Former Arizona Senator Carolyn Allen has died at the age of 78, after suffering many years from the scourge of rheumatoid arthritis.

The late senator was hailed as a heroine by the left-stream flag carrier for our state, The Arizona Republic, and leftists on both sides of the political aisle. Allen was praised for her support of the arts and for warring against conservatives.

Allen also deserves credit for helping Democrat Janet Napolitano defeat conservative Matt Salmon in the 2002 governor’s election. She helped suppress Republican support for Salmon in Scottsdale by criticizing him in public, and he lost by one percent of the vote. Napolitano, who spent Arizona into massive debt, over-performed among Republicans in Scottsdale and that made the difference in her election.

Planned Parenthood lost a great friend in Allen. In a state legislative biography booklet, she described herself as a “Planned Parenthood activist.”

Intolerant of her opponents, Allen once saw the executive director of Arizona Right to Life in the state Senate lobby and bluntly exclaimed, “I didn’t know they allowed crooks in here.”

Allen was also a friend of Big Government, amnesty and homosexual pressure groups. While she faithfully clung to her “Republican Party” affiliation, it was the GOP platform principles she distained.

Amid a long absence from the legislature due to illness, The Arizona Conservative expressed concern about her constituents being disenfranchised and called on Allen to resign and devote herself to getting well. She later sent an email to our editor threatening him with physical harm.

The former chairwoman of the GOP legislative district in Scottsdale exhorted Allen to train up current Secretary of State Michelle Reagan, then a state representative. But Reagan was already comfortably established in Planned Parenthood’s abortion camp.

Conservatives repeatedly tried to beat Allen at election time, but the liberals in Scottsdale kept re-electing her until she retired from public office.

Holt Carries Democrats’ Water in Debate I

By Tony Perkins

Last night was supposed to belong to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. But the biggest story of the first debate wasn’t the candidates answering the questions — it was the person asking them. In one of the most talked-about plots of the first head-to-head, moderator Lester Holt seemed intent on making the debate a three-person affair — injecting himself with almost as many challenges to Trump as the person officially opposing him. For most of the night, the Republican nominee was fending off not one — but two — attackers, repeatedly put on the defensive with topics that had nothing to do with the major issues facing America.

Meanwhile, the former Secretary of State, who’s probably spent as much time under investigation by Congress as she did as a Member of it, skated by virtually unscathed by Holt’s one-sided fact-checking. While he fiercely pressed Trump on his tax returns and concerns over President Obama’s birthplace, he couldn’t spare a single question on the corruption of the Clinton Foundation, her role in Benghazi, or the intentional deletion of tens of thousands of sensitive emails, or her outrageous “basket of deplorables” comment. Social media lit up with criticism for the NBC anchor, who many accused of shilling for the Clintons.

Holt’s bias is difficult to argue when you consider that he interrupted Trump 41 times demanding clarification — six times the amount he interrupted Clinton (seven). He “emerged as bruised and partisan,” The Hill argued. “Holt entered the evening largely respected as non-partisan. He [exits] as the toast of left-leaning media…” Part of the problem was Holt’s lack of focus. At a time when America is dealing with terror attacks on our own soil, a military in complete disarray, and a culture melting down before our very eyes, voters deserved to hear about more important things than Trump’s tax returns.

As for the actual substance of the debate, viewers were probably surprised to see a more restrained version of Donald Trump than they’re used to. Trump landed plenty of good jabs on America’s devastating trade and Iranian deals, but sidestepped some key opportunities to go on offense, especially when it came to Clinton’s email scandal — which made up a whopping 15 seconds of the hour and a half event. “I will release my tax returns — against my lawyer’s issues — when she releases her 33,000 emails that have been deleted,” he said. It was almost surreal, then, when the former Secretary of State tried to talk about the importance of cyber security — after committing one of the most dangerous breaches of it in U.S. history. “We are not going to sit idly by and permit state actors to go after our information, our private-sector information or our public-sector information,” Clinton had the audacity to declare, after risking countless lives with her own carelessness on top-secret emails.

