Category Archives: Conservatism

Endorsements for Arizona Primary Election

The Arizona Conservative has officially begun tracking candidates for public office in the Grand Canyon State in advance of November‘s elections. Voters have two choices: candidates who will champion FREEDOM for the individual and those who will push policies that deny and reduce personal freedoms – the candidates of socialism and excessive government CONTROL of your life. Whom do you want in office? Those who protect your constitutional freedom, or those who would expand government and take away more and more of your freedom? Your vote will impact every facet of American society and culture. We are still researching candidates, but the primary is August 26 and we want you to see who we are recommending so far:

Office Freedom Control
Governor Andy Thomas Fred DuVal
Secretary of State Will Cardon Chris Campas, Terry Goddard
Attorney General Mark Brnovich Felicia Rotellini
State Treasurer Randy Pullen
Supt. Of Public Instruction Diane Douglas Sharon Thomas, David Garcia
Mining Inspector Joe Hart Manuel Cruz
Congress-District 1 Adam Kwasman Ann Kirkpatrick
Congress-District 2 Martha McSally Ron Barber
Congress-District 3 Gabriela Saucedo Mercer Raul Grijalva
Congress-District 4 Paul Gosar Mikel Weisser
Congress-District 5 Matt Salmon
Congress-District 6 David Schweikert
Congress-District 7 Steve Gallardo, Cesar Chavez
Congress-District 8 Trent Franks Helmuth Hack
Congress-District 9 Wendy Rogers, Andrew Walter Kyrsten Sinema

Arizona Legislature

District 1


House: Linda Gray, Karen Fann

District 2



District 3



District 4

Senate: Connie Uribe


District 5

Senate: Kelli Ward

House: Sam Medrano

District 6

Senate: Chester Crandall

House: Brenda Barton

District 7



District 8

Senate: Irene Littleton

House: Darla Dawald

District 9


House: Ethan Orr

District 10



District 11

Senate: Steve Smith

House: Vince Leach, Mark Finchem

District 12

Senate: Andy Biggs

House: Eddie Farnsworth, Warren Peterson

District 13

Senate: Don Shooter

House: Darin Mitchell, Steve Montenegro

District 14

Senate: Gail Griffin

House: David Gowan, David Stevens

District 15

Senate: Nancy Barto

House: John Allen, David Smith

District 16

Senate: David Farnsworth

House: Kelly Townsend, John Fillmore

District 17

SenateA Steve Yarbrough

House: J.D. Mesnard, Jeff Weninger

District 18

Senate: Tom Morrissey

House: John King, Jill Norgaard

District 19



District 20

Senate: Kimberly Yee

House: Paul Boyer, Carl Seel

District 21

Senate: Debbie Lesko

House: Rick Gray

District 22

Senate: Judy Burges

House: David Livington, Phil Lovas

District 23

Senate: John Kavanaugh

House: Jay Lawrence, Michelle Ugenti

District 24



District 25


House: Rusty Bowers, Justin Olsen, Jerry Walker

District 26



District 27



District 28


House: Shawna Bolick

District 29



District 30

Senate: Gary Cox




Mesa mayor — Danny Ray


Tempe–475: Non-discrimination ordinance to include sexual orientation and gender identity

NO: This proposition is not in the best interests of individuals who are struggling with same-sex attraction and who are confused about their gender.  Furthermore, these non-discrimination bills, fronted by leftists seeking to destroy traditional marriage and family structure, are cited by activist judges to over-rule the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech and the free exercise of religion.  For these reasons, VOTE NO.




Frank Antenori: Republicans Must Vote Conservative

logo5By Frank Antenori / Southern Arizona News-Examiner

I was recently invited for coffee by a close friend and fellow Republican to discuss upcoming state legislative races. Well respected in both local grass roots circles as well as the so called “GOP Establishment,” he was chosen to reach out to me in hopes of convincing me to not get involved in several key legislative primaries. However, by the time we finished our second cup of coffee, he would not only fail to convince me to stay silent, but he would instead volunteer to help me in my efforts to inform GOP voters of the threat to our state. It took a simple history lesson to change his mind.

I take you back to the 46th Legislature. In 2004, a handful of so called “pragmatic” Republicans conspired with Democrats to give then Governor Janet Napolitano a budget that would increase state spending by more than $700 million, a 10% increase in spending in a year that saw little inflation (2%).

Worse yet, that budget created a $500 million budget deficit; in violation of Arizona’s Constitution which requires a balanced budget. Rightfully, fiscal conservatives were outraged at what was clearly an irresponsible budget. In response, conservatives recruited fiscally responsible primary opponents to challenge these fiscally irresponsible Republicans.

Then the “GOP Establishment” stepped in. They argued that we risked losing our legislative majorities by running more conservative candidates in the general. Even going as far as saying that even though these “pragmatic” Republicans may have strayed a bit and voted with Democrats for the big spending budget, at least they voted right on things like guns, faith and family issues. They used the old rationale of “even the worst Republican is better than the best Democrat any day.” Generally I would agree with that statement, however, it only holds true if those Republicans support the Republican platform and not the Democrat platform. In 2004, there were 39 Republicans in the House and 17 in the Senate. (In Arizona, you need only control 31 seats in the House and 16 in the Senate to maintain your majority.)

Many of the party faithful bought the establishment’s argument, held their noses and voted for the fiscally irresponsible Republicans “for the good of the Party.” Deep down they hoped these “pragmatic” Republicans would realize the error of their ways and act “more Republican” and fiscally responsible if they got re-elected. As a result, the fiscally conservative challengers were defeated and the “GOP Establishment” candidates got re-elected.

What did voting for the establishment candidate get us? Over the next few years, more and more spending occurred and the budget deficit got bigger, ballooning to over $2.2 billion. Well at least it helped us keep our majorities in the legislature right? Not exactly, in the House the GOP lost six seats and our majority declined to 33 seats; dangerously close to the 31 needed to maintain majority control.

Then in 2008, “Pragmatic Republicans” did it again. Cutting a backroom deal in the dark of night with legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano, four House and four Senate Republicans essentially voted to put Arizona on the verge of Bankruptcy. They left the State with no money in the Rainy Day Fund and a $3 Billion budget deficit. This time conservatives had enough.

A grassroots groundswell of conservative candidates filed to run for the legislature and challenge the big spenders of both parties. Once again the “GOP Establishment” clamored about “party unity, we’re going to lose our majority if we elect conservatives in the primary, think of the big picture and don’t get hung up on a single budget vote, etc.” This time, despite the GOP establishment spending heavily on their “pragmatic” candidates, the GOP primary voters weren’t going to listen.

Fiscal conservatives won primary after primary, soundly defeating establishment candidates in several key races. Instead of lining up behind the party’s nominees, the GOP establishment instead sided with Democrats by undermining conservative candidates in the general election. Establishment lackey and so called “political consultant” Nathan Sproul even penned an open letter to voters stating “In my opinion, the Republican Nominees are not reflective of the overall electorate.” His statement was quickly picked up by Democrats and used in mailers against conservatives.

