Category Archives: The Left

Supreme Court’s Outrageous Over-reach Not in Best Interests of America or Homosexuals

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court legalizing same-sex “marriage” — at odds with Supreme Court precedent — will not help people with same-sex attraction. It will not empower them; it will not enhance their lives.

It will expose their most pressing need: to overcome same-sex attraction.

This decision, imposed by judicial fiat and not by the people through their elected representatives, will demonstrate the many problems fraught by same-sex dynamics – namely short-lasting, unstable, and risky relationships, high rates of domestic violence, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse.

And most sadly, the children trapped in homes without their father or their mother will become a living testimony to developmental deficits forced upon them by adults.

Furthermore, only small percentages of same-sex attracted people are even interested in getting married. The institution of marriage is at odds with their libertine view of relationships and sexual activity.

Same-sex marriage is now to be on full display, and it cannot match the timeless union of one man and one woman as the gold standard for men, women, children, communities and society.

This decision does not move America forward. It is a societal setback rubberstamped by over-reaching judicial activists.

This is not progress. It is a digression which will have serious, negative long-term consequences.

Militant homosexuals need to heed this call: do not persecute, do not punish those who disagree with you. You will only prove the threats we raised against same-sex marriage are on full display and are ringing true. No matter how much you deny it.

Stop the vandalism. Stop the harassment. Stop the fascism. And stop the hate.

Respect the consciences of those who don’t agree with you. Don’t force anyone to participate in something they consider immoral. You can find others who do agree with you and who will participate in your ceremonies.

Be as respectful to others as you wish them to be to you. Those of you considered leaders of homosexual pressure groups must call for civility and restraint from those among you who are now emboldened to lash out against us.

America is watching you now. You are getting what you wanted, but not what you need.

You are selling yourselves short of something that is so much better for you, so much more fulfilling and wholesome. You can overcome same-sex attraction with counseling. And with prayer and the support of your family and friends. It is available to you today. Here in Arizona and elsewhere. Accept it. Embrace it. Seek what is best for you, not what others, not what homosexual pressure groups guided by a profit motive tell you that you need.

Center for Arizona Policy: A Good and Balanced Law

By Cathi Herrod, President, Center for Arizona Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexual Group Wants to Deny Children Their Mother or Their Father

Equality Arizona is beginning a new effort called Project Jigsaw: Connecting Every Child with a Loving Family. The purpose is to “create an environment where all couples, regardless of sexual orientation or gender, have the opportunity to provide a stable, loving home for a child.” Through adoption.

Those are the talking points.

Here is the truth. There is a lot more to it than Equality Arizona is saying. It’s the quality of the home environment that counts the most. It means everything to children in their formative years.

Adopting children into the homes of either two men or two women is not in childrens’ best interests. Sure, we understand some same-sex couples want to raise children, but let’s ask the children who have already been through this experience.

They are telling us it was not a good way to grow up. Far from it. Katy Faust says so. Dawn Stefanowicz says so. Meg says so. Heather Barwick says so.

Read what Dawn said:

My biggest concern is that children are not being discussed in this same-sex marriage debate. Yet, won’t the next step for some gay activists be to ask for legal adoption of children if same-sex marriage is legalized? I have considered some of the potential physical and psychological health risks for children raised in this situation. I was at high risk of exposure to contagious STDs due to sexual molestation, my father’s high-risk sexual behaviors, and multiple partners. Even when my father was in what looked like monogamous relationships, he continued cruising for anonymous sex.

Governor Doug Ducey also made some noise recently about just putting children in any loving home. He and others are making a big mistake if they don’t take a deep look at the history, the social science and the personal testimonies on this.

The average homosexual relationship lasts 18 months — hardly a “loving home” or conducive to the stability young boys and girls need.

We have more than enough fatherless children in America. Our prisons bear the result of that. No two women can offset the absence of dad. No two men can offset the absence of a nurturing mom. The kids are not all right.

And we just saw another example of domestic violence with two female pro basketball players who beat the snot out of each other and then quickly got married to try to assuage law enforcement.

Homosexuals also engage in far more risky behaviors than married male-female couples. Like drug abuse. And alcohol abuse. AIDS, of course, is much more prevalent among homosexuals.

A majority of male homosexuals were sexually abused as children. Many girls also struggle with same-sex attraction because of the unhealthy home environments they were raised in.

So now you want to take people with deep-seeded personal issues and mollify them with all kinds of rights and complicate their problems by giving them custody of children?

