Guest Opinion

Representative Bob Robson – Release HB2026 & HB2330!

February 18, 2013 by Guest Opinion Leave a Comment

Conservative activists Marcus Huey just released the following email:

US House Representatives Franks, Schweikert, Salmon and Gosar have sent a letter to Arizona House Speaker Tobin, urging him to debate and vote on the union reform bills currently proposed in the legislature.

As of today, Tobin is still holding these bills. The logic (excuse?) Tobin seems to be using is to wait and see if the AZ Senate passes any union reform bills. If the Senate does not pass union reform bills, then why should the House be bothered?

Unions This is not true leadership. A real leader would be working for the distressed taxpayer and rallying his membership to get behind union reform. Passing off excuses and hiding behind the Senate is cowardly and WILL have consequences. If you are a government union supporter then man up and publicly admit it, stop using the system to hide. What happens at the legislature no longer stays in the legislature. Those days are gone.

Please help get Representative Ugenti’s HB2026, Paycheck Protection, and Representative Montenegro’s HB 2330, Union Transparency, moved out of Robson’s Rules Committee so that these important bills can be debated and voted on on the House floor. This is how true Democracy is supposed to work.

Please Email Rep. Robson at: brobson@azleg.gov | 602-926-5549

Also, let’s call Tobin’s bluff and get Senator Griffin’s Paycheck Protection bill SB 1182 approved in the Senate. This bill will be voted on at the beginning of this week. The vote is EXTREMELY close.

Please email and urge the following Senators to vote YES on SB 1182:

Senator Biggs: abiggs@azleg.gov | 602-926-4371

Senator McComish: jmccomish@azleg.gov | 602-926-5898

Senator Crandall: rcrandall@azleg.gov | 602-956-3020

Senator Worsley: bworsley@azleg.gov | 602-926-5760

Time is short – we need to get this done in the next few days or these bills will die!

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Legislation, State Government, Unions Tagged With: Adam Driggs, Andy Biggs, Andy Tobin, Bob Robson, Bob Worsley, John McComish, Marcus Huey, Paycheck Protection, Rich Crandall, unions

Representative Warren Petersen Needs Your Help on Three Bills

February 14, 2013 by Guest Opinion 1 Comment

I want to make you aware of 3 bills that I am concerned about. Your involvement can make a big difference. There is a great website called lifelibertyfreedom.com that will allow you to email all of the legislators of the House and let them know how you feel.

HB2060 – Censure Bill (link)

This bill will allow school board members to censure each other. This could be a tool used to ruin the reputation of a conservative or a liberal school board member. School board members should feel free to speak their mind and their concerns whether or not they are in the minority of the board. Please email the legislature and tell them to vote NO on HB2060. It will be voted on in the house tomorrow 2/14/13 at 1:30 pm.

HB2343 – Public Employees, compensation for union activity (link)

This bill prohibits taxpayer dollars to be used for union activity. If you believe union dues and not taxpayer dollars should fund union activities then please email the legislature and tell them to vote YES on HB2343. It will be heard in committee on 2/19/13.

HB2456 - Revenue allocation districts (link)

This bill passed out of committee and will soon go to the House floor for a vote. This would allow town councils to draw boundaries around businesses and form a board that will tax the businesses. The revenue from the businesses will be used by the board for “economic development”. This bill is a dream come true for big business and the well connected to create taxing districts and then control the funds. If you don’t believe in business taxing districts then please email the legislature and tell them to vote NO on HB2456.

Small businesses and individuals have little to no voice at the Capitol. They can’t afford to hire a lobbyist to protect their interest. We need your help. Please pick the issues above that you feel are important and use lifelibertyfreedom.com to email every Republican legislator in the house to tell them how you feel. It will be Republicans that decide if these bills pass or not. Please do not attack any of the legislators sponsoring the bills but focus on the bill itself.

You can reach State Representative Warren Petersen online.

Filed Under: Education, Elected Officials, Government, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Legislation, State Economy, State Government Tagged With: AZLD12, LD12, Warren Petersen

Arizona Patriots – Urgent Call to Action – Contact Representative Bob Robson!

February 12, 2013 by Guest Opinion 3 Comments

We have two important pro taxpayer bills being held in the House Rules Committee:

HB2026 (Rep. Ugenti) Paycheck Protection & HB2330 (Rep. Montenegro) Transparency in Government Union Negotiations

The Chair of the Rules Committee is Rep. Bob Robson. In last year’s legislative session Robson killed two pro taxpayer bills, by never giving them a hearing.

HB2330 & HB2026 meet Arizona Constitutional requirements and should be sent to the House floor for a vote, not held to die in Committee.

In the last session we scored a stunning victory. Versions of Consolidated Elections had been put forward and defeated in the AZ legislature for over 10 years.

Last session Rep. Ugenti sponsored HB2826, Consolidated Elections, and fought tooth and nail for this bill throughout the entire session. The activist community joined Rep. Ugenti in this battle and responded with hundreds, perhaps over 1,000, phone calls and emails to resistant legislators. In the end we prevailed.

It will take this same effort to get further union reform bills passed as we, unfortunately, still have Republican government union supporting legislative members.

We need HB2330 & HB2026 to continue the effort to level the playing field for the overburdened taxpayer.

It appears that Rep.Robson has chosen to be on the side of the government unions.

It is up to us to stand up for the hardworking Arizona taxpayer.

PLEASE email and/ or call Rep. Robson, everyday if possible, and tell him that the taxpayers want HB2330 & HB2026 sent out of his Rules Committee immediately.

We need to get this done as quickly as possible.

Rep. Bob Robson: brobson@azleg.gov 602-926-5549

If Robson is opposed to these bills, he can cast his vote on the House floor along with all of the other State Representatives.

This is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

Thank you again!

Marcus Huey
Arizona Taxpayer

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Legislation, State Government, Unions Tagged With: AZLD18, Bob Robson, LD-18

Governor Brewer, we DON’T want to expand Medicaid.

February 8, 2013 by azconservative 5 Comments

In November 2010, the voters of Arizona voted for Prop 106, the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment, which was a legislatively-referred Constitutional Amendment that passed by 55.3% of the voters.

The proposition prohibits the enactment of laws or rules that require any person, employer or health care provider to participate in any health care system. It specifically allows health care providers to accept direct payment and allows private health insurance.

It is also true that the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) cannot force any state to expand its Medicaid system to include people who earn from 100% to 133% of the poverty rate.

