Who Can Match Obama Lie for Lie? Kyrsten Sinema

By Arizona Republican Party

Extreme far-left congressional candidate Kyrsten Sinema is putting on a disappearing act worthy of Las Vegas as she continues to give 9th Congressional District voters the silent treatment about her record as a criminal defense attorney.

Sinema in 2006 boasted at a liberal gathering that she is a “criminal defense attorney who represents murderers,” and her official legislative biographies proudly touted her career as a criminal defender. (Shawn Macomber, “The Marginalized Mainstream,” The American Spectator, June 14, 2006)
  • January 2012, just before retiring to focus on her election: “She … practices law when not in session.”
Abracadabra, now Sinema’s legal career has vanished from her campaign for Congress. Her campaign biography makes no mention of her legal career, or her push for an end to the death penalty – even for terrorists! – or her disdain for victims’ rights.  A big part of her life as a lawyer and a liberal activist has simply disappeared.

“Kyrsten Sinema is putting on a magic act that would make David Copperfield jealous,” Tom Morrissey, Chairman of the Arizona Republican Party said. “Sinema can’t run from her record on crime forever.  First, she stonewalls on calls to release her criminal client list, and now she’s scrubbed away any evidence of her soft-on-crime past from her campaign.  Her act has gotten old, and Arizona voters won’t fall for her tricks.”

Obama Pays Women Staffers 18 Percent Less than Men

By National Federal of Republican Assemblies

President Barack Obama is straining to woo women voters to support him for reelection in spite of his sketchy record when it comes to issues affecting females.

Obama was asked during this week’s debate how he would “rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?”

The president claimed to have “fixed” that problem with the first bill he signed into law – the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

”It’s named after this amazing woman who had been doing the same job as a man for years, found out that she was getting paid less, and the Supreme Court said that she couldn’t bring suit because she should have found about it earlier, whereas she had no way of finding out about it. So we fixed that,” Obama said.

How does the new law guarantee equal pay, as its title suggests? By amending the Civil Rights Act to reconfigure the statue of limitations for filing a discrimination lawsuit.

And although Obama preaches equal pay for women, he doesn’t do so when it comes to his own staff.

Men working in the Obama White House last year made an average of $71,000 a year, 18 percent more than women who averaged $60,000 a year. Of the 21 staffers earning the top income of $172,200 annually, only seven were women. At the bottom of the rung, 51 staffers earned the lowest salary of $42,000 – 30 were women.

Romney Should Be Pleased

By Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online
October 22, 2012

In the third debate, Obama had to show in 90 minutes that the first two debates were a fluke, and that Romney was not presidential enough to end his tenure. He did not do that by any means; for all his pique, interruptions, and attacks, Obama scored few points against the workmanlike Romney who knew that he simply did not have to lose. In any debate, when the two score comparable points, the more aggressive and petulant usually comes off less well, especially given that Romney’s tone and expression were more like the reflective performance of his wildly successful first debate. The take-away quotes and sound bites from the debate will favor Romney.

I predict that either Obama will not gain traction from his performance or, more likely, his standing will continue to erode as the public becomes assured that Romney is not only more knowledgeable but more likable and steady, especially when the pressure was on him in this final debate and the president went all out to call him both untruthful and uncaring.

The key, again, is to ask whether Obama will arrest the erosion in his support, and the answer is clearly no — it will only continue as the third debate confirms the verdict that was established in the first and not altered in the second.

Third Segment: Israel

By Pete Hegseth, National Review Online
October 22, 2012

Big difference: Obama says Iran can’t have nuclear weapons, and Romney says Iran can’t have nuclear capabilities. Big difference on red lines, and big difference from Israel’s perspective. The president can talk about “support for Israel,” but actions speak louder than words. These nuances matter, and “weapons” versus “capabilities” can make months of difference.

Romney’s statement on weakness versus strength on Iran was very strong — a clear difference. Sitting down with dictators is not a plan, nor is an apology tour. The subtle differences between strength and weakness may seem small to us, but the mullahs in Iran understand the contrast.

