Planned Parenthood’s gruesome realities

July 16, 2015

Planned Parenthood’s roots deeply embedded in Arizona

Many of us have seen the macabre video showing Dr. Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical services enjoying her lunch and sipping wine while nonchalantly discussing the harvesting of aborted baby body “parts.”  Hearts, lungs and livers, also called “specimens” command a good price. “Lower extremities” are in demand, as well, she says.

In the video, released by The Center for Medical Progress, Nucatola is seen at a business lunch with actors posing as buyers from a human biologics company. Nucatola callously describes the process she engages in to procure intact body parts for buyers. 

To carry on this grisly legacy, she is involved in the training of new abortionists at Planned Parenthood and also performs abortions herself at a Los Angeles area clinic up until 24 weeks —- on 6-month pre-born human babies.

A separate clip shows Planned Parenthood President and CEO Cecile Richards praising Nucatola’s work to facilitate connections for fetal tissue collection. “Oh good,” Richards says when told about Nucatola’s support for fetal tissue collection at Planned Parenthood, “Great. She’s amazing.”

LifeNews reports that Richards, who took time off from her post to campaign for Barack Obama’s reelection, makes over $500,000 a year. A onetime deputy chief of staff to Nancy Pelosi, Richards is the daughter of former Texas governor Ann Richards. In 1996, Cecile Richards founded the Texas Freedom Network, an organization specifically formed to oppose the “Christian Right.” 

There are also even more  noteworthy Arizona connections to Planned Parenthood. Gloria Feldt, the former CEO and president of the nation’s largest abortion mechanism, interviewed by Connie Chung in the video, began her career in the death industry heading the Central and Northern Arizona office. She and her husband, Alex Barbanell, live part-time in Scottsdale. And you might be surprised to know who started Planned Parenthood in our state. None other than Peggy Goldwater, Barry’s wife of 51 years. It was also a cause near and dear to Barry’s heart. The group’s most prestigious award is named in honor of the not-so-conservative, conservative icon’s wife.

Read the complete report regarding the Deborah Nucatola video at The Center for Medical Progress. Their work is crucial in exposing these grotesque abuses. CMP is a non-profit organization. They gladly accept donations.


Honeymoon over! AZ República equates Brnovich to Trump*

July 5, 2015

In a preposterous editorial, the illegal alien promoters at the Periódico de la República de Arizona (Arizona Republic) spew their rage through clenched teeth. If it’s possible to hear the written word, the spittle belched bile is audible. The venom is aimed at Attorney General Mark Brnovich, who earned the newspaper‘s endorsement last election cycle.

Now the Arizona Attorney General is referred to as “heartless,” by the same crew who lavished him with praise just months ago. His offense? It began with what the daily calls his “hopeless quest to fight ‘dreamer’ driver’s licenses.” Now, he’s appealing a Maricopa County Superior Court decision allowing these “young immigrants” to qualify for in-state college tuition.

Last month, in a similar fit of temper, the newspaper called Brnovich “a new guy making old mistakes” for challenging the “right” of these “good kids” to get Arizona driver’s licenses. The editorialist, doing a heckuva imitation of Linda Valdez, accused Attorney General Brnovich of wasting his time fighting a law, that in the daily’s opinion, “never should have been passed.” He effort was called a “throwback,” earning Arizona’s “reputation as a Latino-hating bastion of bigotry.“

When facts don’t fit its agenda, name calling and slurs are a reliable fallback tactic for the failing newspaper.

The job of the state Attorney General includes enforcing Arizona’s voter protected statutes, whether or not the newspaper approves. Brnovich, who we did not support, is doing just that. For his efforts, he should be commended.

 The newspaper actually says such acts are “like kicking puppies “

The editorial warns Brnovich that he shouldn’t count on the Latino vote in his next election, disingenuously fretting that his actions will drive Latinos further away from the Republican Party.

The rank odor of insincerity is overwhelming.

Throughout the editorial the illegals are referred to as simply “dreamers.” That much softer term began life as an acronym for Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors, morphing into D.R.E.A.Mers and now all lower case and wistful. In fact, the DREAM Act was nothing short of nightmare as Kris Kobach revealed in this 2007 report. The program was a massive amnesty that extended to millions of illegal aliens who claimed they entered the United States before the age of 16, brought by their parents. 

