Phoenix, AZ: — Live Action and Center for Arizona Policy will be hosting a rally outside of the Phoenix abortion clinic Family Planning Associates to discuss the findings of Live Action’s latest investigation into the abortion industry, specifically the grotesque and shocking activity perpetrated at this facility. As is illustrated in the investigative findings, even when performed according to legal standards, the abortion procedure itself is inhumanly brutal and gruesome. Even worse, Family Planning Associates said in no uncertain terms that should a baby be born alive after a failed abortion, “they will not resuscitate.”
At the rally, Live Action, Center for Arizona Policy and state lawmakers will call upon the legislature to pass legislation allowing for the Department of Health Services to perform unannounced inspections at abortion clinics. Currently, abortion clinics are the only medical facilities in the state that are not allowed to have these types of inspections.
Live Action’s latest investigation, Inhuman, has incited a rising tide of alarm and disgust at how our country treats its women and its weakest children. This rally will call for true protection and empowerment of women, and the revocation of Family Planning Associates Medical Group’s license.
What: Rally outside Phoenix abortion clinic Family Planning Associates
Who: Live Action, Center for Arizona Policy, and state legislators
Speakers will include:
· Lila Rose; President and founder of the pro-life group, Live Action.
· Cathi Herrod; President of Center for Arizona Policy
· Senator Nancy Barto, Legislative District 15
· Melanie Pritchard; Executive Director, Foundation for Life and Love
· Vanessa Tedesco, Post-Abortive speaker with Silent No More
· Jason Walsh, Executive Director of Arizona Right to Life
Where: Family Planning Associates Medical Group, 1331 North 7th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85006
When: Thursday, June 6, at noon.
Live Action is a new media movement dedicated to ending abortion and building a culture of life. We use new media to educate the public about the humanity of the pre-born children and investigative journalism to expose threats against the vulnerable and defenseless.
Center for Arizona Policy promotes and defends the foundational values of life, marriage and family, and religious liberty. For more information visit azpolicy.org.
By Thomas Purcell
It’s been said that ennui and employment are simply incompatible. Obviously the person that said that has never lived in a country run by statists.
Yesterday I spoke with an old friend; we worked together for a few years back in the early 90’s during a roaring economy here in Arizona. He was still in the same business today, but was explaining that he was going to leave the business to sell something else, as his business was awful.
He explained some issues revolving around his financial situation, living condition etc. but basically all his problems revolved around a lack of money.
“People just aren’t buying stuff. It’s not 1995 you know” he explained.
As the conversation ended I realized that this was not the first time I heard it. Everywhere people were saying that exact expression, ‘it’s not the 1990’s you know’ or ‘it’s not what it was’. Funny thing though, the President swore his policies were the same as Clinton’s just a few short months ago at the Democratic convention.
Even people who are working are taking on roommates, working two jobs, or doing something more to make ends meet. They stay in unhappy or violent relationships because they have no other place to go; they stay in jobs with bosses they hate because they are uncertain about their prospects for another job, they take less money than they think they are worth to avoid layoffs.
Then they go home at night and sit in front of the TV or computer rather than going out because they are worn out from work and have no money for extras and take their medication to get through another day.
A quiet ennui has settled over the land as we continue to accept less, work more, and feed more of our money to a hungry government. We worry about government inspectors who look over our shoulder, we worry about that report that needs to be filled out for the state, and we read the emails from the boss on the new regulations and change our procedures once again.
This is the legacy of big government. It’s not the promise of a utopic society; it’s the nightmare of government telling us what to do and how to behave. It’s like living with your parents again and working for minimum wage hoping that you can save enough to move out.
We passed laws yesterday to enhance programs to protect women from violence, but fail to address the real issue causing societal unrest—the pressure of working too hard, for too little, with too much oversight—which leads to violence in the first place, not just at home, but at work and school. Like too many rats in cage with too little cheese, eventually the rats being to prey on each other. Men blame women for a feeling of emasculation and so they kill their wives in a fit of rage. School kids blame classmates for being bullied and the schoolmasters for allowing to happen and so they go ballistic and massacre them. Workers ‘go postal’ at the guy in the cubicle next to them as they pop their gum one too many times, or they fail to get that promotion that the boss decides they can’t afford.
