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.

Justice Suggests Allowing Same-sex Marriage May Not Go Far Enough

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnIn oral arguments over whether states should be compelled to recognize same-sex marriages, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wondered “whether merely permitting gays to marry would be sufficient. The universe of homosexuals is fairly narrow. Why should they be shut out from the larger pool of heterosexuals as potential mates?”

How is a person rebuffing the marital advances of a person of the same sex any different from a baker refusing to cater a same-sex wedding?” Sotomayor asked. “Both are based on prejudicial attitudes towards different lifestyles. Doesn’t government have an obligation to ensure that one person’s rejection of another’s proposal isn’t solely based on an unfounded objection to wedding a person of the same sex?”

While Sotomayor stopped short of suggesting that a person could be legally required to marry a person of the same sex, she averred that “there could be grounds for the payment of monetary damages if the rejection of the proposal were to be based only on the fact that the proposer was of the same sex. Such a rejection would insult the dignity of the proposer and cause mental anguish. Under our jurisprudence, actions which inflict mental anguish on another person are grounds for compensation.”

In related news, Obama Administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli contends that a Supreme Court ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages would effectively eliminate religious institutions’ tax exemption. “A mandate saying that every state must recognize same-sex marriages would convert the issue from one of religious tenets to one of political rights,” Verrilli argued. “Any further church statements or practices after such a ruling would be political rather than theological. Political activities, unlike religious activities, are not qualified for tax-exemption.”

Filmmaker Demands Police Be Disarmed

Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore issued a statement demanding that police officers in America be barred from carrying firearms and that all imprisoned African Americans be released.

Moore says he sees this “as a long term balancing of the scales. For hundreds of years in this country Blacks were enslaved and at the mercy of white overlords. Cosmic justice cries out for a reversal of this tyranny of white over Black. Let’s see how the white man fares under racial oppression.”

The looting of white-owned businesses in Baltimore was characterized by Moore as “long overdue reparations for slavery” and the random beatings of whites as “no worse than the routine whippings meted out to slaves by white masters. Why shouldn’t whites have a taste of the brutality and fear that Blacks had to endure.”

The filmmaker said that he, personally, will continue to employ armed bodyguards because “I have never been a slave owner and bear no moral culpability for the abuses dished out by whites to Blacks. I have an absolute right to protect myself. All of my bodyguards are professionally trained and licensed. In no way can they be compared to the amateurs who assert their so-called right to bear arms.”

President Censors Film Coverage of Outing

President Barack Obama’s surprise visit to the Teaism Cafe near the White House inspired Time Magazine reporter Zeke Miller to video tape the event. However, the president didn’t want to be taped and ordered Miller to put away his camera. Miller meekly complied.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that “certainly, as the most powerful man on the planet, President Obama has the right to decide which of his activities will or won’t be recorded. He is under no obligation to permit random observations and disclosures of his activities if it doesn’t please him to do so.”

A disappointed Miller rued a lost opportunity, but defended the waiving of his press freedom as “an act of self-preservation. The president can have people audited, harassed, or even killed if he wants. Ignoring his wishes in order to record a few minutes of innocuous interaction with cafe customers just didn’t seem worth the risk.”

Baltimore Mayor Apologizes for Calling Rioters “Thugs”

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, whose infamous order to police to “give protestors space to destroy,” sheepishly apologized to residents who participated in looting stores, burning buildings, and assaulting passersby for using the term “thugs” to describe their behavior.

My use of the word ‘thugs’ implied that these people were engaged in criminal acts,” she said. “I have since been informed that stealing toilet paper, trashing the businesses of owners who had nothing to do with the death of Mr. Gray, and beating up white people foolish enough to venture into the streets were acts of righteous rage.”

The mayor maintained that “my first instinct to allow people to vent their anger as they saw fit was the correct one. While it may be true that none of the individual victims of the rioting were directly responsible for the crowd’s rage, by being white alone, they were collectively guilty for centuries of Black oppression. I should not have besmirched those who showed the initiative to go outside the customary constraints concocted by white civilization by using racially derogatory terms like ‘thug’ or ‘criminal.’ That I did shows that even those of us most advanced members of the government can be brainwashed by social norms we ought to reject.”

In related news, President Obama justified his refusal to visit riot-torn Baltimore because “to do so would endorse the idea that the City is in crisis when all we’re really seeing is a rough implementation of a redistribution of wealth that has been long overdue.”

