Category Archives: America

Tiny Gilbert Church Wins Supreme Court Victory in Battle of David vs. Goliath

Ending a 10-year legal battle with the Town of Gilbert, Good News Community Church today won a 9-0 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court for free speech.

The U.S. Supreme Court gave churches everywhere a free speech victory today when it ruled that religious signs must be given the same treatment as other messages posted on street corners.

The court unanimously ruled the town of Gilbert, Arizona had discriminated against churches by passing an ordinance barring corner signs advertising services, but allowing other types of signs to be displayed.

The decision overturns a previous ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — the most overturned court in America.

“In today’s secular climate, government increasingly views the free speech rights of churches as less valuable than other types of speech,” said Bruce Hausknecht with Focus on the Family. “That attitude – whether intentional or not – carries over into unconstitutional restrictions on speech such as the Town of Gilbert’s sign code in this case. It is gratifying to see the Supreme Court issue a unanimous decision in favor of the church, especially when two lower federal courts got it horribly wrong.”

Gilbert’s lawyer made that very point in oral arguments at the Supreme Court. In a shocking disregard for the First Amendment, he said church speech isn’t as important as the speech of others. The Town of Gilbert got smacked down for that callous disregard of free speech.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (headquartered in Scottsdale) represented Good News Community Church and its 82-year-old pastor, Clyde Reed, in the lawsuit.

“The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling is a victory for everyone’s freedom of speech,” said ADF attorney David Cortman, who argued the case for the Supreme Court earlier this year. “Speech discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the government intended to violate the First Amendment or not, and it doesn’t matter if the government thinks its discrimination was well-intended. It’s still government playing favorites, and that’s unconstitutional.

“The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling is a victory for everyone’s freedom of speech,” Cortman said. “Speech discrimination is wrong regardless of whether the government intended to violate the First Amendment or not, and it doesn’t matter if the government thinks its discrimination was well-intended.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, said that was an impermissible content-based regulation.

“The First Amendment … prohibits enactment of laws ‘abridging the freedom of speech,’’’ Thomas wrote. “Under that clause, a government, including a municipal government vested with state authority has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”

In a rare display for fairness, the left-stream media outlet Arizona Central/Arizona Republic turned in the best line of the day on the victory for free speech:

The U.S. Supreme Court preached a bit of gospel — from the Greek word meaning “good news” — for a small Gilbert Presbyterian church on Thursday.

The Blaze reported …

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major victory to a small Arizona church on Thursday, ruling that local officials cannot restrict messages on signage based on “how worthy the government thinks [they are],” according to the conservative legal firm that represented the house of worship.

CitizenLink contributed to the report

Angry Obama Vows Vengeance against Trade Bill Opponents

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

JohnAlternating between tears and venom, a stunned President Obama ranted against members of his own Party, calling them “faithless turncoats” and alleging that “they are destroying my credibility with foreign nations,” after the House of Representatives voted 302 to 126 against the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act–a provision deemed crucial to the fate of his “fast track” trade legislation.

The vote came after a rare personal appearance of President Obama to lobby for the legislation. Erstwhile political ally, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif), led Democratic opposition to the President’s wishes. She remained unfazed by the President’s threat “to make life really hard for those who defy me.” “Even under a ‘worst case’ scenario, the President will only be in office for another 19 months,” Pelosi pointed out. “How much damage could he do?”

Press Secretary Josh Earnest advised the President’s political enemies “to not underestimate his disappointment or his determination to get his way, one way or the other. Don’t forget that he still has his pen and phone. He could bypass Congress and enact the trade legislation via executive action. He could use his phone to call on the FBI and NSA to release information that could prove embarrassing to Ms. Pelosi and others.”

Pelosi, however, wasn’t about to back down. “It’s not as if we don’t have our own sources of information that might prove embarrassing to the President,” she warned. “And if push comes to shove, there is always the option to impeach him. The prospect of elevating Joe Biden to the White House so the Party can run an incumbent for President in 2016 is looking better every day.”

In other news, Earnest brushed off revelations that the Chinese government has been hacking into secret federal databases for more than a year, saying that “this is just more proof that this Administration is the most transparent administration that this country has ever had, bone none.”

HUD Eager to Put More Public Housing into Suburban Neighborhoods

The Obama Administration’s Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is working on new regulations that would tie federal aid to the placement of low-income public housing within white suburbs.