Arizona went through the disastrous expansion of Medicaid coverage when promised the cost would be paid by the Tobacco Settlement. When revenue proved inadequate, Arizona had to pick up the costs and the state ran up a $3 BILLION deficit before the legislature could get it under control. Childless individuals were taken off the Medicaid rolls. That combined with the temporary 1% sales tax, restored money that was cut from the schools to balance the budget.

The waiver AZ received from the federal government to cut childless people out of Medicaid, when we did not have a surplus, expires in 2014.

Gov. Brewer wants to again expand Medicaid even further. Yes, the Federal Government promises to pay the cost for new people into Medicaid, (About 57,000 people) but soon that will drop to a 90% match, then to 80% match. This federal money is not some big free pot of money. It will be taken from people who would otherwise expand their businesses, create jobs, and grow the economy.

Governor Brewer believes she can write an automatic trigger to push the “new people” out of Medicaid when the federal reimbursement begins to drop.

The reimbursements to doctors from ACCCHS (Arizona’s Medicaid) are so low (about 56% of what private insurance pays) that you will almost never see a doctor. You will be treated by physicians’ assistants and nurses. If you are over 50, the Independent Payment Advisory Board will decide if you are even to be admitted.

There are people who will make money off ACCCHS (Medicaid) and those are the one or two big insurance companies who will be permitted in the “exchanges” to write insurance. Big hospitals and big pharmaceutical companies will also get rich as well as the Medicaid administrator. Federal law requires states to pay managed care contractors, BUT NOT “PROVIDERS” (i.e. doctors) at “actuarially sound” rates.

Furthermore, the Enrollee Hold Harmless Clause provides the managed care entity with bankruptcy protection so it can do the work of denying care with impunity. Thus, managed care can cash in on the bonanza with little down side risk.

Nationwide, the 60 million people on Medicaid consume on average 23.5% of state budgets. For many states that exceeds the K-12 budget. In Massachusetts, where RomneyCare has been in place since 2006, it consumes 45% of the budget. Why would cost increases be less for Arizona?

Governor Brewer, we DON’T want to expand Medicaid.

Americans should be looking at ways that reduce the cost of medical treatment. It has been proven many times that when people are spending their own money they are frugal shoppers. Just as car insurance cost would “go thru the roof” if it paid for oil changes, wiper blades and new tires- the same is true of health insurance that covers everything. Conservatives advocate a catastrophic policy (coverage for serious illness) combined with a Health Savings Account where individuals pay for routine stuff- then health insurance increases would be no more than normal inflation.

The Governor sees a $300 million cost savings for this year if Medicaid is expanded, but what happens when the federal reimbursement decreases?

Lefties want government to control every aspect of your life. Constitutionalists believe individuals will make better decisions for themselves. No Utopian scheme has ever worked. Not Fascism, not Communism, not Socialism not a bloated government workforce, not crony-capitalism and not compounding debt. Only true, competitive Capitalism gets an economy growing.

Message from Pima County Republican Chair.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Blogs, Conservatives, Constitutional Law, Elected Officials, Entitlements, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Legislation, Uncategorized

WSJ – Governor Brewer’s Spectacular Flip-Flop

February 5, 2013 by Guest Opinion 3 Comments

The GOP’s ObamaCare Flippers

Reprinted from The Wall Street Journal

February 4, 2013

As D-Day looms for ObamaCare, one big question is how many states will sign up for its Medicaid expansion. The recent and spectacular flip-flop of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is a case study in the political pressure and fiscal gimmicks designed to get states to succumb. It’s also a study in the arcane and perverse ObamaCare incentives that are intended to gather ever more health-care spending under federal control.

***

Arizona’s current Medicaid program is well run by the program’s standards—a low bar—but it is also too large. The program now finances one of every two in-state births and two of every three days seniors spend in nursing homes. Spending tripled in the last decade to $9 billion a year.

That’s despite $1.8 billion in cuts since 2009. The state fisc was such a mess that in 2010 Arizona Medicaid banned paying for several types of organ transplants. In March of that year, Ms. Brewer wrote to Mr. Obama calling the Affordable Care Act “a vast new entitlement program that our country does not have the resources to support” and also one that “makes our situation much worse, exacerbating our state’s fiscal woes by billions of dollars.”

Arizona argued before the Supreme Court that the Medicaid mandate was unconstitutional, anti-federalist commandeering—and seven Justices agreed it was “a gun to the head” and allowed states to opt out without penalty.

But so much for that. In her State of the State address last month, Ms. Brewer pulled a political 180°—or maybe 540°—and said expanding Medicaid would “inject $2 billion into our economy and “save and create thousands of jobs.” (Is Larry Summers moonlighting as a Brewer speechwriter?)

One secret of her switcheroo is Medicaid’s “matching rate” formula, in which the feds pick up 67% of Arizona’s existing spending and 100% (and later 90%) of the costs of ObamaCare’s newly eligible population. The state supposedly no longer needs to spend “billions” but merely an extra $154 million in 2014—then bank $1.6 billion from Washington, which her budget documents call “a return on investment of more than 10-to-1.”

Enlarge Image

Associated PressArizona Governor Jan Brewer

How can the state conjure such money from nothing? The answer is that Ms. Brewer and Arizona hospitals have cooked up a spending scheme to rip off national taxpayers to avoid even the $154 million the state would at first pay. The hospital lobby first floated this scheme in 2011 “for the specific purpose of generating matching federal Medicaid funds.”

Here’s how it works: Arizona will tax hospitals and insurers for the $154 million. Then it will return $154 million to the health industry via more Medicaid business that will cover the cost of the tax and then some. The money needs to make a round trip from providers to the state and back to providers to game that 67% federal matching rate.

So Arizona takes (say) $3 from a hospital and then turns around and pays the $3 back, using one of the hospital’s own dollars that Arizona converted to “revenue” plus two dollars courtesy of Washington for its 67% federal share of the $3 payment. Arizona can then use the hospital’s remaining $2 of the original $3 to pay for another $6 of Medicaid expansion.

Some 49 state now use this trick of so-called provider taxes to goose federal spending, up from 21 in 2003. (Alaska is the exception.) But the practice is so abusive that even Mr. Obama proposed new limits in his last two budgets.

This subsidy honeypot can’t last forever, which is why other Governors are more skeptical about this Obama Medicaid windfall. When the money inevitably runs out, states will retain permanently larger obligations and lose budget autonomy for a generation or two as health care crowds out other priorities like education and roads.

Ms. Brewer was nonetheless besieged by health-industry lobbying, especially from hospitals that want more government money and the insurers that administer Medicaid. The campaign is orchestrated by Chuck Coughlin, Ms. Brewer’s former political strategist, and Peter Burns, a former Brewer budget consultant.

