Tucson Citizen.com
The Data Port - Politics, Literature, And The Little Disturbances of Man

Terri Proud Announces Her Candidacy

by on Oct. 20, 2009, under Uncategorized
Terri Proud

Terri Proud

A new hat has been thrown into the LD26 ring. Republican Terri Proud has announced she is a candidate for the House seat now held by Democrat Nancy Young Wright.

Proud has been living in Northwest Tucson since 1997. According to her LinkedIn.com listing she is currently employed as Office Manager/Senior Paralegal at Lippman Griffith and Associates. She has attended Pima Community College.

Her current political action position is as Arizona State Coordinator of the Second Amendment March, a project of the NRA, and she belongs to the Pima County Republican Liberty Caucus:

“The Pima County Republican Liberty Caucus (PCRLC) is a political action oriented group of liberty minded individuals within the GOP. Our goal is to return the Republican Party back to its roots of liberty, limited government and free markets. The government which governs the least governs the best.”

(Personal Note: As a one time Philosophical Anarchist I too believed that government was the source of human misery. First as the source of international conflict and, second, as the supporter of capitalism and the active enemy of the socialist movement. Perhaps Ms Proud and I are closer than either of us suspects, where I was once an Anarcho-Syndicalist, she is an Anarcho-Capitalist. It makes to laugh.)

Proud’s political goal as an LD26 candidate is to join hands with Cap’n Al. Her political platform seems to boil down to “cutting taxes” and defeating Ms Wright, who is an agent of Nancy Pelosi.

Proud’s website is here.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, October 20th, 2009 at 2:47 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. Tags for this post: , , , . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

RSS feed for this post (comments)
  • tiponeill

    “Our goal is to return the Republican Party back to its roots of liberty, limited government and free markets. The government which governs the least governs the best.”
    So she is for “returning” the Republican party to one which supports a woman’s right to have an abortion, a gay or lesbian’s right to marry, and the ending of drug prohibitions ?
    That’s great to hear – I wish her luck in returning the party back to it’s “roots” and freedom and all that good stuff.

    • tiponeill

      OOPS – posted too soon – just checked her website and it seems that she opposes “freedom” for pregnant women – although she does exhibit great sympathy for the rights of Fetus-Americans.
      In other words – just another typical Republicans.

  • Andy Morales

    I’m sorry, she is more of a threat to her running mate than to Young Wright.
    If she doesn’t realize this then she should study up on it.

  • http://tucsonpolyblog D.P. Niemi

    Thoughts On Rosemont Copper Mine  According to the cited report, the Rosemont ore body would produce: 4.541 billion pounds of copper     65 million ounces of silver   161 million pounds of molybdenum At today’s prices of copper at $3 a pound and silver at $17 an ounce plus $10 a pound molybdenum, this amounts to about $15,879,000,000 worth of metals.  There is no mention of gold in this report, but other similar ore bodies in the region have produced gold.  Rosemont copper would infuse about $3,000,000,000 into the local economy over the life of the project of about 25 years, while removing $15,879,000,000 worth of non-renewable assets from Arizona.  About 400 jobs per year would be maintained for the 20 year run.  And that is $15.879 billion in January 2010 dollars in commodities that are escalating in value, due to the inevitability of scarcity as these resources are maxed out and stockpiles become more valuable.  See graphs from InfoMine.com for trends. The stockpile value of the Rosemont deposit will become more valuable as time goes on, as trends seem to indicate.  What we sell today will be more valuable tomorrow but somebody else will be profiting on it, plus the raw take of $12,879,000,000 set up in this deal for the dealmakers at Rosemont.  Why not add in the projected windfall profits from the escalation in price of these metals commodities?  Who gets that money?  Is this financial loss one that Arizona can afford in the long term? Perhaps these resources would be better saved in the ground and allowed to become more valuable.    Maybe small scale mining on private land could employ some.     After the 25 year duration of this proposed mining venture, The Santa Rita mountains would be left with leaching mine dumps, less wildlife, dust and a hole in the ground and no more jobs ever from that copper resource.    In a more speculative mode, our less than 20% we received for a priceless resource would have dwindled to 5% by then, as metals commodities prices rise.  In today’s money, these 400 jobs a year would cost $300,000,000 each in metals value lost to the landscape.  Losses in tourism to Tubac and loss of the Bird Sanctuary would have a negative economic impact.         This is a ridiculous deal for the region.  They can’t get at their resource without the use of our public land to dump the waste, yet they are offering a pittance to the people of Arizona.  They need to pay more, a lot more than this into the economy in order to get at those billions in profits using public land as a permanent dump.  Arizona is being impoverished by this deal. I just can’t see the justification for getting so little local benefit from what is probably the last salable natural resource in the area.  A long term view might favor a moratorium to observe the world’s supplies and prices of these commodities before they be stripped from the ground.   Are 400 jobs a year worth the loss of this resource?  Are we the Indians selling Manhattan for glass beads?  Dorothy Prater NiemiJanuary 2010  Reference:Study of Mineral Production with Reference to the Rosemont Copper Projectby Dr. Madan M. SinghArizona Department of Mines & Mineral ResourcesSpecial Report 24July 2009 The ore amounts and economic benefit figures used come from this report. 

«
»