An Interview with The Arizona Conservative

Isn’t the Conservative movement all about legislating morality?

In a word – no. All legislation, all lawmaking is someone’s morality. Those who say we’re imposing our morality on them are trying to impose their morality on us.

The Conservative movement is about advocating commonsense principles which have stood the test of time and which offer society the greatest opportunities of health and well-being.

Americans have the freedom to do a lot of things which were once considered harmful to the person, to others – and immoral. Rather than ask themselves “Can I do xyz,” people should ask themselves “Should I do xyz,” and “what are the consequences?” They don’t need government to decide that or ask for them. If everyone did this more often, we’d have  fewer social problems, less crime, fewer divorces, less gambling addiction, less drug and alcohol addiction, less crime, and fewer socially transmitted diseases. And the bottom line is that we would then see healthier families, neighborhoods and communities, and far less government spending on trying to pick up the broken pieces. It’s a matter of personal accountability.

Aren’t we as a nation progressing by doing away with so-called “archaic” morality laws?

We are not progressing as a nation, period. American society is in a tailspin. We are going in reverse; progressives just aren’t willing to admit it. It is not possible to progress given the current direction and worldview of those shaping the culture.

C.S. Lewis wrote: “In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function.”

We have removed the Judeo-Christian morality as the source of morality and decision making at the highest levels of state and federal government. But we act shocked when someone commits a horrible crime.  We’ve said “no more of that old morality, we’ll take it from here.” But they’re taking it all in the wrong direction.

Sign of violence seen at a Mesa movie theater
Sign of violence seen at a Mesa movie theater

So we’re teaching children – through government and the influence of the mass media culture – that it’s not only okay, but preferential, to kill the defenseless and treat people with incivility. Look at the titles of movies and TV shows: Everybody Hates Chris, Kill Bill, The Weakest Link. And we’re surprised children are killing children? You can’t expect a high level of civility when the foremost messages presented to the public are negative and destructive.

And then there are the special interest pressure groups raising huge sums of money to buy politicians and demand judges fabricate special privileges radically altering society. Anyone who opposes them, no matter how civil the opposition, is demonized and called “hater.” Many of them are threatened. The radicals are demanding opponents lose their jobs just for having a different viewpoint. This is disturbing. And it’s not the recipe for a civil society.

The real story of “progressivism” can best be described as man’s inhumanity to man.

Should Conservatives support influential Republicans who are supporting amnesty and same-sex “marriage”? They don’t have anywhere else to go, do they?

No, no and yes they do.

We as a nation should never abandon the rule of law. If we do, we get chaos – everyone just doing their own thing. It will be a nation in great conflict. Every self-respecting, orderly nation must control its borders. Mexico certainly does, though it criticizes those in the U.S. who demand we control ours.

It is not fair to legal immigrants for people to walk across the border illegally, going around the U.S. points of entry, and then demanding legal recognition and taxpayer benefits. Most people who immigrated here oppose illegal entry. Democrats only want to use these people’s votes: let them in, legal recognition and control over them and then demand their votes at election time.

Only about 2 percent of the population struggles with same-sex attraction, less than that in Arizona. Why should a tiny segment of the population be allowed to re-define marriage and subject more children to fatherlessness or motherlessness? The kids are not all right with this. In states where same-sex “marriage” is legal, very, very few homosexuals get married. For the most radical of the homosexual activists, it’s not really about marriage. It’s about destroying the traditional notion of family and marriage. We re-define marriage only at our own peril and a monumental loss of freedom. We opt for adult happiness over the well-being of children at our own peril and reap the social whirlwind. Homosexuality is not genetic, and same-sex “marriage” is not a civil right. That’s offensive to the people who truly suffered the indignation of slavery and denial of civil and human rights.

Republican leaders who want to join others by walking over the social cliff and into the moral abyss are absolutely undiscerning of what the end results will be. Conservatives must never acquiesce, must never join them or approve of this. There are more than enough conservative Republicans, independents and members of the Constitution Party to uphold principles and policies that will point this nation in the right direction.

Senator Harry Reid, other Democrats and many media and educational elites claim Conservatives are polarizing the nation. Is this accurate, and did conservatives create the culture war?

This is pure propaganda intended to direct attention away from those pushing for the most radical departure from U.S. history and tradition. The biblical explanation for this is calling evil good and good evil.

For most of America’s history, Judeo-Christian morality was the dominant worldview. But when those disagreeing with that worldview – John Dewey, Roger Baldwin, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and others – moved the nation in a different direction, Christians and Conservatives were slow to defend the nation’s traditional ideals. By the time Dr. James Dobson, President Ronald Reagan and many others began to respond, the moral center had collapsed. Christians had been lulled to sleep by how things had always been; they were the frogs in the pot who were boiled before they what hit them.