Providers are especially powerful at the state and local level, and the goal now is to rush the Brewer-Obama condominium through the Phoenix legislature with little debate. A particular offender is the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association, a trade group whose 2012 agenda includes “Oppose Taxpayer Bill of Rights-style legislative referendums or bills that arbitrarily limit state spending.”

Ms. Brewer’s other rationale is that everybody else is doing it, and that if Arizona opts out of a larger Medicaid then “Arizona’s tax dollars would simply be passed to another state.” Well, no, Washington would simply spend less money that it doesn’t have. In any event Arizona is already a net tax beneficiary—pulling down $1.19 from the feds for every dollar it sends to D.C., according to the Tax Foundation.

Ten other GOP Governors have rejected Mr. Obama’s Medicaid bribe, with another 20, Democrats and Republicans, undecided. Twenty are expanding, including Republicans Brian Sandoval of Nevada, Susana Martinez of New Mexico, Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota and even, on Monday, Ohio’s John Kasich. Thus does modern government create the carrots and sticks of ever-larger government.

Filed Under: Economics, Elected Officials, Entitlements, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Legislation, State Budget, State Economy Tagged With: Jan Brewer, medicaid, Obamacare, Wall Street Journal

Doug Little Video. In His Own Words

January 24, 2013 by Guest Opinion 14 Comments

By Russell Pearce

As most of you know I have endorsed Robert Graham for State Chairman of the Republican Party. I have been quiet as to any position Doug Little has taken.

However here is what, Doug Little says, “People leave the Republican Party because they can’t stand the tone. Because they don’t care about some of the extreme positions that certain people take. We have to change the message…I want people listening to what we have to say in an environment where people are not in their face about something like immigration or something about abortion or some other contentious or divisive issue.”

But, I must express my concerns when he talks about our “EXTREME” positions on “immigration, abortion, or other divisive issues (2nd Amendment, traditional values????). The reason people are leaving this Party is because we have failed to stand for what we believe. We elect folks only to have them violate their promises and their Oath of Office.

Those divisive issues are the same divisive issues our Founders stood for and fought for and they committed their lives, they fortunes and their sacred honor to defend these values and tried to protect those God given rights in a Constitution and a Bill of Rights from those who would attack us for those beliefs, what I call our core values. We have a solemn duty to protect them at all cost. Protecting the UnBorn is divisive? Securing our Borders from those who violate our laws and do harm to this nation and take jobs from Americans is divisive? Protecting honest law abiding employers from dishonest employers who have an illegal, immoral advantage by breaking the law … is divisive? Apparently defense of freedom, moral values and our responsibility to protect law abiding citizens from those who break the laws is divisive!!!

Campaigns are a good opportunity to vet and ask questions about candidates. I have endorsed Robert Graham for AZ GOP chairman. I believe Robert to be a Constitutional Conservative who stands up for what he believes in. He get’s attacked by the left which means he must be doing something right. I look forward to serving with him on the Executive Committee for the next few years, as we serve you,as I currently serve as 1st Vice Chairman.

Doug Little seems like a good man, but I was shocked to see him say in a debate this week, that Constitutional Conservatives should not stand up for what they believe in for fear of turning people off. I don’t see the point of having a party if it doesn’t stand up for its principles. Watch Doug Little for yourself and ask yourself if this does not concern you. These comments come right out of the left wing media’s pages attacking our core values.

Also, in a debate this week, Mr. Little shows little concern for President Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders in regards to the second amendment 23 executive orders in one sweep!! Mr. Little has also stated that he would not withdraw the United States from the UN!

Let’s elect someone who will stand up for our values, regardless of the consequences. Please vote for Robert Graham on Saturday.

Now, more than ever, we must take a stand to support our core values, against an administration undermining what this nation and this Party was built on and we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people. My fellow Patriots/Americans, this is why I belong to this Party. I believe we are the best hope for this Republic and in restoring and defending our core values. We cannot retreat, we must not surrender to the left. We must stay united, we must stay vigilant as a Party as Patriots as Americans.

“The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their Constitutions of Government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, ’till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole People, is sacredly obligatory upon all.” –George Washington (1796)

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Endorsements, Guest Opinion, Illegal Immigration

The Arizona We Want 2.0

January 22, 2013 by DesertGal 20 Comments

The Arizona We Want 2.0: The Case for Action

(reprinted from Az Republic, Jan. 19, 2013)

Lattie F. Coor, Chairman and CEO

Center for the Future of Arizona

Capturing a complete and accurate picture of Arizona is a difficult task for, in reality, we are a state of contrasts. We have vast, beautiful open spaces and yet we’re one of the most urban states in America. We have a significant number of senior citizens yet we also have one of the youngest populations in the nation.

So, too, are we a state of contrasts in our social and political endeavors. We have high educational aspirations, yet low investment and performance. We recognize the need for a diverse, balanced economy that will yield a larger number of high paying jobs, yet population growth and housing remain our dominant economic identity. We will be one of the first states in the nation in which our “minority” population will be the majority, yet we are not adequately educating the younger members of our new majority for success in the economy of the future.

How do we turn our contrasts into strengths as we chart a clear and coherent way forward? In The Arizona We Want 2.0, a new report our Center is releasing this week, we are presenting a roadmap that will enable us as Arizonans to sort through the elements of the future we want for ourselves and the state in order to direct our collective activities in a more coherent manner. Building on the insights gained from The Gallup Arizona Poll in 2009, and the vast array of meetings, discussions and activities that have occurred since the release of the original Arizona We Want report, the 2.0 report turns now to presenting very specific next steps we can take to move us toward that desired future. Those specific steps are organized around the 8 goals expressed by Citizens in the original report. Five of the goals – Education, Job Creation, Environment and Water, Infrastructure and Health Care — are leader driven requiring the collective action of leaders around the state. Three of the goals – Young Talent, Civic Engagement and Community Involvement – are citizen driven, requiring individual and collective action of citizens everywhere.

Making significant improvements in education and the economy are at the heart of the action plan presented by the report. “Fix Education – Fix the Economy” is the way the recent Morrison Institute report entitled Dropped put it.

Fortunately, major improvement in Arizona education is on the horizon with the full implementation of the Common Core Standards in the coming school year along with a more rigorous set of assessments, called PARCC, year after next. The 2.0 report calls for adequate funding for these steps as well as a substantial increase in the number of Arizonans receiving college degrees and certificate-based job training over the next 10 years. The recommendations not only tie education funding to student, teacher and school performance but also, seek to ensure that quality education is provided to all students regardless of socio-economic status.

