Arizona Family Project – 2014 Friend of the Family Award Winners

Arizona Family Project

Arizona Family Project is pleased to announce its 2014 Friend of the Family Award Winners!

Given every year since 2003, the Friend of the Family award is given to State Legislators who have demonstrated, through their voting record and personal action, a strong commitment to strengthening Arizona’s families and to promoting pro-family values and ideals.

Their hard work on behalf of Arizona families is very much appreciated and we hope they will continue their good work in 2015 and beyond.

Congratulations to the winners and we thank them for their continued service to the families of Arizona!

ARIZONA STATE SENATE

Nancy Barto
Andy Biggs
Judy Burges
Chester Crandell
David Farnsworth
Gail Griffin
Al Melvin
Rick Murphy
Don Shooter
Kelli Ward
Steve Yarbrough
KimberlyYee

ARIZONA STATE HOUSE

John Allen
Brenda Barton
Sonny Borrelli
Karen Fann
Eddie Farnsworth
Tom Forese
David Gowan
Rick Gray
John Kavanagh
Debbie Lesko
David Livingston
Phil Lovas
Javan Mesnard
Darin Mitchell
Steve Montenegro
Justin Olson
Warren Petersen
Justin Pierce
Carl Seel
Steve Smith
David Stevens
Bob Thorpe
Andy Tobin
Kelly Townsend

The Arizona Family Project is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization, dedicated to raising awareness of pro-family issues and increasing participation by Arizonans in advocating for and advancing pro-family positions. Visit them online at AZFamilyProject.org.

Quiz: Match the Music Video with the Gubernatorial Candidate Campaign

I’m poking a little fun at the Arizona gubernatorial candidates by matching music (or commercial) videos with my take on their campaigns. So here goes. Try to match the music video with the gubernatorial candidate:

Which gubernatorial candidate is playing a high stakes game of political wannabe using her best poser face?

YouTube Preview Image

One particular gubernatorial candidate could take a lesson from this rock icon. (And I bet he can even perform as well!)

YouTube Preview Image

This gubernatorial candidate hails from the place where this commercial originates and says to speak the language of the fans. 

YouTube Preview Image

This song is the theme for which former mayor’s gubernatorial candidate’s campaign? Hint: A tale of two cities.

YouTube Preview Image

This gubernatorial candidate is so “hot” no one wants to stand near him!

YouTube Preview Image

Finally, this gubernatorial candidate will be singing this on Tuesday night, August 26th.

YouTube Preview Image

 

Hobby and a Lobby of Glass Houses

By Sam Stone

The liberal angst over the recent Supreme Court decision in favor of Hobby Lobby and other Christian-owned family businesses is rapidly spinning out of control. Critics have accused Hobby Lobby and the Supreme Court of everything short of genocide. Comedian and MSNBC contributor John Fugelsang tweeted that the Hobby Lobby ruling “proves once again that Scalia Law is a lot like Sharia Law”, explicitly comparing the atrocities committed in the name of radical Islam to not requiring someone else to pay for the morning-after pill. That’s ridiculous.

It’s ridiculous in light of what Hobby Lobby really is: one of the best examples of corporate humanity and compassion in this country. It’s even more ridiculous when you compare Hobby Lobby to, for example, Staples – a similar retail business run by founder and CEO Tom Stemberg, who was a significant contributor to President Obama’s campaigns.

Hobby Lobby pays a starting wage of $9.50 per hour for part time employees. Full time employees start at $14 an hour. All employees are eligible to enroll in the company-sponsored health care plan (which covers 16 types of birth control). All employees have Sundays off.

Staples employees often start at whatever minimum wage their local jurisdiction has set. Their average wage for associates is $8.55 an hour. Most associates do not qualify for company-sponsored benefits. Staples is open 7 days a week.

And yet, the left is basically claiming that because Hobby Lobby will only pay for 16 of 20 FDA-approved birth control types, they are the Taliban and the Green family are members of ISIS. What on earth does that make Tom Stemberg and Staples? A Staples employee who doesn’t have company health insurance isn’t getting their morning-after pills paid for by the company, either. Or condoms. Or the pill. Or…you get the picture.

I have a ton of liberal friends and family members who pooh-pooh the idea of a War on Christianity. Frankly, I always have as well. The reaction of liberals and their media allies to the Hobby Lobby case is changing my mind. The mainstream media doesn’t so much as bat an eyelash at the Staples of the world, so long as the plutocrats in charge are willing to keep lining the pockets of liberal candidates (and their own networks). But Christian business owners who pay their employees a living wage and provide healthcare benefits are monsters because they won’t pay for a few specific abortifacients?

