Tag Archives: OpEd

Republicans speak out on Tom Horne-gate

Posted on by

ATTORNEY GENERALOpinion by Glen Davis

Recent revelations about an extramarital affair by Republican Tom Horne have caused the Republican party to speak out.

Some have attempted to blow it off with a comparison to South America. That happens all of the time in Brazil. Or the same caparison to European politicians. If a European politician doesn’t have a mistress there is something wrong with him. Oh, it’s so cosmopolitan they cry.

What a man does in the privacy of his own room is his own business, Republicans are quick to add.

The Republicans are stressing that the Federalist Papers make it clear that a misdemeanor is not impeachable unless it violates our national security.

clinton-lewinskyOh, I am sorry. I got my stories confused. The same people that are running ads encouraging people to call Tom Horne to urge him to drop out of the race are the same people that used those statements to defend the extramarital affair of Bill Clinton with Monica Lewinsky in 1996.

And the media—especially in Arizona—is loving to hate. The same media that defended Bill Clinton’s extramarital affair is going after Tom Horne like he was investigating the death of four Americans in Africa.

AZfamily.com did report that Horne paid the $300 fine for the misdemeanor hit-and-run. The article quotes Horne as saying,

The vehicle’s owner stated the car already had a dent that the federal agents who noted the incident wrongly assumed I caused. Had I known there were scratches, I would have left my name and contact information so that I could have taken care of this personally.

He apparently pleaded not guilty to the affair (pun intended) back in November of 2012, however.

The intent of this oped is not to defend extramarital affairs by anyone. They are wrong.

I do have a problem with the States’ Attorney General not leaving a note no matter how small the accident might seem. The one thing that the Federalists of old assured the people is that everyone would be obligated to follow the laws that were passed by Congress—including Congressmen. Except, of course, for the Obamadoesntcare mandates.

Of course Arizona politicians from Flake to Salmon (and of course Democrats) are asking Horne to step aside. If Horne does not step down it could impact the party which McCain and Flake have so carefully maintained as the bastion of Republican ideals which our founder espoused.

The problem is that people cannot seem to see the hypocrisy of the position of the media because the media apparently does not deliver historic context to their iPads. Voters cannot be bothered by anything beyond the latest episode of Twilight or latest scripted reality series.

Tom can always apologize to his mistress in 17 years, or so.

Nigeria: One-Religion Ticket Can Win

Posted on by

Opinion By Mahmud Jega, 28 April 2014

There are 26 political parties in Nigeria today, so there will be several Muslim and several Christian presidential candidates. It depends therefore on whose vote is split the most.

nigeriaThe political actors and newspaper columnists who rushed in the last two weeks to say that a presidential election ticket made up of two adherents of the same religion cannot win in Nigeria have not thought about this matter very carefully. Ordinarily I wouldn’t have written about religion and politics because I, for one, will not cast a vote for or against anyone on religious grounds. However, I am intellectually provoked by the firm assertion of some commentators that a one-religion ticket cannot win an election in Nigeria. It can, under some circumstances.

The flurry of commentaries was sparked off by a newspaper story which said the opposition APC is planning to field what in Nigerian politics is called a “Muslim-Muslim” ticket in 2015, i.e. General Muhammadu Buhari and Asiwaju Bola Tinubu. “Religious balancing” is a very sensitive matter in Nigerian politics. It is taken for granted that the presidential ticket of every major political party must include one adherent each of the two major religions. Given this sensitivity, I was personally amazed that APC did not vigorously deny the story. Its tepid response allowed Femi Fani-Kayode, for one, to say that APC is trying to promote one religion over another. Some other commentators worsened matters by saying there is nothing wrong with a Muslim-Muslim ticket. Well, I am not saying it is a good thing or a bad thing. All I am saying is that in theory such a ticket or its obverse, a Christian-Christian ticket, can win an election in Nigeria.

The first reason for saying a one-religion ticket can win an election in Nigeria is because it has happened before. Usually, the best evidence that something can happen is if has happened before. Many Nigerians appear to believe that this scenario will not happen precisely because it happened before. Soon after the ill-fated June 12, 1993 election, the Christian Association of Nigeria [CAN] did say that it would not condone a Muslim-Muslim ticket again. It did not however say if it will tolerate a Christian-Christian ticket. No one can say for sure that the extraordinary combination of circumstances that produced the Abiola-Kingibe ticket in 1993 will never happen again in Nigeria.

Read more at All Africa

From Bunker Hill to Bunkerville – Americans Fight Back!

