 acres; the true Eastwood project gross acreage is only 8.6929, not the 10 acres required. He went on to say that the proposed zoning classification permits Multiple-Family Residential on smaller lots than the more appropriate buffer that R1-10 (10,000sf) or R1-18 (18,000sf) lots would provide. He added that the Eastwood provision for ‘open space’ was flawed because their open space consisted primarily of roads, a small pool area, and required drainage.

Laura Beyers [sorry about spelling], owner of a 3,600sf office in the Pima Norte Garden Office complex, stated her objections from a business perspective, as did Dan Kobalt [same here] a principal in the Pima Norte complex, citing noise and disruption to his tenants.

William Kauper, President of the Board of Directors for the SkyRanch at Carefree HOA, spoke regarding the board’s original objections to the project and the subsequent compromise which resulted from a meeting with Keystone representatives. He said the board had withdrawn their formal objections to the project but that individual HOA residents may have a different perspective. He noted that this project had surfaced larger issues for Carefree and tactfully suggested the need for a discussion regarding insensitivity within the appointed Planning & Zoning Commission. [Having attended the meeting, during which members of the P & Z heard numerous valid objections to the Eastwood project from a very large public presence, I can say it certainly seemed there was an air of ‘we know better’ in their unanimous acceptance of the town staff recommendation to approve the Eastwood project.]

Resident Ron Harkelrod said the builder had originally committed to limit building heights to 20 feet. He asked town staff for confirmation that would be the case. There was some discussion that it might have been 22 feet. Councilman Miller stated that Carefree residential building heights were permitted to be 24 feet. Mayor Peterson asked the builder if the majority of the 39 homes would be 20 feet. The builder did confirm that 20 feet was the height mentioned in the community meeting and then went on to outline the height of each model within the proposed 39 unit development. The average height was just over 20 feet; all units were under 22 feet.

Sheryl D, [sorry about the name and I believe she said she is a realtor in Desert Mountain] was in favor of smaller homes and properties in Carefree for her Desert Mountain clients wanting to downsize.

[It should be noted that there is a great deal of concern that the 40 acre parcel to the immediate west of Eastwood may now become a target for rezoning to higher density as well. It is conceivable that a prospective builder, or a member of staff, would argue that those 40 acres should be rezoned to R1-10 or R1-18 to act as a buffer between the much higher Eastwood density and the nearby Low Density Residential (R-43, 1 acre) properties. The P&Z, the Town Council, and the Town Staff have now set a precedent - this is a very slippery slope.]

When public comment was closed Mayor Peterson asked the town administrator to frame the motions the council was expected to consider. Gary Neiss did so and in turn 3 motions were presented. Councilman Miller made the motion to approve the General Plan Amendment which was then approved 7 – 0. Councilman Farrar made the motion to approve rezoning a parcel from Garden Office to Medium Density Residential and a second larger parcel from Low Density Residential to MDR, which was approved 7 – 0. The final motion by Councilman Miller was to subdivide the entire new parcel into 39 lots for the Eastwood Subdivision, also approved 7 – 0. At this point in the meeting the chamber emptied of all Keystone staff and residents for or against the action, with just a few people staying for the remainder of the agenda.

Item 10, Authorization for 28 more LED Street Lights: There are currently 24 faux gas lamps (street lights) within the town core [perhaps that is 23 faux lights and one authentic gas light]. The faux lights had recently been upgraded from soft ambient light to brighter LED fixtures. [More than doubling the number of significantly brighter LED lighting units in town could be a violation of the Maricopa County “Dark Sky's Ordinance”, or at least trample on the spirit of that ordinance.] Councilman Miller has studied the area and availability of electrical service in certain locations. A proposal has been made to purchase 28 additional faux gas lamps, along with LED light kits. 26 of those are for installation primarily on the east side of the core along Easy Street and in front of the upcoming Lewis Condo project. They seem to be spaced much closer together than any of the existing 24 fixtures. A couple will be installed in darker spots in the area of Ho & Hum roads. The remaining 2 are designated for spare parts. The cost for the lamps is $184,300 and another $30,826 for 26 LED kits. There was considerable debate about whether or not to disclose the projected installation cost. Councilmen Farrar and Vice Mayor Crane wanted to know an approximate cost but Councilman Miller resisted, claiming disclosure to the public would adversely affect the town’s ability to obtain good bids. After some heated discussion Councilman Miller said the cost would be within budget, and after further heated discussion he said the project budget was $340,000 but expected it to come in lower. Since there is no line item in the approved budget to substantiate the $340K figure, the final cost must be covered from the undefined $1.5M Economic Development category. Councilman Miller held up a sheet of paper that he claimed had been made public during budget workshops. The lamp order is expected to be completed in about 4 months. Council approved an expense item of $215,000 for this purchase, 6 – 1 with Councilman Farrar voting no due to incomplete project information.

