Catch conservative comedian Evan Sayet next Wednesday in Scottsdale

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Wednesday,  May 20, 2015

Evan Sayet: Proving to the nation that conservatives can do comedy

MRCTV

By Dan Joseph

 

This week, Late Show host David Letterman retired.  Letterman was a funny guy.  But he was also an unabashed liberal who often ferociously attacked his conservative guests while gushing over prominent liberal politicians and media figures.

Of course, it’s been obvious for quite some time that comedy-whether on television, in film or in the stand-up world-is dominated by liberal voices.  But, conservative comedian Evan Sayet is about to change that.

Sayet is a pioneer of conservative stand-up comedy and he’s about to bring his no-holds-barred brand of humor to venues across the country.

The tour opens on May 27th in Phoenix, Arizona and includes stops in Chicago, Boston, New York and Phoenix with a whole host of shows in other cities to be announced soon.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with Sayet, he made a huge splash with a speech he gave to the Heritage foundation entitled “How Modern Liberals Think.” The video has garnered nearly 1 million views across the Internet and it turned Sayet into one of the most respected political comedians in the country.

Sayet is hilarious, yes.  But, he wants people to understand that his new show is not just for laughs.

“This is more than just a night of ‘yuks,’ Sayet told MRCTV.  Rather, it is an important conservative event with important and powerful conservative values espoused through wit and humor.”

For those of you who are still not sold as to whether conservatives can be just as funny (if not more funny) than the leftists who rule the airwaves on late night television and fake comedy news programs, check out a few of Sayet’s clips.  You’ll be singing a different tune once you get a taste of what he has to offer.

Click here and here for clips of his show.

 

 

Join Our Mailing List

Presidential Field Thoughts

It’s been a long time since I’ve actually posted so I’m jumping back on the horse with an easy post about presidential politics.

It’s still very early in the season and not all candidates have announced but here are a few of my own thoughts from where we stand right now:

1. Governor’s Jeb Bush and John Kasich make the establishment pick. Bush from Florida and Kasch from Ohio could possibly ensure two key pickup states. Not at the top of my list but like Romney, the GOP would probably settle for this team.

2. Dr. Ben Carson is running to be the next Surgeon General – where he really belongs at one of the most important bully pulpits.

3. Governor Scott Walker: A great reform governor but does he have the gravitas to push to the head of the pack? My biggest worry for Walker is that he becomes the 2016 Tim Pawlenty. He’s also one of my favorites.

4. Senator Marco Rubio: My top choice at the moment. Young, Latino, great communicator, he could be the right person given the changing demographics. Besides, who said young junior senators couldn’t become President?

5. Hillary Clinton: Doomed. TOO MUCH BAGGAGE. BUT, I want her to win the nomination. She has to win the nomination because the extreme left has no choice and feel obligated to give her the nomination.

6. Martin O’Malley: Someone who could snatch victory from the jaws of Hillary. Still an extremely left Democrat but the candidate running his mouth on “equality” issues. Republicans should be concerned.

7. James Webb: The one Democrat Republicans should fear the most. If the Democrats wanted to put a statesman-like candidate up, they’d nominate the former senator from Virginia. His military and political career stand above any of the Republicans currently in the field. He also comes off as moderate to many in the middle. Republicans better hope he doesn’t win the Democrat nomination.

 

Fallon on Hillary’s Hypocrisy

Fallonism

Courtesy Patriot Post

Taken for a Ride – No on Prop 104

Taken for a Ride - NO on 104
Committee to educate public on $31,500,000,000 Phoenix Transportation Plan
(Phoenix, AZ) — Today, the Taken for a Ride – No on Prop 104 committee publicly announced its formation to oppose the $31,500,000,000 sales tax (Transaction Privilege Tax) that will be put before voters on August 25, 2015.  The sales tax, which was approved to go before voters by Mayor Greg Stanton and several city council members, is calculated to give Phoenix, Arizona one of the highest sales tax rates in the United States.

