First, let’s put to rest the outrageous statements of lawmakers such as Texas Representative Louie Gohmert, who believes more lenient gun control laws could have helped save lives in the shooting.

The gunman was outfitted in SWAT clothing – bulletproof vest, ballistics helmet – and had thrown canisters of tear gas into the theatre before firing off dozens of rounds of bullets into the crowd… in less than 60 seconds. Anyone who thinks he/she would have been able to ‘take down’ the gunman in this type of chaos is completely out of touch with reality.

There were several highly trained military officers in the theatre. Even with a sidearm, these individuals could not have done anything to stop this gunman before he was able to unload dozens and dozens of shots into the crowd.

Some brave politicians, most notably Independent Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as well as several major city police chiefs, have called for a return of the 1994 assault weapons and high clip ammunition bans. Had this ban been in place, the Aurora gunman would not have been able to legally purchase either the assault weapon or the ammunition that was capable of causing so much damage.

Without a high-power assault weapon, the scenario of ‘taking down’ the shooter would have been much more likely, though even with a handgun, the shooter still could have killed multiple people.

No weapons or ammunition ban can guarantee an end to the types of massacres that have become more commonplace in this country, and indeed, better access to mental health services is needed in a country where so many people are disconnected from their family and neighbors. However, we need to question why an assault weapons ban is considered a bad thing?

Do average citizens really need military-style weapons? Do average citizens need access to 100-round magazine clips? And has the NRA really become so powerful that our politicians, both Democrats and Republicans, are afraid to approach the subject?

No one’s looking to overthrow the Second Amendment. No one’s looking to take guns away from our hunters and every-day, law-abiding citizens. This isn’t about being anti-gun. This is about gun safety. This is about sane gun policy.

The Aurora gunman was able to purchase thousands of rounds of ammunitions off the Internet with the knowledge that law enforcement would never be alerted. This is yet another gun safety loophole activists have been trying to close while lawmakers pretend not to notice. Another major loophole includes the ability to forgo background checks by selling weapons at gun shows and from one’s own home.

Closing these loopholes are sane, understandable policies that lawmakers could easily enact but are too scared and too unwilling to take a chance on. The thought is that it’s better to maintain the status quo than risk losing an election to a heavily funded NRA candidate, which speaks volumes about the power of this lobbying group.

The fact is, politicians will not stand up and demand an end to loopholes or an end to assault weapons or high capacity magazine clips. It needs to come from the citizenry. We need to begin a dialogue on gun safety and start giving a damn about the thousands upon thousands of innocent lives that are ended or destroyed by gun violence each year.

The phrase, “guns don’t kill people; people kill people,” is a load of crap. My husband was 6’ 3” tall, 220 pounds. He wasn’t killed because a 5’ 7” tall, 182-pound criminal overpowered him. He was killed because two bullets entered the back of his head and crossed through both hemispheres of his brain. Had my husband’s murderer, a convicted felon, not had a gun that day, he would not have been able to kill my husband.

More lenient gun policies would not have helped my husband, either. He wasn’t alone that day. His partner was there, too. His partner was armed. But even this highly trained, armed police officer wasn’t able to stop my husband’s murderer.

For all the outrage shown over my husband’s death, not once did I hear a single politician question why it was so easy for a criminal to get his hands on a gun. Not once did I hear a single politician demand stricter enforcement of gun laws. Not once was the ‘rule of law’ argument used to justify the need for better regulation of gun sales and purchases. Not once.

We have a problem in this country. We have a situation where it is so easy for criminals to get his/her hands on a gun, that the question of why or how is no longer even asked. It’s as if we have given up completely on regulating guns and have no issue with the ease with which criminals are allowed to obtain weapons.

Do we really want to be a country known for our gun violence? Is it okay with you, yes, I’m talking to anyone and everyone reading this blog post: Is it okay with you that a criminal has easier access to a gun than access to a therapist?