Item 11, Town Gateway Turning Lanes: After a brief explanation of how this will save Carefree money, the council voted 7 – 0 to authorize $35,000 for including new turn lanes within the ADOT Bike lane project. The turn lanes will be located at Ho Road and Tom Darlington as well as Carefree Drive and Tom Darlington. The Tom Darlington phase of the ADOT project is expected to be completed by the end of January.

Item 12, Town Council Updates: Nothing major noted.

Item 13, Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at approximately 7 PM.

Don’t forget to visit CarefreesFutureMatters.com

Respectfully submitted by Jim Van Allen and John Traynor


Municipal IDs for illegal aliens gaining steam in Phoenix

Thanks for digitally publishing my article, "Municipal ID’s for illegal aliens gaining steam in Phoenix | BY VINCE ANSEL". It will help tremendously in getting the word out about how local politicians are undermining their communities by engaging in such nonsense.

RidersUSA has taken on this project with myself and Tim Rafferty leading the charge. We have gained quite a bit of headway in regards to Legislative support as well as obtaining the attention of a well known national political watchdog organization who is assisting us in exposing and challenging this drive to turn Phoenix into a sanctuary city. We feel very encouraged at this point that we have a good shot at eventually winning this battle.

There is a lot more to this story than what I've highlighted in this article and will keep you updated as this saga unfolds. We are more than appreciative for the great service that you and your staff provide and your contributions to the community at large. Your Conservative News organization is revered by everyone we have allied ourselves with. Your offer to include this article both digitally and in print is again, much appreciated.

Vince Ansel


100 plus 30 equals 150?

The Society of Arizona Pioneers was founded in 1884 and changed its name to the Arizona Historical Society in 1971. In 1984, it celebrated its centennial and published a 230 page book (Pioneer Heritage) commemorating its first 100 years. Then, just 30 years later in 2014, it celebrated its 150th anniversary. A sesquicentennial logo with a 150 in it was created. There was a special 150 item display and a celebration in Tucson. Zachary Ziegler, of Arizona Public Media, published a 9/1/14 anniversary story after interviewing the collection manager. The AHS itself published a special edition of the Journal of Arizona History to commemorate its 150th birthday.

How can this happen? Shouldn’t a state historical society, that gets millions of dollars a year in public funds, be capable of scheduling its own anniversaries correctly?

Dick Zimmermann


Repeal most of the troubled Affordable Care Act

To: jlflake@gmail.com, senator_mccain@mccain.senate.gov
Sent: 12/2/2015 9:27:44 A.M. US Mountain Standard Time
Subj: Urge you to support reconciliation bill that would only require 51 votes and repeal most of the troubled Affordable Care Act

Urge you to support reconciliation bill that would only require 51 votes and vote to repeal most of the troubled Affordable Care Act. Thank You.

Arch McGill


Do you want your kids to be vaporized to keep Obama happy?

I just contacted Congressman Marino's Williamsport office to express my concerns about the U.S. dropping treasonous leaflets to warn the enemy that we will be bombing ISIS/ISIL oil truck columns one hour in advance of our attacks by A-10 Wart Hogs. I also asked his office if Marino will seek sanctions against Turkey for assisting ISIS/ISIL in getting their stolen oil to market and if he will release the names of the European Union members who are purchasing this oil. They were clueless!

