Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Grijalva Supports Policy that Hurts Mexican Americans

 More from the Center for Immigration Studies article about Grijalva:

But while Grijalva has frequently shown determination to restrain commercial forces in order to protect the environment, he is consistently willing to accommodate their hunger for low-wage immigrant labor. The policies he supports would ensure that American employers, from fast food franchisers to farmers to roofers and restaurateurs, have an inexhaustible supply of low-wage immigrant labor. They would also ensure massive growth of the nation’s population over the next 50 years, with enormous consequences both for other low-wage workers and for the environment of Arizona and other states.

Grijalva has consistently argued for and voted for, open borders with Mexico and to grant immunity to illegal immigrants living here, something that the majority of American citizens of Mexican heritage have voted against because of the obvious problems it creates.

Grijalva acknowledged that there are also sharp differences among his Mexican-American constituents on immigration policy. That divide was clear in the 2004 vote on Arizona’s Proposition 200, a statewide initiative that sought to curtail public services for illegal immigrants. According to exit polls, some 47 percent of Latinos voted for the proposition, even after a well-funded campaign that branded it as racist, anti-Hispanic, and anti-immigrant.35

While Grijalva brands himself a representative for Hispanics, he is nothing of the kind. On issue after issue, from abortion to providing public assistance to English language instruction, the majority of Hispanics in Arizona disagree with Grijalva. He is not at the head of some broad Hispanic parade, but a small band of liberal Anglos and subversive La Raza radicals left over from the 60s farm boycotts. Hispanics in Southern Arizona are ready to vote for a conservative that listens to them.
Grijalva said he could see the anxieties among Tucson Latinos as he walked door to door to urge a vote against it. “I said the feedback from third, fourth, second generation Mexican Americans is not good,” he recalled in the interview. “I said once that this is a conversation within our own community that we don’t have, about those who just arrived and those who are here. …I think it’s a very uncomfortable conversation. I think you can talk to a lot of Latino leaders and they don’t even want to touch the subject. It’s an uncomfortable conversation, but a conversation that needs to occur.”
His message Grijalva admits, is to bring back the bigotry of the 60s, to race bait at every opportunity and pit Anglo against Hispanic to win elections. Will it work? Economics and history would favor Grijalva (and Obama's) approach. But several generations have come and gone in Yuma County since Cesar Chavez. I recently asked a couple Hispanic teenagers who Chavez was. Their response: "Didn't he wrestle for Kofa?"  

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Grijalva Releases Canned Response About Vote on Healthcare

A friend sent me their response to an email received from Rep. Raul Grijalva regarding his health care vote on Sunday. Grijalva’s email would not accept my friend’s response so he asked me to post it here:
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Rep. Raul Grijalva wrote:

