Grassroots Interviews with Shawnna Bolick

Shawnna Bolick is running for the Arizona House in Legislative District 11. The voters have some real choices in both the Senate and the House races. Do your homework! No conservative has any business voting for Driggs in the Senate race or Democrat Eric Meyer or “Republican” candidate Kate McGee in the House race. All three are participants in the liberal “Twelve in `10″ fundraising event.

Shawnna Bolick interview

You can find the archive of our interviews on GrassrootsInterviews.com or find our group page on Facebook.

Ward campaign clarifies TV ad featuring Ward’s former Treasurer supporting McCain

 

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

Thursday, June 10, 2010

 

The Jim Ward for Congress campaign has asked us to clarify that the blonde woman in the McCain ad who was Ward’s campaign treasurer until she resigned late last year, Susan Godfrey, is the blonde woman who appeared in McCain’s deceptive “Avid Earmarker” ad, below, not the blonde woman who appeared in McCain’s “Washington Lobbyist” ad. We regret the confusion. It doesn’t make a difference in the point we were trying to make, which is the McCain campaign’s use of someone in a TV ad praising Democrat Harry Mitchell over J.D. Hayworth, and the connection between the Jim Ward for Congress campaign and the McCain campaign. Both campaigns use the same person to set up signs, and probably to send out mailers together, because we received both flyers from them today in the mail.

The “Avid Earmarker” ad is poorly done. It accuses Hayworth of excessive earmarking and pork barreling. In reality, Hayworth didn’t sponsor any of the earmarks listed in the ad. The earmarks listed were tacked onto general appropriations bills by notorious earmarkers in Congress. Hayworth simply voted for the general appropriations bills. Does anyone know how many of those kinds of bills McCain  voted for? If so please email us, it would be fun to do an expose on that.

McCain has voted for more pork and earmarks over the last couple of years in the Senate than almost any other Republican, voting for the $700 billion general TARP bailout, the $25 billion auto bailout, the first $85 billion AIG insurance bailout, and he proposed spending $300 billion on a mortgage entitlement bailout to buy out every bad mortgage in the country. He co-sponsored Cap and Trade legislation. It is ludicrous that he is running phony ads pretending Hayworth is the porker when McCain’s middle name should be “bailout.”

 

Join Our Mailing List

 

 

 

 

 

Horne:Andrew Thomas, abuse of power

By Tom Horne

Recently, a court found that Andrew Thomas had prosecuted people for personal political advantage and for personal political retribution.  (Court case CR2010-005423-001, February 24, 2010.)  This is worst thing that you say about a prosecutor.  The following provides some of the back ground for this finding.

The first person who seriously criticized Thomas was Don Stapley.  Stapley is a longtime Maricopa County Supervisor, who is known for fiscal conservatism.  He criticized Thomas for financial irresponsibility.  Thomas had raised the expenditures for the Maricopa County Attorney’s office for outside lawyers from $6 million a year to $16 million a year, almost all of which had gone to lawyers that served on a host committee for one of Thomas’ fundraisers.  There was an appearance of repaying political favors with government money.

In addition, Stapley criticized Thomas for wasting $2 million of public money on advertising allegedly to tell people not to use drugs, but actually to promote Thomas’ name and picture.  The Goldwater Institute would later make the same criticism, stating “Mr. Thomas’ massive and continuous promotion of his name and image through official publications and communications cannot possibly be seen as aimed at advancing any legitimate purpose.”

Almost immediately, an investigation started of Stapley, which resulted in his indictment on trumped-up charges, all of which were ultimately dismissed.  But Stapley went through years of hell, spending over $1 million in attorneys’ fees, and having his health and his wife’s health damaged.  The Arizona Republic editorialized that it could see no rational argument for Thomas’ action, other than “raw political payback,” and that “Andrew Thomas is usurping justice.”  (Stapley dismissal followed, Court case No. CR2010-00543-001; Goldwater policy brief, May 12, 2009, p. 8; Editorial December 9, 2009.)

Simultaneously, Russ Jones, a legislator from Yuma, got crosswise with Thomas’ allies in the legislature.  Jones also found himself indicted on trumped up charges, all of which were ultimately dismissed, but not before Jones had hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorneys’ fees as well.  (Yuma Sun, May 21, 2010.)

