Busted! Bob Robson Caught Stealing Campaign Signs!

Reposted from the Arizona Daily Independent

What is it with the Tempe/Chandler area?

Former State Senator Harry Mitchell was caught stealing the campaign signs of Gary Richardson many election cycles ago.

This time Obamacare Republican Bob Robson was caught stealing signs from his opponents. And his escape was caught on video.

I’m sure those who caught him will sign an affidavit affirming to the theft.

Here’s the story that was posted on the Arizona Daily Independent. Great job to Mike Richardson for catching him in the act!

LD18 sign war heating up

On Saturday night, August 9, 2014 at approximately 9:45 p.m. at Dobson and Warner Roads one Bob Robson, of the Robson/Dial get elected whatever the cost partnership, was out in force with an accomplice involved in a sign stealing caper and got caught.

Robson and Dial have been removing and destroying signs for about one month now. There have been in excess of 130 signs missing or destroyed. The signs in question are the public information signs that point out who voted for the Obamacare Expansion debacle thrust upon our state with the red “Arrow of Truth”. The arrows were pointed at the Robson Dial signs to inform the public of who it was in LD18 that did the dirty deed to Arizona and the AZGOP.

Robson was observed performing “Wheel Man” duties while his, still to be identified accomplice, jumped out of the truck to do his apparently well practiced technique of sign mutilation. Robson maneuvered the vehicle to pick up his henchman after he was seen throwing one sign into the bushes and the other into the garbage at Circle K.

Do to great camera work under somewhat difficult conditions, our stakeout man was able to get a video of the henchman and the vehicle that belongs to Robson make their escape, complete with the license plate lettered “ROBSON”.

The police reports have been written and the evidence has been collected. Now we all must do the right thing and expel these characterless individuals from our midst. These guys are supposed to be public officials with some manner of integrity. Not so! They must pay for the crimes [class II misdemeanors] and be punished by losing the up coming primary election.

There can be no more room in Arizona for politicians who prefer to work under the cover of darkness, and who will continue to be professional vote sellers to the best healed special interest groups.

Mike Richardson LD18 PC

YouTube Preview Image

Take The Quiz! Who Said It?

Who Said It!

It’s time to have a little fun and see if our readers can tell the difference between Fred DuVal and Scott Smith. We’ve pulled a number of quotes from or about each candidate on issues important to Arizonans. We’ll post the issue followed by the quote and then let the readers guess who said it. (And no using Google search to cheat!)

COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

A. “…we cannot continue with a broken system that keeps millions of people living in the shadows of our communities.”

B. “he supports driver’s licenses for young immigrants awarded work permits under a new Obama administration program. He also praised the U.S. Senate’s Gang of Eight for working on comprehensive immigration reform legislation.

DREAMERS

A. “My first action as governor will be to rescind Gov Brewer’s Executive Order against driver’s licenses for Dreamers.”

B. “The federal government’s half-steps on immigration are not doing us any favors, taking us further from the goal. These side discussions, such as the driver’s licenses discussion, are a distraction. The end game is a fair and just immigration process that includes allowing our DREAMERS to become legal.”

SB 1070

A. On Gov. Brewer “I think she got 1070 wrong…

B. “It’s not exactly the law I would have written.”

COMMON CORE

A. “I believe (Arizona’s) College and Career Ready Standards (Common Core) accomplish these objectives, and I support their implementation.”

B. “I fully support Common Core and applaud Governor Brewer’s efforts to ensure the implementation of these vital standards despite opposition from some members of her party.”

C. “And what we have proposed here, whether you call it common core or ready achievement or whatever, I don’t care the label you put on it, we have to do it. …”

D. “Rather than a top-down, one-size-fits-all, Washington, D.C. approach to education, Common Core is a perfect example of how states can lead the way on improving education.”

OBAMACARE MEDICAID EXPANSION

A. “It would be a terrible mistake not to expand Medicaid on federal dollars.”

B. “I supported the governors Medicaid restoration because she did what was best for Arizona.”

TAXES / BUDGET

A. “After the massive cuts to K-12 schools, defunding all-day kindergarten, and ending the once-cent sales tax that funds our children’s schools, the last thing the folks at the Capitol should do is to set another tripwire on our children’s road to opportunity.”

B. “Nothing is more frustrating than seeing a state legislator cutting spending without raising taxes.”

ENVIRONMENT

A. “It’s the Senate’s turn to pass energy-climate legislation.”

B. “I welcome the opportunity to join with 1,000 of my peers in this truly bipartisan effort to improve not only the environment, but our communities and our nation.”