Despite the “GOP Establishment’s” efforts to torpedo our candidates, we not only kept our majorities in the State House and Senate, but increased them! Keep in mind this was 2008, the year Barack Obama was elected President. Conventional political wisdom predicted a Democrat landslide nationally and the Tea Party was still more than a year from even coming into existence. Arizona was one of only two states in the whole country that saw Republicans add seats to their legislatures. The GOP Establishment was not only WRONG, they were DEAD WRONG.

Then came 2010; “the year of the Tea Party.” Both Establishment GOP candidates as well as Democrats were steam rolled by conservatives. Republicans obtained “Super majorities” in both houses of the legislature and it immediately led to a balanced budget in Arizona, the first in over five years.

Now we’re back to 2014 and here we go again. A new bunch of so-called “Pragmatic Republicans” have again voted with state Democrats to bring Obamacare to Arizona and once again bust the state’s bank by voting for fiscally irresponsible budgets. Where there was once $1Billion in the Rainy Day fund, now there’s essentially nothing. The budget is once again structurally unbalanced and we’re looking at huge deficits again in 2016 and 2017.

So guess what the “Establishment” is saying. Yep, you guessed it: “Don’t primary them, they only voted ‘wrong’ on Obamacare and the budget, but otherwise, they’re still better than Democrats. Don’t primary them for the ‘good of the party’ and so we don’t lose our majorities.”

Well I for one am not buying it. I’m not going to let history repeat itself. These turncoat Republicans, also known as “Legistraitors,” are causing irreparable damage to our states’ fiscal and economic future and they must go. We can’t let the financial disaster of 2004-2008 happen again. Reelecting these “pragmatic” traitors to the platform will spell fiscal disaster for Arizona. Ask yourself, do you want to go through what we had to go through back in 2009-2011? Huge budget cuts, a sales tax increase, selling our Capitol? Heck no!

For a list of these Legistraitors and their relationship to the Coalition of Corruption that is bankrupting Arizona and bringing failed Washington D.C., big government, policies to our state go to The Alliance of Principled Conservatives website at and click on Primary AZ Legislator.

Frank Antenori is a former Arizona State Senator and GOP congressional candidate. He is a contributing editor to SOAZNEWSX.

Here’s that list of legistraitors who must be defeated in the August primary:

LD25 (S)  Bob Worsley

LD15       Heather Carter

LD8         Frank Pratt

LD8         T.J. Shope

LD16       Doug Coleman

LD28       Katie Brophy McGee

LD18       Rob Robson

LD18 (S)  Jeff Dial

RINO candidates who must be defeated:

LD28    Mary Hamway

LD18    David Phineas

LD23    Effie Carlson

LD23    Bob Littlefield

LD13    Diane Landis  - running against incumbents

LD20    Bill Adams    -  running against incumbents

LD11    Jo Grant

LD14    Susan Syfert  - running against incumbents

LD20 (S) Justin Henry

LD11 (S) Scott Bartle

LD23 (S) Jeff Schwartz

The Republican Party will Achieve Unity when …

Unity. It’s the elusive quest for Republican leaders locally and nationally.

Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said in a radio interview at last week’s Conservative Political Action Committee convention that he’s seeking unity in the party.

And just recently I read a blog by the outgoing leader of the Republican legislative district in Scottsdale. He listed the accomplishments of his time as district chairman, thanked those who had helped him, and expressed regret at his inability to gain party unity.

To these men’s credit, they tried to do the impossible. Anyone striving to achieve unity in the GOP — at any level — is biting off more than he/she can chew.

The big stumbling block, which they don’t seem to articulate publicly, is the sanctity of human life. Party base Republicans defend it. The official Republican platform recognizes it.

But pro-abortion Republicans will not honor the pro-life plank of the GOP platform. It’s as invisible to them as the Constitution is to Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and B. Hussein Obama.

Respect for life and a lack of respect for human life are diametrically opposed positions. They are completely irreconcilable.

Pro-life voters will never vote for abortion supporters. Abortion advocates do not vote for pro-life candidates.

In fact, it was abortion-advocate RINOs in Scottsdale who put Janet Napolitano in office as governor several years ago. They refused to vote for the conservative candidate, Matt Salmon. Napolitano over-performed in the Scottsdale legislative district more than any of the other 29 districts in Arizona.

It was around the time of that 2002 governor’s election between Salmon and Napolitano that I attended the monthly RINO meeting in Scottsdale. And it was scary. Leftist RINO state Senator Randall Gnant stood up and railed against Salmon. Now state Senator Michele Reagan was stumping for increased gambling in the state. The RINO chairwoman praised state Rep. Carolyn Allen — a self-described Planned Parenthood activist — as a “model” lawmaker.

I went home that night shaking my head, and I wrote a blog titled “Wasting Away again in RINOville: Searching for My Lost GOP.”

But the RINOs say we have to have a big tent! Well the pro-abortion Republicans would rather stand in the rain than stand with pro-life Republicans under the big tent.

So, good luck to all you Republican leaders thinking you’re going to bridge that rift over the issue of human life. But a word to the wise: if you do not stand for the sanctity of human life, all else is moot. As long as presidential candidates think they can do the soft-shoe shuffle away from the life issue — yes, you John McCain, Mitt Romney and Bob Dole — Republicans will not control the White House, will not control judicial nominations. You leaders must begin at the proper starting point, the GOP platform section on “The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life”:

Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in the Declaration of ndependence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. We oppose using public revenues to promote or perform abortion or fund organizations which perform or advocate it and will not fund or subsidize health care which includes abortion coverage. We support the appointment of judges who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We oppose the nonconsensual withholding or withdrawal of care or treatment, including food and water, from people with disabilities, including newborns, as well as the elderly and infirm, just as we oppose active and passive euthanasia and assisted suicide.

Republican leadership has led the effort to prohibit the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion and permitted States to extend health care coverage

to children before birth. We urge Congress to strengthen the Born Alive Infant Protection Act by enacting appropriate civil and criminal penalties on healthcare providers who fail to provide treatment and care to an infant who survives an abortion, including early induction delivery where the death of the infant is intended. We call for legislation to ban sex-selective abortions – gender discrimination in its most lethal form—and to protect from abortion unborn

children who are capable of feeling pain; and we applaud U.S. House Republicans for leading the effort to protect the lives of pain-capable unborn children in the District of Columbia. We call for a ban on the use of body parts from aborted fetuses for research.

We support and applaud adult stem cell research to develop lifesaving therapies, and we oppose the killing of embryos for their stem cells. We oppose federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. We also salute the many States that have passed laws for informed consent, mandatory waiting periods prior to an abortion, and health-protective clinic regulation. We seek to protect young girls from exploitation through a parental consent requirement; and we affirm our moral obligation to assist, rather than penalize, women challenged by an unplanned pregnancy. We salute those who provide them with counseling and adoption alternatives and empower them to choose life, and we take comfort in the tremendous increase in adoptions that has followed Republican legislative initiatives.

In conclusion, we need Republicans who will fight the Party of Control Freaks tooth and nail over important issues — starting with life and moving on from that crucial starting point.

