Reagan, O’Connor: Liberal elites masquerade as Republicans

Last Monday night the Arizona Project featured Republican state Sen. Michele Reagan (LD-23) as its guest. The group even had her appearance in a live streaming video for all to see. Amazingly, the woman who voted with the Democrats for the costly and unsustainable expansion of Medicaid — a key element of ObamaCare — told the group she was adamantly opposed to the scheme, though she supported it days later.

Arizona Conservative Coalition runs a weekly updated ranking of legislators during the session. Expect the chronically low-rated Michele Reagan to drop even further after this deception.

Last Tuesday evening Legislative District 28 held its monthly meeting. District chairman Scott O’Connor took the opportunity to admit to the Republican elected Precinct Committeemen he leads that he is a RINO and a minority on the EGC — the Executive Guidance Committee of the Maricopa County Republican Committee.

These two incidents beg the question: How did Arizona Republicans get skunked and what are we going to do about it?


28 Responses to Reagan, O’Connor: Liberal elites masquerade as Republicans

  1. eubykdisop says:

    What do you propose that we do about it, SRAZ?

    • Observer says:

      It appears Seeing Red AZ asked the question. Why don’t you take a stab at answering it?

      • eubykdisop says:

        It doesn’t “appear” that Seeing Red AZ asked the question, Observer. Seeing Red AZ did ask the question. You clearly don’t know the difference between appearances and fact, Observer. And since SRAZ did, in fact, ask the question, why doesn’t SRAZ take a stab at answering it?

      • Jim says:

        Euby, I know the difference between appearance and fact. It does not appear you are an idiotic blithering irritant. Your posts substantiate that is a fact.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Why thank you very much, Jim. I know that if you intelligence and vocabulary permitted you to pay me an even higher compliment that you would have done so.

        And here we have yet another interloper seeking to steer this thread into a commentary on eubykdisop rather than in the direction of the SRAZ article.

      • Angie says:

        What childish individuals!

      • eubykdisop says:

        ROFL! And you’ve demonstrated your maturity, Angie, by making your one and only comment in this thread not about Reagan and O’Connor, the subjects of the article, but about other posters. Now THAT is a model of maturity, LOL! We should all follow your mature example by commenting exclusively on each other and studiously avoiding making comments on the topic at hand. Thanks for being such a wonderful role model of maturity, Angie, LOL!

    • Observer says:

      I would bet that the question was left open ended to illicit comments. There is a comment section on this blog that you seem to enjoy monopolizing.

      I have a question myself. Why are you always so eager to verbally assault and bully others? How about taking a break from the constant jabs? There was nothing in my intial comment worthy of your attack.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Blah, blah, blah. Have anything you would care to comment on besides me? Why are you steering this thread in the banal direction in which you want it to go instead of in the direction of the SRAZ article?

      • Jim says:

        Perhaps because you are consistently a confrontational jerk.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Thank you for sharing that enlightening information about Reagan and O’Connor, Jim. Your contribution to the topic at hand is nothing short of indispensable.

    • No Name Please says:

      Why are the majority of your comments tinged with sarcasm and/or dripping with nastiness and name calling? First you insult other commenters and when they respond, your frontal assault swings into motion, with unnecessarily rudeness. Tone it down and let’s all interact here as adults. We don’t have to agree with either you or the site all of the time. Discussion is what makes us think and that’s what the comment section if for.

      • eubykdisop says:

        There is a comment section on this blog that you seem to enjoy monopolizing.

        I have a question myself. Why are you always so eager to verbally assault and bully others? How about taking a break from the constant jabs? There was nothing in my intial comment worthy of your attack.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Hey, I have a great idea, No Name Please! Let’s see how long we can keep this thread going with comments which have nothing whatsoever to do with the SRAZ article! Now there’s a challenge! You’re doing great with it so far. Hang in there and keep up the good work. This is important stuff to “inform from a conservative point of view”! Extremely valuable!

    • eubykdisop says:

      Since Jim, Angie, Observer and No Name Please are bound and determined to establish a new norm and a new record for off topic comments, we might as well have an off topic comment which is of some use and value to Conservatives!

      The Liberal left is evil, not stupid. Their plans and actions are sophisticated, intricate and very highly coordinated so as to move things steadily to toward their objectives. In this regard there is much more going on with the IRS than what is immediately apparent. Let’s play “connect the dots”.

