Phyllis Schlafly used her waning time well — recently exposed Jeff Flake

September 6, 2016

Conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafly, died Monday at age 92. Hers was a life well lived — as a wife,  mother of six, lawyer, author, syndicated columnist, conservative activist, lecturer and founder of the influential Eagle Forum. In one of her final columns, Schlafly wrote in support of Donald Trump, whom she had endorsed, and exposed Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) as a disreputable globalist. We have reprinted that July 13, 2016 column in its entirely. This brilliant and courageous woman will be missed.

Trump Battles Globalist Republicans

Before heading to Cleveland to accept the Republican nomination for president, Donald Trump paid a high-profile visit to Capitol Hill, where he hoped to unify Congressional Republicans behind his presidential campaign. Many of the 247 Republican Representatives and 54 Senators were cordial to their party’s presumptive nominee, but others remained hostile and weren’t shy about expressing it to reporters after leaving the closed-door meetings.

One Congressman reportedly demanded that Trump promise to protect Congress’ Article I powers if he is elected. Trump tactfully refrained from pointing out how many times the Republican Congress has unilaterally surrendered its Article I powers, including the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations.”

Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona openly mocked Trump at the meeting and then bragged to reporters about their “tense” exchange. Flake, an unrepentant member of the Gang of Eight that produced the 2013 amnesty bill, has already announced plans to resurrect that discredited bill next year no matter who is elected president.

Trump’s next stop was a private meeting with Senator Ted Cruz, who inappropriately brought his campaign manager Jeff Roe to the meeting. Two months after suspending his campaign, why does Cruz still utilize a high-priced campaign manager to join high-level discussions with the presumptive nominee?

The answer is that Cruz never stopped running for president, and the people who spent $158 million — more than twice what Trump spent — to back Cruz in 2016 are not going away. Cruz recently set up two new nonprofit organizations to keep his key people employed, prematurely launching another run for president in 2020.

Cruz’s delays in endorsing Trump and his disloyal preparations to run for president in 2020 help only one person: Hillary Clinton, which is what some Republican mega-donors actually prefer, because they are globalists who oppose Trump’s stances against immigration and free trade.

The globalists will never accept Trump or anyone else who puts Americans first, and they are using Cruz to undermine Trump’s campaign. Cruz’s mega-donors think they can buy their way to control of the Republican Party even if Trump wins the presidency this year, and they are already funding the takeover of several conservative organizations.

These globalist money-men are also hostile to our Constitution, which they want to rewrite in a new constitutional convention, also called “Convention of States.” Eric O’Keefe, who has close ties to the billionaire Koch brothers, backs the Never Trump movement and is a board member of the Convention of States project.

Justice Scalia in May 2015 called this attempt for a new constitutional convention a “horrible idea,” but several of its cheerleaders were able to get on the Republican platform committee that is meeting this week. Cruz has praised the delusional proposal to add many amendments to the Constitution, and some of his donors are part of the same group that seeks to alter our Constitution.

Cruz earned support by many conservatives when he first came to D.C. four years ago. It is long overdue for Cruz to repudiate the support of these globalists who are working against Trump and against our national sovereignty.

“We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism,” Trump promised in his April 27 foreign policy speech in Washington. That sentiment is anathema to the globalists who provide much of the money for Republican candidates.

“I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down,” Trump continued. “Under my administration, we will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs. Americans must know that we’re putting the American people first again.”

When Trump vows to “put Americans first” the globalists complain about “protectionism,” as if there’s something wrong with expecting our own government to protect American jobs and America’s economic interests.

“On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy, the jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority,” Trump said. “Both our friends and our enemies put their countries above ours, and we – while being fair to them – must start doing the same.”

In a June 22 speech in New York, Trump intensified his attack on the globalist money interests: “We’ll never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who have rigged it in the first place. The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money.”

“It’s not just the political system that’s rigged, it’s the whole economy,” Trump continued. “It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep wages down. It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the United States with absolutely no consequences for them.”

