Tom Horne tries to explain ethical conflict on Russell Pearce’s show

Thanks to Arizona Public Integrity Alliance for providing this video on a recent interview of Tom Horne on the Russell Pearce Show. During the show, a caller asked Attorney General Horne if he used tax dollars to employ his mistress at the office of Attorney General. Horne’s response attempted to justify the employment.

YouTube Preview Image

Obamacare Versus Physician’s Hippocratic Oath

By Joanne Moudy

John Ammon

Dr. John Ammon

When John R. Ammon, M.D. finished his rigorous training at Harvard and Stanford 36 years ago, he swore to uphold the all important Hippocratic Oath – which proclaims – “Do No Harm.” Looking forward to working as an anesthesiologist, he believed he would never have to compromise that solemn promise. Yet, for Dr. Ammon, as for so many hundreds of thousands of physicians, that oath is progressively more difficult to keep.

Dr. Ammon has spent a lifetime of serving and healing his patients. More than just participating in a practice, his personal belief systems made him keenly aware of – and sensitive to – his patient’s individual needs. As a former Director and President of the American Board of Anesthesiology, as well as a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Arizona School of Medicine, and the founder and former President of the Arizona Chapter of Docs4PatientCare, he has a keen insight into the entire healthcare system in the United States. And he is deeply concerned.

During a recent event in Phoenix Dr. Ammon kindly sat down with me and shared his thoughts on Obamacare and why he believes it will ravage our country like a plague of the worst magnitude.

“The way I see it,” Dr. Ammon said, “is that today Obamacare is the greatest threat to our freedom America has ever faced. People are already upset about the insurance issues with the new law, but the truth is we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. The full force and effect of the horrifying legislation will impact and diminish the quality of American healthcare both now and into the distant future and severely restrict a doctor’s ability to help patients.

“Obamacare was advertised to the American people as a fix for two healthcare problems. The first was reining in the runaway cost of healthcare and the second was extending health insurance to the uninsured.

“But what the left failed to explain to the American public,” Dr. Ammon continued, “is that long before the law was written, physicians had already agreed that major reforms were necessary, especially in the realms of healthcare financing, taxation and insurance. Had those underlying areas been addressed, the law would have been unnecessary.

“Physicians already knew that the cost of healthcare had ballooned from coast to coast. The steady increase in costs made it harder for many to afford healthcare or insurance for their families. And that drove up the number of uninsured.

Obamacare“And what’s really amazing to most physicians is that Obamacare did not address any of these issues. It did not address the runaway costs nor did it extend insurance to the uninsured,” Dr. Ammon said. “Quite the contrary, the law has had the opposite effect.

“Take a look at the estimates from the experts at Harvard University and Dartmouth College,” he said. “They anticipate that healthcare costs will continue to grow faster than the economy for at least 20 years. And even more troubling is that the federal government estimates that 31 million Americans will still be uninsured by 2024. So in effect, Obamacare made things much worse.

“And instead of improving the situation, the president’s law has placed unprecedented regulatory and financial burdens on physicians and hospitals. Now, instead of focusing on patient healing and their well-being, practitioners in all specialties are increasingly focused on paperwork and checking statute-driven boxes. It’s exactly the opposite of what was needed.

“But aside from all this, a major problem with Obamacare is the Accountable Care Organizations, or ACOs,” Dr. Ammon continues. “Most people aren’t even aware of the term ACO. Yet, it will be the downfall of our healthcare system as we know it today.

“Here’s how it works. ACOs collectivize hospitals and many physicians together into single units. These units are then paid by the federal government for the specific services and treatments they provide under federal guidelines, in a one-size-fits-all regimen.

“Although this currently applies only to Medicare patients, the model is already being adopted for all patients. One of Obamacare’s main architects was Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, who brags that the law’s main goal all along was to shift the focus of healthcare from individual patients – to society as a whole, i.e., a European socialized medicine model.

“ACOs are not about the doctor-patient relationship at all,” Dr. Ammon said, “because ultimately the federal government will dictate all treatments, procedures, and payment schedules. And the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), made up of 15 people appointed by the president, will determine which medical services will or will not be reimbursed – and for how much.

“No matter how obfuscated the truth is, this is truly ‘rationing’ and it should terrify all Americans. According to Obamacare, providers must stay within the mandated guidelines or – at a minimum – Washington will refuse to reimburse them, and at a maximum, providers can face criminal liability.

“Thus, instead of physicians caring for each individual patient and working to achieve the best healthcare outcomes, doctors become professional assembly-line workers. The federal bureaucracy increasingly sits in the middle of the examination room, like Big Brother overseeing our every move and dictating our behavior.

“This is a dagger aimed at the heart of physician’s commitment to the Hippocratic Oath,” Dr. Ammon said. “In too many cases, doctors will have to choose between what is medically appropriate for their patients versus what they are ordered to do (or not do) as mandated by the feds. There is no question that this represent a moral crisis for physicians – follow the Hippocratic ethic or the Obamacare regulations.”

As we ended our conversation, Dr. Ammon had these rather haunting, parting words.

“When I ask pre-med and medical students why they want to become doctors, they invariably say they want to help people. Although I praise and encourage that sentiment, today I have to couch my comments with warnings that they won’t be able to achieve their altruistic goals without the freedom of an unwavering commitment to each individual patient, which will be more and more difficult to attain under the Obamacare.

“Nothing threatens our American way of life or the ability of a physician to care for individuals more than Obamacare. It is an abomination which must be entirely repealed and replaced with real reform, less physicians be forced into an untenable moral crisis.”

Maybe, Just Maybe . . . Obamacare is Unconstitutional

By Joanne Moudy

There is no doubt in any sane mind that Obamacare is a travesty on the U.S. Constitution and a terrible fraud perpetrated on America citizens. Yet it seems as though we’re all stuck with it . . . or are we?

On Friday Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ 8th Dist.), led the charge in filing an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, in the case of Steven Hotze, M.D. v. Kathleen Sebelius, ramping up efforts to prove, once and for all, that the entire basis for the ACA bill was bogus in the first place.