March 26, 2010
Dear Comrade (Sorry, that was added by me):
Thank you for contacting me regarding the health care reform bills that recently passed Congress, I appreciate hearing your concerns. Throughout this process my staff and I have been carefully monitoring the emails, letters and calls from the constituents of Arizona District 7. Please be assured that each message weighed heavily on my vote. 
My vote in favor of the health care reform package was about the needs of the district.  Congress could not dismiss the tremendous savings this bill will create. It is clear that health care expenditures in America are continuing to sky rocket - this bill will begin to control the costs.  It will save the government $1.2 trillion over the next 20 years and put an end to medical insecurity for 32 million uninsured working people who will be covered under this legislation. Those are milestones we should all be proud of today. 
Before I came to Congress and for the past year during the debate over health care reform, I have fought for a better, fairer, more affordable American health care system.  There's no denying that it's been a difficult process and I've been able to keep working through it with the much-appreciated support of the many millions of Americans who believe with me that we must do better than the status quo. Ultimately, the choice before the House was simple: pass the Senate bill and the reconciliation amendments or vote the Senate bill down and maintain that status quo.  My decision, in the end, was simple. I could not ignore the 32 million uninsured Americans, the constituents I hear from everyday that have been discriminated against by an insurance company, those that have lost their homes because of medical bills, those that have been driven into bankruptcy and those that are fed up with our current broken system. I'm happy to join groups like the American Nurses Association, the National Breast Cancer Coalition, the U. S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and many others in declaring that they have suffered long enough and it's time for a change.
Our status quo is simply unsustainable. The people of this country have been crying out for Congress to act. Because we acted to improve health care for the American people, insurers will be forced to stop denial of coverage because of pre-existing conditions. No company can cut off benefits because it wants a bigger profit margin. Insurers will be required to treat individuals more equally regardless of age, race and gender. Medicare will be kept solvent, seniors will not have to pay for preventive services and they will finally be able to afford their medications. This bill committed significant support to community health centers around the country that provide medical care to the most vulnerable in society. The bill mandates that insurance companies spend a significant majority of their revenue on providing care, not on overhead or executive bonuses. This package as a whole is an important and impressive step in our long fight for a fairer, more equal America.
While this bill is the beginning of improving the American health care system - it is not the end. It establishes once and for all that health care in this country is a basic right, not a privilege. Our system can be improved in the future, and it will be. I will make fighting for those improvements a priority as long as I am in Congress, because as much work as we've done over the past year, more remains before us. Major advances in our quality of life are rarely easy. They are not achieved in a single stroke. This bill is a foundation that we will look back on in five years, 10 years and 20 years and thank ourselves for laying now.
Raul M. Grijalva
Member of Congress
Rep. Grijalva,

Thank you for your complete, if delayed response to my email. I understand your concerns about health care in Arizona. I have seen the crowded emergency room in Yuma, experienced the pressures of increased health insurance costs for my family, and argued over the phone with insurers over deductible categories. I agree with you that the cost of health care coverage in this country is at a crisis. But is the solution to high costs really more government?
It is commonly understood in the private sector that new regulations create new and more complex problems. For example, the state of Arizona estimates the health care plan you say is good for our district will actually cost the state of Arizona $400 million dollars? How does a guarantee of insurance in 10 years justify the loss of 42,000 jobs in Arizona to begin paying for it now?

I am also wondering if you could explain to me how the House Reconciliation Bill will save 1.2 trillion dollars, when the CBO estimates that you cite are for the Senate bill, passed prior to House reconciliation, which exempts large portions of the Senate prepayments, increases benefit provisions and has never been submitted to the CBO? In fact outside estimates of the Reconciliation Bill estimate its cost at $2 trillion, far beyond any cost "savings" estimate of either the Senate or House versions.

Finally, I recall that when you visited Yuma this Fall and spoke, and in numerous interviews with the media in Washington, you insisted that the public or government funded option was the only way that health care costs could be contained. You have also stated that tort reform was needed to lower costs. Neither the Senate bill nor the House Reconciliation contains either of these features. Because you have been so adamant about these issues, I am wondering: Have you have actually run these numbers or just trust the Democratic budget estimates? And because I have heard the numbers and phrases in your letter repeated over and over this week, I am also wondering: are you truly convinced that this bill is the best thing for your constituents? Or are you just listening to House leaders and hoping it is?

I certainly believe insurance companies should not be able to drop insurance for pre-existing conditions and that people without insurance need to have adequate access to health care. I also believe strongly that seniors should not have to travel to Mexico for health care because costs there are lower than the deductibles they pay for Medicare here. However, I believe these problems could have been solved without an estimated 2 trillion dollar price tag and a burden placed on states who are already struggling to balance their budgets. In my eyes, the benefits you describe are not worth the costs 5, 10, or even 20 years from now, when my children and yours may still be paying for them.


 A Concerned Yuma Resident

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Don't Think Health Care Means a Redistribution of Wealth? Think Again!

Another Democrat has let slip the real purpose of Health Care reform. This according to Fox News:

After the Senate passed a "fix-it" bill Thursday to make changes to the new health care law, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., chairman of the influential Finance Committee, said the overhaul was an "income shift" to help the poor.

"Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind," he said. "Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America."

