The “Mommy Wars” Are Over

Women used to be faced with a dilemma: forgo a career to stay at home and raise children, or sacrifice the upbringing of your children in order to pursue a career. Since the 1960’s, feminists and conservatives have sparred over this choice. Feminists criticized mothers who stayed at home, claiming women could instead “have it all;” pursue a career while putting their kids in daycare. Conservatives criticized women who put their career first, correctly observing that a parent in the home raising the children is better for the children. This debate was known as the “mommy wars.”

The war is now essentially over and the feminists have won, although not because they were more persuasive. Only 12 percent of moms believe that working full time is an ideal situation for children, and 74 percent of adults say that mothers working outside the home makes it harder to raise children. About half of adults surveyed believe that children are better off if the mother does not work.

Yet today, only three in ten mothers do not work outside the home. The reason the feminists have won is because it is now difficult for men - as well as women - to make enough money from one job to support the entire family. As economic conditions continue to spiral down under Obama, employers have been forced to cut jobs, hours and benefits. Jobs that used to pay decently have been replaced by free student labor, or “internships.” Most parents are lucky to find  full-time jobs that pay slightly better than minimum wage. There are fewer people working now than anytime within the past 35 years; only 63 percent of working-age Americans are in the workforce. At the same time, the cost of healthcare, gas, food and other necessities continues to increase. 

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Ted Nugent Uncensored: Western Shooting Journal interviews the Nuge about guns, hunting and rock’n’roll

(SPINDLER & VAUGHN)
I was fortunate recently to have a chance to interview Ted Nugent, the American rock ‘n’ roll, sporting and political activist icon. “The Nuge” has sold more than 40 million albums of classic rock and performed more than 6,500 concerts, singing and playing guitar.

Read the interview

I will be on Talking Guns With Kate today with other gun gals

KFNX's Kate Krueger will be blasting off about guns today with me and other women in the gun industry. Listen live here from 12-1pm Arizona time (11-12pm PST), or locally in Phoenix at 960am. I will post the podcast later in this post.

Merry Christmas from Western Shooting Journal and IC Arizona!

My husband found this classic old 1987 video of Ted Nugent singing with David Letterman. Letterman is not really singing....

Russell Pearce launches radio show

For Immediate Release: Contact: Sean McCaffrey

December 12, 2013 (602) 885-5815

The Russell Pearce Show launches on 960 The Patriot

Arizona’s leading conservative hits weekend primetime

(Phoenix, AZ)—The Russell Pearce Show will officially launch on 960am The Patriot, serving the Phoenix media market and also available live online to a national audience. 960am The Patriot is owned by Salem Communications, a prominent national Christian and conservative media and publishing company which 99 radio stations in 38 markets, and the conservative blogs Townhall.com and Hotair.com.

The Russell Pearce Show will air live in prime time on Saturdays from 7:00PM to 8:00PM, immediately following Liberty Storm with Shane Krauser, and will feature weekly guests and take calls from listeners. The audience call-in number is (602) 508-0960.

“I am thrilled to once again bring a strong conservative voice to Arizona’s airwaves,” said Russell Pearce. “And I’m excited to continue being a thorn in the side of liberals who think America’s best days are long gone. They’re wrong. Our nation is worth fighting for and Arizona conservatives are proof.”

The Russell Pearce Show will soon launch a corresponding website, Facebook and Twitter page, and Pearce said he would continue his state and national speaking engagements to further energize conservatives in 2014 and beyond.

“The looney left will try to lie, cheat and steal to keep what power they’ve got,” Pearce said. “What I want to do, what my show is all about, is getting people motivated, energized and excited about America again. Let the liberals whine and cry. We’ve got real work to do, so tune in, call in, and let’s make our voices heard!”

Russell Pearce served in the Arizona legislature for eleven years, most recently as President of the Arizona State Senate in 2011. Sen. Pearce is widely regarded as the dean of Arizona’s legislative conservatives and today maintains a close watch over the state capitol. He authored/sponsored Arizona’s SB 1070, as well as the Arizona Fair and Legal Workers Act, Prop. 200 requiring proof of citizenship to vote, a constitutional amendment making English Arizona’s official language, Arizona’s Freedom to Carry Act, and numerous key laws and initiatives. Pearce served in several positions in state government, prior to which he served in Arizona law enforcement for twenty three years, and as Sheriff Arpaio’s Chief Deputy. His previous radio show, Conservatives Lead with Russell Pearce, was a top-rated call-in program in Arizona for more than a year.