The real estate mogul’s biggest payoff came in the first 30 minutes when he assumed complete control of the economic issues, hammering back on the Left’s prosperity-is-evil doctrine. Of course, the reason liberals hate personal success is because it makes people less reliant on the government they’re desperate to grow. Wisely, Trump refused to run from his success and instead embraced it as an example of what’s possible when Americans are left (unburdened by Washington) to pursue their own ingenuity. Clinton, meanwhile, was all but drowning in her disgust of the more fortunate, alienating plenty of voters along the way with her mockery of the trickle-down economics made famous by Ronald Reagan.

Like the ghost of former Democratic candidate Walter Mondale, she recycled old talking points about the ineffectiveness of the approach (which happened to produce three times as many net jobs as President Obama’s debt-funded “recovery”). Then she continued her party’s push to make government the unofficial police of income equality. That’s not only a terrible idea, but an unnecessary one, as author Arthur Brooks points out in his book Who Really Cares. Combing through piles of financial data, he found that the 30 percent of Americans who think the government should do little or nothing about economic inequality gave away, on average, four times more of their income than the 43 percent who said the government should do something. And the majority of those Americans are religious. Conservatives — the same ones who oppose this redistribution of wealth — are among the most generous people on earth. But contrary to Hillary Clinton, they call what they give to churches contributions, and what they give the government, taxes.

It was one of the many profound differences in philosophy on display last night. Another was the role of the judicial system. In a largely overlooked section of the debate, the Yale Law School graduate declared that the courts had struck down the Stop-and-Frisk program because it “did not do what it needed to do.” “Stop-and-frisk,” she insisted, “was found to be unconstitutional, in part, because it was ineffective.” As Secretary Clinton well knows, however, such a simplistic characterization of the law based on the specific circumstances in one case is not accurate; the procedure is perfectly legal in many situations. Secretary Clinton owes the American voter an honest assessment of the problems she attempts to describe – as these voters are already weary of activist judges of dishonest politicians.

By the end of the night, if voters wanted a clear contrast, they found it. In one candidate, they have a continuation of the last eight years. In the other, an agent of change who terrifies the Left. Let’s pray America chooses wisely. For more on the stark differences between the two candidates, check out FRC Action’s updated presidential voter guide, available here. For more on my reaction from inside the debate hall, make sure to follow me on Twitter @TPerkins



Phoenix Mayor Blinded by Dust Storm; Progressivism is Business Killer

Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton claims progressivism is the better plan for business. That’s what he actually told the Phoenix Business Journal.

It seems that ever since the last time a haboob passed through Phoenix area, the mayor’s vision and ability to reason have been severely clouded!

Obviously, the mayor has not been able to see the moving trucks coming in from California and heading for Texas. They’ve left the socialist state for a state that welcomes businesses and doesn’t overburden them with excessive taxation and regulation.

It is evident the mayor doesn’t know that where the minimum wage has been raised — to the lofty heights of $15 an hour in some locations — some have lost their jobs. Many small businesses cannot afford that exorbitant rate, which also means fewer part-time jobs are available.

Stanton also fails to acknowledge that America’s Socialist In Chief, B.H. Obama, has threatened to put out of business those who refuse to provide abortion coverage in their health insurance plans. Through his Obama abortion mandate, the prez would rather harm the business community and the economy, putting families out of work, raising money for Planned Parenthood. He’d rather stand in the way of small businesses, religious colleges and faith-based organizations than allow the economy and the business market to thrive. That’s astounding, mayor.

Progressives have long been strangling businesses in red tape, over-regulation and interference with their ability to survive. This is why we hear about American workers forced to train foreigners to take their jobs and why we lose business to other nations. Think Government Motors moving auto plants to Mexico — where Mexicans gain employment and Americans lose employment.

Progressivism is socialism, which means Big Government, small citizen, small private business.

Obama actually once told businesses, “Now is not the time for profits.” But that’s not surprising for a socialist progressive who prefers that government keep its all-powerful thumb on business.

And that leads us right to unions. Progressives reap huge campaign contributions from unions because they are downright anti-business.

Progressives are also bullish on illegal aliens — future Democratic voters and underminers of the American worker.