Mr. Franks, along with 42 of his colleagues, including Rep(s) Michele Bachmann R-MN D-6), Matt Salmon (R-AZ D-5), David Schweikert (R-AZ D-6), and Steve King (R-IA D-4), banded together in a show of support to overturn Obamacare for violating the Origination Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

According to Mr. Franks’ office, the case began in a Texas federal court and raises the issue of whether or not Obamacare violated the Origination Clause because the entire language of the bill actually originated in the Senate, instead of the House as required for all bills raising revenue.

The question stems from October 2009, when the House passed H.R. 3590, titled at the time as “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009.” H.R. 3590 was supposed to make certain changes to the IRS code, specifically to extend or waive the recapture of a first-time homebuyer credit for certain members of the armed forces.

The obvious question any intelligent person should be asking themselves right now is, ‘What exactly does this bill have to do with health care?’ You’re right – absolutely nothing.

The fairly innocuous bill passed the House and was sent to the Senate. Upon receipt, the Senate promptly stripped everything from the bill – except the all important # 3590, then inserted the language of the Affordable Care Act and subsequently passed it on December 24, 2009. The entirely new H.R. 3590 then went back to the House for final approval.

Yet absolutely nothing remained of the original bill and Rep. Pelosi knew it. As the then Speaker of the House, she rammed H.R. 3590 through on March 21, 2010 as amended by the Senate. Concurrently, the House passed H.R. 4872, entitled the “Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010,” which made certain amendments to the ACA. President Obama signed H.R. 3590 into law on March 23, 2010 and H.R. 4872 on March 30, 2010.

The Origination Clause in the U.S. Constitution provides that “….all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representative; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”

Since Obamacare contains 17 separate tax provisions raising approximately $500 billion in taxes, it is most assuredly a tax bill, which most assuredly did not originate in the House. Furthermore, The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the individual mandate to purchase health insurance could only be constitutional, if at all, under Congress’s power to tax.

“If the Senate can introduce the largest tax increase in American history,” Mr. Franks said, “by simply peeling off the House number from a six-page unrelated bill, which does not even raise taxes, and pasting it on the ‘Senate Health Care Bill,’ and then claim with a straight face that the resulting bill originated in the House, then the American ‘rule of law’ has become no rule at all.”

In addition to pressing his case in the courts, Congressman Franks is the sponsor of House Resolution 153, with 56 co-sponsors, expressing the sense of the House of Representative that Obamacare violated the Origination Clause. Just last week, Mr. Franks also held a contentious hearing on the topic before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

The saddest thing is that none of the Arizona congressional leaders with a “D” behind their names supported this amicus brief, presumably because of their support of this illegal method of taxation. Offices of Rep(s) Ron Barber and Kyrsten Sinema were contacted, yet neither had a single comment. Maybe it’s time for a significant change.

Wendy Rogers, the retired U.S. Air Force Pilot who’s running against Sinema in AZ D-9 feels strongly the Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster. “Most disingenuous of all, is Rep. Sinema,” Rogers said. “She actually helped to write the original tenets of Obamacare before she went to Congress and has consistently been President Obama’s cheerleader for it in Arizona.”

Rogers went on to explain, “In order for Sinema to save face in her district, she voted with Republicans to delay the individual mandate and extend the workweek to 39 hours. She purposely voted this way, knowing it would never pass the Senate or a presidential veto. Sinema isn’t about caring for sick people at affordable prices, she’s about hijacking the Constitution to control one-sixth of the nation’s GDP. Sinema is what’s wrong with Congress.”

Chuck Wooten, who’s running against Barber in AZ D-2 said, “I roundly applaud Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors for forcing the will of the people, through Constitutionality and precedent, to undo the ACA which has been aptly named, “the greatest fraud perpetrated on the American people.”

According to Wooten, it’s no secret the Obama administration and Democrat lawmakers intentionally deceived the citizenry – purely for ideological gain. “The American people, led by Congressman Franks and his co-sponsors have busted those responsible for the fraud and I’m confident justice will prevail and this train wreck will be once and for all vaporized into a bad memory,” Wooten said.

Too bad Rogers and Wooten aren’t already in Congress . . . just think how nice it’d be to have these two names on this amicus brief.

For those of us hoping against hope for a way out of the Obamacare nightmare, this seems like the all important light at the end of the tunnel. Hats off to the elected men and women taking a stand against fraudulent, tyrannical government and lets make sure the right folks make it to Washington in November.

Joanne Moudy is the author of “The Tenth,” a supernatural thriller exploring the very real trauma of abortion in a fictional realm. She proudly served as an officer in the military for nine years, before specializing in emergency nursing until retirement. She’s currently an Ambassador for Alliance Defending Freedom, a member of ASU’s Advisory Board for the Center for Political Thought and Leadership, and regularly speaks about the impact of abortion, liberalism, and secularism on all of humanity. You can follow her on Twitter @composedof1

The Real War on Women? In the Sudan, Pregnant Mother on Trial for Christian Faith

By Joanne Moudy

Joanne MoudyFor all the malarkey the left spews about the fabricated War on Women in America, one would think there is real persecution happening within our borders. Yet the truth is that Sandra Fluke, Gloria Steinem, and the rest of the bra-burning brigade don’t have a clue and are an embarrassment of the worst order.

The real war against women is occurring right now, almost every day – in Muslin controlled countries, while hypocritical women like Hillary Clinton expound on and expand their platform for dividing America.

Consider Dr. Meriam Yehya Ibrahim, who according to Reuters is a 27-year-old Sudanese Christian physician who’s about to be flogged 100 times and then put to death. Her crime? The unthinkable sin of not being Muslim.

Dr. Ibrahim’s father was Muslim and ran off and left her home when she was six years old. Since her mother was a Christian, she raised Meriam in the same faith. Meriam is married to Daniel Wani, a South Sudanese Christian with U.S. citizenship. The couple has a 20 month old son and Meriam is eight months pregnant with their second child.

