Category Archives: Media
Judge Bolton Acts as ‘Defense Attorney’ for Democrats
In December, Van Irion, lead attorney of the Liberty Legal Foundation, filed suit against the National Democrat Party and its chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Irion asked the court for an injunction to prevent the Party naming Barack Hussein Obama its candidate for President in 2012 by ruling he is not a “natural born citizen,” as required by the Constitution of the United States.
Although both defendants were served with the action, neither bothered to respond or show up in court, something of a standard practice by Obama and his colleagues. When Irion asked the court for a default judgment against the Democrat Party and Schultz, Judge Bolton denied the motion, claiming the Democrat Party had not been properly served according to HER particular interpretation of federal law for the legal service of defendants. As Irion puts it, “Bolton acted more like a defense attorney than a judge,” as she “…denied [a] motion for default judgment by interpreting a procedural rule in a way that it has apparently never been interpreted before.”
Although Irion explained the law to Bolton and provided the proof-of-delivery receipt from the USPS, Judge Bolton still refused to accept the written delivery certification of the Post Office! Irion explains, “What’s disturbing about [this] ruling is the fact that most courts routinely grant default judgments when defendants don’t show up. If a defendant later show up and proves they were not properly served the court can easily vacate the judgment…”
In short, Judge Bolton not only ignored usual court procedure, she became counsel for the interests of the Democrat Party, “…[asserting] defenses that the absent defendant didn’t offer on its own behalf.”
Radicals Attack CAP: Let’s Clear a Few Things Up
By Cathi Herod, President
Center for Arizona Policy
What a week. I don’t know if I’ve ever witnessed such baseless and false attacks on CAP-supported bills as I saw this week. While I understand that it may be more entertaining for some to blatantly lie about legislation, the people deserve to know the truth.
So I’m going to clear a few things up about CAP-supported bills and other issues that have been misconstrued in the press and liberal blogs this week.
HB 2625 - This simple bill protects the religious freedom of faith-based groups and other employers. No employer should be forced by the government to pay for contraception and abortifacients in their insurance plans when doing so would violate their First Amendment protected religious beliefs. The media has falsely picked up the opponents’ outrageous claims that the bill would force women to tell employers why they are taking birth control pills. Read the bill. That claim is not in the bill.
Center for Arizona Policy does not take a position on family planning or birth control. We do, however take a very strong position that faith-based institutions and employers who hold a religious belief regarding contraception should not be compelled to violate those beliefs and pay for the medication.
The bill’s sponsor, Representative Debbie Lesko has done an incredible job in numerous media interviews explaining this point, like this interview with Greta Van Sustren. Take a moment to thank Rep. Lesko by emailing her at: dlesko@azleg.gov?subject=Thank%20You!
SB 1359 - Sponsored by Sen. Nancy Barto, this legislation is based on common sense and decency. It prohibits “wrongful life” and “wrongful birth” lawsuits. These lawsuits arise when a child is born with a disability, and the parents sue the doctor claiming that had they known their child had a disability, they would have had an abortion.
These lawsuits endorse the viewpoint that the life of a disabled child is worth less than the life of a child without a disability. Imagine what the children of the parents who file these lawsuits must feel when they get older and find out that their parents sued because they wish they would have had an abortion.
The attacks on this bill have truly been far-fetched. Some blogs claimed that this bill would allow doctors to knowingly withhold information from parents. Untrue. This bill does nothing to protect doctors that cause harm to preborn children, withhold information, or are grossly negligent.
Bullying, Part Two. Perhaps you’ve seen the attacks on me and CAP this week regarding the anti-bullying legislation I wrote about last week. I’ve been called a “legislative terrorist” and I’m sure a few other names by the time you read this.
While most of the attacks do not warrant a response, I do want to address one false statement made by State Senator David Schapira. He has claimed multiple times that I said SB 1462 is a “back door gay bill, no pun intended.” I would never say something so crass. Sen. Schapira — disagree with me if you want. But stop telling lies about what I supposedly said.