Hillary Calls for Restoring Faith in Government

Former Secretary of State and current candidate for president Hillary Clinton bemoaned “the erosion of people’s faith in government” and alleged that “it undermines the ability of those of us who are trying to lead.”

Clinton brushed aside widely perceived impressions that government has done a bad job by pointing out the early history of Christianity’s failures. “Jesus’ performance compares quite unfavorably with what modern government has been able to deliver,” she said. “His people—the Christians—faced centuries of persecution. They were crucified. They were torn apart and devoured by wild animals for the amusement of spectators in the arenas of Rome and elsewhere.”

Contrast that with what modern government has done for its people,” Clinton advised. “We’ve given people the means to survive—subsidized housing, subsidized food. Why, today a single mother with two children qualifies for $35,000 in government benefits. No one is crucified. No one is thrown to the lions. Government has delivered the goods. It should have more than earned the faith of the people.”

The fact that all these government benefits can be had without the burdens of toil demonstrates who the true miracle worker is,” Clinton concluded. “I only hope that voters realize this when they go to the polls.”

In related news, Clinton denounced what she called “an undeniable pattern in police-involved deaths” and called for “a more racially balanced distribution of persons shot by police. It is unacceptable that the ratio of African-American victims of police violence exceeds their proportion of the population. Redressing this imbalance is going to be a top priority of my administration when I’m elected president.”

Kerry Wishes US Had Its Own Ayatollah

Admitting that he’s feeling some frustration over possible Congressional interference with the agreement with Iran that he’s been working on for most of this year, Secretary of State John Kerry avowed that “it would be a lot easier if we had our own Ayatollah—someone whose say so was the final word.”

It’s an uneven playing field,” Kerry complained. “Iran’s supreme leader can just issue an edict and everyone in the Iranian government has to go along. President Obama doesn’t have this luxury. He can issue an edict, but still has to put up with the possibility that Congress will tamper with it by trying to amend the terms or restrict the appropriations that may be necessary to implement it.”

Archaic procedures initiated over 200 years ago inserted multiple levels of authority into the US Constitution,” Kerry observed. “These checks on the President’s authority make our government less efficient. Rather than enabling one person to smoothly set the course for our nation’s policies, multiple contending, and sometimes disagreeable voices are allowed to have a say on matters of the utmost delicacy.”

The Secretary held out the hope that “President Obama may proceed on his own authority as sovereign” and that “Congress will not complicate the issue by insisting on cumbersome procedures that are, quite frankly, an unnecessary bother in our fast-moving world.”

In related news, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) assured President Obama that “I am doing my best to stifle unwanted Congressional interference with the Iranian negotiations, but I cannot guarantee success. Perhaps someone from the FBI or IRS could contact some of the Senate’s less pliant members and persuade them of the importance of supporting our joint efforts.”

Jeb Bush Contends He Is “a Latino Trapped Inside an Anglo Body”

In a speech in Puerto Rico, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush (R) told the audience that “I am a Latino trapped inside an Anglo body.” Bush lamented that “there is no ethnic reassignment protocol like there is gender reassignment therapy for a woman trapped inside a man’s body. Nevertheless, I feel as if I am an illegal immigrant and want to do what I can to secure the rights of all my compatriots to enjoy the fruits of US citizenship.”

Homosexual Hotelier Apologizes for Listening to Senator Cruz

Ian Reisner, one of the two gay hoteliers who invited presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex) to speak at a private party, has, after threats from the gay lobby to destroy his business, apologized for his “insensitivity.”

I had mistakenly believed that my sexual orientation was not the sum total of who I am,” Reisner said. “I had delusions that I could entertain other beliefs about politics that had nothing to do with homosexual rights. But I have been told that listening to Senator Cruz is akin to listening to Satan. It cannot be permitted. It can only lead me into deviation from the correct way of thinking.”

There is no assurance that Reisner’s apology will give him any respite from the LGBT lobby. Horace Hindman, spokesman for Men Who Love Men, asserted that “consorting with Cruz is no minor transgression. Reisner has cast serious doubt on his bonafides as a true member of the gay community. Whether he can ever be forgiven remains to be seen.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

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.

House Speaker Pleads for Hillary to Turn Over Computer Server

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnA new slew of allegations has emerged implying that the Clinton Foundation may have accepted bribes in exchange for Hillary to use her Secretary of State status to influence government policy. An example of possible influence peddling was her support for Russia’s acquisition of a major stake in American uranium mining.