Rush Limbaugh: Bullies Reject Freedom in Arizona

February 27, 2014

Listen to it Button


RUSH:  Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, vetoed religious freedom — and, naturally, Democrats and their media allies are cheering. Even some Republicans are praising Arizona.  Meanwhile, our Founding Fathers more than likely are spinning in their graves at about 400 rpm.  In fact, folks, if you read Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims (authored by me), you might even come to learn how important religious freedom has been to this country even since before its beginning.

Rush Revere and the Brave Pilgrims is all about religious freedom.

It’s all about freedom, period.

I’m beginning to think that people — in addition to 10- and 13-year-olds — need to read this.  The Pilgrims escaped Holland and London for religious freedom.  They came to the New World before there was an America, for religious freedom, and that voyage and their establishment of Plymouth Colony and everything that happened there gave birth — later on, years and years, decades later — to our founding documents. This is a nation that is founded on the principle of religious freedom.  That is the reason this country exists, and it just bit the dust in Arizona.

Here are the audio sound bites.  Let’s start with Governor Brewer. We’ve got two of these bites.  Here you go…

BREWER:  I’ve not heard one example in Arizona where business owners’ religious liberty has been violated.  The bill is broadly worded and could result in unintended and negative consequences.  After weighing all of the arguments, I have vetoed Senate Bill 1062 moments ago.

RUSH:  She said that she has “not heard an example in Arizona where business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.”  Maybe she’s not aware what’s happened in Utah, Colorado, where businesses were shut down for this reason.  Here is the next explanation Governor Brewer…

BREWER:  To the supporters of this legislation, I want you to know that I understand that long-held norms about marriage and family are being challenged as never before.  Our society is undergoing many dramatic changes.  However, I sincerely believe that Senate Bill 1062 has the potential to create more problems than it purports to solve.  It could divide Arizona in ways we could not even imagine and no one would ever want.  Religious liberty and a core American and Arizona value.  So is nondiscrimination.

RUSH:  You know, I’ve been reading some people’s review of this, and the victors, the people that are crowing over all this, are claiming that what really happened here is that a phony bill that was rooted in phony religious freedom, under the guise of homophobia, was vetoed by Jan Brewer.  So the people that won this thing are beating their chests, are out there claiming here that nondiscrimination triumphed over discrimination, that there was nothing about religious freedom in this bill at all.  “It was all anti-gay.

“It was under the guise of religious freedom,” and if you read the bill (it’s two pages), there’s nothing about homosexuality in the bill. The word isn’t mentioned. Gay weddings, marriage, none of that is mentioned.  Rich Lowry, “Brewer’s Foolish Veto — It was jarring to read the coverage of the new ‘anti-gay bill,’” quote/unquote, “passed by the Arizona Legislature and then look up the text of the” bill. I mean, jarring to read the way this bill was portrayed than to actually read it.

“The bill was roughly 998 pages shorter than much of legislation that passes in Washington…” Most bills are 1,000 pages; this was two pages. “[S]o reading it didn’t take much of a commitment. … [I]t was easy to scan for disparaging references to homosexuality, for veiled references to homosexuality, for any references to homosexuality at all.  They weren’t there.” There weren’t any references to homosexuality.

“A headline from The Week declared, ‘There is nothing Christian about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.’ It would be more accurate to say that there was nothing anti-gay about Arizona’s anti-gay bill.”  The bill was not anti-gay; it was pro religious freedom.  That’s why the victors are out there beating their chest like Tarzan in the jungle saying that nondiscrimination has triumphed over gay bashing in the guise of religious freedom.

“The legislation consisted of minor clarifications of [Arizona]‘s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which has been on the books for 15 years and is modeled on the federal act that passed with big bipartisan majorities in the 1990s and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.”  In other words, the bill mirrors a federal law that is already the law of the land — of course, being ignored.

And just like Arizona had tried to pass its own immigration laws that mirrored federal immigration laws ’cause Obama wasn’t endorsing them — the judge threw that out — Arizona said, “You know what? We’re not gonna wait for a judge to throw it out.  We’ll just do it ourselves this time,” essentially.  Here’s the real nub of it, and everybody knows it: “Arizona was going to lose the Super Bowl over this,” a two-page piece of legislation.  This was media coverage that portrayed this bill in ways that it wasn’t.

This is how it works.

This is the Washington soap opera.

That’s why I said two days ago that everybody here was being bullied, because the bill was mischaracterized from the get-go, and everybody — low-information voters, hell, everybody else — thought it was a gay-bashing bill.  Who reads legislation, for crying out loud?  Hell, members of Congress don’t even read it anymore.  Why would we expect John Q. Six-Pack Citizen to take the time to go find it and read it?

“Gov. Jan Brewer took no chances and vetoed it Wednesday. The bill was the subject of a truly awe-inspiring tsunami of poorly informed indignation.  For The New York Times editorial board, the bill was ‘A License to Discriminate.’ It constituted ‘the legalizing of anti-gay prejudice,’ according to a piece in US News & World Report. It was, Salon scoffed, ‘cartoonishly bigoted.’ A reference to Jim Crow was obligatory in any discussion of the bill on [the mind vacuum that is] cable TV.

“Writing in The Week, Elizabeth Stoker said the logic of the bill ‘threatens to twist Christianity into a vile, exclusionary isolating thing.’ But it was beyond the power of Arizona lawmakers to redefine Christianity. Stoker must have mistaken the Arizona Legislature for the Council of Nicaea.  In USA Today, the influential liberal pundit Kirsten Powers posited that the bill would enable all-out civil conflict, with Muslim pharmacists possibly refusing to give uncovered women antibiotics…”

That’s already happening, and it’s protected!  I’ve got a story here in the Stack where the Regime sent the EEOC or some bureaucracy after a trucking company in Illinois.  They fired a couple of Muslims who refused to deliver alcohol or some such thing, and the federal government said, “You can’t fire ‘em for that! They’ve got their religious freedom!”

Let me find it.


RUSH:  I have a press release from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission bragging about this.  “Star Transport, Inc., a trucking company based in Morton, Ill., violated federal law by failing to accommodate two employees because of their religion, Islam, and discharging them, the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit filed [May 28, 2013].

“The lawsuit alleged that Star Transport refused to provide two employees with an accommodation of their religious beliefs when it terminated their employment because they refused to deliver alcohol.” So the Feds went in and sanctioned Star Transport, sues them, because they fired a couple of employees who refused to deliver alcohol — and they refused because of a violation of their religious tenets.  They’re Muslims, and they don’t want to be anywhere near alcohol.

“According to EEOC District Director John P. Rowe…’Our investigation revealed that Star could have readily avoided assigning these employees to alcohol delivery without any undue hardship, but chose to force the issue despite the employees’ Islamic religion.’ Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.”

Well. So here while the religious freedom of business owners in Arizona is ignored, the religious freedom of employees in Illinois is upheld by the federal government.  So this religious freedom business really does only go one way right now.  Look, I’m not reviewing all of this Arizona stuff because I think there was a different outcome possible.  There was no way this governor was ever gonna not veto this.