But the couple’s faith is a problem for the oppressive government in Sudan. Since the predominantly Christian South Sudan secession in 2011, the government of Sudan has made it clear they are aiming for a 100% Islamic constitution, without any outside influences. That equates to no Christianity. Although the new constitution has not yet been ratified, the government has apparently already adopted Shari’a law.

Meriam’s horrifying ordeal began last August, when someone posing as a relative reported to the authorities that she was a Christian. She was subsequently arrested in February and charged on March 4, for apostasy and for adultery. According to Shari’a law a Muslim woman is forbidden from marrying a Christian man, and thus the marriage to Wani was annulled by the Sudan court. The annulment set her up for the crime of adultery and she was convicted of both apostasy and adultery on Mother’s Day, May 11.

She was given three days to renounce her Christian faith and convert to Islam, or face a flogging of 100 lashes for adultery, followed by the death penalty for being a Christian. Her sentencing is set for today, Thursday, May 15.

According to Morning Star News, who chronicled her terrible journey, Wani has stated that while his wife has been incarcerated she has been severely abused and tortured, both physically and mentally. Critical prenatal medical care has been denied and she is drained to the point of exhaustion.

Meanwhile her 20 month old son is incarcerated within the same prison because Sudan authorities are refusing to recognize the couple’s union. Even though Wani has provided a legal marriage certificate and his son’s birth certificate, the court refused to acknowledge them and told Wani the only proof they would accept would be a DNA test, which must be drawn and then sent to the U.S. for testing. All of this takes an inordinate amount of time, precious time which Meriam is running out of.

If sentenced to death, the authorities plan to keep her alive until she delivers her child and then execute her immediately after she gives birth.

Congressman Trent Franks, AZ D-8, issued this statement on May 13. “Sudan is blatantly violating the universal right to freedom of religion by convicting a Christian Sudanese woman, under their strict enforcement of Shari’a law, solely because of her religious beliefs.

“I have closely followed Meriam’s case and was horrified to learn how this innocent mother was convicted on Mother’s Day. She now faces the unconscionable decision of either denying her Christian faith or receiving a death sentence.

“I urge Sudan to immediately and unconditionally release Meriam and uphold religious freedom standards within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, of which Sudan is a signatory and under which apostasy and adultery are not criminal offences.”

Congressman Frank Wolf, VA D-10, joined in with this statement. “I am deeply troubled by the case involving Meriam Yehya Ibrahim.

“There is an urgent need for international attention to this injustice . . . This is a human rights travesty in which our State Department should be fully engaged, especially given that Meriam is married to an American citizen. I join my colleagues, in calling on the relevant government authorities in Sudan to immediately and unconditionally release Meriam and her young son and to respect basic tenets of religious freedom and belief.”

In Arizona, Representative(s) Ron Barber and Krysten Sinema offices were contacted, but neither one had a statement. Considering all the posturing the liberals do in this country about women’s rights, one would expect a bit of an outcry on this, yet they are remarkably silent.

Fortunately, Chief Master Sergeant (Ret) Chuck Wooten who is against Ron Barber had this to say. “Christian persecution is nothing new, but in our time the world should be standing firmly against this tragedy and every other one like it. The Muslim faith is saturated by extremism and we see too many stories like Meriam’s. Threatening murder on a Christian who will not renounce their faith is an abomination of the worst kind. We’ve seen with recent Internet videos that these barbarians who insist upon the conversion of Christians will still kill those, even though they succumb to the threat of death. The U.S. State Department should be fully mobilized to confront these situations and unite with our global counterparts and renounce and respond accordingly to this barbarism against Meriam and all in similar situations.”

One has to wonder if the left fail to speak up because Meriam is a Christian, a physician or a mother – or could it simply be a combination of the three? Considering the left’s collective silence, one can only speculate on their true motives.

Please contact your Senators and Representatives immediately, as the court will render judgment today. This is a most urgent situation.

Joanne Moudy is the author of “The Tenth,” a supernatural thriller exploring the very real trauma of abortion in a fictional realm. She proudly served as an officer in the military for nine years, before specializing in emergency nursing until retirement. She’s currently an ambassador for Alliance Defending Freedom, and regularly speaks about the horrors of abortion, and the impact of liberalism and secularism on all of humanity. You can follow her on Twitter @composedof1 or via her website at GatedCreative.com

Arizona agriculture needs immigration reform

Tom Nassif

Tom Nassif

Agriculture is a central pillar of the Arizona economy, but without workable immigration laws that provide growers with a dependable, legal workforce this essential industry faces huge barriers to success. Western Growers Association has stressed the urgent need for immigration policy changes in recent meetings with Arizona Congressional delegation representatives, and will continue to do so in the next several months. It is important to urge our leaders to make fixing our broken immigration system one of their top legislative goals this year.

Agriculture is a $9 billion Arizona industry, a crucial segment of the state economy that supports jobs for thousands of Arizonans, all working to provide nutritious food and fiber to millions of people around the nation and the world. Immigrant workers are a necessity for this important industry, as many farm, ranch, and food processing job openings simply do not attract enough American applicants. Without the hard work of immigrant laborers, Arizona harvests as we know them today would simply be impossible to sustain.

Arizona growers want and need a legal workforce. Undocumented workers can be gone in an instant – victims of an immigration system that gives them no method of complying with the law while still providing for their families. The constant specter of deportation not only negatively impacts the lives of so many immigrant families; it directly hinders investments in training and agricultural production that could significantly increase Arizona – and U.S. – economic output.

Ineffective guest and seasonal worker programs have resulted in a nationwide farm labor shortage. Studies have shown that farm income could drop by as much as $9 billion and thousands of U.S. farms could fail if this situation is not addressed. Failing to act on this critical issue will create negative economic consequences and cause our food production to be controlled by foreign countries.

Reforming our outdated immigration laws is the answer. We must rewrite immigration statutes to provide enough visas to meet the needs of U.S. employers, and devise a method of bringing the millions of undocumented workers living among us out of the shadows and into fully productive participation in our economy.