Romney quote of the segment, and of the night: “America has not dictated to other nations; we have freed other nations.” Obama’s response was in relation to when he was a candidate . . . because, of course, he has not been to Israel as president. Great point.

Romney’s Consistency: He Did Offer Help for Auto Industry — Post Bankruptcy

By Patrick Brennan, National Review Online

President Obama and Mitt Romney again clashed tonight about the auto bailout. The president continually assailed Romney for proposing to let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt — which, of course, they did, just via a government-managed bankruptcy which favored certain labor stakeholders and shortchanged many bondholders. Romney instead proposed a private bankruptcy — which, despite what the president says, or worse, might actually think — does not mean liquidation, but restructuring.

In his November 2008 New York Times op-ed, Romney proposed government guarantees for the auto companies’ post-bankruptcy financing. Obama adamantly denied this tonight, claiming you can “check the record.” Well, here it is: no proposal for liquidation, and suggestions for government support after restructuring, what Romney claimed tonight, and Obama denied he’d done:

If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost. . . .

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

Some conservatives may disagree with that proposal, but Romney did propose a middle-of-the-road solution in which the federal government would not now be holding an equity stake in the auto industry, the value of which has dropped dramatically over the past months, but would have provided some aid after bankruptcy. This was yet another issue where Obama attempted to accuse Romney of inconsistencies, where there was none.

Tortois Ties: Hare’s Concerned

By Stanley Kurtz, National Review Online

Partway through the debate, however, Romney started pushing for the win. His pivot to the economy might have seemed like evasion, but Obama followed him into domestic policy because he saw the risk of not answering the challenge. This put Romney on familiar ground and you could see his confidence grow.

Then Romney came hard at Obama on Iran, Israel, and the general decline of America’s influence in the world. The look on Obama’s face as Romney was discussing Democratic concerns about his Israel policy was pained. It was the first time he lost his confident stare. Then Romney did what he does best, paint a picture of general decline in America’s fortunes abroad under Obama’s stewardship. This worked almost as well on foreign policy as it does when Romney applies it to domestic policy. It was the pivotal moment of the debate.

By the end I thought Romney had at least won his tie, and maybe even inched out victory by a nose. He did it by playing offense at critical moments during a generally restrained, respectful, and competent performance. In effect, Romney carefully pivoted between playing for a tie and a win, and the strategy worked.

Obama has got to be concerned now. He held up his end well enough, but the president needed more than that to halt Romney’s momentum. Romney has now decisively established himself as a credible alternative to Obama. At a moment when the public thinks this country is headed in the wrong direction, that spells serious trouble for the incumbent.

Focus-Grouped Romney Edges Disdainful Obama

By Jim Geraghty, National Review Online
October 22, 2012

I suppose the Obama gameplan was to portray Romney as another George W. Bush, and Romney defused that by declaring, “we can’t kill our way out of this problem.” Not the argument you’re used to seeing from a Republican against a Democrat.

Obama’s near-explosion — “bayonets and horses… this isn’t Battleship” will stand out. Boy, was president Obama snippy and sneering  during that answer. Obama couldn’t contain his disdain and contempt for Romney in any of these debates, and it really flared tonight.

Chris Wallace just said that a Marine wrote him, “the Marines still use bayonets.”

Nothing changes. Romney’s got the momentum and is making his pitch to the remaining undecideds, who are deciding between voting for Romney and staying home. Obama and his campaign have decided to make these final weeks about base motivation, and hope that the president’s 47 percent or so will be enough to get him to 270 electoral votes. Maybe it will work, but it’s an extraordinarily high-risk approach for a president who won with gobs of electoral votes to spare four years ago.

President Humiliates Jon Stewart

John Semmens: Semi-News — A Satirical Look at Recent News

President Obama’s appearance on the Daily Show turned into a major coup for his reelection campaign. Obama inverted host Jon Stewart’s gibe about his response to the Benghazi attack with a crushing rebuttal.

