Saturday, October 23, 2010

Is Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin Corrupt ?

By Bob Haran;

Recently I was accused of making unsubstantiated accusations against Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin regarding his profiting from public office as a state senator.

Please allow me to submit the facts as I know them in regard to this case and let those who don't know them decide if our state treasurer is corrupt or not.

This information can easily be verified by going to the Arizona Secretary of State's web site.

In the 2004 campaign, incumbent Dean Martin had no primary challenger in his Republican safe district, which had a 19.9% Republican voter registration advantage over the Democrat Party. His Democrat opponent in the general election was a political unknown and professional petition gatherer by the name of Marla Wing. According to campaign finance reports, Ms. Wing spent a grand total of $26 on her campaign.

Obviously this campaign was going to be an easy win for Mr. Martin.

Shortly after then Arizona Senator Dean Martin's 2004 campaign for re-election, I examined his campaign finance reports and discovered something very unusual.

In a legislative campaign postage is usually the biggest expense but in Martin's campaign his largest expense was for printing, $11, 903.76 and his expense for postage was only $4,865.37. Martin spent more then twice as much on printing then he did on postage, which means his spent more then twice as much to print a piece of literature then to mail it, that doesn't make sense.

What made even less sense was that Martin claimed to own a printing business, Digital Print Design, located at 4718 E. Cactus Rd # 159, and was producing his own printing in house, that $11,903.76 for printing was paid to Digital Print Design.

Out of curiosity, I decided to go to 4718 E. Cactus Rd to see Mr. Martin's printing business for myself and discovered it was merely a rented mail box at Paradise Valley Mall.

Suspecting that Digital Print Design may merely be a front company to launder campaign funds into Martin's pocket, I checked for a telephone listing in the White and Yellow Pages and called information, there was no listing for a Digital Print Design in Arizona. I then did a web search and discovered no web site for a Digital Print Design. I discovered no evidence anywhere of any kind of advertising or marketing by a Digital Print Design to generate business.

If Digital Print Design was merely a front, where did the $ 11,903.76 Martin's campaign paid for printing go? Remember that money came from lobbyist with business before the legislature, and Martin was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee at the time.

Something else was unusual in regard to Martin's campaign finance reports. His second largest campaign expenditure, $7,331.54, went to a company named "Grassroots Programs," for "voter outreach." I'm not sure what Martin meant by voter outreach but the address for Grassroots Programs was exactly the same rented mail box as Digital Print Design and that the owner of Grassroots Programs was Kerry Martin, the now deceased wife of Dean Martin.

Again I checked the telephone directory and called information, no Grassroots Programs in Arizona. I did a web search for Grassroots Programs and again nothing. Apparently, Grassroots Programs was also a phony front company used to launder Martin's campaign funds. Where did the $7,331.54 the Martin campaign paid to Grassroots Programs go?

If either Digital Print Design or Grassroots Programs were legitimate business entities they would have records, such as; a business journal to record sales, purchases, payroll, accounts receivable. There would also be bank and tax records, a business licence and tax number. A printing business would require equipment such as a printing press and purchase records for large amounts of ink and paper. If these were real business entities, it would have been an easy task for Mr. Martin to produce these records for examination.

It also appears that Dean Martin was using his campaign fund as if it were his own personnel checking account, spending over $2,200 to pay for his cell phone service, and over another $2,200 on food, and somewhere around $12,000 on various electronic and computer equipment, which he gets to keep for his own personnel use and enjoyment.

To celebrate his 30th birthday, Mr. Martin used $650 of his campaign fund to rent a movie theatre for a private showing of Mel Gibson's, "The Patriot," and invited lobbyist to help him celebrate his birthday by attending the showing and making further campaign contributions.

In summation, these facts, which can be verified, describe a public official who turned his public office into a profit making enterprise that solicited contributions to his campaign fund, which he controlled, and which he then laundered through phony business entities he controlled, and then into his own pocket.

These actions resulted in a pecuniary gain for Mr. Martin and therefore, Dean Martin knowingly created an additional income for himself and a conflict of interest in relation to his official duties as an Arizona elected official; in violation of ARS, 38-504, Conflict of Interest, Prohibited Acts, a class 6 Felony.

If directing money from people with business before the legislature into your own pocket, regardless of how circuitous the route, is not corruption, then I don't know what is.

