Will the Utah Compact Derail Mitt Romney’s Campaign?

By Former Arizona State Senator Karen Johnson

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.


  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


  1. “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.”

    Wow, what a great piece, I never truly understood the complexity of the Pearce Recall and the Mormon community.

    Unfortunately now I can’t help thinking about the final scene of Charlton Heston in the movie Planet of the Apes. I conceive a lot of Romney backers may have the same thoughts in the near future.

    • Sorry. LDS church official statement says it fully supports that countries have rights (and obligations) to control borders and also encourages people of all countries to respect those rights. The rest of the statment is a call to recognize that there’s no way 12 million people are going to be deported, so let’s deal with them in a humane way and help those that actually add value to our country find a way to stay here without becoming citizens themselves. Says immigration enforcement is a federal government issue, not a state issue, so that’s where comparing Romney and Pearce would be to compare apples to oranges. If Pearce wants to run for a federal office and address immigration there, he’d be consistent with the LDS statement.

      This piece, and your comment, are misguided and looking to stir up something when there is nothing there … same old nonsense you tried to pull unsuccessfully during the Pearce/Lewis race..

      The definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over while expecting the same result.

      So, I mostly feel sorry for you.

      • Humane does not mean allowing the marauders to come into any Country they seem to want to take over. Humane treatment of a Country’s legal citizens comes first, we should build the fence and pass e-verify, give stringent penalties to any business who hires iiegal on the cheap. The Mormon’s have a ministry in Mexico, why do the not try and help the poor there to become more self sufficient and work to change their government not ours. Since the Utah compact and the recall of Russell Pearce I have lost all respect for Mormons, they are out to fill their coffers and need new membership.

        • “The marauders” ….

          Good one.

          “Since the Utah compact and the recall of Russell Pearce I have lost all respect for Mormons,”

          I’ll be sure to tell Russell Pearce you have lost all respect for him.

        • I have to disagree, I believe legal sponsorship of immigrants is what this country made of. I support LDS and all other faiths the means to sponsor immigrants. I don’t however think this is the problem. Follow the money! Most of the RINOs are more than happy to keep things the way they are! They want a second class citizenry, flipping their burgers, raking their lawns and folding their laundry at their mercy for pennies that they would have to pay anyone else.

          • Have you ever tried to sponsor a Mexian immigrant coming here to work in anything but a high-skill job? You should try it some time. You will quickly find that it’s virtually impossible.

            To your point, the legalization of low-skilled workers would make them not be second class, give them legal protections they don’t currently have, ensure that regulatory and minimum wages laws are abided by, etc … so shouldn’t you be supporting that? Various conservative herosare trying to create a legal pathway to work and get it out of the shadows… (Pence, Gingrich, Freedomworks, etc, all on board with a guest worker program – called the Red Card initiative). This would help out the problem you identify immensely.

      • If we cannot deport 12 million, how about 10M or 8M, at what number can we deport? Or are we not allowed to deport any?

        • Tyler Montague says

          How many do you want to deport, Talmage Pearce?

          My idea: seal off the border; deport the felons; then make the rest identify and pay fines and taxes and don’t let them get citizenship unless they leave and come back the right way. Sort of similar to Gingrich’s plan. Similar to Bill Montgomery’s ideas (link below).


          • I would like to agree with you, if you can stop trying to figure out who I am. I think what you stated is a good start, and many will self deport.

            It is funny that you did not mention cracking down on those who would hire illegals. Would that be bad for business? I will hold my judgement.

            • Tyler Montague says

              My disagreement on legislation is probably more a matter a sequence than content.

              First, seal the border, second deport felons, third revise the visa process, fourth crack down on employers not following it.

          • How is it that we “have enough money” to educate, medicate and incarcerate millions of illegal immigrants (it costs many billions of dollars each year to do so), but we “do not have enough money” (or the cajones) to deport them? One year’s worth of expenditures on illegals would cover the cost of rounding them up and deporting them. And why is it a tragedy to separate families who are illegal immigrants (that means they have broken the law, regardless of whether they are here for good intentions or bad), and yet it’s not a tragedy to separate families who are legal citizens who have broken the law (i.e. a burglar or a robber who steals to buy food for his familiy)? In both cases families are “broken up” because of a law-breaker, but we whine about the illegal immigrant and applaud the legal citizen going to prison. Weird hypocrisy. And it simply doesn’t make any sense.

        • Nigeria deported 3 million Ghanians in a week, at the end of a stick. It is done in other countries all the time., but sadly always after the citizens had been BEGGING their lawmakers for YEARS and YEARS to control the lawless influxes. No one wanted it to come to blows, but the citizens had literally reached their breaking point. Repeat: YEARS of pleas, ignored by their own governments. Lawmakers have a duty to listen to their constituents and come up with fair solutions that don’t allow circumstances to overheat.

          The beauty of SB1070 was that it gave everyone a grace period lead time to make whatever arrangements they wanted to, stay, go … whatever. Very civilized. Very fair.

          But boy howdy, to hear the Leftists howl about it, it was the worse thing since the Huns sacked Bagdad in 1258 AD.
          Actually, Leftists don’t even know about that. History to them started with Woodrow WIlson’s Progessive speech.

          Tired of Leftists employing girlie hysterics demanding political decision-making based on who can sob, pour artificial tears and wail the loudest.
          People cannot operate on such a capricious and easily manipulated system. They need clear rules and expectations.

          • “Nigeria deported 3 million Ghanians in a week, at the end of a stick.”

            Actually it was at the end of a gun barrel.

            In what other areas should be be following Sub-Saharan Africa’s lead? After all, they are bastions of prosperity and civilization.

            • I should say we shouldn’t, but it wasn’t overnight they got pissed, it was YEARS of telling their elected officials to stop allowing the illegality to continue. Their offiicals IGNORED them.

              It’s a warning that people will have their breaking points, especially when jobs become SCARCE. Given the conditions, Nigerians were more patient than you are giving them credit for. And it didn’t have to happen had the politicians done their duty to their constituents.

              So, alas, all this talk about not possible IS possible, but it’s not where we should be headed. It’s totally avoidable.

            • I’m sure he’ll speak wistfully of Uganda’s anti-homosexuality laws.

              • Conservative American says

                I’m sure you’ll speak lovingly of the support of the Communist Party USA for homosexual “marriage”.

              • We’re talking about what governmental policies or societal norms of Sub-Saharan Africa wanumba would like to implement in the USA, ConAm. Not everything’s about me. Keep up.

          • Steve Nelson says

            Nigeria doesn’t have the U.S. Constitution last time I checked. But if you want to use Nigerian laws in this country, I guess you can try.

            Also, if you think the beauty of SB1070 is that it gave a grace period for people to make arrangements to stay or leave, I don’t think you have read SB1070 and you certainly don’t know what it says because it does not say that. (Unless you count the Court’s stay as a grace period.)

            • Readers who want a better understanding Mormon history might be interested in a historical novel called Odysseys of the Saints which is available at Amazon or direct from the Publishers.

              The Mormons are a singularly American religion. They are optimistic, expansive and generous with an outlook that has attracted millions of believers. But the distinct Mormon beliefs have also created controversy again and again. Odysseys of the Saints tells “how and why” from the viewpoint of both fiction and fact.

              This book was extensively researched, with sources noted, not only on Mormon history, but on matters of ritual and theology. Neither of the authors is Mormon or ex-Mormon, so there is no religious agenda, either positively or negatively. More information is available on the book website www. http://odysseysofthesaints.com.

    • Romney won’t lose because of the Mormon church, Romney will lose because of Romney. He is a pandering flip flopper who does not deserve to hold the highest office in the land. The other candidate from Utah, John Huntsman would make a much better President. He is compassionate, smart and has tons of foreign policy experience, plus he can talk directly to the leaders of what is generally considered our biggest threat in the coming decades, China. He is fluent in Mandarin.

  2. Excellent work, very well written. This is by far the best analysis I have read on the Pearce recall, and a meaningful parallel to the Romney campaign. In my opinion, the LDS church is already in damage control mode. This article should be required reading to anyone support Mitt Romney.

    • In what way is the LDS church in “damage control mode”?

      I haven’t seen a single thing, not a single one, that would indicate anything of the sort.

      Please, one concrete example, zoo, something we can actually discuss.

      • I generally don’t “discuss” anything with twist and turn propagandists like yourself, but the Mormon church has spewed a flurry of institutional advertisments of late. Seeking to soften their image as a tax-exempt political machine using stealth technology, the “gee – we’re just like everybody else” spots they are running on TV are clearly WD-40 for the Romney presidential campaign and just happen to come in handy as the reality of the Pearce recall surfaces. There will be more coming. Breaking new ground to dilute their socialist agenda is making the Catholics jealous. My money says we’ll soon see Archbishop Jose Gomez on Dancing With The Stars. My name is zoo, and I’m not a Mormon.

        • Those ads have been running in select areas for over two years and have been rolled out in greater numbers lately as part of a plan laid out long before immigration was an issue – it was actually conceived in the wake of Prop 8 and the discovery that most people who knew mormons had positive images of them, but those that didn’t did not have positive images of them. Had nothing to do with immigration and timing of the I’m a Mormon campaign long preceded it. But it is interesting that some in AZ are interpreting it that way.

          You’ve now bashed the Catholics, too. Any religion pass muster for you, zoo?

