Author Archives: America Today

House Speaker Pleads for Hillary to Turn Over Computer Server

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnA new slew of allegations has emerged implying that the Clinton Foundation may have accepted bribes in exchange for Hillary to use her Secretary of State status to influence government policy. An example of possible influence peddling was her support for Russia’s acquisition of a major stake in American uranium mining.

It looks like she violated the law, and the idea that she was going to use her own server and do official business on it goes against every transparency issue that the President likes to tout,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) observed. “She should turn that server and all those documents over to the Inspector General, at the State Department.”

Boehner said he is undecided on whether he will ask the House to subpoena the server. “On the one hand, I think the American people have a right to know the facts,” Boehner said. “On the other hand, compelling the handover of this equipment might create the impression that the Clintons are criminals. They’re good people and I am reluctant to repay their long years of public service by using tactics that would be applied to ordinary suspects in a criminal case.”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged that “the former Secretary appears not to have honored her agreement with the President to keep everything above board. I mean, she explicitly forswore accepting donations from foreign governments while she served as Secretary of State. Nevertheless, I can’t see any point in subpoenaing her server. She’s already assured us that it has been wiped clean. Since any potential evidence is now gone it would be pointless to continue to pursue a fruitless inquiry.”

Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, while carefully avoiding any explicit acknowledgment of guilt, attempted to make lemonade out of the latest allegations by asserting that “the supposed incompatibility of what’s good for the Clintons and what’s good for America could be resolved by reinstalling the former First Family in the White House. If the Clintons were in charge of all of America they’d have an incentive to try to carry out policies that would enrich all of America. It is their exile from power that necessitates their aggressive pursuit of self interest. Faced with the insecurities of living as private citizens they are subject to the same temptations of greed that have dragged down so many others.”

Kerry Blasts Government’s Critics for Undermining Prosperity

Speaking Tuesday at the 45th Annual Washington Conference of the Council of the Americas, Secretary of State John Kerry blamed the Obama Administration’s critics for undermining the country’s economy.

Countries are far more likely to advance economically and socially when citizens have faith in their governments and are able to rely on them for justice and equal treatment under the law,” Kerry maintained. “Yet, day-after-day President Obama faces a raft of criticism of his policies from the likes of Senator Cruz, Governor Walker, and others. These criticisms are destroying people’s faith in the government.”

Kerry cited a recent Pew Research Center study finding that only 23% of Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing at least most of the time as “evidence of the pernicious impacts these chronic critics of progressive policies are having. If trust in government is low, people will be deterred from investing, working, and earning. If people aren’t investing, working, and earning there will be less activity that can be taxed and government will lack the resources to guarantee everyone’s prosperity.”

The Secretary expressed doubt that “there is any legal way we can prevent this costly criticism,” but held out hope that “President Obama might come up with some sort of ameliorating executive action that could at least mute the worst of some of these damaging aspersions on the wisdom, ethics, and character of the President.”

IRS Admits Taxpayer Help Was Skimpy this Year

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen acknowledged that the number of employees assigned to assist taxpayers understand and file tax returns for 2014 was “less than it could’ve been.” Statistics bear out his assessment. It is estimated than less than half of those who phoned the IRS to ask for help actually got through. And of those who did many waited on hold for more than 30 minutes before speaking to an IRS agent.

Koskinen defended the shortage of taxpayer help, saying that “we had higher priorities. For one, we had to implement the penalty enforcement phase of the Affordable Care Act. This new responsibility consumed resources that previously were allocated to the taxpayer help line.”

The reallocation of resources away from taxpayer help to enforcing Obamacare aggravated problems caused by previous years’ reallocation of resources to the investigation and prevention of conservative organizations from obtaining tax exemptions in the run up to the 2012 elections.

We can’t do everything on the limited budget we have,” Koskinen complained. “We have to decide what’s important and what isn’t. Babysitting taxpayers while they grapple with tax forms wasn’t important compared to the other needs we faced. If taxpayers find our forms too difficult—well, that’s what commercially available tax preparation services like H&R Block are for.”

GM Pushes to Make “Unauthorized” Auto Repair Illegal

Contending that modern automobiles contain computer programs that entail trade secrets and are too complex to be touched by do-it-yourself car buffs, the General Motors Corporation is urging the government to make unauthorized auto repair illegal. It won’t take an Act of Congress to accomplish this objective. A mere reinterpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) would do the trick.

GM spokesman Lee Hunsacker asserted that “letting just anyone look under the hood is archaic in our day and age. What if they mess something up? The victims of any subsequent crashes will sue us. We are the deep-pocket manufacturers of these vehicles. We ought to have the right to protect ourselves by vetting who works on our cars.”

Not wanting to be left out, the John Deere Corporation demanded that the ban on unauthorized service and repair also be extended to farm tractors. “If we don’t clamp down on who is allowed to work on our vehicles people might tamper with the computer system and use it to pirate music without paying royalties,” claimed Henry Morgan, VP for customer relations.

Newly named Attorney General Loretta Lynch is reportedly drafting an executive action memo that would apply the DMCA to motor vehicles for President Obama to sign. This would empower manufacturers to issue cease-and-desist orders to anyone suspected of attempting to repair one of their vehicles without the express permission of the manufacturer.

ACLU Says Catholic Organizations Must Be Compelled to Fund Abortions

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit demanding that religious organizations be compelled to provide abortions and contraception to illegal immigrants.

Whether to bear a child or not is a woman’s right under our laws,” said ACLU staff attorney Brigitte Amiri. “No religious organization has the authority to infringe on this right. For Catholic aid organizations to refuse to pay for birth control and abortions is an infringement. Forcing a woman to bear an unwanted child is, as President Obama has said, cruel and unusual punishment. It is unconstitutional and cannot be allowed.”

Rules derived from a mythical being cannot supersede rules emanating from our nation’s legal processes,” Amiri continued. “For government to sit by idly while divergent religious views lead to divergent behaviors and outcomes would be intolerable. It is government’s duty to ensure that uniform rules are applied and obeyed.”