Good luck trying to substantiate that or any of the other so-called requirements that needed to be met to qualify.

*Real estate mogul and presidential candidate Donald Trump has drawn criticism from some for openly confronting the severity of the illegal immigration problem and addressing the continued criminality associated with many who enter the U.S. illegally.


Graham fabricates reasons for not closing AZ primary

July 3, 2015

Establishment fears McCain can’t win without crossover votes drive Robert Graham’s actions

An excessively lengthy dispatch carrying the subject line, “Robert Graham – Closing the Primaries,” arrived in the email boxes of select, though apparently not all, Republican precinct committeemen Thursday evening. Raw evidence of a intra-party feud is hard to miss as AZ GOP Chairman Robert Graham refers, in the harshest of terms, to a previous message send out on the issue by conservative former Maricopa County Chairman A.J. LaFaro.  Graham begins with an inane off-topic apology, veers into summertime good wishes to the recipients and their families and then spins out of control, describing his sadness at having to castigate LaFaro. Graham then hypocritically closes his onslaught asking God’s blessings on the reader. Take a gander if you have nothing but time on you hands and don’t mind having your intelligence insulted. Following this diatribe, background information is linked under “Editor’s note.”

From AZ GOP Chairman Robert Graham:

Mobilize_to_win_2016

 

I apologize if you have received this message. We had a challenge with our email addresses

Dear (first name),

I hope you are doing well and that the summer is off to a good start for you and your family. It saddens me to have to write this message following an email that was sent out by former Maricopa County Chairman A.J. LaFaro.

While many of our PCs are working hard to protect and grow our Republican foothold within Arizona, there are some that misrepresent and spin facts to create division and discontent within our party. Many of these same people have personal ambition way outside the best interest of the party, and their consistent misrepresentations of the facts are exhausting.

To be perfectly clear, I support the idea of a closed primary! If you read the transcription of the Executive Committee meeting that has been circulated, you will see my initial comment, “The state committeemen have passed the resolution to close the primary…in this room we have lots of smart people…let’s find a way to make it happen” (paraphrased). However, there is a process to accomplish a closed primary, and the process is more than a quick sound bite trying to stir emotion. There are real costs, real research and real time that must be invested in the effort. All of which has started.

Below I have listed many of the points discussed in Mr. LaFaro’s most recent coloring of events. Please read each of the points to assure you have an accurate and verifiable account of the truth.

Click on the link below to view the resolution:

2015 Resolution to Close the Primaries 1.pdf

Below are two points that illustrate the inconsistencies with the Constitution of Arizona:

  1. The Second “Whereas” in the resolution states“…Republicans believe in and support the U.S. Constitution, Arizona Constitution and the Republican Party Platform and should nominate Republican candidates that do the same…”

I agree with this statement; however, it should have been obvious to Mr. LaFaro that this resolution was not constitutional given this statement. How can you say in a resolution that “Republicans believe in and support the U.S. Constitution and the Arizona Constitution…”when this resolution is positioned to directly attack the Arizona Constitution where the definition of “semi-closed primaries exists”?

  1. 7th paragraph and first “Resolved” in the resolution states “That Arizona’s Republican Precinct Committeemen call upon Arizona Legislators to sponsor and pass legislation replacing Arizona’s semi-closed primaries with closed primaries…”

Once again, it is important to point out that this statement is not constitutional. In order to change the primary system, the Arizona Constitution must be amended. Can the legislature do that?? The answer is NO. An Arizona constitutional amendment must be done or changed by a vote of the people. A ballot measure for a constitutional change is required. This is not new…this is the AZ Constitution. All of us should be careful when submitting resolutions to assure they are constitutional first.

Even given the facts that Mr. LaFaro’s resolution to close the primary was unconstitutional, I recognized the overwhelming support by the State Committeemen and started the ball rolling with respect to closing the primary.

Attorney Opinion Letters

We have all witnessed countless times within politics that when the facts do not line up for your argument…emotion, name calling and old data sometimes find their way into the discussion. With that being said, more then [sic] a few weeks ago Mr. LaFaro sent an email and posted a letter on various sites. His letter centers on an expedited lawsuit and the fact that he personally spoke with three attorneys he endorsed as top election experts. Their names were Kory Langhofer, Joseph Kanefield and David Hardy.