Stay tuned for more slips from Democrats who forgot to read their talking points closely.  Remember when you hear them, that many of these "benefits" won't take effect for 10-15 years. you have to "shift your income" first. so much for the "Crisis" of health care.

Saturday, March 27, 2010

While Your Government is Taking, Some are Giving Back

I was fortunate to have heard The Commandant's Own when they kicked off their season in Yuma. The Marines were outgoing and respectful, passing out music and inspiring children with their stories. Unlike many who earn a living from your taxes, these kids really earn it. Hooraah!

Thursday, March 25, 2010

CIS article on Grijalva "Insightful"

    One of the most comprehensive articles about our own Raul Grijalva can be found at the Center for Immigration Studies  Pulitzer Prize winning Journalist Jerry Kammer has done research that looked beneath the "coalition-builder" to find the true Grijalva: a La Raza radical, turned smooth politician. He gives several examples in which Grijalva has shown his true colors, including the following run-in with fellow liberal Janet Napolitano:

In 2006, when Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano called for increased National Guard presence on the border to stem illegal immigration and drug trafficking that had spread violence across the state, Grijalva complained that the decision was an insult to Mexican Americans that was rooted in racial considerations.
“Anglo-Saxon men make the strategy for her,” he said in an interview with a Spanish-language newspaper in Yuma. Speaking later with an English-language paper, he said that he hadn’t meant that the governor’s policy was motivated by racism, only that it was “not inclusive.”24

Sounds like the national Socialists of the 30s. Rile up your audience, make them hate, make them cry "racist" while you hide behind your language and ethnicity, blaming it for your own racism, Raul.)
In 2008, Grijalva blasted Democratic leaders in the House who allowed hearings on legislation to boost border security and crack down on employers of illegal immigrants: HR 4088, the Secure America with Verification and Enforcement (SAVE) Act, introduced November 6, 2007. The move was an election-year tactic, providing cover for the large group of freshmen Democrats who represented conservative districts, including the bill’s sponsor, North Carolina’s Heath Shuler. He also blasted Democratic leaders as “spineless” for not moving ahead with the controversial, comprehensive reforms he favored.25

 (Grijalva's likes to play the poor angry Mexican, but really just uses his anger as a caricature for political gain. As in the current Healthcare debate, he cares only for his party agenda, not for his constituents, not even for Mexican Americans who would be hurt by his legislative agenda).
In the spring of 2009, Grijalva lashed out at Pima County’s sheriff, who had linked South Tucson’s crime rate and social problems to illegal immigration. Sheriff Dupnik, a Democrat, had said: “Whether you are talking about school performance, or dropouts, or gang affiliation, or one-parent homes or poverty, you name the social problem, that’s where they are all concentrated. That has to do with illegal immigration.”26
Grijalva blasted Dupnik: “To make a categorical statement that all the crime and the dysfunction in Tucson and Pima County emanates from one part of the community is outrageous and it’s stereotypical and … creates racial tension where they shouldn’t be,” he said 

(So, according to Grijalva, even identifying illegal aliens in Tucson as a contributing factor to the crime rate is racist (and remember, the Sheriff's Department had all the statistics at their finger tips. He was summarizing what arrest rates had born out)

Grijalva’s sharpest barbs have been directed at armed civilian groups that in 2002 began patrolling the Mexican border to spot illegal crossers and report them to the Border Patrol. He called them “racist” and “cockroaches.”
Ten years later, we have thousands of border patrol agents on the border. they are regularly pelted with rocks, assaulted and shot at. Last year one was killed. Racists Mr. Grijalva? Cockroaches? that is what you have called defenders of our borders.

A representative for all of southern Arizona? or just angry?

