Click here to view the embedded video.

Be sure to subscribe to Bill’s YouTube Channel.

One of the biggest obstacles Mitt Romney faced when he ran for President in 2008 was the fear that, if elected, he would take orders from the President of his Church. Like the Catholic Jack Kennedy in his 1960 race for the presidency, Romney, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), had to overcome the uneasy suspicion that the head of his church would dictate public policy. To dispel such fears, Romney gave his memorable “Faith in America” speech in which he stated:

“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

“As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s ‘political religion’ – the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States….We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.”

Romney’s speech was generally well received, and it appeared that he had put the matter to rest. Unfortunately, the question of LDS Church influence has roared to life again in 2011, with indications that it could affect the 2012 elections.

It began in November, 2010, when a group of Utah businessmen, politicians, newspaper publishers, and various church denominations launched a list of principles they felt should guide immigration policy. They called it the Utah Compact. Although the LDS Church likely received considerable pressure to sign on to the Compact, they declined to do so. However, they DID issue a news release stating that they endorsed the principles of the Compact. In addition, a few prominent church employees signed the Compact, which added to the perception that the Church endorsed it.

The Compact was filled with vague, benevolent statements that implied that amnesty is the solution to our immigration ills. Many members of the LDS Church then embraced amnesty because they thought their church did.

The first test of the Compact came in the 2011 legislative session in Utah. Roughly 80 percent of the members of the Utah legislature are also members of the LDS Church. Church employees roamed the halls of the Utah capitol lobbying Representatives and Senators for their vote in favor of immigration bills pushed by the supporters of the Utah Compact. Refusal to support those bills was viewed as rejection of the Compact and, by extension, disobedience to the President of the LDS Church. The vote on these immigration bills became a test of the LDS legislators’ allegiance to their Church. LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson never personally lobbied for the bills, but the Church-owned newspaper, the Deseret News, blared its support for both the Compact and the immigration bills, and employees from the Church Public Communications office continued to lobby every day. The message heard by Utah’s LDS legislators was: “If you don’t vote for these bills, you will be disobeying the President of the Church.”

In addition to being a test of one’s allegiance to the LDS Church, the Utah votes were also a test of the LDS legislators’ fidelity to their oath of office. Many of the legislators did not support the proposed immigration bills, but they felt pressured to comply with what they perceived to be the wishes of their church. The choice was between making a correct policy decision or obeying the LDS Church. In the end, many of the Utah legislators caved in. When faced with a clear choice between performing their duties as elected officials or obeying the perceived dictates of the LDS Church, they threw their oath of office out the window and voted the way they thought their Church leaders expected. It wasn’t the first time that Utah legislators changed their votes to conform to the wishes of the LDS Church contrary to their own best instincts. So much for Mitt Romney’s insistence that an elected official would never be influenced by the leaders of the LDS Church. The Left has correctly perceived that obedience to Church leaders is an important value among members of the LDS Church, and they have figured out how to use that to manipulate LDS elected officials.

The image of [some] Utah legislators scurrying about, wringing their hands, and holding their breath as they watched for a sign from church leaders on how to vote is even more sickening when one realizes that it was left-wing, radical, Marxist groups that were pushing the immigration bills (and the Utah Compact) behind the scenes. But things got infinitely worse when the Compact promoters went national.

In early 2011, community organizers fanned across the country laying the groundwork for Compacts in other states. In Arizona, advocates of the Utah Compact launched a recall campaign against the LDS State Senate President, Russell Pearce, the hero of the nation on immigration reform and border security. A 2010 Pearce bill (SB1070) had created hysteria on the Left when it triggered a nationwide rush for similar enforcement bills in other state legislatures. As the author of SB1070 and a prominent national leader on immigration enforcement, Pearce became the bull’s-eye in the target of Leftist radicals who organized to take him out. Pearce’s opponents ran a nasty but effective campaign based on character assassination, voter recruitment, and alienation of the many LDS voters in Pearce’s Mesa, Arizona, legislative district.

The opponents announced their strategy early in the recall campaign. DeeDee Blase, head of Arizona’s Somos Republicans, an open borders advocacy group, said: “The biggest win with regard to our efforts is getting a special supporter who is a devout member and a member of the high council of the Mormon Church. We have scheduled lectures that will be specifically aimed to members of the LDS community as well as the business community. We know that Mesa has a Mormon stronghold, and in order for us to have an overall effective campaign, we must win over the Mormon community. It is imperative for them to know that Russell Pearce (a member of the LDS community) refuses to listen to the Mormon Prophet, and he refused to uphold the Constitution of the United States.”