Stewart’s suggestion that the Administration’s actions were “confused” and “not optimal” seemed to unnerve the President at first as he conceded that the death of four Americans in the attack was “not optimal.” However, the President landed a sound counter blow by pointing out that Stewart offered no better ideas of his own.

“We can sit around and second-guess what we did all day, but can you say what you would’ve done in my place?” the President asked. “Unless you’ve got a better plan to offer why tear down what I’ve done?”

Stewart’s reply “perhaps allowing consulate security to have bullets in their guns or not ginning up some bogus excuse blaming a cheesy video” was cut short when CNN’s Candy Crowley emerged from the audience to declare that “I’ve got the transcript right here. The President is right on this. Let’s move on to the next topic.”

“Thank you Candy,” Obama said. “I think what we’ve seen here tonight shows that there are two paths this nation can take. We could divisively question every step I’ve taken to advance a progressive agenda for America. Or we can, as Ms. Crowley demonstrated, all pull together for the common good.”

After the show, Crowley admitted that her intervention on behalf of the President had no factual basis. “I don’t see my role in life as just some sterile adjudicator of facts,” she bragged. “Our nation’s President was under attack. I couldn’t sit by and let his credibility be destroyed. Coming to his aid is what any loyal citizen would do.”

President Says High Gas Prices Are Sign of Prosperity

In a desperate effort to try to persuade voters that the economy is starting to recover, President Obama touted high gas prices as “proof that things are better than most people think they are.”

“Rising demand is what pushes prices up,” Obama explained. “The fact that gasoline prices have more than doubled since I took office shows that people must be driving more. Since studies show that driving to work accounts for the bulk of most folks’ travel I think it’s safe to say that the jobs picture has to be a lot better than we’ve been led to believe.”

The President boasted that “my efforts to boost the price of fuel had to overcome strenuous resistance from my political opponents. The GOP’s relentless crusade to open up drilling sites and ease regulations had one goal in mind—thwarting the economic recovery by preventing prices from rising. I’m confident that voters will see this obstruction for what it is and not be fooled into reversing course.”

When Obama took office in January 2009 the average price of gasoline was $1.80. Today it is $3.80. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu expressed the hope that “similar gains can be achieved over the next four years if the President is reelected.”

Obama Campaign Buoyed by Welfare Gains

A report just issued by the Congressional Research Service reveals that federal government outlays for means-tested welfare programs have surged by more than 30% over the last four years and now top the trillion dollars per year level. Obama campaign adviser David Axelrod called this “very encouraging news.”

“The entire Republican campaign is premised on the idea that only 47% of the population is dependent on subsidies from the government,” Axelrod observed. “They think that they can count on the productive 53% to carry the day for them. However, this report indicates that their constituency may be smaller than they think.”

“Keep in mind that this trillion dollars of federal spending on welfare doesn’t include non-means-tested hand outs to favored constituencies like green energy corporations and the unions,” Axelrod added. “On top of this there are also state and local government programs distributing benefits to reliably Democratic voting blocs. If everyone votes their pocketbooks a vital break-point may have been passed ensuring that the President’s envisioned transformation for this country can never be undone.”

Axelrod brushed off polls that seem to be trending against Obama. “We’re thinking that the same people who don’t want to admit they’ll be voting for more hand-outs to themselves to pollsters will, in the privacy of the voting booth, pull the lever for the Democratic ticket. That’s also why election day exit polls will differ from the official vote tallies, just like they did in the recent Venezuelan election.”

Rise in Violent Crime No Cause for Concern AG Says

This week, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that violent crimes jumped by 18% from 2010 to 2011.The increase was attributed to “an increased tendency of people to express themselves through non-verbal means of communication.”

“If you look more deeply into the data you’ll see that a 22% increase in simple assault more than accounts for the uptick in violence,” said Attorney General Eric Holder. “It’s largely a case of more people being more physically demonstrative in how they interact with others.”