Now the Conservative movement is organized and defending the worldview that enabled America’s greatness and freedom. But the recent decades of indoctrination by educators and the mass media culture, along with the government’s shift to the secular humanist religion and animosity toward Judeo-Christian morality have taken a terrible toll on the country. It will be a long, hard climb to get out of this mess. It will not happen through politics. It will take a cultural shift. Everything else flows through the culture, and our culture is weak, decadent and in turmoil. We cannot allow leftists to steal our children’s hearts and minds and turn them against us. Every year millions of our kids are graduating from indoctrination in school and college and moving us further away as a nation from where we need to be. Our focus needs to be on salvaging our youth and saving this nation from the policies and worldviews that are poisoning our culture. We must change the direction our young people are being led into following. It’s that simple. If we do not accomplish this, our culture will only continue to deteriorate.

Party Donors Warn of ‘Dire Consequences’ for Those Who Let Obama Down

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

Folder2 104A handful of Democratic members of Congress were warned by the Party’s big donors to get in line behind President Obama’s push for gun-control legislation lest they face “dire consequences.”

“Money is the ‘mother’s milk’ of political success,” said a leading Democratic financier under promise of anonymity. “Senators from GOP leaning states may think they’ll face electoral defeat if they come out in favor of gun-control. We just want to remind them that they’ll be taken off the campaign cash teat if they don’t.”

“They should also remember there are other ways the President can punish them,” he continued. “He can cut their shares of discretionary federal outlays. He can harass their constituents by sending swarms of officers to rigorously enforce irksome regulations. And in extreme cases, he can order the use of deadly force against anyone who threatens his beneficent administration to the people’s needs.”

One of the targets, Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA), rued what she called “heavy-handed tactics” and pleaded for “some sort of reasonable accommodation. I don’t see why we can’t be permitted to pose as defenders of the right to bear arms while being allowed to work covertly to support the President like we have on other issues.”

Another, Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont), characterized the threat as “ill-considered. These Democratic donors are already well rewarded for their efforts. Each dollar donated to elect Democrats nets donors a hundred in return from federal subsidies paid out to their businesses and organizations. They need us to put money in their pockets. They ought to be able to stand a little posturing on our part to ensure our reelection.”

Former President Clinton Doesn’t Understand How Tax Cuts Help Economy

Former President Bill Clinton castigated Republicans for their continued opposition to tax increases saying “they haven’t been able to explain to my satisfaction how low taxes are supposed to help the economy.”

“Since government is the genesis of most of the good in the world a stance that appears aimed at limiting its access to the resources it needs can only retard its role,” Clinton argued. “Cutting taxes in the hope that the aggregated selfish actions of private parties would somehow result in greater prosperity seems pretty farfetched to me.”

In support of his case, Clinton cited the robust economic growth that occurred during his term in office. “We raised taxes while I was President and we saw 100 times as many people moved out of poverty as did during the tax-cutting Reagan Administration,” Clinton bragged. “That alone ought to prove the wisdom of transferring more of the nation’s wealth to the public sector.”

The record number of people receiving food stamps under the Obama Administration’s expansion of government’s share of the GDP didn’t dent Clinton’s confidence in the curative powers of big government. “The federal government’s 25% share of GDP may be a historic high for America, but it is still far below what has been achieved in other countries,” he pointed out. “I would argue that if government could allocate 100% of the nation’s resources economic growth and distributional equity would be maximized.”

Government Has Obligation to Infringe on Freedom

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended his “nanny state” inclinations saying that “there are certain times we should infringe on your freedom.”

“Freedom should not be taken for granted,” Bloomberg asserted. “I know that in America it has been built up into some sort of iconic vision for society, but government needs to ensure that it isn’t abused. Too many people are frivolously using their freedom to engage in socially destructive behaviors. They may think that whether they smoke, eat poorly, or act in an undisciplined manner is their own affair. At the same time they expect society to come to their rescue with health insurance, disability benefits, and welfare payments.”

“If we’re going to have a fiscally viable social safety net government must intervene to reduce the risk to society of the consequences of ill-thought-out actions,” Bloomberg insisted. “We have the means to do this. We have comprehensive databases, surveillance, and a wide range of public agencies to accomplish our objectives.”

Bloomberg acknowledged that his approach entails a massive invasion of privacy, but argued that “there is no way we can both preserve privacy and maximize collective well-being. People could be left to do as they please or they can be protected from the effects of their folly. Looking at the election results over the generations, I think it’s pretty clear that more and more voters prefer security over freedom.”

The Mayor said he envisioned “a day when the proper lifestyle choices would be so ingrained that coercive measures are no longer necessary. In the meantime, though, we should not shy away from stern enforcement of rules that move us closer to this ideal.”

Lawmaker Explains Sending Photo of Genitals to Government Computer

Massachusetts Democratic State Representative John Fresolo complained that “people are misinterpreting the rationale behind what I did.” What he did was send a digital photo of his penis to a computer at the State House. A legislative aide who saw the photo lodged a complaint with the Ethics Committee.