          • In 2004, the Bishops of the Arizona’s Catholic Conference signed on in opposition to Arizona Proposition 200, and the Catholic church has opposed every anti-illegal measure since. I am against ANY religion that uses my tax dollars to advocate for criminals, against U.S. sovereignty, and spews total disrespect for the law. Every damn one of them should lose their tax-exept status tomorrow.

            ” Those ads have been running in select areas for over two years and have been rolled out in greater numbers lately as part of a plan laid out long before immigration was an issue.”

            Really? Did illegal trespassing and occupation just become an issue in the last two years? The Mormons have stepped in it big time, and if Romney gets the nomination, their treasonous “position” will be trumpted on front pages across the country. Let the games begin with the fact that Romney’s family lived in Mexico for decades, his father was born there, and he has gobs of his clan still living there. Any moron could figure out that were he to be effective in fighting illegal immigration (LOL), his shirt tails in Squalorland would be in great danger from the drug cartels; aka: conflict-o of interest-o.

            Let the LDS enjoy their warm and fuzzy that enough members followed their command in Mesa district 18, but by doing so they have torpedoed any hope of a Mormon in the oval office. Perhaps they can hire La Raza’s public relations firm.

            • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says

              Uh…..hello racist nut-job.

              Not everyone thinks that we have to round up illegals, douse them with gas, and light it. It is a problem, but it’s not the end-all, be-all problem the extremists pitch it as. We’ve passed like 15 bills against it, and are all of our problems solved? No. We need to be smarter about this, but they way you think, we’ll be gridlocked on any solution that isn’t a mass roundup + flame throwing.

              • Who in the hell do you think you’re kidding, pantywaste? The Mexicans and their ilk object to border security, employer raids, deportations, self-deportations (attrition), protective legislation, deterrents, traffic tickets, and jock itch. Pukes like you use phrases like “be smarter” as code words for doing absolutely nothing, aka: AMNESTY. That has been the M.O. of the filth in the Treason Lobby from day one. Libtard until you deep fry, your race card is no longer valid – please contact your bank.

        • Mormons have a “socialist agenda”? That’s a new one.

          • Good to see you finally sobered up and can now write sentences, although seemingly brief. Must be an ambulance siren within earshot.

    • Steve Nelson says

      This blog article was well written if you are the type that believes in about every conceivable conspiracy theory like Karen Johnson.

      The Pearce recall has NOTHING to do with Mitt Romney’s campaign. There is not a single lesson to be learned by it. Apples and Oranges. Romney has governed before in Massachusetts and there is NO evidence or indication that he looked to the LDS church for guidance. Russell Pearce legislated in AZ for years and there is NO evidence or indication that he ever looked to Salt Lake for guidance. They are two completely different individuals who follow the dictates of their own conscience. I respect them both as individuals, and I respect their differences.

      She draws her own conclusions about what happened in Utah, as if the fact that she is LDS makes her an authority on what happened in Utah. It is not credible. And if the LDS church pressured Utah legislators, that has nothing to do with the recall in Arizona. There is no indication that Russell got pressured or lobbied by the LDS church at any time. In fact, Russell claimed at an LD18 meeting that they didn’t have a problem with SB1070. (But I doubt he ever really talked to anyone about it in Salt Lake).

      Johnson is trying to say that LDS voters in Mesa were told by some people that Russell wasn’t following the church doctrine. But that means nothing. There were plenty of LDS members who supported Russell. They, like Karen Johnson herself, were saying that Russell Pearce was an outstanding Mormon. So some Mormons opposed Russell and some supported him. All polling indicated that the Mormon vote was split right down the middle.

      The fact is, the Mormon vote gets split when two Mormons run against each other. It is conspiracy theory to inject the church into it. Not all Mormons vote for Mormons. Karen Johnson herself doesn’t support Mitt Romney. Neither do many other Mormons. There are also many people of other faiths who support Mitt Romney, like Governor Chris Christie and Dan Quayle, and millions of other Americans.

      I find this article neither thoughtful nor thought provoking. It is just another Karen Johnson conspiracy theory that doesn’t stand up to any real analysis. She pretends that Dee Dee Blase and Daryl Williams speak for the church, when she knows they don’t. And she fails miserably to give any evidence that church leaders will expect Mitt Romney to do certain things. So what is there that people should get alarmed about with Mitt Romney??? Oh, maybe she thinks Mitt Romney will get recalled as President if he does something out of step by the church.

    • And Jeff Flake and Will Cardon.

  3. Karen Johnson, wow…how’s that Scientology backed anti psychology gig going Karen? How is your 9/11 Truther crusade going? How is your investigation into chemtrails?

    Way to go SA, only publishing from the nuttiest of the nuts and the fringe side of the Republican party.

    Really, its like you want to hurt the party by reminding us of kooks like Karen.

    • Oh, see how the recallers defend their actions. Smear, insult.

      • True Conservative says

        Pot. Kettle. Black.

      • She is a truther, she believes in chemtrails, and was on the board of an anti psych group run by Scientology.


      • Yeah, like calling us “Marxist Radicals”, “mafia cartel thugs” and “open borders anarchists” aren’t smears or insults? I guess Pearce accusing Jerry Lewis of stealing from homeless children was just good old fashioned politicking to you and never intended to be a smear.

    • Conservative American says

      What is your faith, Lampoon, or are you simply an atheist and a supporter of homosexual “marriage”? Maybe homosexual “marriage” IS your religion, LOL!

      • What is your faith?

        Did you go to college and earn a degree?

        Do you think the earth is 6000 years old?

        You never answer any direct questions, why should I?

        (FWIW, born, raised RC, K-12 religious school, currently I belong to no religion)

        • Conserative American says

          Belong to no religion. Do you believe in God or are you an atheist?

          • True Conservative says

            Answer his questions, Con Am, he answered yours.

            Hypocrite much?

            • He won’t, he is the biggest hypocrite out there. Barely educated, unable to debate and suspicious of that there science and learning stuff.

              Not an Athiest, but I don’t believe in religion, its caused too much pain and strife and ignorance on this world. I respect the rights of others to believe, just don’t ask me, (or anyone in a taxpayer funded private school) to believe what you believe.

              • Conservative American says

                ROFL! Lampoon; totally uneducated, believes that science “proves” that homosexuality is genetic rather than a choice, defines debate as “hurling juvenile insults” and is a staunch anti-Christian. Just your sort of all-American kind of guy, LOL!

                The issue isn’t anyone trying to force you to believe as they belive, the issue is that you seek to limit the definition of religious freedom exclusively to what one believes as opposed to being able to put those religious beliefs into practice in their every day lives.

              • Won’t answer any questions, will ya coward?

                Typical, all mouth, no action.

              • Conservative American says

                Oh, my goodness! My hero! You’re SO strong… but odor isn’t everything, LOL!

                Now tell us where your mouth has been lately, sweetheart. 😉

              • True Conservative says

                Just when you think Con Man can’t get any creepier – he throws this mess up on to SA: “Now tell us where your mouth has been lately, sweetheart.”

                You’re a sick man, Con Am, and a cowardly one at that.

              • Conservative American says

                Awwww! Poor little TC. Go see your mommy. She’ll make it all better for you, sweetheart, LOL!

                Define “marriage” for us, TC. Here, I’ll even help you. “Marriage is EXCLUSIVELY the union of one man and one woman.” Now all you have to do is to agree with that.

                Say it, TC. Say it now. Say that you agree with the above definition of “marriage”.

              • Won’t answer any questions, will ya coward?

                Not sure if you are bothered by your hypocrisy, or you are just ignorant to see it.

                What’s the matter? You demand answers from posters, but you never answer yourself. What a pussy.

              • Conservative American says

                Awww! Tell us how you feel about that, Lampoon. Come on now, get it out. Here, here’s a tissue to wipe your little tears, LOL!

                Oh, I’m so absolutely crushed by your comment. Here I want nothing more than have merit in your eyes. That’s all I live for, but you’ve rejected me.

                What ever shall I do? All of my hopes for having virtue in your prescious eyes, dashed!

                I’ll do the only thing that’s left to me… have a beer and wash it all out, LOL!

                Have a nice day, Lampoon! 🙂

              • Hey Coward American, 2 days on, and you won’t answer any questions? Why is that? What in your past is so damning that you risk looking like a cowardly pussy in not answering? You don’t seem to like it when I call you to task like you do other posters. Dish it out, but you can’t take it eh?

                Simple questions, I answered mine, I stand behind my answers, even if they are unpopular with a coward like you. Real conservatives have balls, they are responsible and they answer questions. Fake ones like you are cowards, forever evading responsibility and ever having to stand up and walk the talk.

                I don’t think you have the mental capacity to see how much you hurt the conservative cause, I really don’t. If you had an ounce of courage, you’d answer questions, but we all know you don’t posses that do you?

            • Conservative American says

              Define “marriage” for us, TC. Since you claim to be a “true conservative”, you shouldn’t have the slightest problem doing that in one short sentence.

              Here is how U. S. Senator Jim DeMint, a REAL “true conservative”, defines marriage:

              “Family Values”

              “DeMint believes marriage is the cornerstone to building strong families and communities, and must be protected. For this reason, the senator has consistently supported an amendment to the United States Constitution declaring marriage shall only consist of a legal union between a man and a woman. Also, DeMint has consistently defended federal law pertaining to the sanctity of marriage, including his support for the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. He believes traditional marriage is an important foundation for creating healthy family formation so children will be in raised in the healthiest of environments, setting the stage for their future success.”


              You claim that you are a Conservative and that wanumba and I are not. So, let’s see how Conservative you really are, right here, right now.

