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, May 30, 2013
Betrayal in Benghazi
Phil “Hands” Handley
Colonel, USAF (Ret.)
The combat code of the US Military is that we don’t abandon our dead or wounded on the battlefield. In US Air Force lingo, fighter pilots don’t run off and leave their wingmen. If one of our own is shot down, still alive and not yet in enemy captivity, we will either come to get him or die trying. Among America ‘s fighting forces, the calm, sure knowledge that such an irrevocable bond exists is priceless. Along with individual faith and personal grit, it is a sacred trust that has often sustained hope in the face of terribly long odds.
The disgraceful abandonment of our Ambassador and those brave ex-SEALs who fought to their deaths to save others in that compound is nothing short of dereliction-of-duty. Additionally, the patently absurd cover-up scenario that was fabricated in the aftermath was an outright lie in an attempt to shield the President and the Secretary of State from responsibility.
It has been over eight months since the attack on our compound in Benghazi . The White House strategy, with the aid of a “lap dog press” has been to run out the clock before the truth is forthcoming. The recent testimonies of the three “whistle blowers” have reopened the subject and hopefully will lead to exposure and disgrace of those responsible for this embarrassing debacle.
It would appear that the most recent firewall which the Administration is counting on is the contention that there were simply no military assets that could be brought to bear in time to make a difference… mainly due to the unavailability of tanker support for fighter aircraft. This is simply BS, regardless how many supposed “experts” the Administration trot out to make such an assertion. The bottom line is that even if the closest asset capable of response was half-way around the world, you don’t just sit on your penguin ass and do nothing. The fact is that the closest asset was not half-way around the world, but as near as Aviano Air Base , Italy where two squadrons of F-16Cs are based. Consider the following scenario (all times Benghazi local):
When Hicks in Tripoli receives a call at 9:40 PM from Ambassador Stevens informing him “Greg, we are under attack!” (his last words), he immediately notifies all agencies and prepares for the immediate initiation of an existing “Emergency Response Plan.” At AFRICON, General Carter Ham attempts to mount a rescue effort, but is told to “stand down.” By 10:30 PM an unarmed drone is overhead the compound and streaming live feed to various Command and Control Agencies… and everyone watching that feed knew damn well what was going on. At 11:30 PM Woods, Doherty and five others leave Tripoli, arriving in Benghazi at 1:30 AM on Wednesday morning, where they hold off the attacking mob from the roof of the compound until they are killed by a mortar direct hit at 4:00 AM.
So nothing could have been done, eh? Nonsense. If one assumes that tanker support really was not available… what about this:
· When at 10:00 PM AFRICON alerts the 31st TFW Command Post in Aviano Air Base, Italy of the attack, the Wing Commander orders preparation for the launch of two F-16s and advises the Command Post at NAS Sigonella to prepare for hot pit refueling and quick turn of the jets.
· By 11:30 PM, two F-16Cs with drop tanks and each armed with five hundred 20 MM rounds are airborne. Flying at 0.92 mach they will cover the 522 nautical miles directly to NAS Sigonella in 1.08 hours.
· While in-route, the flight lead is informed of the tactical situation, rules of engagement, and radio frequencies to use.
· The jets depart Sigonella at 1:10 AM with full fuel load and cover the 377 nautical miles directly to Benghazi in 0.8 hours, arriving at 1:50 AM… which would be 20 minutes after the arrival of Woods, Doherty and their team.
· Providing that the two F-16s initial pass over the mob, in full afterburner at 200 feet and 550 knots did not stop the attack in its tracks, only a few well placed strafing runs on targets of opportunity would assuredly do the trick.
· Were the F-16s fuel state insufficient to recover at Sigonelli after jettisoning their external drop tanks, they could easily do so at Tripoli International Airport , only one-half hour away.
· As for those hand-wringing naysayers who would worry about IFR clearances, border crossing authority, collateral damage, landing rights, political correctness and dozens of other reasons not to act… screw them. It is high time that our “leadership” get their priorities straight and put America ‘s interests first.
The end result would be that Woods and Doherty would be alive. Dozens in the attacking rabble would be rendezvousing with “72 virgins”… and a clear message would have been sent to the next worthless POS terrorist contemplating an attack on Americans that it is not really a good idea to “tug on Superman’s cape.”
Of course all this would depend upon a Commander In Chief that was more concerned with saving the lives of those he put in harm’s way than getting his crew rest for a campaign fund raising event in Las Vegas the next day. As well as a Secretary of State that actually understood “What difference did it make?”, or a Secretary of Defense whose immediate response was not to the effect that “One of the military tenants is that you don’t commit assets until you fully understand the tactical situation.” Was he not watching a live feed from the unarmed drone… and he didn’t understand the tactical situation? YGBSM!
Ultimately it comes down to the question of who give that order to “stand down?” Whoever that coward turns out to be should be exposed, removed from office, and face criminal charges for dereliction of duty. The combat forces of the United States of America deserve leadership that really does “have their back” when the chips are down.
In the most general of terms, a conflict of interest is “a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgment or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.”
In Arizona, there really are no rules governing legislative conflict of interest statutes. Essentially, as long as at least 10 people benefit from a piece of legislation, there is no conflict of interest. Should allegations of conflicts of interest arise, there’s really nothing anyone can do about it. Arizona is one of only nine states without an independent organization to oversee ethics comp
It is not uncommon for legislators to sponsor or vote on bills that affect their personal career industry. When you have a “citizen legislature” it’s impossible to not vote on bills that relate to education, doctors, lawyers, real-estate agents, landlords, etc. But what about political consultants? Does that pass the “citizen legislature” smell test?
The Arizona Republic pointed out earlier this year that there are a number of lawmakers who run or work for consulting firms whose scope of work remains unclear. The campaign disclosure forms do not require lawmakers to reveal their clients, making their potential conflicts of interest even murkier. But, some of these contracts are no doubt related to campaigns and public policy objectives.
House Minority Leader and potential Democratic candidate for Governor Chad Campbell lists “public affairs consulting” for Inspired Connections on his financial disclosure form. The “About Us” page for Inspired Consulting does not list Campbell as a member of their staff and it is unclear what his role is with the firm. Other state legislators who serve as “consultants” include Sen. Al Melvin, Sen. Steve Gallardo, and Rep. Ruben Gallego. Melvin recently made news by announcing he’s exploring a run for governor.
Former LD15 State Senator David Lujan (and good friend of Kyrsten Sinema) directed an independent expenditure effort against Republicans during the 2012 election cycle. “Building Arizona’s Future” spent over $700,000 in the last cycle defeating Republicans, funded in large part by national Democratic money from D.C. that Sinema helped direct into Lujan’s committee coffers. Lujan is now running for Phoenix City Council District 4.
This isn’t the first foray in the consulting arena for Campbell or Lujan. In 2007 Campbell and Lujan formed a political consulting firm with then Democratic legislator and colleague Kyrsten Sinema. It is unclear what Forza Consulting did or whom they represented, but according to records with the Corporation Commission the LLC still remains “open.”
Democratic Representative and rising star of the Left Ruben Gallego currently has the most prolific consulting background. Before being elected to office in 2010, Gallego previously spent time with Valley PR firm Reister, and also served as Chief of Staff for Democratic Phoenix City Councilmember Michael Nowakowski. He was also the Vice Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party. Gallego’s wife, Kate Gallego, is running for Phoenix City Council in District 8 to replace term-limited Councilmember Michael Johnson.
Ruben Gallego is listed as the Director of Latino and New Media operations for Strategies360’s Arizona office. Gallego works with Director of Arizona Operations Robbie Sherwood, a former reporter for the Arizona Republic and former Congressman Harry Mitchell’s Chief of Staff.
During the 2012 election cycle, Strategies360 was paid by the Yes on Prop 204 committee (“Quality Education & Jobs”) to handle communications on behalf of the union-funded campaign. Prop 204 proposed the single-largest permanent sales tax increase in Arizona’s history and was viewed by many as a “special interest giveaway.” Voters defeated the proposition nearly 2-to-1
Strategies360 was also paid at least $10,000 during the 2012 election cycle to handle “earned media outreach & strategic communications” for the Arizona Accountability Project (AAP). The AAP was one of the chief committees used to funnel liberal money into the last election cycle to defeat Republican candidates. AAP spent almost $600,000 last election cycle targeting Republicans including efforts against Jerry Lewis, Joe Ortiz, Frank Antenori, and John McComish. They also did work in support of Democrat Tom Chabin.
Strategies360 was involved in the 2012 election to defeat Sheriff Joe Arpaio and is currently involved in the present effort to recall Arapaio. Recently, Gallego appeared at a “Respect Arizona” rally (the group organizing the recall). Also present at that event was Minority Leader Chad Campbell.
During 2012, Gallego even helped lead the efforts of the group opposing Arpaio, Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement PAC. Arpaio’s campaign manager at the time, Chad Willems, questioned the financial motivations of Gallego and others:
“This is just another group out there of people lining their pockets,” Willems told HuffPost. “It seems like a full-time employment group for these guys.”
Gallego’s reach into the far-Left elements of the Democratic Party are deep. He even served as the professional consultant for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona during the 2012 cycle, orchestrating their attacks against pro-life Republicans. His firm was paid nearly $5,000 in consulting fees, and they were paid more than $20,000 to handle the mail program attacking several Republican lawmakers and candidates.
Let me be clear: there’s nothing illegal about what Gallego or his firm is doing. Consultants on both sides of the political spectrum are involved in these sorts of efforts every cycle. Some would argue this is no different than the efforts of the Senate President and the Speaker of the House and their Victory Funds last cycle. That’s a fair comparison, but unlike Gallego (and possibly other legislators), the President and the Speaker were not financially compensated for their involvement.
Current Arizona statute provides for a one-year ban on former legislators serving as lobbyists after they leave the legislature. Specifically, ARS 38-504(a)(b) state that for one year, a former public officer, including legislator, shall not represent another person for compensation before the legislature concerning any matter with which the legislator was directly concerned and personally participated.For two years after he or she leaves office, no public officer, including legislator, may disclose or use for personal profit information designated as confidential. Further, section c states:
A public officer or employee shall not use or attempt to use the officer’s or employee’s official position to secure any valuable thing or valuable benefit for the officer or employee that would not ordinarily accrue to the officer or employee in the performance of the officer’s or employee’s official duties if the thing or benefit is of such character as to manifest a substantial and improper influence on the officer or employee with respect to the officer’s or employee’s duties.
When legislators like Gallego are using their positions of influence to help direct thousands of dollars in independent expenditure efforts designed to defeat their colleagues and change the partisan make-up of their chamber, while simultaneously making money off of these efforts, how is that not a conflict of interest?
Reposted from Adams and Jefferson blog.
By E. Paul Whetten
To the PCs of LD 25 and any other interested parties:
A lot of rumors, half-truths and whispered accusations have been swirling around the LD 25 officer/state committeemen elections since our meeting on November 29th. As someone who is directly affected by this controversy and as a participant in the ensuing investigation I would like to clear the air on this issue. The facts that I will be stating here have come from either my own firsthand observation/participation in the events described, or by my conversation with individuals who have firsthand knowledge of the events.
Before I launch into this, I would like to clarify a very important point – The candidates who ran for offices in our election were divided into two slates. The slate that I ran with did substantially better than the opposing slate, winning all but two of the officer races and winning roughly two-thirds of the State Committeemen positions. I bring this up because the allegations of fraud cast the longest shadow over me and the individuals who ran on my slate. As you will see in the rest of this letter, this is unwarranted and unfair to the good people who ran with me. I also want to be clear that I am not casting blame or suspicion on the good people on the other slate that ran in the election. We simply do not know who perpetrated the fraud that set this whole thing off. Any guesses about who did this are just that, guesses.
Without further ado, my statement of the facts regarding the LD 25 elections on November 29, 2012 (please see footnotes for additional clarifications):
- An unknown person or persons signed nominating questionnaires for five Precinct Committeemen in the Apache Wells precinct to run as State Committeemen. These individuals did not wish to be nominated. Their names were fraudulently submitted for inclusion on the ballot.
- This was brought to the attention of both the LD25 and MCRC Chairman by Barbara Parker, who had obtained sworn affidavits from the five affected PCs stating they had not signed the five documents in question.
- Before the vote on State Committeemen was taken, the names of these five PCs were taken off of the State Committeemen ballot.
- While we were waiting for the new ballots to arrive at our meeting, Chairman Haney revealed what had happened and directed that if anyone’s name appeared on the ballot without their authorization they were to contact Chairman Haney immediately, as they may also be the victims of some type of voter fraud.
- Between 15 and 30 people (to my knowledge the exact number has never been specified) approached Chairman Haney and claimed that they had not asked to be included on the ballot.
- A solution was proposed that anyone whose name appeared on the ballot but who did not wish to run for the office have their name written on the large whiteboard at the front of the room so that they wouldn’t be voted for. A small handful of people wrote their names on the board, and none of them were elected as State Committeemen.
- The results of the officer elections were announced during the balloting for State Committeemen.[i] I was elected as the new Chairman of LD 25 by a comfortable margin.
- The Credentials and Tally reports and all proxy forms, which should have immediately been turned over to me as the new Chairman, were improperly taken home by the chairman of the C&T committee for this election.
- At the end of the night manual recounts were done for both a third vice-chairman spot as well as the corresponding secretary. A tie was discovered in each race and cards were drawn to determine the winners. This was done with the affected parties being present via phone call and with their consent to proceed.
- Once this was concluded (around 1am) Tyler Godfrey, the newly elected Treasurer and I, the newly elected Chairman, were sworn in to office[ii]. All other newly elected officers had gone home earlier that evening.
- The state committee ballots were tallied and the remaining officials present determined that 108 votes were the minimum number of votes needed to be elected as a state committeeman. It was determined that 10 individuals had tied for last place.
- The ballots were turned over to me as the new Chairman and the meeting was adjourned.
- On Saturday, December 1st, at the behest of MCRC Chairman Rob Haney, an email was sent to all LD 25 PCs by Ian Murray stating that there was a possibility that the entire election would be thrown out due to fraud.
- Chairman Haney created an investigative team[iii] to review all of the paperwork involved in the election to determine if there had been any additional fraud. The team was convened and met on Wednesday, December 5th, Thursday, December 6th and Friday, December 7th at AZ GOP Headquarters in Phoenix.
- On Monday, December 3rd, I formally requested via email to Rob Haney, Ian Murray and Pat Oldroyd (as well as by phone call to Chairman Haney) that, as the duly elected chairman of LD 25, I be given custody of the C&T Reports, the nominating questionnaires and all other materials regarding this election. This request was denied by Chairman Haney who argued that he wanted as few hands as possible on these materials between then and the time when they could be turned over to him as part of the investigation. I did not push the issue any further.
- On Tuesday, December 4th, Brent Ellsworth, newly elected Recording Secretary of LD 25 submitted a formal challenge to the State Committeeman election on the basis that Chairman Haney’s comments before the SC voting on November 29th had irreparably compromised the integrity of the election.
- On Wednesday, December 5th, Brent Ellsworth came to AZ GOP Headquarters at my request, but without Chairman Haney’s prior knowledge or consent, to observe the investigation. He was told by Chairman Haney he could not stay and he promptly left[iv].
- When the committee convened, the major points of this issue were recounted for the benefit of those members of the committee who were not from LD 25 and were not acquainted with the history involved. Chairman Haney then explained that, because so many people came forward stating they had not requested to be on the ballot, we needed to determine if the fraud was limited to the original 5 PCs already mentioned or if the problem was more widespread. To determine this we set out to collect the following data
- Who was on the ballot?
- How did they get on the ballot?
- Were nominating questionnaires submitted, as required by the Bylaws?
- Were they signed, as required by the Bylaws?
- Were they included on the Mandatory Precinct Meeting report?
- In the case of signed forms – did the signatures on the documents match the signatures on file with the County Recorder’s office?
- Were the proxy forms properly filled out?
- Did the signatures on the proxy forms match the signatures on file at the County Recorder’s office?
- Was there any way to determine who perpetrated the original fraud involving the five nomination questionnaires from Apache Wells precinct?
- The committee was divided into two teams:
- One team went to the Recorder’s Office to compare all signatures received with the signatures on file with the County Recorder. If a signature looked questionable, a certified copy of the signature was obtained from the Recorder so the entire committee could compare it to the nominating questionnaire and determine if it was indeed questionable.
- The other team reviewed all the forms to capture the pertinent data: Who had a form, had they intended to run, were the forms signed, were they included on the Mandatory Precinct Meeting form and where did they appear on the ballot (i.e. on the At-large or the Precinct Nominated sections of the ballot).
- During the course of our investigation we uncovered the following:
- The vast majority of the LD 25 PCs were on the State Committeeman ballot. At least 40 (and probably more) of these looked like they were arbitrarily put on the ballot without the submission of any form whatsoever. We could not come to any certain conclusion as to why this happened. Our speculation was that these names were added by those managing the election out of a sincere desire that nobody be left off who wanted to run, even though such action was a clear violation of the Bylaws. The Bylaws state that to qualify to be on the ballot, a PC must submit a signed nomination questionnaire by a certain date. Many of those who appeared on the ballot did not submit the required signed nomination questionnaires.
- At least one individual asked to run as a State Committeeman but was left off the ballot.
- One individual who was on the ballot had moved out of the district and was no longer eligible to serve.
- Two entire precincts[v] and a large portion of another[vi] submitted non-standard nominating questionnaires that did not include a signature line, as required by the Bylaws, for the individual to personally attest to their intention to serve if elected. Based on the handwriting it appeared that a single individual in two of the precincts had filled out all of the nominating questionnaires.
- Numerous individuals, including 9 prominent members of LD 25 who were elected as State Committeemen[vii], had not filled out or signed the Nomination Questionnaire as required by our Bylaws[viii]. For some of these individuals[ix] the only documentation was the Precinct Meeting Report[x], which, according to the Bylaws, is not enough to qualify to be on the ballot.
- Five proxy forms should have been rejected by the C&T Committee due to crossed out names, missing signatures, notary omissions or other irregularities.[xi] The committee was highly critical of the C&T procedures that did not prevent these types of errors but recognized that, on election night, the C&T committee is the final judge on what is accepted or rejected.
- About 40 nominating questionnaires had signatures that the first team deemed questionable. Upon review by the entire committee this number was pared down to between 15 and 20 signatures that were deemed different enough from the signatures on file with the Recorder as to bring their authenticity into doubt. Of these 15-20 signatures there was only unanimous agreement on about 3 of the forms that they were indeed questionable. Every other signature had between two or three people who saw enough similarities between the signatures to say that they were probably signed by the same person.
- At no time did the committee ever say that this conclusively proved that fraud had occurred in the election. It was also said, several times during the course of the investigation, that none of us were handwriting experts and that we were thus not competent to state with ANY certainty whether or not fraud had actually occurred.
- It was agreed (upon the recommendation of Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery) that the five documents that were known to be fraudulent (due to the sworn affidavits) as well as the few nomination questionnaires with questionable signatures would be turned over to Mesa PD for further investigation.
- It was suggested that the controversy concerning the questionable signatures could be resolved by calling the individuals and asking them if they had signed the form. During the course of this discussion several different ways of asking the PC about the document were proposed in an effort to see if the PC could remember what they signed, what they requested and who they had given the forms to. It was pointed out that this line of questioning would probably not resolve the doubt, because many of these people were “paper PCs” and likely would not remember what they had signed or to whom they had given their proxies. It was also said that this might taint an investigation by Mesa PD and it would be best to leave it alone.[xii]
- The conclusions of the investigation were:
- There were enough irregularities in the way that PCs were placed on the State Committeemen ballot to clearly warrant a redo of that election. The committee decided that in the new election the nomination questionnaires from the November 29th election should be disregarded and the ballot could include even PCs who did not comply with the requirements of the Bylaws in the November 29th election.
- The five proxies that should have been rejected by the C&T committee could have had a material impact on the two tied elections for board positions. It was decided, by consensus – not by an actual vote, that the board election should also be vacated and redone.
- A long discussion was held throughout the three days we met on who should be allowed on the ballot of the new election if we held one. One position was that only those who had clearly complied with the Bylaws by previously submitting a nominating questionnaire be allowed on the ballot[xiii]. Another position was that those who filled out the nominating questionnaire as well as those whose names were listed on the Precinct Meeting reports be allowed on the ballot, even though that would permit individuals to appear on the ballot who had not complied with the Bylaws. In the end it was to start over again and have a new election and allow everyone to submit new nominating questionnaires.
- It was decided that the interim board resume their positions to handle the dissemination of this information as well as to call and make arrangements for the new election to take place.
All of the above was agreed to by consensus without an actual vote taken on accepting these recommendations. The formal notice of this action was given when Ian, at Chairman Haney’s direction, sent out his letter to the district informing everyone of the outcome of the investigation.
The committee investigated the officer election on its own initiative, as no formal challenge to that election was filed. In my opinion, the invalidation of the officer election is highly unusual, as that election was certified on the night of the election and any irregularities in that election were probably equivalent to irregularities that would appear in any election.
Once the formal announcement was made I returned all passwords I had been given to Ian Murray and directed those who had won the officer elections on November 29th to return any materials and/or passwords to the previous board. Because I ostensibly have no official position I have not communicated with the district in any official capacity.
Some final thoughts on the whole affair – I was on the committee that decided to start over and redo the election. At the time, I agreed with this decision because I wanted to dispel the cloud of doubt surrounding the election. I have now had some time to think about this and feel that we are establishing a very dangerous precedent. A group that does not have clear authority to do so has decided that the certified results of an official election are null and void based on allegations of fraud THAT WERE NOT PROVED IN THE INVESTIGATION. The only fraud that was proved was the fraud that was caught and dealt with BEFORE THE ELECTION. Since when do we just arbitrarily throw out the results of an election? We do not know who perpetrated the original fraud and anyone who claims that they know who did it is engaging in pure speculation. Each faction in LD 25 is absolutely sure that the other faction is responsible, but the only thing we absolutely know is that WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW WHO DID THIS, any claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
Regardless of who wins in the upcoming redo of this election, there will always be some who will believe that the entire election was stolen by one side or the other. If this was the intention of the person who submitted the fraudulent nominating questionnaires then they have certainly succeeded in their quest.
E. Paul Whetten
[i] The results were certified by George Teegarden, who was administering the ballot counting for the MCRC, and announced to the group by outgoing Chairman Haydee Dawson. MCRC Chairman Rob Haney was still present at the meeting when the results were announced.
[ii] This was administered by LD 26 Chairman Raymond Jones, witnessed by several individuals including Haydee Dawson and Ian Murray, outgoing Chairman and 1st Vice Chairman, respectively, and partially videotaped by Colleen Wheeler.
[iii] The committee members were: Rob Haney, Tom Husband, Lyle Tuttle, Ian Murray, Paul Whetten, Barbara Parker, Pat Oldroyd, George Teegarden, Elaine Gangluff, Milt Wheat, Vera Anderson, Lynne Breyer, James Alberts and
Ray Sweeney. Haydee Dawson, the outgoing LD 25 Chairman, had requested of Chairman Haney that the investigative team include Colleen Wheeler, Alan Soelberg and Tracy Langston, all of whom were actively involved in collecting nomination questionnaires from the PCs and would presumably have information that might be helpful in the investigation. That request was denied by Chairman Haney.
[iv] I believed that Brent’s presence as an observer was reasonable since he had actually filed a formal complaint against the State Committeemen election. Barbara Parker was serving on the team because she was the one that brought the allegations of fraud to everyone’s attention. Mr. Haney was irritated at me for taking this action without consulting him first.
[v] Tonto and Leisure World precincts
[vi] Greenfield Park Precinct
[vii] Justin Pierce, Cortney Pierce, Pat Oldroyd, Gary Pierce, Sherry Pierce, Matt Salmon, Nancy Salmon, Russell Pearce, Lester Pearce.
[viii] I am NOT accusing these individuals of deliberately ignoring our Bylaws, merely calling attention to an important fact. I don’t know why these individuals didn’t have signed forms or if they even wanted to run in the first place.
[ix] Pat Oldroyd, Russell Pearce, Lester Pearce
[x] There were two groups who were running slates, and I was recruited by one of these groups. The group that recruited me also recruited several people to run as State Committeemen. Of the people recruited as SC’s by that group – NOT ONE was missing the appropriate documentation. The signatures on several of those forms were later called into question by Chairman Haney’s committee.
[xi] This could have materially affected the outcome of the officer races that were tied, but would not have affected the outcome of the other officer elections. This was later the basis for the decision to vacate the Board Elections, NOT because there was evidence of any voter fraud.
[xii] I find it interesting that all it took to create an allegation of fraud was to state that you did not ask to be on the state committeemen ballot; but if someone had a signed document stating that they wanted to run, simply asking that individual if that was their intention was not sufficient to remove the suspicion of fraud.
[xiii] This was the position that I advocated. To be consistent with our Bylaws I felt that only those who had substantially complied with the requirements of the Bylaws should be on the ballot.
President Obama is a president of shiny objects. He deflects, distracts and distorts as his method of governing.
Here are two examples:
Back in the second week of June, Attorney General Eric Holder was under fire by the US Senate during testimony in the US Senate. There were calls for his resignation and contempt citations. The US Supreme Court was also due to release its ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070. And the Inspector General released a report on Secret Service misconduct. What did President Obama do? He issued the notorious deferred action order which basically told children born to illegal immigrants in the US that federal agencies would ignore existing law and put them into some vague legal limbo.
THIS WAS A DISTRACTION.
Fast forward to September 11, 2012 and four US citizens including an ambassador are murdered in cold blood while serving at the US Embassy in Benghazi, Libya. The President and his administration do everything they can to avoid using the word terrorism but it becomes very apparent that they and their willing accomplices in media (with the exception of FoxNews) finally get caught omitting and covering for candidate Obama right before the election. Suddenly and strangely, the head of the CIA self-outs himself as an adulterer and immediately resigns his position days before he is scheduled to testify before the US Senate on what really happened in Benghazi. Coincidence?
One thing is certain. Everyone’s attention has been shifted off the four murdered Americans on to a titillating and salacious sex scandal involving US generals and Pentagon housewives.
The lesson to be learned here? Keep your eyes on this president. His MO is to deflect, distract, distort, divide and deny.
Judicial Watch is providing free tickets to a Movie in Phoenix named, District of Corruption.
Here’s how to get your FREE TICKETS:
You can see District of Corruption at AMC Desert Ridge 18 located at 21001 North Tatum, Phoenix, AZ 85050
Limited complimentary tickets are available to Judicial Watch supporters by calling toll free 1 (877) 298-9387 (between 11:30 a.m. and 8:30 p.m. ET) or by emailing them at email@example.com.
Get your tickets today!
Yes, just like in 47 other states, there is a movement afoot by Arizonans to secede from the United States.
Here is a screenshot of the website that currently shows the signatures of 20,487 Arizonans who want out of Obama’s America.
For the White House to take the petition seriously, it has to acquire the signatures of 25,000 Arizonans by December 10th. Given the rate the petition is being signed, it will likely make that threshold this week.
You too can sign the petition by clicking on this link.
Silly, serious or sophisticated? You can also leave your comments here.
EAST VALLEY – Current State Rep and candidate for the State Senate in LD 16, John Fillmore, announced the filing of criminal charges against two unknown ladies caught red-handed and red-faced taking down his sign and replacing it with one of his opponents.
“I received a call around 11:00 AM, Wednesday from some supporters who stated they had came across the two people taking down the sign on the Apache Trail in East Mesa. They watched and filmed with their cell phones for about 5 minutes before confronting the ladies who at first claimed they owned the poles, then stammered that they were fixing it, and then finally tried to put the Fillmore sign back up and fled.”
They were supposedly putting up signs belonging to State Senator Rich Crandall. “Rich Crandall had tried to garnish pity and claimed his reason for fleeing his old district and carpet-bagging into LD16 was that he wanted to get himself and his family away from dirty politics, after he had undermined Senator Russell Pearce then found himself having to fairly compete against him because of the new district lines being drawn he has stated in previous newspaper stories. I guess the dirt was always his to begin with, and the fact that the ladies resemble and may actually be his family makes a mockery of truth and hypocrisy as there seems to be a very close resemblance to my opponents grown daughters as posted in pictures on his web site and the culprits in the picture,” Fillmore stated.
“It is unfortunate that if it is them, this is what my opponent must be teaching his children as he always speaks of himself as a moral and education focused kind of guy. I do not want to even begin to think of all of the hours I as a frail 62 year old have spent in this burning heat pounding those signs into the ground just to have someone with no scruples steal the signs, destroy them and use my poles. The culprits driving a red pick-up filled with his opponents signs are shown in many pictures taking Fillmore’s signs down, trampling it on the ground and putting up his opponents.
“While I do not know the identities of these people as of yet I am sure it will be easy for the police to locate them because of the many clear pictures of not only the thieves but the vehicle and license plates as well. Stealing or defacing of political signs is a class2 misdemeanor under Arizona law. The taking or defacing of signs is seen by many as a dirty shameful way of trying to undermine an opponent’s message. Rep Fillmore stated that he will just have to get more signs as many have been stolen along with the stakes.
Washington, D.C.—Today, U.S. Congressman Paul Gosar, D.D.S (R-AZ) released the following statement regarding the full vote by the U.S. House of Representatives to hold U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. This vote is the result of continuous delays by Holder and the Department of Justice to release subpoenaed documents from the reckless Operation Fast and Furious.
Gosar said today, “Mr. Holder’s actions have shown his contempt for our constitutional rights, our border, Arizonans and all Americans and today Congress did its job by holding him in contempt. It is my hope today’s vote to sends a strong message to Attorney General Holder, President Obama and future bureaucrats that no one is above the law. After months of stonewalling, excuses and half truths Mr. Holder has run out of time and second chances.”
“The people of Arizona and throughout the United States and Mexico will be living with the consequences of Fast and Furious for years to come. Many have rightfully lost confidence in Attorney General Holder. Today’s vote further supports my Resolution of No Confidence (H.Res.490) in Mr. Holder which has the support of 114 members of Congress who each co-sponsored the measure.”
As the only member from Arizona on the committee for Oversight and Government Reform, Congressman Gosar has been a leading advocate for the victims of this horrible operation by demanding answers and justice. Gosar is the lead sponsor of H. Res. 490, a Resolution of No Confidence in the Attorney General which currently has 114 cosponsors.
Interesting video by a Ron Paul supporter in which he calls Rand Paul a “Scumbag” in his YouTube title.
Every day the Ron Paul faction takes on the disturbing characteristics of a political cult. This is what happens when you put all your faith into one man.
The Ron Paul Revolution is O-V-E-R and even the son of the movement’s leader know it.
Watch as the Paulistinians further self-destruct as the General Election nears.
A word of advice to the Ron Paul followers. Get with the program!
The survival of the Republic depends on it.
Here’s the video of Saturday’s Republican Party Convention where Ron Paul fanatics caused chaos and havoc in an attempt to take over the convention. Keep in mind that the woman who they attempted to elect as National Committeeman is a 911 Truther.
Voting for the next mayor of the City of Tempe continues at a frenzied pace as election day rapidly approaches on May 15th. One thing that is clearly not moving fast is the release of the report by City of Phoenix Police investigators regarding alleged behaviors by the Democrat candidate in the race, Mark Mitchell.
Meanwhile, Tempe Police who supposedly handed the investigation over to Phoenix investigators to avoid a conflict of interest, have come out in support of Mitchell. Signs started appearing last week courtesy of the political action committee, “Public Safety for Better Government – E.V.”
One would expect that law enforcement officials would reserve any form of advocacy for a candidate – especially one who has been accused of despicable acts – until any police investigation report is released to the public. That doesn’t seem to be the case in Tempe.
This all goes back to our earlier request in which we urged the Mayor of Phoenix, Greg Stanton, to release any report surrounding his endorsee, Mark Mitchell, so the voters would have the opportunity to make up their own minds regarding the allegations.
Strangely enough, “Arizona Police Officers” have already made up their collective mind and appear to be protecting their investment despite any potentially damaging revelations being stonewalled by mayoral leadership.
Tempe voters deserve to know as they head to the polls. The simple solution is to disclose the findings and come clean and let the voters decide based on the facts.
1. Applicable Statute
The rules are set forth in the definition of “independent expenditure,” in A.R.S. § 16-901(14). The definition of “election” is that it means any “primary, general,…or runoff election.” (Emphasis added). Therefore the primary is a separate election from the general. A.R.S. § 16-901(7) also states “for purposes of § 16-903 and § 16-905, the general election includes the primary election.” Neither of those Sections is applicable to the issue presented here. This reinforces the fact that, for our purposes, the primary election is a separate election from the general election.
Kathleen Winn was a victim of Andrew Thomas’ unjust practices as County Attorney, and false charges against her were repeatedly dismissed by the court. Ultimately she prevailed. In December 2009, she filed an independent committee called Business Leaders for Arizona, to oppose Andrew Thomas. This was done on her own initiative, and was “without cooperation or consultation” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf, and without “any arrangement, coordination or direction” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf. She never received any compensation from Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf. She raised $2,480, paid almost all of it ($2,100) to a website/graphic design expert in January 2010. He took the fee, but did not do anything. The project fizzled, and she abandoned it.
Although Kathleen filed papers with the Secretary of State’s office because she thought there would be an independent campaign, in fact there was no independent campaign during the primary. The above quoted statute defines “independent expenditure” as an expenditure “that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate…” There was no express advocacy, because there was no activity at all, other than a payment for which nothing was ever received.
Kathleen then volunteered in Tom Horne’s campaign in the primary election in 2010. She was not an “officer, member, employee or agent of the committee” of that campaign, but solely a volunteer.
When the primary was over, Kathleen told Mr. Horne she was withdrawing from the campaign, in order to be able to conduct an independent campaign during the general election. This was on her own initiative, and was “without cooperation or consultation” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf, and without “any arrangement, coordination or direction” with Tom Horne or anyone acting on his behalf. Those who participated in the campaign can confirm that, after the primary, Kathleen stopped coming to meetings.
3. Motive for False Charges
When Don Dybus sent his letter, he knew he was about to be fired. He sent letter to the Attorney General’s Office indicating that he could not be fired. Sharon Collins, the Manager of the Tucson Office, asked him why he sent a letter of charges, as referred to in his letter, and he responded that “I knew that Rick Bistrow [the Chief Deputy in the Attorney General’s Office] was about to fire me, and I was afraid of losing the health insurance.”
On February 9, shortly before the letter was written, Tom Horne was on the telephone with Sharon Collins, and with Rick Bistrow, the Chief Deputy Attorney General. Horne told Collins to tell Dybus that he had not been working to standard, and that if he did not start working to standard, he would have to be let go. Collins passed this message, in substance, to Dybus, shortly before he sent his letter.
4. Hiring of Kathleen Winn
There was never a promise made to hire Kathleen Winn. She was not among the new employees processed during the transition period following the election. Kathleen Winn was not the first choice for that job. The offer was first made to Kim Owens, who decided she wanted to pursue other avenues in the private sector. Only then was the offer made to Kathleen Winn, based on her qualifications, and the confidence Tom Horne had developed in her during the primary. A statement of her qualifications is attached as Exhibit A. It is common for public figures to hire people in whom they have developed confidence during the election. The point is that no promise was made, and this is obvious from the fact that she was not hired at first, and that when the job for which she was hired opened up, something else was the first choice. Winn’s salary is the same as that of her predecessor.
5. Nathan Sproul
Tom Horne has had no contact with Nathan Sproul since the before the last election. Kathleen Winn chose his consulting company for the independent campaign. Tom Horne had no participation in that decision, nor did he know of it.
6. Contribution from Richard Newman
Tom Horne did not know that Kathleen Winn was approaching his sister for a contribution to the independent campaign. His sister and Kathleen Winn had met at the primary victory party, at which time his sister gave Kathleen Winn her phone number and asked her to call if there was anything she could do to help in the general election.
Richard Newman formed Horne Consulting, L.L.C. on March 26, 2010, not in October 2010, which illustrates the falseness of the charges that have been made, by facts that can be confirmed by the public record. Richard Newman ceased to be an employee of a company called AACOM on April 1, 2010, but he remained as a non-executive chairman of the board, and a consultant. Horne Consulting was formed in connection with his becoming a consultant. It had nothing to do with this election. No money passed through Horne Consulting for political contributions. All contributions in the independent campaign were from personal funds. Tom Horne had not heard of Horne Consulting until the article published today.
7. Formal Findings Against Rotellini Independent Campaign
The democratic Attorney General’ Association is the sole source of funding of a front group called the Committee for Justice and Fairness.[ 1 ] It spent $600,000 attacking me on behalf of my opponent Felicia Rotellini. It made the willful decision not to comply with Arizona’s requirements for filing disclosures with the Secretary of State, and oral disclosures in advertising. An Administrative Law Judge made that finding, and a copy of that decision is attached as Exhibit B. By contrast, Kathleen Winn diligently complied with all filing and disclosure requirements.
In addition, in September 2010, Felicia Rotellini attended a meeting of the Democratic Attorney General’s Association, and their funding of an independent campaign on her behalf followed shortly after that.[ 2 ] I attended no meeting of the Republican Attorney General’s Association or similar organization prior to the election. The irony of the present inquiry is that I went much further than many other candidates to stay far away from the line that separates campaigns from independent campaigns.
[ 2 ] 9/14/10 Tim Nelson contribution in kind for “Daga conference.” http://azsos.gov/cfs/PublicReports/2010/78E892B2-7282-4CC7-BAC5-2F1313E7B899.pdf