The bullying that was going on — and the NFL chiming in, trying to take the Super Bowl away, that’s all it took.  That was the end of it there, and then Apple, Inc. saying, “Hey, you know, we’re bringing 2000 jobs to this state, maybe.  It depends.”  There was no question it was gonna go. But since we are interested in the truth and having you know it, I’m gonna tell you a little bit more about this.


RUSH:  Now, let me just reiterate: There was no way Governor Brewer was not going to veto this bill.  So I’m not spending time on this trying to beat her up after the fact.  There was only one possible outcome here.  There was only one.  This state has been beaten up by Obama. It’s been beat up by every civil rights activist you can think of.  They’ve been totally cowed.  I think it’s amazing they got this far, frankly, in getting the legislation they had passed.

But I want to go back to Rich Lowry’s piece because and then a couple of audio sound bites from Bill Donohue from the Catholic League, who had to try to explain — to Chris Cuomo today on CNN — what this was really all about.  “In USA Today, the influential liberal pundit Kirsten Powers posited that the bill would enable all-out civil conflict, with Muslim pharmacists possibly refusing to give uncovered women antibiotics,” meaning women not wearing the burqa, for those of you in Rio Linda.

They think “uncovered” means something else there.  “Christian pacifists refusing to let Army sergeants stay in their hotels, and Christian restaurateurs who oppose judging gays refusing to serve overly judgmental Christians.” All of this was thrown out as, “Oh, my God, if she signs this bill, Katie, bar the door! We’re gonna have people being denied services and products just everywhere. Because don’t you know, this is just the most discriminatory, bigoted country ever!

The left has to come in and protect the bigots, and everybody, else from themselves.  Well, as Rich Lowry writes, “If you’ll excuse a brief, boring break from the hysteria to dwell on the text of the doomed bill, it stipulated that the word ‘person’ in the law applies to businesses and that the protections of the law apply whether or not the government is directly a party to a proceeding (e.g., a lawsuit brought on anti-discrimination grounds).

“Eleven legal experts on religious freedom statutes … wrote a letter to Gov. Brewer prior to her veto explaining how the bill ‘has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.’  In addition to the federal government, 18 states have such statutes and about a dozen other states interpret their state constitutions as extending the same protections, according to the letter.” In other words, this is common what Arizona was attempting to establish!

You know, if you want to get ticked off about something, it is… There is… How to phrase this a different way?  Jonathan Turley, constitutional professor somewhere, Georgetown, showed up again to testify on Capitol Hill.  He’s up there and he’s wringing his hands. “We are at a constitutional tipping point.”  I’ve got the sound bites here coming up later.  “We’re at a constitutional tipping point, ’cause Obama is just running roughshod.  But so did Bush,” he said, to qualify.

He’s a good liberal, so he had throw Bush in there.  It’s not even close, Jonathan.  Bush and Obama?  It’s not even close, the constitutional usurpation.  There’s never been anybody like Obama.  Anyway, Turley says this is very bad.  You know why Turley says it’s very bad?  It’s very bad because the Founding Fathers never dreamed that the other two branches would basically lay down and allow themselves to be walked all over!

The Founding Fathers thought that the people in the judicial and legislative branches would be trying to get as much power from the executive as they could, but they would not just lay down and let an executive walk all over ‘em.  He said he can’t believe it. He cannot believe that Congress doesn’t care. They’re losing power be with Obama’s taking it.  Now, Turley knew he was gonna be in trouble for this, so you know what else he said?

“By the way, I happen to agree with everything the president’s doing policy-wise.  I just have a problem with how he’s doing it.”  Give me a break! That is a qualifier that’s a bit suspicious to me. “Oh, yeah, I agree with the president policy wise most of the time.  I’m just worried how he’s doing it. It’s a constitutional tipping point.” Well, the same here.  Turley is right.  The other branches are just laying down.  They’re just allowing this to happen, and you and I know why.

It’s the same reason why everybody, why the governor and all of the forces behind this bill laid down.  There is just abject fear of minorities right now.  There is fear of being labeled a bigot or a racist.  The whole debate is set up.  Everything the majority wants to do now is bigoted, discriminatory.  It’s the way everything’s been characterized, and so the people who are trying to do the right thing never stand up for themselves after they’re trying to do it.  The right thing has no defense.

The right thing has nobody shouting in its defense.

The right thing has nobody. After they write it, and after making effort, they let it die. They allow themselves to be walked all over.  They allow themselves to be mischaracterized.  They allow their work to be mischaracterized.  We’ve never seen anything like it, and we all know why.  Fear of the media.  It’s clear as a bill what made this in Arizona happen.  The media and the left-wing bullies were able to totally mischaracterize what this was.

And the people who knew that they were being mischaracterized didn’t dare stand up and say, “No, you’re wrong.”  They just didn’t want to take that risk. They figured they have nobody on their side.  They figured they’d have no support, no help, an ddidn’t want to be a lone wolf or a series of lone wolves. They just said, “You know what? We’ll get this issue off the table. We’ll come back and we’ll get ‘em on… on… uh… on… Well, we’ll get ‘em on the next one,” and they cave on the next one and say, “We’ll get ‘em on the next one!”

And they cave on that, and you and I know why.  So what Arizona had on the table is something that’s already federal law and essentially the law of 18 states and others.  Now, let’s wrap up Lowry: “Eleven legal experts on religious freedom statutes … wrote a letter to Gov. Brewer prior to her veto explaining how the bill ‘has been egregiously misrepresented by many of its critics.’  …

“The letter argues that, properly interpreted, the federal law that inspired the Arizona statute covers cases that don’t directly involve the government and covers businesses. So Arizona’s changes weren’t radical but in keeping with a federal law once championed by none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy.  A religious freedom statute doesn’t give anyone carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the name of religion.

“It simply allows him to make his case in court that a law or a lawsuit substantially burdens his religion and that there is no compelling governmental interest to justify the burden,” and now that’s even been taken away here. “For critics of the Arizona bill, the substance was almost an afterthought.” The substance didn’t matter.  It was the opportunity the bill gave them.  A, mischaracterize it.  B, call it gay bashing.

C, attach it to the Republicans and make ‘em out to be the usual racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes.  D, scare them into paralysis.  E, we get what we want — and what we want is this Constitution shredded and bastardized every chance we get.  “The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds should provide their services for gay weddings,” but it became that. Not only is this the denial of religious freedom, this is using the force of government to force people to act in ways they don’t want to act.

It’s a double whammy.

Again, “The question isn’t whether businesses run by people opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds should provide their services for gay weddings; it is whether they should be compelled to by government.” That’s the question, and that’s what just happened.  The government can now compel people, just like they can’t compel you to buy a product or insurance, but now they can.  The government can’t compel you to do business with people you don’t want to, except now they can.

“The critics of the much-maligned Arizona bill pride themselves on their live-and-let-live open-mindedness…”

Oh, yeah.  They’re the tolerant ones, you see.  They’re the ones that are not closed-minded!  They’re the ones that are not bigoted.  Oh, noooo.  And they certainly aren’t the bullies.  Oh, no.  They’re just loving, kind, soft-spoken, gentle people who just want everybody to get along — except when you don’t agree with them, and then they become like jackbooted thugs, and they start bullying everybody in their way.  They become highly moralistic in their support of gay marriage, judgmental of those who oppose it, and tolerant of only one point of view: Their own.