              Define “marriage” for us, TC.

              • Hey Coward American, you still haven’t answered any questions, what a gutless little pantywaist you are.

          • I told you about me. You demand answers from every poster you dislike, but, you never answer any questions put forth. How cowardly of you.

            Again, you are the poster boy for extremist pussies.

            • Conservative American says

              Oh, such terrible tauntings! What ever shall I do?

              The worst part, of course, is that it is the object of my life to be held in high esteem by Lampoon, the repository of all anti-Christian wisdom.

              • Won’t answer any questions, will you coward?

              • Conservative American says

                Gee, how do you feel about that, LOL! Come on now, don’t hold back. Vent. Get it all out. You’ll feel better.

                Been to any homosexual “weddings” lately? Of course, you’ll have to travel out of state for that because homosexual “marriage” is illegal in Arizona,

                You could go to California, sweetheart. Oh! Wait! Homosexual “marriage” is illegal there too!

                Guess you’ll have to fly to New York if you want to go to a homosexual “weddiing”. So sorry about that, darling.

              • What’s the matter coward? Don’t like when people ask you questions?

                I heard you spent a lot of time at University, but mopping the floors late at night doesn’t count as an education.

                How do you like being the biggest coward on the board?

              • Conservative American says

                Oh, this is such a tragedy! Lampoon, the Pinko, thinks ill of me.

                “To be, or not to be, that is the question:
                Whether ’tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
                The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
                Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
                And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
                No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
                The heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
                That Flesh is heir to?”

                Goodbye, cru-el world! I can no longer bear to live without the approval of Lampoon the Pinko, LOL!

              • Coward, why won’t you answer questions? You ask/demand answers from others, but you run like a little girl when someone asks you questions.


                Did they have a debate class in your GED night school CA?

                Such a tough guy, except when you are called to answer some questions….

  4. radicals ,leftists… are you by chance a birther?

  5. True Conservative says

    For an article that started off so well, it quickly derailed itself. I imagine the author feverishly trying to finish the article as her anti-psychotic meds wore off, as her delusions of conspiracies took her over and she abandoned her original premise – a thoughtful discussion of Romney and retreated to her “dark space” to fight, anew, the Battle for LD18, a battle she so lost do badly.

    Is there a political equivalent of PTSD? She certainly displays all the signs.

    Kidding aside, let’s address some of the weaker aspects of the article.

    First, there is the misuse of “religious test.”

    Religious tests are prohibited by the United States Constitution in Article VI, paragraph 3. “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

    The plain meaning and the original intent is to state that the government can not demand that only members of prescribed, or only non-members of proscribed, religions hold office.

    In the case of Pearce, that was not occurring. No one said he had to have, or not have, any religion. His faith only became an issue because he made it an issue. No one said he had to be a Mormon, it was only said that he should not lie about being a Mormon.

    In other words, Pearce wanted voters to think of him as a Mormon to help him secure votes, but he didn’t want them to examine what kind of a Mormon he was if it would cost him votes.

    In the real world, we call that hypocrisy.

    The rest of the blather becomes comical as she resorts to name calling: radicals, leftists, Marxists … as if those words don’t have meaning.

    So, remember this well, LD18 – in the eyes of the Wingnuts, you are all Marxists.

    • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says


      Karen Johnson: it’s not wise to try and save money by cutting the pills in half, dear.

      • What is so Constitutional about illegal aliens. They are not immigrants, they are sneak thieves who have broke our laws to come here and break even more laws.

        • Suzanne, I am guessing you don’t or haven’t interacted much with this population. If you did, I don’t believe you’d call them “sneak thieves” … You’d likely call them starving desperate people who are fleeing violence and death and looking for work to support their families …. Not all of them are in that camp, but the majority are. They do not want citizenship or favors, they want to be able to work so that they can avoid death ….

          We can solve the problems, but we need to understand the population crossing. And they are not – the vast majority of them – “sneak thieves”

        • True Conservative says

          I largely agree with you. We need to do a better job at securing our borders and we need to deport those who are here unlawfully.

          I disagree with you on whether they are immigrants, because clearly they are. Immigrant simply means “A person who comes to live permanently in a foreign country.” These people are simply immigrants that are here unlawfully. I wish it were they would go home.

          I think there is an interesting debate to be had on the Utah Compact, I have my suspicions about it. However, my comment was on Karen’s rambling writing. There was no Mormon led assault on the separation of Church and state, and her slight-of-hand effort to defame practicing Mormons and to denounce them for following their church was despicable. There was no religious test in place.

          She was, figuratively if not literally, off her meds.

        • Steve Nelson says

          SuzanneC: Everything in the U.S. is constitutional. That is why we have a constitution. To protect the rights of everyone. It is true, illegal immigrants do not have a constitutional right to be in our country. This is why they get deported out of our country when they are caught. The problem when you oversimplify, like they do in Nigeria when they deport thousands in one day is that mistakes are made. Is it okay in your book to deport 25 U.S. citizens while deporting 75 illegal aliens? We can’t just round people up and ship them out. They tried that in Gilbert a few years ago and they made some mistakes. The Constitution protects everyone. You should be happy about that because it protects you too!!!

          By the way, the Utah Compact says that every sovereign nation has the right to protect it borders and regulate immigration. It is not an open borders document. People should not say that it is.

    • Conservative American says

      NOTICE: The above poster, “True Conservative”, is a radical, ultra left liberal, homosexual “marriage” supporter posing as a Conservative. Be aware that she is a propagandist whose intent is to deceive.

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says

        C.A. I confess that he/she has never even made sense to me.

        • Conservative American says

          LOL! We can always go with “it”, Sgt.! 😉

          Well, “it” makes sense as long as it is understood that “it” is a Pinko who supports the radical, ultra left agenda of liberal, “progressive” Democrat U. S. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California.

          BTW, thank you for you service in law enforcement. People don’t often stop to think about where we would be without it. Liberals despise law enforcement and law enforcement Officers.

          Hats off to you, Sgt.!

  6. Pseudo-psychology, the last resort of Progressive scoundrels on the losing side of the debate.

  7. Sgt. Flapjaw says

    I am not here today to defend or support Karen Johnson, she does say some controversial things on occation. Her article today is not the first time any of us [I am sure] have heard this angle. It contains much truth as far as the facts are concerned. LD18 members did have to consort with any and all Leftists, Socialists, Unionists, etc. to get the job done on Russell Pearce.
    Many members of LDS were also part of the comspiracy to thwart the will of the voters, and as such it is natural to to be leary of future attempts by all of these groups either individually or united again.
    If the LDS church or any other religious group wish to sway the political process they rightfully should be the enemy of their opponants. I happen to know many LDS members who are now or were office holders, some I trust and believe in and some I do not. That is because I take each person on his or her merrits. I would like to continue to do this, but if the LDS wishes to throw itself into the fray, many people including myself will have to take a much closer look at their affiliations.
    I would suggest that before you hang the messenger, you consider the message.

    • True Conservative says

      You weren’t paying attention: the unions lined up on the Pearce side.

      He’s a;ready taken about a $1 million from a union, taxpayer funded pension and would never do anything to change his turn at the trough.

      • Mark Davis says
        • True Conservative says


          I followed your links and they don’t seem to address anything I’ve discussed, so I’m not sure how I am wrong.

          Would you please connect the dots for me?

          http://russellpearce.com/endorsements/ shows he had union support. Lewis had no such endorsements, IIRC.

          • Let me spell it out for you then


            Both supported the recall effort as well as canvassed for Jerry Lewis. It’s all there in the campaign finance reports. If you don’t know what UNITE HERE (a union) and CAMPAIGN MONEY WATCH are and who funds them (and the other groups they fund as well like Planned Parenthood for example), I’m not going to do your homework for you.

            • True Conservative says

              Okay, so you have a point, but you don’t want to make it. Should I be looking for masonic symbols on Bolin Plaza in order to understand your cryptic posts?

              You have shown one liberal group got help from one union, and that group opposes SB1070.

              That’s leaves a big leap from declaring those who backed SB1070 were unionists.

              • Conservative American says

                As a “true conservative”, give us your “Conservative” definition of “marriage”, TC.

              • As a “conservative american” answer the questions I asked of you earlier in this thread.

              • Conservative American says

                Define “marriage” for us, Lampoon! ROFL! 🙂

                Well, we already know what you think “marriage” is. The only thing is that your “marriage” is against the law in Arizona, LOL!

                Have a nice day, Lampoon, honey.

              • Conservative American says

                Since you are a “true consevative”, TC, you shouldn’t have the slightest problem defining “marriage” for us. Give us your definition of “marriage”, TC.

              • “conservative” American, just another hypocrite coward who won’t answer any questions.

                Keep running away coward.

      • Sgt. Flapjaw says

        Ok True…….What is it again? Strike the word union and add SEIU.

        • True Conservative says

          I appreciate a good snarky response from time-to-time, so good on you.

          However, the real concern here is that if conservatives just dismiss the recall as an effort of marxist, unionists and radicals then the scenario will likely repeat itself.

          Introspection is important.

          • Conserative American says

            TC wrote: “…conservatives just dismiss the recall…”

            Do you mean that you just dismiss the recall? After all, you post under the user name “True Conservative” and claim to be Conservative.

            • True Conservative says

              What I wrote was “if conservatives,” and yes, I am in that group.

              How about you? Still pushing that socialist “big-brother in the bedroom” pro-federal instrusion agenda? Are you sure you’re a conservative?