HUD Secretary Julian Castro explained that “ensuring diversity in every community is a key goal of this Administration. People on welfare shouldn’t be denied the right to live in nice communities just because there is no affordable housing available. Likewise, racists shouldn’t be allowed to insulate themselves from having neighbors of color merely by moving into areas with expensive housing.”

A possible fringe benefit for whites under this initiative, according to Castro is that “they wouldn’t have to go into the urban ghetto to buy recreational drugs. Public housing will bring drug vendors to their neighborhoods. This will save them the time and trouble of venturing into undesirable areas in order to purchase crack or weed.”

Castro acknowledged that “having drug dealers nearby also has its down side. There could be turf wars as gang members shoot it out to determine who will own the territory. And there may be a bump up in burglaries or robberies as addicts living in nearby public housing scrounge to obtain the funds needed to support their habits. But the Administration feels that this redistribution of crime will be more equitable in the long run.”

Boeing Innovation Increases Fliers’ Toilet Access

Concerned that the space allotted for on-board toilet facilities reduces the number of seats for passengers, the Boeing Corporation is converting all passenger seats on its 777-300ER into “potty chairs.”

Every additional passenger a plane can carry adds badly needed revenue to the airline’s bottom line,” said Boeing’s public relations specialist Anita Crapper. “We thought, if there were a way to convert the space set aside for restrooms into passenger seating it would permit airlines to earn thousands more per flight. By making every seat a ‘potty chair’ airlines can achieve that objective.”

Ms. Crapper lauded this innovation as “far superior to asking fliers to get their ‘business’ out of the way before boarding. In the old days passengers had to just ‘hold it in’ once they entered the airplane cabin. Even after on-board toilets were added, passengers’ access is sometimes impaired. Using the toilet during take-off and landing is totally barred. Other times there may be a lengthy line. With each seat being a ‘potty chair’ every passenger can go whenever he or she wants.”

On the new 777s each seat will have a retractable lid and drop-down privacy curtains. All a passenger needs to do is press a button to activate them. Any waste deposited will fall into a mini-chemical toilet under the seat. Pressing the button when finished will raise the curtain, close the lid, and release a squirt of air freshener.

We are entering a new and exciting era of flying,” Ms. Crapper boasted. “Those suffering from incontinence or loose bowels need no longer feel that flying will be an ordeal for them.”

In other news, California Governor Jerry Brown announced that he has given up bathing and drinking water to help fight that state’s prolonged drought. “Bathing is unnatural anyway,” Brown contended. “It’s a late addition to American culture and relatively uncommon in most parts of the world, including Europe.” Instead of drinking water, Brown says he will be switching to green tea “because of its added health benefits.”

Pennsylvania Teachers Attend Mosque

About 50 teachers and administrators of the Lebanon School District in Pennsylvania got paid time off to attend Islamic religious training. Teacher Lara Book called the day “amazing. Even though the rituals are different what came through loud and clear is that all religions want the same thing.”

While the ACLU is normally “johnny-on-the-spot” to protest any show of religion in a public space, especially one where taxpayer resources may be unconstitutionally used to promulgate a faith, spokesman Betram Petty found no problem with this event.

The whole separation of church and state thing is a western way of thinking,” he said. “It would be improper to hold Islam to these standards. Muhammed used the state to spread his religion, often giving individuals the choice of converting or being put to death. Using taxpayer funds to educate teachers on the fundamentals of Islam seems a lot milder than resorting to jihad. So, opening our institutions to this milder form of proselytization seems a more peaceful way of accomplishing the same goal. Objecting on the grounds that it mixes church and state could divert Muslims toward a more violent course of action.”

In related news, the ACLU is suing Gloucester High School in Virginia for denying 16-year-old Gavin Grimm, a female, access to the boys’ locker room and restrooms. “This is hurtful and stigmatizing for Ms. Grimm,” complained Petty. “The school’s effort to palm-off ‘gender-neutral’ restrooms as their solution to the transgender phenomenon falls far short of equal treatment under the law. Ms. Grimm’s inalienable right to explore her sexual identity requires that she be enabled to disrobe and shower among boys. It is key for helping her decide whether to make the full transition to male or whether she would be more comfortable keeping her female body.”