We’ve waited a long time for a Republican candidate to express these pro-American views, but Donald Trump’s victory in the presidential primaries proves they are what the voters want to hear.

Editor’s note: Phyllis Schlafly’s words were proven even truer on Sunday, when the arrogant Republicrat Jeff Flake gave this contemptible interview during an appearance on “Face the Nation.”

AZ Republic peddles the fraud of moral relativism

August 22, 2016

In what is clearly not a coincidence, the Arizona Republic runs two articles a single day apart. Each deals with faith.  Article One, titled, “The Many Faces of One Faith,“ is three pages in length. The faith in question is Islam. The oversized quote accompanying the report is attributed to Hani Rahal, identified as Leader of Al-Mahdi Benevolent Foundation. His quote? “Many Americans are afraid of the unknown, they don’t know what Islam is.”

In fact, in recent years Americans have come to know what certain adherents of Islam tell us and show us it is.  No rational observer believes all Muslims follow such beliefs, though this National Review report, Obama’s Bad Math on Islamic Terrorism, is rife with disturbing polling data and specifics that give rise to suspicions. It also makes the point that Muslims are no more fundamentally bad than Christians or Jews. But it is not true, as Barack Obama has said, “99.9 percent of Muslims” reject Islamic terrorism. Obama’s 99.9 percent figure is demonstrably false. Pew Research has polled the issue extensively. In surveys of the Muslim populations of nine majority-Muslim countries, an average of 57 percent have an unfavorable view of al-Qaeda, not 99.9 percent. Thirteen percent have a favorable view of al-Qaeda, not 0.1 percent. 

Article Two in the Sunday edition uses an almost 90-year-old Holocaust survivor to make the point that she was hated merely for who she was. The horrors she endured have no relationship to mainstream American Muslims, though that is the point attempting to be made. The Nazis rounded up 6-million Jews and millions of others and sent them to death camps where they were starved and subjected to unspeakable atrocities, then gassed or put into ovens. American Muslims, described as being about 70 percent Democrat, live ordinary lives here. There are no parallels to 1930’s and 40’s Europe.

The elderly Holocaust victim was led down the Primrose Path by columnist Karina Bland, who specializes in midlife travails and was clearly over her head in making this moral equivalency on behalf of introducing individual Valley Muslims and their faith.

The differences are stark. European Jews did not commit heinous crimes in the name of God. They did not behead, bomb, drive massive trucks through crowds engaged in outdoor festivities with their children. They did not butcher or strap on suicide vests to randomly slaughter wedding attendees, shoppers or diners. They did not commandeer commercial airliners and fly them into skyscrapers. They did not hand out candy to their children as they celebrated wholesale slaughters, accompanied by joyful shouts of “Allahu Akbar!” which translates to “Allah is greater!”  — meaning Allah Is Greater Than Your God or Government. Robert Spencer of “Jihad Watch” provides a more complete explanation.

Islam is fundamentally different than the religions of Christianity or Judaism. Islam, the fastest growing worldwide, demands strict adherence to its precepts, which are often incompatible with our Constitutionally granted freedoms, since it seeks dominance. Tom Trinko at “American Thinker” provides an in-depth analysis in his column, Islam: Not Just a ReligionFor the Arizona Republic to use an elderly victim to try to convince us otherwise is reprehensible but understandable, as Obama opens America’s  floodgates to hundreds of thousands of unable to be vetted Muslim “refugees.”

Leftist AZ newspaper works to purge elected Republicans

May 23, 2016

Routinely calls on elected Republicans to resign

The newspaper of record in the state of Arizona is auditioning for a new gig as its readership is dwindling to non-existence.  The remaining crew — few can legitimately be called journalists — have found their niche in despotism.

Its latest trick is an attempt to seize power by demanding office holders not of their liking step down.  The newspaper has even advocated for appointment rather than elections to political posts.