These “physically demonstrative interactions are widely misconstrued due to cultural prejudices that work against those who are verbally challenged,” Holder argued. “People who can’t understand how a push or a punch could represent a valid way of making a point file charges. The filing of charges inflates the crime statistics.”

Holder said he couldn’t help but feel that “there is a tinge of racism at work here. White folks who are oblivious to how their non-physical words or attitudes might hurt the feelings of others are quick to take offense if one of their victims responds with a fist to their face. Unfortunately, as it now stands, the law is biased in their favor.”

The Attorney General promised that “a second term for President Obama will present the opportunity to revisit the laws on assault and provide for a fairer balance.” Holder speculated that “a new category of ‘expressive assault’ could be established that would place physical and non-physical forms of interaction on a more level playing field.”

Whether the creation of a new category of assault would lead to a review of cases of persons currently serving time in prison for assault, Holder declined to say. “It’s certainly something we’d want to take a look at, but we can’t make any hard promises at this point in time,” Holder said.

Pundit Questions Propriety of Presidential Debates

While debates have been a part of the electoral process since the beginning of this country, MSNBC’s host of the show Hardball—Chris Matthews—questioned whether they should be.

“Should the President of the United States—America’s ‘first citizen’ so to speak, and acknowledged leader of the free world—have to put up with the likes of someone like Mitt Romney?” Matthews wondered. “Isn’t it bad enough that Romney is allowed to traipse about the country lambasting the President’s policies? Is it fair to force the President to be confronted face-to-face with his detractor?”

Particularly irksome from Matthews point of view was the moment in last Tuesday’s debate when Romney rebuffed Obama’s interruption by urging the President to wait for his turn before speaking.

“Who does Romney think he is?” Matthews demanded to know. “Obama is THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. He should speak whenever he deems necessary. If the situation requires that he interrupt someone else then he should interrupt. Preventing him from interrupting strikes me as possibly unConstitutional.”

Matthews further charged that “Romney’s notion that everyone should get a turn is simply childish. This is not some playground game. Treating it like it is was very disrespectful. While President Obama was too much of a gentleman to put Romney in his proper place I’m hoping the voters aren’t so squeamish.”

In related news, CNN dismissed GOP complaints that their moderator—Candy Crowley—gave Obama more time to speak than Romney, interrupted Romney three times as often, and gave Obama the last word on 8 out of 11 occasions. “This debate was in line with the previous two debates of this campaign,” the network’s managing editor Mark Whitaker maintained. “Showing the proper respect for the sitting President and Vice-President is not something we should be criticized for. Governor Romney should consider himself lucky he was allowed on the same stage as the President. The President would’ve been entirely within his rights to refuse to debate Mr. Romney, as was President Johnson when he refused to debate Goldwater in the 1964 election campaign.”

Jesse Jackson Jr Headed for Reelection

Despite being under investigation for “suspicious activity” regarding his congressional finances and being absent from Congress for months while being treated for mental illness at the Mayo Clinic, Representative Jesse Jackson, Jr (D-Ill) seems bound for reelection.

Illinois Governor Patrick Quinn (D) insisted that “neither his prolonged absence from his post nor his potential criminal indictment should be construed as disqualifying him for office. The job of a Representative is to represent his constituents. Who’s to say that he doesn’t represent the people of his district?”

In support of his position, Quinn pointed out that “many of those elected to serve our state have later ended up in prison. I think the fact that this has happened repeatedly argues that Jackson, for all his faults, may be exactly the type of person the people of Illinois want to represent them. And isn’t letting the people elect who they want to represent them what democracy is all about?”

First Lady Makes Pitch for “Knucklehead Vote”

As polling data show Romney making gains among all the traditional voting blocs—men, women, whites, minorities, Jews, Christians—the need for the Obama campaign to find replacement votes has inspired First Lady Michelle Obama to make an appeal for the “knucklehead vote.”