Click here to see a Channel 12 news clip attacking us for our position then click here to read the statement I issued to the press in response.
Pornographers coming to Arizona? – Several of you have written me recently about the California pornography industry threatening to come to Arizona because of new regulations in Los Angeles.
What wasn’t mentioned is the huge roadblock in their way: filming pornography in Arizona violates our prostitution laws.
Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery sent a clear message to pornographers this week when he released a statement explaining how virtually all of those involved in pornography could be subject to felony charges:
Under Arizona law, anyone paid to appear in a pornographic movie may be guilty of the crime of prostitution, which carries mandatory jail time as well as the possibility of other penalties. Furthermore, anyone involved in other aspects of producing pornographic movies, including soliciting individuals to appear, collecting a fee from the monies received by individuals solicited to appear by virtue of an agent relationship, transporting individuals from California to Arizona for the purpose of appearing in a pornographic movie, and/or establishing a venue for the filming and/or production of pornographic movies may be guilty of committing one or several felonies in the state of Arizona. Accordingly, Arizona law precludes the establishment of a “pornography industry” to any degree such as that present in California.
You can read his full statement here. After you read it, take a moment to thank Mr. Montgomery for standing up to the pornography industry.
Where do You Get Your News? Fox News Most Trusted
A Public Policy Polling nationwide survey of 1,151 registered voters Jan. 18-19 found that 49 percent of Americans trusted Fox News, 10 percentage points more than any other network
CNN was the second-most-trusted network, getting the trust of 39 percent of those polled. Forty-one percent said they didn’t trust CNN.
Each of the three major networks was trusted by less than 40 percent of those surveyed, with NBC ranking highest at 35 percent. Forty-four percent said they did not trust NBC, which was combined with its sister cable station MSNBC.
Thirty-two percent of respondents said they trusted CBS, while 31 percent trusted ABC. Both CBS and ABC were not trusted by 46 percent of those polled.
Left-Wing Media Ripe for a Good Old Tea Party
One of our “favorite” members of the Left-Wing GroupThink Media (LWGTM) in Arizona has again provided us grist for blogging. Though Lawn Griffiths was laid off by the East Valley Tribune, the leftist spiritual writer for the gasping-for-breath-in-the cyber-world-Hospice publication in Mesa is still posting as a volunteer blogger.
Griffiths recently parroted the talking points of LWGTM’s Central Command on the so-called government medical “care.”
“Good health is a right of humanhood,” Griffiths blogged.
Oh, really? No, American citizens have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If good health is a right of humanhood, then that means someone has to provide that for each of the world’s 6.5 billion citizens. But no one is capable of preventing the common cold.
Griffiths strays hither and yon in his incoherent diatribe on private health care, visiting the unrelated topics of the Civil War, Richard Nixon, and State Sen. Russell Pearce.
But let’s be real. Our medical care is the envy of the world. Look how many foreign-born doctors have come to serve the residents of Arizona. And look how many foreigners come here from bastians of failed socialist health rationing to get real, quality treatment.
Why then should we lower our standards to those of Canada and the UK, two formerly free nations? It makes no sense.
No one in Arizona is falling through the cracks of medical treatment. Illegals are bankrupting hospitals in the Southwest, but they’re getting the treatment they need. Destitute Arizonans are getting treatment through AHCCCS.
Additionally, many Americans choose to save the money they’d spend on insurance and pay as they go. Why should our government punish them for making a voluntary decision to not insurance?
There is no rationale for the rush to judgment of the Obamanistas on medical coverage. While we’re all waiting in line in the future for what formerly were quick and routine medical treatments and our elderly are turned away from mammograms and other vital procedures, elitists and Michelle Obama’s mother will be getting the royal treatment.
Griffiths wails about free speech and opposition to Obama, completely missing the fact that opponents of this socialistic boondoggle have presented reasonable alternatives to government rationing.