The only way the Catholic Church can avoid its duty to provide birth control services to its clients is to cease serving them entirely,” Amiri argued. “If they want to be in the business of rescuing refugees they must abide by the rules the government has laid out for them.”

In related news, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised that “if I’m elected, eradicating deep seated religious and cultural beliefs that stand in the way of transforming social norms will be among my highest of priorities. Women must be freed from the bondage of unwanted motherhood and from the economic burden of having to support their children if they choose to become mothers.”

Cleveland City Council: Gun Control Needed Whether It Works or Not

Cleveland City Council President Kevin Kelley (D) urged fellow council members to pass a sweeping gun-control ordinance despite doubts that it would be effective or enforceable. “Will this measure stop gun violence?” Kelley asked. “Probably not, but it is important that we pass it as a reflection of our values.”

A key provision of the new ordinance is that it prohibits carrying a concealed deadly weapon or handgun, unless the person is a police officer or a bonafide criminal. Kelley conceded that “this provision might seem paradoxical, but we feel it greatly simplifies and clarifies the situation. If you are not a police officer, yet you still have a gun you are, ipso facto, a bonafide criminal and the police may use deadly force against you at their discretion. It would effectively abolish the concept of armed persons ever being the victims of excessive use of force by members of the Police Department. The savings on lawsuits avoided will be huge.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

Governor Ducey, Children Need More than a ‘Loving Family’

Governor Doug Ducey issued the following statement yesterday to Arizona media regarding a change in adoption practices he is making at the Arizona Department of Child Safety:

“I have made it abundantly clear since day one that my administration is unambiguously and unapologetically pro-adoption. With 17,000 children under the state’s care, we need more adoption in Arizona, not less. That’s why I feel strongly – as I have said many times before – that all loving families should be able to serve as foster parents and adopt. I also have said my administration will follow the law. Practices have been brought to my attention that do not match those priorities, therefore, I’m instructing the Arizona Department of Child Safety to immediately ensure that all legally married couples in Arizona are able to jointly serve as foster parents and adopt. All children deserve a loving home, and under my watch, I’m committed to making sure government encourages that.”

Dear Governor Ducey:

You are right about one thing: we do need more adoption in Arizona.

But what constitutes “all loving families”? Are you going to develop a rating system to measure whether or not a family is “loving” enough? Will that be the only criteria used?

Is a cohabiting family a “loving” family? Cohabiting women in the U.S. and Canada are nine times more likely to be murdered by their boyfriend than a woman by her married husband.

Is a household headed by two homosexual men a “loving” family? For a first-person account of what this can be like for children in those situations, read the story of Dawn Stefanowicz.

Is a household headed by two homosexual women a “loving” family? What about Phoenix Mercury player Britney Greiner? She and her fiancee just got arrested for “ultimate fighting”? Homes with higher rates of domestic violence are not the optimal environment for children.

What is the optimal home environment for child-raising? Do you know? It’s a home headed by a married man and woman.

Where does the quality and stability of family home life enter in? Or does it even enter in at all?

Is the State of Arizona going to fast-track children in to homes just to speed up adoption, regardless of the environment of those “loving” families? Is quantity more important than quality?

What is the optimal family structure that can best support adoption? Have you thought about that? Or is political correctness your guide? Is your aim merely to appease as many people and groups as possible so you will get re-elected? While some children suffer in the so-called “loving” homes they have been placed in?

Will the children have any say in the kind of homes they are sent to live in during their all-important formative years?

Does it matter to you that children want a mom and a dad? Does it matter to you that children need a mom and a dad?

Does it matter to you that children need a stable environment where domestic violence is not taking place? Where drug and alcohol abuse is not rampant? Where fidelity is practiced between committed parents? Where children are not subjected to beatings or sexual abuse by live-in boyfriends or by multiple adults briefly associated with one or more parent? Where children are not subjected to pornography?

Will it matter to you that some children will be adopted by legally married adults who do not stay together very long?

Have you really thought through all the potential circumstances of the affected children – without a political lens to guide you?

Why purposefully make it worse for kids when it’s clear what’s best for kids?

Anyone can say, “We’re a loving family!” It’s the quality of the family structure that offers adoptive children the most stable home life and the best chance of succeeding socially. That’s what should by foremost among priorities for those determining adoption decisions.

 

Bipartisan Plea for Lynch Confirmation

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnPresident Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, received a vote of support from both media star Al Sharpton and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush this week. Her confirmation has been held up by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) in protest over Obama’s executive grant of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

Sharpton labeled McConnell’s actions “racist. Keeping a Black woman from rising up to take her rightful place is a continuation of the hundreds of years of oppression of African Americans in this country. They let a white woman hold this job when Bill Clinton was president. For them not to extend the same courtesy to a Black woman is just shameful.”

Bush took a more nuanced stance saying that “while I doubt that the Republican opposition to Ms. Lynch can be totally attributed to racism, it could be construed as such by the media. Rather than having this monkey on my or any Republican’s back as the GOP strives to win the 2016 presidential election, it would be much more convenient if Lynch were simply approved as AG.”

Besides, as a matter of principle, I believe that it’s the President’s prerogative to have anyone he chooses to serve in his cabinet,” Bush added. “I certainly would expect such deference to me if I were president. If you ask me, to violate this basic courtesy on the rather flimsy grounds that President Obama may have exceeded his authority on the amnesty thing isn’t the way we should be running this country. Do we really want to set a precedent of denying a president the option of bypassing Congress when circumstances warrant it? Would we want such a rigid adherence to the Constitution if a Republican was in the Oval Office?”

To help press home their seriousness on the issue Sharpton and Bush vowed to do more than just offer words of support for Lynch. Sharpton announced a partial hunger strike and swore off sushi until Lynch is confirmed. In contrast, Bush says he “will eat nothing but Mexican food, which I will cook myself—unlike a certain other public figure who has to get hers from Chipotle. I will prove that I am the authentic Hispanic presidential candidate in the 2016 race and simultaneously express my solidarity with the plight of the immigrant.”