There are significant benefits to be gained – in all economic sectors – from immigration reform. Analysis conducted by REMI estimates that increasing the availability of visas for temporary or seasonal agricultural workers would create hundreds of new Arizona jobs, and add almost $15 million to wage and salary disbursements in just the first year. By 2020, Arizona workers would receive an additional $55.5 million in wages from instituting this single, simple immigration reform strategy.

Bringing undocumented workers into legality would also boost job creation and economic growth. The first year result from the creation of a pathway to legality would amount to more than 3,200 new jobs and a $265 million increase in Arizona Gross State Product. Six years later, 14,500 jobs would be added and GSP would expand by almost $1.2 billion.

Arizona growers not only put food on our tables, they pay taxes that fund public services and play a key role in maintaining a strong state economy in which other businesses can succeed – every farm job supports 3 to 4 good jobs in other industries. Arizona agriculture is a valuable resource we must protect, and reforming our immigration laws to ensure growers of a viable labor force is one of the best ways to help them survive. We applaud the Arizona delegation for meeting with groups like ours, and hope that they will fight for the issues in immigration reform that are important to the agriculture and general business communities of Arizona.

Tom Nassif  is President and CEO of Western Growers.

Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet: The Top 8 Obamacare Harms to Millennials

ElizabethLeeVliet

Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D.

“Millennials,” the group of young people born after 1980, overwhelmingly voted in 2008 for politicians who promised “healthcare for all” and sponsored the “Affordable Care Act” (aka Obamacare). Sadly, young people took on faith the promises of an orator and did not read the text of the law before it was passed on a 100% Democrat partisan vote by politicians who didn’t read it either.

These Millennials are finding out they’ve been “had” in promises not kept. Their health insurance premiums are skyrocketing. Their mandated coverage is far broader (ergo, more expensive) than many healthy young people need. Their choices of doctors and hospitals are now limited.

Because young people voted in droves for Obama in 2008 and 2012, architects of the healthcare law assumed they would “vote” for the ACA by enrolling in ObamaCare. Young people, however, are pretty savvy. They have learned a lesson: READ what you sign up for before you buy. They are not signing up as anticipated.

Here are the Top Eight ACA Harms to Young Millennials:

  1. Health insurance premiums are much higher. Before ACA, a young person typically paid $100-150 per month for a basic policy. Now, for Aetna’s ACA-compliant Classic Silver Plan, a young person making $25,000 per year would now pay $2,424/year (10% of income) in Arizona, or $3,576/year in Illinois.
  2. Deductibles have doubled, tripled, or quadrupled. For the plans above, before the ACA, a young person paid $1,000-$2,000 out of pocket to meet the deductible before insurance coverage started. After the ACA, average deductibles range from $4,000 to $6,000 before insurance starts to pay!
  3. Today’s Millennials are less able to afford insurance than Baby Boomers were at their age. Millennials may be more highly educated, but they have also accumulated greater debt, and face a stagnant employment and income situation—partly created or worsened by ACA. In 2014, nearly half of the unemployed in the US are under 34. That is a catastrophic change from the year 2000. Then, the US had the lowest unemployment rate for those 18-34, compared to other wealthy economies.
  4. ACA insurance is not sustainable. Millennials have done the math. They have seen it costs less to pay the mandated penalties (taxes), pay for basic medical care out of pocket, and only sign up for an insurance plan if something serious happens. Thus, sign-ups are far lower than needed for the economics of ACA to work, so future premiums will be even higher.
  5. ACA means less employer-sponsored insurance. Higher costs and mandates, coupled with slow growth and uncertainty, have meant that employers are not hiring as many full-time employees to avoid paying for high cost health insurance.
  6. Millennials are overcharged for insurance to subsidize the costs of aging Baby Boomers. They must also pay for mandated benefits they will never use. For one example: Why does a single male need to pay for pregnancy and maternity care insurance benefits?
  7. The quality and availability of care will worsen for everyone as services are cut to rein in spending: fewer doctors and specialists, more use of physician assistants and nurse practitioners, fewer specialty cancer centers and other hospitals in allowed networks.
  8. The enormous costs of implementing ACA will add to the crushing debt burden that Millennials, and the generations following them, will be expected to pay despite their drastically reduced income opportunities.

Millennials are coming to see that they were pawns used to meet goals of a government-run, top-down health care ideology that has never worked in any economy. Concept has trumped concern for young people’s real medical care needs as well as their economic future. Millennials are seeing that the elites and political cronies get exemptions, but the “average Joe” does not.

Millennials create infinitely varied custom set-ups for their smart phones and computers. They are not a group who takes kindly to “one-size-fits-all” medical insurance policies! They need to look at the expanded opportunity and freedom that comes with individual control and free markets.

Betrayed by politicians, Millennials need to get engaged and fight for true, patient-centered reform. Their health—and their lives—depend on it.

Read more by Elizabeth Lee Vliet, M.D. http://www.aapsonline.org/index.php/search/b83f9018254eadb778711c230014c4e0/

Key Arizona Races Could Mean Big Wins for U.S.

By Joanne Moudy

As everyone knows, November 2014 will be a crucial election if Republicans hope to gain ground against Obamacare, amnesty and the skyrocketing debt. Quite frankly, if the GOP doesn’t rally in tremendous strength, this country may never recover and our grandchildren will be asking why we led them blindly down the path to the slaughterhouse.

This means that every state is critical and every seat is a must win. There are no U.S. House or Senate seats which are unimportant or inconsequential. Every single one matters.

Arizona is no exception. Currently the state enjoys the luxury of four conservative congressmen; Trent Franks, Matt Salmon, David Schweikert, and Paul Gosar, and in all likelihood, they will all be returning to Congress in November, which suits their districts just fine.