Police Shut Down Kids’ Lemonade Stand

Police in Overton, Texas ordered two sisters, Zoey (aged 7) and Andria Green (aged 8) to “cease and desist” selling lemonade in their efforts to raise money to buy a Father’s Day gift for their dad.

Selling anything in Texas without a permit is illegal,” explained rousting officer Doug Stamper. “It doesn’t matter that neighborhood lemonade stands have been a time-honored way for kids to make a buck. Under the law, they need to buy a permit if they want to sell lemonade.”

The cost of the required permit is $150. Few kids would have the funds to afford it. Few kid-run lemonade stands could net enough to cover the cost of purchasing a permit.

Every dollar these kids make is stolen from legitimate businesses that pay for permits and collect sales taxes that they remit to the government,” Stamper added. “If the loss of this legitimate revenue weren’t substantial the businesses wouldn’t have bothered to lobby for the law we’re enforcing here today.”

Stamper went on to contrast “the fundamentally selfish motive of these two girls” with “the loftier purposes to which the local government puts the revenues garnered from permit fees and taxes. A couple of kids operating a rogue business may look cute, but it’s a ‘knife between the ribs’ of legitimate businesses and the government elected to protect their interests.”

Congressman Introduces Automatic Voter Bill

Rep. David Cicilline (D-RI) has drafted legislation that he says “will greatly simplify the whole voting process in this country. Right now we have what is basically an ‘opt-in’ system. Those who want to vote have to take the initiative to register and make a periodic effort to cast a ballot. There is no question this reduces the number of ballots cast and lessens participation in our democratic process.”

Under Cicilline’s bill, every voter would be automatically registered to vote on his or her 18th birthday. A notice would be sent supplying each newly registered voter with a postage-paid reply card where they could indicate a Party preference. Once the card were received and recorded the person’s vote would automatically be cast for the Party specified in all future elections unless the individual presented a notarized affidavit changing the Party preference for a specific election.

By making one decision at the time of registration that person’s voice will continue to be heard in all subsequent elections without requiring any additional effort on their part,” Cicilline said. “People wouldn’t needlessly be forced to endure the tedium of going to the polls time-after-time. Their preference will be pre-recorded and repeated, saving them enormous amounts of time and trouble.”

Cicilline denied that his bill would usher in “mandatory voting,” saying that “a person could return the reply card asking that his or her name be stricken from the rolls.” He insisted that a better analogy would be “like those book clubs where they automatically send you the month’s selection unless you opt out. That system sells more books. My system will result in more votes. It will strengthen our democratic process.”

The legislation has been endorsed by Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla), former Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel (NY), and civil rights activist Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga).

Homeland Security Searching for Leaker

Last week’s news that the TSA failed to detect 95% of the weapons smuggled onto airlines in its security test has focused the Department on ways to tighten up security. Readers will be forgiven for mistakenly assuming that the tightening efforts will be on ways to interdict more smuggled weapons. In fact, the main concern, as Secretary Jeh Johnson sees it, “is finding the person who leaked these confidential test results to the media.”

The sad truth is that there is no way we can intercept more than a tiny fraction of actions hostile toward our air transportation system,” Johnson admitted. “Making sure that this truth is kept confidential was a crucial component of our ‘big bluff’ strategy. If terrorists believe they will be caught, they won’t attempt to penetrate our security. If travelers believe security is tight, they won’t be afraid to fly. This leak undermines both of these goals. We need to find out who is responsible and make an example of him.”

The Secretary dismissed the possibility that any of the 73 TSA personnel with ties to terrorist groups could have played a role in the failure to detect smuggled weapons. “Seventy-three is just a small fraction of our TSA crew,” Johnson pointed out. “The 95% failure rate is evidence of much bigger flaws in our system. There is no cause for us to embark on a witch hunt aimed at blaming the Muslims we employ.”

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.

Center for Arizona Policy: A Good and Balanced Law

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

Many of you likely watched the scene unfold in Indiana last month where supporters of religious freedom sought to pass a fairly simple law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The scene was eerily similar to what played out here in Arizona with the CAP-supported SB 1062. Ignoring the facts, opponents of religious freedom falsely claimed that the bill would allow individuals to have a license to do pretty much anything, all in the name of their free exercise of religion. Or in other words, they wrongly tried to say religious freedom would become the equivalent of Monopoly’s “Get Out of Jail Free Card.”