They are the exact opposite of the way they portray themselves.


RUSH: We got a guy who works for the Star Trucking Company on the phone.  He’s driving through Wisconsin.  Hey, Jim.  Welcome to the program.  Great to have you here.  Hi.

CALLER:  Hi.  Hi.  Can you hear me?

RUSH:  Yeah.  You’re Jim, right?

CALLER:  Yeah, I’m Jim.

RUSH:  Okay.

CALLER:  It’s the first time I’ve ever called you.  Well, yeah, I don’t work for Star anymore.  I used to.  But what I was trying to tell your screener was that Star has a policy. When you first go in for orientation, you have a what they call a force dispatch, which means the dispatcher give you a load and you have to take it. You sign that paper.

RUSH:  Wait, wait, wait, wait.  I want to make sure I understand this.  So when you get hired at Star trucking, Star trucking gives you a piece of paper that you agree to sign, and when you sign it, you are agreeing to ship whatever they give you? Whatever’s in the shipment, you’ll drive it?

CALLER:  Yes.  Yes.  It’s basically the dispatcher gives you a load, sends you a load, and you haul it.

RUSH:  So when you sign this, you know that you have no choice. You can’t refuse whatever they may put in the trailer. You’ve got to take it.

CALLER:  Yes.  Yes.  Yes.

RUSH:  You think these two Muslim drivers knew full well when they signed on that they might have to drive some alcohol?

CALLER:  Yeah, yeah.  That’s basically what the paper says. You have to take whatever. It’s a forced dispatch company, and you have to take whatever you’re given.  You know, whatever dispatch, you have to take that load. You can’t refuse.

RUSH:  Not anymore, Jim. Not the case anymore.  What’s happened is the government has just told Star Trucking that they can’t do that anymore. They can’t force people to haul. Now, they could make you drive a bunch of condoms. They could make you drive whatever you don’t want to drive. You couldn’t object to it.

CALLER:  Yeah.  Yeah.  It doesn’t matter. You have to take the load.

RUSH:  No, you don’t.  That’s the point.

CALLER:  Well, most companies are like that. Most companies don’t have a no force dispatch policy, but the Star was one of the companies I worked for that had — well, the first company I’d worked for that had.

RUSH:  So the point is that these two guys knew full well. They signed a release, in essence.  We know what’s going on here, too, folks.  This didn’t just happen, and this just isn’t some couple of guys randomly offended and doing something about it.  We know what’s going on.


You Know McCain’s True Stripes when Democrats are Praising Him

It should tell you everything you need to know about liberal U.S. Senator John McCain when Democrats are praising him and Republicans are censuring him.

If you hadn’t heard by now, the Maricopa County Republican Party recently censured McCain for his leftward lean. Various groups in McCain’s own Republican Party in Arizona have been censuring and expressing displeasure with McCain since 2005. It’s nothing new. But look what the Democrats’ candidate for governor, Fred DuVal is saying about McCain:

“Moments ago, John McCain was censured by the elected leaders of Arizona’s Republican Party. What an outrageous response to the good work Senator McCain did crafting a reasonable solution to fix our broken immigration system.

The displeasure with McCain has noticeably risen. Last year, the Rocky Mountain Poll reported …

67 percent of Arizonans now opine that Arizona needs to elect someone to the U.S. Senate with new ideas and interests. Only 21 percent now believe that John McCain deserves another six year term. This view is shared across the state in that the proportion saying they would prefer a new U.S. Senator reaches 72 percent in Maricopa county, 67 percent in Pima county and 58 percent in the rural counties. Further, 61 percent of those are registered Republicans and 67 percent call themselves politically conservative hold the same view.

In recent days, Republican committee members of Santa Cruz County, Maricopa County, Apache County, Cochise County, Gila County, and Mohave County all passed censure resolutions against “Lefty” McCain. That’s a stinging indictment and reflective of mounting grassroots disenchantment with McCain over the past several years. It’s no wonder McCain and his shadow, Sen. Jeff Flake once again dissed the GOP by boycotting the recent state party convention.

We endorse any solid conservative who runs against McCain in his next bid for re-election. During that campaign, he needs to be held accountable for his unsupportable efforts on behalf of the homosexual agenda and the gun control leftists.

Sen. McCain Racks up Yet ANOTHER GOP Censure!

By Matthew Boyle, Breitbart

The Maricopa County Republican Party in Arizona formally censured Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) Saturday evening by an overwhelming 1150-351 vote, Breitbart News has learned.

Maricopa County is Arizona’s most populous county and includes Phoenix within its borders. The official GOP body’s rebuke undermines McCain’s reelection chances should he
decide to run for the Senate again in 2016.

“As leaders in the Republican Party, we are obligated to fully support our Party, platform, and its candidates,” the formal censure resolution reads. “Only in times of great crisis or betrayal is it necessary to publicly censure our leaders. Today we are faced with both. For too long we have waited, hoping Senator McCain would return to our Party’s values on his own. That has not happened.”

The resolution continues by stating, with “sadness and humility,” the Republicans in the county “rise and declare” that McCain “has amassed a long and terrible record of drafting, co- sponsoring and voting for legislation best associated with liberal Democrats, such as Amnesty, funding for ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, assaults on the Constitution and 2nd  Amendment, and has continued to support liberal nominees.”

That voting record from McCain, they say, “has been disastrous and harmful to Arizona and the United States.”

McCain was elected, the Republicans say in the censure resolution, by campaigning “as a conservative” and making promises during his various reelection campaigns “such as the needed and welcomed promise to secure our borders and finish the border fence, only to quickly flip-flop on those promises.”

The Republicans say that McCain “has abandoned our core values and has been eerily silent against Liberals, yet publicly reprimands Conservatives in his own Party.” Therefore, the Maricopa County GOP leadership “censures Senator McCain for his continued disservice to our State and Nation.”

The censure states that formally, “until he consistently champions our Party’s Platform and values, we, the Republican leadership in Arizona will no longer support, campaign for or endorse John McCain as our U.S. Senator.”

Maricopa County joins Apache County and Mohave County in voting to formally censure McCain via similar resolutions. There are 15 counties total in Arizona, which means that at this
point, 20 percent of Arizona’s county GOP bodies have officially censured McCain—three years out from his potential reelection campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2016.

McCain has not made a final decision yet on whether or not he will run for re-election.

We Must Fight and Win the Civil War within the GOP

Can the Republican Party continue to allow non-conservative people to lead the party without sacrificing the principles that make it the Republican Party? And as noted conservative commentator Bill Whittle has pointed out, can the GOP win major elections when Republican candidates are not willing to boldly articulate party positions on crucial issues?

The repercussions of allowing Republicans In Name Only – including John McCain, Mitt Romney, Karl Rove, and many individuals at the grassroots level – to lead are taking a toll on the GOP. And creating a ripple effect evidenced here in Maricopa County once again this week. Here’s how it happened.