Nothing in the Supreme Court ruling or Hobby Lobby’s employee handbook prevents employees from going out and purchasing the morning-after pill for themselves. But, apparently, none of this matters so long as liberals can use the ruling to perpetuate a mythological conservative “war on women” that exists mostly in the minds of the Sandra Fluke’s of the world. Perhaps, instead, they should take a look at their own glass houses.

So You Want To Be A Legislator And Support Religious Liberty?

Guest Opinion by Anonymous (for obvious reasons)

Kudos to you.  But you had better be prepared for a whole lot of hatred coming your way from the hypocritical left.  They have a real habit of telling you to be tolerant while telling you to die.  As the public face of support for SB1062, Arizona’s Religious Freedom bill, State Senator Al Melvin’s Facebook page was deluged with vile comments.  We don’t have space for all of them, but here are some excellent examples of what passes for political discourse and tolerance on the left these days:

Some folks just want to blame the Mormons…  Like Kay here.  She is a former member of the church who thinks it is a cult.  Of course, Kay also thinks the majority of GOP legislators are LDS, and she intends to make sure that everyone knows that.

Kay Doesn't Like Mormons

Shane wouldn’t blame the Mormons, because he likely considers it narrow-minded to blame just one group of Christians when you can blame ALL of the Christians.

Shane Hates the Bible

Jett seems less upset at organized religion and more upset at the Bible itself.  A lot more upset.

Jett Smith thinks you're scum

Bart here is apparently still smarting from losing his job as a nutrition counselor.  In fairness Bart, we’re pretty sure that’s not the 5-A-Day plan most people think about.

Bart has a 5 lb bag!

Ciaran was in a bit of a hurry, so we just get the short and sweet from Ciaran.  It gets weird when Ciaran seems to have some inside knowledge though.  First you want him to die, then you celebrate that he’s almost dead?  Does Ciaran know something we don’t know?

And Ciaran can't wait for Al to die

Ciaran thinks Al's a cunt
Comparatively speaking, David here is one of the good guys.  He doesn’t want Melvin dead, but he’s liking the idea of tracking down a State Senator and beating him, you know, “for good measure”?

David Allen wants to beat Al

James wants lots of people to die, so it isn’t personal, okay Senator Melvin?  We mean, he does want you to die, but he also wants lots of other people to die.

James Jefferies Wants You To Die

Richard seemed like a pretty good example of the basic profanity laced “I wish you were dead” comment.  Not exactly Lincoln-Douglas, but we’re sure he’s doing the best he can with what he has.

Richard wants Al dead too

And what would a leftist outburst be without invoking a Nazi reference or two?  Gary, what’s with that profile picture though?  Seriously?

Gary Dailey Nazi

Chris Thomas has anger issues.  He isn’t alone in that.  Melvin’s campaign says they’ve deleted “probably two hundred” posts that were not what we’d call family friendly.  But Chris seemed to be one of the more inspired authors of hate-filled rants.  And oddly, Chris is very pro-Common Core, which ought to have been a completely different debate.  Looks like Chris doesn’t like Melvin’s position against Common Core either.  Show of hands here, do you agree with Chris’ assertion that he is “apart of the human race?”

Chris Thomas 2

Remarkably, it looks like part of Melvin’s team actually took the time to respond to this guy.  They probably didn’t make that effort twice.  Chris is not pleased.  Now Chris wants Melvin’s people dead.  Also, Chris would like to add his voice to those who do not like the bible.  We know, you’re shocked.

Chris Thomas wants CQ dead too

Chris and Kay ought to talk.  Chris doesn’t like Mormons either.  He wants them to die.  Graphically.  In fact, he’s already decided how he wants them to die.  We think we speak for civilized society at large when we say we’re glad Chris doesn’t have it his way?

Chris Thomas Hates Mormons

Looks like Melvin’s campaign started deleting Chris’ comments.  Well OF COURSE they did!  We’d recommend not just deleting them, but using the BAN feature offered by Facebook.  Apparently they didn’t go that route, because Chris is back and he wants Al Melvin DEAD, weirdly enough, with the bullet that hit Gabby Giffords.  Although he’ll apparently settle for a .357 round.

Chris Thomas 1

The statement we received from Melvin’s campaign was relatively patient, considering.  They said “Al’s been at this a long time.  He has voted for Constitutional Carry, protecting marriage, SB1070, and the list goes on.  So this isn’t the first time he has taken a stand on an important issue.  Receiving hate from people who disagree with you is saddening but not surprising.  Comments usually fall into four groups:  People who agree with you or thank you.  People who disagree with you and want to debate the idea.  People who just want to call names without adding anything to the debate.  And the really ugly folks who flat out hate you and tend to lost control of their thoughts and emotions in their haste to express their hate.  The third and fourth groups are just best deleted, otherwise they obscure any rational debate that might actually occur, and they tend to drive away the decent people who may agree or disagree with you.”