How often do we see it happen where men prefer killing everyone rather than go through the financial chaos of divorce? Or criminals commit suicide rather than face the prospect of prison and humiliation?
Instead we decide more programs are necessary and exacerbate the problem. Each new program now costs 5 times what they say, since we have to borrow to pay for it, increase the taxes to compensate, and return the principle at compounding interest. The debt piles up and the pressure piles on. All those little programs are straws that beginning to break the camel’s back—we are bankrupt and are foolishly thinking of cutting the defense of our nation and the safety net for our elderly when we are sick and old.
A pall has fallen over the land; the shadow of big government.
Read more of Thomas Purcell at his blog: www.Thomas-Purcell.com
Open letter from Nick Dranias, Compact for America Balanced Budget Amendment, Goldwater Institute 2/2/13 I
I have an eight year old and a six year old. With the latest news of an economy possibly sliding back into recession and projections of the federal debt going to 200% of GDP, I am increasingly fearful of what lies in store for them in ten or twelve years. We have to throttle back the in-creasingly exponential use of debt before we run out of time. 49 states have recognized that the power to borrow must be limited to some extent. It is simply stunning that the federal government stands nearly alone in maintaining unlimited power to “borrow” resources from voiceless future generations. More than that, the federal government’s lack of constitutional constraint on borrowing presents a looming disaster.
Our national approach to debt reminds me of those movies from Science or Discovery Channel of those beautiful seemingly indestructible suspension bridges that start gyrating because of a minor tremor or breeze and then because of some failed calculation or screwed up angle in construction, the gyrations build into massive waves, and eventually bring the whole bridge down. The Founders did a great job in most respects in designing our Constitution–mixing elements of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy to draw on the strengths of each and counterbalance the flaws of each so that our system could handle a heavy load of misguided majorities or minorities–but they forgot about protecting future generations from current generations’ potential for greed when it comes to easy credit. And they forgot about the unique power debt has to create unsustainable bubbles, not just in the economy, but also in government, because of the natural human incentive to live for the “now” at the expense of the future.
We don’t have much time to correct this tragic system design flaw.
There was a time when principled Americans could unite on common ground to solve common problems. Take for example the Arizona Constitution. Over one hundred years ago it imposed a debt limit, banned subsidies, prohibited the private use of public credit, and barred special privileges and immunities. These reforms represented a historic consensus of the Left, the Right and the Middle of its day. It represented lessons learned after a quarter century of Robber Barons abusing the system to subsidize their risky ventures with taxpayer dollars and credit.
It was good public policy whose time had come. Anyone could see it. Good people united to fix a problem. This story was repeated throughout the American West.
The Compact for America, which has already been introduced in state legislatures across the Nation, presents us with the same opportunity to fix a problem that is many orders of magnitude greater than that faced by Arizona’s founders. With our national debt now in excess of 100% of Gross Domestic Product, and projected to hit 200% soon, itis time to stop pointing fingers at who is responsible. We owe it to the next generation not to win a debate or an election, but to stop mortgaging their future. The Compact for America provides a way to fix the debt without requiring anyone to compromise their principles on matters of substantive public policy.
You only have to agree that it is wrong to burden nonvoting future generations with our policy choices.
You only have to agree that, if we have to raise more revenue to pay down the debt we’ve run up, and then we should do so with a flatter, fairer, less invasive, and more voluntary tax code.
The Compact for America is designed to find common ground to fix a problem that is almost out of hand. It is a unique non-partisan effort to organize the states quickly and efficiently around advancing a powerful Balanced Budget Amendment idea. This Amendment would require Washington to secure approval from a majority of state legislatures for any increase in the federal debt. It would regulate the use of debt to prevent its abuse by decentralizing Washington’s power to incur debt. By inviting state legislatures into the role of a national board of directors, the Compact for America would finally give thestates a seat at the table in Washington. At the same time, it would ensure national debt policymakers are more accessible to the people and that any increase in the federal debt reflects a broad national consensus.