In related news, Lynch rebuffed the idea that the Department of Justice ought to investigate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails. “As I understand it, all of these emails were sent from or received on Secretary Clinton’s private server,” Lynch observed. “Well, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution bars government from intruding into private communications. As far as I am concerned this case is closed.”

Judge Rules Cops May Seize Your Home to Use as a Fort

When a neighbor was engaged in a domestic dispute, Henderson, Nevada police demanded that Anthony Mitchell allow them to use his home as a fort and command center in order to gain a tactical advantage in their efforts to cope with the situation. Mitchell refused, but police battered down his door, pepper sprayed him, and put him in jail for the duration.

Mitchell sued contending that this home invasion by the police violated his constitutional rights under both the Third and Fourth Amendments to the US Constitution. Federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon dismissed Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment argument, saying that “the Constitution guarantees against ‘unreasonable seizure.’ In this instance, the police had a reasonable need to occupy the home. The damages they did to Mitchell’s home could’ve been avoided if he had simply obeyed the commands he was given.”

Mitchell should consider himself lucky he only had to spend one night in jail,” Gordon added. “He could’ve been shot. For all the police knew, the whole neighborhood could’ve been a terrorist enclave. Many Americans own guns and have excessive and erroneous notions about their so-called rights.”

Gordon was even harsher toward Mitchell’s Third Amendment argument. “The whole ‘troop quartering’ thing applied to British troops,” Gordon maintained. “Since no British troops were involved, Mitchell’s line of reasoning is totally irrelevant to this case.”

President Says ISIS Camp in Mexico Vindicates His Amnesty Policy

President Obama says that evidence that the Islamic State has opened a training camp in Mexico, just a few miles from El Paso on the Texas border, vindicates his decision to grant expedited amnesty to illegal immigrants from Latin America.

We’ve all seen the atrocities these terrorists are capable of,” the President observed. “Who can blame Mexicans for fleeing? To deny these refugees sanctuary would be inhumane. To deport them would be cruel and unusual punishment. To delay their integration into our society merely on the grounds that Congress has failed to enact the necessary legislation would be barbaric.”

Obama ruled out the possibility of any aggressive action aimed at neutralizing the ISIS threat near El Paso, claiming “it would be an unconscionable intrusion on Mexico’s sovereignty. We have a duty to respect Mexico’s border. We can’t just brush this aside because the presence of jihadis so close to America makes us uncomfortable. If some of those living in Texas feel unsafe they are free to move elsewhere.”

Administration Remains Undaunted by Obamacare Setbacks

The Obama Administration remained undaunted by yet another court ruling against its attempts to compel religious groups to fund abortion coverage in their health insurance plans. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued an order preventing the Obama Administration from forcing religious groups in Pennsylvania to pay for abortion-causing drugs mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Supreme Court had previously blocked HHS from imposing similar mandates on the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the University of Notre Dame.

That the Administration would repeatedly attempt this type of coercion caused Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, to wonder “how many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message?”

HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell denied that her Department’s actions were as futile as Windham implied. “Every time we order an organization to comply they must obey or take us to court,” Burwell said. “Fighting us costs them time and money. Granted, some large organizations can afford to wriggle out of the trap by such means. However, many others are too small, too poor, or too intimidated to make the effort. They obey. So, inch-by-inch we are gaining ground. Eventually, all opposition to our health care reforms will crushed.”

In related news, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Fla) assailed Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul’s (R-Ken) for supporting any limitation on a woman’s right to abort her child as an “enemy of liberty” and called his pro-life stance “savage.” “Paul would place the interests of a 7-lb. unborn baby ahead of those of a living, breathing woman,” she complained. “This is not a modern way of thinking and he’s a fool if he thinks his position gives him a better chance of being elected president. Obviously, he hasn’t done the math. The women whose liberty he wants to infringe are eligible to vote. The babies he wants to save are not. He has cooked his own goose.”

Hillary Blames Rich for Ruining America

In her bid to portray herself as the champion of the average American, millionaire presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is lambasting the wealthiest 1% for the impoverishment of the other 99%. It is, she says, “outrageous that the CEO of a major corporation makes 300 times the annual salary of its lowest paid employee.”

Clinton’s argument is ironic since her hourly rate for public speaking is 16,000 times the $15 hourly rate that she says ought to be the legal minimum wage. If CEOs are overpaid, former Secretary of State Clinton would appear to be obscenely overpaid.

According to Mrs. Clinton, though, the comparison isn’t fair because “unlike corporate CEOs I haven’t spent my career grubbing for money. I’ve been engaged in governing—the highest service one human being of superior capabilities can contribute to humanity. My $250,000 speaking fees are the deferred reward of a life of public service. I earned them. They are rightfully mine.”

In any case, I want every voter to know that when I am president the inequities of capitalism will be rectified,” Clinton promised. “We will take things away from those who have too much. Selfish self-indulgence will be replaced by socially determined collective investment for the good of the whole. We can’t make everyone rich, but we can make everyone equal and finally realize the dream laid out in the Declaration of Independence.”

In related news, reports that the so-called typical Americans that Clinton is meeting on the campaign trail have been “pre-screened” before they are allowed to approach her were pooh-poohed by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D): “If her staff lets just anybody talk to her there is no guarantee that it will be a representative sample of typical Americans. People with atypical views could disrupt the process and take the campaign off message. By weeding out the unsuited this can be prevented.”

Dean also defended the confiscation of cameras and cell phones from those visiting with the candidate. “A person has the right to control the use of her image,” Dean said. “Anyone wanting a picture of Hillary can pay the standard $1,000 fee and the campaign will give him or her an autographed photo.”

Mesa’s Push for Radical Policy Based on Tiny Group of Unhappy People

Our experience with so-called human rights boards in Arizona is that they are made up of some genuine citizens, but also some with biases, an axe to grind, and questionable agendas.

