Category Archives: Conservatism
Arizona’s 2014 primary election season enters its final week today. People must either mail their early ballots today, bring early ballots to the polling place or vote in polling places on August 26. With this urgency in mind, The Arizona Conservative is announcing its Republican In Name Only (RINO) awards today to inform voters of the identity of some of the most liberal, so-called “Republicans,” or RINOs. And now, to the awards we go:
“I’ve Been Takin’ Care of Corporate Welfare Business, Workin’ Overtime” Award: Scott Smith, friend of Big Government, former Mesa mayor, and candidate for governor.
“reagan DEMOCRAT-Moving Arizona Backward” Award: Michele Reagan, former state senator, candidate for secretary of state.
“William J. and Hillary Rodham Clinton Politics of Personal Destruction” Award: Bob Worsley, a friend of big government who called Arizona a “police state,” and called party base Republicans “extremists.”
“Tempe Town Lake Fever” Award: Hugh Hallmann, former mayor of Tempe, candidate for state treasurer; many people get elected to serve in Washington, D.C., and go left after succumbing to “Potomac Fever.” Hallman succumbed to Tempe Town Lake Fever, adopting left-wing politics and daring Republicans to elect him to a state office regardless of his radical politics. Tempe is one of the state’s most left-wing cities, and real Republicans can’t get elected mayor there.
“Jim Kolbe Of Course You Won’t have to Pay for That, the Government Will Pay for it” Award: Doug Coleman, friend of Big Government, no friend of taxpayers, and candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives.
Primary season is in full swing here in Arizona until its conclusion August 26th. Many hotly contested races are already being impacted by early voting. Until now, one very crucial question has evaded all: if President Ronald Reagan were still alive, and if he was a registered voter in Arizona, who would he vote for?
President Reagan personified the very essence of what it means to be a true Republican. If he examined the candidates in the Grand Canyon State, their past performances and what they stand for, how would he fill out his ballot? It’s a burning question that has waited until now to be asked and answered.
President Reagan once said, “The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom.”
President Reagan was one of America’s greatest champions for liberty:
Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged.
Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.
The other party exploits the natural division between business and labor. Republicans are trying to bring all our citizens together in a campaign for economic progress.
Here in this land, for the first time, it was decided that man is born with certain God-given rights. We the people declared that government is created by the people for their own convenience. Government has no power except those voluntarily granted to it by we the people.
I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose.
President Reagan was the first presidential candidate to adopt a position in support of the value of human life:
I call America–a good nation, a moral people–to charitable but realistic consideration of the terrible cost of abortion on demand. To those who say this violates a woman’s right to control of her own body: Can they deny that now medical evidence confirms the unborn child is a living human being entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Let us unite as a nation and protect the unborn with legislation that would stop all Federal funding for abortion and with a human life amendment making, of course, an exception where the unborn child threatens the life of the mother. Our Judeo-Christian tradition recognizes the right of taking a life in self-defense. But with that one exception, let us look to those others in our land who cry out for children to adopt.
With President Reagan’s values in mind, we have a pretty good idea of how America’s greatest modern era president would have filled out his 2014 Arizona Primary ballot. Here it is:
Governor: Andy Thomas
Secretary of State: Will Cardon
Attorney General: Mark Brnovich
Treasurer: Randy Pullen
Supt. Of Public Instruction: Diane Douglas
State Mining Inspector: Joe Hart
Arizona Corporation Commission: Tom Forese, Vernon Parker
District 1: Adam Kwasman
District 2: Martha McSally or Chuck Wooten
District 3: Gabriela Saucedo Mercer
District 4: Paul Gosar
District 5: Matt Salmon
District 6: David Schweikert
District 7: no one
District 8: Trent Franks
District 9: Wendy Rogers
The late Chester Crandall
If this primary election season demonstrates one thing, it’s the wanton disregard of the Arizona Republican Party brand. Five out of six gubernatorial candidates are far off the Republican Party platform reservation, and so are many, many other so-called “Republican” candidates for public office.
It is not that the Republican brand has been tried and failed. For many, it’s never been tried.
That’s especially true for some of our highest-ranking elected officials, such as U.S. Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake and current candidate for governor Scott Smith. What they’re talking about, and the way they legislate, is currently motivated by self interest — in no way consistent with the written word of the Republican brand.
It’s not a recent phenomenon. It stretches back for quite some time.
If you just listen to elected officials and candidates for public office speak, you’d think being being Republican is a 360-degree range, including views from pro-life to pro-abortion, from pro-family to redefinition of the family, from big government to limited government. You quickly hear situational ethics by candidates, promises and yarns spun just to get elected — detached by miles and miles from the GOP national platform.
The 2012 Republican Platform preamble begins as “a statement of who we are and what we believe as a Party and our vision for a stronger and freer America.”
