- Arizona General Election
- Ballot Propositions
- Big Abortion
- Big Government
- Border Invasion
- Candidate loses endorsement
- Church & State
- Faith & Families
- Faith & Freedom
- Health Insurance
- Hillary Clinton
- Homosexual Agenda
- John Semmens
- Judicial activism
- Left-Stream Media
- National Defense
- Planned Parenthood
- President Reagan
- President Washington
- Prop 122
- Prop 487
- Radical Environmentalism
- Reading Assignments
- Religious Freedom
- Religious Liberty
- Sanctuary cities
- Sheriff Arpaio
- Soviet Union
- The Arizona Conservative University
- The Left
- Poll: 2016 U.S. Senate Election in Arizona
- McCain Angers ACU with False Claims about Conservatism
- Center for Arizona Policy: A Good and Balanced Law
- The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism
- Conservative Coalition Eliminates Huckabee, Santorum, Perry, Among Others
- Memorial Day Arizona: Thank You, Courageous Veterans
- Failure to Disclose $26 Million in Bribes an “Oversight” Says CEO
- Homosexual Group Wants to Deny Children Their Mother or Their Father
- Feds Warn Lenders Not to Deny Loans to Welfare Recipients
- Study: How the Broadcast Networks Have Deleted Hillary’s E-Mail Scandal
Category Archives: Arizona
By Michelle Moons, Breitbart.com
Senator John McCain (R-AZ)’s campaign team is getting called out by the very organization whose rating it cited on Twitter. Team McCain advertised his 91 percent rating in 2014 from conservative group ACU as the Washington insider heads into a tough 2016 campaign season. What it doesn’t mention is his abysmal 2013 rating of 52 percent or his history of higher ratings going into re-election fights.
The American Conservative Union (ACU), host of the hugely popular Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), rates Congressional officeholders year over year.
McCain’s lifetime ACU based on 32 years in office is 82.13 percent. Looking back over the past decade, the numbers vary widely, and spiked during his 2010 primary challenge.
2006: 65 percent
2007: 80 percent
2008: 63 percent
2009: 96 percent
2010: 100 Percent (as he faced primary challenger J.D. Hayworth)
2011: 80 percent
2012: 92 percent
2013: 52 percent
2014: 91 percent
McCain certainly seems concerned. He’s taken to Twitter to boost his image:
— Team McCain (@TeamMcCain)
The ACU replied to McCain’s tweet with the following:
Yo @TeamMcCain get the numbers right. he got a 91 in ’14, but a 52 in ’13. Even by Common Core standards thats a 72% or a D+
— The ACU (@ACUConservative)
Arizonans have wearied of McCain. What many Arizonans remember is the promise he made in his infamous “build the danged fence” border security campaign ad.
Republicans in his own state officially censured him in 2014, the year he claims a lofty conservative rating. Since the censure reports have surfaced that McCain and his allies have launched a political cleansing of their Arizona leadership, ousting one conservative Republican after another. Politico reported that after the censure, McCain’s team sought to, “unseat conservative activists who hold obscure, but influential, local party offices.”
Just before announcing his re-election effort, worried emails began pouring from the McCain camp. “I’m going to be the target of a wide array of powerful groups,” he said in a plea for his own re-election. That letter was quickly followed with a worried message from his wife, emphasizing fear-invoking dangers in the world and a plea to keep her husband in office.
Arizona State Senator Kelli Ward opened an exploratory committee in March that will help her determine whether she has the political and financial path available to challenge McCain in what she has called a battle on the scale of David vs. Goliath.
U.S. Representative Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) has been quiet about whether he intends to challenge McCain, but that remains a possibility. Salmon told the Hill he has yet to announce whether he’s in or out or will even run for re-election to his seat in the House. GOP party leaders have indicated Salmon could delay his decision until the fall.
By Alfred Regnery
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?
Equality Arizona is beginning a new effort called Project Jigsaw: Connecting Every Child with a Loving Family. The purpose is to “create an environment where all couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender, have the opportunity to provide a stable, loving home for a child.” Through adoption.
Those are the talking points.
Here is the truth. There is a lot more to it than Equality Arizona is saying. It’s the quality of the home environment that counts the most. It means everything to children in their formative years.
Adopting children into the homes of either two men or two women is not in childrens’ best interests. Sure, we understand some same-sex couples want to raise children, but let’s ask the children who have already been through this experience.
Read what Dawn said:
My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won’t the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father’s high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.
Governor Doug Ducey also made some noise recently about just putting children in any loving home. He and others are making a big mistake if they don’t take a deep look at the history, the social science and the personal testimonies on this.
The average homosexual relationship lasts 18 months — hardly a “loving home” or conducive to the stability young boys and girls need.
We have more than enough fatherless children in America. Our prisons bear the result of that. No two women can offset the absence of dad. No two men can offset the absence of a nurturing mom. The kids are not all right.
And we just saw another example of domestic violence with two female pro basketball players who beat the snot out of each other and then quickly got married to try to assuage law enforcement.
Homosexuals also engage in far more risky behaviors than married male-female couples. Like drug abuse. And alcohol abuse. AIDS, of course, is much more prevalent among homosexuals.
A majority of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children. Many girls also struggle with same-sex attraction because of the unhealthy home environments they were raised in.
So now you want to take people with deep-seeded personal issues and mollify them with all kinds of rights and complicate their problems by giving them custody of children?
It makes no common sense. Arizona, Governor Ducey, CPS, adoption agencies, do not repeat the mistakes with young, sensitive, impressionable children. It is not like you are operating in the dark with no credible information to base your decisions on. We know the results in advance if you go down this road. Stop. Think about it. Forget political correctness.
One more question for the governor and any other elected official: is it worth scoring political points at the expense of children whose lives will be put at risk.
Every child needs a mom AND a dad. No alternative can substitute for this fact. Children raised in the homes of married mom and dad do better in every physical, emotional, social, and educational level. Every one. This is not debatable.
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:
- 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.
- Bureaucrats have too much time on their hands and ought to focus on real problems like drug abuse and crime in Mesa.
- 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:
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 district. 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.
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.
The Arizona Conservative
Lend your voice to opposing this radical proposal. Write to all members of the Mesa city council today:
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?
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.
Your Arizona Cardinals are contemplating the addition of Adrian Peterson to the team. They need a good running back.
Peterson is a good one, no doubt about it.
But last year the Cards released a practice team player for domestic violence. Apparently if he’d been a standout player like Peterson … he’d still be on the team today … if skill level is apparently the dividing line here.
Is Peterson a good catch?
Yes, if felony child abuse charges are the method of measurement. Yes, if leaving a path of seven illegitimate children scattered about the country is among the criteria. Yes, if touchdowns are more important than being a good citizen in the community.
The Cards could take a good lesson from retired NFL coach Tony Dungy, now an NBC football analyst.
In his coaching days, Dungy and his coaching staff carefully scrutinized character and talent as they prepared for the annual NFL draft. If a potential draftee had some character issues, Dungy wrote DNDC next to his name: Do Not Draft Character.
Cardinals, if you’re wise, you’ll write DNAC next to Peterson’s name: Do Not Acquire Character.