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

Tax Day Reminder for Democrats: Pay Your Fair Share!

Democrats are great about deflecting attentions away from one basic fact: they don’t like to pay their fair share of taxes. They claim the rich don’t pay up, but history is filled with stories of Democrat leaders and elected officials who try to avoid taxpaying. The Clintons, Tom Daschle, Tim Geithner, and the late Ted Kennedy, just for starters.

Work Requirement Pares Maine Food Stamp Recipients

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

JohnEnforcement of a work requirement by Republican Governor Paul LePage’s administration has led to 9,000 former recipients being declared ineligible to receive food stamps. Under the work requirement, able-bodied food stamp recipients were asked to put in 20 hours of work per week or 24 hours of volunteer services per month.

State Rep. Scott Hamann (D-South Portland) called the work requirement “inhumane” and compared it to “indentured servitude.” “The Governor is taking the state out of the mainstream,” Hamann argued. “Other states have sought an exemption from the work requirement, but LePage is charting a course that sends a message telling people they must work in order to eat. In my view, this is a step backward.”

Maine Department of Health and Human Services Commissioner Mary Mayhew defended the Governor’s approach. “Entrenching people in a life of dependency is not a way to get them out of poverty,” Mayhew said. “It’s one thing for a person to be physically unable to support themselves. It is quite another for a person to refuse to contribute effort to sustaining himself.”

Hamann belittled “the contention that self-reliance is an appropriate ethos for a modern society. Not everyone is equally endowed with a strong work ethic or the ambition to succeed. Some inherit laziness and stupidity through no fault of their own. We shouldn’t be holding the losers in the genetic lottery to the same standards as the winners. Those who are lucky enough to be born energetic and ambitious have an obligation to society to help carry the weight of those less fortunate than themselves.”

In Kansas, a bill to ban welfare benefits from being spent on body piercings, massages, spas, tobacco, nail salons, lingerie, arcades, cruise ships or visits to psychics was denounced by state Rep. Carolyn Bridges (D-Wichta) as “an unacceptable infringement on people’s freedom to spend their own money as they see fit. As a society we have determined that these people are entitled to public support. By endeavoring to limit the uses to which they can apply thus support we are degrading their perception of self-worth and making them second class citizens. This is appalling. Freedom belongs to everyone. Poverty shouldn’t be used to limit a person’s choices.”

In stark contrast to what’s going on in Maine and Kansas, the nearly bankrupt State of California is looking to make illegal aliens fully eligible for state welfare benefits. “This nation was built by immigrants, how can we not cut them a piece of the pie?” asked state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens). Lara dismissed the state’s budgetary deficit as “an excuse, not a reason for excluding newcomers from enjoying the fruits of citizenship.”

Iranian Ayatollah Calls Obama “Lying Devil”

Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, characterized US President Barack Obama’s statements about the agreement negotiated between the two countries as “deceptive” and evidence of “devilish” intentions.

Obama’s assertion that Iran has agreed to ramp down its pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for a phasing out of economic sanctions is a lie,” Khamenei said. “What we have agreed to is this. First, all sanctions must be immediately ended. Once this happens we agree to refrain from engaging in any nuclear attacks until, in our judgment, circumstances for a favorable outcome warrant it. Most likely, circumstances won’t be favorable for at least a few years.”

US Secretary of State John Kerry sought to minimize any perceived discrepancy between the two sides, saying that “Khamenei’s statement is within the bounds of the framework we’ve been constructing. We could quibble over which comes first—the end of sanctions or Iran’s self-constraint as a nuclear power—or we could make the first concession as a step toward building good will.”

Right now, Iran is conceding that there will be at least a few years before they launch any nuclear strikes,” Kerry pointed out. “This should ensure that nothing drastic happens during President Obama’s remaining term. After that it will be up to his successor to devise a strategy for dealing with Iran.”

In related news, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dismissed warnings from former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz about the nuclear agreement the Obama Administration negotiated with Iran as “lots of big words that few people will understand.”

Kissinger and Schultz noted that the so-called agreement lacks any provisions for enforcement. Neither does it address Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism—a behavior that will become a bigger problem once sanctions are lifted and Iran has more funds at hand to aid these groups.

