Maricopa County Republicans Continue Intra-Party Fighting

Time to air some dirty laundry! These latest reports from several Republicans in Maricopa County. After reading these accounts, we wonder why anyone in their right mind would want to participate as an elected Republican party official?

We will post additional perspectives as we receive them.


I don’t normally get involved in the AZ Republican Party food fights but what happened at the EGC meeting last week is over the top. I feel everyone should know what is happening behind the scenes whether you are a PC or not.

Many of us who volunteer in politics are not in it seek attention to boost ourselves. Instead we realize the country under Barack Obama is deteriorating quickly. Our battle is all about America and electing candidates who will fight for conservative principles and get America back on track. We must continue to fight the good fight for our country and keep our eye on the big picture and the ultimate goal. However, we also should be aware of what others are doing to put obstacles in our way. This is the reason I need to share the recent chain of events.
Sandi B.


And from Frosty Taylor’s MCRC Briefs:

Chins Are Still Wagging about Wednesday night’s Maricopa County Republican Committee’s Executive Guidance Committee (MCRC EGC) Donnybrook. The agenda didn’t list screaming, hollering, shouting matches, nor a failed attempt to pass a vote of no confidence resolution against chairman Tyler Bowyer– but that’s what EGC members endured. “It was just awful… just awful,” confided one attendee. Emotions ran high during nearly an hour of chaos that ended in a ‘vote of confidence resolution’ tally that favored Chairman Tyler Bowyer by 15-14…one vote. See 11-4-15-briefs Witnesses say EGC Board Second Vice Chairman Aaron Borders lead the charge against Bowyer, backed by First Vice Chairman Jeni White. Rumors have sprouted that Borders and White might be asked to resign at the December EGC meeting. Borders presented a two page, single-spaced resolution listing some 19 complaint allegations regarding Bowyer’s leadership/ management techniques ranging from lack of communication with the EGC members to misrepresentation of the EGC. Some says Bowyers opponents arrived with prepared ballots before the lengthy resolution was brought to the floor. Reports had circulated Wednesday morning that Bowyers opponents wanted a ballot vote because some thought a voice or hand vote would fail. Others say Bowyers opponents lost votes because of unprofessional behavior. Regardless of whose version you chose to believe, the whole episode is an embarrassment to the party. It’s apparent that Bowyer needs to knock off with some of his shenanigans, start communicating better with his members, improve his management skills and that a parliamentarian, a Sgt at Arms and a security officer need to be in attendance in December. Those prone to screaming and yelling need to try a calm, professional manner. Bully tactics turn off your fellow Republicans. Dems must be laughing their heads off.


And from former AZGOP Chairman Tom Morrissey:

MCRC Chairman Tyler Bowyer beat back another underhanded attempt by the establishment to take control of the party and stop the conservative momentum which is gaining ground thanks to the efforts of grassroots groups like the Tea Party and AzRA and as a result, now within our party. This was very reminiscent of the moves made against me when I was State Chair by the same contingent. The only difference this time was that they are more open as to who is doing what. But it is the same old, same old. The establishment believes that they and they alone have all the answers and the right to control the GOP. Fact is, that is not an absolute and the ground is moving under their feet and it’s not moving in their direction. They should take a close look at what just happened in Kentucky and Virginia (again). Their champions are going down because conservatism is no longer contained within the boundaries of a party it is now awake and has become the movement it must be, to turn this country around. We ALL make mistakes and Tyler is no exception, but his heart and principles are solid as he does the very difficult job of chairman. I made mistakes as well but in the end WE were extremely successful in the elections of 2012 despite the attacks on us by the establishment. Go Tyler! And Trump, Carson and Cruz!


And from the Arizona Freedom Alliance:

[Editor:  To understand what is going on, you first need to know that the Chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Committee has a less than cooperative Board.  The Chairman is a conservative but three of the Board members are McCainiacs.  It makes for very unhappy political bedfellows and a lack of political maturity.  The inevitable food fight broke out at their last meeting. The following report is one attendee’s take on the events.  From other reports, it appears this report is an accurate accounting of the evenings failed attempt at sabotage.  The conservative Republicans have a lot of work to do and this nonsense is just a time-waster!  No doubt the goal of the saboteurs.] 

Guest Columnist:

So, at the November 4, 2015 meeting of the Maricopa County Republican Committee (“MCRC”) Executive Guidance Committee (“EGC”) meeting, some members of the EGC brought a silly, out of order, motion to pass a silly resolution, which shall be deemed the “Great Silly Nothingburger Resolution of the Malcontents.”  (Hint:  To figure out the identities of these malcontents, follow the money – find out who are beholden to government, are allied with the “reach across the aisle” elected Republicans, or profit from government contracts.)  These malcontents said in their proposed resolution, “Whereas in regard to the bylaws and the delineated duties, the objectives of the MCRC should be reflected in all actions of the Chairman in his representation of such in the ‘official capacity’ and within the countywide activities . . . .”

Agreed.  The same applies to the rest of the EGC members.  

Let’s look at their duties.

MCRC First Vice-Chairman:  (Jeni White)

The duties of the MCRC First Vice-Chairman shall be to:

  1. Perform duties assigned by the MCRC Chairman or by the Bylaws of the MCRC,
  2. Perform the duties of the MCRC Chairman during an absence of the MCRC Chairman or in the event of a vacancy until the vacancy is filled.

See anything there about a duty to bring a motion for a resolution for a “Vote of No Confidence with Call for Independent Audit”?  

Neither did I.  

And while we are discussing “duties,” keep in mind that NONE of these “duties,” both those of the MCRC Chairman or the “lowly” precinct committeeman, are in any way forced by statute.  Our Arizona Republican Party is entirely made up of unpaid volunteers.  The AZ GOP Chairman can try all he might to “order” a “lowly” precinct committeeman to do this or that.  Good luck with that.  Because an elected or appointed PC is a voluntary participant in our AZ GOP and can do as much, or as little, as he likes with respect to the Party.  He is only beholden to the Republicans in his precinct.  Who can decide to not re-elect him (or, in the case of appointed PCs, elect him in the next primary).

This is not rocket science.  

Moving on to the duties of MCRC Second Vice-Chairman:  (Aaron Borders)

The duties of the MCRC Second Vice-Chairman shall be to:

  1. Perform duties as may be assigned by the MCRC Chairman or the Bylaws of the MCRC,
  2. Perform the duties of the MCRC Chairman during as [sic] absence of the MCRC Chairman and the First Vice- Chairman, and 
  3. Be the liaison officer for the MCRC to the various Republican Clubs in Maricopa County.

See anything there about a duty to bring a motion for a resolution for a “Vote of No Confidence with Call for Independent Audit”?  

Neither did I.

Nor do the duties of the Secretary include a duty to bring a motion for a resolution for a “Vote of No Confidence with Call for Independent Audit.”

The LD Chairs and Members At Large?  They have no duties that would allow for the bringing of the Great Silly Nothingburger Resolution of the Malcontents.  But the LD Chairs are to “Cooperate with the MCRC Chairman.”  And all EGC members are to support the objectives of the Committee.

The Bylaws say the Duties of the EGC members include “Act[ing] collectively as an advisory and guidance group to the MCRC Chairman” and “Assist[ing] the MCRC Chairman with the specific responsibilities designated for each member of the MCRC Chairman.”  And as to all of the above, besides the MCRC Chairman and the Treasurer, all of the rest of the members of the EGC “have, essentially, NO power to tell either the MCRC Chairman or the Treasurer what to do.  Oh, they can ask, cajole, hint, “demand,” “direct,” or throw a temper tantrum and stamp their feet or hold their breath, but the real power lies in the hands of the Chairman and the Treasurer.  Yet there they were, wasting everyone’s time, when they could have just emailed their “demands” to the Chairman.  Silly.  

Political party committees are not public bodies.  They are not corporations.  They are private voluntary associations of like-minded (in theory, based on the concept of having party platforms define a party’s values and objectives) persons.  The elected and appointed members, precinct committeeman, are volunteers.  Governed by bylaws.  

Earth to the members of the EGC who supported this silly motion:  The bylaws of political party committees, including those of the Arizona Republican Party, must give the Chairman and the Treasurer essentially dictatorial powers because, otherwise, without such powers, nothing will get accomplished.  

As was reflected by the 60 or so man hours of time wasted by the EGC members on the silly motion.

Please, former tea partiers, please, newcomers, please, people with common sense:  Think about this long and hard.  And then think some more.  

This is taught in 7th Grade Civics.  I had such a course in public school.  Perhaps some of the people supporting the Great Silly Nothingburger Resolution of the Malcontents did not have this advantage.  Or, if they did, forgot what they learned.  Regardless, it’s all just common sense.  

If the Chairman and Treasurer of any given political party committee did not have such dictatorial power, virtually every action of the committees would be “committee-ed to death.”  As was on display at the November 4, 2015 meeting of the MCRC EGC meeting.  Let’s assume it took 2 hours to deal with the silly motion for the silly resolution.  That means that 60 man hours (there are 30 voting members of the EGC) were spent on a silly motion and silly resolution rather than being expended on achieving these objectives:   

The objective of the MCRC is to uphold the principles and policies as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Republican Party Platform. We will promote the political education of all Republican Party workers and loyalty to the Republican Party platform. We will also support the election of our party candidates who uphold the principles and policies as set forth in the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Republican Party Platform. 

(MCRC Bylaws, Article I – Object, Section 1 – Objective.)

From those pesky Continuing Bylaws of the Maricopa County Republican Committee that some members of the MCRC EGC apparently cannot quite seem to bring themselves to read and study.  

And let us assume that, in addition to the 30 voting members in attendance in person or by proxy, an additional 20 Republicans attended the November 4, 2015 meeting.  That’s 100 man hours lost to silliness.  Who, exactly, is the leader of the proponents of the Great Silly Nothingburger Resolution of the Malcontents?  Please come forward to receive the accolades you deserve as the prime mover behind the Great Silly Nothingburger Resolution of the Malcontents!

Yes, complaining about the Chairman who has violated no Bylaws provision, through a time-wasting motion for a baseless and substance-less resolution containing no facts but only allegations, and which has no binding effect on anyone, is such a great, great use of the time of the MCRC EGC members.  (Um, that’s sarcasm, just in case you have not caught my drift.)

The MCRC PCs who brought the silly motion and voted for it apparently can’t quite grasp the duties of the members of the MCRC, as set forth in the Bylaws. (But then, how many of them have actually read the Bylaws, or had a copy with them at the meeting?  Based on the silly motion they brought forward, I think I know the answer.): 

The duties of PCs shall include, but not be limited to:

  1. Voting, in person or by proxy, at each and every district and county party election when qualified to do so,
  2. Assisting the Republican Party in voter registration,
  3. Assisting and encouraging Republican voters to vote on election days,
  4. Attending all District meetings,
  5. Working within the precinct from which elected,
  6. Creating enthusiasm and support for the Republican Party,
  7. Helping elect worthy Republican candidates,
  8. Recruiting and training leaders of the Republican Party, and
  9. Fostering loyalty to the Republican Party and promote its ideals.
  10. The PC shall provide the district, county, and state party offices with an email address, if they have one. District, county and state party offices may not allow email addresses to be used for any purpose other than internal party communications and shall not distribute an email address to anyone, including other PCs without the express consent of the affected precinct committeeman. 

(I am going to make it hard – look this up.)

How did the bringing of the Great Silly Nothingburger Resolution of the Malcontents (the “Nothingburger”) “encourage[e] Republican voters to vote on election days . . . ?”

How did the bringing off the Nothingburger encourage MCRC EGC members to “Attend[] all District meetings . . . .?”  Several MCRC EGC members left the meeting early in disgust over the bickering of the proponents of the Nothingburger.

Smart people.

How did the bringing of the Nothingburger “creat[e] enthusiasm and support for the Republican Party . . . ?”

How did the bringing of the Nothingburger further the MCRC EGC PCs’ goal of “Helping elect worthy Republican candidates . . . ?”

How did the bringing of the Nothingburger further the MCRC EGC PCs’ goal of “Recruiting and training leaders of the Republican Party . . . ?”

How did the bringing of the Nothingburger further the MCRC EGC PCs’ goal of “Fostering loyalty to the Republican Party and promote its ideals . . . ?”

How did the bringing of the Nothingburger further the EGC’s duty to “Act collectively as an advisory and guidance group to the MCRC Chairman?”

How did the bringing of the Nothingburger further the EGC’s duty to “Assist the MCRC Chairman with the specific responsibilities designated for each member by the MCRC Chairman?”  

To ask these questions is to answer them.  This silly, out of order, proposed resolution was brought by people who apparently can’t quite grasp that our Arizona Republican Party is comprised of volunteer precinct committeemen who are to work together, voluntarily.  It is not “public.”  It is not government.  It is a voluntary association of, ostensibly, like-minded citizens who have registered to vote as a Republican and who want to work together to further the goals of the AZ GOP and, in the case of those in Maricopa County, the MCRC.  

A motion that does not further the goals of the organization is out of order.  Even if it had passed, the Great Silly Nothingburger Resolution of the Malcontents would be null and void.  

Thank you.


Republican-Hating Lawyer Invited to Infiltrate Maricopa County Republican Party


Chronicle of a Leftist’s Battle Against Conservatives

You’ve seen the recent reports of the defamation lawsuits flying back and forth between Democrat activists and the MCRC, while reviewing the cast of characters we found a doozy and Chairman Tyler Bowyer has some explaining to do. Did you know the self-employed lawyer hired by MCRC Chairman Tyler Bowyer is actually a leftist criminal defense attorney with a long history of bashing Republicans? But there she is, listed right here on the website as “General Counsel.”



Karyl Krug is listed with Arizona State Bar with an area of focus listed as “None.” A quick look at her social media posts, however, shows a clear focus on hating Republicans. Her litany of insults against the GOP and our candidates and officeholders is long and personal. Her tirades will leave our readers wondering how or why Chairman Bowyer chose her to be the party’s legal counsel. Is she a Trojan horse? What better way to beat up Republicans than from within?

We took a look at some of her Facebook posts. While working as an attorney in Texas, she called Ted Cruz a “scary inhuman creep.” She said Sarah Palin was “dumb.”


Sure, not every Republican voter supports every Republican candidate. But what do you make of this: she definitely a Trump-hater:


And fellow Texan Rick Perry is a “dunce”


And she’s a lifelong Dem:


Krug’s a member of a Facebook group, with 254 members, called “Committee to Recall Gov. Doug Ducey.” She’s one of 50 members of a group asking ASU to stop investing in fossil fuels, and another called “Watchdog” where she posted this:


Her ridicule does not end with conservatives, the Republican party and conservative politicians. She’s ripped the “religious right” and now “Christians” and “fundamentalists” are to blame for child molestation:


Krug is a regular blogger at, where her articles fall under the category “Republican Watch.”

Her first article chronicles the events leading up to her being fired by a judge from her job as an attorney for refusing to work with a non-attorney. She blamed her career-ending event on Republicans:

“Every one of the people involved in what happened to me, except possibly Diane herself, is a Republican.”(

She blasted Sarah Palin’s book about Christmas, with Krug writing:

“The Puritans were just against Christmas, unlike Atheists or any other non-Christian, who could not care less about this topic, other than being weary of yet another foolish Republican fiction being nattered about endlessly. The only revisionists here are Sarah Palin and the current Christian right.” (

In writing about the judge who fired her, she also dumps on Sheriff Arpaio and Jan Brewer:

“Judges in Arizona are supposedly picked in a non-partisan process in which people from different parties are vetted and then nominated and, in the case of Governor Brewer, she picks her favorite person who just happens to be a loyal Republican. However, there was not a speck of evidence on this questionnaire that Judge Rayes, lifelong Republican, in any way, shape, or form identifies himself as a Republican. Lie of omission? Hair-splitting? Does not read with full comprehension? Sneaky? Any way you cut it, it is not good. But, it is so like a Republican from Maricopa County, Arizona. Sheriff Joe and his tank could not have done a better job of rolling over the question asked.” (

And we’re not quite sure what to make of this published statement, other than she seems to be narrowing down her hatred toward conservatives:

“Today’s Know Nothing Party (a.k.a. the Tea Party or conservative Republicans or political Evangelicals) seems insanely proud of the fact that they know almost nothing. They censured Senator John McCain despite his years of demeaning and cringe-worthy pandering to their blatant stupidity. Can the Tea Party last much longer?” (

This excerpt below confirms it, and really has us demanding to know how Bowyer could ever bring her in to help the MCRC, in any capacity, when she’s already completely ridiculed his committee:

“MCRC is the group that consistently throws its support behind Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a national Tea Party hero who has cost Maricopa County, Arizona, tens of millions of dollars in civil settlements and who was recently found by a federal court in Phoenix to have engaged in racial profiling and unreasonably lengthy detentions of Hispanics.” (

“When the Arizona GOP censures the U.S. Senator who served five plus brutal years in a prisoner of war camp in Hanoi, but praises a racist lawsuit magnet sheriff who starves jailed prisoners for a mild display of free speech, you know exactly which side of the Hanoi Hilton the Arizona GOP is on.” (

Lastly, publicly available voting records indicate since moving to Arizona Krug registered as an independent but voted a Democrat ballot in the 2012 primary. While in Texas, Krug ran for office on the same ticket with Hillary Clinton. Check out this 2008 photo and ask yourself if you think she’ll do a good job defending Republicans.


Regardless of what you think, or thought, of Chairman Bowyer, this is the not the kind of person the county party committee should entrust with any information about our committee or our plans, let alone our legal defense. In fact, it leads us to question his judgement in failing to spend even an hour, as we did, doing simple research into her background before putting the party’s fate in her hands. Let’s keep wolves in sheep’s clothing out of the Grand Old Party.

Boehner Re-elected Speaker . . . And You Got Played

David SchweikertBy Rachel Alexander

Last week, John Boehner (R-Ohio) easily won re-election as Speaker of the House. Only 25 Republicans defected, with 216 Republicans voting for him. In the days before the election, there was a flurry of emails and activity on social media about the vote, calling on members of Congress to oust Boehner. After the vote, conservative talk show hosts were outraged, denouncing Republicans who voted for him as RINOs and traitors. Even well-loved, conservative members of Congress like Utah’s Mia Love did not escape the anger. Tea Party favorite Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) missed the vote, but said he would have voted for Boehner.

To many, it did not make sense why conservative Republicans would settle for another term of the compromising Boehner, considering Republicans now control both chambers. In Arizona, the most conservative members of the delegation all voted to retain Boehner: Rep. David Schweikert, Rep. Matt Salmon and Rep. Trent Franks. Only Rep. Paul Gosar, who has the lowest American Conservative Union rating of the four, voted against Boehner. Newly elected Republican Rep. Martha McSally of Tucson also voted for Boehner. After the vote, some conservative activists in Arizona started calling Gosar the only true conservative in the delegation. Something wasn’t right. I called Rep. Schweikert to get to the bottom of it.

He told me the vote was largely ceremonial. The real decision was made six weeks ago, at the House Republican Conference. After that, it was too late to persuade most members to change their minds, deals had been made. Anyone who agreed to switch their vote after that could not be trusted based on prior experience. South Carolina Rep. Mick Mulvaney confirmed this in a post on his Facebook page. Two years ago, the Boehner opposition collected signed pledges from enough members of Congress to defeat him. But when it came time to vote, almost half of them changed their minds.

The last minute flurry of emails came from conservative organizations trying to make money by getting conservatives outraged. While it is important these groups raise money, it was a rather sneaky way to do it. By then, it was too late, it was the wrong battle, and provoked fights with conservative members of Congress that could have been avoided.

Conservatives like Schweikert have been trying to remove Boehner for a lot longer than a handful of days last week. He told me he has been working on the ouster for two years. Where was the outcry six weeks ago when the real decision was made? Where were those feigning outrage over the past two years when it came to actually doing the work necessary to get rid of Boehner?

One unfortunate byproduct of the rise of social media, blogs and email is the ability for people to send out emotional blasts about a particular topic as their activism of choice. Instead of GOTV (Get Out The Vote), it is now GOYO (Get Out Your Opinion). Activists have replaced the hard, dull but necessary work behind the scenes with speeches. Unfortunately, there is only so much room at the top for a few national talk show hosts to bloviate.

Replacing Boehner is much more difficult and complex than a last-minute outburst. Getting better leadership is not going to be accomplished with a short and catchy soundbite. It is a deeper, two-fold systemic problem.

The first part of the problem is that no one wants to be Speaker. What most people don’t realize is the primary job of the Speaker is fundraising. The Speaker spends nearly all of their time flying around the country working pricey fundraisers. Most of the names floated around at the last minute as replacements for Boehner could not – or would not – follow through here. Last year, Boehner raised an impressive $100 million. Rep. Mulvaney noted that Gohmert was not a realistic candidate; despite all the media attention he only received three votes. Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) got 12 votes, but has a terrible voting record, evenworse than Boehner’s. Boehner is actually the most conservative Republican speaker in 50 years.

Many in the grassroots complain when the NRCC doesn’t spend money on long-shot races. What they don’t understand is there is only limited money to go around, and it is dependent upon the ability of the Speaker to raise it. Unless the grassroots is willing to start writing hefty checks, it is imperative that the Speaker is someone with charisma who doesn’t mind spending a significant period of their life on an airplane.