Millennials Finally Turn Against Obama, Want Recall

A majority of 18-to-24-year-olds now say they would recall Obama as president if they could. It is finally happening; young people who overwhelmingly supported Obama are now turning away from him in droves. The hope and change he promised never materialized, instead replaced with deteriorating conditions.


A new poll from Harvard University’s Institute of Politics found that Millennial approval of Obama has dipped to the lowest ever, at 41 percent. Their dissatisfaction with Obama now mirrors the rest of the country. Similarly, 56 percent of Americans aged 18 to 29 disapprove of Obamacare, compared to only 39 percent who support it. The younger Millennials are becoming increasingly less Democratic. Of those age 18 to 24, 31 percent identify as Democrats and 25 percent as Republicans.

This is occurring in part because the entry level jobs they are qualified for are drying up and turning into free internships. Paid internships are becoming a rarity. Millennials are realizing the Occupy Wall Street movement’s demands only succeeded in making things worse for them. Fast food workers striking for higher wages is hurting, not helping them. Instead of having a good shot at what used to be plentiful fast-food jobs, young people are finding themselves replaced by fast-food ordering kiosks. 

Read the rest of the article at Townhall 

Western Shooting Journal to interview top celebs at our SHOT Show booth! Joe Mantegna, Louise Mandrell, Doug Koenig and more

From our forthcoming January 2014 SHOT Show issue. We have just started lining up interviews, check back often for updates! Top Shot Dustin Ellerman and Extreme Shooting star Patrick Flanigan are the latest two confirmations…click image to enlarge.

NFL Rejects Super Bown Ad Due To Subtle Second Amendment Reference

Marty Daniel of Daniel Defense/Fox News Insider

Who would have thought a TV commercial would be rejected for subtly promoting one of our constitutional rights? Not just any right, either, but one so important the Founding Fathers codified it as the Second Amendment to our Constitution. Daniel Defense, which manufactures AR-15 parts and accessories, submitted a commercial for the February 2, 2014 Super Bowl XLVIII to be played in New Jersey at the Meadowlands, which would be broadcast worldwide. The ad did not mention guns or ammo. The National Football League(NFL) doesn’t just prohibit guns in commercials, it goes beyond its own policies to stamp out anything remotely construed as related to the firearms industry.

The ad is relatively benign – nothing like the violence seen on many video game ads common on television today. It features a man coming home to his wife and baby, while narrating how he takes care of them and no one should tell him he can’t protect them. At the end, the logo for Daniel Defense briefly appears featuring the silhouette of an AR-15. Guns are never mentioned.

The NFL’s guidelines for commercials state, “Firearms, ammunition or other weapons are prohibited; however, stores that sell firearms and ammunitions (e.g. outdoor stores and camping stores) will be permitted, provided they sell other products and the ads do not mention firearms, ammunition or other weapons.”

After the ad was rejected, Daniel Defense, which sells other kinds of products besides firearms, revised it to remove the gun logo at the end and replace it with the American flag – yet the NFL still refused to run it. By not following their own guidelines, it became painfully clear that someone running the NFL has an anti-gun agenda, or perhaps one of the media conglomerates that airs the Super Bowl, like Comcast, is putting pressure on the organization. Comcast reportedly refused to air ads from two stores that sold guns earlier this year, due to a change in its policy after the Newtown school shooting. One was a pawn shop and the other also sold archery equipment.

Read the rest of the article at the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research

High School Sex Ed Indoctrination Reaching Dangerous Levels

I was astonished recently when one of my stepdaughters arrived home from public high school in Washington state with a red ribbon painted on her cheek. Sex education in the schools – which conservatives have tried to limit to abstinence-only – has now gone well beyond simple education. Today's students are being coerced into promoting and acting out the politically correct views taught them. It is being done so sneakily, using the authoritative stamp of approval by the public schools, that even my conservatively raised children were cajoled into participating.

There was no way to pull your child out of the day-long event. The entire school “celebrated” HIV/AIDs Awareness.” A student group formed to educate other students about AIDs was responsible for putting on the event, and took over the front part of the school with tables and displays. On the tables were baskets of mint-flavored condoms, and students working the tables encouraged others passing by to take them.