Yet what was lost in the debate, both here in Arizona and in Indiana is the reality of how these laws actually operate in a court-setting and in real life. They don’t provide a license to do whatever illegal activity somebody wants to do. Rather, they provide the court with a well-established and longstanding legal balancing test for analyzing competing interests.

To provide some background, Arizona has had a state-version of RFRA since 1999, and a nearly identical federal law has been in place since 1993. More than 20 states also have state RFRAs.

In a nutshell, RFRA ensures the government cannot force someone to violate their religious convictions unless the government meets a strict legal test. For the strict legal test, the government must show it has a really good reason for the law and that the law is narrowly tailored to achieve that objective. If the government does that, then the RFRA defense fails and the government law or action stands.

Although Indiana’s original version of RFRA was heavily amended after big business bullied the governor and legislature, the remaining law is still set to take effect on July 1, 2015.

This brings us to a recent story out of Indiana and a perfect example of how RFRA works. Calling his newly formed church the First Church of Cannabis, founder Bill Levin plans to break the law and openly smoke marijuana. If he is cited or arrested, he says he will claim Indiana’s RFRA for protection.

Unfortunately for Mr. Levin, this same ploy was attempted in Arizona already, and Arizona’s RFRA operated just like it’s supposed to.

In 2005, Danny Hardesty was arrested for possession of marijuana, and in court he claimed that the use of marijuana was a sacrament of his church, the Church of Cognizance. This case reached the Arizona Supreme Court in 2009, and in a unanimous ruling the Court ruled against Hardesty.

Even assuming Hardesty had a truly sincere religious belief to smoke marijuana, the Court found that the government has a good reason to prohibit marijuana use (the fact that it poses a real threat to individual health and social welfare, in addition to the public safety concern posed by unlimited use, particularly by those driving motor vehicles), and that “no less restrictive alternative [ ] would serve the State’s compelling public safety interests and still excuse the conduct for which Hardesty was tried and convicted.”

So there you go, RFRA is not a “Get Out of Jail Free Card,” and it does not provide a license to do whatever illegal activity someone wants. Rather, it is a time-tested and just law that allows for courts to acknowledge when the government overreaches and burdens someone’s free exercise of religion, and to balance that against the reasons for the government action.

Please watch for the launch of the 3rd edition of The Policy Pages later this fall, which will include a brief devoted solely to explaining how laws like the Religious Freedom Restoration Act work.

The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism

By Alfred Regnery
First Things

Over the past half century, conservatism has become the dominant political philosophy in the United States. Newspaper and television political news stories more often than not will mention the word conservative. Almost every Republican running for office—whether for school board or U.S. senator—will try to establish his place on the political spectrum based on how conservative he is. Even Democrats sometimes distinguish among members of their own party in terms of conservatism.

Although conservatism as we know it today is a relatively new movement—it emerged after World War II and only became a political force in the 1960s—it is based on ideas that are as old as Western civilization itself. The intellectual foundations on which this movement has been built stretch back to antiquity, were further developed during the Middle Ages and in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England, and were ultimately formulated into a coherent political philosophy at the time of the founding of the United States. In a real sense, conservatism is Western civilization.

The basic foundations of American conservatism can be boiled down to four fundamental concepts. We might call them the four pillars of modern conservatism:

The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom. Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties). Above all, it means freedom from oppression by government—and the protection of government against oppression. It means political liberty, the freedom to speak your mind on matters of public policy. It means religious liberty—to worship as you please, or not to worship at all. It also means economic liberty, the freedom to own property and to allocate your own resources in a free market.

Conservatism is based on the idea that the pursuit of virtue is the purpose of our existence and that liberty is an essential component of the pursuit of virtue. Adherence to virtue is also a necessary condition of the pursuit of freedom. In other words, freedom must be pursued for the common good, and when it is abused for the benefit of one group at the expense of others, such abuse must be checked. Still, confronted with a choice of more security or more liberty, conservatives will usually opt for more liberty.

The second pillar of conservative philosophy is tradition and order. Conservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society. Conservatives believe in human nature; they believe in the ability of man to build a society that respects rights and that has the capacity to repel the forces of evil. Order means a systematic and harmonious arrangement, both within one’s own character and within the commonwealth. It signifies the performance of certain duties and the enjoyment of certain rights within a community.