Harf insisted that “these concerns are irrelevant since Iran will not agree to inspections and reserves the sovereign right to use its resources as it deems best. For us to raise these issues would complicate the negotiations and make any agreement unlikely. We feel that it is better to have half a loaf than none.”

Administration Brushes Off Russian Hackers

Evidence that Russian computer hackers penetrated security at the White House and State Department was brushed aside by National Security Council spokesman Mark Stroh.

Since the Administration has no hostile designs on Russia we don’t consider their gaining access to confidential correspondence at the State Department or White House a threat to our security,” Stroh maintained. “In a way, this could be a good thing. They will see that we bear them no ill will. That could open up new avenues for better relations between our two countries.”

It would be far more worrisome if our correspondence had been illicitly obtained by domestic right wing groups that have long harbored a racist resentment of the President and his transformative agenda,” Stroh contended. “These groups have been working assiduously to undermine the President from day-one. They even mounted an unsuccessful effort to oust him from office in 2012. The Russians haven’t done anything as menacing as that for the whole time he’s been in office.”

President Chastises “Less than Loving” Christians

President Obama took the occasion of Easter Sunday to chastise Christians for being “less than loving.” “Over the past few months alone we’ve seen so-called Christians refuse to take photographs and bake cakes for gay weddings,” the President lamented. “This directly contradict’s Jesus’ admonition to ‘judge not lest ye be judged.’”

Obama rejected the idea that Christians might have legitimate religious objections to social policies with which they disagree. “Jesus bade his followers to turn the other cheek if they are offended,” he reminded. “Jesus allowed himself to be crucified rather than fight back against those who wronged him. Shouldn’t Christians be following this example?”

In related news, murders of Christians by Islamists in Kenya and elsewhere this month failed to elicit any comment from President Obama. Press Secretary Josh Earnest explained that “the hundred or so students murdered in Kenya is but a small fraction of the 2.2 billion Christians in the world. So, in no way can Christians be considered a ‘persecuted minority.’ Besides, from a historical perspective, didn’t Christian martyrs play a huge part in sparking the spread of Christian beliefs? Maybe these Islamist atrocities will help reinvigorate Christianity from its fading role in modern culture.”

In related news, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, called such massacres “a clumsy and cruel, but nevertheless effective method toward achieving the necessary and essential goal of depopulating the planet.”

White House “Gender Neutral” Restroom “Not Good Enough”

The Obama administration’s efforts to earn gratitude from the gay lobby by adding a “gender neutral” restroom to the White House came up short.

Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender spokesperson Irma Crank called the move “not good enough. Every bathroom in every home in America is ‘gender neutral.’ Many businesses already have ‘family restrooms’ that can be used by either gender. The Administration’s attempt to curry favor with such a lame and wishy-washy measure is an insult. Frankly, we expected more from this President.”

The “more” expected by Crank “is the right of any person to use any facility—men’s room, ladies room—based on their sexual feelings of the moment. Herding individuals with uncertain or fluctuating sexual identities into a neutral space stigmatizes them. Anatomy must not be allowed to overrule a person’s mental state. An anatomically male individual must have the right to explore his feminine side whenever the urge presents itself. Likewise, an anatomically female individual must be free to express her masculine side.”

Crank also denounced “the dodge of one-occupant-at-a-time facilities that some businesses have been turning to. Urinating or defecating in a room by oneself stunts a person’s feelings of solidarity with those whose sex he or she is striving to identify with. Obviously, we are not yet at the point of full gender identity freedom in this country. We will not be satisfied with halfway compromises. We need to keep up the pressure until everyone is free to go wherever he or she pleases.”

White House spokesman Jeff Tiller expressed his disappointment with “Crank’s hasty condemnation. I think we’re all on the same page here. The gender neutral facility is for those who may be uncertain about their gender identity. Individuals who are sure may opt for the men’s or ladies’ room as they see fit. Beyond the White House, the Department of Justice will vigorously prosecute any businesses or organizations that try to restrict who may use whatever restroom facilities they provide.”

Scottsdale Councilwoman Keeps up Drumbeat for Attacks on Your Religious Freedom

Last week the Scottsdale City Council voted 5-2 to defeat a proposed sexual orientation nondiscrimination policy. Councilwoman Linda Milhaven was one of the two council members who voted for the controversial proposal. Then she wrote the following commentary in the left-wing publication Scottsdale Independent. We took exception with several of her statements and present her commentary for you now along with our objections, FYI:

Milhaven: Why is treating everyone fairly considered controversial in Scottsdale? [THE ASSUMPTION THAT EVERYONE WILL BE TREATED FAIRLY IS INCORRECT.]