      First, the IRS stole the medical records of millions of Americans:

      “IRS sued – theft of medical records charged”

      “Described as ‘intimate and private information of Americans’”

      “By Gina Loudon”

      “A Malibu, Calif., based attorney, Robert E. Barnes, has filed a class-action suit against the IRS alleging that 15 agents stole the medical records of 10 million people in a raid on a storage facility called “John Doe Company” just weeks ago, according to Courthouse News.”

      “The action alleges that the information on private citizens that was taken was their most intimate medical records, including psychological, obstetric and gynecological, sexual and drug treatment documentation, and other medical treatment.”

      “It alleges that the agents stole more than 60 million records that violate the privacy of more than a million Californians and a total of more than 10 million Americans.”

      Why would the IRS want to steal the medical records of Americans? How does that further Obama’s agenda? To begin to unravel that mystery, let us look in another, apparently unrelated direction.

      The “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” establishes the criteria used by mental health professionals to diagnose mental and emotional disorders. Treatment, including medication, is based on the diagnosis. A new, revised version of the DSM has just been released. However, there have been objections to some of the changes from professional behavioral health organizations around the world. What is the nature of those objections?

      Here is an excerpt from a petition initiated by the Society for Humanistic Psychology, Division 32 of the American Psychological Association:

      “Lowering of Diagnostic Thresholds”

      “The proposal to lower diagnostic thresholds is scientifically premature and holds numerous risks. Diagnostic sensitivity is particularly important given the established limitations and side-effects of popular antipsychotic medications. Increasing the number of people who qualify for a diagnosis may lead to excessive medicalization and stigmatization of transitive, even normative distress.”

      In other words, the concern is that the changes would result in more people being diagnosed and treated for “mental illness” when there is no scientific basis for implementing such a change.

      “The proposed removal of Major Depressive Disorder’s bereavement exclusion, which currently prevents the pathologization of grief, a normal life process.”

      So normal grief over the loss of a loved one would now be considered pathological, diagnosed as “Major Depressive Disorder” and possibly treated with psychotropic medication.

      How does all of this serve to implement a major component of the Obama agenda?

      Expanded background checks for those seeking to purchase firearms have focused on keeping firearms out of the hands of the “mentally ill”. That sounds reasonable and benign until we realize that the IRS has stolen the medical records of 10 million Americans, including the records of “psychological treatment”, and that the DSM has lowered the threshold for diagnosing someone as having a pathological disorder.

      Authorities in New York State have already seized the guns of an individual based on medical records documenting treatment for depression. They had the wrong medical record and the court ordered the man’s guns to be returned to him. However, one would have to be blind in order to fail to see what is coming.

  2. LD 7 PC says:

    Michele Reagan can kiss her Secretary of State aspirations goodbye as far as I’m concerned. We already have a RINO in the governor’s office. There is no reason to replace her with another one. An actual conservative, Rep. Steve Montenegro will be running. He works for Congressman Trent Franks and has seen up front and personal how to function with integrity.

  3. Vince says:

    I remember cheering when liberal Janet Napolitano left the governor’s office to work for Obama and Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer came in to replace the Dem. I never would have thought that we’d be getting the same Obama driven agenda from Republican Brewer. I doubt there would have been a dime’s worth of difference between what Nappie would have done and what we are having done to us now.

  4. VOTE THEM ALL OUT says:

    Anybody who goes to the Arizona Project and gives them a little attention will get support from them. They are losing membership faster than the AFA, why would any so-called conservative group want a R.I.N.O. like Michelle Reagan to speak?

    • American Patriot says:

      Excellent point, VTAO. The group purports to be conservative and we all know that the only thing conservative about Reagan is her well respected name — thanks to President Reagan, not her. To call her an odd choice is an understatement.

  5. eubykdisop says:

    Ready. Set. Sellout!

    “House lawmakers reach tentative deal to revamp immigration”

    “By Richard Cowan and Rachelle Younglai, May 17, 2013”

    “(Reuters) – Prospects for passage of a major immigration bill improved on Thursday when a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House of Representatives declared they had reached a tentative deal, resolving disputes that had threatened to torpedo negotiations.”

    “After years of blocking moves to put the 11 million on a pathway to citizenship that many conservatives call “amnesty,” Boehner, the top elected U.S. Republican, urged his party to work for a major revamp of immigration laws.”

    “Boehner’s call for action angered many of his most conservative rank-and-file Republican House members, as well as some conservative interest groups. As a result, it is unclear how Boehner will navigate between his desire to accomplish an immigration bill and resistance from many fellow Republicans.”

