Supreme Court’s Outrageous Over-reach Not in Best Interests of America or Homosexuals

Today’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex “marriage” — at odds with Supreme Court precedent — will not help people with same-sex attraction. It will not empower them; it will not enhance their lives.

It will expose their most pressing need: to overcome same-sex attraction.

This decision, imposed by judicial fiat and not by the people through their elected representatives, will demonstrate the many problems fraught by same-sex dynamics – namely short-lasting, unstable, and risky relationships, high rates of domestic violence, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse.

And most sadly, the children trapped in homes without their father or their mother will become a living testimony to developmental deficits forced upon them by adults.

Furthermore, only small percentages of same-sex attracted people are even interested in getting married. The institution of marriage is at odds with their libertine view of relationships and sexual activity.

Same-sex marriage is now to be on full display, and it cannot match the timeless union of one man and one woman as the gold standard for men, women, children, communities and society.

This decision does not move America forward. It is a societal setback rubberstamped by over-reaching judicial activists.

This is not progress. It is a digression which will have serious, negative long-term consequences.

Militant homosexuals need to heed this call: do not persecute, do not punish those who disagree with you. You will only prove the threats we raised against same-sex marriage are on full display and are ringing true. No matter how much you deny it.

Stop the vandalism. Stop the harassment. Stop the fascism. And stop the hate.

Respect the consciences of those who don’t agree with you. Don’t force anyone to participate in something they consider immoral. You can find others who do agree with you and who will participate in your ceremonies.

Be as respectful to others as you wish them to be to you. Those of you considered leaders of homosexual pressure groups must call for civility and restraint from those among you who are now emboldened to lash out against us.

America is watching you now. You are getting what you wanted, but not what you need.

You are selling yourselves short of something that is so much better for you, so much more fulfilling and wholesome. You can overcome same-sex attraction with counseling. And with prayer and the support of your family and friends. It is available to you today. Here in Arizona and elsewhere. Accept it. Embrace it. Seek what is best for you, not what others, not what homosexual pressure groups guided by a profit motive tell you that you need.

The Pillars of Modern American Conservatism

By Alfred Regnery
First Things

Over the past half century, conservatism has become the dominant political philosophy in the United States. Newspaper and television political news stories more often than not will mention the word conservative. Almost every Republican running for office—whether for school board or U.S. senator—will try to establish his place on the political spectrum based on how conservative he is. Even Democrats sometimes distinguish among members of their own party in terms of conservatism.

Although conservatism as we know it today is a relatively new movement—it emerged after World War II and only became a political force in the 1960s—it is based on ideas that are as old as Western civilization itself. The intellectual foundations on which this movement has been built stretch back to antiquity, were further developed during the Middle Ages and in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century England, and were ultimately formulated into a coherent political philosophy at the time of the founding of the United States. In a real sense, conservatism is Western civilization.

The basic foundations of American conservatism can be boiled down to four fundamental concepts. We might call them the four pillars of modern conservatism:

The first pillar of conservatism is liberty, or freedom. Conservatives believe that individuals possess the right to life, liberty, and property, and freedom from the restrictions of arbitrary force. They exercise these rights through the use of their natural free will. That means the ability to follow your own dreams, to do what you want to (so long as you don’t harm others) and reap the rewards (or face the penalties). Above all, it means freedom from oppression by government—and the protection of government against oppression. It means political liberty, the freedom to speak your mind on matters of public policy. It means religious liberty—to worship as you please, or not to worship at all. It also means economic liberty, the freedom to own property and to allocate your own resources in a free market.

Conservatism is based on the idea that the pursuit of virtue is the purpose of our existence and that liberty is an essential component of the pursuit of virtue. Adherence to virtue is also a necessary condition of the pursuit of freedom. In other words, freedom must be pursued for the common good, and when it is abused for the benefit of one group at the expense of others, such abuse must be checked. Still, confronted with a choice of more security or more liberty, conservatives will usually opt for more liberty.

The second pillar of conservative philosophy is tradition and order. Conservatism is also about conserving the values that have been established over centuries and that have led to an orderly society. Conservatives believe in human nature; they believe in the ability of man to build a society that respects rights and that has the capacity to repel the forces of evil. Order means a systematic and harmonious arrangement, both within one’s own character and within the commonwealth. It signifies the performance of certain duties and the enjoyment of certain rights within a community.

