AG Nominee Garland: TOTALLY Clueless!!

During Friday’s confirmation hearing for Biden’s nominee for attorney general, Merrick Garland proved that he’s the last survivor of the Civil War AND he’s obviously a graduate of the Joycelyn Elders “School of Cluelessness.” The Media Research Center completely exposes him in the above video. Furthermore, it’s obvious that Biden and Garland are incompetent marionettes who are easily managed by the Deep Staters behind the scenes running this pathetic administration. Despite Garland’s dreadful appearance before the Senate committee, left-stream media frauds like the Huffington Post strain credibility by suggesting that Mr. Clueless Garland put Republican senators to shame. Unbelievable!

If You’re Voting For Joe Biden You’re Voting For …

  • A man with a career of corruption behind him.
  • A man who has disrespected and abused women.
  • Abuse of power: the Obama-Biden Administration illegally used the IRS to deny tax benefits to conservative organizations; they used the Department of Justice to attack law enforcement personnel who were working to prevent illegal aliens from entering the country; they shut down the work of and fired federal agents to monitor and prosecute terrorist cells in the U.S., also protecting organizations like the Muslim Brotherhood which are sworn enemies of the U.S.
  • Censorship
  • The removal of Second Amendment gun rights and home protection.
  • Gender confusion (people who’ve had sex change surgery are less happy than they were before).
  • Socialism: The rights of the individual are made secondary to the control of the collective; Vladimir Lenin said “The end game of socialism is communism.”
  • Loss of freedom, including free speech and religious freedom.
  • Increased taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood, which profits from the shedding of human blood.
  • Open borders, drug and human smuggling.
  • Voter fraud and voting by felons, illegal aliens and unregistered individuals.
  • Over regulation of small businesses, the backbone of America.
  • Prohibition of school choice.
  • A smaller, weaker military.
  • Obama II, a country that befriends and funds America’s enemies while turning away from America’s allies.
  • Civil unrest in the streets, i.e., Seattle and Portland.
  • Higher taxes.
  • Harmful laws based on non-existent, politically based global warming.
  • Criminalization of the conservative movement.
  • Confused men posing as “transgenders” in order to take the positions of females on girls and women’s sports teams.
  • Continued attacks on America’s founding ideals.
  • Damage to the public education system.
  • Expanded government health insurance, which does not guarantee medical care.
  • Sanctuary cities.
  • Judicial activism by judges who make law from the bench.
  • Radical individuals with access to the White House and the highest levels of government who cannot pass background checks.
  • Increased likelihood of terrorism on American and foreign soil. Democrats are very weak on terrorism.
  • Bigger government making the individual smaller and smaller.
  • A greater likelihood that America, “the home of the free and the land of the brave” will become a nation of one-party rule with opposition to Democrat policies outlawed.
  • A re-writing of U.S. history and the Constitution.
  • Cold-hearted Obama and Biden left four Americans to die in Benghazi.
  • Ruthless Obama and Biden are to blame for the death of a U.S. Border Patrolmen who was gunned down by the Mexican drug cartel, armed with guns given by the Obama Administration.

You will also be voting for a man whose health is failing, and who may have to relinquish his presidency to a vice president with even more radical views on important issues.

Raul Grijalva: Good Friend of Communists

Raul Grijalva is a long-time Southern Arizona congressman running for re-election in November. 

By Trevor Loudon, Contributing Writer, The Epoch Times

December 26, 2018

Long-time Communist Party USA ally Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.) is to chair the critical House Committee on Natural Resources. This position will give Grijalva significant influence over key economic and environmental decisions.

In this position, he will be able to stall and otherwise influence legislation and create major uncertainty for potential infrastructure, natural resource, and energy investors.

Grijalva is so excited about his new post that he has even opted to resign from his influential position as co-chair of the far-left Congressional Progressive Caucus.

Allowing a man with Grijalva’s radical record to wield such influence could have disastrous implications for American jobs and economic growth.

The Early Years

Grijalva foreshadowed his legislative strategy in 2013 when he revealed to In These Times, a Democratic Socialists of America affiliated publication, that “I’m a Saul Alinsky guy,” referring to the “community organizer” who mentored Hillary Clinton and inspired Barack Obama.

But even the Marxist Alinsky wasn’t Grijalva’s most radical influence.

According to a 2009 Center for Immigration Studies memorandum, as a young activist in Tucson, Arizona, Grijalva became a leader in several Marxist-leaning groups including the Chicano Liberation Committee, which pressured the University of Arizona to implement affirmative action for Chicano staff and establish a Mexican-American Studies program.

Grijalva was also active in Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), which agitated for the return of the “Chicano” areas of the U.S. Southwest to Mexico. The group’s motto was “Por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada,” which translates to “For the race, everything; outside the race, nothing.”

Grijalva further joined the radical Raza Unida Party. After losing a school board race in 1972, Grijalva dropped some of his revolutionary posing and sought to involve himself in more “mainstream” Democratic Party politics.

In 1993, Grijalva, identified at that time as a member of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, wrote an anti-NAFTA article headlined “North America Needs ‘Fair’ Trade” for the Nov. 13 edition of the Communist Party USA’s newspaper People’s Weekly World (which has since changed its name to People’s World).

Through the 1990s, Grijalva used his Pima County position to assist Communist Party USA-affiliated organizations, such as the Southern Arizona People’s Law Center and the Tucson Tenants Union.

By the early 2000s, Grijalva was ready for the big time, and the Communist Party USA was eager to help.

Communist Party Assistance

According to Tucson Communist Party USA leader Steve Valencia, his mentor—the late Arizona Communist Party USA chair Lorenzo Torrez—was a pioneer in the “struggle” for Mexican-American political representation.

Valencia told People’s World newspaper in 2012, “I always say: Before [Communist Party USA-aligned Democratic Rep.] Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva, there was Lorenzo Torrez.”