Fresolo maintained that he was “pilot-testing a new element for sexual offender databases. Right now, all we have on sex offenders is facial photographs. In cases where a rapist wears a mask the victim may not be able to identify her assailant. By providing another data point we could close more cases.”

“Rather than ask someone else to post the first genital photo to the database I bravely exposed myself,” Fresolo said. “Now, instead of being lauded for putting aside personal modesty in order to promote the public welfare I’m being pilloried by my political enemies. Never has a public servant been so unjustly humiliated.”

Continuation of Lavish Lifestyle During Sequestration Defended

Press Secretary Jay Carney rebuffed critics who have suggested that President Obama and his family ought to be “sharing the pain” brought on by the federal budget sequester.

“The whole point of the ‘pain’ is to help induce people to support the tax increases the President has requested,” Carney explained. “The President already is on-board with tax increases. He doesn’t need the added stimulus of pain to get on the right side of the issue.”

As for the President’s family members who are currently in the midst of their fourth taxpayer-funded vacation trip since the start of the year, Carney argued that “penalizing the First Family for fully enjoying the perks of office would accomplish nothing. Look, the President’s family has only a limited time to squeeze every privilege they can get out of their status. Can anyone really blame them for going whole hog?”

First Daughters, Sasha and Malia Obama, are currently vacationing on the ski slopes of Sun Valley, Idaho. Earlier this week, the First Daughters were on a spring break trip in the Bahamas.

Obamacare Raises Costs & Paperwork

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius dismissed criticism that Obamacare is leading to higher costs and more paperwork as “misplaced.”

“Since the vast majority of visits to doctors are unnecessary and often result in more harm than good, if costs for medical care rise we should expect overall health to improve,” Sebelius projected. “I mean, unless you are a trauma victim, the chances of medical intervention helping you are slim. Higher costs for treatment of other alleged ailments will deter people from exposing themselves to the risk iatrogenic complications.”

As for the estimated 111 million hours of increased paperwork spawned by the Affordable Health Care Act, Sebelius hailed it as a “jobs bill. This is millions of hours of paperwork that would not have existed without the legislation. These are relatively pleasant, indoor jobs sitting at a desk and shuffling papers or punching keys on a computer. People don’t have to break a sweat building something or harvesting a crop, or whatever. These are the kind of jobs that most people wish they had.”

Bank Seizure of Deposits Called “Wave of Future”

The resolution of the bank crisis in Cyprus by seizing depositors money and forcibly converting it into equity shares in the banks was hailed as “an innovative way out of a plethora of bad investments by bank officials” by Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch chairman of the Eurozone.

“Under the old rules, losses incurred by bad investments would fall upon the stockholders and officers of the bank,” Dijsselbloem said. “Stockholders would typically lose their money and officers their jobs—all because of an imbalance between deposits and assets. By mandating the conversion of a portion of deposits into new shares the stockholders and officers of the bank can be insulated from the consequences of their errors.”

Dijsselbloem contended that “this solution is both humane and equitable. Those who have the ability to make large deposits in banks obviously have more money than they need. By requiring them to deploy this excess wealth for the benefit of others is a policy that places collective well-being ahead of individualistic greed.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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.

Rep. Franks: The True Threat of Cyber Attack

Your government has failed you… Every major company in the United States has already been penetrated by China.” These are alarming words. But that’s the analysis of our current cybersecurity status by Richard Clarke, the United States’ former National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure Protection, and Counter-terrorism. Indeed, the theft of digital information alone is said to cost American companies in the neighborhood of $250 billion every year. As one of only three members of Congress who currently holds a patent, I am keenly aware of the importance of intellectual property protection, a goal that is impossible without effective cybersecurity.

But while the economic effects of cyberattacks are already staggering and unquestionably must be addressed, the true threat is the prospect of a hacker — whether operating alone or backed by a rogue regime — infiltrating vital components of our infrastructure and wreaking havoc. The topic is a timely one. Just yesterday, it was reported that computer networks at major South Korean institutions, including banks and broadcasting networks, crashed simultaneously. Though unconfirmed, all signs seem to point to a cyberattack originating in North Korea.

A recent project by Deutsche Telekom, the parent company of T-Mobile, has highlighted just how ever-present the threat is. Earlier this month, the company set up 97 “honeypot” systems all over the world that appear to hackers to be vulnerable networks, computers, and websites. Deutsche Telekom created a map showing, in real-time, the number of attempted cyberattacks these systems were enduring, as well as the point of origin of the attempted attacks. A visit to the online map indicates a continually-flashing catalogue of world-wide attempted cyberattacks — with sometimes half a dozen or more attempted attacks occurring every second.

It is an overwhelming problem without one single, simple, comprehensive fix. But any attempt to address the issue absolutely must include provisions to facilitate voluntary information sharing. When cyberattacks occur, the entities affected must have an efficient and effective means of sharing relevant information with other companies that could find themselves at-risk, as well as with authorities. By pooling all of the information we have about the sources and nature of various cyberattacks, we are far more able to effectively respond, if not avoid the attacks entirely.