By Linda Milhaven Apr 3rd, 2015

Why is it controversial to consider a law to treat everyone fairly?” [WHY DON’T WE RELY ON THE U.S. CONSTITUTION FOR FREE SPEECH AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY?]

That was the question I got from a citizen after a recent city council meeting. We were considering whether to or not to add sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression to the city’s non-discrimination ordinances.

At that meeting, the council affirmed their support of the Unity Pledge, [IS THERE A HUGE PROBLEM WITH HOUSING AND HOSPITALITY FOR LGBT IN SCOTTSDALE??? NOT LIKELY.] adopted late last year, supporting LGBT inclusive non-discrimination policies and directed staff to help promote of the pledge.

The next step is to begin the public process to include these principles in our City ordinances. [AT WHAT COST TO THE CONSTITUTION? TO THE CITIZENS OF SCOTTSDALE? TO RELIGIOUS FREEDOM? ]

We have received many e-mails and have heard from many constituents — many for and some against. While I believe that everyone is acting in good faith, I am still trying to understand the side that argues against including the principles of the pledge in our ordinances. [THEN PLEASE HEAR OUR CONCERNS AGAIN.]

Some argue that less government is better. I agree; however, some laws are good and necessary. This is the basis for our political debate. What is necessary vs. unnecessary regulation? [TAKING SIDES IN THE CULTURE WAR IS ONLY GUARANTEED TO ALIENATE AT LEAST HALF THE CITY’S CITIZENS.]

In my opinion, we currently have non-discrimination ordinances and adding members of the LGBT community to the list of protected citizens is simply the right thing to do. [LGBT ARE NOT IMMUTABLE TRAITS. SO-CALLED “SEXUAL LIBERTY” IS BEING USED TO BLUDGEON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACROSS THE COUNTRY. DON’T LET SCOTTSDALE EXHIBIT PREJUDICE AGAINST CHRISTIANS AND OTHERS OFFENDED BY WHAT THEY CONSIDER BIBLICAL SIN.]

Some argue that there is no evidence of a problem. [IN THIS DAY AND AGE MOST PEOPLE DO NOT DARE SPEAK OUT AGAINST LGBT FOR FEAR OF JOB LOSS, PHYSICAL THREATS, PUBLIC SMEAR CAMPAIGNS AND HYSTERIA INITIATED BY MILITANT LGBT. CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL AMERICA IS TRIPPING OVER ONE ANOTHER TO SUBMIT TO EVERY LGBT DEMAND. WHAT MORE CAN YOU POSSIBLY GIVE THEM?] Are they suggesting that members of the LGBT community should publicly share their stories and make themselves vulnerable to additional discrimination/harassment without any protections before we are willing to protect them?

Some assert religious freedom would be compromised. However, religious organizations set their own membership rules [NO. THEY DON’T. STATE, LOCAL, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ARE CHIPPING AWAY AT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION’S FIRST LIBERTY – RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. CHRISTIANS ARE BEING TOLD TO “CHECK THEIR FAITH AT THE DOOR” AND TO KEEP THEIR BELIEFS TO THEMSELVES, THAT WHEN THEY GO INTO BUSINESS THEY SUDDENLY BECOME “SECULAR.” PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES ARE TELLING CAMPUS MINISTRIES THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE OFFICERS BE PEOPLE OF FAITH.] and hiring practices. They may include or exclude anyone they please from their organizations. Government does not and cannot regulate that. [YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG. OBAMACARE AND NONDISCRIMINATION POLICIES ARE BEING ELEVATED ABOVE CONSTITUTIONAL RELIGIOUS LIBERTY, AND CHRISTIANS ARE FORCED TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS IN EXPENSIVE COURT CASES TO LITIGATE FOR THE FREE EXERCISE OF LIBERTY. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSIONS ALL OVER THE NATION ARE ELEVATING “SEXUAL LIBERTY” ABOVE THE CONSTITUTION.]