Similarly, for job creation, the report not only calls for a significant increase in new jobs, 75,000, but also recommends focusing on jobs that will increase the average wage over time by 30% county by county. There is also an emphasis on strengthening and/or recruiting businesses that export at least 75% of their product, as well as a challenge to move our research and development expenditures into a ranking among the top 10 states.

Highlights of the remaining 6 goals of The Arizona We Want 2.0 include recommendations for the Environment and Water that 30,000 acres a year be thinned from our National Forests to reduce the fire danger and that at least 600,000 acres of State Trust Land be preserved for open space use. With respect to water, the report recommends the adoption of at least three new regional and community plans to ensure sustainable uses of water and it also urges Arizona to establish itself as the nation’s leader in water conservation and usage. The goals for Infrastructure call for high speed broadband to be available throughout the state and for citizens to support local community commitments to upgrade streets, water and sewage treatment facilities and public transportation. Health Care goals include a recommendation that we build upon the success of AHCCCS to provide coverage to more Arizonans, maximize federal dollars and that we develop a health workforce plan to meet Arizona’s future needs.

Since the Gallup Arizona Poll indicated that only 11% of our citizens thought Arizona was a good place for young college graduates, our report places major emphasis on recruiting and retaining talented young people. It urges communities throughout the state to demonstrate that they value young people and recommends that we involve young people on boards and commissions and foster spaces and events that attract young talent

The final two goals of the report focus on civic engagement and community involvement and present the findings of the 2012 Arizona Civic Health Index report to guide the development of programs in each of those two areas.

Having worked with individuals and organizations throughout the state in preparing The Arizona We Want 2.0 report, we believe key leverage points for action are now ready for implementation. We believe also that this is a critical moment for Arizona: we all have a vested interest in mobilizing around the citizens’ goals of the 2.0 report and aligning our efforts to achieve these goals. Success will be contingent on the collective effort of individuals and organizations throughout our state. In light of the urgency and significance of this work, we have created The Arizona We Want Institute, chaired by Don Smith, President and CEO of SCF Arizona, to lead our part of the effort. We strongly encourage individuals and organizations from across the state to join with us in forming alliances that will help us achieve the Arizona we want

Filed Under: Economic Development, Economics, Family, Guest Opinion

Phoenix City Councilman Speaks out on Phoenix Food Tax Repeal

January 19, 2013 by Guest Opinion Leave a Comment

Sal DiCiccio Police and fire cuts were a hoax.

Budget and research numbers released this week show $107 million doled out for pay raises and bonuses.

Not one police officer was hired.

Pay raises could have hired 272 more police officer protecting your family. Average total compensation jumps to over $105,000 per person for over 14,500 employees. Yes you read that correctly. The average cost per employee is over $105,000 for more than 14,000 employees. Mayor Stanton must follow through on his promise to abolish food tax by April, 2013.

No more scare tactics. No more delays. No more phony and tired stories about how police and fire will be cut. I’m not going to let this go.

Promises must be kept.

Read more by Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts – “Is Greg Stanton waffling on food tax repeal?”

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, City Government, Elected Officials, Government Reform, Guest Opinion Tagged With: Arizona Republic, Greg Stanton, Laurie Roberts, Phoenix, Sal DiCiccio

The truth behind the malicious hit pieces on Robert Graham & Rob Haney

January 18, 2013 by Guest Opinion 62 Comments

“Now we have rumors that Haney has been with the RINOs all this time. Talking bad about McCain so we in the Tea Party movement would accept him as a conservative,” claimed Art Olivas.

Hit pieces such as this began after Marne and I vetted Robert Graham as a State Party Chairman candidate by reviewing opposition news articles about him and interviewing him with our 25 vetting questions. His grade was 100%. It was clear there was nothing more to the articles than that to which we have become accustomed in the case of biased attacks against Sheriff Arpaio, Sen. Pearce and Andrew Thomas. Based upon our review, we encouraged Graham to run for AZ GOP Chairman, and we committed to support his candidacy.

Blogger Lynne Breyer read the same hit pieces, believed them unconditionally and did not accept Robert’s responses. She informed me that she was going to seek another candidate and have that candidate urge outgoing AZ GOP chairman Tom Morrissey to withdraw from the race in favor of her selection. She and Jim O’Connor both of LD 23, recruited Doug Little, LD 23 Chairman, to run and Morrissey withdrew as Lynne planned.

Then the attacks on Graham from Lynne and her allies began with a fury uncharacteristic even against Democrats. The thrust of these hit pieces, despite the fact that Graham has raised $10-15 million to defeat union propositions in California, and the tax increase and top-two ballot propositions in Arizona, is the specter of negative publicity from lawsuits threatened by liberal opposition.

Adding fuel to these attacks is the guilt by association demagoguery. Graham has suffered accusations that he is a covert McCain establishment candidate, merely because of some political donations he and his supporters made to Republicans in the past. Evidence to the contrary is that Graham and I worked together on JD Hayworth’s senate campaign to defeat McCain. Clearly, neither Graham nor I can be viewed as McCain supporters.

Let me give you an example of how this guilt by association works:

Lynne Breyer was an avid supporter of Jimmy Lee Deakin for US Senator in 2010. Everyone knows that Deakin was just a stalking horse for John McCain and Deakin’s candidacy helped McCain immensely. Therefore, it logically follows that Lynne Breyer was really a supporter of John McCain because keeping Deakin in the race would only hurt JD Hayworth and Deakin was needed to split the conservative vote. Using the guilt by association argument, now everyone should go out and destroy Lynne’s candidacy for State Party Secretary because she is really a McCain supporter. Being a Tea Party conservative is only a facade.

Similarly, Jim O’Connor is a near fanatical supporter of the Get Out Of Our House (GOOOH) political system for selecting US Congressmen. It is abundantly clear that this would only split Republican conservative efforts, resulting in a massive Democrat victory. Using the guilt by association argument, it therefore follows that Jim is really about destroying the Republican Party despite what he has been saying to the contrary. Why would we support Jim O’Connor’s candidate when Jim is bent on destroying the Republican Party?

Remember when Nathan Sproul used this same scheme of attack on Randy Pullen? He denigrated Pullen’s participation in getting Prop. 200 before the voters to require an applicant to show proof of citizenship before registering to vote. The fact is if it weren’t for Randy raising the money and paying for petition signature gatherers, the proposition would have never been voted into law. ENOUGH OF THIS NONSENSE!

I believe we are blessed to have a candidate with the qualifications Robert Graham possesses to step forward to lead the state in these troubled times. The following GOP Platform conservative endorsers also concur that Robert Graham should be elected as our next State Chairman: Congressman Trent Franks, Honorable JD Hayworth, Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery, Honorable Russell Pearce, AZ Senate President Andy Biggs, Honorable Lori Klein, Sen. Al Melvin and many more.

