Nation votes for AZ to shut down L.A. power!

To quote the famous bard Mick Jagger …

Paint it Black!

 

 

 

Actually, its pretty obscene isn't it.

And you can help Gary Pierce by voting at http://gretawire.blogs.foxnews.com/

As of 10Pm *ARIZONA* time the verdict was “shut’r down AZ” by 98% … be sure to let the country know, we’re Arizona ain’t no Long-legged MacDaddy poser in the White House gonna tell us what to do! As for the Mayor of Baja del Norte, Aztlan he can kiss our cactus buds!

… and then there’s the water they consume behind those damns on the Colorado.  Boycott Arizona?  Bring it on L.A. bring it on!  Gary we love ya!  Bet Jan wishes she’d thought of this!

Mayor Walkup, pack your bags – there’s a village on steroids north-east of Long Beach looking for its idiot.  You’ll be right at home there.

Romley reaping benefit of years of betrayal to Republican Party

 

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
 

Ain’t that just dandy? 

Move along boy, afore ya git hurt

dandyWe have a message for Rick Romley. This h’yar is Arizona, a true Western state. We don’t cotton to no dandies in these parts, but wow, what a dandy he is!  Rick Romley, reaping the benefit of years of betrayal to the Republican Party stood before the LD 8 crowd last week, extolling his virtues as County Attorney. Polite applause turned to groans and muted boos as they learned he had asked Governor Brewer not to sign SB 1070, Arizona’s new law that requires enforcement of Federal legislation on the books since 1946. Romley does not support law enforcement, but wants to be elected County Attorney!

We have to admit that Romley looked magnificent. Central casting could not have done better selecting an actor to play the archetypical politician. Hi s exquisitely coifed white hair frames well chiseled features. When he smiles, which is frequent, his teeth transmit beams of light. From head to toe, Romley seems to be a man who cares well for himself. His dark, well fitted and apparently very expensive suit blended perfectly with a blindingly white shirt and very stylish tie. Even his shirt cuffs looked custom made. The shine on his shoes nearly cast reflections on the ceiling; they were that radiant, but it was his collector quality cane that mesmerized us. Museums with collections from 18th century royalty might be forgiven for such opulent displays of luxury, but we wonder about a man who purports to protect the public from those who would deliver us harm.

We do not question his sartorial taste. What we do want to know is what is in the mind of a man who spends so much time and care on himself, and whether there can possibly be a moment or two he could spare to think of us, his constituents. Given his stand on 1070, we have serious doubts.

Move along boy, afore ya git hurt.

  

Kyl Shenanigans, Thinks He’s Politically Invulnerable, Spurning TeaPary, Pulling a “Hatch” and a “Bennett”

Jon Kyl strikes out against conservatives once again, mitigating his opposition  against (read: spinning his support for)  Senate approval of Kagan for the Supreme Court.

This is not unprecedented.   Jon Kyl also voted for the “Assault Weapons Ban” in the 1990s hidden inside the Clinton Crime Bill and was a sponsor of one of the amnesty bills in the 2000s.

Gun Owners of America reports in a recent broadcast email to its membership (note Kyl’s past and current support of Kagan):

Why is Senator Kyl Caving in to the Obama Administration?

 

Wednesday, May 19, 2010

 

What is Senator Jon Kyl thinking?

On the Sunday talk show circuit, Senator Kyl said that, “The filibuster should be relegated to the extreme circumstances, and I don’t think Elena Kagan represents that.”

In other words, even though the Republicans have the 60 votes to defeat Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court using a filibuster, he (Jon Kyl) wants Republicans to keep their ultimate weapon holstered during the nomination process.

But without a filibuster against Kagan, there is no chance of defeating this radical nomination.

Never mind the fact that Elena Kagan could become the deciding vote that overturns the pro-gun aspects of the D.C. v. Heller decision and upholds ObamaCare, thus saddling us with socialized medicine for the rest of our lifetimes.

Kagan is a radical anti-gunner.  She helped draft a directive in favor of a semi-automatic import ban — and, as a law clerk, advised against allowing the Supreme Court to hear arguments that the D.C. gun ban was unconstitutional.

But how can she be the deciding vote on the Court, you say?  Isn’t she just replacing a liberal justice?  Won’t the votes still be slanted 5-4 in our direction?