Furthermore, progressivism has damaged our public education system for decades, eroding America’s ability to train the workers we need for an efficient business climate and economy. Foreign nationals are getting engineering and doctor’s jobs here because the schools are not preparing enough Americans for those high-paying jobs.

So, bottom line, Mayor Stanton: stop dreaming and stop lying. Clear out your vision and admit the truth. Progressivism is a detriment to business. Conservatism, capitalism create the optimal business climate and represent the best interests of the American worker and the families they feed.

Remember this as election time nears and as you vote. Vote smart. Vote against progressivism, which is the perfect recipe for economic and business failure. Remember also: it was progressive socialists who forced the housing market fiasco that cost many a good American his/her retirement.

Meet a Liberal Fascist: Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is the leading member of a generational cohort of elite liberals who brought fascist themes into mainstream liberalism. She and her cohort embody the maternal side of fascism—which is one reason why it is not more clearly recognized as such.

Hillary Clinton is conventionally viewed by her supporters as a liberal—or by conservative opponents as a radical leftist in liberal sheep’s clothing; but it is more accurate to view her as an old-style progressive and a direct descendant of the Social Gospel movement of the 1920s and 1930s.

Hillary increasingly draped herself in the rhetoric of the movement—the youth movement, the women’s movement, the antiwar movement—and gravitated toward others who believed that both her generation and her gender had a rendezvous with destiny.

After graduation from college, Hillary was offered an internship by her hero Saul Alinsky—famed author of Rules for Radicals—about whom she wrote her thesis: “There is Only the Fight: An Analysis of the Alinsky Model.” In an unprecedented move, Wellesley College sequestered the thesis in 1992, even refusing to divulge the title until the Clintons left the White House.

Alinsky would invent his famous “method” of community organizing, borrowing tactics from Al Capone’s mobsters, University of Chicago sociologists and John L. Lewis’s union organizers. His violent, confrontational rhetoric often sounded much like that heard from Horst Wessel or his Red Shirt adversaries in the streets of Berlin. Alinsky joined forces with the CIO—then chockablock with Stalinists and other communists—learning how to organize in the streets. In 1940, he founded the Industrial Areas Foundation, which pioneered the community activism movement. He became the mentor to countless communist activists—most famously Cesar Chavez—laying the foundation for both Naderism and the Students for a Democratic Society.

Alinsky believed in exploiting middle-class mores to achieve his agenda, not flouting them as the long-haired hippies did. Alinsky believed that working through friendly or vulnerable institutions in order to smash enemy redoubts was the essence of political organization. He worked closely with reformist and left-leaning clergy, his chief patrons. He mastered the art of unleashing preachers as the frontline activists in his mission of “rubbing raw the sores of discontent.”

Alinsky’s methods inspired the entire 1960s generation of New Left agitators (Barack Obama, for years a Chicago community organizer, was trained by Alinsky’s disciples).

Hillary turned down Alinsky’s job offer in order to attend Yale Law School. He told her it was a huge mistake, but Hillary responded that only by marching through America’s elite institutions could she achieve real power and change the system from within. Hillary helped edit the Yale Review of Law and Social Action, which at the time was a thoroughly radical organ supporting the Black Panthers and publishing articles implicitly endorsing the murder of police. One article, “Jamestown Seventy,” suggested that radicals adopt a program of “political migration to a single state for the purpose of gaining political control and establishing a living laboratory for experiment.” An infamous Review cover depicted police as pigs, one with his head chopped off.

Hillary volunteered to help the Panthers’ legal team, even attending the trial to take notes to help with the defense. She did such a good job of organizing the student volunteers that she was offered a summer internship in the Berkeley, California law offices of Robert Treuhaft, one of Bobby Seale’s lawyers. Treuhaft was a lifetime member of the American Communist Party who had cut his teeth fighting for the Stalinist faction in the California labor movement.

The most revealing aspect of Hillary’s career prior to her arrival in Washington was her advocacy for children. Clinton wrote articles advocating the rights of children to “divorce” their parents. Hillary Clinton’s writings on children show a clear, unapologetic and principled desire to insert the state deep into family life—a goal that is in perfect accord with similar efforts by totalitarians of the past. She condones the state’s assumption of parental responsibilities because she is opposed to the principle of parental authority in any form. Clinton’s writings leave the unmistakable impression that it is the family that holds children back, the state that sets them free.