But please don't say that my accusations against Mr. Martin are unsubstantiated or without foundation, the facts are the facts, Dean Martin profited from public office and is therefore corrupt and unfit to hold any public office.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

How Do You Say Hypocrite in Spanish?

Illegal aliens may come to America and desecrate the American flag but when an American draws a carton of the Mexican flag Mexico becomes outraged.

From AOL

Lauren Frayer ContributorAOL News

(Sept. 4) -- An American cartoonist's rendition of the Mexican flag is causing controversy south of the border, where Mexicans say it's offensive to taint their national symbol with images of drug violence.

Political cartoonist Daryl Cagle's drawing, which ran on the front page of several Mexican newspapers this week, shows what's normally a regal-looking eagle at the center of Mexico's flag riddled with bullets and bleeding. It's a reference to the drug wars that have riled Mexico and left more than 28,000 people dead there in less than four years.

"Editorial cartoonists look for readily recognizable metaphors and that's an obvious one for Mexico," Cagle told CNN.

But some Mexicans say they're offended by the cartoon. Like the American flag, Mexico's banner is a national symbol under which many soldiers and civilians have given their lives. They say Cagle overstepped his creative license in this case.

American political cartoonist Daryl Cagle's sketch of the Mexico flag is drawing outrage south of the border.

"It is a shame that a patriotic symbol like our flag, which is so beautiful to me, can be mocked by a stupid cartoonist," one angry reader complained to the Mexican newspaper El Universal. "I think there are many other ways to graphically protest what's happening in our country."

The Mexican Embassy in Washington weighed in on the issue, with a spokesman Ricardo Alday saying Thursday that Mexico "respects and defends freedom of speech and freedom of expression" but "differs" with Cagle "on the use he makes of the Mexican flag and the message it conveys."

In a letter to, which employs Cagle, Alday said the cartoon "triggered a negative response from some sectors of Mexican public opinion."

On his blog, Cagle acknowledged that many people consider his cartoon "scandalous" and that it "struck a nerve with Mexican readers." He said he's received some "interesting, outraged emails" from readers.

"I think your idea of bringing the violence in Mexico to light is excellent. Too bad you butchered it along with the Mexican Flag," Ramon De Leon wrote on Cagle's blog comments section. "Laws in Mexico with regards to the use and depiction of the flag are in place to prevent this sort of stuff. Please consider taking it down and issuing an apology to the Mexican American community."

Cagle has not yet issued any apology, and newspapers continue to reprint his cartoon despite the controversy. The cartoonist also sought to defend his choice of material as a freedom that comes with his profession.

"National flags are common fodder for editorial cartoonists around the world, so the reaction to this cartoon was surprising to me," Cagle wrote.

The controversy over Cagle's cartoon comes two years after another cartoonist, Barry Blitt, sparked ire over his cover of The New Yorker magazine showing Barack Obama, who was then running for president, and his wife Michelle dressed as Muslim extremists with an American flag burning in a fireplace behind them. And in 2005, a Danish newspaper published controversial cartoons depicting Islam's prophet Muhammad, igniting protests and violence that left hundreds of people dead across the globe.

Images of Mexico have drawn offense before -- and not always from Mexicans.
In 2008, Absolut Vodka launched a marketing campaign in Mexico that showed a map of North America with several states in the Southwest -- including California, Texas and Arizona -- located inside Mexico.

The states were conquered by the U.S. in a war with Mexico in the mid-19th century.
The company pulled the ad after it received more than 1,000 angry comments on its blog site, with many calling for a boycott of the brand.

Absolut issued a statement saying that the ad, which ran in Mexico only, did not "advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment," Reuters reported.
Last year, Burger King ran an ad for its new Texican Whopper burger that showed a tall American cowboy and a short Mexican wrestler, whose cape resembled the country's flag.
The ad, which ran in Europe, showed the cowboy helping the wrestler reach high shelves and clean tall windows.

A narrator described the burger as "the taste of Texas with a little spicy Mexican."
Mexico's ambassador to Spain, Jorge Zermeno, said the ads "improperly use the stereotyped image of a Mexican," according to The Associated Press.

"In Mexico we have a great deal of respect for our flag," Zermeno said.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

Glenn Beck Regrets Calling Obama 'Racist,'

Glenn Beck Regrets Calling Obama 'Racist,'
Rules Out Run for President.