Point taken.  And if it makes our blog readers feel better, Chris Thomas, like most of the folks captured in this post, isn’t even from Arizona.  That makes us feel a bit better, even if now we have to feel sorry for Chesapeake, Virginia!

 

 

Alliance Defending Freedom: Deception, distortion on SB 1062 results in veto

The following quote may be attributed to Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Doug Napier regarding Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s decision Wednesday to veto SB 1062, a bill the state legislature recently passed to clarify Arizona’s 1999 Religious Freedom Restoration Act and bring it into conformity with federal law:

“Freedom loses when fear overwhelms facts and a good bill is vetoed. Today’s veto enables the foes of faith to more easily suppress the freedom of the people of Arizona. Even though the battle has become more difficult, Alliance Defending Freedom stands ready to defend any Arizonan who suffers the indignity of religious discrimination.

Read Statement.

Cathi Herrod’s statement on the veto of SB 1062

PHOENIX – “Today’s veto of SB 1062 marks a sad day for Arizonans who cherish and understand religious liberty.

SB 1062 passed the legislature for one reason only: to guarantee that all Arizonans would be free to live and work according to their faith.

Opponents were desperate to distort this bill rather than debate the merits. Essentially, they succeeded in getting a veto of a bill that does not even exist.

When the force of government compels one to speak or act contrary to their conscience, the government injures not only the dignity of the afflicted, but the dignity of our society as a whole.

SB 1062 made certain that governmental laws cannot force people to violate their faith unless it has a compelling governmental interest–a balancing of interests that has been in federal law since 1993.

The religious beliefs of all Arizonans must be respected and this bill did nothing more than affirm that. It is truly a disappointing day in our state and nation when lies and personal attacks can over shadow the truth.”

Statement from Honorable Fife Symington III, Former Governor of Arizona regarding SB1062

“It’s ironic that more than twenty years after the MLK controversy, the State of Arizona is once again thrust into the spotlight with its national reputation and perhaps a Super Bowl at stake.  What is often underreported in the wake of the maelstrom from two decades ago is the fact that Arizona did the right thing.  In reality, Arizona is the only state in the union to have a voter approved MLK holiday.

“Governor Brewer’s deliberative process is the hallmark of her leadership.  From righting the fiscal ship to restoring the will of the voters to protect the most vulnerable, her leadership has proven time and again to yield thoughtful and positive results.  I know that she’ll do the right thing for the State of Arizona.”

SB 1062 Analysis – Winners, Losers and Who Gets Stuck with the Bill

By Bill Beard

Politically it would seem that for the vast majority of folks in Arizona the signing of SB 1062 will lead to a lot of trouble. Every day that Governor Brewer waits to sign or veto this bill only prolongs the agony and entrenches all sides against each other. We still have an economy on shaky ground. Unfortunately the only winners in this will be attorneys for both sides that will rake in the big bucks. The other winner would appear to be the discrimination lobby consultants that will be able to squeeze out more dollars to muddy the water and further antagonize all sides.

Those ‘for’ the bill are well intentioned. The political wisdom of dragging the rest of us into this isn’t clear. The average outside observer could have seen this coming. In an attempt to secure Religious Freedom they have set things on a course where reputations will be damaged and leave the taxpayers hurting. The average guy and gal that earns a living related to tourism for business or pleasure will see smaller paychecks. I’m not exactly sure who would be against Religious Freedom but this approach seems doomed. A better alternative to alleviating the possibility of someone suing a business owner for discrimination because they don’t like gays or pick your cause du jour would have been a simple Tort Reform bill that allowed the marketplace to decide the wisdom of anyone denying anyone else the ability to do business. The court system does not need to be involved.

Politically this issue has gone beyond the intent of the supporters. At this point it will only be a loser for folks running for office this year. Forget any merits of the bill. If you have an R after your name you will have to address this in your campaign. Whether you run for Dog Catcher or Governor this issue will come up. Regardless of the real issues of your campaign you will need to take time to explain your position on the bill. Why you agree or disagree with the intent, the politics or the inevitable lawsuits. When the average citizen is more concerned with their personal economy your campaign will spend valuable time addressing this issue.