All of this was a view to intimidation of critics, which worked.  A number of legislators, asked to endorse Tom Horne, said they could not consider it until Thomas resigned, because they saw Jones being indicted and they didn’t want to be indicted.

Thomas then got into a conflict with all five members of the Board of Supervisors.  Being fiscal conservatives, they had saved money for a badly needed new courthouse, so that it could be built without the county incurring any debt.  Thomas wanted them to raid that fund for his budget, and they refused.  This may have been a reasonable disagreement, but Thomas pursued it by investigating them with a view to indicting them.

A judge put a stop to it, stating that Thomas’ actions were unethical.  The judge pointed out that the County Attorney represents the board of supervisors, and one cannot investigate or indict one’s clients, something that every first year law student knows.  Three different judges, in three different cases, would find Thomas’ actions in different circumstances to be unethical.  The judge in this case also stated that Thomas’ actions had “the appearance of evil.”  (Court Case No.  422GJ350, February 6, 2009.)

The supervisors wanted separate counsel to represent them in civil cases, rather than be represented by someone who had been investigating them.  Thomas contested their right to do so.  A separate judge ruled in favor of the board of supervisors, finding that Thomas had acted unethically.  He stated that when Thomas decided to act ethically, he could resume representing the board of supervisors, but not before.  (Court Case No. CR CV2008-033194, August 21, 2009.)

Thomas was losing case after case of these political cases.  He had to undermine the appearance of objectivity of the trial judges, so he started accusing the judges.  He filed a racketeering case against all five members of the board of supervisors, their lawyers, county officials, and four separate judges who ruled against him in four separate cases.  He accused the judges of bribery and extortion, but had not one iota of evidence that any judge had taken a penny in a bribe, or had committed extortion.

When the time came to argue the motion to dismiss, the gunslinger dropped his guns and ran away.  He dropped the case.  As a cover, he made up a story that the federal government had agreed to pursue the investigation, and that is all that he ever wanted.  The next day the head of the Integrity Division of the U.S. Department of Justice said that he was dismayed at what had been stated, in that the federal government had agreed to no such thing.  Thomas had made it up.  (The Arizona Republic, March 14, 2010.)

Once all of the charges against Stapley had been dismissed, Thomas came up with a new set of charges.  He referred these to Sheila Polk, County Attorney in Yavapai County.  He chose her because she was a life-long conservative Republican, law-in-order prosecutor.  In a brave statement, she stated that she could no longer remain silent, because her silence would implicate her in what she saw as wrongdoing by Thomas.  Her words were that she could not longer remain silent in the face of “totalitarian tactics in Maricopa County.”  (The Arizona Republic, December 22, 2009.)

The amount of money wasted on these campaigns against Thomas’ critics, all of which failed, has been calculated by The Arizona Republic to be in excess of $3 million, all taxpayers’ dollars, at a time when there has been talk about the possibility of laying off police officers.  (The Arizona Republic, June 3, 2010.)

The following is a summary showing that Thomas has lost or dropped all of his political cases:

  CASE DISPOSITION
1. Prosecution of Don Stapley Dismissed
2. Prosecution of Mary Rose Wilcox Dismissed
3. Prosecution of Judge Donohoe Dropped
4. Prosecution of Yuma State Legislator Russ Jones Dismissed
5. Racketeering case against County Supervisors, their lawyers, County officials, and four judges who ruled against Thomas in four different cases Dropped on eve of arguing Motion to Dismiss
6. Contesting County hiring its own lawyer because of Thomas’ unethical conduct Lost
7. Court Tower case Lost
8. Challenging Hispanic court Lost
9. Contest of Balanced Budget Act of 2008 Lost
10. Records request battle with County Lost
11. Prosecution of New Times newspaper Dropped
12. Prosecution of demonstrators Lost

 

Judges are vulnerable, because they have left their law practices, have no clients, and their reputations are everything to them.  Judges have said that when they rule against the county attorney’s office, they worry about being personally investigated.  If an out-of-control prosecutor can intimidate judges, then no one has any constitutional rights. The Constitution sets up an independent judiciary so that there will be somebody who can protect people’s constitutional rights from incursions by government officials.

Among legislation that has been sought by Thomas, is a bill that would provide that business records could be subpoenaed by county attorneys or the attorney general without the necessity of going to court.  Business officials also could be subpoenaed to testify personally, without the necessity of going to court.  One can imagine the amount of intimidation of critics that would be possible under those circumstances.  As The Arizona Republic stated in an editorial:  “But nothing…compares with the abuse of power Thomas is now perpetrating against the Board of Supervisors.”  (The Arizona Republic, December 9, 2009.)

If an out-of-control prosecutor becomes attorney general, businesses will not want to move to Arizona, and Arizona will have no economic future.

Please vote in this poll about Jim Deakin and the Senate race

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

Thursday, June 10, 2010


Please vote in this poll on whether Jim Deakin should be allowed to participate in a U.S. Senate debate with John McCain and J.D. Hayworth. Deakin has not been able to build any real base of support in the race. He has only raised $13,000, laughable in a Senate race this big, and absurdly goes around accusing Hayworth of being for amnesty. He has been asked repeatedly to drop out of the race, since he is taking votes away from Hayworth, which could ensure a McCain win. Someone this lacking in credibility has no business wasting time in a serious debate. Please express your opinion now.

Join Our Mailing List

New McCain ad features woman who chooses Dem. Harry Mitchell over JD Hayworth

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

Thursday, June 10, 2010

The desperate campaign of John McCain is continuing to rely upon Democrats and left wing principles in the GOP primary race against conservative J.D. Hayworth. In McCain’s latest TV ad, a woman is featured attacking Hayworth, “He was my Congressman, but we voted him out.” That’s right, instead, Democrat Harry Mitchell was voted in, whose record consists of voting for the billion dollar TARP pork bailouts that McCain voted for, and voting for Cap and Trade legislation – legislation similar to the Cap and Trade legislation McCain has proposed. The McCain campaign would rather vote Hayworth out and vote fellow big-spender Democrat Mitchell in! Tells you a lot about where their values are – they’re not about conservative principles, their first priority is attacking Hayworth even if it means voting for the Democrat instead.

The woman attacking Hayworth, Susan Godfrey, works for another moderate McCain crony in the District 5 Congressional race, Jim Ward. Godfrey was Ward’s campaign treasurer until recently. Ward moved into Arizona last year to run for the seat and apparently thinks that by associating with McCain, he can win.

McCain’s TV ad attacks Hayworth for becoming a lobbyist after he left Congress. The truth? Hayworth registered as a lobbyist in 2008 to help out one client. That’s all. McCain fails to tell you in the commercial that he became a lobbyist in 1976, when he became the Navy’s liaison to the Senate. In addition, McCain’s highest-level staff are high-paid lobbyists, well-known names like Charlie Black, Rick Davis, and Mark Buse who all earned millions of dollars lobbying Congress for big business, documented in the video below. Wonder how they were able to persuade Congress? Rick Davis was McCain’s campaign manager. Being high-level employees of McCain when they lobby Congress for big business, couldn’t have made a difference, nah! They then turned around and raised money for McCain in exchange. 59 lobbyists raised money for McCain!

Watch the short video below to see just who is really tied into lobbyists – McCain’s history with them is sickening, and it is dishonest of him to paint Hayworth as a Washington lobbyist. Lobbyist Vicki Iseman, who is alleged to have had an affair with McCain and spent a lot of time with him, is pictured below.

 

 

 

Join Our Mailing List

Clean Elections Candidates Advised to Return Public Subsidies

PHOENIX – At an emergency meeting Wednesday, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission declared that taxpayer-funded candidates who have accepted campaign subsidies cannot withdraw from the Clean Elections system and run with private fundraising. But the Commission is wrong, according to the lead attorney who convinced the U.S. Supreme Court to block the use of matching funds at this point.
 
“There is nothing in the law that prohibits withdrawal from the Clean Elections system – provided taxpayer-funded candidates return their government subsidies and run with private financing,” said Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute’s director of constitutional studies. “No provision in the Citizens Clean Elections Act addresses the issue of voluntary withdrawal from the system. And no rule prohibits the Commission from allowing candidates to withdraw from the system if they return their subsidies.”
 
Mr. Dranias said the Commission can consider requests for withdrawal from the system if candidates can show a good reason to do so. Now that the Supreme Court has blocked the issuance of matching funds, the Commission should find good cause to allow candidates such as Governor Jan Brewer to quit the Clean Elections system if they return their government subsidies.
 
The sole rule cited at the Commission’s emergency meeting to prevent candidates from leaving the Clean Elections system says candidates “may voluntarily terminate his or her participating candidate status at any time prior to notification by the Commission that such candidate has qualified for Clean Elections funding.” The rule does not say “may only.” The use of the permissive word “may” means that the rule describes one option for withdrawing from the system. Mr. Dranias also said the Commission has the discretion to give candidates an opportunity to withdraw from the system if they return their government subsidies.
 
Even if the rule were an impediment, nothing stops the Commission from repealing the rule or adopting a new rule allowing candidates to return their public campaign funds and raise private donations instead.
 
“The First Amendment required matching funds to be struck down,” Mr. Dranias said. “But nothing justifies the Clean Election Commission’s determination to force candidates to remain in a system that imposes spending limits without the possibility of receiving matching funds.”
 
The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation represents John McComish, Nancy McClain and Tony Bouie, candidates for the Arizona Legislature whose campaigns are funded by private donations. They are appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm a January 2010 decision in federal district court that strikes down the matching funds component of the Clean Elections system.
 
Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

Robert S. Graham Releases New Video, Calls on Conservatives to Rise Up, Unify and Fight

Scottsdale, Ariz. Arizona businessman and political activist Robert Graham released another video this week, all about unifying behind the right candidates at the right time.  Graham has been working hard over the last several months raising money and awareness for conservative candidates all across the country.  In doing so, he has been spreading his message for victory to fellow conservatives in 2010: Rise up, Unify, and Fight.

In the video, available online at www.GrahamForArizona.com, Graham exhorts fellow Conservatives to work with him in finding candidates who can not only win in November, but who will represent the ideals and principles which the United States was founded upon.  He calls on friends and neighbors to make phone calls, knock doors, and even make monetary contributions to campaigns able to take back some power from the Obama administration.

“For too long, the Federal Government has been out of touch with the citizens it is supposed to represent,” said Graham.  “I will be working non-stop until election day to make sure we have a government that is of the people, by the people and, more importantly, for the people.  In order to be effective, though, we as Americans need to rise up, unify, and fight for the ideals we believe in.”

 

YouTube Preview Image

Glenn Beck’s refusal to endorse Hayworth adds to “unraveling” of his campaign

JD Hayworth with advisor Chris Simcox at Hayworth's campaign kick-off before the latest allegations of domestic violence.

In a time when being fully charged for the ramp up to the primary is necessary for victory, Team Hayworth must be running on empty.  This week brought bad news, more bad news, and maybe some really bad news.  The Yellow Sheet headline on Tuesday described the cash-strapped Hayworth effort as ”Losing momentum and ‘grasping at straws’ “, the release from jail of Hayworth’s sky-box lending supporter Jack Abramoff, JD’s adviser and Minuteman founder Chris Simcox accused, again, of some seriously violent stuff, the airing of the “JD is a Lobbysist” ad (but if it is for an “old friend” it doesn’t count), and now this….

Quoting from “The Hill”

Glenn Beck refuses to endorse J.D. Hayworth

Beck refused to say he’s backing Hayworth, the senator’s primary opponent…….

The McCain camp pointed out that Beck was the latest in a long line of prominent conservatives who have declined to endorse Hayworth, but this snub is likely to hurt more.

Officials with the Hayworth camp told The Ballot Box in March they were hoping to have Beck’s endorsement.

 OUCH! 

Early ballots land in mailboxes on July 29th.  Real Clear Politics has McCain up by a greater than 15 point margin over the legally challenged, disgraced, and fired conservative talk show host and gaining greater numbers with every sample.  No money, no record to speak of, no endorsements, but plenty of bad news…that all point to one thing.  JD was un-elected in a heavily Republican district with bad judgement, poor representation of voters, and character issues among the complaints.  Apparently the voters of this state agree with them.