It makes no common sense. Arizona, Governor Ducey, CPS, adoption agencies, do not repeat the mistakes with young, sensitive, impressionable children. It is not like you are operating in the dark with no credible information to base your decisions on. We know the results in advance if you go down this road. Stop. Think about it. Forget political correctness.

One more question for the governor and any other elected official: is it worth scoring political points at the expense of children whose lives will be put at risk.

No.

Every child needs a mom AND a dad. No alternative can substitute for this fact. Children raised in the homes of married mom and dad do better in every physical, emotional, social, and educational level. Every one. This is not debatable.

Fascists Unveiled

McCain Below 50 Percent … and Vulnerable!

A Breitbart report by Michelle Moons demonstrates that Senator John McCain’s approval rating is sharply declining. What she does not report is that when McCain is up for Senate re-election,  as he is in 2016, he will do everything he can to destroy his Republican primary opponents. Any and all opponents will best be wary of  nasty mud-slinging by McCain and his friends.

Five-term incumbentSen. John McCain (R-AZ) has good reason to fear a primary challenge. Newly released data from liberal-leaning Public Policy Polling shows half of Arizona’s Republican primary voters disapprove of McCain’s job performance, and more than half would prefer a more conservative Senate candidate in 2016.

After more than three decades in Washington, McCain earns merely 41 percent approval from Arizona Republicans and 36 percent from general Arizona voters, PPP finds. Just 37 percent reported a willingness to support the Senator in his 2016 re-election bid.

In the days leading up to his re-election declaration, McCain and wife Cindy each released letters asking for financial support.

Notably, 51 percent of those surveyed in the poll indicated a desire for someone more conservative than as the 2016 Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in Arizona.

The result comes as little surprise, considering that members of McCain’s own party officially censured him on the basis that he 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.”

Since that censure, McCain has accordingly voiced expectation that he will face a primary challenger in 2016.

Large percentages of survey respondents took no position, favorable or unfavorable, on potential McCain challengers State Senator Kelli Ward or former gubernatorial candidate Christine Jones.

With the 2016 primary elections still a year away, McCain’s extensive tenure gives him a big advantage in name ID. Still, every potential McCain challenger measured against the incumbent fell short of overcoming him, though all came within striking distance.

According to poll results, “McCain leads Congressman David Scheikert 40-39 percent, Congressman Matt Salmon 42-40 percent, Kelli Ward 44-31 percent, and Christine Jones 48-27 percent.

State Senator Ward has come the closest to declaring. She opened an exploratory committee in April and has been weighing whether the financial and logistical path to victory is there. She has characterized a McCain challenge as a classic David versus Goliath battle.

Arizonans have a vested interest in border security as residents of a border state. McCain’s critics are unlikely to let the entrenched Washington legislator forget the 2010 “build the danged fence” campaign that McCain launched to shore up his [faux] conservative record. But as many continue to point out, there’s still no “danged fence.”

Each potential challenger is said to have time yet to make an official decision and it appears they are taking that time to weigh whether each can gather the necessary support to take on the political goliath.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Governor Ducey, Children Need More than a ‘Loving Family’

Governor Doug Ducey issued the following statement yesterday to Arizona media regarding a change in adoption practices he is making at the Arizona Department of Child Safety:

“I have made it abundantly clear since day one that my administration is unambiguously and unapologetically pro-adoption. With 17,000 children under the state’s care, we need more adoption in Arizona, not less. That’s why I feel strongly – as I have said many times before – that all loving families should be able to serve as foster parents and adopt. I also have said my administration will follow the law. Practices have been brought to my attention that do not match those priorities, therefore, I’m instructing the Arizona Department of Child Safety to immediately ensure that all legally married couples in Arizona are able to jointly serve as foster parents and adopt. All children deserve a loving home, and under my watch, I’m committed to making sure government encourages that.”

Dear Governor Ducey:

You are right about one thing: we do need more adoption in Arizona.

But what constitutes “all loving families”? Are you going to develop a rating system to measure whether or not a family is “loving” enough? Will that be the only criteria used?

Is a cohabiting family a “loving” family? Cohabiting women in the U.S. and Canada are nine times more likely to be murdered by their boyfriend than a woman by her married husband.

Is a household headed by two homosexual men a “loving” family? For a first-person account of what this can be like for children in those situations, read the story of Dawn Stefanowicz.

Is a household headed by two homosexual women a “loving” family? What about Phoenix Mercury player Britney Greiner? She and her fiancee just got arrested for “ultimate fighting”? Homes with higher rates of domestic violence are not the optimal environment for children.

What is the optimal home environment for child-raising? Do you know? It’s a home headed by a married man and woman.