POLITICAL LEANINGS:

A. “…a self-described moderate, said serving in the House would be a “wonderful opportunity to reach across the divide.”

B. “He will allow himself to be called a progressive, but takes pains to note the lowercase ‘p’…”

 

Feel free to post your answers in the comments!

Speaker Heather Carter???

Heather Carter

Heather Carter

I guess I’m a little behind in the rumor mill but this just crossed my input lines. I’ll toss it out to all my legislator friends to confirm.

The rumor is that State Representative Heather Carter has her sights on the House speakership.

How would she accomplish this one may ask?

The first step is to obviously get re-elected to her seat.  Next, she needs the votes of all her Obamacare Republican seatmates. Chances are, a deal was cut sometime ago to whip those votes into place. Carter would then cut a deal with House Democrats to make sure the Republicans (note: these are the majority Republicans who did not vote for Obamacare expansion) don’t hold a majority when it comes to selecting leadership. That deal with Dems would likely include handing over committee chairmanships to Democrats.

The icing on the cake would be all the Brewer-endorsed Republican challengers who defeat the traditional conservative Republican incumbents in the Primary. If all these planets fall into alignment – and it’s not too unrealistic – Heather Carter would have the votes to become Speaker of the House.

This would be a HORRIBLE turn to the left that would take Arizona deep into the purple zone.

For those of you new to the politics of legislative leadership, this is nothing new. Every election, the backroom game is all about who will help who (sharing donors, etc) during the Primary election so that the helpee owes votes to the helper who wants into leadership. The last example of this occurred in 2012 when Steve Pierce used Republican “leadership” PAC money to attack conservative John Fillmore who was in a primary with liberal Rich Crandall. Pierce’s PAC money was successful and Crandall won – only to see him bail on his senate seat for a School Superintendent position in Wyoming (which he  ended up losing later – karma).

What’s the lesson in all this?

Obviously the first major takeaway is to make sure Heather Carter loses her primary race. I’m working on defeating her and I know others are too. But her defeat will be tough because the Governor, Chamber of Commerce and all the corporate cronyists have poured over $150,000 into her race. (You bet they want her as speaker!) Cut her off in the Primary and she is no longer a threat to taking Arizona public policy left.

The other big picture voters should see is that these primaries have become very personal to the Governor and those who supported her Obamacare expansion. For over a year conservatives have said Republicans and Governor Brewer would make Obamacare the litmus test for the 2014 election (Common Core later entered the debate). Well, its happening now. If the supporters of the Governor and her new recruits (challenging her opponents) win, the State of Arizona will take another horrible turn to the left as the rest of the country apparently turns to the right. So this election is about fulfilling promises to the Governor and protecting her legacy in bringing Obamacare expansion to Arizona.

My appeal to readers is this. Defeat the incumbent Obamacare Republicans and the Obamacare challengers in the Primary Election.

Put an end to the agenda of liberal Republicans who would drive Arizona leadership to the left.

Christine Jones’ Record of Donations Reveals Support for Liberal Democrats

Conservatives across Arizona are catching on quickly that Christine Jones is not who she says she is and her political donations expose her as anything but an “unapologetic conservative.”

While at GoDaddy making her millions and planning a run for Arizona Governor, she served as legal counsel. That meant she saw everything that came in and out the door including political action committee donations. What is revealing is that she gave $5,700 to Democrats, including one she lobbied over GoDaddy business matters.

Then there is the $30,000 in personal wealth she gave to the GoDaddy political action committee which went to liberal Democrats and their PAC’s. What is most disturbing is that this self-proclaimed “unapologetic conservative” as legal counsel said absolutely nothing to protest a chunk of her $30K going to unapologetic liberals and their PACs. One would think that senior legal counsel would have protested. She doth not.

Republican voters need to know that they won’t get an unapologetic conservative if they vote for Christine Jones. We followed the money and we hope you will too.

Here’s the recent press release from the Ducey campaign regarding the unapoligetically-exposed Christine Jones:

An ‘Unapologetic Conservative?’

PHOENIX (July 28, 2014) – Lawyer-lobbyist Christine Jones famously calls herself an “unapologetic conservative,” but her background says otherwise.

During the 2008-2012 election cycles, Jones donated nearly $6,000 to Democrat candidates running for Congress. She also gave $30,000 to the GoDaddy PAC, which in turn donated more than $81,000 to 23 Democratic Senate and House candidates over the same time frame.

“Apparently, it’s not enough for lawyer-lobbyist Christine Jones to mislead voters on her resume and border security plan, she’s also deceiving them about her so-called ‘conservative’ credentials,” said Melissa DeLaney, spokesperson for the Ducey campaign. “Christine Jones has donated thousands of dollars to liberal Democrats and she still calls herself ‘unapologetic?’ It would be laughable if it weren’t so alarming. If she doesn’t apologize to true conservatives for her lies and deliberate attempts to mislead Arizona voters, then I guess she really is a phony.”