At a campaign rally in Ohio, Michelle urged supporters to “leave no stone unturned in the search for votes. Talk to everyone you know—your friends, your neighbors, that cousin you haven’t seen in a while, that student sitting next to you in class, you know he’s kind of a knucklehead. He’s not into politics. He doesn’t know the issues or the candidates. But guess what, his vote counts the same as that of the most informed expert.”

“Of course, getting a knucklehead to make the effort to vote may prove a challenge,” she continued. “He may figure why should I have to get off my duff to go vote. You tell him that getting off your duff on one day to vote is a lot easier than getting off your duff everyday to go to work. And that’s what’ll happen if we let the Republicans win this election.”

In addition to the 32% gain in welfare benefits that has transpired during her husband’s first term, Michelle promised further gains in the next four years. “You know how the Affordable Care Act requires parents to carry their children on their health insurance until they’re 26,” Michelle reminded. “Well, health care isn’t all a person needs to live. What about food and shelter?”

Michelle said her husband is looking at a possible Executive Order that would bar any parent from forcing a child to move out against his or her will. “It’s your home, too,” she contended. “You’ve spent your whole life there. Why should your parents be permitted to kick you out based on their one-sided opinion that it’s time you should take care of yourself? A person’s needs don’t stop just because you get older.”

Veep Says Planned Parenthood Performing Illegal Abortions

Though he has been insisting that Planned Parenthood is barred by law from performing abortions, Vice-President Joe Biden says he was stunned to find out that the organization has actually aborted nearly a million babies over the past three years.

“You mean, all this time they’ve been lying to us?” an incredulous Biden asked after being confronted with the statistics. “Barack and I thought they were giving women mammy-grams. That’s what we were told.”

A bemused Anderson Cooper, anchor of the CNN news show Anderson Cooper 360°, asked Biden, “What’s a mammy-gram?”

“It’s a kind of medical read-out that shows whether a woman can be a mammy, that’s a mother for those who don’t know the technical jargon,” Biden explained.

The Vice-President said he expected “we’ll have to revisit this issue in the second term. We don’t want this great organization to have to continue working outside the law. I think if we can work out a way for the government to cover the costs of any abortions Planned Parenthood has to perform it would make things easier all around.”

For its part, Planned Parenthood has been financing campaign ads urging voters to reelect President Obama.

Executive Order Authorizes Seizing Bank Accounts

An October 9th Executive Order issued by President Obama authorizes the federal government to seize the bank accounts of “sanctioned persons.” A “sanctioned person” is “an individual is declared by the president, the secretary of state, or the secretary of the treasury to be a ‘sanctioned person.’”

Representative Ron Paul (R-Tex) labeled the move “as blatant and tyrannical an assault on our liberties as any this President has taken. It criminalizes a person merely on the say so of a government official, confiscates his assets, and gives him no legal recourse for undoing this injustice. It would’ve been bad enough if Congress had enacted such a monstrosity. Having the President decree it by fiat is an unConstitutional usurpation.”

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the measure calling it “just another tool for us to use against those who would do us harm. One must question the motives of those like Congressman Paul who would like to hamper the government’s ability to deal with its enemies. Why doesn’t he trust the highest officers of the US Government to judiciously use this new authority? Is he afraid that they’d sanction a person without a good reason?”

A statement by Democratic National Committee Chairperson, Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (FLA) seems to lend some credence to Representative Paul’s concerns. “I think the Republicans are showing they are un-American by badgering the Administration over this whole Benghazi thing,” Wasserman-Schultz complained. “The President has accepted responsibility. There’s no point to any further discussion. Persisting can only damage our national interests. Luckily, the government now has the authority to sanction these people if we need to.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

John Semmens Archives

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.