The accusation was a lie. Pearce is a strong constitutionalist and a devout and active member of the LDS Church. Most important, suggesting that he “refused to listen to the Mormon Prophet” was a trap. If he protested that he was obedient to the prophet and supported the Utah Compact (which was a call for amnesty), he was dishonoring his oath of office and violating the wishes of many of his constituents, not to mention his own knowledge of the crisis on our borders. If he proclaimed that he was NOT dictated to by the leaders of his Church, he appeared to be disobedient to his church leaders, which would sully him in the eyes of many of the LDS voters in his district, who view obedience to church leaders as a standard of honor. There is no way for an LDS candidate for office to defend himself against such an accusation.

Blase’s accusation revealed that the recall campaign would promote a religious test for holding office. “Obey the Mormon Church or you’re not qualified for election.” Pearce was repeatedly accused of being disobedient to his Church leaders because of his strong views on immigration. His opponent was portrayed as a choir boy who obeyed the prophet. It cost Pearce votes among LDS voters.

Blame for this dilemma goes not to the Marxist radicals who ran the campaign against Pearce or even to the LDS Church hierarchy, which had lobbied hard for the Utah immigration bills and seemed to support the Utah Compact. The blame goes entirely to the members of the LDS Church in Pearce’s legislative district who swallowed the false argument that Pearce’s highest duty as an elected official was to satisfy the wishes of the LDS Church.

Some Mesa LDS businessmen who support amnesty joined forces with the radical Left to take Senator Pearce down. One of these men, Daryl Williams, an LDS attorney who did not live in Pearce’s district but actively campaigned against him, gave firesides (an LDS cottage meeting) and seminars on the Utah Compact, never missing a chance to say that Senator Pearce was violating church doctrine. In a promo for one of his firesides, Williams proclaimed:

“Russell Pearce, the chief proponent of Arizona’s immigration laws is, like me, a Mormon. His views, however, do not reflect the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the official name of the Mormon church. Indeed, Mr. Pearce’s views are inconsistent with the official position of his church.” (See here.)

Williams’ message was that Senator Pearce should shut up and do what the President of the LDS Church wanted, regardless of his oath of office or his duty to his constituents.

In one interview, Williams stated, “I believe that Mr. Pearce’s position [to enforce the law against illegal immigrants] is inconsistent with policy statements that have been promulgated by the church.” He added, “I personally do not think that you could be a faithful Christian or faithful Mormon and take such … positions ….”[1]

Williams promoted the religious test throughout the campaign. In an Op Ed in one of Arizona’s major papers, Williams declared, “Mormons and other Christians who advocate sealing the borders and the mass deportation of immigrants are out of sync with the official position of the Mormon Church.”[2] According to Williams, a candidate does not deserve to hold public office unless he stays “in sync” with the “official position of the Mormon Church.”

Williams, an attorney who should know better, has created a new standard for members of the LDS Church who want to run for office. The standard is that they must meet a religious test in order to run. The test is obedience to the leaders of the LDS Church. Such a standard is unconstitutional, of course. It is also the death knell for LDS candidates for office. Outside of Utah, Mormons are a distinct minority group. They cannot get elected with the votes of only LDS Church members. They must appeal to a broad base of voters of all faiths, and they must be able to honestly assure the public that their allegiance is to the Constitution, not to the policies of their Church.

Almost singlehandedly, Daryl Williams created an image of LDS elected officials bowing to the wishes of the LDS Church. That perception, of course, is odious to those who belong to other churches. The general public will reject an LDS candidate for office whom they perceive will be a puppet for the LDS Church.

Some LDS Church members in Mesa, Arizona, bought the religious test and voted accordingly. Losing the vote of LDS constituents who mistakenly perceived that he had disobeyed their Church leaders contributed to Pearce’s defeat. This message wasn’t lost on the national media. The Washington Post stated in an editorial recap of the election that “Immigration was a factor in his defeat ­ in large part because the Mormon Church decided that it should be.”[3]

You can be sure that others have gotten the message loud and clear. Mitt Romney’s 2007 “Faith in America” speech aside, many people are wondering once again what a Mormon candidate for political office will do when faced with a decision that appears contrary to the position of the LDS church leadership. Can Romney be trusted to secure the borders, since it appears that the leaders of the Mormon Church want amnesty? Regardless of any tough statements on border security that he might make during the campaign, will he ultimately betray the public on immigration if the LDS Church sends him a cue? What role does the LDS Church really play in politics?