The folks at the newspaper recoil from Republican voters having their say, opting instead for open primaries, where the top two vote getters — which they hope are both Democrats — vie against one another.  Recently columnist Robert Robb pondered why the state treasurer was an elective office. Maricopa Country Sheriff Joe Arpaio has long been in their stand-down sights, marginalized at every turn. Longtime Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell “must resign” due to long lines on Election Day. Secretary of State Michele Reagan is ridiculed as “inept” by left-wing  partisan E.J. Montini. His fellow traveler, columnist Laurie Roberts mocked Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich for not postponing the May 17 election due to a snafu with the publicity pamphlets getting mailed out in a timely manner. The state legislature is continually accused of nefarious schemes. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Diane Douglas has been the subject of ongoing insidious insults and a failed recall attempt.

The list of those unworthy of staying in office is long and decidedly partisan, since the elected officers they love to hate are invariably Republicans — most often conservatives.

An editorial preceding Arizona’s March 22, 2016 presidential preference primary bared the newspaper‘s agenda clearly with the headline urging voters to “Reject Donald Trump and Ted Cruz. Vote John Kasich instead.” Trump and Cruz are anti-GOP establishment.  Kasich would be better suited running as a Democrat. The skewed view was sounded rejected by voters who gave the majority — 47% — to Trump.

Film critic Bill Goodykoontz was pulled in on the double duty task to write, “Covering Trump’s lies no simple task.”  Neither subtlety nor honesty rank as top considerations at the unabashedly liberal Arizona Republic.

Here are the facts: Arizona holds the distinction of having Republican majorities in both the state House and Senate. The Senate President and Speaker of the House are Republicans. The Governor is a Republican, as is the Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, the state Mine Inspector and the five members of the Corporation Commission. Arizona has nine congressional districts, with Republicans holding five of the seats and those misappropriating the GOP brand holding the two U.S. Senate seats.

Maricopa County, which includes the capitol of Phoenix and numerous other cities and towns, has Republicans holding 4 of the 5 Board of Supervisor posts, a Republican Sheriff, County Attorney, Treasurer, Assessor, Recorder, Clerk of the Superior Court and County School Superintendent.

This is untenable to the left and they strive to change it on a daily basis.

Left’s utterly ridiculous education statements

April 30, 2016

Liberal Provocateur E.J. Montini, one of the remaining henchmen at the increasingly irrelevant Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) headlines his column “Arizona is selling our kids’ brains to the Koch brothers.”

In Liberal Land, the Koch brothers are targeted and reviled for being wealthy political conservatives who usually donate to GOP candidates. No such indignant hostility exists when radical leftist ideologues George Soros, Tom Steyer, or Michael Bloomberg — among the multitude of other Dems* finance the left-wing agenda.

Question for E.J. Montini: Would the disturbing facts dropping out of the mouth of Robert Chanin, longtime General Counsel for the “powerful” American Education Association (on the occasion of his retirement),  also qualify as “selling our kids’ brains?” Those leftwing unionist teachers spend more time with America’s children than most of their parents do. The NEA members  are proficient propagandists. Keep these words in mind when you mark your ballots on Prop. 123. Don’t fall for the con. Vote No. 

* H/T The Sunlight Foundation.

Pondering our undoing

April 23, 2016

Thomas Sowell is a man who possesses a brilliant mind, which makes his “Random Thoughts” worth reading.

This is an example:

“Historians of the future, when they look back on our times, may be completely baffled when trying to understand how Western civilization welcomed vast numbers of people hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization, people who had been taught that they have a right to kill those who do not share their beliefs.”

Ponder that.

Are you inclined to vote away your right to vote?

April 12, 2016

 The Arizona Republic would like nothing better than to relieve you of the burden

Fishy_Arizona_RepublicRobert Robb, the libertarian-leaning columnist at the daily newspaper has often been the stand alone voice of reason at the increasingly leftist publication. Recently, however, he’s been veering into uncharted territory, pulling a complete switcheroo on issues of importance. In February we exposed the scheme being pushed by the Arizona Republic, calling him out for his disappointing change of mind from his previous stance on the “Top Two Primary,” titling the piece, “Robert Robb: Forgetful, schizophrenic or seeking job security?” The post includes Robb’s original logical assessment of the overreach in the second paragraph.