From AOL
By Bruce Drake,
Conservative talk show host Glenn Beck said after his Saturday rally at the Lincoln Memorial that he regrets once having called President Obama a racist who hated white people, and said "not a chance" when asked about the notion of a Beck-Sarah Palin presidential ticket in 2012.

Beck had made the statement about Obama last year on Fox & Friends during a discussion of Obama's criticism of Cambridge, Mass. police. Obama had said they had acted "stupidly" in arresting Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates, an African-American, outside his own home after receiving a call reporting a possible break-in.

"This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy over and over and over again who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," Beck had said. "I don't know what it is. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

Beck, who had been criticized for holding his event on an anniversary day of Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, was asked by Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace in an interview conducted after the rally, "After that, do you have any credibility talking about reclaiming the civil rights movement?"

"It shouldn't have been said," Beck answered. "It was poorly said ... I have a big fat mouth sometimes and I say things, and that's just not the way people should behave. And it was not accurate."

Beck said he had "miscast" as racism what he should have attributed instead to Obama's attachment, as expressed in his writings, to "liberation theology."

"He is a guy who understands the world through liberation theology, which is oppressor and victim," said Beck, referring to the movement in the Catholic Church challenging economic, political and social conditions affecting the underprivileged.

Asked if he regretted his remarks, Beck said, "Of course I do."

Beck also brushed aside any talk in the blogosphere and elsewhere that the popular movements conservatives like he and Sarah Palin have launched might produce a Beck-Palin presidential ticket in 2012.
"Not a chance," said Beck. "I don't know what Sarah is doing. I hope to be on vacation. I have no desire to be president of the United States. Zero desire. I don't think that I would be electable."

"There are far too many people that are far smarter than me to be president," he said. "I'd like to find one with some honor and integrity. I haven't seen them yet, but they'll show up."

Monday, August 9, 2010

SB 1070 Still A Winner

By Russell Pearce

Opponents of immigration enforcement are calling the temporary injunction against parts of Arizona's anti-illegal-immigration law a death blow to state enforcement. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund called it a “warning to other states” that want to enact similar legislation.

As the author of the new law, SB 1070, I can honestly say that July 29, when the pared-down law went into effect, was a victory.

Many key provisions are still in effect. Local police have more power to enforce immigration laws. Sanctuary cities are outlawed. Illegal day laborers are likely to be arrested and the employers' trucks that pick them up impounded.

And I am confident the entire law will be upheld.

Already, illegal immigrants are taking notice. Even before the law went into effect, NPR and Reuters reported that undocumented immigrants, including entire families, were moving out of the state. The day after the ruling, CNN reported, “some of the estimated 500,000 undocumented immigrants who went to Arizona are leaving the state.”

This is the strategy of SB 1070: attrition through enforcement. Arizona has made it clear through our policies that illegal immigrants are not welcome, and they are self-deporting from the state.

Judging from media portrayals, one would think this law is the only time that a state has taken up immigration legislation. But this is just the latest bill in Arizona’s string of attrition-through-enforcement legislation.

It began in 2004, when 56 percent of Arizona voters — including 47 percent of Latinos — voted for Proposition 200, which barred illegal immigrants from receiving public benefits. In 2006, voters approved four anti-illegal-immigration and pro-English ballot initiatives. The year after, then-Gov. Janet Napolitano signed the Legal Arizona Workers Act, requiring all employers to use E-Verify to ensure that they do not hire illegal immigrants.

The battles over these laws did not draw as much national attention as SB 1070, but Arizona still faced media campaigns, lawsuits and temporary injunctions. All the laws were eventually enacted.

Even the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is to rule on SB 1070 in November, upheld the legal workers act.

Rather than serve as a warning to other states, our immigration law has inspired people across the country, who are fed up with the federal government's inaction, to follow our lead. Lawmakers in 20 states have now introduced similar legislation. Nine state attorneys general signed an amicus brief in support of Arizona.

The more opponents attack our immigration law, the longer it stays in the national spotlight. This looks likely to be a major issue in the midterm elections. It's almost a prerequisite that any gubernatorial candidate in a Republican primary support SB 1070. Even Democratic candidates, like Roy Barnes of Georgia, support the law.

Poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans support the Arizona law. The day after the injunction, a Rasmussen poll found that 59 percent of American voters wanted an Arizona-style law in their state, while only 32 percent did not.

Despite critics’ claims that SB 1070 interferes with federal law, it actually mirrors federal law, empowering local law enforcement to assist federal authorities. No one denies this. Instead, the court ruled that the law will “impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established.”