The article continues: “Pastor and Grijalva are Arizona’s first two Mexican Americans [sic] members of the U.S. Congress. But Torrez ran for Congress before they ran, and also boldly ran against Republican Senator Barry Goldwater.

“‘Lorenzo told us it is time for these majority Latino districts to be represented by a Mexican American,’ said Valencia. ‘He wanted voters to see a Latino name on the ballot.’

“When Pastor declared his candidacy, Torrez rallied the Tucson CP [Communist Party] club to join in the effort. Pastor’s victory in 1991 set the stage for Grijalva’s election in 2002.”

On Sept. 21, 2002, the People’s World published an article headlined “People Gain in Arizona Primaries” by local Communist Party leader Joe Bernick. It dealt mainly with Grijalva’s victory in the recent Democratic Party primary:

“The tireless efforts of hundreds of grassroots volunteers dealt a blow to the corporate establishment here and their attempt to dominate Southern Arizona politics in the Sept. 10 primary election.

“Long-time progressive Raul Grijalva routed seven other candidates to win the Democratic nomination for CD-7, one of Arizona’s two new Congressional seats. …

“As a Pima County Supervisor and Tucson School Board member Grijalva consistently fought for working people’s interests.

“The Grijalva campaign was a textbook example of how to conduct a people’s campaign, beginning with its name: ‘A whole lot of people for Grijalva.’ Hundreds of people came out seven days a week, sometimes twice on Saturday, to wear out tons of shoe leather.

“Grijalva thanked labor for its key support and for ‘putting the union label on me.’ He promised the Southern Arizona Central Labor Council, at its Sept. 12 meeting, to become ‘an extension of the voice of labor in the U.S. Congress.’”

At a meeting of the National Board of the Communist Party USA in South Chicago, on the last weekend of January 2003, an Arizona activist boasted, “Using street heat tactics, all of labor worked to back one candidate Raul Grijalva in Tucson … And we won!”

Tucson Communist Party USA supporter Susan Thorpe confirmed this narrative in an article covering the 2002 Grijalva campaign in an article in People’s World on Nov. 7, 2003, titled “Arizona: Grassroots Can Beat Big Bucks”:

“Nevertheless, here in Tucson, we are gearing up for local elections in 2003 and the presidential election ahead in 2004 by using the same tactics we did in 2002 to get Raul Grijalva elected to Congress. …

“Congressman Raul Grijalva is proving to be a wonderful voice for the people of Arizona. And our movement and those important connections made during his campaign are still alive in Tucson.”

In Congress, Grijalva worked to help the Communist Party USA where he could.

Returning the Favor

According to a 2005 statement by Latinos for Peace (an anti-Iraq War front for the Communist Party USA) published in the Communist Party USA theoretical journal Political Affairs on Oct. 4, 2005: “On Monday September 26 we participated in the peace movement lobby day at the capitol. We met with Rep Raul Grijalva who said he would work to help build our campaign.”

On July 13, 2006, Communist Party USA member Carolyn Trowbridge addressed 14 fellow black-shrouded members of the “peace” group “Raging Grannies” along with 40 supporters. Trowbridge’s speech was followed by “a reading of an antiwar speech” by Grijalva. They then marched to the late Sen. John McCain’s office to “deliver a petition on Iraq demanding an immediate end to the U.S. occupation, the closing of all U.S. military bases and the removal all U.S. mercenaries and corporate involvement,” according to People’s World.

Later that same year, on Nov. 7, Arizona voters became the first in the nation to reject a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. The campaign was led by activist group Arizona Together. Both Arizona state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema and Congressman Grijalva assisted the campaign.

According to Arizona Communist Party leader and Arizona Together activist Joe Bernick, who wrote it up in the People’s World:

“Why Arizona? How come voters in more liberal states have voted for similar hateful laws while conservative Arizona voted no?

“So how did we do it? The answer is: educating, organizing and mobilizing.

“As soon as proponents started circulating petitions to put 107 on the ballot, opponents brought out their own clipboards, signing up thousands of volunteers. Arizona Together emerged as the campaign committee, chaired by progressive state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema.

“Congressman Raul Grijalva appeared on radio ads calling Prop. 107 an attack on working families. The Grijalva campaign worked closely with Arizona Together, using its literature in their extensive door-to-door canvassing.”

Sinema, now the newly elected U.S. senator from Arizona, also has close ties to the Communist Party USA.

On March 29, 2003, Grijalva sponsored and addressed the Third Annual Cesar Chavez Day March and Rally for Peace.

The rally was organized by Tucson Communist Party member and high school teacher Ray Siqueiros, one of the most militant teachers in Tucson. In 2006, Siqueiros was involved in organizing a mass walk-out by Tucson high school students protesting proposed legislation that would classify illegal immigrants as felons. Some of the students waved Mexican flags.

In June 2015, Siqueiros received a Certificate of Special Congressional Recognition from Grijalva for “valuable service to the community.”

Border Security

In September 2015, the late Sen. John McCain from Arizona introduced legislation (S750) to exempt certain projects from environmental protection laws, in order to better enhance border security.

S750, if passed, “would exclude new surveillance installations and other border patrol activities from environmental protection laws. The bill would apply to federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S.–Mexico border in Arizona and parts of California,” according to People’s World.

Grijalva was apparently willing to work with the Communist Party USA to stop legislation designed to keep America’s borders secure.

Then the senior Democrat in the House’s Subcommittee on Public Lands and Environmental Regulations, Grijalva fought back against the proposal.

Grijalva spoke at a forum co-sponsored by the Communist Party USA-led Arizona Peace Council, and the Communist Party USA-run Salt of the Earth Labor College, saying he was “confident regarding the ability to defeat S750 provided people stay aware of it and speak out against it.”

According to People’s World, Grijalva said in part: It’s a two pronged agenda. … Part of the agenda … [is] to end any legislative hope … that we would end up with something semi-rational in terms of comprehensive immigration reform because this bill is about enforcement only—only enforcement. …

“The other agenda is about attacking bedrock environmental laws that have been on the books for 50, 40, 45 years. … It’s both about immigration and the environment and citizen accountability and participation in decision making.”