The average guy out there will not see this as a Religious Liberty issue. For them it will further separate them from their elected representatives. It will only add to the idea that the representatives just don’t get what’s going on in their lives. They struggle daily with paying bills, feeding the kids or trying to figure out where the money will come from to pay for the broken washing machine or car repair. They will get stuck with the bill for the attorneys, the bill for the loss of their representatives focus on keeping the economy moving forward and the bill for time defending what their leaders have done to their friends and family in the rest of the country. So much for of, by and for the people.

Fascist Constitutionphobes and Religiophobes Hope You Won’t Read

Reposted from The Playful Walrus

Have you heard about the legislation recently passed by the Arizona legislature? Have you heard that it is “anti-gay”? Do you know the name of the legislation? Have you even bothered to read it? It’s not very long or hard to find. I easily found it here. It is SB 1062.

The way the marriage neutering and homosexuality advocates have been engaging in their dramatic whining and over-the-top theatrics, and the way so many of their repeaters in the MSM have called it “anti-gay”, you’d think the legislation authorizes people to hunt down homosexual people where they live and burn down their homes.

Go ahead and search through the text.

You won’t find one mention of any of the following words or phrases:

gay
lesbian
homosexual
sexual orientation
same-sex
heterosexual

You won’t find euphemisms for those words or phrases, either.

What you will find is that the core language of the legislation is:

“STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion…”

However, there are some very important and sizable exceptions:

“In furtherance of a compelling governmental interest.”
“The least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

More core language:

“A person whose religious exercise is burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding…”

Again, there are some very important and sizable exceptions.

What is the big deal?

This seems to me like this is an application basic rights – rights specifically enumerated in the First Amendment.

If we consider this on the context of recent government actions, then this would appear to be a reaction to recent cases involving bakers and photographers who have opted out of participation in events that have offended their consciences and sincerely and strongly held religious convictions that have a long, public, mainstream, and widespread tradition can be informed by a basic reading of Scripture. These businesspeople have been sued or prosecuted by their own government. These situations have also been misportrayed as the someone “refusing to serve gay people”. I recall that one baker in particular had gladly served the homosexual people in question on different occasions. It was only when the baker was asked to participate in a specific event, a same-sex “wedding” ceremony, that the baker declined. Still, some people might insist that such a denial was “anti-gay”. However, I can demonstrate that it wasn’t. The same baker would have refused if two heterosexual women had asked for the baker to participate in their “wedding”.

Notice that the legislation does not mention such professions or events. The legislation could apply to many other things that have nothing to do with what homosexual people do with each other.

So why is it being called “anti-gay”?

I can think of two reasons right now.

1) Leftist homosexuality advocates are malignant narcissists. Everything in the world has to be about their orgasms. They see the entire world through their genitals and anal openings. Other people are to be judged by whether or not they think it is just groovy that one man likes to stick it in another man’s anus. They have some bizarre fixation on what other people think about their private bedroom (or public restroom) behavior. Legislation is to be evaluated by whether or not it will encourage one man to stick it in another man’s anus, or whether or not it empowers or celebrates such men nor not.

2) Homofascists want to reorganize all of society around their feelings, including the practice of religion, and anything that exempts anyone from being under the control of homofascists is labeled “anti-gay”. That would mean they are getting so upset because they fully intend to use the force of government to force everyone, even the deeply religious, to celebrate homosexual behavior.

Whatever happened to “leave us alone”? Now that’s not enough. Now they seek you out, quiz you, and if your answers aren’t right you’re facing a trip to economic Siberia.

Even if you disagree with the legislation, the hysterics from the Leftist homosexuality advocates, and the lockstep following of low information voters should concern you. Really, if signed into law and implemented, how would this law hurt a single homosexual person? Someone might ask a baker for a “wedding” cake with two grooms on top of it. The baker would say “Can’t do it.” Then the homosexual person could go to another baker. Who got hurt? Judging from the circus-like response to the legislation, there would be plenty of other people willing to participate in the “wedding” by making a cake. Comparisons to Jim Crow do not hold up. Jim Crow included government-enforced blanket segregation based on skin color. This would be a business, not government, deciding they could not participate in an event.

Is such legislation Constitutional? I don’t see how it isn’t. It is essentially a building upon the First Amendment.

Will it actually be implemented if signed into law? Don’t count on it.

As we’re seeing repeatedly, the Constitution doesn’t matter. The Executive Branch is under the control of Leftist homosexuality advocates who do not believe in letting states handle their own matters or being bound by existing legislation, and they have more and bigger guns than Arizona. Don’t kid yourself. That’s all it boils down to these days. Even if Arizona refuses to prosecute a baker for being true to their faith, Obama’s Department of Justice will.