The “priorities” are not to arrest, detain, prosecute or remove illegal immigrants unless they have already committed serious crimes in addition to illegal presence.

These critics would rather wait for another American to become a victim of crime before they enforce our laws. The only thing that conflicts with federal immigration law is the Obama administration's intentional policy not to enforce it.

With the American people and the Constitution on our side, the temporary ruling of an activist judge will not keep Arizona from prevailing in our fight against illegal immigration.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010


( – Pinal County (Ariz.) Sheriff Paul Babeu is hopping mad at the federal government.

Babeu told that rather than help law enforcement in Arizona stop the hundreds of thousands of people who come into the United States illegally, the federal government is targeting the state and its law enforcement personnel.

“What’s very troubling is the fact that at a time when we in law enforcement and our state need help from the federal government, instead of sending help they put up billboard-size signs warning our citizens to stay out of the desert in my county because of dangerous drug and human smuggling and weapons and bandits and all these other things and then, behind that, they drag us into court with the ACLU,” Babeu said.

The sheriff was referring to the law suits filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the U.S. Department of Justice challenging the state’s new immigration law.

“So who has partnered with the ACLU?” Babeu said in a telephone interview with “It’s the president and (Attorney General) Eric Holder himself. And that’s simply outrageous.”

Last week, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton placed a temporary injunction on portions of the bill that allowed law enforcement personnel during the course of a criminal investigation who have probable cause to think an individual is in the country illegally to check immigration status. The state of Arizona filed an appeal on Thursday with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

“Our own government has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help,” Babeu said.

Babeu and Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County Ariz., spoke by phone with last week about the May 17 ACLU class-action lawsuit, which charges the law uses racial profiling and named the county attorneys and sheriffs in all 15 Arizona counties as defendants. The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on July 6, charging the Arizona law preempted the federal government’s sole right to enforce immigration law.

“If the president would do his job and secure the border; send 3,000 armed soldiers to the Arizona border and stop the illegal immigration and the drug smuggling and the violence, we wouldn’t even be in this position and where we’re forced to take matters into our own hands,” Babeu said.

Dever said the federal government’s failure to secure the border and its current thwarting of Arizona’s effort to control illegal immigration within its borders has implications for the entire country.

“The bigger picture is while what’s going on in Arizona is critically important, what comes out of this and happens here will affect our entire nation in terms of our ability to protect our citizenry from a very serious homeland security threat,” Dever said. “People who are coming across the border in my county aren’t staying there. They’re going everywhere USA and a lot of them are bad, bad people.

”According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), about 250,000 people were detained in Arizona in the last 12 months for being in the country illegally. Babeu said that that number only reflects the number of people detained and that thousands more enter the country illegally each year.

The CBP also reports that 17 percent of those detained already have a criminal record in the United States.

Both Babeu and Dever said they want to remain involved in the legal battle over the law, which many experts predict will end up being decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Dever has hired an independent attorney to represent him in the ACLU case and his attorney has already filed a motion of intervention in the DOJ lawsuit so the “(Dever) will have a seat at the table.

”A Web site also has been launched by the non-profit, Iowa-based Legacy Foundation to raise money for the Babeu’s and Dever’s legal defense.

Both men said they believe the outcome of the case has national significance.“For us, this is a public safety matter and a national security threat,” Babeu said.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

LIAR, LIAR - GOP Candidate Lies to GOP, Supported Clinton

GOP Candidate Lies, Supported Hillary Clinton

By Bob Haran

At a candidate forum for the Arizona House on Monday night, (July 26), in Legislative District 6, I asked the five candidates that showed up if any of them had contributed to any liberal, pro-abortion cause or Democrat candidates like Hillary Clinton in the past ten years? And yes, I specifically said Hillary Clinton. All five candidates; John Adam Kowalski, Amanda Reeve, Steve Kaiser, David Fitzgerald lll, and Carl Seel, all in turn adamantly responded NO to my question.

After asking my question, a lady asked me if I knew the answer my question, I responded with a simple "YES."

One of the five candidates for the Republican nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives, all who claim to be strongly conservative, pro-life, and a life long Republican, had just lied to the District 6 Republican Precinct Committeemen.

Unlike some other political blogs, The American Conservative Republican likes to verify information before we publish it.