As today’s Communist Party USA is loyal to Cuba, China, and Venezuela, Grijalva was effectively attempting to aid and abet enemies of the Republic.

The Communist Party USA is the sworn enemy of American capitalism.

Houston Communist Party leader Bernard Sampson wrote only this past September: “We aren’t like other parties. We are a party dedicated to the overthrow of the capitalist class in this country.”

Yet Grijalva has worked with these people for more than 30 years. He is clearly fully on board with the Communist Party USA agenda.

Imagine the damage Grijalva will be able to do to America’s economy, environment, and national security as Chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources. Communist Party USA leaders must be rubbing their hands in revolutionary glee.

Americans likely do not realize that elected officials such as Grijalva are not required to undergo any form of background security check before serving on sensitive committees. If they were, Grijalva would certainly fail.

America’s enemies are aware of this loophole and are using it to their advantage.

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch

President Trump’s Unparalleled Achievements

  • Almost 4 million jobs created since election.
  • More Americans are now employed than ever recorded before in our history.
  • We have created more than 400,000 manufacturing jobs since my election.
  • Manufacturing jobs growing at the fastest rate in more than THREE DECADES.
  • Economic growth last quarter hit 4.2 percent.
  • New unemployment claims recently hit a 49-year low.
  • Median household income has hit highest level ever recorded.
  • African-American unemployment has recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
  • Hispanic-American unemployment is at the lowest rate ever recorded.
  • Asian-American unemployment recently achieved the lowest rate ever recorded.
  • Women’s unemployment recently reached the lowest rate in 65 years.
  • Youth unemployment has recently hit the lowest rate in nearly half a century.
  • Lowest unemployment rate ever recorded for Americans without a high school diploma.
  • Under my Administration, veterans’ unemployment recently reached its lowest rate in nearly 20 years.
  • Almost 3.9 million Americans have been lifted off food stamps since the election.
  • The Pledge to America’s Workers has resulted in employers committing to train more than 4 million Americans. We are committed to VOCATIONAL education.
  • 95 percent of U.S. manufacturers are optimistic about the future—the highest ever.
  • Retail sales surged last month, up another 6 percent over last year.
  • Signed the biggest package of tax cuts and reforms in history. After tax cuts, over $300 billion poured back in to the U.S. in the first quarter alone.
  • As a result of our tax bill, small businesses will have the lowest top marginal tax rate in more than 80 years.
  • Helped win U.S. bid for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles.
  • Helped win U.S.-Mexico-Canada’s united bid for 2026 World Cup.
  • Opened ANWR and approved Keystone XL and Dakota Access Pipelines.
  • Record number of regulations eliminated.
  • Enacted regulatory relief for community banks and credit unions.
  • Obamacare individual mandate penalty GONE.
  • My Administration is providing more affordable healthcare options for Americans through association health plans and short-term duration plans.
  • Last month, the FDA approved more affordable generic drugs than ever before in history. And thanks to our efforts, many drug companies are freezing or reversing planned price increases.
  • We reformed the Medicare program to stop hospitals from overcharging low-income seniors on their drugs—saving seniors hundreds of millions of dollars this year alone.
  • Signed Right-To-Try legislation.
  • Secured $6 billion in NEW funding to fight the opioid epidemic.
  • We have reduced high-dose opioid prescriptions by 16 percent during my first year in office.
  • Signed VA Choice Act and VA Accountability Act, expanded VA telehealth services, walk-in-clinics, and same-day urgent primary and mental health care.
  • Increased our coal exports by 60 percent; U.S. oil production recently reached all-time high.
  • United States is a net natural gas exporter for the first time since 1957.
  • Withdrew the United States from the job-killing Paris Climate Accord.
  • Cancelled the illegal, anti-coal, so-called Clean Power Plan.
  • Secured record $700 billion in military funding; $716 billion next year.
  • NATO allies are spending $69 billion more on defense since 2016.
  • Process has begun to make the Space Force the 6th branch of the Armed Forces.
  • Confirmed more circuit court judges than any other new administration.
  • Confirmed Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch and nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
  • Withdrew from the horrible, one-sided Iran Deal.
  • Moved U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
  • Protecting Americans from terrorists with the Travel Ban, upheld by Supreme Court.
  • Issued Executive Order to keep open Guantanamo Bay.
  • Concluded a historic U.S.-Mexico Trade Deal to replace NAFTA. And negotiations with Canada are underway as we speak.
  • Reached a breakthrough agreement with the E.U. to increase U.S. exports.
  • Imposed tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum to protect our national security.
  • Imposed tariffs on China in response to China’s forced technology transfer, intellectual property theft, and their chronically abusive trade practices.
  • Net exports are on track to increase by $59 billion this year.
  • Improved vetting and screening for refugees, and switched focus to overseas resettlement.
  • We have begun BUILDING THE WALL. Republicans want STRONG BORDERS and NO CRIME. Democrats want OPEN BORDERS which equals MASSIVE CRIME, including drug smuggling and human trafficking.

Unprecedented Judicial Nominations

In his first three years in office, Trump had successfully appointed a record 50 judges to the U.S. circuit courts of appeals. For comparison purposes, by the same point in their first terms, President Obama had appointed just 19 and President Bush 26.

With the cooperation of the Republican Senate, Trump also pushed the judges through far faster than his predecessors. After three years in office, Trump had already set a modern record for the appointment of appeals court judges.

Trump’s judicial juggernaut could not have succeeded without the cooperation of a Republican Senate majority. Mitch McConnell not only held open the Scalia seat in Obama’s last year and eliminated the Senate filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, but he also made the confirmation of appellate judges a Senate priority.

By the end of three years in office, Trump and McConnell had confirmed enough federal appeals judges to ensure that Republican presidents had appointed a bare majority of all federal appeals judges in the nation.