It looks like she violated the law, and the idea that she was going to use her own server and do official business on it goes against every transparency issue that the President likes to tout,” House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) observed. “She should turn that server and all those documents over to the Inspector General, at the State Department.”

Boehner said he is undecided on whether he will ask the House to subpoena the server. “On the one hand, I think the American people have a right to know the facts,” Boehner said. “On the other hand, compelling the handover of this equipment might create the impression that the Clintons are criminals. They’re good people and I am reluctant to repay their long years of public service by using tactics that would be applied to ordinary suspects in a criminal case.”

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest acknowledged that “the former Secretary appears not to have honored her agreement with the President to keep everything above board. I mean, she explicitly forswore accepting donations from foreign governments while she served as Secretary of State. Nevertheless, I can’t see any point in subpoenaing her server. She’s already assured us that it has been wiped clean. Since any potential evidence is now gone it would be pointless to continue to pursue a fruitless inquiry.”

Clinton campaign spokesman, Brian Fallon, while carefully avoiding any explicit acknowledgment of guilt, attempted to make lemonade out of the latest allegations by asserting that “the supposed incompatibility of what’s good for the Clintons and what’s good for America could be resolved by reinstalling the former First Family in the White House. If the Clintons were in charge of all of America they’d have an incentive to try to carry out policies that would enrich all of America. It is their exile from power that necessitates their aggressive pursuit of self interest. Faced with the insecurities of living as private citizens they are subject to the same temptations of greed that have dragged down so many others.”

Kerry Blasts Government’s Critics for Undermining Prosperity

Speaking Tuesday at the 45th Annual Washington Conference of the Council of the Americas, Secretary of State John Kerry blamed the Obama Administration’s critics for undermining the country’s economy.

Countries are far more likely to advance economically and socially when citizens have faith in their governments and are able to rely on them for justice and equal treatment under the law,” Kerry maintained. “Yet, day-after-day President Obama faces a raft of criticism of his policies from the likes of Senator Cruz, Governor Walker, and others. These criticisms are destroying people’s faith in the government.”

Kerry cited a recent Pew Research Center study finding that only 23% of Americans trust the federal government to do the right thing at least most of the time as “evidence of the pernicious impacts these chronic critics of progressive policies are having. If trust in government is low, people will be deterred from investing, working, and earning. If people aren’t investing, working, and earning there will be less activity that can be taxed and government will lack the resources to guarantee everyone’s prosperity.”

The Secretary expressed doubt that “there is any legal way we can prevent this costly criticism,” but held out hope that “President Obama might come up with some sort of ameliorating executive action that could at least mute the worst of some of these damaging aspersions on the wisdom, ethics, and character of the President.”

IRS Admits Taxpayer Help Was Skimpy this Year

IRS Commissioner John Koskinen acknowledged that the number of employees assigned to assist taxpayers understand and file tax returns for 2014 was “less than it could’ve been.” Statistics bear out his assessment. It is estimated than less than half of those who phoned the IRS to ask for help actually got through. And of those who did many waited on hold for more than 30 minutes before speaking to an IRS agent.

Koskinen defended the shortage of taxpayer help, saying that “we had higher priorities. For one, we had to implement the penalty enforcement phase of the Affordable Care Act. This new responsibility consumed resources that previously were allocated to the taxpayer help line.”

The reallocation of resources away from taxpayer help to enforcing Obamacare aggravated problems caused by previous years’ reallocation of resources to the investigation and prevention of conservative organizations from obtaining tax exemptions in the run up to the 2012 elections.

We can’t do everything on the limited budget we have,” Koskinen complained. “We have to decide what’s important and what isn’t. Babysitting taxpayers while they grapple with tax forms wasn’t important compared to the other needs we faced. If taxpayers find our forms too difficult—well, that’s what commercially available tax preparation services like H&R Block are for.”

GM Pushes to Make “Unauthorized” Auto Repair Illegal

Contending that modern automobiles contain computer programs that entail trade secrets and are too complex to be touched by do-it-yourself car buffs, the General Motors Corporation is urging the government to make unauthorized auto repair illegal. It won’t take an Act of Congress to accomplish this objective. A mere reinterpretation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) would do the trick.