Explaining why he is chairing the “No” committee, United States Army Veteran Matthew Kenney said, “When I returned from the battlefields in the Middle East, my hometown of Phoenix led the country in kidnapping and poverty.”  Kenney said he was staggered to learn, “At a time when my commute times are below the national average, Phoenix’s murder, robbery, assault and overall crime rates were on the rise (latest 2012 statistics).  Phoenix leaders have lost their focus – it’s about badges not buses — they are getting it wrong.”

Once touted as one of the “best-run” cities in the country, Phoenix, Arizona has seen a troubling decline since the new Mayor was sworn in, in 2011.   In discussing Phoenix’s rapid decline, Taken for a Ride Consultant, Mike Noble said,  “Phoenix was most recently a city in the black and now finds itself trying to tax itself out of the red. No society in the history of the world has taxed itself into prosperity regardless of the types of jobs you intend to create.”

In what many are calling a generational tax, Proposition 104’s language is very unclear according to election observers and legal scholars who are considering challenges.  Mike Noble said, “Hiding $31 Billion from taxpayers reminds me of underhanded politics– Politician’s generally rue the day that they try to slip one by the taxpayers.”

Matthew Kenny added, “Phoenicians and small business owners will have to shoulder a 31.5 billion dollar tax burden and the mayor cut a deal with big business excluding purchases above $10,000 from the proposed new tax, where is my deal Mr. Mayor?”
Chairman, Matthew Kenney concluded, “31 billion dollars will buy every man, woman and child living in Phoenix Arizona today, a smart car…. Out of the goodness of Phoenix taxpayer’s hearts, we could also purchase a smart car for every man woman and child who lives in Tucson Arizona.  This is just bad policy, we should vote no on Prop 104.”

Matthew Kenney served 6 years as an infantry officer in the United States Army and fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation New Dawn.  Matthew resides in Phoenix, is married to his lovely wife, Brittany, father to his daughter Eden and they expecting one more addition to the family in several months.

Ethics attorneys: Judge Snow must recuse himself from Sheriff Arpaio’s case

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Saturday,  May 2, 2015

NYU Law Prof: Sheriff Arpaio did nothing unethical by hiring private investigator to talk to biased judge’s wife and family

Other ethics attorneys all concur: Snow must recuse himself from the case over allegations his wife reportedly made that he is biased against Arpaio

Judge Murray Snow, reportedly of the Snow family from Arizona that has demonstrated a powerful, longstanding history of political activism aiding illegal immigrants, and destroying anyone in their way.

If you’ve been following this story, you’ve heard in most of the so-called mainstream media that Sheriff Joe Arpaio unethically hired a private investigator to look into allegations the wife of the judge handling the case against him says he is biased against him. A NYU law professor says otherwise.Arizona Public Media, one of the fairer local news sources, ran this:According to testimony from Arpaio and his chief deputy, the sheriff got a Facebook message in August 2013. It was from a woman who said she had heard Judge Murray Snow’s wife make comments that the judge hated Arpaio and didn’t want him to be re-elected. According to the sheriff, his lawyer hired a private investigator to talk with her and her family further.That had many wondering, was that ethical?

“Yes, it was appropriate. Lawyers have to protect their clients,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who studies judicial ethics.

“If this lawyer believed that there was some evidence of personal animus on the part of Judge Snow toward his clients, then investigation within certain bounds is entirely appropriate,” Gillers said.

 

Chad Snow

Chad Snow, reportedly one of Judge Snow’s relatives whose family has made it a priority to attack anyone who dares to combat illegal immigration.

 

We talked to some attorneys who practice ethics law, and they agreed. We also asked them if Judge Snow is required to recuse himself from the case due to the alleged statements by his wife as well as Arpaio hiring a PI, and they unanimously agreed he must according to judicial ethics rules, but none of them dared go on the record due to fear of retaliation by Snow. One candidly told us they believe Snow was assigned to this case to “make sure Joe goes down” and will not recuse himself for any reason, he’s in this to win it and to “destroy Joe.”