Government does, however, make laws that bind all of us, regardless of our religions affiliations. In fact, non-discrimination laws protect citizens from discrimination based on their religion. [YOU HAVE IT BACKWARDS. NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS ARE USED AS BATTERING RAMS AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS.] Why would some religious organizations want to exclude anyone from the same protections their members enjoy? [YOU INCORRECTLY CHARACTERIZE THE PRESENT REALITY. RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS ARE EXCLUDED FROM FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE BECAUSE OF THE OUTBREAK OF NONDISCRIMINATION LAWS.]

Combining the assertion that we do not have a problem with the assertion that a non-discrimination ordinance will infringe on personal religious rights is puzzling to me. What personal religious rights? The right to discriminate against members of the LGBT community in the marketplace and the workplace? How can one say that there is no discrimination but then argue to protect their right to discriminate? [NO, NO, AND NO – WE ARE OPPOSED TO BEING COMPELLED BY GOVERNMENT TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITIES FOR WHICH WE HAVE CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS.]

Some suggest an ordinance will open the business community to frivolous lawsuits. How can one assert that a lawsuit claiming discrimination is frivolous unless one thinks that discrimination is acceptable? [IT IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS YOU MAKE IT OUT TO BE. THERE WILL BE LAWSUITS. HUMAN RELATIONS BOARDS, THE ACLU, AND OTHERS ARE NOT IN THE HABIT OF PROTECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. “SEXUAL LIBERTY”AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CANNOT CO-EXIST. ONE IS ALREADY BEING ELEVATED ABOVE THE OTHER. TOO MANY CITY COUNCILS ARE FAVORING “SEXUAL LIBERTY” AT THE EXPENSE OF RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. THIS IS AT ODDS WITH AMERICA’S HISTORY AND CONSTITION AND THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION.]

Members of the business community have been the strongest advocates of a non-discrimination ordinance. They tell us an ordinance is vital to their ability to attract and retain workforce talent and customers. [THIS IS A COMMON TALKING POINT, BUT WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP? THERE IS NONE. BUSINESSES ARE MERELY POSTURING THEMSELVES AS LGBT FRIENDLY, BUT THERE IS NO EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION IN THE BUSINESS AND CORPORATE WORLD. BIG BUSINESS IS EXTREMELY ACCOMMODATING TO LGBT PEOPLE. THERE IS NO HARM BEING DONE. THERE IS NO LAW, NO LACK OF LAW SHACKLING THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FROM HIRING ANYONE WHO HAS A LEGAL RIGHT TO WORK IN THE UNITED STATES.] They tell us lack of an ordinance will do us harm. How can one argue that they are protecting the  business community when they ignore the business community’s pleas for an ordinance? [IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY AS A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL TO ASK FOR EVIDENCE THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY NEEDED. IN THE SCOTTSDALE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. YOU WILL LIKELY FIND LGBT NOT ONLY WORKING FOR THESE COMPANIES, BUT ALSO SOME LGBT ARE IN POSITIONS OF MANAGEMENT AND DOING VERY WELL FOR THEMSELVES. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO GOVERN ALL THE CITIZENS, AND NOT TO FAVOR ANY GROUP OVER ANOTHER. LET THIS UNFOUNDED DEMAND GO AND CONCENTRATE ON MORE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES.]

I believe the city should study the issue and hear from the public. [MOST DEFINITELY! THANK YOU FOR THE WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY.] Let us know where you stand. Do you think the city should begin the public process to expand its non-discrimination ordinances to include LGBT non-discrimination? [NO. THERE IS NO PROBLEM. MOVE ON TO MORE SUBSTANTIVE NEEDS AND TOPICS TO PROMOTE YOUR CITY. THANK YOU FOR READING. BEST REGARDS.]

COUNCILWOMAN MILHAVEN, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS: THERE NEVER WAS ANY DEMONSTRATION THAT THE ORDINANCE IS NEEDED. THE PEOPLE OF SPRINGFIELD, MISSOURI AND FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS JUST REJECTED SUCH MEASURES, AS DID FOUNTAIN HILLS.  BUT THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL INFRINGE UPON THE FREEDOM OF SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS TO OPERATE THEIR BUSINESSES ACCORDING TO THEIR FAITH. EVERYONE’S CONSCIENCE COUNTS. SO WHY UNNECESSARILY DIVIDE THE CITY? WHY RESTRICT THE CONSTITUTIONAL FREEDOM OF A LARGE CONSTITUENCY OF THE CITY?