Mayors and Councilmembers Throughout AZ Join Coalition Against Prop. 204

Only one short week after Scottsdale Mayor W.J. “Jim” Lane announced that he would be forming a statewide coalition of mayors and councilmembers in opposition to Proposition 204, 34 leaders from across Arizona have already signed on to support the “No on New Taxes, No on 204” effort. Coalition Members as of 10/18/2012 include:

Mayors & Vice Mayors

Mayor W.J. “Jim” Lane – Scottsdale

Mayor Jay Tibshraeny – Chandler

Mayor Linda Kavanagh – Fountain Hills

Mayor Scott Lamar – Paradise Valley

Mayor Kenny Evans – Payson

Marlin Kuykendall – Prescott

Mayor David Schwan – Carefree

Mayor John Salem – Kingman

Mayor Lana Mook – El Mirage

Mayor Thomas Schoaf – Litchfield Park

Mayor Mark Nexsen – Lake Havasu City

Mayor Mike LeVault – Youngtown

Mayor Gail Barney – Queen Creek

Vice Mayor Ernie Bunch – Queen Creek

Vice Mayor Michael Hughes – Payson

Former Mayor Hugh Hallman – Tempe

Councilmembers  

Councilman Ron McCullagh – Scottsdale

Councilman Jim Waring – Phoenix

Councilman Bill Gates – Phoenix

Councilman Cody Beeson – Yuma

Councilman Don Callahan – Lake Havasu City

Councilman Jim Buster – Avondale

Councilman Sam Medrano – Bullhead City

Councilwoman Vallarie Woolridge – Florence

Councilman Victor Peterson – Gilbert

Councilman Eddie Cook – Gilbert

Councilman Jordan Ray – Gilbert

Councilman Bridger Kimball – Maricopa

Councilman Joe Hornat – Oro Valley

Councilman Scott Stewart – Wickenburg

Councilman Sam Crissman – Wickenburg

Councilwoman Cassie Hansen – Fountain Hills

Councilman Jim Brown – Queen Creek

Councilman Dean Barlow – Lake Havasu City

Councilman Bill Bracco – Sahuarita

“Municipal leaders from all across Arizona, from all backgrounds, are joining together to declare in one voice that Proposition 204 is bad for Arizona,” said Mayor Lane. “This overwhelming opposition from our elected leaders is a testament to just how poorly thought-out Prop. 204 really is.  Not only could Prop. 204 destroy job growth by causing Arizona to have the second highest sales tax in the nation, it would also rob our cities and towns of state shared revenues which could force them to either raise taxes, or cut services.  And when it is all said and done, there is still no guarantee that any of the dollars from this $1 billion permanent tax increase will ever reach the classroom.”

Few leaders have a more enduring track record of supporting education than Mayor Kenny Evans of Payson.  “As a former High School teacher, Community College Instructor, School Board President, and education advocate and supporter of education and technology, I am saddened by this poorly drafted ballot proposition,” said Mayor Evans.  “I cannot support this ill-conceived and poorly worded permanent tax grab.”

These 34 mayors and councilmembers add to a growing list of elected officials including Gov. Jan Brewer, U.S. Congressman David Schweikert, Senate President Steve Pierce, Speaker of the House Andy Tobin and many others who have already joined State Treasurer Doug Ducey in his effort to defeat this permanent tax increase.

“In only one week, Mayor Lane’s coalition has garnered a powerful and influential list of civic leaders in opposition to Prop 204 ,” said Doug Ducey, State Treasurer and Chairman of the No New Taxes, No on 204committee. “This coalition reinforces our concerns that Prop 204 is bad for local municipalities, and is especially bad for Arizona taxpayers. Passing a $1 billion blank check for special interest giveaways with almost no accountability standards and no real education reform does nothing to help Arizona’s teachers or its students.”

If passed, Prop 204 will result in Arizona having the 2nd highest sales tax in America, only behind Tennessee, a state with no income tax. This is only one of the many reasons why the State League of Arizona Cities and Towns opposes Prop. 204.  The lack of accountability and the heavy input from special interest groups make Prop 204 wildly unpredictable.  Prop 204 also earmarks hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars for programs and special interest groups that have nothing to do with public education.