Selections from “Liberal Fascism,” by Jonah Goldberg (Brave New Village chapter)

Declaring Sage Grouse Endangered Species Raises Concerns in Arizona

Big Government calling again. Now it wants to list sage grouse as an endangered species, restricting access to 167 million acres of land. Arizonans are rightly concerned because it could have a huge, detrimental impact on our state. Some of them visited our congressional delegation in Washington, D.C. Here’s the story in the Mogollon Rim News, by Cindy Sietz-Krug; it’s a worthy read.


And if the Republican Nominee Can’t Win Arizona …

A polling firm known as OH Predictive Insights has Mrs. Bill Clinton leading Donald Trump in Arizona, 46.6 percent to 42.2 percent. The poll was taken June 20.

It’s still early, yes, but Democrats usually never lead in Arizona presidential polls.

And if the Republican doesn’t win Arizona, he has absolutely no chance to win the November election.

The poll surveyed 1,060 likely voters based on a projection of the November turnout.

Breaking down this poll,  Trump is leading by six points in rural Arizona — which is not a good indicator.

Mrs. Bill Clinton, an ardent socialist advocating for over-control of the American individual, family and private business, has a whopping 17-point lead in Pima County, and that’s no surprise because it’s dominated politically by leftists.

Another bad indicator for Trump is a tie in Maricopa County, the county where Republican candidates can usually count on running up the score and overcoming deficits elsewhere in the state.

Women in Arizona gave Mrs. Bill Clinton a 12-point edge, despite her history of looking the other way while her husband used and abused women and her state department underpaying women.

OH Predictive Insights is a subsidiary of Owens Harkey Advertising. It’s located in Phoenix.



Mrs. Bill Clinton: ‘We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good’

Now that Mrs. Bill Clinton has wrapped up the Democrat Party nomination for the presidential election, it’s time to examine her past and who she really is:

As U.S. Senator from New York, Mrs. Bill Clinton’s chief accomplishment was winning a debate against her Republican election opponent.

As secretary of state, she intentionally lied when she insisted America’s consulate in Benghazi was attacked because of a Youtube video that was critical of Islam.

Mrs. Clinton is currently under investigation for using a private server to store classified government documents.

Also, Clinton is a member of the “National Organization for Women Who Approve of Elected Male Officials Who Have Abused Women but Support Abortion Rights.”

Clinton supports Planned Parenthood, which is on defense in several courts for refusing to protect under-age girls from rapists, under investigation for defrauding the government of millions of dollars and under investigation for illegally selling baby body parts. She says abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

She said the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom is a slippery slope for women – even though the nation has no history of forcing employers to violate their consciences and provide abortion drugs.

Fought in 1993 for the U.S. to fast-track government approval of RU-486, a dangerous drug which has killed several women and girls and caused complications for many more.

She supported the grisly, barbaric practice of partial-birth infanticide.

She supposedly supports women’s rights, but paid her women staffers at the Department of State less than men.

She is a big fan of the late Saul Alinsky and practices his Rules for Radicals – the book he dedicated to Lucifer — in all of her political activities. He invited her to work for him as a community agitator. Clinton says she believes in tactics over principles.

As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton attempted – in secret meetings — to force socialism and government medical insurance on the nation, but failed.

She made up lies to try to justify the firing of White House Travel Bureau employees, allegations which were proven false.

She said the unborn have no rights.

Mrs. Clinton enabled her husband’s rampant womanizing by trashing the women who were used and abused by himd – rather than sympathizing with them and acknowledging  a very serious problem.

Clinton wanted the U.S. to apologize for slavery.

She supported the Defense of Marriage Act, then said she “evolved” on same-sex marriage.

Also, she supports “hate” crimes laws. Even though all crimes are commited with contempt for the victim.

She wrote an op-ed claiming Common Core was recycled Clinton policy from the 1980s and 1990s. She opposes school vouchers.

Clinton believes in so-called manmade “global warming” and supports the Kyoto Treaty and cap and trade policy.