The City of Mesa Human Relations Advisory Board (HRAB) is now under scrutiny for pushing the homosexual agenda on a city rated one of the most conservative and family-oriented communities in America. The board is now pushing city councilmen to serve as the directors of “feelings.” And to deliver a damaging blow to religious freedom in the community.

Here’s how it came about. The Mesa Human Relations Advisory Board conducted a study of attitudes of different demographic groups in the community: the “Mesa Speaks, Mesa Listens: Inclusion & Diversity Report.” It was approved last October.

Among the more noteworthy results were that people with disabilities and those with same-sex attraction and gender confusion reported the lowest levels of satisfaction with the city. More findings:

  • Only 29 survey participants identified themselves as “LGBT”
  • 5 percent said they have experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation
  • the board reported this sample is too small to draw broad conclusions about the community as a whole
  • the board then nevertheless drew a conclusion that the disparity is large enough to warrant further consideration by policymakers.

In conclusion, a large majority of Mesa residents enjoy living in Mesa and feel valued and accepted as residents of the community. However, this is not the case for all segments of the population. While it is true that you can never please everyone, City leaders should be concerned by the disparity between the experiences of the community as a whole and specific subpopulations.

The HRAB envisions Mesa as a community that not only includes and respects its diversity, but is enriched by it. The results suggest that although there is much satisfaction with Mesa, more could be done not only to be more welcoming and inclusive, but to also be enriched by the diversity of the community.

Here are valid conclusions for you to draw:

  1. This solution in search of a problem is driving the city council’s intention to pass a resolution adding same-sex attraction and gender confusion to Mesa’s nondiscrimination policy.
  2. Bureaucrats have too much time on their hands and ought to focus on real problems like drug abuse and crime in Mesa.
  3. The proposed resolution will seriously damage religious freedom for individuals, businesses, and ministries in this community.

Write to the mayor and city councilmen and urge them to defeat this unneeded resolution and to get busy focusing on the concerns that matter most to the city:

ian.linssen@mesaaz.gov; alicia.white@mesaaz.gov; randy.policar@mesaaz.gov; district3@mesaaz.gov; councilmember.glover@mesaaz.gov; marrisa.ramirez-ramos@mesaaz.gov; matthew.clark@mesaaz.gov

17 Months Out from Election: McCain’s Angry, Desperate Friends Spitting Fire

There are angry, intolerant and intemperate remarks, and then there are the hateful, if not despicable, remarks of J. Charles Coughlin.

Coughlin is the president of Phoenix-based High Ground Public Affairs Consultants, an organization which really should put a leash on its leader. He was the chairman of Jan Brewer’s gubernatorial transition team and has been named “Best Political Operative in Arizona” by the left-stream media outlet Arizona Capitol Times. “Political Vulture” would be a more apt descriptor.

In his commentary, “The Dark Soul of the Tea Party Movement,” Coughlin savages the Tea Party and State Senator Kelli Ward without actually having the courage to name her.

Ward has been quite critical of Senator John McCain and may even run against him next year. But Coughlin writes her candidacy would “die in the darkness of her own soul.”

To write such frothing, over-the-top remarks, one must surely be seated in a dark place himself. For a McCain apologist, one must share the senator’s contempt for conservatives and conservatism.

And especially for the Tea party.

Dripping with contempt, Couglin writes:

“I find that most Tea Party advocates, such as the State Senator from Mohave County, appear to lack any gratitude    for the fact that we live in the greatest country on Earth.  When I listen to a good deal of their rhetoric, I am drenched in negativity; the politics of vilification, the hatred of those who want to blame others for the challenges that confront our country today.

“I am drenched in negativity.” Have truer words ever been stated? Though Coughlin wasn’t attempting to point three fingers back at himself.

The Tea Party has become the “Party of No” and that is not the Republican Party I am a part of. It is not the party that John McCain, Jan Brewer, Fife Symington, Grant Woods (all of whom I have worked for) represent.  It is not the party of Jon Kyl, Jeff Flake, or Doug Ducey, either.  All of these leaders are the products of American exceptionalism, a country based upon the notion that we are all created equal and are endowed by Our Creator with certain unalienable rights and among those is the right to pursue life, liberty and most of all, happiness.

The gloves are off. McCain: censored by numerous Republican organizations in the past 10 years, subject of two recall efforts — all pre-dating the Tea Party. The man who spent thousands of dollars to oust conservatives from leadership in his home legislative office. The failed candidate who offered only token resistance to Barack Obama.

Senator Jeff Flake: McCain’s hand-picked successor to Jon Kyl. Rewarded for agreeing with McCain on amnesty.

Former Attorney General Grant Woods: member of every short-lasted attempt in recent history to move Arizona to the Left; little or no resemblance to a Republican.

Brewer: stampeded by the Left into spiking religious freedom in Arizona.

Symington: removed from office by scandal, and used by McCain to try and muscle conservatives out of power in his home legislative district.

Have these folks not been the cabal of “no”?

Sounding almost teary-eyed Coughlin continues:

Senator McCain is dedicated to the future security of our State’s border and the resolution of an immigration debate which has the greatest impact on the future of our State’s economy to grow, to thrive, and to create opportunities for others – to continue to give life to the American dream.

That dream will never be realized by McCain’s political track record and philosophy. But how dare anyone entertain a thought to challenging “the chosen one” in the 2016 election.

Thank God for the Tea Party, which never would have been needed if establishment Republicans like McCain, Flake, Graham, Dole, Romney, McConnnell, Boehner, McCarthy, King and others hadn’t continually aimed low for the status of perpetual minority party. And succeeded.

Their likenesses are destined to be enshrined on the Mt. Rushmore of “no majority.”

It was at the Tea Party’s insistence that the House of Representatives was wrested away from the Left in 2010. It was the Tea Party which helped win back the majorities in both chambers, despite the “minority addicts” digging in their heels along their stubborn road.

You can leave the soul of America to the Tea Party and feel good about it. The same cannot be said for McCain and the other dissidents standing on the fringe of the Republican Party.