PHONY JONES IN HER OWN WORDS & ACTIONS

Calls herself an “unapologetic conservative”

“I’m an unapologetic conservative, and that’s the way I’ll lead”

But Jones directly donated $5,700 to three Democrats running for congress:

Byron Dorgan, U.S. Senate (North Dakota) — $2,300 net

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on prohibiting minors from crossing state lines for abortion
  • Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security
  • Voted NO on reducing federal overall spending by $40B
  • Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`
  • Voted NO on restricting class-action lawsuits
  • Voted NO on education savings accounts
  • Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence

Rick Boucher, U.S. House (Virginia) – $2,400

  • Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortion
  • Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record
  • Voted YES on cap & trade (American Clean Energy & Security Act)
  • Voted NO on banning physician-assisted suicide

Mary Kim Titla, U.S. House (Arizona) — $1,000​

And gave $30,000 to the GoDaddy PAC, which in turn donated to 23 liberal Democrats, including:

Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senate (Vermont) — $6,500 (2011 and 2007-2010)

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on banning human cloning
  • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs’ effectiveness
  • Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border.

Jay Rockefeller, U.S. Senate (West Virginia) — $2,000

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Rated 93% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record
  • Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses
  • Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax
  • Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record

Chuck Schumer, U.S. Senate (New York) — $1,000

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life
  • Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”
  • Voted NO on limiting immigrant benefits & controlling borders more tightly

Bart Stupak, U.S. House (Michigan) — $6,500 (2010 and 2008)

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on military border patrols to battle drugs & terrorism
  • Voted YES on $40B for green public schools

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, U.S. House (Florida) — $2,000 (2012 and 2008)

  • Current Chair of the Democratic National Committee
  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on Keystone Pipeline
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border
  • Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance

John Dingell, U.S. House (Michigan) — $2,000

  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on Keystone Pipeline
  • Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime
  • Voted NO on reducing Marriage Tax by $399B over 10 years
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border

Ed Markey, U.S. House (Massachusetts) — $2,000

  • Endorsed by Planned Parenthood
  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions
  • Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border

John Conyers, U.S. House (Michigan) — $1,000

  • Voted NO on banning partial-birth abortions
  • Voted YES on Obamacare
  • Voted NO on Keystone Pipeline
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border

Hilda Solis, U.S. House (California) — $1,000

  • Recommended by EMILY’S List of pro-choice women
  • Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record
  • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border

Pro-Life Voter Warning on “Republican” Primary Candidates

Prior to an election I always like to vet candidates on a number of issues including life, liberty and other rights enshrined in our Constitution. The sanctity of life – protecting innocent human life – has always been the top issue for me because if a candidate or elected officials waffles on life, it reveals where they stand on all other rights.

Part of my vetting process looks at whether or not the candidate filled out certain surveys, their answers, public statements, their involvement on the issues and even who is pushing for their election. I also look at who is donating to their campaign and what people and organizations who are opposed to my values are saying about the candidates.

Because of my involvement in the Pro-Life movement for many years, naturally I look at who Planned Parenthood or other high profile pro-abortion organizations and individuals have said about certain candidates. By looking at the donations of “true believers” in a cause, one should get a sense of the value system of the recipient. It would be akin to looking at the donations of Wayne LaPierre. You wouldn’t expect him to donate to an anti-2nd Amendment candidate.

One particular organization and its people I’ve looked at is the Arizona WISH list. WISH stands for Women In the Senate and House. Their fundamental goal has always been to elect “pro-choice” Republican women as the GOP version of EMILY’s list (the Democrats pro-abortion women’s group).

On their national board of directors sat an Arizonan named Deborah Carstens. Although it doesn’t appear that AZ WISH is active or that she currently serves on the national board of directors, Carstens continues to remain active in elections through her donations primarily to candidates who have declared themselves to be “pro-choice” or refuse to state their position on the sanctity of life. These have typically been Republican candidates who define themselves as more moderate but tend to vote liberal on social issues.

Because I have my suspicions on a handful of candidates, I decided to check out a few resources to clarify their positions and to see if Carstens had donated to their campaigns.

Here’s what I found:

Scott Smith was the only gubernatorial candidate to receive a donation from Carstens in the amount of $500. Scott Smith also took the most liberal position on abortion of all the GOP candidates (survey)

Michele Reagan has received a total of $1,250 from Carstens as the only Republican candidate for Secretary of State. Reagan also avoided answering questions on the Center for Arizona Policy voter guide.