  6. sgtflapjaw says:

    Why has the AZGOP deteriorated over the past few years? There has been a quiet but sincere effort by the establishment GOP in Arizona to push aside the conservative wing. Certain people began circulating emails to convince others that “they” need to work harder to defeat PC’s who subscribe to the conservative line of thinking. They surfaced right at the time that the reapportioned districts were forming.
    These rinos [I much prefer Progressive] Republicans have long been willing to sacrifice political power to democrats for defeating conservatives. See the Medicaid debicle.
    Brewer has coat tailed conservative success to become some kind of mirage to the voters who think that she is one of us, but we know how tied she is to the McCain Progressive Axis of “power for me at all costs” politics.
    My hope is that the public has seen that the establishment has gone too far now and is about to destroy the Party for the sake of their own and base of infleuence. If the AZGOP goes down, so does the State. Hello California.

    • eubykdisop says:

      The reason why things don’t seem to make sense is that the paradigm has changed. The lines between establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats have disappeared and both are united in promoting the “New World Order” whose objective is the end of U. S. sovereignty and the implementation of global governance.

      George Herbert Walker Bush, a Republican president, promoted the SAME “New World Order” being promoted today by B. Hussein Obama, a Democrat president.

      “Now, we can see a new world coming into view. A world in which there is the very real prospect of a new world order. In the words of Winston Churchill, a “world order” in which “the principles of justice and fair play … protect the weak against the strong …” A world where the United Nations, freed from cold war stalemate, is poised to fulfill the historic vision of its founders. A world in which freedom and respect for human rights find a home among all nations.” – George H. W. Bush, March 6, 1991 speech to Congress

      “So we have to shape an international order that can meet the challenges of our generation. The international order we seek is one that can resolve the challenges of our times…” – B. Hussein Obama, West Point commencement speech, May, 2010.

      While we play our fiddles, still believing in an outdated paradigm, Rome burns.

    • Orion says:

      Good points all, except for the term you say you prefer, that of “Progressive.” Liberals themselves prefer that term. They run from being called “Liberals” or in the case of Republican pretenders, “RINOs.” Republicans In Name Only is appropriate for those who work from the inside to destroy our party and gut the GOP platform.
      “Progressive” sounds up to date and forward thinking, so that fits their deceptive image to a tee. Too many of our own are carrying the left’s water for them by using their desired descriptions. Rush Limbaugh has always said, “words matter.”

      • sgtflapjaw says:

        The term “Progressive” refers to the anti constitution leftists that were prevelent 100 years ago who changed their name to “liberal” to disguise who they are, which is socialists. We are both talking about the same people. Rino is a term used to describe a republican who does not adhere to the party line, but in reality the McCains, McComishes, McBrewers etc. all seem to fall in love with the Progressives, Liberals, Socialists and if you wish, Rinos.

      • eubykdisop says:

        I agree, sgtflapjaw. You are quite clear on the terms you use, not that that was the point of your comment.

  7. sgtflapjaw says:

    The point of my comments are that we are faced with [or need to face] that our opposition party democrats, are allies of the so called rinos. We need to realize that the progressives of our party are the same as the democrats, and they both hate conservatives and the Constitution.

    • eubykdisop says:

      Yes. Of course. How do we explain that phenomenon?

      “The Intelligent Student’s Guide to the New World Order”

      “By Erica Carle”

      “It is unfortunate that few of our congressmen, state, county, and city legislators have been alert enough to detect the behavior management and CONTROL that have been directed toward them. Many of them have been deceived, flattered, coerced, bribed or blackmailed into surrendering their legitimate authority to New World Order decision makers. This, too, was planned. In 1906, sociologist Lester Ward explained how NWO legislation could be achieved:”

      “It must not be supposed that such legislation can be conducted to any considerable extent in the open sessions of legislative bodies. These will doubtless need to be maintained, and every new law should be finally adopted by a vote of such bodies, but more and more this will become a merely formal way of putting the final sanction of society on decisions that have been carefully worked out in what may be called the sociological laboratory.”

  8. Hagar says:

    Don’t forget that the “Three Mormon Amigos,” Worsley, Crandall and Driggs, who comprise half of the six Republicans who voted with the Democrats for the medicaid expansion, are the same three who are carrying the amnesty for illegals banner their church supports. As a Mormon they digust me.