 

Another attorney who only spoke to us off the record, said Snow and his Arizona family (apparently the Snow who founded the town Snowflake) have long family ties to illegal immigrant sympathizers, which is why he was selected to handle this case against Arpaio. One of them is reportedly a relative, attorney Chad Snow, who was the co-chair on the recall effort against Senator Russell Pearce. Snow is most well-known for publicly calling a Latina a b*** for simply disagreeing with his politics. He reportedly became radicalized serving on a mission in his youth to Spain.

 

With a long, extended family history sympathetic to illegal immigration, to the point of radical activism, why hasn’t this man recused himself???

 

How’s that for a “justice” system?

Join Our Mailing List

NEW POLL: Support for Glendale Casino Collapses

The following outlines the key findings from an automated survey commissioned by Coleman Dahm and Associates. Coleman Dahm does not have any financial interest on this issue. Interviews were conducted April 27, 2015 with likely statewide voters. The margin of error for the entire sample (n=845) is +/- 3.42% at the 95% confidence level. Initial support for the proposed casino collapses once voters become aware of the fraudulent activities of the Tohono O’odham Nation:

Initial Ballot Informed Ballot Differential

Initial Ballot                Informed Ballot                 Differential

SUPPORT                                            54%                           39%                                        -15%
OPPOSE                                               37%                           55%                                       +18%
UNDECIDED                                        9%                             6%                                          -3%

There is overwhelming support for Senator McCain and Senator Flake’s legislation to prohibit any new casinos from being built in the Phoenix area:

McCain/Flake Legislation

SUPPORT                                                61%
OPPOSE                                                   33%
UNDECIDED                                            6%

There is also broad support for the actions of the Governor, Attorney General, and the Arizona Department of Gaming to not certify gaming activity at the proposed Glendale casino.

Governor/AG/ADOG Activity

SUPPORT                                                56%
OPPOSE                                                   37%
UNDECIDED                                            7%

FINAL CONCLUSION

Based on the survey results there is overwhelming support from voters to oppose new gaming in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Once voters become aware of the various issues surrounding the conduct of those involved with this proposed casino, opposition grows by 18% to a clear majority in opposition. This survey shows that most of Arizona’s elected officials are acting with large support for their activities in trying to stop this casino.

Arizona Republican Party Rejects Bid to Close Primary

By Christopher Herring

During a contentious debate, the Arizona Republican Party’s executive committee rejected a proposal to close future primaries to independents.

Although there are good faith arguments in favor of limiting participation to Republicans only, the perception, and most importantly, the financial cost, outweighed any potential benefits.

In 1998, voters approved a measure that allowed independents to vote in the primary of any recognized party. Now part of the Arizona Constitution, the law initially conceived by a Republican controlled legislature, would likely be defended by the Arizona’s Attorney General’s office, greatly increasing the financial cost and risk to an already budget strapped political cycle where every dollar counts.

A significant obstacle to the party is the notion that Republicans support the rule of law and the Arizona Constitution. Suing the state to not administer its constitution isn’t the best headline for the party. Another significant challenge would be that the state party would have to show a severe burden is caused by independents voting in Republican primaries. Specifically that independents voting changed the ideological outcomes of elections in a manner significant enough to overturn the will of the voters to keep the primary open. In the most recent elections, independents have not voted in high numbers in party primaries and the case can be made that Arizona Republicans are more conservative than they have ever been on fiscal and social issues. Proving a severe burden would be a large task for the party’s attorneys.

In fact, every scenario discussed to close the primaries were fraught with risk. Whether it was a lawsuit, assuming the financial obligation of administering the entire primary, or funding a lawsuit to close the primary, the cost would be shouldered by all Republicans with no guarantee of success and a likelihood of failure.

The singular criticism surrounding the partially open primary is the moderating effect it creates on Republican elections. Although independents are growing in America and in Arizona, Republicans continue to enjoy a significant voter registration advantage over the Democratic Party and continue to hold onto every major statewide elected office. Judging by the lack of moderate or liberal Republicans holding statewide offices, it is difficult to prove that the small number of independents are gaming the Republican primary.