The 11th Circuit has 12 judges, seven of whom were appointed by Republican presidents after Lagoa’s confirmation on Wednesday. That count now includes five Trump appointees.

“This success – along with the record number of federal appellate judges President Trump has appointed to date – is a testament to the tangible impact the president has had in reshaping the federal judiciary with constitutionalist judges who are committed to the rule of law,” Carrie Severino, the chief counsel and policy director at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said in a tweet about Lagoa’s confirmation.

Trump has now named 10 judges to the 9th Circuit — more than one-third of its active judges — compared with seven appointed by President Obama over eight years.

“Trump has effectively flipped the circuit,” said 9th Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith Jr., an appointee of President George W. Bush.

If Trump were to win reelection, he would probably succeed in flipping most, if not all, appellate courts to conservative control.

Trump’s success with judicial appointments came about through the normal constitutional process. He may have chosen younger, more conservative judges. But here he followed closely the example set by President Reagan.

Reagan and Trump have been the two greatest American presidents in the past century-plus.

ARE YOU A DEMOCRAT OR A CHRISTIAN?

DEMOCRAT CHRISTIAN
2012 DNC Convention voice vote preference to leave “God” out of platform Matthew 10:32-33 — Therefore everyone who confesses Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever denies Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
You have a legal right to kill your unborn child. You have an obligation to fund Planned Parenthood with your tax dollars. You have an obligation to fund abortion with your tax dollars, and will be punished if you refuse. Jeremiah 1:4-5 — The word of the Lord came to me, saying, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”

Genesis 1:26-27 — Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

Genesis 9: 5-6 — And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.

Proverbs 6: 16-19 — There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
Deuteronomy 5:17 — You shall not murder.

Deuteronomy 30:19 — This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live

You have a legal right to marry a person of the same gender. Government should pay for sex changes. Children should experiment sexually. Genesis 5:2 — He created them male and female and blessed them. And he named them “Mankind”[a] when they were created.

Matthew 19:5 — For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

Your rights come from government. Galatians 5:1 — It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
Animals and the earth are of greater value than human beings. Genesis 1:26 — Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
Man, animals, birds and plants evolved from a lower order, by accident. Genesis 1:21 — So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

Genesis 1:25 — God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Human beings make their own morality. Romans 1:22 — Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools

Jeremiah 10:14 — Everyone is senseless and without knowledge; every goldsmith is shamed by his idols. The images he makes are a fraud; they have no breath in them.

You are not encouraged to work. 2 Thessalonians 3:10 — For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”

But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve … But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15

Dark Money

By The Goldwater Institute

The proponents of mandatory reporting of private civic activities have won a major marketing victory by the widespread use of the phrase, “dark money.”  As one commentator put it, “Dark money.  The name itself carries ominous undertones, undertones that critics of this relatively new campaign-finance phenomenon claim reflect a genuine threat to democracy.”[x]  But the term is misleading.  “Dark money” would be more aptly referred to by what those who find free speech objectionable actually support – mandated government disclosure.  The use of such terms is intended to cast suspicion on those who contribute to various civic causes so the debate revolves around ad hominem attacks rather than engaging on the issues.

So, what is “dark money”?  It conjures images of shady political operatives greasing the palms of politicians in dark, smoked-filled rooms.  But does it also apply to traditional political activities, like you and your neighbor contributing your time and money to civic and social activities that you support?  And is it really a threat to democracy, or are those who seek to silence the voice of opposition and limit speech the real threats?

“Dark money” generally refers to funds spent for political activities by businesses, unions, nonprofit organizations, and individuals who are not required by law to disclose the identities of their donors.  Depending on where supporters of government disclosure draw the inherently arbitrary line, dark money could refer to donations made to the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”) or to your local church or soup kitchen.

As a general matter, all spending that calls for the election or defeat of a political candidate or constitutes “electioneering communications” involves some level of disclosure to the government.  In fact, there are more disclosure obligations on the books today than at any other time in our nation’s history.[xi]  Nevertheless, some supporters of government disclosure claim that current laws do not go far enough.  They assert that certain charitable and social welfare organizations, including those organized under § 501(c) of the federal tax code, should be forced to disclose the identities of their individual donors when those organizations engage in political activity, even if that is not their primary function.[xii]

Those calling for the elimination of “dark money” are thus attempting to dramatically extend the reach of government-mandated disclosure to a wide variety of organizations, activities, and communications.

Advocates for expanded disclosure call for such dramatic and far-reaching regulations despite the fact that “dark money” is not a pervasive element in American politics. Some government disclosure advocates claim that so-called “dark money” expenditures constitute a significant portion of political spending in the United States.[xiii]  But the characterization is inaccurate.  In the 2014 election cycle, the Federal Elections Commission reported approximately $5.9 billion in total spending on federal elections.[xiv]  Of that $5.9 billion, roughly $173 million came from groups that are not required by law to disclose donors.[xv]  This represents a mere 2.9 percent of all spending on federal elections – hardly a significant portion.  In fact, this figure represents a decline from the 2012 election cycle, where such expenditures amounted to 4.4 percent of spending on federal races.[xvi]  As the Center for Competitive Politics observed from the 2012 election cycle, “Nearly all of the organizations that financed such independent expenditures . . . were well-known entities, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the League of Conservation Voters, the National Rifle Association, Planned Parenthood, the National Association of Realtors, the National Federation of Independent Business, NARAL Pro-Choice America, and the Humane Society.”[xvii]  As a result, there is no secret as to what causes and issues such groups support.

Under existing campaign finance laws, the identities of these groups must be revealed when making direct contributions to candidates or political parties or engaging in other electioneering communications.  Additionally, donor identities must be disclosed when they specifically earmark their donations to nonprofit organizations to be used for electioneering communications.  Those types of donations can hardly be characterized as “dark money” in need of further regulation when under existing disclosure rules, anyone can see that the NRA contributed to Candidate X and Planned Parenthood contributed to Candidate Y.  The positions of those organizations are well known.  Characterizing those expenditures as “dark money” is, therefore, disingenuous.  But forcing further disclosure of donor identities is at best unnecessary, as donors may contribute to organizations to support the overall mission rather than any specific political candidate.  Their donations are intended to support certain issues, not politicians.