Every few seconds, a loud gong would sound and someone would announce, “Every 12 seconds, someone is infected with AIDs, and every 16 seconds, someone dies from AIDs.” The windows throughout the school were covered with HIV/AIDs awareness messages and posters were plastered on the walls. Almost every light throughout the hallways was turned off for further dramatic effect. The main staircase inside the school was covered with red ribbons. There was a giant wheel that students were encouraged to spin in order to see what disease they would contract. Students were lured into spinning it with the promise of a prize.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Your humble editor makes "The Best Conservative Columnists of 2013"

Thanks to John Hawkins of Right Wing News for the honor of making his Top 50 list this year. Of course, the only problem with the list is Hawkins himself isn't in it!

DUI Checkpoints: Yay or Nay?

DUI sobriety checkpoints, also known as roadblocks, are one of those things that sound good until you think it through. No one wants drunk drivers on the road. But no one wants texters or people eating lunch on the road, either, which are even more dangerous. In order to catch the latter two, it would be necessary to set up video cameras either alongside the road or inside cars. Every year, several states that prohibit DUI checkpoints consider passing legislation to permit them. These laws are usually championed by Democrats.

Motorists engage in secondary behavior during approximately half of their time on the road. Hands-free mobile phone conversations are legal all around the country, but slow reaction times by a significant 26.5 percent, according to a study from the UK. Eating slows reaction times by up to 44 percent. Drivers who text slow their reaction times by 37.4 percent. In contrast, drivers at the legal limit for alcohol in the UK, which is .08 BAC, only demonstrated a 12.5 percent increase in reaction time. The National Highway Administration finds this disparity to be even greater, surmising that driving a vehicle while texting is six times more dangerous than driving while intoxicated.

This becomes even more troublesome when it is taken into consideration that some states don’t require a minimum BAC level for a DUI; the violation level is “impaired to the slightest degree.” Someone who blows a .03 BAC level may be perfectly capable of driving safely, but the laws as drafted in many states do not distinguish. If caught at a DUI checkpoint, even though the driver has not made a single driving error, the driver can likely expect to be fully prosecuted with little chance of escaping the draconian consequences of a DUI conviction.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Dodd-Frank: Making it Harder For You to Get a Mortgage

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, sarcastically known as Dodd-Frankery and Dodd-Frankenstein, was passed into law in response to the financial crisis and recession of 2008. It contains the most drastic changes to financial regulations since the regulatory reform after the Great Depression. Proposed by Obama in 2009 and signed into law in 2010, the Democratic bill was the handiwork of former Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) in the House and former Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) in the Senate. It was supposedly going to stop banks from making loans to risky buyers who could not pay them back, reducing foreclosures. It was also supposed to change the rules so banks could no longer receive taxpayer-funded bailouts due to their poor business practices.


It hasn't worked out the way its Democrat proponents claimed. This is because the people who got us into this mess are the same ones who drafted the law. Dodd-Frank contains more of the same things that precipitated the financial crisis; government meddling in the mortgage business and financial markets. Lobbyists for special interests carved out loopholes, resulting in merely different lists of winners and losers. As one author in U.S. News & World Report observed, “These exemptions are less about protecting unsophisticated borrowers than about protecting the taxpayer-guaranteed business models of favored entities.” Hedge funds and some other firms lost big; they are now required to fill out a 192-page form that has been estimated to cost each firm $100,000-$150,000.

Speaking of winners or losers, most outrageously, Dodd-Frank didn’t bother to reform Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, the biggest culprits for handing out mortgages to high-risk borrowers who should never have qualified for them. They received the largest bailouts of all financial institutions in 2008.

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Radio Interview with KFNX's Talking Guns with Kate on Obamacare and gun control

On Sunday, I had the opportunity to talk to KFNX's Kate Krueger about how Obamacare affects your gun rights. It's all about mental health - targeting veterans with PTSD and others in the vague name of "mental health." Listen to the interview here (I'm in the second half, after an interview with Karen Worcester Ex Dir & co Founder of Wreaths Across America).

No ironclad proof: Case against Horne is circumstantial, but that may be enough

The Arizona Capitol Times had another hard-hitting article on the prosecution of Tom Horne, the liberal Republican Attorney General who has no chance of winning re-election, according to powerful D.C. consultants who have taken polls. Prosecutor Sheila Polk is not the only one who has found wrongdoing by Horne, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery has also found reason to civilly prosecute Horne. This is why conservatives and Tea Party activists are supporting Mark Brnovich instead. Brnovich has been endorsed by Montgomery as well as Rep. Trent Franks.