If not, then I suggest you contact your legislator and let him or her know. I suggest you join with others who are demanding better regulation of the gun industry and legislation to close gun loopholes. I suggest you seriously consider supporting an assault weapons and high capacity ammunitions ban.

Don’t assume gun violence will never affect you. We have far too many examples, including the 58 people injured and 12 killed in Aurora, who prove otherwise.

Image courtesy of Flickr user Fibonacci Blue

“The illegals who come here… don’t want to be American, they want to destroy our form of government.”

This was part of a speech made by State Senator Sylvia Allen at a Support Russell Pearce rally in October of last year. She spoke about illegal immigration and prefaced the quote above as part of a “La Raza mentality,” inferring that La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization, is working to destroy our government.

Though some may dismiss her rant as nothing more than a partisan speech to galvanize an anti-immigrant base, others are starting to question if extremist language, such as this, is encouraging the hate groups in Arizona.

I ask, how could it not?

Since last week’s murder of four individuals by known neo-Nazi J.T. Ready, the media has focused on the rise of hate groups in Arizona. And what motivates these hate groups? Illegal immigration.

Because Arizona is ground zero in the battle over immigration reform, we are also ground zero in the recruitment of White supremacists who worry that non-European immigrants will have a majority status in America.

Lawmakers such as Allen use language that not only promotes these ideas but also brings them into mainstream politics. How many times have we heard Tea Party legislators speak about the “invasion of illegals?” How many times have we heard these same lawmakers speak encouragingly about armed border militias?

J.T. Ready was head of an armed militia that patrolled the border and was identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group. Recently, Glenn Spencer, the founder of another border militia that is classified as a hate group, was asked to speak to Arizona’s Senate Committee on Border Security, Federalism and States’ Sovereignty.

Spencer was invited by Senator Allen and Senator Al Melvin (a former member of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps) to speak as an expert on border security even though the Anti-Defamation League had previously warned both senators that Spencer was “an anti-Hispanic, anti-Semitic bigot.”

Spencer promotes a conspiracy theory known as Aztlan, which suggests Mexican immigrants are plotting to take over the American Southwest. Conspiracy theories such as Aztlan as well as the conspiracy theory that President Obama is a Muslim born in another country are other elements known to invigorate hate groups.

The Arizona legislature has no shortage of conspiracy theorists. From sponsoring legislation aimed at stopping a takeover by the United Nations to two failed attempts at passing a ‘birther’ bill, our state lawmakers have spent a great deal of time thwarting imaginary problems.

State Representative Carl Seel actually met with Donald Trump to discuss his ‘birther’ bill and was supported, yet again, by Senators Lori Klein (the lawmaker that read a letter on the floor of the Senate claiming Hispanic students don’t want to be educated but be gang members), Steve Smith, Judy Burgess, and Rick Murphy.

Most of these Republican lawmakers have given their undying support to SB1070 author and former Senate President Russell Pearce. Pearce, as we know, was good friends with J.T. Ready. Though he denies knowing anything about Ready’s involvement in or favorable attitudes toward White supremacy groups, the Regional Director of Arizona’s Anti-Defamation League, Bill Straus, has gone on record saying he warned Pearce about Ready’s activities more than a year before Pearce cut off ties with him.

Fox 10 News ran an in-depth report on Pearce’s ties to Ready as well as an interview in which Ready describes Pearce as a “surrogate father.” You can watch that story here.

By befriending leaders of hate groups and/or classifying them as experts on border security, state legislators help legitimize the views of hate groups. When they use offensive or misleading language to describe civil rights groups or classify undocumented immigrants, lawmakers encourage fear and promote the myths that pervade the immigration discussion.

Our lawmakers may not be part of the White supremacist groups that are infiltrating our state, but I firmly believe some of their words and actions are helping fuel the flames that light the fires of hate.

Incumbent Rich Crandall, a moderate Republican known for his focus on education, was joined by another moderate, Bob Worsley, a newcomer with an impressive business background and leadership role within the Mormon Church.