              • Conservative American says

                Oooooh! You’re starting to crack, LOL! Saul Alinsky would be very, very disappointed in you, Pinko!

                Now tell us, TC, exactly what constitutes “…that socialist “big-brother in the bedroom” pro-federal instrusion agenda…” to which you refer? What specifically are you talking about? What is the issue to which you refer?

              • True Conservative says

                Still afraid to answer the question – so very typical of an intellectual coward.

                Answer the question – do you still favor an authoritarian form of Federal government over the traditional conservative value of small governance and local rule?

              • Conservative American says

                Do you still support the homosexual “marriage” of radical, ultra left, “progressive” Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Jerrold Nadler? You know, the two lefties who introduced the “Respect for Marriage Act” which would overturn the “Defense of Marriage Act” which the Republican controlled U. S. House of Representatives is defending ln court?

                Define “marriage” for us, TC. As a “true conservative” that should be a snap for you. I’ll even help you. Here is what U. S. Senator Jim DeMint has to say about marriage in the “Family Values” section of his website. You know “Family Values”. That’s that Conservative thing that you hate.

                “Family Values”

                “DeMint believes marriage is the cornerstone to building strong families and communities, and must be protected. For this reason, the senator has consistently supported an amendment to the United States Constitution declaring marriage shall only consist of a legal union between a man and a woman. Also, DeMint has consistently defended federal law pertaining to the sanctity of marriage, including his support for the Marriage Protection Act of 2004. He believes traditional marriage is an important foundation for creating healthy family formation so children will be in raised in the healthiest of environments, setting the stage for their future success.”


                There, that should make it easy for you, Miss Conservative.

                Now define “marriage” for us, TC.

                Here, I’ll help you even more. “Marriage is EXCLUSIVELY the union of one man and one woman”. Right? You agree with that completely. Right, Miss Conservative?

    • I do believe that LDS leadership needs to put out a definitive statement on the Utah Compact. Are they going to be signers or pay it mere lip-service? It will be very damaging for many Mormons holding and seeking office for LDS leadership to play politics with this one.

      As an observer, I just say follow the money, it is often the culprit to many pulpits of faith.

      Funny how the RINOs always do themselves in.

      • The LDS church already has its official statement, TP. Have you read it? If you did, you’d see that it encompasses much of the Utah Compact, but goes further into the morality issues surrounding immigration.

        • Yes, reading this article states that they made a statement (but to me, that sounds like lip-service) but they are not signers to the Compact. And what I have gathered from, what I read, that this position has been made into politics by the laity of the Mormon Church. But perhaps it can serve me well if you can provide a link to the official statement.

          • roundup of statements, timeline, and story regarding utah compact:


          • It’s not surprising that they wouldn’t sign the compact as whatever they would participate in would have to have worldwide application, not provincial application (or give that appearance). The LDS statement is intended for worldwide application and is thereby more appropriate for a worldwide church.

      • I just wanted to make a quick comment on all the talk of “RINOs” and leftists, homosexual supporters, liberals, etc. From what I can see on this commentary- in fact probably true of 99% of SA’s readers- we are all conservative. I have not read a single post in support of communism, the wlefare state, homosexual marriage, abortion, etc., so I don’t see how people are saying that about other people commenting. There seems to be some disagreement about one issue- immigration. I hope that we as conservatives can recognize that we can be just as supportive of limited government, traditional family values, and life as one another bust still disagree on certain issues like immigration.

        My name is Jake Brown, I am as conservative and Republican as any one I know, I believe in a more open immigration policy, and I approve this message.

        • Sgt. Flapjaw says

          How the hell more open do you want it? The Illegals are pooring in as we speak!! That will of course mean bigger Government and a reduction in everyones quality of life. Not conservative ideals. Rule of law. Sorry that you can’t see the difference between legal and illegal, and the effects on society at large.

          • Jake Brown says

            St. Flapjaw- I am in favor of closing the border, by saying that I wanted a more open immigration policy I was speaking of allowing people to come here, not that I wanted more people to come illegally. Sorry if I was confusing.

            Also, more people coming here does not increase the size of government, that is accomplished by liberal voters/politicians. We can’t blame our welfare state bloated government on immigrants (they can’t even vote), we have only ourselves to blame for that. We should not confuse those two issues.

  8. Thomas Grier says

    Senator Karen Johnson,

    I respectfully disagree with your post. Your connection and causality between Mormons and politics is a little thin, considering the facts.

    If you’re looking for a scapegoat please look elsewhere than the Mormon community, which generally is considered the most conservative and or libertarian of religions. Regardless, instead of a hostile tone, it is everyone’s best interest that we work together.

    There are plenty of reasons to not support Mitt Romney and resorting to his Mormonism is not necessary and counterproductive. Plus, you have inaccurately described the Religious Test found in the Constitution. In fact, this type of misuse of the Religious Test is one reason why our religious liberties are eroding.

    Like many other faiths, sometimes the Mormon church involves themselves in issues that they view as morally important, like abortion, gay marriage and even immigration. This is a uniquely American experience and can be found in almost every Christian faith throughout the United States.

    Mormons, like any loose coalition brought together by shared values, have a right to exercise their interests. We will continue to do so and I hope that people can one, accurately report on the actual involvement and two, respond in ways that are uplifting and not mean-spirited.

    Regardless, there will be those who will want to blame the loss of their livelihood, business, family, political office, and any other loss on the Mormons in their community. It might be cathartic, but it is not right.

    Conservatives need to stick together, we have a country to save.

    Thomas Grier (“Mormon”)

    • “Conservatives need to stick together, we have a country to save.”

      Tell it to Russell Pearce, he got stuck to it in the BACK!

    • Dear “Brother” Grier. Sure, conservatives should stick to get together, but have you no pangs of guilt that you sided with left-wing radicals who used your ignorance to further their goals? When I was a bishop I was required to ask every member who wanted to attend the temple whether they were “honest.” Apparently the current standard in the Church is that being an illegal alien and breaking U.S. law is still being honest. The Church facilitates illegals by providing Spanish-speaking wards and branches, thus enabling members not to assimilate. It is so scared of bad publicity among Spanish-speaking countries that it is bending over backwards to ingratiate itself to them. Statistics I have seen indicate that very shortly a majority of the members of the Church world-wide will be Spanish-speaking. Could this have something to do with its position?

      • Hagar … My mouth honestly dropped open as I read your comment. You were a bishop and you honestly believe the church is scared of bad publicity? This is fanaticism at its finest. Have you ever attended a sacrament meeting in a language you didn’t understand?

        There are many members of the church, living in the U.S. who don’t speak English. That much is factual. What policy would you suggest? No church for you if you don’t have a visa? Can they go to an English speaking church? Sure?! Will they be spiritually fed? Absolutely not. I would invite you to honestly sit down and think of the cause/effect relationship between your policy opinions and their consequences.

        I think what you would find is that your current desires would result in a lot of separated families, further-impoverished people and loss of faith. As we defend the constitution, lets remember that it was meant to defend human rights, not American rights. American’s don’t have more God-given rights than non-Americans because those rights aren’t given by the constitution. They are *protected* by the constitution and given by God. God has given Mexicans those same rights. The Mexican government has done a poor job of protecting those rights, so many of its citizens want to be here. They don’t have 5 years to wait for a Visa because their families don’t have food today.

        I personally don’t blame a Mexican father for seeing his children starving and doing whatever is necessary to give them food. Sounds dramatic, but its a reality. I saw it as I served my mission in Veracruz, Mexico. Most of the illegal immigrants in our nation have no other option. The government in Mexico is so corrupt that the poorest population is literally powerless.

        We should be the nation that bankrupts corrupt nations like by welcoming their good, hard-working people to our Nation. Instead, we make laws out of fear. We’re scared that they are better workers than us, so we ATTEMPT to limit their presence here. True free-market capitalists welcome competition and thrive with increased labor supply. I think its a shame that we use such a God-fearing, hard-working people as our scape-goat.

        If they’ve broken laws, let them pay fines; just like we all pay fines for speeding, running red lights and failing to signal when we turn. Yes … that’s right; you’ve broken laws too. Anytime you speed, you are breaking the law and endangering all of the drivers on the road with you. So, yes. Let’s make them pay fines and square themselves with the law like we are after we’ve been to traffic school.

        At the very least, lets stop assimilating the LDS Church with the progressive movement.

        • UNbelieveable!

          The US Constitution is NOT a “world document.” It was written for the citizens of the United States, conferring rights of the people of THIS nation, not to foreigners who are citizens of other countries, who have voting rights, pension rights, civil rights, legal in their OWN countries that are not conveyed to Americans in ANY measure.

          You are promoting a no-borders chaos – at the expense of the United States.

          Mexico is not the only country in the world with poverty… it’s poverty is richer than most African nations, yet no one argues your sob story to bring in Africans as freely as Mexicans.
          Nope. Africans are filling out visa and immigration papers and waiting in lines, yet better equipped Mexico is classed by the World Bank as a “Midldle Income” nation, far ahead of say, Guinea which is “LOW.”

          Encouraging poor people to break laws DOESN’T HELP THEM get ahead, it deceives them and then returns to wreck them.

          • True Conservative says

            As a matter of law you are wrong.

            The Constitution was not written just for US citizens. Its protections are extended to anyone under the jurisdiction of the United States government, including illegal aliens.

            The plain language of the Equal Protection Clause, with its deliberate use of “PERSON” and not “CITIZEN” demonstrates that original intent rather well. See Doe v. Pyle for more information.