The LDS Church has on occasion taken strong positions on moral issues such as abortion, homosexual marriage, and the Equal Rights Amendment. Churches have every right to take a position on moral issues, of course. They also have a right to take positions on policy issues, such as immigration. Church voices are important in public debate. However, elected officials must always remember that when they vote on a particular bill, they are acting as elected officials, not representatives of their Church.

They wear a different hat when they vote on legislation. At those moments, they are duty-bound to exercise their best judgment on an issue, based on months of study, committee hearings, discussions with experts and constituents, and in line with the state and U.S. Constitutions. At that brief moment in time when they cast their vote, they must honor their oath to the Constitution. They must not put the wishes of the Church ahead of their duties as elected officials.

The Arizona recall campaign spells trouble for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign. I am not a Romney supporter but, if the public perception grows that LDS officeholders are expected to take orders from their Church leaders, then it will be goodbye to the possibility of an LDS candidate becoming President. Furthermore, qualified, talented LDS Church members will find it increasingly difficult to get elected to public office. That is a shame, because LDS Church members are patriotic and are strong supporters of the Constitution. I am LDS myself, and I know many good LDS elected officials. But LDS candidates will be rejected if the public believes they will put orders from their church leaders ahead of their legislative duties and their oath of office. If that happens, members of the LDS Church will have only themselves to blame for swallowing the idea that LDS candidates must pass a religious test to get elected. There is no religious test for office in this country.

Footnotes:

1. “Stormin Mormons,” AZ Capitol Times, Aug. 8, 2011.
2. “Williams: A Mormon’s View on Immigration,” Op Ed, Arizona Republic, Oct. 22, 2011.
3. “Arizona Recall: Why Russell Pearce Lost,” Washington Post, November 9, 2011.

© 2011 Karen Johnson – All Rights Reserved

Arizona continues to be a shining star in the midst of liberal darkness that shrouds our country. As we hear reports of inequality regarding the treatment of the Tea Party vs. the treatment of the Occupy protesters in Richmond and other locations, I wish to give thanks the leaders of our great State for their support and fair treatment of our groups over the last two and a half years.

Not once have we received resistance to our events, been unduly denied permits or access to public areas, nor harassed in any manner. On the contrary, the City of Phoenix has provided police protection for our members and has provided freedom of expression of our first and second amendment rights. We have always felt free to express our message, even when it is alongside the violent opposition.

Indeed, Arizona has been a beacon for those wishing to lift their voices in protest, not only for the Conservative voice, but also for the law-breaking entitlement groups who hate our State and our country. When a group of illegal immigration proponents threw a large American flag on the State Capitol grounds, placed a toilet seat on it and instructed their children to stomp their dirty shoes over it in defiance of our laws, the Arizona Capitol police protected their 1st amendment rights as well.

Yes, here in Arizona you can wave your Mexican flag on the porch of the Capitol and declare that it is truly Mexico, not the United States, and get away with it. As abhorrent as that seems, it is the nature of Arizona to uphold the law and the rights of her people, even when it hurts. We applaud our great State, and offer her example to those officials in other parts of our great country who have forgotten what it means to respect the protection of the Constitution.

Kelly Townsend is Co-Founder of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party.

INVITES YOU TO ATTEND

Sharia Law:  What We Need To Know

PRESENTED BY AL FADI

Date: Saturday, December 3, 2011
Time: 10:00 am – 12:00 noon
Location: The Scottsdale Bible Church  Room E-210
Address: 7601 E. Shea Blvd, Scottsdale, AZ

Al Fadi is a former Wahabbi Muslim from Saudi Arabia.  He is the researcher, editor, writer, and translator for numerous ministries, including “Answering Islam” and runs an outreach center called; the Center for Islamic Research & Awareness. The center focus is to bring awareness regarding Islam, to build bridges with Muslims, and to provide expert input on issues related to Sharia Law and Democracy.