They urge you to support Robert Graham as your next State GOP Chairman on January 26. Visit his website at www.grahamforarizona.com

Sincerely,
Rob Haney
Immediate Past Chairman
Maricopa County Republican Committee
1/18/2013

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Guest Opinion

Chuck Hagel: An Idiotic Choice? No, A Tactical Maneuver

January 9, 2013 by Guest Opinion 5 Comments

By Lisa Benson

Lisa Benson Neoconservative backers of the Iraq War have long had issues with Chuck Hagel, President Barack Obama’s choice for Secretary of Defense (OSD). Of all the stories floating around about the nomination of Chuck Hagel, his involvement with the George Soros — Obama’s Boss — and the devil incarnate is the most insidious in my opinion.

Hagel has a long-standing feud with Lindsey Graham and John McCain over breaking away from supporting the Iraqi war. However, as much as I am reading that Obama’s choice for OSD is to exasperate a rift within the Republican establishment, I am inclined to believe that the purpose is broader, more sweeping and more serious than just what the mainstream media is reporting.

In my opinion, if we activists and national security/Pro-Israel policy hawks focus on the minutia of Hagel’s remarks regarding Israel, we will certainly lose any effort to thwart his appointment.

This appointment can only be stopped in its tracks if our elected officials get to the root of the problem: the overarching agenda of this administration and those who support it.

The “paymaster of the Democratic Party” is behind this nomination; the man who is responsible for many of the problems that beset the west. GEORGE SOROS

Much is written about Soros and his communist connections beginning when he fled Hungry in 1946. He made exits through major Soviet check points even when others could not. He traded currencies on the black market during Hitler’s occupation in Hungary and started a banking enterprise, worldwide. Much is written, spoken and debated about the Soros plan for a “one world order” and his communist connections.

The Obama “brain trust” includes the likes of George Soros, John Podesta (who managed the Obama transition team in 2008), Gary Hart, Mike Allen, Brent Scowcroft and Thomas Pickering.

This week we learned that the Obama “brain trust,” with the financial backing of George Soros, hired the brother of John Podesta – Tony Podesta – of the elite lobbying firm THE PODESTA GROUP, Washington, D.C. to take up the Hagel cause. In short order: the Podesta firm has been hired to influence defense contractors to finance, promote ads and back Chuck Hagel. By “influence” I mean “support or lose your government defense contracts” is the not so subtle innuendo. Financed lobbying effort by George Soros.

What IS very concerning to me is the involvement of notorious Communist, George Soros in the nomination of Chuck Hagel.

As someone said to me today, “Soros is as Jewish as Hitler was a Christian.”

Everything George Soros involves himself with is to promote a Progressive, Socialist, Communist reformist agenda, including his backing of Chuck Hagel.

…And What About the Deutsche Bank?

Hagel was appointed in 2009 to Deutsche Bank’s Americas Advisory Board. The PAID position placed him in close contact with the bank’s senior leadership.

SorosHagel

Here is the clincher and a jaw dropping revelation:

Germany’s Deutsche Bank is reportedly being probed by U.S. authorities for VIOLATING the trade embargo on Iran’s oil and energy sector, which is believed to play a key role in Tehran’s nuclear enrichment program.

Much of this information regarding Deutsche Bank can be read in THE WASHTINGTON FREE BEACON. However, the George Soros promotion of Hagel is hardly spoken.

Most recently, and in my opinion, seriously concerning, is evidence of Hagel as an IRANIAN APOLOGIST, as an opponent of sanctions or strong policy against a nuclear Iran. His appointment continues the Obama administration’s weak, apologetic and appeasement diplomacy this administration is known for — weak and uninformed is the norm in the Situation Room. As witnessed by the horrific details emerging regarding Benghazi.

When the nomination for the United States Secretary of Defense merits a press release from the Iranian government, as happened yesterday, applauding the President of the United States for his choice for OSD, everyone needs to take notice — or should take notice.

Summary:

Tony Podesta, THE PODESTA GROUP, tripled its staff three years ago, receives half a million dollars a year from General Dynamics, a military contractor. Brother John is a close ally of President Obama and headed up the Obama transition team in 2008.

We have a Socialist/Communist lead administration, funded by George Soros, making government contract deals with defense contractors. ??????

Some say that George Soros is a pawn for the Obama administration. I beg to differ. Soros is the boss and he is dangerously manifesting his “one world order” plan on the backs, and in contrast, to everything this Republic stands for.

“Bye Bye American Pie!”

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is the principal staff element of the Secretary of Defense in the exercise of policy development, planning, resource management, fiscal, and program evaluation responsibilities. OSD includes the immediate offices of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense, Under Secretaries of Defense, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, Assistant Secretaries of Defense, General Counsel, Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, Assistants to the Secretary of Defense, Director of Administration and Management and such other staff offices as the Secretary establishes to assist in carrying out assigned responsibilities.

Hagel, as a “Soros Machine Puppet” will be responsible for every aspect of our nation’s defense, and apparently, George Soros has great influence on the Obama administration and on the policy and direction of the United States. This, actually makes me shudder.

It is obvious, after conducting this research that Chuck Hagel, if appointed, will be a pawn/ puppet and member of the Soros Machine ready, willing and able and positioned to lead the charge against strong national security policies. Israel will be hanging out there alone in the Iranian matter.

Finally, I would like to add, if we keep the heat on the Hagel nomination, don’t be so sure that Hagel himself won’t opt out of the appointment.

Tell the Chairman of the US Senate Committee on Armed Services “NO to Hagel.” Contact Chairman Levin today.

Lisa Benson is an nationally renowned expert on anti-Islamic national security issues. As the owner of Lisa Benson Consulting, LLC, she also works in fundraising community raising hundreds of millions of dollars for causes and campaigns. You can find out more about Lisa at her website: LisaBensonConsulting.com

Filed Under: Conservatives, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Guest Opinion, National Security Tagged With: Chuck Hagel, Lisa Benson, Secretary of Defense

Save Buckley!

January 6, 2013 by Sonoran Alliance

Please help to save Intellectual Conservative’s Buckley Alexander. Click on the photo below to find out how.

Filed Under: Animal Rights, Conservatives, Guest Opinion, Special Event, Special Interests Tagged With: Buckley Alexander, Intellectual Conservative

Bank of America Assails Scottsdale-Based Firearm Manufacturer

December 30, 2012 by Sonoran Alliance 5 Comments

The following open letter is circulating on Facebook by a reputable source. We ask that you read the letter, circulate it and then contact Bank of America and tell them you will no longer do business with them. We also ask that you support American Spirit Arms based in Scottsdale. (Thanks to Todd Rathner for bringing it to our attention.)