The Tribune blogger is emblematic of the media problem in this state and nation. Arizonans are doing something about it, too. They’re going to ABC-Channel 15 and the The Arizona Republic for a big tea party rally in Phoenix October 17. Get out there and attend Operation: Can You Hear US Now? – Media Protest and show the media that they’re out of touch with normal everyday Americans. But do not refer to them as “mainstream media” because that moniker does not describe them accurately.
A Question of Liability: Who Caused the 2007 News Chopper Crash?
Monday, July 27 marks the second anniversary of the tragic news helicopter crash in Phoenix that resulted in the deaths of four men, two from Channel 3 and two from Channel 15.
Soon after the accident, a representative of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) announced that his agency would issue an accident report within nine months.
That report is yet to be released, perhaps due to the sensitive nature of liability and the lawsuits that will follow. In other words, the NTSB wants to get it right because millions of dollars are riding on the pending lawsuits.
But this Monday at 10 a.m., attorney Pat McGroder plans to hold a news conference to release new details and “dramatic video” of the cause of the crash. Additionally, he will call for “sweeping changes in the requirements for the operation of news helicopters.”
Several local television news helicopters were lined up in close proximity that day to cover a police chase of a hijacked vehicle in downtown Phoenix. The Channel 3 and Channel 15 helicopters collided and both crashed in Indian Steele Park. Each chopper included a pilot and a photographer/reporter.
Two lawsuits were filed in August of 2008, one by the two sons of Rick Krolak, the reporter passenger on board Channel 15, and one by their half-brother. According to a report by Channel 15 last year, the suit by the older Krolak brother blames “one or both” pilots’ negligence for the collision. It targets U.S. Helicopters, the company that employed ABC15′s pilot, Craig Smith. It also targets KTVK, Inc., and its parent company, the Belo Corporation, that employed Channel 3’s pilot, Scott Bowerbank. The lawsuit states each company is “responsible and liable for the conduct and actions” of their respective pilot.
Channel 15 reported in 2008 that the younger Krolak’s suit blames the actions of his father’s pilot, Smith, and U.S. Helicopters for his father’s death. The lawsuit states Smith, “carelessly, recklessly, and negligently failed and neglected to properly control the Channel 15 News helicopter so as to prevent the death of passenger photojournalist Richard Krolak.”
This suit implicates Channel 15 as being at fault, since it does not target the Channel 3 pilot. The Channel 3 helicopter was equipped with a SkyWatch traffic advisory system, but the Channel 15 helicopter did not have a traffic advisory and collision avoidance system aboard.
The website “Helicoper Crashes,” operated by the Houston-based Willis Law Firm, reports on interviews by an NTSB official with controllers from the Phoenix air traffic control tower.
At 12:23 p.m. that day, a police helicopter gained permission to enter air space at 1,800 feet over the downtown Phoenix area in response to the car jacking and the ensuing police car chase.
Three minutes later, Channel 15 obtained permission to enter the same air space – at 2,000 feet. Within 30 seconds, Channel 12’s helicopter came in at 2,500 feet.
At 12:34, a new controller came on duty at the Sky Harbor control tower. Less than a minute later, the Channel 5 chopper joined the media frenzy at 2,200 feet. Channel 3 was also en route, just 70 seconds behind.
At 12:44, the Channel 10 helicopter joined the chopper swarm and less than two minutes later reported a mid-air collision.
The police helicopter reported that at first Channel 15 was on the left side of Channel 3 separated by a reasonable difference. Then they moved closer together. After the collision, Channel 3 broke into many pieces, Channel 15 remained in the air for a second, and then dove nose-first into the ground. There were no reports of erratic movements prior to the collision, and no unusual sounds or smoke.
Did the Channel 3 chopper receive a stronger blow from the collision, causing it to break up and crash first? Did the Channel 15 chopper cause that collision?
Perhaps the Monday news conference will shed new light on this question of fault – leading to more lawsuits.