Sen. McCain blazes a John McCain trail unlinked to much of what the GOP platform states. He has spent thousands of dollars to remove platform-aligned Republicans from his pathway. They are an impediment to the arbitrary and unwritten “McCain Platform.” He fights conservatives much harder than he fights radical Democrats, much harder than he fought against Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election. Sen. Flake is his hand-picked puppet, now in the tank for the radical homosexual agenda. Retired Sen. Jon Kyl is his first lieutenant. McCain seldom shows his face at AZ GOP events, but make no mistake he is pulling the strings from behind the curtain, through his surrogates.
Do you hear many Arizona candidates heeding this from the party platform?
This platform affirms that America has always been a place of grand dreams and even grander realities; and so it will be again, if we return government to its proper role, making it smaller and smarter. If we restructure government’s most important domestic programs to avoid their fiscal collapse. If we keep taxation, litigation, and regulation to a minimum. If we celebrate success, entrepreneurship, and innovation. If we lift up the middle class. If we hand over to the next generation a legacy of growth and prosperity, rather than entitlements and indebtedness.
Scott Smith, the entire Mesa City Council, and numerous Republican legislators, like Bob Worsley and Jeff Dial, and numerous city councilmen and women are champions of big government.
State Sen. Michele Reagan is a virtual Planned Parenthood activist and also a friend of the homosexual agenda.
Smith and former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman are in the tank for the radical homosexual agenda, supporting policies that ensnare Christians trying to freely live out their faith and their consciences. The platform calls for preserving and protecting traditional marriage and family — not undermining it.
It’s clear that Sen. Worsley, McCain, Smith, Hallman and others establish their own personal brand as they go, bending every which way but Republican. It’s just helpful to tack on the Republican identifier to fool some voters at election time.
The GOP platform speaks of reforming government to serve the people. Many Republicans in Arizona are drafting policies to make people serve government. They love spending other people’s money, and they are very, very good at it. For those leaders offended by this admonishment, the platform includes a phrase about “protecting the people’s money.” That means safeguarding the hard-earned dollars of the people you serve, not gulping up their money to dream up non-essential ways to burn through it.
It is not only the elect who stray from GOP branding; it’s many of the citizens, too. Few bond elections, raising your taxes, ever lose. And over-rides extend the taxes that the wise elected so often under-estimated the original costs. It’s time to learn the value of a dollar, the public’s dollar.
Arizona Republicans are too often lacking in principle. Governor Jan Brewer opposed Obamacare at first, then caved in and said let’s grab that money — the taxpayers’ money. The platform talks of repealing Obamacare.
The platform discussed building great schools. Our Republican education superintendent of public instruction, John Huppenthal, abandoned his conservative roots and took us down the road of Big Government Common Core “education” and now claims he didn’t do such a thing. Common Core’s brand is so trashed the name has been changed in Arizona in an attempt to cover its true identity.
The Republican Party says it values the sanctity of human life. Our de facto state Republican leader, Sen. McCain, is in favor of cheapening life to the point of supporting destructive embryonic stem cell research. He speaks the leftist talk of choice.
The platform is conservative to the core, but the political director guiding Doug Ducey, one of those candidates for governor, trashed conservatives. Among the other GOP candidates for governor, Christine Jones praised Hillary Clinton to the hilt, Ken Bennett is pro-life but bashed a bill aimed at strengthening religious freedom, Frank Riggs did the same and his time as a California congressman wasn’t quite as conservative as he wants us to believe. Only Andrew Thomas resonates as a true conservative, despite an outrageous judge taking him down for exposing county corruption during his time as Maricopa County attorney.
Sen. Worsley says he needed to run in 2012 because his district was divided over harsh rhetoric. This from a man calling conservatives “extremists” and “haters” and labeling Arizona “a police state.” That’s hypocrisy at its finest.
As you cast your ballots for the primary election, again in the November general election, and in future elections, the following list of brand violaters should prove helpful:
Sen. John McCain
Sen. Jeff Flake
Gov. Jan Brewer (term limited out)
State Sen. Bob Worsley
State Sen. Steve Pierce
State Rep. Doug Coleman
State Sen. Jeff Dial
State Sen. Michele Reagan (Secretary of State candidate)
State Rep. Heather Carter
State Rep. Frank Pratt
State Rep. T.J. Shope
State Rep. Bob Robson
State Sen. Adam Driggs
State Sen. Steve Pierce
State Rep. Ethan Orr
Congressional Candidate Andy Tobin
Former Tempe Mayor Hugh Hallman
Former Mesa Mayor Scott Smith
Arizona Corporation Commission candidate Lucy Mason
Former elected officials/candidates Susan Bitter-Smith, Betsy Bayless, Carol Springer, Carolyn Allen, Randall Gnant, Steve Huffman, Pete Hershberger, Slade Mead (now officially a Democrat for all to see), Steve May, Linda Binder, Sue Gerard, Jane Hull, Fife Symington, Toni Hellon, Mike Hellon, Carol Somers, Jim Kolbe, Kris Mayes, Bill Konopnicki, Neil Giuliano
Gov Candidate Smith Isn’t Pro-Life, Doesn’t Support School Choice, but Does Support Homosexual Agenda
- Former Mesa Mayor Scott Smith is NOT pro-life, he opposes school choice and vouchers, he supports the homosexual agenda’s efforts to add gender identity to anti-discrimination laws. There is a name for such candidates: liberal.