We can thank Russia's Vladimir Putin for the destruction of both well heads and oil trucks that are funding the terroristic attacks as we have already seen in Paris. The most charitable reason for Obama's dismal performance in destroying the ISIS's income stream, according to the CIA, is our concern about pollution! So the Carbon Tax fanatics are more concerned with being politically correct than saving the lives and beating ISIS! Of course we can't use pig grease to lubricate the bullets anymore either? Apparently we don't want to use fear to dissuade our Muslim brothers from engaging in a fire fight! All of your readers should understand that Syria is but one of seven countries which this country planned to destroy prior to the Saudi Arabian sponsored attack on America on 9/11/2001. (That's close to 215 million people our bankers and the military industrial complex wanted to cause pain and suffering to.) Russia's Vladimir Putin, not the Pope is saving the lives of Christians and Jews in Syria. We all better hope and pray that Putin is successful or we will be responsible for yet another disaster as we created in Libya, Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan. Is trying to take out Assad of Syria worth going to nuclear war with Russia and China when it was Saudi Arabia that aided and abetted the pilots who attacked the USA on 9/11/2001 and Turkey who is currently funding ISIS after Uncle Sam helped to create them? This is lunacy at best!

Joseph DuPont
Towanda, Pennsylvania


Taunting us with delusional themes

In a recent Democratic presidential debate Hillary Clinton said: “The United States isn’t at war with radical Islam.” Hillary’s competitor, Bernie Sanders, claimed climate change poses a greater threat than terrorism ever will.

They’re taunting us with some delusional themes.

France has been hit by terrorist attacks twice in 2015. Earlier in the year, employees of a magazine were slaughtered because they made light of the Prophet Mohammed in a cartoon. In November, Paris was struck by another terrorist attack and many innocent people were killed.

But, those orchestrated acts of violence with a religious theme don’t really seem to resonate in the minds of some influential people.

Ironically, an expert in foreign affairs recently said Barack Obama is the first anti-American President to occupy the White House. On the same day, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich said Mr. Obama is the most dangerous President America has ever had.

At the G20 summit in Turkey on November 16th, President Obama stood at the podium there to entertain questions from reporters. After about forty minutes of pointed questions from the press Mr. Obama became obviously frustrated with their interrogation.

The first question from an unidentified reporter was: “Mr. President. One hundred and twenty-nine people were killed in Paris on Friday night. ISIS claimed responsibility for the massacre, sending the message that they could now target civilians all over the world. The equation has clearly changed. Isn’t it time for your strategy to change?”

Margaret Brennan asked: “A more than year-long bombing campaign in Iraq and in Syria has failed to contain the ambition and the ability of ISIS to launch attacks in the West. Have you underestimated their abilities? And will you widen the rules of engagement for U.S. forces to take more aggressive action?”

Jim Avila’s question was, “In the days and weeks before the Paris attacks, did you receive warning in your daily intelligence briefing that an attack was imminent? If not, does that not call into question the current assessment that there is no immediate, specific, credible threat to the United States today?

Secondly, if I could ask you to address your critics who say that your reluctance to enter another Middle East war, and your preference of diplomacy over using the military makes the United States weaker and emboldens our enemies.”

Ron Allen then asked: “I think a lot of people around the world and in America are concerned because given the strategy that you’re pursuing - and it’s been more than a year now – ISIS’s capabilities seem to be expanding. Were you aware that they had the capability of pulling off the kind of attack that they did in Paris? Are you concerned? And do you think they have that same capability to strike in the United States?

Do you think that given all you’ve learned about ISIS over the past year or so, and given all the criticism about your underestimating them, do you think you really understand this enemy well enough to defeat them and to protect the homeland?”

Jim Acosta followed up with: “This is an organization that you once described as a JV team that evolved into a force that has now occupied territory in Iraq and Syria and is now able to use that safe haven to launch attacks in other parts of the world. How is that not underestimating their capabilities? And how is that contained, quite frankly? And I think a lot of Americans have this frustration that they see that the United States has the greatest military in the world, it has the backing of nearly every other country in the world when it comes to taking on ISIS. I guess the question is - and if you’ll forgive the language - is why can’t we take out these bastards?”

President Obama meandered around the prodding questions with theatrical precision, but the synopsis of his replies were highlighted by this statement: “If folks want to pop off and have opinions about what they think they would do, present a specific plan. If they think that somehow their advisors are better than the Chairman of my Joint Chiefs of Staff and the folks who are actually on the ground, I want to meet them. (But what I’m not interested in doing is posing or pursuing some notion of American leadership or America winning,) or whatever other slogans they come up with … I’m too busy for that.”

Greg Allen
Author and nationally syndicated columnist (Thinkin’ Out Loud)


The Paris climate scam treaty about wealth redistribution, nothing more

"Justice demands that, with what little carbon we can still safely burn, developing countries are allowed to grow. The lifestyles of a few must not crowd out opportunities for the many still on the first steps of the development ladder."