GM spokesman Lee Hunsacker asserted that “letting just anyone look under the hood is archaic in our day and age. What if they mess something up? The victims of any subsequent crashes will sue us. We are the deep-pocket manufacturers of these vehicles. We ought to have the right to protect ourselves by vetting who works on our cars.”

Not wanting to be left out, the John Deere Corporation demanded that the ban on unauthorized service and repair also be extended to farm tractors. “If we don’t clamp down on who is allowed to work on our vehicles people might tamper with the computer system and use it to pirate music without paying royalties,” claimed Henry Morgan, VP for customer relations.

Newly named Attorney General Loretta Lynch is reportedly drafting an executive action memo that would apply the DMCA to motor vehicles for President Obama to sign. This would empower manufacturers to issue cease-and-desist orders to anyone suspected of attempting to repair one of their vehicles without the express permission of the manufacturer.

ACLU Says Catholic Organizations Must Be Compelled to Fund Abortions

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed suit demanding that religious organizations be compelled to provide abortions and contraception to illegal immigrants.

Whether to bear a child or not is a woman’s right under our laws,” said ACLU staff attorney Brigitte Amiri. “No religious organization has the authority to infringe on this right. For Catholic aid organizations to refuse to pay for birth control and abortions is an infringement. Forcing a woman to bear an unwanted child is, as President Obama has said, cruel and unusual punishment. It is unconstitutional and cannot be allowed.”

Rules derived from a mythical being cannot supersede rules emanating from our nation’s legal processes,” Amiri continued. “For government to sit by idly while divergent religious views lead to divergent behaviors and outcomes would be intolerable. It is government’s duty to ensure that uniform rules are applied and obeyed.”

The only way the Catholic Church can avoid its duty to provide birth control services to its clients is to cease serving them entirely,” Amiri argued. “If they want to be in the business of rescuing refugees they must abide by the rules the government has laid out for them.”

In related news, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised that “if I’m elected, eradicating deep seated religious and cultural beliefs that stand in the way of transforming social norms will be among my highest of priorities. Women must be freed from the bondage of unwanted motherhood and from the economic burden of having to support their children if they choose to become mothers.”

Cleveland City Council: Gun Control Needed Whether It Works or Not

Cleveland City Council President Kevin Kelley (D) urged fellow council members to pass a sweeping gun-control ordinance despite doubts that it would be effective or enforceable. “Will this measure stop gun violence?” Kelley asked. “Probably not, but it is important that we pass it as a reflection of our values.”

A key provision of the new ordinance is that it prohibits carrying a concealed deadly weapon or handgun, unless the person is a police officer or a bonafide criminal. Kelley conceded that “this provision might seem paradoxical, but we feel it greatly simplifies and clarifies the situation. If you are not a police officer, yet you still have a gun you are, ipso facto, a bonafide criminal and the police may use deadly force against you at their discretion. It would effectively abolish the concept of armed persons ever being the victims of excessive use of force by members of the Police Department. The savings on lawsuits avoided will be huge.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens is a retired economist who has written a weekly political satire for The Arizona Conservative since 2005. He says working on his satires is one of the ways he tries to honor the liberties our Founding Fathers tried to protect. 

Please do us a favor. If you uses material created by The Arizona Conservative, give us credit and DO NOT change the context. Thank you.

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.

 

Bipartisan Plea for Lynch Confirmation

By John Semmens – Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

JohnPresident Obama’s nominee for Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, received a vote of support from both media star Al Sharpton and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush this week. Her confirmation has been held up by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) in protest over Obama’s executive grant of amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

Sharpton labeled McConnell’s actions “racist. Keeping a Black woman from rising up to take her rightful place is a continuation of the hundreds of years of oppression of African Americans in this country. They let a white woman hold this job when Bill Clinton was president. For them not to extend the same courtesy to a Black woman is just shameful.”

Bush took a more nuanced stance saying that “while I doubt that the Republican opposition to Ms. Lynch can be totally attributed to racism, it could be construed as such by the media. Rather than having this monkey on my or any Republican’s back as the GOP strives to win the 2016 presidential election, it would be much more convenient if Lynch were simply approved as AG.”

Besides, as a matter of principle, I believe that it’s the President’s prerogative to have anyone he chooses to serve in his cabinet,” Bush added. “I certainly would expect such deference to me if I were president. If you ask me, to violate this basic courtesy on the rather flimsy grounds that President Obama may have exceeded his authority on the amnesty thing isn’t the way we should be running this country. Do we really want to set a precedent of denying a president the option of bypassing Congress when circumstances warrant it? Would we want such a rigid adherence to the Constitution if a Republican was in the Oval Office?”