Carsten also donated $160 to Terry Goddard, the Democrat running for Secretary of State and $250 to Felecia Rotellini the Democrat candidate for Attorney General. Neither Democrat responded to the Center for Arizona Policy questionnaire – which is very typical of Democrat candidates.

When it comes to state legislative races, Carstens has donated to Republican incumbents and challengers.

In LD-11, Jo Grant received $150 from Carstens in her house race. On CAP’s survey, Grant to answer the question on abortion.

Diane Landis running for House in conservative district 13, also received a donation of $100 from Carstens. Surprisingly, Landis did answer the question on CAP’s survey.

No surprise, Heather Carter pocketed $500 from Carstens in her re-election bid in LD-15. Carter dodged filling out the CAP survey altogether.

Effie Carlson received $100 as a challenger in the LD-23 house race. Carlson did respond to the CAP survey but with qualifiers.

Finally, Kate Brophy-McGee in LD-28 took at $270 donation from Carstens in her house re-election race. Brophy-McGee also evaded the CAP survey.

Another quick check for pro-life endorsements revealed that none of these candidates were endorsed by the Arizona Right to Life PAC.

One interesting pattern among the incumbents who are running for re-election is that they also supported the Obamacare Medicaid expansion vote in 2013. And one may recall that an amendment was attempted on that bill that would have prohibited tax dollars from going to abortion providers. That amendment failed thanks to these incumbents – Carter, Coleman & Brophy-McGee (see vote).

For those of you who remain committed to electing candidates who will protect innocent human life, hopefully this has been informative and an exercise in how to cross-reference candidates and their supporters. Please use this information wisely as you vote in the Primary Election.

Did Heather Carter Vote to Raise our Taxes?

By Jose Borajero

Heather Carter

Heather Carter

Shortly, the Arizona Supreme Court will be ruling on whether the Medicaid tax imposed by the Democrats, aided and abetted by Representative Heather Carter and eight other Republicans in the House of Representatives is really a tax or something else, like a fee. The only question that will be resolved by the court is whether that move was legal or not. It will not determine whether it was good or bad. We all know that the mere fact something is legal does not automatically make it good, or desirable.

Whether we call it a tax, or something else, like a fee, an assessment, a contribution, an investment, or any of a myriad euphemistic terms that big government advocates use to disguise taxes, the fact remains that Heather Carter voted for bills that increase the amount of money that moves from the pockets of the taxpayers to the pockets of the government.

That fact is reflected in the results of the legislator evaluations done by three conservative leaning organizations.

Americans for Prosperity (AFP): This organization routinely keeps track of how legislators vote on issues having to do with economic matters, like taxation, spending, education, etc. (scorecard)

Goldwater Institute: These folks evaluate legislator performance across a wide variety of subjects, including tax & budget, education, constitutional government, and regulation.

National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB): This is a watchdog group for small businesses, which account for the vast majority of jobs in this country. They evaluate legislators on whether or not their votes enhance small businesses ability to operate in free and open market. (scorecard)

Currently in Arizona, we have 17 Republicans in the Senate and 36 Republicans in the House of Representatives, for a total of 43 Republican legislators. Let us see how Heather Carter was scored by all three organizations.

ORGANIZATION SCORE RANK
Americans for Prosperity – 48%  or 39th out of 43
Goldwater Institute – 61% or 35th out of 43
National Federation of Independent Businesses – 75% or 43rd out of 43

Conclusion: Heather Carter is a friend of Big Government and an enemy of the tax payer. People should keep that in mind when deciding whether to vote for her or for her challenger(s).

 

Will Kyrsten Sinema break her silence on Lois Lerner’s “lost” emails?

Will Sinema Help Uncover the Truth Behind the IRS Scandal or Will She Help the Administration Cover Up Another Scandal?

Kyrsten Sinema

Kyrsten Sinema

WASHINGTON – Last week, the IRS sent a letter to the House Ways and Means committee explaining that they lost Lois Lerner’s emails from January 2009 to April 2011 due to a “computer crash.” These “missing emails” demonstrate the lengths the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats will go in order to cover up the IRS’ effort to target tax-exempt conservative groups based on their political beliefs.

Sinema’s silence solidifies the fact that she has become a Washington insider and is out of touch with Arizona taxpayers. Instead of demanding answers and holding the IRS accountable, Sinema is helping the Administration cover up a scandal in hopes of political support for her re-election.