But before we adjourn, let it be known to Coughlin, Woods and others that when McCain faced a challenge in 2010, he glad-handed the faux “Tea Party of Scottsdale’s” support. When the heat was on, he revised his own history to morph into a “Reagan foot soldier.”

Coughlin claims we need more leaders like McCain. The truth is McCain has never been a leader. He’s been an agitator. Better said, he’s been a thorn in the party’s side for several years now. He and McConnell fought the party base on cutting the size of the government behemoth, a pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.

Finally, Coughlin writes of a peaceful, joyful, loving spirit. That isn’t what we’ve seen in McCain, Woods and their friends. We’ve seen nothing close to that. They are the company of “no” to much of what the Republican Party  says — in print — that it stands for. Obama and the Democrats are a minor distraction; it’s the conservatives in our party who are the chief irritant.

And now it’s the Tea Party that has become the Republican wing of the Republican Party — because the recalcitrants reject that role.

To quote the Arizona Tea Party site: Tea Party patriots favor the “core principles of free markets, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional government. They share a renewed interest in our heritage and particularly the meaning and intent of our constitution.”

When is the last time you heard McCain or Woods speak like that? Never. If McCain wants to get re-elected so bad, he ought to adopt the platform of the Party of Lincoln. He ought to adopt the Tea Party’s principles, join the club and give it a powerful voice in the restoration of an American government badly misshaped by socialists and weak-kneed Republicans who caved amidst the Leftist wrecking ball’s deconstruction.

And, Senator McCain, if that is too much to ask of you, then please step aside and allow Dr. Kelli Ward to gain the GOP nomination. She will provide a “new, positive, principled voice for Arizona in Washington.” She is already receiving strong encouragement to run in 2016.

RFRAs have NEVER Harmed a Homosexual Person

By Casey Mattox
The Federalist

It has been 22 years since President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. For two decades it has applied to every law in the District of Columbia and the federal government. In the intervening decades, 20 other states have followed suit with their own state RFRAs. These RFRAs hold government to a high burden of proof when it burdens religious exercise. Under RFRA, there are no guaranteed outcomes, but the government cannot take burdens on religious exercise lightly.

In two decades of RFRAs, the world has not ended. In fact, not a single person who identifies as homosexual has been harmed by these RFRAs. None. This may come as a surprise to you if you have watched any of the media coverage or been on social media for the last several days. The unhinged claims from the Left have been entirely detached from the reality that these laws have actually existed for decades and have never resulted in any of the things they worry will happen. This is not new. Dire warnings that are unsurprisingly not confirmed by future events have been a common theme in arguments from the Left in recent years.

Prophesying Doom that Never Materializes

The Equal Access Act is the reason your child can have a Fellowship of Christian Athletes group at school. Most Americans would think that permitting students to voluntarily get together before school to pray is a good thing. But when Congress considered the act in 1984, some Democrats, including then-Rep. Barbara Boxer, opposed it because allowing Christian students to gather to pray “could usher in KKK and Nazi” student groups. More than 30 years later, it is clear Boxer was on the wrong side of history. Her worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to “Mein Kampf” has not been realized.

Boxer’s worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to ‘Mein Kampf’ has not been realized.

When the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2006, abortionists argued that approximately 2,200 partial-birth abortions per year were necessary for health reasons. This was important because the law lacked any health exception (except to save the mother’s life). When the Supreme Court issued its opinion eight years ago in April 2007, it held that the law was generally constitutional.

However, the Court invited any abortionist or woman filing a new challenge to show why a partial-birth abortion was necessary in one of those 2,200-per-year instances. Planned Parenthood warned of consequences for women’s health from the decision, just as Justice Ginsburg wrote in a dissent: “One may anticipate that such a preenforcement challenge will be mounted swiftly, to ward off serious, sometimes irremediable harm, to women whose health would be endangered by the intact D&E prohibition.”

Eight years later, no such complaint has been filed. I’m not aware of a single example of any woman who was harmed by not being able to have a partial-birth abortion procedure in that time.

There are three possible reasons: (1) by incredible fortune, the threats to women’s health making partial-birth abortion necessary ceased on April 18, 2007; (2) Women are harmed daily, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry lack the resources to file the invited lawsuits; (3) the claim that partial-birth abortion was necessary to protect women’s health was a lie.

Finally, when Texas passed HB2, the pro-life law that brought stardom to Wendy Davis, a primary focus of abortion supporters who opposed the bill was its prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, when the unborn child is capable of feeling pain. This provision was the centerpiece of the controversy, and Davis opposed it at length. But while virtually every part of the Texas law has been challenged in the intervening two years, the prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks has never been challenged. It has been Texas law since October 2013.

Time to Stop Listening

And Texas isn’t alone. Laws like it have been enacted in 13 states. But despite their cries of harm to women’s health, abortionists have only challenged these laws in the Ninth Circuit and in a now-pending Georgia state court case. At least 10 of these laws, including Texas’s, are in effect without legal challenge. As MSNBC reported, there is

a strategic reason to avoid challenging that [20-week] ban…. [A] Texas challenge would go to the conservative Fifth Circuit. Not only would that court potentially uphold the law…, the combination of decisions would create a split in the circuits that would make the Supreme Court likelier to hear it.

This is their choice. But at some point when your warnings of imminent harm are stifled by your own prudential choices, and none of the bad consequences you warn about ever happen, perhaps your claims just aren’t true. That’s critically important to keep in mind with the needless hysteria happening now over completely mischaracterized state religious freedom laws.

But history need not repeat itself. In the children’s story, when Peter repeatedly cries, “Wolf!” the townspeople finally stop listening. It’s time to stop giving credence to the Left’s cries.

Tell Mesa City Council to Vote NO on Unnecessary Gender Identity Resolution

UPDATE: The Mesa City Council did not pass the extreme resolution last night. However, the council appears determined to do so in the near future. WRITE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL IMMEDIATELY TO EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION. THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE LISTED BELOW.