Equally important, the Compact for America uses anagreement among the states to generate a ”turn key” approach to originating this powerful Balanced BudgetAmendment. The Compact organizes its member states toapply to Congress for a convention to propose the BBAunder Article V of the U.S. Constitution; it designates and instructs member state delegates to advance solely the BBA; it specifies the convention location, agenda, committee structure, and rules; it limits the convention to a single 24 hour session devoted to an up or down vote on the BBA; it prohibits any other agenda and bars every member state from ratifying anything that might be proposed by the convention other than the BBA; and it pre-ratifies the BBA if it is approved by the convention and referred for ratification by Congress. The Compact for America also ensures the convention will be organized only if 38 states join the compact and only if Congress calls the convention in accordance with the Compact. This ensures that nothing happens until both ratification can be achieved without further legislative action and the convention logistics set out in the Compact obtain the status of both state and federal law and are guaranteed under the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution under current U.S. Supreme Court precedent.
In short, with the Compact for America, we finally have a practical, efficient, targeted and undeniably safe vehicle for originating a BBA.
If you have ten minutes to learn more, please watch the overview video at www.compactforamerica.org.
If you have the time or the financial wherewithal to helpsupport this effort, please let me know.
HIGH NOON at the Capital!
To All Arizona Residents!
There will be a 2nd Amendment Rally in Support of it and the Entire US Constitution at the Arizona State Capital, in Phoenix, on Feb 16, 2013 at approximately noon.
There will be speaking on the Constitution with Tables for those attending to have questions answered and the speakers will also be available to set up meetings for any who are interest.
Please join US in Support of Our US Constitutional Rights.
October 2nd is a date you should put aside immediately and make plans to attend this one night only chance to hear from Curtis Bowers, live and in person! His appearance is being hosted by the East Valley Tea Party in Mesa.
Curtis Bowers is the man who risked it all to make his award winning documentary “Agenda: Grinding America Down.” Tens of thousands of copies have been sold, and countless millions have seen this film. It has changed hearts and minds and raised the level of awareness of the dangers to America all across the country.
Curtis is coming to the Valley of the Sun to do some filming for a sequel to “Agenda” and has graciously consented to appear at the East Valley Tea Party at 7:00 pm, October 2nd. (Please arrive by 6:30 pm for seating!)
At 5:00 pm, the full 90 minute film will be screened at Burke Basic School. Afterwards there will be a short break, and the regular meeting of the East Valley Tea Party will begin at 7:00 pm.
At 7:00 pm there will be a brief showing of the trailer for “Agenda” and then Curtis will speak and answer questions. He will also be available to auotgraph copies of “Agenda” afterwards.
The event will be held at Burke Basic School, 131 East Southern Avenue, in Mesa.
Bring a friend, and don’t miss this opportunity to hear from a courageous man who followed his heart to make a difference. You have seen Trevor Loudon and Dr. David A. Noebel, two of the featured guests in “Agenda,” now see and hear from the man who created and produced it.
Meghan McCain appeared on Arizona PBS’ Horizon recently promoting her new book, America, You Sexy Bitch: A Love Letter to Freedom.
What may come as a shock to conservatives and libertarians is her call for federal regulation of the internet (7:28) over anonymous posts.
Apparently, Meghan’s father initially was not happy about the title of her book.
You can order your copy here.
Reposted from Townhall.com’s Katie Pavlich
Yesterday at a Chick-Fil-A in Tucson, Ariz. a man named Adam Smith, who is reportedly an adjunct lecturer at the University of Arizona, made it a point to visit the restaurant so he could milk the company for a free water while verbally assaulting a nice young woman working there. He pulls up to the window, asks for the free water and the abuse begins. Ironically (or in typical liberal form), Smith claimed he’s against hate, yet proceeds to tell the woman that the corporation she works for donates to hate groups and that he doesn’t understand how she lives with herself. The video was re-uploaded to a second account after the original video was removed.