Posted on by

Opinion by Lyle Rapacki

Bundy-RanchFreedom-Movement-550x353 copy

When the call arrived that Bureau Land Management (BLM) agents intended to begin a “Dynamic Raid” on the Bundy Ranch in Clark County, Nevada, I responded because of several responsibilities: I am an Oath Keeper, as well as a member of Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association and the presidents of both organizations asked for assistance. I also was responding to the call, as I coordinated the movement of several Arizona Legislators who, on their own and with their personal funds, made their way to the Bundy Ranch at Bunkerville. There were many citizens from across the western United States who also answered the call, and there were citizens and Oath Keepers and former military who came from the East Coast! U.S. Congressman Paul Gosar from Arizona also arrived. Besides Arizona Legislators, legislators from four other western states also heeded the call to Bunkerville, Nevada. Two County Supervisors/Commissioners from Arizona went, as did a couple more from other states; a couple of former state legislators from western states, a land commissioner, along with state coordinators of several patriot and Tea Party groups, at least a half dozen pastors including Chuck Baldwin, a dozen or more long-time (100-years+) ranchers, and a goodly number of teenagers from various states…we all met in a dry, windy, dusty, and hot place named Bunkerville, Nevada.

What drove us all there…what possessed thousands of people from across the country to forge their way to this remote part of the west? The reason as I see it is rather simple and eloquent; FREEDOM RISING! The Freedom Movement for this generation began in earnest a week ago at the Bundy Ranch. The Freedom Movement answered the call to stand firm against tyranny by a centralized federal government our Forefathers feared could raise its’ diabolical head if not kept in check, and it has not been kept in check by WE THE PEOPLE, who, are the true government of this exceptional Nation! Somehow, someway, WE THE PEOPLE became lazy and content being able to go to Starbucks and McDonald’s at will, and leave the governing to, well, government! The results are obvious to all who stood post at Bunkerville. The Federal Government of the United States has become mean spirited, vindictive, corrupt beyond belief, vile in its’ hatred of free speech and citizens challenging its’ authority. The Federal Government of the United States has worked diligently to become all-powerful, all-knowing, all-dictatorial, and all-militarized against its’ own citizens who dare to question the decisions and behaviors by its’ agents and representatives. The Federal Government of our country has chosen a hidden agenda to be implemented that goes directly against the values and principles by which our country was founded, and directly against the good for the people.

Read more at The Olive Branch Report

The problem with HB 2284? Nothing, really.

Posted on by

OPINION by Glen Davis

EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic apparently has a problem with Arizona HB 2284. This bill would allow the Director of the Department of Health Services to inspect, or send a duly designated agent, to inspect abortion clinics if there is “reasonable cause” to believe they are violating the law or rules concerning abortion.

His argument is that they have this authority already if they obtain a warrant.

Mr. Montini does not seem to have a problem with warrantless searches of restaurants by county health departments. Especially to make sure they are adhering to an unconstitutional law against allowing smoking in their business.

I do not know if he has a problem with Obamacare guidelines which allow warrantless inspections of homes of “at risk” families. These include Veterans who have honorably served our country, homes with pregnant women under the age of 21, homes of student that have children with low student achievement, homes of tobacco users, families with substance abuse problems, and so-forth.

I do not know how you determine a student of low achievement since common core curriculum does not require you to get the right answer, but whatever…

This provision is not unusual. ARS 36-463.02 allows inspections of clinical laboratories. Although 36-495.07 does limit inspections of environmental laboratories to an annual occurrence, no warrant is required. ARS 36-855 allows the warrantless inspection of child care facilities by local or State health departments. We have mine inspectors and even a guy to run around and check railroad crossing signals. We can send police to find out why kids are not in school without a warrant.

The point is that any organization licensed to do business affecting the health and safety of the public, in some fashion, agreeing to warrantless inspections on the city, county or State level. It is rather difficult to understand why abortion clinics should be exempt.

SEE ALSO: Center for Arizona Policy

The President Inhales

Posted on by

He ought to change federal drug law rather than refuse to enforce it.

300px-Obama_Portrait_2006To the delight of dorm rooms everywhere, President Obama has all but endorsed marijuana legalization. “We should not be locking up kids or individual users for long stretches of jail time when some of the folks who are writing those laws have probably done the same thing,” he told the New Yorker magazine. Let’s try to see through this political haze.

Mr. Obama also muses to an admiring David Remnick that while pot is “a bad habit and a vice” and not something he would encourage his daughters to try, “I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol.” He called the Colorado and Washington legalization experiments “important for society,” while offering no comment on the federal Controlled Substances Act that he has an obligation to enforce equally across the country.

Marijuana remains a Schedule I substance under that 1970 law, meaning that it has a high risk of abuse. “No more dangerous than alcohol” is still dangerous, given the destructiveness of alcohol-related disease and social ills like drunk driving. There’s an industry related to mitigating alcohol problems, after all.