But in the midst of all the discussion above, we must not miss the forest for the trees by ignoring a less discussed threat to our infrastructure and electric grid: the prospect of an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) of either natural or man-made origin that could disable any electrical components on a catastrophic scale. Whether originating from the sun — we are currently in the middle of the “solar maximum,” during which the sun is expected to be most active — or from a rogue regime like Iran — which has conducted tests consistent with EMP attacks — such a burst of electromagnetic energy could disable large swaths of America’s electric grid and become the ultimate cybersecurity threat.

The threat has received attention from organizations ranging from NASA, the National Association of Scientists, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. All of them reached the same conclusion: our civilian electric grid is vulnerable to EMP. Ongoing and largely successful efforts over the years have hardened much of our critical defense apparatus to electromagnetic pulse. However, in the continental United States, the Department of Defense depends upon an unsecured civilian grid for 99 percent of its electricity supply, without which it cannot successfully effect its mission. Thus our ability to defend the homeland, as well as much of our ability even to function as a modern society, would be greatly compromised should we find ourselves unprepared in the face of a major unexpected attack or a solar event like the 1859 solar superstorm (or Carrington Event) that caused aurorae worldwide, and knocked out telegraph systems — the only major electrical system in the world at the time — all over Europe and North America. Telegraph systems were so overwhelmed by the burst of energy that fires were started by the sparking telegraph pylons. Another large solar event occurred in 1921, and the National Academy of Sciences predicts this effect will recur globally approximately once every 100 years. In other words, we could be due for another occurrence.

It is time we take the relatively inexpensive steps necessary to make our transformers and other major grid components survivable to such a threat to our national security.

To that end, as Chairman of the Congressional EMP Caucus, I introduced the SHIELD Act (H.R. 668) last Congress and will soon reintroduce it in the new Congress. The bill would finally take the first critical measures to protect our grid from a potentially catastrophic electromagnetic pulse.

We live in an almost miraculous digital age. Unfortunately, our modern electric technologies are far more susceptible to cyber attack and electromagnetic pulse than ever before, and we are far more reliant on those systems than ever before. This year, even as we witness what NASA has called “unexpected” solar activity, along with the threat posed by radical regimes with nuclear weapons capability, may we seize the opportunity to finally begin to systematically address all dangerous cyber threats, including those that could be precipitated by a major man-made or natural electromagnetic pulse, and begin to ensure that our reliance on digital systems is finally matched by our ability to defend those systems.

Dem Says Aides Face Starvation Because of Sequester

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

Folder2 104A tearful Representative Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla) blamed “heartless Republicans” for the “severe hardships” the sequester is imposing on members of her staff.

“Nearly half of my office staff has been forced to forgo lunch on a daily basis because of the cruel budget cuts that have been forced down our throats by the GOP,” the Congresswoman claimed.

The “toll of suffering” has been less than half because “some have been able to make do with sack lunches of leftovers or peanut butter sandwiches they bring from home,” she explained. “This is not a solution that can be applied across-the-board, though. Some simply lack the skill required to assemble their own lunches. Others feel that going out for lunch is an essential part of being a person of stature.”

Wasserman-Schultz suggested that those wanting to help preserve the dignity and health of those serving in government could make a cash donation to the “Congressional Aide Feeding Fund” and should call her office (202- 225-7931) to arrange for automatic monthly transfers from their checking accounts.

Homeland Security’s Big Ammo Purchase Raises Concerns

Congressional efforts to ascertain why the Department of Homeland Security needs over a billion rounds of ammunition and thousands of armored vehicles have been rebuffed by Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Representative Timothy Huelscamp (R-Kan) says his efforts to obtain an explanation have gone nowhere. “No one at DHS will give me any kind of response,” Huelscamp complained. “They tell me that the information I’m seeking is only given out on a ‘need to know’ basis.”

Representative Leonard Lance (R-NJ) has experienced similar difficulties in getting answers. “The contention that ‘buying in bulk’ is a cost-saving measure is suspect,” Lance argued. “At current usage rates, the 1.6 billion rounds recently purchased would last 100 years. That’s far beyond the shelf-life of the ammunition.”

Napolitano stood fast behind her Department’s refusal to go into any detail about the purchases saying that “there are many enemies who could make use of information relating to our government’s intentions. By keeping these intentions confidential we retain the element of surprise, which as anyone familiar with armed conflict knows, is a great force multiplier.”

As ever, Vice-President Joe Biden was somewhat more forthcoming. “The Government can’t take a chance of being out-gunned,” he said. “Until we have comprehensive gun-control laws, the Government needs enough firepower to take down everyone who might threaten its authority.”

Concern over the intent of these huge weapons procurements isn’t confined to President Obama’s critics on the right. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, a left-wing “peace and social justice movement,” called the DHS actions “troubling.” “We are upset that the media and Democratic members of Congress who would’ve been all over such behavior if it were being carried out by the Bush Administration are giving President Obama’s crew a pass,” Benjamin said. “It’s as if they’re tacitly saying a police-state run by Democrats is okay.”