Worth reposting from National Review. Do not be surprised if Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton takes up the cause of Mayors Emanuel and Menino. Be sure to visit the Chick Fil-A Appreciation Day Facebook page.
Rahm Emanuel has been many things in life — ballet dancer, investment banker, congressman, White House chief of staff, now mayor of Chicago — and he apparently wishes to add another title to his curriculum vitae: Grand Inquisitor. He has denounced the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A and endorsed a Chicago alderman’s plan to block construction of a new outlet because the company’s executives do not share his politics. This is a gross abuse of power: Imagine if the mayor of Provo, Utah, had tried to punish a business for supporting same-sex marriage — the Left would demand his resignation, etc. The powers of government are not to be used for parochial political ends. Even in Chicago.
It is worth taking a look at precisely what has given the mayor of the nation’s most corrupt city such cause for concern. “We are very much supportive of the family — the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives,” said Chick-fil-A chief executive officer Dan Cathy in an interview that launched a million angry tweets. “We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles.” Mr. Cathy, a purveyor of sweet tea and chicken sandwiches, has a better understanding of the American constitutional order than do the city fathers in Chicago and Boston, among other places, who also have threatened to use their municipal powers to punish Mr. Cathy and his company for this alleged anti-gay bigotry.
Bigotry should be made of sterner stuff. Mr. Cathy did not even target homosexuals, and his reference to being married to “our first wives” indicates that his criticism of the recent decay of marriage is by no means limited to the question of same-sex marriage. But even if it were, it would be worth noting that opposition to gay marriage was until the day before yesterday the official position of President Barack Obama and his administration. It was certainly the position of the administration while Mr. Emanuel served in it — not to mention the position of the Clinton administration when Mr. Emanuel served in it, too. If a Chick-fil-A franchisee is a detestable bigot because his boss — a private-sector CEO — opposes gay marriage, what does that make Mr. Emanuel, whose boss opposed gay marriage as president of these United States?
Chick-fil-A’s senior executives say that they are guided by Christian principle in both their personal and their professional lives, and the chain’s franchises famously remain closed on Sundays, but the company also pronounces itself committed to treating people with “honor, dignity and respect — regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender.” Mr. Cathy’s own views are considerably more complex than his critics would have us believe: “We don’t claim to be a Christian business,” he said in the same interview. “Christ never died for a corporation.”
It is one thing for private citizens to stage a boycott of a company with associations that annoy them, though the gay lobby’s hysterical demands for absolute conformity to its agenda in all aspects of public life is both unseemly and childish. (The gay lobby is also wrong about the issue of marriage and should be opposed.) As bad as organized homosexuality’s bullying tactics can be, it is a far more serious thing when elected officials appropriate the instruments of government to punish those with whom they disagree. The analogue to the civil-rights movement is a defective one: Whatever indignities homosexuals have suffered in our history, they were not held as chattel slaves or systematically excluded from political and economic life in the way black Americans were, nor is homosexuality categorically comparable to race. Boston mayor Thomas Menino threatened to withhold a business license from Chick-fil-A until somebody reminded him that doing so would constitute an illegal abuse of official power, at which point he withdrew the threat but confirmed his simmering hostility.
Mayors Menino and Emanuel are not striking a blow for civil rights; they are exploring new ground in the abuse of political power. Their threats and posturing have been far more shameful than anything Chick-fil-A has undertaken, and their motives considerably less lofty.
Supervisor Ray Carroll hosting a Save the Scenic Santa Ritas event where they called for a boycott on Southern Arizona Businesses that show support of the proposed Rosemont Mine. Carroll, was calling for the media to ban Rosemont advertising.
Supervisor did apologize to Rosemone Copper after the incident.