LaFaro sited [sic] in this letter that the attorneys supported his position of little to no cost for a lawsuit to close the primaries, and his claim that it would be a fast process. At the end of the letter, he encouraged anyone who read his comments to contact each attorney directly. I did just that. I contacted each attorney with the goal to identify the best way to proceed. I spoke with each attorney Mr. Lafaro [sic] personally recommended and requested that each attorney draft an opinion letter. We added a fourth letter from Attorney Tim LaSota who is also considered an election expert as well and is General Counsel to the AZ GOP. Each of their opinion letters are attached below.

Click on the links below to view each opinion letter:

David Hardy Closed Primary Opinion.pdf

Joseph Kanefield Closing Primary Opion.PDF

Kory Langhofer Closing Primary Opinion.pdf

Tim LaSota Opinion Closed Primaries.pdf

Mr. LaFaro made assertions that the fact that the AZ GOP paid for their opinions discredits the content. To the contrary, when an attorney drafts an opinion letter, their name and credibility is associated with the content expressed in their letters. Their livelihood is at stake and opinion letters are not taken lightly.

Since the opinions were not consistent with Mr. LaFaro’s claims, he is trying to discredit the opinions by using outdated letters from 2010. Please remember that he personally endorsed the attorneys we received opinions from as expert election attorneys.

When you review the letters, you will see that there are a few hurdles or obstacles that must be overcome in order to assure the best outcome when approaching the courts to overrule the state constitution.

  1. Cost Of Litigation –Three of four letters specifically address the cost of litigation. The cost of litigation opinions range from hundreds of thousands of dollars up to millions if taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  2. Time It Will Take to Win, If We Win – Dave Hardy sued on behalf of the Libertarian party to close their primaries. This suit (which has clear evidence of risk for the Libertarian Party of Arizona) took 66 months to the ruling. That is five and one half years. If we start something, we need to make sure we can finish it.
  3. Severe Burden, Evidence Of Risk – These are phrases you will see throughout all four of the attorney opinion letters. In short, what it means is we have to clearly show a severe burden or evidence of risk that independents are materially harming an election. It is important to note that calling someone a RINO and saying they are more moderate than another candidate and illustrating they received more independent votes is not evidence of risk.

The courts do not use labels and are only interested in real proof. For example, Libertarian candidates within the state have had much lower signature requirements to become a candidate. In some districts, to run for a state representative they would only need 6 – 9 signatures. Because the threshold was low and their party has below 30,000 registrations, there was evidence to show a risk of sabotage. The other argument was to make sure independent voters would not be able to vote for precinct committeemen of the Libertarian Party. Once again, being a minority party, libertarians have an easy time illustrating and documenting severe burden and evidence of risk. Each opinion letter details the need to prove severe burden and evidence of risk and some even saying it will be very difficult given the fact that Republican is still the majority party.

Once again, in an attempt to identify the severe burden or evidence of risk, I asked the Executive Committee Members three separate times for volunteers to form a committee to pull the research together to help shape our argument. A request of this nature is not trying to skirt the issue…I was asking to get the evidence so we can move forward. Only three people volunteered. They know who they are and they have done nothing to help.

Since April 18, the volunteers have NOT reported to the State Executive Committee or to me directly regarding this progress. This is a key element to be successful. To date, we have no report.

  1. Fundraising – Once you review the attorney opinion letters, you will have a better understanding of the process to close the primaries and the potential cost associated with the effort. The cost to sue to close the primary is potentially from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions given the length of time it may take to complete the legal process.

 The Cost To Administer the Primary

The last thing to consider when addressing the closed primary is the cost of running the election. Our party is the largest party, independents are not considered a party, and there is a high likelihood that if we close the primary we will have to pay for the administration of the statewide primary election. For perspective, the closed presidential primary in Arizona is one ballot with a handful of candidates. The cost to administer one election with one type of ballot is close to $10 million.

Now, consider a full primary. If a full primary is closed, there are hundreds of different offices, over 12,000 variations or different ballots statewide. From PC to congress, from congress to fire districts, etc., etc…. Secretary Reagan said, “You will need to “extrapolate the cost up from the presidential primary.”