Where does the quality and stability of family home life enter in? Or does it even enter in at all?

Is the State of Arizona going to fast-track children in to homes just to speed up adoption, regardless of the environment of those “loving” families? Is quantity more important than quality?

What is the optimal family structure that can best support adoption? Have you thought about that? Or is political correctness your guide? Is your aim merely to appease as many people and groups as possible so you will get re-elected? While some children suffer in the so-called “loving” homes they have been placed in?

Will the children have any say in the kind of homes they are sent to live in during their all-important formative years?

Does it matter to you that children want a mom and a dad? Does it matter to you that children need a mom and a dad?

Does it matter to you that children need a stable environment where domestic violence is not taking place? Where drug and alcohol abuse is not rampant? Where fidelity is practiced between committed parents? Where children are not subjected to beatings or sexual abuse by live-in boyfriends or by multiple adults briefly associated with one or more parent? Where children are not subjected to pornography?

Will it matter to you that some children will be adopted by legally married adults who do not stay together very long?

Have you really thought through all the potential circumstances of the affected children – without a political lens to guide you?

Why purposefully make it worse for kids when it’s clear what’s best for kids?

Anyone can say, “We’re a loving family!” It’s the quality of the family structure that offers adoptive children the most stable home life and the best chance of succeeding socially. That’s what should by foremost among priorities for those determining adoption decisions.

 

Mesa’s Push for Radical Policy Based on Tiny Group of Unhappy People

Our experience with so-called human rights boards in Arizona is that they are made up of some genuine citizens, but also some with biases, an axe to grind, and questionable agendas.

The City of Mesa Human Relations Advisory Board (HRAB) is now under scrutiny for pushing the homosexual agenda on a city rated one of the most conservative and family-oriented communities in America. The board is now pushing city councilmen to serve as the directors of “feelings.” And to deliver a damaging blow to religious freedom in the community.

Here’s how it came about. The Mesa Human Relations Advisory Board conducted a study of attitudes of different demographic groups in the community: the “Mesa Speaks, Mesa Listens: Inclusion & Diversity Report.” It was approved last October.

Among the more noteworthy results were that people with disabilities and those with same-sex attraction and gender confusion reported the lowest levels of satisfaction with the city. More findings:

  • Only 29 survey participants identified themselves as “LGBT”
  • 5 percent said they have experienced discrimination based on their sexual orientation
  • the board reported this sample is too small to draw broad conclusions about the community as a whole
  • the board then nevertheless drew a conclusion that the disparity is large enough to warrant further consideration by policymakers.

In conclusion, a large majority of Mesa residents enjoy living in Mesa and feel valued and accepted as residents of the community. However, this is not the case for all segments of the population. While it is true that you can never please everyone, City leaders should be concerned by the disparity between the experiences of the community as a whole and specific subpopulations.

The HRAB envisions Mesa as a community that not only includes and respects its diversity, but is enriched by it. The results suggest that although there is much satisfaction with Mesa, more could be done not only to be more welcoming and inclusive, but to also be enriched by the diversity of the community.

Here are valid conclusions for you to draw:

  1. This solution in search of a problem is driving the city council’s intention to pass a resolution adding same-sex attraction and gender confusion to Mesa’s nondiscrimination policy.
  2. Bureaucrats have too much time on their hands and ought to focus on real problems like drug abuse and crime in Mesa.
  3. The proposed resolution will seriously damage religious freedom for individuals, businesses, and ministries in this community.

Write to the mayor and city councilmen and urge them to defeat this unneeded resolution and to get busy focusing on the concerns that matter most to the city:

ian.linssen@mesaaz.gov; alicia.white@mesaaz.gov; randy.policar@mesaaz.gov; district3@mesaaz.gov; councilmember.glover@mesaaz.gov; marrisa.ramirez-ramos@mesaaz.gov; matthew.clark@mesaaz.gov

17 Months Out from Election: McCain’s Angry, Desperate Friends Spitting Fire

There are angry, intolerant and intemperate remarks, and then there are the hateful, if not despicable, remarks of J. Charles Coughlin.

Coughlin is the president of Phoenix-based High Ground Public Affairs Consultants, an organization which really should put a leash on its leader. He was the chairman of Jan Brewer’s gubernatorial transition team and has been named “Best Political Operative in Arizona” by the left-stream media outlet Arizona Capitol Times. “Political Vulture” would be a more apt descriptor.

In his commentary, “The Dark Soul of the Tea Party Movement,” Coughlin savages the Tea Party and State Senator Kelli Ward without actually having the courage to name her.

