Category Archives: America

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.

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.

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.

McCain Running again and the People Groan

Multiple conservative groups rebelled right out of the gate to Senator John McCain’s announcement that he will indeed seek re-election in what is expected to be a historic 2016 election cycle.

Within hours of McCain’s announcement both Conservative Review and the Senate Conservatives Fund had emailed to rally supporters against McCain. The messages pointed out McCain’s record and weakened position. Senate Conservatives Fund called for a strong show of support to oust a weakened McCain and elect a fresh face to represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate.

Conservative Review grants McCain an “F” with a 48 percent rating, calling out McCain for an extensive 32-year entrenchment in Washington. CR Editor Gaston Mooney said, “McCain’s consistent support for gun control, cap and trade, amnesty, and tax increases have put him at odds with just about every coalition inside the Republican Party and recent straw polls have shown that he is vulnerable. McCain pandered to the right in 2008 and now he is at it again.”

“There are few Republicans who have betrayed our conservative principles more than John McCain,” read the Senate Conservatives Fund letter. “McCain lost his way a long time ago.”

Both messages criticize McCain for his part in the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform and his support for amnesty, his vote for the taxpayer funded “Wall Street” bailout, his vote to fund implementation of Obamacare and criticism of efforts to halt that funding, opposition to a $1.3 trillion tax cut, support for a $600 billion tax hike, repeated votes to raise the debt limit and voting against term limits.

Mincing no words, the Senate Conservatives letter refers to McCain as “one of the most anti-conservative RINOs in the Senate.”

Senate Conservatives Fund is asking those supportive of a McCain alternative to put their money where their mouth is with a financial contribution and signature on their “Replace John McCain” in 2016 petition.

The grass roots, urges the letter, “is asking for our help,” citing polling that says 98 percent want a conservative alternative to McCain.

“To replace John McCain, we need to get hundreds of thousands of patriots united and working together. The Republican establishment in Washington will pour millions of dollars into this race to save him.”

According to FEC records, the Friends of John McCain campaign committee held $2 million in cash on hand at the end of 2014. Almost $1.2 million of that came from 2008 presidential campaign committee funds transferred in 2013, in addition to $1.3 million in individual contributions. It comes as no surprise that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is supportive of McCain as the “Friends of John McCain” committeetransferred $265,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2014 and late 2013.

The True Facts About Religious Freedom Laws

By Sarah Torre, Heritage Foundation

The mainstream media has launched an all-out blitz over a new law that protects the fundamental freedom of Indiana citizens from unnecessary and unreasonable government coercion.

The media’s gross mischaracterizations of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act ignore the truth: Religious Freedom Restoration Acts prevent government discrimination against religious free exercise and simply provide a way to balance religious liberty with compelling government interests.

Religious liberty isn’t an absolute right. Religious liberty doesn’t always trump. Religious liberty is balanced with concerns for a compelling state interest that’s being pursued in the least-restrictive means possible.

The First Amendment Partnership, an organization whose mission is “to promote and protect religious freedom for people of all faiths,” created the below infographic separating myth from fact on Religious Freedom Restoration Acts:

As Ryan T. Anderson and I explained Thursday, the Indiana law is good policy. Like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana’s new law prohibits substantial government burdens on religious exercise unless the government can show a compelling interest in burdening religious liberty and does so through the least restrictive means.

These protections for religious freedom provide a commonsense way to balance the fundamental right to religious liberty with compelling government interests.

By passing its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana joins the 19 other states that have implemented such laws. Eleven additional states have religious liberty protections that state courts have interpreted to provide a similar level of protection. These commonsense laws place the onus on the government to justify its actions in burdening the free exercise of religion.