But there remain three additional U.S. House seats which could easily be gained out of the nine total in Arizona. And wouldn’t it be nice if solid Republicans picked these seats up? Nice indeed, because it would completely change the complexion of the current liberal leaning envoy from the 5-4 (D/R) to 7-2 (R/D). But the time is now or never, because even moderate, independent voters are mad about Obamacare, illegal immigration, and bad federal economic decisions, all of which are destroying this state.

On the liberal Democrat side, Reps. Krysten Sinema, Ann Kirkpatrick, and Ron Barber have experienced declining popularity because of their unwavering support of Obamacare, amnesty, and proposed Medicare cuts. At one point, Sinema knew she was in so much trouble she seriously considered switching districts to run in D-7, the heavily populated democratic region, which Ed Pastor is vacating. That would have been a much safer run for her, especially given the angst of voters over her open support of Obama’s liberal agenda.

What’s refreshing to see are three, relatively new faces entering the arena to fill these slots and all appear to be strong contenders working relentlessly to gain enlightened voter support across the state. Meet Andrew Walter, Adam Kwasman, and Chuck Wooten, all of whom bring unique talents to the fray and have excellent chances of success.

Although Andrew Walter isn’t known as a seasoned politician, he does have a familiar face around the state and country, and he’ll need it in the general race against liberal incumbent Sinema. His only opponent in the primary is Wendy Rogers, who’s run twice and lost twice. Many voters in the district are looking for a fresh candidate with a can-do attitude and believe that Walter is the person to do it.

Walter first earned his local reputation as ASU’s star quarterback and later as a 2005 draft pick for the Oakland Raiders, followed by the New England Patriots. After his football career he earned his MBA and worked in the banking industry, which gives him an in-depth business perspective on the state of our economy.

Aside from her radically liberal voting record, Sinema is a pathetic excuse for a member of congress and recently stepped in it, by taking advantage of the horrific death of 40 veterans. Sinema was quick to send out an email expressing her disappointment at the VA in one sentence, while she asked for campaign contributions in the next. When she was called out by Walter, she wasted no time in blaming a staffer. Really? How unusual for a liberal member of congress to feign ignorance, and blame someone else.

As Walter exclaimed, “Exactly how low can a person go? This is the ugliest display of political opportunism I’ve witnessed in a very long time. Not only should she accept responsibility and apologize to the entire district, she should also refund all the money, and make a donation to a veterans association – equal to the amount donated due to that email.”

Walter sees three top issues as his priorities. “One, we must unleash the American economy to create jobs by restoring basic free market principals. Two, we must repeal and replace Obamacare because nothing else will suffice, and three, we must, absolutely – not consider amnesty.” One more point worth mentioning, is that Walter does not see himself as a career politician. “I’ve signed a pledge to author an Amendment that limits the terms of members of congress. I want to help the 2014 Congress gear up and turn this country around, so that regular folks can get back to living the American dream.”

Adam Kwasman is a rising star in the largest geographical district in Arizona, and has the credentials to back up his claims of fiscal conservatism. After earning his B.A. (Cum Laude) from Tulane University, he went on to earn his M.A. in Economics from George Mason University. Before entering the Arizona state House of Representatives, his fight for constitutional liberty began when he worked at the Cato Institute in Constitutional Studies.

Kwasman’s doesn’t mince words. “I’m a Hayekian economist. Either we cut government spending, secure the borders without exception, repeal Obamacare and get the EPA out of our lives, or we lose this country.”

The incumbent, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, has the opposite view and works tirelessly promote the liberal agenda of amnesty, Obamacare and an increased EPA.

In District 1, two hot topics are the Navajo Generating Station and the Kayenta Mine which create over 1,100 jobs, mostly for Native Americans. The EPA wants to shut them down and/or levy heavy fines which would put them out of business. Instead of standing strong for the NGS, Kirkpatrick seems more interested in clean air than crucial jobs.

Kwasman doesn’t agree and wants the EPA brought under control. “They are about to shut down the Navajo Generating Station, which is completely unacceptable. The EPA is working against the people of the state of Arizona and must be stopped.”
And finally, down in the far southeastern corner of the state comes Chief Master Sergeant (Ret.) Chuck Wooten. Prior to retiring from the USAF, he held the prestigious position of 19th Air Force Command Chief, overseeing the training, morale, and welfare of 14 unit locations and 17,000 subordinate troops. After retirement, he became the V.P. of Federal Business Development for SoxedoUSA, a 20 billion/year global corporation. Today he is the founder/owner of Corona Consulting Corporation and works extensively with contractors engaged in acquisition support directed at the U.S. Government, NATO, and other cabinet-level federal agencies.

When asked why he decided to take on Barber to represent the folks in District 2, Wooten said, “I looked around at the other GOP candidates and didn’t see anyone viable. We’ve got Shelley Kais who’s background is in education and personal training, and Martha McSally who lost twice in this same race.” According to votesmart, McSally refuses to disclose her positions on key issues, making her positions suspect to voters.

“I commend her military service,” says Wooten. “But if she isn’t willing to tell voters where she stands on key issues, how can they make an educated decision at the polls?” According to public records, her mentor and primary financial backer is Senator Jon Kyl. “I don’t like how Kyl voted, and if he’s her mentor, I’m concerned she’ll ignore the root problems and just be another mouthpiece for the RINO contingency.”

“For me, I’m not afraid to say I love God, our constitution and our Judeo-Christian heritage. I’m not afraid to tell voters that we must secure and close the borders – which is a separate and distinct issue from amnesty. We must enforce immigration laws, completely repeal Obamacare, eliminate burdensome government agencies like the EPA, protect our military, and defend life.”

“Let’s face it, we’re in a war in America,” Wooten says. “A war of principals and convictions we cannot avoid. The time is now and either we turn back Obamacare and the economy, and reverse the damage that’s been caused by the liberal agenda, or we accept defeat and allow ourselves to become slaves to socialism.”

These races in Arizona aren’t unique. Take a look around your own community and state – and get involved – today. There’s no time to waste, because come November, if you haven’t gotten involved and helped candidates just like these, we may all be staring down the barrel of ruin. It is an absolute guarantee that if Arizona turns blue, Texas will be next, and then all will be lost.