Claims that “dark money” is distorting American politics are even more tenuous when leveled at 501(c)(3)s, considering these nonprofit organizations are prohibited from participating in any partisan political activity.

Overruling the Courts: How We End the Reign of Liberal Judges in 2016

By Andrew Thomas, former Maricopa County Attorney 

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on same-sex marriage confirms, once again, that conservative efforts to end liberal judicial activism on major issues have failed. On matters that determine our quality of life and culture-immigration, criminal justice, abortion, marriage-the left enjoys clear mastery of the courts, and has for the last fifty years. To end this tyranny, Congress must use its power under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over these issues. This will allow the states and the people to decide these matters, restoring self-government on the issues that matter most.

For the past half century, conservative political leaders have vowed to combat liberal judicial activism. These efforts, quite simply, have failed. Unelected liberal judges now effectively run America, making every ultimate policy decision-often in defiance of the will of the people.

Unchecked liberal court rulings have subverted the Constitution, wreaking havoc on our national sovereignty and such bedrock institutions as the family and religious freedom. On the issues that determine our quality of life and culture-immigration, criminal justice, abortion, marriage-the left enjoys clear mastery of the courts and is seeking to mop up and fully implement their social agenda. Except for occasional “crumbs from the master’s table,” conservatives no longer can win in court on the issues that matter most.

To reverse this destructive trend and restore self-government, two things must happen. First, Congress must use its power under Article III, section 2 of the Constitution to remove jurisdiction from the federal courts over these issues. Second, conservative leaders and organizations must work together and insist that candidates for president and Congress in 2016 take a clear position on whether they support stripping the federal courts of this jurisdiction. Otherwise, candidates will continue to mislead conservative voters with often self-serving promises and tactics that, for a half century, have failed to turn the tide.

These jurisdiction-stripping measures would ensure, at a minimum, certain states can become “Faith and Family Networks.” There, people of faith may live in relative freedom from harassment until the courts and other institutions can be properly reformed.

An American Tyranny: Why Our Government Is Election-Proof

Starting in the 1960s, liberal activists took over the federal courts and used them to assault and fundamentally change American society. Under the leadership of former California politician Earl Warren, the U.S. Supreme Court imposed on the nation sweeping liberal policies that lacked popular support. To accomplish this, the high court claimed it had discovered new constitutional “rights.” These “rights” were conferred on individuals hostile to the rule of law and traditional American values. They included criminals and prison inmates, illegal immigrants, flag-burners, and a motley group of liberal provocateurs at war with the social conventions that had protected civilization for millennia.

Converting the Supreme Court into what Justice Hugo Black called a “day-to-day constitutional convention,” activist justices remade the nation. They threw out state laws designed to stop illegal immigration, administer capital punishment, significantly limit or ban abortion, defend marriage, honor religious faith through governmental action, and protect the innocence of children from unrestrained “freedom of expression” in the mass media. These activist rulings, to paraphrase Justice Antonin Scalia, rewrote the “Constitution for a country I do not recognize.”

For example, thanks to federal court rulings, convicted murderers are allowed decades to appeal their sentences through state and, afterwards, federal courts. These delays effectively nullify capital punishment, which the American people support. The Supreme Court has invalidated state laws allowing juries to impose capital punishment on heinous criminals who, for example, rape children. Today, the death penalty is carried out only at the whim of judges, and is no longer an effective deterrent to murder or other grave crimes.

Likewise, the federal courts have knocked down state laws addressing the ongoing influx of illegal immigrants. Activist judges have overturned legislation which made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to enter a state. Other state laws targeting illegal immigration have met the same demise. This has happened even though the Framers of the Constitution expressly reserved for the states broad police powers allowing them to pass and enforce such laws-laws which defend the rule of law and basic American sovereignty.

Unelected federal judges, not elected officials, now have the final say on every national policy issue. This has made our government election-proof. Voting for president or members of Congress means little if federal judges, not elected officials, make the ultimate decisions on all public policies. As power has shifted to the federal courts, elections have become increasingly meaningless. Voter distrust of government has soared.

Moreover, the judiciary has become a firm bastion of liberalism. The courts have given America, for the past fifty years, a steady series of now-entrenched liberal court rulings. These have shattered the nation’s traditions, quality of life and culture. The courts steadfastly refuse to overturn these rulings. Except for occasional and very marginal victories, it is no longer possible for conservatives to win in court on the issues that matter most.

A Half Century of Failure

How did activist liberal judges accomplish this? Those who should have fought back against them did not. Failing to mount a successful counterattack were a succession of presidents and members of Congress-in particular, as a practical matter, the leaders of America’s conservative party, the Republican Party. Many of these leaders tried and meant well. Most, however, shunned the fight out of political self-interest. To avoid controversy and attacks from the liberal media and other allies of liberal judges, these leaders sacrificed the Constitution and self- government.

Misleading Campaign Promises and Ineffective Tactics

Every election cycle, Americans witness a disingenuous ritual. Republican candidates promise to fight the most recent batch of liberal court rulings with tactics proven, over the last fifty years, to be completely ineffective. The first stock promise: seeking to amend the Constitution. This is a political cop-out. The Framers deliberately made amending the Constitution an extremely difficult and unlikely process. This makes pledging to amend the Constitution a dodge, a high- sounding way to avoid seriously addressing activist court rulings.

Equally slippery is the second standard promise: passing more laws to challenge the offending rulings. New conservative laws, conservatives are told, will set up more cases and, eventually, victories in court. These laws are then litigated for many years, often a decade or longer. Any eventual gains from these cases are tardy and trifling. By then a whole new generation of Congressmen are in office, ready to try the same tactic before an often-forgetful conservative electorate. This political promise, in short, is the hackneyed political equivalent of Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown again and again.