In related news, Napolitano defended her decision to upgrade travelers from Saudi Arabia to “trusted traveler” status. Even though 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, Napolitano insisted that “we’re not going to let a single statistical quirk outweigh the substantial bonds of friendship achieved between our two countries. President Obama has assured me that the large sums donated to his reelection by the Saudi Government have reassured him that Saudi citizens can be trusted and should not be hassled or molested by our TSA officers.”

NY Gun-Control Law a Fiasco

Before it has even gone into effect the gun-control law championed by Governor Andrew Cuomo has run into insurmountable problems. Under the law it is illegal for anyone in the state to have a weapon with a magazine that holds more than seven bullets. Aside from converting the majority of the state’s gun owners into criminals virtually overnight, hardly any seven bullet magazines are available.

Rather than admit this law is infeasible, Cuomo is pressing the legislature to amend it to allow larger magazines, but forbid anyone from loading more than seven bullets in them. Skeptics wondering how law enforcement personnel would be able to tell how many bullets were loaded in these magazines were assured by the Governor that “an energetic stop-and-frisk program would be implemented by police. Not only will we catch those who’ve loaded too many bullets, but those without permits to bear arms will also be snared.”

Under Cuomo’s proposed amended law, those who inadvertently or innocently violated the law could be pardoned by the Governor—a feature Cuomo contends will augment civil peace. “My ability to differentiate between those who are essentially good citizens who’ve made a simple mistake and those who are flouting the government’s authority is a potentially powerful tool for maintaining order,” the Governor argued. “People who pay their taxes and obey the laws will get a break. People who have a history of challenging authority can expect to bear the full penalty. The incentives for citizens to behave themselves will be strengthened.”

Another explanation for Cuomo’s reluctance to abandon his infeasible law may be the anticipated surge of revenues from fines. Turning hundreds of thousands of previously legal gun owners into criminals is seen as an equitable way of covering the state’s deficit. “If anyone deserves to pay more for the cost of state government it’s those who insist on having guns they don’t need,” the Governor declared.

Kerry Sees UN Treaty as End Run Around Second Amendment

Secretary of State John Kerry touted the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) as “the perfect solution for bypassing the objections of gun zealots citing the Constitution’s Second Amendment as a bar to gun control.”

“Even if we accept the notion that the Second Amendment prohibits the Government from disarming the population, the Constitution provides an alternative method for accomplishing this objective,” Kerry asserted. “The Constitution’s Article VI says that treaties made by the US Government are the supreme law of the land—anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

“All we need to do is for the President to sign and get two-thirds of the Senate to consent to a treaty to ban private possession of firearms and there wouldn’t be anything the opponents of gun-control could do about it,” Kerry bragged. “We wouldn’t need three-fourths of the states to acquiesce in amending the Constitution. State or local sheriffs couldn’t refuse to enforce gun control without running afoul of the penalties specified in the treaty. It’s the ideal checkmate for Americans who bitterly cling to their guns.”

Senate Democrats Vote to Keep White House Closed to Tourists

A GOP attempt to make a modest change to the budget in order to overturn the Administration’s decision to use the sequester as an excuse to shut down tourist access to the White House was shot down in the Democrat -controlled Senate by a 54-45 vote.

“Every sector of our society must bear its share of the pain caused by the sequester’s budget cuts,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev). “Wrecking vacations and disrupting school field trips helps convey the importance of maintaining the full measure of spending the President wants.”

As it turns out, though, not every sector of society is bearing a share of the pain. Untouched by the sequester’s budget constraint were federal subsidies of $400,000 to study the size of duck penises, $345,000 to see if snakes would attempt to eat a robot squirrel, and a $140,000 grant to China to investigate swine manure.

Reid argued that “cutting funds for more esoteric and obscure projects wouldn’t have the same impact. No one cares about such outlays. But when a busload of kids is turned away a lot more people are going to hear about it. When they do they’re going to blame stingy Republicans. Democrats shouldn’t feel obliged to rescue the GOP from the rightful outrage of their disappointed constituents.”

Biden and Pelosi Take Holy Communion in Rome

As supporters of legalized abortion, nominally Catholic politicians like Vice-President Joe Biden and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) are not supposed to receive Holy Communion at Mass. Enforcement, though, is on the “honor system.” Biden and Pelosi skirted this honor system and took Holy Communion at the Mass of Installation for Pope Francis in Rome.

Biden viewed it as a personal triumph. “Each time you receive Communion the slate is wiped clean,” Biden boasted. “So whatever sins you might’ve committed are absolved. It doesn’t matter whether the priest unknowingly gives it to you or overlooks your support for abortion rights in order to avoid making a scene. Either way, you’re home-free.”

Pelosi saw it as more of a political statement. “Each time a proponent of choice is accepted among the ranks of the faithful draws us closer to the day when a woman’s right to choose is finally incorporated into the Church’s theology,” Pelosi predicted. “After all, Jesus was a great champion of women’s rights against an ultra-patriarchal Jewish orthodoxy. What could be more important to a woman than full control over her own body?”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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.