Al is the editor, co-author and contributor of “The Qur’an Dilemma” (both English & Arabic versions) – a critical analysis book of the Qur’an. He is also the director of TheQuran.com Group (www.theQuran.com) which desires to assist both Muslims and non-Muslims who seek to learn more about the main source of Islamic teachings, the Qur’an, to research it, to critically analyze it, and to better comprehend its contents without the traditional religious and cultural barriers designed to indoctrinate and encapsulate the minds of many truth seekers.

Al has a Masters in Engineering and is currently working on completing his M.Div. in Biblical Communications. He is an invited teacher/lecturer on Islam and related Islamic study topics. He is an invited guest speaker and trainer at numerous churches and mission agencies on the topic of Islam & Evangelism to Muslims. As a former devout Muslim, he is an expert on the teaching and challenges of Islam. In addition, Al is an invited guest/expert on numerous Arabic evangelical Satellite TV and Radio shows on the topics of Islam and the Middle East.

Refreshments will be served

Cost: $10 per person

Go to www.arizonamainstreamproject.org to make payment by credit card.  If making payment at the door, please RSVP to Susan Leeper at 480-998-5022 or susan@arizonamainstreamproject.org

We have decided to ask our readers to participate in a simple poll, “Has KFYI’s Barry Young gone too far” because the perception is that Young has become gratuitous in his attacks on Republicans.

Here is your chance to vote in the poll but more importantly (and stay on topic!), voice your opinion on whether or not certain local conservative talk show personalities have become part of the circular firing squad.

If you want to vote, the poll is on the right sidebar.

Update: Sonoran Alliance is not part of any boycott efforts.

The game is described as:

DON’T GET TEA-BAGGED! The Tea Party zombies are walking the streets of America. Grab your weapons and bash their rotten brains to bits! Destroy zombie Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, Glenn Beck, the Koch Brothers, and many more!

Keep in mind that the creator of the game, Jason Oda, disclaims his latest creation as “just a personal project.” We’re wondering when he’ll release the Obama Zombies Must Die version or maybe the Democratic Congressman Zombies Must Die version.

Zombies or not, the reality of the situation is that liberal Democrats don’t play by the same rules for society. Imagine if a conservative gaming company created a game that allowed the killing of the President of the United States. Image the outrage.

There is no reasoning with folks that live in an alter-universe where killing high profile conservative leaders is a game or joke. Yes, it is free expression protected under the Constitution and conservatives should defend it with every ounce of energy. But Wow! Is it ever in bad taste and dripping with hypocrisy.

(h/t to Tom Jenney, Stephen Gutowski and MRCTV.)

Outraged mayor: ‘I’m not going to quit until I see them in jail’

By Joe Kovacs

A small town in Arizona is suddenly a YouTube sensation after a town-hall meeting devolved into a physical clash as a woman was forcibly removed from speaking during the public portion of the event.

Jennifer “Jade” Jones, 45, of Quartzsite, Ariz., was taken into custody by local police at the behest of Quartzsite councilmembers, over the objections of the mayor, who pleaded with officers not to remove the woman.

The incident took place June 28 during the “call to the public” section of the meeting, as Jones, a pet groomer who also publishes the Desert Freedom Press, was addressing matters of taxation and meeting protocol.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Read the entire article at: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=319501#ixzz1RoyyRiz2

The Honorable Kirk Adams
Speaker of the House
Arizona House of Representatives
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Re; House Bill 2177 (presidential candidates, qualifications, affidavit)

Dear Speaker Adams:

Today I vetoed House Bill 2177. House Bill 2177 empowers the Secretary of State or other election officers in Arizona to judge the qualifications of every federal, state and local candidate at the time of filing. As a former Secretary of State, I do not support designating one person as the gatekeeper to the ballot for a candidate, which could lead to arbitrary or politically-motivated decisions.

In addition, I never imagined being presented witha a bill that could require candidates for President of the greatest and most powerful nation on earth to submit their “early baptismal or circumcision certificates” among other records to the Arizona Secretary of State. This is a bridge too far.

This measure creates significant new problems while failing to do anything constructive for Arizona.

cc: The Honorable Russell Pearce
The Honorable Carl Seel

Watch as the “news” “journalists” become visibly flustered as this man with the facts takes them to school on this live CNN broadcast.

Toward the end as their script is utterly obliterated, watch as they become shrill, attack their guest and go abruptly to commercial break.

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona
Friday, January 7, 2010

This article is a reprint from Seeing Red AZ – http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/

Surrender our Bill of Rights?