Dear Mayor and council members:

We are strongly opposed to the proposal known as:

NEW MESA CITY CODE TITLE 6, CHAPTER 14 “PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, DISABILITY, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION, VETERANS’ STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, GENETIC INFORMATION, AND FAMILIAL STATUS” AND ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF.

The sections that are most objectionable are those pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

This proposal will create more problems than it will solve and is totally unneeded.

Sexual orientation is not an immutable trait, such as race. There is no comparison between the two.

Gender identity and expression is an indication of psychological problems. It is not an immutable trait.

Once you open this Pandora’s box, you will subject well-meaning, law abiding citizens to unreasonable penalties and punishments.

It is no wonder that Scottsdale and Fountain Hills have both recently defeated such measures and that Springfield, Missouri, Charlotte, N.C. and Fayetteville, Arkansas also rightly rejected these unnecessary and problematic resolutions, which are pushed by far-left radicals upon unassuming communities.

A few years ago, we warned members of the Mesa council that radical homosexual activists were urging political activists to move to the East Valley to enact extreme social change which is at odds with the strong family-oriented characteristics of Mesa and Gilbert. Most of the council members responded to that they were not going to allow this to happen.

We are asking you again to not let this happen. We do not have the types of problems in Mesa requiring this sort of radical legislation on the part of our city leaders. We must respect free speech and religious liberty — the First Amendment — before we ever consider any type of “sexual liberty” proposed by leftists.

Please vote NO on Thursday.

Thank you.

The Arizona Conservative

Lend your voice to opposing this radical proposal. Write to all members of the Mesa city council today:

ian.linssen@mesaaz.gov; alicia.white@mesaaz.gov; randy.policar@mesaaz.gov; district3@mesaaz.gov; councilmember.glover@mesaaz.gov; marrisa.ramirez-ramos@mesaaz.gov; matthew.clark@mesaaz.gov

Tax Day Reminder for Democrats: Pay Your Fair Share!

Democrats are great about deflecting attentions away from one basic fact: they don’t like to pay their fair share of taxes. They claim the rich don’t pay up, but history is filled with stories of Democrat leaders and elected officials who try to avoid taxpaying. The Clintons, Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, and the late Ted Kennedy, just for starters.

Work Requirement Pares Maine Food Stamp Recipients

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnEnforcement of a work requirement by Republican Governor Paul LePage’s administration has led to 9,000 former recipients being declared ineligible to receive food stamps. Under the work requirement, able-bodied food stamp recipients were asked to put in 20 hours of work per week or 24 hours of volunteer services per month.

State Rep. Scott Hamann (D-South Portland) called the work requirement “inhumane” and compared it to “indentured servitude.” “The Governor is taking the state out of the mainstream,” Hamann argued. “Other states have sought an exemption from the work requirement, but LePage is charting a course that sends a message telling people they must work in order to eat. In my view, this is a step backward.”

Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew defended the Governor’s approach. “Entrenching people in a life of dependency is not a way to get them out of poverty,” Mayhew said. “It’s one thing for a person to be physically unable to support themselves. It is quite another for a person to refuse to contribute effort to sustaining himself.”

Hamann belittled “the contention that self-reliance is an appropriate ethos for a modern society. Not everyone is equally endowed with a strong work ethic or the ambition to succeed. Some inherit laziness and stupidity through no fault of their own. We shouldn’t be holding the losers in the genetic lottery to the same standards as the winners. Those who are lucky enough to be born energetic and ambitious have an obligation to society to help carry the weight of those less fortunate than themselves.”

In Kansas, a bill to ban welfare benefits from being spent on body piercings, massages, spas, tobacco, nail salons, lingerie, arcades, cruise ships or visits to psychics was denounced by state Rep. Carolyn Bridges (D-Wichta) as “an unacceptable infringement on people’s freedom to spend their own money as they see fit. As a society we have determined that these people are entitled to public support. By endeavoring to limit the uses to which they can apply thus support we are degrading their perception of self-worth and making them second class citizens. This is appalling. Freedom belongs to everyone. Poverty shouldn’t be used to limit a person’s choices.”

In stark contrast to what’s going on in Maine and Kansas, the nearly bankrupt State of California is looking to make illegal aliens fully eligible for state welfare benefits. “This nation was built by immigrants, how can we not cut them a piece of the pie?” asked state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). Lara dismissed the state’s budgetary deficit as “an excuse, not a reason for excluding newcomers from enjoying the fruits of citizenship.”

Iranian Ayatollah Calls Obama “Lying Devil”

Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, characterized US President Barack Obama’s statements about the agreement negotiated between the two countries as “deceptive” and evidence of “devilish” intentions.

Obama’s assertion that Iran has agreed to ramp down its pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for a phasing out of economic sanctions is a lie,” Khamenei said. “What we have agreed to is this. First, all sanctions must be immediately ended. Once this happens we agree to refrain from engaging in any nuclear attacks until, in our judgment, circumstances for a favorable outcome warrant it. Most likely, circumstances won’t be favorable for at least a few years.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry sought to minimize any perceived discrepancy between the two sides, saying that “Khamenei’s statement is within the bounds of the framework we’ve been constructing. We could quibble over which comes first—the end of sanctions or Iran’s self-constraint as a nuclear power—or we could make the first concession as a step toward building good will.”

Right now, Iran is conceding that there will be at least a few years before they launch any nuclear strikes,” Kerry pointed out. “This should ensure that nothing drastic happens during President Obama’s remaining term. After that it will be up to his successor to devise a strategy for dealing with Iran.”

In related news, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dismissed warnings from former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz about the nuclear agreement the Obama Administration negotiated with Iran as “lots of big words that few people will understand.”

Kissinger and Schultz noted that the so-called agreement lacks any provisions for enforcement. Neither does it address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism—a behavior that will become a bigger problem once sanctions are lifted and Iran has more funds at hand to aid these groups.