McCain Running again and the People Groan

Multiple conservative groups rebelled right out of the gate to Senator John McCain’s announcement that he will indeed seek re-election in what is expected to be a historic 2016 election cycle.

Within hours of McCain’s announcement both Conservative Review and the Senate Conservatives Fund had emailed to rally supporters against McCain. The messages pointed out McCain’s record and weakened position. Senate Conservatives Fund called for a strong show of support to oust a weakened McCain and elect a fresh face to represent Arizona in the U.S. Senate.

Conservative Review grants McCain an “F” with a 48 percent rating, calling out McCain for an extensive 32-year entrenchment in Washington. CR Editor Gaston Mooney said, “McCain’s consistent support for gun control, cap and trade, amnesty, and tax increases have put him at odds with just about every coalition inside the Republican Party and recent straw polls have shown that he is vulnerable. McCain pandered to the right in 2008 and now he is at it again.”

“There are few Republicans who have betrayed our conservative principles more than John McCain,” read the Senate Conservatives Fund letter. “McCain lost his way a long time ago.”

Both messages criticize McCain for his part in the “Gang of Eight” immigration reform and his support for amnesty, his vote for the taxpayer funded “Wall Street” bailout, his vote to fund implementation of Obamacare and criticism of efforts to halt that funding, opposition to a $1.3 trillion tax cut, support for a $600 billion tax hike, repeated votes to raise the debt limit and voting against term limits.

Mincing no words, the Senate Conservatives letter refers to McCain as “one of the most anti-conservative RINOs in the Senate.”

Senate Conservatives Fund is asking those supportive of a McCain alternative to put their money where their mouth is with a financial contribution and signature on their “Replace John McCain” in 2016 petition.

The grass roots, urges the letter, “is asking for our help,” citing polling that says 98 percent want a conservative alternative to McCain.

“To replace John McCain, we need to get hundreds of thousands of patriots united and working together. The Republican establishment in Washington will pour millions of dollars into this race to save him.”

According to FEC records, the Friends of John McCain campaign committee held $2 million in cash on hand at the end of 2014. Almost $1.2 million of that came from 2008 presidential campaign committee funds transferred in 2013, in addition to $1.3 million in individual contributions. It comes as no surprise that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is supportive of McCain as the “Friends of John McCain” committeetransferred $265,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2014 and late 2013.

Americans Want Illegals Deported

By Paul Bedard, Washington Examiner

Despite President Obama’s efforts to cool the nation’s views on illegal immigrants storming over the U.S.-Mexico border, Americans have reached a new level of anger over the issue, with most demanding a more aggressive deportation policy — and reversal of a law that grants citizenship to kids of illegals born in the U.S.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey released Monday also finds Americans questioning spending tax dollars on government aid provided to illegal immigrants. A huge 83 percent said that anybody should be required to prove that they are “legally allowed” to be in the country before receiving local, state or federal government services.

Overall, the poll is bad news for the White House because it shows sustained, and in some cases, elevated anger and frustration over the surge in undocumented immigrants in the United States.

For example, 62 percent told the pollster that the U.S. is “not aggressive enough” in deporting those illegally in the United States. Just 15 percent believed the administration’s current policy was “about right” and 16 percent said it was “too aggressive.”

That 62 percent number is a jump from a year ago when it was 52 percent.

When asked if the baby of an illegal born in the United States should automatically become a U.S. citizen, as is now the law, 54 percent said no versus 38 percent who said yes.

In another area that seems to test American patience with the administration, 51 percent said that illegal immigrants who have American born children should not be exempt from deportation.

CORPORATE CULTURAL SMOG, INDIANA AND THE MARKETING OF EVIL

I’m watching the Final Four on Saturday. March Madness is nearing an end.

Time out. Michigan State’s basketball coach needs to slow Duke’s momentum and talk it over with his ball club. Reload on the chips and salsa and sit back for a couple minutes. Relax.

Here’s the commercial message: it’s a photo of two men … with two small  children between them. Then the video rolls, showing … one man seated feeding a baby bottled milk and … the other man leans over and kisses the child on the forehead. The screen goes blue … with a small print message: “we serve everyone … Honey Maid.” It’s a perfect, idyllic family.