A reliable source, (which means someone I know but who's name I will keep confidential), E-mailed me a copy of Federal Elections Commission form 3, (REPORT OF RECEIPTS AND DISBURSEMENTS) for the "Friends of Hillary" committee dated 10/15/2005. On page 584 of the report under item B was the name of a contributor as David Fitzgerald lll, mailing address 4530 W. Misty Lane, Glendale, AZ 85310-3901, name of employer as SELF, Occupation Real Estate Broker, Date of Receipt 9/15/2005, amount of receipt $250.00.

It might be possible that two people in Arizona in the real estate business might have the name David Fitzgerald lll, therefore, I had to verify that this was the same David Fitzgerald lll running for the Arizona House as a Republican in LD6.

The Arizona Corporation Commission -- Corporations Division, had a listing for a David E Fitzgerald lll with the address as 4530 W Misty Willow Ln, Glendale, 85310 listed as the President/CEO of Success One Realty Inc and a Yukari Fitzgerald of the same address, listed as the Secretary of Success One.

So far I have proved that the David Fitzgerald lll listed in the FEC report is the same David E Fitzgerald lll listed with the Arizona Corporation Commission. However, is this the same Fitzgerald running for office in LD 6?

The Arizona Capitol Times 2010 Primary Elections Guide has a listing of all candidates for the Arizona legislature. Under Arizona House District 6 is Fitzgerald, David (Republican), OCCUPATION: Broker/owner, Success One Realty, since 1998. MARTIAL: Married (Yukari, loan officer).

The information therefore has been verified, the David Fitzgerald III that contributed $ 250 to the Hillary Clinton campaign for the United States Senate from New York on 9/15/2005 is one and the same as the David Fitzgerald currently running for the Republican nomination for the Arizona House of Representatives from LD 6 and he did in fact publicly lie to the Republican Precinct Committeemen and others at a candidates forum on July 26 at the Deer Valley Airport Restaurant in regard to making a contribution to any Democrat candidate like Hillary Clinton in the past ten years.

In the interest of fair play, the Chairman of District 6, Larry Gorman, contacted David Fitzgerald to offer him an opportunity to respond, David Fitzgerald asked that the following statement be distributed.

"As a Republican candidate for House in LD6, I would like to make sure that PCs are able to contact me directly to answer any questions they might have. To all PCs (and all constituents!) in LD6, please feel free to contact me anytime on my cell phone at 480-688-8217"

A very interesting response, I wonder what his explanation will be, they always have an explanation. Maybe he can claim temporary insanity or he didn't understand the question.

David Fitzgerald is running on a slate with Lori Klein and Carl Seel.

Lori Klein, who claims to be pro-life, was discovered to have made a contribution to the pro-abortion WISH LIST and to have been convicted for drunk driving last year.

Carl Seel, who is running a publicly funded campaign, has just completed his first term in the Arizona House and submitted 46 bills, not one of which was passed into law. It was recently reported that he is being sued by a Pay-Day Loan company for writing them a bad check.

Amazingly, Klein, Seel and Fitzgerald have all been endorsed by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who claims to be America's toughest sheriff.

We have no word if Hillary Clinton will be endorsing the Klein, Seel, Fitzgerald slate.

BREWER on SB 1070, "I will fight all the way to the Supreme Court"

Statement by Governor Brewer on Federal Court decision.

July 28, 2010

“This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens. I am deeply grateful for the overwhelmingly support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government.

“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

“For anyone willing to see it -- the crisis is as clear as is the federal government’s failure to address it.

“The judge herself noted that the stash houses where smugglers hide immigrants from Mexico before bringing them into the country's interior have become a fixture on the news in Arizona and that, ‘You can barely go a day without a location being found in Phoenix where there are numerous people being harbored."

“When I signed the bill on April 23rd, I said, SB 1070 – represents another tool for our state to use as we work to address a crisis we did not create and the federal government has actively refused to fix. The law protects all of us, every Arizona citizen and everyone here in our state lawfully. And, it does so while ensuring that the constitutional rights of ALL in Arizona are undiminished – holding fast to the diversity that has made Arizona so great.

“I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona. Meanwhile, I also know we still have work to do in confronting the fear-mongers, those dealing in hate and lies and economic boycotts that seek to do Arizona harm.

“We have already made some progress in waking up Washington. But the question still remains: will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps continue? I believe that the defenders of the rule of law will ultimately succeed with us in our demand for action