Popular vote v. Electoral College: Be careful what you wish for

February 8, 2016

National Popular Vote is unconstitutional

Strong dosages of political showmanship are vying for our attention these days. A seemingly endless parade of presidential candidates, debates, caucuses and primaries take center stage as the crucial 2016 cycle approaches. We hear promises, sift through bravado and try to separate fact from blatant fiction. To add to the head spinning exhibitions are a rash of quick fixes, that actually create even more havoc. Arizona House Bill 2456 (national popular vote; interstate agreement) is such a measure — definitely worthy of your attention. Its Senate counterpart, identically named) is SB 1218.

This piece of legislation would require the popular vote for U.S. President to determine the winner, effectively relegating the Electoral College into political obscurity.

There are increasing election machinations to change the system put in place by our Founders to safeguard the election process — clearly defined in the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause II, not to relegate small states into inconsequential obscurity.

Legislators contemplating support for this bill should heed the wisdom of these words: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.” America’s Founders strategically placed fences in an effort to balance power among the branches of the federal government and the states. This balance has served our nation well and it should not impetuously be cast aside.

The Republican Platform succinctly addresses this issue under the heading, The Continuing Importance of Protecting the Electoral College:  

“We oppose the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact or any other scheme to abolish or distort the procedures of the Electoral College. We recognize that an unconstitutional effort to impose “national popular vote” would be a mortal threat to our federal system and a guarantee of corruption as every ballot box in every state would become a chance to steal the presidency.”

This video “The Popular Vote vs. the Electoral College,” courtesy of Prager University explains the complex issue and is important to watch. It takes less than five minutes of your time, but will educate you on the issues involved. Knowledge is power.

Click on the House and Senate bills and see if your state legislator is a sponsor. Then use this link to locate them and ask them why they are joining with Democrats on this disastrous legislation.  Act now. Time is short.


Green McCain workers whipped into frenzy over slight?

February 7, 2016

In numerous ways, John McCain is AZ’s Bernie Sanders

Dan Nowicki, John McCain’s personal assigned reporter at the daily newspaper, attempts to marginalize Dr. Kelli Ward for her description of some of John McCain’s young campaign workers. He writes that her remarks during a Tucson radio interview have so outraged the young  “millennial Republicans,” that they are demanding an apology from the former two-term state senator, now mounting a credible challenge to McCain.

Nowicki refers to the aged senator who will be 80 by Election Day and is seeking his sixth 6-year term as “having nothing to do” with the contrived outrage. He never leaves fingerprints, since his surrogates take care of business.

Ward, a  Lake Havasu physician referred to “McCain kids” who “have no idea” about his record but who are “enticed by the glimmer of celebrity.”

Long-in-the-tooth Socialist Bernie Sanders is generating widespread support from young voters, consistently and strikingly outpolling liberal Hillary Clinton, as he promises to make college education free and retire student loan debt. Like McCain, Sanders vows to provide a pathway to citizenship for the approximately 30 million illegal aliens in the U.S., who will be competing for jobs and college placement with young American citizens. Obama-like, Sanders promises to take executive action, bypassing congress, to accomplish his goals.

On two consecutive Saturdays in January, Arizona elected precinct and state committeemen assembled for the Maricopa County and state GOP daylong meetings. As they entered each of the meetings, they were approached by fresh-faced young workers wearing T-shirts with John McCain’s name emblazoned on them —carrying clip boards with nominating petitions to qualify McCain for the ballot.  Approaching the arriving committeemen in the cold, still dark early morning hours, most of the workers were greeted with “No thank you” or “McCain? Are you kidding?” It was clear from the surprised looks followed by giggles as the scenario repeated that they were under the erroneous impression that Sen. John McCain has some cache among Republican voters. They were likely unaware that he has repeatedly been censured by those same committeemen in his own party, or of his retaliatory measures to purge them from their elective posts.  Dr. Kelli Ward was not off the mark in her assessment.

As to the McCain workers being described as “volunteers” a state delegate asked a couple of them standing outside the McCain booth if they were paid or volunteers. They nervously exchanged looks before the boldest replied, “We’d rather not say.” That’s not the response expected from enthusiastic volunteers.

Among the letter signers demanding Dr. Kelli Ward apologize were the former Arizona Teenage Republican  chairman, Students for Rubio Chair, along with ASU and UofA GOP activists. 

Since Rubio was integral to the McCain-Flake-Schumer-Durbin, et al amnesty Gang of Eight scheme and is endorsed by McCain’s alter-ego Jon Kyl, it’s not much of a leap to assume there’s a connection. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…you know the rest…..


Marco Rubio: The Big Con

February 6, 2016

Phyllis Schlafly, conservative icon and founder of Eagle Forum, and Ed Martin, president of the organization expose Marco Rubio in THE ‘BIG CON’ BEGINS.

This memorandum along with its well sourced links are a must read as we sift through the candidates and separate fact from fiction — facing the crucial 2016 presidential election.