Support for Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Eroding Fast

By Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

The Washington Post thought it knew where the American people stood on marriage. Just two days ago, news outlets were plastering its poll results of “record” backing for same-sex “marriage” on their websites–only to see the support vanish as quickly as it appeared. Today, the Reuters Corporation released the results of an even bigger poll than the Post‘s and found that only 41% of America supports the case being made by Ted Olson and David Boies at the Supreme Court. In an astonishingly large survey sample, 24,455 people (23,000 more than the Washington Post‘s survey!), barely four out of 10 Americans thought homosexuals should be allowed to “marry.” Those numbers are far and away more consistent with the findings of trustworthy survey houses in the last few months on marriage. It also shows the unreliability of the media’s polling. In 48 hours, we’ve seen a 17-point swing in public opinion on marriage. Of course, as we mentioned yesterday, the Post‘s questions were specifically structured to generate a more favorable response. When you frame the debate as the Post did–in criminal terms–Americans are far more wary of opposing same-sex “marriage.” In the meantime, Reuters’ numbers are even more significant when you consider that they come from a news agency with a public interest in redefining marriage. Last month, the Reuters Corp. threw objectivity out the window by signing on to an amicus brief urging the court to embrace same-sex “marriage.” If 41% was all the support Reuters could scrounge up for same-sex “marriage,” then you know they exhausted every avenue trying to push that number higher–and couldn’t. Let me be very clear: we don’t arrive at our policy positions because of polls. The point of sharing this is to once again draw attention to the media’s efforts to make you feel that same-sex “marriage” is inevitable–and that everyone but YOU thinks it’s okay. Trust me, as this latest poll shows, you’re far from alone in your support for natural marriage. Encourage your family and friends by sharing this truth with them!

Former Tempe Mayor Hallman Running for Governor

Hugh Hallman, the former mayor Tempe, today announced he’s running for governor. We always cringe when someone says “I’m a fiscal conservative,” as Hallman does below. Being a true conservative does not come with such qualifiers. But here’s what he says he seeks to do as governor:

I wanted to take a moment to introduce myself and my candidacy for the office of Governor of Arizona.

I’m Hugh Hallman, a fiscally conservative Republican and the former Mayor of Tempe. I’ve also worked as the leader of one of the most successful public schools in Arizona, as a regional leader and former Chairman of the Maricopa Association of Governments, and as a successful attorney and economist. I’ve worked to identify the pressing problems we have faced on the local, regional and statewide level, and then created solutions to improve Arizona.

My priorities for Arizona include:

  • Creating new jobs and economic opportunities for Arizona residents, not by having state government “pick favorites,” but through responsible economic development and removing excessive red tape.
  • Improving our state’s educational system by focusing on giving our students and teachers the tools they need to achieve success.
  • Working to solve some of the most difficult issues we face as a state, including dealing with illegal immigration.
  • Ensuring that Arizona’s government is run in an ethical way that is accountable to the voters of Arizona.

Arizona is not about the big-wigs at the state Capitol. It’s about the very reasons we all call this wonderful state our home.  Let’s end the polarizing gamesmanship that only advances political careers and instead focus on everything that makes the State of Arizona exceptional.  Together, let’s focus on creating Arizona’s brightest future.  Let’s use Arizona’s incredible advantages to improve our State and the quality of life for all Arizona’s residents.

I invite you to learn more about my campaign and humbly ask for your support. There are several ways you can keep in touch:

  • Visit our NEW campaign web site at www.hughhallman.com. You’ll find my in-depth position papers on a variety of key issues facing our state, as well as information on how to get involved.
  • You can also follow the campaign through our Facebook page and our Twitter feed.
  • And finally, we would very much welcome your support of our efforts through a contribution to the campaign. You can donate easily online through this link.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. I look forward to meeting people throughout the State of Arizona during the course of the campaign, and working together to identify ways to make our State an even better place to live.

Fortunate Son

To borrow an analogy from Credence Clearwater Revival’s song “Fortunate Son,” Will Portman is a fortunate son. He’s a senator’s son.

When he told his father, U.S. Senator Rob Portmann (R-Ohio), he is homosexual, the elder Portmann came out in support of same-sex “marriage.” He’s the same Sen. Portmann who was under consideration for a vice-presidential running mate by Mitt Romney.

The son’s struggle with same-sex attraction is certainly unfortunate.

But the father’s response is troubling. Instead of offering to help his son, he selfishly does an about face and wants to impose same-sex “marriage” on the nation. He selfishly wants to take away the religious freedom of people who will be punished for opposing same-sex “marriage.” Just because of his own son.

I have no doubt the senator loves his son. But the way he shows it is misguided, and his personal family situation should not adversely impact the entire nation. He’s imposing his personal family situation on the country, and this is selfish and wrong.