It could have been a cake walk for Pearce. Pit two moderates, one with broad support from the education community and another with broad support from the business community, against one extremist with undying support from the Tea Party.

But Crandall did something many in politics refuse to do. He decided not to run, saying, “It’s more important that voters keep Russell Pearce out than they keep Rich Crandall in.” In other words, Crandall put the good of the state before any other interests, personal or otherwise.

That’s a rare thing these days. Most of our politicians spend their days submitting bills that will help them receive support from key lobbyists and other special interest groups. Legislation is based on ideological viewpoints while knowledgeable, fact-based information is tossed aside.

There’s hardly a day when Arizona doesn’t make the national news, and it’s almost always because of some crazy piece of legislation, and it’s almost always legislation submitted by a Tea Party Republican.

Crandall is one of a small handful of Republicans left at the legislature who has a focus beyond immigration, abortion, or birtherism. His focus has been on education, something few legislators on either side of the aisle have spent much time on. And though I may not always agree with every bill he puts forth (most notably his bill to end the free lunch program for poor kids), I respect the volume of good bills he’s submitted and his ability to get them through the senate.

It’s expected that Bob Worsley, like Crandall, will take on a different focus than his Republican cohorts. Worsley plans to focus on jobs, something that’s been forgotten among the stack of birth control and gun bills, and he wants the country and the world to see a different vision of Arizona, one that isn’t clouded by the haze of bad and ineffective immigration policies.

It’s a shame Crandall and Worsley aren’t in different districts because I believe the state needs more men like them… more moderates, more individuals in office working on the issues that will move this state forward. But perhaps Crandall’s willingness to sacrifice his job to keep an extremist out of office will encourage more moderates to step forth and speak out. And perhaps Worsley’s win and Pearce’s loss will signal an end to the extremism that has dragged down our economy and cost us our reputation.

A political giant, a powerhouse among conservatives and a leader in the anti-immigration movement was removed from office. A mayoral candidate endorsed by the unions and openly opposed to SB1070 defeated an anti-union candidate backed by Arizona’s most influential Republicans.

Since Tuesday, the speculation has begun on what this election means for the state of Arizona and how it will shape the politics of future campaigns.

While deciphering the results of the Russell Pearce recall, many are claiming his ouster had everything to do with his extremist stance on immigration, while others believe it had more to do with his entanglements in the Fiesta Bowl scandal. No doubt both played a role in his defeat, but what’s most stunning about his loss is that it came at the hands of genuinely nice man, making for a modern-day David and Goliath comparison.

Jerry Lewis had plenty of ammunition to use against Pearce. He could have run attack ads highlighting Pearce’s dismissal from MVD or the accusations of domestic abuse by Mr. Pearce’s ex-wife. Lewis could have actively sought contributions from many out-of-state groups eager to defeat the man at the head of the anti-immigrant movement. He could have spent his days on the campaign trail speaking about Olivia Cortes and Pearce’s obvious connections to her campaign.

But he did not. Instead, he smiled and talked about compromise and the ability to listen to all sides of a debate. He even praised some of the work Pearce had done in the legislature, saying he agreed with Pearce on many policy issues just not with his style of politics. Lewis promised similar conservative values but with a twist, an additional promise of respect for those who disagreed with him.

On the other side of the spectrum stood Pearce, a candidate determined to win at whatever cost necessary. And that, I believe, is exactly why he lost.

If there is anything to be gleaned from this week’s election, it is this: politicians can run positive campaigns and win. Not long ago, I had my doubts, but I believe the tide is turning and not just in Arizona.

One of the newest and most effective tools Tea Party conservatives have used to bolster their ranks is the war against unions. They claim unions, and in particular, public-sector unions, are draining taxpayer’s wallets with lavish benefits and pay. Police officers, firefighters and teachers, once respected as hard-working civil servants, are suddenly at fault for sky-high pension costs resulting from the Great Recession. Working class Americans, the vast majority of union members, are targeted as the bad guys while wealthy corporations are heralded as victims.