Order is perhaps more easily understood by looking at its opposite: disorder. A disordered existence is a confused and miserable existence. If a society falls into general disorder, many of its members will cease to exist at all. And if the members of a society are disordered in spirit, the outward order of society cannot long endure. Disorder describes well everything that conservatism is not.

The third pillar is the rule of law. Conservatism is based on the belief that it is crucial to have a legal system that is predictable, that allows people to know what the rules are and enforce those rules equally for all. This means that both governors and the governed are subject to the law. The rule of law promotes prosperity and protects liberty. Put simply, a government of laws and not of men is the only way to secure justice.

The fourth pillar is belief in God. Belief in God means adherence to the broad concepts of religious faith—such things as justice, virtue, fairness, charity, community, and duty. These are the concepts on which conservatives base their philosophy.

Conservative belief is tethered to the idea that there is an allegiance to God that transcends politics and that sets a standard for politics. For conservatives, there must be an authority greater than man, greater than any ruler, king, or government: no state can demand our absolute obedience or attempt to control every aspect of our lives. There must be a moral order, conservatives believe, that undergirds political order. This pillar of conservatism does not mean mixing up faith and politics, and it certainly does not mean settling religious disputes politically. It also does not mean that conservatives have a monopoly on faith, or even that all conservatives are necessarily believers.

Each of the four pillars is closely related to all the others. Liberty, for example, is considered a gift of God and must be protected by the rule of law. The rule of law itself is dependent on the natural law—a transcendent law reflected in every orderly and civilized society, demarcating good and evil. Tradition and order are best reflected by our common law—a law developed over centuries by reasonable people in their everyday lives, which sets the rules for social order consistent with the past. And tradition is an important dimension of belief in God. What could demonstrate tradition and order more fully, for example, than the Old Testament and the history of the Jewish people, or the doctrines of the Christian Church?

Failure to Disclose $26 Million in Bribes an “Oversight” Says CEO

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

JohnRecent revelations that the Clinton Foundation neglected to report over $26 million in payments from major corporations, universities, foreign sources and other groups was characterized as “a mere oversight” by Foundation Chief Executive Officer Donna Shalala.

The Foundation has raised more than $2 billion dollars over the years its been in existence,” Shalala pointed out. “The $26 million everyone is hyperventilating over is relative pocket change amounting to barely 1% of the total. It’s on a par with a Congressman failing to report a free vacation from a lobbyist or a waiter forgetting to report all his tip income to the IRS. It’s no big deal.”

Others aren’t so sure it isn’t a big deal. Peter Schweizer, author of the book Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich, wondered “why a Nigerian newspaper paid former president Bill Clinton $500,000 for a speech. And if it was all legit, why was this payment among the $26 million the Foundation ‘forgot’ to report?”

As everyone knows, the Clintons were flat broke when Bill’s term as president was over,” Shalala said in response. “Why should anyone begrudge him earning a little money from sharing his wisdom on the talk circuit? Isn’t it time that the harassment and persecution of one of America’s great families come to an end?”

Bush Defends Warrantless Government Surveillance

While one GOP presidential candidate filibustered legislation extending the National Security Agency’s (NSA) authority to spy on Americans, another alleges that “there’s not a shred of evidence that this surveillance has violated anyone’s civil liberties.”

GOP presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ken) spoke for 10 hours on the floor of the Senate contending that NSA’s warrantless violations of privacy are unconstitutional. “The Fourth Amendment was intended to protect us from unreasonable searches,” Rand argued. “It calls for government to obtain a warrant from a judge based on ‘probable cause.’ The gathering of massive amounts of private information without such warrants flies in the teeth of the Amendment’s prohibition. We should be abolishing this intrusion, not extending it.”

Prospective rival for the Republican nomination, former Florida Governor JEB Bush disagreed, calling the NSA “a virtual guardian angel watching over and protecting us. I just can’t buy the argument that we have anything to fear from our own government. They’re on our side. We need to give them all the power and tools they say they need to keep us safe.”

Bush said that “the fact that the only people killed so far based on information gathered by the NSA are enemies of our government ought to reassure everyone that as long as they behave themselves they have nothing to fear. So the government knows who you phone, email and tweet. So what, as long as you’re not doing anything wrong why should you care? I don’t find the so-called scare phrase ‘Big Brother is watching you’ particularly frightening. The whole idea behind the NSA originated with my big brother and he’s a swell guy. We should be glad that he helped develop a program to watch over us.”