Ward has been quite critical of Senator John McCain and may even run against him next year. But Coughlin writes her candidacy would “die in the darkness of her own soul.”

To write such frothing, over-the-top remarks, one must surely be seated in a dark place himself. For a McCain apologist, one must share the senator’s contempt for conservatives and conservatism.

And especially for the Tea party.

Dripping with contempt, Couglin writes:

“I find that most Tea Party advocates, such as the State Senator from Mohave County, appear to lack any gratitude    for the fact that we live in the greatest country on Earth.  When I listen to a good deal of their rhetoric, I am drenched in negativity; the politics of vilification, the hatred of those who want to blame others for the challenges that confront our country today.

“I am drenched in negativity.” Have truer words ever been stated? Though Coughlin wasn’t attempting to point three fingers back at himself.

The Tea Party has become the “Party of No” and that is not the Republican Party I am a part of. It is not the party that John McCain, Jan Brewer, Fife Symington, Grant Woods (all of whom I have worked for) represent.  It is not the party of Jon Kyl, Jeff Flake, or Doug Ducey, either.  All of these leaders are the products of American exceptionalism, a country based upon the notion that we are all created equal and are endowed by Our Creator with certain unalienable rights and among those is the right to pursue life, liberty and most of all, happiness.

The gloves are off. McCain: censored by numerous Republican organizations in the past 10 years, subject of two recall efforts — all pre-dating the Tea Party. The man who spent thousands of dollars to oust conservatives from leadership in his home legislative district. The failed candidate who offered only token resistance to Barack Obama.

Senator Jeff Flake: McCain’s hand-picked successor to Jon Kyl. Rewarded for agreeing with McCain on amnesty.

Former Attorney General Grant Woods: member of every short-lasted attempt in recent history to move Arizona to the Left; little or no resemblance to a Republican.

Brewer: stampeded by the Left into spiking religious freedom in Arizona.

Symington: removed from office by scandal, and used by McCain to try and muscle conservatives out of power in his home legislative district.

Have these folks not been the cabal of “no”?

Sounding almost teary-eyed Coughlin continues:

Senator McCain is dedicated to the future security of our State’s border and the resolution of an immigration debate which has the greatest impact on the future of our State’s economy to grow, to thrive, and to create opportunities for others – to continue to give life to the American dream.

That dream will never be realized by McCain’s political track record and philosophy. But how dare anyone entertain a thought to challenging “the chosen one” in the 2016 election.

Thank God for the Tea Party, which never would have been needed if establishment Republicans like McCain, Flake, Graham, Dole, Romney, McConnnell, Boehner, McCarthy, King and others hadn’t continually aimed low for the status of perpetual minority party. And succeeded.

Their likenesses are destined to be enshrined on the Mt. Rushmore of “no majority.”

It was at the Tea Party’s insistence that the House of Representatives was wrested away from the Left in 2010. It was the Tea Party which helped win back the majorities in both chambers, despite the “minority addicts” digging in their heels along their stubborn road.

You can leave the soul of America to the Tea Party and feel good about it. The same cannot be said for McCain and the other dissidents standing on the fringe of the Republican Party.

But before we adjourn, let it be known to Coughlin, Woods and others that when McCain faced a challenge in 2010, he glad-handed the faux “Tea Party of Scottsdale’s” support. When the heat was on, he revised his own history to morph into a “Reagan foot soldier.”

Coughlin claims we need more leaders like McCain. The truth is McCain has never been a leader. He’s been an agitator. Better said, he’s been a thorn in the party’s side for several years now. He and McConnell fought the party base on cutting the size of the government behemoth, a pyrrhic victory if ever there was one.

Finally, Coughlin writes of a peaceful, joyful, loving spirit. That isn’t what we’ve seen in McCain, Woods and their friends. We’ve seen nothing close to that. They are the company of “no” to much of what the Republican Party  says — in print — that it stands for. Obama and the Democrats are a minor distraction; it’s the conservatives in our party who are the chief irritant.

And now it’s the Tea Party that has become the Republican wing of the Republican Party — because the recalcitrants reject that role.

To quote the Arizona Tea Party site: Tea Party patriots favor the “core principles of free markets, fiscal responsibility, and constitutional government. They share a renewed interest in our heritage and particularly the meaning and intent of our constitution.”

When is the last time you heard McCain or Woods speak like that? Never. If McCain wants to get re-elected so bad, he ought to adopt the platform of the Party of Lincoln. He ought to adopt the Tea Party’s principles, join the club and give it a powerful voice in the restoration of an American government badly misshaped by socialists and weak-kneed Republicans who caved amidst the Leftist wrecking ball’s deconstruction.