January 7, 2011

This exchange between Wes Harris and Tom Husband epitomizes the differences in the mindset between the Grassroots Conservatives of our Republican Party and the political class who demand total subservience:
 
Wes you say, in part:
 
“It is totally unfair for any Chair of the Republican party or elected official to show “official” favoritism, in my opinion. What they do in the voting booth is their own business…what they do in public, even if they say that this is ‘their personal opinion’, is our business as elected P.C.s. We have our own minds and we will make them up on our own without “being led” (as Mr. Haney put it to me on Wednesday night). There is no doubt that Mr. Haney has been a fine and conservative leader for us…however, again in my opinion, he crossed the line on this one and I have freely told him that on more than one occasion…speaking as a P.C. and not for the Tea Party.”
 
Wes, make up my mind. Do “We have our own minds and we will make them up on our own…” or not. I challenged you to offer any credible evidence that Haney supported any candidate in his capacity as Chairman. It is incredible to think that one would have to give up their First Amendment rights in order to serve in the Republican Party. I won’t be silent and I support those brave enough to speak out.
 
In the telephone conversation we just had, you admitted that you have no evidence that Haney ever endorsed anyone in his capacity as Chairman. Only his capacity as a private citizen. Where we differ is that you believe that one must surrender their First Amendment rights when elected to political office. I strongly disagree. To ask one to surrender their rights under our Bill of Rights in order to hold political office is preposterous and I ask you to reconsider.
 
Wes, you go on to say: “But like Mr. Haney, my public remarks, even though offered as my own personal opinion, will most likely be read as that of the Tea Party…so I rest my case!” and then you put your Tea Party title below your name. Don’t you see that when you are writing as the head of a Tea Party, you are no longer offering your personal opinion? It would be taken as your personal opinion if you had just signed it as Wes Harris. You just lost your own case!
 
Best Regards,
 
Thomas F. Husband

This is dedicated to Nancy Huzar and to all those readers who, while waking up to the Tea Party Experience, now find themselves in an unfamiliar landscape with career politicians all claiming to be “Common Sense Conservatives”.

As we begin the second decade of the 21^st Century in the United States, perhaps we should reflect on the crossroads that loom before us.  Should we proceed along the path to a Old World European Socialist Democratic form of governance?  Or perhaps we should continue the moderate centrist Constitutional Republic form of governance bequeathed to us by the Founders of our country?

Today, the Progressive Left would have you believe that they are America’s center, that they represent a centrist value position of the majority of Americans… all 300+ million of us.  But do they?

Perhaps the United States is fundamentally a centrist country holding moderate values that allow for tolerance of the extremes.  Perhaps this recent election is a statement by that once silent majority that they reject the progressive socialist agenda that the current administration is pursuing seemingly at all costs.

Consider this:  It was rugged individualists who believed that redemption was an individual matter between themselves and Nature’s God founded America.  Contrast that with the individual who now resides in the White House.  It is his core belief, and that of those around him, that redemption collective.  It is in the  group, not the individual where one finds redemption.  How alien is that to what our Founders believed?  What’s worse, there is an entire cadre of adherents in academia working 24/7 to re-write history to suit their worldview.

People’s view of the proper role of government is a continuum stretching from the extreme Left (Totalitarian Communism) to the extreme Right (Totalitarian Fascism).  Most Americans hold Moderate Values and fall as “Centrists” on this scale.

The current administration in Washington, and those of its allies on college and university campuses, tend to fall much further to the left of center than do most Americans.  This is one reason that voting districts in large urban areas and around major universities tend to be “Blue” on the election maps while large tracts of suburban and rural America vote “Red”.  The election of 2010 drove this contrast to the forefront of the county’s awareness.  It would be a strategic mistake for the statist members of the Republican Party if they didn’t pay close attention to the message of 2010.

America is becoming polarized, pulled to the left of the Constitutional Divide by an increasingly aggressive Socialist minority with their vision of a Collective utopia.  It is any wonder that today; the majority of Americans have such poor esteem for their members of Congress?  Is it any wonder that today, a majority of American’s sense something is terribly wrong?  It is exactly this awakening that drives talk radio and edutainment shows like Glenn Beck.  Americans know that the “Hope & Change” they were promised isn’t consistent with America’s core centrist moderate values.