The same thing happened in San Diego a few years ago. The mayor decided to support same-sex “marriage” after learning his daughter gave in to same-sex attraction. So he and the city council passed a resolution to impose their will on the city.

It’s time for selfish politicians to realize their personal family situations do not justify the imposition of same-sex “marriage” on their constituents. Especially when the majority of Americans support marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Queue up Credence on Youtube:

 It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no senator’s son

Egypt’s Ruling Party Rejects UN Declaration of Human Rights

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

Folder2 104Egypt’s ruling Muslim Brotherhood vehemently denounced a United Nations’ declaration on women’s rights saying it could destroy society by allowing women to travel, work, and use contraception without their husband’s permission.

“Women are creatures that Allah has given to men for their pleasure and to bear them sons,” said a spokesman for the Brotherhood. “This attempt to elevate them above the status decreed for them by the Prophet would subjugate men to the vile and unrighteous heresies of the West. It is oppression, pure and simple.”

In an effort to show that Muslim women reject the UN’s declaration, members of the Brotherhood were ordered to send their wives, daughters, mothers and sisters into the streets to demonstrate against it.

The Egyptian Government’s position on women’s rights is not expected to disrupt the Obama Administration’s award of over a billion dollars in military aid to the country. “It is not our place to interfere in the domestic policies of other countries,” explained Secretary of State John Kerry. “To insist that our notions about human rights ought to be a prerequisite for receiving aid would be arrogant and imperialistic.”

Anti-Gun Hypocrisy Denied

While campaigning vigorously against easy access to assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, Mark Kelly—husband of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz)—was spotted purchasing the very type of weapon he wants the law to prohibit.

Kelly denied he was being hypocritical, insisting that “my position that ordinary people shouldn’t be allowed to own such weapons isn’t contradicted by my actions. First of all, I am no ordinary person. I’m one of the very few humans who has been into outer space. Second, I am the husband of a member of this country’s ruling elite—one, I might add, who was nearly killed by an armed assailant.”

“The average person isn’t explicitly targeted by enemies of this country’s government,” Kelly argued. “The average person’s anonymity conveys a protection unavailable to those of us near the pinnacle of the human pyramid. The chance that he would need a gun for protection is statistically insignificant compared to us.”

Subsequent to being called out for his apparent hypocrisy a photo of Gabby Giffords holding an assault rifle has emerged. Kelly maintains that “there is no inconsistency. In fact, if Gabby had an assault rifle on the day she was attacked she might not have gotten shot. I would argue that criminals are deterred by superior firepower.”

Presidential Paranoia Hits New High

President Obama’s “wine-and-dine” offensive took an odd turn this week when he refused to partake of the comestibles for fear of being poisoned. At a working lunch with several GOP members of Congress Obama said he couldn’t eat because his official food-taster was unable to accompany him.

Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) tried to allay his fears by pointing out that everyone was being served the same meal. Even after Obama was offered the option of exchanging plates with any of the other diners he still declined to eat and contended that “every plate could well be tainted” and that “I wouldn’t put it past the GOP to willingly sacrifice a dozen legislators for the chance to get me..”

Press Secretary Jay Carney defended the President’s caution by pointing out that “it’s possible that all of the other diners could’ve been given the antidote in advance. Let’s not forget that it was right about this time of year when Julius Caesar was killed by treacherous senators. So, I think it’s better to be safe than sorry.”

President Says Cheap Oil a Destroyer, Not Creator of Jobs

President Obama elaborated on his argument against the Keystone Pipeline project by making the case that cheaper oil would not increase jobs in America.

“Let’s just consider one example,” the President suggested. “The portion of this oil that would go into fueling transportation would clearly have a negative impact on employment. Your typical motor vehicle engine has over 100 horse-power. That means if we didn’t have the means to fuel these engines we’d have to use 100 horses to achieve the same transportation result. Is there any question that breeding, raising, feeding, and housing 100 horses would employ more people than tending to one motor vehicle?”

Obama argued that “the neglected alternatives to fossil-based fuels would all offer far more job opportunities. Besides the jobs that would be required to maintain horses, the slower travel speeds would mean more jobs for teamsters on any given haul. Then there’s wind power. Ships relying on this ultra-green source of energy require much larger crews to repeatedly adjust the sails. Couple this with the slower travel speeds and I think you can appreciate the potentially huge increase in the number of man-hours of employment there’d be.”

Representative Lee Terry (R-Neb) called the President’s remarks “disturbing. It’ looks as if he has no grasp of the concept of efficiency or economic progress. Simplistically, the President is right, it would take more time and effort—more jobs, if you will—to move goods by horse than truck. But it would also price many goods we take for granted out of reach for the average person. Taking advantage of technology, like cheaper oil via the Keystone Pipeline, is what enables today’s average person to live like the kings of bygone eras.”

Homeland Security Defends New Uniform Purchase

Revelation that the Department of Homeland Security authorized an expenditure of $50 million for new uniforms at the same time as it was releasing illegal immigrant criminals because of the budget sequester’s “cuts” has raised a few eyebrows.