            That’s just a matter of grade eight civics, and is something most US citizens know. Why didn’t you?

            • Conservative American says

              Let’s see how much you actually know about The Constitution, TC. As a matter of law, according to you, does The Constitution establish a “right” to homosexual marriage?

            • Conservative American says

              What was that, TC? I can’t hear you.

              You claim to be an attorney, although you find time to post at SA night and day. You are lecturing on The Constitution. Let’s see how much you REALLY know about The Constitution, TC.

              Is homosexual “marriage” a right under The Constitution? That should be an easy one for you.

            • We have the Constitutional right to very politely and nicely, with no beating involved, unlike other countries, including Mexico, escort illegals to the border and send them to their own countries. We respect the God-given rights of human beings not to be abused, to verify that illegality is indeed what’s going on … not rumors, as they are escorted OUT. Very fair, and nothing to be ashamed of. Better than most countries on the planet.. FAR better.

              There is nothing there that conveys rights of lawful citizens to illegals, especially not to ignore breaking and ignoring of standing laws.

              • True Conservative says

                So what is your point?

                At least you have backed away from your outright lie that the Constitution only applies to US citizens.

        • AHA! You’ve proved my point. The managing editor of the Desert News, the official organ of the LDS Church, also equated being illegal to merely getting a parking ticket. What a clever obfuscation to allow illegals to be “honest” when they are interviewed for their temple recommend. No harm no foul. How about the Article of Faith to “obey the laws of the land.” How do you rationalize that one for illegals?

  9. Daryl Williams is or was a member of his stake’s “high council”. A stake is a local body, and a high councilor is a local, lay position. His role in his local congregations is one of effectively being an adviser to a “stake president” who helps the stake president with his duties. This position is not one of great prominence in our church and those who hold it would never speak or act in an official church capacity. It is a position that would require one to be in good standing in the church to participate in, but this author makes it sound like Daryl Williams is speaking for the church. He is not. He speaks for himself. And he’s even a local, lay person who has no direct responsibility for a “flack” so to speak so his words could not even be construed to have been spoken in or to a group of people who might feel an obligation to heed them. The connections this author is trying to draw based on one man’s involvement in that Pearce race is thin and misguided, at best, and insidious and malicious, at worst.

    What Williams did do, however, was draw attention to the official LDS statement on immigration that many members may have not been not aware of. If it gave some of them pause, well, it should have. Many, like lemmings, may have been following Pearce off the cliff. When a church sees a society (and its own adherents) veering into extremism, to remain silent would be immoral.

    The LDS church was a late adopter of the Utah Compact, not a leader. Other churches in the US have actually led out on this immigration issue (including the Catholic Council of Bishops) much earlier and much more vociferously. To try and make this a Mormon thing is to be blissfully ignorant of reality.

  10. Tyler Montague says

    Karen initially brings up an interesting political issue with regard to Romney and the perception that he may act against his duties to the constitution in favor of direction from Salt Lake. –Then I think she gets out there with several points that aren’t accurate, or are unfounded.

    First, she just wants us to assume that there is a conflict between constitutional duties and the principles advocated by the Utah Compact. I think those “compact” principles can be honored within the wise constraints of the Constitution, and I think thoughtful conservatives can strike the right balance. I think I will write an essay on this subject at some time in the future, and will submit it here for your consideration.

    Second, Daryl Williams didn’t play that big a role in the Pearce recall, in my opinion. I’ve never met him nor heard him. Jerry Lewis heard him once when he was one of several speakers, with varying viewpoints, at an immigration conference he attended in September–long after Lewis’s own opinions on immigration were formed, and long after his candidacy was underway. From what I’ve heard about him, I don’t necessarily agree with all he has to say. My guess is that 95% of Mormons have never heard of the man. Williams didn’t “single-handedly” do anything.

    Third, for many of us, our religions do inform our positions on many moral issues that are also political issues. For example, I believe the U.S. Constitution is divinely inspired by God, and that belief is formed by things I’ve learned in church. My religion has helped form my beliefs on marriage, drugs, abortion, and yes, immigration. I don’t offer any apologies for it, either. But, just because my religion has formed my beliefs, doesn’t mean that others who share those beliefs come to the exact same conclusions about policy. Glen Beck is a Mormon, and so is Harry Reid. Jerry Lewis is a Mormon, and so is Russell Pearce. The Church doesn’t dictate policy to politicians, and Mormons are pretty free-thinking. In the Pearce/Lewis election, polls indicate that Mormons were split. Fear of Mormons walking lock-step with Salt Lake’s dictations are unfounded by history.

    Fourth, all these claims about “marxists” overthrowing Pearce are completely nutty. Democrats comprise 26% of LD18, and they don’t turn out to vote very well, and didn’t even do so in the Pearce recall election (they formed 28% of the votes cast, and a third of them voted for Pearce). They can’t impose their will on anyone. Two-thirds of a quarter of LD18 didn’t overthrow Pearce. According to the Capitol Times’ poll, and internal polling in the Lewis camp, Pearce lost among Republicans. The 12% victory margin backs that up. The fact that half of Lewis’s money came from LD18, while 4% of Pearce’s money came from LD18 speaks volumes.

    • Your last paragraph is very good. But I’ve learned that quite a few of the people who comment here just ignore facts (and never bring any themselves when arguing their points of view).

      Also, they are in denial. But that is a stage of “grief”, right?

    • It is one thing to shoot yourself in the foot, it is another when you try to shake it off. You RINOs are your own undoing.

      • If you are going to insist on calling anyone who disagrees with your view on immigration a RINO, then perhaps you have earned the ignominy of being called a “WINO”. (winner in name only) And a whiny WINO to boot ….

        The facts don’t lie, TP.

        • I insist on calling all those I deemed establishment Republicans who are not strong conservatives, but are more akin to neo-statist, yes, I insist on calling them RINOs. For you, I do not care what you think of me, but thanks for the link you provided earlier.

          • And that goes for their willfully ingnorant lackey supporters too, though, I just think of them more as RINO enablers.

          • Tyler Montague says

            So, by having some disagreements with you on one single issue, and in sync with Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, the Cato Institute, et al, you’ve decided that I’m a “RINO”?


            I think I’ll be comfortable with my conservative credentials in spite of your declaration, thank you.

          • You are welcome for the link. I don’t think anything of you one way or another, as I don’t know you, I only know that you make a lot of statements that are not backed by fact or data and are, therefore, opinion. I disagree with your opinions.

            I merely think that if you’re going to insist on calling everyone who disagrees with you a RINO, that perhaps you deserve your own special designation.

            Seems to me that, in your book, most Republicans *are* in actuality RINOs. Your standard for Republicanism seems to exceed traditional platforms..

    • Dee Dee Blase paraded Daryl Williams around last summer sway LDS voters into believing Pearce wasn’t following the prophet.

      Then she actually shows up at Lewis’ party on election night. Sounds like this is another one of those “I’ve never met the guy” plausable deniability situations we’ve heard before.

      • Tyler Montague says

        Dee Dee Blase is a nut who was not part of, nor welcome in the Lewis campaign. She actually tried to call us a few times, and we simply ignored her. She is a media hound who showed up to the Lewis election-night gathering, because it was open to the public. Don’t make the mistake of confusing anything she says with official positions of Jerry Lewis or his campaign, Mark.

        And I would also say not to insult Mormons’ intelligence by saying that someone like Blase (who’s not a Mormon, by the way) could parade around someone like Williams, and somehow everyone would magically fall in line with them.

      • Jake Brown says


        I am a very active Mormon, and I am very active politically. I also live in LD18. I heard about these “firesides” occuring, but I never actually heard when or where any of them would take place. The point- I really don’t think these firesides did anything. No one I knew every went to one. They did not influence the election at all, and the certainly have not affected church member’s immigration policy.

        I take exception with articles like this that state a fact (i.e. this Williams guy gave a fireside), and then states another fact (i.e. Russell Pearce lost the recall election) and then tries to say that the one caused the other. The average voter (not even the moderately informed Mormon) voter knew about these firesides, and it made no difference in people’s beliefs or in the election.

  11. I of course support Newt Gingrich, I can not support Mitt because of his old then new stance on abortion and Romneycare just to name two things, and to me abortion is the least of my concerns this election, But to be stubborn and arrogant in your beliefs about the two policies Christians are against with no compromise. We are a dying country if we give Obama another 4 years, we need to elect someone who can take Congress by the ears and slap them upside their proverbial heads to do what is right by the citizens according to the Constitution. I believe Newt is that man, Oklahoma Senator Colburn said just that on Sunday while he endorsed Mitt.

    • If Romney is the nominee, will you vote for him? Will you vocally support him?

      He’s not my first choice either, but I’d vote for a ham sandwich against Obama.

      I’d even put a ham sandwich bumper sticker on my car.

  12. Tyler, the Big Lie is apparently alive and well. You continue to drone on about funding sources for the election. But you always conveniently decline to mention all the money that poured into Randy Parraz’s organizations coffers to fund the recall. What a selective dolt and tool of the radicals you are.

    • Why didn’t anyone (in any significant way) from LD18 donate to Pearce? For a guy you claim to be so popular, it sure seems like no one in his district cared for him enough to actually write him a check. Or is he just a lazy politician who got fat off clean elections like when he took nearly 100K from taxpayers running against gibbons in 2008?

      Please, someone provide an explanation as to why Pearce could not find any support in his own backyard and had to instead to to out of city and out of state special interests groups and lobbyists for his support.