Despite decades of litigation, the core liberal court rulings remain untouched. For fifty years, federal judges have not reversed a single, major liberal precedent on a cultural issue. Conservative gains in court have been rare and extremely modest, while the left and its social agenda romp virtually unchallenged through the nation’s courthouses. Trumpeting these tiny and infrequent conservative “victories” are lawyers who earn income from these cases and allied politicians; their public declarations of victory often mislead conservatives into thinking they are winning the nation’s cultural battles when, in fact, they are being routed.

Finally, GOP presidential candidates offer the quadrennial chestnut of promising to appoint “strict-constructionist judges.” This tactic also has failed. The left makes confirmation of such candidates for judgeships a horrific and doubtful enterprise. Prospective judges who are honest and open enough to articulate right-of-center views prior to nomination are crucified by liberal media elites and pressure groups during the confirmation process. The savaging of the late Judge Robert Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas were clarion events in this regard. Indeed, the left knows how and when to fight: Had Bork been confirmed instead of his replacement, Anthony Kennedy, America would be a very different country today.

Regardless, it is hard even to find potential conservative judges, no matter how diligently a president searches for them. Lawyers are overwhelmingly liberal. For this reason, the number of conservatives in this pool of potential judges is very small. Even when they can be found, attorneys with seemingly conservative credentials frequently “flip” after donning a black robe. To do otherwise requires them to withstand tremendous professional and personal pressures and enticement from liberal legal insiders, the media and fellow judges. Few are strong enough to do so.

“The Liberal Courts”

What Judge Robert Bork foresaw as the “political seduction of the law,” in a landmark book published when Barack Obama was a law student, has materialized. The left has thoroughly politicized the law and the courts. Conservatives cannot win there on the issues that matter most. Conservative leaders and voters must acknowledge this reality and act accordingly.

How did the left capture the courts? This takeover was inevitable once liberal activists took over academia. To be a lawyer, one must complete seven years of higher education, receiving both a bachelor’s degree and a juris doctor. This means undergoing seven years of indoctrination by committed liberal professors. Thirty years ago, the late Allan Bloom warned about the damaging effects of liberal bias in higher education. But this was a thorny problem to solve, and so it was ignored. Now, it has changed the country.

Liberal indoctrination in American higher education is well documented. Some 72 percent of college professors describe themselves as liberal. Only 15 percent call themselves conservative. Not surprisingly, a 2010 analysis by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute concluded that the more college degrees a person earns, the more liberal that person becomes. When Americans are asked, for instance, whether they believe public-school teachers should be allowed to lead a prayer in school, 57 percent of high-school graduates say yes. That number drops to 40 percent for college graduates, 30 percent for master’s degree holders, and only 17 percent for Ph.D.’s.

This dynamic is particularly stark in law school. Those who dissent from liberal positions during class discussions literally are hissed at and ridiculed. Professors tolerate and sometimes encourage this environment. The message is delivered. Few who graduate from law school are conservative.

The American Bar Association and other bar associations reflect and enforce these biases. Indeed, an attorney who publicly calls the judiciary politicized or liberal risks disbarment; ethical rules charge bar associations with targeting attorneys who, in their judgment, unfairly challenge the “integrity of the judiciary.” Lawyers who speak out also face professional ostracism and retaliation in more obvious ways, as the courts control the outcome of their cases and their livelihoods.

In short, conservatives must view the courts as they do the media. Both institutions have become firmly liberal. Occasional “crumbs” from either institution do not alter this reality. Conservatives should use the phrase “liberal courts” as frequently and reliably as they say “liberal media,” for the terms are equally true.

Indeed, there is an incestuous relationship between the liberal courts and the liberal media. Through generous rulings, the courts have all but shielded the media from libel suits. The media reciprocate by giving the courts “air cover,” reflexively defending them from conservative critiques by pounding those who dare articulate them. Hollywood benefits financially from liberal court rulings, and so leaders of the motion-picture industry do their part, as well. Movie producers uniformly offer films that depict judges as wise, fair and benevolent.

Reclaiming Self-Government

Congress has the power to end this tragic and ruinous state of affairs. That power resides in Article III of the Constitution.

Article III of the Constitution specifies that the U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only over disputes between states and cases in which foreign diplomats are a party. On any other issue, Congress can limit or eliminate entirely the jurisdiction of the high court and the other federal courts. In other words, the people’s elected representatives in Congress can roll back judicial abuses through a simple majority vote of both houses.

Article III, section 2 provides the Supreme Court “shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.” This language expressly allows Congress to withdraw jurisdiction from the federal courts to uphold the will of the people.

Congress has done this in the past, though not on the controversial cultural issues where action is urgently needed today. The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld past congressional restrictions of its jurisdiction. Indeed, the language of Article III is so clear and unambiguous that the high court has been obliged to concede such limitations despite its obvious conflict of interest in allowing its own powers to be curbed.

In a string of rulings going back to right after the Civil War, the high court has acknowledged Congress holds this power under Article III. One justice recognizing this constitutional reality was Chief Justice John Marshall, whose opinions first asserted the Supreme Court’s right to strike down laws it deemed unconstitutional. Marshall observed that all federal judicial powers “are limited and regulated” by Congress.