Hillary Defends Benghazi Lies

Evidence that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was informed that the assault on the Benghazi Consulate and murder of Ambassador Stevens was a planned terrorist attack before she went public with the misleading cover story of a video protest gone bad failed to dislodge her from defending it.

Sure, we knew within hours of the Ambassador’s death that the attack had been planned at least 10 days in advance, but for us to have publicly acknowledged this would have put the country into even greater danger,” Clinton maintained. “Remember, this attack occurred just two months ahead of a presidential election. Our first priority was to counteract the domestic insurgency being led by Mitt Romney. Staving off this attempt to overthrow our government was more important than adhering to some quaint notions of honesty.”

Clinton characterized the bogus video-inspired-uprising story as akin to President Roosevelt’s feigning surprise at Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor. “Imagine the damage that would have been done to his government if he hadn’t seized control of the narrative,” she hypothesized. “By diverting attention away from our lack of preparedness and onto Japan’s treachery he was able to rally the American people and save his government. Why shouldn’t we have emulated a man most historians agree was one of our greatest presidents?”

In related news, Clinton’s presidential campaign manager disputed press claims that her motorcade reached speeds in excess of 95 mph on the way to a fund raiser in Iowa. “While the media vehicles following the motorcade may have sped, we did not,” Robbie Mook asserted, attributing the quick transit time to “our use of new technology allowing us to travel using a ‘worm hole’ through hyperspace. The confusion afflicting those still confined to normal three-dimensional space is understandable.”

Candidate Says “Everything Will Be Free When I’m President”

Self-described socialist and candidate for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders promised voters that “everything will be free when I’m president.”

In a country as rich as ours it is shameful that mere lack of money should block anyone from having all the good things of life,” Sanders said. “No one should be stigmatized by having to grovel to qualify for food stamps or be denied entry into college because they can’t afford it or don’t have good high school grades. Anyone who wants to eat should simply be permitted to take food from a grocery store or restaurant. Anyone who wants to go to college should be allowed in, no questions asked.”

Payment for all these freebies will come from a confiscatory tax on excess assets and income. “Only pure arrogance drives the notion that people who are smarter and harder-working should get more than those less well-endowed by nature or nurture,” the Senator contended. “Just because you are lucky enough to inherit intelligence or learn to be enterprising from the good example of your parents doesn’t mean you earned it. A person born to stupid and shiftless parents isn’t at fault for his lack of effort. Why then should his rewards be contingent on the exertions he doesn’t make?”

Every human being is entitled to an equal share of the Earth’s bounty,” Sanders declared. “Ensuring an equitable distribution is government’s responsibility. Voters can count on me to fulfill this responsibility.”

Pay Hike Needed to Boost Congress’ Morale

Several Democrats, including Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md), made the case for higher compensation this week citing “the low morale among those of us in the legislature who can only salivate at the sums being hauled in by ex-presidents and others for trifling amounts of work. As members of a body of 435 we won’t have the same name recognition. We won’t be invited to pontificate on sundry topics for piles of cash.”

Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla) seconded Hoyer’s remarks saying “we need to get a bigger piece of the pie now! We pass laws doling out billions to important constituencies, yet we get dinged for accepting gratuities in exchange. It’s just not fair.”

Hastings went on to complain that “the $174,000 annual salary is barely four times the median household income in this country. It’s humiliating for members of the ruling class to have to scrape by on such a pittance. Plus, if our salaries were higher those hoping to influence policy would be encouraged to up the amounts they pay for our efforts to deliver the goods.”

Hoyer also warned of “a possible exodus of the best and brightest from public service if we don’t take action to increase the rewards. The loss of human capital from the departure of legislators who have served for decades would be catastrophic. Congress would likely degenerate into a body staffed by short-term citizen-legislators instead of long-term professionals who dedicate their lives to wielding power for the common good.”

Kerry Calls for Stricter Government Regulation of Internet

In a speech in South Korea US Secretary of State John Kerry called for government to play a bigger role in what goes on the Internet. Kerry advised that “we take a lesson from what’s going on in North Korea. Sure, there are a lot of things wrong with the way Kim is governing his country, but that doesn’t mean everything he’s doing is a mistake.”

A key positive in Kim’s policies is the government’s larger role in filtering what the citizens of North Korea can see and hear from the Internet,” the Secretary maintained. “Antisocial content that could undermine his people’s contentment is severely dealt with. Positive messages aimed at raising the people’s sense of well-being are encouraged. This helps boost the people’s faith in their government.”