      You guys need to open your eyes. You were duped by the consummate politician who for his entire life has been feeding off the taxpayer. He just got proud and lazy in the last few years, dependent on clean elections, and taken over by the fringe elements on the right, and so he lost.

      He lost, fair and square. (though he’s quite a sore loser….).

    • Tyler Montague says

      Hagar, I’m sorry, but facts are stubborn. Pearce very likely lost among Republicans, and the longer people are in denial about it, the longer it will take to learn the lessons of that election.

      Even if you take the money from the recall people into account, Lewis was outspent 3:1 by Pearce’s campaign + all of Pearce’s outside money.

      Among other significant reasons, Pearce lost because he and his supporters kept looking for the perfect dirty trick to win the election, rather than campaign on Pearce’s own merits. If the left’s insidious plan is replace one conservative with another conservative who is more in tune with what the electorate wants, then let them knock themselves out.

  13. Karen, we can all understand that you’re angry about the outcome of the recall election, but I can’t understand why you would continue to campaign on such flawed logic. You have arrived at conclusions which have little foundation in reason and mirror the search for vindication that I have witnessed on the part of Russell Pearce himself.

    I watched Pearce give an interview on Fox News that really made me feel bad for the guy. Like you, he went on and on about the liberal media, character assassination and every other “evil” influence he could think of to explain his political martyrdom. It is clear that the man is at a loss for explanation. After watching the interview, a person I know remarked, “the funny part about that interview is that Russell doesn’t seem to know what happened. He still has no idea why he was recalled.”

    The real reason can be explained in one word; fanaticism. He obviously has very personal emotions that are tied to the immigration issue and I feel compassion for that. Unfortunately, those emotions have driven him to lose sight of the end goal; to protect our liberty of our citizens and stand as a beacon of freedom and justice to the world.

    A close relative of mine recently shared with me that he in fact voted for Pearce with his early ballot and later regretted having done so. This confirmed my suspicion that Pearce’s loss had very little to do with immigration. It was more tied to his political tone. This relative explained that he thought recall elections were unwise in nature and had voted for Pearce on that principle. He then began to see the mailers and other smear campaigns from the Pearce campaign and realized he had made the wrong decision. In other words, Pearce’s lost supporters as his tone increased in fanaticism.

    During the campaign, many Pearce supporters attempted to “liberalize” anybody who opposed him. “If you’re not with us, you’re against us” was the apparent sentiment of Pearce supporters. This, of course, was proven false as Pearce lost by over 10 points in Mesa, Arizona. (You don’t lose by that much in Mesa if you truly represent conservatives.)

    Now that Lewis supporters been proven as the conservative majority you are attempting to align the LDS Church with the liberal movement. I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it. Even if political leaders are “controlled” by the LDS Church, in what world is the LDS Church controlled by progressives? Do you honestly believe that the same church which vehemently supported Prop 8 in California is somehow taking orders from progressives? If so, I invite you to examine the foundation of that argument.

    • So how come Governor Jan Brewer and Sheriff Arpaio are on the recall attack list the very next day after the election … if it was “all about Pearce?”

      The very next day, was plainly stated it was ALL about illegal immigration… changing the status quo in AZ.

  14. God bless you Karen, but I think the mercury has infected your system.

  15. CD6 Businessman says

    There are many reasons why a person supports one candidate over another. Every politician gets support support and votes from groups they wouldn’t align with normally. Guilt by association is a very flawed concept.

    Using guilt by association, as the Pearce campaign attempted and many here continue to promote, Russell Pearce could easily be labeled as an anti-Mormon, Nazi loving, sham candidate felon. BUT thankfully a majority of people see that just because a certain group supports you does not mean you support them.

  16. Ghost of Friedman says

    I’m sorry, Ms. Johnson, but you can only say the words “radical Marxist” so many times before you marginalize yourself. I consider myself a staunch capitalist, and I supported the recall effort. In fact, I have a hard time understanding how conservatives, who claim to favor the ability of the free market to allocate labor and resources, often favor centralized control over the flow of immigrants (i.e., labor). Instead of favoring an individual’s right to sell his/her labor abroad free of arbitrary constraints, conservatives have adopted a protectionistic, harmful, closed-border policy–abandoning a chance to win the Latino vote while simultaneously hurting the U.S. economy at the same time. Liberals are no better, but Conservatives, with their supposed love for the free market, should know better than to back a policy of centralized control.

    • Jake Brown says

      Thank you Milton. I could not agree more with your description of free market economics. Just like we should be allowed to purchase health insurance from whoever we choose, the government should not dictate where I get my labor from.

  17. Romney’s position on immigration doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the Utah Compact. So I fail to see how this will affect Romney one way or the other.

    It’s also notable that DeeDee Blase dislikes and routinely attacks Mitt Romney. I don’t think anyone is going to accuse Mitt Romney of being beholden to people like her.

    This article is just an excuse for Karen Johnson to babble endlessly about Russell Pearce and the recall election.

    Karen Johnson is also a 9/11 truther and general wacko. Why anyone sane would listen to her opinions anymore is beyond me…

    • True Conservative says

      “This article is just an excuse for Karen Johnson to babble endlessly about Russell Pearce and the recall election.” and to bash Mormons.

      The entire piece is simply despicable.

      • Conservative American says

        Oh! The entire piece is exactly like you!

        Define “marriage” for us, TC. I suppose you REALLY don’t want to do that because the LDS Church supports traditional marriage. Are you going to “bash” the LDS Church for it’s support of traditional marriage, TC, or are you going to pretend that you support traditional marriage when you really support the homosexual “marriage” of radical, ultra left liberal, U. S. “progressive” Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein?

        Give us your definition of “marriage”, TC, heroic defender of the LDS Church, and let’ see how it compares with the Mormon definition of marriage.

      • Conservative American says

        Here is what the LDS Church has to say about homosexual “marriage”, TC.

        “My name is Michael Otterson. I am here representing the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to address the matter of the petition presented today by the Human Rights Campaign.”

        “As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman.”

        “Further, while the Church is strongly on the record as opposing same-sex marriage, it has openly supported other rights for gays and lesbians such as protections in housing or employment.”


        According to you, doesn’t that make the LDS Church “bigots” who seek to deny homosexuals their “right” to marry?

        • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says

          ConAm, you are a wet blanket on any serious discussion. You always march in and dominate the discussion with low-brow, off-topic, non-sequitur-filled, vulgar irrelevancies. Take up your personal obsession with “True Conservative” with your therapist, and stick to the topic at hand.

          • Conservative American says

            With no respect due, MCC, sit on it, LOL!

            If you don’t like my posts, don’t read them.

            Now get yourself to see your parole officer and see if you drop a clean urine specimen this time.

            BTW, what is your definition of “marriage”?

            Have a nice day, MCC! 🙂

        • Conservative American says

          What about this, TC:

          “Top leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints recently released a six-page statement on why the faith is opposed to same-sex marriage.”


          The LDS Church opposes your beloved homosexual “marriage”. Are you going to do some of what you call “Mormon bashing” now because, according to you, the LDS Chruch is denying “rights” and “equality” to gays, or are you going to make a special exception for the LDS Church? Do tell, TC!

  18. How is the Utah Compact or even Comprehensive Immigration reform amnesty?  No one has ever been able to credibly and coherently answer that question for me.  We can have a legitimate debate on immigration solutions but to generalize all comprehensive solutions as amnesty is ignorant.  Furthermore, it is a false dichotomy to say, “In order to ‘honor and sustain’ the laws of the land one has to be against comprehensive immigration reform.” 


    I have supported some forms of comprehensive immigration reform.  I also support a strong border.  I agree that our country needs to do a lot better at regulating immigration reform. We need to speed up the process of deportation. It certainly makes sense to have a border policy that reflects our nation’s market demands; this would include a guest worker program.  Those who break our laws and cross here illegally need to be punished.  Those who hire illegal immigrants should be punished.  Illegal immigrants should have to pay fines, even back taxes, and have to go to the back of the line to get permanent legal status.  Comprehensive Immigration reform supports these ideals while still recognizing other complexities of the issue.

    • Mark Davis says


      LAW ENFORCEMENT We respect the rule of law and support law enforcement’s professional judgment and discretion. Local law enforcement resources should focus on criminal activities, not civil violations of federal code.

      By telling law enforcement not to go after the illegals (which is hardly a “civil violation”), it allows illegals to be in this country, illegally. Coupled with the other pseudo principles in the compact (“keeping families together”, “economic role”), while only allowing the Federal government the power and authority to act will eventually lead to amnesty. And those who sign off on this ridiculous “compact” will go down with the sinking ship when it is all finally exposed for what the intention really was all along.

      • I read no where that illegal immigrants should be granted an unconditional pardon for breaking the law.

        Did you miss the paragraph before?

        “FEDERAL SOLUTIONS Immigration is a federal policy issue between the U.S. government and other countries—not Utah and other countries. We urge Utah’s congressional delegation, and others, to lead efforts to strengthen federal laws and protect our national borders. We urge state leaders to adopt reasonable policies addressing immigrants in Utah.”

        Obviously we want federal law enforcement officials to find out who is here legally and who is not. No one is saying to turn a blind eye to fact we have many many here who are illegal. We certainly need to deal with these, we just need to do it on a Federal Level. I cannot blame Arizona for wanting to fix this issue because the Feds have surely failed up to this point. However, it should be dealt with on at the Federal Level.