The conclusion reached is that there is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, John McCain or Lindsey Graham — all members of the amnesty Gang of Eight. They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy.  But on illegal immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them.

If you read nothing else this weekend, make this a priority. Acquaint yourself with slick-talking Marco Rubio — the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration — who is making a desperate attempt to pull off one big con. Slickster Rubio has different messages for English and Spanish-speaking audiences. 

WND runs a Schlafly article in which she accuses Marco Rubio of betrayal.

Seeing Red AZ has written extensively about the illegal immigration deceit of U.S. Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake.  This most recent post includes links to their deceptive pre-election ploys allowing them to return to the banks of the Potomac and immediately revert to their long-held amnesty positions, regardless of their pre-election rhetoric.

We support Dr. Kelli Ward, a physician and two-term state senator, in the upcoming U. S. Senate race. She is challenging John McCain, who will be 80 by Election Day, and is arrogantly running for another 6-year term. A vibrant woman and engaging speaker, Ward is traveling the state of Arizona bringing her conservative message directly to the voters. Kelli Ward doesn’t hold contrived town halls or dodge questions. She’s the knowledgeable voice we need in the senate as Obamacare is retooled.


Satanists’ antics result in AZ GOP chair launching recall

February 5, 2016

Seeing Red AZ  recently covered the Phoenix City Council’s plan  — on the advice of its legal council — to allow a Satanist to deliver the “invocation” (formerly known as the opening prayer), at the Council’s Feb. 17 meeting.

As might be expected, all hell broke loose. The majority of council members were not onboard with this affront. Satanist Stuart de Haan, a Tucson lawyer equipped with a king-sized agenda, initially made the request, saying his group is opposed to “religious tyranny” — presumably his view of prayer. The Satanists threatened a lawsuit.

The daily reported that Phoenix City Attorney Brad Holm’s statement provided no recourse:

“Consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s direction, the city cannot dictate religious viewpoints or the content of a prayer, Holm wrote. “In addition, government may not exclude a denomination or a religion from praying under these circumstances.”

In response, the council, after hearing testimony from both sides, voted to replace the traditional prayer with a moment of silence, according to this Fox News report.

But the saga doesn’t end there. On Thursday, AZ GOP Chairman Robert Graham’s spokesman blasted out an email titled, “We Need Prayer!” There’s nothing to disagree with in the content of Graham’s message, but the last paragraph and follow-up sentence were puzzling:.

“If a show of humility to God, rich in the American tradition, is to be ended because of a few satanic bullies, how are we going to fix some of our community’s and nation’s most pressing problems? Maybe it is time we send a message to the Phoenix City Council that they are out of touch with the people of Phoenix.”

Graham is collecting information necessary to create a ballot initiative to reinstate public prayer, as well as for the recall of elected Phoenix public officials.

Is Graham aiming for the mayor, the city attorney or the council members?

Stay tuned.


“Marcomentum” Another reason to distrust Marco Rubio

February 4, 2016

Gang_of_8_Amnesty_goons

Gang Of Eighter Marco magically tries to transform third place into blue ribbon success

In the aftermath of Ted Cruz’ Iowa primary caucus victory, the politicians are hard at work recasting the results to suit their whims.

Donald Trump, who petulantly decided to skip the Jan. 28 debate in Des Moines, took second place. His calculated risk was preceded and followed by puerile mockery of Cruz. But third placer Marco Rubio takes the cake. His emailed solicitation of (at least) $20.16 in campaign donations that went out Wednesday bizarrely reconfigures his third place showing into a stunning triumph, as he writes:

“Monday night was amazing.

All of our hard work leading up to the Iowa caucuses paid off. I’m thrilled with our success there, and you should be too. 

But make no mistake: The results in Iowa were just the beginning.“Marcomentum” swept Iowa, and next it’s going to take over New Hampshire.”

Marco doesn’t seem to grasp the fact that churning 1 percent milk will never make butter.

Next thing we know John McCain’s amnesty pushing Gang of Eight member Marco Rubio will undergo the same pre-election transformation of his supporters.

Remember former Sen. Jon Kyl — now a Rubio endorser — cutting this hard liner TV spot? John McCain will be remembered for this tough on the border ad long after he’s forgotten where he placed his drool cup. Gangster Jeff Flake took the same pre-election expediency route, briefly dismaying his pro-amnesty cheering section at the Arizona Republic. But in the end, they are all exposed as double-talking frauds. All of them colluded with Democrats in support of amnesty for illegals.

“Marcomentum” can be discounted as ludicrous hyperbole. The invasion of our country is deadly serious business.


Robert Robb: Forgetful, schizophrenic or seeking job security?

February 3, 2016

Back in July 2012, Seeing Red AZ congratulated Arizona Republic columnist Robert Robb for what we termed “a masterful job of explaining the deception behind the ballot initiative” known as “Top Two Primary.” A link to his entire column is contained in our post “Top 2 Primary” exposed as anti-conservative ruse.