My money’s on Andrew, Adam and Chuck – our next best hope for a return to a constitutional America.

Joanne Moudy is the author of “The Tenth,” a supernatural thriller exploring the very real trauma of abortion in a fictional realm. She proudly served as an officer in the military for nine years, before specializing in emergency nursing until retirement. She’s currently an Ambassador for Alliance Defending Freedom, a member of ASU’s Advisory Board for the Center for Political Thought and Leadership, and regularly speaks about the impact of abortion, liberalism, and secularism on all of humanity. You can follow her on Twitter @composedof1

The Establishment Trap

I was recently invited for coffee by a close friend and fellow Republican to discuss upcoming state legislative races. Well respected in both local grass roots circles as well as the so called “GOP Establishment,” he was chosen to reach out to me in hopes of convincing me to not get involved in several key legislative primaries. However, by the time we finished our second cup of coffee, he would not only fail to convince me to stay silent, but he would instead volunteer to help me in my efforts to inform GOP voters of the threat to our state. It took a simple history lesson to change his mind.

I take you back to the 46th Legislature. In 2004, a handful of so called “pragmatic” Republicans conspired with Democrats to give then Governor Janet Napolitano a budget that would increase state spending by more than $700 million, a 10% increase in spending in a year that saw little inflation (2%).

Worse yet, that budget created a $500 million budget deficit; in violation of Arizona’s Constitution which requires a balanced budget. Rightfully, fiscal conservatives were outraged at what was clearly an irresponsible budget. In response, conservatives recruited fiscally responsible primary opponents to challenge these fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

Then the “GOP Establishment” stepped in. They argued that we risked losing our legislative majorities by running more conservative candidates in the general. Even going as far as saying that even though these “pragmatic” Republicans may have strayed a bit and voted with Democrats for the big spending budget, at least they voted right on things like guns, faith and family issues. They used the old rationale of “even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat any day.” Generally I would agree with that statement, however, it only holds true if those Republicans support the Republican platform and not the Democrat platform. In 2004, there were 39 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate. (In Arizona, you need only control 31 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate to maintain your majority.)

Many of the party faithful bought the establishment’s argument, held their noses and voted for the fiscally irresponsible Republicans “for the good of the Party.” Deep down they hoped these “pragmatic” Republicans would realize the error of their ways and act “more Republican” and fiscally responsible if they got re-elected. As a result, the fiscally conservative challengers were defeated and the “GOP Establishment” candidates got re-elected.

What did voting for the establishment candidate get us? Over the next few years, more and more spending occurred and the budget deficit got bigger, ballooning to over $2.2 billion. Well at least it helped us keep our majorities in the legislature right? Not exactly, in the House the GOP lost six seats and our majority declined to 33 seats; dangerously close to the 31 needed to maintain majority control.

Then in 2008, “Pragmatic Republicans” did it again. Cutting a backroom deal in the dark of night with legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano, four House and four Senate Republicans essentially voted to put Arizona on the verge of Bankruptcy. They left the State with no money in the Rainy Day Fund and a $3 Billion budget deficit. This time conservatives had enough.

A grassroots groundswell of conservative candidates filed to run for the legislature and challenge the big spenders of both parties. Once again the “GOP Establishment” clamored about “party unity, we’re going to lose our majority if we elect conservatives in the primary, think of the big picture and don’t get hung up on a single budget vote, etc.” This time, despite the GOP establishment spending heavily on their “pragmatic” candidates, the GOP primary voters weren’t going to listen.

Fiscal conservatives won primary after primary, soundly defeating establishment candidates in several key races. Instead of lining up behind the party’s nominees, the GOP establishment instead sided with Democrats by undermining conservative candidates in the general election. Establishment lackey and so called “political consultant” Nathan Sproul even penned an open letter to voters stating “In my opinion, the Republican Nominees are not reflective of the overall electorate.” His statement was quickly picked up by Democrats and used in mailers against conservatives.

Despite the “GOP Establishment’s” efforts to torpedo our candidates, we not only kept our majorities in the State House and Senate, but increased them! Keep in mind this was 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected President. Conventional political wisdom predicted a Democrat landslide nationally and the Tea Party was still more than a year from even coming into existence. Arizona was one of only two states in the whole country that saw Republicans add seats to their legislatures. The GOP Establishment was not only WRONG, they were DEAD WRONG.

Then came 2010; “the year of the Tea Party.” Both Establishment GOP candidates as well as Democrats were steam rolled by conservatives. Republicans obtained “Super majorities” in both houses of the legislature and it immediately led to a balanced budget in Arizona, the first in over five years.

Now we’re back to 2014 and here we go again. A new bunch of so-called “Pragmatic Republicans” have again voted with state Democrats to bring Obamacare to Arizona and once again bust the state’s bank by voting for fiscally irresponsible budgets. Where there was once $1Billion in the Rainy Day fund, now there’s essentially nothing. The budget is once again structurally unbalanced and we’re looking at huge deficits again in 2016 and 2017.

So guess what the “Establishment” is saying. Yep, you guessed it: “Don’t primary them, they only voted ‘wrong’ on Obamacare and the budget, but otherwise, they’re still better than Democrats. Don’t primary them for the ‘good of the party’ and so we don’t lose our majorities.“

Well I for one am not buying it. I’m not going to let history repeat itself. These turncoat Republicans, also known as “Legistraitors,” are causing irreparable damage to our states’ fiscal and economic future and they must go. We can’t let the financial disaster of 2004-2008 happen again. Reelecting these “pragmatic” traitors to the platform will spell fiscal disaster for Arizona. Ask yourself, do you want to go through what we had to go through back in 2009-2011? Huge budget cuts, a sales tax increase, selling our Capitol? Heck no!