Plagiarized the title of the book “It Takes a Village.” Author Jonah Goldberg said of the book: “No more thorough explication of the liberal fascist agenda can be found than in Hillary Clinton’s best-selling book, “It Takes a Village.” All the hallmarks of the fascist enterprise reside within its pages.” Clinton learned from Marian Wright Edelman how to use children as propaganda tools for her ideological agenda: childhood is a crisis, and the government must come to the rescue. “I cannot say enough in support of home visits,” Clinton said.

Big government advocate.

Clinton said Wall Street donates to me because I rebuilt them after 9/11.

She voted against voter ID, though the Democrats require photo ID to attend their national conventions.

Clinton wants tough gun control and says gun manufacturers should be subject to lawsuits (for individuals’ behavior).

She says that because she is a woman she is a political outsider.

If elected president, Mrs. Clinton says Bill Clinton will advise her and represent the U.S. abroad.

She considers herself a member of the “Christian Left.” It’s a religion whose “god” is government.

She voted against the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Clinton is proud of the controversial nuclear agreement with Iran in which the U.S. got taken for a ride.

As a U.S. Senator, Mrs. Clinton delivered a half-billion dollars in earmarks to 59 corporations. Then 64 percent of those corporations donated to her campaign.

She said she flew into Bosnia in 1996 and ran through sniper fire on the ground. Video showed a calm, peaceful deplaning, and Clinton later called the lie a “minor blip.”

The Clinton Foundation has accepted millions of dollars in exchange for political favors by Hillary and Bill Clinton, and it is still happening today. The Clintons have accepted illegal campaign cash from convicted criminals like Mauricio Celis, of Mexico, and Norman Hsu, of Hong Kong. They pardoned Mark Rich after his wife gave them a huge donation

In his book, “Liberal Fascism,” Jonah Goldberg wrote: Clinton “is a representative figure, the leading member of a generational cohort of elite liberals who brought fascist themes into mainstream liberalism. … What follows, then, is a group portrait of Hillary and her friends – the leading proponents and exemplars of liberal fascism in our time.”

She was offered an internship in the Berkeley office of attorney Robert Truehaft, a communist who fought for the Stalinist faction the California labor movement.

As an attorney in Arkansas, Mrs. Clinton wrote articles in favor of children’s “rights” to divorce their parents. Goldberg wrote: “Hillary Clinton’s writings on children show a clear, unapologetic, and principled desire to insert the state deep into family life – a goal that is in perfect accord with similar efforts by totalitarians of the past. … She condones the state’s assumption of parental responsibilities … because she is opposed to the principle of parental authority in any form.” She believes families hold children back and the state sets them free. “Hillary Clinton’s ideas are, in general, fascist.”

Hillary’s guru was Rabbi Michael Lerner, who authored The New Socialist Revolution. He wrote of the coming socialist take-over.

One of Hillary Clinton’s most outrageous statements: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”


Sen. McCain in Lockstep with Obama on Drafting Women for Combat

By Tony Perkins, President
Family Research Council

After the last seven and a half years, it’s safe to say that the greatest threat to our military is the administration in charge of it. The legacy of the Obama administration will not be advancing the war against global jihad, but rather advancing the culture war — which started with the toppling of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and continued on to the latest phase of the military’s sexual revolution: open transgenderism and opening the draft to women. In this administration, gender isn’t just being redefined in bathrooms, but on battlefields, where this president seems all too content to assign America’s wives and daughters to the most dangerous ground combat units in the world.

And unfortunately, he’s had plenty of help. In the Senate, where members are debating the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), Navy veteran John McCain (R-Ariz.) gave the effort a helping hand by including an amendment into the bill from three female Republicans, Senators Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Joni Ernst (Iowa), and Deb Fischer (Nebr.), that would require women to register for selective service — a decision that even his primary challenger couldn’t believe. Dr. Kelli Ward, who’s trying to unseat the longtime senator, is already making McCain’s position a campaign issue. Like most parents, she can’t imagine a nation ordering her child to war. “I have a 20-year-old daughter, Katie, and when I think of her being forced to go into combat, especially in the Middle East against the barbarians who are there. Who are basically salivating at the prospect of getting their hands on our young women… I have no qualms about women who want to volunteer and who want to go and do whatever they want to do in our military — but to force them to a draft is unacceptable in my opinion.”