My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms and I wanted to share my recent experience with Bank of America (which we have been doing business with for over 10 years). Everyone is familiar with the latest increase in guns sales , dealers selling out of inventory , Manufacturers back logged for months, large revenue all generated in the last two weeks . American Spirit Arms is no exception to the overwhelming demand. What we have experienced is that our web site orders have jumped 500% causing our web site E commerce processing larger Deposits to BANK OF AMERICA. Well, this threw up a huge RED Flag with Bank of America. So they decided to hold the deposits for further review, meaning that the orders/payments that were coming in through the web, (being paid by the customer and that were shipped out by American Spirit Arms ), the BANK was keeping (UNDER REVIEW ). As you could imagine this made me furious. After countless hours on the phone with BANK OF AMERICA I finally got a Manager in the right department that told me the reason that the deposits were on hold for FURTHER REVIEW – HER EXACT WORDS WERE, “WE BELIEVE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SELLING GUNS and PARTS ON THE INTERNET.”

I flipped the F**k Out and told them that they have no right to make up their own new rules and regs – that we are a firearms manufacturer with all the proper licensing FFL (Federal Firearm license ), SOT and that we follow all Federal and all states’ rules and regulations on shipping firearms and parts and that we are also Audited by ATF and Homeland Security on a regular basis. She said that she understands that but that the deposits will be released After they have a chance to review and clear them. I told her that this was unacceptable and the those deposits (that were a week old by now ) needed to be released ASAP, that we are a small business and rely on the revenue to run and stay operational.

After that being said another manager got involved and released one of the deposits (to help out). So far to date after two weeks of sales only 1/3 of collected internet sales have been released. I am still pissed and looking for another bank and options.

I just thought the public should know.

I will keep everyone posted on new developments.

Sincerely

Joseph P Sirochman
American Spirit Arms
16001 N Greenway Hayden Loop, Suite B
Scottsdale AZ 85260
480-367-9540 phone
480-367-9541 fax

Please visit American Spirit Arms at: http://www.americanspiritarms.com.

Filed Under: 2nd Amendment, Constitutional Law, Guest Opinion, Small Business

More on the unrest in Arizona’s Republican LD-25

December 28, 2012 by Guest Opinion 2 Comments

To LD-25:

I have spoken with Chairman Haney and he has directed that the election for January 9^th be cancelled, and as a result, the results from the November 29^th election will stand. This is due to the lawsuit filed by Paul Whetten, Robin Harris, John Giles, Barbara Abney, Traci Beagley, Dilworth C. Brinton Jr., Curtis Brown, Alayne Favreau, J. Glade Soelberg, Larry Winword, Brent Ellsworth, David Ricks, Colleen Wheeler, Drexden Davis, Brian Nissen, and Alan Soelberg. Chairman Haney indicated that the MCRC did not have the financial resources for a prolonged court battle. However, the lawsuit is an attack on the honor and integrity of each member of the committee.

I have been silent on the findings of the investigative committee because I have been working to insure that the next election would be fair and transparent, but now I feel duty bound to respond.

After the investigative committee reached its findings, I received two very different reactions from people. The first was to get to the bottom of what happened, how it happened, and who did it. The second reaction was an attack on the investigation, the methods used in the investigation, the members selected for the committee, and why the investigation was expanded to look at all aspects of the election.

This is not the first time that we have seen irregularity in our District’s election, so when you find irregularities in one area of an election, it makes only makes sense to examine the entire election. I have included some of the previous issues that I am personally aware of:

During the reorganization meeting in June, individuals were observed signing the witness section of proxy forms during the meeting.
During the Primary Election, an LLC known as the Liberty Education Project, created by Stephanie Butler, David Tolman and Ryan Wimmer, set up on April 27, 2012, funded a massive multicolor, political mailings for Precinct Committeeman Elections across multiple districts and precincts. This campaign had a serious effect on the outcome of the Precinct Committeeman elections. The major question about this activity is who funded it and why was so much money spent on PC elections.
The issues did not begin after LD-25 was formed; there were issues prior to that. In 2011, a group of LD-19 PCs filed a complaint with the Secretary of State’s office about questionable activities about a notary’s (Jonathon Lindblom) activities in LD-19s elections. While there were eight violations of Notary Law included in the Secretary of State’s response, the most significant to me was “The Notary executed a statement known to be false. A.R.S. §41-330 (A)(10).” I have attached a copy of the Secretary of State’s response to the complaint that was filed.

I would also like to discuss some of the aspects of the lawsuit.

One aspect was the lack of transparency of the investigation. Paul Whetten was part of the investigative committee and he is also a plaintiff on the lawsuit. How can a Plaintiff on a lawsuit claim lack of transparency when he was there for the entire investigation? I found it very interesting that at the end of the investigation, Paul indicated that we had done the right thing and at least he would be able to sleep at night.
There appears to be a huge fixation with Russell Pearce in the lawsuit. It makes it appear that everyone opposed to Paul and his team are all controlled by Russell Pearce. This is incorrect. Most of the other people on the ballot were Ron Paul supporters. This was one of their first attempts to get involved in local politics so they could make a difference in the future. Unfortunately, the New Times labeled these newcomers to politics as “The Slate of Hate” because of individuals from our district saying that they were being controlled by Russell Pearce.
The lawsuit indicated that no complaints were made about the election of the Board on the night of the election. This is true since no proxies had been examined yet. Based on the game playing that continually occurs in our District, it was suggested that the proxy forms be examined along with the signed interest forms. It was hoped, that unlike in past elections, no irregularities would be found. Unfortunately, this was not the case. What I did find concerning was the Sunday after the investigation was announced, Alan Soelberg sent an email wondering about where the proxies were and why they were not given to Paul. On Monday after the election, Paul requested that the proxies be delivered to him and that he would deliver them to Chairman Haney at the start of the investigation. My question is, if there was nothing to hide, why wouldn’t they want the forms delivered directly to Chairman Haney without the opportunity for any tampering?
The lawsuit also reports that Colleen Wheeler delivered approximately 135 Candidacy Declaration Forms (Interest forms). This represents over 30 percent of the 434 State Committeeman candidates were delivered by one person. Normally, it would be expected that these forms would be delivered by their Precinct Captain. Because there were significant irregularities with the forms, all of the forms for the January 9^th election were tracked to determine who sent them. With this new process, 85 Candidacy Declaration Forms were received by December 22, 2012. This is a significant difference compared to the November 29^th election.