For a list of these Legistraitors and their relationship to the Coalition of Corruption that is bankrupting Arizona and bringing failed Washington D.C., big government, policies to our state go to The Alliance of Principled Conservatives website at

http://www.apcarizona.com/Primary_AZ_Legislator.php

By Frank Antenori

 

An Arizona Rancher Speaks Out On The BLM Bundy Battle

An open letter to Greta Van Susteran by Gail Tobin

Dear Greta,

Thank you for your coverage of the situation in Clark County, Nevada. As a public lands rancher myself, I know that there is more to the story than appears. First off, the major issue is that of States’ Rights. Originally, the lands of the western Territories, then termed “waste lands” were to revert to the jurisdiction of the various states as they were formed. This was supposed to happen but did not and as a result, today we have enormous, top heavy bureauracies that really have little to do with what is good for the land.True, there are some in the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management that do care for the land. Unfortunately there are many more that are concerned only about continuing and extending the power of their fiefdoms. In the more than thirty years that I have been involved in public lands ranching, I have seen the relationship with the administrators of public lands (in our case the Forest Service) go from a partnership doing what is best for the resource, to a more adversarial situation. I expect that this is what the Bundy family encountered as well. Basically what Cliven Bundy is standing for is his family’s right to continue ranching. Believe me, someone whose family has been on that land for 140 years or so, cares more and knows more of the land than some bureaucrat in Washington or some starry eyed young graduate with a brand new degree in Range Management. What tipped the situation back in the nineties was the straw horse of the endangered desert tortoise To my knowledge, the tortise fare well indeed, they do not compete with cattle for food or resources. This is simply a canard to draw attention away for the real issue, control. The lands controled by the Federal Government in the West are extremely rich in natural resources, including water. Those that control this wealth and power at the federal level will not return this wealth to those to whom it belongs, the people of the various western states.

Another issue is that most people do not realize that in the desert southwest it takes far more acreage to support one cow/calf unit (the basic unit of range management) than it does east of the Rockies. Also, here we are managing for wildlife, range conservation and our cattle. This means that we run cattle in what to most seem to be huge amounts of acreage. Since we do this on public land, most of which would not produce anything but scenery we are paying to help support the resource. Though our basic grazing fee is small we have the added costs of maintaining the infrastructure and providing water (in droughty years like this) to both our cattle and wildlife. Where we might be watering 46 head of mother cows, we might also be watering elk, deer and antelope in the hundreds. With fuel at almost $4.00 per gallon this is no small expense.

It should also be noted that the situation came to a head just recently. Please note that since Harry Reid’s trip to China in 2011 the move is on to build an even larger solar power facility outside Laughlin Nv. .Also, ENN Energy (China) is going to build a solar panel facility in southern Nevada. Total investment is said to be about 5 billion dollars. Coincidentally, the law firm in which Rory Reid is a partner, just happens to be handling the legal work for this company in the United States. As I understand it, the BLM has to take a certain amount of land out of production to mitigate the effects of a large solar panel array as they are not particularly environmentally friendly to the immediate surrounding area (Look up “Solar Regional Mitigating Plan”). It is my guess that Cliven Bundy became a convenient target due to his stand on states rights. (You might also note, Kornze, now director of the BLM is a former senior aide to Senator Reid.)

The Bundy family should be left alone to do what they have done for generations, care for their cattle and the land. I have learned from observation, if you do not take care of the land, it will not take care of you. And for those that think that desert ranching is a rich man’s game, it is not. You often get up tired and go to bed exhausted, you work most days from dawn to dusk and hope that you have enough daylight to get everything done that you need to (horses don’t come with headlights).

Greta, please don’t let this fall off your radar, this is just another twist on the Biodiversity Treaty, “The Wildlands Project” and Agenda 21. This is a situation that I have following since the effort to initiate “Rangeland Reform” back in the early 90′s. If you wish to learn more about the issues (which eventually will affect all Americans) please read “The War on the West” by William T. Pendley of the Mountain States Legal Foundation. If you think that this is over you are wrong. The moment that the federal government thinks that no one is watching, they will be back to finish what they started.

Thank you for your kind attention,

Sincerely,
Gail M. Tobin, Elk Springs Ranch
Parks, Arizona

Americans for Prosperity: Congress and the President are shortening the fuse

By Christine Harbin Hanson and Tom Jenney

Imagine paying an extra $15,000 a year in taxes. For 50 working years.

That is the burden Washington is placing on our children and grandchildren.

America’s unfunded government liabilities over the next 75 years are between $100 trillion and $200 trillion, depending on how you crunch the numbers. Those are the spending promises our politicians have made through Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. and other federal programs, including “Obamacare.”

According to realistic estimates by the Congressional Budget ­Office, the unfunded liabilities in Medicare alone are $89 trillion.

Let’s take a midway total liability estimate of $150 trillion. If we divide by the 90 million children in this country who are under the age of 18 (and who did not vote for the politicians who made the spending promises), it comes to more than $1.5 million per child over their lifetimes — above and beyond what they are currently scheduled to pay in taxes.

Over a 50-year working lifetime, that’s $30,000 a year. Lucky for them, financial markets will put some of that burden on those of us who are currently working adults. But if they absorb half of the burden, that would be an average of $15,000 a year in extra taxes per child or grandchild.

Of course, any attempt to actually collect that much extra revenue from American workers or their employers would create massive, long-term structural unemployment and destroy economic growth by causing even more capital and jobs to move overseas.

Unfortunately, Congress and the president are doing nothing to defuse America’s gigantic bankruptcy bomb; instead, they are shortening the fuse.

These past few months were a critical time for conservative members of Congress to stand firm behind their promises to get runaway government spending under control. Congress considered two of the biggest spending bills of the year, the Ryan-Murray budget deal and the farm bill ­conference report.

The first disappointing vote was on the budget resolution in October. Crafted by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Chairman Patty Murray, the deal boosted discretionary spending to a whopping $1 trillion a year for each of the next two years. Worse, the plan shattered previously agreed-upon spending caps for fiscal year 2014 by $45 billion — an alarming increase and a broken promise.