In the Federalist Papers, written to persuade the earliest Americans to adopt the new Constitution, Alexander Hamilton echoed this understanding. He stated the courts were designed to be the “least dangerous” and “weakest” branch of government. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court would be “confined to two classes, and those of a nature rarely to occur.” Likewise, federal appellate jurisdiction would exist only “with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make” (Hamilton’s emphasis). There would never be a “superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power,” meaning the courts could not overrule Congress and the people. Indeed, Hamilton noted Congress could impeach activist judges who engaged in “deliberate usurpation on the authority of the legislature.” Leading legal scholars and other observers have quoted Hamilton and other Framers in upholding Congress’s power to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

Congress should restrict jurisdiction in those areas of public policy where federal judges have engaged in repeated, substantial abuses of power to thwart the will of the people. Specifically, Congress should pass an act restricting federal-court jurisdiction so that henceforth, each state may:

  • Make it a crime, prosecutable under state law, for an illegal immigrant to enter the state;
  • Ban same-sex marriages and protect related religious freedom;
  • Allow juries to impose the death penalty on criminals as determined by state law, and impose a two-year time limit for federal courts to rule on federal appeals of state capital cases; and
  • Fully regulate or end abortion as the people of the state or their elected representatives deem fit.

This “Empower the States Act” will restore to the states and the people their rightful authority to govern themselves on key areas of public policy.

Returning these matters to the states is not a perfect solution. Because of the deep intellectual rot in the judiciary, many state courts are liberal. Yet state judges are closer to the people and more accountable because many are elected. Also, many state constitutions have a right of referendum, allowing the people to vote directly on these matters.

Conclusion: Empowering the States

In 2016, conservative voters cannot settle for the same evasions and self-serving rhetoric offered by presidential and congressional candidates for the past half century. They must insist that candidates agree explicitly that if elected, they will act to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over these matters and end the reign of liberal judges. Fifty years of failure have proven nothing else will work.

To force candidates to address these issues forthrightly, conservative leaders, activists and voters must be dogged and focused. Republican politicians in particular routinely court conservative voters and rely upon them at election time, but try to avoid tackling these issues. They want to be spared the “air war” that erupts in the liberal media when conservative elected officials address a major social issue. As a result, Republican leaders typically settle for what former House Speaker Newt Gingrich memorably called “managing the decline” of the nation. This is a generous and artful way of accusing such leaders of political cowardice and dereliction of duty, terms that are just as true and fair.

Conservatives must demand more. The hour is very late.

The “Empower the States Act” will create “Faith and Family Networks,” states and clusters of like-minded states where people of faith can live without harassment. This is a realistic stopgap measure to protect these basic liberties until the courts and other institutions can be properly reformed.

To achieve this, conservatives cannot allow candidates to change the subject, talking instead of such easy and shopworn fare as cutting taxes or curbing the bureaucracy. Many news items compete for the voters’ attention. Yet the left shrewdly remains focused on controlling the courts because they know this is their source of ultimate power. In contrast, by losing such focus, conservatives have seen their civilization wrecked by liberal activist judges.

Only by pinning down candidates and holding them to their word on these issues can Americans realistically hope to end the left’s stranglehold on the courts. In the process, the electorate will have taken the surest path to a brighter national future.

Notes

Justice Black:  Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 85 S. Ct. 1678 (1965)(Black, J., dissenting).

Justice Scalia:  United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 116 S. Ct. 2264 (1996)(Scalia, J., dissenting).

Liberal court rulings:  E.g., Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)(disallowing state law barring illegal immigrants from entering state); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684 (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona,384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602 (1966) (expanding the rights of criminals and inmates); Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S. Ct. 705 (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S. Ct. 2791 (1992)(right to abortion); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560 (1963)(forbidding public schools from conducting prayer or Bible readings);Obergefell v. Hodges, Citation Pending (2015)(right to same-sex marriage).

Bork:  Robert H. Bork, The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law (New York: Free Press, 1990).

Bloom:  Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1987).

Liberal indoctrination in higher education:  Intercollegiate Studies Institute, “The Shaping of the American Mind,” February 2010.

Law school climate:  Andrew Peyton Thomas, The People v. Harvard Law: How America’s Oldest Law School Turned Its Back on Free Speech (San Francisco: Encounter, 2005), pp. 24-26.

Supreme Court and appellate rulings acknowledging Congress’ power to restrict  jurisdiction under Article III, Section 2:  Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 506 (1869)(1867 Act); Lauf v. E.G. Skinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938)(Norris-LaGuardia Act); Felker v. Turpin, 517 U.S. 651 (1996)(Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act)); Garcia v. Att’y Gen. of the United States, 329 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2003)(Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act); Napier v. Preslicka, 314 F.3d 528 (11th Cir. 2002)(Prison Litigation Reform Act).  In Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723, 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008), the Supreme Court, in a narrowly written decision, invalidated a federal restriction on its jurisdiction over enemy combatants held in Guantanamo, Cuba.

Chief Justice Marshall:  Durousseau v. United States, 10 U.S. (6 Crach.) 307 (1810).

Hamilton:  Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, Nos. 78 and 81 (available online athttp://constitution.org).

Intellectual support for jurisdiction-stripping measures:  E.g., Raoul Berger, Death Penalties: The Supreme Court’s Obstacle Course (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1982); R. Randall Bridwell and William J. Quirk,Judicial Dictatorship (Rutgers: Transaction, 1995); Patrick J. Buchanan, “Our Judicial Dictatorship,” Buchanan.org, October 10, 2014; Phyllis Schlafly, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How To Stop It(Dallas: Spence, 2004).

Appendix – Proposed Legislation

114th Congress

1st Session

H.R. ____________

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

A BILL

To amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over certain cases and controversies involving illegal immigration, marriage, capital punishment and abortion.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1.  SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the “Empower the States Act of 2015.”

SEC. 2.   LIMITATION ON JURISDICTION

(a)  In General – Chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

“Section 1632.  Limitation on jurisdiction

No court created by an Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, state laws that:  prohibit illegal aliens, as defined by Federal immigration laws, from entering a state; pertain to any type of marriage; determine what criminal conduct makes a criminal offender eligible for capital punishment; set a time limit, for a period of two years or more, for Federal appeal and review of state death-penalty cases; or regulate or prohibit abortion”.

(b) Conforming Amendment – The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 99 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

“1632.  Limitation on jurisdiction”.

 

 

 

 

Black Day in Arizona: One Judge Throws out 1.2 Million Votes for Marriage

Balderdash!