We tolerate drinking because most adults use alcohol responsibly, and by all means let’s have a debate about cannabis given how much of the country has already legalized it under the false flag of “medical” marijuana. But an honest debate would not whitewash pot’s risks.

Read more at The Wall Street Journal

Self-Interest Vs. Selfishness: A case for Capitalistic society emerging from a moralistic foundation

Posted on by

Lately I am hearing lots of statements suggesting the GOP, Tea Party, and conservatives should stay out of social issues or compromise their values to cater to the left, so that we can find a “middle-ground”. Previously when people inquired about my political beliefs, I said that I was “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”. After years of questioning my political opinions, my research led to an awareness of cultural Marxism, the Frankfurt school, and theorists such as Saul Alinsky, who proved that social issues have always been one of the leftists’ key instruments to effect political and fiscal change. I have since decided that my beliefs are more aligned with the “Classical Liberal” ideology.

Government regulation should be as closely limited to preserving the inalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness as possible. Since issues Americans are currently facing, such as a depressed economy, immense national debt, Obamacare, education, and immigration among others that are undeniably infringing upon those rights, it is understandable why popular sentiment even amongst some republicans is that we need to stay focused on these issues and give into or ignore social platforms to find solutions and win elections. Any CEO knows establishing priorities is tantamount to success, however they also know that it’s nearly impossible to achieve growth and prosperity without having a solid foundation. The values embedded in the culture that manifested the United States Constitution lent itself to a society of self-interested individuals who could compete in a free-market that incentivized resourcefulness, ingenuity, and progress fostering the betterment of man.

More at Politichicks

courtenay-turnerCalifornia PolitiChick Courtenay Turner is an actress, producer and passionate patriot who aspires to inculcate conservative values into the American culture via entertaining stories.

Should We Bail Out Cities?

Posted on by

iALF7L8oomuABy Megan McArdle Nov 26

In the latest City Journal, Steve Malanga writes about an issue that hasn’t yet gotten a lot of attention but is virtually guaranteed to become a serious topic of national debate in the not-so-distant future: Do we bail out cities that have become insolvent?

Malanga quotes a Steve Rattner op-ed from the summer: “The 700,000 remaining residents of the Motor City are no more responsible for Detroit’s problems than were the victims of Hurricane Sandy for theirs, and eventually Congress decided to help them.” Rattner is right, of course; Detroit was largely undone by massive structural changes in the auto industry, which now employs only a small fraction of the people that it used to. And yet, there’s more to the story, isn’t there? Detroit’s biggest problem is the combined burden of its pension funds and retiree health benefits. And the reason that its pensions are in such a state is that they were bizarrely mismanaged by people who apparently didn’t quite get fifth-grade math.

It’s true that it would be easier to deal with these problems if Detroit were more like New York and less like, well, Detroit. But it’s also true that if Detroit had been responsible about its pension contributions instead of underfunding the pensions while simultaneously handing out extra benefits above and beyond what the city already couldn’t afford, its retirees would not now be facing dire straits. New Yorkers did not get to vote for the corrupt Detroit politicians who appointed the terrible Detroit pension managers who made all of Detroit’s problems so much worse than they had to be. Why should they have to pick up the check for all those mistakes?

Read more at Bloomberg

Reporter Ben Swann Smeared For Questioning Media’s Sandy Hook Narrative

Posted on by

Christopher McDaniel


Ben Swann Facebook

Ben Swann is an anchor for Fox 19 in Cincinnati. According to his bio, Swann has been the recipient of the Edward R. Murrow Award and two Emmys for his work. He is not a sensationalistic reporter. He is not out to “get clicks” at the expense of his integrity. Swann is, quite possibly, the last bastion of journalistic integrity in America today.

I first started following him last year when I saw one of the segments in his “Reality Check” series during the political primary season. I found Swann to be engaging and honest. He never issued verdicts, but rather always presented the facts as they stood and asked questions to engage the viewer in critical thought.

Salon published a piece on Monday about him, attempting to disguise itself as balanced, but it falters throughout. The author, Alex Seitz-Wald, repeatedly portrays Swann’s commentary with a not-so-subtle amount of sarcasm. It is quite obvious that Ben Swann is striking a nerve with the national media.

His latest piece, via his web-based, “Full Disclosure” series, does not allude to any of the shootings being a “false flag” or a “hoax.” However, it does what we the people should demand of journalists — it asks questions. Swann asks how so many eyewitnesses can claim to see multiple shooters at these events, and somehow all we get is a lone gunman narrative, every single time.

Read more at PolicyMic