- Smith, Ken Bennett, Doug Ducey, Christine Jones, and Frank Riggs ALL say they support religious freedom! However, all five of them opposed Senate Bill 1062, which … would have protected religious freedom for Arizonans. They must think you voters have not been paying attention.
- The only candidate who supported religious freedom and 1062 is Andrew Thomas. He also supports the sanctity of life, marriage as the union of one man and one woman, border enforcement and school choice. That’s why we are endorsing Andrew Thomas for governor. As mayor of Mesa, Smith and the city council loved spending other people’s money. All of them are friends of big government. Ducey is the McCain establishment candidate, and is now being accused of scamming people through Cold Stone Creamery. He said if he was governor he would veto 1062, and then he bragged he was the first candidate to say that. Ouch!
- Secretary of State candidate Michele Reagan (RINO) is in favor of abortion, Big Gambling, Planned Parenthood-style sex education, and the homosexual agenda plan to add gender identity to anti-discrimination laws. She also opposes religious freedom.
- Hugh Hallman answered only two CAP voter guide categories, two that are guaranteed to attract left-wing voters. He supports domestic partner benefits and Common Core education! This is how a “Republican” gets elected mayor in liberalville Tempe!
By Rob Haney, former chairman, Maricopa County Republican Party
Self-touting “veteran” and former California Congressman Frank Riggs’ campaign rhetoric at Monday’s forum needs to be measured by his own standards. Riggs bragged about his years in Congress and stated that we must judge a candidate by what he does — not by what he says.
Let’s examine what Riggs has done since he arrived in Arizona in 2001.
Conservative Battles Waged Riggs Claims He Did or Said
Must be US citizen to vote………………………………………………….AWOL
Must show ID to vote………………………………………………………….AWOL
Must be citizen to collect welfare………………………………………..AWOL
No social security benefits to illegal aliens…………………………..AWOL
Opposition to special benefits for dreamers………………………….AWOL
Opposition to sanctuary city for illegal aliens……………………….AWOL
Legislation for employer sanctions………………………………………AWOL
Battles against Amnesty legislation……………………………………..AWOL
Grass root opposition to Kyl, McCain, Flake………………………….AWOL
Attend meetings & rallies to oppose illegal alien invasion………AWOL
Attend MCRC & State GOP meetings to back candidates………..AWOL
Testimony at State Legislature to oppose illegal aliens……..…..AWOL
Statement backing Arpaio, Thomas, Pullen VS illegal aliens……AWOL
Religious Freedom Act…intimidated by homosexual lobby to oppose religious liberty
A conservative in these battles created enemies and bears battle scars. Where are Riggs’ scars? Where are his enemies? He has none because the “veteran” did not run toward the sound of gun fire. He was AWOL. The “baggage” a conservative fighter carries is actually a medal of honor for having borne the battle for us. We welcome Mr. Riggs to the front lines, but he is 12 years late.
The candidate to carry the conservative flag to the Governor’s chair is the man who has borne the battle for us. That man is Andrew Thomas. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of principles we hold dear.
The Arizona Conservative is endorsing candidates for public office in the Grand Canyon State in advance of the August 26 primary 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. Check back frequently as we are examining more candidates and propositions and making recommendations:
|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, Chuck Wooten||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|
House: Linda Gray, Karen Fann
Senate: Connie Uribe
Senate: Kelli Ward
House: Sam Medrano
Senate: Chester Crandall
House: Brenda Barton
Senate: Irene Littleton
House: Darla Dawald
House: Ethan Orr
Senate: Steve Smith
House: Vince Leach, Mark Finchem
Senate: Andy Biggs
House: Eddie Farnsworth, Warren Peterson
Senate: Don Shooter
House: Darin Mitchell, Steve Montenegro
Senate: Gail Griffin
House: David Gowan, David Stevens
Senate: Nancy Barto
House: John Allen, David Smith
Senate: David Farnsworth
House: Kelly Townsend, John Fillmore
SenateA Steve Yarbrough
House: J.D. Mesnard, Jeff Weninger
Senate: Tom Morrissey
House: John King, Jill Norgaard
Senate: Kimberly Yee
House: Paul Boyer, Carl Seel
Senate: Debbie Lesko
House: Rick Gray
Senate: Judy Burges
House: David Livington, Phil Lovas
Senate: John Kavanaugh
House: Jay Lawrence, Michelle Ugenti
Senate: Dr. Ralph Heap
House: Rusty Bowers, Justin Olsen, Jerry Walker
House: Shawna Bolick
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.
Posted in America, Arizona, Big Government, Borders, Church & State, Congress, Conservatism, Constitution, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Faith, Faith & Freedom, Families, Governor, Guns, Health Insurance, Homosexual Agenda, Legislature, Life, Marriage, National Defense, Obama, Radical Environmentalism, Religious Freedom, Socialism, Taxpayers, The Left
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 www.APCArizona.com 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
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.
February 27, 2014
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.
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.