The deal also further nickel-and-dimed American families by hiking airline ticket taxes and making changes to military pensions.

Most alarming is the fact that the Ryan-Murray deal traded higher spending now in exchange for the promise of $28 billion in cuts in 2022 and 2023. American taxpayers deserve spending cuts now, not promises to cut spending in the future.

The second vote was the farm bill conference report in February. This legislation authorized $1 trillion in spending over the next decade. Passed under the false guise of helping small farmers, the bill expanded a number of corporate welfare programs such as crop insurance, massive taxpayer subsidies and revenue guarantees for politically connected farmers.

It also neglected to make any meaningful reforms to ballooning food-stamp spending, which has more than doubled since President Obama took office and is rife with abuse.

Americans for Prosperity urged legislators to vote against both bills, and we will include these votes in our next congressional scorecard.

We are grateful to report that a number of Arizona’s legislators stood up for American taxpayers and voted against both of these bloated bills. House members who voted the right way included Trent Franks, Paul Gosar, Matt Salmon and David Schweikert.

On the Senate side, Jeff Flake also voted correctly. AFP applauds these members for standing up against more government handouts and higher spending.

A number of Democratic legislators voted against the bills, but for much different reasons. Some Democrats overwhelmingly felt that the budget resolution and the farm bill conference report didn’t spend enough.

Worse, a disappointing number of Republican legislators cast a “yes” vote for both the Ryan-Murray budget deal and the farm bill conference report, signaling their support of higher federal spending. Remember: This is the party that claims to support controlling spending and limiting the size of government.

Meanwhile, the fuse continues to burn on America’s bankruptcy bomb.

Americans for Prosperity is committed to defusing that bomb and securing a bright fiscal future for our children and grandchildren.

Tom Jenney is director of Americans for Prosperity’s Arizona chapter. Christine Harbin Hanson is federal issues campaign manager for Americans for Prosperity. More information: www.americansforprosperity.org.

LegisTraitors Drunk with Power Demand Increase in Deficit Spending

LegisTraitors(picture from Arizona Capitol Times)

Drunk with power, or simply dazed from visions of hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars dancing in their heads, Jeremy Duda from the Arizona Capitol Times, captures Heather Carter, Ethan Orr, Kate Brophy McGee, Doug Coleman, Rob Robson, and Jeff Dial leaving the House before the gavel to make their case to spend-increase-expand with money we lowly taxpayers have not even made yet.

Geez Louise Republicans! The budget you passed in the Senate only has a $400 million structural deficit. That is just not enough!  The Coalition of Corruption including these six and all the Democrats (again) want bigger government – more agencies – increased spending – and to expand on the expansion of last session.  If we are going to borrow money to pass a democrat budget then let’s go all the way!

No money into the rainy day fund. No money to buy back our buildings. No money to decrease our debt. Actually they are demanding that money is spent that does not exist.  In their power-induced-drunken-state the LegisTraitors are blind to the plight of Arizona taxpayers preferring to prioritize the interests of the crony capitalists who bankroll their campaign committees.

The amendments and increased spending requested by the Coalition of Corruption has been scored by the non-partisan JBLC to give Arizona a $1 Billion deficit by 2017. This is “recurring spending” meaning the spending will occur every single year.  

So another day and no budget for Arizona.  The taxpayers, small businessmen, and Principled Conservatives will have to wait and see who is offering what to whom before we will know what is being shoved down our throats this year.  Will there be a fundraiser with a gift-in-kind equal to the amount it takes to educate one child for half a year in a Charter School?

Will we see a new traitor or will the traitors have a traitor? And how much does a LegisTraitor vote go for?

The vote is tied at 30-30. It will be an interesting day.

Stay tuned.

Christine Bauserman
Chair, Alliance of Principled Conservatives

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!

 

 

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.

Michelle Udall: Public Prayer, An Honored Tradition

Michelle UdallA few weeks ago, the Mesa School Board looked at their policy for prayer in public board meetings and recognized a need for a change.  Since then, they have sought legal counsel, listened to input from the community, and worked to formulate a more appropriate policy.  Beginning school board meetings with prayer is an honored tradition in Mesa, long upheld and appreciated by the community.  Likewise, the Supreme Court has noted that beginning public meetings of deliberative bodies with prayer is a part of the fabric of our society.  This valued tradition should be reincorporated into board meetings.  Doing so shows respect for the founders of our nation.

In Arizona, prayer has been a part of public meetings for more than 100 years.  In 1910, the Arizona Constitutional Convention was opened with an invocation and our State Legislature has opened with prayer since statehood.  Mesa City Council Meetings and Mesa School Board Meetings have also begun with prayer since their earliest beginnings.

An appropriate policy for beginning board meetings with prayer ought to show respect for the diverse perspectives of the community.  The opportunity to offer an invocation ought to be opened up to any and all faiths represented in the district.  The newly proposed policy will do so.  Such a policy provides the opportunity to invite members of the community who may not otherwise attend school board meetings.  They will have the chance to learn more about what is happening in Mesa schools and how they can get involved.  Greater community involvement in schools will benefit all students.

Beginning a meeting with prayer helps set the tone of the deliberations to follow.  It solemnizes the proceedings, encourages a sense of cooperation, and is a means of expressing confidence in the future and recognition for that which is worthy of appreciation in society.  Those who wish not to participate are always allowed to refrain.  Certainly there is a need for mutual respect for those of all faiths and beliefs.  School board meetings ought to be a place where tolerant, respectful behavior is modeled and promoted.

The founding fathers, authors of the Constitution, began their public meetings with prayer both before and after ratification of the Constitution.  The Supreme Court and our founding fathers recognize the value of elected officials seeking divine guidance and wisdom when making decisions that affect the entire community.  School board members ought to be as free as the founders to take advantage of such guidance and wisdom.  With the daunting task of educating the children of the community resting on their shoulders, they can use all the help they can get.  Heaven knows they need it!

Written by Michelle Udall, current Mesa School Board member.