And that’s not all. Later …

Now there’s a commercial showing an effeminate man in a convertible. He’s wearing a white shirt, tie, and polka-dot underwear — in a public place. In the next moment he is out of the car … walking … with a purse over his arm, just as women do.

And the message is:

Corporate America is solidly lined up on the side of hedonism … against people of faith … against biblical values. Corporations are so afraid of the homosexual pressure groups that they’re tripping over one another trying to show they are on the board with the homosexual agenda. Corporations like Nike, Honey Maid, Walmart, and countless others are exploiting the media-manufactured “crisis” of Indiana and the Left’s attack on religious freedom.

If it’s big, if it’s corporate … it’s on the wrong side of America’s Christian heritage. Corporations are also afraid of protests, boycotts and militant homosexual activism. Homosexual pressure groups created a climate of fear among corporations and small business, and now their homophobia is prompting them to march along like good soldiers with the agenda.

It’s a form of corporate cultural smog. Author David Kupelian characterizes it as “The Marketing of Evil” in his 2005 book:

“Likewise, most of us mistakenly believe the ‘abortion rights’ and ‘gay rights’ movements were spontaneous, grassroots uprisings of neglected or persecuted minorities wanting to breathe free. Few people realize America was actually ‘sold’ on abortion thanks to an audacious public relations campaign that relied on fantastic lies and fabrications. Or that the ‘gay rights’ movement – which transformed America’s former view of homosexuals as self-destructive human beings into their current status as victims and cultural heroes – faithfully followed an in-depth, phased plan laid out by professional Harvard-trained marketers.

Anyone who doesn’t go along with the corporate homophobia, i.e. Brenda Eich (fired by Firefox for supporting California’s Prop 8 marriage amendment) and other victims are viciously maligned and thrown overboard as if they were “Jim Crow” himself.

We saw this in full bloom last year when the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and local media sheep went along lockstep with homosexual pressure groups to defeat a reasonable amendment to Arizona’s religious protection law.

Kupelian describes this phenomenon as “a program of unabashed propaganda, firmly grounded in long-established principles of marketing and advertising.” Homosexual activists and their fearful accomplices in the corporate and media realms worked to force …

Acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.

This is happening before our very eyes. It’s getting to the point where you can’t watch a basketball game with your family and think you can escape the saturation of marketing. As far as the Honey Maid commercial, here’s what is happening:

The activists and media are changing what people actually think and feel by breaking their current negative associations with our cause and replacing them with positive associations.

By using the term “gay rights,” Kupelian writes, and persuading politicians and the media to adopt this terminology, activists seeking to transform America have framed the terms of the debate in their favor almost before the contest begins. (And in public relations warfare, he who frames the terms of the debate almost always wins. The abortion rights movement has prevailed in that war precisely because it succeeded, early on, in framing the debate as a question, not of abortion, but of choice. The abortion vanguard correctly anticipated that it would be far easier to defend an abstract, positive-sounding idea like choice than the unrestricted slaughter of unborn babies.)

But what about rampant anonymous, disease-plagued homosexual behavior?

How do you sell middle America on those five hundred sex partners and weird sexual practices? Just don’t talk about it. Rather, look and act as normal as possible for the camera.

So what can you do?

Resist. Stand strong in your faith. Speak up with courage, not just when the flash fires break out in Arizona and Indiana. Hold firm to your beliefs. The marketing of evil is evil, and it cannot stand the test of time. Pass this message to your family and friends and help them understand the lies and the deception being force-fed into the culture, creating cultural smog and marketing evil.

The True Facts About Religious Freedom Laws

By Sarah Torre, Heritage Foundation

The mainstream media has launched an all-out blitz over a new law that protects the fundamental freedom of Indiana citizens from unnecessary and unreasonable government coercion.

The media’s gross mischaracterizations of the Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act ignore the truth: Religious Freedom Restoration Acts prevent government discrimination against religious free exercise and simply provide a way to balance religious liberty with compelling government interests.

Religious liberty isn’t an absolute right. Religious liberty doesn’t always trump. Religious liberty is balanced with concerns for a compelling state interest that’s being pursued in the least-restrictive means possible.