This investigation produced some major disappointments for me.

First, I believed that Paul Whetten was an honest and ethical man who could be depended on to do the right thing. Unfortunately, a man is judged by his actions and not just his words.
Second, we cannot assume “positive intent” from our fellow Republicans in LD-25 or expect them to do the right things. Instead, I found a group of individuals that follow the principle “Win at Any Cost.” This group has extremely deep pockets and funded the lawsuit against the MCRC and also funded the Liberty Education Project to manipulate the election of PCs in LD-25.
Third, it is disappointing that the lawsuit will not be heard. I believe that a complete and independent investigation into all the LD-25 and former LD-18 and LD-19 elections will uncover a significant amount of unethical behavior.
Fourth, I am disappointed with the Precinct Committeemen in LD-25. If you are a PC that signed a proxy form without the witnesses present or in front of a notary, then you are a part of the problem. Each PC was elected to represent the Republicans in his or her precinct by attending District meetings, the County meeting and the State meeting. If you are not doing these items, you are not fulfilling your duty as an elected official.

Since I do not have deep pockets to fund multi-thousand dollar mailings or to file lawsuits that will require tens of thousands of dollar to defend against, a website is being set up to expose and document the irregularities in LD-25 www.ld25fraud.org. The website will contain information such as the lawsuit and other information related to irregularities in LD25.

Unfortunately, prior to the cancellation of the January 9^th election, the call letter had already been sent out—following the Bylaws which requires 10 business days notification of a meeting. However, Paul sent out a call letter for a January 2^nd election. This did not follow the LD-25 Bylaws, which requires 10 business days notification.

It has been a pleasure serving as your First Vice Chairman. I can be reached at Ian@designedforlife.com.

Regards,

Ian Murray

Outgoing LD-25 First Vice Chairman

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Guest Opinion, Political Parties, Political Science Tagged With: AZGOP, AZLD25, LD-25, Maricopa GOP, Republican Party

Guest Opinion: Arizona LD-25 Election Controversy

December 16, 2012 by Guest Opinion 3 Comments

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.

Sincerely,

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.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Conspiracy Theories, Guest Opinion, Political Parties, Political Science Tagged With: Adams & Jefferson Blog, Arizona Republican Party, AZGOP, AZLD25, E. Paul Whetten, LD-25, Maricopa GOP, Rob Haney

Hugh Hewitt: Memo to the States’ Governors and AGs on The Decision On Obamacare’s Exchanges: Go Churchill Or Go Home

November 14, 2012 by Guest Opinion Leave a Comment

By Hugh Hewitt
So brilliant needed to be reposted from Townhall.com.

With the president mobilizing for a barnstorming tour in support of massive tax hikes and to, in effect, overturn last week’s vote to keep the House in GOP hands and the gavel in John Boehner’s –details here on the president’s plan– the GOP is getting organized in the House and laying down markers.

The media is focused on speculation about the “big deal” and the various scandals, but a huge story is brewing that few are watching.

The deadline for the most important political and legal decisions of the near term is being made in every state: Whether or not to establish a state health insurance exchange pursuant to Obamacare. The original deadline for each governor to decide was this Friday, but HHS has graciously given the states another month to decide which poison to pick: Subservience via establishment of a puppet exchange or takeover of the state’s insurance business via a big foot federal health exchange. The rules the feds have dictated the states must follow in making their choice are here.

Yesterday, Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama announced that Alabama would not be establishing the exchange or expanding Medicaid. The latter is not surprising, as the expansion will quickly eat away at state budgets.

But Bentley’s position on the exchange –he joins at least Alaska, Florida and Texas in just saying no– is very welcome and hopefully a model for other Republican governors who must by law indicate their decisions on the exchange set-up by mid-December. Other states ought also to study the example set by Oklahoma, and sue to overturn the Hobbesian choice on exchanges being forced on them.

Only one state lawsuit against the forced choice on health exchanges has been filed –by the Sooners’ AG, and the amended complaint is here– and the national opposition to Obamacare should be looking for other governors to say no and other attorneys general to file similar challenges to the health exchange jam down.

The amended complaint of the State of Oklahoma argues in crucial part:

II. The New Claims

8. In addition to that claim, Plaintiff raises new claims seeking declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to final federal regulations (the “Final Rule”) that were issued under Internal Revenue Code Section 36B, as added by Section 1401 of the Act, while proceedings in this action were stayed. The Final Rule was issued in contravention of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (“the APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 702; has no basis in any law of the United States; and directly conflicts with the unambiguous language of the very provision of the Internal Revenue Code it purports to interpret.

9. More specifically, Sections 1311 and 1321(c) of the Act allows States to choose to establish an “American Health Benefit Exchange” to operate in the State to facilitate execution of the Act’s key provisions. If a State elects not to establish an Exchange under Section 1311, Section 1321(b) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services to create an Exchange to operate in that state.

10. Under the Act, this choice has important consequences for the State’s people and the State’s economy, because health insurance premium tax credits for low-income employed individuals and employer obligations under the Act both depend on which alternative the State chooses. If the State elects to establish its own Exchange, the Federal Government will make “advance payments” of premium tax credits to insurance companies on behalf of some of the State’s residents to subsidize health insurance enrollment through the State-created Exchange, but the payment of the subsidy for even one employee triggers costly obligations on the part of the employer that would not be triggered in a non-electing State, placing the electing State at a competitive disadvantage for jobs and job growth.

11. The Act leaves this policy judgment to each State and provides a mechanism for each State to choose the alternative it thinks is better for its people. The Final Rule upsets this balance by providing, contrary to the Act, that qualifying taxpayers are eligible for premium tax credits and “advance payments” if they enroll for health insurance through the Exchange where they live, regardless of whether it is a State-established Exchange or an HHS-established Exchange. Thus, if the Final Rule is permitted to stand, federal subsidies will be paid under circumstances not authorized by the Congress; employers will be subjected to liabilities and obligations under circumstances not authorized by Congress; and States will be deprived of the opportunity created by the Act to choose for itself whether creating a competitive environment to promote economic and job growth is better for its people than access to federal subsidies.

12. Oklahoma has not established or elected to establish an Exchange, and does not expect to do so. As a result, under the plain terms of the Act, employers in Oklahoma should not be subject to the Employer Mandate because of a determination that an Oklahoma resident employed by the employer in Oklahoma is entitled to advance payment of a premium tax credit because of enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma. However, the Final Rule purports to make such an individual eligible for a premium tax credit based on enrolling for coverage through an Exchange established by HHS to operate in Oklahoma, with the result that an Oklahoma employer employing such an individual will be exposed to liability under the Employer Mandate under circumstances not provided for under the Act. Thus, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief declaring the Final Rule invalid.