Former state lawmaker Russell Pearce, a solid conservative dedicated to the Republican Party’s published platform, submitted some resolutions to the legislative committee in Senator McCain’s home district (Legislative District 28). In recent years, McCain had gone to extraordinary lengths and spared no expense in wresting control of this district’s GOP leadership committee away from party base conservatives. The current chairman of LD28 is Scott O’Connor – a self described RINO and the son of now retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Scott O’Connor is a McCain man who, by his own actions, is not interested in the Republican Party platform or the democratic process. And he called a special meeting in LD28 to supposedly address Pearce’s proposed resolutions.

At that meeting, Scott O’Connor introduced the motions in a mocking manner. He also clashed with former LD28 chairman Rob Haney, a conservative who also previously chaired the Maricopa County Republican leadership committee, over the issue of prayer. Evidently a vocal minority of non-Christians had played the offended party card and O’Connor did the typical ACLU-type kneejerk reaction of disallowing meaningful prayer. Following the meeting, O’Connor contacted Haney by email and roundly criticized his behavior. Here’s that email message:

I appreciate your right to disagree, and I gave you plenty of opportunities to do so last night.
However, your tendency to interrupt and play games with the chair and the agenda is a pattern that must end.  If you do it again, you will be removed.
Adding vocal God Bless and Amens during a moment of silence clearly vocalized your opposition to the suspension of formal prayer at the meeting, but not in a respectful way or time.  Do it again and you will be removed.
Personally, I don’t really care if we have the prayers or not, but the executive committee and I are respecting the wishes of those who are offended by the practice. 
I will respect you when start showing some respect.  If you want to change a policy, request it formally and it will be considered, but do not disrupt the meeting again with your antics.  Maybe you should attend the classes at the Center for Self Governance on how to be more effective in your engagement with political officials.


Then Haney penned a response and went public with it:


 Dear Scott,

I am taking the liberty of publishing our exchange of emails in an open forum because I view removal of the Invocation from our LD 28 meetings at the sole discretion of the executive board as a continuance of the attack on religion in our country.   Other districts need to be made aware of how easily they can lose the rights they took for granted through the actions of a few anonymous complaints brought to a receptive executive board. To have a universally accepted, decades long practice within the Republican Party ended by fiat of the executive board without even debate or a vote of the body, is the height of arrogance and is reminiscent of Obama’s executive orders.

I would suggest to other LDs that they take preventative action possibly through a bylaw addition which states that the Invocation and Pledge cannot be remove from the opening proceedings of a district meeting without a vote of the LD precinct committeemen.

And, although it should not be necessary to tell you in advance of a motion to be offered in the next meeting to rescind the executive board’s edict to do away with the invocation, please add that motion to your agenda.

Now to your other points:

1) I find it disingenuous that after the meeting you took the time to compliment me on adding to the debate but now you are critical of my doing so.

2) You state that I have a tendency to interrupt and play games with the chair and the agenda and if I do so again, I will be removed.   Responsible citizenship requires objections to unilateral dictates.  Also, when you began the meeting with an uncalled for ad hominem attack on Russell Pearce, I felt it necessary to call you on it since you had called this unscheduled meeting to discuss the resolutions, not to attack the sponsors of the resolutions. This action was uncalled for and unprofessional. Inyour call letter you stated that we were going to discuss “no less than 11 resolutions put forth by Russell Pearce.”  That statement alone was denigrating and you proceeded to expound upon it at the meeting.   To those of us who admire and respect Russell Pearce for his long record of unselfish service to our state and country, the attack was a “red flag,” warranting immediate rebuttal.

3) You state that you do not care if we have the prayer or not but you and the executive committee were respecting the wishes of those who were offended by the practice. You appear to have been biased in favor of removal to begin with or you would have brought the matter before the body of PCs for pen discussion and a vote. My guess is that you have offended far more by removing the Invocation without a discussion than were offended by its inclusion.

4) The Preamble to the Republican Platform ends with the sentence, “May God continue to shed his grace on the United States of America.”   Do you and the executive committee of LD 28 now place yourselves above the Republican Platform?  

5) Your last attack paragraph is too immature to warrant a response.


Rob Haney

What are we to conclude from the latest flare-up in this civil war within the Republican Party?

1) It will be harder and harder for Republicans to win crucial elections as long as this conflict continues. A house divided cannot stand. Nor can the party effectively compete against Democrats while it is occupied on another front against renegades in its own party.

2) Sooner or later, the GOP must honor its own written purpose statements articulated in the party platform. The GOP should take a lesson from the Constitution Party, which does not allow candidates for public office to represent it if they do not support the party platform.

3) Those who do not believe in the platform have no right to represent the organization. Party-base Republicans need to recognize them and defeat them. Conservatives need to recapture districts like LD28 and work for the nomination of true Republicans at every level, from city council to president.

4) There can be no compromise between people with diametrically opposed beliefs – especially on the social issues.

5) Party base conservatives must do a better job of articulating party platform principles and helping voters draw distinctions between candidates supporting Republican principles and those who are merely “Democrat lite” candidates. Expose those who are distorting the truth, i.e, nationally syndicated radio host Hugh Hewitt, who on nationally-syndicated radio program Thursday referred to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie as “a good conservative.” Christie is not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Neither are McCain, Senator Jeff Flake, or Arizona Senator Michele Reagan, among others.

Party-base conservatives must make better use of the GOP platform and champion it. The platform is the stated, published list of core beliefs of the GOP. While it collects dust, as an after-thought, conservatives and RINOs merely debate some of the same issues that divide Republicans and Democrats. RINOs should not be able to get away with attempts to legitimize Democrat talking points, not on abortion, not on marriage, not on ENDA, not on raising debt ceilings, or the size and reach of government. Rob Haney has dedicated his life to the principles of the party, principles which will lead to life, prosperity and real progress. We must all do the same.

Send the link for the GOP platform to the RINOs in your area today.

Center for AZ Policy: Shocking to see Flake, McCain Break Their Promises on ENDA

Statement from Center for Arizona Policy President Cathi Herrod on the U.S. Senate’s Passage of ENDA

PHOENIX – “It is deeply disappointing and shocking to see Senator John McCain and Senator Jeff Flake break their promise to Arizona voters to oppose the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

ENDA is a false bill of goods: while it claims to end discrimination, this bill in fact fosters discrimination against business owners and employers with sincerely held religious beliefs. The adopted Portman Amendment did nothing to address this core concern.

Yet, just as troubling as the fact that the bill passed, is that both of Arizona’s Senators voted for this bill, despite having told Arizona voters when running for office that they would oppose this legislation in their surveys:

Senator John McCain’s 2010 survey (See question 10)

Senator Jeff Flake’s 2012 survey (See question 8 and note on page 2)

ENDA compromises our first freedom – to practice our faith, free from government interference. This legislation creates an environment where government mandates compel business owners and employers to choose between their faith and their chosen profession.”


McCain-Flake: Big Government, Freedom-Stealing Progressives

Senator John McCain — a footsoldier in the Reagan Revolution? LOL! Joke of the century! If it was Reagan, it wasn’t President Ronald Reagan, late leader of the party of freedom. McCain’s a purebred freedom-robbing Progressive.