Well, President Obama is hoping for much more than that.  There has been a lot of speculation at the White House that Elena Kagan will exert influence on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who until now, has usually been the “swing vote” that often sides with the conservatives on the Court.

President Obama is hoping that Kagan’s reputed consensus building skills will be able to pull Kennedy back over to the liberal side of the fence.  For example, Time magazine reported on May 11 that:

Few think [Kagan] will be able to change the positions of the most devoted conservatives, Scalia, Roberts, Justice Samuel Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas. But apparently Obama thinks she may sway Kennedy….  Kagan supporters point to the fact that she convinced some hard-line Republicans to vote for her when she was nominated to be Solicitor General, most notably Jon Kyl of Arizona, the behind-the-scenes GOP power on the Judiciary Committee….  But what’s most important, her backers say, is her ability to work the process; her skill as a consensus builder, they argue, could eventually make a difference [in swaying Kennedy].

 

Back in 1999/2000, there was another “conservative” Senator trying to spin his support for Clinton federal court appointees, Orrin Hatch, at the time the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee.  In 2000 he was literally booed off the stage both in the Utah County Republican convention and at the Utah State Republican convention both for his support of all but 2 Clinton federal court appointees as well as for anti-gun provisions he wrote into his Juvenile Crime Bill.

It looks like Jon Kyl is trying very hard to uphold that tradition of pawing himself off in Arizona as a conservative, but behaving like a globalist liberal RINO sellout when he goes home to Washington.

Look at what just happened to another one of Kyl’s longtime “conservative” colleagues (click here).

It’s looks like it’s time to take a que from the Utah teapartyers and help another RINO retire from politics.  Two years to go. He starts campaigning for reelection next year.

 

Help JD buy TV ads – please contribute by midnight tonight!

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday, May 19, 2010


Like it or not, money still drives campaigns. We saw what happened yesterday with Prop. 100, it passed because its proponents had all the money and were able to run TV ads. JD Hayworth needs money to get on television to get his consistent conservative message out. Please contribute TODAY to get JD on TV so we can defeat Washington insider and incumbent John McCain! We are trying to move the thermometer above $500k by the end of the evening today – please tell everyone you know and contribute however much you can. We can defeat McCain but it is going to take your support. Longtime liberal former Republican Senator Arlen Specter was just defeated in the primary for reelection, and he was polling similarly to McCain, around 50%, dangerous territory for an incumbent. Earlier this month, longtime liberal Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett was defeated in his primary for voting for the billion dollar pork TARP bailouts. McCain voted for them too. With your help, we can defeat longtime liberal Republican John McCain and replace him with JD Hayworth, who has a lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union of 98% over his 12 years in Congress. Be sure to check back often throughout the day on the jdforsenate.com website to watch the thermometer increase.

Join Our Mailing List

Arizona seeks to preserve role of parents in raising children

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
With the passage of Proposition 207 in 2006, Arizona became the nation’s leader in the protection of private property rights. This year, the enactment of Senate Bill 1309 will make Arizona the leader in protecting the rights of parents as well.

The opening passage of the bill is clear: “The liberty of parents to direct the upbringing, education, health care and mental health of their children is a fundamental right.” State and local governments “shall not infringe these rights without demonstrating that the compelling governmental interest as applied to the child involved is of the highest order, is narrowly tailored and is not otherwise served by a less restrictive means.”

The bill preserves protections against child abuse, and requires school districts to notify parents of rights under other state laws that many (including me) didn’t know they have.

The U.S. Constitution protects the right of parents to control the upbringing and education of their children. But in most cases the courts defer to school districts rather than parents. For instance, legal challenges to mandatory student community service routinely have been rejected, and parents’ concerns about sex education or political correctness in the schools often reach deaf ears among school officials who are quite sure they know best.

This bill reverses the equation, making parents the masters of their children’s upbringing and school officials their agents. This bill is a great example of how much can be done to protect freedom at the state level. Our federal constitution provides the baseline for our liberties. But states are empowered to go beyond those freedoms.

Arizona sets the standard for doing just that. For parents who believe they can better determine their children’s best interests than the state, Arizona is now the place to be.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.