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

The Smoke and Mirrors of Health Care "Deficit Reduction"

The Health care bill passed by the House depends on a number of cost/income assumptions.
   First, it assumes the solvency of Medicare and Social Security, two programs that are scheduled to run out of money within the next 10 years if not before. Without a huge influx of money which won't happen if the economic picture does not change and the federal deficit is not corrected.
   Second, the CBO analysis is based on taxes collected over the next 20 years to fund the program beginning in 2014. Obama and Democrats in the Senate have already made promises to states and unions to reduce those taxes to get passage of the bill. According to Jay Cost the Health care bill depends on taxes over the next 20 years to fund insurance for the uninsured over the last 10 to a tune of 2 trillion dollars. If the income assumptions on those estimates are off (and they already are) then the whole "deficit reduction" calls of Democrats are out the window and not only is there no "deficit reduction," the deficit will skyrocket (like it already isn't). According to Peter Suderman of, the "adjustments" added to the bill in the House will have the effect of doing just that, turning this "deficit reduction" bill into deficits we have never seen before.
   Finally, no one is talking about the fact that Obamacare assumes that economic recovery is imminent. this ain't necessarily so. As much as Obama has talked about jobs "created or over 10% of Americans are out of work. Yes, the jobless rate remains unchanged at 9.7, but in another smoke and mirrors ploy, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics has been asked to "cull" the unemployment rolls of workers, "no longer seeking employment." This means in effect, that while unemployment is unchanged, it is actually going up.  Beyond the unemployment figures, depressed because of this administration's animosity towards "evil" business, the Obama administration is creating an environment toxic to the wealthy. Talk show host Rush Limbaugh has frequently stated he would move out of country if Obamacare is implemented. There is no reason not to believe that wealthy people will move out of an unfriendly tax environment similar to the way they did when California went whacky liberal.
  I have said it before, this administration will lean to the left until someone puts the breaks on. Raul Grijalva loves to spend your money. Next year let him work for a living.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Grijalva's Poem of Hate

 Here's a poem he wrote in 1969 at the beginning of his political career, referencing the ignorance of his anglo peers at school:

a friend
see him reaching for your soul
he hasn’t felt your clammy
hand of hate
he hasn’t heard you call
him spic
nor ever thinks you should
his father weeds your garden
and picks your fruits
and you bestow on him intolerance
and lies
he dreams of being you
but you’ve agreed he
never will

A representative for all of district 9? A community organizer? Or an angry partisan with a liberal agenda.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Think You've seen the last of single payer? Not on Your Life

With the passage of the Senate Health care bill, many Americans are thinking "It could be worse, we could have single-payer socialized medicine." The thinking that with passage of the bill being so difficult, Democrats wouldn't dare try to make the bill any more expensive or more socialized. Wrong.

Senate Dem Leader Promises Vote Soon on Public Option

Trish Turner | Senior Capitol Hill Producer

Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, shot by John Wallace
Sen. Harry Reid, D-NV, shot by John Wallace
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-NV, in a letter sent Friday to two of the Senate’s strongest proponents of the so-called “public option”, has commits to holding a vote “in the coming months” on the proposal.

This is no doubt to quell deep dissatisfaction among a number of more liberal members in the upper chamber who have said the health care reform bill moving through Congress, while making critical changes they support, does not do enough.
Keep Reading...

In order to get passage of this vote, Pelosi and Reid have already promised (to reps like Raul Grijalva, AZ) to pursue single payer and force the most liberal legislation they can down American's throats unless someone stops them. Will you?

Who Supports Grijalva: Big Labor

While Arizona's 7th District representative sells himself as being supported by a "grassroots" organization, his real support comes from national Political Action Committees interested only in furthering their national agenda in Washington. According to, in his last three campaigns, Raul Grijalva has taken an average of 52% of his funding from outside labor unions:

PAC Contribution Breakdown(Raul Grijalva)

legendIdeological/Single Issue$143,010(12%)

So much for "a large diverse coalition to create the largest volunteer driven election effort in Arizona."

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Your Representative silent While Billions in Tax and Spending Debated in House

Ask your representative about the House debating and negotiating a trillion dollar Healthcare bill that will affect you, your children, and your children's children, and Raul Grijalva will . . . ignore you.

Here's what Raul is talking about on Facebook while the House "band" plays on:

Raul M. Grijalva Earlier today, I gave David Wayne Romick, a Vietnam veteran discharged with the Army Medal of Courage, his long overdue recognition. He had never received the award, and my office helped him with his case.