“First Lois Lerner refused to comply with Congressional investigations and now her emails are ‘missing’. That just doesn’t pass the smell test,” said NRCC Communications Director Andrea Bozek. “Kyrsten Sinema has the opportunity to protect Arizona taxpayers from being wrongfully targeted by holding the Administration accountable and condemning the IRS officials responsible for this scandal.”

IRS claims Lois Lerner’s e-mails are lost due to a computer crash.

(Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, The IRS claims that Lois Lerner’s e-mails were wiped out by a ‘computer crash’, The Washington Post, 6/15/14)

Shame on ASU Professor Joe Skulan

Reprinted from The Blaze. This is absolutely horrific and demands accountability by ASU’s Administration.

What a Professor Emailed a Conservative Group Is So Vile, We Can’t Put It in the Headline

Editor’s Note: This post contains references to extremely vulgar language.

A former faculty member at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and current professor at Arizona State University, sent a vulgar email to a conservative political group Tuesday after the organization sent him a reminder to vote in an election.

Professor Joe Skulan sent a vile message to a conservative group Tuesday, according to an email obtained by TheBlaze.

Professor Joe Skulan. (Image source: University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Professor Joe Skulan. (Image source: University of Wisconsin, Madison)

According to the email obtained by TheBlaze, professor Joe Skulan replied to the Americans for Prosperity email by saying, “As soon as you finish wiping Kock [sic] c** off your ass, please take a moment to go f*** yourself.”

The Tuesday email sent by Americans for Prosperity, which is funded in part by conservative billionaires David and Charles Koch, did not encourage individuals to vote for any specific candidate, it only directed them to a government website providing instructions on how to vote in elections being held for municipalities and school districts across the state of Wisconsin.

The professor’s vulgar message to the conservative group — sent using his official University of Wisconsin email address — was first reported by Media Trackers, a website dedicated to media accountability and government transparency.

A representative for the University of Wisconsin said Skulan no longer works at the school, but forwarded a Facebook post with Skulan’s comments about the controversy.

“Had I known that my email would be read I probably would have been more specific: ‘Please, after removing the semen that the Koch brothers have deposited in your rectum, take a moment to refill your rectum with your own semen,’” he wrote, according to the Facebook post forwarded to TheBlaze by the University of Wisconsin.

“To be clear, my comment was metaphorical,” the post continued. “I have no particular reason to believe that the person at AFP who sent the letter (I forget his name) actually engages in anal sex with the brothers Koch or anyone else, and would not care if he did. The reference to sexual act was meant to imply that AFP and the Kochs have the same relationship to each other that a skanky prostitute has to a lecherous and pustule-ridden old man, or that, say, Tom Tiffany has to Chris Cline and Media Trackers has to its own sugar daddy/daddies.”.

“I admit the preceding comparison may not be entirely accurate,” the post concludes. “It implies that AFP employees are Koch wh*res, but it also is possible that they are Koch sluts — that they are willing participants in their perversion, not just people paid to be perverse.”

Skulan, who initially replied to an email inquiry, would not provide comment to TheBlaze.

According to Arizona State University’s official website, Skulan is an assistant research professor in chemistry and biochemistry.

Screen-Shot-2014-04-02-at-12_03_04-PM-620x526

The University of Wisconsin, Madison, forwarded this screen grab of a Facebook post to TheBlaze, saying it was the professor’s response to the controversy. (Image source: Facebook via the University of Wisconsin, Madison)

Julie Newberg, a spokeswoman for Arizona State University, forwarded the school’s policy on diversity and free speech to TheBlaze, saying: “ASU is also strongly committed to academic freedom and free speech. Respect for these rights requires that it tolerate expressions of opinion that differ from its own or that it may find abhorrent.”

h/t to Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy)

 

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.

More Political Taqiyya from Kyrsten Sinema

Taqiyya: In Islam taqiyya تقية (alternative spellings taqiyeh, taqiya, taqiyah, tuqyah) is a form of religious dissimulation, or a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are at risk of significant persecution.

Watch as Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema commits political taqiyya on last Sunday’s Square Off with Brahm Resnik.

The congresswoman is obviously feeling the political persecution of voters in her district as Obamacare exemplifies another liberal big-government failure. Remember that Kyrsten was hand-picked by the Obama Administration a few years ago as the administration’s chief saleswoman for Obamacare in Arizona. Kyrsten took her Obamacare sales pitch across the State of Arizona as a lead up to her campaign for Congress. Now she’s feeling the heat and looking for any creative messaging to assuage the anger of voters in her district. Here is the video of her appearance on Sunday Square Off:

As we barrel into the 2014 election cycle, voters beware! Sinema’s political handlers are scrambling to duplicate the political makeover she underwent in 2012 in order to win reelection. And if they are successful, the real Kyrsten Sinema will return.