Order is perhaps more easily understood by looking at its opposite: disorder. A disordered existence is a confused and miserable existence. If a society falls into general disorder, many of its members will cease to exist at all. And if the members of a society are disordered in spirit, the outward order of society cannot long endure. Disorder describes well everything that conservatism is not.

The third pillar is the rule of law. Conservatism is based on the belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all. This means that both governors and the governed are subject to the law. The rule of law promotes prosperity and protects liberty. Put simply, a government of laws and not of men is the only way to secure justice.

The fourth pillar is belief in God. Belief in God means adherence to the broad concepts of religious faith—such things as justice, virtue, fairness, charity, community, and duty. These are the concepts on which conservatives base their philosophy.

Conservative belief is tethered to the idea that there is an allegiance to God that transcends politics and that sets a standard for politics. For conservatives, there must be an authority greater than man, greater than any ruler, king, or government: no state can demand our absolute obedience or attempt to control every aspect of our lives. There must be a moral order, conservatives believe, that undergirds political order. This pillar of conservatism does not mean mixing up faith and politics, and it certainly does not mean settling religious disputes politically. It also does not mean that conservatives have a monopoly on faith, or even that all conservatives are necessarily believers.

Each of the four pillars is closely related to all the others. Liberty, for example, is considered a gift of God and must be protected by the rule of law. The rule of law itself is dependent on the natural law—a transcendent law reflected in every orderly and civilized society, demarcating good and evil. Tradition and order are best reflected by our common law—a law developed over centuries by reasonable people in their everyday lives, which sets the rules for social order consistent with the past. And tradition is an important dimension of belief in God. What could demonstrate tradition and order more fully, for example, than the Old Testament and the history of the Jewish people, or the doctrines of the Christian Church?

Conservative Coalition Eliminates Huckabee, Santorum, Perry, Among Others

Editor’s Note: The following is a satire written for the purpose of providing a concrete strategy for the conservative movement to assure that the Republican Party not only does not field another lackluster, losing candidate in the 2016 presidential election, but instead nominates a highly electable candidate with the right qualifications:

October 1, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
The Conservative Coalition

Today the Conservative Coalition trimmed a current governor and two former governors, a former senator and a billionaire from the Republican presidential nominee sweepstakes.

Gone from contention for the GOP’s presidential nomination are ex-governors Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, former New York Cong. Peter King and Donald Trump.

A still badly overcrowded Republican field remains in contention amidst plans to steadily pare it down in the months to come.

Remaining Conservative Coalition candidates are Senator Ted Cruz, Senator Marco Rubio, Dr. Benjamin Carson, Carly Fiorina, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Former Gov. Jeb Bush, current New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, and former New York Gov. George Pataki did not meet, nor did they express any interest in, participating in the Conservative Coalition competition.

U.S. Senator Rand Paul chose not to participate in the Conservative Coalition.

Now in its first go-round, the Conservative Coalition is an effort to narrow down the conservative field of candidates in time to ward off growing strength by a candidate who turns off the GOP’s conservative base. This is the plan to prevent another losing candidacy in the mold of weak candidates Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney, all of whom failed to ignite the party base in their losing and unimpressive campaigns.

Conservative Coalition participants agreed to the winnowing down process in the interests of allowing a competition within the greater competition to assure the emergence of one strong conservative candidate with the best chance of winning the party nomination and ultimately the presidential election.

The next elimination date is December 1, 2015, when the coalition field will be cut down to four. After that, any candidate generating single digits in a state primary agrees to drop out.

The final decision to narrow down to one conservative candidate will occur March 1, 2016. Criteria will include a weighted combination of reputable national polling results, primary victories, and fundraising.

Some 40 additional GOP candidates, largely unknown, were also eliminated in today’s Conservative Coalition announcement.

The Conservative Coalition will issue the results of the next cut-down on December 1. Please consider supporting the Conservative Coalition and participating in the strategy to select a winning, conservative candidate with the right values and plans for America.

Memorial Day Arizona: Thank You, Courageous Veterans

Lesbian Athletes Punished for Domestic Violence

ESPN.com reports …

WNBA stars Brittney Griner and Glory Johnson were suspended seven games each today for their domestic violence arrest last month — the league’s longest ban in its 19-year history.