Take this simple test.  Remember, each is a sliding scale from Left to Right.  Ask yourself; “What do I believe?  Do I believe in individualism or collectivism?  Which describes my thoughts best?”

Well, there it is, the Great Constitutional Divide[1].  Given that most Americans describe themselves as being “in the center” you may correctly conclude that the column on the right most accurately describes most Americans and, the column on the right is pretty much the center for the United States.  The stress many are feeling is that of a minority within the government, the major media and in our colleges and universities who are tugging us unwillingly into their Brave New World.

While this has been evolving since the early 20^th Century, we may thank Barak Hussain Obama for forcing the issue and for waking up the great silent majority.  Just remember, you are the center and they are the extreme.

Then why is he schilling for Al Gore?!?

As everyone by now surely knows, this November’s elections will be the most important in recent memory and will very likely see a Republican wave, similar to or possibly in excess of that which brought Gingrich to the Speakership back in 1994.

That election came to be called a Revolution, although the long-term effects were mixed, to say the least. To many, the election of ’94 was an opportunity to roll back the tide of big government that was eventually squandered.

This year, we hope to take advantage of another opportunity to stem the tide of runaway government control of our lives. We hope to recover our lost liberties and repair our broken economy by rejecting the collectivist call to central planning and returning to the traditional American system of unleashing human ingenuity through freedom, competition, and unfettered innovation.

In order to do that, though, I believe we must keep firmly in mind the principles that guide us to the polls.

For far too long, candidates have gotten into office on big talk, with little delivery. Democrats fight to expand government everywhere and always, and far too many Republicans end up embracing socialism light in the name of “bipartisanship.”

Many see this last failing as the reason the Revolution of ’94 ultimately failed. In many ways, the surging Tea Party movement is a rejection of this kind of compromise on principle.

So if you are approached by Newt claiming he’s helping Republicans, you might want to remember that Newt also wants us to help Nancy Pelosi fight global warming.

Or Climate Change.

Or whatever it’s called this week.

Two years ago, Mr. Gingrich got comfy with Nancy on a couch in front of the Capitol Building to do a commercial for We Can Solve It, a video project for celebrities and politicians, who recorded messages about the urgency of stopping global warming.

Their website is http://www.wecansolveit.org/ . While that’s disturbing enough, a little digging reveals We Can Solve It is actually a project of The Alliance for Climate Protection. You can confirm the link between the two here. The We Can Solve It campaign is the third project on the list of the Alliance’s “Our Work” page.

The Alliance for Climate Protection was founded in 2006 with the mission to “close the gap between the 77% of people who believe that there is solid evidence that the Earth is warming and the 47% who believe that warming is linked to human activity.”

The founder and chairman of the Alliance for Climate Protection is Al Gore.

Now, I’m sure that Mr. Gingrich will not be discussing any of this at the NCGOP’s fundraiser on the 27th. I’m sure he’ll be rallying the conservative faithful to get out there, work a polling location, walk their precincts, make phone calls, and do all the other necessary work to win on November 2nd. That is all well and good, and I’m all for that.

Nevertheless, I have to take with a grain of salt the words of anyone who thinks it’s important to help Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore save the planet from… well, us.  Newt, you got caught!  Let the political backpeddling begin!

GET RID OF THE RINOS FOLKS.   Given the above, that means Newt’s gotta go too.

To all the congressional newbies (Quayle, Schweikert, etc) stay away from the globallists and RINOs. If you succumb, eventually we’re gonna catch ya.  And by then, McCain wont be around to protect you like he did Jon (2005 Cornryn/Kyl) “Amnesty” Kyl and John “TARP Bailout” Shadegg.

TEAPARTY!

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hmmm… Sounds as if John McCain was trying to defend another one of his “friends?” It may have even sounded like endorsement.

Fast forward to 2010 and our Constitutional Republic is on the verge of social and economic collapse and people are wondering how we got where we are.

The old “mavericky” John McCain tried to play nice and tell us we didn’t have to worry about Barack Obama. John McCain wouldn’t fight and the result is that we have one of the worse presidents in US history.

Meanwhile here in Arizona, John McCain, aka “Mr. Campaign Finance Reform,”  has  spent around $20 Million dollars attacking JD Hayworth. McCain even raided his 2008 Presidential fund in order to spend it on expensive Washington insider spinmeisters to create more attack ads!

Where was this John McCain in 2008?

