Archives for January 2016

Arizona Conservative Leadership Grassroots Training Sessions!

The Leadership Institute, Arizona Rock Products Association, and The Aarons Company LLC invite you to attend their Grassroots Campaign Academy.  This program is an intensive four-month program designed to give candidates and those who support them the skills necessary to fight and win in today’s competitive public policy arena.

At this academy, the nation’s top campaign trainers and leading political experts will empower you with the tools to make a difference in your community.

Participants attend four, full-day seminars over four months focused on:  strategy, communications, fundraising, and voter contact.

What: 4 Saturdays learning the skills necessary to become a leader
Where: 916 W. Adams
Phoenix, AZ 85007
How much: $200 for 4 Seminars
(includes meals and course materials)
Click HERE to Register Now

Dates:  January 23, February 20, March 19, April 16
Register Today
If you are interested in attending individual sessions they will be available at $79 per session.

Complete the online registration form and you will be enrolled for all four sessions.  Thanks to the leadership of the Arizona Rock Products Association and The Aarons Company LLC, this incredible program is now being offered for only $200.00 if you register and pay by January 1, 2016.

This is one campaign training you won’t want to miss. Sign up here and join conservative activists across the country who are ready to learn to win.


Robert Arnakis
Senior Director of Domestic and International Programs

P.S.  Register today for the Phoenix Campaign Academy and learn to win.

Maricopa County Precinct Committeemen – You’re being played!

By “Justice Portend”

Plain white envelope, bulk postage, P.O. Box return address…it looked like junk mail. I caught a glimpse of the name in the return address corner and stopped just short of tossing it in the garbage.

Then I opened it.

What the heck…It took a couple of reads to get the entire picture.  The closer I looked the more I found.  It didn’t take long for the stench to grow.  This non-descript envelope contained a pile of hot, steamy bull manure!

I’ve been a PC in Maricopa County for many, many years and have attended enough of these meetings to know how things should be done. This is not it, folks. A blatant disregard for truth and decency is on every page, the bylaws are completely ignored over and over, and the motives of whoever is behind this cannot be fueled by the best interests of the party!

First, the Bylaws are very clear in describing what should be in the call:

C. Notice – The Secretary or designee shall deposit in the mail at least ten (10) days prior to the meeting notice of the meeting, addressed to each member. Copies of proposed Bylaws changes and the reasons of support, new resolutions, if any, and a proxy form must also be included.

A link to a web site does not meet the bylaws requirement, not even close! Every PC in Maricopa County has the right to see what they will vote on and the bylaws declare a copy of every proposed change, and the rationale for each, to be included in the call. This rule is in place for us, the PC’s.  There is no leeway or discretion!  The Chairman is obligated to make sure that happens – he didn’t. He ordered the official call letter to be mailed in violation of the clearly stated Bylaw put in place to insure we -the PC’s – are informed.

Corruption: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people

The whole thing smacks of corruption and disrespect toward the duly elected and appointed PC’s, the real grassroots.  We’ve walked, knocked, written checks, attended meetings and made phone calls and we did it to build our party, to get Republicans elected not to be dismissed as unimportant, simple minded morons that would never question the chairman! We must demand the bylaws be followed – this type of disrespect should make every PC beyond angry!

Then comes the “Special Meeting”.  Where to start… what possible good can come from this?  We are in the middle of an election year and this guy thinks calling a special meeting to “recall” leadership is smart? What is the real purpose of this destructive meeting?

Is he willing to sacrifice what is best for the party to get revenge?  Bowyer barely survived a no confidence motion by one vote in November – his vote. Minus Bowyer, it was a split 14-14 vote, meaning half the LD Chairman and Executive Committee members in the county voted for “no confidence” and the Bowyer faction is after payback.  Here’s what is missing in the picture – he is targeting the two members he feels led the charge but what about the rest of the EGC, the 50% who clearly voted against him? Is this a warning shot, a flexing of his political muscle? Rather than show some leadership and move on, this chairman would rather embarrass the entire party so he can attempt to get his pound of flesh.

We’ve seen some pretty outlandish things out of the MCRC, but this chairman beats them all!

Now comes some more information that is beyond the pale. All the newly appointed PC’s who are absolutely eligible to vote in this “special meeting”, didn’t get a call letter. That’s right, PC’s were deliberately not given notice of the meeting and pending election. Remember, this is not a normal election, the only way to know is if you get the letter and proxy.

Disenfranchise: to prevent (a person or group of people) from having the right to vote

Why? Go back to that plain, white bulk-rate envelope. That may hold the answer to many things.

If the bylaw changes had been printed, it would have likely been a larger mailing and higher postage.  So, it looks like Bowyer opted to skip our right to see the proposed bylaw changes in order to have room for his ridiculous special meeting call.

But why not notice the new PC’s?

The rules of bulk rate are that all the letters must contain the same information. The new PC’s aren’t eligible to vote in the Mandatory Meeting, if there were envelopes containing only the special meeting notice, they would hold significantly fewer pages and would have been noticed at the post office. Those letters would have to go first class mail which is a higher rate. Oh well, those folks don’t matter – do they?

This also explains why they can credential both meetings at the same time. Just leave the new PC’s out and then you only need one list.  When, if ever, has there been an official meeting with credentialing completed 6 or more hours BEFORE the meeting begins?

So, what we’ve got folks are a couple of things.

  1. A Mandatory Meeting with a call letter that is in blatant violation of the Bylaws, to the detriment of PC’s.  What is in those Bylaw revisions that they are trying to hide?  Why were mandatory, well-known rules not followed? What authority allowed for such a decision – this smacks of Obama Executive Order politics. It’s what the chairman wants, who needs rules. At a minimum, the Bylaw revision vote should be cancelled.
  2. A ridiculous, damaging “Special Meeting” where a portion of the electorate was deliberately denied notice and proxy provisions. Why were they intentionally denied their right to participate? How can that be tolerated?
    How far will we, the PC’s, allow this corruption, abuse of power and abandonment of principles to go?  The rule of law and individual responsibility should matter.

Then here’s something to think about… This chairman openly trains members of a different political party to be activists.  He openly uses the MCRC office to run a non-GOP 501 (c)3. His actions have shown he has a complete disdain for PC’s, no respect or intent to follow the bylaws, and is acting in opposition to the best interest of the party.  Could it be his plan is to be a “disruptor” and we’ve been played? It sure looks that way


  1. to cause disorder or turmoil
  2. to destroy, usually temporarily, the normal continuance or unity
  3. to break apart
  4. to radically change 
  5. broken apart; disrupted.

GRAB THE TIN FOIL HATS: McCain Goes Full Birther on Ted Cruz

During an interview on the McCain propaganda machine known as KFYI, Arizona’s Liberal Senator went on a Birther rant against Ted Cruz.

From Buzzfeed:

mccain tinfoil hat

“I know it came up in my race because I was born in Panama, but I was born in the

Canal Zone which is a territory. Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona when it was a territory when he ran in 1964.”

Cruz was a U.S. citizen at birth; his mother was a U.S. citizen living in Canada at the time.

… [my birth] was [at] a U.S. military base,” continued McCain about his own birth. “That’s different from being born on foreign soil so I think there is a question. I am not a Constitutional scholar on that, but I think it’s worth looking into. I don’t think it’s illegitimate to look into it.”


McCain must be getting old(er) and senile(r) as he must have forgotten that with similar issues being brought up about his own out-of-country birth, Congress passed a resolution that addressed his issues and recognized the pro gun-control McCain as ‘Natural Born Citizen’ thus making him qualified to hold the office of the presidency.

Its understandable that no one will consider the liberal McCain as a Constitutional scholar (see his assault on the 1st amendment McCain-Feingold), but to see him go all in on the Birther conspiracy is a major tactical error considering TeamMcCain has spent much of 2015 trying to paint Kelli Ward as “conspiratorial”.

Now that strategy against Ward will fall flat as the Birther conspiracy is right up there with people who are members of the Flat Earth Society, are 9/11 Truthers, and others who deny the moon landing.

All that said, we’re thankful for missteps like this because they will add up and be the undoing of the Hillary Clinton’s favorite Senator:

For those wondering if Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen, yes he is.  Listen to ‘The Great One’ explain it here.

Judge Unbelievably Refuses to Grant a Retrial for Former Rep. Renzi Despite Finding Rampant Prosecutorial Wrongdoing

 Tucson Federal District Court Judge David Bury issued a decision on December 30 denying a retrial for imprisoned former Congressman Rick Renzi of Arizona, developments which I’ve been tracking over the last six months. Bizarrely, at the same time, Bury admitted in his nine-page opinion that virtually everything factual Renzi had asserted in his motion for a retrial regarding the prosecution’s misconduct was true. The prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from Renzi’s defense — which likely would have changed the jury’s mind — not just once, butmultiple times. Some of it was not discovered until after the trial was over, so the jury never got to see the other side of the story. That constituted a Brady violation, which the U.S. Supreme Court has held is a violation of due process. As a former prosecutor, I find this extremely disturbing.

Information is now coming out revealing striking similarities to the prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, which also involved corruption by FBI agents in order to obtain a conviction of a member of Congress. But when the judge in the Stevens’ case discovered after the trial that the prosecutors had withheld crucial evidence, the entire indictment was thrown out.

The prosecution of Renzi was based on the premise he had proposed a federal land exchange that supposedly would have benefited him financially. But it came out after the trial that the prosecution’s key witness/victim, Philip Aries, changed his story to say it was Renzi’s idea to propose the land exchange instead of others, because Aries was told by the prosecution that he would receive money for his testimony. During the hearing to reconsider a new trial last October, Aries testified that he discussed compensation with an FBI agent for this: “$10,000 would be a home run,” he said he told the agent. “$25,000 would be winning the lottery.”

Judge Bury admitted in his December opinion rejecting a retrial that the proposal to include the Sandlin land, which supposedly would have benefited Renzi, really came from Aries, not Renzi. FBI Agent Dan Odom agreed on the stand during the October hearing that leaving out this exculpatory information was a “material omission.” Nevertheless, though chief DOJ prosecutor Gary Restaino knowingly put on Aries’ false testimony, he was never punished.

Additionally, a document in the court record from The Nature Conservancy showed that the organization had proposed the idea of a land exchange to Renzi and Renzi’s staff, which would include the Sandlin land. In order to discredit this truth, Restaino, whose wife was a high-level staffer for Janet Napolitano and was concerned about Renzi challenging Napolitano for governor, found left-leaning Nature Conservancy employees who disliked Renzi to testify against him in the initial trial.

Ultimately, when the much-needed exchange finally worked itself out years later, The Nature Conservancy got the land they wanted, Fort Huachuca was able to lower its water usage as it needed — and Renzi was sent to prison.

There are at least four more major violations by the prosecution withholding evidence that have never been made public and were not presented to the jury.

First, Restaino deliberately withheld recordings of phone calls from the defense — until Renzi happened to figure out there were numerous calls in the initial document production that hadn’t been given to the defense. Restaino was not punished for this withholding.

Secondly, Restaino withheld the fact that a former staffer of Renzi’s, John Eckles, who planned to testify against him, had stolen money from congressional candidate Bradley Beauchamp, and Restaino likely did not file charges against Eckles in exchange for his cooperation against Renzi and a co-defendant. Renzi discovered this information much later on his own. Restaino was not punished.

Thirdly, Restaino withheld the truth from the judge who was monitoring the wiretapping, even lying on the monthly status report to the judge insisting he wasn’t listening to Renzi’s attorney-client privileged phone calls, when in fact Restaino”s lead FBI agent was listening and sharing them with other agents while keeping the calls unsecured in his desk. For some unknown reason, that judge recused herself after the wiretapping incident. The judge issued a scathing opinion throwing out the wiretapping evidence, but Restaino was not punished.

Fourthly, Restaino withheld the truth that the FBI had destroyed evidence that would have proven they illegally listened to Renzi’s attorney-client privileged calls, and used this evidence to bring their indictment. Restaino was not punished.

Adding to the outrageousness, Judge Bury’s decision in December to deny Renzi a retrial was based on inaccurate information. He said in his opinion that it was too late to consider the fact that the prosecution had withheld notes from the FBI agent, notes which revealed that Aries had told the agent that it was Renzi’s former assistant, Joanne Keene, who had first proposed including the Sandlin property in the land exchange during a conversation they had. Bury’s reasoning was that since this new information had been brought up in a reply brief, generally new arguments brought up in reply briefs are too late. Well, this is not just any “new argument” brought up in a reply brief, but the crux of the criminal case against Renzi. It’s not Renzi’s fault that he did not discover this Brady violation until that point — he is essentially being punished for Restaino deliberately withholding evidence.

Additionally, although Judge Bury admitted that Aries had been impeached and discredited as a witness for flip-flopping, Bury claimed that Aries’ statement that Renzi promised him a “free pass” through the Natural Resource Committee had been corroborated by other witnesses, such as Joanne Keene and Guy Inzalaco. That’s not true. Keene testified that Renzi mentioned that he had a “placeholder” into which he could assert the proposed legislation. But a placeholder merely means a position of legislation placed in a bill, nothing more. It doesn’t imply a trade or “quid pro quo.” And rather than corroborating Aries’ supposed “free pass,” Inzalaco testified that he could not remember the substance of what he discussed with Renzi! Not surprisingly, the jury acquitted Renzi of the charges that related to his conversation with Inzalaco.

How can a conviction of extortion stand, if it came out later that Renzi wasn’t the one who had proposed the land exchange? When confronted in October with FBI agent notes of who Aries said really proposed it, and evidence of the money promised him, Aries, who originally said during trial that Renzi had proposed it, changed his testimony.

The similarities to the botched prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens are disturbing. After Stevens was convicted of failing to report gifts, one of the FBI agents filed a whistleblower affidavit, alleging that prosecutors and FBI agents conspired to withhold and conceal evidence that likely would have likely resulted in a verdict of not guilty. The judge ordered a hearing to consider whether there should be a retrial.

The New York Times reported that Judge Emmet G. Sullivan said, “In 25 years on the bench, he had ‘never seen mishandling and misconduct like what I have seen’ by the Justice Department prosecutors who tried the Stevens case,” repeatedly refusing to turn over documents to the defense. “Again and again, both during and after the trial in this case, the government was caught making false representations and not meeting its discovery obligations,” he said.

At the hearing to consider a retrial for Renzi in October, Judge Bury similarlyexpressed his disgust with the prosecutors for withholding exculpatory evidence from Renzi’s defense. Bury told Restaino that he had violated Renzi’s rights.

Judge Sullivan ultimately held the Stevens’ prosecutors in contempt for not disclosing the exculpatory evidence to the defense. Once he did that that, the DOJ filed a Motion of The United States To Set Aside The Verdict And Dismiss The Indictment With Prejudice. The prosecutors were removed from the case and two were suspended.

Due to the unprecedented level of corruption by DOJ prosecutors and FBI agents in Renzi’s case, this conviction cannot stand. Yet Judge Bury said he will not order a new trial because the withheld evidence wouldn’t change a single juror’s mind. Really? There is more prosecutorial misconduct in this case – that would have exonerated Renzi – than in Ted Stevens’ case! Any normal American chosen for a jury discovering these new developments would be horrified. Regardless, Bury doesn’t even need to order a new trial, he can simply drop all the convictions.

Renzi is going to ask for a congressional investigation. Knowingly putting on false witness testimony is a serious offense that strikes at the heart of our justice system. Renzi was targeted for political reasons by powerful Democrats who control much of the legal system. If they can put an innocent man in prison, no conservative person in politics is safe. Renzi was targeted because he was a popular, charismatic Congressman from a Democratic-leaning district. Apparently the standard for Judge Bury is: “Guilty, even if proven innocent, because you don’t want to cross the Obama and his DOJ.” Contact Judge Bury and tell him the convictions must be thrown out.

POLL: Maricopa County Voters Say Raise Age to 21 to Buy Tobacco, Keep Coyotes in Glendale


Poll also shows voters want Arizona Coyotes to stay in Glendale

(Phoenix, AZ) — Only adults 21 and over should be able to buy tobacco products, according to a new poll of Maricopa County voters.

Of the 584 respondents to a poll conducted Dec. 29 by MBQF Consulting and Marson Media, 72 percent said they support increasing the age to buy tobacco from 18 to 21. Just 28 percent oppose the move.

The poll also found Maricopa County voters prefer the Arizona Coyotes remain in Glendale, 55-45. And finally, Maricopa County approve of Indian tribes opening Las Vegas-style casinos off traditional reservation land by a margin of 45-39.

“It is clear among all political stripes that voters want to increase the legal age to buy tobacco to 21,” said Barrett Marson, CEO of Marson Media. “As cities in Maricopa County consider these proposals, they can move forward knowing voters support the move.”

Mike Noble Added, “What was interesting was that support to increase the legal age was basically the same between Republicans, Democrats and Independent voters.”

Despite spotty attendance performance throughout its years in Glendale, voters don’t support moving the Arizona Coyotes to a downtown Phoenix or East Valley location, the poll found. The team has said it will explore a move to a new arena downtown or could build an arena on the Salt River Pima Indian Community near Scottsdale.

“The Coyotes are locked in a battle with Glendale but voters actually prefer the team stays in the Gila River Arena,” said Mike Noble, CEO of MBQF Consulting.

As for Indian gaming, county voters appear OK with tribes opening casinos off of traditional reservation land. The Tohono O’odham recently opened a casino near Glendale though it lacks table games like blackjack that are at other casinos.

“Voters don’t mind Indian casinos in the metropolitan area even if they are operated by tribes far away,” Marson said.

In the automated telephonic non-partisan survey of 584 high efficacy voters, conducted on December 29, the survey calculates a 4.06% theoretical margin of error, plus or minus in percentage points.

For more information about this survey, or a summary of topline data and wording, please contact Mike Noble or Barrett Marson.