For a time, it seemed as if Americans were buying it, but Tuesday’s election signaled many voters have started to question the logic behind the type of warfare that pits one set of middle class workers against another. This played out in Ohio where voters overwhelming decided to maintain the collective bargaining rights of unions, and in Phoenix where voters chose union-endorsed candidate Greg Stanton for mayor.

But perhaps the biggest surprise was that the issue of immigration took a back seat to the more pressing issues of jobs and the economy. In the last election cycle, Arizona politicians effectively used immigration as a tool to mold an entire debate, from poverty to education, around one single subject. They created a wedge issue, one that turned complex policy into a simple, black and white question that turned neighbor against neighbor and ended any hope of finding common ground or a workable solution.

And it worked. The ideologues won majorities in the House and Senate and swept state offices. They started a wave of anti-immigration sentiment that spread across the southern part of the country and inspired laws meant to challenge the Constitution and further divide the nation.

So what went wrong this time? My belief is that Americans are tired of the extremists, tired of the bickering and name-calling that has come to define our current Congress and tired of the scandalous and power-hungry politicians that have come to define Arizona’s legislature.

Enough is enough. It’s time to move away from the extremes and back to the middle. It’s time to stop believing any one party or any one person has all the answers and time to start working across party lines and for the good of all citizens.

If this election is a referendum on anything, let’s hope it’s a referendum on extremism. Let’s hope the middle has finally found its voice.

From Russell Pearce to Joe Arpaio, Arizona’s Republican party is now dominated by extremist ideologues. These individuals have muscled their way onto center stage by promoting a singular issue, immigration enforcement, almost exclusively at the expense of other issues and crises. They have squashed the voices of compassionate conservatives and centrists and labeled any moderate brave enough to stand up to them as RINO’s (Republican In Name Only) and even socialists.

Fearing for their own political careers, many moderate Republicans have been forced to embrace the extremist dogma or be left with the choice of either switching to an independent party affiliation or waiting silently on the sidelines.

But now, more than ever, we need these moderate, sensible individuals to stand up to the bullies in their party and say, “No more!” We need them to lead us out of this mess by demanding a return to ethical and honest behavior versus a win-at-all-costs mentality.

The examples of our downward slide couldn’t be clearer; the need for change couldn’t be more urgent.

Take, for example, our popular, media-loving sheriff, the one who calls himself the “world’s toughest sheriff.” He turned a blind eye to crime and has yet to be held responsible. His department failed to adequately investigate more than 400 sex crimes. These included crimes against little girls and women; crimes that involved heinous sex acts and murder. He failed to protect and serve and still, for some reason, many Arizonans have forgiven him.

Why? Because instead of arresting rapists and murders, he knocked down the doors of car washes and restaurants, arresting and deporting a few handfuls of undocumented immigrants. You know, the real threats to society.

It’s likely none of Sheriff Joe’s fans were the victims or relatives of those left with the scars of rape or those still waiting for justice to be served. It’s likely these victims won’t be wooed by Republican presidential candidates seeking endorsements from a “tough Sheriff” or money from a newly formed PAC.

And now he’s announced plans to examine the legitimacy of Obama’s birth certificate. Yes, spending time on another PR ploy is definitely more important than hunting down criminals.

Then there’s our illustrious former county attorney, Andrew Thomas. In his quest to rid society of “invaders,” he and his henchwomen along with his pals at MCSO are accused of filing bogus lawsuits to intimidate their enemies, enemies that included elected officials and sitting judges. His rivals were targeted because they were unwilling to bend the law, and for that, they had to pay.

One would assume Maricopa County’s GOP party would run from that debacle. But one would be wrong.

No, the GOP party actually defended Thomas and even tried to play him as a victim. Keep in mind Thomas didn’t just attack Democrats; he went after fellow Republicans as well. Meanwhile, the real victims of Thomas’ power struggles have testified through tears about the nightmares they and their families were forced to endure, the belief their home phones were bugged and their every move monitored by authorities. Apparently, that’s the price they had to pay for refusing to compromise their ethics or their duty to uphold the law.