March 12 at 1:49pm · Comment ·

Raul M. Grijalva

Raul M. Grijalva I am an original co-sponsor of the Local Jobs for America Act, which would extend $75 billion to state, local and tribal governments and private sector training programs over the next two years.

Raul M. Grijalva

Raul M. Grijalva House Democrats have voluntarily decided to ban all earmarks that would benefit for-profit corporations.
House appropriators announced Wednesday morning that they would reject all earmark requests that benefit for-profit companies.

Raul M. Grijalva

Raul M. Grijalva New credit card regulations are about to come into effect. Everyone should be aware of potential changes to their policies.
Bank of America customers will soon be unable to spend more than they have in the accounts linked to their debit cards. It's a step that may become a common move ahead of new regulations limiting overdraft fees.

March 10 at 10:59am · Comment ·

Raul M. Grijalva

Raul M. Grijalva The filibuster was invented accidentally after Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. The history of the rule is interesting for anyone curious about how government functions.


Oh, on his official website, Grijalva posts an inaccurate partisan handout created for Democrats by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.  But without comment on his views or how he intends to vote. Other important news to Grijalva while he prepares to add his vote for government takeover of 1/5th of the economy? Try these:

 Raul. A Representative for all of District 7? Not on your life.

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Grijalva Vote to Hide Vote on Health Care in the House: Representing Who?

Today Grijalva had the opportunity to stand up against Nancy Pelosi's attempts to allow Democrats to hide behind procedure instead of fulfilling their promise to be "the most open Congress ever." On a none-binding censure of the House Leadership for use of the "Slaughter Solution," Grijalva voted to table any criticism of the watered-down Senate bill he promised he would never vote for. The Slaughter provision would allow the House to pass the Senate health care bill without voting on it, allowing House members to avoid any responsibility for a bill that would mean the largest increase in taxes and government power in recent history (and wouldn't take effect until most were out of office). Grijalva, in his last chance to be honest about Obamacare, is showing his true colors, voting to hide his vote on the healthcare government takeover, by voting against the following:

Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, The Washington Post reported,
‘‘After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote
this week on the Senate’s health-care bill, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt
to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D–Calif.) would rely on a procedural
sleight of hand. . .’’;
Whereas in the same Washington Post article, the Speaker
declared, ‘‘. . .I like it because people don’t have to vote
on the Senate bill.’’
Whereas bipartisan members of the House and Senate have
expressed their opposition to using the Slaughter Solution;
Whereas on Wednesday, March 10, Representative Joe Donnelly
released the following statement, ‘‘The process over
the past few months has been frustrating, including the
cutting of unacceptable special deals to assure a few senators’
Whereas Representative Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania has
characterized the exploitation of the Slaughter Solution
by Democratic Leadership as ‘‘wrong’’ and unpopular
among his constituents;
Whereas on Friday, March 12, POLITICO reported on a
memo sent from Representative Chris Van Hollen, chairman
of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee,
to freshman and sophomore House Democrats
that stated, ‘‘At this point, we have to just rip the bandaid
off. . . Things like reconciliation and what the rules
committee does is INSIDE BASEBALL.’’;
Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, Roll Call reported, ‘‘Hoyer
argued that the American public isn’t interested in the
process lawmakers use for approving reforms. . .’’;
Whereas on Tuesday, March 16, Representative James Clyburn
told Fox News, ‘‘Controversy doesn’t bother me at
Whereas the Democratic leadership of the House has conducted
a calculated and coordinated attempt to willfully
deceive the American people by embracing the ‘‘Slaughter
Whereas resorting to the ‘‘Slaughter Solution’’ in this circumstance,
is being done to intentionally hide from the
American people a future vote that Members of Congress
may take on the Senate-passed health care legislation;
Whereas the deceptive behavior demonstrated by the Democratic
Leadership has brought discredit upon the House
of Representatives; and
Whereas the Democratic leadership has willfully abused its
power to chart a legislative course for the Senate health
care bill that is deliberately calculated to obfuscate what
the House will vote on, in an illegitimate effort to confuse
the public and thereby fraudulently insulate certain Representatives
from accountability for their conduct of their
offices: Now, therefore, be it
1 Resolved, That the House disapproves of the
2 malfeasant manner in which the Democratic Leadership
3 has thereby discharged the duties of their offices.