The First Amendment Partnership, an organization whose mission is “to promote and protect religious freedom for people of all faiths,” created the below infographic separating myth from fact on Religious Freedom Restoration Acts:

As Ryan T. Anderson and I explained Thursday, the Indiana law is good policy. Like the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana’s new law prohibits substantial government burdens on religious exercise unless the government can show a compelling interest in burdening religious liberty and does so through the least restrictive means.

These protections for religious freedom provide a commonsense way to balance the fundamental right to religious liberty with compelling government interests.

By passing its Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Indiana joins the 19 other states that have implemented such laws. Eleven additional states have religious liberty protections that state courts have interpreted to provide a similar level of protection. These commonsense laws place the onus on the government to justify its actions in burdening the free exercise of religion.

Rising Sales of US Constitution Put Department of Homeland Security on Alert

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

JohnA surge of book sales that pushed the US Constitution into the top ten best seller list of the Conservative Book Club has caused federal officials to put the Department of Homeland Security on “full alert.”

This is just the type of abnormal behavior that should trigger a high state of vigilance,” Secretary Jeh Johnson declared. “We expect a few loud-mouthed right-wing politicians to repeatedly harp on whether some action taken by the government is constitutional. But we can’t afford to overlook tens of thousands of ordinary citizens reading such seditious literature.”

Outside of some historical interest, we can see no reason for people to cozy up to this document,” Johnson explained. “Our Courts are the mechanism for determining whether the Constitution has any bearing on modern life. Increased meddling by persons who aren’t properly trained for interpreting the document is cause for concern. Consequently, I’m ordering all our personnel to be on the lookout for any anti-government agitation inspired by uneducated interpretations of this historic relic.”

In related news, Ohio Judge Catherine Barber barred a defendant from bringing up the Constitution or the constitutionality of the law under which he is charged with a crime because “it would only serve to confuse jurors. They need to follow my instructions, not wander off into their own egocentric comprehension of this extraneous historical document.”

Kerry Disputes Comparisons Between Iran Deal and 1938 Munich Agreement

US Secretary of State John Kerry bristled under comparisons of the recently announced deal with Iran to 1938’s agreement between Britain’s Neville Chamberlain and Germany’s Adolf Hitler over the Sudetenland. Though Chamberlain proclaimed the agreement as assuring “peace for our time,” World War II erupted only a year later.

There are just too many differences to make the comparison apt,” Kerry claimed. “Hitler threatened to invade Czechoslovakia if his demands weren’t met. Iran isn’t threatening to invade anyone. Hitler had already invaded Austria. Iran hasn’t invaded anyone. Iranian troops in Iraq are there by invitation to fight against ISIL.”

There’s also the credibility issue between the two situations,” Kerry went on. “Hitler promised that the Sudetenland would be his last territorial acquisition—an implausible assertion. Iran, in contrast, has been very upfront that its intent to annihilate Israel is non-negotiable. We have to appreciate their honesty. Nevertheless, we have gotten them to agree to a ten year delay for achieving this objective. If they keep this promise that’ll be ten years of peace for Israel to enjoy before Iran moves in earnest on its designs.”

In the meantime, by lifting the sanctions on Iran there is a chance that a surge of economic prosperity may divert them from their vow to erase Israel from the map,” Kerry said. “None of the prosperous nations with nuclear weapons is a threat to Israel. Is it unreasonable for us to hope that ten years from now a nuclear-armed Iran would exhibit a similarly pacific behavior?”

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, who represented France in the talks with Iran, called Kerry’s view of the agreement “a fantastical delusion.” And Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu insisted that “any deal that does not recognize my country’s right to exist is unacceptable” and refused to rule out a military option for preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power—a sentiment that Kerry brushed off as “just as unrealistic as if the Czechs had decided to face Hitler’s Nazi war machine alone in 1938.”

In related news, the US Department of Justice filed a criminal indictment against Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ). A key consideration may have been the Senator’s criticism of the Administration’s Iranian nuclear policy. “Under ordinary circumstances, the offenses with which Sen. Menendez is charged might have been overlooked,” Attorney General Eric Holder admitted. “The bribes he received were relatively small—well within the norms for someone in his position. However, letting a prominent Democrat publicly assail the President’s policy on Iran could open the floodgates of opposition if an example isn’t made of him.”

IRS Chief Scoffs at Idea Agency Could Be Abolished

IRS commissioner John Koskinen laughed at the idea that Congress could abolish the IRS.