And Senator Jeff Flake — limited-government Libertarian? LOL! A self-described conservative reformer? Get outa town! ROFL!

These two imposters joined with 62 other Progressives in the Senate in an attempt to force businesses and ministries to hire cross dressers and drag queens. They voted for the homosexual dream bill, ENDA, Thursday. It’s the Employment Non-Discrimination Act — which will force employers and churches under threat of huge federal fines to hire people who perceive their gender isn’t the one they were born with. Try to dismiss one of them from your employ and you’ll have the full weight of the U.S. government on your back.

Flake pulled a bait-and-switch. He voted against ENDA on a procedural vote Monday, then turned coat and voted for it Thursday. The radical progressive bill passed the Senate 64-32.

But as we pointed out earlier in the week, House Speaker John Boehner will dropkick this horrible, freedom-stealing bill to the moon where it belongs. It won’t see the light of day in the House.

And as for the false self-portrayals of McCain and his shadow, Flake, they can tell it to the moon as well. They are not part of the solution in Washington. They are poster boys for all the problems in Washington, and our state delegation in the U.S. Senate is a lost cause. Let freedom ring. Let our elected officials fight Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, et al, not agree with them on hideous, radical extreme homeland make-overs.

Arizona’s First and Oldest Conservative Publication Turns 10!

We made it! Thanks to you loyal supporters! On November 1, 2003, The Arizona Conservative debuted as the first conservative publication in the history of Arizona. There have been many great moments along the way, and today on our 10th birthday we’re highlighting our zenith: the day Rush Limbaugh quoted our Semi-News column by John Semmens. We want to pay tribute to John as well; he’s the longest running columnist we’ve had and he’s dazzled us with his humor and scintillating satire. Many individuals have made contributions through their writing and expertise; we thank you all. Through the years, we have had hundreds of thousands of page visits, with peak visitation on and around election days. Without further adieu, here’s Rush Limbaugh’s transcript quoting The Arizona Conservative. Thank you, Arizona!

From This Day On: “Mrs. Bill Clinton”

March 05, 2007


RUSH: From this day forward, ladies and gentlemen — on this program, at least, and I think in the minds of many other people — the woman formally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton will be now known as Mrs. Bill Clinton. If I slip up — Snerdley, anybody here on the support staff, if I slip up — and call her Hillary Clinton, correct me each and every time until it becomes a habit to refer to her as “Mrs. Bill Clinton,” the wife of the former president. There’s a reason for this. It was Obama’s moment. He was going to go down there to Selma. Hillary Clinton decided she had to show up, too. But she couldn’t deal with a mano-a-womano showdown. She had to bring Bill, “the first black president of the United States.” She could not do this on her own. This is not a feminist comment. I don’t want any of you women getting upset out there. This has nothing to do with feminism or male-female. It is a Clinton Inc. reality.For example, The Arizona Conservative headline: “Hillary Clinton Grabs for Husband’s Coattails.” Senator Hillary — sorry — Senator Mrs. Bill Clinton… See, it’s going to take me a while to get into this but it will happen. “Senator Mrs. [Bill] Clinton sought to boost what some say is a sagging presidential campaign by emphasizing who she is married to.” The correct way to write this for the journalists out there would be, to whom she is married. “Coming off a week of bitter exchanges with Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. [Bill] Clinton pointed out that with her in the White House, America would have the benefit of a president who is advised by a former president. ‘It’s a really unique opportunity for America,’ said Mrs. [Bill] Clinton. ‘Bill would be back in the White House giving the country the benefit of his eight years of previous experience.’”

She’s gotta drag him into it now, folks. Things are not ripe in paradise. “’Who even knows who Obama is married to?’ Hillary asked. ‘You’ve got the least experienced senator and a nobody spouse as his confidante and advisor. Is that pathetic or what?’” This is actually a parody, but I had you going, didn’t I? (Laughing.) It’s in The blog. It’s by a guy named John Semmens, and it’s called Semi-News. (Laughing.) I had you, didn’t I? But that’s why good comedy is good comedy, because it’s gotta have an element of truth in it in order for it to be funny. “Who even knows who Obama is married to? You’ve got the least experienced senator and a nobody spouse as a confidante and advisor. Is that pathetic or what?” She’s probably thinking this. You know, this is the funny thing. She is, from now on, Mrs. Bill Clinton because she did have to drag Bill with her down there to Selma. In fact, there was a blowout — or a potential blowout — with Congressman John Lewis, who was beat up pretty bad during the original Selma march, called Bloody Sunday. He was on the verge of endorsing Obama and got a call from Bill.

Greg Craig — a well-known impeachment lawyer, well-known Clinton backer, the lawyer who secured for Fidel Castro the return rights to Elian Gonzales — has defected from Clinton, Inc. This is big. He has gone over to Camp Obama. But for the hilarious stuff here, let’s just go straight to the audio sound bites. Did any of you happen to see any of the big confab yesterday, the reenactment of the march to Selma with Mrs. Clinton speaking? You didn’t see this? Oh, you are going to appreciate the audio. Mrs. Clinton spoke with a contrived southern twang and accent because she’s down there, and she trying to sound like a black preacherette. (I’m sorry: Mrs. Bill Clinton. You gotta correct me. This is going to become a habit no matter how long it takes. I’m still correcting myself. The staff is lagging.) So let’s just get started. The height of ridiculousness, Mrs. Bill Clinton trying to act religious and talking southern. This is at a church, a portion of her opening remarks.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. And I want to begin by giving praise to the Almighty for the blessings he has bestowed upon us as a congregation, as a people, and a nation.

RUSH: She then marched right into the threat of climate change. Get this.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: How can we say everything is fine when we have an energy policy whose prices are too high, who make us dependent on foreign governments that do not wish us well, and when we face the real threat of climate change, which is inkering with God’s creation. RUSH: Oh, isn’t that rich. Here is Mrs. Bill Clinton. When was the last time Mrs. Bill Clinton mentioned God anywhere? Here she is in a black church, and she’s talking about “tinkering with God’s creation.” But, you see the hubris and the arrogance here. We can tinker with it and we can screw it up and we are screwing it up and we’re doing all these things that are destroying the planet. Now she starts the screaming and the screeching here, that together — Mrs. Bill Clinton and the audience in the church — will take back the country.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: Dr. King told us, ?Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.? Well, I’m here to tell you, poverty and growing inequality matters. Health care matters. The people of the Gulf Coast and New Orleans matter. Our soldiers matter. Our standing in the world matters. (screeching) Our future matters, and it is up to us to take it back, put it into our hands, start marching toward a better tomorrow.

RUSH: Whoa! The screeching! I don’t know that I’m going to be able to deal with this. It has too many hurtful memories. She’s trying to rev up the African-Americans in the church. Let’s just keep rolling here. Here’s Mrs. Bill Clinton, about the Voting Rights Act.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: The Voting Rights Act gave more Americans from every corner of our nation the chance to live out their dreams. And it is the gift that keeps on giving. Today it is giving Senator Obama the chance to run for president of the United States. (Applause.) And by its logic and spirit, it is giving the same chance to governor Bill Richardson, a Hispanic — and, yes, it is giving me that chance, too.