By Nick Dranias
Arizonans have the right to bear arms nearly everywhere in this state without having to register anyone or anything with the government. Likewise, as mighty as the pen might be, no one should be forced to register themselves (or their pen) before communicating with elected officials about legislative reform. Yet, Arizona has done just that through its overreaching lobbying laws.
Arizona does not define “lobbying” as lurking in the lobbies of the legislature and trading an expensive steak dinner for an opportunity to bend a legislator’s ear. Instead, Arizona law defines lobbying as “attempting to influence the passage or defeat of any legislation by directly communicating with any legislator.” Even a newspaper columnist who directly emails a link to his latest opinion editorial to a legislator is lobbying if the email dares to express an opinion on a pending or proposed bill or legislative reform.
Although vaguely worded exemptions appear to limit the reach of Arizona’s lobbying regulations, the reality is that no one can freely talk to elected officials in Arizona about legislative reform without being threatened by the government. Even if citizens and citizen groups invoke exemptions to avoid the need to register as lobbyists, as the Goldwater Institute has for its analysts, elected officials will still try to silence or impede public testimony as supposedly impermissible lobbying. This is because Arizona’s complex and lengthy lobbying laws encourage elected officials to believe citizens and citizen groups lack legal authority to speak freely on public policy. In effect, citizens are now presumed to have no inherent right to communicate with their representatives. This is an incredibly dangerous development.
In a free society, no politician should think even for a moment that he can require citizens and public interest groups to get the government’s permission to talk to the government.
Unfortunately, Arizona’s lobbying laws threaten this foundational requirement of our representative republic. For that reason, it is time to reform Arizona’s lobbying laws to more fully protect our First Amendment rights, just as we have reformed Arizona’s gun laws to more robustly protect our Second Amendment rights.
Our first freedom should get at least as much respect as our second.
A longer version of this article originally appeared in the Arizona Capitol Times.
Nick Dranias is the Director of Policy Development and Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Goldwater Institute: In Defense of Anonymous Speech
National Archives: The Bill of Rights
by Rachel Alexander
April 3, 2012 (Tucson, AZ) – In response to Arizona HB 2549, a bill that critics believe violates First Amendment speech rights on the Internet, Arizona Congressional Candidate Dave Sitton encouraged the legislative conference committee, where the bill now sits, to either kill the bill, or to more narrowly define the bill to make it Constitutional.
“I understand that the intent of the bill was to protect certain people from being stalked or threatened and there are laws on the books that already do that. It is obvious, however, that the language of the bill goes much further, and could criminalize behavior that the bill was not intended to address. Most people have been annoyed at times by what they have read on the Internet, but there are definite First Amendment protections for this type of speech that this law puts into jeopardy.”
Sitton believes that more narrowly defining the scope of the bill to one-on-one communication such as text messaging or emails sent to a private email account would go a long way to making the bill both constitutional and effective in the manner intended by the legislators.
In reference to State Senator Frank Antenori, who voted for the bill, and is also running for the Republican nomination in the Arizona Eighth Special Election, Sitton encouraged Antenori to show a little more care and diligence before voting, stating “One of the biggest reasons why congress and elected officials remain unpopular is because they tend to rush through bills without understanding the effect that they may have outside of the intent of the drafters.”
For more information visit www.davesitton.com
# # #
I am reprinting this for the pure purpose of getting everyone’s thoughts.
By Cal Thomas (reposted from TownHall.com)
When one writes about moral convictions, it’s probably a good idea to consistently live up to them. That way people can still disagree with your convictions, but they have a difficult time accusing you of hypocrisy.
Last week at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, I failed to live up to one of my highest principles. Here’s the background. The story about the Obama administration’s attempt to force Catholic and other faith-based institutions to offer employees free contraception in their health care coverage was still fresh. I was asked to be on a panel before what looked like a crowd of about 1,000 conservatives, hungry for “red meat.”
A clip was played from Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program. It featured her commenting on the subject. I stupidly said before thinking, “I think she’s the best argument in favor of her parents using contraception.” I then added, “and all the rest of the crowd at MSNBC, too, for that matter.”