That was Narendra Modi, Prime Minister of India, writing in the Financial Times on Nov. 29 on the new Paris climate treaty.

Here, Modi explains why India and other developing economies should be given unfair economic advantages over the West as a matter of treaty law, and why the Paris agreement should treat his country differently than ours.

Not that anyone can blame him. The treaty stinks.

And yet, no more concise explanation of the current state of the global economy exists. Global climate pacts, like that being negotiated in Paris, or even trade agreements, like the Trans-Pacific Partnership are designed with one intention: To redistribute wealth globally.

That is, to hamper growth in the West by continuing to increase the cost of doing business, and continuing to shift production to so-called developing economies like China or India.

There may not be much more to it than that.

Sure, it is shrouded in all sorts of happy talk like saving the planet or creating jobs, all the while carbon emissions targets are never met and the jobs are still nowhere to be found.

Global emissions will still increase 25 percent in the next 20 years based on continued growth in emerging markets, the BP Energy Outlook 2035 finds.

Meanwhile, the employment-population ratio in the U.S. of the working age population — 16 to 64 years old — still has not recovered from the last recession, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows.

In 2007, the percent of the non-seasonally adjusted working age population with jobs averaged 71.8 percent. Today it stands at 68.9 percent, representing 6.4 million potential jobs that have been lost in the past 8 years alone.

The U.S. via the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal government agencies is one of the most heavily regulated economies in the world. Rules have been put forth with the singular intention of restricting coal-fired electricity plants, to reduce our output on the grid. In the process, electricity becomes more expensive. In the meantime, labor cost here are prohibitively high. Why build a factory here?

All because world trade rules and these silly climate agreements grant favors — special and differential treatment — to developing economies like India.

Why would we continue with an approach that already subsidizes foreign competition with unfair rules, and then offer them even more subsidies on top of that? Because "justice demands it"?

Yes, it creates an opportunity for lower cost investment in certain quarters, which, if you know the right people or where to look, could be very lucrative from an investment standpoint.

But with the loss of productive capacity and the ability to employ one's own citizens to do jobs, it is insane from a national standpoint to continue making these bad deals.

Sometimes if something sounds like a scam, or too good to be true, it usually is. This is a scam through and through that will saddle the U.S. with a higher cost of business and fewer jobs, and redistribute wealth overseas. Why would we do that?

This is all about knocking America down a notch. Nothing more.

Robert Romano, Senior Editor
Americans for Limited Government


Concerning "Common Sense Gun Control"

Yes, I tire of constantly writing this kind of column. Presumably, you tire of reading this kind of column as well. But when the usual suspects (supporters of victim disarmament) break into their happy dance atop the latest pile of corpses to tout a fraudulently labeled cause ("common sense gun control"), it all needs to be said anew.

In the past, I've explained why "gun control" is a stupid and evil idea, but apparently "common sense" is somehow orthogonal to fact and morality. So, fine -- let's talk "common sense."

More than 100 million Americans own more than 300 million guns.

Common sense says that ends the discussion.

Pro-victim-disarmament politicians apparently think that antagonizing 100 million likely voters and their families is a surefire path to electoral victory. Common sense  says it isn't.

But even if it is, what follows? Suppose the victim disarmament lobby gets its way in Congress?

Common sense says that whether or not someone owns guns, and if so how many and what kind, are none of your business, no matter how many unconstitutional laws you manage to get passed asserting otherwise.

Common sense says that if your fellow Americans want to buy, sell or trade guns among themselves, they require neither your approval nor your permission and that most will simply, as they should, ignore your demands that they fill out piles of paperwork and submit themselves to intrusions into their privacy as a condition of exercising their rights.

Common sense says that should you attempt to proceed to outright confiscation and that if even 1 percent of those 100 million American gun owners respond to your orders to turn in their guns with "come try to take them and see what happens," a spike in the stock prices of companies that manufacture body bags will quickly follow.

Yes, America is full of firearms.

No, you can neither take them away nor wish them away.

Yes, it really is just that simple.

Common sense says that since all of the above is obvious to anyone with an IQ exceeding his or her shoe size, you're wasting your time with your ghoulish celebrations of each opportunity to renew your call for something that is Never. Going. To. Happen.

And common sense says that you should probably move on to some new cause. Perhaps one where you can be part of the solution rather than part of the problem.

Thomas L. Knapp, Director and Senior News Analyst
William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism