THE WEEKLY STANDARD: “The End of the JD Hayworth Campaign”

YouTube Preview Image

The conservative publication, The Weekly Standard, is reporting a story they feel is so damaging they question how JD can survive.  Political Wire  runs the title, “Hayworth Pitched “Free Money” Seminars” and calls the video where he touts how to make fortunes out of foreclosures…priceless.

Using his Congressional seat as verification of the legitimacy of the offer, Hayworth offers this explanation: 

The money is out there, the opportunities are out there. And by the way, it’s not something where it’s the government’s money — it’s really your money. You surrendered it in the form of taxation. Now’s the time to take advantage of a situation where the government can invest in you. And in turn, you’ll have a chance to build a business, or make a better life for yourself — and in so doing, you’ll help improve the country.”

Well, not exactly… KVOA in Tucson reported that National Grants Conference, the company that Hayworth shamelessly shills in the 2007 ad, was investigated and found to be a scam.  In the KVOA video folks tell stories of handing over thousands of dollars, hard-earned dollars, in hopes of claiming what Hayworth called “free money”.  Hayworth adamantly verifies it to be absolutely real and backs it up with his Congressional experience on the “powerful Ways and Means Committee”.

Mercenary much?  How about scruples or shame?  How much did you get paid “Former Congressman JD Hayworth” to use your positions to take advantage of trusting Americans?  A flat fee or a percentage of the take?   

With Mike Broomhead killing the drive time ratings and the Senate thing looking pretty dismal, maybe this guy is ready to retire and a replacement is needed?  

State Bar Inquiry Of Thomas Illegal, Unconstitutional Expert Says

Preeminent Expert in the Nation Denounces Thomas Bar Investigation
Says Unprecedented Proceeding Is Illegal, Unconstitutional

PHOENIX, ARIZONA. JUNE 21, 2010 In a stinging rebuke to the Arizona State Bar and the Arizona Supreme Court, the leading expert in the nation on legal ethics and constitutional law has denounced the current, unprecedented State Bar investigations of former Maricopa County Attorney and candidate for Attorney General Andrew Thomas as illegal and an unconstitutional violation of due process of law.
Thomas released today an affidavit from Ronald Rotunda, a professor of law at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, California, who was retained by another attorney under investigation as part of the latest election-year investigation of Thomas by the State Bar.  Among his many distinctions, Rotunda is the author of the most widely used legal ethics course book in the United States, the 11th most cited law professor in the United States, and an internationally recognized expert on legal ethics.
In his affidavit, Rotunda reviewed the facts surrounding the latest Bar investigation launched against Thomas and other Maricopa County prosecutors.  Rotunda concluded that the proceedings are illegal because the Executive Director of the State Bar, John Phelps, misrepresented his authority to the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court, Rebecca White Berch, in requesting a special investigation of Thomas.  The investigation falls outside the State Bar’s authority and violates the Supreme Court’s own rules for attorney discipline.
Rotunda concluded “that Mr. Phelps, without the benefit of any statute or rule, initiated and insinuated himself into an ethics investigation, usurping the lawfully delegated role of Chief Bar Counsel, who has the exclusive authority to initiate bar investigations.”  As a result, the ongoing investigations are “illegal” and unconstitutional, he said.
“Based upon my forty years of experience as a practicing lawyer, legal scholar and law professor, concentrating in the areas of legal ethics and constitutional law, it is my opinion that the State Bar of Arizona’s reckless use and false representation of its authority to initiate investigations of attorneys is a denial of the fundamental right to due process applicable to disciplinary investigations.”
Rotunda also criticized the ruling of former Arizona Chief Justice Charles Jones, the probable cause panelist for these matters, saying his ruling upholding the ongoing investigations “is without merit and is not supported by law or fact.”
Finally, Rotunda noted that Chief Justice Berch lacked the authority to validate the illegally initiated investigations because her actions violated Rule 51 of the Arizona Supreme Court.  “Even the Chief Justice must comply with Rule 51,” he noted.
Rotunda predicted that once these proceedings are completed in Arizona state court, the federal courts are likely to throw out any findings or adverse actions by the Arizona Bar or Supreme Court because of this violation of due process.
Rotunda’s opinion does not even address other violations of due process and irregularities in this election-year Bar investigation of Thomas.  These include:
-Employees for one of the claimants against Thomas, Maricopa County Manager David Smith, essentially fired Thomas’ counsel, Ernest Calderon.  This has prevented Thomas from adequately responding to questions from the investigator and otherwise defending himself.
-An official spokesperson for the Arizona Supreme Court dismissed Thomas’ complaints about the improper firing of Calderon by Smith’s employees, implying publicly these complaints are simply an improper “delay” tactic.  (AZ Republic, 6/17/10).  Such public attacks from an official judicial spokesperson are highly questionable and disturbing, coming from a court that makes final rulings in State Bar matters.  Moreover, courts in other states have held that the right to an attorney in Bar proceedings is a basic constitutional right, and a denial of this right violates procedural due process of law.
-Chief Justice Berch and the Supreme Court improperly announced the investigation of Thomas through press releases.  This was in violation of the confidentiality rules that govern attorney disciplinary actions in Arizona and all 50 states.  These press releases by the Supreme Court, including Twitter notifications, actually seemed to invite additional Bar complaints against Thomas.  Criminal defense lawyers and other political opponents of Thomas in this election year apparently accepted this invitation.
-In December 2009, in her Administrative Order appointing former Supreme Court Justice Ruth McGregor as special master for theMaricopa County Superior Court (an act that essentially replaced Presiding Judge Barbara Rodriguez Mundell in important respects), Berch’s order contained several misstatements of fact and law.  Berch claimed the Sheriff’s Office had “taken control of a criminal justice computer system,” which was inaccurate.  Berch complained that sheriff’s deputies “have conducted several interviews of superior court employees, both at work and at their homes.”  In fact, it is standard law-enforcement practice to conduct such interviews at the homes of potential witnesses.  Berch claimed Thomas had vowed publicly he would file more cases against various judges, an inaccuracy.
The implicit message of the Administrative Order was that the high court resented the legitimate criminal and civil actions brought against its members in Maricopa County, and Berch’s subsequent appointment of an investigator against Thomas, in violation of the Supreme Court’s own rules, was an attempt to retaliate.  The order also implies that members and employees of the judiciary are entitled to special treatment and standards in law-enforcement investigations and criminal and civil litigation.  Such double standards violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and are not the law in the United States.
In 2007, Thomas battled the leadership of the Maricopa County Superior Court for their refusal to enforce a voter-approved crackdown on illegal immigration (Prop 100, which denied bail to illegal immigrants accused of serious felonies, was passed by 78 percent of voters in 2006).  Subsequently, and after a corruption investigation that involved several leading Superior Court judges in Maricopa County, the State Bar and members of the state judiciary have retaliated against Thomas and prosecutors involved in those efforts.  Rotunda’s opinion makes clear these efforts are illegal and will not be upheld in the long run.
Thomas stated, “The State Bar and leading members of the judiciary have stacked the deck against me with yet another election-year investigation—this time in a manner that the most renowned expert in America has denounced as illegal and unconstitutional.  I’m confident that should proceedings move forward against me and the other prosecutors improperly caught up in this dragnet, we will fully litigate and expose the facts at the heart of this retaliation and alleged corruption and see our rights vindicated ultimately in federal court.”
Thomas has promised to pursue judicial and State Bar reform if elected Attorney General to improve the accountability to the public of judges and attorneys.  Thomas has stated that the State Bar, an arm of the state judiciary, targets critics of the judiciary and supports liberal causes with mandatory attorney’s fees, abuses he says he will seek to end.

Paid for by Thomas for AG

Barnett Lotstein

Interview with JD Hayworth and Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Arizona Patriot Caucus Chairman Keith Sipmann and Round Table Politics Host Marcus Kelley caught up with U.S. Senate Candidate, JD Hayworth and the worlds most famous (and toughest) Sheriff, Joe Arpaio, at Sheriff Arpaio’s Birthday Bash held at the Silver Spur in Cave Creek, Arizona on June 19th. Below is the two part interview regarding JD Hayworth’s position on illegal immigration, guest worker programs and Senator John McCain’s most recent waffling on the issues. We also asked the Sheriff why he was throwing his support behind JD Hayworth and what he thought about parts of Arizona being restricted to legal Americans because of the illegal immigration issue.

YouTube Preview Image YouTube Preview Image

Arizona Latino Republican Association (ALRA) Statement on New York Court Decision Giving Latinos Six Votes in Election


Phoenix, AZ – ALRA Chairman, Jesse Hernandez, commented on the recent federal court decision of the State of New York. “On behalf of ALRA, we are appalled at the gigantic step backwards a New York federal court and the New York suburb of Port Chester have taken in regards to race relations and voting rights. They have chosen to give Latino residents six votes instead of one in an election for village trustees. As a nation, we have made great strides from the days when blacks were only considered 3/5 of a person. That unfair treatment was rightly reversed by the 14th and 15th Amendments. It is equally wrong now to give one race or ethnicity additional votes, regardless of the motive. It has the same effect; unfairly reducing the vote of those who are not Latino.

The United States is no longer the land of Jim Crowe. It is unlikely the reason there aren’t any Latinos on the village council is due to racism. It is more likely there aren’t any because none chose to run for office. Almost half of the village population is Latino, but many are too young to vote or are there illegally and therefore disenabling to participate in a legal voting process. If people are concerned there are not enough Latinos as village trustees, they should recruit Latinos using their private resources, not the heavy hand of government.

Even so, we would hope that people would select their leaders based on whether they are the best candidate for the office, not the color of their skin. Martin Luther King, Jr., famously said in his ‘I Have a Dream Speech’, that he had a dream that his four little children would one day live in a nation where they would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Today the extra votes may superficially seem to benefit us as Latinos, but tomorrow a ruling on another issue could easily cut against us. The right to vote is one of our most cherished rights. To have it diluted and restricted for some is an affront to the equal opportunities our nation provides. This is a slippery slope we do not want to go down. We strongly denounce this court decision and its negative effect on the foundation of our political system.”

CONTACT: Arizona Latino Republican Association Jesse Hernandez, Chairman mexgop (602) 549-9296

Jon Kyl Reveals Obama Strategy on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”

HT to ColdWarrior over at Red State for this interesting video clip from last week at a Phoenix Tea Party meeting in which Senator Jon Kyl spoke about the Democrats’ strategy to pass “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”

This ought to tell you something about the effectiveness of our senior senator and his vulnerabilities when it comes to dealing with the Obama Administration. Democrats are making a strong effort to get John McCain back on the Amnesty Agenda.

YouTube Preview Image



Cheryl Cage and Her Own Facts

Cheryl Cage has been issuing questionable press releases attacking her opponent, Senator Al Melvin, with manufactured and unsupported charges. She is entitled to her own opinion but not to her own facts.

 In a June 16th Op-Ed column in the Explorer, Cheryl Cage stated, “In his op-ed (Arizona should consider atomic energy 6/9) Mr. Melvin manipulates the facts to support his push for Arizona to become a nuclear waste destination so we can become ‘very rich.’”

 So what did Senator Melvin really say? “Any practical plan for our future must include alternate energy sources, and any alternate energy plan must include atomic energy. In truth, Arizona can be a very rich and prosperous state with plentiful and affordable electricity through atomic power, and we can also have plentiful and affordable water through desalinization.

 “ . . . The Electric Power Research Institute states that by 2030, states with atomic reactors will see their electric rates rise by 45% and states with no atomic reactors will see their electric rates rise over 265%. When one looks at the cost to produce electricity per kilowatt-hour, atomic energy is 2.5 cents compared to solar and wind up to 14 to 17 cents. Coal and natural gas are 4 to 7 cents, yet over time these costs are bound to increase . . .”

 Ms. Cage, attempts to deceive the reader by stating, “He states that nuclear energy costs 2.5 cents per kilowatt hour compared to solar and wind (notice he lumps solar and wind together) at around 14 to 17 cents per kilowatt-hour. What he doesn’t tell you is that the stated 2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour does not include capital costs (which make up 80% of the energy production cost) or costs of transmission . . .”

 What Ms. Cage failed to tell the reader is the costs for coal and natural gas, and solar and wind, also do not include capital costs. So Senator Melvin is comparing apples to apples.

If Ms. Cage takes exception to this comparison, let’s talk about the billions of dollars being wasted by the government on doubling our nation’s use of solar and wind: doubling moves usage from 1% to 2% of all energy used in this country, a very inefficient use of taxpayer dollars.

Ms. Cage then stated that, “Studies have shown for every $1 million dollars [sic] invested in solar will provide 13.5 jobs to the nuclear industries 4.5 jobs.” What Ms. Cage doesn’t say is the solar jobs will be low paying while the nuclear jobs will be high paying. Also, for every 13.5 jobs created other industries will lose 30 jobs.

 For those of you who want evidence, just look at Spain. “For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid . . .The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power—which are charged to consumers in their bill –translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish ‘green job’ created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report . . . The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices . . .”

 Ms. Cage continues with her misinformation: “His comparison about the ‘footprints’ of solar versus nuclear is equally disingenuous. He refuses to acknowledge solar panels would not just be sitting in a large field; they would be placed throughout a community (top of homes and businesses, parking lots and infill areas). He states that Palo Verde’s footprint is only 6.3 miles because he chooses to ignore the impact of mining uranium.”

 This is what Senator Melvin said in this Op-Ed” “To have a photovoltaic facility that produces the same daylight electricity as the Palo Verde Nuclear facility in Phoenix, it would take solar panels 250 miles long (almost the distance from Tucson to San Diego) and one mile wide with a footprint of 250 square miles, compared with Palo Verde’s footprint of 6.3 square miles. There is definitely a role for solar to play in fulfilling Arizona’s energy needs, but the base load of 80 percent of all our energy needs could and should be met by atomic energy. . .”

 Ms. Cage’s statement that, “He refuses to acknowledge solar panels would not just be sitting in a large field . . .” is disingenuous at best. Senator Melvin was making a comparison. Of course, we could put all those solar panels on buildings instead of a field, which some companies are doing, but the footprint would probably double to 500 square miles.

 Her comment about uranium mining is simply a distraction. Solar and wind can and do have large footprints. Every time I drive through Palm Springs I see miles and miles of windmills, the majority not moving. Why? Ms. Cage has not yet found a way to manage the wind but she has found a way to create her own wind and her own facts.

 Being the progressive-socialist she is, Ms. Cage is against nuclear power. She is adamantly against reprocessing nuclear waste, which France has been doing for years. In fact, 80% of France’s electricity comes from nuclear reactors. You would think the Ms. Cage, as a lover of European style socialism, would embrace nuclear energy.

Unfortunately, Ms. Cage comes across as a left-wing ideologue willing to distort known facts, conjure up her own facts and then irresponsibly attack others based on knowingly false information.

 Character and integrity?  Draw your own conclusion.

David Schweikert launches television ad

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

Monday, June 21, 2010

David Schweikert, the leading Republican candidate for Congress in District 5 against Democrat Harry Mitchell, has launched a television ad featuring the primary differences between himself and Mitchell. David is tough on border security, opposed the bailouts and stimulus spending that Mitchell voted for, and would work to repeal the Obama healthcare bill. Please consider a contribution to his campaign against Harry Mitchell, to keep this ad on the air.

Join Our Mailing List

Thomas Seeks Goddard Action v. Tom Horne Fraud, Bankruptcy State Law Violation

Thomas Asks Goddard To Investigate Tom Horne’s Apparent Illegal Conduct In Arizona
Horne Should Release Additional Documents Surrounding Potential Fraud

PHOENIX, AZ. JUNE 21, 2010.  Former Maricopa County Attorney and candidate for Attorney General Andrew Thomas demanded answers today from his Republican opponent, Tom Horne, following reported revelations Horne repeatedly failed to disclose a past bankruptcy in numerous official corporate filings with the State of Arizona—an apparent violation of state law.  The bankruptcy was part of circumstances surrounding Horne’s lifetime ban from the Securities and Exchange Commission for financial fraud.
Thomas publicly called upon Attorney General Terry Goddard to appoint a special prosecutor to determine whether Horne violated state law in failing to disclose the bankruptcy in annual reports filed by Horne’s law firm with the Arizona Corporation Commission.  And Thomas demanded that Horne authorize release of his application to become an attorney with the State Bar, as well as his application to work in the Arizona Attorney General’s Office previously.  If Horne withheld information about his bankruptcy, Horne may have been authorized to practice law in Arizona under false pretenses and may lack bona fide credentials to continue to practice here.
Today, the Arizona Republic reported that from 1997 to 2000, Horne failed to disclose a past bankruptcy in official documents which he filed with the Arizona Corporation Commission and signed on behalf of his law firm.  The article reported an investment firm started by Horne declared bankruptcy and Horne’s practices “led to him receiving a lifetime trading ban from the Securities and Exchange Commission.”
The Arizona Republic story did not include another Horne filing in 2002 in which he again failed to disclose his bankruptcy despite state law requiring so.
Horne was sanctioned by the SEC after he “attempted to induce the purchase and sale of securities when it did not have the required net capital.”  Horne agreed to an SEC finding that he and his firm “willfully aided and abetted” in violations of federal securities laws.  Horne subsequently relocated to Arizona.  He has given, and continues, to give, inconsistent accounts of what transpired.
It is a violation of state law to file false annual reports with the Arizona Corporation Commission.  And if Horne withheld information about his bankruptcy from his character and fitness application to the State Bar, he might have been admitted to the Arizona Bar under false pretenses.
Thomas noted Horne gave laughable responses to the Arizona Republic reporter.  Horne blamed an accountant for the SEC-related problems, but said he could not remember the name of the accountant.
“The public deserves answers now,” Thomas said.  “Tom Horne has admitted to willfully aiding and abetting in violations of federal securities laws.  Now, it appears he violated state laws as well by not disclosing his bankruptcy in his law firm’s disclosure reports.”
He concluded, “Tom Horne has been accused of manipulating AIMS test scores by the Bush administration, which called his practices a ‘complete sham.’  He himself admitted to aiding and abetting violations of federal securities laws.  Now he’s been caught apparently violating state law in not disclosing these facts here in Arizona.  Can Tom Horne be trusted at all?  He was a financial con artist before and is trying to be a political con artist today, attempting to fool primary voters he is a conservative when in fact he’s been a liberal on everything from amnesty to taxpayer funded abortions.”
Jason Rose
Rose & Allyn Public Relations

Candidates need phone banking and doorbelling, not more forums!

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

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Submitted by a reader

Although it may be fun to sponsor candidate forums and debates, maybe even raising a little money for your organization in the process, it is hurting candidates running for office. Not only does it cost them money (for the luncheon, the booth, etc.), but it is taking up an immense number of manpower hours that could be better spent reaching new voters.

With the advent of the Tea Parties, plus Clean Elections debates, there are twice as many of these kinds of forums this year. Candidates are attending these forums virtually every week, seeing the same Republican activists at each forum, preaching to each others’ campaign staffs. Very few new voters are actually reached, particularly the all-important independent voters who will determine this election. But if a candidate misses one of these numerous forums, they are criticized for not caring about the race enough to show up – unfair if they’ve made several of the other forums, and especially unfair if they have participated in actual debates.

Let’s do the math for an average forum: 25 candidates show up, each brings two people with them (the most insecure candidates will show up with posses of 10-20 volunteers). 75 people attend to watch. The entire thing takes around four hours. How many campaign hours have been wasted? 25 (candidates) x 3 (their extra volunteers) = 75 + 75 (attendees) = 150 (total people) x 4 (hours) = 600 total hours wasted that could have been spent phone banking or knocking on doors reaching new undecided voters.

Please spread the word – if you run an organization, Legislative District, or Tea Party that wants to get involved in this year’s election, arrange to help candidates with phone banking or doorbelling, not setting up meetings and candidate forums. The Democrats have this figured out and are skipping meetings and going straight to doorbelling. They finally got something right, let’s not let them beat us here.

Join Our Mailing List