If there is a real fear in closing the primary outside of costs, it is alienating Arizona’s right leaning independents. In fact, as independents continue to grow, the Republicans cannot simply ignore their growing influence but must be continually active in persuading them that their principles are aligned with traditional party beliefs. Many independents describe themselves as conservatives but simply don’t want the label of Republican.

The state executive committee made the right call to not divert resources away from the continued march of winning elections and enacting conservative policies by embarking on long and expensive lawsuits with no guarantee of success. Arizona’s Republican Party consists of a diverse group of voters, fighting for conservative principles that make our lives better every day. The Party, under the leadership of Robert Graham, should continue to focus on what it is doing well, winning short term victories and building long term relationships to enhance the Republican brand in Arizona.

Christopher Herring is the President of the Maricopa County Young Republican Professionals and member of the Arizona Republican Party Executive Committee.

AZGOP Chairman Robert Graham’s Sacrifice Means Victory

By Daniel Stefanski

A hearty thanks to AZGOP Chairman Robert Graham for working through another executive board meeting! Today, it sounds like the board voted against funding a lawsuit for closing Republican primaries. As it should have been, Robert allowed the motion to be voted on, and the representatives of the precinct and state committeemen did what they felt was in the best interest of the Arizona Republican Party and election victories in 2015 and 2016.

And for all the heartache by a select few over the closed meeting today, it was not closed to those who were duly elected in previous elections. Want to sit in and participate in future state party executive meetings that may be closed to observers? Run for election for one of those positions next time around. The process isn’t being obstructed. It’s being followed to the letter of the law.

Robert Graham voluntarily signed up for a non-paid job with round-the-clock hours, but he did not sign up for a job that featured lies, distortion and people from his own party working against future Republican victories to serve their own self interests. Before this meeting, Robert did not fight against the resolution to close our primary. Rather, he expressed his opinions and waited for the process to carry itself out. While false allegations that Robert was carrying out other interested party’s wishes swirled around prior to today’s meeting, it is now a fact that the AZGOP executive committee voted within their rights and responsibilities to table the closed primary funding proposal.

Though one will never come, I think Robert Graham is owed an apology for the way he has been treated and maligned by people who claim to be in the same party as him.

And to make up for an apology that will never come, I think Robert deserves thanks and encouragement by all those who appreciate the 2014 victories he was very instrumental in helping to achieve. We who were involved in the 2014 campaigns know how hard the State Party worked throughout the entire cycle.

Robert and the Arizona Republican Party have pledged to stay neutral in primaries, and they have remained faithful to that promise. The AZGOP has also always upheld the party platform during Robert’s tenure as chair. Those who claim that Robert is attempting to pave a path for any individual primary contender are doing so without any factual basis. Robert is not going to pull any favors for any candidate in a contested primary election, and he’s not going to lead the AZGOP towards an ideological potion that does not adhere to the entirety of our platform. Activists may “want” him to do their work for them in a contested primary election, but he’s just not going to do play favorites. So to save everyone’s time, let’s support our primary candidates and await the time when the AZGOP will be waiting for the Democrats with guns a-blazin’ after the winning Republicans make it past their primaries.

Thanks as well to everyone who sacrifices their time to serve at the AZGOP and on the executive committee!

Let’s work for some more GOP victories in 2015 and 2016! Who’s with me?!

MEDIA BLACKOUT – 35% of AZDems, 47% of AZ Latinos Support Deportation

illegals

A recent poll conducted by ASU’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy focused on several issues including the most important issue facing Arizona and our economy, illegal immigration.  The stunning results were intentionally muted by the local media in order to hide the fact that a large swath of Arizona Democrats agree with conservatives on the issue of deporting those in the country illegally.

Possibly more stunning than the fact that 35% of Democrats agree with conservatives on enforcing current immigration law is that Arizona Latinos agree with conservatives at a greater rate than Arizona Democrats — 47%.

What portion of the poll did the news editors choose to cover? Pot legalization.