Secretary Reagan also said to me in a text message, “Be prepared to pay for it, because the STATE pays for primaries because they are open. If they were to be closed, the LEGISLATURE could eliminate the funding. In most states where there are closed elections, it is up to the individual parties to fund those elections and those states do not pay.”

To put this into context, over the 2013-2014 cycle, the AZ GOP had record fundraising of $4.6 million. We spent almost every dollar to assure that we would win. Martha McSally only won by 167 votes. Every dollar was deployed to win elections. It is hard to raise money, and if we have to pay for the primary, we many not have the funds to support our candidates. It is important to raise lots of money especially difficult during the presidential election.

Once again, I asked four separate times for volunteers from the Executive Committee to assist in fundraising to help close the primary. The money raised would be used specifically for closing the primary, and a separate committee would form to assure the funds were used appropriately. We had two volunteers after the fourth call for help. They know who they are, and they have done nothing to help. This fundraising committee has not reported to the State Executive Committee or to me regarding their progress.

Conclusion

These are not excuses but considerations when trying to operate a party. Someone has to do more than send emails and call people hurtful names. In all honesty, I am 100% behind closing the primary, but again we have to be prepared to administer the election and have the resources needed to make it happen. If we close the primary but do not have the resources to administer a successful election, we will fail on more than one front. One PC pushing for another resolution to close the primary is on the record saying, “Let’s just try and see what happens…let’s just get the process started and figure it out as we go.” This statement is frighteningly similar to Nancy Pelosi’s infamous quote to pass Obamacare and then we will see what’s in it. We have to have a mature and fact-based approach, if our efforts are to be successful.

Last thing I would like to address which I take personal offense. Mr. LaFaro asserts that I was calling for the arrest of the Precinct Committee members that were protesting in front of the AZ GOP. I want you to consider your experiences with me as State Chairman. I have met most of you in person or attended your district, county or Republican Club meetings. I hope you feel I have always treated each of you with respect and the dignity you deserve. I listen and I am responsive to your calls and emails.

Quite to the contrary to Mr. LaFaro’s report, the AZ GOP staff was handing out water and making sure everyone outside of the meeting was treated with respect. I personally called the protest organizer and further stressed that we would treat everyone with respect.

Further to this point, the Deputy Sheriff Posse Members volunteering that day were under instructions by Sheriff Joe Arpaio not to arrest anyone. Of the 20 or so protesters, a couple entered AZ GOP office during the meeting, and they were allowed to stay. No threats, only kind and productive discussions.

For the record, AJ LaFaro did not attend the Executive Meeting nor did he participate in the protest outside of the State Party. His secondhand account is flawed. Please ask members who were in attendance for the truth. It is sad that his comments are not consistent with the truth.

As we move forward into the 2016 election cycle, please consider what messages, what actions and what people are moving the party forward in a positive way. The negativity, name calling and bashing only Republicans does not win elections. Always consider the messages when they are sent to your inbox and ask the question “Is this the type of behavior that will help put a Republican in the White House?” If the answer is NO, find people that [sic] are action-oriented and work with them.

I want to assure you that I work for you. Collectively, we have lifted our party out of the ashes to win countless victories across the state, municipal and local elections. The ball is rolling and we are moving as quickly as resources allow. May God bless you and the Republican Party of Arizona!

Sincerely,

Robert S. Graham

Chairman

Arizona Republican Party

3501 N. 24th Street

Phoenix, AZ 85016

Editor’s note: The Executive Meeting Graham refers to following “Conclusion” was detailed in this post, “Need more proof of McCain chokehold on AZGOP?

Additional background can be read in these links:

Arizona Freedom Alliance’s on-point rebuttal to Graham’s diatribe can be read here.

Arizona Daily Independent reported: Specter of McCain haunts, closed Primary resolutions pass.

McCain’s censure by elected Maricopa County GOP precinct committeemen was followed by another censure resolution against him by elected statewide Republican delegates in 2014. At the state meeting in 2015, McCain and Jeff Flake were booed and met by turned backs and walkouts.  The Daily Caller reports the two Arizona Senators are the least popular senators in the entire country.

McCain, through his operatives, retaliated by attempting to purge conservatives from the precinct committeemen ranks.