Tyranny!

The out of control, tyrannical, activist courts are … out of control, tyrannical and activist again!

Voters, you’ve been had!

U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick has thrown out all the 2008 votes that enacted a state constitutional marriage amendment recognizing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He ruled that a recent decision by the Ninth Circus appeals court to redefine marriage applies to Arizona.

This is un-American. Arizonans should be outraged!

There is no place in a court of law for activists like Judge Sedwick or any of the other judicial activists who have been destroying marriage in recent months by overturning the will of millions of Americans who defined marriage in fair and honest elections. These judges need to be impeached or voted out.

What will follow is blatant fascism by homosexual activists and their friends in the political party they’ve captured – the Democratic Party. Christians and non-Christians alike who define marriage as one man and one woman will be punished merely for disagreeing with same-sex “marriage” and special rights for people struggling with same-sex attraction and gender confusion.

We are already seeing this all across the country. And this is why the Arizona Legislature passed 1062 earlier this year to strengthen protections for Arizonans who don’t want to be forced to endorse behavior they disapprove of. Of course, we remember that homosexual pressure groups, along with their cowardly media friends running cover for them, intimidated the bejabbers out of Governor Jan Brewer and stampeded her into vetoing the bill.

With the latest activist antics in Judge Sedwick’s court, we can now expect people to lose their jobs over refusal to perform same-sex weddings. Photographers, florists, bakers, and others involved in wedding venues can now be severely punished and harassed by left-wing local and state office holders for not agreeing to endorse the message of same-sex marriage. It’s happened from the Atlantic coast to Hawaii. Why wouldn’t it happen here?

A run-away, out of control government will come down with all of its weight and fury on honest people following their consciences. Some will be fined and burdened by unconstitutional demands. Others will be forced out of business. They will receive hate mail, hateful phone calls, and threats. It will be a feeding frenzy for those on the radical Left.

You see, same-sex “marriage” and religious freedom cannot co-exist. Non-discrimination laws and radical left-wing dogma will over-rule the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Founding Fathers who wrote the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights means absolutely nothing to the Left.

This is a sad day in Arizona. A black day.

In November of 2008, a total of 1,258,355 Arizonans voted to enact marriage as one man and one woman in the state Constitution. A single man, a man with incredible hubris, threw that out. This is the America we live in today. It is not the America of James Madison and the Founders who penned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not by a long shot.

We are not alone. This is happening all over America. Tens of millions of voters have been disenfranchised.

And this is the cost of allowing the party of CONTROL, the Democrats, to pack the courts with Constitution-challenged activist judges.

All that’s left is for radical scavengers to clean up the scraps – demonizing anyone who disagrees. Take our word: persecution is coming, fascism will warp into high gear among Arizona’s hardcore leftists. You disagree with the homosexual agenda? Okay, consider yourself a target for the fascists.

A final word to Judge Sedwick and the other activists who have co-opted the courts and disenfranchised the people: when you come to a gate in the road, before removing it take time to consider why it was put there in the first place.

*  *  *

VITALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR CHURCHES AND PASTORS

It is crucial you update church policy on rental of church facilities to protect yourselves from litigation when someone asks you to officiate over a same-sex “wedding” or to rent church property for a same-sex “marriage.” Consult an attorney with expertise in religious freedom law. Don’t wait. Do it now!

VITALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR BUSINESSES

If you are asked to provide a service or a product for a same-sex “wedding,” and you are opposed to doing so on religious grounds, do not respond to the homosexuals’ request until first consulting an attorney. This will help you avoid a legal entanglement that could land you in hot water or potentially force you to go out of business. Don’t wait. Do it now!

It’s Ducey, Brnovich, Douglas, Reagan in GOP Primary

Doug Ducey has won the Arizona Republican primary race for governor. RINO Scott Smith is in second, with Christine Jones third, Ken Bennett fourth, Andy Thomas fifth and former congressman Frank Riggs sixth.

Mark Brnovich is ending scandal-ridden RINO Tom Horne’s reign as Arizona attorney general.

Diane Douglas ousted incumbent John Huppenthal for Superintendent for Public Instruction. Douglas ran on her opposition to Common Core education, which Huppenthal supported.

RINO Michele Reagan is winning the nomination for secretary of state. She will most likely lose in November to Democrat Terry Goddard.

Jeff DeWitt is heading for victory in the three-man primary race for state treasurer, with RINO Hugh Hallmann in second and former AZ GOP chairman Randy Pullen running third.

Wendy Rogers is leading Andrew Walter by about 5,000 votes in the GOP Congressional District 9 race.

Gary Kiehe is surprisingly leading in the GOP Congressional District 1 in a close race with Adam Kwasman and Andy Tobin.

Several incumbent congressmen ran unopposed.

In the Republican race for Arizona Corporation Commissioner, Tom Forese and Doug Little have secured nominations for November’s general election.

In a huge disappointment, Arizona-bashing Bob Worsley has defeated challenger Dr. Ralph Heap in the State Senate race for District 25.  

Additionally, John Giles won handily over conservative Danny Ray in the election for mayor in Mesa. Giles was backed by all the current councilmen — all of whom, incidentally, were identified as “friends” and “champions” of Big Government by Americans for Tax Prosperity.

During the summer campaign, The Arizona Conservative questioned the loyalty of many Republican candidates to GOP principles. Several of those candidates won or did well tonight, raising additional questions about Republican voters, as well. Do personalities and advertising tactics weigh more heavily with Republican voters, or do they observe GOP principle as their criteria for voting decisions? The answer is in, and the GOP platform was a big loser in here in Arizona this summer. And as we said previously, it hasn’t been tried and found wanting. For many of the candidates — particularly Smith, Hallmann, Reagan, Worsley, Horne, and others — it has not been tried. Obviously, conservatives have much to do to educate Republicans in this state, which appears to be drifting away from the conservative principles that made America great.

DEVELOPING …