Here are some excerpts from the article by Jeremy Duda - 


The crux of Polk’s case is a series of phone calls between Horne and Winn that occurred while Winn was communicating via email with Brian Murray, BLA’s political consultant. While Polk and Montgomery have presented the calls and emails as evidence of coordination, Horne and Winn say prosecutors can’t prove they were talking about the attorney general’s race or BLA activities. They say the calls were about Winn assisting Horne with a real estate deal.


As evidence of coordination, Polk cited the timing of Winn’s phone calls with Horne and her emails with BLA’s consultant. In some cases, the calls closely followed Murray’s emails to Winn about the BLA ad, and Winn’s responses to her consultant came just after her conversations with Horne ended. Horne also forwarded Winn an email several days later in which one of his campaign staffers discussed Horne’s campaign strategy, and urged her to raise more money from a national Republican group. And Polk’s case is bolstered by the fact that Winn worked on Horne’s campaign, and didn’t leave to work on her IE until a few weeks after the GOP primary.
...

Several elections attorneys emphasized that Polk will have to meet a relatively low standard of proof. While prosecutors in criminal cases must convince juries that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases such as Horne and Winn’s are held to a lower standard called “preponderance of evidence,” meaning that Polk only has to show that a violation was more likely than not.
--

In her order, Polk said the evidence against Horne and Winn is compelling. She said the phone conversations between them while Winn and Murray discussed the content of the ad via email shows that they coordinated their efforts. Winn’s comments to Murray about how “we” wanted certain changes to the ad show she was consulting with someone else, and Polk insisted that person must be Horne.


“Winn almost always consulted with Horne prior to instructing Murray,” Polk wrote in her Oct. 17 order.
...
“When Horne sent strategic information to a supposedly independent campaign, he intentionally and blatantly broke the barrier that was supposed to exist between his campaign and BLA. The breach is so clear that Horne must have recognized it to be improper,” Polk wrote.
...

Polk ordered Horne and Winn to repay about $400,000 that the prosecutor alleges was illegally contributed to BLA, and they could face a fine of up to $1.2 million if they lose the case. 

Mark Brnovich for Attorney General: Protect Public Prayer!

Friend, There is an assault on our religious liberties! Liberals are suing to stop public prayer! The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the Town of Greece v. Galloway case. Groups like the ACLU are trying to claim that the 1st amendment doesn’t protect public prayer. Unfortunately, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne refused to submit a brief on the merits in support of public prayer. Join us today in support of religious liberties! Consider a donation of $5, $10 or $20 to help us spread our message and protect public prayer! Your Friend, Mark Donate Now Contributions to Mark for AZ - Primary are limited to $912.00 per contributor for the 2014 election cycle. Couples with a joint bank account may contribute a maximum of $1,824 for the 2014 election cycle. Funds from corporations, limited liability companies and labor organizations are prohibited. PACs may contribute up to $912 for the 2014 election cycle and Super PACs may contribute up to $4,560 for the 2014 election cycle. Credit card contributions may be accepted only if the contribution is made from personal funds, and not with a corporate credit card or funds provided by another person. Contributions made by check must be drawn on the account of the actual contributor. Contributions from foreign nationals may not be accepted unless they have permanent residency status in the United States. Contributions are not tax deductible.

Copyright © 2013 Mark For AZ, All rights reserved. You are on this list because you may be interested. Our mailing address is: Mark For AZ PO box 24471 Tempe, AZ 85285 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

Congressman Trent Franks Endorses Mark Brnovich for Arizona Attorney General

November 4, 2013                                                 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   Congressman Trent Franks endorses Mark Brnovich for Arizona Attorney General   “Mark will serve with honor, distinction, and integrity.” U.S. Representative Trent Franks, the dean of Arizona’s House delegation, today endorsed Republican Attorney General Candidate Mark Brnovich. "During this trying time in our history, when the foundations of our nation are being eroded by the highest echelon of our national government, it is vital for states to elect leaders who understand and deeply embrace the core ideals that birthed America,” said Rep Franks. “This is especially true of those entrusted with the power to enforce our laws. That is why it is my honor to endorse Mark Brnovich for Arizona Attorney General." "As Arizona’s Attorney General, Mark Brnovich will protect the rights of all Arizonans, and Mark will serve with honor, distinction, and integrity. He will defend our shared values and stand up for the vulnerable. I am confident he has what it takes to fight the increasing federal overreach and protect Arizona's state sovereignty." "Trent Franks is a powerful national voice for conservative principles," said Brnovich. "His commitment to defending the family and the most vulnerable members of our society has been unmatched in this state. I am thankful to call Congressman Franks a friend and proud to count him as a supporter of my Republican candidacy for Arizona Attorney General."   ABOUT MARK BRNOVICH: Raised in Arizona, Mark Brnovich is a graduate of Arizona State University. After law school, Mark prosecuted felonies in the Gang/Repeat Offender Bureau of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and worked as an Assistant Attorney General for Arizona and as Assistant US Attorney for the District of Arizona.  Mark also served his country as Command Staff Judge Advocate for the 153rd Field Artillery Brigade of the Arizona Army National Guard for eight years. Mark met his wife Susan while both were working as prosecutors. They live in Phoenix with their two daughters. ###  For more information, please contact Mark for AZ Campaign Manager Ross Groen at 480-221-7545.