WNBA president Laurel Richie said the league “takes all acts of violence extremely seriously” in handing down a suspension that represents more than one-fifth of the 34-game regular season. Richie called the players’ actions “unacceptable.”

“Brittney and Glory’s conduct is detrimental to the best interests of the WNBA and violates applicable law,” Richie said in a statement. “We also understand that people make mistakes, and that education and training are as important as imposing discipline.”

The players were arrested April 22 on suspicion of assault after they fought in a home they recently bought. Griner pleaded guilty to misdemeanor disorderly conduct and entered a diversion program. The assault charge was dismissed. She must attend 26 weeks of domestic violence counseling. All charges will be dismissed if she completes counseling. Johnson’s case was transferred to county court and is still pending.

The league spent the past few weeks investigating. The WNBA said Johnson pushed Griner in the shoulder and she responded by pushing her in the back of the neck. The confrontation escalated to include wrestling, punches and the throwing and swinging of objects. The 6-foot-8 Griner received a bite wound on her finger and scratches on her wrist; the 6-4 Johnson received a scratch above her lip and was diagnosed with a concussion.

The Arizona Conservative found this research on the prevalence of lesbian domestic violence, which could become more common in our state if the judicial activism that forced same-sex marriage on Arizona holds up on appeal …

Dr. Suzana Rose, author of the “Lesbian Partner Violence Fact Sheet,” says:

Partner violence in lesbian (and gay) relationships recently has been identified as an important social problem. Partner or domestic violence among lesbians has been defined as including physical, sexual and psychological abuse, although researchers have most often studied physical violence.

About 17-45% of lesbians report having been the victim of a least one act of physical violence perpetrated by a lesbian partner. Types of physical abuse named by more than 10% of participants in one study included:

Disrupting other�s eating or sleeping habits
Pushing or shoving, driving recklessly to punish, and slapping, kicking, hitting, or biting.
Sexual abuse by a woman partner has been reported by up to 50% of lesbians.
Psychological abuse has been reported as occurring at least one time by 24% to 90% of lesbians.

Lesbians abuse their partners to gain and maintain control. Lesbian batterers are motivated to avoid feelings of loss and abandonment. Therefore, many violent incidents occur during threatened separations. Many lesbian batterers grew up in violent households and were physically, sexually, or verbally abused and/or witnessed their mothers being abused by fathers or stepfathers.

In lesbian relationships, the “butch” (physically stronger, more masculine or wage-earning) member of the couple may be as likely to be the victim as the batterer, whereas in heterosexual relationships, the male partner (usually the stronger, more masculine, and wage-earning member) is most often the batterer. Some lesbians in abusive relationships report fighting back in their relationship.

Mr. Santorum, I Voted No; I Vote for a Conservative Coalition

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum just dropped me a line, asking me to tell him whether or not he should run for president. You might be interested in my response:

Dear Mr. Santorum,

Thank you for contacting me for my opinion. I must tell you that I voted “no.” You are a man of integrity and honor, and I respect you greatly. I was very glad you won the Iowa Caucus in 2012. However, we have too many candidates on the GOP side carving up the support and the campaign money. It is time to yield to new candidates like Dr. Carson and Sen. Cruz this time around. The best thing you and several others can do is to build a conservative coalition and do all in your power to see that one strong conservative candidate emerges to take on and defeat party elites like Jeb Bush. We need a strong candidate who will have the wisdom and courage to move a stagnant, declining nation ahead in the next eight years. The Democrats have badly damaged American and sent our trajectory spiraling downward. I hope you will sacrifice your own ambitions and emerge as one of the leaders of the conservative coalition on behalf of the nation that is so starved for a leader with integrity who will put America first. You can accomplish more as a non-candidate this year to help assure one strong leader emerges who is right for America at this time. Thank you for your consideration.

God bless you and your family. God bless America.

Your friends at The Arizona Conservative

Fascists Unveiled

Senator Flake, Here’s How a Real Leader Responds to Lawlessness and Corruption

Just a few days ago 10 Republican members of the U.S. Senate voted to affirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general of the United States. While we were overjoyed at the departure of Eric Holder — the most lawless, most corrupt attorney general in U.S. history — his replacement is just as bad and totally unacceptable as he is. She should never should have been confirmed. Everyone knows that if the Democrats were in control of the Senate they would have refused to affirm a Republican president’s nominee for attorney general.