This wisdom was excerpted from his column:

“A little honesty and sobriety is in order about the top-two primary system initiative that apparently will be on the November ballot. The purpose of the initiative should be stated plainly and bluntly: It is to reduce the influence of conservative Republicans in Arizona. The rhetoric used to sell it will be more lofty. There will be a pretense of deploring extremism on both sides of the political divide. But what’s driving the initiative isn’t a concern that the Democrats who get elected in Arizona are too liberal. It’s a call-to-arms reaction to a bone-deep belief that the Republicans who run Arizona are too conservative.”

Regarding his assessment, we noted, “It’s not what you’d expect to see in the pages of the left-wing Arizona Republic, which has made pushing this agenda a unified effort engaged in by reporters, editorialists and columnists — who must receive marching orders pumped into their ears through nocturnal subliminal messaging between 2:00 and 4:00 a.m.”

The ballot farce allows all candidates — regardless of party affiliation or even opting out of identifying themselves — to compete against one another on the primary ballot, with the “top two” moving on to the General Election. The desire of the left leaning newspaper would be to have two Democrats rise to the top, restricting our ballot choices to liberal and liberal. In an outrageous  column by a now retired political reporter the deception was cunningly referred to as a “multipartisan  effort to counter Arizona party extremists.” Know this. At the Arizona Republic, leftists are never considered extreme.

Fast forward to 2016. What a difference four years make. The newspaper lingers in dire straits, suffering from subscription losses and declining ad revenues. Layoffs and buyouts have left the newsroom in the hands of ASU Cronkite slave labor students and a few remaining hard-core agenda pushers. Robert Robb wears a new title, Editorial Columnist, and now falls in line, with an editorial bearing this headline: Top-two primary would better fit political landscape, but probably not change much. This is the same Robert Robb who previously called out the election farce as “…another disappointing attempt to change election outcomes by changing the rules.”

Dissent is gone. Integrity is an abstract memory. The remaining employees march in lockstep. The anorexic Arizona Republic has pathetically been reduced to decimating entertainment, sports and dishonest drivel passing for news. Identical “reports” are often regurgitated in follow-up issues. Don’t let the charlatans deceive you.

The deceitful “Top Two” election manipulation has seen many incarnations, and like a vampire with a stake in its heart, keeps returning. Here are some of our previous posts:

March 26, 2010: Liberal Linda Valdez promotes guise for deceiving voters

Aug. 5, 2011: AZ leftwingers promote neutered political sham

Dec. 4, 2011: Valdez hopes to gut political parties, blur core lines

Feb. 15, 2012:  Daily’s promotion of political sham revs up

July 6, 2012: Dist. 28 (formerly 11) recertifies its RINO status Update: O’Connor responds

Aug. 7, 2012: “Top-2 Primary” initiative declared unconstitutional; off ballot

Aug. 18, 2012: AZ Supreme Ct. contortionists overturn lower court on “top 2”


AZ Republic’s tacky message to subscribers

February 2, 2016

The shiny white postcard arrived with a terse message oddly bunched in the upper left quadrant. Besides the stiff salutation addressing the recipient by first and last name, were four sentences and the closing, including a replicated signature.

On its reverse side the return address indicated The Arizona Republic as the sender, with the now ubiquitous azcentral.com logo on the next line. That’s the newspaper’s techie moniker letting readers know that the days of publishing a hard copy newspaper are closing in. The front page usually carries a vaguely proctological sounding “go deeper with digital” message.  The communiqué?

 “We want to let you know about a change to your subscription effective March 2016. There will be a change to our subscription cancellation policy. Refunds will only be made to positive account balances of $10 or more. We appreciate your loyalty and thank you for your subscription. 

Sincerely,

Barbara Smith, VP Customer Service” 

Barbara, Barbara, Barbara. How smart is this? We all know the newspaper is in the proverbial toilet. But to admit that so many subscribers are ditching its increasingly lightweight and leftwing content that you affix a monetary punishment as they exit, is not exactly an exhibition of business savvy. This reeks of larceny. There is no restocking fee, as if an electronic product is returned, requiring repackaging and a discounted price. What you are alerting the few remaining readers to is the fact that you intend to keep their money if they have the audacity to leave and still have a balance of…let‘s say, $9.52. That’s indefensible, Barbara.  It’s beyond cheesy. Rational subscribers are leaving because they are tired of being insulted by the editorial policy, reporting slant and the ASU sweatshop student reporting crew that replaced the reporters who took the early buy-out packages the newspaper offered to stay afloat.

So you intend to add further insult to that effrontery by clipping us as we take a hike? It sounds an awful lot like the antiquated concept of alimony — the old pay-up-for-walking-out proposition.

We‘ve never even held hands, Barbara. Don’t even think of grabbing any additional money.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 376 other followers