Harf insisted that “these concerns are irrelevant since Iran will not agree to inspections and reserves the sovereign right to use its resources as it deems best. For us to raise these issues would complicate the negotiations and make any agreement unlikely. We feel that it is better to have half a loaf than none.”

Administration Brushes Off Russian Hackers

Evidence that Russian computer hackers penetrated security at the White House and State Department was brushed aside by National Security Council spokesman Mark Stroh.

Since the Administration has no hostile designs on Russia we don’t consider their gaining access to confidential correspondence at the State Department or White House a threat to our security,” Stroh maintained. “In a way, this could be a good thing. They will see that we bear them no ill will. That could open up new avenues for better relations between our two countries.”

It would be far more worrisome if our correspondence had been illicitly obtained by domestic right wing groups that have long harbored a racist resentment of the President and his transformative agenda,” Stroh contended. “These groups have been working assiduously to undermine the President from day-one. They even mounted an unsuccessful effort to oust him from office in 2012. The Russians haven’t done anything as menacing as that for the whole time he’s been in office.”

President Chastises “Less than Loving” Christians

President Obama took the occasion of Easter Sunday to chastise Christians for being “less than loving.” “Over the past few months alone we’ve seen so-called Christians refuse to take photographs and bake cakes for gay weddings,” the President lamented. “This directly contradict’s Jesus’ admonition to ‘judge not lest ye be judged.’”

Obama rejected the idea that Christians might have legitimate religious objections to social policies with which they disagree. “Jesus bade his followers to turn the other cheek if they are offended,” he reminded. “Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight back against those who wronged him. Shouldn’t Christians be following this example?”

In related news, murders of Christians by Islamists in Kenya and elsewhere this month failed to elicit any comment from President Obama. Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that “the hundred or so students murdered in Kenya is but a small fraction of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world. So, in no way can Christians be considered a ‘persecuted minority.’ Besides, from a historical perspective, didn’t Christian martyrs play a huge part in sparking the spread of Christian beliefs? Maybe these Islamist atrocities will help reinvigorate Christianity from its fading role in modern culture.”

In related news, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, called such massacres “a clumsy and cruel, but nevertheless effective method toward achieving the necessary and essential goal of depopulating the planet.”

White House “Gender Neutral” Restroom “Not Good Enough”

The Obama administration’s efforts to earn gratitude from the gay lobby by adding a “gender neutral” restroom to the White House came up short.

Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender spokesperson Irma Crank called the move “not good enough. Every bathroom in every home in America is ‘gender neutral.’ Many businesses already have ‘family restrooms’ that can be used by either gender. The Administration’s attempt to curry favor with such a lame and wishy-washy measure is an insult. Frankly, we expected more from this President.”

The “more” expected by Crank “is the right of any person to use any facility—men’s room, ladies room—based on their sexual feelings of the moment. Herding individuals with uncertain or fluctuating sexual identities into a neutral space stigmatizes them. Anatomy must not be allowed to overrule a person’s mental state. An anatomically male individual must have the right to explore his feminine side whenever the urge presents itself. Likewise, an anatomically female individual must be free to express her masculine side.”

Crank also denounced “the dodge of one-occupant-at-a-time facilities that some businesses have been turning to. Urinating or defecating in a room by oneself stunts a person’s feelings of solidarity with those whose sex he or she is striving to identify with. Obviously, we are not yet at the point of full gender identity freedom in this country. We will not be satisfied with halfway compromises. We need to keep up the pressure until everyone is free to go wherever he or she pleases.”

White House spokesman Jeff Tiller expressed his disappointment with “Crank’s hasty condemnation. I think we’re all on the same page here. The gender neutral facility is for those who may be uncertain about their gender identity. Individuals who are sure may opt for the men’s or ladies’ room as they see fit. Beyond the White House, the Department of Justice will vigorously prosecute any businesses or organizations that try to restrict who may use whatever restroom facilities they provide.”

Scottsdale Councilwoman Keeps up Drumbeat for Attacks on Your Religious Freedom

Last week the Scottsdale City Council voted 5-2 to defeat a proposed sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy. Councilwoman Linda Milhaven was one of the two council members who voted for the controversial proposal. Then she wrote the following commentary in the left-wing publication Scottsdale Independent. We took exception with several of her statements and present her commentary for you now along with our objections, FYI:

Milhaven: Why is treating everyone fairly considered controversial in Scottsdale? [THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYONE WILL BE TREATED FAIRLY IS INCORRECT.]

By Linda Milhaven Apr 3rd, 2015

Why is it controversial to consider a law to treat everyone fairly?” [WHY DON’T WE RELY ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?]

That was the question I got from a citizen after a recent city council meeting. We were considering whether to or not to add sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to the city’s non-discrimination ordinances.

At that meeting, the council affirmed their support of the Unity Pledge, [IS THERE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH HOUSING AND HOSPITALITY FOR LGBT IN SCOTTSDALE??? NOT LIKELY.] adopted late last year, supporting LGBT inclusive non-discrimination policies and directed staff to help promote of the pledge.

The next step is to begin the public process to include these principles in our City ordinances. [AT WHAT COST TO THE CONSTITUTION? TO THE CITIZENS OF SCOTTSDALE? TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? ]

We have received many e-mails and have heard from many constituents — many for and some against. While I believe that everyone is acting in good faith, I am still trying to understand the side that argues against including the principles of the pledge in our ordinances. [THEN PLEASE HEAR OUR CONCERNS AGAIN.]

Some argue that less government is better. I agree; however, some laws are good and necessary. This is the basis for our political debate. What is necessary vs. unnecessary regulation? [TAKING SIDES IN THE CULTURE WAR IS ONLY GUARANTEED TO ALIENATE AT LEAST HALF THE CITY’S CITIZENS.]

In my opinion, we currently have non-discrimination ordinances and adding members of the LGBT community to the list of protected citizens is simply the right thing to do. [LGBT ARE NOT IMMUTABLE TRAITS. SO-CALLED “SEXUAL LIBERTY” IS BEING USED TO BLUDGEON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. DON’T LET SCOTTSDALE EXHIBIT PREJUDICE AGAINST CHRISTIANS AND OTHERS OFFENDED BY WHAT THEY CONSIDER BIBLICAL SIN.]