The second systemic problem is Congress has become so corrupt it is currently impossible to reform it. Senior members of Congress are so entrenched in leadership positions, as chairs of committees and subcommittees, that these “cardinals” retaliate against anyone who dares to challenge the status quo and power structure. A conservative reformer like Schweikert, who actually would make an excellent Speaker, has no chance at the position because he stood up to the old guard. He lost his position on the powerful Financial Services Committee because he bucked party leadership and voted against a debt ceiling increase.

Sadly, new reformers like Schweikert tend to become disillusioned over time, and eventually leave office. If they can hold out, however, eventually the old guard will age out of office.

It was futile to cast a protest vote for someone other than Boehner. It simply enlarged the target on the backs of reform members of Congress. Several who opposed him, including Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent, both of Florida, were immediately stripped of their committee positions, and there are more on the chopping block.

Contrary to talk-show hype, the vote for Speaker did not juxtapose conservatives vs. leadership. It should be more accurately described as emblematic of the reformers vs. the establishment cardinals.

Schweikert may be the smartest member of Congress. He’s also consistently labeled one of the five most conservative members by various organizations, with a 98.67 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union. To label him a RINO over one vote, while letting other Republicans off the hook with much lower scores simply because they did not vote for Boehner, is illogical.

Reforming Congress is like a game of chess. You can’t take out the king instantly, you must set the stage first to take out the king or you will be out of the game. Those who run for office know you rarely win by running for president first, you must first win at a lower level office. Naturally, the same is true for taking out the Speaker, what is so difficult to understand about this? You must chip away the power structure supporting him before you can topple him.

Instead of blasting conservative members of Congress over Boehner, activists should set up meetings with these reformers and ask how they can help with the day-to-day work of cleaning up Congress. It may not be flashy and glamorous, but the flashy and glamorous GOYO approach is not working. Stop being played.

Maricopa GOP Chair Rallies LD Censures

To all Arizona County and LD Republican Committee Chairmen -
Below is the front page article of the July 15 Arizona Capitol Times. I want to express my appreciation to those courageous and principled County and LD Republican Committees who have already conducted votes of “censure” and/or “no confidence.”
Jan Brewer, the legislators and their crony capitalist friends that support ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion have betrayed Americans, Arizona Republicans and the Republican Party Platform.  Their lack of ethics, integrity and egregious acts are motivated by only two things – greed and the lust for power – at the expense of hard working tax paying Americans.
The law was expected to cost $898 billion over the first decade when the bill was first passed, but this year the Congressional Budget Office revised that estimate to $1.85 trillion.  Money that will have to be borrowed from the Chinese or printed in the backroom of the Federal Reserve.  Latest polls indicate a majority of Americans are opposed to ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in opposition.
During the past six months, we did everything we could to make a solid argument against ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion, we tried to reason with these people and even tried to make them see the light.  Unfortunately, our lobbying efforts fell on deaf ears and without success.
During one of Ronald Reagan’s difficult political battles he said,
               “When you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”
I’m asking all the County and LD Republican Committees to make these people feel the heat by passing public censures for their actions.  They are elitists who think what they have done should be forgiven. They are mistaken.  We are not going to be able to defeat all of them, but we can defeat a majority of them in the 2014 Primary Election.
You can go to “MCRC Briefs” and get examples of public censures that have already been passed.  Just type “censure” in the search field on the left.
Warmest regards,
 A. J. LaFaro
Chairman, Maricopa County Republican Committee
P.S.  Please encourage all of your PCs to keep up their daily efforts in getting petition signatures for  Getting ObamaCare and Medicaid expansion on the November 2014 ballot will be historic for Arizona’s grassroots conservatives.

Betrayal in Benghazi

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.

Consultant Legislators: A conflict of interest?

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

ethicsIt 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.

10-veterans-videoDuring 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?

Guest Opinion: Arizona LD-25 Election Controversy

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.

Barack Obama – The President of Shiny Objects

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.


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 Brings District of Corruption Movie to Phoenix!

Judicial Watch is providing free tickets to a Movie in Phoenix named, District of Corruption.

YouTube Preview Image

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

Get your tickets today!

Arizona Petitions White House to Secede from United States

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.