But that wasn’t the first time the GOP defended one Republican to the detriment of another. In the Russell Pearce recall election, fellow Republican Jerry Lewis has received what amounts to an excommunication by his party. GOP vanquisher and political consultant Chuck Coughlin made it clear to his fellow Republicans anyone opposing Pearce would be brandished with a T, as in “traitor.”

The lengths to which Russell’s Tea Party friends have sunk in order to guarantee a win in the recall election should have plenty of Republicans shaking their heads. But interestingly enough, instead of condemning the Cortes fiasco, many Republicans have either remained silent or, worse yet, tried to justify efforts to scam voters.

When it comes to Republicans behaving badly, Pearce, Arpaio and Thomas take the cake, but sadly, they are far from the only ones using unsavory, unethical and legally questionable means to gain and maintain power.

State Senator Lori Klein actually read a letter on the floor of the senate from a substitute teacher that said, “Hispanic students do not want to be educated but rather be gang members and gangsters.” The letter advanced stereotypes of Latino school kids as angry illegals and concluded with a plea to end the “invasion.”

Unfortunately, Senator Klein failed to verify anything in the letter, and when it was revealed the school district wholly denounced both the accusations and the teacher, Ms. Klein refused to apologize while Senator Pearce insisted on defending it. Apparently, it’s okay to publicly condemn bad behavior, even when not substantiated, but not necessary to apologize when the bad behavior was committed by the one pointing fingers.

Scott Bundgaard still hollers innocence even as police reports and eyewitnesses claim the opposite. Domestic violence isn’t a minor offense, and one would assume the powers-that-be would have already convinced Mr. Bundgaard to resign from office. But instead, he remains in power and voters will pay the price as yet another ethics trial gears up.

And the list goes on. From Senator Klein pointing a loaded handgun at a reporter to the freebies without repercussions in the Fiesta Bowl scandal, bad behavior seems to be the norm at the Capitol. But it doesn’t have to be.

Honest, intelligent and compassionate Republicans exist in this state, and they deserve to be heard. But until they stand together in opposition to the antics in their party and demand a return to good behavior, this state will continue to falter.

The long-term effects could be absolutely devastating to our economy and our image. There is no better time than now to turn the tide and take back our state. There is no better time than now for moderate Republicans to reclaim their party.

His words, in a recent editorial for the Arizona Republic, paint a rosy picture of private prisons, describing CCA as offering a cost-effective means to provide “humane treatment” without sacrificing “safety, quality and rehabilitation.”

And oh how we’d all like to take Mr. DeConcini, now a board member of CCA, at his word, but unfortunately, the facts play out less like a greeting card and more like a horror show with stories of abuse, violence, greed and lax security.

It doesn’t take more than a simple Google search to find examples of inmate abuse, prisoner escapes and lawsuits against CCA. Wrongful deaths, refusal to provide medications to pregnant women and mentally unstable inmates, using unqualified drug and alcohol counselors and accusations of routine prisoner beatings are just a few of the former and ongoing complaints against CCA that have resulted in legal action.

But Corrections Corp doesn’t stand alone in the saga over public safety concerns among private prisons. GEO Group, LaSalle Southwest Corrections and Management and Training Corp join CCA as the four private prison companies now bidding on additional prison beds in this state.

Each of those companies has a long history of security issues, which should concern legislators. From FBI, Justice Department and EEOC investigations to lawsuits alleging sexual abuse, barbaric conditions and wrongful deaths, these companies offer a litany of reasons as to why private prisons fail to serve the needs and goals of correctional facilities.

One of the corporations, MTC, actually sued Arizona for 10 million dollars after the state pulled a significant portion of its prisoners from the Kingman facility following the escape of three prisoners and subsequent murders of a vacationing Oklahoma couple. Instead of pulling our contract with MTC, this state actually settled the lawsuit for three million dollars. That’s three million dollars Arizona taxpayers gave to a corporation who took eight months to fix gapping security problems. Three million dollars to a corporation who no doubt will be found at least partially at fault for the murders of two individuals.