The Tea Party types may have wet dreams over the prospect of eliminating the IRS, but it’s not going to happen,” Koskinen gibed. “Too many congressmen on both sides of the aisle want the funds our agency extracts from taxpayers. One of the big attractions to holding office is the ability to dole out money to favored constituents. Hampering the IRS in any way would put a kink in that pipeline.”

The main gripe average people have with our agency is the complexity of the tax code,” the Commissioner contended. “Complexity is needed, though, to disguise the purposes for which the money is spent. Congress will never give that up. If they want to make things simpler for the taxpayers they could relieve them of the task of calculating and filing their 1040s and authorize the IRS to determine whether each taxpayer deserves a refund or must pay additional amounts. All the aggravation of trying to decipher the instructions, obtain the proper forms, fill them out and send them in would be eliminated.”

Koskinen touted the potential efficiency gains that could be achieved from his proposed reform. “Instead of investing a lot of time in inexpertly wrestling with incoherent forms and instructions, taxpayers could focus on working harder at their jobs. Their struggle to minimize tax liability would be converted to a more manageable one of maximizing their taxable earnings. It would be a win-win for both the government and the taxpayers.”

Anyway, if push comes to shove, President Obama will veto any changes he doesn’t like and enact any that he does via executive action,” Koskinen told legislators. “That kind of makes anything Congress might attempt to do a superfluous exercise in futility.”

In related news, the US Department of Justice announced that it is granting itself the authority to seize “suspicious bank accounts.” Attorney General Eric Holder explained that “it can take forever to secure these funds through the cumbersome judicial process where a person must be convicted of a crime before monetary penalties. Seizing bank accounts through administrative procedures speeds up our access to resources the government cam more effectively utilize than the previous owner could have.”

Actor Says Clinton Vouches for Accuracy of TV Show

Kevin Spacey, star of the critically acclaimed Netflix series “House of Cards,” told reporters that former President Bill Clinton confirmed that “99% of what you’ve shown in the series is essentially true.”

In the show, Spacey plays Frank Underwood, an ambitious sociopath who manipulates and murders his way to higher office. In the first season he started out as the Democratic Whip in the House of Representatives. By the end of season three he is the President of the United States with a body-count of three on his covert resume.

Spacey said that “my good friend Bill boasted that he’d cracked a few more heads on his way up than I do on the program, but still complimented me on my accurate grasp of what it takes to truly succeed in politics.”

For his own part, the actor bragged that “Bill Clinton isn’t the only president who likes the show. President Obama is also a big fan and says he wishes he could be as ruthlessly efficient as Frank Underwood. Which I take as quite a compliment since Underwood is roughly modeled on Shakespeare’s Richard III and Macbeth, but without a conscience.”

In related news, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) announced his retirement saying he wanted to work on developing a better relationship with his exercise regimen. “As many of you know, I was recently beaten severely about the face in a December mishap,” Reid reminded. “My health requires that I devote more of my energy to solving this problem before it kills me.”

Judge Orders State to Cut Inmate’s Balls Off

US District Judge Jon Tigar ordered California’s Corrections Department to surgically remove a prisoner’s testicles. The $100,000 surgery would be performed on convicted murderer Jeffrey Bryan Norsworthy—enabling Michelle-Lael Norsworthy to emerge from 51 years of incarceration within the wrong body. The surgery is expected to be the first step in Norsworthy’s eventual release from Mule Creek State Prison in Ione.

For too long this unfortunate woman has been trapped within the body of a monster,” Tigar said. “She was forced to watch helplessly while Jeffrey murdered a person whose name no one can remember. Making Michelle endure the life sentence imposed on Jeffrey for this crime is cruel and unusual punishment. Constitutionally, it cannot be allowed to stand.”

Inasmuch as Michelle has already been imprisoned for 51 years inside an alien shell I am advising the parole board to consider commuting her sentence to ‘time served’ after the surgery is performed,” Tigar added. “We have a moral obligation to restore her to the life she would have had if not for a mistake of nature.”

The US Department of Justice hailed Tigar’s ruling as “a triumph of compassion over the narrow conception that all of the personalities residing within a single person ought to bear the consequences of the actions of any of the other personalities” and “a vindication of the Obama Administration’s commitment to protecting the interests of transgender people in this country.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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

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