        As for what you refer to as “pseudo principles”; these are not pseudo in any way, shape or form. These principles are very much real and important and need to be considered!

        Your problem is your rhetoric puts all the blame on the immigrants themselves when it has been our government’s failure to fix the problem. Our government has essentially been encouraging, or at least turning a blind eye to illegal immigration for the last several decades. Immigration reform needs to acknowledge that immigrants are not the only ones at fault.

        • ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
          Boomer says:
          December 8, 2011 at 5:17 pm
          “Immigration reform needs to acknowledge that immigrants are not the only ones at fault.”

          DO you feel that way when you left your back door open for five years and nobody took advantage of it, but suddenly twenty people saw it and snuck inside, are camped in your living room, eating your food and are refusing to leave?

          You won’t take kindly to the argument it was your fault for not locking the door, not the home invaders for disrespecting your property rights.

          Five hundred people by their own free will who passed those many years saw the door was open and did not presume they had any right to push in on your property.

          You are promoting a double standard of behavior.

      • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says

        Mark Davis, you just got completely trashed by Boomer. How about admitting that you’re wrong now?

  19. I don’t agree with much of Karen Johnsons post that Romney faces problems with his candiacy. But then I doubt she’s really interested much in what she claims as her main subject.

    But as for Arizona and the actions of folks like Tyler? Time will tell.

    Have the ‘courageous’ stands taken in LD18 – irrespective of the ugly alliance with the professional left – ushered in a new era signifying a more moderate attitude towards SB1070 and immigration in general?

    Are the fights over the IRC an indication that the Grand Canyon and Morrison Institute is moving public opinion toward open primaries – since they insist the IRC is working so well now that the Supremes have ruled? Or was the Pearce outcome a ‘modle’ for promoting moderation – rather than just the kind of meddling exercise people like Randy Parraz live for?

    A lot of folks here are still acting like divorcees who can’t resist hating in perputuity. Pearce derrangement haters in LD18 have established the point – they knocked off OUR SENTATE PRESIDENT – and the open schisms within the Mormon community have, if these posts are any indication, only worsened since Lewis was sworn in.

    We have a new record ‘take down’. Pearce becomes an asterisk – although I doubt LD18 voters on either side who insist their ‘numbers’ reflect anything regarding his standing besides a unique one time event – irrespective of post polling.

    The contentiousness, the rancor, the anger associated with this race, does anyone believe this is going to disapte as if something was resolved? These are the kinds of bitter battles that last. Mormons in Arizona have done themselves no great shakes deciding that Illegal Immigration – and in particular their insipid response with the Utah Compact – is a hill worth dying for.

    Doesn’t matter whether they beat their breasts over religion or economics when insisting it was their patriotic duty when doing it.

    The great well of public trust Mormons had built in the past thirty years is now either gone – or badly tainted – or perhaps only just slightly burised. Time will tell.

    Ronmey and his people have little to fear over his religion nationally. It didin’t keep him from becoming a governor. Are there some conservative christians who will never vote for him – probably. But there isn’t any evidence that Mittens isn’t going to rise or fall on his own – with no excuses this time around.

    Even if Huntsman decides to push his non-starter run as a third party shot – it wouldn’t amount to much besides a vindictive guilty pleasure.

    But here in Arizona?

    How Jeff Flake and Matt Salmon find the aftermath directly following this fiasco of an ugly gutter fight is another story all together. These candiacies rightly or wrongly will be considered a bellweather – no matter how their supporters attempt to deflect it – just as Flake will have to live with diehard Pearce supporters reminding eveyone how his stealth support for his brother-in-law was a roadmap for the eventual design Parraz mutated via the popular initative drives.

    Reality based ‘polling’ via the franchise will come closest to settling these scores. Time will tell.

    Right now all there is amounts to idle boasts and sour grapes, with Johnsons post clearly wallowing in the grape patch.

    • True Conservative says

      The more I consider English’s article the more it seems just an attack on the Mormon faith.

      Despicable filth is really the only way to describe her bigotry.

      • Conservative American says

        Isn’t that a coincidence, TC. Despicable fith is really the only way to describe your bigotry as well.

        Have a nice day, TC! 🙂

        • True Conservative says

          Your man-crush on me, manifest by your cyberstalking, is pathetic.

          • Conservative American says

            ROFL!!!!! 🙂

            Gee, first you said that I had a man-crush on Russell Pearce. Now you are saying that I have a man-crush on you. You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about men having crushes on other men. Is there a reason for that, TC?

            I know, maybe we’ll understand if you define “marriage” for us. I suspect that will clear things up.

            • Ghost of Friedman says

              CA: Why do you keep trying to make this post about marriage? It’s about immigration, the recall, the LDS church, Romney, etc…Why the constant barrage of “liberal, Feinstein, radical, marxist, communist, pinko, gay-lover” diatribe? Seriously–I’d like to know where this need to divert attention with blatant, unrelated, rhetoric comes from? If your point is to call out TC for supporting something that you disagree with, I think you’ve done that by now (in a very distasteful way I might add).

              • Conservative American says

                “Gay-lover”? Where did I write, “gay-lover’? Quote me. Copy and paste here the post where I said, “gay-lover”. If you want to whine and moan, start off by getting it right, Ghost.

                Hey, if you don’t like my posts, don’t read them. Really very simple. I don’t like your post either. I find that you write in a very distasteful way. Regardless, have at it and post as many distasteful posts as you want. If I don’t like your posts, I won’t read them.

                Have a nice day, Ghost. 🙂

              • True Conservative says

                That’s the trick Con Am would like to pull off.

                He knows that my position on marriage is that in my personal life and in my faith I hold that marriage is the union of one man to one woman.

                He also knows that I don’t like to go off-topic, so he keeps posting the same, “asked and answered” question over-and-over again.

                It stems from him inability to defend his on-topic positions, so when backed up against the wall, he would start to stammer and cry and repeat his nonsence. When that started becoming transperant, and as he realized that any time he engaged me in discussion he was going to lose, that became his stock answer for every post.

                At the end of the day he’s just another bitter troll, angry at everyone except for himself. As a true conservative, I believe in personal accountability. As a wingnut, Con Am believes everything comes down to consipracies and that I must, therefore, be some liberal plant.

                It both pathetic and amusing, but such is life.

          • Conservative American says

            Now where did we leave off, TC. Oh yes! What is it with these constant thoughts you have about men having crushes on other men? First you said that I had a “man-crush” on Russell Pearce and now you think that I have a “man-crush” on YOU, LOL!

            I know that this is going to come as a shock to you, TC, but there really are heterosexuals in the world who only have “woman-crushes”. In time, you’ll get over it.

  20. For Karen “Truther” Johnson, here’s three pieces of the truth missing from your story:

    (1) The LDS Church DID endorse the Utah Compact. The Presiding Bishop of the Church H. David Burton attended the signing of the legislation. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705368733/Utah-Gov-Gary-Herbert-signs-immigration-bills-into-law.html

    (2) Dee Dee Blase and Daryl Williams had NOTHING to do with the Pearce Recall.

    (3) Many of the people, myself included, who started the recall and worked to get Pearce out of office, are lifelong Republicans. This doesn’t make us “marxist anarchists” or “RINO’s”, it just means we don’t agree with your paranoid, mean-spirited, anti-capitalist brand of conservatism.

    • It is unbelievable that you make a living from illegal aliens, and that you can deny your motives over and over again. I guess that is the kind of sliminess that it takes to be a lawyer. It says even more about the “Morons” who bought into your crapola and kissed the ring of the LDS hierarchy. Now your butt buddy in crime Parraz is writing “resolutions” for the Mexican landfill of Guadalupe, targeting your next victim Arpaio. If SB 1070 gets a review by SCOTUS, your ass is going to be packing for Mexifornia. Take Parraz with you.

    • Here is what I mean by a RINO! This guy shares a stage with Randy Parraz and not in a debate, but a joining of hands to out a true Conservative. Now he does not think himself a RINO, but seldom do the cronies in the party think themselves as RINOs.

      Thanks for stopping by and providing yourself as an example of a perfect RINO, Chadwick!

      Will you be helping out on the Krony Adams campaign?

      • Ghost of Friedman says

        If being a RINO means supporting Kirk Adams, refusing to sanctify Pearce, opposing the economically harmful and anti-capitalistic closed border policy of Pearce supporters, and wanting the hypocritical, corrupt, smarmy Arpaio thrown out of office, then maybe I am a RINO. However, p2012p, at some point you’ll have burned so many bridges with reasonable conservatives and libertarians that everyone but you and zoo with be cast a RINO. Have fun with your short-sighted, two-person party, devoid of all logic and reason, but conquerors of non-sequitors, ad hocs and ad hominems. Maybe at some point you’ll learn about cause and effect, correlation, and the non-link between objective result and subjective intention.

        • Dig this Ghost. If we had a true free market and not a welfare state that is growing bye\ leaps and bounds, we would not need a closed border. But thanks to the RINOs who feel more comfortable with the likes of Randy Parraz, that day we most likely will never see in our life time.

          • CD6 Businessman says

            Seriously, I think you are on to something and I have heard this many times. So are you saying your immigration policy would change if the entitlements were under control?

            This is where I don’t understand the litmus test on immigration. I think most immigration “hardliners” can relate to your comments but if this were the case don’t you think we should all join forces and focus on entitlements and the welfare state instead of focusing on what Michael Medved referred to as “The Immigration Distraction”? To me it sounds like you are saying the entitlements are the problem and not necessarily immigration. Immigration is only a symptom??