And now, we stand ready to offer them yet another contract for additional prison beds? Anyone else scratching his or her head over this scenario?

And there’s another, overlooked reason we should be concerned with the rising role private prisons play in corrections. In Arizona, private prisons operate minimum and medium security facilities, meaning all of the inmates housed will eventually be released back into society. That makes rehabilitation a crucial part of incarceration.

Since a large portion of this prison population suffer from addiction and mental disorders, it’s crucial to have qualified counselors and fully funded rehab programs. Breaking an addiction or managing a mental imbalance can provide the type of stability these inmates need to gain control of their lives and live as productive members of society.

However, if the opposite is true and the prisons fail at rehabilitation and instead foster abuse and violence, it’s likely these inmates will reoffend. Failure at rehabilitation creates additional risks for the general population and almost ensures more crime and more victims. And this is something that affects all of us.

So why, knowing all about past problems and current allegations and understanding the huge role rehabilitation plays, would the state continue to offer contracts to private prisons?

They must save us a ton of money, right?

Wrong.

A recent investigation by Arizona Republic reporter Bob Ortega, found that on average, private prisons cost $4.60 more per day per prisoner than state run prisons. And to top it off, this fact alone makes contracting with private prisons unlawful.

Arizona law mandates that private prisons must cost less or provide additional services than public prisons to receive funding. It mandates a biannual review of the safety and quality of private prisons compared to public prisons. But the biannual review has been largely ignored by the Department of Corrections, and they are just now in the process of examining costs, safety and quality.

In the meantime, the state is working to issue additional contracts, turning a blind eye to abuses and willfully breaking the law.

Representative Chad Campbell has proposed a halt to any additional contracts until the undergoing analysis has been completed. One would think this would be a no-brainer, but so far he’s been the lone wolf in sounding the alarm.

Follow the dollar and it’s easy to understand why so many Arizona legislators have given their blessings to the private prison industry. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a powerful lobbying organization, has great influence in the shaping of Arizona policies and purse strings. It was during an ALEC meeting that Senator Russell Pearce worked with CCA to create SB1070 and help ensure the need for additional prison beds.

Representative John Kavanagh, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, is a vocal supporter of private prisons. He’s also the recipient of hundreds of dollars in campaign contributions from lobbyists affiliated with private prison groups and a member of ALEC.

Governor Jan Brewer has extensive ties to CCA, both financial and otherwise. Her chief policy advisor and campaign manager, Chuck Coughlin, is a current lobbyist in CCA’s employ, as was her former communications director, Paul Senseman. Governor Brewer and her pet projects have received thousands of dollars in contributions from individuals associated with CCA.

And even if some manage to turn the heat up on the private prison corporations, don’t expect them to walk away without a fight. This is a multi-billion dollar industry. CCA alone has more than $700 million in contracts with just one state: California.

Don’t expect the private prison industry to clean up its act and get serious about safety, either. The small fines imposed by states when prisons fail to adequately staff facilities or maintain acceptable levels of security are just the cost of doing business. And for the private prisons, those costs are small compared to its enormous profits.

One would hope our legislators would take the issue of public safety into consideration when deciding how to proceed, but unfortunately, the lure of greenbacks, particularly those lining election coffers, are sometimes too great to resist.

And so, individuals like myself and others will be watching and waiting to see how Governor Brewer and the rest of the legislature responds to Representative Campbell’s request. If it is dismissed, we’ll know how easy it is to buy influence and how much the rest of us pay when that influence trumps public safety.

Editor’s note: In my original copy of this article, I stated that Representative Kavanagh was the recipient of thousands of dollars in contributions from private prison lobbyists. It should have read hundreds of dollars. My apologies to Mr. Kavanagh and to my readers for this error.