Nonetheless, we were curious to see how Arizona’s junior Senator Jeff Flake justified his vote to affirm Lynch. This is the message he posted on his official Senate website:

“I was pleased today to confirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general. While I disagree with Ms. Lynch on many policy positions, I have always believed that the Senate should give deference to the president to pick his Cabinet unless there is something disqualifying in a nominee’s background.

“Furthermore, with Loretta Lynch confirmed, Eric Holder’s tenure as head of the Department of Justice draws to a close. Not a bad day in Washington.”

So it’s “not a bad day in Washington” when the people we sent to D.C. to oppose the most lawless, radical, un-American presidential administration in our history refuse to do their jobs.

Now let’s look at how a real leader — Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who voted against Lynch’s confirmation — responded to the same responsibility set before him:

The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and Congressional authority. No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.

Ms. Lynch has announced that she supports and, if confirmed, would advance, the president’s unlawful executive amnesty scheme—a scheme that would provide work permits, trillions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, tax credits of up to $35,000 a year (according to the Congressional Research Service), and even the possibility of chain migration and citizenship to those who have entered the country illegally or overstayed their lawful period of admission. The president has done this even though Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would implement such a scheme.

President Obama’s unlawful and unconstitutional executive action nullifies current immigration law—the Immigration and Nationality Act—and replaces them with the very measures Congress refused to adopt. Even King George the Third lacked the power to legislate without Parliament.

During her confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, I asked Ms. Lynch plainly whether she supported the president’s unilateral decision to make his own immigration laws. Here is the relevant portion of the hearing transcript:

Sessions: I have to have a clear answer to this question—Ms. Lynch, do you believe the executive action announced by President Obama on November 20th is legal and Constitutional? Yes or no?

Lynch: As I’ve read the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, I do believe it is, Senator.

Of course, the lawful duty of the Attorney General is to enforce the law that exists, not one she or the president might wish existed.

One of the most stunning elements of the president’s scheme is the grant of work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from citizens and legal immigrants.

Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights has written at length about how this undermines the rights of U.S. workers, especially African-American workers, and other minorities, suffering from high unemployment. At her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms. Lynch about what she might do to protect the rights of legal U.S. workers. Here is the exchange in question:

Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here or a citizen—or a person who entered the country unlawfully?

Lynch: I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

This is a breathtaking statement. It is unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in America to declare that someone in the country illegally has a “right” to take a job.

This nation is—as George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has put it—at “a constitutional tipping point.” Professor Turley, who is a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and self-described supporter of President Obama and his policies, testified before the House of Representatives in February 2014, 9 months before the president announced his unprecedented executive action:

“The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The short-term, insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shifts of politics. It is far more difficult to regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. President Obama will not be our last president. However, these acquired powers will be passed to his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. The powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers will remain. We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority.”

One of those means is the advice and consent power. It was created for just such a time as this. It is not only appropriate, but necessary, that the Senate refuse to confirm a president’s nominees when that president has overreached and assumed the legislative powers of Congress. It is particularly necessary when the president’s nominee is being appointed specifically for the improper purpose of advancing the president’s unconstitutional overreach—all through the powers of the office to which they have been nominated.

Congress must not confirm anyone to lead the United States Department of Justice who will advance the president’s unconstitutional actions. Congress has a limited number of powers to defend the Rule of Law and itself as an institution and to stop the Executive Branch from overreaching. It is unthinkable that we would ignore one of those powers in the face of such a direct threat to our constitutional order—and it is part of an escalating pattern of overreach.

Every day that we allow the president to erode the powers of Congress, we are allowing the president to erode the sacred Constitutional rights of the citizens we serve. We have a duty to this institution, to the Constitution, and to the American people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles but rather who will continue in violation of them. For those reasons, I will oppose this nomination and I urge my colleagues, regardless of party, to do the same.”

Senator Sessions, you are an inspiration and a true patriot and leader. We applaud your courage and your integrity in standing up to evil and to minimize harm to this great nation. You are doing what you were elected to do.

As for you, Senator Flake, the same cannot be said. We do not compound one mistake by replacing it with a second mistake. The lack of reasoning, the void of depth and intellect in your brief, casual statement is stunning. And unacceptable.