          • Mesa Constitutional Conservative says

            Scaring everyone about “them dirty thieven’ messicans” is how his Uncle Russell was getting elected…actually solving the problem would be a disaster for these guys. They couldn’t generate enough fear around other serious concerns of theirs like fluoridated water or the trilateral commission or the Bilderbergs, etc. They needed this distraction. If only we could focus on serious problems like entitlement reform.

            • You know I have to admit your right. It was fear mongering all along. I mean really, who gives a flying **** about 50,000 Americans killed by illegal aliens in the past ten years? We had way too many people anyway, right? Let’s get down to business and concentrate on just how hunky-mormie things are in Mesa. You got yours, right? Let them get theres:

              Christopher “Buddy” Rowe, age 4, Santa Rosa, CA, killed 8/23/11 by unlicensed hit and run illegal alien Marcos Lopez Garcia

              Anna Bronson, age 11, Belton, MO, killed 7/5/11 in head-on crash by drunken illegal alien Felix Solano-Gallardo

              Jonathan Campbell, age 15, Buford, GA, killed 6/24/11 by unlicensed illegal alien Jhony Velasquez Castillo

              Shakir West, age 3, Cincinnati, OH, killed 4/4/11 by hit and run illegal alien Rodolfo Temaj Felix

              Jacob Tucker, age 9 months, Beaumont, TX, killed 1/24/11 by drunken illegal alien Legarda Quezad

            • If Chad Snow declares Arpaio shouldn’t be rounding up illegal landscapers, then the only “thievin’ going on” is Americans dodging not paying their lawful withholding and social security obligations to the US Treasury, what else is the reason to hire illegals over legals? Practice non-existent foreign language skills?

              Of course, Democrat Treasury Secretary Tim Geitner dodged his tax responsibilities, Democrat Al Sharpton is $2.6 in unpaid taxes … so guess paying taxes is something Democrats expect of everyone ELSE while avoiding them themselves.

    • Sgt. Flapjaw says

      Listen Chad, everyone by now [who pays attention] should know that you are an immigration lawyer. Your credability is shot on two counts……..Immigration and lawyer.
      If you don’t like being called a Rino it’s too bad. You can be called a UCR, un conserative Republican.
      I prefer to call you what you really are, a despicable bottom feeder. DBF if you like.

      • CD6 Businessman says

        I do not know Mr. Snow and therefore cannot speak about him but you do know that many immigration attorney’s work to get their clients squared up with the law right? For example, when I went through the impossible task (unsuccessfully) of trying to sponsor foreigners to work for my company legally I used an immigration attorney. Sure attorneys have their fair share of dirt bags but does profession really equal motive?

        • Sgt. Flapjaw says

          CD6, Snow admits to being a lawyer. He admits to and proud of helping to start the recall. yes, he is a dispicable dirt bag.
          With his filthy hands and backgound, lets also include his anti American buddies, he still has the guts to cry [on this site] about being hated. The dope.

      • Snow is the principle of Snow & Carpio, who file workers’ compensation claims for illegals aliens, thus C.A.’s label of “ambulance chaser.”


    • Mark Davis says

      Chad, last I checked, H David Burton is not the prophet. I have YET to see a statement with the PROPHET’s name endorsing the compact.

      Stop purposely misleading people. It’s called being a LIAR.

    • Dee Dee Blase didn’t have anything to do with the recall?

      so, you’re saying her group Somos Republicans and Arizona for a Better Government who filed with the SOS office BEFORE CBA to recall Pearce, had nothing to do with the recall? Why was she at Lewis’ election night party? Why did she drag Williams out for the sole purpose (her own words) of swaying the LDS vote for the compact which was endorsed by Lewis? They go hand in hand. Stop trying to imply otherwise.

      It might not make you a marxist anarchist (not sure where you got that people were calling you that) but it does make you a traitor to the Republican party.

      and a lawyer.

    • :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
      Chad Snow says:

      December 9, 2011 at 1:06 pm

      (3) Many of the people, myself included, who started the recall and worked to get Pearce out of office, are lifelong Republicans. This doesn’t make us “marxist anarchists” or “RINO’s”, it just means we don’t agree with your paranoid, mean-spirited, anti-capitalist brand of conservatism.

      You stated publically you wanted to stop Arpaio from arresting landscapers.

      So, you need illegals to do your yard so you can dodge paying social security and insurance and tax? Why don’t you help everyone and lobby to LOWER those taxes so it ‘s LESS out of your pocket to hire LEGALS?

      My brand of capitalism means hiring legal workers according to the requirements of our current tax code and laws.

  21. Remember: Karen Johnson is a truther, and a chemtrail believer, posting an article by her makes this site look really ignorant and fringe-like.

    • Have you considered changing your nic before making that sort of pronouncement about other people?

      • Limprod, what does this site have to do with being ignorant when it believes and practices free speech within reason?

        What is missing from this article and comments is Flake and Cardon. Also missing is the fact that no one knows or is asking which of the four books of mormon is Mitt referencing when he said “When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.” Now that God has been brought into it, mormons believe that God was a once a mortal man who progressed to the level of God. Now that we are progressing let’s look at what “church” means to mormon’s: simple – not much different than islam’s take on Christian, of course that is my opinion open for discussion.

        Question for anyone to answer: Where in the Bible does it say a person has to be worthy to enter the Temple? Did this have anything to do with Romney and Huntsman skipping Frank Luntz’ debate (because it was in Christian Church)?

        Why should a person pray about the Book of Mormon when the Bible says we should not rely on such a subjective test?

        • Its important for people to know that Karen Johnson is one of the nuttiest conspiracy theorist whackjobs in the state, its all out there, she thinks 9/11 was a government operation, and that the evil “them” are flying jets all around the world, spraying us with some evil thing for some evil purpose, etc, etc.

          Publishing her droolings serves to legitimize her, and you all need to remember just how batshiat crazy this woman is.

          • She must have hit a sore spot all right.

            Do Liberals have a high rate of psychoanalys-ism? Ya’ll don’t notice the retreat to psychiatric drug references and psychological blather when debate topics get out of their control? Looking at numerous posters up there crying foul with no real facts, just …pills, psychosis …

            It’s rather noticeable the familiarity with that sort of thang. I don’t assume someone is on or requires psychiatric drugs just because they don’t agree with me. Different culture, hmm?

            Isn’t that sort of Soviet? The way they sent inconvenient dissenters to psych wards?

            • So, do you agree with the Scientology group that Karen works with?


              Doesn’t matter, you are as gutless as Coward American, you never answer any questions either.

              • Oh, so you are arguing that if someone you disagree with warns yout that they see a bus about to run you over, you won’t listen to them nor will you listen to an idle bystander like me watching all this who says, “Uh, keep an eye on that bus there,” unless I ALSO adhere to ALL your political viewpoints.

                I think Karen made a very good point about the Mormon disconnect in the recall, because as a bystander observing it, judging by the heated exchanges right here on SA, Mormons were pitted against each other rather effectively in the recall.

                But you want to run off and waste our time with some non sequitur. I’m sure it’s all very interesting in an anthropological sort of way, but has nothing to do with the point raised.

              • True Conservative says

                I’m not comfortable with attacking people due to their religion affiliations.

                I don’t think it’s germane to this discussion, as English did not raise her personal faith or experience with the LDS in her argument.

                Indeed, given that her post really is an attack on the LDS faith and those who adhere to its teaching and structure, it is unseemly to respond in kind.

                I don’t agree with some of your politics, but I genuinely enjoy your ability to post intelligently, save this line of attack.

  22. So how do all the Open Borders folk feel about illegals now armed to the teeth with Eric Holder-of the Obama Adminstration – FAST and FURIOUS distributed guns?

    Holder admitted in he hearings that more people are necessarily going to die because of it … for a long time. The program was MEANT to bring those weapons back through the illegal networks INTO the USA to be used in CRIMES.

    Illegal immigration lawyer ambulance chaser business may actually have real ambulances as major features in the near future.

  23. True Conservative says

    This is an issue where outrage is appropriate, but I must have missed this part:

    “The program was MEANT to bring those weapons back through the illegal networks INTO the USA to be used in CRIMES.”

    I confess I missed that part. I had read it the plan was to track the weapons into Mexico and then arrest the cartel members. As despicable as that plan would be, given its recklessness, a plan that included the return of those guns into the states to be used in crimes is utterly revolting.

    Can you share your sources?

    • The Justice Department admitted from the get-go the weapons could not be traced once they were over the border, so no actual arrests of cartel members was in the plan. That was established as the case months and months ago, at the start of the hearings.

      For someone who regularly claims to be up on top of such things, you aren’t paying the least bit of attention to the hearings going on? How uncharacteristic. Willfully blind, so what’s the point of links when even my parakeet can C-SPAN it?

  24. True Conservative says:
    December 12, 2011 at 8:52 pm
    I’m not comfortable with attacking people due to their religion affiliations.

    You are VERY comfortable attacking people due to their religious affiliations. You twice insinuated anti-semitism in your comments, to the point of trying to insinuate proclivities of Kristallnatch atrocities against Christians on this blog.

    If you are comfortable with THAT slime, then you don’t have much of an edit function.

  25. Talmage Pearce says

    Ok, seriously, this is like the 4th discussion I have found where someone is accusing me of posting under p2012p or some other alias.

    It’s getting annoying, people. I have never posted under some secret alias and i have no idea who p2012p is. Get a life people.

Leave a Reply