“Those who are saying we should have postponed the spending on new uniforms so we could afford to keep more prisoners locked up aren’t seeing the bigger picture,” Secretary Janet Napolitano contended. “Our TSA officers are seen by millions of air travelers everyday. The few thousand prisoners we released will impact a much smaller segment of the population.”

The contrasting trade-offs were explained by the Secretary. “The new, more impressive uniforms will convey an admittedly small increment of benefit to each traveler,” Napolitano calculated. “However, the multiplication of each small benefit by millions of daily beneficiaries far outweighs the larger individual costs to the much smaller number of persons who will be harmed by the criminal acts of some of those prisoners we released. So, on a cost/benefit basis, the greater good for the greater number has prevailed.”

President Denies Debt Poses a Problem

In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America,” President Obama asserted that “there is no debt crisis in this country” and says he sees “no reason to bargain with Republicans over the budget.”

“The amusing little analogies Republicans are making about households having to make cuts when times are tough simply don’t apply to the federal government,” Obama declared. “I’ll grant that debt can be a problem for households having to cope with limited resources. But how is this relevant to the government?”

“Let’s assume we were going to pay back what we borrowed,” the President said. “In what sense are the government’s resources limited? The GDP is over $15 trillion per year. So one year’s output alone would be almost enough to pay back the whole outstanding debt. All Congress would have to do is enact the appropriate taxes to channel resources into paying debt.”

“Now let’s ask a more radical question—why should we pay back the debt?” Obama continued. “The people who lent the money did so of their own free will. The money was used for the benefit of the American people. A default on the debt would simply be a transfer from the bond buyers—most of whom are wealthy—to everyone else—most of whom are not wealthy. Would that really be so bad?”

Obama was quick to add that he wasn’t necessarily advocating default. “We don’t want to end up in court with creditors suing the government,” he said. “Even though the government is within its sovereign rights to default, litigation would be a pain. Having the Fed create enough additional money to cover all debts is probably the least troublesome way to get out from under any perceived obligation to repay.”

Tax Scofflaws Infest Federal Government

IRS figures indicate that 300,000 federal employees have evaded over $3.5 billion in federal income taxes. Forty White House employees account for over $300,000 of these unpaid levies.

While some in the media find this scandalous, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew does not. “When you think about it, the whole idea of a federal employee having to pay taxes on pay from the federal government is kind of nonsensical,” Lew observed. “Isn’t asking them to give back part of what we paid them wasted motion?”

Lew suggested that “some sort of amnesty is probably the best way to resolve this discrepancy. Most of these people are hard-working and underpaid public servants. We shouldn’t be hassling them for their initiative aimed at reducing the inefficient two-way shuffling of money back-and-forth. A better option for the future would be to exempt all federal employees and officeholders from all federal taxes.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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.

Salmon Not Lured by Leaders’ Party Line

By Tony Perkins, Family Research Council

Following the rules may not matter to the President’s party–but writing them certainly does. Why? Because, as Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.) explains, that’s where the real legislating is done. “If you let me write the procedure and I let you write the substance,” said Democratic Congressman John Dingell (D-Mich.), “I’ll [beat] you every time.” Congressman Salmon harkened back to that quote in a bold new op-ed for the Washington Times, where he challenges the conservatives to rise up and “dare to be fiscally responsible.”

Salmon, who returned to Congress this year after serving three terms in the mid-90s, says he was driven back to Washington by America’s shocking financial situation. A situation, he points out, that is more dysfunctional than ever. Back in the day, Rep. Salmon explains, conservatives were willing to challenge the GOP leadership when they got “off track.” The strategy was simple. “One tactic we used was to vote against House rules on specific bills that did not uphold conservative principles.”

Essentially, the rules–like the one governing whether members could add amendments to the government’s short-term funding bill–decide how long the bill’s debate is and how many attachments will be allowed. For reasons unknown to most voters, members will support a rule to a bad bill and then vote against the actual legislation. Congressman Salmon wants to know why “a self-described fiscal conservative would enable the passage of the bad bill by supporting the rule?”

From now on, he writes, “I will vote against the rule for bills that increase spending without offsetting spending cuts and encourage my other conservative colleagues to do the same. Similarly, if House leadership brings any more bills to the floor without first securing the support from the majority of the GOP conference, I will take the same action. If enough of my conservative colleagues in the House join me, we can unilaterally put an end to the growth of government…”

Republicans need to start a revolution, Salmon says–and we agree. This is one of the most conservative Houses of Congress ever–but its power is being squandered by GOP leaders who are unwilling to take the necessary risks to limit government and save America. More members need to rise up–as Rep. Salmon and 15 others did in the CR debate–and challenge a GOP leadership that is more focused on preserving the majority than using it to get America back on track. Voters have had enough of Republicans babysitting the nation’s decline. It’s time to move from a party who’s scared to a party who dared.