Copyright © 2013 Mark For AZ, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you have previously shown interest in political campaign coverage. Our mailing address is: Mark For AZ PO box 24471 Tempe, AZ 85285 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list    update subscription preferences

Solar Industry Takes on Crony Capitalism in Arizona

A heated battle is taking place in Arizona between the fledgling solar industry and APS, the  state’s largest energy company, which enjoys a state-granted near-monopoly over energy. In sunny Arizona, it is peculiar that solar energy is being portrayed as the bad guy. Since Arizona is a Republican-dominated state, APS is sneakily buying up influential Republicans, both directly and indirectly, to perpetuate its crony capitalism. The Washington Post refers to these Republicans as  “some of the best pollsters and consultants money can buy.”

The spin goes like this, “stop subsidizing the solar industry.” The word “subsidy” is used to scare Republicans. The solar companies are being compared to Solyndra, the green energy company that went bankrupt despite receiving more than $500 million in loans from the Department of Energy.

The reality is, the solar industry is not being “subsidized.” Energy users who do not use APS power, but use their solar panels instead for power, are simply not being double-charged. When they are not using APS power, but are instead sending unused solar power energy back to the grid for others to use, they receive a rebate. This is known as “net metering” and has been in place since 2009. APS wants to eliminate this, which will essentially have the effect of charging solar users for APS power they do not use.  Instead of receiving 15 cents per kilowatt-hour rebates for power the solar users send back to the grid, APS wants to reduce the rebate to 4 to 10 cents. This would add $50 to $100 a month to the power bills of solar users. The utility also wants to start charging solar users a monthly maintenance fee.

Solar users are saving everyone additional costs. As energy users dependent upon APS decrease their usage and move to solar power, fewer generating stations need to be built, and fewer distribution lines put into place. While it is true that solar users are paying less towards the maintenance costs of APS, it is because they are using less of APS’ services. 

Read the rest of the article at Townhall

Media Bias and Conservative Setbacks in the Federal Shutdown

by Andrew Thomas

Following a fortnight of partial federal government shutdown, as Washington returned to business as usual, media and political analysts took the news space and air time formerly ceded to reporting the situation to assessing winners and losers in the national confrontation. Few had little good to say about Republican leaders in Congress, and just as few judged their efforts successful. Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media opinion leaders, in particular, roundly condemned the agreement to reopen federal agencies and institutions without concessions from President Barack Obama and Democrats in Congress.

Many average conservative citizens around the nation echoed these beliefs and conclusions. The New York Times conducted man-in-the-street interviews of conservatives around the nation and reported a combination of anger, discouragement and bemusement over what had happened. One man in Cleveland, Tennessee, believed “the premise was good,” but found no payoff ultimately for the nation or supporters of the shutdown. A cabdriver in Colorado Springs and a homemaker in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, both bemoaned the impact of the shutdown on the military and local businesses. Fueling this sense of collective letdown were leaders who saw little benefit gained from the previous two weeks of fiscal battles. “Among commentators on the right,” the article noted, “the reaction has been less driven by despair than by anger. In heated language on talk radio and on conservative blogs, many spoke of a winning if difficult strategy sabotaged in the end by weak-willed leadership.”

Ironically, the pages of the Times provided their own compelling and direct explanation of why the shutdown failed to advance Republican aims. In assessing how and why the dispute ended with no substantive progress on debt reduction or limitations of Obamacare, one needed to look no further than the coverage and behavior of the dominant news media themselves to see why the deck was stacked so decisively against the forces of reform.

Read the rest of the article at the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research