 


“Marriage equality”: The ongoing saga

July 2, 2015

SCOTUS’ redefinition of marriage: The can of worms has been opened

The Billings Gazette reports that a Montana man and his two wives have applied for a marriage license.

Claiming the Supreme Court’s decision redefining marriage allows for polygamy, Nathan Collier and his wives Victoria and Christine applied at the Yellowstone County Courthouse in Billings on Tuesday in an attempt to legitimize their polygamous marriage.

Collier, 46, said last week’s landmark ruling on same-sex unions inspired him to legitimize his marriage to his second wife. The trio has seven children of their own and from previous relationships

Montana, like all 50 states, outlaws bigamy. Collier said he plans to sue if the application is denied. “It’s about marriage equality,” Collier said. “You can’t have this without polygamy.

Yellowstone County clerk officials initially denied his application, and then said they would consult with the county attorney’s office before giving him a final answer, Collier said.

The county attorney’s civil division chief, Kevin Gillen, said he is reviewing Montana’s bigamy laws and expects to send a formal response to Collier by next week. “I think he deserves an answer,” Gillen said, but added his review is finding that “the law simply doesn’t provide for that yet.”

“Yet”?

The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday made same-sex marriages legal nationwide. In his dissent Chief Justice John Roberts said people in polygamous relationships could make the same legal argument that not having the opportunity to marry disrespects and subordinates them.

In this instance, Roberts was right.


Faith-based tax exempt status in jeopardy

July 1, 2015

Churches under assault for support of traditional marriage

On the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26th decision to redefine marriage, the tax-exempt status of religious institutions is now in jeopardy.

Mark Oppenheimer, who writes the “Beliefs” column for the New York Times, leaves no room for doubt where his own beliefs are, as he opines, “The Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage makes it clearer than ever that the government shouldn’t be subsidizing religion and non-profits.”

His Time.com article, ”Now’s the Time To End Tax Exemptions for Religious Institutions,” is appalling in its flagrant dismissal of faith-based institutions.

A self-described” gay-rights supporter,” Oppenheimer was “elated by Friday’s Supreme Court decision.” The rest of us should prepare for what appears to be on the horizon as the two issues are mow brazenly linked.

In case you had any doubts, the assault on churches —- along with the schools, hospitals and various services they administer —- is in full bloom and comes in rapid succession to the court’s same-sex marriage ruling.

Katie Pavlich, in her Townhall column says it best: “Religious liberty is under attack in America and the next five years will serve as a battleground to protect or destroy it. If religious liberty is in fact destroyed, America will no longer hold onto one of the most important principles that makes it an exceptional nation more tolerant than the rest in the world. We are at a tipping point.” 


SCOTUS: Citizenship no longer matters when voting

June 29, 2015

In deciding to deny the petition for certiorari in the key election case Kobach, et al. v. Election Assistance Commission, (background here) the United States Supreme Court has summarily decided that citizenship is of no consequence in voting in U.S. elections.

At issue was the question of whether Arizona and Kansas could require voters to prove their citizenship when registering to vote with what has become known as the “federal form.” The form pertains to state and federal elections. Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach led the suit against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), on an appeal of the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court decision.


SCOTUS rules in two cases affecting Arizona

June 29, 2015

Liberals on SCOTUS thwarted in abolishing death penalty, rule against AZ legislature

Arizona’s application of lethal injection holds, based on today’s Supreme Court ruling in Glossip v. Gross, an Oklahoma case brought by inmates challenging the drug protocol. Lethal injection opponents cited an execution they referred to as “botched.”

The 5-4 decision, was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, who wrote the opinion.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor a death penalty opponent, theatrically stated that the use of the drug midazolam leaves the prisoners “exposed to what may well be the chemical equivalent of being burned at the stake.”  Sotomayor neglected to call attention to the victims of the criminals whose crimes were heinous enough to be worthy of the death penalty.

The Arizona Legislature was dealt an unfortunate blow in the case Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission . At issue was whether an unelected “Independent” Commission should infringe on the Arizona Legislature’s ability to draw redistricting boundaries. The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision sided with the appointed commission‘s authority. 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote the opinion for the majority, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the liberals. Chief Justice John Roberts dissented, as did Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his dissent, Roberts said that majority’s position “has no basis in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and it contradicts precedents from both Congress and this Court.”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 374 other followers