And, Senator McCain, if that is too much to ask of you, then please step aside and allow Dr. Kelli Ward to gain the GOP nomination. She will provide a “new, positive, principled voice for Arizona in Washington.” She is already receiving strong encouragement to run in 2016.

RFRAs have NEVER Harmed a Homosexual Person

By Casey Mattox
The Federalist

It has been 22 years since President Clinton signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act into law. For two decades it has applied to every law in the District of Columbia and the federal government. In the intervening decades, 20 other states have followed suit with their own state RFRAs. These RFRAs hold government to a high burden of proof when it burdens religious exercise. Under RFRA, there are no guaranteed outcomes, but the government cannot take burdens on religious exercise lightly.

In two decades of RFRAs, the world has not ended. In fact, not a single person who identifies as homosexual has been harmed by these RFRAs. None. This may come as a surprise to you if you have watched any of the media coverage or been on social media for the last several days. The unhinged claims from the Left have been entirely detached from the reality that these laws have actually existed for decades and have never resulted in any of the things they worry will happen. This is not new. Dire warnings that are unsurprisingly not confirmed by future events have been a common theme in arguments from the Left in recent years.

Prophesying Doom that Never Materializes

The Equal Access Act is the reason your child can have a Fellowship of Christian Athletes group at school. Most Americans would think that permitting students to voluntarily get together before school to pray is a good thing. But when Congress considered the act in 1984, some Democrats, including then-Rep. Barbara Boxer, opposed it because allowing Christian students to gather to pray “could usher in KKK and Nazi” student groups. More than 30 years later, it is clear Boxer was on the wrong side of history. Her worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to “Mein Kampf” has not been realized.

Boxer’s worry that letting kids study the Bible would lead to ‘Mein Kampf’ has not been realized.

When the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2006, abortionists argued that approximately 2,200 partial-birth abortions per year were necessary for health reasons. This was important because the law lacked any health exception (except to save the mother’s life). When the Supreme Court issued its opinion eight years ago in April 2007, it held that the law was generally constitutional.

However, the Court invited any abortionist or woman filing a new challenge to show why a partial-birth abortion was necessary in one of those 2,200-per-year instances. Planned Parenthood warned of consequences for women’s health from the decision, just as Justice Ginsburg wrote in a dissent: “One may anticipate that such a preenforcement challenge will be mounted swiftly, to ward off serious, sometimes irremediable harm, to women whose health would be endangered by the intact D&E prohibition.”

Eight years later, no such complaint has been filed. I’m not aware of a single example of any woman who was harmed by not being able to have a partial-birth abortion procedure in that time.

There are three possible reasons: (1) by incredible fortune, the threats to women’s health making partial-birth abortion necessary ceased on April 18, 2007; (2) Women are harmed daily, but Planned Parenthood and the abortion industry lack the resources to file the invited lawsuits; (3) the claim that partial-birth abortion was necessary to protect women’s health was a lie.

Finally, when Texas passed HB2, the pro-life law that brought stardom to Wendy Davis, a primary focus of abortion supporters who opposed the bill was its prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks gestation, when the unborn child is capable of feeling pain. This provision was the centerpiece of the controversy, and Davis opposed it at length. But while virtually every part of the Texas law has been challenged in the intervening two years, the prohibition on abortions after 20 weeks has never been challenged. It has been Texas law since October 2013.

Time to Stop Listening

And Texas isn’t alone. Laws like it have been enacted in 13 states. But despite their cries of harm to women’s health, abortionists have only challenged these laws in the Ninth Circuit and in a now-pending Georgia state court case. At least 10 of these laws, including Texas’s, are in effect without legal challenge. As MSNBC reported, there is

a strategic reason to avoid challenging that [20-week] ban…. [A] Texas challenge would go to the conservative Fifth Circuit. Not only would that court potentially uphold the law…, the combination of decisions would create a split in the circuits that would make the Supreme Court likelier to hear it.

This is their choice. But at some point when your warnings of imminent harm are stifled by your own prudential choices, and none of the bad consequences you warn about ever happen, perhaps your claims just aren’t true. That’s critically important to keep in mind with the needless hysteria happening now over completely mischaracterized state religious freedom laws.

But history need not repeat itself. In the children’s story, when Peter repeatedly cries, “Wolf!” the townspeople finally stop listening. It’s time to stop giving credence to the Left’s cries.