This is a narrow argument aimed at a specific rule, but there are other arguments to make, including the damage done to federalism when, upon saying no, the enormous supertanker of Obamacare sails into a state’s legal harbor via the federal exchange and smashes all the docks and other ships, displacing not merely the opportunity to run an exchange but destroying countless other state-administered relationships and regulatory balances.

States have to defend themselves against the giant takeover of states’ powers and duties by Obamacare. The decision to “just say no” so has to be taken by mid-December. Encourage your governor to say no and to sue alongside of Oklahoma, perhaps engaging one of the country’s leading experts on structural federalism like Georgetown’s Randy Barnett or my own colleague at Chapman John Eastman to make the arguments to preserve the state’s legislative integrity and their independence from D.C. Not only is this the right way to proceed for a state intent on protecting its citizens from an ever-expanding federal government, it may also present the Supreme Court with a second bite at the Obamacare apple via a different set of issues not dependent on the “is the penalty a tax” debate.

Some states are tired of the fight and their law departments not eager to spend another year battling the DOJ.

But that isn’t their choice. That choice belongs to their governor and their attorney general. Those who don’t choose to fight now cannot expect conservatives to fight for them in the future. Go Churchill or go home.

The status of states’ decision-making on the exchanges is reviewed on a state-by-state basis here.

The left is attempting to declare the Obamacare fight over. It isn’t. It is a 15 round fight. Conservatives won rounds when they elected Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and then Scott Brown after the debate was begun. The left won a round when the law passed was passed, and it won a round when the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate, but conservatives won in that opinion as well, on Medicaid and on the reach of the Commerce Clause.

The left scored a knock-down with the president’s re-election, but the fight isn’t over if the conservatives opposed to the law get up off the canvas and fight on. Oklahoma has, and some states have joined them, though not yet in the courts. They should, and soon. Obamacare was nightmare before the election, and it is a nightmare still. The president’s re-election was manifestly not about Obamacare, and the decision is not final and won’t be until every good argument is made and every opportunity given the Supreme Court to review the law in full.

Even if the legal fight should fail, it is important for federalism that many states pass on becoming puppets of the feds via the state exchanges. The fiasco-in-waiting of the federal exchange should be on the president’s head, with blame not easily shifted to bungling governors. The president broke it, so he should buy and operate it.

But only after every argument has been made, and the Supreme Court offered the opportunity to rule on the law as a whole.

Filed Under: Elected Officials, Government Reform, Guest Opinion, Health Care, Political Science, Regulations, State Budget, State Economy, State Government, Town Hall Tagged With: Health Care, Health Care Exchange, Hugh Hewitt, Obamacare

Candidate Auggie Bartning: Prop 121 Puts Arizonans Last

October 31, 2012 by Press Release Leave a Comment

Auggie Bartning

Phoenix – Auggie Bartning released the following statement today regarding his opposition to Prop 121.

“Prop 121 or the “Top Two” does nothing to serve Arizonans, but rather will limit their choices on elections and will limit any chance for third-party success. Arizona does not need a system that provides more power to party leaders and costs the state more money to implement. The Top Two system would also cause elections to become more expensive and would discourage well qualified candidates from running.”

Auggie will appear on the Dennis Wilenchick radio show at 4:05pm today. Please tune in to KFNX 1100AM and hear what Auggie has to say about this election’s propositions and other topics that are important to the growth and stability of our great state.

###

Auggie Bartning is a Republican running for Arizona State Senate in the twenty-fourth Legislative District.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Ballot Measures, Campaigns & Elections, Conservatives, Guest Opinion, Press Release Tagged With: Auggie Bartning, AZLD24, LD-24

Arizona Proposition 204: No tax rate should be permanent

October 31, 2012 by Western Free Press Leave a Comment

By Graydon Holt

One of the most outlandish aspects of the Proposition 204 power grab is the permanent increase in the state sales tax rate. It is a poison pill that should sink the initiative on Election Day.

No tax rate should be permanent. Elected officials should always have the authority to set tax rates to meet changing economic conditions and the will of the taxpayers.

The one-cent increase would give Arizona the second highest sales tax in the nation, a sure fire way to gouge family budgets and hurt every business in the state. The regressive sales tax hits low and medium income the hardest. It makes everything consumers buy more expensive.

The Proposition 204 sales tax increase is a shameless exploitation of the genuine financial crisis in 2010 during the darkest days of the recession when state tax revenue went way down. Both taxpayers and lawmakers rallied to increase the sales tax rate by one cent to fund education and other essential services.

Everyone understood that the sales tax increase was temporary. It is set to expire next year. Proposition 204 supporters want to exploit the 2010 crisis, make the tax hike permanent, and take tax policy out of the hands of state lawmakers.

No wonder every business group in the state opposes Proposition 204. Every taxpayer should oppose it too. It is bad tax policy that should be rejected on November 6.

Follow Graydon Holt’s columns at Western Free Press.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Campaigns & Elections, Guest Opinion, Taxation Tagged With: Arizona Proposition 204

Representative Bob Robson – Release HB2026 & HB2330!

Representative Warren Petersen Needs Your Help on Three Bills

Arizona Patriots – Urgent Call to Action – Contact Representative Bob Robson!

Governor Brewer, we DON’T want to expand Medicaid.

WSJ – Governor Brewer’s Spectacular Flip-Flop

***

Doug Little Video. In His Own Words

The Arizona We Want 2.0

Phoenix City Councilman Speaks out on Phoenix Food Tax Repeal

The truth behind the malicious hit pieces on Robert Graham & Rob Haney

Chuck Hagel: An Idiotic Choice? No, A Tactical Maneuver

Save Buckley!

Please help to save Intellectual Conservative’s Buckley Alexander. Click on the photo below to find out how.

Bank of America Assails Scottsdale-Based Firearm Manufacturer

More on the unrest in Arizona’s Republican LD-25

Guest Opinion: Arizona LD-25 Election Controversy

Hugh Hewitt: Memo to the States’ Governors and AGs on The Decision On Obamacare’s Exchanges: Go Churchill Or Go Home

Candidate Auggie Bartning: Prop 121 Puts Arizonans Last

Arizona Proposition 204: No tax rate should be permanent

About Sonoran Alliance

Support Sonoran Alliance

Sonoran Alliance on Amazon

Recent Posts

Categories

Links

Archives

Tag Cloud

Subscribe

Meta

Recent Posts

May 2013
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Apr
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31