As a father of three girls, I couldn’t agree more. I will support my daughters if they decide to serve in the military, but I will not stand by if the government tries to draft them in the military. What does it say about a nation that sends its mothers and daughters to fight its battles?

In part, this is all the unfortunate byproduct of opening infantry and other front line positions to women, which Defense Secretary Ash Carter approved earlier this year over the objections of military leaders. When the DOD removes the barriers to women serving in all positions, it removes most barriers to drafting them as well. And while some senators seem either oblivious to the risks or too frightened to fight the political correctness, plenty of conservatives are standing up to the members of both parties who want to use our military as the laboratory for social change.

“I cannot in good conscience vote to draft our daughters into the military, sending them off to war, and forcing them into combat,” Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) argued. Together with Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah), Cruz is doing everything he can to strip the language out of the high chamber’s NDAA. He’ll have the support of more than six dozen conservative leaders, veterans, and activists — including FRC’s Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.). In a letter representing hundreds of thousands of American families, the group urged every member of the Senate to join Mike Lee in pushing back on the real war on women.

“We strongly support the heroic, capable, and honorable women who choose and will serve our country in the military…” the group writes. “There are exceptional women who are capable of meeting or exceeding the combat standards put forth by each branch. We support them as we do all individuals willing to put their lives on the line for the greatest nation in the history of the world. However, the female draft discussion should revolve around combat readiness, efficiency, and national security, and weeding through applicants that are overwhelmingly biologically unable to meet combat standards would be a logistical nightmare and would force the lowering of combat standards. The capabilities of these rare women should not mean all appropriately aged women are involuntarily eligible for combat.”

Not to mention, they write, “Women are not clamoring for this ‘opportunity.’ Only 15 percent of our active-duty military forces are women. We find it demeaning to suggest that women who have instead chosen to serve our nation in other civilian roles — such as manufacturing, commerce, medicine or even caring for their children — are not contributing to our nation. They are indeed!” At the very least, this issue deserves to be a standalone bill, debated out in the open after a thorough and transparent review. Congress needs to decide: Is the military’s goal to be the great societal equalizer — or the most lethal fighting force in the world? Contact Republican Senators Kelly Ayotte (202-224-3324), Joni Ernst (202-224-3254), and Deb Fischer (202-224-6551), and let them know that it’s one thing for our daughters to choose to fight and quite another to force them to.

Arizona Joins in Federal Lawsuit against Obama’s Mandate Putting Children at Risk

Attorney General Mark Brnovich and Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas today announced that they have joined nine other states in a federal lawsuit to challenge President Obama’s mandate requiring all public K-12 schools to open up boys’ and girls’ locker rooms and restrooms to students of the opposite sex, based on student perceptions of their “gender identity.”

Since the president has threatened to deny federal funding to all schools that object to this outrageous decree,  Arizona has joined Texas, Alabama, Louisiana, Maine, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin in a lawsuit filed in the United States Court for the Northern District of Texas. The lawsuit is focused on who should set these sensitive policies – the federal government via executive order or states and local school districts. The challenge seeks declaratory relief against a number of federal agencies in order to block the implementation of the administration’s unconstitutional interpretation of the law. The Heber-Overgaard Unified School District has also joined the state’s lawsuit as a plaintiff.

“President Obama has no business setting locker room and restroom policies for our schools,” said Attorney General Brnovich. “Deciding how to protect our children and preserve their privacy, while balancing these complicated issues, is best done locally and not by some knee-jerk decree from Washington.”

“When Arizona students attend school, they deserve a safe environment that is free from bullying and discrimination, regardless of their gender identity,” said Superintendent Douglas. “I know that our districts and schools have policies in place to ensure that is the case. The fact that the federal government has yet again decided that it knows what is best for every one of our local communities is insulting and, quite frankly, intolerable.”

On May 13th, the president issued so-called “significant guidance” to K-12 schools nationwide detailing how transgender students should be granted access to Title IX facilities including restrooms, locker rooms, and showers. The guidance came with the threat of withholding federal funding if schools are found by the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Justice to be out of compliance.