Recent Pelosi "walk the precincts" rally with Grijalva is a scam

We have seen the Arizona Democrat Party's ad announcing ultra liberal Nancy Pelosi's recent visit to Tucson. The ad would have us believe that the purpose of this visit is a get out the vote walk and rally for Raul Grijalva.

Given the fact that Grijalva is a second term incumbent (he won by 61% to 35% in 2004 and 59% to 37% in 2002) in a decidedly Democrat district (53% Democrats to 28% Republicans), it would be hard to make a case that Grijalva's 2006 race is tightly contested. In addition, it is doubtful that the ultra left politics of Nancy Pelosi would find much sympathy among Arizona Democrats. Thus, there would seem to be little to gain from a visit by Nancy Pelosi to the 7th District.

So, why would such a busy and influential Democrat Congresswoman, who is in line to become Speaker of the House (if the Democrats can win control of Congress), waste her valuable time coming to Tucson? The answer lies in District 8.

In District 8, we have an open seat race in a district with a slight Republican advantage (43% Republican to 38% Democrat) and the polls show a close race with the momentum favoring Republican Randy Graf, who has reduced the post primary 20% advantage of Democrat Gabrielle Giffords to about 8% in a few weeks. It is clear that this is a truly competitive race.

But how could a Nancy Pelosi visit help Gabrielle Giffords? After all, the Arizona Democrats announced no "walk the precincts parade", rally or other hoopla for Nancy Pelosi on behalf of Gabrielle Giffords (and any such open display of support by Pelosi would probably harm Giffords, who is attempting to portray herself as a moderate).

Not surprisingly, there has been no mention that Pelosi and Giffords even met! The silence is deafening.

Are we to believe that Gabrielle Giffords did not meet with Nancy Pelosi on her Tucson visit? Why haven't we heard about the meeting? Why would Gabrielle Giffords want to conceal the fact that she met with Nancy Pelosi?

The short answer is that Nancy Pelosi most likely came to Tucson to talk to Gabrielle Giffords about money, a last minute flood af money to try to take the election. Campaigns are all about money and endorsements and since an endorsement from Pelosi would likely harm Giffords, a campaign money deal is most likely what the Pelosi visit boils down to.

And why would Nancy Pelosi come to Tucson to commit precious campaign money to Gabrielle Giffords' campaign, unless she was certain that Gabrielle Giffords could be counted on to support her ultra liberal agenda in the US House of Representatives?

The Democrats make a big show of Nancy Pelosi coming to Tucson, ostensibly to support Democrat incumbent Grijalva in District 7, which all the pundits claim is a lock for Grijalva, basically a worthless visit. Then the Democrats are silent about the obvious meeting that must have taken place between Pelosi and Giffords.

The scam is obvious.

Nancy Pelosi most likely came to Tucson to discuss the campaign financing needs of the Gabrielle Giffords campaign and to coordinate the necessary support for this campaign.

It seems that the more we learn about Gabrielle Giffords, the more we are lead to the conclusion that she is attempting to conceal her liberal alliances in an attempt to portray herself as a moderate.

Gabrielle Giffords' "path to citizenship" proposal for illegals is a scam

Gabrielle Giffords is a stealth liberal candidate, and if allowed to be elected, she will march in lock step with liberals Clinton, Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi, et al.

Gabrielle Giffords' proposal to offer a "path to citizenship for illegal aliens" is completely unworkable and she knows it. Such a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the public is the hallmark of the stealth liberal candidate masquerading as a moderate.

Look at her proposal. She states that illegal workers should be allowed to become citizens if they merely pay back taxes and learn English. Really? And how many illegal workers keep verifiable records of their employment income? And what employer of illegal workers is going to provide such verification? And who is going to research these records and in what time frame?

There is simply no reliable way to verify the income of illegal workers. What is to keep an illegal worker from reporting no taxable income? What is to keep an illegal worker from reporting just enough income to qualify for earned income credit? Will the illegal worker now get social security benefits and a check for earned income credit, based on past illegal employment, all in exchange for applying for citizenship? Hmmm, sounds like amnesty to me!

Currently, it takes a minimum of ten years and many thousands of dollars to achieve citizenship for applicants who follow the law. The very idea that an estimated 12 to 20 million illegal aliens could be processed for citizenship by an already over taxed immigration bureaucracy is simply ludicrous.

It is simply unreasonable to expect that such a plan could ever be enacted. Gabrielle Giffords knows that this plan is unworkable, as its deficiencies were discussed at length last Spring in the US House of Representatives.

Gabrielle Giffords knows that if she told you that she favors total amnesty for illegal aliens that you probably wouldn't vote for her. So she resurrected this flawed plan that was thoroughly discredited last Spring in Congress and hopes that you won't notice.

The fact that Gabrielle Giffords would attempt to scam the public with such an unworkable plan for dealing with illegal immigration shows that she is unworthy of your vote.

The fact that Gabrielle Giffords proposes to give citizenship to individuals who have evaded US immigration and tax laws without penalty, while an American citizen or employer who is guilty of income tax evasion faces strict penalties, shows what is on Gabreille Giffords' mind: Amnesty for illegals.

Gabrielle Giffords would vote to ban guns

Gabrielle Giffords is no moderate. She is a liberal, anti-gunner who has stated that she would vote to reauthorize the Clinton Gun Ban, which expired in September 2004.

This ill conceived piece of legislation banned guns based on purely cosmetic features. If a certain gun looks a certain way, then that gun would be banned. At the same time, many guns that were functionally identical to the banned guns remained legal.

And what is the rationale for banning firearms based on mere cosmetic features? The answer lies in the politics of gun control. While it is currently politically impractical to ban all firearms, the foot in the door is to ban those firearms that look "evil". The idea is to tell the public that only "evil" guns are being banned. Then, after the public has become used to the ban of evil guns, you come back for a second pass. You say that many guns have slipped through a "loophole" in the law and these guns that slipped through the loophole are functionally identical to the banned, evil guns and therefore they also should also be banned. Aren't anti-gunners clever!

So, when Gabrielle Giffords says that she would vote to reauthorize the Clinton Gun Ban, she is really admitting that she intends to support a broad attack on all firearms ownership nationwide. Yes, she intends to ban firearms. Yes, she is anti-gun. And yes, she is a liberal pretending to be a moderate.

The Clinton Gun Ban made no sense and finally, even the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms has admitted that it had no effect of crime. Yet Gabrielle Giffords has stated that she would vote to reauthorize such a senseless law that serves no purpose other than to advance the cause of gun control.