Here are the main points from the poll:

  • 30% of AZ Dems & 51% of AZ Latinos disagree with the following statement – “Undocumented immigrants bolster Arizona’s workforce and we should do whatever’s necessary to make it easier for them to come to Arizona.”
  • 35% of AZ Dems, 47% of Latinos, & 53% of Independents agree with the following statement –  “Arizona should aggressively pursue the deportation of undocumented immigrants”

We at ArizonaInformer are waiting with baited breath for Phoenix New Slimes “Fat Bastard” Stephen Lemons, Laurie Roberts, and Brahm Resnik to label Arizona Democrats and Latinos as racist, nativists, who seek to ‘ethnically cleanse’ Arizona.

Bar disciplinary judge’s appointee made anonymous website to target complainant

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N S E N S E , in Arizona

Saturday,  March 14th, 2015

Evidence continues to mount against State Bar disciplinary judge O’Neil

O’Neil’s “ethics” buddy Mark Salem retaliated against Mark Dixon with a disgusting smear website for going public about O’Neil’s corruption 

Arizona Republic
Critic of Arizona courts claims libel, defamation in suit
by Dennis Wagner
March 10, 2015

A Pinal County man who lodged numerous ethics complaints against Arizona’s top disciplinary judge claims in court filings that an associate of the judge waged a libelous smear campaign against him on the Internet.

In a Maricopa County Superior Court lawsuit, and in a complaint submitted to the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, Mark Dixon of Casa Grande said he was branded as a liar and a cross-dresser on an Internet site operated by Mark Salem, a past member of an Arizona Supreme Court committee on judicial oversight.

Salem, as a Supreme Court appointee, has in the past helped adjudicate numerous State Bar complaints with Arizona Presiding Disciplinary Judge William “Bill” O’Neil, who oversees lawyer ethics and discipline for the Arizona Supreme Court. Salem resigned Aug. 12, 2014, as a disciplinary panelist, six weeks after Dixon’s lawsuit was filed.

Dixon contends Salem launched the website as retribution after Dixon publicly sought to have O’Neil disciplined or removed from power. In April, The Arizona Republic published a detailed account of that controversy.

Dixon and others have alleged in court papers and hearings that O’Neil engaged in unethical and unlawful behavior involving abuse of power, conflicts of interest and real-estate transactions.

Salem, a former Scottsdale police officer, is co-owner of Salem Boys Auto. He hosts talk-radio shows on auto repairs and for years has been a guest columnist for newspapers including The Republic. He and his attorney declined comment for this story.

To date, Dixon’s allegations regarding O’Neil have been dismissed, or discarded without publicly disclosed investigation, by the Supreme Court and other agencies. Nevertheless, Dixon contends his efforts to expose wrongdoing made him a target on Salem’s now-defunct website known as pinaljustice.com.

In a Dec. 23 disclosure, Salem attorney Matthew Kleifield denied all the defamation claims but acknowledged his client created an Internet site to rebut Dixon’s public allegations against O’Neil. Kleifield contended Salem’s criticisms were not libelous because they were true or drew reasonable inferences from Dixon’s own words. He also disputed whether Dixon suffered any damages.

In 2010, Salem, O’Neil and others were appointed by then-Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch to a state Supreme Court Committee on Improving Judicial Oversight and Processing of Probate Court Matters. In recent years, Salem also has served as a “public” member on at least eight panels convened by O’Neil to hear disciplinary cases against Arizona lawyers.

O’Neil did not respond to requests for comment.

Divorce dispute

Dixon began investigating O’Neil, a longtime acquaintance, in 2009 after being detained by Pinal County sheriff’s deputies in connection with a divorce dispute over ownership of a dog.

In a lawsuit and other public documents, Dixon alleged that O’Neil sided with Dixon’s ex-wife in the canine controversy, and used his power as a then-Pinal County Superior Court judge to influence deputies.

As the feud escalated, Dixon filed complaints against O’Neil with the Commission on Judicial Conduct, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, the FBI and other agencies. All were dismissed.