To help press home their seriousness on the issue Sharpton and Bush vowed to do more than just offer words of support for Lynch. Sharpton announced a partial hunger strike and swore off sushi until Lynch is confirmed. In contrast, Bush says he “will eat nothing but Mexican food, which I will cook myself—unlike a certain other public figure who has to get hers from Chipotle. I will prove that I am the authentic Hispanic presidential candidate in the 2016 race and simultaneously express my solidarity with the plight of the immigrant.”

In related news, Lynch rebuffed the idea that the Department of Justice ought to investigate former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails. “As I understand it, all of these emails were sent from or received on Secretary Clinton’s private server,” Lynch observed. “Well, the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution bars government from intruding into private communications. As far as I am concerned this case is closed.”

Judge Rules Cops May Seize Your Home to Use as a Fort

When a neighbor was engaged in a domestic dispute, Henderson, Nevada police demanded that Anthony Mitchell allow them to use his home as a fort and command center in order to gain a tactical advantage in their efforts to cope with the situation. Mitchell refused, but police battered down his door, pepper sprayed him, and put him in jail for the duration.

Mitchell sued contending that this home invasion by the police violated his constitutional rights under both the Third and Fourth Amendments to the US Constitution. Federal district court Judge Andrew Gordon dismissed Mitchell’s Fourth Amendment argument, saying that “the Constitution guarantees against ‘unreasonable seizure.’ In this instance, the police had a reasonable need to occupy the home. The damages they did to Mitchell’s home could’ve been avoided if he had simply obeyed the commands he was given.”

Mitchell should consider himself lucky he only had to spend one night in jail,” Gordon added. “He could’ve been shot. For all the police knew, the whole neighborhood could’ve been a terrorist enclave. Many Americans own guns and have excessive and erroneous notions about their so-called rights.”

Gordon was even harsher toward Mitchell’s Third Amendment argument. “The whole ‘troop quartering’ thing applied to British troops,” Gordon maintained. “Since no British troops were involved, Mitchell’s line of reasoning is totally irrelevant to this case.”

President Says ISIS Camp in Mexico Vindicates His Amnesty Policy

President Obama says that evidence that the Islamic State has opened a training camp in Mexico, just a few miles from El Paso on the Texas border, vindicates his decision to grant expedited amnesty to illegal immigrants from Latin America.

We’ve all seen the atrocities these terrorists are capable of,” the President observed. “Who can blame Mexicans for fleeing? To deny these refugees sanctuary would be inhumane. To deport them would be cruel and unusual punishment. To delay their integration into our society merely on the grounds that Congress has failed to enact the necessary legislation would be barbaric.”

Obama ruled out the possibility of any aggressive action aimed at neutralizing the ISIS threat near El Paso, claiming “it would be an unconscionable intrusion on Mexico’s sovereignty. We have a duty to respect Mexico’s border. We can’t just brush this aside because the presence of jihadis so close to America makes us uncomfortable. If some of those living in Texas feel unsafe they are free to move elsewhere.”

Administration Remains Undaunted by Obamacare Setbacks

The Obama Administration remained undaunted by yet another court ruling against its attempts to compel religious groups to fund abortion coverage in their health insurance plans. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued an order preventing the Obama Administration from forcing religious groups in Pennsylvania to pay for abortion-causing drugs mandated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Supreme Court had previously blocked HHS from imposing similar mandates on the Little Sisters of the Poor, Hobby Lobby, Wheaton College, and the University of Notre Dame.

That the Administration would repeatedly attempt this type of coercion caused Lori Windham, Senior Counsel for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, to wonder “how many times must the government lose in court before it gets the message?”

HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell denied that her Department’s actions were as futile as Windham implied. “Every time we order an organization to comply they must obey or take us to court,” Burwell said. “Fighting us costs them time and money. Granted, some large organizations can afford to wriggle out of the trap by such means. However, many others are too small, too poor, or too intimidated to make the effort. They obey. So, inch-by-inch we are gaining ground. Eventually, all opposition to our health care reforms will crushed.”