It didn’t matter that far worse things have been said in print and on TV about me. I am not supposed to behave like that. I co-wrote a book with my liberal Democratic friend, Bob Beckel, called “Common Ground: How to Stop the Partisan War That is Destroying America.” We also write a column together for USA Today. One of the principles in which I believe is not to engage in name-calling; which, to my shame, I did.
The next morning I felt bad about it, so I called Ms. Maddow to apologize. It wasn’t one of those meaningless “if I’ve offended anyone…” apologies; it was heartfelt. I had embarrassed myself and was a bad example to those who read my column and expect better from me.
Maddow could not have been more gracious. She immediately accepted my apology. On her show she said publicly, “I completely believe his apology. I completely accept his apology.” To be forgiven by one you have wronged is a blessing, it’s even cleansing.
Politics has always been a contact sport. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams went at each other like the worst of enemies, using some of the most outrageous and slanderous language. I don’t have bona fides equal to their founding of America, so there is nothing of similar magnitude on which I can fall back.
Maddow also accepted my invitation to lunch and we will soon meet in New York. I am looking forward to it. Since the incident, which, of course, garnered a mini-tornado of media and blogosphere coverage, I have watched a couple of her shows. Without engaging in any qualifiers, she is a strong and competent advocate for her position. Why do so many of us only watch programs that reinforce what we already believe? Where is the growth in that? Whatever else she may or may not be, she is my fellow American.
I have many liberal friends acquired over the years. They are impossible to avoid in the media, but I don’t wish to avoid them. They became my friends because I stopped seeing them as labels and began seeing them as persons with innate worth. That is what I failed to do in my first response to Rachel Maddow. One might expect a pro-lifer like me to support the birth of fellow human beings and not suggest they should never have been born.
I expect to like Rachel Maddow because my instinct is to separate the value of a person from his or her political position. For some strange reason (demon possession, perhaps) I failed to do that at CPAC.
So, apology delivered and accepted and lunch will soon be served. I’m trying to decide whose career might be hurt more should someone take a picture of us enjoying a meal and –it is to be hoped, at least by me — each other.
Committee Testimony on HB 2403: Online Public Notices is Thursday morning
Editor’s note: Sonoran Alliance and several other Arizona political news blogs (ACOM – Arizona Coalition of Online Media) strongly support this bill and will be at the hearing Thursday morning. Help stop the print newspapers’ monopoly over public notices.
by Lynne LaMaster, eNewsAZ
Right now, newspapers have a monopoly on the publication of Public Notices. You know, those ads you see in super-tiny print next to the want ads in the local paper?
Representative David Stevens, however, has a different idea. Let’s allow Public Notices to be published online or in printed newspapers. If his bill passes, competition for Public Notices will go up, prices should go down. Taxpayers will benefit as their governmental agencies won’t have to pay nearly as much in fees (estimated to be over $1.8 million in Arizona alone).
It will also make public notices more available world wide, allow for better, more readable formatting, better access for those with disabilities, and more information to be shared, such as links to maps, bid specifications, agendas and more.
Newspapers aren’t supporting this because they believe they are the watchdog over Public Notices. They also question the ability for online entities to offer verification, and serve those who don’t get the Internet.
There is a hearing Thursday morning at 9am in front of the committee, and they are going to vote on it. There is also a stakeholder’s meeting Wednesday at 4pm.
Here are the committee members:
- David Stevens (R) – bill sponsor
- Sally Ann Gonzales (D)
- Justin Pierce (R)
- Carl Seel (R)
- Bruce Wheeler (D)
- Terri Proud (R)
- Jeff Dial (R)
Please email or call them and let them know you support this bill. http://www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp
Read Lynne’s full analysis of why you should support HB 2403.
Thank you Governor Brewer for not backing down when confronted by President Obama this afternoon.
This is Our State and even the President needs to show a little respect when he touches down on our turf, especially turf that once sent our men and women off to battle.
Lesson to President Obama: Never mess with a Governor who eats scorpions for breakfast!