O’Neil was appointed as the state’s first and only presiding disciplinary judge in 2010. Under a new Arizona system, he became the only judge in the state responsible for deciding whether Arizona lawyers have violated ethical rules, and meting out sanctions against those found culpable.

According to domain history records, Salem is the registrant, administrator and billing contact for pinaljustice.com.

Pinaljustice.com was shut down in late November, according to the records, but print-outs made before that date were submitted as exhibits in Dixon’s suit. Postings include Dixon’s phone number, home address and messages such as: “Mark is said to be (a) big, fat, stupid, ugly, recently divorced 52-yr-old a–hole.” Some postings attempt to refute Dixon’s allegations about O’Neil.

Dixon said he filed a new complaint against O’Neil with the Commission on Judicial Conduct. He provided The Republic a signed copy dated Sept. 30, 2014. It alleged the judge “directly or indirectly engaged in an act of retaliation by conspiring with Mark E. Salem,” but he offered no evidence to support that assertion. The commission does not comment on pending cases, but an agency dismissal published online Nov. 19 says the commission decided O’Neil did not violate ethics or the judicial code.

Last week, Dixon’s attorney in the civil complaint against Salem filed a request to withdraw from that case.

Earlier allegations

The prior complaints from Dixon, and motions filed by attorneys who had sought to remove O’Neil from disciplinary cases, alleged that the judge:

— Ghost-wrote court filings on behalf of Dixon before they became alienated, including a complaint lodged against another Superior Court judge in Pinal County.

— Took part in an allegedly unlawful short-sale of a Casa Grande house owned by O’Neil’s mother-in-law. Records show O’Neil’s close friend and business partner, Brian Brenfleck, purchased the residence for $75,000 at a time when records showed mortgages totaling over $600,000. After the short sale eliminated mortgage debts, records show, O’Neil paid $25,000 to Brenfleck for a half interest. O’Neil’s mother-in-law remained as the home’s occupant.

— Presided over Arizona lawyer discipline hearings with a co-panelist, the late Robert Gallo, who was a family friend, without informing defendants of the relationship.

During an interview with The Republic last year, O’Neil denied ghost-writing legal documents for Dixon. He said transactions involving his mother-in-law’s house were not fraudulent. He acknowledged serving on ethics panels alongside Gallo without advising defendants about the friendship, but said there was no impropriety.

Dixon and others also alleged that O’Neil engaged in conflicts and bias while playing multiple roles in the disbarment of Andrew Thomas, the former Maricopa County Attorney.

Thomas and assistant Lisa Aubuchon were accused of prosecutorial misconduct in the 2010 filing of criminal conspiracy charges against Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Gary Donahoe and other county officials. Donahoe and the other county officials ultimately were exonerated.

O’Neil presided over the high-profile ethics trial of Thomas and Aubuchon in 2012. Aubuchon asked O’Neil to withdraw due to an alleged conflict of interest, but he refused and ultimately wrote the 247-page judgment against her and Thomas.

The Arizona Supreme Court rejected Aubuchon’s appeal.

Dixon, a former construction contractor with a 1997 conviction for fraud, contends the state’s legal establishment has repeatedly covered up wrongdoing while trying to discredit him. He said Salem’s Internet site was the latest and most vile example. Besides describing Dixon as a “habitual liar,” it refers to him as “a woman in drag,” a “turd” and other slurs.

Dixon said he e-mailed a copy of his latest Judicial Conduct complaint to Supreme Court Chief Justice Scott Bales with a message that says, “You as the Chief Justice can shrug your responsibility of the Judicial Complaint but the responsibility for the Supreme Court appointee Mark Salem is definitely yours. It is beyond any level of acceptance that these events were ever allowed to occur. What is more disturbing though is that Mark Salem represents the level of integrity of the Supreme Court.”

Heather Murphy, a Supreme Court spokeswoman, said justices cannot comment on lawsuits or other pending legal matters that may come before them in the future.

Join Our Mailing List