Some argue that there is no evidence of a problem. [IN THIS DAY AND AGE MOST PEOPLE DO NOT DARE SPEAK OUT AGAINST LGBT FOR FEAR OF JOB LOSS, PHYSICAL THREATS, PUBLIC SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AND HYSTERIA INITIATED BY MILITANT LGBT. CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL AMERICA IS TRIPPING OVER ONE ANOTHER TO SUBMIT TO EVERY LGBT DEMAND. WHAT MORE CAN YOU POSSIBLY GIVE THEM?] Are they suggesting that members of the LGBT community should publicly share their stories and make themselves vulnerable to additional discrimination/harassment without any protections before we are willing to protect them?

Some assert religious freedom would be compromised. However, religious organizations set their own membership rules [NO. THEY DON’T. STATE, LOCAL, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ARE CHIPPING AWAY AT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S FIRST LIBERTY – RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. CHRISTIANS ARE BEING TOLD TO “CHECK THEIR FAITH AT THE DOOR” AND TO KEEP THEIR BELIEFS TO THEMSELVES, THAT WHEN THEY GO INTO BUSINESS THEY SUDDENLY BECOME “SECULAR.” PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ARE TELLING CAMPUS MINISTRIES THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE OFFICERS BE PEOPLE OF FAITH.] and hiring practices. They may include or exclude anyone they please from their organizations. Government does not and cannot regulate that. [YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. OBAMACARE AND NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES ARE BEING ELEVATED ABOVE CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, AND CHRISTIANS ARE FORCED TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS IN EXPENSIVE COURT CASES TO LITIGATE FOR THE FREE EXERCISE OF LIBERTY. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS ALL OVER THE NATION ARE ELEVATING “SEXUAL LIBERTY” ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.]

Government does, however, make laws that bind all of us, regardless of our religions affiliations. In fact, non-discrimination laws protect citizens from discrimination based on their religion. [YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS ARE USED AS BATTERING RAMS AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS.] Why would some religious organizations want to exclude anyone from the same protections their members enjoy? [YOU INCORRECTLY CHARACTERIZE THE PRESENT REALITY. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS ARE EXCLUDED FROM FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE BECAUSE OF THE OUTBREAK OF NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS.]

Combining the assertion that we do not have a problem with the assertion that a non-discrimination ordinance will infringe on personal religious rights is puzzling to me. What personal religious rights? The right to discriminate against members of the LGBT community in the marketplace and the workplace? How can one say that there is no discrimination but then argue to protect their right to discriminate? [NO, NO, AND NO – WE ARE OPPOSED TO BEING COMPELLED BY GOVERNMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH WE HAVE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS.]

Some suggest an ordinance will open the business community to frivolous lawsuits. How can one assert that a lawsuit claiming discrimination is frivolous unless one thinks that discrimination is acceptable? [IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAKE IT OUT TO BE. THERE WILL BE LAWSUITS. HUMAN RELATIONS BOARDS, THE ACLU, AND OTHERS ARE NOT IN THE HABIT OF PROTECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. “SEXUAL LIBERTY”AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT CO-EXIST. ONE IS ALREADY BEING ELEVATED ABOVE THE OTHER. TOO MANY CITY COUNCILS ARE FAVORING “SEXUAL LIBERTY” AT THE EXPENSE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. THIS IS AT ODDS WITH AMERICA’S HISTORY AND CONSTITION AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION.]

Members of the business community have been the strongest advocates of a non-discrimination ordinance. They tell us an ordinance is vital to their ability to attract and retain workforce talent and customers. [THIS IS A COMMON TALKING POINT, BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP? THERE IS NONE. BUSINESSES ARE MERELY POSTURING THEMSELVES AS LGBT FRIENDLY, BUT THERE IS NO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION IN THE BUSINESS AND CORPORATE WORLD. BIG BUSINESS IS EXTREMELY ACCOMMODATING TO LGBT PEOPLE. THERE IS NO HARM BEING DONE. THERE IS NO LAW, NO LACK OF LAW SHACKLING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FROM HIRING ANYONE WHO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES.] They tell us lack of an ordinance will do us harm. How can one argue that they are protecting the  business community when they ignore the business community’s pleas for an ordinance? [IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY NEEDED. IN THE SCOTTSDALE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. YOU WILL LIKELY FIND LGBT NOT ONLY WORKING FOR THESE COMPANIES, BUT ALSO SOME LGBT ARE IN POSITIONS OF MANAGEMENT AND DOING VERY WELL FOR THEMSELVES. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO GOVERN ALL THE CITIZENS, AND NOT TO FAVOR ANY GROUP OVER ANOTHER. LET THIS UNFOUNDED DEMAND GO AND CONCENTRATE ON MORE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.]

I believe the city should study the issue and hear from the public. [MOST DEFINITELY! THANK YOU FOR THE WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.] Let us know where you stand. Do you think the city should begin the public process to expand its non-discrimination ordinances to include LGBT non-discrimination? [NO. THERE IS NO PROBLEM. MOVE ON TO MORE SUBSTANTIVE NEEDS AND TOPICS TO PROMOTE YOUR CITY. THANK YOU FOR READING. BEST REGARDS.]

COUNCILWOMAN MILHAVEN, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: THERE NEVER WAS ANY DEMONSTRATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS NEEDED. THE PEOPLE OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI AND FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS JUST REJECTED SUCH MEASURES, AS DID FOUNTAIN HILLS.  BUT THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL INFRINGE UPON THE FREEDOM OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS TO OPERATE THEIR BUSINESSES ACCORDING TO THEIR FAITH. EVERYONE’S CONSCIENCE COUNTS. SO WHY UNNECESSARILY DIVIDE THE CITY? WHY RESTRICT THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF A LARGE CONSTITUENCY OF THE CITY?