Why didn’t he fight for us against Barack Obama back then?

Why did McCain treat Barack Obama better than fellow Republican JD Hayworth?

The honest reason why we have Barack Obama today is because of John McCain. If you want to blame someone for the direction of the country now, blame John McCain for not fighting in 2008.

When we nominate a RINO (Republican In Name Only) like John McCain, we get a disaster like Barack Obama.

 In a June 16^th Op-Ed column in the Explorer, Cheryl Cage stated, “In his op-ed (Arizona should consider atomic energy 6/9) Mr. Melvin manipulates the facts to support his push for Arizona to become a nuclear waste destination so we can become ‘very rich.’”

 So what did Senator Melvin really say? “Any practical plan for our future must include alternate energy sources, and any alternate energy plan must include atomic energy. In truth, Arizona can be a very rich and prosperous state with plentiful and affordable electricity through atomic power, and we can also have plentiful and affordable water through desalinization.

 “ . . . The Electric Power Research Institute states that by 2030, states with atomic reactors will see their electric rates rise by 45% and states with no atomic reactors will see their electric rates rise over 265%. When one looks at the cost to produce electricity per kilowatt-hour, atomic energy is 2.5 cents compared to solar and wind up to 14 to 17 cents. Coal and natural gas are 4 to 7 cents, yet over time these costs are bound to increase . . .”

 Ms. Cage, attempts to deceive the reader by stating, “He states that nuclear energy costs 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour compared to solar and wind (notice he lumps solar and wind together) at around 14 to 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. What he doesn’t tell you is that the stated 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour does not include capital costs (which make up 80% of the energy production cost) or costs of transmission . . .”

 What Ms. Cage failed to tell the reader is the costs for coal and natural gas, and solar and wind, also do not include capital costs. So Senator Melvin is comparing apples to apples.

If Ms. Cage takes exception to this comparison, let’s talk about the billions of dollars being wasted by the government on doubling our nation’s use of solar and wind: doubling moves usage from 1% to 2% of all energy used in this country, a very inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Ms. Cage then stated that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars [sic] invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” What Ms. Cage doesn’t say is the solar jobs will be low paying while the nuclear jobs will be high paying. Also, for every 13.5 jobs created other industries will lose 30 jobs.

 For those of you who want evidence, just look at Spain. “For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid . . .The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power—which are charged to consumers in their bill –translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish ‘green job’ created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report . . . The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices . . .”

 Ms. Cage continues with her misinformation: “His comparison about the ‘footprints’ of solar versus nuclear is equally disingenuous. He refuses to acknowledge solar panels would not just be sitting in a large field; they would be placed throughout a community (top of homes and businesses, parking lots and infill areas). He states that Palo Verde’s footprint is only 6.3 miles because he chooses to ignore the impact of mining uranium.”

 This is what Senator Melvin said in this Op-Ed” “To have a photovoltaic facility that produces the same daylight electricity as the Palo Verde Nuclear facility in Phoenix, it would take solar panels 250 miles long (almost the distance from Tucson to San Diego) and one mile wide with a footprint of 250 square miles, compared with Palo Verde’s footprint of 6.3 square miles. There is definitely a role for solar to play in fulfilling Arizona’s energy needs, but the base load of 80 percent of all our energy needs could and should be met by atomic energy. . .”

 Ms. Cage’s statement that, “He refuses to acknowledge solar panels would not just be sitting in a large field . . .” is disingenuous at best. Senator Melvin was making a comparison. Of course, we could put all those solar panels on buildings instead of a field, which some companies are doing, but the footprint would probably double to 500 square miles.

 Her comment about uranium mining is simply a distraction. Solar and wind can and do have large footprints. Every time I drive through Palm Springs I see miles and miles of windmills, the majority not moving. Why? Ms. Cage has not yet found a way to manage the wind but she has found a way to create her own wind and her own facts.

 Being the progressive-socialist she is, Ms. Cage is against nuclear power. She is adamantly against reprocessing nuclear waste, which France has been doing for years. In fact, 80% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear reactors. You would think the Ms. Cage, as a lover of European style socialism, would embrace nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, Ms. Cage comes across as a left-wing ideologue willing to distort known facts, conjure up her own facts and then irresponsibly attack others based on knowingly false information.

 Character and integrity?  Draw your own conclusion.

Click here to view the embedded video.