There’s some good lessons we in the West can learn from Kim’s model,” Kerry argued. “Granted, we wouldn’t want to resort to executing every dissident, but there are less bloodthirsty methods of enforcing compliance with the values and practices that will help stamp out the evils of racism, hate speech, and sedition that infest the unregulated Internet that currently prevails in the United States.”

Kerry concluded his remarks with “a wish that the independent Federal Communication Commission will not let President Obama down by allowing an unwarranted respect for freedom of speech to cloud their judgment.”

A Satirical Look at Recent News

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

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

Mr. Santorum, I Voted No; I Vote for a Conservative Coalition

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum just dropped me a line, asking me to tell him whether or not he should run for president. You might be interested in my response:

Dear Mr. Santorum,

Thank you for contacting me for my opinion. I must tell you that I voted “no.” You are a man of integrity and honor, and I respect you greatly. I was very glad you won the Iowa Caucus in 2012. However, we have too many candidates on the GOP side carving up the support and the campaign money. It is time to yield to new candidates like Dr. Carson and Sen. Cruz this time around. The best thing you and several others can do is to build a conservative coalition and do all in your power to see that one strong conservative candidate emerges to take on and defeat party elites like Jeb Bush. We need a strong candidate who will have the wisdom and courage to move a stagnant, declining nation ahead in the next eight years. The Democrats have badly damaged American and sent our trajectory spiraling downward. I hope you will sacrifice your own ambitions and emerge as one of the leaders of the conservative coalition on behalf of the nation that is so starved for a leader with integrity who will put America first. You can accomplish more as a non-candidate this year to help assure one strong leader emerges who is right for America at this time. Thank you for your consideration.

God bless you and your family. God bless America.

Your friends at The Arizona Conservative

Senator Flake, Here’s How a Real Leader Responds to Lawlessness and Corruption

Just a few days ago 10 Republican members of the U.S. Senate voted to affirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general of the United States. While we were overjoyed at the departure of Eric Holder — the most lawless, most corrupt attorney general in U.S. history — his replacement is just as bad and totally unacceptable as he is. She should never should have been confirmed. Everyone knows that if the Democrats were in control of the Senate they would have refused to affirm a Republican president’s nominee for attorney general.

Nonetheless, we were curious to see how Arizona’s junior Senator Jeff Flake justified his vote to affirm Lynch. This is the message he posted on his official Senate website:

“I was pleased today to confirm Loretta Lynch as attorney general. While I disagree with Ms. Lynch on many policy positions, I have always believed that the Senate should give deference to the president to pick his Cabinet unless there is something disqualifying in a nominee’s background.

“Furthermore, with Loretta Lynch confirmed, Eric Holder’s tenure as head of the Department of Justice draws to a close. Not a bad day in Washington.”

So it’s “not a bad day in Washington” when the people we sent to D.C. to oppose the most lawless, radical, un-American presidential administration in our history refuse to do their jobs.

Now let’s look at how a real leader — Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, who voted against Lynch’s confirmation — responded to the same responsibility set before him:

The Senate must never confirm an individual to such an office as this who will support and advance a scheme that violates our Constitution and eviscerates established law and Congressional authority. No person who would do that should be confirmed. And we don’t need to be apologetic about it, colleagues.

Ms. Lynch has announced that she supports and, if confirmed, would advance, the president’s unlawful executive amnesty scheme—a scheme that would provide work permits, trillions in Social Security and Medicare benefits, tax credits of up to $35,000 a year (according to the Congressional Research Service), and even the possibility of chain migration and citizenship to those who have entered the country illegally or overstayed their lawful period of admission. The president has done this even though Congress has repeatedly rejected legislation that would implement such a scheme.

President Obama’s unlawful and unconstitutional executive action nullifies current immigration law—the Immigration and Nationality Act—and replaces them with the very measures Congress refused to adopt. Even King George the Third lacked the power to legislate without Parliament.

During her confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee, I asked Ms. Lynch plainly whether she supported the president’s unilateral decision to make his own immigration laws. Here is the relevant portion of the hearing transcript:

Sessions: I have to have a clear answer to this question—Ms. Lynch, do you believe the executive action announced by President Obama on November 20th is legal and Constitutional? Yes or no?

Lynch: As I’ve read the [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion, I do believe it is, Senator.

Of course, the lawful duty of the Attorney General is to enforce the law that exists, not one she or the president might wish existed.

One of the most stunning elements of the president’s scheme is the grant of work permits to up to 5 million illegal immigrants—taking jobs directly from citizens and legal immigrants.

Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner on the United States Commission on Civil Rights has written at length about how this undermines the rights of U.S. workers, especially African-American workers, and other minorities, suffering from high unemployment. At her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms. Lynch about what she might do to protect the rights of legal U.S. workers. Here is the exchange in question:

Sessions: Who has more right to a job in this country? A lawful immigrant who’s here or a citizen—or a person who entered the country unlawfully?

Lynch: I believe that the right and the obligation to work is one that’s shared by everyone in this country regardless of how they came here. And certainly, if someone is here, regardless of status, I would prefer that they would be participating in the workplace than not participating in the workplace.

This is a breathtaking statement. It is unprecedented for someone who is seeking the highest law enforcement office in America to declare that someone in the country illegally has a “right” to take a job.

This nation is—as George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has put it—at “a constitutional tipping point.” Professor Turley, who is a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and self-described supporter of President Obama and his policies, testified before the House of Representatives in February 2014, 9 months before the president announced his unprecedented executive action:

“The current passivity of Congress represents a crisis of faith for members willing to see a president assume legislative powers in exchange for insular policy gains. The short-term, insular victories achieved by this president will come at a prohibitive cost if the current imbalance is not corrected. Constitutional authority is easy to lose in the transient shifts of politics. It is far more difficult to regain. If a passion for the Constitution does not motivate members, perhaps a sense of self-preservation will be enough to unify members. President Obama will not be our last president. However, these acquired powers will be passed to his successors. When that occurs, members may loathe the day that they remained silent as the power of government shifted so radically to the chief executive. The powerful personality that engendered this loyalty will be gone, but the powers will remain. We are now at the constitutional tipping point for our system. If balance is to be reestablished, it must begin before this president leaves office and that will likely require every possible means to reassert legislative authority.”

One of those means is the advice and consent power. It was created for just such a time as this. It is not only appropriate, but necessary, that the Senate refuse to confirm a president’s nominees when that president has overreached and assumed the legislative powers of Congress. It is particularly necessary when the president’s nominee is being appointed specifically for the improper purpose of advancing the president’s unconstitutional overreach—all through the powers of the office to which they have been nominated.

Congress must not confirm anyone to lead the United States Department of Justice who will advance the president’s unconstitutional actions. Congress has a limited number of powers to defend the Rule of Law and itself as an institution and to stop the Executive Branch from overreaching. It is unthinkable that we would ignore one of those powers in the face of such a direct threat to our constitutional order—and it is part of an escalating pattern of overreach.

Every day that we allow the president to erode the powers of Congress, we are allowing the president to erode the sacred Constitutional rights of the citizens we serve. We have a duty to this institution, to the Constitution, and to the American people not to confirm someone who is not committed to those principles but rather who will continue in violation of them. For those reasons, I will oppose this nomination and I urge my colleagues, regardless of party, to do the same.”

Senator Sessions, you are an inspiration and a true patriot and leader. We applaud your courage and your integrity in standing up to evil and to minimize harm to this great nation. You are doing what you were elected to do.

As for you, Senator Flake, the same cannot be said. We do not compound one mistake by replacing it with a second mistake. The lack of reasoning, the void of depth and intellect in your brief, casual statement is stunning. And unacceptable.

CORPORATE CULTURAL SMOG, INDIANA AND THE MARKETING OF EVIL

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

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

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

And that’s not all. Later …

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

And the message is:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So what can you do?

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

Cong. Franks: The Buck Stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

028_29Arizona Congressman Trent Franks responds to President Obama’s first visit to meet with veterans following the Phoenix VA scandal:

“President Lincoln explained that the role of government in caring for veterans is “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.”  Unfortunately, the Phoenix VA is ground zero for the tragic failures of bloated, big government bureaucracies. It is demonstrative of the chaos of government empowering itself with the care of our veterans rather than empowering the veteran herself or himself.

“I fear that the mismanagement and lack-of-care provided to our veterans in Phoenix and around the country will be a microcosm of what we can expect from Obamacare, which puts government in control of healthcare, rather than the doctor and the patient.

“Last year Congress attempted to empower veterans by passing sweeping legislation that would provide better access to quality care. Unfortunately, failure by the executive to implement these changes only allowed access to relatively few.

“When it comes to serving those who have served us all with honor and distinction, the buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.  I am encouraged that President Obama has finally decided to visit the Phoenix VA Hospital to hear about the travesties that took place there.  It is my hope that he personally invests himself to ensure that what took place here never happens again.”