Grijalva supports Pelosi, her strong-armed tactics and backroom threats. The kind of person to represent Arizona? I don't think so.

The Total Screw Up that ObamaCare Has Become

As debate continues in the House to try and reconcile the House's Single Payer Trojan Horse with the Senate's watered down tax and spend compromise, the two advocates that Democrats have depended on throughout the debate are still clinging to the mirage that the bill will solve health care problems, despite signs of a collapse in the house of cards that healthcare reform/socialized medicine has become.

The major networks continue to blindly support the illusion of healthcare reform despite the obvious pitfalls in the Senate bill. In one glaring indication, NBC news squelched their own poll which showed Americans felt the bill was a "bad idea" 48% to 36%.
So much for an unbiased media looking out for the public interest.

In a more telling action, the Obama administration this week called union leaders to the White House to "consider" changes to the House reconciliation bill.
I thought this administration was about getting rid of Special Interests power in Washington. Now we have Union leaders writing reconciliation bills for the House?

The fact of the matter is that Democratic plans for Health care reform were poorly planned from the start, based on Progressive ideals that were proved wrong by the fall of the Soviet Union. In review, according to the summary by Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell, all of the Democratic plans have suffered from the same flaws:

New Middle-Class Taxes: Throughout his campaign, President Barack Obama promised he would not raise taxes on American households making less than $250,000. The Senate bill shatters that promise. For starters, just look at the reason Trumka went to the White House yesterday: the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans. This tax would overwhelmingly hit middle-class taxpayers. Taxes on prescription drugs, wheel chairs and other medical devices would also be passed on to all consumers, hitting the lower- and middle- classes the hardest.

Increased Health Care Costs: The Senate bill manifestly does nothing to bend the health care cost curve downward. According to the latest CBO report, the Senate bill would actually increase health care spending by $210 billion over the next 10 years. This follows a previous report from the President's own Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) showing the Senate bill would result in $234 billion in additional health care spending over 10 years.

Increased Health Insurance Premiums: The President initially promised that Americans would see a $2,500 annual reduction in their family health care costs. But under the Senate bill, premiums would go up for millions of Americans. In fact, according to the CBO, estimated premiums in the individual market would be 10–13 percent higher by 2016 than they would be under current law.

Increased Deficits: Despite claiming to be comprehensive health care reform, the Senate bill does not address the fact that Medicare's current price-fixing doctor reimbursement scheme is set to reduce doctor payments by 21% this year. That simply is not going to happen. Congress will pass that fix separately. If that cost were included, Obamacare is already $200 billion in the red. Now throw in the fact that the Senate bill is paid for with another $463 billion in Medicare cuts to health care providers. CMS says if these cuts occur, one-fifth of all health care providers will face bankruptcy. That simply is not going to happen. Just like the doctor reimbursement cuts have never happened, the Obamacare Medicare cuts will never happen. So in reality, Obamacare will add almost $700 billion to our national deficit in the next ten years alone.

Increases Unemployment and Puts Millions of Americans on Welfare: According to The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA), a dynamic analysis of the tax hikes and deficits created by the Senate bill shows that an average 690,000 jobs per year would be lost if it became law. In addition, over half of all Americans who would gain health insurance through the bill (18 million out of 33 million) would do so by being placed on Medicaid, which is a welfare program.

Higher taxes, higher health care costs, higher health insurance premiums, higher deficits, more unemployment and more Americans on welfare. That is America's future should the Senate Obamacare bill become law.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Will Grijalva Go Back on His Word?

In June, Grijalva promised that he would not vote for a Health Reform package that did not include a robust public option. Now it appears that he intends to do just that: Break his promise to his liberal constituents and go back on his word. Raul is like every other politician in Washington, willing to sell his vote and his beliefs to get reelected.