Now with State Treasurer Jeff DeWit announcing his intention not to seek reelection when his term ends in 2018, we get another odd dose of Robert Robb. This time he’s devoted a column to asking, “Why do we elect a state treasurer?”

We’ve been down this road before. In this May 2015 post “AZ Republic wants to mute your voice, muzzle your vote,” we reminded our readers about the deception that has previously come packaged as a component of the benign-sounding “Home Rule.” We characterized the contemptible plan to separate citizens from their votes with these words:

“There have been other such schemes over the years. The warm and fuzzy sounding “Home Rule,” included provisions to appoint all county “line officers” as they were dismissively called, including the County Attorney, Sheriff, Treasurer and School Superintendent. Though its intent was to eliminate citizen’s ability to vote for these and other county officials —-  turning the immense appointment power over to the Board of Supervisors —- it was promoted as merely a “housekeeping” budgetary provision. Arizona voters caught on quickly as did the elected office holders, both successfully pushing back against this ruse.”

The slippery tricksters at the Fish Wrap even went editorial to advocate for appointing the five members of the Arizona Corporation Commission. In July 2012 we wrote, “Left promotes schemes to separate you from your vote.”

In fact the intended mission was to get citizens to the ballot box to….vote away their right to vote. Under the guise of simplifying the process, we would cede to the Board of Supervisors our ability to vote for what were contemptuously termed “line officers.” 

The argument always began with the office of the mine inspector — a state official.  “Who knows who the mine inspector is or what he does? Why should that be an elective office?” From there it went down the line of county officers from assessor to  recorder and every office in between.  When the Sheriff was the topic, the incessant liberal echo was “The police chief is appointed, why not the sheriff?”

The plan is to encourage voters to vote to give their votes away. Think of it as a deliberate attempt to separate you from your vote by telling you others can vote on your behalf more efficiently and effectively.

What each of these offices have in common is the fact that they are all held by elected Republicans. No wonder the newspaper wants them appointed.

“Court packing” double talk from the devious left

April 11, 2016

Linda Valdez, the far-left editorial writer at the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) is having anxiety attacks over what she repeatedly refers to as “packing the court.” A piece of legislation (HB 2537) winding its way through the chambers allows for the addition of two new Supreme Court justices on the Arizona high court, expanding the number from the current five to seven members. Republican Gov. Doug Ducey would make the appointments filling the two vacancies if the bill wins approval.

The court building and bench were constructed to accommodate the increased number of justices.

SRAZ currently takes no position on the plan. But it’s interesting to ponder if Valdez would be so indignant if the date were 1937 and it was the U.S. Supreme Court that was under consideration for expansion to as many as 15 justices.

That was the Machiavellian scheme of Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt who planned to expand the U.S. Supreme Court, allegedly to make it more efficient. Critics charged that Roosevelt was trying to “pack” the court and neutralize Supreme Court justices hostile to his radically liberal “New Deal” of overreaching  federal programs. During the previous two years, the high court struck down several key pieces of New Deal legislation on the grounds that the laws delegated an unconstitutional amount of authority to the executive branch and the federal government.

In an obsessive power grab, Roosevelt then attempted to mandate retirement at full pay for all members of the court over age 70. If a justice refused to retire, an “assistant” with full voting rights was to be appointed, ensuring Roosevelt a liberal majority. Most Republicans and many Democrats in Congress opposed the so-called “court-packing” plan — with the Senate striking it down by a vote of 70 to 22. Ultimately, Roosevelt nominated his first Supreme Court justice, and by 1942 all but two of the justices were his appointees.

Our bet is Linda Valdez would have been all too happy to see such liberal activism from the executive branch in reconfiguring the federal judiciary.

After Franklin Roosevelt was elected to an unprecedented fourth term, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed, officially limiting presidential tenure in office to two terms of four years each.

Valdez doubtless would have opposed that curtailment of the “president for life” measure, as long as the president was a like-minded liberal. has a wealth of information on FDR and his audacious court packing scheme.