In related news, Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Fla) assailed Republican presidential candidate Senator Rand Paul’s (R-Ken) for supporting any limitation on a woman’s right to abort her child as an “enemy of liberty” and called his pro-life stance “savage.” “Paul would place the interests of a 7-lb. unborn baby ahead of those of a living, breathing woman,” she complained. “This is not a modern way of thinking and he’s a fool if he thinks his position gives him a better chance of being elected president. Obviously, he hasn’t done the math. The women whose liberty he wants to infringe are eligible to vote. The babies he wants to save are not. He has cooked his own goose.”

Hillary Blames Rich for Ruining America

In her bid to portray herself as the champion of the average American, millionaire presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is lambasting the wealthiest 1% for the impoverishment of the other 99%. It is, she says, “outrageous that the CEO of a major corporation makes 300 times the annual salary of its lowest paid employee.”

Clinton’s argument is ironic since her hourly rate for public speaking is 16,000 times the $15 hourly rate that she says ought to be the legal minimum wage. If CEOs are overpaid, former Secretary of State Clinton would appear to be obscenely overpaid.

According to Mrs. Clinton, though, the comparison isn’t fair because “unlike corporate CEOs I haven’t spent my career grubbing for money. I’ve been engaged in governing—the highest service one human being of superior capabilities can contribute to humanity. My $250,000 speaking fees are the deferred reward of a life of public service. I earned them. They are rightfully mine.”

In any case, I want every voter to know that when I am president the inequities of capitalism will be rectified,” Clinton promised. “We will take things away from those who have too much. Selfish self-indulgence will be replaced by socially determined collective investment for the good of the whole. We can’t make everyone rich, but we can make everyone equal and finally realize the dream laid out in the Declaration of Independence.”

In related news, reports that the so-called typical Americans that Clinton is meeting on the campaign trail have been “pre-screened” before they are allowed to approach her were pooh-poohed by former Vermont Governor Howard Dean (D): “If her staff lets just anybody talk to her there is no guarantee that it will be a representative sample of typical Americans. People with atypical views could disrupt the process and take the campaign off message. By weeding out the unsuited this can be prevented.”

Dean also defended the confiscation of cameras and cell phones from those visiting with the candidate. “A person has the right to control the use of her image,” Dean said. “Anyone wanting a picture of Hillary can pay the standard $1,000 fee and the campaign will give him or her an autographed photo.”

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 office. 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.

Tell Mesa City Council to Vote NO on Unnecessary Gender Identity Resolution

UPDATE: The Mesa City Council did not pass the extreme resolution last night. However, the council appears determined to do so in the near future. WRITE TO THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL IMMEDIATELY TO EXPRESS YOUR OPPOSITION. THEIR EMAIL ADDRESSES ARE LISTED BELOW.

Dear Mayor and council members:

We are strongly opposed to the proposal known as:

NEW MESA CITY CODE TITLE 6, CHAPTER 14 “PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND HOUSING ON THE BASIS OF RACE, COLOR, ETHNICITY, NATIONAL ORIGIN, AGE, DISABILITY, RELIGION, SEX, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY AND EXPRESSION, VETERANS’ STATUS, MARITAL STATUS, GENETIC INFORMATION, AND FAMILIAL STATUS” AND ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF.

The sections that are most objectionable are those pertaining to sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

This proposal will create more problems than it will solve and is totally unneeded.

Sexual orientation is not an immutable trait, such as race. There is no comparison between the two.

Gender identity and expression is an indication of psychological problems. It is not an immutable trait.

Once you open this Pandora’s box, you will subject well-meaning, law abiding citizens to unreasonable penalties and punishments.

It is no wonder that Scottsdale and Fountain Hills have both recently defeated such measures and that Springfield, Missouri, Charlotte, N.C. and Fayetteville, Arkansas also rightly rejected these unnecessary and problematic resolutions, which are pushed by far-left radicals upon unassuming communities.

A few years ago, we warned members of the Mesa council that radical homosexual activists were urging political activists to move to the East Valley to enact extreme social change which is at odds with the strong family-oriented characteristics of Mesa and Gilbert. Most of the council members responded to that they were not going to allow this to happen.

We are asking you again to not let this happen. We do not have the types of problems in Mesa requiring this sort of radical legislation on the part of our city leaders. We must respect free speech and religious liberty — the First Amendment — before we ever consider any type of “sexual liberty” proposed by leftists.

Please vote NO on Thursday.

Thank you.

The Arizona Conservative

Lend your voice to opposing this radical proposal. Write to all members of the Mesa city council today:

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