RUSH: Oh, man, if there were ever any coded lingo. You have to understand that to civil rights audiences, the Voting Rights Act is one of the big, big push-button topics because it is believed today that there are still efforts being made to discount the votes of minorities, suppress the votes and keep them from getting to the polling place. So Mrs. Bill Clinton here is hitting all of the clich?s, and now she fulfills the dream, fulfills the promise by telling them the last two elections were stolen from them.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: In the last two presidential elections we have seen the right to vote tampered with and outright denied to too many of our citizens, especially the poor and people of color. That’s wrong. It is simply unconscionable that today young Americans are putting their lives at risk to protect democracy half a world away when here at home their precious right to vote is under siege!

RUSH: It is not! Maybe a new addition to the name, Mrs. Bill Clinton X. You know, when she’s speaking — (Laughing.) I know she has her supporters and there’s probably nothing you can do about it, but people taking this seriously is a scary thought. Another portion of her remarks, ending up here with religion again. Mrs. Bill Clinton X in her best preacher voice.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: Let us say with one voice the words of James Cleveland’s great freedom hymn: ?I don’t feel no ways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don’t believe he brought me this far to leave me, and we know if we finish this march, what awaits us. St. Paul told us in the letter to the Galatians, ‘Let us not grow weary in doing good, for in due seasons we shall reap, if we do not lose heart.’” The brave men and women of Bloody Sunday did not lose heart. We can do no less. We have a march to finish.

RUSH: This is the height of pandering here. What would you call it, if it’s not pandering? (interruption) Yes, she did. She did. You want to hear it? You don’t believe that she actually put on the black preacher dialect? Play the beginning of this again. This is her best black preacher voice, Mrs. Clinton revving it up.

MRS. BILL CLINTON: Let us say with one voice the words of James Cleveland’s great freedom hymn: ?I don’t feel no ways tired. I come too far from where I started from. Nobody told me that the road would be easy. I don’t believe he brought me this far to leave me.?

RUSH: All right. All right, that’s enough. You believe it? You hear it the second time? Mrs. Bill Clinton impersonating a typical black preacher. Now, it sounds like they let her get away with it. The thing about this, though, is that it’s just so obviously pandering, so obviously fake and phony. She doesn’t bring this off well. She doesn’t do it. You have to wonder, will she do this to every group to whom she goes and speaks? Some blogger or somebody said, ?If she went to speak to a nudist camp to get the nudist vote, would she make her speech in the nude?? God, we hope not.

RUSH: You know, you listen to all this screeching from Mrs. Bill Clinton, and there’s a part of me that reaches out to Bill, that feels a little sorry. Do you realize he’s had to listen to this much more than we have, and probably directed at him personally for years and maybe some lamps have been tossed at him at the same time? It doesn’t excuse anything, but compassion is compassion. We have plenty of compassion here at the EIB Network. The Los Angeles Times today has a story: ?Obama, Clinton Reach Out to Black Voters.? Obama says in this story his grandfather was an African house boy to British empire families. ?Much of Obama’s speech dealt with doubts raised by the Rev. Al Sharpton and others that the candidate’s unusual background was alien to black Americans descended from slaves. The British in Africa, he said, called his grandfather ?a houseboy. They wouldn’t call him by his last name. Sound familiar??? Yes! That-a-way, Obama! Get those I’m-black-enough credentials out there and make sure that everybody understands it. Now, this is what I mean also, ladies and gentlemen, why from now on on this program she will be Mrs. Bill Clinton. A board member of the Voting Rights Museum by the name of Thomas Muhammad said, ?Why do you think Bill Clinton came down here? That’s because Obama is doing so well with these crowds that Mrs. [Bill] Clinton had to bring him. She had to bring her A-game.? Now, this is somebody at the Voting Rights Museum, Thomas Muhammad. The guy is a board member. Mrs. Bill Clinton’s A-game is bringing her husband along? If her husband is not with her, would you call it Mrs. Bill Clinton’s B-game? When she’s by herself she’s got a B-game. The A-game is only when her husband comes along. ?Obama has his own obstacles to overcome with black voters. Some said they didn’t know much about him. Others in the Selma crowd said they were trying to heed King’s advice and make a decision on character, not skin color ? especially given their fondness for the Clintons.? So now all of a sudden they’re going to apply what Dr. King said in his famous “I Have a Dream,? speech. Interesting timing on the selective application of that theory, is it not, for some in Selma? The Independent, the UK Independent, ?Mrs. [Bill] Clinton Looks on as Obama Gets the Larger Congregation. The congregation at the First Baptist Church in Selma, Alabama, was in full voice yesterday morning when the smiling face of Senator Hillary Clinton peered from a door behind the pulpit and saw she was already a little late. ?Have a little talk with Jesus,? the hymn began. ?Tell him about your troubles.?? ?If sheer numbers matter, the news from Selma was discouraging for Mrs. Clinton. To win her party’s presidential nomination for 2008, she will need as many black votes as possible. It is why she was here yesterday and also why at the last moment her camp announced that she would be joined by her husband Bill Clinton,? so that she could bring her A-game, ?because Bill remains beloved by many blacks. ? But no one could have stood between the two churches shortly before worship at 11 o’clock yesterday and not noticed the imbalance between the crowds. Mr. Carter and his boys stood in a line of maybe 500, crossing their fingers for a seat in the Brown Chapel. Massive cuts of pork sizzled on barbeque grills by the roadside. The throng for Hillary up the street was meagre by comparison,? ladies and gentlemen. Not looking good out there. Here’s John Lewis last night on ABC News.

LEWIS: When I celebrated my 60th birthday in Atlanta, President Clinton came down and spoke. When I celebrated my 65th birthday in Atlanta, Senator Obama came down. They’re friends. They’re like brothers — and Mrs. Clinton is an extension of her husband.

RUSH: Oooooh! That’s not a compliment, ladies and gentlemen. John Lewis there is saying that Mrs. Bill Clinton is an extension of her husband.

RUSH: Still chuckling here, folks. Not chuckling, we’re laughing. The shamelessness of Mrs. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama speaking to black church audiences in Selma, Alabama, yesterday. By the way, if you’re new to the program or if you have not joined us yet, today is your first time with us today, an executive program decision been made here. From this day forward, the woman formally known as Hillary Rodham Clinton will now be known on this program as Mrs. Bill Clinton, wife of the former president. She obviously cannot run this presidential campaign on her own. In fact, the LA Times referred to Mrs. Clinton, Mrs. Bill Clinton, as taking her A-game to Selma by taking her husband. She has to go down there and compete for the black vote with Barack Obama and needed her husband alongside in order to do it. This is not a feminist comment. This had nothing to do with women. Don’t misunderstand this. It’s simply the fact that Mrs. Bill Clinton cannot do this on her own. (interruption) What, it could change? Well, she might go back, but she’s going to be Mrs. Bill Clinton on this program.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 149 other followers